# How long do you have to be TF before its a success?



## DonShackelford (Jan 17, 2012)

My vote is 5 years. 

Measuring "success" is more difficult. I've seen no studies where there was a control group and TF group in the same yard to measure honey production. Probably one of the reasons this topic is debated so often.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Define success, it's a beekeeping style. Isn't it?

What would a control group be in a TF study, another set of hives that one treats?


----------



## DonShackelford (Jan 17, 2012)

I define success as not treating without loss of honey production.

Yes, a control group would be treated, the TF group would not be, they would both be in the same apiary with the same bees and managed exactly the same in every other way. It's the only scientific method of direct measurement.

Just to add to this, I recently spoke with a beekeeper who's had a hive for 2 years. He's not treated, but has also harvested no honey. Was he a success?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

What was his goal? Did he reach it or maintain his goal? Does he consider himself a success?


----------



## DonShackelford (Jan 17, 2012)

He wishes he could have harvested honey and called me for advice. 

We all know there are bee-havers and bee-keepers. Bee-havers may be considered success stories in their own minds, but in a forum like this where bee-Keepers gather, I assume we all agree that having a box to watch bees fly in and out with no gain is not success.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

DonShackelford said:


> I define success as not treating without loss of honey production.


I don't think that's going to happen. Put it this way. Even if a hive is able to successfully battle mites and keep them below a critical level, the point is, the hive still has to expend energy to do that. If the beekeeper came along and zapped all the mites with a chemical, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect that the hive could now make more honey.

Success needs to be defined in other ways. Generally it's in the mind of the bee owner. But how's this for an idea. I have some treated hives, and some untreated hives. I expect my untreated hives to be less productive, because they have other issues to deal with. But, I'm not spending NZ$25.00 per year treating them, which is what a typical NZ beekeeper spends on treating a hive annually. So, if my untreated bees make $25.00 less honey than the treated ones, I come out square, it's a success. In fact, the $25.00 less honey would also save me on processing time and some equipment, so I may be able to make just as much money from an untreated hive if it made, say, NZ$30.00 less honey.

However, I'm new to this treatment free thing, for now, I'm just hoping they will survive, and in a way, that would be success. But if they survived but produced nothing, that would not be a tenable position, I need to make money.


----------



## krad1964 (Jun 4, 2011)

I recently attended the Virginia State Beekeepers meeting. A professor from Penn State (Nancy Ostiguy) gave a talk on her participation in a multiple university study. About 6-10 universities across the US bought packages from the same supplier, and then queens from another supplier. Both have good reputations, they did not name them. Installed them and left them alone as far a treatments. 

Penn State hives died in one year. All others died within 2 years.


----------



## DonShackelford (Jan 17, 2012)

krad1964 said:


> Penn State hives died in one year. All others died within 2 years.


Did she say if these had been started on foundation or drawn comb?


----------



## DonShackelford (Jan 17, 2012)

Oldtimer said:


> so I may be able to make just as much money from an untreated hive if it made, say, NZ$30.00 less honey.


Fair point Oldtimer. Total gain minus total cost would be a contibuting factor in any scientific study.

So who wants to dedicate 50 hives to this study ;-) 
That would be 25 treated, 25 TF.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

even worse results here. We have a governmenmt funded programe to produce resistant bees. Itr ran eight years and is noiw in the hands of private enterprise. When the Govt. was in charge, they decided to investigate the claims of feral hives that had been there "for years", incase there was some worthwhile genetic material they should be using.

So they advertised in the local paper asking people to report any wild hives they new of. Around 8o were reported, and of these they chose 30 to monitor proberly. This was done by camera, to ensure unbroken occupancy of the hive. They found that over the next year, every single one of those 30 feral hives died, although some of them were restocked by swarms. So they decided the search for the "wild survivor" was to elusive, and gave up opmn the idea.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

People could look at what I do and question whether I am successful or not too. But somehow I keep going. I'm not treatmentfree in case anyone wondered.

So, I would say, maybe we should see how long someone can keep keeping bees before they give up keeping bees before we can determine whether they are successful or not.

Or we could count and evaluate the number of viable treatment free commeercial operations there are in the US and consider success from that point of view.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

I have been treatment free for about 5 years now, I don't count mites but I know that I have had varying amounts of them every year based on dead ones I see on the bottom board and bees with DWV in the grass. I have never actually seen a live mite on a live bee in or out of my hives or a mite crawling on a comb. My honey production has been at least the state average every year, this year it was double state average and my mite population I believe was the largest its ever been, I think because of the early spring and great weather all spring and summer. I consider this a success so far, I couldn't expect to do any better production wise in my area. I am very concerned about my mite load going into this fall though, maybe I am just beginning to see the beginning of downward spiral in some of my hives, I don't know. Hive populations are good as of today for wintering, hopefully they will pull through, next year I plan to experiment with some new management methods to work against the mite load.

John


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Interesting story about the wild hives OT I wouldnt have guessed that. As others have stated everyone has their own standards of success in being treatment free, for some just maintaining some number of hives treatment free is reward enough and a few pounds of surplus honey now and then is a bonus, for others who want (as Bill Murray said in Caddyshack) "a little something, you know, for de effort" they may not decide the rewards are great enough. For those who choose treatment free beekeeping as their livelihood well you might just want to keep the ole day job for awhile.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Jim, for me the rewards are not great enough yet to consider going treatment free commercially, I will say this though, if I could average 150-175 lb. per hive by the end of July when mite loads start climbing, it just may be enough reward.

John


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> How long would an operation have to be treatment free before one could call it a success?


Is infinity a number? If so, that's my choice.

A TF operation is successful as long as it's still going (subject to others' comments about how to define "success"). If you go treatment free for 4 years, and you still have bees, you are a success in year 4. If all your bees die in year 5, you are not a success in year 5, but that doesn't take away your success in year 4.

The same holds true if you were doing it for 20, 50, or 100 years. If you can keep bees treatment free for 20 years, and you still have bees and are still hitting your goals, you are successful. If in year 21 a new mite presents itself (or a new virus, bacteria, or even an older disease that hadn't appeared in your apiary in the numbers it now is at) and 100% of your colonies die, you are no longer a success. Your "failure" occurred in year 21, but that doesn't mean you weren't a success in year 20.

"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

At least my two cents.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Well, of course there's the question of the definition of 'success', and I guess that is valid. Something tells me that a number for the newer beekeepers who claim treatment-free success might not feel so successful if they had more experience. What I mean by that is that, as your experience grows, you get a clearer sense of colony health, queen health etc., and with that experience, you realize that your definition of "success" changes with it.

In my first year with bees, everything about those bees seemed amazing. I raved about the quality of the nucs I got, etc. etc. The queens seemed "great", blah, blah, blah. And from my experience to that point, that was true.

Over time, I got to know a couple of other beekeepers in my area. Then I got a chance to look through some of their hives. Then I got some queens from another source and the first time I took out a brood frame from one of those new queens, WHAM!! My definition of "success" changed instantly. I had never seen a comb so jammed with brood. So one's experience is certainly part of it, and could be a part of why reports on the successes of failures of treatment free vary as much as they do.

I'm trying treatment free at the moment, in that I am not doing anything specifically to combat mites. Success for me will be measured in how they fare, relative to when I was combating mites.

Oldtimer makes a good point in measuring his success in a holistic sense and including what he's not spending on treatments in the equation. Of the two other beekeepers that I know well in my area, one of them lost over 40%, and the other lost over 20%. Is that a failure of their management practices or a tough year? The guy who lost 20% could be looked at as more 'successful' than the guy who lost 40%, but I know he wasn't very happy - particularly since we had a day that was record-shattering 85F in March...

For me, the performance of operations around me also have to come into the analysis. 

Adam


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Maybe I'm simplistic, but because of weather and other environmental factors, for me (and I'm not saying this is the way it should be for you) success is:
1. In a bad year, the bees survive, even if I have to feed them to ensure their survival due to drought or whatever.
2. In a good year, the bees survive, and I harvest the state average.
3. In a wonderful year, the bees survive, and I get the best or one of the best harvests I've ever had.

Now, in any given year, I'll have 5-10% loss, but I make it up by splits. I like to keep my hive count about the same, year to year. It is a given some hives just won'lt make it, so I look at the total number I have. fwiw
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Tom Davidson (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm a treatment-free beekeeper now in my second year. I closed out my first year successfully over-wintering both of my hives. Right now, I personally define success as overwintering one or some of your hives, getting some honey and continuing to learn new and amazing things about the bees. I harvested my first batch of honey this spring, 70 pounds from the hive that had the highest mite count (204 in 24 hours). I think Adam's right, though ... "success" will change as your experience level changes throughout the years, too. Whatever you do, enjoy the journey.


----------



## taydeko (Jan 3, 2012)

I think it would also be instructive to compare winter losses for treated hives vs tf hives in the same area. I have heard that commercial beekeepers expect 30% losses every year. If I am treatment free and my losses are less than that in any given year, does that mean I am successful as a treatment free beekeeper?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

In terms of losses, yes, if you do as well as the norm for the area. But losses are just one side of the coin, production / profit is the other.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Just saw a Post on Facebook which read "Other cultures are not failed attempt of being you." Pretty much sums up my pov about treatment free beekeeping.


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

My honey production was higher than our local average by about 20 lbs and my Sept. sugar roll mite counts were all below 3 %. 

Going into winter with 41 tf hives, all but 3 or 4 look strong. But Aprils a long way away.

Don


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Success will be define differently for every beekeeper. For me, success is having more hives live year to year than die. I don't measure honey production in the equation because I'm not really interested in all the work involved in processing the honey. I don't rely on beekeeping for any of my income, so my goals are quite different than the next guy.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

If one imports stock to test, to what extent is the test validated (or invalidated) if nucs are made out of them and queens are raised from them and open mated? Is the dilution of the imported stock important? Or is having bees that are alive the real trump card?

In an ideal world (one where I don't live but would like to visit) if I acquire XYZ super wonderful survivor stock should I need to get in to nuc mode or should the acquired hives survive just fine allowing me to maintain my hive count? I am primarily concerned about surviving mites and Nosema. AFB is not a problem near me (knock on wood.)


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I believe we also need to look at the manner in which failure occurred. Was it a continuous down hill slide, or was there an initial dip followed by a steady rise, and then a crash, caused by reasons possibly not treatment related? We have recently seen weather issues that are more serious than mite issues. CCD kills treatment free as well as treated, so there is another non-treatment related issue.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Metropropolis (Feb 15, 2012)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> How long would an operation have to be treatment free before one could call it a success?
> 
> What's your opinion?
> 
> Adam



What a fantastic question.

Whatever the answers, I think it recognizes a significant point: The issue of delayed feedback.


Given the amount of variables at play, it would be difficult to give a definite answer.

For myself, I'd want to know that someone had good winter survival for at least two winters after going TF - Only then would I be curious to find out more details, such as their survival rate, and where in the TF spectrum their practice lies.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> How long would an operation have to be treatment free before one could call it a success?


Which one? I consider myself a success. Some others don't. I've been doing it for nearly ten years and for the past several, each has been better, more fun, more productive, and more educational than the last. 

Adam, it's just too much of a subjective question. It seems to me you could define failure better. I define it as having lost all your hives.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

I'll tell you what:
If my bees are still seeming strong two years from now, I'm going to feel successful.

It seems to me that mites run an annual cycle, just like the bees. Once you get through a complete couple of seasons, I'd call that successful. Why would you need to go longer than that?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Well, you wouldn't stop, would you?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Well, you wouldn't stop, would you?


No, I wouldn't.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Honey Householder on this board is treatment free because he sells off his bees in fall and starts over in spring. He is constantly markets product on this board. Is his TF method successful?
I lose a lot of my bees every winter and start over from bait catches, also mite treatment free since 2007. I also run at a suitable profit to keep going year after year. I did treat for some EFB, and fed a bit to new swarms. 

We both are profitable being treatment free. Are our TF methods a success?

We both restock with bees that probably have been treated. So if everybody went treatment free, probably our methods would not be sustainable.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Once you get through a complete couple of seasons, I'd call that successful. Why would you need to go longer than that?


You are assuming that all of your losses would occur after "a couple of seasons." What if you are wrong? What if it takes 5 seasons, or 8 seasons, before the mites take their full tole on the bees? What if in year 6 you have a beekeeper move next door who doesn't treat, and all his hives crash from mites, and those mites end up invading your hives? Your hives may be able to deal with an average amount of mites, but can they deal with an abnormal amount of mites?

It's not over till its over. Saying you "had a successful life" means that your life is over. You can still fail in the last day.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> You are assuming that all of your losses would occur after "a couple of seasons." What if you are wrong? What if it takes 5 seasons, or 8 seasons, before the mites take their full tole on the bees? ...
> 
> It's not over till its over. Saying you "had a successful life" means that your life is over. You can still fail in the last day.


After a year, all the bees you started with, other than the queen will have died and new bees will have taken their place. Mite's don't build up endlessly, but are connected to the seasonal rise and fall of the bee brood. So after a couple of years, you've seen the complete cycle. The mites don't just endlessly build in numbers, as they have to have bees to live on. 8 seasons? By that time, the mites and bees you started with are all long gone. You're likely on your third or forth queen by then.

"Ain't over til it's over"? That might make sense from a biographer's standpoint, but agriculture is a seasonal pursuit. One season can boom, and the next bust. And everything is on a cycle. If we're talking about the success of keeping bees without treatments, then I feel like that should be measured on a seasonal cycle. After that, the question is how many seasons does it take to sufficiently test a method? 

In the case of mites, we have to think about their life cycles and measures of success (health and well-being), the bees life cycles and measures of success, and then our own goals and objectives as well. If I winter my bees treatment free, then build up next season, have a solid harvest of honey and successfully winter again (meaning my colonies are still strong and able to build up strong), then I'm pretty unlikely to treat that Fall. 

Even if the mites get strong again the following season, I'm hard-pressed not to go back to treating, because for all intents and purposes, those are by then different bees.

Adam


----------



## Whitetail (Feb 3, 2011)

My survival rates went up when i quit treating. I also did a complete stock change, which im sure affected the numbers. I was using your average commercial queens, and was displeased with the results. I started researching more, collecting more feral, and raising my own queens from II'd breeders. I consider my venture thus far a success. But as any beekeeping operation, I could take a complete beating next year. Apiculture is Agriculture. We take on a lot of variables and associated risk.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Well, you might take a beating, but a lot of the II queens are part of properly run breeding programs selecting for varroa resistance traits, so your chances are better than average.


----------



## Whitetail (Feb 3, 2011)

I agree Oldtimer. I've utilized USDA VSH breeders for years. Those open mated with an array of "survivor" lines make a pretty solid bee. I only offer them nutrition. I do micromanage them at times. If a hive or queen is failing or not up to spec (shows signs of brood disease or PMS) they get requeened with select stock. Seems to be working.......


----------



## Hans (Dec 13, 2012)

John Kefuss has been doing this for a while and 2012 he has lost 50% of his hives.
Treatment free has a price tag.


----------



## Whitetail (Feb 3, 2011)

Don't think for a minute that treating doesn't also carry a "pricetag." I'm sure a majority of beeswax products are contaminated with coumaphos and or fluvalinate. Both chemicals are proven to have an array of sublethal effects, most I'm sure we haven't figured out yet. Even soft treatments have sublethal effects on bees. Treating also has some, and or exclusive responsibility in the breeding of chemical resistant mite strains. There is a reason Universities and high level breeders are breeding stock that can survive without running on the pharmaceutical treadmill. Sustainability and logical long term solutions are the ultimate goal.

The gentleman mentioned previously could have had bees with meager stores going into winter. There are a vast array of variables leading to their demise. It's not always because they were not treated.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

I'd say how long it takes is as variable as the climate, management practices and strains of bees involved.

The fact that it can be done is well established b/c many (among them Kirk Webster, deknow, and myself) are doing it. 
I don't think the "if" is the subject of this thread though.

As soon as a guy is accomplishing what he wants to with his bees with a mortality rate from all causes that is acceptable to him, he'll know how long it takes.


Since what he wants to accomplish and what is an acceptable mortality rate varies from beekeeper to beekeeper, and the conditions in which he keeps his bees vary from location to location, the only real answer is:

Just until he succeeds.


----------



## Hans (Dec 13, 2012)

I agree that everything has a pricetag. Let''s continue with genetics (My II VSH Breeder Queens had a 60% VKF (mitebiting)
on top of broodhygenics) and management (dividing...) to overcome the problem. 30% should always survive hopefully 70-80%.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

It seems to me that by this thread that most agree that success is defined by the beekeeper. If the beekeeper says they are successful, they are successful. I also notice that this applies only it situations that do not effect any other beekeeper.

To change that factor I offer this. 
Do you think it is acceptable for a bee breeder or queen rearer to market their bees as the best based upon the same requirements to determine what is the best? He says they are the best so they are? Or does the idea that it effects other people change your view?

If no definition of successful exists. Can you dispute their claim? They can simply counter your claim by saying your expectations are unreasonable. And that beekeepers with adequate skill find exceptional results with their bees.

Overall I am trying to describe a situation that can be created that no matter what the quality of the product is. it cannot be disputed. because the only measurement of quality is the beekeepers opinion of their product.

And does the free for all definition of success still hold up under those conditions for you?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

A good point Daniel. In the non beekeeping world, a general definition of success would be at a minimum, as good as average. But usually, some degree better than average. And that would be against everybody elses standards, not just ones own.


----------



## DonShackelford (Jan 17, 2012)

Whitetail said:


> There are a vast array of variables leading to their demise.


One of which is not treating. A presumably competent beek looses half his hives. Ouch. After following this thread and others like it, I think some plan to control mites is prudent and will be following through in the spring.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

According to that, An overall standard of successful could be set by determining at least what is average.


So the next question is. Who is qualified to set that standard?


----------



## DonShackelford (Jan 17, 2012)

IMHO, MP is. He states in his video that bees "are just not there yet" when asked about going treatment free.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

MP isn't treatment free. The title of this thread is being TF.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

are you tf barry, and have you been successful?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I'm not TF and some would question whether I have been successful, so, what does successful mean? Not to mention sustainable. Is sustainability a measure of successfulness?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

jmho mark, but unless someone is is just keeping bees for pets, i would say that sustainability would be the minimum measure of success, followed by some degree of productivity.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Then, according to Kim Flottum's statement in December's issue of Bee Culture, beekeeping itself is not "successful", since, according to Kim, beekeeping is not sustainable. I guess we will have to see where wer are 20 years from now.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

perhaps kim is underestimating the determination of the beekeeper, (and the bees). 

are reasons given for this view?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

You should read what Bee Culture's Editor wrote.
No, I don't have a link.


----------



## Colleen O. (Jun 5, 2012)

I'm not a businessperson and this is oversimplified but in general in business don't you consider your business a success if you meet that year's business goals and objectives (which generally include some growth and expansion).

In a beekeeping business wouldn't that mean that you have met or exceeded the goals you set and commitments you made while staying treatment free (and staying in business)?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Yes, I stopped treating around '03. Successful for myself, but I don't make a living from bees. I have been able to keep a handful (up to 15) of hives that produce all the honey I care to deal with. I had to consolidate my hives several years ago due to personal reasons, but am now increasing my numbers. I'll give it another two years, and if the numbers hold, I'll see no reason to change.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

We need to keep in mind that there is a vast difference between one who makes a living from bees and one who doesn't, in regards to being successful.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kim must be referring to commercial beekeeping as we know it. I don't believe bees are on their way out by any means, but the ability to use them for our gain may be waining.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

understood barry, thanks.

if i may ask, are all of your bees regressed? do you avoid any and all treatments? do you requeen from your own stock, and if not, do you have a preference when purchasing queens?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I take what I can get. Last year I did a couple cut-outs, so those bees got added to the sum total. I also did walk-away splits from several existing hives. Most of my existing equipment is now occupied by bees going into winter. This next spring will determine where I'm at with bees.

Any and all treatments. I did have one hive early this year get EFB. I took the route of eliminating the bees and comb. If I were to ever find AFB, I'd burn.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Requeening usually works Barry.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

thanks barry. 

foundationless? and if not what is your preferred foundation?

no treatments at all for mites?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

True Mark, but I decided to go the route I did based on what was going on at the time. I felt the hive was too far in the wrong direction, it was a small hive and I didn't feel I had the time to baby it along with everything else I was doing to increase.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I've been using the 4.9 wax foundation I milled at the Lusby's from my own wax. I'm not that happy with it cause there is no cell wall ridge at all, so it's very easy for bees to ignore the cell size and build larger. I'll be trying out the PF-120's next year and if that goes well, I'll use up my wax and then switch to all PF's.

OK, third time, NO treatments!


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

:thumbsup: good work barry. i'm a little dense at times.


----------



## Whitetail (Feb 3, 2011)

We've identified the definition of success is variable according to one's own goals. To the original question on how long it takes to be successful? It can be done in one season. I've seen the results of my own complete stock change. I went from a winter survival rate of less than 50 % while treating, to an average of 98.9 % survival over the last two winters. Absolutely no treatments were administered. For the last three years. I've got some hives I acquired who have not been treated for 7+ years and have never been a dead out. Most folks will never get there, especially the ones who never try, only insisting it can't be done without treatment. I've noticed we have several of those commenting on this thread. To be successful will require a lot of research to acquire certain characteristics in your stock, as well as an above average understanding of proper management techniques, honeybee behavior, and nutritional requirements. You'll also need a deep down drive to devote yourself and your operation to this, and not believe all the nay saying that it can't be done. You may at some point take a nice loss. I've yet to read about regimentally treating operations not losing bees as well... To each their own.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Barry said:


> I did have one hive early this year get EFB. I took the route of eliminating the bees and comb. If I were to ever find AFB, I'd burn.





sqkcrk said:


> Requeening usually works Barry.


Just for the benefit of any newbies reading the thread, Mark I'm guessing that remark was meant for EFB but not AFB?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Yes Oldtimer, EFB, not AFB.


----------



## Brandy (Dec 3, 2005)

This will be my 13th year treatment free. I do raise a lot of queens each year from the best survivor stock in addition to other VSH stock. As others have mentioned any production hives that aren't producing get nuc'd up and new queens added. So, it's a constant rotation of new young vigor being added each year. Without that I don't think you can hold on. I rely on swarms and my catcher hives to help make up for my annual losses. I get a good harvest of honey from all the production hives if I can leave them alone separate from my queen rearing needs for stock. I feel I'm successful in the ones that are able to overwinter. Pretty simple. I think the saying " if you want a lot of bees or hives, start with a lot more bees and hives". 

Also, in addition to the treatments, I really don't think you can forget climate and winter locations. Some of us deal with some harsh conditions that have a drastic effect on our numbers and success.


----------



## Broke-T (Jul 9, 2008)

We are TF, no chemicals used for over 5 years. In that time we have grown from 10 hives to over 200. The last cpl years we have sold 40 to 50 nucs each spring. This year I sold 400 queens and plan to double that next year. This year we averaged over 100 lbs honey off of 150 production hives. We used VSH breeders the last 2 years, MN Hyg the year before that, and Purvis Bro. the year before that. Our average losses each year are less than 20%. We are not migratory and our bees have good forage of varying type thru the year. Althogh I would consider us very successful what works for us may not work for you. 

Honeyhouseholder looses 100% of his bees each winter but I would consider him sucessfull.

A migratory beekeeper who looses 40% of his hives but makes up for it in splits each year is successfull if he meets his contract requirements and makes the profit he expects.

There is no one test of success.

Johnny


----------



## Hans (Dec 13, 2012)

Life is a mix of failure and success. If you learn from your failures then you turn them into a success.the university of Hohen Neuendorf
is using infrared cameras to monitor which sister families are are responsible for VSH. Among other things they can then trace it back
to the one drone via genetic markers that mated with the queen.
Eric Osterlund gave a talk in Celle.
You tube Eric Osterlund Celle 18.11.2012


----------

