# Cost of treating Varroa mites?



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

And the cost of not treating?


----------



## aran (May 20, 2015)

i unfortunately can answer that question Michael Palmer after i missed treatments last year due to having spine surgery.
HUUUUUGE losses over winter.
This year have been on top of treatment and have 26 strong hives going into winter.\

Alex Madsen my costs are a couple hundred/year for my hives.
I use apivar, formic pro and OAV treatments.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

It´s more likely a philosophy cost future concerned. If bees should be able to survive on their own ethics must be to let them or, let a part of them be undisturbed.

David Heaf claims the difference between treated stock losses and tf losses in the US is 9% which is very low. Still, fear of mites and losses is very present despite the possibility of soft bond.

IME you can´t stop treatments on bees treated for years. You have to regress them, make them stronger in their defense, develop microorganisms.
This needs years. You can treat less and less if you are really interested in a quest.

You will have high losses the first two or three years, but you will have survivors if you are skilled with other managements, like multiplying, feeding and following the needs of bees.

Treatments are a treadmill. They will always be a small part of the costs of beekeeping but a big part to make honeybees weaker and a danger to future resistance to pests and disease of honeybees. 
Decide yourself.


----------



## Alex Madsen (Aug 26, 2018)

This is a link to an article by of David Heaf I found that references the 9%. Unfortunately, the article does not address the original question. *What is the cost burden per year, per hive for Varroa treatment?
*
https://www.naturalbeekeepingtrust.org/natural-selection
"In the USA, the Bee Informed Partnership publishes on the internet annual survey statistics on beekeeping practices and colony losses.¹⁴ Using data for all states/operations/years, treaters lost 33% of colonies, non-treaters 42%. In purely percentage terms it means there is only a 9% difference in the potential bee traffic,"

PS both numbers of "treaters lost 33% of colonies, non-treaters 42%" is horrific. I suspect this is for migratory pollinating beekeepers that have much higher losses. 
PSS, The Pre-emptive killing of colonies is an interesting concept and should work over time. I suspect many TF beekeepers are not following that guideline.
"Tom Seeley in his Darwinian beekeeping article⁴ supports not treating but cautions in bold type those who do not treat to do it carefully and diligently by killing, long before they can collapse, colonies whose mite populations are skyrocketing. His reasons are both biological and social. Horizontal transfer of mites from collapsing colonies to other colonies can in the long run select for mite virulence, and the influx of mites to not yet resistant colonies, including those of neighbours, can overwhelm them. But in my locality where no treatment is the norm and has no dire consequences, I know of no beekeeper who is doing these pre-emptive killings."


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

I treat primarily with OAV, using on average about seven individual doses per hive per year. I think I once calculated the chemical cost me about 2 or 3 cents per dose. Figure a quarter per year/per hive. About every third year or so I use MAQS, which costs about $5 per hive. 


60 hive years x .25 = $ 15.00
25 applications of MAQS x $5 = 125.00
Varrox wand 160.00
First wand, now DOA 125.00
Respirator 35.00
Filters @ $18/pr x 6 108.00
Lawn mower battery 60.00 
___________

Total expense for 6 years 628.00

Average consumable cost/ yr @$29/yr 
Capital investment $380
Not counting cost of charging the battery, which for me is free since all my power comes from solar.

Consumbable cost is about $2.63 cents per hive, per year.

Keeping my bees alive year, after year = priceless.

Nancy


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Alex Madsen said:


> This is a link to an article by of David Heaf I found that references the 9%. Unfortunately, the article does not address the original question. *What is the cost burden per year, per hive for Varroa treatment?
> *
> https://www.naturalbeekeepingtrust.org/natural-selection
> "In the USA, the Bee Informed Partnership publishes on the internet annual survey statistics on beekeeping practices and colony losses.¹⁴ Using data for all states/operations/years, treaters lost 33% of colonies, non-treaters 42%. In purely percentage terms it means there is only a 9% difference in the potential bee traffic,"
> ...


You are right about the killings, most tf beekeepers await the crashes. 
IME in a setting which is not natural but a setting with high density of colonies and no isolation from treated colonies, no ferals around, the "live and let die" approach will not work in the long run if there is no eliminating of susceptible genetics.

This shifting to more resistant genetics must be done all the time, never ending as long as treated hives are around.
If you do this, the losses are acceptable 15-30%, as I see with a 6 year tf co-worker, who is an experienced beekeeper and breeds his own queens from the best colonies. 

The "killings" of weak genetics can be done by a soft bond approach to have acceptable losses, treating those colonies and shifting the queens.
This means you have no costs for a chemical treatment, but high costs in labour.

Here an interview my polish friend Bartek recently did with T. Seeley where they talk about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP93oHmmByw&t=13s


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

An estimate of cost should include labor. Its a busy time of year for beekeepers. Other things could be done if treating wasn't necessary. Opportunity cost. Then the cost in terms of bee health from chemical exposure. 

Then what is the long term cost of lack of selection. If you treat and do selection, there are those costs. If you treat, and ignore selection for mite resistance, then there are long term costs in terms of production because of stock failure. An area just beginning to be explored.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Take a look at any beekeeping supplies catalogue - at all the toys and non-essential equipment which people buy - then look back at the cost of applying VOA (especially using a DIY applicator), where the cost is but a few pence per hive per year. Looked at that way, the cost is negligible and not even worth considering.

Likewise the labour involved - do we cost our time when doing inspections, when cleaning equipment or maintaining woodenware ? Well, I don't - it's just all lumped together as part of the necessary day-to-day costs of running an apiary.

I spend a lot more on paint, or petrol (gasoline) for the mower each year, than I do on mite control.
LJ


----------



## rbees (Jun 25, 2012)

Alex Madsen said:


> I am looking for studies on the cost of burden treating Varroa mites. I have not been able to find data on the cost burden to the industry of treating varroa. Has anyone seen research on this? I have some back of the envelope caulation but would like something more authoritative.
> 
> Alex


It's all about the Economic threshold when the money lost for not effectively treating for varroa exceeds the cost 
of effectively treating. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_threshold

Do yourself and every beekeeper in your vicinity a favor and effectively treat for varroa


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

rbees said:


> It's all about the Economic threshold when the money lost for not effectively treating for varroa exceeds the cost
> of effectively treating.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_threshold
> ...





> “Using chemicals is caveman beekeeping.” (John Kefuss)


Out of a Kefuss speaking:


----------



## fatshark (Jun 17, 2009)

The majority of the commercials I know (UK) use Apivar as their routine treatment. When bought legally (i.e. Veterinary Medicines-approved, not imported without licence etc.) from UK suppliers this costs ~66% the price hobbyists pay for the same stuff. OA may also be dribbled midwinter. 

Therefore, the cost per hive of treatments appears to be equivalent to 1-2 pounds of bulk honey. I don't now the average yield of honey per hive but would expect treatment costs to be perhaps 2-4%. None of this takes into account cost of application etc. 

This is back of the envelope and clearly not authoritative ... though the prices quoted are correct.


----------



## Alex Madsen (Aug 26, 2018)

Above is a rough order of magnitude treatment cost calculation I just did. Are the assumptions reasonable? 

Alex


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Somehow these calculations do not account for the success rate of those treatments AND cost of the replacement bees purchased AFTER the unsuccessful treatments.
I will let the accountants and economists figure this one out.

But, the proper calculations should factor in 1)cost of treatment of the entire apiary *per surviving hives in spring* and 2)an indexed cost of expense to replace the dead bees IF it happened.

For example: 
- you spent $10 per 10 hives
- in spring, you have 5 hives surviving
- now your true cost is 10/5 = $2 per hive 
- you also buy 2 replacement packages to compensate the 5 dead hives - that is ALSO part of your treatment cost (if bought nothing - this part of formula is zero).
(Your treatments did not turn out 100% effective - so you spent the time and money for nothing).

In short - whatever you guys/gals are talking above makes a big and fat assumption - you have 100% survival of your bees all due to the treatments.
You assume 100% effective treatments when you do your arithmetic, in other words.

Finally, everything discussed here is a short-term context.
Unfortunately for me, I am still planning to live for about 40 more years from today (and my kids are to live even longer).
This inconvenient factor is to be factored in too (no idea how - up to the accountants).


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> - that is ALSO part of your treatment cost


 not at all, this is how the waters get muddy , Greg is talking about the economic impact of Varroa to a backyard beekeper, not the OPs stated costs of treating for varroa to the industry (commercials) ... they sound the same at the start, but they are not. 
Your losses are not part of your treatment costs, as they would be higher if you didn't treat. So in fact treatments are not a cost so much as an investment. not just in overwinter survival, but in productivity. Hives don't just need to be alive come spring, they need to make grade


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

We're off topic from the OP's original question (and no, I don't know of a study), but Greg brings up a good point - if the cost of treating is more than the costs incurred to replace the additional losses (arguably, this costs should include the losses from lower productivity from recently replaced hives + labour of replacing hives), than treatment isn't really worth it from a financial standpoint.

I like math, so I ran a few simulations using the numbers listed above across a range of apiary sizes. I modelled some variation in the loss rates mentioned in post #5, allowing for a 10% variance in the loss rates reported in that study (e.g. treated: 33% +/- 3.3%; TF: 42% +/- 4.2%). Hive losses were always rounded to the nearest integer (as you cannot loose half a hive), and apiaries sizes were modelled in increments of 5 hives (modelling 5 to 200 hives). Three price-points were modelled - OAV at $1.50/hive/year (based on the numbers in post #6 plus an estimate of labour), a $25 "generic" formic acid treatment (MAQS/apivar/etc) based on the number in post #13, and $14/year for a "mixed" treatment like many of us use (1 round of maqs/apivar + OAV). 10,000 random years were modelled. The output is the replacement cost (per hive) at which the cost of treatment across all your hives is the same as difference in the cost of replacement between treated and TF.

In other words, the price on the graph is the maximum cost a single hive can cost you to replace before treatment costs more than simply replacing the additional losses incurred by maintaining your apiary treatment-free.

At small numbers the replacement costs are not reliable; the numbers are out-of-wack because in many years the number of hives lost is not different between treated and TF apiaries. Thus, averaged over 10,000 apiary-years, treatment costs are spread out over fractions of a hive. At larger apiary sizes the costs level out; those "level" costs are more reflective of the real-world costs to smaller apiaries.









Shaded areas are the variation (95th percentile) of the models. Long story short, OAV is so cheap that its worth the cost even with 5 (or even 1) hive. I worked out the number for a single hive apiary in this model - you can expect to loose 1 additional hive every 18.3 years in the model, but over that period you'll only spend $28 on OAV - I don't know of anyone who gets hives that cheap!

MAQS/Apivar breaks even when your replacement costs are ~$275/hive, while a mixed approach breaks even at a replacement cost of ~$155/hive. I think to be fair, you need to incorporate the honey losses and additional labour into those replacement costs - those factors are not accounted for by my model.


----------



## fatshark (Jun 17, 2009)

Interesting SuiGeneris ... presumably your model doesn't take account of the different survival rates of colonies treated once (end of summer) or twice (end of summer AND midwinter)? I've run my own models of mite numbers in the colony 'carried over' on colonies not treated midwinter with dribbled or OAV. Based on these mite numbers only (I'm not aware of other data that would help here, but happy to consider some) I'd expect those treated once would suffer about 25-33% higher colony losses.


----------



## Hillbillybees (Mar 3, 2016)

It's never that easy. Some TF's are not hitting 40% plus losses. Some that treat are no where near 33%. We treat as warranted. Apivar, OAV and OAD. The extra costs?? 1.Splits to replace the lost colonies. Lost honey not only from the deadouts but lost honey from the colonies used to make the splits. 
On a 10 hives in the back yard I could see playing around with TF. With over 3000 out in the real world I can't. I cannot justify not doing everything I can to protect my livelihood. We ran 15.6% losses last year and felt that was way too high. Others thought it was great. If I went TF I'm the lucky kind that would hit the 40%. I would have to split the remaining hives to replace the losses. My income would drop by more than 40%. 
Its great on a small scale and easier. I know there are some big producers out there doing it. Unless I hit the lottery I can't afford to take a risk with my investment. Its not a hobby where if it fails it's no big deal. Show me how to do it with my current losses and I'm in. I'll pay you what I pay for meds for a few years. You pay me if it don't work. I guess the old thing of put your money where your mouth is. Nobody believes in TF enough to do that.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

SiWolKe said:


> “Using chemicals is caveman beekeeping.” (John Kefuss)


An absurd example of oxymoronic rhetoric, as cavemen had no concept of science, especially that of chemistry. 

It would be more accurate to say that non-treatment - that is, allowing Nature to 'take it's course' is more in keeping with the behaviour of primitive cavemen.
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

msl said:


> [...] treatments are not a cost so much as an investment. not just in overwinter survival, but in productivity.


Very much agree. I think the OP's question is somewhat skewed - as what's required is not so much a 'cost-burden analysis' as a 'cost-benefit analysis'.
LJ


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

I will try to answer the question a little more literally:

When treating with Apivar: $9.60/hive.

When treating with Apiguard (and I get away with less because of climate): $4.00/hive.

When treating with OAV: $0.34 per treatment/per hive. Does not include cost of vaporizer.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

little_john said:


> It would be more accurate to say that non-treatment - that is, allowing Nature to 'take it's course' is more in keeping with the behaviour of primitive cavemen.
> LJ


----------



## Alex Madsen (Aug 26, 2018)

Thank you, everyone. This thread really took off today. You all have answered my original interest and a lot more. SuiGeneris that was some serious analysis. 


Alex Madsen
engineering manager and amateur beekeeper


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

I am not really losing any hives but this is only my third winter and it may be the year. I am not making a ton of honey and it might be different if I treated. Not sure about that one yet. I did make lots of bees first year. 

I kind of agree with hillbilly on it depends on what your situation is and what you want from the bees. If somebody that has to count on what they are getting from the bees has a bee keeping model that gives them the return they need consistently, it might be silly to upset the apple cart by taking big risk trying a different model. 

I kinda wanted to keep bees with out spending money and not being that worried about how much I got from them as long as it was something. I would be broken hearted if they all died one year but it would not hurt me as for as a living cause I only have time in them and no real money. 

I may try treating at some point once, just to see if it did reflect in honey production. Or I might try other things including trying a different forage area and leave things the same first. With my small amount of experience, the biggest change I have seen have a big impact was just the weather difference from year to year. Don't know about this year till spring but my bees just don't die and so cost wise, my need to treat has not shown it's self yet.

If I had three thousand hives and knew what I was getting, I might try one yard different just like If I move some hives to a different forage area, I won't move them all cause it would not tell me anything. 

I am the guy that only has ten hives (not 3000) going into winter and for me now, I think it would cost more in time and money to treat based on my expected outcome of what I currently want out of my bees. I see things that I don't understand the cause and effect of yet. I could not write off the beneficial effects treating may have cause I have not had the incentive to try it cause I am getting enough and there are other things I want to try first and see what the effect is and it gets confusing when trying to lay an outcome on something if you tried too many things at one time.

I believe luck has something to do with how it goes also.

I do believe that if you add it all up that you can do things in two ways and come up with similar cost. Say keeping extra hives with the equipment cost coming once or fewer hives and spending the money and time to treat. Both of these relies on having a constant death rate and harvest rate to plan around. being stationary or migratory may effect whether either is possible also. I am stationary.

After I get more years under my belt or if my ambition level changes, I may become a treater that is convinced that no other way would work for what I am wanting to do. Right now with my experience so far and only talking for me in my aria with my bees, treating, counting mites both seem like wasted money and effort before trying a few other things for improvement on my honey harvest first. 

This is not to say I know anything or to put down what others know for themselves. I have met my first goal with out having to treat and that was to have bees that I don't have to pay for and making everything with my own labor and getting something from those bees for doing it.

Hillbilly is putting shoes on his kids feet and has different needs from his bees.

Weaver is selling queens and bees and so for his model getting a premium for not treating. 

In all three cases, the cost to benefit is different.
Cheers
gww


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> in many years the number of hives lost is not different between treated and TF apiaries.


Please back that up... IMO total BS, if it was true TF would be the standard way, not a dark hole full of snake oil and but a few doing well (and there realy are some doing well). one only has to look at the BIP to get a feel for the numbers
all the big guys have it wrong and are just blowing there $$?
the big guys see around 25% losses, lets just say if they went TF they lost 35%(BIP )... that's 100 less hives per thousand alive... maby another 200-300 that don'y make grade and are useless
shooting spit ball numbers... $180 for almonds, then break in to 4 nucs and some honey, maby another pollination contract..so low ball that to + $400 or so... call it 300 more"losses" (dead and dinks) for tf, Thats a loss of $174,000 in income, even if you spent $100 per hive in treatments your 74k better.... 
its not the cost of replacements, its the hives not able and ready to go to work when there needed/wanted that's the cost. 
sure for the back yard guy with 10 hives the difference in losing one or 2 more hives going TF may not matter, espicaly if they make there own spits... but at the economy of scale of the big boys, it can be the difrance between making it and ruin




> An absurd example of oxymoronic rhetoric, as cavemen had no concept of science, especially that of chemistry.
> It would be more accurate to say that non-treatment - that is, allowing Nature to 'take it's course' is more in keeping with the behaviour of primitive cavemen.


+1.. those "enlightened bees" took 70%+ losses in 2012 and are now treated... mite bombed back to the stone age 
relay tho one only need to look at johns work to see the dollars and cents.. he worked with a few hunderd hives were kept stationary and TF, use for honey production. And 4,000 hives were treated and used for migratory pollination. Treatment provides an ROI



> I kind of agree with hillbilly on it depends on what your situation is and what you want from the bees.


spot on, the more you push them, the less they have to fight other problems.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

little_john said:


> An absurd example of oxymoronic rhetoric, as cavemen had no concept of science, especially that of chemistry.
> 
> It would be more accurate to say that non-treatment - that is, allowing Nature to 'take it's course' is more in keeping with the behaviour of primitive cavemen.
> LJ


Oh I understand! Now I see the light, thank you!

So modern beekeeping is constant treating without future concepts except more or new treatments, worst case treating prophylactically! How valuable science is in this case!
Exploiting for honey like the caveman did, only exploiting even more because of clever managements and naming that care of bees! Taking 60kg instead of 15kg from one hive and claiming the bees will like that?
:lpf: How man sees his actions in the way he wants!

Seems to me progress by resistant bees breeding and selecting by man as nature cannot select anymore a much more modern approach, bond included.
Probably would be nice to start this after 30 years of standstill.

Michael Palmer, what about you? You would be even more famous to provide with resistant stock. 

Then the opt did not have to start this thread and people could have bees surviving as before varroa. No costs of treatments.


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

fatshark said:


> Interesting SuiGeneris ... presumably your model doesn't take account of the different survival rates of colonies treated once (end of summer) or twice (end of summer AND midwinter)? I've run my own models of mite numbers in the colony 'carried over' on colonies not treated midwinter with dribbled or OAV. Based on these mite numbers only (I'm not aware of other data that would help here, but happy to consider some) I'd expect those treated once would suffer about 25-33% higher colony losses.


The model is very simple, based on (for maqs/apivar) 2x yearly and for oav whatever the treatment regimin was in post #6. Its a 1-year model, so it doesn't take into account cost that carry over more than 1 season.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The major retail treatments converge in price at about $5-$10/hive. Some of these treatments have raw ingredients that do not cost anywhere near the retail price asked (even adding in registration expense overhead). My economic model tells me that the "market" has decided it is willing to use treatments 2 or 3 times per year at $5-$10, which is approx $15-30/colony/year. This is working the problem from the other end, but the convergence in treatment costs tells me that there is an economic calculation (conscious or unconscious) made by thousands of consumers.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

psm1212 said:


> I will try to answer the question a little more literally:
> ...................
> When treating with OAV: $0.34 per treatment/per hive. *Does not include cost of vaporizer.*


To be more literal and fair - do also mention the cost of high quality personal protective equipment, highly recommended when using vaporizer.

As one of our local beekeepers stated (he is a professional chemist and handles chemicals for living):



> Disclaimer: I'm not advocating this and believe your health is worth more than the $35-40 for a respirator, but some people are too cheap to buy one even though they'll drop $100 on a OA vaporizer.





> If you're a sane person, you'll buy a respirator.


In my own past life I worked in an industrial food plant cleaning crew - the routine was to spray around concentrated bleach/caustics/acids..
Even with respirators required and usually used, I am pretty sure, I inhaled enough aggressive chems to damage my air ways some (maybe even more than I know). 
This is one reason I am not dealing with any acids - I have done my time. 
Enough of that nonsense and saving few bees is not worth it to me.
Those inhaled chems probably cost me some years of my life - to be found out yet, in time.
Just saying..


----------



## Murdock (Jun 16, 2013)

I agree little-john. Plus I enjoy handling my bees which gives me a great deal of satisfaction. My enjoyment and the challenge are worth a lot. I use OA 3 different ways and all are home made. My latest is copper tubing with OA heated in an elbow with a gas torch. Treating from the back I can do it anytime of the year rain or shine and I don't have to unstack boxes.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

there is tangible time and cost savings and an intangible flexibility bonus about not having to make sure the honey supers come off early enough in the year to allow for mite suppression.


----------



## Alex Madsen (Aug 26, 2018)

For those curious as to my interests, I was interested in the economics of a nonchemical varroa treatment idea. The short answer is, I can not get the $ math to work. 
back to the drawing board. 

JWChesnut, I think your assessment is spot on of $15-30/colony/year based on my own math and what others have posted. 

Alex


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

squarepeg said:


> there is tangible time and cost savings and an intangible flexibility bonus about not having to make sure the honey supers come off early enough in the year to allow for mite suppression.


Yes; the labor involved, treatment immediate cost, and the very important flexibility issue are very real issues. :thumbsup:


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Once again beekeeping is local as I do not have supers on my hives for more than 3 months of the year and so can take care of mites in the 9 remaining months if I choose. Because I am cheap I use OA for treatment and because I am cheaper I make my own vaporizers and can also treat at about 1 minute per hive. I am also a miserable miser and hate to lose colonies so I am quite miserable about the less than 10% per year I lose and jump for joy at the more than 100% increase in nuc's and splits every year. Now I could be a caveman and consider Darwinian beekeeping which is more in line for cavemen I think, but there we end up with little honey few increases in stock and much less income to pay for this enterprise. So as I have mentioned before I treat most of my colonies around 12 times a year and it is so cheap it is almost free so I am almost treatment free.
Johno


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Murdock said:


> Plus I enjoy handling my bees which gives me a great deal of satisfaction. My enjoyment and the challenge are worth a lot..


Funny, I feel the same if it comes to the tf challenge.


----------



## aran (May 20, 2015)

johno said:


> Once again beekeeping is local as I do not have supers on my hives for more than 3 months of the year and so can take care of mites in the 9 remaining months if I choose. Because I am cheap I use OA for treatment and because I am cheaper I make my own vaporizers and can also treat at about 1 minute per hive. I am also a miserable miser and hate to lose colonies so I am quite miserable about the less than 10% per year I lose and jump for joy at the more than 100% increase in nuc's and splits every year. Now I could be a caveman and consider Darwinian beekeeping which is more in line for cavemen I think, but there we end up with little honey few increases in stock and much less income to pay for this enterprise. So as I have mentioned before I treat most of my colonies around 12 times a year and it is so cheap it is almost free so I am almost treatment free.
> Johno


Im with johno on this
-> no treatment led to dead bees for me in percentages that if they were ongoing would have led to me quitting the hobby. With OAV survival of 80-90% or better is entirely feasible and for a treatment that costs pennies and is quick to do.


----------

