# Going Treatment Free - step 1



## R Dewhurst

So if you are not treatment free, how did you come to conclude this and the assumptions you have claimed. Curious. 
Best quotes I know of about this is,

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

"Everything works if you let it" --Rick Nielsen of Cheap Trick 

I thank Micheal Bush for these.


----------



## David LaFerney

R Dewhurst said:


> So if you are not treatment free, how did you come to conclude this and the assumptions you have claimed. Curious.
> Best quotes I know of about this is,
> 
> "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."-George Bernard Shaw
> 
> "Everything works if you let it" --Rick Nielsen of Cheap Trick
> 
> I thank Micheal Bush for these.


Didn't say it couldn't be done. I'm quite confident that it can, and is being done. Where did you get that idea?


----------



## R Dewhurst

It just seemed that the original post was a bit turned negative toward it, may of just been a wrong perception, no stick poking intended.
my thoughts on it are as follows, 
if bees are treated for mites, the chems used would weaken the bees a bit from exposure to the treatments. Then the honey and wax gets contaminated. Then keepers take the honey from them and feed back syrup. This is not their food, it is only leading to malnurishment, lacking natural components of honey. These two things together with mites that survive treatments that are stronger, there is no wonder hives crash. anything malnourished with a strong parasite is doomed. Am I the only one that thinks of/like this. So in essence, are keepers to blame for the deaths of their bees. Is greed the leading cause of bee losses? Please open discussion.


----------



## David LaFerney

R Dewhurst said:


> Is greed the leading cause of bee losses? Please open discussion.


No actually please don't. Although some beekeepers do have a need to make a paycheck - if you call that greed. But That's not the point. 

The point is that somehow new bee keepers are getting the impression that they can buy some bees, throw them in boxes and as long as they don't treat them they will get stronger and stronger until they are going out to find mites to beat up on. And the "bee Keeper" doesn't have to do much of anything except think harmonious thoughts. Is THAT what YOU think?


----------



## rhaldridge

David LaFerney said:


> Full disclosure - I'm not treatment free, but I applaud anyone and everyone who has established a successful treatment free apiary. Seriously I do.
> 
> But, I would suspect that everyone who has done it would agree with a few principles:
> 
> 
> *Treatment free does not mean doing nothing and hoping for the best.*
> Treatment free requires at least as much understanding of bee keeping as any other philosophy - so *educate yourself.*
> If you start out with a couple of generic packages from Georgia, and don't check and don't prepare for any contingencies you probably will not be successful as a treatment free bee keeper.
> If you replace your dead outs with generic packages from Georgia every spring you probably won't ever become successful as a treatment free bee keeper.
> 
> Maybe I am wrong about some of these - and I welcome constructive input.


I think you're right about all of these.

All the successful treatment free beekeepers I know of stress the importance of locally adapted bees. Most of them have various contingency plans to deal with uinexpectedly high losses, such as overwintering replacement nucs.



> But for some reason a common take away from the treatment free internet community is that all you have to do is not treat and all your dreams will come true.


This I think you're wrong about. You might hear that from beginners infatuated with the idea of "natural" beekeeping, but not from anyone who has done it and achieved some consistent success.

But what is true is that the only way to start keeping bees treatment free is to stop treating.


----------



## David LaFerney

*rhaldrige* - 

"But for some reason a common take away from the treatment free internet community is that all you have to do is not treat and all your dreams will come true."

_This I think you're wrong about. You might hear that from beginners infatuated with the idea of ..._

You're right that didn't come out like I meant it - I meant that new bee keepers get that impression from what they read on the internet. I don't even mean that is what is being *said* by anyone who knows what they are doing - just that maybe it isn't as clear as it could be that treatment free is no more of a magic bullet than anything else. You still have to be a skilful beekeeper. Probably more so.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I can't say that my bees are completely, "treatment free". I use _Bt _to protect empty comb during storage. And I sometimes supplement the syrup I feed young nucs, with Copper gluconate. Otherwise I haven't used anything to "treat" my bees for mites or diseases - ever.

I do believe there is merit in what you've said in your opening post. Knowing what to expect, and what to do in varying circumstances, to help the bees to succeed, can be the most important factor. Especially knowing the minimum input that will have the garner most positive output.

Using absolutely nothing, but perhaps a little physical manipulation, may be quite possible, but would make beekeeping somewhat more challenging than I am comfortable with. For instance, if I did not feed sugar syrup or pollen sub, I would lose quite a few colonies, I know, because I have. And if I didn't use any _Bt _to protect idle combs, in storage, I may as well throw them away, because they'll be destroyed by wax moth larvae in a few weeks. I know, because I've watched it happen many times. Even _Bt_ protected combs still suffer a little damage.

I just finished cleaning up a 10-frame medium super that was filled with combs being stored. It was a box I forgot to spray with _Bt_, and though they were PF120 plastic frames that can be reused, despite the damage, there is almost no wax remaining, just a box, where frames and all were completely bound together with wax moth cocoons and webbing. That is the result of them sitting idle during this past Winter. So much for cold inhibiting wax moths.

I dread the prospect of having to deal with SHB - may they never find the desert a comfortable place to live.


----------



## rhaldridge

Joseph, I believe that frames have to be frozen solid for several days to kill all wax moth eggs and larvae. If it becomes a problem for me, I plan to get a used chest freezer, which would be nice to have for other reasons.

As to feeding: have you heard about Tim Ives? He's a treatment free beekeeper in northern Indiana who doesn't feed. He has very low winter losses, and his hives are really big. There's a video of him unwrapping a hive in March, and the bees are already boiling over. Here's one from April:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXESkk7ZhXs


----------



## squarepeg

good points made by all.

i do think that it is 'alluring' for beginners want to go all 'natural'.

i also think that most are overwhelmed by so much to absorb when first starting out that it's 'convenient' to disregard learning about diseases, pests, and treatment options. 

i think you are right david, that it's more challenging for a newbie to pull it off, especially if there is not someone successful at it who is willing to guide them step by step.

common denominators of successful tf beekeeping seem to be:

1. honey only diet 
2. resistant stock, locally adapted if possible
3. capability of propagating these genetics and making increase to offset losses

that's a tall order for a hobbiest in their first year especially if ordering packages from out of (any) state and putting them on new equipment. 

and there is the consideration that some locations are better than others regarding natural forage, clean water, drone availability, ect.


----------



## David LaFerney

rhaldridge said:


> As to feeding: have you heard about Tim Ives? He's a treatment free beekeeper in northern Indiana who doesn't feed. He has very low winter losses, and his hives are really big.


That's actually a good example of what I am talking about. I've heard many new bee keepers say something like "I don't feed, because I read somewhere that feeding anything but honey is bad and it will only make them swarm." Well, that idea has a basis in truth I suppose, but the thing is those successful treatment free beekeepers that don't (usually) feed are already skilled beekeepers not novices. And I would assume that they have the ability to tell when not feeding is a good option and when it will only result in malnutrition - or slow growth. I fell for that one in my first season too - I was fortunate that I didn't lose my start. In My Humble opinion not feeding should be a thing to consider after you have a bit of experience under your belt - not when you get your first package. Moderate feeding maybe.


----------



## David LaFerney

squarepeg said:


> common denominators of successful tf beekeeping seem to be:
> 
> 1. honey only diet
> 2. resistant stock, locally adapted if possible
> 3. capability of propagating these genetics and making increase to offset losses


I'm going to add one - very judicious honey harvesting. I'm under the impression that a lot of TF guys either leave a very large amt of honey or don't really treat it as a product at all.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

> I've heard many new bee keepers say something like "I don't feed, because I read somewhere that feeding anything but honey is bad and it will only make them swarm."


I've heard this too and it makes me crazy. Consider: it's early spring and you put a package in a new hive with all new foundation or no foundation and then you don't feed them. What are they supposed to use to build comb and feed themselves in that totally empty hive?!?

I'm all for not feeding WHEN they have comb and WHEN they have stores. But early spring often means spotty pollen and little to no nectar. What are they supposed to feed themselves with--air? They are all likely to be dead in 6 weeks, so what are they supposed to raise brood in and feed it with in those few short weeks they have to get this hive started if you give them nothing to start WITH?!?

To me "not feeding" means that you don't steal all the honey from an established hive. You leave them stores and preferably more stores than you think they'll need. And pollen! Lots and lots of it. And you do this INSTEAD of stealing it all and giving them sugar water to live on all winter. But first you have to have an ESTABLISHED hive!!!

Ditto with treatments. Poisoning them is not healthful. I do, however, find nothing wrong with trapping beetles or spraying Bt on stored combs. Nor do I expect some poor Italian package bees to be able to fend for themselves after spending generations being treated. You don't treat them and they WILL die. That's why USDA helped develop the resistant strains. No, they are not a bee-all, end-all solution, but they are certainly helpful in the battle. 

So, to me, it's a lot of little strategies all carefully orchestrated throughout the season. It's also experimenting to find even better solutions. It is NOT about "doing nothing" or being "all natural". Which is why I don't label myself as to what I am or what philosophy I follow. I just try to do whatever the bees show me they need. 

As always, JMO!


Rusty


----------



## squarepeg

David LaFerney said:


> I'm going to add one - very judicious honey harvesting. I'm under the impression that a lot of TF guys either leave a very large amt of honey or don't really treat it as a product at all.


exactly. and that may be at odds with someone getting into bees with the goal of harvesting (and maybe selling) honey.

i am convinced that the bees have much stronger immunity against diseases and pests when they get all of their nutrition from natural forage. this is especially important while they are most vunerable to collapse over the winter months. plus it seems like a healthier scenario to allow the bees to brood up and brood break in response to the natural flows. for these reasons i haven't used syrup (except temporarily and in small amounts) for a couple of years. i share honey from the heavier hives with the lighter ones.

i found that an overwintered five frame nuc can finish out and fill a ten frame deep and two mediums, and yield up to a medium of harvestable honey to boot, all on natural forage.

that's mostly what i had last year. this year those colonies have a couple of mediums of comb, but still have to draw another one or two. it will be interesting to see how much i can harvest after leaving them enough to get through the summer dearth, and of course through winter.

these are bees from a supplier on the al/ga state line who cut feral colonies out of the woods nearby sixteen years ago and has never used a treatment. i've decided to keep them off treatments and i'm going to try raising queens from them this year.


----------



## rhaldridge

David LaFerney said:


> That's actually a good example of what I am talking about. I've heard many new bee keepers say something like "I don't feed, because I read somewhere that feeding anything but honey is bad and it will only make them swarm." Well, that idea has a basis in truth I suppose, but the thing is those successful treatment free beekeepers that don't (usually) feed are already skilled beekeepers not novices. And I would assume that they have the ability to tell when not feeding is a good option and when it will only result in malnutrition - or slow growth. I fell for that one in my first season too - I was fortunate that I didn't lose my start. In My Humble opinion not feeding should be a thing to consider after you have a bit of experience under your belt - not when you get your first package. Moderate feeding maybe.


There might be something to that, but Tim's method, as I understand it, is to have really big strong hives. He winters in 3 deeps, and has a lot of bees in the spring.

My feeling is that you might be right about beginners. But if you're a smart beginner, you try to feed as little as possible, and you take your cue from what the bees do. My first nuc came from a local guy who routinely fed every hive he had. His nucs were no exceptions, he had to take a feeder lid off my nuc to sell it to me. So I fed for the first week or so, because I assumed the bees were used to getting fed, and might develop problems if cut off too abruptly. As soon as I was sure the nectar flow was well established (and I knew this from the fact that the bees took very little syrup) I removed the feeder. I did the same with the package I installed a couple weeks ago. There was no comb in the hive I put them in, and I wanted them to get off to a reasonable start so I fed for a couple weeks. Again, when they stopped taking any appreciable amount of syrup, I removed the feeder.

Some treatment free keepers do not feed because they want bees that can survive without feeding. If the colony dies... well, they weren't well suited enough to that locale. But a beginner can't learn a lot about beekeeping if his bees are dead, so I was pragmatic. I hope not to have to feed again, because sugar syrup is not a natural foodstuff for bees, and I'm one who believes in taking care of the percentages when it comes to beekeeping. I don't think bees evolved to eat sugar water, so feeding them the stuff probably has a negative effect on hive health, perhaps in subtle ways... but it seems scientifically naive to think that sugar water is as good as honey.

I don't think there are any silver bullets for treatment free beekeeping. There isn't one thing you can do to assure success. I'm a percenter. Bees can survive on sugar water... okay, but It probably isn't optimally healthy. There may only be small amounts of acaricides in foundation wax... but if there's a chance this could lead to lowered health, why not go foundationless? And so on... a lot of little stuff that adds up. I got one hive of local bees, and they're doing great. I got a package of small cell bees from Wolf Creek, and they're doing great. I think one characteristic of all successful treatment free beekeepers is a willingness to experiment, to not go with the flow, to examine conventional wisdom closely. Just because a hundred beekeepers tell you something, that doesn't make it so, if all they have for evidence is anecdotal experience. And I guess another necessary attribute is a thick skin, because if you continue to ask questions after these guys have told you The Way It Is, they'll start calling you names.

Anyway, you're right. It's not simple. But nothing worthwhile and different is ever easy to do, or else everyone would be doing it.


----------



## squarepeg

rh, sounds like you're off to a good start. have you decided whether or not you'll be monitoring for mites?


----------



## David LaFerney

Joseph Clemens said:


> I can't say that my bees are completely, "treatment free". I use Bt to protect empty comb during storage. And I sometimes supplement the syrup I feed young nucs, with Copper gluconate. Otherwise I haven't used anything to "treat" my bees for mites or diseases - ever.


If you ever want to get away from BT you can do what I've been doing. Line a cardboard box (the one that your PF 125s came in is perfect) with a trash bag, and carefully stack your frames of comb in it as tight as possible. Here in the humid south I put in a bag of silica jel desiccant (some cat litter is 100% silica gel) close up the bag and the box. Put the whole thing in the freezer for a few days. When it comes out It will be completely safe until you open it as long as there isn't a hole in the bag. It sounds like it would tear up your comb, but it doesn't. With the desiccant you can even tolerate a little bit of honey or pollen residue without any mold issues.

This is more work than leaving them in the supers in some ways, but it also frees up your boxes for painting or repair, or just stacking back out on the hive stands.

What is the Copper gluconate for?


----------



## rhaldridge

squarepeg said:


> rh, sounds like you're off to a good start. have you decided whether or not you'll be monitoring for mites?


I won't. Since I don't intend to treat for varroa, I can't see the point. If I lose a hive due to mites, I'll be able to tell, no doubt. If I do, I'll have comb for next year, and the nucs I plan to make in the next couple of weeks will, I hope, provide replacement bees.

Here's something I found interesting. In the week after installed the local nuc, I found 2 bees with DWV crawling around in front of the hive. Once the hive began to build up, I saw no more of these bees. Other folks had assured me that this is a precursor to disaster, and I was quite worried. But the hive is booming; I can't see how it could be doing any better. Out of curiosity, I've been looking at some of the dead bees hauled out of the hive under a little handheld microscope, and haven't seen any mites yet, though I'm sure they're present.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Copper gluconate for honey bees.

Another link to copper gluconate information.


----------



## R Dewhurst

David LaFerney said:


> No actually please don't. Although some beekeepers do have a need to make a paycheck - if you call that greed. But That's not the point.
> 
> The point is that somehow new bee keepers are getting the impression that they can buy some bees, throw them in boxes and as long as they don't treat them they will get stronger and stronger until they are going out to find mites to beat up on. And the "bee Keeper" doesn't have to do much of anything except think harmonious thoughts. Is THAT what YOU think?


What I think is that all this discussion coming from someone who does not go treatment free I like a door greeter at wal mart trying to give advise to a person on selling cars. If bees have bee doing their thing for how many thousands of years without our help, why are we needed now. If we give them what they need to survive on, then if they do not, there may of been other unseen factors. And why not discuss the question? the human nature in the past has been that everything man has tried to "help" has usually failed. But I am not here to sway opinions or tell others what they should be doing as we all need to realize that bees are not and will not be domesticated. They are unpredictable and no one person can say what they will and will not do. I stand firm on if we give them what they need to survive, then they have the tools needed, and it is up to them to put those tools to work.


----------



## deknow

There are a lot of misconceptions that beginning beekeepers pick up. Some of them involve treatment free or "natural" methods...most do not.

For years, our state association president would tell everyone, "if you don't use fumidill, your bees will die". ...that isn't true.

Many (if not most) new beekeepers with enough instruction/reading to identify a queen cell think they should destroy them...which often leaves new beekeepers with a hopelessly queenless hive after the swarm leaves.

...this is just a couple of examples from beekeeping....let's not forget the number of self aware humans that think they are going to get rich buying scratch tickets.

If you think someone is giving bad advice, it would be helpful to be specific about the advice given and who is giving it....complaining that some (generally inexperienced) beekeepers and wanaabeeks want to believe that everything is easy, want to put bees in a box and pull jars of honey out isn't very productive.

Such attitudes aren't surprising, they are similar to the attitudes of people in other areas...how many buy an electric guitar and never learn to play it? How many buy seedlings that die before they fruit/flower? How many books are on shelves unread?

Is it advice you are concerned about? If so, you should be able to cite the bad advice...specifically.

If you are concerned that people want things to be easy...well, good luck with that. People always want an easy way out.



> But for some reason a common take away from the treatment free internet community is that all you have to do is not treat and all your dreams will come true.


I don't think the "treatment free internet community" has much to do with it. Some people just want things to be easy.

deknow


----------



## David LaFerney

Let me tell you what caused me to start this thread. 

I got a call from a member of my local association today. This person started last year with a nuc of carnis - which came from an unknown source more or less. So after the hive swarmed a day or two ago, they did their first inspection of the season (a good month late I think) and found that it contained many swarm cells. They called me to ask if they should cut them all down or not. In the course of the conversation they mentioned some dead bees and aborted brood that they had noticed on the landing board, and I asked off hand if they had treated for varroa, or checked for mites at any point. No - they are going treatment free. With one hive. And no inspections. The backup plan is to buy more bees. And they thought this was just a dandy course of action. Because they read on the internet that if you don't treat then your bees will be healthy and you won't need to treat. This person is not stupid by the way. 

This is not the first conversation like this that I have had. Not even close. People ask me for advice about bee keeping all the time because I am active in our club. I don't EVER tell people that they should not go treatment free. I tell them that there is more to it than that and they MUST educate themselves and learn to be skillful beekeepers to keep their bees alive.

Laziness for not making the effort to learn is on them. 

All I am saying is that if you want new bee keepers to be successful and treatment free it needs to be clearly, unavoidably, painfully clear that there is more to it than that. That is on the people who promote treatment free bee keeping. Otherwise, what is the point?


----------



## David LaFerney

R Dewhurst said:


> What I think is that all this discussion coming from someone who does not go treatment free I like a door greeter at wal mart trying to give advise to a person on selling cars....


Really? Just curious - How long have you been treatment free? Do you make any money from bee keeping? How many times have you had to buy bees to stay in bee keeping? 

I'm not treatment free - But I've treated no more than once a year for varroa using organic acids when needed + occasional use of essential oils which are of admittedly questionable value. 

This is my 5th year, and I started making a profit in my 3rd year. I started with one package. I've bought a few queens along the line in the interest of genetic diversity but mostly I've made my own increase and never bought any additional bees. Until this spring - turns out I didn't need them - it was kind of an impulse purchase. They are doing great on small cell foundation by the way. 

If I ever do find myself *proudly supporting myself by greeting people at Wal-Mart* I'll be happy to talk bees with you - just come on by.

Unless you have something against Wal-Mart greeters? Which it sounds like you do. What's up with *that*?


----------



## squarepeg

rhaldridge said:


> I won't. Since I don't intend to treat for varroa, I can't see the point. If I lose a hive due to mites, I'll be able to tell, no doubt. If I do, I'll have comb for next year, and the nucs I plan to make in the next couple of weeks will, I hope, provide replacement bees.
> 
> Here's something I found interesting. In the week after installed the local nuc, I found 2 bees with DWV crawling around in front of the hive. Once the hive began to build up, I saw no more of these bees. Other folks had assured me that this is a precursor to disaster, and I was quite worried. But the hive is booming; I can't see how it could be doing any better. Out of curiosity, I've been looking at some of the dead bees hauled out of the hive under a little handheld microscope, and haven't seen any mites yet, though I'm sure they're present.


understood rh, and most in the tf community here on beesource have the same approach.

you wouldn't expect to see mites on the dead bees being hauled out, they just jump off of those back onto a live one. and they are hard to see on the live ones too. the easiet way is to uncap a drone cell or two, the reddish-brown mites are very easy to see against the white larva/pupa.

i've only done one mite count so far. it was on a dwindled hive last fall that probably had been in trouble for some time. i found about a handful of bees with their queen and just a little capped honey in the hive. you can read about it here if you want to.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?275857-autopsy-of-a-dead-out&highlight=shaker

luckily this hive was so weak that it didn't have any stores and wasn't robbed, so the mites weren't spread to it's neighbors.

i agree with not treating, and replacing your losses with hopefully more resistant bees, but i'll do what i can to avoid letting mine completely crash and getting robbed out by other bees.

i want to use mite counts this year to help identify the colonies that can naturally keep the mites down. i'll use this info in part to help me decide which queens i want to graft from. the ones that have extremely high counts will be moved to an outyard, dequeened, and split up into nucs with new queens for overwintering.

it will be interesting to contrast mite levels with other observations such as spring build up and honey production.

i have one hive that has been expelling dead dwv pupae all spring. i won't be too surprised if this one ends up with a high count. i'm giving it a chance until after the spring harvest, which is when i'll be checking the levels in all of the hives.


----------



## rhaldridge

David LaFerney said:


> I asked off hand if they had treated for varroa, or checked for mites at any point. No - they are going treatment free. With one hive. And no inspections. The backup plan is to buy more bees. And they thought this was just a dandy course of action. Because they read on the internet that if you don't treat then your bees will be healthy and you won't need to treat. This person is not stupid by the way.


Maybe not, but that's pretty lazy or arrogant. There are many sources of information on treatment free beekeeping, from Michael Bush's encyclopedic work to Dean and Ramona's book, and a multitude of web sites, as well as forums like this. I think a failure to do any research before trying a new endeavor is completely on the person who didn't try to find out what to do. 

Personally, I can't think of any instance in which an experienced beekeeper here recommended treatment free beekeeping and gave the impression that nothing need be done to succeed.

Do you know of any examples of that happening?


----------



## rhaldridge

squarepeg said:


> i want to use mite counts this year to help identify the colonies that can naturally keep the mites down. i'll use this info in part to help me decide which queens i want to graft from. the ones that have extremely high counts will be moved to an outyard, dequeened, and split up into nucs with new queens for overwintering.


Makes sense to me.


----------



## squarepeg

rhaldridge said:


> Do you know of any examples of that happening?


i don't. but here on beesource this past fall and winter there were many examples of first year tf beekeepers with dead hives asking why this happened.

david raises a valid concern. you have obviously done your homework rh, but i think it is as dean suggests and i eluded to that some find it 'convenient', and others 'want things to be easy'.


----------



## deknow

David LaFerney said:


> All I am saying is that if you want new bee keepers to be successful and treatment free it needs to be clearly, unavoidably, painfully clear that there is more to it than that.


Many of us spend a great deal of time and energy doing exactly that.
I'm not really sure how anyone can make anything "clear" under these circumstances. What you've told us is that a person read something on the internet that made them think that:


> - they are going treatment free. With one hive. And no inspections.


...what did they read? Did they read it accurately? Did they read it in context? Was it a reliable source?
I'm not being defensive...this is important.
How does the "internet treatment-free community" have the ability or "power" to make sure someone that wants to skim a bit on the internet understands everything that we think is important? Does the responsibility of the new beekeeper to learn stop after reading one post online? Are we all responsible as a "teacher" with every comment we make?
Some have tried to provide a more comprehensive picture of treatment free beekeeping. Dee's writings are hosted here on Beesource. Kirk Webster's stuff in on his website (kirkwebster.com), Michael Bush has been maintaining his website and answering questions for years...and has it in book form. We wrote a book. I'm not sure how any of us can (or can be expected to) provide the complete picture to people that want to read a few things "on the internet". This is why we write books, articles, teach classes, give talks, etc...because these are the ways we can convey a complete picture.
Your caller may well not have been stupid, but he/she didn't take any initiative to learn what they were doing....beyond reading something on the internet.



> That is on the people who promote treatment free bee keeping.


Sorry, that's like saying that history teachers are responsible for Holocaust deniers posting online.
If there is a specific source you think isn't being responsible, let's talk about it.

deknow


----------



## David LaFerney

deknow said:


> I'm not being defensive...this is important.
> How does the "internet treatment-free community" have the ability or "power" to make sure someone that wants to skim a bit on the internet understands everything that we think is important? Does the responsibility of the new beekeeper to learn stop after reading one post online? Are we all responsible as a "teacher" with every comment we make?


Kind of yes. Mostly because people DO have this tendency to hear what they want to hear. In all fairness in most threads on here about TF hive losses people *do *chime in with "That's just part of it." So effort* is *being made. Real effort. Good job. Really. But make sure it isn't hidden in the fine print on the second page. Consider changing your tag lines to something like - "Treatment free involves losing hives - deal with it!" Ok, something slicker than that, but you get the point. You guys are evangelists. You have a message. It IS important. You have to make it uber clear to be successful.


----------



## R Dewhurst

David LaFerney said:


> Really? Just curious - How long have you been treatment free? Do you make any money from bee keeping? How many times have you had to buy bees to stay in bee keeping?
> 
> I'm not treatment free - But I've treated no more than once a year for varroa using organic acids when needed + occasional use of essential oils which are of admittedly questionable value.
> 
> This is my 5th year, and I started making a profit in my 3rd year. I started with one package. I've bought a few queens along the line in the interest of genetic diversity but mostly I've made my own increase and never bought any additional bees. Until this spring - turns out I didn't need them - it was kind of an impulse purchase. They are doing great on small cell foundation by the way.
> 
> If I ever do find myself *proudly supporting myself by greeting people at Wal-Mart* I'll be happy to talk bees with you - just come on by.
> 
> Unless you have something against Wal-Mart greeters? Which it sounds like you do. What's up with *that*?


nice red herring there, but If one is into bees for only money, is that the right reason. but you have no real argument about anything else mentioned in my posts when it comes to treatments. More like avoid discussing how it could be the problem. I am looking for solutions. Some are set in their ways. Oh and went into winter last year with 5 hives, all came out just fine this year and are booming. When the bottom boards were cleaned this spring, the mites were dead on there. From the looks under magnification some were chewed up. And these hives were NEVER treated, ever. They do it on their own. I am not into bees to make it an income, I do it for the passion. If income does come, ok, if not, ok. I added on this year so I try new genetics. I get my thoughts and works from my experience. Try to be open minded more.


----------



## deknow

Conventional beekeeping doesn't involve losing hives? :scratch:
I'm assuming your new tagline will be "real beekeepers don't lose hives"?

Speaking for myself...I'm _not_ an evangelist....and I take full responsibility for everything I say.



> But make sure it isn't hidden in the fine print on the second page.


How about pointing out where you think its hidden in the fine print on the second page? You are asking for a problem to be fixed without providing a single example of where that problem exists.

deknow


----------



## David LaFerney

Fine DeKnow - if you don't see that anything is broken, then there is no need to acknowledge that anything should be fixed. And you are probably right - people just really need to invest a little more effort to begin with. I have no problem with that. If you tattooed it on their foreheads some people would still ignore it.

And of course all bee keepers lose hives. And my last tagline was deleted because it was "too political for Beesource" Sorry Barry. I guess it really was.

No problems. Carry on as usual.


----------



## David LaFerney

R Dewhurst said:


> Try to be open minded more.


I already said that I might (probably) would try treatment free in the future. Try it Again actually - by the way. I also said that I have used minimal treatments only when needed - clearly influenced by treatment free if not a complete commitment. I also mentioned that I am dabbling in small cell. Actually I have some hives that are both small cell and treatment free, just not all hives. I also breed my own queens from my best performers - is that good for anything? I didn't mention that I have also done a good bit of foundationless - but I have. I also said that I don't ever tell people NOT to go treatment free when it comes up - only to educate themselves about it. One of my goals IS to make a profit - so hang me. Other than becoming your disciple how much more open minded can I be? Seriously, you may be taking this too personally. No hard feelings here.


----------



## squarepeg

i took david's original post to mean that 'step 1' is aquiring solid general beekeeping skills.

i would wager that the greateast risk to a first year beekeeper's bees is the beekeeper.

i agree that sustaining an apiary off treatments is doable, but it is more the end result of aquiring the skill and knowledge required to do so rather than the making of a proclamation.

nothing wrong with rh's approach of 'if they die i'll just get more', but i wonder if a typical beginner is willing to risk their time, money, and emotional capital that way.

without expert mentoring, i think the odds are against the beginner. having a back up plan in place to salvage a collapsing colony makes sense to me. you can always introduce new genetics and make other changes as you refine your skills. even mike bush suggested that one may have to use an organic acid while regressing to small cell.

hey it's been awhile since we gave this a good thrashing. my hope is that it will give any first year beeks who might be reading this some food for thought.

good thread david, political?


----------



## David LaFerney

squarepeg said:


> good thread david, political?


Yeah.... I don't think I'm at liberty to discuss it. But thanks for your positive input. Very much.


----------



## squarepeg

no worries mate, btw was that swarm you caught the other day from one of yours?


----------



## R Dewhurst

David LaFerney said:


> I already said that I might (probably) would try treatment free in the future. Try it Again actually - by the way. I also said that I have used minimal treatments only when needed - clearly influenced by treatment free if not a complete commitment. I also mentioned that I am dabbling in small cell. Actually I have some hives that are both small cell and treatment free, just not all hives. I also breed my own queens from my best performers - is that good for anything? I didn't mention that I have also done a good bit of foundationless - but I have. I also said that I don't ever tell people NOT to go treatment free when it comes up - only to educate themselves about it. One of my goals IS to make a profit - so hang me. Other than becoming your disciple how much more open minded can I be? Seriously, you may be taking this too personally. No hard feelings here.


hey, no hard feelings here, just beating both sides of the horse. Surely there will be a way to bring balance to bees and mites again. I just feel more direction through pics of proof, and examples of how one does these things is needed.


----------



## David LaFerney

t:No it was from an unknown source - nice swarm though. Checked on them today, and they seem good, although I didn't spot the queen, but I was trying to be non-invasive. Just getting them squared away. Pretty sure they are queenright by the way they act.


----------



## R Dewhurst

man, I would hate to see where we could take the small cell topic....:lookout:


----------



## David LaFerney

R Dewhurst said:


> hey, no hard feelings here, just beating both sides of the horse.


Cool. Thanks.


----------



## David LaFerney

R Dewhurst said:


> man, I would hate to see where we could take the small cell topic....:lookout:


I don't know if it actually helps - but it surely doesn't hurt. And It fits more brood into fewer of my 8 frame medium hives. Didn't mention that either. Another topic though.


----------



## BeeCurious

David LaFerney said:


> I don't know if it actually helps - but it surely doesn't hurt. And It fits more brood into fewer of my 8 frame medium hives. Didn't mention that either. Another topic though.


... and don't forget the Narrow Frames


----------



## R Dewhurst

BeeCurious said:


> ... and don't forget the Narrow Frames


or foundationless


----------



## BeeCurious

R Dewhurst said:


> or foundationless


or narrow foundationless.


----------



## R Dewhurst

sounds like warre hive material here


----------



## rhaldridge

David LaFerney said:


> Fine DeKnow - if you don't see that anything is broken, then there is no need to acknowledge that anything should be fixed.


That seems a bit unfair. I don't know Dean, but I've read his book, and I've seen videos of him speaking, and he hangs out here more than most, trying to set folks with unrealistic expectations straight. He and his wife host a treatment free conference every year, which seems to be making a difference. 

It seems to me that the present conventional beekeeping system is more than a little broken. He's doing a lot more to fix it than many folks. I don't always agree with him, but at least he always argues from a factual basis, and I respect that.


----------



## Roland

RHaldridge wrote:

It seems to me that the present conventional beekeeping system is more than a little broken.

But is it? They do alot of things I do not, but where do most of the replacement bees come from? When the average commercial beekeeper is buying his replacement bees from a TF beekeeper, I will concede this point. 


Crazy Roland


----------



## Oldtimer

I think things have got a bit more real here on the TF forum than they were a few years back. The main players now do say you will lose more hives if going treatment free, whereas a few years back a lot of people were in total denial. Many, if they lost a hive, could accept any possibility, except mites. It would be starvation even if the hive was full of honey, or whatever. 

Before I started TF hives I read extensively, but only here on Beesource, plus a lot of Dee Lusby. Not much else. I did figure out that Dees bees are a bit different, so based most of what I did on what's reported here in the TF forum. And, I WAS mislead, or at least, not fully informed about potential losses. Fact was, most of what I read was that losses of TF hives were little different from treated hives, and people were constantly reporting how well they were doing and how they didn't lose any hives. A bit like this, a common type post:-



R Dewhurst said:


> Oh and went into winter last year with 5 hives, all came out just fine this year and are booming. When the bottom boards were cleaned this spring, the mites were dead on there. From the looks under magnification some were chewed up. And these hives were NEVER treated, ever. They do it on their own.


My own losses before going treatment free, were zero. Now, in the TF hives are very high. Fact is, according to the Bee Survey, TF beekeepers lose an average of around 4 hives in 10, annually. So for all the glowing reports from people who lost none, there must be others whose losses are much higher. Rarely ever see that mentioned though, wonder why?

I was not given this information before I went TF with some of my hives, had I known I probably would not have done it.

From a practical perspective for a beginning beekeeper, if they do average, they will lose 4 hives in 10 if TF annually, or 3 hives in 10 if not TF annually. This can be a hard path for a beginner. If they lose 4 in 10, of the 6 survivors they need to be able to successfully split 4 of them, just to stay where they are numbers wise, this can be a big ask and why so many new beekeepers disappear after a few years. If they treat and lose 3 out of 10, they only have to make 3 splits out of the 7 survivors, a much more palatable proposition for a beginner and gives a lot more room for success. These kind of statistics are not made readily available, or, they weren't to me, so people go in over optimistic.

I think some of the TF "evangelicals", will think, so what. We have to get people to be treatment free. Personally, I'd rather see people succeed. It is now standard procedure that all beginners start TF, believing anything else is wrong, damaging, makes weak bees, etc. Some of them do better than average and stick around. Some of them do worse than average and quit, disillusioned.


----------



## jim lyon

I am left wondering what a "conventional beekeeping system" actually consists of. Sounds kind of like an assumption that those who don't follow the Beesource treatment free definition are all doing things in a like manner. But if that is the case then why do some seem to have much better results than others, shouldn't those following this system all be losing their bees? Hmmmm.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

In a past time the wax moth was the varroa mite wiping out hives. Honeybees adapted and now wax moths are a thing of the past. I started out treatment free 8 years ago. Was it tougher yes. Was it worth is yes. My expenses are lower, my wax better. My genetics localized, successful and deep.

I am keeping my bees up to par with the times. 

I believe that is why apples and roses need so much spraying. As the diseases and pests continue to "naturally" evolve the plants are grafted and remain outdated. 

Our honeybees are the same we have kept them out of date and are paying the price when we go off the crutch of chemicals.

Africanized bees are a great example of an awesome selection of nature. nature selects the best, we needs to only let the best be selected as well. 

I believe the future of successful chemical free beekeeping (or beekeeping period) must be realized thru the local industry. 

small cell makes sense. it's natural. better yet go foundationless and save money.

keeping 10 frames in a ten frame box keeps true cell depth and is natural. helping keep tracheal mites at bay. 

What kills new beekeepers namely is the waste of money packages that are commercially sold. With queens so poor a great beekeeper could not coax them to a crop. (if the bees don't supersede her right away) Then after that I would say a lack of successful beekeepers T.F. and old fashion ones are to blame as well. 

As in everything in life there are those who can't and those who can.


----------



## arthur

Since I started in 2007, I never once treated my bees for anything. Helps when you start with stock that isn't treated for mites either (Bee Weaver). Haven't lost a single hive to pestilence. And I don't do small cell either. And I don't do drone frames or anything like that.


----------



## Oldtimer

But aren't these last 2 posts a classic example of what I just said 4 posts back? The typical scenario - I never treated, I never lost any hives, success success.....

The reality that the average TF beekeeper loses 4 out of 10 hives each year is not to be found by reading the treatment free forum on Beesource. As the OP has been saying.


----------



## rhaldridge

Roland said:


> RHaldridge wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that the present conventional beekeeping system is more than a little broken.
> 
> But is it? They do alot of things I do not, but where do most of the replacement bees come from? When the average commercial beekeeper is buying his replacement bees from a TF beekeeper, I will concede this point.
> 
> 
> Crazy Roland


Maybe you're right, but if there's nothing wrong with the way conventional beekeeping is done by many beekeepers, why do they complain so much about their losses? Why is the number of colonies, and the number of commercial beekeepers declining? Why is the average age of beekeepers so, well, mature? (I'm older'n dirt myself, so please don't take that as an insult, fellow elderly beekeepers.) It seems to be a tough time for folks who are trying to make a living from bees. Isn't it a problem that some elements of the conventional approach to dealing with disease and parasites are not working as well as beekeepers would like?

It might well be that the replacement bees produced in large quantities for both commercial and hobby beekeepers are part of the problem, not evidence that the system is working well.


----------



## sqkcrk

rh,
Most of the commercial beekeepers I know replace their losses by buying or producing their own queens and splitting their live colonies. Some folks will buy truck loads of other beekeepers hives. I imagine their are some who buy packages, but I don't know what percentage of package bees go to commercial use. I'm under the impression that most of the packages go to non-commercial beekeepers.


----------



## rhaldridge

jim lyon said:


> I am left wondering what a "conventional beekeeping system" actually consists of. Sounds kind of like an assumption that those who don't follow the Beesource treatment free definition are all doing things in a like manner.


I didn't mean to imply that, just as I'm sure David didn't mean to imply that most treatment free enthusiasts are completely clueless. Though maybe they are; I don't know.

I guess what I was referring to is the idea that it's possible to poison our way out of our present difficulties. I'm deeply dubious about that proposition. I could be wrong, but I think the evidence is on my side. As an analogy: consider antibiotics. We've managed to evolve organisms that are resistant to just about every antibiotic in the inventory, and all we can do is hope for new drugs that the organisms haven't yet acquired resistance to. But when those new drugs appear, it will be only a matter of time until they become less and less useful. This has a familiar sound to it, doesn't it?

Now with people, we can't take the Bond approach and let the weaklings die. I'd be dead myself if not for antibiotics. But bees aren't people, they're bugs with a high reproductive rate, we do not become attached to them as individuals, and the superorganism that is the colony is much too alien a being for us to have the same emotional attachment to it as we do to other people. Just as with other livestock, we can select for traits we find desirable. If you believe B. Weaver, their bees are fairly resistant to varroa. To me, that approach makes a lot more sense than the insecticide de jour. 

To extend the analogy I tried to make above, it's much more effective, cost-wise and quality-of-life-wise, to try to keep people healthy enough that they only rarely need antibiotics. From what I've read here, this is the approach you take with your bees, only resorting to acaricides when you deem it necessary. To me, that's much more admirable than what I learned in beginner bee classes, which took the view that all hives must be treated for everything, whether they have a problem or not... lest they develop a problem, One of the demos consisted of sprinkling drifts of Terramycin around the demo hive, and we were told that this was a necessary prophylaxis, to be done regularly..

The beekeepers I admire the most, and hope to emulate in some small way are those who take the view that if we can make our hives strong enough and healthy enough, we can avoid many of the problems that currently afflict bees. They try to do this through a combination of genetics and management practices, and there are enough cases where it seems to be working to demonstrate that this can indeed be achieved. To me, that's a more promising longterm strategy.


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> If you believe B. Weaver, their bees are fairly resistant to varroa.


Are they really? And why? Do they treat for varroa?


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> rh,
> Most of the commercial beekeepers I know replace their losses by buying or producing their own queens and splitting their live colonies. Some folks will buy truck loads of other beekeepers hives. I imagine their are some who buy packages, but I don't know what percentage of package bees go to commercial use. I'm under the impression that most of the packages go to non-commercial beekeepers.


I think you're right. It's probably another reason among many why hobbyists often don't do as well as experienced commercial beekeepers, whether they treat or not. Their bees aren't very good.

I tried to avoid that pitfall. I bought a local nuc from a guy nearby for one hive, and a package of Wolf Creek small cell, semi-untreated bees for the other. 

I still expect them to die. I hope to be able to replace them from splits I make.


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> Are they really? And why? Do they treat for varroa?


They don't treat for varroa.

You might like to watch Danny Weaver's video explaining how they got there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQhwc3Rt-g0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cbCZOCyD-c


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> semi-untreated bees.


What does that mean LOL ?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Have non-treating experience for 9 years now. Started enthusiatically and with all hives I had at this time. No small cell, nothing, just live and let die. First year - not many problems. Second year, some hives died, but nothing serious. Than lost almost all in the third year.

Tried all sorts of fixed comb beekeeping. In skeps, Warré hives and logs and all. Avoided pesticides from agriculture. Let them swarm and all. Just honey, no feeding, no transfering of comb, nothing. The hyper-natural way to "keep" bees.

As indicated above, after some time I got into trouble keeping up the number of hives. After a second hard hit I decided to follow the Soft Bond Test as worked out by John Kefuss. See: http://www.immenfreunde.de/SBT.pdf

With this method, you treat hives that need it, sorting them out from breeding and multiply from those that keep varroa at bay. I was able to increase my apiary since and do have zero to very little losses this way.

Doing nothing, live and let die is a waste of ressources, both money, time and nerves. And it isn't natural for the bees to waste away.

Instead working methodly and with a defined and measurable target is most promosing. It might need some decades to get fully resistant bees, but that is not a problem since there are few to no losses.

The Soft Bond Test method greatly reduced the use of miticides in my apiaries. Some years you need to treat more hives than other years. (There seems to be a three to four year cycle.)

Going live-and-let die is most educating, since you observe when the point of no return/recovery is reached, you are able to distinguish between varroa and virus damage and the combination of the two. You learn to distinguish the varroa damage from your own foolish mistakes.

I do not recommend beginners to go all-in as I did, since you need to learn beekeeping first. Beginners do many many mistakes. Of course. Once you've wintered bees with no losses for five years in a row, you can start thinking of going treatment-free. But then I recommend to do it the Soft Bond Method way.

I keep treated and non-treated hives side by side. Some say that varroa distributes from non-treated to treated hives. But I think the effect is negligible - as long the hive is not collapsing. A collapsing hive spreads a lot of varroa. In the Soft Bond Test you prevent this by treating before it collapses.

I learned that all the natural things: swarming, no comb transfering, natural comb (means fixed comb: no frames, no foundation, no barrier, different cavity shapes and sizes), just honey no sugar supplements, no saving of weakened colonies (let die...) and other things considered "natural" do not and will not save the honeybees. Nor is helpful any way.

My lessons learned is, that the environment - at least where I am - is artificial, creating artificial problems which create necessities for artificial solutions.

I think we as natural beekeepers shouldn't target ideals but instead try to aim at an optimum. An optimum is right in the middle between ideals and necessities. It is the intersection of ideals and necessities. That is what nature does. Nature doesn't select for the best, but for the optimized.

So I develop my beekeeping towards a more natural way to do things, but keep an eye on necessities. From all attempts I have seen so far, the most promosing are methodical proceedings. If you have no plan, no method, nothing to measure - you'll fail. (Unless you throw in hundreds and hundreds of hives into the game. Which is something that might work out, but surely not for a beginner.)

Again, have a look at: http://www.immenfreunde.de/SBT.pdf 

I highly recommend that method.

Bernhard


----------



## Oldtimer

I read your link Bernhard, very interesting.

Now you have been at this a few years, do you have hives that never need to be treated? And, approximately what % of your hives would you treat in a year?


----------



## jim lyon

rhaldridge said:


> I guess what I was referring to is the idea that it's possible to poison our way out of our present difficulties. I'm deeply dubious about that proposition.
> 
> The beekeepers I admire the most, and hope to emulate in some small way are those who take the view that if we can make our hives strong enough and healthy enough, we can avoid many of the problems that currently afflict bees. They try to do this through a combination of genetics and management practices, and there are enough cases where it seems to be working to demonstrate that this can indeed be achieved. To me, that's a more promising longterm strategy.


I think we have found some common ground with this point of view Ray and I think most of the most successful beekeepers I know would agree with it as well. The big difference is that we choose to limit when we treat and what we treat with. What I see each day in the bee yard tells me what I am doing is working and working very well. The Bond" beekeeper, on the other hand, prefers to let his bees die than to treat. That's not an indictment or an argument, its just a statement of fact. I am not here to say tf folks are wrong only to clarify that all others shouldn't be painted with the same broad brush. Carry on.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I leave about 30 % of the hives untreated each year. As said that varies. I had hives which had not been treated for five and six years. Those were hived in single room boxes, with a lot of voume, completely burr comb and a lot of honey in it. Doing very well, but as soon I took a honey harvest those colonies collapsed the next winter, even when they had plenty of their own honey left. Seen that with other hives, too, which I harvested. I do not understand the link between honey harvest and failure, if there is any connection. But that's something i observed. (Not taking honey is no guarantee for survival on the other hand!) 

However, since then I started requeening regularily, because a young queen produces more vigourous colonies than old ones, it is difficult for me to define "what is a hive" and how old is it. Requeening is a treatment of some sort, too, but I think it simply accelerates the process of selection towards resistance. I am a bit more pragmatic than I was those days.

My goal is to reduce treatments gradually until no treatments are needed anymore.


----------



## R Dewhurst

I would like to throw in another "possible" scenario that may be causing some bee colonies to not perform so well, and that is the shallow gene pool idea. Getting too close geneticly.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread so far - I hope it continues!

Today is finally warm enough that I'll be able to unwrap and inspect the last of my yards. I hope I find good things.

My two yards of untreated Russians were sad. Two hives of ten are still alive, 1 weak and 1 strong. My conclusion is that at least for my area Russians are not a bee that can be purchased, installed and then largely ignored.

One of the yards I will be unwrapping today are my BeeWeaver Bees that have also not received any treatments. From my walk through the yard thus far I think seven of seven made it through winter (2 as single deeps). My plan had been let them continue largely unmanaged, but based in part on my experience with the Russians, I think that is a poor idea. Instead I plan to monitor mites in part to see if the bees are doing what they are supposed to, and in part to share the data with Randy Oliver. I suspect that many strains of tf bees that fail to thrive outside of the local area they were developed in, would do well (instead of die) with limited treatments as part of an IPM program. Part of IPM is testing, and so test I will. Instead of being rigorous in not making nucs and/or splits, I will be responsive to what I see in the hives. 15 swarm cells? nuc time!


----------



## David LaFerney

jim lyon said:


> I think we have found some common ground with this point of view Ray and I think most of the most successful beekeepers I know would agree with it as well. The big difference is that we choose to limit when we treat and what we treat with... Carry on.


:thumbsup:


----------



## David LaFerney

BernhardHeuvel said:


> However, since then I started requeening regularily, because a young queen produces more vigourous colonies than old ones, it is difficult for me to define "what is a hive" and how old is it. Requeening is a treatment of some sort, too, but I think it simply accelerates the process of selection towards resistance. I am a bit more pragmatic than I was those days.
> 
> My goal is to reduce treatments gradually until no treatments are needed anymore.


The advantages of a young vigorous queen during the fall buildup is under emphasized in my opinion. It's one of the key parts of the Ed Holcomb big honey system.


----------



## stan.vick

R Dewhurst said:


> I would like to throw in another "possible" scenario that may be causing some bee colonies to not perform so well, and that is the shallow gene pool idea. Getting too close geneticly.


 I agree, I think my success with developing mite treatment free bees was first getting bees from a feral hive that had been in the same tree for years, then taking mating nucs to the middle of a 240,000 acre military reservation. Then I bred these back to the banded Italians to get better winter build up, and to tone down their aggressiveness. Some hives were successful and lived to reproduce, some where to mean for me to let them live, and some died off. It takes time, but with a plan and goals it can be done, and for the future of the bee industry it must be done, the commercials will never treat their way out of this mess we have put the bees in. 
A queen with good cross-bred genetics will put out some beautiful brood comb.


----------



## David LaFerney

rhaldridge said:


> I didn't mean to imply that, just as I'm sure David didn't mean to imply that most treatment free enthusiasts are completely clueless. Though maybe they are; I don't know.


Actually what I mean is that pretty much all NEW beekeepers are clueless - I know I was. Probably still am just in a different way.

I read like mad, watched all the videos, lurked on all the forums - all that - before I got my bees. And since the respected authorities said something to the effect of "I lost more bees when I treated than I do now that I don't" Why would you not? It's so easy - don't treat, don't feed, don't paint, don't install foundation... I was all gung ho to be treatment free right from the start. 

Aggressive splitting and luck got me far enough along to have a bit of fault tolerance. When I noticed a lot of deformed wings in September - then did mite counts that resulted in "too numerous to count" I decided then that I needed to reconsider things a bit.

PS - I don't mean to imply that anyone is doing anything intentionally misleading - just that a lot of people are being mislead.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Wow, I take a sabbath for one day and I come back and get 67 posts to read. It was worth it.



David LaFerney said:


> But, I would suspect that everyone who has done it would agree with a few principles:
> 
> 
> *Treatment free does not mean doing nothing and hoping for the best.*
> Treatment free requires at least as much understanding of bee keeping as any other philosophy - so *educate yourself.*
> If you start out with a couple of generic packages from Georgia, and don't check and don't prepare for any contingencies you probably will not be successful as a treatment free bee keeper.
> If you replace your dead outs with generic packages from Georgia every spring you probably won't ever become successful as a treatment free bee keeper.
> I almost forgot - Step 1 to becoming a treatment free bee keeper - learn to be a bee keeper.


I do generally agree with these principles.




David LaFerney said:


> ...when not feeding is a good option and when it will only result in malnutrition


I see this 'malnutrition' word thrown around a lot and I don't think it means what you think it means. Malnutrition comes from eating things that don't provide sustenance. In beekeeping, those things are sugar and pollen substitute, which don't contain the things bees need to survive because they are not the things bees exist to eat. If they eat nothing, they starve, that's starvation, not malnutrition. If they eat things that don't provide nutrition, that's malnutrition. Giving them "feed" causes malnutrition, not preventing it.




David LaFerney said:


> I'm under the impression that a lot of TF guys either leave a very large amt of honey


As a TF guy, that is a stated goal of mine.




rhaldridge said:


> I found 2 bees with DWV crawling around in front of the hive.


Having gone through a major portion of my hives yesterday, I can say that all DWV bees I recall were drones. If mites are eating drones and not causing too many problems, I find that acceptable.




R Dewhurst said:


> man, I would hate to see where we could take the small cell topic....:lookout:


Yeah, I would hate that too. Save us all the time and read the archives.




Roland said:


> When the average commercial beekeeper is buying his replacement bees from a TF beekeeper...


I do not recommend anyone buy "replacement bees." A boss of mine once said something to the effect of "If you plan on getting a flat tire, leave early so you won't be late to work." Preparations like these are the hallmark of an experienced beekeeper, or a well read one. I read everything I could find and I correctly identified the number of losses that Dee Lusby incurred when she switched to small cell. So I planned ahead and didn't start with one or two packages (from a thousand miles south). I started with 20 packages from 200 miles away. My losses have never been anywhere near that high, and the last two years they have been what anyone would consider very low. But I have been a beekeeper for 10 years and cannot expect anyone to logically conclude that they can do this exact thing. TF is not a thing you do one year and expect to work. You do it for the long term.




Kamon Reynolds said:


> In a past time the wax moth was the varroa mite wiping out hives.


I don't believe this to be a factual statement. Read some of the very old beekeeping magazines and books which explicitly state the fact that wax moths do not kill hives, and even took surveys finding that a significant number of beekeepers claimed that wax moths killed their hives. What was implied was that those beekeepers didn't have any idea what they were talking about and upon opening a hive full of wax moths (a process that takes more than a day or two) they assumed the moths did it when the fact is, they hadn't looked in that hive for months.


From my own experience, I do not see where these statements about what TF beekeepers say come from, like Dean said. Point them out! I have said here on Beesource and on my own website many many times that a lot of untreated bees will die and that it's part of the process and that you ought to get to at least five hives as soon as possible and that you can't just put bees in a box and expect everything to be fluffy clouds and clover fields. And I have said over and over and over again how poor an idea it is to buy southern packages when you don't live in the South. 

I just had a guy I know contact me looking for a queen. When he started last year, I told him to buy local, I told him I had bees for sale, I told him to buy a local nuc rather than a southern package, and he ignored me. And now his hive is queenless and he's ordered a queen from Florida. There's only so much I can do and he's probably going to be upset when he reads this because he's a member here, but HE'S NOT THE FIRST ONE!!! I have a nice 8-frame setup hive in my backyard from a personal friend who wanted to start beekeeping. It's got one of those nice copper roof lids and everything. And she bought a southern package to put in this beautiful well put together (not to mention expensive) hive and I'll be dipped if they didn't last six months. The first freeze comes along and they starve to death where they sit, or they can't handle mites, or they supersede the queen and fail, or they just up and leave. Or, like is happening this year, they get a wild hair and they swarm too early and the swarm dies on the branch and the new virgin queen doesn't make it back because IT'S STILL COLD! Another dead hive from a mail order southern package.

Please, if you are reading this and want to be treatment free, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS GOOD, LISTEN TO SOME ADVICE FROM A RELEVANT SOURCE!!! I'm trying to save you heartache! I've made the mistakes and learned of the mistakes of others so that by the grace of friendship, you may not have to. 

I don't need any more 8-frame hives! I'd rather you be successful than give me your equipment when you fail! It really is up to you! Your decisions WILL affect your outcome!

Now, I will be accepting criticism from treatment-free beekeepers only.:lpf:


----------



## R Dewhurst

David LaFerney said:


> Actually what I mean is that pretty much all NEW beekeepers are clueless - I know I was. Probably still am just in a different way.


This seems to be a very closed minded opinion more than anything. Seems like more of a bash the new keeps than helping them. Do you think no one else takes time to study. If something is a passion to the person, then they strive to learn all they can, from all the angles. There are some that do care. What facts are you basing this on about all new beekeepers?


----------



## David LaFerney

Just anecdotal evidence. But it's not just new bee keepers - in almost any hands on endeavor "book learning" only gets you so far. It can be a HUGE leap forward, but it rarely if ever replaces actual hands on experience. Also, just anecdotal evidence. I have no proof.

And by the way, I spend a considerable amount of my available free time helping new bee keepers. I'm doing a presentation on making increase at our local meeting this week - anyone is welcome to come.


----------



## rhaldridge

I have to say this has been a great thread. Much more light than heat, which is what I look for on Beesource every day.

I don't always find it. Thanks to David for starting this one, and to everyone who gave it some thought...


----------



## Michael Bush

> Treatment free does not mean doing nothing and hoping for the best.

Agreed. If it was just doing nothing then a "natural beekeeping" book would just have that one sentence: "do nothing". That would make a very short book.

> Treatment free requires at least as much understanding of bee keeping as any other philosophy - so educate yourself.

I think any beekeeping requires an understanding of bees. Unfortunately that doesn't come from books (although they can build a foundation and add some facts) it mostly comes form observing bees. The best thing anyone can do to educate themselves is to get an observation hive and watch the bees for thousands upon thousands of hours...

> If you start out with a couple of generic packages from Georgia, and don't check and don't prepare for any contingencies you probably will not be successful as a treatment free bee keeper.

I think that is usually true. Sometimes you get lucky on genetics and they actually survive, but I would say that is minority.

> If you replace your dead outs with generic packages from Georgia every spring you probably won't ever become successful as a treatment free bee keeper.

True.

The concept of "not feeding" was mentioned. I've never understood that. I understand managing them so they don't need to be fed, most of the time. But when bees need to be fed, it's the fault of the beekeeper, not the bees. We are the ones who steal the surplus they put away so we are responsible for them being in that position.


----------



## rhaldridge

Michael Bush said:


> >
> The concept of "not feeding" was mentioned. I've never understood that. I understand managing them so they don't need to be fed, most of the time. But when bees need to be fed, it's the fault of the beekeeper, not the bees. We are the ones who steal the surplus they put away so we are responsible for them being in that position.


The way I look at it, feeding in an emergency is not a bad thing, if it's due to some unexpected situation, like a dearth due to drought. What I think may be incorrect is feeding of sugar and pollen sub as a normal part of management-- maybe to get a buildup before a flow, or to routinely get hives heavy enough to overwinter, that sort of thing.

As an example, the guy I got my first nuc from is an extremely kind person, who took my wife and I around his yard when we came to pick up the nuc. He showed us a couple of hives he was feeding heavily to build up for the tupelo flow, which is a money maker down here in NW Florida. But when we got into the hives, they were full of swarm cells and he later told me they'd swarmed a couple of times on him, so he wasn't going to have the big hives he'd hoped to put down on the river. The strange thing was that we were in the middle of a good strong spring flow already.

Anyway, I can't imagine that bees raised on sugar and pollen sub are going to be as healthy as bees raised on nectar and real pollen. It's another of those small percentages that I think add up.


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> I can't imagine that bees raised on sugar and pollen sub are going to be as healthy as bees raised on nectar and real pollen.


I believe Dean and/or Michael have made such points on a number of occasions, especially the one regarding pollen substitute. I don't recall from whom the argument came, the point being that pollen substitute allows only a few rounds of brood before the necessary nutrition is depleted within the biomass of the hive. But that is a topic that has been done and let's not go there now.





> I almost forgot - Step 1 to becoming a treatment free bee keeper - learn to be a bee keeper.


I do wonder if there is something else behind this. Is the thesis that one should not go the treatment-free route from the beginning or is it an enhanced emphasis on the basics: research, studying, mentorship (maybe practice on someone else's hives), and don't buy southern packages?


----------



## sqkcrk

R Dewhurst said:


> I would like to throw in another "possible" scenario that may be causing some bee colonies to not perform so well, and that is the shallow gene pool idea. Getting too close geneticly.


Wouldn't folks who do this sort of thing for a living be able to tell if that is so and do something about it? The effects of inbreeding in the world of honeybees have been known for a long time.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Interesting thread.

David, I have read a lot of your posts, and I think you're a thoughtful person. I appreciate your line of questioning here. 

I'm hearing from a friend who sells nucs, at just how many new beekeepers are coming to him, asking for treatment free bees, and saying they're going treatment free. While I like the idea, I also know that it isn't that easy. It just isn't. 

I'm treatment free at the moment - a year now of nothing, and while I only lost three out of eleven colonies, when I compare my bees to a others who are treating - it's night and day. Theirs are WAY stronger and more booming at this point than mine are. I have enough experience with bees and steady bee learning now (after a few years) to not be surprised by this, and to understand that it's all part of "getting there" with treatment free bees. But it's hard to stomach at times.

Most beginners are not prepared for this. And it's not that the people who really know treatment-free are all offering a false message, or creating a false image. 

I think that the key weakness of treatment free "education" online, is two-fold:

First, beginners (at anything) tend to gravitate to "teachings" that offer the quickest route to becoming "an expert". People are uncomfortable with not knowing. So when they can find a guy with 3,000 posts on an internet bee forum, who says it's just that easy - they jump right on it. Treatment free? foundationless? - Do less, buy less and I'm a cutting-edge, treatment-free, all-natural beekeeper?! SOLD!! Count me _in_ on* that* bandwagon! Basically speaking, the cliff notes of treatment free beekeeping are a pretty easy sell, and it's hard for a beginner to look past - "Do nothing, (or way less than most "traditional" beekeepers do) let the bees live naturally, and we will fix the problems created by 150 years of industry". Who can resist that?

Second, a lot of the guys with 3,000 posts turn out to be people who actually don't know much about bees. There are a lot of internet experts, because when you don't know anything, everyone ahead of you in experience seems like an expert. So a ton of information being propagated is actually coming from people who don't know what they're talking about, because they haven't learned enough before sharing information. 

I know how it happens. I've been guilty of it myself. You get excited about something, and you want to share it. The internet makes it easier for people like me to publicly share my perspectives, and harder for beginners to be able to tell the difference between me and someone with way more experience.

From what I have seen. The most self-righteous, aggressive, black-and-white, it's-just-that-simple, treatment-free talkers are new beekeepers. No one is as sure of right and wrong as a beginner. That's not a knock against beginners. It's just to say that I think most of the material out there online touting the simplicity and success of treatment-free beekeeping is coming from passionate people who just haven't had enough experience to really understand what they're seeing well enough to call it success and promote it in a way that should be followed by other newcomers. And it really sours a lot of the discussion, because people with real experience get tired of being spoken to and about like they're idiots. It really creates a lot of us-against-them stuff, and creates a lot of hard feelings between people.

Once you've surfed enough sites to be able to distinguish the difference between that comparatively small group of people who _*know*_ from real experience, and people who are just good internet self-promoters - the more you realize how truly complicated this is. 

I do believe that treatment-free is the way to go, but to be truly successful (meaning your bees are as booming and healthy as Mike Palmer's and you don't have to buy bees again every few years) you're going to have to work hard on your breeding and management for quite a few years, or you're going to have to get very lucky.

When I look at my hives now, there are a few clear stand-outs that seem to be thriving compared to others. I will focus on those for raising queens this year. Work, work, work. Learn, learn, learn. Work some more.

Nothing simple about it. 


Adam


----------



## rhaldridge

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Basically speaking, the cliff notes of treatment free beekeeping are a pretty easy sell, and it's hard for a beginner to look past - "Do nothing, (or way less than most "traditional" beekeepers do) let the bees live naturally, and we will fix the problems created by 150 years of industry". Who can resist that?


You know, I haven't seen anything like that. Can you give examples of this type of rhetoric from anyone but silly beginners? The thickest beekeeping book I own is Michael Bush's book on natural beekeeping. If he's recommending doing nothing he sure has a lot to say about nothing.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> And it really sours a lot of the discussion, because people with real experience get tired of being spoken to and about like they're idiots.


That sword cuts both ways. I have many flaws, but people rarely call me stupid. I was called stupid here by a beekeeper who was irritated by my reluctance to accept his views as The Truth. He may have been right, for all I know, but in order to convince me of something, you're going to have to do better than "I'm experienced, you're not, so I'm right and you're wrong."

The history of the human race involves many many examples of long-established wisdom turning out to be completely wrong. The troubles that beekeepers are currently having is an indication to me that there's something wrong with conventional beekeeping wisdom. I don't pretend to know what it is, but if beekeeping were a perfected pursuit, beekeepers wouldn't be having so many problems.

All that beginners like me can do is weigh the arguments and examine the assumptions behind them. If an argument passes the plausibility test, I'll research it further. If not, I adjust my approach accordingly. 

Everybody needs a bedrock set of assumptions in order to form a plan of action. In my case it's a somewhat negative bedrock: Trying to get rid of bugs on bugs by using bug killer is crazy. There has to be a smarter and more sustainable way to deal with the problem.

When someone makes an assertion like, "If you don't use acaricides, your colonies will inevitably die" it takes only one counter-example to disprove this assertion. Period. That's how logic works. You can argue about why someone's untreated colonies don't die, but you cannot any longer insist on the truth of your original assertion. It's been proven wrong.

Experience is like a mighty flywheel. If you spend many years working at a profession and work out an approach that gives you what you regard as acceptable results, then there is a natural human tendency to believe that what you are doing is the Right Way. With every year, you impart more and more momentum to that flywheel and you become more and more convinced of the rightness of your approach. If someone, especially someone you have no reason to regard as your professional peer, has the temerity to suggest that there might be a Better Way, you may be inclined to ridicule his assertion, even if he marshals a set of facts to support his view.

A lot of that goes on here. It's counterproductive.

All that said, forums like these are a tremendous resource for a beginner like me. I've learned a great deal from the posts of those who are more experienced than I am (almost everyone!)


----------



## David LaFerney

Thanks Adam - somehow there seems to be at least a couple of different perceptions going on here. I am seeing and understanding the same things that you are describing - as well as a few others who have commented. Clearly there is another group of people who are taking away a very different impression. Just human nature I guess. According to the stats quite a few people have looked at this thread, so maybe a few will find it useful. It's been interesting. Again - thanks.


----------



## jim lyon

Ray: As a self stated beginner you continue to make a lot of assumptions about a really big industry that you appear to know little about. There were between 2 and 3 million commercial hives producing honey last year and many hundreds of thousands more strictly pollinating. Adam has apparently been influenced by Mike Palmer, one of the best by most anyone's estimation and there are lots of other really good beekeepers out there who quietly go about their business and are very successful. Virtually all of them treat and the majority treat responsibly. Adam seems to have made a decision to broaden his exposure and his perspective. He has every right to speak up about his experiences.


----------



## David LaFerney

*rhaldridge* - You seem to be under the impression that treatment free has been somehow denied or dishonored or something in this thread - it hasn't, or at least I don't recall if it has. It often is, but not this time. 

I wish you the best of luck - really I do. Furthermore these are mostly all good people on here who want nothing more than to see everyone be successful in their bee keeping - including you.

Just about everyone wants to see treatment free to work out, but some people have a lot harder choice to make because their livelihood and their families relies on those choices. That isn't greedy, lazy, closed minded, stupid, evil or anything like those things. It's responsible.


----------



## Beregondo

A few years ago, I was the new bee who read about treatment free bee keeping and thought it sounded like a great idea.

Before I got any bees, I read voraciously on the subject. If I didn't learn anything else, after reading/watching everything I could find, I was convinced after hearing it so many times form Michael B, Michael P and others that "locally adapted bees". were an important component of their successes.

I was very fortunate in that I'd been out of work a while and I was broke.
I don't mean kinda broke; I was _broke_ broke.

One late June day I got a call from a friend who told me that if I wanted some work that there was a woman with an abandoned house who needed bees removed from a wall. 

Did I want the job?

I jumped on it, using the payment for the work to buy equipment.
I agree that most new bees are pretty clueless...and that first cutout was quite a hack job.
Most of the brood was destroyed.

But the good thing was, I got local bees, and the infestation turned out to be in a house I was familiar with, a block away down the street I live on.
I knew the wall had had bees in it for several consecutive years, and was pretty confident they hadn't been treated.

Any way, whether they hadn't been or whether they were a swarm that had moved in five minutes before the city forced the woman to have them removed, I got 'em, they were local and had them out of the wall and in my yard the first week of July. (What's that about a fly?)

They survived my newbee mistakes and constant pestering of them, and went into winter in 2 deep ten frame boxes.
I'd sugared them once.

Come spring, they still had 10 frames of stores, and had a heavy population by April.

My first split was an education in chill brood. 

I made several splits, and bought queens from a the lines of a well known breeder with a reputation for good genetics... but bought locally produced open mated ones from licensed producers within a couple hundred miles of me. (I'm in upstate New York).

The nucs I took into winter were July & August splits. 
I lost one overwinter from splitting too late; it never built up well.

The nucs were 4 framers doubled up in 10 frame boxes going into autumn.
I didn't feed during goldenrod flow except to show a helper how to do it and get her familiar with the bees, as I had to be out of state on business from the beginning of October til Thanksgiving.

On my return, the late split mentioned earlier looked like it probably wouldn't get through winter, but I left it so see what would happen.

The other four were very, very light on stores -- the helper had become frightened the second time she went to feed them (gallon cans under a nuc body) and hadn't lifted a top since.

As it was now too cold for syrup I mountain camped them and hoped for the best.

I had two hybrid 410 colonies with small clusters (one very small, and very little honey) one Sunkist, and one Sunkist daughter mated to local drones.

Over the winter I discovered a disadvantage to putting 2 nucs in one box.
The pygmy shrew that got into the Sunkist nuc an as well, and killed it, tearing up the comb moved next door into the 410 nuc, and killed it.

The other 410 hybrid nuc starved, which was not unexpected.

The Sunkist Nuc had every cell not containing stores filled with brood on first inspection.
I put another box on top, the frames having honey around the edge and most of the cells empty.
The next week, it was completely empty.

I got another box of frames with honey around the edge, pulled 2 frames of brood up the the second box from the brood chamber, put a empty frame next to each wall, and put the third box on top.

I don't know what I've done right, other than get start with local bees and only by queens from my climate region.

After doing the sugar shake the first year, I inspected the bottom board carefully and found one mite. 
I don't know whether there were simply very very few mites, or if the sugar shake was ineffective.

During last summer, I did see guard bees very aggressively grooming returning foragers at the hive entrances. At first I thought they were defending against robbers.

Bottom board inspection last summer revealed that the few dead mites on the board were dented.

I did a some splitting last year, but only one nuc (the late one that didn't build up well) had a brood break, the others got mated queens.

I examined the comb form the dead outs looking for varroa feces in cells looking starved to see if varroa population had increased a lot and contributed significantly to the death of the two starved nucs. I didn't find any.

I think not buying packages and using regional nucs from the same climate is important.
I've only ever bought queens, and when I did I bought from Jason at Varner Bee Farm in Lewiston, Pa and And from Kale Luce at Alleghany bee farm in Cattaragus, NY.
Both guys gave excellent service, and their queens lay very dense patterns in any empty cell they can find. 

I'll put contact info below.

When I first got on Beesource and talked about going treatment free the response I got was brutal.

I was told the bees I'd cutout couldn't possibly have survived for more than a season b/c bees just can't survive w/o treatment.
I was told I was foolish, and my bees would be dead in a year if I didn't treat.

As a someone who came to Beesource as a newbee intending to go tf, I can tell you from experience, my expectation after interacting on the board was NOT that all I had to do was nothing and everything would come out roses.

Quite the opposite.

Newbees are clueless. No matter how much one reads before getting bees, he lacks the experience to have a clue.
He doesn't even know enough to know what he doesn't know.

If someone thinks tf is a good idea and says so, he has no obligation to educate the new guy.
New guys have are responsible for their own education whether they treat or not...same as with buying a new boat, dog, rifle, or airplane.

This is what think I have learned:
Start with local bees.
Queen with local bees.
Raise your own if you can.

Don't listen to the those who tell you treatment free is the only way to have healthy bees that survive.
Don't listen to those who say that the only way to have healthy bees that survive is to treat.

Listen to those who explain reasonably and don't make their preferred method a religion. 

Don't count on a helper to do what needs to be done, esp, a poorly trained one.

Wait til you see drones to split.
Expect a chance of losing splits anyway when it gets warm way early (like last year).

Feed when comb is being drawn, when splits need to build, and when colonies are light in fall.
Don't feed just because someone else does...make sure you know _why_ you are feeding before you do.

Don't expect treatment free to be easy.
It's pretty simple, but it's work.

You can learn beekeeping and be treatment free at the same time.
It just takes more effort.

I have the same number of colonies as I did at this time last spring.
I'm pretty sure I know what caused my losses, and have a pretty good idea how to avoid them in the future.

Am I a successful treatment free beekeeper?

I think so.

I'm having fun.
I have live bees to enjoy.
I've learned a lot.
My biggest bee concern is getting an 8 frame box under the nuc stack before it swarms, or running out of boxes before there are drones available to make splits.
And I haven't put any poisons or drugs in my bees.

My goal for next year?
Have four colonies to keep this time next year.
Raise most of my own queens between now and then.
Have a couple nucs to sell after next winter.
(I have one nuc on order from Alleghany Bee Farm, and a couple queens coming from Varner's. I'll produce the rest.)

If I'm a successful treatment free beek next year will depend on how close I come to those goals.

Have fun.
Enjoy your bees.

Kale Luce, Alleghany Bee Farm (716) 969-1046
Jason Varner, Varner's Bee Farm http://varnersbeefarm.webs.com/


----------



## rhaldridge

jim lyon said:


> Adam seems to have made a decision to broaden his exposure and his perspective. He has every right to speak up about his experiences.


Of course he does, as do we all, even ignorant beginners like me.

I'm also an admirer of Mike Palmer and his approach to beekeeping; he's influenced me greatly. Does that mean I must accept every one of his precepts without question? I will point out that one of Mike Palmer's mentors is Kirk Webster, who does not run his outfit as Mike Palmer runs his. Do you believe that makes Kirk Webster less of a beekeeper? Am I allowed to take Kirk Webster's views into consideration in forming my own opinions?

Do you truly believe that all is well in the beekeeping business and that there are no serious problems? We've had this discussion before, and I mentioned a number of commercial beekeepers who are complaining publicly of very high losses. It's not me saying these things, it's commercial beekeepers who have been in the business for generations. I'm glad that you haven't had such high losses, but do you think that's because you're a much better beekeeper than, for example, the Adees? I've also mentioned this before: prior to losing much of his outfit to CCD, John Miller attributed CCD to PPB (piss poor beekeeping.) He changed his tune.

I don't want to offend anyone. The only assertion I have made regarding my philosophy is that it seems crazy to me to try to get rid of bugs on bugs with bug killer. It doesn't seem to be working very reliably. I may well be wrong, but the fact that an industry that is experiencing serious difficulties treats with acaricides almost universally does not, to me, make a convincing argument. In fact, I would love for someone to explain to me how doing the same thing over and over is going to someday yield a different result. So far, the mites eventually develop resistance to whatever treatment is in vogue, and then everyone stampedes toward the next panacea. My objections to this approach are based on evolutionary precepts, for which there is a lot of evidence. I find these scientific arguments to be a lot more convincing than "everyone's doing it, so it must be right."

I come here hoping for civil discussion and most of the time, I get it. I don't call names, I don't tell people they're wrong and I'm right. I don't even make fun of the dumb things people sometimes say, because I've said plenty of dumb things myself and I'm sure that will continue. I just try to explain the reasoning I've used to form my opinions. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I do it because it's a useful way to examine my own reasoning, and I've changed my mind several times as a consequence of these discussions. For example, I no longer feel that neonicotinoids are the villains in the recent high losses.

But you know what? A lot of beekeepers still believe this, and some of them seem to have as much experience as you do.

The only point I was trying to convey in my last post is that "I'm experienced and you are not" is not actually an argument. It's true, but it doesn't prove anything. I hear it constantly here, and it annoys the living daylights out of me. I'm a beginner, not an idiot. My ignorance is vast, but I am able to research and evaluate an argument, and all I ask is that folks who make various assertions have some sort of plausible rationale for their beliefs.

If folks don't want to waste their time explaining their beliefs to me, that's fine. That's what the ignore function is for. But please don't waste my time by reminding me, ad nauseam, that I'm a beginner and that I ought to defer to my betters. That won't happen, and it will just irritate both of us.


----------



## rhaldridge

David LaFerney said:


> *rhaldridge*
> 
> Just about everyone wants to see treatment free to work out, but some people have a lot harder choice to make because their livelihood and their families relies on those choices. That isn't greedy, lazy, closed minded, stupid, evil or anything like those things.


Oh for heaven's sake. When did I say or imply anything remotely like that?


----------



## Oldtimer

That post was a great read Beregondo, your enthusiasm is infectious!


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> When did I say or imply anything remotely like that?


You didn't, it's a straw man. But it gets used all the time. Yeah, some ignorant loud mouthed newbee maybe said something like that once. But it wasn't you and it wasn't anyone here.


----------



## David LaFerney

Solomon Parker said:


> You didn't, it's a straw man. But it gets used all the time. Yeah, some ignorant loud mouthed newbee maybe said something like that once. But it wasn't you and it wasn't anyone here.


Actually it wasn't - it *was* misdirected to rhaldridge, there have been several people involved in this thread, and I was mistaken in thinking that he was the one who use the terms greedy and closed minded - Sorry about that rhaldridge. I did throw in "lazy stupid and evil" all on my own. No one said those that I can recall. Although it is a pretty long thread...

And by the way, starvation is a subset of malnutrition - look it up.


----------



## sqkcrk

Kirk Webster is Michael Palmer's mentor? Contemporary and friend, but I'd be surprised if Michael characterized Kirk as his Mentor. Charles Mraz maybe. I guess Michael would have to clear this up.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes that was pretty funny!


----------



## squarepeg

Beregondo said:


> Don't listen to the those who tell you treatment free is the only way to have healthy bees that survive.
> 
> Don't listen to those who say that the only way to have healthy bees that survive is to treat.
> 
> Listen to those who explain reasonably and don't make their preferred method a religion.


yep.


----------



## Oldtimer

Great post Adam, some astute observations.

Should be compulsory reading for all new Beesourcers!


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Oldtimer, you've been putting a great effort into exploring some of the treatment free theories as well, and then sharing your experiences here in detail for others to learn what they can from it. I've really appreciated that myself.

I'm certainly not trying to bash anyone, and as I say I believe treatment free can work. I just feel that it can be quite a challenge to succeed. Even if you begin with some great genetics from a treatment free beekeeper. If you're only a hobbiest, how long can you go before those genetics are thoroughly watered down by treated bees around you? I guess that's why I say that one of the possible way to succeed quickly is just to be really lucky - I guess you could live in an area where most of the bees around you are genetically able to tolerate mites without collapse...

Bottom line (and I think David's original point), is that it's not as easy as it is sometimes made to sound.

That does NOT mean that it isn't worth doing, or that it isn't the ultimate solution to the issue of mites, but it is a potentially challenging route to take.

Adam


----------



## Solomon Parker

David LaFerney said:


> And by the way, starvation is a subset of malnutrition - look it up.


Starvation in bees happens when bees run out of honey and die. What is malnutrition in the case of bees?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Adam Foster Collins said:


> If you're only a hobbiest, how long can you go before those genetics are thoroughly watered down by treated bees around you?


Does this suddenly happen one day? Is there some threshold where the genetics are watered down sufficiently for loads of hives to collapse at the same time? I don't see any evidence of that.

What I see is a continual process whereby the weak hives are continually pared off, every year, all year long. Since my last Fatbeeman hive died, I haven't missed a single hive that has died, because none of them were cutting it anyway. Those six hives that I purchased from him were good hives for the most part, they just couldn't survive our winters very well. Four of them died the first winter in hives full of honey. So they were good performers, but weren't adapted these conditions. None of the hives that have died since then, all year long, have been missed because they weren't doing well. Following an expansion model with efficient increase methods, I have been able to easily recoup my losses, dissolve and/or replace undesirable hives, and sell a few nucs and queens on the side.

I never promise no hive losses. In fact, I guarantee at least a few. I can only consult my own experience and make inferences and conclusions based on that. I see very little evidence of major genetic watering down or major effects that would cause treatment-free beekeeping to eventually fail. There are a number of us who now have at least a decade of experience in treatment-free beekeeping and no evidence that I can see that would lead to that conclusion.


----------



## rhaldridge

I just will add that it's my impression that genetics is not the only factor in treatment free success. If it were, everyone would just buy Bee Weaver queens and that would be that.

At any rate, every successful treatment free beekeeper that I'm aware of seems to have a lot of arrows in his quiver. Natural cell size, the avoidance when possible of feeding artificial stuff, brood breaks (if you're not a Bond keeper) and so on. I think it's likely that continuing success is the product of a lot of different practices, not just getting good stock.


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> At any rate, every successful treatment free beekeeper that I'm aware of seems to have a lot of arrows in his quiver. Natural cell size, the avoidance when possible of feeding artificial stuff, brood breaks (if you're not a Bond keeper) and so on. I think it's likely that continuing success is the product of a lot of different practices, not just getting good stock.


I agree with you largely, and other TF beeks do as well. It's not just genetics. But what else contributes and to what extent? There are users here who do not use smaller cell size. There are users who do not avoid feeding. There are users who do not use brood breaks. Also, let us not forget things like upper entrances, hive sizes, comb rotation, breeding and splitting methods, and many others.


----------



## Oldtimer

Having studied it for a while I've concluded it's luck.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Sol, I know you've been working on your approach for quite a long time, and I respect your input. I have gone to your blog a number of times, but cannot remember specifics at the moment. Did you begin your 10 years ago with one genetic strain that was supposed to be mite resistant? 

I don't think anything genetic "suddenly happens one day". But I am suggesting that any single trait bred into bees by a breeding program, certainly has the potential to be bred out once that breeding program is no longer followed, or the bees are allowed to mate openly. Whether it translates directly to mite resistance or not, and how long it takes - who knows? I'm really just trying to imagine the "easiest" or quickest routes to mite-resistant bees (buying them), and how likely that mite-resistant population is to remain stable and healthy.

You are selecting. And selecting and working over years, studying; recording your results. Working some more. Nothing you're saying or doing is countering the idea that it isn't simple.

Rhaldridge, you are also pointing to a variety of approaches. Trying to employ a selection of these and learning from the results takes considerable time and effort. No silver bullets. Work work work.

It's just not simple and clear cut. We're all working at finding routes to success. The debate comes from variations in results and the fact that there are few clear answers for the questions:

How best to deal with mites? Does going treatment free really work?


----------



## squarepeg

i guess if one imported queens who were bred for a specific trait, (vsh for example), there might be a tendency to see that trait diluted over time.

one the other hand, if one were selecting for survivors and/or deselecting for nonsurvivors (or even deselecting for non-thrivers), and if there was a decent drone contribution from surviving ferals, the traits or combination of traits that promote survival off treatments would tend to become more concentrated over time.

i agree that it does take time for a program like this to bear fruit. i would also wager that the colonies from each and every daughter queen from even the most proven queen mother are not all going to perform the same.

this is the dilemma for the beginner with a low number of hives wanting to be treatment free.

i was lucky to get bees that were derived from local feral survivors. this supplier now has a 16 year history of no treatments. this is my fourth season with these bees and i have been able to steadily grow my apiary with them off treatments.

(clarification: i had a few hives purchased from another source, one of which developed afb. that hive was burned, and the others from this source and their splits received a one time treatment of tylosin. i still have two colonies that trace back to these bees, and all of the rest are from the treatment free supplier. i have not used treatments for mites on any of the colonies)

i hope to be able to start selling nucs this year or next. but if i have a beginner purchasing my bees, i will make no guarentees that they will survive off treatments, and i will encourage them to take measures to keep a colony from collapsing if it gets in trouble. 

i believe that requeening in hopes of getting better survivabilty makes more sense that allowing a colony to crash, especially for someone with a small number of colonies. some would argue that it is possible for a hive to recover from the brink of collapse, and that those are really proven survivors. i think that's more risk than i want to take. beginners will have to balance that out for themselves.


----------



## rhaldridge

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Nothing you're saying or doing is countering the idea that it isn't simple.


Who is saying that it *is* simple? I still haven't seen any examples of this idea. Who have you been reading or listening to that has said that treatment free beekeeping is simple? Was it someone you had any reason to take seriously?

Honestly, I wish the folks who are implying that beginners take up treatment free beekeeping because someone told them it would be easy or simple or surefire would give us some examples of this actually happening. Maybe some completely clueless newbee might have expressed such a hope, but who would take that seriously? I spent literally hundreds of hours this winter trying to learn everything I could about beekeeping, and I don't recall seeing that notion put forward even once. There's a huge difference between saying "I succeeded at treatment free beekeeping" and saying "I succeeded at treatment free beekeeping *and there was nothing to it*."

To me, it seems as if you are worrying about an incorrect attitude that doesn't actually exist.

Every credible source I've read has said that going treatment free is tough and that losses must be expected. Where did you hear different?


----------



## Oldtimer

It's easier cos you don't have to "mess with all those chemicals", and it's cheaper.

That idea has definitely been eschewed. But lately, by which I mean the last year or two, things have got a bit more real.

Also, a lot of the more misleading stuff has been said by beginners without much experience. But other beginners still read them and take the message, same as any beginners reading you and assume you must know what you are talking about. So why not believe any other rank nubee?


----------



## WLC

While I think that it is at least the same amount of work as standard beekeeping, if not more, I wouldn't characterize treatment free beekeeping as any more challenging than standard beekeeping. You'll need to use alot of the same equipment and mnagement practices anyway.

It's easy to obtain suitable bees whether you get them from Bee Weaver, or they're VSH, or you get them from another source.

The challenge of establishing a treatment free apiary isn't much different from a standard apiary. It takes time (and money) to figure out what works.

There is one statement that was made regarding not needing to do mite counts because the affected colonies would be culled. I think that is a mistake since you want to avoid having resistant colonies that have significant mite counts and high virus titers that can have an adverse local impact.

This abstract on pathogen spillover can help you understand why all treatment free colonies aren't desirable:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21735887

In my opinion, it's just beekeeping, but 'different'.


----------



## Bobcat

WLC said:


> While I think that it is at least the same amount of work as standard beekeeping, if not more, I wouldn't characterize treatment free beekeeping as any more challenging than standard beekeeping. You'll need to use alot of the same equipment and mnagement practices anyway.
> 
> It's easy to obtain suitable bees whether you get them from Bee Weaver, or they're VSH, or you get them from another source.
> 
> The challenge of establishing a treatment free apiary isn't much different from a standard apiary. It takes time (and money) to figure out what works.
> 
> There is one statement that was made regarding not needing to do mite counts because the affected colonies would be culled. I think that is a mistake since you want to avoid having resistant colonies that have significant mite counts and high virus titers that can have an adverse local impact.
> 
> This abstract on pathogen spillover can help you understand why all treatment free colonies aren't desirable:
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21735887
> 
> In my opinion, it's just beekeeping, but 'different'.



Newbee last year:

I have done nothing except not treat and started with 5 nucs last year. Over wintered them and i am up to 12 this year and plan to split again as soon as the snow melts. ya, snow. What the luck in Kansas. 

It is possible! Time will tell, as it has for others.

God Bless


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> While I think that it is at least the same amount of work as standard beekeeping, if not more, I wouldn't characterize treatment free beekeeping as any more challenging than standard beekeeping. You'll need to use alot of the same equipment and mnagement practices anyway.
> 
> It's easy to obtain suitable bees whether you get them from Bee Weaver, or they're VSH, or you get them from another source.
> 
> The challenge of establishing a treatment free apiary isn't much different from a standard apiary. It takes time (and money) to figure out what works.
> 
> There is one statement that was made regarding not needing to do mite counts because the affected colonies would be culled. I think that is a mistake since you want to avoid having resistant colonies that have significant mite counts and high virus titers that can have an adverse local impact.
> 
> This abstract on pathogen spillover can help you understand why all treatment free colonies aren't desirable:
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21735887
> 
> In my opinion, it's just beekeeping, but 'different'.





well stated, and i agree with all of that. welcome back wlc.

monitoring for and dealing with severely infested colonies is the responsible approach.

mites and the associated viruses are spread by strong colonies robbing out dwindling colonies.

why put your healthy colonies, your neighbor's colonies, feral colonies, and native pollinators at risk unecessarily?


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> monitoring for and dealing with severely infested colonies is the responsible approach.


How do you "deal with severely infested colonies"?


----------



## WLC

Sugar dusting, grease patties with essential oils, 'medicinal' smoker fuel, requeen with high VSH, brood breaks/splitting....

It's better to try than to let the hive become a local problem and die in my opinion.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks. But how is that "Treatment Free"? Isn't sugar dusting an Off Label usage? What is "medicinal smoker fuel"?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Looks like someone is forgetting what forum they are in again.

Medicinal smoker fuel is a red herring, that's what it is Mark.


----------



## WLC

It's more IPM than orthodox treatment free. Juniper is considered 'medicinal' smoke since it drops alot of mites.

Mitigating pathogen spillover is more important than being orthodox in my opinion.


----------



## WLC

It's more IPM than orthodox treatment free. Juniper is considered 'medicinal' smoke since it drops alot of mites.

Mitigating pathogen spillover is more important than being orthodox in my opinion.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> Looks like someone is forgetting what forum they are in again.


Leave that stuff to the moderator.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

Post #63, Bernard says he has noticed that there is a correlation between taking honey from a hive and its survival. I'm glad to see that someone else is thinking about this. I have been mulling around whether one of the keys to the higher overwinter survival rate of nucs is that they do not have their honey taken; I suspect that there is something protective in a set-up that allows a colony to prepare for winter from the moment it is set-up and has all summer to do it. I am enjoying the civil tone of this thread. Beesource at its best.


----------



## WLC

I haven't forgotten Sol.

That's why it says 'IMO'.

You forgot to comment on this...

"...requeen with high VSH, brood breaks/splitting...."

Pathogen Spillover of Honeybee viruses into native pollinators has been demonstrated by a number of studies. It's not hypothetical.

I think that it's a good 'first step' to avoid this pitfall.

IMO.


----------



## squarepeg

sqkcrk said:


> How do you "deal with severely infested colonies"?


great question mark.

as is 'what do you consider a severely infested hive?'

since most of the tf beekeepers participating here don't take mite counts, none of them have been able to tell me what levels of infestation are being tolerated by their colonies.

i'll be trying to figure that out for my bees by using the alcohol wash method, and correlating mite counts to colony observations.

the ones with the highest counts will likely be dequeened, given a brood break, dusted, and split up into nucs for overwintering.


----------



## WLC

By the way, medicinal smoker fuel is from 'Crowder'.

Maybe he's Sol's competitor?

There's nothing in the forum rules that states that 100% of your hives must be treatment free. 

I think that it's OK to remove a sick hive from the 'treatment free group' and put it in the 'MAQII, IPM Organic' group'.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> Leave that stuff to the moderator.


Yeah, we used to have one of those.


----------



## Oldtimer

The current moderation appears to allow for the free thinkers among us, which has to be good.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Announcement: This is now the "Treament-Free (while they're not being treated) Beekeeping Forum." 

What a crock of hooey.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well no, don't get so sore.

I saw some advice given that was perfectly sound, and had nothing to do with treating / not treating. But you said the guy shouldn't post here cos he's not a TF beekeeper. 

However he answered the question that was asked & saying he couldn't do that just on the basis of who he is, is over the top. Are you allowed to post on the commercial forum? Of course you are.

You may have to accept the moderation, same as the rest of us Sol.


----------



## D Semple

WLC said:


> There's nothing in the forum rules that states that 100% of your hives must be treatment free.
> 
> I think that it's OK to remove a sick hive from the 'treatment free group' and put in the 'MAQII, IPM Organic' group'.



Practical recommendation WLC, welcome back.


Good thread folks. 

Don


----------



## VolunteerK9

WLC said:


> I think that it's OK to remove a sick hive from the 'treatment free group' and put in the 'MAQII, IPM Organic' group'.



So it's considered a treatment free hive until there is a noted problem and then its treated? Isn't that what the majority of us do anyways :scratch:


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> However he answered the question that was asked & saying he couldn't do that just on the basis of who he is, is over the top. Are you allowed to post on the commercial forum? Of course you are.


Whenever I post there the first thing Jim Lyon does is tell me to get out because I have day job. You know that. He does not heed his own words here.

Secondly, "Ask Questions Here" is a thread for me to answer questions. 



> But what I can do and what I like to do is answer questions. So I want to give everybody the free and explicit opportunity to ask serious questions. If you want to be treatment-free, or if you are weighing your options, ask away. I want to help you. I'm not going to be answering challenges or defending my methods or viewpoint. I want to help you if you want to be helped. I want to tell you what you want to know, not what you want to hear. I had tons of questions and many of them will be the same ones you are asking now. You can even go back to 2003 and see them for yourself in the archives.


So if you can somehow interpret that to mean that Jim Lyon, a commercial treating and feeding beekeeper, ought to be answering questions addressed to me, you're missing something.


----------



## David LaFerney

Solomon Parker said:


> Starvation in bees happens when bees run out of honey and die. What is malnutrition in the case of bees?


Starvation IS malnutrition. There are other forms of malnutrition besides starvation. For one thing even natural forage isn't a monolithic thing - For example I'm willing to bet that some pollen has a higher protein content than others. I know for a fact that some nectar is as thin as water, while other flows are syrupy when they appear in the hive. It seems like I've read that some forage sources are toxic.

Just a guess - but most likely there are also other variations in nutrients between different forage sources - vitamins, minerals, different sugars. When there is a dearth, bees will take whatever they can find from any source - including residue from soft drink containers. Bee keepers feeding HFCS is surely not the only cause of malnutrition for bees. 

So, when I said malnutrition that is what I meant - improper, or inadequate nutrition including starvation, but not exclusively starvation. And after looking it up in several sources I am fairly confident that I was using the word correctly.

But all that being said, feel free to point out any spelling or punctuation errors that I make while you are at it. Please allow me to apologize in advance - I'm sure there are plenty of them.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> Whenever I post there the first thing Jim Lyon does is tell me to get out because I have day job. You know that.


Well no I didn't know that. 

I've seen you post there. 

And nobody had a problem with it.

The only reaction I've seen is when you offered to run someone's hives for them, and that was rejected, but in good humour.

Bottom line, you feel free to post there, and you do post there.


----------



## sqkcrk

So, what's Step 2?


----------



## Oldtimer

David LaFerney said:


> But all that being said, feel free to point out any spelling or punctuation errors that I make while you are at it.


 Ha Ha I love the humour in this place!


----------



## jbeshearse

Malnutrition can occur when Bees collect and consume poor quality pollen. In our area the summer titi bush is an example. If you live in an area of lots of summer titi your bees will forage on it. Feeding it to larva results in "purple Brood". Which ends in dead pupae from poor nutritional value if the summer titi. Look it up if you wish. 

The strange thing is that a sister plant, the spring titi is excellent forage and nectar producing plant. 

Something can starve to death eating a poor nutritional value food. A root plant in Africa comes to mind as does cellulose.


----------



## Solomon Parker

David LaFerney said:


> feel free to point out any spelling or punctuation errors that I make while you are at it.


Is this really necessary David? I have never corrected your spelling or grammar, much less anyone else's. Though I feel brain cells dying when I see someone misspell "hobbyist.":waiting: I simply disagree with how the term malnutrition is commonly used in reference to beekeeping. A malnourished (but not starving) child is a totally different thing than a malnourished (but not starving) bee. They are totally different things. Maybe you can see how I might not agree with the same word being used for both. No straw men about correcting your spelling and grammar are necessary.


----------



## Oldtimer

Straw men?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> The only reaction I've seen is when you offered to run someone's hives for them, and that was rejected, but in good humour.


That person offered for me to manage their operation, then when I volunteered, they quickly retracted. It may have been in good humor, but it was not in good faith.

And no, I do not feel free to post there because of the aforementioned reason (Jim Lyon and the other commercial beekeepers who do not welcome any not perceived to be of their fraternity). I have asked for a forum related to non-commercial for profit beekeeping, and the idea received a lot of support, but it has been forgotten.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> Straw men?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> And no, I do not feel free to post there.


I have SEEN you post there. 

I haven't seen you being made unwelcome, but even if you have been it is untrue to say you don't post there.

While you might have your opinions about who can post where, end of day that will be for the moderator to decide, and that will be based on content rather than who it is.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh thanks for telling me what the straw man is. Now I'll be able to put a name on it when someone does it to me! 

Or, maybe that's not a good thing.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> it is untrue to say you don't post there.


"I do not *FEEL FREE TO* post there." Which words are you missing in this sentence?


----------



## jim lyon

I am pretty sure folks aren't checking into the treatment free forum to hear about Sol's perceived problems with posting on the commercial forum nor do they want to hear my defense. My only comment would be that former moderators should know better than anyone that criticism of moderation has never been tolerated on this or any other forum.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> . "Ask Questions Here" is a thread for me to answer questions.


this is a thread like any other thread on beesource sol, and contributors are free to weigh in as they see fit.

trying to control the content and stifling input from others didn't work, remember?

i felt that asking someone to move on because their approach is different than yours was wrong and violated the spirit of the free exchange of ideas that makes beesource what it is.

maybe your personal blogspot is the place for what you would like this thread to be.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I'm not criticizing moderation, I'm simply saying there is none. Surely if there was, there would be some pretty obvious evidence.


----------



## Oldtimer

Bit touchy today?

My understanding when someone says they do not feel free to do something, is that they don't do it. If I said I wasn't free to do something, that's what I would mean.

You do do it, why not just fess up instead of insinuating otherwise?

My point is, you post there, so don't get wound up if they post in some other place.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> trying to control the content and stifling input from others didn't work, remember?


What on earth are you even talking about?


----------



## Oldtimer

Like, you don't know?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> if they post in some other place.


I posted in a thread on treatment-free beekeeping, you know that. I am one. He isn't. Yet he feels no compunction about posting in the treatment-free forum in threads not related to commercial beekeeping. 

The only equivalence is that we both complain about the other. What's the problem?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> If I said I wasn't free to do something,...


Again, I didn't say that. Which word are you missing?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> Like, you don't know?


Yeah, I don't know. I was under the impression that the Treatment-Free Beekeeping forum was for talking about treatment-free beekeeping. I operated as a moderator under that assumption.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> Again, I didn't say that. Which word are you missing?


It's the old word games again Sol. Implying something, then when called, claiming you didn't actually say that, word for word, and whatever. But that's not really honest. Is it.

Bottom line, you DO post on the commercial forum. Which means you obviously DO feel free to post there.

But hey. This argument is so pathetic I don't even know how I'm in it. I will say I've been moderated myself which is never good at the time but I've come to see that the moderator has his reasons for the way he runs the site. He is always being told how he should do his job but end of day he runs his site his way, accept it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Again, Alistair, which words are you missing?


----------



## jim lyon

Read up while you can folks, most of this will be gone by sundown.


----------



## Oldtimer

You are likely right Jim. Word games and dross.

And Sol, call me Oldtimer.


----------



## R Dewhurst

Oldtimer said:


> Well no, don't get so sore.
> 
> I saw some advice given that was perfectly sound, and had nothing to do with treating / not treating. But you said the guy shouldn't post here cos he's not a TF beekeeper.


If that was the case, then the OP would of never been able to start this thread.


----------



## squarepeg

jim lyon said:


> Read up while you can folks, most of this will be gone by sundown.


a side effect of funky weather, we should all be out in the beeyards!


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> Word games and dross.
> 
> And Sol, call me Oldtimer.


It's interesting how you use the charge of "word games" to cover your lack of reading comprehension. They're just words, no games involved. Remember yesterday when you claimed that someone said they had lost no hives after going treatment free and you conveniently left out the words "to pestilence" even though you quoted them, just like you did here today? When you leave out words in the middle of a sentence, it changes the meaning. We cannot be held responsible for your inability to read what's on the screen. My words speak for themselves. If you would like clarification, simply ask. Don't continue to tell me I said something when the words are right there on the screen where everyone can see.

And call me Solomon or Mr. Parker, not Sol, not Parker, and not anything else. I have the responsibility for my words to appear under my own real name.


----------



## squarepeg

just like old times.

i mentioned once in a pm that my favorite members of beesource were also my nemeses. 

and mark, step 2 should probably be to maintain a sense of humor. 

the sun just popped out, going to check on the bees. 

still a good thread, many thanks to all for posting.


----------



## sqkcrk

So, apparently, Step 2 is arguing about nothing related to the subject of the Thread.

"feel", the missing word is "feel".


----------



## Solomon Parker

Back on topic, if you want to put actual steps on it, I would put ordering bees somewhere around step 5 or maybe even later. In fact, I'd recommend trying to catch swarms before ordering things. Why take shortcuts? Read, research, visit a beekeeper, work that person's bees a few times, read, ask questions in forums, buy or make equipment (make being preferred if possible), assemble equipment, catch swarms, and if that doesn't work, order bees. 

Did I take all these steps? No, no one told me about any steps.

Since one wants to do this treatment-free, one ought to consult treatment-free sources, beekeepers, books, forums, websites, etc.

As far as moving from treating to not treating, never done it. You'll have to ask someone else.


----------



## David LaFerney

Solomon Parker said:


> Is this really necessary David? I have never corrected your spelling or grammar, much less anyone else's. Though I feel brain cells dying when I see someone misspell "hobbyist.":waiting: I simply disagree with how the term malnutrition is commonly used in reference to beekeeping. A malnourished (but not starving) child is a totally different thing than a malnourished (but not starving) bee. They are totally different things. Maybe you can see how I might not agree with the same word being used for both. No straw men about correcting your spelling and grammar are necessary.


What started that particular part of this spiral is when you said something to the effect that it bothered you when people misuse the word malnutrition when what they really mean is starvation. Which implied that I didn't understand either what I was saying or what I meant - or was actually using the word incorrectly. *None of that was the case, nor did it really have anything to do with the subject or content of the thread.* It was merely a criticism of my ability to communicate - in the same family of poor "netiquette" as picking at spelling and punctuation IMHO. My "Straw Man" was an attempt to communicate to you in a non confrontational way that I didn't appreciate it. I probably took it too personally and responded in a sarcastic manner.

I suppose you *could* say that I was being passive aggressive. *If* this were a forum on psychology.


----------



## Solomon Parker

David, I'm sorry if something came off wrong. This is a text based medium. It's better to assume people are implying nothing.

I said what I meant. I disagree with the way people use the word "malnutrition." No criticism of your netiquette or your grammar or your ability to communicate or your spelling or your punctuation or your sarcasm.

I hope we can move ahead in this new context because you're going to be finding me disagreeing with a whole lot of stuff and it won't have anything to do with you personally unless it's directed at you by name (which as you see here I have no compunctions about doing).

I don't even recall if you're the one who misspelled hobbyist. I don't hold any grudges. In fact, to be honest, that's how this whole argument got started. I decided I'd be charitable and remove everyone from my ignore list. How naive could I have been? My fault. I know full well that all these blow ups here are in large part my fault. I'm not in denial anymore. It really is me.


----------



## David LaFerney

Very good. Thanks. I suspect we could have many enjoyable and friendly discussions if we were to ever meet in person. I hope that happens. I really am an awful speller so it probably was me.


----------



## Solomon Parker

David, I agree. I really am a decent guy, I just have a problem staying out of arguments.


----------



## David LaFerney

I have no doubt that you are a decent guy and a knowledgeable beekeeper. I can relate - I have a hole bitten through my own tongue.


----------



## squarepeg

:applause:


----------



## WLC

Sol:

I think that step 1 should be deciding how you're going to deal with the sick colonies that aren't 'resistant'.

Step 2 should be deciding where you'll get bee since you need to order them months in advance. (No, I don't get a crack at swarms here in the city, Tony Bees and Andy have it sewn up!)

Step 3 getting everything else ready.


----------



## WLC

I might add another item as step 1 after having read a post on state by state bee laws...

Become familiar with local bee laws.

I found something in the law of Vermont for example that might require dealing with diseased colonies:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullchapter.cfm?Title=06&Chapter=172


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> your lack of reading comprehension. Remember yesterday when you claimed that someone said they had lost no hives after going treatment free and you conveniently left out the words "to pestilence" even though you quoted them,


Isn't making it seem like I said something I didn't, a straw man Solomon? well, that's what you just did to me and you do it constantly. I did not miss out the word pestilence when I quoted them, that's just your lack of reading comprehension. Here is a link to the post, post #19
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?281739-Confused
You did not comprehend what was said. When I quoted them the quote was a cut and paste, exactly what they said. It included the words "and pestilence" that you are so worried about. When I was talking about what is said generically on the TF forum, I didn't use the words "and pestilence" constantly, I wasn't quoting any particular person either. Check your own reading comprehension.



Solomon Parker said:


> And call me Solomon or Mr. Parker, not Sol, not Parker, and not anything else.


You once asked me to call you Sol. Changed your mind now? Everybody calls you Sol.

Didn't want to dredge up the argument again, but don't appreciate being lied about.


----------



## WLC

Having reviewed a bunch of the state bee laws, I would say that step 1 would be to become familiar with the laws of your state, and that you should have a nuisance abatement plan for dealing with sick/nonresistant colonies.


----------



## RiodeLobo

And to rekindle the fire...

"Starvation is a severe deficiency in caloric energy, nutrient, and vitamin intake. It is the most extreme form of malnutrition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

I think it is fair to say that there are plenty of beekeepers who experience large losses who use chemicals. Just as many (or more) than those who use no treatments or non standard methods like sugar dusting.

In comparison to other agricultural pursuits I firmly believe that the keeping of bees is furthest behind in getting educated information to new beekeepers and to those who would make beekeeping their livelihood. Other farm pursuits such as cattle, swine, poultry, etc. are more common and have much better, easier information on the subject. 

That being said, there will always be those who get in and get out. Be it cattle, bees, or alpacas. 

Anyone who expects success right away is kidding themselves. I keep bees and farm fulltime. Tell me about the learning curves!

Even so, success (whether fulltime or getting the honey from two hives) needs to one day, (at least) pay for itself in my book. 

We need to all as a whole be better bee propagators. That should be a standard fundamental yet it seems not near as many do it successfully as there needs to be. It does not have to be about grafting cells. Just making splits is sufficient and good practice for all beekeepers. Creating local stocks use to local flows and local weather conditions needs to be encouraged through educating.

There are so many different ways beekeepers are keeping their bees with little to no intervention. Chemical free beekeeping is not only is possible but it should be encouraged. Of course the proper education is needed to insure a new beekeeper or a (transitioning chemical one) makes profitable and wise choices.

Chemical beekeeping is now the old way. It will be hard to get rid of because of all the invested money behind the products. 

Things will not get better for the honeybee or the keeper until beekeepers learn how to be more locally sustainable again.


----------



## squarepeg

good post kamon.


----------



## rhaldridge

Kamon, that was the most sensible post in the thread.

My favorite line:



> Chemical beekeeping is now the old way.


----------



## squarepeg

rh, chemical beekeeping is the 'old way' in the same way that using gasoline in automobiles is the old way. there are alternatives in the cue, and in time the 'new' ways will undoubtedly be transforming, but in the meantime we have to carry on. 

randy oliver and jim lyon are just two examples of well reasoned commercial beekeepers looking for safer, less contaminating, and more sustainable alternatives to the synthetic miticides. 

i believe that if left alone in nature the honeybee and the mite would achieve a proper parasite/host equilibrium.

but we house our bees in an artificial cavity, moleste them on a regular basis, crowd colonies in close proximity to each other, alter their diet, and steal resources from them.

i believe these added stressors we impose create challenges to our kept bees not experienced by bees in the wild. it seems reasonable that our kept bees would be affected by these challenges and be more likely to manifest problems coping with diseases and pests.

my feeling is that if we are going to impose these unatural conditions to our kept bees, then it seems a little bit unfair to them to not be willing to step in and help them out if they get in dire straights.

that being said, i am pursuing keeping my apiary off treatments in hopes that i can achieve a balance between exploiting them for a return on investment of time and money vs. keeping things as natural as possible.

so far i have been able to replenish losses with splits and caught swarms, and i'll be starting this year to rear queens from my best colonies. i have described my plan of action for dealing with a dying colony so as to not let it be a threat to other colonies.

propagating bees that can survive what we put them through without chemical assistance makes sense to me, and changing genetics is as easy as replacing the queen. 

preventing a collapse by stepping in with either a mechanical treatment (dusting) or non-contaminating chemical (organic acids) also makes sense to me. the resources are not wasted, the risk to nearby colonies is reduced, and new genetics can be introduced.

jmho, but i see this as the more likely 'new' way forward than 'live and let die'.


----------



## Solomon Parker

RiodeLobo said:


> "Starvation is a severe deficiency in caloric energy, nutrient, and vitamin intake. It is the most extreme form of malnutrition."


And so, in reference to honeybees, malnutrition might refer to a situation in which a hive has all the bulk it needs, being stocked with sugar syrup and pollen substitute, therefore being provided with caloric energy and protein, yet being deficient in minerals, nutrients, and vitamins (if bees do in fact require vitamins as humans do). Similarly, starvation would be the critical and generally fatal condition of lack of caloric energy, stored honey/syrup.




Kamon Reynolds said:


> We need to all as a whole be better bee propagators.


I absolutely agree, which is why after consulting with Sam Comfort and borrowing from his ideas, I have begun adjusting and referring to my overall method as Expansion Model Beekeeping. Much talk is wasted on how many hives die and treating when energy should be invested in learning techniques of expansion. Numbers lost are irrelevant when numbers gained are equal or higher. I am as guilty as the next man of transparently reporting winter losses, but not putting so much focus on spring and summer expansion. Last year, I went from ten colonies to 23 after selling nucs and queens and after summer losses. So it's really pointless to talk about that one colony I lost over the winter, isn't it?




squarepeg said:


> chemical beekeeping is the 'old way' in the same way that using gasoline in automobiles is the old way.


And that's why I have an electric car.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> And that's why I have an electric car.


for some reason that doesn't take me by surprise solomon.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> Much talk is wasted on how many hives die and treating when energy should be invested in learning techniques of expansion. Numbers lost are irrelevant when numbers gained are equal or higher.


kinda reminds me of what michael palmer has been saying for awhile now.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes, Solomons methods are getting more like commercial beekeepers all the time.


----------



## Oldtimer

Kamon Reynolds said:


> I think it is fair to say that there are plenty of beekeepers who experience large losses who use chemicals. Just as many (or more) than those who use no treatments or non standard methods like sugar dusting.


If that was true nobody would actually use chemicals.


----------



## WLC

All beekeepers use chemicals. It's just a matter of what kind.


----------



## rhaldridge

WLC said:


> All beekeepers use chemicals. It's just a matter of what kind.


True. I did use glue to put my boxes and frames together. 

Oh, you mean like... I do metabolize glucose?


----------



## WLC

Tut, tut, tut..

Don't forget plastic frames, coated with pesticide contaminated bees wax. Smoker fuel is a truly broad source of unusual chemicals.

Yes, you can feed HFCS according to the subjective rules of the forum.


----------



## Oldtimer

Isn't beeswax a chemical?


----------



## squarepeg

technically speaking, everything is a chemical.


----------



## sqkcrk

How do you Delete a Post?


----------



## Solomon Parker

And that's why this is the Treatment-Free Forum. It's about the bees, not about what's in the honey.


----------



## WLC

Sol:

As I pointed out a while ago, the beeswax supply is contamininated with mg. quantities of pesticides. If you use commercial foundation or coated frames, guess what?

So, one of the other steps to treatment free beekeeping is figuring out how to avoid that pitfall.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> How do you Delete a Post?


Administrator is the only one who can fully delete a post. All you can do is edit it.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Going foundationless fixes that but takes a little more work. (it's worth it) and so much cheaper.

Just so we don't have anymore rocket scientist type remarks..... everything is made up of chemicals duh.

Everything has a positive or negative effect. Though it might not be direct. There are over 800 known mites and microbes in a healthy hive less than 1% are damaging to the bee. Some help ferment bee bread and other such useful things.

Treating bees for varroa kills the majority of the good guys with the bad. 

I do agree there are times to use feed. Though I will never be convinced that there is any feed better than nectar and honey. If the difference between a worker and a queen is the diet of a matter of days then I want only the best for my stock. I am not a big fan of feeding queen rearing hives artificial feed. Also HFCS is commonly known to have a host of pesticide and herbicidal residue.

Sure bottom line is that it is best to keep bees from these harmful chemicals. But like the human body honeybees thankfully can stand a certain degree of chemical presence. The less the better. 

Each of us has different variables to deal with so who can judge those who aren't as far along as the other? Rome was not built........

But as my Grandpa always says your either growing or dying.


----------



## rhaldridge

WLC said:


> Tut, tut, tut..
> 
> Don't forget plastic frames, coated with pesticide contaminated bees wax. Smoker fuel is a truly broad source of unusual chemicals.


Wood frames in my hives, no foundation. I use pine needles from the woods in my smoker, untreated. Actually, though I always have it nearby, I really haven't used it yet, except once when there were a lot of bees in the air, orienting.

I hope you're not taking the tack my 93 year old uncle takes. When I tell him I'm an organic gardener, he snorts and says, "Everyone is an organic gardener." 

He's referring to that organic chemistry course he took 60 years ago.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Sol:
> 
> As I pointed out a while ago, the beeswax supply is contamininated with mg. quantities of pesticides. If you use commercial foundation or coated frames, guess what?
> 
> So, one of the other steps to treatment free beekeeping is figuring out how to avoid that pitfall.


His name is Solomon and the bees bring pesticides into the hive w/ the nectar. So bees are in effect chemically treating themselves. I believe that the premiss of TF beekeeping is the beekeeper not intentionally treating colonies w/ miticides or antibiotics.


----------



## WLC

I think I can still call him Sol. We're 'frenemies'. 

Yes, sqkcrk, bees will bring contaminants into the hive. This includes radioisotopes as well!


----------



## Solomon Parker

I believe Mr. WLC threw a fit last time someone called him something he didn't like. Got the moderator involved and everything.


----------



## WLC

I'm still waitng for Barry to apologize. :banana:


----------



## squarepeg

Kamon Reynolds said:


> Just so we don't have anymore rocket scientist type remarks..... everything is made up of chemicals duh.
> 
> Everything has a positive or negative effect.



i'm not a rocket scientist kamom, but i am degreed in neurophysiology. (mark, i can see why you wanted to delete your similar comment). the point i was trying to make is that all of nature is chemistry and i believe it's a bit arbitrary to label substances good, bad, or otherwise based on if they occur naturally or are synthesized by humans. 

it's more accurate to say that (most) everything has a positive _and_ negative effect. i assume the varroa treatment you are referring to is the use of an organic acid, which some have shown to alter gut microbia. the positive effect of eliminating death by varroa has to be balanced by the negative effect of possibly altering gut microbia. 

all treatments (as well as no treatments) have to be assessed in terms of the risk vs. the benefit ratio. and as you well point out, those get to be determined by the individual and are generally based on what outcome is being sought. no judgement here.

sorry for the duh.. comment.


----------



## gmcharlie

David LaFerney said:


> I'm going to add one - very judicious honey harvesting. I'm under the impression that a lot of TF guys either leave a very large amt of honey or don't really treat it as a product at all.




Here here,,,, which always begs the point to me of why???but that another thread


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> I'm still waitng for Barry to apologize. :banana:


Looks like things will heat up again if you're going to continue to detract from the goal and purpose of this forum. It's sounding like trolling to me. 

We've already been down this little country road before:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-please-explain-the-Foundationless-hype-to-me
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...pment-be-considered-a-treatment-in-this-forum

btw WLC, how are those rooftop hives of yours doing? Did they all make it through the winter?


----------



## Barry

Originally Posted by *David LaFerney*  I'm going to add one - very judicious honey harvesting. I'm under the impression that a lot of TF guys either leave a very large amt of honey or don't really treat it as a product at all.





gmcharlie said:


> Here here,,,, which always begs the point to me of why???but that another thread


I can't speak to the "a lot of TF guys" comment, but I will say by "judicious", I make sure to leave enough honey with the bees for them to make it through the winter. Doesn't everyone? I do it with their own honey, others do it by feeding. I still average 5 gallons of honey from each hive.


----------



## rhaldridge

Barry said:


> Originally Posted by *David LaFerney*  I'm going to add one - very judicious honey harvesting. I'm under the impression that a lot of TF guys either leave a very large amt of honey or don't really treat it as a product at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak to the "a lot of TF guys" comment, but I will say by "judicious", I make sure to leave enough honey with the bees for them to make it through the winter. Doesn't everyone? I do it with their own honey, others do it by feeding. I still average 5 gallons of honey from each hive.


Yeah, that's a frequent red herring in discussions that devolve into how impractical treatment free beekeeping must be. But... there's evidence that this is a fairly silly criticism. Tims Ives does not feed. Period. He takes a dozen mediums (sometimes quite a bit more) from many of his hives, pulling honey 3 times a season. He's figured out how to take many times the average amount of honey, and he does not treat or feed. He tells me that a couple beekeepers in his area have adopted his techniques and are doing just as well or better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXESkk7ZhXs


----------



## squarepeg

incredible, a full medium yeilds about 3 gallons of honey @ 12 lbs per gallon. that's 36 lbs. per medium times 12 or more. thats harvesting 400 lbs or more per hive with leaving enough for a three deep colony to overwinter on in northern indiana.


----------



## gmcharlie

I watched Tims videos.... not impressive at all... hes running 3 deeps for brood, and useing a ladder...... with 3 deeps as brood, he should be filling a super a week, all year...... looks to me to be a poor use of wooden ware, and a nightmare for the back... and where the bees in those supers??


----------



## squarepeg

to each his own, but there's no way i would want to work those skyscraper hives.

my guess is that those 12 or more supers harvested weren't completely full of honey, but i'm only speculating. 

rh mentions that 'tim does not feed', but the first box removed in the unwrapping video is a feeding rim, probably for mountain camped dry sugar.

i not trying to play 'gotcha' here. tim has some unique management practices, i wish he was willing and able to share them here on the forum.


----------



## WLC

Barry, they starved. I took the opportunity to switch from VSH to Bee Weavers though.


----------



## rhaldridge

squarepeg said:


> to each his own, but there's no way i would want to work those skyscraper hives.
> 
> my guess is that those 12 or more supers harvested weren't completely full of honey, but i'm only speculating.
> 
> rh mentions that 'tim does not feed', but the first box removed in the unwrapping video is a feeding rim, probably for mountain camped dry sugar.
> 
> i not trying to play 'gotcha' here. tim has some unique management practices, i wish he was willing and able to share them here on the forum.


He's an accessible guy. He seems to be too busy to waste his time here, but he's responded to me, once I found his email.

I found a listing online of his harvesting schedule, and figured out that he seemed to be taking 600 to 700 lbs of honey from his boomers. He has stated explicitly to me that he does not feed. I believe it because he's also said that he used to be a sugar addict himself. He started keeping bees right after he stopped eating sugar.

I'm not the only person who has found Tim's hives impressive. Randy Oliver has too.

But what does he know, right?


----------



## squarepeg

wow, that is impressive. if you mean 600-700 lbs from each boomer, that's pushing 20 medium supers harvested and still leaving enough for winter with no feeding. got to be an all time record.

i'm no olympian, but i'm in decent shape. a full medium super is about as much weight as my lower back can handle.

i had a couple of hives reach four mediums over a single deep last year, and that fourth one was just a little bit too high for my liking. going up and down a ladder with them would not be for me. 

obviously tim's in great shape and doesn't mind tearing those big hives down each time he adds a super, as he likes to put each new one above the third deep.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> I found a listing online of his harvesting schedule, and figured out that he seemed to be taking 600 to 700 lbs of honey from his boomers.


Could you share the link to this?


----------



## gmcharlie

Also noted the article in this months ABJ... he does not clam 6-700 lbs.. 3-400 is what he himself claims. which is not bad at all, but nowhere near a record....

It also nice to note hes in apple orchards which are sprayed with Assail, 3 times a year.... (page 702 of the ABJ) a huge neonicotid


----------



## gmcharlie

rhaldridge said:


> I'm not the only person who has found Tim's hives impressive. Randy Oliver has too.
> 
> But what does he know, right?


Randys from single deep country... but what impressed him the most was treatment methods( lack thereof) and the fact Tim is in the middle of neonics


----------



## sqkcrk

I was impressed w/ all of the empty boxes he took off of his hives in the Youtube video I saw. Now, if they all ended up getting filled that would be impressive.


----------



## rhaldridge

gmcharlie said:


> Also noted the article in this months ABJ... he does not clam 6-700 lbs.. 3-400 is what he himself claims. which is not bad at all, but nowhere near a record....
> 
> It also nice to note hes in apple orchards which are sprayed with Assail, 3 times a year.... (page 702 of the ABJ) a huge neonicotid


I haven't seen the article; maybe that's an average. I did say "boomers." Out of curiosity, what's your average?

Yeah, I came across his name first in a Randy Oliver piece on neonicotinoids. If I'm remembering correctly, Randy described him as keeping his yards in patches of woods located in the middle of soy and corn country.

Actually, my info about his production came from an email he sent me. He didn't start his massive supering program until 2011; he did not have enough woodenware for all his hives, so he did this with 40 colonies to start with. He uses three deeps to avoid having to feed. He puts 10 supers on the first week of April-- evidently this was a strategy to keep the hives from swarming. He pulled honey the first time that year on first week of July, and there was an average of 7 supers filled. He put back 7 supers and pulled again 3rd week of August and averaged 5 supers filled. He pulled again in October but did not specify how many supers he got at that time. If you figure 50 lbs. per super, that's 600 lbs, not counting the October pull.

I'm just reporting what he told me, but that seems pretty impressive to me. The point I was trying to make is that the oft-repeated notion that treatment free beekeepers don't make much honey is evidently not true in every case. If it's possible to not treat and still make large amounts of honey, then that is another reason why it might be wise to look at what guys like Tim Ives are doing. Also, his winter loss rate for the last several years has averaged 8 percent.

What's not to like?

Below this post, I expect to find numerous reasons why it won't work in the poster's personal situation. Tim says he hears that a lot.


----------



## jim lyon

Ray: I don't believe anyone on here has ridiculed Tim. Frankly I would like to know more about specifically what he is doing. Real world experiences are always meaningful to me. Keeping a lot of honey on your hives isn't really a treatment free strategy in and of itself though. I assume there is a bit more to it than that. The real key, of course isn't so much what you get off your big hives it's minimizing your non productive hives to increase your average across the board. In my operation seeing one piled up a lot higher than the rest always leaves me wondering if I did something wrong on the smaller hives. Uniformity tells me I have maximized production......at least that's how I look at it.


----------



## squarepeg

he probably hears that alot because there aren't many places in the country with a strong nectar flow from april until october.

there's none here from about mid-june until mid august or later. my bees have to use stored spring honey during those months.

that tim is a lucky guy, and must have a heck of a strong back, (you can hear him grunting in the videos).

and 36 lbs. is about all you can get out of a medium with nice fat combs.

thing is ray, you've never lifted a super of honey, so i don't expect you get my point about why the average person isn't able to deal with those skyscrapers. maybe it's me who's wasting time here.


----------



## rhaldridge

squarepeg said:


> he probably hears that alot because there aren't many places in the country with a strong nectar flow from april until october..


He hears that from beekeepers in his part of Indiana. That exact complaint, in fact.



squarepeg said:


> that tim is a lucky guy, and must have a heck of a strong back, (you can hear him grunting in the videos).
> 
> and 36 lbs. is about all you can get out of a medium with nice fat combs.
> 
> thing is ray, you've never lifted a super of honey, so i don't expect you get my point about why the average person isn't able to deal with those skyscrapers. maybe it's me who's wasting time here.


Hmm. Michael Bush says a 10 frame medium full of honey weighs 60 lbs. I figured that wood and wax can't be much more than 10 lbs. I didn't take into account the weight of honey left after extraction, maybe that's the difference. Still, even using your figures, he gets over 400 lbs of honey, not counting what he gets from his last pull. I guess I can't expect you to get my point, which was that treatment free doesn't mean honey free-- a view that was put forward seriously earlier.

I get your point about the difficulty of working those skyscrapers, but Tim is young and strong. I'm old and feeble, which is why I'm using long hives. They're about the volume of three 10 frame deeps, by a happy coincidence. They're set up for supering, and if I had to deal with massive nectar flows, I could put 9 supers on them without any super being more than chest high. Those would be 8 frame mediums. As I say. I'm old and feeble, but there is a faint possibility that I'm not an idiot.

And actually, I have lifted a super, though it was a long time ago. When I was 13, I helped my grandfather with his hives for a summer. Then he died that fall. If he hadn't I might have become a beekeeper much sooner in life, and I could now be taking peevish little shots at ignorant novice beekeepers.

Though I hope I'd have a little more class than that.


----------



## jim lyon

rhaldridge said:


> He hears that from beekeepers in his part of Indiana. That exact complaint, in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Michael Bush says a 10 frame medium full of honey weighs 60 lbs.


SP is pretty much on the money on this one. It takes a pretty special medium to squeeze out even 40 lbs. net. I usually "ball park" them at a 33 average if they are reasonably full for easy figuring and it's never too far off.


----------



## squarepeg

rhaldridge said:


> Below this post, I expect to find numerous reasons why it won't work in the poster's personal situation. Tim says he hears that a lot.


peevish? moi? never. well maybe a little after you set the tone with this.

sincere apologies ray.


----------



## rhaldridge

squarepeg said:


> peevish? moi? never. well maybe a little after you set the tone with this.
> 
> sincere apologies ray.


No problem. I was trying to be funny, with that remark about numerous reasons why it won't work. I didn't mean to offend.

My advantage as a beginner is that I'm not motivated to defend the practices I've been using, because those practices don't exist. Probably my only advantage.


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> If you figure 50 lbs. per super, that's 600 lbs, not counting the October pull.
> 
> Below this post, I expect to find numerous reasons why it won't work in the poster's personal situation. Tim says he hears that a lot.


What won't work is getting 50 lbs of extracted honey from a medium depth super. It's hard enough averaging that much from a deep.


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> My advantage as a beginner is that I'm not motivated to defend the practices I've been using, because those practices don't exist. Probably my only advantage.


But your disadvantage, and I see this all the time, is that you and other beginners advocate and defend practices you don't fully understand because you haven't used them. Oft times reading something and figuring it's something everyone else aught to be doing or be able to do.

In Tim's case, what's his full name by the way, I'll wager his location has something to do w/ his production capabilities.


----------



## WLC

Maybe one of the first steps in treatment free beekeeping should be feeding?

Perhaps Tim is using the MDA splitter methodology?

You know, where last year's splits can be combined into 'towers of power' ?

But, they're right, you would need an epic flow to get some of the numbers being reported.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> I found a listing online of his harvesting schedule, and figured out that he seemed to be taking 600 to 700 lbs of honey from his boomers..


Again, could you share the link?


----------



## Oldtimer

The very best hive that I can remember, in my life, that honey production was measured, gave me 185 Kg's of honey, that's around 400 ish pounds. But that was in an awesome location, and I managed it intensively just to see what it could do. The following year that and the other hives from that site were moved to another location which turned out to be a total waste of time, those hives got enough to winter, that's it. Same hives, different location.

IMO, location is more important than anything. 

Luckily I've got some good sites and my honey hives average around 100 kg's, that's something over 200 lb's. That's just because I have only a few hives & can choose awesome locations for them, sites that have multi flora, and something yielding heavily for several months. The hives are managed carefully, and I think that average would be difficult (not impossible), to beat.

I would be interested top hear from Tim himself what his crop is. If it's 400 to 700 lb's, that will give him 75 + ton annually from his 150 hives. What's his processing and packing plant like?


----------



## WLC

From the tower description, he's got to be using at least one hive body that's got a brood break while raising queen cells, and the rest filled with brood comb combined from other colonies to focus on honey production.

That setup means that the bees won't be using honey for brood rearing, they're going to store most of it as honey (even in the brood area as the bees emerge), and it has a run of about a month or 2.

But, it also means that you have a bunch of other colonies needed for support, and they need to build up again since their brood frames were used to build the powerhouse honey hive.

So, you'll need alot more colonies than you have towers of power to make it work. And yes, you'll have to do alot of feeding to be ready to catch the flow.

The MDA splitter method is a chemical free way to outbreed mites, and produce honey.


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> But your disadvantage, and I see this all the time, is that you and other beginners advocate and defend practices you don't fully understand because you haven't used them. Oft times reading something and figuring it's something everyone else aught to be doing or be able to do.
> 
> In Tim's case, what's his full name by the way, I'll wager his location has something to do w/ his production capabilities.


Mark, I try not to advocate or defend anything, though it may seem that I am, just because I bring up examples of beekeeping practices that appeal to me. I'm still in the learning phase, and I certainly understand my limitations. My presence here is mainly to learn-- and I certainly learn a lot about human nature by reporting results (not mine, of course) that seem to defy conventional wisdom. What I'm really looking for is useful and informative reactions to these unconventional results. I'm a lifelong organic gardener, so that philosophy appeals to me, and influences my theoretical preference for treatment free approaches to beekeeping. I do have 50 years of experience in gardening, and that experience has convinced me that the chemical approach to agriculture is terminally flawed. I'm trying to keep an open mind about treatment, but so far, I haven't seen any convincing arguments for the longterm sustainability of treatment. There's always a sort of stopgap flavor to arguments for treatment: "Well, are you going to treat, or are you going to let your hives die this winter?" I like to find examples of situations where that has proven to be a false dilemma. In Tim's case, not treating did, at first, mean that his hives died, and that continued as long as he was buying packages not adapted to his area. Once he began using feral swarms as the basis of his increase, his loss rate dropped from 50 to 90 percent down to 8 percent.

Tim's full name is Tim Ives. The funny thing about his operation is that in northern Indiana, where he has his yards, his fellow beekeepers complain that they can't get his results because they're in a corn and soy desert. Randy Oliver even published a crop map of the area where Tim keeps his hives. I got the impression that he gets a lot of his nectar from herbicide resistant weeds in the rows, early in the season. I learned about this guy through Randy Oliver's work. Randy was talking about the effect of neonicotinoids on bees, and mentioned this treatment free beekeeper whose bees are surrounded by treated fields, and whose bees are thriving, to put it mildly. To me this is pretty strong evidence that even if neonics are bad for bees, they require other factors, like bad beekeeping, to have a serious effect on colony mortality.

I'm one of those people who prefer to believe that if anything bad happens to me, it's my own fault, even if that's not exactly true. You can do something about stuff that's your own fault, but sometimes it's hard to correct stuff that's other people's fault. That's why I was pleased to learn that Tim can keep bees successfully in an area of heavy neonic use. The fact that he doesn't treat, doesn't feed, and makes large amounts of honey is just gravy.

I don't want to post his email address, but you can find it easily enough, here:

http://www.theunitygardens.org/

He's a nice guy, and seems to be happy to answer questions.


----------



## squarepeg

jim lyon said:


> In my operation seeing one piled up a lot higher than the rest always leaves me wondering if I did something wrong on the smaller hives.


i was discussing this with my neighbor, friend, and fellow beekeeper (he has only a few hives now, but at one time was one of alabama's leading package producers).

he threw out something that had not crossed my mind, but seemed worthy of consideration.

after the main flow here and as we get into our dearth, robbing starts in earnest.

a hive of mine last year got picked on when it fell behind the rest after failing to get the new queen mated post-swarming, and was set back even more when i let it raise a new one from donated eggs rather than buying a queen. robbing coincided with the end of the flow and the need for the small colony to cover brood once the new queen started laying, and the robbers turned out to be ferals out of the nearby woods.

i don't think northern indiana has quite the dearth that we have down here, (if you live up there and i'm wrong about this please correct me), or it could be that tim has a great location with acres of clover that provide abundant nectar through the summer months.

i wonder though, if there really isn't significant nectar available as reported by others in the area and those mega colonies are still producing honey through the summer, is it possible they are so strong that they are able to get it from other bees?


----------



## jim lyon

We select breeders from among our best producers, the downside of doing that is you may well be breeding a strong tendency to rob into them. One thing I have see. Many times is that when supering, you drive your truck adjacent or even in the yard, start opening lids and adding supers that if there is a big flight on you have created so much disruption that the heavily laden foragers begin randomly landing somewhere. Sometimes they choose a super on the truck and other times its a random hive, usually a taller one on a corner of the yard. It can result in the big getting bigger and the small (shorter) hives losing some of their field force. For that reason alone I tend to discount stories about how much honey a particular hive makes and focus more on average production of the entire yard which I find more meaningful.


----------



## rhaldridge

squarepeg said:


> i don't think northern indiana has quite the dearth that we have down here, (if you live up there and i'm wrong about this please correct me), or it could be that tim has a great location with acres of clover that provide abundant nectar through the summer months.
> 
> i wonder though, if there really isn't significant nectar available as reported by others in the area and those mega colonies are still producing honey through the summer, is it possible they are so strong that they are able to get it from other bees?


Here's an interesting piece that has more on his strategies. He has only a brief dearth, in August, if I'm understanding this article:

http://www.indianahoney.org/2013/02/Real-world-beekeeping-happening-in-the-Corn-Belt.cfm

An interesting bit I got from the piece is that Tim thinks a lot of beekeepers are not taking full advantage of early flows, because their hives are not strong enough early.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> From the tower description, he's got to be using at least one hive body that's got a brood break while raising queen cells, and the rest filled with brood comb combined from other colonies to focus on honey production.
> 
> That setup means that the bees won't be using honey for brood rearing, they're going to store most of it as honey (even in the brood area as the bees emerge), and it has a run of about a month or 2.
> 
> But, it also means that you have a bunch of other colonies needed for support, and they need to build up again since their brood frames were used to build the powerhouse honey hive.
> 
> So, you'll need alot more colonies than you have towers of power to make it work. And yes, you'll have to do alot of feeding to be ready to catch the flow.


It blows my mind that anyone would spend so much time assuming the details of a beekeepers system...and sharing them. All of the statements and assumptions to this point in the post are not true, at least based on the talk by Tim that I attended.
Why would you bother to share so many ignorant assumptions? What's the point? 



> The MDA splitter method is a chemical free way to outbreed mites, and produce honey.


There are numerous ways to raise queens and split colonies...none of them "require" chemicals per se. ... I'd bet that the vast majority of folks using "the MDA splitter method" or "on the spot queen rearing" are also using mite treatments.

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

rhaldridge said:


> Here's an interesting piece that has more on his strategies. He has only a brief dearth, in August, if I'm understanding this article:
> 
> http://www.indianahoney.org/2013/02/Real-world-beekeeping-happening-in-the-Corn-Belt.cfm
> 
> An interesting bit I got from the piece is that Tim thinks a lot of beekeepers are not taking full advantage of early flows, because their hives are not strong enough early.


thanks ray, and that makes sense. 

i'll read it this evening.

that was part of walt wright's strategy to his towering hives and 200+ lbs harvests, along with effective swarm prevention.


----------



## rhaldridge

squarepeg said:


> thanks ray, and that makes sense.
> 
> i'll read it this evening.
> 
> that was part of walt wright's strategy to his towering hives and 200+ lbs harvests, along with effective swarm prevention.


I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Tim is a follower of some of Walt Wright's strategies, because he mentioned to me that his supers are checkerboarded... and that his strategy for preventing his hives from swarming involves keeping the waxmakers fully occupied. After seeing that video of him unwrapping a hive in early March, and seeing how many bees he had, the first thing I asked him was how he kept those hives from swarming as soon as the first big flow hit. Part of it was timing, he said, because he used to wait until swarming season began before he piled on the supers, but once he realized he had to do it well before the first swarms appeared, he had much less trouble with swarming.


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> but once he realized he had to do it well before the first swarms appeared, he had much less trouble with swarming.


I credit my limited volume of swarms to my keeping full sized hives year 'round.


----------



## WLC

"Why would you bother to share so many ignorant assumptions? What's the point?"

Deknow:

You do get (so called) "Fat Bees", or vitellogenin rich nurse bees in the 'MDA Powerhouse Honey Hive'.

You're adding 18 frames of brood to three deeps with a queen excluder seperating the deep supers (that's what Mel described) from the deep bodies.

By the way, there are artificial ways of making vg rich bees using RNAi.

I was on the mark. However, I would ask the question, "did anyone actually measure the vg levels in those 'young nurse bees', or is this simply way more frames of capped brood hatching than eggs being layed by a queen.

The vg or fat bees claim is simply just that unless they can prove it.


Queen pheromone products are available for sale, so technically, you don't need to have an actual queen present. 

Dean:

Watch your tone.

I'm not taking the fat bees/vg claim as proven.


----------



## hpm08161947

rhaldridge said:


> and that his strategy for preventing his hives from swarming involves keeping the waxmakers fully occupied.


I wonder how he does that? Just keeping foundation on your hives is not going to significantly cause the to lay down comb..... unless there is a flow on.....

The only way I can think of to keep your bees young would be to keep placing capped brood into the hive... and that brood has to come from somewhere.... so one hive gets young whlie the other gets old.

It is an interesting manipulation, but I do not understand it....


----------



## rhaldridge

deknow said:


> It blows my mind that anyone would spend so much time assuming the details of a beekeepers system...and sharing them. All of the statements and assumptions to this point in the post are not true, at least based on the talk by Tim that I attended.
> Why would you bother to share so many ignorant assumptions? What's the point?


I don't understand it either. Anyone who read the thread would have known that Tim does not feed. He told me that he makes all his increase from captured swarms and splits. I got the impression that he does not rear queens; he lets his splits do the work.


----------



## rhaldridge

hpm08161947 said:


> I wonder how he does that? Just keeping foundation on your hives is not going to significantly cause the to lay down comb..... unless there is a flow on.....


I'm a beginner, so maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if there's no flow, then there should be little swarming impulse, right?

I may also be misunderstanding Tim's use of the term "checkerboarding." I believe that in Walt Wright's system, this involves putting supers with alternating frames of capped honey and drawn comb above the brood nest. In that case, there would be little waxmaking going on, or so it would seem. 

I guess Tim will have to write a book.


----------



## David LaFerney

jim lyon said:


> SP is pretty much on the money on this one. It takes a pretty special medium to squeeze out even 40 lbs. net. I usually "ball park" them at a 33 average if they are reasonably full for easy figuring and it's never too far off.


It's pretty close to a quart per medium frame.


----------



## WLC

What I am saying is that Tim is combining brood (and perhaps other resources) from multiple queensright hives to build his honey towers.

It's an old beekeeper's trick.

Not really the result of treatment-free beekeeping.

If you have the resources, you can give it a go.


----------



## David LaFerney

rhaldridge said:


> I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Tim is a follower of some of Walt Wright's strategies, because he mentioned to me that his supers are checkerboarded... and that his strategy for preventing his hives from swarming involves keeping the waxmakers fully occupied. After seeing that video of him unwrapping a hive in early March, and seeing how many bees he had, the first thing I asked him was how he kept those hives from swarming as soon as the first big flow hit. Part of it was timing, he said, because he used to wait until swarming season began before he piled on the supers, but once he realized he had to do it well before the first swarms appeared, he had much less trouble with swarming.


t: I ran across this in another thread "(early in the season) _The natural inclination is to move up--the inability to do so is what starts the chain of events that lead to swarming._" I don't know if that is *exactly* true or not, but it does explain some swarm prevention manipulations - box reversal, checkerboarding, early supering - pretty handily, and might be a good rule of thumb.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> What I am saying is that Tim is combining brood (and perhaps other resources) from multiple queensright hives to build his honey towers.
> It's an old beekeeper's trick.
> Not really the result of treatment-free beekeeping.
> If you have the resources, you can give it a go.


That would be a great point...except that it doesn't apply to Tim's management.

deknow


----------



## deknow

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ree-Commercial-Beekeepers&p=920600#post920600


----------



## WLC

I seriously doubt that 18 frames of brood (capped would make sense here), would come from a single hive.

18 capped frames of brood would give you alot of nurse bees at one time.

You do realize that without anything to nurse, those newly emerged nurse bees will quickly become foragers.

He's going to have to explain where those 18 brood frames came from.


----------



## rhaldridge

WLC said:


> What I am saying is that Tim is combining brood (and perhaps other resources) from multiple queensright hives to build his honey towers.


Why would you say this when you have no way of knowing if it's true?

By the way, it isn't.


----------



## hpm08161947

WLC said:


> What I am saying is that Tim is combining brood (and perhaps other resources) from multiple queensright hives to build his honey towers.
> 
> It's an old beekeeper's trick.
> 
> Not really the result of treatment-free beekeeping.
> 
> If you have the resources, you can give it a go.


Yea... that is what I thought too.... good trick though...


----------



## WLC

Those towers are a result of a management practice. He feeds honey and pollen stores early on.

With enough hives, it's possible to have enough frames of capped brood to build honey towers with 18 frames of capped brood apiece. If he gets the timing right for the flow (and it might be tough going this year) he's on a roll.

Why would anyone think that only a treatment free beekeeper can pull this off?

I won't argue that it's interesting.

But, if he falls off of that ladder, knocks over the tower, and breaks a leg...

there's going to be a whole bunch of angry bees to contend with.


----------



## hpm08161947

rhaldridge said:


> Why would you say this when you have no way of knowing if it's true?
> 
> By the way, it isn't.


So how does he get all those young waxbuilder bees? When my bees have spend a lot of time building comb, I make little honey..... 6-7 lbs of honey for one pound of wax.


----------



## WLC

hpm:

I've known the people of Northern New Jersey for my entire life.

They love to tell a good story. Especially if you're willing to listen.



'Fat Bees'?

Heh, heh.


----------



## jim lyon

I apparently missed the claim of 18 frames of brood in a colony. I have seen hives with brood in 18 frames but I have never seen a single queen able to maintain egg laying in 18 full frames of brood, it would surely take a second queen or resources from another hive. But that issue aside I just don't get what mechanism allows greater brood production without a corresponding increase in mite populations. In my mind the ideal hive that would be able to control varroa of its own devices would have to be highly Hygenic (constantly reducing bee population) and have a shortened laying season.


----------



## WLC

jim:

I think it's the MDA splitter method. One operation is used for honey production (honey towers). The other operation is for making nucs/splits for next years production. That's how you outbreed mites.

Tim was being entertaiing. Fat bees, honey towers, beekeeper on a ladder, hugh honey production.

Just because Randy is gullible (and I do know that he's fallen for 'stories' before in a big way), doesn't mean that we need to be. However, it's OK to laugh heartily at this one.

WLC.


----------



## gmcharlie

well heres my question, and it may not be stated well so bear with me, Why is 3 deeps and 10 supers better than single deeps and 3 supers? Its hard for me to do the math in my head. I would have split those down as soon as it was warm enough, and generated the same amount of honey out of the same woodenware..... so how does one system prove better than the other??? yes I would use 3 queens instead, but no ladders... so how do we really gauge productivity? I put 3 deeps toghter with no queen and 5 supers filled with sunflower honey in 2 weeks... but don't consider it super special...?? so if were going to gauge honey production, is lbs per hive really a good way???


----------



## WLC

It's all embelishment for a good story.

Rest assured, the bees will get fatter, the hives will get taller, the ladder will get longer, and the honey production will increase.

It's likely all real to some degree (except for the fat bees, which should have been the tipoff for what was really happening), and it's entertaining.


----------



## rhaldridge

WLC said:


> Just because Randy is gullible (and I do know that he's fallen for 'stories' before in a big way), doesn't mean that we need to be. However, it's OK to laugh heartily at this one.
> 
> WLC.


I'm laughing heartily at someone else.

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/fat-bees-part-1/
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/fat-bees-part-2/

Citations... how the heck do they work?

I guess I'll have to take Dr. Amdam more seriously than Anonymous Internet Guy. No offense meant.


----------



## WLC

None taken.

The fat bees/vg explanation is an embelishment.

All you need is 18 frames of capped brood.

Really.

I know more than enough about bee biology to say...

that was entertaining.


----------



## WLC

Since you're interested in the science...

It's called caste plasticity.

Honeybees can change caste as the need arises.

Nurse bees can become foragers. 

For example, the foraging caste usually lasts about 8 days. But, if nurse bees change caste to forager at an earlier stage because there's no brood to care for, they can last as foragers for much longer than 8 days..

Also, foragers can revert caste to store and cap honey.

I do keep current with the literature.

Can I help it if Randy isn't a degreed Biologist (I am), and can't follow some of the recent work being done on neuroplasticity in Honeybees?

I just loved the recent paper by Gene Robinson.


----------



## squarepeg

rhaldridge said:


> Here's an interesting piece that has more on his strategies. He has only a brief dearth, in August, if I'm understanding this article:
> 
> http://www.indianahoney.org/2013/02/Real-world-beekeeping-happening-in-the-Corn-Belt.cfm
> 
> An interesting bit I got from the piece is that Tim thinks a lot of beekeepers are not taking full advantage of early flows, because their hives are not strong enough early.


one thing that caught my attention in the piece ray was this:

"He [Tim] suggests that a minimum of three deeps is what is most natural for the bees."

this seems to be at odds with the fact that when given a choice of sizes, swarms prefer to go into cavities about the size of a ten frame deep lang. (there was a study done, but i don't have the reference)

the other thing i found remarkable was dean's description (in the post he linked above) of the contents of the three deeps at overwintering, mainly that the bottom deep is full of pollen.

it made me wonder if those of you who use all mediums end up with the bottom box full of pollen.


----------



## rhaldridge

gmcharlie said:


> well heres my question, and it may not be stated well so bear with me, Why is 3 deeps and 10 supers better than single deeps and 3 supers? Its hard for me to do the math in my head. I would have split those down as soon as it was warm enough, and generated the same amount of honey out of the same woodenware..... so how does one system prove better than the other??? yes I would use 3 queens instead, but no ladders... so how do we really gauge productivity? I put 3 deeps toghter with no queen and 5 supers filled with sunflower honey in 2 weeks... but don't consider it super special...?? so if were going to gauge honey production, is lbs per hive really a good way???


Bear in mind that I'm a beginner, and may not have this right, but as I understand it, the three deep system Tim is using is a strategy for wintering a strong colony and getting an early buildup. The way it was explained to me is that the three deeps more nearly approximate the conditions in a bee tree-- in that there is plenty of room for stores above and below the brood nest-- honey above and pollen below. Evidently, in this system it's important for the colony to be very strong, with plenty of new bees going into winter, so that they will make a strong cluster all winter and start to brood up very early. If you look at that video of his hives in early March, it's a pretty impressive amount of bees for that early in the season in north Indiana.

His view is that many beekeepers miss out on early nectar sources because their foragers are not yet numerous enough. He gets a lot of honey from deadnettle and henbit in the corn fields before they are planted.


----------



## rhaldridge

WLC said:


> Can I help it if Randy isn't a degreed Biologist (I am), and can't follow some of the recent work being done on neuroplasticity in Honeybees?


So who are you? I'd like to look at your publications.

If you prefer anonymity, I'm still going to have to believe Dr. Amdam.

Amdam, GV, K Norberg, A Hagen, SW Omholt (2003) Social exploitation of vitellogenin. PNAS 100(4): 1799-1802.

Amdam, GV, et al. (2004a) Hormonal control of the yolk precursor vitellogenin regulates immune function and longevity in honeybees. Exp Gerontol.39(5):767-73.

Amdam, GV, K Hartfelder, K Norberg, A Hagen, SW Omholt (2004b) Altered Physiology in Worker Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Infested with the Mite Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae): A Factor in Colony Loss During Overwintering? Journal of Economic Entomology 97(3): 741-747.

Amdam GV, et al. (2005) ; Social reversal of immunosenescence in honey bee workers Experimental Gerontology 40(12): 939-947

Amdam, GV, K Norberg, SW Ohmolt (2005b) Higher vitellogenin concentrations in honey bee workers may be an adaptation to life in temperate climates. Insects Sociaux 52(4)

Hey, check out that fourth cite.


----------



## hpm08161947

rhaldridge said:


> He gets a lot of honey from deadnettle and henbit in the corn fields before they are planted.


At least in this area... henbit is an unlikely candidate to make any honey off of....


----------



## WLC

No.

You should believe The Navigator. Gene Robinson. He charted the Honeybee Methylome.

It's not about fat bees or vg. 

It's about changes in DNA methylation and neroplasticity in the bee brain. That's how they change castes.

Unfortunately, the levels of vitellogenin are controlled by changes in the Honeybe brain, not the other way around. It's a completely different signaling pathway.

Sorry. Those papers don't apply to how Honeybees change their caste.

Fat bees aren't required, only capped brood and Honeybee neuroplasticity.


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> So who are you?


Not gonna happen. He's been draggin' that bait for years. All we know is that he is most definitely NOT William Lane Craig. :lpf:


----------



## WLC

We all know who Gene Robinson is. Right?

More science and less pseudoscience please.

It's capped brood and Honeybee neuroplasticity.

Some of you are buying into a story that really isn't about treatment free beekeeping. 

Unless, of course, you explore Mel's MDA splitter method for chemical free beekeeping.

I would definitely call it a good first, or second (maybe third) step.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> It blows my mind that anyone would spend so much time assuming the details of a beekeepers system...and sharing them. All of the statements and assumptions to this point in the post are not true, at least based on the talk by Tim that I attended.
> Why would you bother to share so many ignorant assumptions? What's the point?
> 
> 
> There are numerous ways to raise queens and split colonies...none of them "require" chemicals per se. ... I'd bet that the vast majority of folks using "the MDA splitter method" or "on the spot queen rearing" are also using mite treatments.
> 
> deknow


Dean,
Does Tim Ives run all of his hives treatment free as far as you know? Just wanting to pin something down.


----------



## rhaldridge

WLC said:


> No.


Allrighty then.

I can't figure out why you think this is about caste-changing. That's Huber-level info. You're a couple centuries too late to astonish anyone with the breadth of your knowledge, and I say that as an ignorant newbee.

I've corresponded with Tim Ives. You haven't. My firsthand knowledge of what he is actually saying about his methods is more interesting and valuable to me than your fact-free speculation, which I happen to know is completely wrong. 

Sorry.


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> Dean,
> Does Tim Ives run all of his hives treatment free as far as you know? Just wanting to pin something down.


Mark, he has never treated. He's been keeping bees since 2002. Until 2006 he lost a lot of hives, and then he started splitting from feral swarms. This has been the basis of his increase since.


----------



## WLC

Tim Ives is an MDA disciple.

That's the story.

You know: there are Crowder, Bush, Stiglitz, Palmer, and other disciples around here.

You can recognize them by what they're doing with their bees.

Mel does the tower in chemical free beekeeping.

The Fat Bee thing is funny. But it's not relevant.

Of course, your free to believe a guy who has fat bees, in a tower hive, climbs on a ladder, and gets huge amounts of honey.

But, I'm not going to bite on that bait.


----------



## gmcharlie

squarepeg said:


> one thing that caught my attention in the piece ray was this:
> 
> "He [Tim] suggests that a minimum of three deeps is what is most natural for the bees."
> 
> this seems to be at odds with the fact that when given a choice of sizes, swarms prefer to go into cavities about the size of a ten frame deep lang. (there was a study done, but i don't have the reference)


Dr seeley....



R haldridge, I understand the thought process, but when you look at the production per box its no better than other methods... so why do we get all excited at the numbers..?? In this post alone they have been exurated and blown up to mythical portions, and yet his yeilds compared to brood chambers are no more impressive that say Ron Housholders who runs single deeps and a lot of supers. agreed his treatment free is great. but I see nothing mythical here, just a lot of box stacking...


----------



## sqkcrk

hpm08161947 said:


> At least in this area... henbit is an unlikely candidate to make any honey off of....


Yeah, I always thought that henbit was a pollen producer, not a nectar producer. But I'm not a Botanist, so what do I know?


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> We all know who Gene Robinson is. Right?


Washington Post Reporter who is often a guest on MSNBC shows?


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> Mark, he has never treated. He's been keeping bees since 2002. Until 2006 he lost a lot of hives, and then he started splitting from feral swarms. This has been the basis of his increase since.


Thanks Dean. Must have been some other Tim who PMed me a while back. Name dropping is so confusing.


----------



## zhiv9

It seems that 3 deeps or the equivalent used to very common in harsh climates. Both in the desert or in the northern US or Canada. Dee Lusby runs 3 deeps, with brood in all 3 bookended by honey and pollen. There are some interesting observations here as well:

http://www.honeybeesuite.com/triple-deep-hives/


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> Yeah, I always thought that henbit was a pollen producer, not a nectar producer. But I'm not a Botanist, so what do I know?


Yea.... they can get this clear pollen from them, if I remember correctly. But not a heck of a lot.

Beekeepers are often better botanists than botanists..


----------



## rhaldridge

WLC said:


> Tim Ives is an MDA disciple.
> 
> That's the story.


Please proceed. I don't know what evidence you have for this revelation, but here's my evidence:



> "Each year I just pull splits, bred them in other yards and create new
> yards." --Tim Ives


I'm dubious about your credentials, to be honest. What serious academic would make up stuff about a guy he had no actual knowledge of, based on a few posts on an internet forum, particularly when those accusations can so easily be demonstrated to be a baseless fantasy? In essence, you've accused a beekeeper you don't even know of being some sort of conman. That's pretty irresponsible, and I'm a little surprised that the moderators haven't admonished you for this. 

I expect Barry would speak sharply to me if I started making up stuff about you... and you don't even have a name.


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> He gets a lot of honey from deadnettle and henbit in the corn fields before they are planted.


Did Tim Ives tell you that?


----------



## hpm08161947

rhaldridge said:


> I expect Barry would speak sharply to me if I started making up stuff about you... and you don't even have a name.


I am not defending WLC, I have long ago noticed that he is perfectly capable of doing that himself. But.... he has pointed out some things that are difficult to understand. The main one being.... "Where do those 18 frames of brood come from?" - isn't that the bottom line?


----------



## rhaldridge

gmcharlie said:


> Dr seeley....
> 
> 
> 
> R haldridge, I understand the thought process, but when you look at the production per box its no better than other methods... so why do we get all excited at the numbers..?? In this post alone they have been exurated and blown up to mythical portions, and yet his yeilds compared to brood chambers are no more impressive that say Ron Housholders who runs single deeps and a lot of supers. agreed his treatment free is great. but I see nothing mythical here, just a lot of box stacking...


Well, this all started when someone opined that treatment free beekeepers weren't much interested in honey production, and that taking very little honey was commonplace among tf beekeepers. I don't know if that's true, but I offered Tim Ives as a counterexample. I don't think the greatest thing about his operation is the amount of honey he gets, so much as it is his winter loss rate, which he says has been averaging 8 percent in recent years. That is pretty good, or so I understand. If you look at the per box numbers, it gets even more interesting. 

He started his massive supering operation in 2006 with 40 hives, each three deep. Given his loss rate, he lost 3 or 4 of those. As I understand it, these days a lot of beekeepers average 30 percent loss rates. I you were to break up those 3 deeps into single boxes, and had that percentage of deadouts, you'd have to restock 36 hives, so he's doing better on both the labor side of things and the replacement cost side.

Except for that whole climbing the stepladder thing, he does avoid some of the labor costs, and woodenware costs, associated with breaking the 3-deep boomers up into single boxes.

As I said earlier, I'm old and feeble, so his system is impractical for me. But he handles 150 hives and works a full time job as a carpenter, I believe. 

It's possible some variation of his system might work for folks like me, if we pulled honey more frequently and didn't have such massive stacks of supers.. but that's just speculation.


----------



## sqkcrk

What I don't get is, considering the basic idea that to produce a frame of brood requires a frame of honey and a frame of pollen, how does one get those huge crops?

I know one beekeeper who has hives in NY in which the brood is in a deep and a medium w/ the honey above an excluder, the number of medium supers commonly being head high. Six or more supers above the excluder. Some times they will all have honey in them.

(how do you spell excluder to satisfy Spell Check?)


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> Did Tim Ives tell you that?


No. I took that from this article:

http://www.indianahoney.org/2013/02/Real-world-beekeeping-happening-in-the-Corn-Belt.cfm

In it, the author lists the forage sources in Tim's area, according to Tim. There's no reference to nectar from hensbit, just "forage." Being an ignorant newbee, I didn't know that hensbit isn't a nectar source, and just assumed.

My mistake.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Mark, excluder isn't in most spell checkers. You have to add it.


----------



## David LaFerney

sqkcrk said:


> (how do you spell excluder to satisfy Spell Check?)


Add it to the dictionary. Sorry, didn't notice Solomon already answered that.


----------



## rhaldridge

hpm08161947 said:


> I am not defending WLC, I have long ago noticed that he is perfectly capable of doing that himself. But.... he has pointed out some things that are difficult to understand. The main one being.... "Where do those 18 frames of brood come from?" - isn't that the bottom line?


I guess no one actually looked at the article. The 18 frames of brood thing comes from basic arithmetic. The comparison was between a 2 deep and a three deep system. 



> In Tim's area, March 11 on average, pollen starts coming in. He says a typical 2 hive body system will start laying at this time and over the next 2 brood cycles (21 days) a 2 hive body system will average 12 frames of brood, but a 3 hive body system will average 18 since it incurred an earlier cycle. That's 50% more brood in the 3 hive body system and by the end of April, a 3 hive body system can have 300% more bees versus a 2 hive body system. Of course... this is also requiring a healthy queen that is properly nourished and in her zone... laying approx. 2000-3000 eggs per day.


I'm just a beginner, so I don't understand what's unrealistic about that statement.


----------



## WLC

rhaldridge:

Tim is being entertaining. I recognize the methodology.

He's not a conman. He's a story teller.

The fat bee thing isn't scientific, nor is it necessary to understand what he's doing.

It's just a 'Powerhouse Honey Hive'.

And no. There's no way he came up with 18 frames of capped brood from a single queensright hive right before the main flow.

I am an admirer of Mel's MDA Splitter methodology.

That's why I recognized it immediately.

Am I making sense to you?


----------



## David LaFerney

It seems to exceed the laying capacity which is generally stated to be up to about 2000 per day. 18 deep frames is far more than I have ever seen in my admittedly limited experience. A much more experienced bee keeper I have met who is well known locally for very large honey per hive numbers says that 20 medium frames is an adequate size for a brood nest. But it's all anecdotal as far as I know.


----------



## David LaFerney

WLC said:


> rhaldridge:
> 
> Tim is being entertaining. I recognize the methodology.
> 
> He's not a conman. He's a story teller.
> 
> The fat bee thing isn't scientific, nor is it necessary to understand what he's doing.
> 
> It's just a 'Powerhouse Honey Hive'.
> 
> And no. There's no way he came up with 18 frames of capped brood from a single queensright hive right before the main flow.
> 
> I am an admirer of Mel's MDA Splitter methodology.
> 
> That's why I recognized it immediately.
> 
> Am I making sense to you?


Since we are so far afield anyway. When in relation to the main flow is the best time to add brood to such a hive? I did it this year about a week before the poplar bloom, which I'm sure was late - but on the other hand those hives are rockin'. If I can keep them from swarming I'm pretty hopeful.


----------



## WLC

David:

The key is that you don't want uncapped brood (or even a laying queen!) in that type of tower hive.

That's why the capped brood, and any bees you shake or combine into the tower will gather and store so much honey. They're basically just foragers, comb builders, and honey makers.

Capped brood, alot of bees, and queen pheromone are the main ingredients (some don't use a queen or the pheromone). You're restricting the castes that the bees will become by doing that.

That's the trick.

Just remember that the queens and combs that aren't useful to this method, are safely in nucs removed to some other yard (some say at least a mile away).

They're the ones used to outbreed mites and prepare for next year's towers.

Here's how Mel does it.

http://www.mdasplitter.com/docs/NucManagement.pdf

Here's Mel's site:

http://www.mdasplitter.com/

Are we cool on this yet?


----------



## rhaldridge

David LaFerney said:


> It seems to exceed the laying capacity which is generally stated to be up to about 2000 per day. 18 deep frames is far more than I have ever seen in my admittedly limited experience. A much more experienced bee keeper I have met who is well known locally for very large honey per hive numbers says that 20 medium frames is an adequate size for a brood nest. But it's all anecdotal as far as I know.


The article says 18 frames over two brood cycles. That's 9 frames per cycle, 3 frames per box. I'm a beginner, so can someone tell me why that's implausible in a three deep hive with large stores, and pollen coming in?


----------



## WLC

If you took a gander at Mel's method, you'd see that it takes 3 or 4 queensright hives to build a tower of power.


----------



## Barry

rhaldridge said:


> I expect Barry would speak sharply to me if I started making up stuff about you... and you don't even have a name.


Ah, but he does, and when he starts getting snarly, I start using it!


----------



## Oldtimer

My own training, was we get more honey overall, if all hives are equal. So we did kind of the opposite of what we are being told Tim does. In spring, before any supers were added, all hives in the yard were equalised. IE, strong ones that might swarm had brood and bees taken, and this was given to the weak. A few months later when the hives were stacked with boxes, there were no duds or poor performers. So, none swarmed, none didn't produce, and none had to haul honey through excessively huge stacks of boxes, the production capacity of all was maximised. 



rhaldridge said:


> I'm old and feeble, so his system is impractical for me. But he handles 150 hives and works a full time job as a carpenter, I believe.


Something does not quite add up here, unless Tim never sleeps. He works full time as a carpenter. He manages 150 hives. He is a speaker in high demand who attends conferences and assorted speaking engagements. And based on the figures we've been told he processes at least 75 tons of honey annually. Not saying it isn't true, just, well, he's an amazing guy. Definitely the stuff of legend.


----------



## WLC

If the 'Fat Bee' claim didn't make Barry smile, nothing will.


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> The article says 18 frames over two brood cycles. That's 9 frames per cycle, 3 frames per box. I'm a beginner, so can someone tell me why that's implausible in a three deep hive with large stores, and pollen coming in?


It's not implausible. But I don't think you presented it that way before. I'm not sure I understand what 18 frames over two brood cycles means. 18 frames of capped brood? 18 frames of all stages?

I suspect the bottom box, full of comb, is otherwise empty. I don't understand why three deeps is necessary. I have known beekeepers in The North Country who ran three deep hives. But they did so so they wouldn't have to lean over so much.

I have also seen hives which we had to stand on the truck deck to break down. Bees won't put honey in the boxes if they aren't on the hives. It doesn't mean all of those boxes get filled. Some hives will, some times.

There is much we don't understand. Too bad Tim Ives won't explain these things to us. I can well imagine he is tired of doing so, having to defend his methods. When he'd rather simply do his beework. That's just an assumption of mine, not based on much other than something someone named Tim wrote me. I'm not sure it was Tim Ives though. But, his absence speaks for itself. He could speak up, but doesn't want to. Which is his privelidge. (not being critical)


----------



## sqkcrk

Oldtimer said:


> My own training, was we get more honey overall, if all hives are equal. So we did kind of the opposite of what we are being told Tim does. In spring, before any supers were added, all hives in the yard were equalised. IE, strong ones that might swarm had brood and bees taken, and this was given to the weak. A few months later when the hives were stacked with boxes, there were no duds or poor performers. So, none swarmed, none didn't produce, and none had to haul honey through excessively huge stacks of boxes, the production capacity of all was maximised.
> 
> Something does not quite add up here, unless Tim never sleeps. He works full time as a carpenter. He manages 150 hives. He is a speaker in high demand who attends conferences and assorted speaking engagements. And based on the figures we've been told he processes at least 75 tons of honey annually. Not saying it isn't true, just, well, he's an amazing guy. Definitely the stuff of legend.


 He has a clone? Or a twin perhaps? He's single and an insomniac? He spends no time on beesource?


----------



## WLC

I doubt that he has 150 towers of power.

Those 150 hives probably represent the support hives he needs for the towers of power and the splits/nucs for outbreeding mites.

I would not want to be the beekeeper with a puny single deep anywhere near his tower hives. 

You might say that he's sacrificing other aspects of hive productivity to focus on honey production with those towers.


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> Too bad Tim Ives won't explain these things to us. I can well imagine he is tired of doing so, having to defend his methods. When he'd rather simply do his beework. That's just an assumption of mine, not based on much other than something someone named Tim wrote me. I'm not sure it was Tim Ives though. But, his absence speaks for itself. He could speak up, but doesn't want to. Which is his privelidge. (not being critical)


This would give me a huge belly laugh...if it wasn't so sad. The idea that if someone isn't posting to beesource, it must be because they are avoiding it or scared isn't a new one. What an absurd contention.

deknow


----------



## deknow

It wasn't so long ago that the common wisdom was that one couldn't overwinter nucs in the north reliably.

deknow


----------



## WLC

"This would give me a huge belly laugh...if it wasn't so sad. The idea that if someone isn't posting to beesource, it must be because they are avoiding it or scared isn't a new one. What an absurd contention."

Dean, I've just had a terrible thought.

Maybe his tower fell over on him and he's trapped?

Quick, get over there!


----------



## David LaFerney

WLC said:


> David:
> 
> The key is that you don't want uncapped brood (or even a laying queen!) in that type of tower hive.
> 
> That's why the capped brood, and any bees you shake or combine into the tower will gather and store so much honey. They're basically just foragers, comb builders, and honey makers.


I did it like that last year with 3 hives and it does makes a lot of honey. But it was still a lot of work and seemed stressful to the hives - at least that's how it seemed to me. 

Anyway, this year my experiment is with queenright hives that I pumped up with extra brood, and then extra foragers by removing an adjoining hive just as the main flow started so that all of it's foragers would join the remaining honey production hive. Those hives will mostly become mating nucs. What started out as a rather mediocre hives 6 weeks ago are presently performing like exceptional hives. 

Like I said, it's an experiment.


----------



## hpm08161947

WLC said:


> "
> 
> Dean, I've just had a terrible thought.
> 
> Maybe his tower fell over on him and he's trapped?
> 
> Quick, get over there!


Good job WLC on sorting this one out. It was an interesting case. I don't believe he is a con man either..... just a guy that get's a big kick out jerking people around.


----------



## jim lyon

It does appear that WLC has most likely nailed it. But, hey, it's apparently a treatment free management system that is working for him albeit one that is labor and resource intensive. It's only a scam if one chooses to believe that resources to build a hive like this don't require multiple queenright colonies to make one "tower". It also dosent mean that Randy Oliver or any of us are gullible (let's remember that the reason Randy was there was to see if someone can raise strong colonies in an area where corn was the predominate crop) And it's not going to result in these types of yields just anywhere, nectar availability is, of course, a necessary component. Those issues aside, go get em Tim. And if Mike Palmer hasn't already answered the question of whether bees can thrive in an area where corn is a major crop, here's one more piece of evidence.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Maybe I'm naive for reading, but it seems to say "10-18" not "18." And I don't see anything about "18 frames of capped brood."

I've certainly seen 10, and I have seen 20 through three deeps. I don't see what's the big hairy deal.

Assuming 3000 cells available for brood on a frame (http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?242020-Cells-to-a-Deep-Frame) and and a worker lifecycle of about 21 days, and a queen laying 2000-3000 eggs per day as mentioned in the article, I'm still not seeing a problem.

Maybe this isn't the average, but math and experience seem to say that it is quite possible and in a good operation might even be fairly normal.

I don't have some fantastical degree in biology but I do have a MSCE, and I know how to do some basic math.


----------



## WLC

Judging by the photo of the tower hive, I'd estimate that there are alot more resources being used than is described.

Did Tim acknowledge Mel or MDA Splitter at any time?

By the way, I'm simply saying that the fat bee contention is the 'gullibility' issue.


----------



## rhaldridge

Unbelievable.

Otherwise intelligent folk are going to accept a long distance analysis conducted on the basis of, I don't know, telepathy? that completely ignores the statements of the beekeeper himself? 

18 frames of brood? I quoted the article that said explicitly that it was *over 2 brood cycles*. Here. let me quote it again:



> In Tim's area, March 11 on average, pollen starts coming in. He says a typical 2 hive body system will start laying at this time and *over the next 2 brood cycles (21 days)* a 2 hive body system will average 12 frames of brood, but a 3 hive body system will average 18 since it incurred an earlier cycle.


Mel Disselkoen's system requires feeding. Tim does not feed. He told me that this is partly a result of his own experience; he used to drink a dozen sodas a day, and in fact, he took up beekeeping right after he gave up eating sugar, something he did for health reasons. He is quite serious about not feeding; it is a cornerstone of his philosophy, As he put it, the only difference between a queen and a worker is the diet she is fed; it only makes sense that diet is extremely important to bees.

Did no one but me see that video of Tim taking the tar paper off a three deep hive in early March? Is the theory here that he packed that hive with brood from, I don't know, a dozen hothouse hives at some point prior to rewrapping it with felt, just so he could amaze folks with the density of bees in that hive? Really?

And finally, what do you folks imagine is the point of this purported deception? He doesn't have a book out to promote. He doesn't sell bees, as far as I know. What is his motivation?

As far as Randy Oliver's well-known penchant for being gullible, I think I detect the faint acrid odor of professional jealousy. To me, that seems a far more plausible motivation for making up a story about another beekeeper... a story that has, let me remind everyone, absolutely no demonstrable basis in fact. I'll remind folks that Randy was there, talked with Tim, talked with a number of his peers in the area. If Tim were using some variation of the Disselkoen system, don't you think that might have come up?

I have to say that this is the strangest little example of believing what you want to believe and disregarding the rest that I've seen yet on this forum.

Ah well.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ray,

I dare say you haven't been here long, and you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I'm not disagreeing with you, maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I'm reading the wrong link. In either case, I don't see anything impossible about this scenario in a 3 deep plus hive. I can't speak to the honey produced because we don't get that kind of nectar profile around here. "Tim's hives have 3 deep boxes for brood chambers, and it's common to have 10-18 frames of bood in its peak, and 10 and 12 supers on them during honey flows."

There is a pernicious trait common in this forum not to believe or accept what others say, that's why it's written in the forum rules. "Please avoid making any kind of accusation toward another forum user. Do not impugn their motives, do not question their skills, and do not use pejoratives. Be responsible and do not post offering advice about things you have not experienced and methods you have not used." Remember, though this is the Treatment-Free Beekeeping Forum, it is populated largely by beekeepers who treat. Don't let it get on your nerves too often.


Post all the links you want:
http://www.indianahoney.org/2013/02/Real-world-beekeeping-happening-in-the-Corn-Belt.cfm
It doesn't mean they're gonna get read. One of my favorite Dean Stiglitz quotes goes something to the effect of "staring at a link for a couple of seconds is not the best way to prepare for discussing its contents." Complete paraphrase.


----------



## rhaldridge

Solomon, my name is Ray Aldridge; call me Ray.

I'm just surprised. You'd think that in evaluating the veracity of an allegation, people would remember the basic logical dictum that *primary sources are primary*. In this case we have several primary sources. There's Randy Oliver, who folks are apparently eager to believe when he reinforces their own views regarding pesticides and treatment, but if not... he suddenly morphs into a gullible undereducated fool who has been taken in by an Indiana slickster. There's this article from the newsletter of an Indiana club, which contains no mention of any brood packing scheme. There's my own correspondence with the guy. There's Dean's report from the talk he attended. There's video, for heaven's sake. 

Apparently the existence of a treatment free beekeeper with low winter losses, big healthy hives, and high productivity is such a threatening idea that folks would prefer to believe a conspiracy theory cooked up by someone with no personal knowledge of the situation, using the well-established scientific method of wildeyed speculation.

People are strange.


----------



## hpm08161947

Solomon Parker said:


> Mr. Haldridge (assuming I got that right),
> 
> 
> 
> Post all the links you want:
> http://www.indianahoney.org/2013/02/Real-world-beekeeping-happening-in-the-Corn-Belt.cfm
> It doesn't mean they're gonna get read. One of my favorite Dean Stiglitz quotes goes something to the effect of "staring at a link for a couple of seconds is not the best way to prepare for discussing its contents." Complete paraphrase.


I think I have read every link... some twice... and viewed the videos.... mainly because I was interested in how this could be true. Tim's success humbles my puny efforts and so I got curious.

I just came in from inspecting some of my better hives - Those with 6 frames of brood I was rather proud of. But since we are now talking bout 2 cycles (42 days??) I could perhaps refer to these as 12 frame hives??

So really... if I walked out to one of Tim's 3 stories... and did an inspection I would count 9 frames on his best and 5 frames of brood on his worst?




> I dare say you haven't been here long, and you ain't seen nothin' yet.


Amen to that! This is a very polite and genteel discussion


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Let Tim speak for himself: http://hoosierbuzz.freeforums.org/i-put-honey-supers-on-today-t551.html#p2160


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> I'm just surprised.


Well, I hope this experience hasn't thrown you off this forum. It certainly has its trolls. I have to deal with it all the time and I stay because I want to be a lifeline to those who are honest and straightforward and want to keep bees treatment free. There is no better way to learn how to do that than to ask someone who already does it. When I started, and started here, there was Dee Lusby. At the time, she was the only experienced treatment free beekeeper. Mention her name now and you'll see derision heaped upon her africanized bees. Never mind the fact that she was doing it before there were africanized bees in the US. Mention Housel Positioning and you'll get heaps of scorn, even though at the absolute very most and least, it might do absolutely nothing. Say something like "I haven't lost any hives to mites in X years" and you'll get piles of mockery even though these people have never seen your hives. Check the archives, I have had losses blamed on mites no matter the condition of the hive. Now, Dee is gone, there is Michael Bush, and me, and a couple others. If people want to know the straight dope, they'll use the PM system, and they do.

But you can do it differently than the rabble. You can accept that people might see and do things differently than you see and do them. You can assume that people are telling you the truth about what they're seeing. You can be open to other ideas. And you can work to make this a better place for people looking to keep bees without treatments. Remember, there are many times more readers than there are commenters.

You're gonna have a spectrum of people. Some are purely ideological, some will follow the facts wherever they lead. Some agree with almost anything, some will admit to nothing.

Have fun.


----------



## rhaldridge

> Originally Posted by rhaldridge:
> The article says 18 frames over two brood cycles. That's 9 frames per cycle, 3 frames per box. I'm a beginner, so can someone tell me why that's implausible in a three deep hive with large stores, and pollen coming in?





sqkcrk said:


> It's not implausible. But I don't think you presented it that way before. I'm not sure I understand what 18 frames over two brood cycles means. 18 frames of capped brood? 18 frames of all stages?


Mark, I didn't present it at all. It was a bit seized out of context by the guy who's fabricated a factfree theory regarding Tim Ives' practices. I didn't even know what he was talking about until I went back and looked at the article again. He presented it as if 18 frames of brood magically appeared prior to the first flow, which is absurd. Nothing even remotely like that was being claimed. I interpreted the article to mean that the queen laid 18 frames of brood over 2 brood cycles, which is pretty much exactly what it says. You yourself mentioned the usual ratio of brood frames to honey and pollen frames. If you'll notice, the claim of 9 frames of brood per brood cycle in a 3 deep setup (30 frames in all) comes pretty close to matching that ratio exactly. The point that was being made in the article was Tim's belief that a three deep brood nest produces 50 percent more bees per cycle than a two deep setup; it's about bee numbers. You can certainly argue with that belief, and I have no idea if it's correct. What it most certainly is *not* is a smoking gun that destroys Tim Ives' credibility, which is what is being claimed by a certain academic with no actual knowledge of the situation.

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## hpm08161947

Over on the Indiana Board, Tim states that his 3 story yards average the world record in honey production -404 lbs/hive (I have no idea what the WR is). Some hives at the 500+ level.

I had no idea that Indiana was such a honey production state, unless it is solely due to his methodology. 

I understand the 18 frame claim now... but it certainly was not clear early on, or in the links provided.

I wonder where all the Indiana beekeepers on here are? Surely they would be familiar with this production phenomena....


----------



## gmcharlie

rhaldridge;936107
As far as Randy Oliver's well-known penchant for being gullible said:


> Randys penchant for gullible??? Hmm I think things have been put out that are off. But I may be mistaken. I have never seen Randy praise his exceptional honey production... Randy only pointed out hes doing just great as treatment free in the middle if a apple orchard with 3 neionics coatings a year, and miles of soybeans and corn...... maybe I missed the lines, but Randy and gullible in the same sentence doesn't sit right.


----------



## rhaldridge

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Let Tim speak for himself: http://hoosierbuzz.freeforums.org/i-put-honey-supers-on-today-t551.html#p2160


Thank you!

I actually took the trouble to join the forum, and I looked at other posts Tim has made. Most involve pretty strong diatribes against the use of sugar. Anyone who could look at what he's saying, and still believe that he feeds his bees in secret, must be a world-class mental contortionist. He's the VP of the Michiana bee club, a strong and active organization, it appears. If he were lying about his practices, you'd think some of his club's members would say something to him on the forum.

I'll just leave this quote here:



> Overall winter losses.. 135 lost out of 706. 19.1% losses. Taking my and 8 other sugar free guys (22 lost out of 270 = 8.14% losses) out of the candyland equation. 113 lost out of 436... 25.91% losses.


Let me interpret: the bee club as a whole suffered 19.1% losses. Tim Ives and 8 other sugar free beekeepers suffered 8.14% losses. Those who fed sugar suffered 25.91% losses.


----------



## rhaldridge

gmcharlie said:


> Randys penchant for gullible??? Hmm I think things have been put out that are off. But I may be mistaken. I have never seen Randy praise his exceptional honey production... Randy only pointed out hes doing just great as treatment free in the middle if a apple orchard with 3 neionics coatings a year, and miles of soybeans and corn...... maybe I missed the lines, but Randy and gullible in the same sentence doesn't sit right.


It was said by that learned but devoutly anonymous fellow who knows the Truth behind Tim Ives' claims... by a process of divination or maybe crystal gazing. It isn't clear to me.



> Just because Randy is gullible (and I do know that he's fallen for 'stories' before in a big way), doesn't mean that we need to be. However, it's OK to laugh heartily at this one.
> 
> Can I help it if Randy isn't a degreed Biologist (I am), and can't follow some of the recent work being done on neuroplasticity in Honeybees?
> 
> WLC.


Does it smell a little odd in here, or have I just been out to the cow barn?


----------



## WLC

Wow. World Record Honey crops. No feeding. Fat Bees. Tower hives with empty supers.

If it smells funny, it's the hot air coming from the story as it deflates.

Remember, I didn't buy it.


----------



## rhaldridge

WLC said:


> Wow. World Record Honey crops. No feeding. Fat Bees. Tower hives with empty supers.
> 
> If it smells funny, it's the hot air coming from the story as it deflates.
> 
> Remember, I didn't buy it.


Ah yes. The old "I alone am right" gambit. So.. let me see if I have this right. Your only actual point is based on a misreading of an article by an amateur writer-- the idea that Tim is claiming 18 frames of brood appearing in his hives as if by magic. You apparently didn't notice the qualifiers "after pollen starts coming in" and "2 brood cycles." You are also relying on ridiculing the notion of "fat bees," an attempt by Randy Oliver to make a scientific concept understandable to those without the training you claim to have. Your ridicule appears to encompass the Phds whose work he cites in his popularized article. You claim Tim is using a system that requires heavy feeding, and for some reason you are eager to ignore the accounts of numerous observers of his yards, as well as his own strongly expressed antipathy to feeding. You have no actual firsthand knowledge of any of the facts put forward. Your posts are riddled with logical fallacies, chief among them an Appeal to Authority that you are unwilling to substantiate, except by your unsupported claim of being an "expert."

If anything is being deflated, it does not seem to be Tim's story.

Oh, what the heck. Maybe you're right, and Tim is a devious charlatan who is breeding bees in secret places that none of his fellow beekeepers know about, and somehow managing to feed those massive hives without anyone finding out. With an evil mastermind this diabolically clever, I think we need to worry about more than him corrupting our sacred beekeeping institutions. He may be out to take over the world. Him and Pinky.


----------



## Solomon Parker

The only way to get rid of trolls to ignore them.


----------



## rhaldridge

Solomon Parker said:


> Well, I hope this experience hasn't thrown you off this forum.


No worries. I was squabbling with my fellow science fiction writers back before there was a web. On Fidonet.

I know all the ploys by now, and on some level, I guess I must find it entertaining. I have many other character flaws.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I'd say stop squabbling, but I'd be a hypocrite. :lpf:


----------



## WLC

I simply don't believe some of the claims being made.

Nor do I believe that what's being reported as Tim's methodology is accurate.

For example, what proof do we have that Tim did in fact achieve a World Record Honey crop from his hive(s)?

I've read that Tim does in fact feed back both honey stores and pollen to his hives in early March.

That's how he's building up brood. 2 cycles= aprox 42 days, so they're ready about the middle of/or late April.

However, the truly vg ladden winter caste of bees is long gone since they will age normally once exposed to 2 brood cycles (brood pherormone/FAEEs cause(s) the change).

So, he's does feed despite what's being reported here, and those aren't truly 'Fat Bees' that he has after 2 brood cycles.

However, I will agree that he does have the resources to construct powerhouse honey hives.

We simply don't have all of the correct details.

Don't blame me. :no:


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> This would give me a huge belly laugh...if it wasn't so sad. The idea that if someone isn't posting to beesource, it must be because they are avoiding it or scared isn't a new one. What an absurd contention.
> 
> deknow


Who said anything about anyone being scared? I didn't say that. You did.

He has Posted on beesource in the past, hasn't he? Why do you suppose he isn't now? There are plenty of people speaking for him. But, no one can be as explicite as Tim Ives himself.

You never answered my previous question Dean. Does Tim run all of his colonies TF? Or just some of them?


----------



## hpm08161947

Beekeepers seem to have a certain scientific bend to their thinking. For those that do, it is only natural for them to be skeptical and to expect data and proof when they encounter something far from their experience.

Tim claims a 400 lb average in a state with a 43 lb/hive (av) and only 8000 hives (2012). Of course all data have outliers, but how many standard deviations out from the average is 400 Lb? It is not really surprising that we would be skeptical.

Tim's production alone would account for a sizeable portion of the states entire honey harvest.


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> Who said anything about anyone being scared? I didn't say that. You did.
> 
> He has Posted on beesource in the past, hasn't he? Why do you suppose he isn't now? There are plenty of people speaking for him. But, no one can be as explicite as Tim Ives himself.
> 
> You never answered my previous question Dean. Does Tim run all of his colonies TF? Or just some of them?


Mark, Dean didn't answer because I did. Tim has never treated any of his colonies and this resulted in very high losses in the first few years he kept bees.

I'm not aware that he has ever posted on Beesource. He seems not to be a publicity seeker. When I asked him if he'd published anything on his methods, he said no. The only reason I became aware of his existence was through Randy Oliver's articles.

If you have questions for him, you can find his email address on a page I posted a link to further up the thread. He was happy to answer my questions, and I'm just a beginner who probably didn't even know the questions to ask.


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> As he put it, the only difference between a queen and a worker is the diet she is fed; it only makes sense that diet is extremely important to bees.
> 
> And finally, what do you folks imagine is the point of this purported deception? He doesn't have a book out to promote. He doesn't sell bees, as far as I know. What is his motivation?


Well, that isn't the only difference. Cell orientation has something to do w/ making a fertilized egg into a queen. I've never heard of anyone making a queen simply by feeding a worker egg and larvae extra brood food. Not that anyone said anything like that.

I would not say that Tim Ives is scamming anyone. That is WLC's hangup. I do question the math. Coming to us second handed. I wish Tim were here to clear things up.


----------



## Oldtimer

Ignoring the claims that are made, ie, world record honey production, etc, and just going by video evidence that I can *see*, I don't quite know what all the fuss is about.

I see a hive stacked up incredibly high with boxes that are virtually empty, and not many bees in them. The hives shown, have less bees than any of my production hives in season, just a massive heap of boxes. What's all the fuss?

Going by some videos I've seen posted here by some of the commercial beeks, his hives have less bees than the US commercial hives I have seen.

However, the way his hives are set up, if there was an incredibly strong flow, I'm pretty sure they could put away an impressive crop. I'd like to see the harvest video. Going by bee numbers in the hives, I can't really see world record though.

As to what seems to be the other bone of contention, the 18 frames of brood claim, the original statement is confusing, ie, what does 18 frames of brood over 2 cycles mean? Me, I have no idea.

If it simply means 18 frames over 3 boxes, with various amounts of brood, nothing really ultra remarkable about that.

For purposes of comparison with Tim's video, I have posted a pic of a hive with a normal complement of bees in the supers. The hive with the lid off is 6 deeps, which if med boxes had been used for honey would be around 8 boxes total, similar to Tim's, just, a lot more bees in my hives. By the way, the smaller hives pictured are not because they have been used to boost the bigger hives, it is because ALL the hives pictured were left over nucs, some only been put in boxes within the last couple months. They are 10 frame deeps, I spread the combs wider in honey boxes to 8 frames per 10 frame box to make easier honey extracting, plus the bees can get more honey in a box.

Not trying to detract from Tim at all, I'm sure he has developed a method to get a good crop. The method appears successful in his area, it will not be successful in some other areas.


----------



## WLC

"I would not say that Tim Ives is scamming anyone. That is WLC's hangup."

Not really. We're just playing 'Telephone' and it appears that conflicting messages are coming in.

However, nothing is really corroborating with the story.


----------



## rhaldridge

hpm08161947 said:


> Beekeepers seem to have a certain scientific bend to their thinking. For those that do, it is only natural for them to be skeptical and to expect data and proof when they encounter something far from their experience.


Well, do you feel that Randy Oliver has a scientific bent? He actually visited the guy, talked to him at length, visited his yards. Surprisingly enough, he reached a completely different conclusion than a guy who has done none of those things. Who has more credibility here?

I know very little about beekeeping. But I know quite a bit about thinking critically, and to me, this is an easy call. On one side you have data, witnesses, and actual videos and pictures. On the other, you have conjecture and innuendo.

Which is more convincing?


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> Mark, I didn't present it at all. It was a bit seized out of context by the guy who's fabricated a factfree theory regarding Tim Ives' practices. I didn't even know what he was talking about until I went back and looked at the article again. He presented it as if 18 frames of brood magically appeared prior to the first flow, which is absurd. Nothing even remotely like that was being claimed. I interpreted the article to mean that the queen laid 18 frames of brood over 2 brood cycles, which is pretty much exactly what it says. You yourself mentioned the usual ratio of brood frames to honey and pollen frames. If you'll notice, the claim of 9 frames of brood per brood cycle in a 3 deep setup (30 frames in all) comes pretty close to matching that ratio exactly. The point that was being made in the article was Tim's belief that a three deep brood nest produces 50 percent more bees per cycle than a two deep setup; it's about bee numbers. You can certainly argue with that belief, and I have no idea if it's correct. What it most certainly is *not* is a smoking gun that destroys Tim Ives' credibility, which is what is being claimed by a certain academic with no actual knowledge of the situation.
> 
> Draw your own conclusions.


I guess I have read so many Posts in this Thread that I can't recall who wrote what. Sorry. I also don't know what WLC's problem is.

I'd have to ask Tim Ives himself, but I don't see the magic (my word) of a third deep. Considering that when the colony has just come thru the Winter that bottom deep is bound to be empty and all the brood frames will be in the upper one or two boxes. I've hardly ever seen a queen go down into the emptiness below where brood is being laid. He must be rotating deeps to put empty space above the brood area.

By the way. You've met me so you know some of this is true. I'm a 60 year old overweight, sleep deprived, cranky beekeeper who works alone. There's a reason for that. Impatience. So, I apologize if I came down too hard on you for your Novice Status. Obviously you know how to research and read and understand what you read. Most of it anyway.

How did you get acquainted w/ Tim Ives?


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> Mark, Dean didn't answer because I did. Tim has never treated any of his colonies and this resulted in very high losses in the first few years he kept bees.
> 
> I'm not aware that he has ever posted on Beesource. He seems not to be a publicity seeker. When I asked him if he'd published anything on his methods, he said no. The only reason I became aware of his existence was through Randy Oliver's articles.
> 
> If you have questions for him, you can find his email address on a page I posted a link to further up the thread. He was happy to answer my questions, and I'm just a beginner who probably didn't even know the questions to ask.


That's fine. But I like folks I ask a question of to answer. Simply a sign of respect. Hmmm, maybe that's a sign of something.


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> By the way. You've met me so you know some of this is true. I'm a 60 year old overweight, sleep deprived, cranky beekeeper who works alone. There's a reason for that. Impatience. So, I apologize if I came down too hard on you for your Novice Status. Obviously you know how to research and read and understand what you read. Most of it anyway.
> 
> How did you get acquainted w/ Tim Ives?


Mark, you've been nothing but extremely kind to me, kinder than I deserve. In fact, it was you and the other members of the club that meets in Canton that made me start thinking I'd like to finally try my hand at beekeeping, last summer.

So, in a way, it's your fault I'm here being contentious. That's a terrible way to repay you, I know.

I came across a mention of Tim when I was reading Randy Oliver's online publications. He seemed interesting, so I used my Googlefu to learn more.


----------



## WLC

What problem?

Being skeptical isn't considered a problem.

It's what happens when you aren't skeptical that causes problems. Can we agree on that Mark?

There's no need for fat bees, or piles of empty deeps/supers or any of the other distractions to make a powerhouse honey hive.

You shouldn't need a tall ladder to harvest honey.

It's a bunch of gimmicks that detract from the intent of the MDA Splitter method of chemical free beekeeping.

It's about two operations: one for outbreeding mites, the other for making powerhouse honey hives.

Maybe Tim should get a cape and a lovely assistant?


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> So, in a way, it's your fault I'm here being contentious.


Then I done good.

Don't review Solomon Parker's first Threads. You'll change your mind about me. lol


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> What problem?
> 
> Being skeptical isn't considered a problem.
> 
> It's what happens when you aren't skeptical that causes problems. Can we agree on that Mark?
> 
> There's no need for fat bees, or piles of empty deeps/supers or any of the other distractions to make a powerhouse honey hive.
> 
> You shouldn't need a tall ladder to harvest honey.
> 
> It's a bunch of gimmicks that detract from the intent of the MDA Splitter method of chemical free beekeeping.
> 
> It's about two operations: one for outbreeding mites, the other for making powerhouse honey hives.
> 
> Maybe Tim should get a cape and a lovely assistant?


Nothing wrong w/ skepticism. I think I am about as skeptical as anyone, except you.  I think you take skepticism to a higher level. Almost painting someone as a liar, when they haven't written a word in our Forums.

And your criticism of Randy Oliver? Seems kinda petty and snarky. (must be a better word I just can't think what it would be)


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> I'm a 60 year old overweight, sleep deprived, cranky beekeeper who works alone.


Well, if you'd only introduced yourself this way.....



sqkcrk said:


> Don't review Solomon Parker's first Threads. You'll change your mind about me. lol


Not my original first threads, just the first ones when I returned to the forum after quite a few years off. That would be about February 2011, my post numbers from about 176 to 1500. Yeah, I remember that. 

I'd have probably eight hundred more if not for the deleted ones.


----------



## Oldtimer

You were pretty wired then. Pun intended!


----------



## WLC

I've called Tim 'entertaining'.

Tim told Randy exactly what he wanted to hear (vg/fat bees).

I've pointed out that we're not really talking about the 'substance' of treatment free beekeeping.

We're caught up in the peripheral issues.

If someone wants a more substantive view of this type of TF beekeeping, go to MDA Splitter and Mel will give it to you.

It's a reasonable first step.

I wouldn't say the same for what Tim is doing. Too much show, not enough substance.


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay.


----------



## WLC

Otherwise someone is likely to end up on top of a tall ladder by a stack of empty bodies and supers.

Not a good first step.


----------



## sqkcrk

Have you seen the photos from Old Bee Books? Tall hives have historically been rather common. Not that tall hives necassarily mean huge crops. But, there are videos of honey harvesting showing beekeepers taking 6 and 8 full boxes of honey off of 40 colony yards. It does happen. And you don't need to follow MDA methodology.


----------



## WLC

The point of the MDA Splitter method is that you can keep bees, chemical free, and enjoy honey producing hives. Outbreed mites, make powerhouse honey hives.

It's not about enjoying the view from high up (gee my bees look small from up here).

It's treatment free beekeeping, with alot of management thrown in.

Why is everyone so fixated on really tall hives?


----------



## David LaFerney

Just to point out that there are some actual advantages to harvesting more honey from fewer hives - IE "Tall Hives" Assuming a beekeeper has a goal of producing X amt of honey - "tall hives" allow that goal to be achieved with fewer hives. Fewer hives to care for, inspect, medicate, feed, requeen, etc. Less equipment required - same number of honey supers, but less of everything else. Less space needed in the apiary. Less start up cost. As a general rule fewer hives = less work. Some justifiable feeling of accomplishment to be gained from beating the average. Maybe some folks just think it's kind of cool to make a lot of honey from fewer hives. 

Every bee keeper has their own reasons and goals.


----------



## Solomon Parker

One of the reasons I developed the cube hives was to save on height. By comb area, the cube hives are 2/3 the height of a normal Langstroth style hive. I don't have any data yet, they have not yet grown into their boxes.

Tim is right though, large hives do limit swarming. Keeping comb on hives in the off season saves on required storage space, even though he doesn't do that as far as I can tell.

I don't like the idea of multiple sizes of boxes/frames. I don't like the idea of excessive management, however he has not claimed such. The benefit to my operation seems fairly limited because I don't have continuing nectar flows throughout the year. If dearth kills off the clover, there's precious little to be had after black locust is over. There's a tiny bit of goldenrod, but I never harvest that. I already keep my hives larger than most of them will fill or grow to. Occasionally, I'll get a six deep, but usually only one a year. I don't take much honey below the fourth deep.


----------



## WLC

Looking over Mel's version of how to put together a powerhouse hive.

He's using about 20 frames of brood from 3 or 4 hives to do that.

2 or 3 queens would end up in nucs to start over again.

That might become a consideration if you could make more money from making increases. Nucs, splits, etc. .

Of course, if the weather/nectar flow doesn't cooperate, you've just gathered alot of resources and put them in the wrong place.

It's tough to say if a tower hive is worth the gamble. You can always feed your hives to make more bees. But that's not an option if the flow doesn't go well, and alot of brood is no longer available for making more bees (they're in the towers).

That flow would really need to be a good one to make it worth the risk.


----------



## Roland

Actually. his 400 lbs from 3 deep brood chambers is not that good. Per my "Scale hive report" of 2012, one deep made 150 lbs. Three deeps (added) made 450 lbs, and I did not have to use a step ladder. It is all about the use of capital. What money did he make with what investment?

Either way, time will solve this one too. Let's see how long he sticks around. We've seen this before, and we will see this again.

BTW, as the crow flies, he is about 100 miles from me. If the lake froze, a quick drive. 

Crazy Roland Diehnelt, 5th gen beekeeper.
Linden Apiary, est. 1852


----------



## Michael Bush

>It is all about the use of capital. 

And not spending all your capital on back surgery...


----------



## squarepeg

my original comment was 'to each his own'.

the cool thing about this forum is that there are no two beekeepers that do things exactly the same way.

i have really benefited from getting exposed to all of the different approaches and applying what is useful to my apiary.

as i mentioned working tall hives isn't something that appeals to me but i wouldn't criticize anyone for wanting to do it.

as roland and the others point out, three deeps used as singles can net close to the same honey combined as having the three stacked.

back problems seem to be common among long time beekeepers, something i will do my best to avoid at all costs.

mb, in your all medium hives do you find that the bottom box or two is full of pollen at the end of your main flow?


----------



## Michael Bush

>mb, in your all medium hives do you find that the bottom box or two is full of pollen at the end of your main flow? 

In recent years since going to eight frame mediums, I've done more and more management by the box and don't dig down that deep very often. I guess I should pay more attention, but that would be my guess, that the bottom box has a lot of pollen.


----------



## squarepeg

understood, thanks michael.


----------



## Tim Ives

Top box is upper entrance... Most are insulated. I'm in the snow belt of Lake Michigan, nothing to get 2' of snow. Anyone that knows me, knows how much I'm against feeding.... Junk food= junk bees

Brood area needs to be 1/3 of hive space..


----------



## Tim Ives

18 frames of brood is each 21 day cycle NOT 9 frames. A 3 deep system broods up before a nearly starving 2 deep system. Then over the NEXT 2 brood cycles, a 3 deep system has 50% more brood vs a 2 deep system= 300% more bees 18 frames + 6 frames+ 6 frames= you need a ladder to super..... Brood area MUST be 1/3 of total hive space.

Whoever said I work construction full time and tend hives... False.... I haven't worked construction since 10/2009. Bee's not dying and construction slow. Any guesses what I'm doing? 

Supers weight around 50# unless your using one piece Pierco frames 10% more. 34# of honey is a good average on supers. Yes... 400# is a good average on Supered hives. Are all hives supered? No...mathematically impossible to ever have enough supers. 50% are supered the rest is split one hive into 3. 


O yes....Some very comical posts on here. Thanks for the laughs.

Who ever said they got 150# off a single deep hive. You are in a GOOD honey area and I would get 1000# off one of these hives.........


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC, he's how that 'GAMBLE' has went. Absolute ZERO feeding, treating and I have several ZERO loss yards. Overall 8% average losses and 1000%+ increase since 2007.

Swarm in May is worth a load if hay, swarm in June is worth a silver spoon. Swarm in July let it fly, but July splits are now the ****z. Ya, Mel just loves seeing me at a meeting..LOL


----------



## WLC

So you are an MDA splitter disciple? Right?

You do feed frames of stored honey and pollen in March. Right?


----------



## Oldtimer

Tim Ives said:


> Whoever said I work construction full time and tend hives... False.....


That would have been me. I based it on the following information given in this thread.


rhaldridge said:


> he handles 150 hives and works a full time job as a carpenter, I believe.


Guess I should pay less attention to wild claims.



Tim Ives said:


> Who ever said they got 150# off a single deep hive. You are in a GOOD honey area and I would get 1000# off one of these hives.........


Well one thing you don't struggle with, is an ego.

Have you ever got 150 lb's off a single brood box hive? It's not hard in a reasonable area, it's only 2 deeps. I'll be interested in the how to get a thousand pounds off one video though. Ever done that or is it talk?


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC, what part of I don't feed AYTHING dont you understand?????? Look at pics on FB, several hives still have tar paper from 3-4 years ago.


----------



## WLC

OK, then how much honey stores do you leave on each hive for overwintering?

You can't be harvesting all of it.


----------



## Tim Ives

Oldtimer... You Shie me where this great location is and YOU can shoot the video yourself.......


----------



## Oldtimer

LOL. 

But I won't be doing the video, I'm not claiming to be able to produce a thousand pounds from a hive, I've never even done 1/2 that. Clearly I have a lot to learn. 

There's a pic of one of my sites in post 315 of this thread. I don't run single brood nests, but where it is done in these parts 150 lb's would not be unusual, and I doubt it would be in your parts either.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC.. Here's the dynamics. One, I never touch the deeps. If the 3rd deep isn't full the supers don't get filled. Going into winter bottom deep has honey on outside frames, 6-7 frames of pollen, second deep 3 outside frames honey, 2 frames if pollen middle empty drawn, top deep 95% honey/5% pollen. On average queens drop down bottom deep around Feb 20th, bees work their way up. On average pollen starts coming in 3/11, bees start drones. If a hive is not supered up by 4/11 they start swarming 4/27, as in the case 08/09/10. Which them years wasn't supering till 2 weeks before black locust(5/20). Problem was 3 deep system was swarming starting 4/27. This git me to rethink when to super. So started supering, first week of April. Doing do dramatically reduced swarming. But at that time was only using 3 supers average. Bees would fill supers by end of May and still swarm. So started increasing the number of supers to see what feasible limitations was. 10 was not feasible, 7 seems to work best but need to be extracted by mid-June. Put back on ASAP extract again before goldenrod flow end of Aug. 

Last year being a dearth from early June-July that put a damper on second harves till soybean bloom.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer:

He's an MDA Splitter disciple alright. He just needs to fess up. 

I'll bet you that he's leaving stores on starting in late August/early September.

That would explain the 'no feeding' bit, the whole 'fat bee' bit, and it would explain where he's getting all that brood so early. 

Didn't I say he was being entertaining?


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes obviously he leaves the stores rather than feed later. And that is a good way especially in a big hive to get a good spring buildup.


----------



## WLC

Thanks for the details Tim.

It'll take me a while to digest.


----------



## Oldtimer

Tim Ives said:


> WLC.. Here's the dynamics. One, I never touch the deeps. If the 3rd deep isn't full the supers don't get filled. Going into winter bottom deep has honey on outside frames, 6-7 frames of pollen, second deep 3 outside frames honey, 2 frames if pollen middle empty drawn, top deep 95% honey/5% pollen. On average queens drop down bottom deep around Feb 20th, bees work their way up. On average pollen starts coming in 3/11, bees start drones. If a hive is not supered up by 4/11 they start swarming 4/27, as in the case 08/09/10. Which them years wasn't supering till 2 weeks before black locust(5/20). Problem was 3 deep system was swarming starting 4/27. This git me to rethink when to super. So started supering, first week of April. Doing do dramatically reduced swarming. But at that time was only using 3 supers average. Bees would fill supers by end of May and still swarm. So started increasing the number of supers to see what feasible limitations was. 10 was not feasible, 7 seems to work best but need to be extracted by mid-June. Put back on ASAP extract again before goldenrod flow end of Aug.
> 
> Last year being a dearth from early June-July that put a damper on second harves till soybean bloom.


Well that was interesting Tim, that is the kind of information I like.

You mention the timing of your pollen flow, what is the timing of the nectar flows?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

On a smalle scale I can can verify your findings. I did the following this year. I wintered a hive on one deep. Young queen from 2012. I took all the brood combs from four other hives at the beginning of April, still very cold. Not much brood in the hives, I took it and put it into two additional deeps over the wintered colony. I supered the hive with two more deeps with empty combs. So the bees were on five deeps. 

What I found is, that the bees build up rapidly because of the bees hatching. They filled and capped about three deep supers in an area where other beeks do have nothing to harvest until now, because the bees consumed the little nectar they collected. (Very cold Spring this year.) 

The broodnest is unlimited - no excluder - and brood can be found mainly in the two deeps below, just a couple of brood combs in the third. 

So far no intentions of swarming to be found. Other hives in my area swarmed. The colony very vigirous and strong, main flow ahead. 

So I can verify that a lot of comb is beneficial, and that must be true for a lot of pollen and honey stores during winter, too. 

Of course I observe one drawback of the combining of early brood: the varroa population is exploding. Lots and lots of varroa. Not much damage can be seen, yet. But that's a question of time, I suppose. 

From this and other observations I will experiment more with those stacks.


----------



## Tim Ives

Nectar flows.. Hensbit/ purple deadnettle chichweed vast acreage in the corn fields till they get planted mid march till planting end of April. Then dandelions/fruit trees late April early May. Black locust/black berries end if May. Tulip popular beginning of June clover/alfalfa mid June well into July (alfalfa usually gets cut before bloom). Early-mid July mint fields, end of July soybean. Early Aug dearth till goldenrod. 
Most of the flows are from small patchy areas between corn/bean fields. The only vast forage is early pre planting, mint and soybeans. 

I did have the opportunity to move 20 big hives on blueberries. In one week they filled 2 supers and working on the 3rd. 1st and 3 rd supers are brand new undrawn. Which takes a good amount of honey to draw up new supers. I don't use a queen excluder, so I always place a new super at the bottom of the stack. Haven't had a queen pass a new super yet. Bees will fill drawn first before drawing new. Also by using New this depletes tge wax builders. By keeping wax builders depleted, this also dramatically reduces swarming.


----------



## Tim Ives

By using the 3 deep and them brooding up earlier, they're out jumping the Varrao. Varrao needs drone brood to hr most prolific. But also I haven't bought bees since 2006 and the bees I do have are from mostly feral local swarms caught in 07' Turned 15 into 150+50-60 splits sold. 

Since I'm splitting half my hives each year. Varrao gets split also. Plus not bringing in any new mite genetics. So mites are getting inbred. I have several yards 2 miles apart with different genetic lines of bees.


----------



## squarepeg

tim, welcome to the forum and thanks for sharing your experiences. 

it sounds like you don't get much of a break in the nectar flow up there, not much of a summer 'dearth'?


----------



## Tim Ives

He's an MDA Splitter disciple alright. He just needs to fess up. 

I'll bet you that he's leaving stores on starting in late August/early September.

Umm I start leaving stores when I first make a split. I make full hive body splits. My only concentration is getting them to draw up 2 new hive bodies. I split using swarm cells and equalize all resources (honey, pollen and brood).


----------



## WLC

I stand corrected. But, there are more than a few similarities between the methodologies. By the way, I think that Mel advocates feeding back honey, etc., rather than using 'sugar'.

So, you've got stores on your splits in July. Makes sense. Those would be overwintered and used for next seasons honey production. Correct?

Not for nothing, but you are moving stores around as part of your management. So, I think that some of us would characterize that as feeding stores.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC, not even close..... I don't have to FEED anything, I don't have to take 4 hives to equal my one. I'm not selling books, bees (unless lack of equipment) or anything. I don't care how anyone keeps their bees. If your satisfied with 60# average production number, so bee it. I'll keep doing what I'm doing. Everyone can speculate all you want....don't care.... All I'll say is, this is what 8+years unadulterated sugar free bees do.


----------



## WLC

"I don't have to FEED anything,.."
Semantics...

How about the splits? Do they become next years honey producers?


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> I stand corrected. But, there are more than a few similarities between the methodologies. By the way, I think that Mel advocates feeding back honey, etc., rather than using 'sugar'.
> 
> So, you've got stores on your splits in July. Makes sense. Those would be overwintered and used for next seasons honey production. Correct?
> 
> Not for nothing, but you are moving stores around as part of your management. So, I think that some of us would characterize that as feeding stores.



Mel advocates candy block's..... 

How do you figure I'm moving stores, other than equalizing splits? The occasional after-swarm, I may add drawn comb. 

I find all this hilarious......


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> "I don't have to FEED anything,.."
> Semantics...
> 
> How about the splits? Do they become next years honey producers?


Only half will... As I said earlier, mathematically impossible to super everything.


----------



## WLC

http://www.mdasplitter.com/docs/NucManagement.pdf

Well, if you look at the graphic above, Mel's saying feed back honey. But, he does sell candy blocks. Tis true.

Maybe if you came up with a graphic, we could all understand everything more clearly.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks for the answer on the nectar flow, although I am not familiar with a lot of those plants. How does mathematics make it impossible to super all hives?


----------



## Tim Ives

If he's feeding back honey, he just started that in the past year or so. Probably since I made him look like a total idiot at the IBA meeting 2 years ago.......

According to the 2008 MDA step 3 FEED sugar water.....


----------



## Tim Ives

Step one..... Leave on candy board???????


----------



## D Semple

Tim,

I like many others are following this thread closely to learn and we really like your input, but you need to quit with the personal attacks or you will get yourself banned from the site. 

Calling somebody who advocates a different method than you do an idiot crosses the line.


Don't get yourself run regards,

Don Semple
Overland Park, KS


----------



## Tim Ives

Mathematics, in order to contain a hive. 7 supers is the most effective number. 100 hives one would need 700 supers. If you only have half that number of supers, the other 50 needs to be split. The 50 gets turned in 150. So now you have 200 hives or would need 1400 supers. Mathematically impossible. Unless you borrowed 1000 supers. The increase is exponential...

If someone can figure out my biggest problem every year of never enough equipment. Then I'll bee interested in what you have to say.... Everything else is blah blah blah.....


----------



## David LaFerney

*Tim Ives* - thanks for joining the discussion and clearing up everything that has been said about your method. Clearly you've worked out a system that works great for you in your area so congratulations for that. I imagine that a lot of what you are doing would also be at least informative to other bee keepers in other parts of the company.

However, I'm willing to bet that if you did the exact same thing here in the south it wouldn't work out exactly the same. Your bees are getting good quality year round nutrition not only because you leave them plenty of stores but also because according to what you say your summer dearth mostly only occurs in the month of August. Last year our dearth began in early June and ran until this spring. 

Leaving on lots of honey might keep them from starving during a long hot dearth but it won't result in much brood production or strong colonies going into winter. 

Again, congratulations on your success, but be aware that you are painting with a mighty broad brush when you use terms like "Sugar feeding Idiot."

Nonetheless, thanks for your comments.


----------



## Tim Ives

Don Semple, don't care....wouldn't bee the first time being kicked off a site..... Why do you think I don't comment on sites like this???????????????????????? Again don't care.. I'm not the one losing bees...


----------



## Tim Ives

David.... No its just not my area..... Have a growing number of people with equal or better success in several states now.


----------



## squarepeg

tim, i agree with what david said and thanks again for sharing your experiences.

it sounds like you may only have a few weeks of a dearth there.

do you typically get to extract the seven honey supers per hive twice each season?


----------



## Tim Ives

Last year no.... For one they lost momentum with the 2 week April freeze then the dearth from June till end of July when soybeans bloomed. Couple yards closer to mint did better, because they are irrigated. 
This year is looking good so far. The hives in the blueberries hit 2 supers in first week.


----------



## David LaFerney

Tim - to kind of sum up...

You started 5-6 years ago with about 15 hives mostly originating from caught swarms

You over winter in 3 deep hive bodies.

You add a lot of supers very early.

Any hives that you don't have supers for you split into singles which get equalized.

You don't tamper with the brood nests.

You don't feed or treat at all.

In good years some hives produce up to 400 pounds of harvested honey produced during early and late nectar flows.

Is that all correct - or would you add to it?


----------



## Barry

Tim Ives said:


> The increase is exponential...


Only on paper. Real life tends not to work this way.


----------



## Tim Ives

Close David. 2001-2007 purchased 54 packages/4nucs. 50-90% losses.

2006/07 winter lost 28out of 29.

2007 bought 10 more packages and put out 40 swarm catch boxes. Caught 15 swarms. Winter 07/08 lost all the package bees and only lost one of the swarms and still had my 06' survivor which was actually from 04' Russian Kelley package. 2007 was the first year I didn't usr any sugar since had mostly all new drawn comb from 06'. Since my only package survivor was a 3 deep system. Started running them all that way. My original thought was pull a split drop the 3rd deep down and put a couple supers on. Didn't want to mahe splits till after black locust flow. Problem was the triples started swarming out 4/27 and would be done by May 7th ish. So started supering before 4/11(16 days to make Qcells) results was unreal amounts of honey. Just started adjusting from there. 

If you get on the IBA website, community michiana beeline. Read thru them since 2008. You'll notice I'm the only one in this area doing good on honey production. Doesn't matter where I place the bees. 

No.. not some hives. Yards......

Barry, no that's been real life since 07' and for s growing number of people in my area. 

I just turned Unity Garden hives from 4 into 18. But the get grant monies for equipment. I've built all my own from recycled lumber, including frames up until 2010. Not feasible to be milling few thousand frames.


----------



## David LaFerney

How many hives do you run in one location?


----------



## Barry

Tim Ives said:


> Barry, no that's been real life since 07' and for s growing number of people in my area.


I understand that, but it's only 5 years, and less so for the others. Give it two to three times that amount of time and see if the same can be said. I doubt it.


----------



## jim lyon

Forgive me if I withhold judgement for a bit longer because if Tim is truly onto something here then the results to beekeeping as we know it will be profound. Honey production will skyrocket, migratory beekeeping will die (as someone who has been away from home 3 months and counting I like that part) declining bee numbers will turn into exponential increases and the fears by many of pesticide problems with bee hives will be but a distant memory. Go get em Tim and anyone else using this system and I mean that sincerely. You have an audience.


----------



## Tim Ives

Fully aware of that Jim Lyon. Just come to any state bee meeting I go to. I'm fearless on this issue....


----------



## gmcharlie

Tim, Maybe I am missing something here, We all like to talk about honey production. And your numbers seem fantastic, but if I do some math, your useing 3 deeps, and 7 supers to generate 400lbs? How and why is that any better than the typical single deep setup? generaly around here single deep hives generate 100-150 also..... and when you loose a queen or a swarm there you only lose a small amout. seems to me your putting all your eggs in large baskets and lifting a lot of deeps pretty high up, so what the real perk???


----------



## hpm08161947

gmcharlie said:


> Tim, Maybe I am missing something here, We all like to talk about honey production. And your numbers seem fantastic,


I may be missing something here too.... but I have been following this thread from the beginning. 

Isn't T Ives saying that his 3 deeps of bees have more workers... far more workers...perhaps twice as many, as 3 indiv. deeps. Hence, with the correct timing... he makes far more honey.....??


----------



## hpm08161947

jim lyon said:


> Forgive me if I withhold judgement for a bit longer because if Tim is truly onto something here then the results to beekeeping as we know it will be profound. Honey production will skyrocket, migratory beekeeping will die (as someone who has been away from home 3 months and counting I like that part) declining bee numbers will turn into exponential increases and the fears by many of pesticide problems with bee hives will be but a distant memory. Go get em Tim and anyone else using this system and I mean that sincerely. You have an audience.


Jim ... I think you are correct. If this system is reproducible outside of Tim Ives hands.... then we may be chatting with the new Langstroth!! Or maybe Brother Adam... no kidding...


----------



## WLC

So all that we really need is the same area as is found in 3 deeps for overwintering, and the same area as found in 7 supers? Loaded with stores, of course.

Now, did I miss the part where he proved that HFCS and Sub. won't work the same as stored honey and pollen?


----------



## Beregondo

WLC said:


> Now, did I miss the part where he proved that HFCS and Sub. won't work the same as stored honey and pollen?



I seriously doubt he cares whether the same could be done of purchased feed. 
If it works for him without it, why would he spend the time and money to find out?

Sounds like something more incumbent on the curious to prove or disprove...with their own time and money.

For my part, I think it's worth setting aside 3 deeps and 7 supers to see how well it works, rather than talking the thing to death.

It's a rainy day, but I had better get some work done in the shop...


----------



## WLC

It's more than just woodenware and feed.

It's about profit margins.

If honey sells for $2.10 a pound, it could make a world of difference to use HFCS and sub. .

By the way, Mel did make up powerhouse honey hives, but his method doesn't rely on all natural feed or really tall hives.

Why hasn't anyone asked the question, "Why don't you just use a horizontal setup if you're making your own bodies anyway?"

It would avoid the 'ups and downs'.


----------



## Tim Ives

There's 3 other guys helping pull honey. Their hives are set up the same way also. I climb the ladder, another guy takes them, another blows the bees out and stacks on pallet. Another takes bobcat to load truck. Bobcat does the rest of the moving around to hot room/ weight scales /extraction. Only other lifting is frames to the cowen decapper. 


I'll just mind my own beeswax.Have fun figuring everything out. Sounds like most of you are having better success anyways. Somehow 30%+ losses are better than 8%???


----------



## WLC

Tim:

I took a look at Mike Risk's site to see what he was saying. It's basically about giving them room, and splitting in July.

Although I didn't read anything about a treatment free philosophy.


----------



## Oldtimer

hpm08161947 said:


> Isn't T Ives saying that his 3 deeps of bees have more workers... far more workers...perhaps twice as many, as 3 indiv. deeps. Hence, with the correct timing... he makes far more honey.....??


He said compared to a starving 2 brood box hive, his hives have 50% more brood. So therefore they have 300% more bees.

To me, the maths didn't work in any obvious way. Explanation Tim?


----------



## Oldtimer

Tim Ives said:


> If someone can figure out my biggest problem every year of never enough equipment. Then I'll bee interested in what you have to say.... Everything else is blah blah blah.....


Well here I can help, it's simple. My situation is in a way like yours, I make exponential increase of bees every year as I sell hives. Based on numbers you've given, my increase is greater than yours, just, I sell them.

So, the equipment problem. It's simple. Late fall I plan the following season. I calculate how much gear will have to be made, and I make it. If help is needed, I get help. 

So in essence, I make a plan, and one way or another I ensure it happens. 

Not being your own idea, I hope that is not just blah blah blah to you.


----------



## jim lyon

Tim Ives said:


> There's 3 other guys helping pull honey. Their hives are set up the same way also. I climb the ladder, another guy takes them, another blows the bees out and stacks on pallet. Another takes bobcat to load truck. Bobcat does the rest of the moving around to hot room/ weight scales /extraction. Only other lifting is frames to the cowen decapper.
> 
> 
> I'll just mind my own beeswax.Have fun figuring everything out. Sounds like most of you are having better success anyways. Somehow 30%+ losses are better than 8%???


Am I reading some condescension? There is a pretty deep body of beekeeping expertise and many quite successful beekeepers that post on this forum who rarely struggle with losses. You just might learn a few things from them as well. The fair minded ones will give your ideas a fair hearing. I trust you will reciprocate.


----------



## WLC

It looks like Mike Risk, of Michigan, is using standard top supering rather than putting all 7 on at once. It also looks like he uses 3 deeps as well although I've noticed a shallow in between the top deep and the other two.

http://www.riskshoney.com/blog/

Maybe tower hives aren't so bad for swarm control and honey production.

However, it does seem like some of the other stuff is 'fluff' after all.


----------



## deknow

As I've said before, Ramona and I drove to NJ from MA to hear Tim give a presentation. In a previous thread, I gave some of the details that I remembered, and some ideas as to what is actually going on.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ree-Commercial-Beekeepers&p=920600#post920600


> I mentioned Tim Ives a few times earlier in this thread. There are at least a few things that I found interesting about his approach that he either didn't articulate, or hadn't considered
> [snip]
> There is also another aspect to Tim's management that I find intriguing. He overwinters in 3 deeps, with the top deep full of honey, the bottom deep with pollen, and the middle deep with mostly honey and bees.
> 
> Tim claims that the way he keeps the queen out of the supers is that the first super above the brood nest is always full of undrawn foundation. He claims that the queen won't cross or lay in the foundation. ...but we know the queen can lay in foundation, and we know that the queen will cross foundation to lay...so what gives?
> 
> Tim never puts this (medium) box of foundation on by itself...it is always accomanied by (it seemed like a minimum of 2) drawn medium honey supers....and he does this early (like March). His observation is that the bees use all the stored honey and pollen to build up very large populations early.
> 
> What I think is happening is what I would call SHM (strategic honey moving). The box of foundation is placed at the same time as a couple of honey supers. The empty comb up top stimulates the bees to move honey from the bottom 3 deeps into the super. The bees are stimulated by moving the honey. The broodnest is being opened up by honey being moved out. The queen is laying in the cells emptied of honey...in the brood nest, so the opposite situation exists from when the bees are on a flow and the queen can't lay in the cells as they are filled with honey as soon as the brood emerges. There is no motivation for the queen to lay in the box of foundation or in the supers, as the broodnest is getting bigger (from honey being moved out of the nest)...


----------



## deknow

jim lyon said:


> Am I reading some condescension?


mmmm, I can't count the number of times that WLC has essentially called Tim's claims lies (never used the word "lie", but "stories" several times)...and anyone who didn't just assume that he is feeding, harvesting brood to make super hives, and performing OTS queenrearing was happy to believe the lies...all over the last 2 months.

I wouldn't judge him too harshly for being sick of it. Don't you expect that when you tell us about your methods that we believe what you are actually saying? Isn't that nice? 

Would you participate in discussions if the discussions were about how you aren't actually doing what you claim to be doing? Wouldn't you get sick of it?

deknow


----------



## WLC

The image of the tower hives on mike risk's site is clickable so that you can take a good look at the setup of many of the hives.

http://www.riskshoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/tall-hive-3.jpg

I think that placing a medium above the two bottom deeps is either stored honey or the 'stimulus', and the deep on top may be for any number of other purposes.

I could see how a deep full of stores/brood could be very helpful when splitting the lower two deeps. The medium may contain brood/honey so that it can be combined with a medium honey super to make the medium supers to place on top of new splits.

Not a bad idea at that.

PS: I see excluders on some of them.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> So all that we really need is the same area as is found in 3 deeps for overwintering, and the same area as found in 7 supers? Loaded with stores, of course.


Right, because we know that one giant comb will produce the same result as a bunch of parallel combs arranged in a cube with the same surface area.



> Now, did I miss the part where he proved that HFCS and Sub. won't work the same as stored honey and pollen?


You seem to have missed the part where Tim has been sharing what he is doing. Assuming he is honest and accurate (both of which I assume, but I've been fooled before), he has proven that with his bees, in his situation, in the years he has been managing these bees he has obtained the results he has obtained.
I'm not sure where the need to prove the equivalency of honey and HFCS comes into it at all. What about what Tim has done or said implies or demands that he run HFCS in parallel with his unfed hives in order to run a controlled study? If you don't think he needs to be running a controlled study, I'd be curious to know by what procedure one could prove that "...hfsc and sub. won't work the same as stored honey and pollen?"

deknow


----------



## WLC

Deknow:

When you're loading up July splits with stores, believe me, you're feeding. It probably sustains them well into late September. It's not semantics.

The 'sugar feeding idiot' crack against Mel pretty much says Tim's a bit of a fanatical treatment-free, natural-feed type of guy. You don't have to be treatment free or a natural feed only beekeeper to make this thing work.

I've known of Mel's methods for making powerhouse honey hives for a while now.

More recently, I've been able to take a look at some tower hives from Michigan in a photo.

I get how it works.

No antics required.

PS-No need to make excuses for Tim. We understand.


----------



## hpm08161947

deknow said:


> I'm not sure where the need to prove the equivalency of honey and HFCS comes into it at all. What about what Tim has done or said implies or demands that he run HFCS in parallel with his unfed hives in order to run a controlled study? If you don't think he needs to be running a controlled study, I'd be curious to know by what procedure one could prove that "...hfsc and sub. won't work the same as stored honey and pollen?"
> 
> deknow


I would assume that he is not feeding HFCS and sub because he is getting premium TF prices for his honey. If not then I do not understand the economics.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Would you participate in discussions if the discussions were about how you aren't actually doing what you claim to be doing? Wouldn't you get sick of it?
> 
> deknow


Have some sympathy with that as it's happened to me on occasion.

However the other driver in this is that along the thread Tim didn't participate, but instead, another member with little knowledge of bees, has been making wild and over exuberant claims on Tim's behalf, some of which have since been denied by Tim. This, and these claims created some rather understandable scepticism, which extended to the whole thing even the true claims.

For me, I have still not figured out if in terms of total resources which includes the small hives, there is an all up better honey harvest than just running all hives equally in a standard manner. 

I may try to figure out the entire method & try it on a few hives, but that's why I need pollen & nectar flow data and how that effects Tim's timing of his manipulations because I will have to translate that onto my conditions, other side of the world.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Deknow:
> When you're loading up July splits with stores, believe me, you're feeding. It probably sustains them well into late September. It's not semantics.


I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
...that I (deknow) feed when making July splits? (I do make splits in July, I don't feed them, save the honey they get when being split)
....that Tim feeds when making July splits (calling him a liar)
....that all beekeepers feed when making splits in July (this simply isn't true)
....that many commercial, sideline, and hobby beekeepers feed July splits to the point where it is generally a standard practice (this is probably true, but I'm not sure what it has to do with any of the discussion here).

What are you trying to say?

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

If he wants to directly challenge WLC he should do so. I read an open question "to have fun figuring things out" and an assumption that it's either his 8% or everyone else's 30% losses. If I misread his intent I apologize, if not I think he owes an apology to others. I, and I am sure many others, are willing to give Tim's ideas on beekeeping a fair hearing. I always 
pay close attention to a doer like Tim who is "walking the walk" and giving us real life experiences.


----------



## WLC

I thought that Tim himself claimed that he could get 1,000 pounds of honey per hive?

Or, did I just imagine that?


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> However the other driver in this is that along the thread Tim didn't participate, but instead, another member with little knowledge of bees, has been making wild and over exuberant claims on Tim's behalf, some of which have since been denied by Tim. This, and these claims created some rather understandable scepticism, which extended to the whole thing even the true claims.


Perhaps...I haven't been following closely. Is there a post (or could there be one) where someone who has been following point out the incorrect claims made? ...but having been misquoted in a lot of contexts, I certainly can't lay that on Tim. I've heard that he has a lot of material on Facebook, but I don't do Facebook, so I haven't seen what is there.
...but WLC's antics predated all of this.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Deknow:

Take a close look at the Mike Risk setup. We know what's in those top deeps, and we know what they're going to be used for in July.


----------



## deknow

jim lyon said:


> If he wants to directly challenge WLC he should do so.


On principle, one shouldn't have to challenge rude, anonymous trolls when they are calling your experience lies. The community should always strive to improve itself. 
WLC has been unfair (and that is a generous characterization on my part) in the extreme. If you think he has been fair, you defend him.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Dean:

Tim called Mel 'a sugar feeding idiot'.

He said more than that as well.

I'm not the one with the problem. Really. 

I was sceptical before.

Now, I'm not.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Perhaps...I haven't been following closely. Is there a post (or could there be one) where someone who has been following point out the incorrect claims made?deknow


Yes there is. I'd suggest you read the thread.

Tim himself, presents as having the ego of Donald Trump, and prepared to make a few wild and likely untrue claims himself, I find it hard to learn from such people.

This can make it hard to sift the wheat from the chaff. However my attitude is like Jims. I'm hoping there is some wheat and am looking for it.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer:

That's why I looked up another Michigan beekeeper, Mike Risk, to see what he was doing with tower hives.

If you take a gander at the photo, click to enlarge, you can get a very good idea of the setup.

I found the picture to be worth a thousand words.

WLC.


----------



## Barry Digman

I was curious about ventilation and traffic congestion in a tower. In this picture of Mike Risk's hives that WLC refers to it's clear that the supers are offset and that the bees have multiple entrances in addition to extra ventilation. Interesting. 

http://www.riskshoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DSC003341.jpg


----------



## squarepeg

squarepeg said:


> my original comment was 'to each his own'.
> 
> the cool thing about this forum is that there are no two beekeepers that do things exactly the same way.
> 
> i have really benefited from getting exposed to all of the different approaches and applying what is useful to my apiary.
> 
> as i mentioned working tall hives isn't something that appeals to me but i wouldn't criticize anyone for wanting to do it.
> 
> as roland and the others point out, three deeps used as singles can net close to the same honey combined as having the three stacked.


now that tim has shared that about seven mediums harvested twice each is what he shoots for in a typical year, 

and doing the math,

seven mediums filled twice per season @ 34 lbs. is 576 lbs, or 4.66 supers per deep of bees.

4-5 supers harvested is about where i will be this year with my most established hives, (the one's that had mostly drawn comb already, running single deeps and medium supers, and that's with no treatments or feeding.

since i work alone, i have decided that five supers above a deep is my limit for stack height, and i'll probably keep it to four next year by rotating drawn supers in as i extract.

i don't see why i shouldn't be able to average 125-150 lbs. harvest once i have enough drawn comb. (assuming good weather and successful swarm prevention).

that's going to be 3-4 supers of spring honey, and another one in september just before the goldenrod starts. i'll leave about one and a half supers per colony for overwintering.


----------



## David LaFerney

*deknow *- your insight about the moving of honey in early spring is the second time that I have heard that described. Ed Holcomb who I have mentioned before says that is one of the things that you accomplish by reversing hive bodies - the disruption causes the bees to move honey (in their stomachs of course) and stimulates brood rearing much like a nectar flow. But in the configuration that you are describing it also opens up additional brood area, and gets them storing honey over head - both good things for hive growth and swarm mitigation. 

*Tim Ives *(If you are still here, and would participate a bit more please) - what was your bee keeping background and experience prior to buying all of those packages in 2001 if you don't mind saying?

*Everyone* - I personally find the discussion here very interesting and informative, even if I don't buy in 100% to what any one other person is promoting, don't you?

You know we can discuss, disagree, and learn from each other (even those we don't fully agree with) as long as it's civil enough that those we would learn from can enjoy it. Or at least stand it.

Know what I'm saying?


----------



## WLC

deknow said:


> On principle, one shouldn't have to challenge rude, anonymous trolls when they are calling your experience lies. The community should always strive to improve itself. WLC has been unfair (and that is a generous characterization on my part) in the extreme. If you think he has been fair, you defend him.
> deknow


I wasn't unfair, I wasn't rude (in fact I used alot of restraint), and I was right on the money.

However, since you decided to refer to me as a rude, anonymous troll...

You often get judged by the company you keep.

Keep it in mind next time you vouche for guys like Tim.

What's the title of that book again?


----------



## zhiv9

The three deep setup isn't new. Dee Lusby has been running and promoting a base 3 deep broodnest with two or three deep supers for years. Strong full box splits and no feeding. This is in a much more marginal region than Tim's.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC. Skeptical??? Iam posting under my own name. What's WLC stand for (W)ho (L)ikes (C)ynics?


----------



## Tim Ives

Pre 2001 Zero..... The reason I got into beekeeping is I was a sugar/HFCS junky. 10-12 bottles MD a day. When I quit the pop I started using honey. 2003 caught a Black locust flow, I was hooked and wanted more hives. Had a unlimited supply of free material (until housing down turn) and started building boxes. Guess I should of stock piled. 
The MBA president made a comment that if he couldn't consume it himself it didn't go into his hives. That comment made me reevaluate my practices at that time. 

Then I started doing tear outs also. Was amazed at the amount of area some colonies obtained. Which again got me to reevaluate, what are the limitation?

Honey bees do a finite number of tasks. Beekeepers do a infinite number of tasks according to what they think. The better you understand the finite the more infinite your beekeeping WILL beecome...Tim Ives


Where did I say I do splits in July? Incorrect.. splits are done end of April beginning of May. I split when the bees tell me. I don't tell them.


----------



## Tim Ives

If a pic is worth thousand words, then all my FB pics are worth a million......


----------



## Oldtimer

Tim I'm trying to figure this out. I'm going to ask a question you need not answer if you don't want to. What is your average crop across all hives, even non producers. IE, your total crop, divided by total number of hives?

And how would this compare with the commercial, non migratory beeks around you, if there are any?


----------



## Tim Ives

That's a interesting question Oldtimer. On a good year, supered hives average 14 mediums. But 4-6 are brand new supers. So you have to factor in honey to wax. Some say it takes 8# of honey to make 1# of wax. Some say 10# honey per 1#. 35000 cells to 1# wax. So every 7 new supers takes 100# honey to make wax( using 10# to 1# ratio). Splits ate drawning out 2 new deeps. 5 frames equals 35000 cells. So 2 New deeps takes 40# of honey to make wax. Also have to factor honey to brood. Base 3 deeps 100# stores+ 40# into wax+ honey to brood.
Supered hives:- Base 3 deep (100#)+honey to brood+ honey to wax (supers 2-4 new)28-56#+ surplus 450#.


----------



## WLC

"Where did I say I do splits in July?" 

"...but July splits are now the ****z." 

Like, in the last statement.

WLC stands for Wildlife Conservation. Since you asked.

I don't have to say that that if you're puting back 100#s of stores, then you are feeding.

I did notice the deep above the excluder, the medium, and 2 deeps in Mike Risk's setup.

So, I pretty much know where the 100#s is coming from.

Maybe we need to ask, "How many actual #s of honey are you selling per tower hive?"

My feeling is that we'll be a few 100#s short of the 500# mark.


----------



## Tim Ives

So by saying a sarcastic statement about doing splits in July. You automatically assume I'm making splits in July. Wow.... I'm I doing this in my sleep or something? 


Do you even have bees yourself?? Sounds to me you dont know anything about what bees do.


----------



## WLC

Got bees. But, I'm not as unbelievably successful as you are.

I just wondering why you don't think that feeding back significant amounts of stores isn't '...feeding anything.'.. 

Tim, it's not just me. Some heavy hitters are having trouble figuring out what you're doing too.

Maybe if you drew out a chart or something?


----------



## Tim Ives

Actually what I'm doing can be followed thru the Unity Garden Project/PeaceBees fairly closely with the on going bee classes at the garden.


----------



## WLC

Links Tim. Links.

For everything if you have them. Please.


----------



## Tim Ives

I don't touch the deeps....... Why would I waste time to extract then turn around feed it back. Sure, I could take 15,000# more if I wiped out all my deeps. I'm not greedy...........


----------



## WLC

OK.

So you're leaving $30K of honey on.

That's one of the issues I've had with this method of teatment free beekeeping. It's resource intensive. Between the splitting to outbreed mites, and building up tower, honey production hives, the resources had to come from somewhere.


----------



## David LaFerney

WLC said:


> I just wondering why you don't think that feeding back significant amounts of stores isn't '...feeding anything.'..


No offense, but are you familiar with the term "beating a dead horse?" Everyone understands that you consider the way Tim uses honey as feeding and he doesn't. You disagree on what it is called or is - can that be agreed upon?


----------



## WLC

David:

No problem. Let's say that he's leaving significant resources for the bees. 

15,000#s! Holy tower hives!


----------



## David LaFerney

WLC said:


> OK.
> 
> So you're leaving $30K of honey on.
> 
> That's one of the issues I've had with this method of teatment free beekeeping. It's resource intensive. Between the splitting to outbreed mites, and building up tower, honey production hives, the resources had to come from somewhere.


It's not if it results in lower hive losses. You save money on labor and supplies when you don't feed, medicate, buy bees, deal with dead outs, etc.

So, what if he does leave on $30,000.00 worth of honey every year? It's not a recurring expense if the system works. With sales of splits and a very large honey crop from the managed hives it sounds to me like a decent living is to be made from a number of hives which technically isn't even on a commercial scale.

Should we just swallow it all hook, line and sinker? It's on the Internet isn't it?

I don't know about you, but I take it *all *with a grain of salt - you may be a 14 year old kid for all I know. Maybe we all are. Seems that way sometimes.


----------



## Tim Ives

Futher more.... I didn't come on here a start advocating what I'm doing. Someone else did... 

It doesn't matter to me how ANYONE keeps their bees. 

To be speculating what I'm doing and not having a clue what I'm doing. YOU WILL GET SARCASTIC AND DEMEANING responses from me. That's just me...... Like it or Not......


----------



## gmcharlie

TIm, I am still a bit confused.... your average honey numbers per deep are about normal, no doubt the numbers of bees are strong, but why stack so high when you could accomplish the same in singles with 3-4 supers each???


----------



## Tim Ives

On the point of one deep system. Sure you can get 100-150# of honey off them. 
Would love to see you try to overwinter them singles here in northern Indiana.


----------



## David LaFerney

gmcharlie said:


> TIm, I am still a bit confused.... your average honey numbers per deep are about normal, no doubt the numbers of bees are strong, but why stack so high when you could accomplish the same in singles with 3-4 supers each???


I get that much - the three deeps are integral to the don't feed, don't treat, don't have big losses system. Doubles or singles might produce as much honey relatively speaking, but would have higher losses and require more management.


----------



## D Semple

Tim,

How are you are getting such a great early spring build up?

How do you like to set up your hive for winter?

Thanks,

Don

Please watch the swearing it will get you run also, I for one would like to learn more from your posts.


----------



## David LaFerney

D Semple said:


> I for one would like to learn more from your posts.


Same here.


----------



## Tim Ives

Then to accomplish the same, I would need 300 bottom board's,inner covers, lids , hive stands and 3 times the space. Add all them expense up for me. Not to mention the gamble of the loss of 8+years of sugar free/ treatment free raised genetics. I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.


----------



## Nature Coast beek

David LaFerney said:


> It's on the Internet isn't it?
> 
> I don't know about you, but...you may be a 14 year old kid for all I know. Maybe we all are. Seems that way sometimes.


*SOMETIMES*? :lpf:


----------



## gmcharlie

Tim Ives said:


> Then to accomplish the same, I would need 300 bottom board's,inner covers, lids , hive stands and 3 times the space. Add all them expense up for me. Not to mention the gamble of the loss of 8+years of sugar free/ treatment free raised genetics. I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.


 Tim, was trying to argue your method, just understand the reason. I am a bit farther south, and winter singles fine... but its not your weather thats for sure........ I chose toto run more bottoms and forgo the ladders and helpers.... but am not argueing you method at all, its your hives.

You make a staement there thats a bit interesting... and thats "gambeling the loss of treatment free genes" to me what your saying is that the treatment free is developed more around a huge winter cluster than genetics.......


----------



## Solomon Parker

gmcharlie said:


> to me what your saying is that the treatment free is developed more around a huge winter cluster than genetics.......


The two are not unrelated. In my experience, the hives that survive are the ones who naturally conform to the conditions present. That means here in Northwest Arkansas, the hives that survive are the ones that typically keep fairly small winter clusters. When you keep huge hives (as I do year 'round) the cluster size is as the bees would have it. They may have three deeps full of honey, but the cluster is the size of a soccer ball. That's how they want it and it works.

Now if Tim's bees need to do something different in his area, that's what they need to do. I see it as a function of larger enclosures allowing the bees to do what they want. Three deeps is good, five is better. If I were him, I'd leave supers on year 'round, but that's just me. I have much more limited flows. The only reason big truck commercials stop here is for McDonalds.


----------



## David LaFerney

Tim Ives said:


> Then to accomplish the same, I would need 300 bottom board's,inner covers, lids , hive stands and 3 times the space. Add all them expense up for me. Not to mention the gamble of the loss of 8+years of sugar free/ treatment free raised genetics. I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.



Exactly! The same reason that treaters and sugar feeders keep doing what they are doing - it is working for them, and their living depends on it.

But I agree with you. For beginners tall hives can produce honey crops sooner and with less investment. For anyone I guess. If you are willing and able to deal with the tall stacks. If not then go your own way.

Question - you manage some hives for honey, the ones that you don't have supers for you split, and sell some of the increase - right? What do you do with the rest of the group you split? Do they get rotated into production somehow - or just increase comb and other resources?

Also, you *Must* have an occasional tall hive that goes queenless. How do you monitor and manage that? I assume that you are not doing major inspections of them during honey season since swarm management is integrated in the system. Around here they would get robbed out if you were lucky, but more likely they would be destroyed - comb and all - by an incredible disgusting mass of hive beetles and wax moths.


----------



## David LaFerney

WLC said:


> For $30K, you could get 300 nucs at $100 each.
> 
> He's running 75 towers (if I read him correctly).
> 
> Why would you need all the other stuff?
> 
> Why overwinter?


Why wear underpants? Isn't commando cheaper? Well, don't if you like it that way. Personal preference. Now you ARE just trolling.


----------



## Tim Ives

D Semple said:


> Tim,
> 
> How are you are getting such a great early spring build up?
> 
> How do you like to set up your hive for winter?
> 
> Thanks
> Please watch the swearing it will get you run also, I for one would like to learn more from your posts.



That's just what they do if the have the resources to do so. So this doesn't happen in single deep systems? I don't know??? Can't get a single to over-winter to find out..


----------



## gmcharlie

Tim, thanks for your input. we may not agree on systems, but thats not a problem....! to each our own. Until you got here yourself there was a lot of wild speculation and and exaurations as to your methods.


----------



## Tim Ives

gmcharlie said:


> Tim, was trying to argue your method, just understand the reason. I am a bit farther south, and winter singles fine... but its not your weather thats for sure........ I chose toto run more bottoms and forgo the ladders and helpers.... but am not argueing you method at all, its your hives.
> 
> You make a staement there thats a bit interesting... and thats "gambeling the loss of treatment free genes" to me what your saying is that the treatment free is developed more around a huge winter cluster than genetics.......


Huge winter cluster... No that's a normal winter cluster once you leave bees to their own limitations. All hives are doing so not just a few. 

You cannot accomplish the same results with junk food raised bees and trying to build them up the same. So yes it is genetics.


----------



## Tim Ives

gmcharlie said:


> Tim, thanks for your input. we may not agree on systems, but thats not a problem....! to each our own. Until you got here yourself there was a lot of wild speculation and and exaurations as to your methods.




Comically yes there was. Was laughing so hard on some comments. I generally stay away from sites like this and usually get kickoff anyways. Which personally really dont care. I don't need to justify anything to anybody.


----------



## squarepeg

tim, it sounds to me like you were able to let the bees guide you into what they want to do, and have found a system that works perfectly for your region. way to go!

that's what i am trying to do in my location. with the milder winter here and with no feeding, the bees adjust themselves to about four to five frames for the winter cluster.

even 4-5 frame nucs can make it through winter here, getting down to just a couple of frames of bees.

the other difference (as david pointed out) is that our summer dearth typically lasts a couple of months, during which the bees use up stores as opposed to making more.

i'm still trying to let the bees show me how i can help them more than get in their way.


----------



## Barry

People don't get kicked off "sites like this" by justifying or not justifying anything to anybody.


----------



## Tim Ives

David LaFerney said:


> Exactly! The same reason that treaters and sugar feeders keep doing what they are doing - it is working for them, and their living depends on it.
> 
> But I agree with you. For beginners tall hives can produce honey crops sooner and with less investment. For anyone I guess. If you are willing and able to deal with the tall stacks. If not then go your own way.
> 
> Question - you manage some hives for honey, the ones that you don't have supers for you split, and sell some of the increase - right? What do you do with the rest of the group you split? Do they get rotated into production somehow - or just increase comb and other resources?
> 
> Also, you *Must* have an occasional tall hive that goes queenless. How do you monitor and manage that? I assume that you are not doing major inspections of them during honey season since swarm management is integrated in the system. Around here they would get robbed out if you were lucky, but more likely they would be destroyed - comb and all - by an incredible disgusting mass of hive beetles and wax moths.


2011 was the only year I sold splits. Due to buying house, moving shop and not having more equipment made up or having the cash after the one time payment plan of buying house(s)

With the PeaceBees/Unity Garden Project with several newbees. I started doing what I did with UG. Unity I took 2 splits, they put their boxes on. This year I showed them how to do splits. They keep their boxes with bees I keep mine. Well I started doing the same with the newbees. But I don't get paid for the bees till split next spring. I don't lose equipment and don't have to make so much more up.


----------



## gmcharlie

Tim Ives said:


> Huge winter cluster... No that's a normal winter cluster once you leave bees to their own limitations. All hives are doing so not just a few.
> 
> You cannot accomplish the same results with junk food raised bees and trying to build them up the same. So yes it is genetics.



I disagree with that comment, I don't know if you tried the same methods with packages as your doing now, or by feeding. I have several hives that match or exceed yours that are fed HFCS and all the honey is taken from them. and they are survivovrs and treatment free also. but they are wintered in doubles, buildup in triples. and make5-6lbs of comb honey. the only difference is I don't leave supers on. they have one super that stays, and I run Comb supers which are remove as soon as possible. Come fall all extractable honey is removed and they are fed HFCS until spring. I Haven't lost one of them in 4 years (only keep 3 going) they do fine on artificial feed.
Unfortunatly they tend to be a lot of work and are swarmy every 2 weeks they are torn down and split as needed until around mid june. I don't like swarms myself....

While your methods are interesting, not everyone here is capable of handling deeps and ladders and has to helpers. in fact a lot like meds cause of the weight. your doing great, but I see no silver bullets and running down others methods is non productive and a bit narrow minded


----------



## Tim Ives

Everyone in my area tries it with packages every year. 07' I had 10 packages. So. Yes I have tried it in MY area. Dead bees don't do anything for me.


----------



## Tim Ives

jim lyon said:


> Ray: I don't believe anyone on here has ridiculed Tim. Frankly I would like to know more about specifically what he is doing. Real world experiences are always meaningful to me. Keeping a lot of honey on your hives isn't really a treatment free strategy in and of itself though. I assume there is a bit more to it than that. The real key, of course isn't so much what you get off your big hives it's minimizing your non productive hives to increase your average across the board. In my operation seeing one piled up a lot higher than the rest always leaves me wondering if I did something wrong on the smaller hives. Uniformity tells me I have maximized production......at least that's how I look at it.



Weaker hives are split. The strongest hives are the one producing drones first. I'm genetically increasing to maximize. After period of time there are no nonproductive hives. 

Someone ask what about if a hive goes queenless? I go by averages of hive activities. I tell within a minute if a hive has a problem. The more hives you have the easier to see the averages.


----------



## jim lyon

On this forum my hands are a bit tied, Tim, I can't really swap methods or advocate anything other than treatment free beekeeping. I am intrigued by what you are doing but not really sure how it my apply to our operation. It appears to me that your primary defense against varroa and your ability to stay treatment free lies in splitting to stay ahead of varroa which is what many are already doing who are able to stay treatment and I consider that a big apart of our success as well. Are you able to keep these heavily populated hives going for a second straight year without excessive mite buildup and if so what mechanism do you attribute that to?


----------



## Tim Ives

jim lyon said:


> On this forum my hands are a bit tied, Tim, I can't really swap methods or advocate anything other than treatment free beekeeping. I am intrigued by what you are doing but not really sure how it my apply to our operation. It appears to me that your primary defense against varroa and your ability to stay treatment free lies in splitting to stay ahead of varroa which is what many are already doing who are able to stay treatment and I consider that a big apart of our success as well. Are you able to keep these heavily populated hives going for a second straight year without excessive mite buildup and if so what mechanism do you attribute that to?


Some are since started in 2007. Them are not split, I just super them up every year. I'm sure pre 2010 I was losing swarms. But was still getting 4-5 supers. Which at that time thought I was doing great.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Tim Ives said:


> Them are not split, I just super them up every year.


Tim, I keep running into this accusation as well. People tell me all the time "you just split to outbreed the mites." No, I really don't. Honey production hives are not split. My ten year old treatment-free hive has not been split in several years. I see splitting as of benefit in the beginning when the bees have little resistance to mites, but eventually it is no longer needed. The bees are now resistant to mites, by whatever aspect, they are.


----------



## WLC

I have mentioned before that there have been a number of reports on the 'pathogen spillover' of DWV between Honeybees and Bumble Bees.

I think that keeping mite levels in check by splitting, etc. is a far safer methodology than using the attenuated mites/virus approach. We know how mites and viruses (like DWV) become attenuated in Honeybees. Unfortunately, they can still spillover into other pollinators both managed and native.

Non-native bees, non-native mites, and non-native viruses really aren't a good subject for 'natural selection' experiments by beekeepers.


----------



## squarepeg

tim, sorry if you've already cover this but do you put all seven supers on at once or add them as they grow their population.

i get the part about keeping the first super foundation. but when it comes to the remaining supers, do you try to keep the most filled/capped moved up to the top or does it matter?


----------



## Tim Ives

squarepeg said:


> tim, sorry if you've already cover this but do you put all seven supers on at once or add them as they grow their population.
> 
> i get the part about keeping the first super foundation. but when it comes to the remaining supers, do you try to keep the most filled/capped moved up to the top or does it matter?


Depends how far away the yard is. Further yards I just put the 7 on leave them alone.

Closer yards. Yes I'll rotate the new supers down to bottom of stack. Unless on a black locust flow... Then I'll shift drawn together instead of checker boarding supers. 

If I want to slow a hive down, then I'll bee more aggressive on making them draw new supers. But again not on a Black Locust flow. 
At my house, neighbors has probably 5 acres of black locust. Original yard is on 3-4 acres of black locust.


----------



## squarepeg

understood tim, thanks.


----------



## Tim Ives

David LaFerney said:


> *deknow *- your insight about the moving of honey in early spring is the second time that I have heard that described. Ed Holcomb who I have mentioned before says that is one of the things that you accomplish by reversing hive bodies - the disruption causes the bees to move honey (in their stomachs of course) and stimulates brood rearing much like a nectar flow. But in the configuration that you are describing it also opens up additional brood area, and gets them storing honey over head - both good things for hive growth and swarm mitigation.
> 
> *Tim Ives *(If you are still here, and would participate a bit more please) - what was your bee keeping background and experience prior to buying all of those packages in 2001 if you don't mind saying?
> 
> *Everyone* - I personally find the discussion here very interesting and informative, even if I don't buy in 100% to what any one other person is promoting, don't you?
> 
> You know we can discuss, disagree, and learn from each other (even those we don't fully agree with) as long as it's civil enough that those we would learn from can enjoy it. Or at least stand it.
> 
> Know what I'm saying?


They're turning the 3rd deep into bees. That's easy enough to prove with my YouTube hive. First vid was taken 3/15. New pollen started coming in 2/29. There was still snow on the ground 2/26. Then a abnormal warm up. That hive had every bit of 40# of bees plus whatever out foraging?? Some will question why didn't I split it. NO DRONES. Drone brood wasn't even capped yet. So wouldnt have mature drones for atleast 29 days.


----------



## Tim Ives

For $30k, you could get 300 nucs @ $100 each.

So I wipe out my winter stores of 150 hives to BUY 100 nucs. Lose 8+ years of sugar free raised bees. Nucs won't put up a early honey crop, so I lose production. 

Then will have to deal with mites and whatever. 

If nucs all come from one source, no longer have genetic diversity. 

Lose out on Apple/ Blueberry pollination gigs.

I'll just leave the 30k on. Sounds cheaper to me.


----------



## WLC

Yes , of course. The early buildup is the key.

You need those 'fat bees'.


----------



## WLC

So, why don't you overwinter in the south if your winters are so difficult?


----------



## Karolus

> Unless on a black locust flow... Then I'll shift drawn together instead of checker boarding supers.
> 
> If I want to slow a hive down, then I'll bee more aggressive on making them draw new supers. But again not on a Black Locust flow.
> At my house, neighbors has probably 5 acres of black locust. Original yard is on 3-4 acres of black locust.


Tim, forgive the ignorance, but what is the significance of the black locust. It's not a plant I'm familiar with here in Texas and I'm curious as to why it seems to have a large influence to your methods?

Thank you.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> http://www.mdasplitter.com/docs/NucManagement.pdf
> 
> Well, if you look at the graphic above, Mel's saying feed back honey. But, he does sell candy blocks. Tis true.
> 
> Maybe if you came up with a graphic, we could all understand everything more clearly.


I don't need a elaborate graphic scam like Mel. That's nothing but a bunch of needless manipulation that requires feeding. Processed sugar is a CHEMICAL. So he is NOT chemical free. All my splits are timed with the bees natural cycle of swarm season, not some unnatural time of the season.


----------



## WLC

OK.

I don't doubt that you're 'organic' to the best of your abilities.

So you don't do Summer splits? Well, others like Lathshaw and Flottum have favorable views on Summer splits.

Do you allow hives to 'fade' to mites? Without summer splits, that would seem to be the case.


----------



## Tim Ives

Karolus said:


> Tim, forgive the ignorance, but what is the significance of the black locust. It's not a plant I'm familiar with here in Texas and I'm curious as to why it seems to have a large influence to your methods?
> 
> Thank you.


Black Locust is a tree. Awesome tasting clear honey which demands high premiums. Any hard rains during blooms will mess up the flow.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> OK.
> 
> I don't doubt that you're 'organic' to the best of your abilities.
> 
> So you don't do Summer splits? Well, others like Lathshaw and Flottum have favorable views on Summer splits.
> 
> Do you allow hives to 'fade' to mites? Without summer splits, that would seem to be the case.


Hives 'fade' to old age of queens around 5th year. Which is easy to tell in the spring, when she fails to drop down to the bottom deep. I'll take the bottom boxes away, cull out old frames. Add new boxes back when supercedure is completed. Sure I could easily requeen with something else. But would be eliminating multi-year survival stock.


----------



## WLC

OK

Since we're both up, what are your mite counts like?


----------



## Oldtimer

Fade? What does this mean?


----------



## WLC

When I used the term 'fade to mites', I was referring to a euphemism. It's an aspect of selecting for 'survival stock' that I've been critical of in the past due to the risk for pathogen spillover.

It means to let 'unfit' hives succumb to mites.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> OK
> 
> Since we're both up, what are your mite counts like?


2010 USDA test 21 mites/1051 (1.99) bees done 6/14/10 random 8 hives out of 50. 
Nosema count 0.0 million spores

2011 USDA test 26mited/1210 bees (2.1) done 7/27/11 random 8 out of 40. Nosema count 0.0 million spores. 

2012 test have not received yet done on 10/26/12 

Randy Oliver requested I do monthly checks this year on 6 hives. About a 3 weeks ago 23mites/2112bees (1.08)


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> When I used the term 'fade to mites', I was referring to a euphemism. It's an aspect of selecting for 'survival stock' that I've been critical of in the past due to the risk for pathogen spillover.
> 
> It means to let 'unfit' hives succumb to mites.


Well considering I'm working with all 'survivor' stock obtained by local swarms in a 25 mile radius. So its mother nature thsy had done the 'natural' selection for me already.


----------



## WLC

Tim:

Wow!

So, when can we order queens from you?


----------



## Tim Ives

Wow!

So, when can we order queens from you? [/QUOTE]

When I get a cape and one of them lovely assistance you spoke of. Lol


----------



## WLC

Have you ever considered doing a reality TV show?


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> Have you ever considered doing a reality TV show?


LOL..no.... But probably would go over fairly good with all the other reality shows on now.


----------



## David LaFerney

Honey Bee Dynasty


----------



## Tim Ives

David LaFerney said:


> Honey Bee Dynasty



Hmm..probably could end up with a lovely assistant out of the deal. My last GF wasn't to fond of the bees and said I spent to much time on them. 

The Bachelor Beekeeper.lol


----------



## gmcharlie

WLC said:


> Tim:
> 
> Wow!
> 
> So, when can we order queens from you?


From my perspective all the guys who claim these great queens can't make any and sell them.... tried over 12 guys this year looking for suvivor stock for a real test against production queens... so far no takers... sell me anything until they hear they will be tested....

Come on Tim, your ladder assistant could do some grafting...... you should be doing your part to repopulate the USA with great survivor stock...... Maybe Mel could give you some tips... oh wait hes a hack... I forgot....


----------



## Solomon Parker

I'll sell you anything I have Charlie, but everything is spoken for. No fear of testing here, I have winter to do that.

If you put in an _order_ last December like everybody else, maybe you could get bees in June. Don't I see this issue come up all the time with newbees? :lpf:


----------



## David LaFerney

So lets just say that I'm willing to order years in advance, and pay stupid high prices - is there *anyone* who is selling queens propagated and bred from an operation like this? "Cause it *seems like* they are unobtainium.

You might be surprised how much you could get to fund that equipment you need.

And yes I know that northern bees wouldn't be the ticket for me. Why don't you rear a batch or three for the good of the cause Solomon Parker?


----------



## hpm08161947

David LaFerney said:


> So lets just say that I'm willing to order years in advance, and pay stupid high prices - is there *anyone* who is selling queens propagated and bred from an operation like this? "Cause it *seems like* they are unobtainium.
> 
> You might be surprised how much you could get to fund that equipment you need.
> 
> And yes I know that northern bees wouldn't be the ticket for me. Why don't you rear a batch or three for the good of the cause Solomon Parker?


Problem seems to be, Survivor Queens from Ark. and Indiana aren't survivor queens when they get to NC. 

Seems to me, that when it comes to Survivor Queens.... ya gotta go get your own....


----------



## Tim Ives

gmcharlie said:


> From my perspective all the guys who claim these great queens can't make any and sell them.... tried over 12 guys this year looking for suvivor stock for a real test against production queens... so far no takers... sell me anything until they hear they will be tested....
> 
> Come on Tim, your ladder assistant could do some grafting...... you should be doing your part to repopulate the USA with great survivor stock...... Maybe Mel could give you some tips... oh wait hes a hack... I forgot....


My 3 associates have their own hives they have to tend to. 

I don't use grafted queens. 

If Mels method is so great then you shouldn't be needing anything. 

I'm doing my part on repopulating bees in my own yards and my ladder assistants.


----------



## Tim Ives

hpm08161947 said:


> Problem seems to be, Survivor Queens from Ark. and Indiana aren't survivor queens when they get to NC.
> 
> Seems to me, that when it comes to Survivor Queens.... ya gotta go get your own....


Highly agree...

Regional one would be fine. But north/south I would find questionable???? 

Won't accomplish mating nucs for this year, but I got material for 200 started and acquired enough material for about 300 more. 

I'm doing everything by myself, except when pulling honey. Making equipment, making splits, adding boxes when needed. Can't seem to find more than 24 hrs in a day or a 8 day week.


----------



## David LaFerney

hpm08161947 said:


> Problem seems to be, Survivor Queens from Ark. and Indiana aren't survivor queens when they get to NC.
> 
> Seems to me, that when it comes to Survivor Queens.... ya gotta go get your own....


You know, I actually do believe that treatment free works or can work. Our state apiary inspector who probably sees more bee hives than anyone else in TN, and whose opinion I respect, told me recently that he Does see success among treatment free bee keepers - loosely defined treatment free, not necessarily so much of the Purist kind. Not that extreme treatment free doesn't work, just that a lot of "treatment free" folks use essential snake oils or something.

But the "it doesn't work unless it's under the handkerchief" - or "I'm just too busy to do that - maybe later" responses does lend a distinct aroma - *even if one wants to believe*. Just sayin'. 

But it is well established that *Tim does not care what anyone else thinks*. So there we are.


----------



## David LaFerney

Tim Ives said:


> Won't accomplish mating nucs for this year, but I got material for 200 started and acquired enough material for about 300 more.


Awesome - I stand corrected.


----------



## David LaFerney

You know, going from not rearing queens to running 500 mating nucs is a heckuva leap - right?


----------



## Tim Ives

David LaFerney said:


> You know, going from not rearing queens to running 500 mating nucs is a heckuva leap - right?


Instead of making full hive body splits, I'll use the mating nucs instead. Won't need a ladder for them..lol


----------



## Solomon Parker

Queens and nucs already fund the equipment I need, plus some stuff I don't need!

And I assure you, they're not unobtainium, there are now several users of this website who have some of my bees, and I've had no complaints and have not even heard that any have been lost.

I'm not sure how the price is relevant, if you want shiny trinkets, you ought not expect scrap iron prices. I got numerous emails of the sort "will you have queens on such and such a date?" to which I consistently replied, "if you'd like to make a reservation, I will put you on the list." Never heard back. Now I am getting multiple emails of people asking for queens and all I can say is "they're all spoken for." Seems like y'all should already know that bees are hard to get this time of year. Every month I post about how short my season is. It's almost over now. So I don't see how this is my problem. 

If only I could find some young enterprising person like Sam Comfort to come be attentive to the bees daily and live in a van and make queens for me for which I would pay that person a substantial cut of the sales. Otherwise, I have to do it myself and that makes the operation necessarily limited. So, if you want bees from me, follow the procedure. You can start now, the 2014 list is yet empty.


----------



## hpm08161947

Solomon Parker said:


> If only I could find some young enterprising person like Sam Comfort to come be attentive to the bees daily and live in a van and make queens for me for which I would pay that person a substantial cut of the sales. Otherwise, I have to do it myself and that makes the operation necessarily limited. So, if you want bees from me, follow the procedure. You can start now, the 2014 list is yet empty.


I've seen that model carried out quite successfully. Sometimes even the untrained can be taught to be successful at grafting.... particularly these young girls with tiny nimble fingers and excellent eye site can turn out some fine numbers..... assuming of course that they have the interest and motivation.

It seems to be hard to fine "Real TF" people.... I would think that a Parker Queen or an Ives Queen would fetch a premium price..... I bet you are underpriced.


----------



## WLC

It's called a businees plan for a reason.

However, without the right profit margins, and of course, the right paperwork, it becomes difficult to make anything happen.

Perhaps you should examine a chemical free model like the one used by BeeWeaver.

Hint: it's in the South.


----------



## WLC

Tim:

Have you looked at Mel's "on the spot" queen rearing methods?

You've got 75 colonies that aren't in towers. Why don't you sell uncapped virgins for a start?

That's 100 per body by the way. So, 7,500 X $20-35 + the usual express mail shipping and handling markup.


----------



## Solomon Parker

hpm08161947 said:


> I bet you are underpriced.


Almost certainly.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Tim, I'm interested in this idea of old queens not moving down in the spring, can you elaborate on this?


----------



## deknow

"The only beekeepers with good queens are beekeepers that are raising their own queens."

- Albert Einstein


----------



## Riskybizz

hey deknow.. Einstein was a physicist, did he really quote that?


----------



## Solomon Parker

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is you never know if they're genuine." - Sir Isaac Newton


----------



## Oldtimer

Tim Ives said:


> I'm doing everything by myself, except when pulling honey. Making equipment, making splits, adding boxes when needed. Can't seem to find more than 24 hrs in a day or a 8 day week.


Just the honey crop alone, 457 lbs per hive, ought to be able to finance a bit of labour to raise some queens?


----------



## Oldtimer

hpm08161947 said:


> I've seen that model carried out quite successfully. Sometimes even the untrained can be taught to be successful at grafting.


Yes the untrained can do it. Here's how I got started.

The boss was a pretty tough old guy, I was a teenage kid. I'd often been the "gopher" when grafting was being done, running cells between starter hives etc. I'd seen plenty of grafting but not done it.

One day the boss says "Hey Al. You graft today". I'd never grafted but didn't want to admit it, so did what I'd seen others do and grafted away, while someone else was the gopher. Then, an anxious 24 hour wait to see what sort of take I got, and yes I was nervous the boss was slow to forgive bad performance.

Anyhow we open the starters, and Whoah! Very high take. . The boss said "pretty good Al", and from that time I did all the grafting.

Anybody wanting to try it, just go for it. The grafting is actually the easy part, the important part is plenty bees, plenty food.


----------



## WLC

Oltimer:

Say the beeleepers name, especially if he's gone.

Superstiiciton you know.


----------



## Tim Ives

Solomon Parker said:


> Tim, I'm interested in this idea of old queens not moving down in the spring, can you elaborate on this?



Observation after a period of time. I see 3rd season queens being the most prolific year. Then brood frame counts drops from there. If I have a chance to mark a queen I will. I don't specifically use time to do so. Brood boxes are painted to correspond to queen colors. So i know which year that hive was created. Hives that swarm or supercede do not produce the average in honey production. If a hive is with in average the first round but not the second round but is above average on goldenrod. Then high probabilty it swarmed in late June..

Since all hives are set up the same going into winter. There's a fairly close average of what's going on in late winter. I use a stethoscope with end piece removed. I can tell by sound where the cluster is. Again there is a average of what's going on. Around Feb 20th prolific queens drop all the way down. This is where all the pollen is. Once the brood is capped. The cluster will move up to 2nd deep then the 3rd as they consumed the honey to make brood. Once fresh pollen comes in around March 11, then they'll start drone brood. Once drone brood starts emerging, they can start swarm cells. Which is why I start supering before that happens. Once the worker brood emerges and they start the nectar flow off crop 'weeds'. They get crowded real quick.

Older queens fails to drop down in what I call hyper-lay mode and is out of the average of activity. After seeing this a few years. I started taking away the bottom 2 deeps to cull out old frames. Once a new queen was created, then would add new deeps. Kinda like if it was a split.


----------



## beemandan

Important historical beekeeping quotes....
‘There’s no queen to compare with a Russian queen.’ Czar Nicholas II (1894 – 1917)


----------



## Tim Ives

Oldtimer said:


> Just the honey crop alone, 457 lbs per hive, ought to be able to finance a bit of labour to raise some queens?



I decided to capitalize on the depressed real estate market instead. Once I get the time to get them finished and sold. Then my new honey house up and running. Then I'll take on another venture.


----------



## Oldtimer

beemandan said:


> Important historical beekeeping quotes....
> ‘There’s no queen to compare with a Russian queen.’ Czar Nicholas II (1894 – 1917)


Ha Ha that's pretty funny. 



WLC said:


> Oltimer:
> 
> Say the beeleepers name, especially if he's gone.
> 
> Superstiiciton you know.


Well yes he is gone, in fact nearly everybody who got me started is gone. 
Not too keen to name names not all stories I've ever told have been totally complementary. However if there's any Kiwis out there who may remember back this far, the two main guys who got me started were Jasper Bray and Bill Haines. Jasper in particular being a remarkable beekeeper I really lucked out getting a job with him. Could read a hive like a book and was fastidious about his beekeeping, also demanded very high standards. We had close to 4,000 hives, and with those were consistently able to produce a bigger total crop than another outfit with 14,000 hives.


----------



## RiodeLobo

Tim Ives said:


> Processed sugar is a CHEMICAL. So he is NOT chemical free.


Honey, nectar and pollen are all made up of chemicals as well. Chemical is not an evil word nor inherently bad.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Tim Ives said:


> Around Feb 20th prolific queens drop all the way down.


That is very interesting. I had noticed that some queens moved down and some didn't.

This year, there are two hives that stick out in my mind, one with a year old queen that didn't move down, yet still very prolific. Another hive with my only marked queen who I know is three years old, she moved down and is doing well, but not stellar. Many of the yearling and prolific hives moved down in my outyards. Some didn't and are not very prolific. I am interested to watch for this in the future.


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> Important historical beekeeping quotes....


"The Hive and the Honeybee was much better in the original Klingon"
-Any Klingon you might ask on the street


----------



## Tim Ives

Solomon Parker said:


> That is very interesting. I had noticed that some queens moved down and some didn't.
> 
> This year, there are two hives that stick out in my mind, one with a year old queen that didn't move down, yet still very prolific. Another hive with my only marked queen who I know is three years old, she moved down and is doing well, but not stellar. Many of the yearling and prolific hives moved down in my outyards. Some didn't and are not very prolific. I am interested to watch for this in the future.



The below average hives with younger queens are the ones I split first and as early as possible. The stronger boomers are the hives producing drones first. So after a couple years, your genetically increasing performance. My out yards are unrelated to the yards close. By moving splits around to get the queens mated then move to a unrelated yard helps reduce on inbreeding or create new yards with various crosses. 

Hives that didn't build up early and have lower drone population. Will also have lower mite counts, since mites need drone cells to be most prolific. Then by splitting them you'll break the mite cycle (early).


----------



## beemandan

Ok...one more memorable Russian bee quote....and I'm done.
'The Russian worker is second to none!' Joseph Stalin


----------



## jim lyon

"We breed only the finest Italian virgins"
Benito Mussolini


----------



## Solomon Parker

"In former Soviet Russia, bees keep you." - Vladimir Putin


----------



## beemandan

Workers of the world rise up! Your queen is but an egg laying machine. She is naught without you! – Karl Marx

I'm sorry...couldn't resist one more.


----------



## Tim Ives

" Honey Bees do a finite number of task, beekeepers do a infinite number of things to their bees. The better you understand the finite tasks bees do, the more infinite your beekeeping shall become" - Tim Ives


----------



## Tim Ives

" Lose your bees to the trees along with your money. Keep your bees out of the tree's you gain honey"- Tim Ives


----------



## Tim Ives

"Hint: If you have Honey Bees you get honey ! If you have honey you get Honey Bees ! "- Tim Ives


----------



## Tim Ives

My never-ending favorite: " Junk food = junk bees" - Tim Ives


----------



## deknow

"Our bees come from a long line of virgins."
Pope Thelytoky II


----------



## Gino45

Tim Ives said:


> My never-ending favorite: " Junk food = junk bees" - Tim Ives


"To bee by ladder I've never tried. I guess my name is not Big Tim Ives."---Gino45

"My bees like their supers deep, but 5 is the most they could ever keep."---Gino45


----------



## beemandan

Gino45 said:


> "My bees like their supers deep, but 5 is the most they could ever keep."---Gino45


Or...
Stack those supers into the air
Small hive beetles will soon be there
Anonymous

In the same vein...
Build yourself a tower hive
Watch those beetles start to thrive.
Anonymous


----------



## Tim Ives

Gino45 said:


> "To bee by ladder I've never tried. I guess my name is not Big Tim Ives."---Gino45
> 
> "My bees like their supers deep, but 5 is the most they could ever keep."---Gino45




"If 5 deep is all they'll keep, then winter time shouldn't let them sleep"- Tim Ives


----------



## WLC

Oh, brother!

Tim:

I just put on a 3rd deep on one of my newly installed hives, even though the second deep isn't completely drawn out.

My own feeling is that they'll draw out new frames vertically before they'll do so horizontally.

So, the second and third deeps won't be completely drawn, but the bees will expand the broodnest vertically as the side frames of the lower deeps fills with pollen and nectar.

Am I wrong? Is this a correct 'limitless brood' nest assumption?


----------



## Tim Ives

beemandan said:


> Or...
> Stack those supers into the air
> Small hive beetles will soon be there
> Anonymous
> 
> In the same vein...
> Build yourself a tower hive
> Watch those beetles start to thrive.
> Anonymous



"If you let your supers set. Sure SHB will soon get. 
Stack'em high and taken them fast, for in time they won't last"- Tim Ives


----------



## WLC

You're a poet, and I didn't know it.

Tim: Do you think that providing top entrances is important in 'pulling up' the bees and expanding both the broodnest and honey stores vertically?

I could always just offset a top super and find out, but I want to hear your thoughts on this.


----------



## WLC

Barry:

Perhaps you could give Tim a 'guest forum' in the TFB forum?

We're not going to get very far on this way off topic thread.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> Oh, brother!
> 
> Tim:
> 
> I just put on a 3rd deep on one of my newly installed hives, even though the second deep isn't completely drawn out.
> 
> My own feeling is that they'll draw out new frames vertically before they'll do so horizontally.
> 
> So, the second and third deeps won't be completely drawn, but the bees will expand the broodnest vertically as the side frames of the lower deeps fills with pollen and nectar.
> 
> Am I wrong? Is this a correct 'limitless brood' nest assumption?


Your correct on that assumption. When adding s 3rd, I take a brood frame out of both deeps and move up to the 3rd. Place new undrawn where brood was taken from. Place new frame between top 2 brood frames. Line up all new frames vertical in the middle. 10-14 days check progress, do it again. 

Note: make sure the middle frames get drawn. I have lost a couple hives in winter due to bees getting stuck on oneside. But that was also before I started wrapping hives.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC, by giving the bees undrawn in the middle this will help deplete wax builders on strong hives. If the hive seems slow to build thenadd drawn in the middle. I use undrawn to slow a hive down. Drawn to speed a hive up.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> You're a poet, and I didn't know it.
> 
> Tim: Do you think that providing top entrances is important in 'pulling up' the bees and expanding both the broodnest and honey stores vertically?
> 
> I could always just offset a top super and find out, but I want to hear your thoughts on this.


Top entrance is definitely critical in winter for several reasons. A lot of bees breathing. I'm in the lake effect snow belt of lake Michigan, nothing to get 2' of snow (luckily not much past couple years). 

Spring/summer they'll use all entrances provided. A lot of bees coming/going.


----------



## WLC

Thanks Tim.

Would the same kind of space/arrangement considerations apply to honey supers as well?

For example, would moving up two drawn honey medium frames into the next upper honey super do the same thing as moving up two brood frames?


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> Thanks Tim.
> 
> Would the same kind of space/arrangement considerations apply to honey supers as well?
> 
> For example, would moving up two drawn honey medium frames into the next upper honey super do the same thing as moving up two brood frames?


They'll take to the drawn frames first before drawing new. I've tried just putting 2-4 in middle the rest ne. Doesn't seem to work ad well as checker boarding supers. 
I color code supers, yellow drawn, tan new and gray borrowed (which I lose half the honey out of 200 to the guy with bobcat). But get to use his honey house till I get mine up and running(another project in my free time..lol).


----------



## rhaldridge

Oldtimer said:


> However the other driver in this is that along the thread Tim didn't participate, but instead, another member with little knowledge of bees, has been making wild and over exuberant claims on Tim's behalf, some of which have since been denied by Tim. This, and these claims created some rather understandable scepticism, which extended to the whole thing even the true claims.


Oh for heaven's sake. The only "claim" I made about Tim's approach that was later proven to be wrong, as far as I know, was my idea that he was still working as a carpenter, an idea I got from a tertiary source. It has absolutely no bearing on his beekeeping methods. What a silly thing to whine about. Furthermore, Dean has plenty of knowledge about bees and he tried to tell you about Tim's methods too.

I'm really glad Tim is here. Makes it a little harder for folks to call him a liar to his face, it appears.


----------



## Oldtimer

Whoah! You have been away a long time, then you come back with so much anger.



rhaldridge said:


> I'm really glad Tim is here. Makes it a little harder for folks to call him a liar to his face, it appears.


Since you called me out by name, you appear to be insinuating that about me. Hope not.
Lucky I'm here too, makes it a little harder for you to get away with something like that.

Doubt Tim has a problem with anything I said, but if he did I'm sure he would rather discuss in person, than have the lackey do it for him.


----------



## WLC

Looks like we got us some instigators here.

First Dean accuses me of calling Tim a liar, which never occurred, and then this.

By the way, I do have 3 deeps working on one hive, and I'm ready to pull up some more drawn medium frames into the supers to make 7 supers on top.

The other hive just got a new queen and had some issues.


----------



## Oldtimer

For those more interested in bees than personal argument, it is mid winter here, and I have set up some hives according to the Tim Ives method. My hives winter in 2 deeps, but I've found some very strong ones and given them another box. Done maybe 8 or nine hives. They will be managed this season the Tim Ives way.

Not saying anything silly like I'm a convert, our flow patterns are different and don't know if the method will fit here. But I'll try anything once.

I presume you'll be doing the same raldridge?


----------



## rhaldridge

Oldtimer said:


> Whoah! You have been away a long time, then you come back with so much anger.
> 
> Since you called me out by name, you appear to be insinuating that about me. Hope not.
> Lucky I'm here too, makes it a little harder for you to get away with something like that.
> 
> Doubt Tim has a problem with anything I said, but if he did I'm sure he would rather discuss in person, than have the lackey do it for him.


No, I was talking about WLC, who made many statements about what Tim was doing, based on absolutely no actual facts. He as much as called Tim a liar. As you may have noticed, his groundless surmises were completely wrong in every respect.

I've been up in the North Country, living in a tent with no internet. I come back and check the thread and you're still whining about stuff I didn't say over a month ago. Maybe you'd care to list a few of the incorrect assertions I made about Tim's approach to beekeeping? 

I didn't think so.

I'm sure Tim would be surprised to know he has a lackey. Are you unclear on the purpose of this forum? I brought him up because Randy Oliver mentioned him as a successful treatment-free beekeeper. I tried to relay some information about his methods, from my correspondence with him and other sources, because he was not a member here and I found his approach interesting. I thought other members might find it interesting too, which is apparently correct.

You know, if you get upset every time a new beekeeper has an opinion, you'll be upset constantly. 

Oh, wait....


----------



## Tim Ives

When I spoke in NJ. There was a beekeeper Ed Vaeth that had several 3 deep hives(100% survival). He was pretty much doing what I was, pre 09' pulling a split dropping the 3 rd down then supering. This year he supered up earlier what he could then split the rest. Get on FB, follow what's going on there in NENJ...


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> I've been up in the North Country, living in a tent with no internet.


Well after that, why so much anger? Wasn't very relaxing? Chill some.

Tim, what is FB?


----------



## Tim Ives

Oldtimer... FaceBook


----------



## rhaldridge

Oldtimer said:


> Well after that, why so much anger? Wasn't very relaxing? Chill some.


You know how it is. We lackeys are prone to intemperance. Could be that we don't like to be called lackeys.

It's just kind of annoying, finding out that you're still nailing yourself up on that "rhaldridge don't gimme no respect!" cross. Yeah, it's true, but you get what you give.

Perhaps you should refrain from making stuff up. I'm still waiting for that big list of things I said about Tim's methods that you claim were incorrect. Of course, we all know you aren't going to come up with anything like that, because everything I said came from Tim himself, from Randy Oliver, and from various web authors who wrote about Tim's methods, after direct observation of his yards.

I'm not planning to follow Tim's methods in every respect, even though I believe that his is a very good system, judging by the results he gets. I'm more interested in making bees than making honey. But I like a lot of the concepts he uses. No treatment, no sugar, big brood nests, survivor genetics-- all good ideas, as far as I can tell.

For example, I now have a couple more hives in the North Country, but when I go back in a few weeks, I'm getting a nuc from some Mennonite beekeepers there who have been treatment free for some years now. I'm going to put it in a horizontal hive similar to what I have here in Florida, because those hives are doing phenomenally well. These horizontal hives are the equivalent of three deeps, and can be supered. Mine are set up so that I could put 9 medium supers on each without any super being more than shoulder height. It seems an interesting experiment to me-- no ladders needed. Also, the long hives are really cheap and easy to build, and even easier to inspect.

But you go on with your name calling and your snark. I guess you're too set in your ways to change.


----------



## WLC

"He as much as called Tim a liar. As you may have noticed, his groundless surmises were completely wrong in every respect."

That"s not true!

I was right on the money!


----------



## WLC

"...everything I said came from Tim himself, from Randy Oliver..."

You're using the guy with the ladder and the 'beewasher' as references?

Regardless, non of it has anything to do with treatment free beekeeping. So Tim caught some swarms. The rest is a common beekeeping practice in that neck of the woods.

No 'fat bees' required.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> "...everything I said came from Tim himself, from Randy Oliver..."
> 
> You're using the guy with the ladder and the 'beewasher' as references?
> 
> Regardless, non of it has anything to do with treatment free beekeeping. So Tim caught some swarms. The rest is a common beekeeping practice in that neck of the woods.
> 
> No 'fat bees' required.



Common practice??? 10% of michiana beekeepers members, the other 90% are MDA candyland junkies... Might want to look at who makes the candy blocks for Mel.

Fat bees ARE required !!!!!!!!


----------



## WLC

See what I mean?

I don't disagree with honey being better for bees than sugar. However, there are financial and practical reasons for feeding syrup.

Tower hives are old news. Someone does it in the local community garden every year. It works once in a while.

The vg/fat bees requirement is hypothetical.

Have either you or Randy every extracted and quantified vg proteins at any time?

However, we're still far away from treatment free beekeeping issues. No, this wouldn't be a 'good' first step either.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> See what I mean?
> 
> I don't disagree with honey being better for bees than sugar. However, there are financial and practical reasons for feeding syrup.
> 
> Tower hives are old news. Someone does it in the local community garden every year. It works once in a while.
> 
> The vg/fat bees requirement is hypothetical.
> 
> Have either you or Randy every extracted and quantified vg proteins at any time?
> 
> However, we're still far away from treatment free beekeeping issues. No, this wouldn't be a 'good' first step either.


Vg is hypothethical to you, I can quantify......

Far away from treatment free??? Maybe you are. I've been treatment free since started in 02'. Sugar free since 2006. 

Not a good first step? NOBODY has proven me wrong...


----------



## Oldtimer

Guys I think we all need to chill.

The thread played itself out weeks ago. Then, today, weeks later, someone with a chip on his shoulder gets his internet access back and jumps in, spitting venom, trying to make it look like it's actually others that have the problem, and attempting to rile everybody up. If we give him the air time he will succeed.

To Tim. Never heard of you till this thread. Then I hear claims of world record crops, huge hives, etc, being told all this from a guy with no bee knowledge. So of course, I had my doubts. Anybody would. Specially when we get told you are doing all this AND working full time as a carpenter. All sounded too good to be true. And turned out it was, once you showed up personally and debunked the more extreme unbelievable stuff, I started to think, well, maybe.

I will look you up on FB, now I know what that is. . But as to this thread, it is so full of vitriol and anger, that personally, I think more justice could be done to your methods by starting a new thread on it. Then people don't have to wade through 27 pages to get to anything sensible. Me, I'll look you up on FB but really I don't like FB I'd rather see it with all the other bee stuff on Beesource.

I am using your methods on some hives, some input from you along the way would be a great thing.

I'll start the thread for you if you want that.


----------



## Tim Ives

Oldtimer said:


> Guys I think we all need to chill.
> 
> The thread played itself out weeks ago. Then, today, weeks later, someone with a chip on his shoulder gets his internet access back and jumps in, spitting venom and attempting to rile everybody up, and if we give him the air time he will succeed.
> 
> To Tim. Never heard of you till this thread. Then I hear claims of world record crops, huge hives, etc, all from a guy with no bee knowledge. So of course, I had my doubts. Anybody would. Specially when we get told you are doing all this AND working full time as a carpenter. All sounded too good to be true. And turned out it was, once you showed up personally and debunked the more extreme unbelievable stuff, I started to think, well, maybe.
> 
> I will look you up on FB, now I know what that is. . But as to this thread, it is so full of vitriol and anger, that personally, I think more justice could be done to your methods by starting a new thread on it. Then people don't have to wade through 27 pages to get to anything sensible. Me, I'll look you up on FB but really I don't like FB I'd rather see it with all the other bee stuff on Beesource.
> 
> I'll start the thread for you if you want that.


Can't put pictures/videos on here to easily. Android is linked to FB, pics are uploaded in seconds. My FB page has several 100 beekeeper friends.


----------



## Oldtimer

OK well I'll look you up.


----------



## rhaldridge

Tim, you can't really communicate with some folks. I put WLC on ignore long ago, after he decided you were just making up a good story.

I'm old and I don't have enough time left to keep giving attention to folks who already know everything.


----------



## honeydrunk

I second that, start a new thread.


----------



## rhaldridge

Oldtimer said:


> Guys I think we all need to chill.
> 
> The thread played itself out weeks ago. Then, today, weeks later, someone with a chip on his shoulder gets his internet access back and jumps in, spitting venom, trying to make it look like it's actually others that have the problem, and attempting to rile everybody up. If we give him the air time he will succeed.
> 
> To Tim. Never heard of you till this thread. Then I hear claims of world record crops, huge hives, etc, being told all this from a guy with no bee knowledge. So of course, I had my doubts. Anybody would. Specially when we get told you are doing all this AND working full time as a carpenter. All sounded too good to be true. And turned out it was, once you showed up personally and debunked the more extreme unbelievable stuff, I started to think, well, maybe.


Still can't come up with any examples of that "more extreme unbelievable stuff," I see. When the web sources I read were written, apparently Tim was a carpenter. Now he's not. This is your gotcha? 

That's a little sad. Tim's hives are in fact huge. He was the one who used the phrase "world record," posting in a local bee club forum. And I was not the only person who mentioned Tim in this thread-- Dean knows quite a lot about treatment free beekeeping, and he actually went to a lecture Tim gave in NJ. But apparently you didn't see any of Dean's contributions to the thread, even though you replied to some of them. Odd.

As far as vitriol goes... I have to point out that it was you who found it necessary to call names and to accuse me of passing on misleading information, without being able to factually support that accusation in any way. If that's your idea of civil discourse... well, I guess I was wrong to give you a second chance. A shame... I probably could have learned something useful from you. Well, I must now return you to your honored position on my ignore list. That list is you and one other guy. Does that tell you anything?

I may have no "bee knowledge," but at least I have some knowledge of what good manners are. And I don't feel the need to fabricate unpleasant stuff about people I don't like. 

I don't have the time and energy to give you the attention you want. I'm old, and life is short.

Bye.


----------



## WLC

Of course, he feeds his bees honey. Saying he doesn't feed is semantics.
Tim still has to show his official world record. Yada. yada, yada...

Since others are building tower hives without being treatment free, or feeding honey only, I don't see the treatment free issue here.


----------



## Barry

OK, enough personal remarks. Keep it on topic please.


----------



## Gino45

Tim Ives said:


> "If 5 deep is all they'll keep, then winter time shouldn't let them sleep"- Tim Ives


Not feeling poetic here. The truth is we try to harvest multiple times. Let the bees refill supers. Why? For one, our lehua honey needs to be extracted before it granulates, so harvesting as soon as ready is the way to go.


----------



## ForrestB

honeydrunk said:


> I second that, start a new thread.


I third that!

I would like to see a thread just on Tim Ive's methods. I have cut and paste what he has shared so far because I would like to go treatment free and want to set up a number of hives this way next year. I would also like to set up at least one Perone hive - the concepts seem similar - huge feral/swarm colonies, lots of stores left so they don't have to be fed syrup, no treatment, etc... In fact, the Perone MkI looks just like Tim's setup, though I am sure there are lots of differences....

Whose going to start the thread?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

deknow said:


> "The only beekeepers with good queens are beekeepers that are raising their own queens."
> 
> - Albert Einstein


Haha! Well done, Dean.


----------



## Tim Ives

jim lyon said:


> I am left wondering what a "conventional beekeeping system" actually consists of. Sounds kind of like an assumption that those who don't follow the Beesource treatment free definition are all doing things in a like manner. But if that is the case then why do some seem to have much better results than others, shouldn't those following this system all be losing their bees? Hmmmm.


Yep... What are the common denominators? I'm seeing them with people I've never met before.


----------



## Oldtimer

Tim what cell size do you use?

About your bees, trying to patch together what you and WLC have been saying but what I'm interested in is the breed. When you were having big losses, what was the difference between those bees and what you have now. IE, flightiness, color, anything else you know.

I understand your bees have a strong Russian influence, is that correct? Any African influence? 

The Ferals you speak of, any idea what they are? (different areas have different ferals)

You say your bees are gentle, is that even when not on a flow? Don't have to wear a veil gentle? Are they calm on a comb or run around? 

Sorry for so many questions but just trying to piece things together.

By the way an answer of more than one sentence would be great.


----------



## Tim Ives

Oldtimer said:


> Tim what cell size do you use?
> Standard Plastic foundation..
> About your bees, trying to patch together what you and WLC have been saying but what I'm interested in is the breed. When you were having big losses, what was the difference between those bees and what you have now. IE, flightiness, color, anything else you know.
> 
> Loss package bees...
> 
> I understand your bees have a strong Russian influence, is that correct? Any African influence?
> My only survivor out of 54 packages from 04-07' was a 04' Russian queen from Kelleys
> 
> The Ferals you speak of, any idea what they are? (different areas have different ferals)
> Predominantly darker??? Carni ?
> 
> You say your bees are gentle, is that even when not on a flow? Don't have to wear a veil gentle? Are they calm on a comb or run around? Don't have to wear anything. Mind their own business when pulling comb out.
> 
> 
> Sorry for so many questions but just trying to piece things together.
> 
> By the way an answer of more than one sentence would be great.


Not sure how the answering in your quote will work..


----------



## WLC

This will explain the genetics viewpoint:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15937139

This is from a NM beekeeper/member:

http://www.slideshare.net/PaulMcCarty/beekeeping-with-nm-feral-bees-v2

The hybrid swarm constantly backcrosses with domestic stock.


----------



## Tim Ives

According to my USDA test results previous 3 years. Negative on AHB genetics.


----------



## Oldtimer

OK I got your answers Tim. 

Standard plastic foundation, That would be 5.3?

Some of the other questions, could you expand a little more? For example gentleness. One persons idea of gentle is different to another, so to try to quantify I'm asking if you'd be comfortable working without a veil.

And some of the other questions could be expanded on more..

WLC thanks for the links, useful. However I'm particularly asking Tim, re HIS bees, as he is the guy actually doing it & succeeding commercially.


----------



## Tim Ives

http://m.southbendtribune.com/news/article_7d1d69da-098b-5a59-9d7c-efba90969f83.html?mode=jqm

Does this explain OT


----------



## Oldtimer

All my questions? No. 

Perhaps I'll dribble them in one question, one post, at a time.

But good pic of you working the hive with no veil. All the bees are that gentle?


----------



## Tim Ives

Oldtimer said:


> All my questions? No.
> 
> Perhaps I'll dribble them in one question, one post, at a time.
> 
> But good pic of you working the hive with no veil. All the bees are that gentle?


If not that gentle, I don't hestitate to kill the queen. Haven't done so in a few years.


----------



## WLC

Tim:

The USDA AHB test is a morphometric test. It tells you if the bees in question are actual AHB or not.

It isn't a genetic test per se. Those are different, like the satellite markers used in the Pinto study. Even those kinds of tests can't really tell which kind of African genetics are there. They could be African, like the Spanish black bees, for instance.

In short, the available tests are limited in what they can tell you about the genetics of feral stock.

That's a point that Paul McCarty made in that above link.


----------



## Tim Ives

WLC said:


> Tim:
> 
> The USDA AHB test is a morphometric test. It tells you if the bees in question are actual AHB or not.
> 
> It isn't a genetic test per se. Those are different, like the satellite markers used in the Pinto study. Even those kinds of tests can't really tell which kind of African genetics are there. They could be Tunisian, like the Spanish black bees, for instance.
> 
> In short, the available tests are limited in what they can tell you about the genetics of feral stock.
> 
> That's a point that Paul McCarty made in that above link.


My usual responce when questioned on race is... The live ones. 
There's such a mix. Couple years ago caught a swarm that was definitely Cordovan. Got a few swarms out of the City of South Bend, which up until July this year was illegal to keep bees unless you owned 5 acres. All them swarms have been predominantly darker bees. So??? Don't really know....


----------



## WLC

Just call them feral (or hybrid swarm) bees. Especially if they act like ferals.

If they're domestic Honeybees, it will be apparent.

The difference is how they behave when you work them.


----------



## Tim Ives

Roland said:


> Actually. his 400 lbs from 3 deep brood chambers is not that good. Per my "Scale hive report" of 2012, one deep made 150 lbs. Three deeps (added) made 450 lbs, and I did not have to use a step ladder. It is all about the use of capital. What money did he make with what investment?
> 
> Either way, time will solve this one too. Let's see how long he sticks around. We've seen this before, and we will see this again.
> 
> BTW, as the crow flies, he is about 100 miles from me. If the lake froze, a quick drive.
> 
> Crazy Roland Diehnelt, 5th gen beekeeper.
> Linden Apiary, est. 1852


Time solves what again?
Been looking for this one. If you got 150# off a single I'd be getting 900#!!!!! 
Furthermore, If you're still only getting 150# per colony, time solved absolutely NOTHING. Lmao. 
Dont worry I'll check back in 8 years again. 

Tim Ives.


----------



## Oldtimer

Tim Ives said:


> If you got 150# off a single I'd be getting 900#!!!!!


What ya been smoking LOL 😄 🙄


----------



## Tim Ives

Oldtimer said:


> What ya been smoking LOL 😄 🙄


Just laughing hard at these so called beekeepers. SMH


----------



## Tim Ives

Oldtimer said:


> What ya been smoking LOL 😄 🙄


Clueless. Clueless. Clueless is all I can say.


----------



## Tim Ives

jim lyon said:


> Forgive me if I withhold judgement for a bit longer because if Tim is truly onto something here then the results to beekeeping as we know it will be profound. Honey production will skyrocket, migratory beekeeping will die (as someone who has been away from home 3 months and counting I like that part) declining bee numbers will turn into exponential increases and the fears by many of pesticide problems with bee hives will be but a distant memory. Go get em Tim and anyone else using this system and I mean that sincerely. You have an audience.


So Jim, have you capitalized or still stuck on on the old paradigm of treating, feeding, requeening yearly and pulling sissy lala 150# averages? Threads 8 years old, more then enough time to have figured it out right?


----------



## Oldtimer

Tim Ives said:


> If you got 150# off a single I'd be getting 900#!!!!!


Well since it's become a smack talk and BS thread, I just pulled 5 ton off a nuc.

See if you can up smack talk that Tim 😉


----------



## jim lyon

Tim Ives said:


> So Jim, have you capitalized or still stuck on on the old paradigm of treating, feeding, requeening yearly and pulling sissy lala 150# averages? Threads 8 years old, more then enough time to have figured it out right?


Hi Tim,
Life is good here. Warehouse is full of honey (packers currently competing for my honey because it tests free of adulterants and beekeeper applied pesticides) and hives are heavy and full of bees. Carry on.


----------

