# Treatment Free Or Not to Be? - One Person's Internal Debate



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

For several years now, I have held the position that consistent treatment or the fighting of mites interferes with the natural ability of the bee to adjust, and that I - not depending on bees for income - should do my part to let the bees do their natural adjusting without my interference.

I have made no claims to "success", as I feel that I have not subjected my bees to the rigors of honey production and have been more focused on raising bees in smaller colonies as a hobbyist. A new beekeeper recently asked me about being Treatment Free, and about my feelings on the debate. As I started to answer, I realized that I have a philosophical problem to resolve. I thought it might be interesting to share my thoughts with you at this point, in order to contribute to the general discussion.

To help you see where I'm coming from personally, I will state my basic stances on a couple of things:

*1 - I reject the term "Natural Beekeeping".* I think it's misleading, divisive and polarizing within the beekeeping community, and a contradiction in terms. Nothing about people manipulating honey bee colonies is 'natural' from the bee standpoint. There is no major hive type which is inherently "more natural". If you want to keep bees 'naturally', then prepare a swarm box according to their preferred specifications (See Tom D. Seeley's research) and when bees move in, leave them alone. 

*2 - I believe that the bee too complex to be 'known' by anyone in a complete sense, and that we are all continually learning.* The problems currently facing the bees (and humanity) are extremely complex, and we all stand to gain from sharing the many many perspectives that contribute to the world-wide discussion.

*3 - For my own approach to a beekeeping philosophy, I find the term 'minimalist' suits it best.* Not in that I want to 'do less', but that I try to achieve my goals with bees using the fewest possible manipulations that mean pushing the bees to things they would not do on their own, and working to best align my own goals with theirs. I try to be minimal in my use of foundations, minimize feeding, etc etc. I understand that this a choice, and is not inherently 'right'. It's just what I choose to do. The bees know what they're doing, and I try not to get in there way.

Now this fourth and final point is key:

*4 - For every manipulation I make which is outside the bee's 'nature', I accept that I have a responsibility to counter that manipulation with some countermeasure to resolve any problem that manipulation may cause the bee through no fault (genetic or otherwise) of her own.* So for example, if I split a colony and repeatedly reduce it's size and resources, I may need to feed to help them recover from the lack of resources they would not have faced had I left them alone - that sort of thing.

And herein lies the problem.

Up to this point, I have been managing bees in relatively small colonies. I've been splitting, wintering nucs, doing cut-outs, catching swarms, etc. But now I am beginning to look at managing some hive for honey production, and this is a place where my needs will contradict the natural processes and intentions of the bee, and my approach to point #4 is challenged accordingly.

Left alone, the colony would inhabit a smaller, finite space and if they winter strong, they would normally swarm once or twice throughout the summer months, breaking the brood cycle of mites, would keep their numbers fairly low and would build only as much food and size as necessary to carry them through winter. They'd deal with mites along the way in their own manner (perhaps they'd groom, remove or directly attack mites, etc.) and the strength of that colony would determine the number and strength of the drones and queens they produce, and they would contribute in their own measure to the genetic diversity of the bees as a whole in the area. 

But if I'm managing them for honey production, I will not allow them to live in that way. In this case, I will attempt to dissuade them from swarming and manage them to encourage a single, large colony in each hive. I will expand the cavity they live within to accommodate an enormous population (the bigger the better), and I will do everything I can to avoid any brood breaks. At the end of the season, (if following typical practice) I will remove all honey beyond the weight they will require to winter, and condense the space so that the bees are reduced again to a smaller cavity, with a large population. Along with this contraction, an increased mite population - caused largely by my 'unnatural' interference - will be present and weakening the colony accordingly.

In short, my manipulations will have eliminated a major element in in the bee's handling of her parasite through swarming, and I will have caused an unnaturally large mite population through the adding of space, and then (if I stay treatment free) will have denied her any assistance in recovering from my interference. 

*So I ask you:

Are we asking too much of the bee to adjust to mites on her own 'naturally' while at the same time shouldering the weight of our continued manipulations and 'unnatural' demands of her to produce amid a plethora of other human-made alterations to her natural environment?*

This, to me, is the central question as it relates to being treatment free or not. Up until yesterday, I felt comfortable in my view. If you have the time and energy after reading all of this, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion from where you sit.

Thanks,

Adam


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

IMO, it is possible to be a treatment free minimalist and expect the bees to produce honey. Nature dictates that honeybees hoard honey. Taking advantage of that behavior is what beekeepers have done for millennia. It is not easy to go treatment free because it means leaving bees to their fate. This is far easier if you start with treatment free bees from a reliable breeder.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I thought it might be interesting to share my thoughts with you at this point, in order to contribute to the general discussion.


another excellent post by you adam, you have a gift for framing and asking really good questions.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> *1 - I reject the term "Natural Beekeeping".*


i couldn't agree more and i have made this same point from time to time. it's everything but natural to herd colonies together in one yard, dig through their hive from time to time, and take away resources from them.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> *2 - I believe that the bee[keeping is] too complex to be 'known' by anyone in a complete sense, and that we are all continually learning.*


very true. it's an evolving craft with lots of variables not to mention that goals and outcomes are pretty diverse across the universe of beekeepers. just the influence of location alone is huge factor.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> *3 - For my own approach to a beekeeping philosophy, I find the term 'minimalist' suits it best.*


you may have to define that better for us, but it when it comes to pest control that sounds like what some might call ipm or integrated pest management, the goal of which if i understand it properly is to allow what ever system (bee colony in this case) to be as self managing as possible but intervening as necessary to achieve the desired outcome.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> *4 - For every manipulation I make which is outside the bee's 'nature', I accept that I have a responsibility to counter that manipulation with some countermeasure to resolve any problem that manipulation may cause the bee through no fault (genetic or otherwise) of her own.*


the one overriding principle that the bees have taught me during my short tenure with them is that the more i stay out of their way the better they do. some manipulations actually can facilitate what the bees are trying to accomplish, i.e. i believe checkerboarding supers in late winter makes the spring build up easier for the bees. other manipulations may be more neutral, i.e. if i have 5 supers of honey the bees may not notice so much me taking the top 2 from them. making splits later in the season than the bees would likely be swarming is another matter and yes, countermeasures (feeding) is probably good idea.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> *So I ask you:
> 
> Are we asking too much of the bee to adjust to mites on her own 'naturally' while at the same time shouldering the weight of our continued manipulations and 'unnatural' demands of her to produce amid a plethora of other human-made alterations to her natural environment?*


i don't know. i've wondered if having more success with swarm prevention might cause an uptick in mite related losses. so far i haven't seen that trend but i'm watching for it. it may be that having a summer dearth with the associated brood break may have an offsetting effect here. the thing is that not all locations have a dearth like that and not all strains of bees stop brooding during dearths, so this is another one those things that may be 'local'.

i think fp makes a very good point. if you are lucky enough to find folks in your neck of the woods having success in the way you envision success while keeping bees off treatments by all means take your cues (and maybe some bees) from them.

if that's not possible adam you may have to embrace the fact that you are going to have to figure it out as you go. we all have to do that to some degree when it comes to our own personal beekeeping, but if you are going to try something new and different for your area you'll be in the pioneering business. there's no right or wrong to it, and no need to be conflicted over what you do or don't do based what others think. it's your ballgame and you get to make the rules.


----------



## SteveStevenson (Feb 14, 2014)

Mr Collins, your comments appear to be well thought out and your minimalist approach is what I am trying to do. My only question or disagreement is with the idea that the hive must be manipulated to harvest honey. I agree that to maximize honey production manipulation is required. And I suppose that taking any honey could be considered to be manipulation. However, allowing bees to live the way they choose should still allow for a honey harvest, even if it is a small harvest.


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

Just my 10 cents worth.
I'm running IPM with small cell under 20 hives. Last winter they all survived, & we haven't lost one this year yet.
I'm a little negligent in my IPM practices, but its still working out, so I think TF is possible.
Also we raise almost all our own queens.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

*SteveStevenson:*

I get what you're saying and agree. I have kept top bar hives and taken 20-30 lbs per season with no problem, and mites were manageable. However, that is not the commonly accepted version of honey production, and I believe we have to at least acknowledge the norm in honey production here. We're asking 50 to 100 lbs of honey per colony in honey production hives. That's the norm. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be - but that's what it is. As I said, a hobbyist has the luxury of managing for smaller colonies, but when you move to a production model, it becomes a big ask for the bee colony to produce those numbers and handle the mites on top of reduced forage, increased pesticides, herbicides, pollution, etc etc.

*Squarepeg:*

Thank you for your kind words and considered reply. Your work and effort to share your experience here is greatly appreciated. 

To clarify, my approach has meant no direct interference with mites. No drone comb removal, no nothing. The reason is that I don't believe we can see the true implications of any manipulation. Bees want drones, so I have tried to let them have them. That's the path I've been following. But when we jack those individual colony numbers to lang stacks 8 or 10 feet high... That doesn't happen in a 40L tree cavity. Is it fair to leave them with all those mites and expect them to adjust to it?

I realize that some do. I don't know why, but some do. And when they do - when we see colonies who can rock the huge numbers and still show low mite loads - I think we need to let those bees do their thing, and I think we need to focus our queen-rearing on those colonies. But how much do we move the overall strength of the bee in that effort?

*Fusion:*

You're an intelligent person and I have read your posts with interest for years. So I do respect your perspectives. 

I like the idea of breeding. But I worry that it's largely a fantasy for the small beekeeper at this point in history. Keith Delaplane's presentation on the polyamorous nature of honey bees really got me thinking. Right now, within 3 miles of me is a yard of about 75 of Kirk Webster's bees, 30 of Ross Conrad's, maybe some of Chaz Mraz's, Queens from the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont, queens from B. Weavers, Queens from the Carolinas on migratory colonies, laden with mite loads, and queens from Mike Palmer (actually, those are in my yard). I have to wonder: how the heck do you maintain any breeding program in all of that? 

Without instrumental insemination (another unnatural manipulation - however useful), you don't. Every time your virgin queen flies out, she's mating with genetic lines from all over the US (and beyond). And this is only getting more common as the internet offers beekeepers a direct line of communication and ordering for bees from all over. This genetic diversity is the key to the survival of the bee. I believe that. But as far as really honing in on a specific set of traits for your individual preferences? I have my doubts purely on logistics. 

It can be done, but I think it takes a lot of colonies and a genetic program based in a dominance of bee populations in a particular geography along with it. That means that anyone thinking they're going to make meaningful breeding progress - with less than about 1000 colonies, spread over a wide area in places that aren't geographically isolated - is kidding themselves.

I wish it wasn't true, but in my heart of hearts, I believe it is.

*KQ6AR:*

I appreciate your long-standing input here as well.

IPM is still treatment as far as I'm concerned. In the end, you're manipulating colonies in ways bees could never do on their own. That's fine, but it's not treatment free - at least as far as the way I see it in my thinking. IPM is a form of treatment, and a viable one for sure.

Adam


----------



## Eikel (Mar 12, 2014)

Minimalist is the term I use. Chemical free unless things begin to get out of control, then treat to avoid squandering resources uselessly but then revert back to chemical free. Use a number of IPM practices including adding some hygienic trait queens every year. My interpretation of "manipulating the hive" would include checkerboarding, splitting, combining, requeening, etc etc; any actions I purposely implement to leverage their natural traits and tendencies to better align with my goals and intent. There's a lot of middle ground between no treatment at any cost and treat at every opportunity.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> But when we jack those individual colony numbers to lang stacks 8 or 10 feet high... That doesn't happen in a 40L tree cavity. Is it fair to leave them with all those mites and expect them to adjust to it?


that's another great question and to be honest i am not sure. i try to not get over 4 or 5 mediums on top of a single deep which would put the total volume equivalent at +/- 4 deeps. it turns out that the while the bees are pretty dense in the lower part of the hive where the broodnest is they thin out quite a bit in the honey supers, being mostly on the frames that they are processing nectar on up there, and hardly any on the capped frames. i'm not sure exactly but i would guess that having 10 times the volume in a hive doesn't translate into 10 time more bees (and mites), with the actually number of bees probably maxing out at some point regardless of volume.

again this may be a local thing, but i see brooding already starting to get scaled back just when we hit the peak of our main spring flow. so rather than reacting to the current conditions, it's as if the colony can 'anticipate' that the intense flow is going to be short lived and that it makes more sense to adjust their population down for that in advance. i'm guessing that this mid season ramping down and breaking of brooding serves to throttle the mite population dynamics back as well.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> I realize that some do. I don't know why, but some do. And when they do - when we see colonies who can rock the huge numbers and still show low mite loads - I think we need to let those bees do their thing, and I think we need to focus our queen-rearing on those colonies.


exactly.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> But how much do we move the overall strength of the bee in that effort?


i think it's possible to get a measurable result even after a few seasons of selection, (and deselection through the winnowing process). i think i am seeing overall improvement after a few generations here but it may have a little to do with me getting a little bit further up the learning curve or maybe even just plain luck. it sounds like you've got pretty decent diversity in the nearby drone population and hopefully you'll end up with a few rockers to take grafts from. 

it will be a fun experiment adam, and perhaps a little bit like forrest gump's mother described a box of chocolates, "you never know what you'll get". hopefully for you something really good.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

If drones from a tf yard mated with queens from a treated yard, would the resultant genetics be at a disadvantage? Maybe not so much. In instances where treatment loses effectiveness for whatever reason, those genetics may help the treater out a bit on occasion and those genetics will infiltrate his stock. Especially if you are surrounded by those who mostly raise their own and bring in interesting stuff to test out. 

Are feral bees making a comeback in your area? If they are, their genetics is at play as well. 

I hesitate making too many assumptions about what feral bees are and aren't. In the wild, with competitive interactions between hives, size probably matters. If a swarm can find, defend and fill a large cavity, then not only can they rob their neighbors, but any colonies they have happened to kill in the fall, could be taken over with early spring swarms. They can also throw swarm after swarm. They could dominate the local genetic landscape for a while. The ability and desire for at least a subset of bees to take advantage of large cavities may be what allows beekeepers to focus on honey production. Perhaps making bees survive as nucs their first winter, then demanding production out of them the following year maintains some genetic diversity in terms of strategy and flexibility.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> *So I ask you:
> 
> Are we asking too much of the bee to adjust to mites on her own 'naturally' while at the same time shouldering the weight of our continued manipulations and 'unnatural' demands of her to produce amid a plethora of other human-made alterations to her natural environment?*


I think when you have TF bees you will notice that because resistance comes with a cost/expence (it takes resources, needs attention and work form the bees) they will produce less. They have smaller brood nests and colonies, so you don´t have to worry of too many supers. They don´t need them. If you wish to be more natural you can always put the new super underneath, next to bottom board.

TF bees adjust their brood area to what suits them. This happens no matter how many brood chambers you give them. You don´t have to worry about that either. They stack honey and pollen in the extra space.

When you make splits form a TF hive, you can always make a shake swarm, if you wish it to be more natural. (I make just plain normal nucs, with brood frames and bees.) Shake swarms made in the late peak season can be connected with honey harvest to make it even more simple and natural.

When bees are in beekeepers hives I think we should not think to much of being natural. Natural they can be in the wild.

Kirk told me about a mountain mating station he has in Vermont. Maybe you could find a place in the mountains too- for your best survivor bees only.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Adam,
I have some questions:
- what`s your definition of a feral bee? An escaped domestic swarm living in the wild for some time with the queen mating with drones from domestic colonies as it would be here?
or the original local bees (apis mellifera mellifera here) which are bred not to be extinct but are mostly hybrids today?
- can we keep bees "in a natural way" without interventions in a most unnatural environment with sprayed fields, many droughts, monoculture, bee inspectors supervising the hives, crowded conditions with treated hives all around?

In my opinion we, who exploit bees for our own use, even if we just house them without taking too much honey, must help them along. As natural in our management as possible, for sure.
So point 4 is what is important for me.

I observed wild bees (not honeybees) for 3 years now in my garden and in the wildlife park where I work. 
The most important thing for them to survive is the flow and the plants they need, those being not sprayed.

Nature is without mercy, it`s normal that sometimes there are 90% losses but mankind is not up to those losses because it`s taken as a personal affront not being able to control this.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard (Jul 7, 2015)

Mr. Collins - I have little to say that has not already been said by those with more right to say it. Yet I will take you up on your invitation to express my opinion, which is most emphatically written "from where I sit."

I want to thank you for putting to such eloquent expression doubts and questions which have also been much occupying my mind. My position as beekeeper is in some ways an embodied instance of your final question: for I and my family depend on the money that we garner from our bees, but at the same time if we do not become treatment free then I am in danger of running into hypocrisy with my philosophy. Your question thus touches the nerve of my dilemma, and I shall be more than curious to hear your continued thoughts on this matter.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> *So I ask you:
> 
> Are we asking too much of the bee to adjust to mites on her own 'naturally' while at the same time shouldering the weight of our continued manipulations and 'unnatural' demands of her to produce amid a plethora of other human-made alterations to her natural environment?*


I believe - and I state this belief as _my own,_ which should have no ramifications for anyone but me - that the only way to answer this question is to put it to the test. I do not mean the test of a single season, nor of a single scientific study, nor anything at all so brief and inconclusive as that, but rather to the hard and perhaps painful test of years or even decades, as many of the intrepid beekeepers on this very forum have done, or are doing. And this must be done, recognizing as well that such a test shall certainly entail harship for the bees, and quite likely for their keepers as well.

Of course, the question does not _need_ to be answered; and here is the rub. But (and I repeat, these are but the thoughts I speak to myself, and should not at all be taken as exhortation to others) if I were to allow that we _are _asking the bees too much when we demand of them _at once_ productivity _and _resistance to the parasites that afflict them - if I were to allow this, I say, then I must perforce accept the stark division between the more-or-less healthy wild bee on the one hand, and the industrial or technologically dependent honey farmer on the other. Put otherwise, I must accept the impossibility today of an older style of beekeeping, which epitomizes that tenuous and enigmatic and beautiful point at which the ordered artifices of humankind touch the ungovernable wildness of the inhuman world.

It may well be that such a style of beekeeping is in fact antiquated and presently impossible; but if it is, then I want nothing to do with this profession in any case. And so I intend, as much as is possible for me, to put my bees to the trial, and myself with them, as is only fair, to see just what potentialities there are still left in the both of us, which have yet to be undone by our strange modernity.

John


----------



## GBF (Dec 3, 2015)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> For several years now, I have held the position that consistent treatment or the fighting of mites interferes with the natural ability of the bee to adjust, and that I - not depending on bees for income - should do my part to let the bees do their natural adjusting without my interference.
> 
> I have made no claims to "success", as I feel that I have not subjected my bees to the rigors of honey production and have been more focused on raising bees in smaller colonies as a hobbyist. A new beekeeper recently asked me about being Treatment Free, and about my feelings on the debate. As I started to answer, I realized that I have a philosophical problem to resolve. I thought it might be interesting to share my thoughts with you at this point, in order to contribute to the general discussion.
> 
> ...


Natural or unnatural there are many ways of understanding and interpetations. I am sure the natural beekeeping is possible and for the TF it is very important to keep bees naturaly..
My view of natural beekeeping starts from a clean area somewhere in woods. So your bees are able to stay clean out of pests, toxins etc gatering clean honey and able to raise up a healthy offspring .. Then youre keeping them in clean wooden hives where never used any chemicals and your using foundationless combs so the wax also is free out of pest and toxins.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI (Sep 14, 2007)

"Are we asking too much of the bee to adjust to mites on her own 'naturally' while at the same time shouldering the weight of our continued manipulations and 'unnatural' demands of her to produce amid a plethora of other human-made alterations to her natural environment?"

I say we are asking too much if we insist bees live in 10 frame Langstroth's without a brood break year-round. JohnBruceLeonards' eloquence has helped me order my thoughts. I believe part of the problem is beekeepers' reluctance to leave the "older style of beekeeping". In relative terms this "older style of beekeeping" is a new thing. 
As I understand it (reference the Heath beekeeping series on youtube) colonies were routinely started from swarms before Langs came into being. From 1852-1987 it was possible to place honey bees in Langs and have hives that stayed alive for years. Yet in the 4500 year history of beekeeping this 125 years is not very long. Many people's livelihoods depend upon the 10 frame box and continuous brood rearing. Adherence to this method is very limiting. 
"Broodbreakers" and "nucers" are having success without chemicals and accept that the year-round-continuous-10-frame-box-beekeeping model is not for them. I use 10 frame equipment for honey production, but recognize that my bees overwinter better in skinnier boxes and do best when they have had a restorative broodbreak. Most of my bees overwinter in nucs. 
Adam, I believe it is possible to have modest success as a treatment-free beekeeper if you can forgo some honey at the end of the season in order to allow restorative brood breaking and/or splitting. It is not hard if you are thinking of making a thousand pounds or so of honey. Thank you for starting this thought provoking thread.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

Great thread ! What I see locally is some feral colonies are living in trees etc for 3-5 winters as bees have lived for thousands of yrs. The local TF guys have incorporated those bees into their yards and know after a few good yrs of production its time to bust them up into nucs to reset them so to speak. This is the TF model I'm trying to achieve. I think to many folks thing colonies should live perpetually and want to treat to save that individual colony. It just doesn't happen that way in nature.


----------



## Mycroft Jones (Aug 22, 2015)

Leo Sharashkin (translator of Keeping Bees With a Smile) taught a friend of mine to let his hive swarm every spring. So far he has done that, and the hives have been big and healthy.

Are many TF people encouraging/allowing the spring swarm?

What is the "nucer" method? Hives are kept in a single Lanstroth deep, and that is reduced to 5 frames for overwintering? Or 5 over 5?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I don't usually permit a colony to swarm though one or two get away each spring. I usually pull a nuc out of half of my colonies to increase numbers and have a few to sell. The parent colony is expected to make a crop of honey. The remaining colonies are maintained for honey production. I am going to try to double my colony numbers this spring in an effort to make a few more treatment free colonies available in the area. This should be possible with little impact on honey production if I start at the right time.


----------



## BeesFromPoland (Dec 27, 2014)

My opinion is, that "beekeeping" would always be unnatural in some way. However we would practice it.
In Poland beekeepers always say/write that I souldn't call my beekeeping as natural, because natural is watching bees in tree hollows. I kind of agree, however I see "natural beekeeping" as simplification. 
I would say (and that is my personal definition of that) that natural is the kind of beekeeping that allows your bees to live in the nature for free - survive there, give swarms, and sustain the feral population. So what I try to do here is to have bees that - even they presently live in "unnatural" conditions (hive od the beeyard) - they may have the chance to survive in the wild. 
For me that means that they MUST have traits that allow them to do that, and that are:
- resistance to dieseases (so they must be TF)
- being somehow defensive;
- propolising;
- not beeing high score productive;
- swarming.
etc. 
For me that means I have to tolerate these traits, even I don't like them, because that are the traits that "natural bees" need to stay alive (evolution of these traits proved it). That are the traits that AMM have (my local bees here). 

And that means for me :
- natural hive (e.g. wooden)
- natural methods (accepting swarming, not taking too much honey, no tratments, no disinfecting etc);
- no excessive husbandary, not eliminating "unfavorable" traits etc. 

So I see my "natural beekeeping" as doing what allows "my swarm" to survive on its own.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI (Sep 14, 2007)

I consider a "nucer" as someone who uses skinny boxes of 4 or 5 frames, or divided boxes, as the backbone of their apiary. Beekeepers use a variety of different methods capitalize on the efficiency of these boxes. If this is new to you go to youtube and search "Michael Palmer bees" as a starting point. Another way to investigate is to do a search on Beesource with "Michael Palmer" as the subject. There are many threads on Beesource related to nucs and "nucing" methods. Mike has reported that he doesn't treat his nucs, but does treat his 10 frame boxes.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Are many TF people encouraging/allowing the spring swarm?

I might if I were home all the time to catch them and if I had some baited limbs where I could reach them, that had lemongrass oil and QMP on them. But I work all day and bees in the trees don't do me any good, so I split them instead if I think they are about to swarm. Also hives that have swarmed are not very productive as they have lost most of their field force.


----------



## Mycroft Jones (Aug 22, 2015)

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> I consider a "nucer" as someone who uses skinny boxes of 4 or 5 frames, or divided boxes, as the backbone of their apiary. Beekeepers use a variety of different methods capitalize on the efficiency of these boxes. If this is new to you go to youtube and search "Michael Palmer bees" as a starting point. Another way to investigate is to do a search on Beesource with "Michael Palmer" as the subject. There are many threads on Beesource related to nucs and "nucing" methods. Mike has reported that he doesn't treat his nucs, but does treat his 10 frame boxes.


Thank you. I read that bee swarms avoid cavities 20 litres and under. I wonder why. I'll follow up on those suggested search terms.


----------



## Mycroft Jones (Aug 22, 2015)

Michael Bush said:


> >Also hives that have swarmed are not very productive as they have lost most of their field force.


Is that whole-season loss of productivity, or is that "not much going on for the next 3 weeks" loss of productivity? Lazutin/Sharashkin and my swarming friend in Missouri report that the bees build up and finish the season strong.

At what point does it make sense to raise your own queens? After 10 hives? 20?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Mycroft Jones said:


> I read that bee swarms avoid cavities 20 litres and under. I wonder why.


For bee breeds designed for a winter (non Africans) the 20 litre minimum is most likely about room for physical storage of enough food, for a cluster of sufficient size, to see out a winter.




Mycroft Jones said:


> Is that whole-season loss of productivity, or is that "not much going on for the next 3 weeks" loss of productivity?


The former, in most locations. Your friends hives may finish the season strong, but if there was a flow on when they were short on bees they will have gathered less. My own hives that swarmed finish the season as strong as the others, but get a smaller honey crop, and if they sent out multiple swarms they can be so light on bees they produce nothing for me at all, just enough for themselves for winter. Which kind of negates the purpose of having them.



Mycroft Jones said:


> At what point does it make sense to raise your own queens? After 10 hives? 20?


At any point, even one hive if you build a nuc box to mate it in.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Is that whole-season loss of productivity, or is that "not much going on for the next 3 weeks" loss of productivity? Lazutin/Sharashkin and my swarming friend in Missouri report that the bees build up and finish the season strong.

It's not all cut and dried. Some hives manage to swarm and still produce, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The strategy you need to get the most production is for the population of bees to peak right at the main flow. This is almost impossible when they swarm. In fact swarming is a pretty good indication that the population peaked before the main flow and now has dipped because of the swarm. Some hives will swarm and afterswarm and afterswarm until there are hardly any bees left. I don't see any upside to swarming if I'm not there to catch the swarm, and I seldom am. You can get a lot of the same effect (other than the energy of a new swarm, if you catch them) by doing a split if you let the population peak too soon. Better to avoid all of that and have the population of the colony peak at the flow and get a good crop. You can split the ones that you failed at this to make up for winter.

If I didn't have a job and could get to the beeyard every morning and afternoon to check for swarms, I might let them swarm instead of doing the splits, but I would still be trying to avoid swarming and peak at the flow to get some honey. I would just catch the swarms from my failures.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Many of the new crop of hobby beekeepers are suburban hobby farmers. Swarms in urban and suburban landscape cause real problems. Swarms will ruin relationships with neighbors and authorities. No amount of head-in-sand denial obscures this issue.

I estimate the mother colony loss rate following a single swarm at about 20% due to supersedure failure. If the colony is allowed to transition to uncontrolled after-swarming, the loss of the mother colony is more than 50%. Manage a couple of dozen mating nucs, and the risks to the virgin flight should become obvious to the keeper.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> No amount of head-in-sand denial obscures this issue.

If you keep bees, sooner or later some will swarm. No amount of head-in-sand denial obscures this issue. But having had bees in town for most of 25 years or so I never had an issue with neighbors even noticing a swarm. Granted I was trying to manage swarming, but I did not always succeed. Most neighbors are at work when a swarm happens and even if they are not, they are seldom outside when it does. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to control swarming but a swarm in an urban setting is not an unmitigated disaster. Odds are it will not even be noticed.


----------



## Mycroft Jones (Aug 22, 2015)

Oldtimer said:


> At any point, even one hive if you build a nuc box to mate it in.


Thank you. Is a nuc small to save money on construction/purchase? Or is the small size of a nuc for a different reason? If someone was building a whole pile of 40 litre boxes, would they work as nucs also. I'm about to make some 11x11x22 boxes for next year.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

A nuc is small so that with only a small amount of bees you can get a queen mated, rather than devote a big hive to the same purpose.

Hence the term nucleus hive.

So a beekeeper with one hive only, can still get a queen mated by taking only a few bees from his hive to make the nucleus hive, and using that to get the new queen mated.

However this thread is a great topic don't want to derail, nucs etc should only be discussed as it relates to the topic.


----------



## SRatcliff (Mar 19, 2011)

I started reading _The Botany of Desire_ by Michael Pollan. It's about, in regards to domestication, how we typically think only about how we're using and manipulating plants/animals for our benefit, but the process is actually reciprocal. We ask the colony for surplus honey, what does it ask from us? A secure shelter safe from predators and carefully managed in a way that it may survive dearths and winters. Of course propagation, maintaining diversity, and eliminating/requeening unfit colonies is important too.

Sure, I think we can ask too much of our bees. I don't see breeding stingerless bees that produce 1000lbs of honey anytime soon. It's a bit of a dance and I think we just have to do our best to mimic nature, and be happy with what it gives us. There, my hippy rant is over...


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

SRatcliff said:


> It's a bit of a dance and I think we just have to do our best to mimic nature, and be happy with what it gives us.


i like that.


----------



## ollie (Jan 2, 2016)

WHOW!

You guys are soo informative, Ive just joined this site and to see the author of the book Ive recently purchased (Above) I feel very humble.

One point I did notice Adam was that you said a hive left to its 'natural' way has or rather produces less honey??? Remember Im only a new bee, but ive watched countless guys on you tube doing cut outs and some of those hives have sooo much honey stores I was surprised. But hey I have a lot to learn......

I want to go down the lines of bee keeping that Mr Bush writes soo much about in his book. I really don't like chemicals, I want to go TF. I love wildlife and find the bees soo utterly fascinating. Ive built a TBH and an observation hive as Mr bush says you learn sooo much from the Observation hive.... any way I going off topic here... apologies......


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

ollie said:


> I really don't like chemicals


It's going to be tough being a successful beekeeper without chemicals in your beehives. Particularly: pollen, nectar, wax, water, wood, etc.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Is there any research out there that focused on correlation (or lack of) between population concentration and success of TF ? Generally it would appear that beyond certain threshold, nature (rather other inhabitants of that shared space) fights back hard and problems raise exponentially. So if you want to go from a hobby, small # hive TF to commercial, isnt it better to get into something like Queen rearing, research, genetics than honey production ?


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

If you have interest in keeping your bees alive to make more bees, more honey, and money I suggest you use Oxalic acid combined with a ipm. Works well, and the bees are much healthier than if left to the mites.

Surviving and thriving bees are too very different things! Many treatment free beeks just can't seem to grasp this.

Can you keep bees alive without treatments? Sure, but if you just want bees to just live "naturally", just plant forage for bees and save yourself some serious dough.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> If you have interest in keeping your bees alive to make more bees, more honey, and money....


that's one of the more condescending posts i've seen here in awhile tb. can you tell us how you have come to be an authority on what "many treatment free beeks" grasp or not? and who said anything about wanting bees to just live naturally? what are your views on adaptation, host/parasite equilibrium, and selection for resistant traits?

i've been transparent with my experience keeping bees off treatments. it would be interesting for comparison if your experience with treatments was indeed that much better. are you willing to share your winter loss rates and productivity numbers with the forum?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Kamon borrowed money to go commercial. He had a lot of problems because his bees were not nearly as mite tolerant as he thought they were. I'm not sure if he is now running a viable business, but if so, he is doing it by using oxalic treatments to keep healthy colonies of bees. Three years ago, he was quick to post about his experiences running bees treatment free.


----------



## JacobWustner (Dec 11, 2015)

Hello Everyone!
I find it possible to have honey production, swarm prevention and treatment free all in the same boat. I don't believe you have to let your bees swarm for them to be able to handle varroa. 

I also like to think there is a "natural" beekeeping. But any definition is not going to work for everyone. This is the same for organic and treatment free, it is up to the individual to decide whether or not the author's values align with their own. I like to call my operation, organic, natural, treatment free, and commercial. 

I have successfully harvested honey, raised queens, made nucs and splits without treating hives. It seems to come down to some basic rules for me. First it was all about treatment free stock, and now I am trying small cell on top of that. But it is possible, even though some people will refuse to believe it. Beekeepers refuse to think that Dee Lusby keeps bees commercially without treatments, but she obviously does.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

JacobWustner said:


> Beekeepers refuse to think that Dee Lusby keeps bees commercially without treatments, but she obviously does.


I keep getting told beekeepers refuse to think this, just, I don't know any beekeepers that refuse to think it. Maybe I'm just way out of touch.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Anyone who refuses to believe Dee Would have to be tone deaf. Clearly she has achieved some success with what she does though one can certainly question if you would be as successful transferring her stock to a different climate or if you would even want to try. The only real controversy surrounding her is if her success is attributable to small cell and housel positioning or if it's just climate and scutellata.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

jim lyon said:


> The only real controversy surrounding her is if her success is attributable to small cell and housel positioning or if it's just climate and scutellata.


A clue to that may lie in the fact that she has laid out a complete blueprint for people to follow her model and become successful commercial TF beekeepers like she is. Her program is laid out here on Beesource, and she also takes seminars on it which people pay to attend.

As after years of this none of the attendees has succeeded despite using the small cell and housel positioning, likely it is location and bee.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

squarepeg said:


> that's one of the more condescending posts i've seen here in awhile tb. can you tell us how you have come to be an authority on what "many treatment free beeks" grasp or not? and who said anything about wanting bees to just live naturally? what are your views on adaptation, host/parasite equilibrium, and selection for resistant traits?
> 
> i've been transparent with my experience keeping bees off treatments. it would be interesting for comparison if your experience with treatments was indeed that much better. are you willing to share your winter loss rates and productivity numbers with the forum?


Yes I have kept bees treatment free. And though I have had stock purchased from beekeepers who have been treatment free for many years and have raised queens myself the results were not consistent for making money. 

Some years I would overwinter with 30% losses sometimes up to 60% BUT the ones that survived did not produce 90 to 100 lbs of honey like hives that I used formic acid and now OA.

Many times the surviviors struggled to produce 30 lbs of honey. 

I truly think the bees have reached a equilibrium. It is not profitable one. But one that allows the bees to reproduce enough to survive and pollinate and repeat. Which is all nature requires.

I did not mean to sound as harsh as I did, But yes I am bitter at many of the falsities of how easy or how good it is or HOW much better for the bees it is to be treatment free.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Also to point out, TBLLC is depending on profitability here, not just making some extra money on the side. I'd like to see a show of hands on the other treatment free supporters who depend on the bees to make their living, not to take away from the hobbyist and sideliners though, but relying on income from the bees does change one's outlook on management styles somewhat.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

no worries here tb, i appreciate the reply.

a small percentage of my colonies, (usually the ones i wasn't successful with swarm prevention), are nonproductive as you describe. these end up getting split up into nucs and receiving grafts from the best producing ones.

i assume this is pretty much standard beekeeping practice whether on or off treatments and the hope is that productivity is improved over time. i believe i am seeing that in my yards and i don't think our numbers are that far apart regarding honey yield. are you leaving honey vs. feeding back syrup?

fortunately i have not seen the high losses you report and so far i am seeing fewer losses year to year. i'd like to attribute that to careful selection and deselection but it may just be luck. i'm averaging under 20% winter loss. what kind of losses are you seeing since using formic?

if you've been reading my posts than you know that i'm all about just reporting the facts, failures as well as successes, and that i'm not on any mission to convert all beekeepers to treatment free.

i probably worded my reply somewhat harshly as well, my apologies. i guess it strikes a nerve when see derogatory statements that cast a wide net over the approach and/or those of us utilizing it.


----------



## Mycroft Jones (Aug 22, 2015)

Oldtimer said:


> A clue to that may lie in the fact that she has laid out a complete blueprint for people to follow her model and become successful commercial TF beekeepers like she is. Her program is laid out here on Beesource, and she also takes seminars on it which people pay to attend.
> 
> As after years of this none of the attendees has succeeded despite using the small cell and housel positioning, likely it is location and bee.


Tim Ives said he uses large cell, and doesn't use housel positioning. In fact, he uses plastic foundation. So, location and bee probably is the thing. Although Tim Ives location is supposed to be pretty poor for forage.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Mycroft Jones said:


> Tim Ives said he uses large cell, and doesn't use housel positioning. In fact, he uses plastic foundation. So, location and bee probably is the thing. Although Tim Ives location is supposed to be pretty poor for forage.


So, harvesting 6-15 supers off a hive is poor forage?


----------



## Mycroft Jones (Aug 22, 2015)

JRG13 said:


> So, harvesting 6-15 supers off a hive is poor forage?


Tim did say that the presence of bees improves the land, so the longer the bees are there, the more bees it could support.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>As after years of this none of the attendees has succeeded despite using the small cell and housel positioning

A totally untrue and unsubstantiated statement.


----------



## Mycroft Jones (Aug 22, 2015)

Michael Bush said:


> >As after years of this none of the attendees has succeeded despite using the small cell and housel positioning
> 
> A totally untrue and unsubstantiated statement.


That is a relief, I was starting to wonder if only a few specially gifted and blessed people are able to do it. Just talked to someone last night who lost 80 hives going treatment free. He hadn't started them from scratch; the comb was all from treated hives.


----------



## julieandwadeshelton (Oct 10, 2014)

Mycroft Jones said:


> That is a relief, I was starting to wonder if only a few specially gifted and blessed people are able to do it. Just talked to someone last night who lost 80 hives going treatment free. He hadn't started them from scratch; the comb was all from treated hives.


So hypothetically, if a person wanted to go in the direction of less treatments, are you saying that having previously treated comb hinders this? Sorry to derail.. but I have decided I would like to start going foundationless. This year I will plan to checkerboard the old comb and use some starter strips. But what I never considered what would happen to the fresh combs should I need to treat :/ The hives I currently have were given apiguard late summer.


----------



## Mycroft Jones (Aug 22, 2015)

Tim Ives uses foundation, and it works for him. He even says his bees aren't bothered by the neonics in the apple orchard next to him. I am going foundationless myself, but I only had two hives, one died, and the second has dwindled to a frame and a half of bees. I think I need to start the season with more than 2 hives, start early, and do the rapid expansion thing.

Bee Wrangler (Dennis) wrote about how he had 4 treatment free hives, they lasted for years, but they dwindled and died after someone swapped some frames of treated comb into them.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

JRG13 said:


> ...but relying on income from the bees does change one's outlook on management styles somewhat.


i think you're right on that one jrg. supporting a household solely on a beekeeping operation whether on or off treatments would be a challenge either way. it's dang hot work in these parts and like most agricultural pursuits subject to weather, market prices, and a whole host of variables outside of the control of the operator.

one of the frequent criticisms of the treatment free approach is that you don't see many supporting themselves with it. well, you don't see many keeping bees off treatments period, at least in my neck of the woods we are in the minority. nor do you see many households solely supported by beekeeping, so there you are.

however, and based on my experience thus far, i believe i could support my household keeping my bees off treatments and running roughly 150 - 200 hives. this is assuming i could market and sell that much honey and bee surplus, and that i would be physically up for the challenge which is debatable. 

but if it came down to becoming homeless and going hungry vs. using formic acid to kill mites, that would be a no brainer and the maqs would win every time. 

on the other hand to paint the picture that keeping bees off treatments can't be profitable is misleading. i've got every reason to expect revenues of $500+ per overwintered hive this season barring any unforeseen catastrophes, and that's profitable enough for me.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Squarepeg

This is a compleetly off topic question from a newby but here goes. How does a guy make $500 off a hive. Could you give a general generic break down. If I am out of line side lineing this thread I appoligize now and will ask in a more apropriate topic.
Thanks
gww


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

gww said:


> How does a guy make $500 off a hive. Could you give a general generic break down?



no problem gww, (and with adam's indulgence):

in my market i am able to retail all of the honey i can produce for $20/quart and $10/one pound squeeze bottle. i sell about equal numbers of both sizes for an average of $7.50/lb. 5 frame nucs brought $140 each last year.

here's how 2015 went:

1. went into last winter with 18 colonies.
2. lost 3 over the winter leaving 15 (16.7% loss)
3. increased to 26, sold 5, leaving 21 going into this winter
4. harvested and sold 876 lbs. of honey, left about 800 lbs. of honey for the bees
5. got 19 more medium supers of foundation drawn out.
6. realized just shy of $450 income per overwintered hive

i'll be looking to improve honey yield in 2016 by virtue of having more drawn supers plus using nucs as brood factories to bolster production colonies that may need it in preparation for our main flow. i'm also looking to increase queen and nucs sales in 2016 by focusing a little more effort in that department.

my most profitable hive last year produced about 140 lbs of honey and three nucs but was lost to a failed supercedure and got replaced with one of those nucs thereby yielding only 2 nucs. that hive alone brought in $1260. 

i had a couple of hives that superceded their queens prior to our main flow, were short on bees, didn't make a surplus, and didn't contribute revenue to the operation. these hives brought the average revenue/hive down but might have been productive had i incorporated mike palmer's 'brood bomb' manipulation prior to the main flow which is what i have in mind should i have hives with similar issues this season.

my whole point for sharing these results is not to toot my own horn or brag. i realize that i may just happen to be in a good location that allows for these kind of results. i'm not saying that keeping bees off treatments is the reason for this success. i share this information to refute the charge frequently made that keeping bees off treatments may be possible but is not profitable.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Squarepeg
Thanks for the info. My reason for butting in and asking is because I am new enough that I just don't know and am going to do bees and want to know what the possibilities are. Thank you for taking the time to respond and I am done trying to derail this thread which I am reading for its original content.
Thanks
gww

Ps I have read your thread as it happened over the last year or two.


----------

