# 21st century beekeeping snake oil



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Had a lady introduce herself at the farmer’s market yesterday. I am ….well was….a beekeeper. I started six hives last year and they all failed this year. I don’t know what happened to ‘em.
Mites? asks I.
Nope she says. They all started from bees I got from a fellow who only keeps ferals…so they were resistant.


----------



## GLOCK (Dec 29, 2009)

beemandan said:


> They all started from bees I got from a fellow who only keeps ferals…so they were resistant.


Well I don't think there are VARROA resistant bees I think you have bees that can keep the mites in check but not a lot.
The only honey bees I ever saw where I live are mine. I think most the problems with bees on my level {hobbist} is VARROA and ya have to learn how to deal with them. Wonder if she will buy more bee off the same fellow I would but I would never think they don't have mites have to watch your mite loads or you will be buying bees every year. Well got to head to my bee yards and do my 2nd treatment with oxalic acid vaporizing my bees are not resistant but maybe one day.
But they are healthy and happy and I got honey.:thumbsup:


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

"...Nope she says. They all started from bees I got from a fellow who only keeps ferals…so they were resistant...."

I find that anyone who is that dead certain about anything concerning bees is in for a rude awaking ...
If they persist long enough and through enough failures.
I find many with that attitude would rather give up beekeeping than admit just how little they know....and usually find some excuse like not enough time or too many farmers with sprayers.
This goes double for those with the superior attitude about "their " particular strain of bees.
It seems that beekeeping is particularly attractive to a certain mindset that are sure with a "fresh " look they can be better beekeepers than you or I and "fix" the decline of bees.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

People do a cutout or collect a swarm hanging from a tree limb and automatically assume it is mite resistant. Without having the faintest idea of its origins. Was that cutout colony a result last year’s managed bee swarm? That tree limb swarm from this year’s? How long have they been ‘treatment free’?
Then the swarm/cutout collector refuses to test them for actual mite ‘resistance’…as that somehow goes against their philosophy. But they have no reluctance to sell them to a new (and sometimes embarrassingly experienced) beekeeper with the claim of resistance.
The seller weaves a desireable story…they’ve discovered the holy grail of beekeeping…bees needing no mite treatments….and what beekeeper, new or old, wouldn’t want to believe it?
And how many new beekeepers fall by the wayside after buying a bottle of that snake oil?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

mike haney said:


> attractive to a certain mindset that are sure with a "fresh " look they can be better beekeepers than you or I and "fix" the decline of bees.


Heaven knows we see plenty of that here on Beesource. First year...or second year...beekeepers proclaiming to have all the answers to the challenges that beekeepers have been facing for decades. 
Another form of snake oil, I suppose. They've read the preachings of some and concluded, totally on faith, that those sermons are absolute gospel. I guess we often embrace that which we find desirable...regardless of reality.


----------



## Tenbears (May 15, 2012)

Resistant!! I can not believe Resistant maybe able to tolerate mites better than average. I have gathered feral colonies that consistently have lower mite counts, but never mite free. 

I can recall a time when almost anyone who had a mind to could keep bees successfully. It really took little in the way of management, a lot of hobbyists never even worried about swarm management. In the 70s and 80 life was pretty good for a Beekeeper. 
But Those days are long gone. although tracheal mites are not the problem they once where. the Varroa and associated viruses still plague our bees! Management of the mite load is paramount. Weather you consider yourself a natural Beekeeper, Treatment free, or what ever Every Beekeeper must agree that Varroa mites are one problem that bears close scrutiny in every hive. regardless or where they come from


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Tenbears said:


> Treatment free, or what ever Every Beekeeper must agree that Varroa mites are one problem that bears close scrutiny in every hive. regardless or where they come from


While I agree....sadly, let me assure you that this opinion is not universal.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Tenbears said:


> Every Beekeeper must agree that Varroa mites are one problem that bears close scrutiny


Well said TB.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I would say the real problem are not the guillible backyard keepers, but the "guru's" who have turned their pet theories into a marketing scheme. A constant round of lectures and presentations like some revival ministry.

I think those are folks that should be sued for mal-practice.

They tend to whine about academics not taking them seriously, but science is evidence-based and not a religious movement.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

"I guess we often embrace that which we find desirable...regardless of reality."

My observations have led me to believe the above statement is mostly true. I think beekeepers as a majority, tend to band together with like minded beekeepers. We have among us the harsh chemical people that think bombing them is the immediate answer, then there is the soft chemical (using natures own chemicals) to kill them, then there is the change the queen out more often, the answer is small cells, no it's let them make their own cells. no it's ....................

Tending bees is like selecting a doctor. You just shop around until you find someone that has an idea that YOU think sounds better.

In the end, the bees will prevail and so will we.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Sustainable permaculture is a mainstream movement in the real world.

It's not surprising that it is being applied to beekeeping.

Nor am I surprised that it's advocates are being characterized as being part of 'The Medicine Show'.

However, as more resistant feral colonies are returning to the environment, it is becoming more and more apparent that sustainable beekeeping isn't snake oil, but is in fact happening today.

I think we were fortunate to have 'Gurus' who were advocating for this type of beekeeping because they've already laid down the groundwork for a new type of beekeeping that may one day soon become the norm.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

JWChesnut said:


> "guru's" who have turned their pet theories into a marketing scheme. A constant round of lectures and presentations like some revival ministry.


Sometimes the same one's who'll lambast any scientific study and accuse the researchers of dishonesty.....exclaiming 'follow the money'. At the same time promoting their own books or paid speaking.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

lazy shooter said:


> You just shop around until you find someone that has an idea that YOU think sounds better.


Or worse yet...choosing one whose bedside manner you like...ignoring every other red flag that might be waving.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

There's plenty of science demonstrating that there are in fact Varroa resistant Honeybees being used by beekeepers.

75% VSH and EHB/AHB hybrids in Brazil, for example.

There are also numerous groups of beekeepers who are successfully using resistant stocks of Honeybees.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

I am so glad that when I started keeping bees, I was just wingin' it! I lived in a rural area, so all the books at the library were from the 50s and 60s , with none of this doom and gloom or self righteous stuff. Of course it promoted TF, before there was such a thing, simply because they didn't have the problems we have nowadays.

I guess I was lucky to have to early success that I did, considering my naiveté... but it also allowed me to develop my ideas based on observations and not what other people were saying.

It's important for people to have gurus but so much of beekeeping is about timing, observation and seasonal locality that there is only so much satellite advice you can take seriously. I think it is also very instrumental in your first few years of beekeeping to not pay for anything, it helps you except losses without feeling like you were really put out.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Hazel-Rah said:


> with none of this doom and gloom or self righteous stuff.


I’d like to think that I don’t preach gloom and doom….so I assume you aren’t referring to me. My objection is to those who preach a Pollyanna view to new beekeepers.
You refer to accepting losses. The lady I spoke to at the farmer’s market had been sold a false ‘bill of goods’…and therefore was unprepared to accept any losses. And I find that frustrating as I regularly hear the fallout from such.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

That's a 'Buyer Beware' issue.

No, all swarms most certainly aren't feral or resistant.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

beemandan said:


> I’d like to think that I don’t preach gloom and doom….so I assume you aren’t referring to me. My objection is to those who preach a Pollyanna view to new beekeepers.


Oh no, I'm not referring to anything going on in here, but some of the pervasive tones around beekeeping. It seems like it's either, 'put em' in a box and they'll live forever'... or 'lions and tigers and mites, Oh My! Don't even consider TF!' HAHA


----------



## JRW (Jul 19, 2013)

beemandan said:


> Had a lady introduce herself at the farmer’s market yesterday. I am ….well was….a beekeeper. I started six hives last year and they all failed this year. I don’t know what happened to ‘em.
> Mites? asks I.
> Nope she says. They all started from bees I got from a fellow who only keeps ferals…so they were resistant.


So what is the point of this post ?

Are you saying the woman is an idiot ?

The seller was a crook ?

"Mite resistant" does not mean "mite proof".

Do you know for a fact it was mites ?

What can we learn from this post ?

Inquiring minds need to know.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

Take the middle road and be open to your experiences...


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

JRW said:


> So what is the point of this post ?


The point is that there is 'snake oil' being peddled in beekeeping today. If someone told this newcomer that he/she was selling mite resistant bees...and so she needn't be concerned....it was either 'the blind leading the blind' or a dishonest seller. 
Do I know for certain it was mites? Nope...but 6 hives all failing in their second season would surely arouse one's suspicion. And the newcomer had been advised that she needn't worry, so she never checked.
I get at least one of these each month....and in the springtime...usually one or more a week.
And I feel bad for the newcomer...and frustrated that there doesn't seem to be any solution.
What can anyone learn from this thread?
A reminder, especially to new beekeepers...in the world of beekeeping...and most other things....if it sounds too good to be true....is probably isn't.
Buyer beware.


----------



## gunter62 (Feb 13, 2011)

There is "snake oil" being sold to beekeepers of all types.


----------



## Marty Daly (Sep 25, 2010)

So with this new "snake oil" treatment...does it matter what kind of snakes I use?
Do I put it in the feeder or just brush it on the bee?
Is it any better than powdered sugar?  (sorry, I couldn't resist...)


----------



## stan.vick (Dec 19, 2010)

Hazel-Rah said:


> Take the middle road and be open to your experiences...


 I'm with you Hazel-Rah We must all keep trying and checking out the opinion of others, and questioning our own knowledge. When we take a "side" we automatically exclude the knowledge of the other side. I have made progress with using feral and selective queen management, my mite counts prove it, but it takes a lot more than picking up a swarm or two to get to that point. It takes work, observation, and documentation to make any serious progress.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

In all fairness the problem just might be she did not ask you to tell her more about how you keep bees. There was no, after the first two died I did;;;, after the next died I did, Finally i tried;;; and that did not work either.
Are there plenty of dreamkeepers with bees? yes. do they flock to the new age keepers? yes. But that really says alot less about the alternate keepers than the dreamkeepers.
Often the recollection of a conversation between two people has more to do with their wishes and beleifs before the conversation than what was actually said.
Not saying your point is not valid, just that often the problem is not the advise given; it is the advise heard.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Saltybee said:


> In all fairness the problem just might be she did not ask you to tell her more about how you keep bees.


The truth is she didn't ask....and I didn't offer. The conversation went pretty much as I reported...no advice asked, none given.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Marty Daly said:


> So with this new "snake oil" treatment...does it matter what kind of snakes I use?


Step one...you must squeeze all of the oil out of them...doesn't matter what kind as long as they're venomous. After you've done that....let me know and I'll give you step two.


----------



## Marty Daly (Sep 25, 2010)

beemandan said:


> Step one...you must squeeze all of the oil out of them...doesn't matter what kind as long as they're venomous. After you've done that....let me know and I'll give you step two.


guess I asked for it...


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

So who are these snake oil peddlers?

Can we have some names?


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

You will find free range snakes are much better. All natural.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

rhaldridge said:


> So who are these snake oil peddlers?


I suppose that if you've read through the thread and nobody comes to your mind...you are probably living in a snake oil peddelerless world.
Lucky you.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

beemandan said:


> The point is that there is 'snake oil' being peddled in beekeeping today. Buyer beware.


Well said, BMD


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Saltybee said:


> You will find free range snakes are much better. All natural.


Higher oil content as well.


----------



## Marty Daly (Sep 25, 2010)

Every time I try to squeeze this thing it starts to rattle...should I cut that rattling thing off first?
:lpf:


----------



## Marty Daly (Sep 25, 2010)

beemandan,
I feel I owe you an apology for hijacking your post for a little cheap humor.
I hope I didn't offend.

AND I hope nobody takes the idea of squeezing venomous snakes seriously...this is all in fun.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Marty Daly said:


> beemandan,
> I feel I owe you an apology for hijacking your post for a little cheap humor.


No apology needed. Humor, cheap or otherwise, is a welcome ingredient in most dialogs. 
PS I think them rattling thingy's have the most oil of all....but you need both hands to squeeze 'em properly.


----------



## Marty Daly (Sep 25, 2010)

Thanks,
Guess I'm just not doing this right. I'll have to let go of his head to squeeze that rattlin thingy...
Maybe I should just contact one of them snake oil salesman and buy some oil already squeezed...
I wonder if I have enough money...???


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

beemandan said:


> I suppose that if you've read through the thread and nobody comes to your mind...you are probably living in a snake oil peddelerless world.
> Lucky you.


Well, I think it's always better to be specific, if making an important point. I honestly am not sure who you're talking about Michael Bush? Les Crowder? Dee Lusby? Kirk Webster? Tim Ives? Dean Stiglitz? Sam Comfort?

Truly, I wish you would be specific.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Marty Daly said:


> Thanks,
> buy some oil already squeezed...


I found this fine fellow under one my "TF" test hives. Perhaps I have solved the mite issue.


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

Well I've been helping folks get started in bees since the '70s and I can tell which ones will almost certainly get out of beekeeping:90% of what they say starts with "...yeah,I know..."
Makes no difference if I'm helping catch a swarm or hive a package or do a cutout if they have that attitude while I'm trying to help then they give one excuse or the other but they soon move to another hobby.
We all see them here coming up with "suggestions" or "how about this..."when they have no grasp of the basic functions of nature or weather. Not that innovation isn't good but its like the monkey typing Shakespeare : not likely.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

rhaldridge said:


> I honestly am not sure who you're talking about Michael Bush? Les Crowder? Dee Lusby? Kirk Webster? Tim Ives? Dean Stiglitz? Sam Comfort?
> Truly, I wish you would be specific.


I don’t know if any of those people sold that lady bees and claimed they were mite resistant. 
Was that what you’re referring to…..I wish you’d be more specific.
Or was it this? 


beemandan said:


> Sometimes the same one's who'll lambast any scientific study and accuse the researchers of dishonesty.....exclaiming 'follow the money'. At the same time promoting their own books or paid speaking.


And to that I’d ask you….are any of those you mentioned guilty of this?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

mike haney said:


> I can tell which ones will almost certainly get out of beekeeping:90% of what they say starts with "...yeah,I know...".


And there are always those. And yet I find myself pleasantly surprised at the number of new beekeepers who show a genuine interest in understanding the whole of it. It may not be the great majority but they are a good number.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

JWChesnut said:


> I found this fine fellow under one my "TF" test hives.


I believe I'll pass on squeezing that guy's rattle thingy.


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

As far as "snake oil salesmen" go yes there are some that seem to participate here mainly to generate visits to a blog or a web site that sells something but they are few.
What the newcomers fail to hear or to grasp is the incredible mind boggling complexity of beekeeping 
The lady in question may very well had mite PROOF bees but those genetics were immediatly diluted at the first swarm or supercedure .
The various schools of thought such as treatment free or the "Bond" method all have pluses - and minuses .
Treatment free works - IF you have good genetics and are skilled enough to keep them and practice brood breaks and all the other manipulations most can't or won't do
They same can be said for the Treatment school. It works if one is rigid about dosage timing and has a little luck with not harming ones queen.Both are more a reflection of the skill determination and to some degree the "luck" of the beekeeper as much as the methodology. 
THAT'S what the dreamers don't see.
There are also a few old geezers like me here that love bees and really enjoy being able to contribute.
And there are a VERY few really skilled selfless keepers like Cleo Hogan that speak to the heart of a question ( and don't ramble like me  )


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

One of the vociferous "Bond" advocates on this forum has 10-11 years experience. He lost his apiary twice (attributed in his words to climate mal-adaptation). A couple of years ago he went "feral" and in two years of "Bond" treatment moved to 90-95% (winter) survival.

Nice story, but the "feral" bees had 25 years of unmanipulated "bond" challenge, and still had major die-off, when moved into a managed yard. Miraculously in two years, the genetics which were suseptible in the wild converted into miracle survivor bees that don't need a "Bond" test cause they refuse to die.

I don't buy this. I don't buy "miraculous" winter survival --- only to be followed by radical spring spliting and make-up. My hives afflicted with DWV despite my best efforts *don't die in the winter*, but dwindle in June, going broodless and finally succumbing, as the lethal component seems to be loss of queen fecundity. Admittedly, my climate is mild to semi-tropical. However, I think a lot of the hot-air some of these blowhards are puffing up about is carefully parsed to avoid revealing the full story.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

mike haney said:


> And there are a VERY few really skilled selfless keepers like Cleo Hogan that speak to the heart of a question ( and don't ramble like me  )


Not only is Cleo a fount of wisdom, but he is unfailingly a gentleman, in the old-fashioned sense of the word.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>At the same time promoting their own books or paid speaking. 

hmmm... if you think ANYONE is making money speaking about beekeeping you are mistaken. I can make more in two hours working my "day job" than I can make in a whole weekend of speaking, and I have a lot of other things I need to be doing...

...and I'm sure it's the same for anyone one else out there speaking.

I'm not sure if the "book" thing is addressed to me, but I tell everyone to read it for free on my website. They just don't listen. I also tell them to stop buying queens and raise their own queens, stop buying foundation, stop buying pollen substitute, stop buying treatments. What snake oil do you think we are selling?

The treatment manufacturers, and the bee suppliers on the other hand, continue to sell Apistan (that has not worked for well over a decade) and Checkmite (that has not worked for a decade) and many other unnecessary and counterproductive things. Despite that fact that the rest of the world other than US, UK and Canada have OUTLAWED the use of terramycin because it is NOT effective at clearing up AFB and have OUTLAWED the use of Fumidil because it causes birth defects and despite recent research that proves that Fumidil makes bees susceptible to Nosema and terramycin makes bees susceptible to AFB and EFB, these products continue to be sold. 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033188

If that is not snake oil, then I don't know what you mean by snake oil. Snake oil by definition involves a profit selling something that at best, simply does not work and at worst makes the very thing it is intended to help get worse.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Michael,
Riddle me this: I teach loads of folks to make swarm traps to catch "feral" bees in my county. A huge percentage of them announce they are going to go "8-frame, foundationless, Treatment free" because of the teachings they pour over on the internet. (A smaller percentage, are "top-bar" enthusiasts (largely because they don't want to spend money).

They move these swarms into their backyards. They thrive for a year. The second year the hives are manifestly afflicted with Varroa/DWV. I tell them to treat, they refuse, and the hives die.

I get so tired of advocates of TF refusing to recognize the nearly universal loss of novice bees. I attribute this to the "never treat" advice, as the students that go MAQS or OA have bees the 3rd year, and can begin making increase.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> Michael,
> Riddle me this: I teach loads of folks to make swarm traps to catch "feral" bees in my county. A huge percentage of them announce they are going to go "8-frame, foundationless, Treatment free" because of the teachings they pour over on the internet. (A smaller percentage, are "top-bar" enthusiasts (largely because they don't want to spend money).
> 
> They move these swarms into their backyards. They thrive for a year. The second year the hives are manifestly afflicted with Varroa/DWV. I tell them to treat, they refuse, and the hives die.
> ...


So assuming these bees are surviving their first year... why aren't these 2nd bees getting split once, twice, or into 4 nuc hives? Honestly, if they let the bees raise their own queen the bees will build how many qcells on the first split? At least two of those should take... Now you have 3 hives and it's... May? June? Assuming you live somewhere there is a June/July flow, you could split from your overwintered queen again in late July or you could buy a couple VSH queens, jeez... you could split just one frame from all 3 hives. Now it's August and you could have as many as 6 hives...


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Hazel, cause our flow is April-May, and by May the hives are manifestly "sick" and dwindling. I tell these folks to treat, but splitting sick hives has a >75% failure rate-- the natural queens don't take and the veteran queen has lost fecundity to DWV . Trying to start up a nuc from a "sick" stock is pushing water uphill. I tell them to treat to get healthy stock, but someone on the friggin' internet told them that was wrong.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> I teach loads of folks to make swarm traps to catch "feral" bees in my county. A huge percentage of them announce they are going to go "8-frame, foundationless, Treatment free" because of the teachings they pour over on the internet. (A smaller percentage, are "top-bar" enthusiasts (largely because they don't want to spend money).

You say the ones going TF are "a huge percentage". What is the percentage of those beginners who treat and lose their bees? In my experience that is a "a huge percentage". You and I are not seeing the same outcomes.


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

Obviously the old adage that "all beekeeping is local", also applies to treatment free. 

There are places it works better than others, here in Kansas it can work.

I might also add that local management plays an important part, one example is the common practice of summer feeding right after harvest. If you have bees that normally shut down brood rearing during times of dearth which slows varroa down. But, then you harvest after your main flow and immediately start feeding them to get the bees ready for winter and then they keep raising brood like their is no summer dearth, well you have played right into varroa's wheel house. 


Don


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I have a smaller sample than you.
I have informal mentor groups of 5. Been doing this for years. In the last 4 years. 14 of 20 have insisted on going TF. 12 of those lost hives, 1 relented, treated and now has 8 hives. and 1 has built increase (with DWV losses and non-feral purchased queens) while remaing TF. So 1 out 14 can replicate the TF "success" story. Huge friggin' waste.

Of the 6 treatment "dinosaurs" --- all 6 have multiple hives in happy apiaries. 

In the past 4 years, if they want to go top-bar, I send them off to others, after showing them the swarm trap strategy. This is mainly because the main selling point of TB hives (African cost) seems to select for folks that have trouble making rent, and I end of carrying a lot of cost for them.

After talking with others (in my local region), my experience is NOT unusual. TF simply is not a "novice Beek" method for coastal California. 

I maintain a challenge yard 1/2 way up a uncultivated mountain with loads of wild bees in rock crevices. Swarms moved into the challenge yard and left untreated develop mites and DWV just like any random bee. The myth of "resistant, survivor" bees is a myth, for my mountain. 

I don't know what is different about central Nebraska from coastal Calif (well I do actually), but if you have a 'survivor' strain, we do not. I think the first step in a TF "recipe" would be to test for the existence of bee races that are amenable to the approach. They fail the test in my county.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> After talking with others (in my local region), my experience is NOT unusual. TF simply is not a "novice Beek" method for coastal California.


I never would have guessed that it would be easier to keep TF bees in northern Vermont and eastern mountain Oregon, but apparently...


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Hazel-Rah said:


> I never would have guessed that it would be easier to keep TF bees in northern Vermont and eastern mountain Oregon, but apparently...


I dunno...without a brood break of consequence, many areas of CA and much of the southernmost US maintain an uninterrupted growth of varroa.


----------



## Robbin (May 26, 2013)

Hazel-Rah said:


> I never would have guessed that it would be easier to keep TF bees in northern Vermont and eastern mountain Oregon, but apparently...


I would, I believe the warmer and more humid, the worse the SHB and Mites are.

Are there any apiaries with large numbers of TF hives anywhere around the gulf coast? If so, I haven’t read about them. I’m in Florida, SHB and mites are rampant. I don’t think even Michael Bush could be treatment free in Florida without high losses.

By the way Mr. Bush, nothing wrong with selling a book, you book is my favorite! If bad times come, I won’t be able to read off the internet, so I’ve got the best book available!


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

You can't print it off the internet?? I think Hazel had a good point on keeping an open mind but you need to find what works for you. I think that's the main issue, most people want to try what works for everyone else or someone with similar ideals as they have and fail to properly learn about bees and why things are done.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Isn't the definition of snake oil a fraudulent cure? I don't see how assuming feral bees should survive mites has anything to do with "21st century beekeeping snake oil." Now if you were talking about Apistan, I might could get behind that idea.

The only thing I see here is an obvious ignorance of beekeeping practice from a newbee with dead bees. Is this rare?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I have never kept bees where there was not a significant brood break. However it's not hard to simulate one by either confining (or removing) the queen two weeks before the main flow, or by doing splits. If you confine the queen, two weeks before the flow you can actually increase your honey yield AND get a brood break.

Certainly TF beekeeping still requires "beekeeping" to do well. When I had a recent absence for a few years, the number of hives did not increase by themselves. Of course they swarmed to the trees and sometimes ended up queenless and some died in winter. The bees, I'm sure prospered in the sense that there were more colonies but unfortunately they were in the trees...

Beekeeping requires a certain amount of manipulation in the correct direction adjusted for your location. I'm sure a lot of beginners assume they can do nothing and that doesn't always work out quite as well.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

JWChesnut said:


> One of the vociferous "Bond" advocates on this forum has 10-11 years experience. He lost his apiary twice (attributed in his words to climate mal-adaptation). A couple of years ago he went "feral" and in two years of "Bond" treatment moved to 90-95% (winter) survival.
> 
> Nice story,


Yeah, but not the real story.

In my experience, misrepresenting your opponents is a quick way to say something stupid and lose an argument.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Solomon Parker said:


> Yeah, but not the real story.
> 
> In my experience, misrepresenting your opponents is a quick way to say something stupid and lose an argument.


Solomon, Even when you are chopping up someone you disagree with, including myself, I find no reason to consider you an opponent or anyone else's strongly different viewpoint as an argument. Bad for my blood pressure and rather unhelpful to my beekeeping knowledge.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

Robbin said:


> I would, I believe the warmer and more humid, the worse the SHB and Mites are.


Must be those 30 below zero mornings that are keeping SHB down, I've never seen one. I also live in some very rural and wooded places, keeps up a healthy population of feral-esque bees to draw from.


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

Man, I must be doing something wrong. My very first cut-out from year's back is still kicking butt and all I have ever done is feed them ocassionally and give them breaks.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

I read Michael Bush and took a traditional beekeeper's course before killng my first bees. I am not going to blame either one as selling me snake oil in spite of my fun with the term. If there was snake oil involved it was of my own making. As in ; Oh that is what he meant when I read it 2 years ago. 
People want to keep bees the all natural way, most of them would not give it a try using chemicals, most will not stay either way. Just my seldom humble opinion.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Saltybee said:


> Solomon, Even when you are chopping up someone you disagree with, including myself, I find no reason to consider you an opponent or anyone else's strongly different viewpoint as an argument.


Salty, I truly wish discussions didn't turn into arguments, but when somebody unfairly negatively portrays someone else to make a point, what is to be done?

Let us disagree a lot, and loudly and with gusto, fury, anger. But let us not lie about each other.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

It is and will always be Caveat emptor and there's a fool born every minute.

However, am I the only one thinking, "She may be willing to trade some honey for her 6 hives worth of woodenware."? At face value we know there's been no treatments in them and they're only a year old. Assuming she's receptive review them before agreeing to anything. Unless you see AFB signs you've got preassembled woodenware that you traded honey for, a possibly long term customer or even a possible location for an outyard.

Yea, it's now caveat emptor on your side but there could be an opportunity that all involved could benefit from.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Solomon Parker said:


> Yeah, but not the real story


My core point: "Bond" is a selection method for genotype. If you have 95% survival and wild outcrossing in 20 hives, you are not selecting for genotype. For a selection method to work, it has to be selective, the more selective the more likely the genotype simply isn't the "background". These 20 hives each have 20 fathers, so the F1 has 20^20 combinations, and the F2 (the mite eating workers) have 20^20^20^20 different genotypes. This is like the number of grains of sand in the universe. The claim that 95% of these reselections have perfect resistance doesn't make sense, especially since the background wild bees evidently were still quite at risk. 

You can say, "I have strong wild, feral stock, and I propagate this line" or you can say "I have bred resistant bees by Bond selection" (with the attendant expected losses). To combine the the two beliefs shows fuzzy thought, as the math of the inheritance is not conducive.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

Saltybee said:


> I read Michael Bush and took a traditional beekeeper's course before killng my first bees...
> 
> People want to keep bees the all natural way, most of them would not give it a try using chemicals, most will not stay either way. Just my seldom humble opinion.


There has been lots of discussion about newbees losing their 1 TF hive or 6 or however many, because they either refused to treat or don't do proper manipulations - then they never want to keep bees again. OK, so maybe they shouldn't keep bees.

I have heard a lot of people mentioning that beekeeping just isn't has easy as it was back in the 60's... So I'm not trying to be elitist here but, that tells me that just anybody isn't going to be cut out for beekeeping. Just like some people aren't cut out for organic farming, or driving draft horses, or fixing their own cars or machines. 

If people are OK with treating and need to do it to maintain their status quo/livelihood, so be it. Just keep your sub-par drones out of my breeding yard...

Honestly, if I HAD to treat bees in order to maintain a healthy hive population - I wouldn't want to keep bees either!! Maybe this is blasphemous but I also don't have interest in any type of agricultural practices or livestock breeding where routine applications of chemicals are required.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

JWChesnut said:


> My core point: "Bond" is a selection method for genotype. If you have 95% survival and wild outcrossing in 20 hives, you are not selecting for genotype.


Never said I was. Look it up, you'll find I use "epigenetics" the expression of genes, not their changing.




JWChesnut said:


> For a selection method to work, it has to be selective, the more selective the more likely the genotype simply isn't the "background". These 20 hives each have 20 fathers, so the F1 has 20^20 combinations, and the F2 (the mite eating workers) have 20^20^20^20 different genotypes. This is like the number of grains of sand in the universe.


Numbers like this are as misleading as they are big. I use the example all the time with my wife who is descended from British royalty. The funny thing is, if anybody is, everybody is. There are 10,000 genes in the honeybee genome, with 236 million base pairs. Therefore 20^20^20^20 is absurdly meaningless because there simply isn't that much information available. The hard drive isn't big enough.




JWChesnut said:


> The claim that 95% of these reselections have perfect resistance doesn't make sense, especially since the background wild bees evidently were still quite at risk.


Who demands perfection? Who claims perfection? What is claimed is a continual winnowing process, either the removal of unfit individuals (I speak of the queen) by natural means or unnatural means. My losses are very low, yes, but as I've said on a number of occasions, that's probably because I kill many of them before they can die. That's animal husbandry. Additionally, perfection is not required nor possible, only sufficiency.




JWChesnut said:


> You can say, "I have strong wild, feral stock, and I propagate this line" or you can say "I have bred resistant bees by Bond selection" (with the attendant expected losses). To combine the the two beliefs shows fuzzy thought, as the math of the inheritance is not conducive.


What's fuzzy is false and misleading interpretations and claims of others' views and practices.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Hazel-Rah said:


> Honestly, if I HAD to treat bees in order to maintain a healthy hive population - I wouldn't want to keep bees either!!. Maybe this is blasphemous...


Not at all. All the time we do things or don't do them because of something involved. I don't like using gas to fuel my vehicles so I transition to electric. I don't like crowds so I don't go to the mall. Pomegranates are a pain to peel, so I only eat them occasionally. The list goes on. Do it the way you want to do it, or don't do it. Your choice.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I have no idea what you do Solomon, and you will quote me I'm sure. I read your posts where you expouse "Bond" keeping, but now you are saying you don't. This is like arguing with a shape shifter. You use Bond, except you "kill them before they can die". You have 95% survival, except you "kill them before they die" and those don't count. Special math for the special I guess.

This much is true: I have better knowledge of breeding, evolution and genetics than you do.

I am going to sign off now, 'cause chest-beating sophomores leave me angry, and there's no point trying to get them to consider alternatives until they are ready.


----------



## Robbin (May 26, 2013)

JRG13 said:


> You can't print it off the internet?? I think Hazel had a good point on keeping an open mind but you need to find what works for you. I think that's the main issue, most people want to try what works for everyone else or someone with similar ideals as they have and fail to properly learn about bees and why things are done.


I'd be hunting and printing for weeks to get everything Bush has in his book....


----------



## Robbin (May 26, 2013)

Saltybee said:


> I read Michael Bush and took a traditional beekeeper's course before killng my first bees. I am not going to blame either one as selling me snake oil in spite of my fun with the term. If there was snake oil involved it was of my own making. As in ; Oh that is what he meant when I read it 2 years ago.
> People want to keep bees the all natural way, most of them would not give it a try using chemicals, most will not stay either way. Just my seldom humble opinion.


I'm with you on that. I don't / can't follow all of Bush's treatment free teaching, not in Florida, but his book was a wealth of beekeeping knowledge for this new Beek.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

In general, I accept JWC's idea that the bees in your hives will have approximately the same resistance as the ferals in your area (unless most of the bees in your area are in managed colonies.) But I don't understand the animus for the Bond approach, since this is exactly what is happening in the feral population. It seems to be a consensus that the ferals are more mite resistant than they were 20 years ago. How else did they get there?

I also believe that there is an overemphasis on genetics among beekeepers on both sides. I think there may be other factors that are at least as important in colony survival.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

JWChesnut said:


> You have 95% survival, except you "kill them before they die" and those don't count.


How hard is it to not misquote? Really, how hard is it?

Let us not lie about one another.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

Obervations:

Experience speaks very loudly -- and far more credibly than any argument one might assert ... even if that argument is completely right.
*
Observation 1:*
I've never successfully kept a hive treated with terramycin, fumidil, or any of the miticides. 
All of my experience is with untreated colonies.

_*I would not consider myself competent to mentor novices in managing such treated hives with an expectation of them thriving.*_
_I lack a lot of the knowledge -- and lack all of the treated hive experience -- to do so._

Perhaps if those unsuccessful TF novices had an experienced, competent mentor in the practice of managing treatment free hives, they'd have had a different result.

*Observation 2:*
Many swarms are not feral.
In some areas, almost _none_ are, and in others, _most_ of them are.
The density of managed hives in an area determines the likelihood of whether a given swarm coming from a colony that has survived unmanaged for a few years (_my_ definition of feral bees, and how I am using the words here).

The number of (or proportion of) feral colonies found in cutouts varies for the same reason.
*
Observation 3:*
There are observable differences in appearance between bees raised on standard commercial foundation and those that are often described as "regressed".
Bees being "regressed" is no guarantee that they are either feral or managed treatment free, but the odds are very, very high that they are one or the other.

*Observation 4:*
My original hive was populated by a feral colony form the wall of a neglected house down the street from my home.
The space had been continuously occupied by bees for several years _(personal observation)_.

They are by _no means_ Perfect Mite Proof Bees.
I've had them a number of years.

*Observation 5:*
These untreated bees have never had a mite problem.
They have not only survived, but very productively multiplied.

*Observation 6:*
This year, shortly after making splits in one yard, it was attacked by a bear and i had to purchase queens.
None of my local treatment-free friends had any queens.
I bought two commercially raised, conventionally managed queens from national bee supply outfit that is nearby.
The queens were reported to be from named, popular producer of good reputation.

I requeened the damaged colonies with queens of my own which I knew do well, and put the unproven-to-me commercial queens in healthy hives from which I'd taken my queens for the bear damaged colonies.

Neither of the commercially produced queens' colonies have done well.
I haven't done mite counts, as the reason that they aren't as productive as home raised queens is irrelevant to me -- they are destined for the swarm lure bottle, and will be replaced by queens from lines I know do well.

*Conclusions:*
*1)* Regardless of what ever logical, rational opinion one might have, _there is a difference between the bees raised treatment free and their ability to do well managed that way, and the queens that have been produced in treated colonies._
_This isn't a 'scientific' finding_ -- it's experience coupled with common sense and observation.

*2) *_If one is going to raise treatment free bees, it's probably a good idea to buy his beginning stock from someone who is successful at managing treatment free colonies, and whose product has a good reputation._
Not only is the livestock likely to be more appropriate than stock form a treated commercial producer, but competent advice and possibly competent mentoring is available.

*3)* Getting stressed almond pollination leftovers with an unfamiliar queen fresh of a transcontinental truck transport from California may not be an appropriate way to stock one's initial treatment free hive.
*
Observation 7:*

Persuasive observations and statements concerning any agricultural practice do not begin with, "I know", not even, "I know a guy who was a novice".

Knowing novices who fail to steward bees properly and lose them, even with mentoring from someone who has never successfully done what they are trying to do in the way they are trying to do it, is not likely to persuade anyone from trying it with competent guidance.

To say that treatment free bee husbandry can't or doesn't work when competently practiced at this point in its development is very much like saying he sky isn't blue because one has never seen blue sky.

If one is honest with himself, the most such a person can testify to is that he's not seen a clear sky.


----------



## Robbin (May 26, 2013)

Hazel-Rah said:


> Must be those 30 below zero mornings that are keeping SHB down, I've never seen one. I also live in some very rural and wooded places, keeps up a healthy population of feral-esque bees to draw from.


I'd rather have SHB than cold weather.  My average daytime temps in Jan are 60F for the high and 39F the low. Temperature and Humidity do matter...


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Isn't the definition of snake oil a fraudulent cure?


Since she was told that these bees were mite resistant and we all know that coming from a self proclaimed tf beekeeper…..it couldn’t been a *fraudulent mite cure*….and we all know from the irrefutable data collected by the voluntary poll that tf bee colonies only die at 30% per year…the only remaining logical conclusion is that the new beekeeper must’ve been lying and didn’t actually lose all six hives. .
Your logic is impeccable.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Seems to me the only logical conclusion we can draw is that it was a novice beekeeper, a group with characteristically high hive losses and low practical knowledge. I know a number of novices who have lost 100%. It's not exactly uncommon.

Do you know what an average is?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Seems to me the only logical conclusion we can draw is that it was a novice beekeeper


Perfect sense....if the tf bees fail....blame the beekeeper.
Now where have I heard that before?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I never mentioned treatment-free.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> I never mentioned treatment-free.


Maybe you should go back and reread the initial post. That is what we are discussing. So called treatment free bees sold to an inexperienced beekeeper that failed, 100% in their second season. I know....post one was a long time ago...easy to forget the basic topic.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beemandan said:


> Had a lady introduce herself at the farmer’s market yesterday. I am ….well was….a beekeeper. I started six hives last year and they all failed this year. I don’t know what happened to ‘em.
> Mites? asks I.
> Nope she says. They all started from bees I got from a fellow who only keeps ferals…so they were resistant.


A. How many first year beekeepers have all of their colonies die the first year? Probably more these days than used to, I think.
B. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What did she know about KEEPING bees? Did she think that all she had to do was put them in a box and they would thrive? We'll never know, she isn't here to answer questions.
C. Ignorance is bliss. The NewBee probably knew very little and was blissfully ignorant until her bees died. And we can be pompously blissful knowing actually very little about anything in regards to what occured other than what Dan presented in his first Post. Unless I need to read all of the others between the first and the last to find out more.

We don't know enough to have an informed discussion.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> We don't know enough to have an informed discussion.


When has that ever stopped us in the past?
We actually do know a bit more. We know that the lady was told that she didn't need to worry about mites. So, with the assurance of the 'salesman' she looked no further. And this is my main objection. Encouraging that blissful ignorance in this way, in my opinion, constitutes selling snake oil. 
All the rest is speculation. I surely don't claim that it was mites...but 6 out of 6 hives failing in their second season should arouse any responsible beekeeper's suspicion.
And this is the topic, as I initiated it.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

sqkcrk said:


> We don't know enough to have an informed discussion.


Seldom a problem.


----------



## alexanderkjones (Jun 11, 2013)

JRW said:


> So what is the point of this post ?


What I think is most interesting on this post is the reaction of so many beekeepers. We're all afraid of being taken advantage of, bamboozled if you will, by it anything from salesmen to science.

Who do people trust for information? Granted, some of the best info I've ever gotten has been from local Beekeepers in my area, but we're a small group. Who do we trust with the larger picture?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beemandan said:


> When has that ever stopped us in the past?
> We actually do know a bit more. We know that the lady was told that she didn't need to worry about mites. So, with the assurance of the 'salesman' she looked no further. And this is my main objection. Encouraging that blissful ignorance in this way, in my opinion, constitutes selling snake oil.
> All the rest is speculation. I surely don't claim that it was mites...but 6 out of 6 hives failing in their second season should arouse any responsible beekeeper's suspicion.
> And this is the topic, as I initiated it.


Then she was sold a bill of goods, mislead perhaps into thinking that she didn't need to pay attention to her bees. Seems like the supplier may have let her down.

It's not so much as TF is snake oil as it is that leaving someone w/ that's all you need to know, that's the snake oil.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

JRW said:


> So what is the point of this post ?


Based on all of the posts by the OP in the thread it appears that the point of the post is either that treatment free beekeepers are foolish and deluded, or, 
That you have to watch put for those deceptive treatment free beekeepers.

In other words, it appears that someone is attempting to influence potential TF beeks away for the practice by means of propaganda, as when actual, real-world facts and experience that don't line up with what he thinks is true are presented, they are ignored.

The discussion certainly reflects that it isn't merely to inform folks that uninformed "behaving" has an exceptionally poor success rate.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Someone who treats and claims otherwise = pure snakeoil.
Someone who is TF with bees that stuggle but still sells their bees = snakeoil.
Someone who simply say "works for me"= no snake oil. People who hear "works for me" as the simple solution= the problem.

People get that beekeeping may be more complex than it first appears very quickly when they hear the word "treat." They know that is not something they already know how to do. Not the same immediate understanding when they hear treatment free. The term treatment free itself is seductive. If I was TF, I honestly do not know how I would avoid that pitfall when I was simply advocating for my own experience and beliefs.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Buyer be ware should always be a consumers motto.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Beregondo said:


> the point of the post is either that treatment free beekeepers foolish and deluded, That you have to watch put for those deceptive treatment free beekeepers.


It didn't start that way. It was a specific instance but one that I admit I all too commonly hear. 
My mantra...if you follow my posts in general....is to test for mites regardless of your treatment philosophy. And if anybody sells you bees or promotes a practice...treatment or treatment free...and advises you that you needn't test.....BEWARE!


----------



## rlsiv (Feb 26, 2011)

I get this from newer (or new age) beekeepers all the time: 
Beek: "My bees died and I don't know why"
Me: "What was your mite count?"
Beek: "I don't know" (or "I don't test", or some variation thereof)

If you aren't testing, and you aren't doing SOMETHING to interrupt the mites' life cycle (whether it is using hard/soft chem, or interrupting the bees' brood cycle in the spring or early summer, etc), then you're going to lose your bees.

I completely understand the desire to be chemical free or even treatment free... but just as I'm not willing to forego immunizations for my children, I'm not willing to turn a blind eye to mites in my beehives. If I'm not going to take steps to manipulate mite counts through brood disruption (making splits, queen isolation, etc), then I'd better be prepared to treat them somehow.


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

The basis all of this is that there are non-chemical methods of "treating" the bees. It just takes a much more hands-on approach.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

What's perhaps the most common effective treatment used by experienced beekeepers?

I think it's safe to say that Oxalic Acid is the correct response.

So, if a new beekeeper tests for mites, and finds a significant mite count, what are you going to advise them to do?

Apply OA? A product that is illegal, dangerous, and still unapproved?

Sorry fellas, but when it comes to casting stones, there aren't many beekeepers who qualify to throw the first one.

With regards to new beekeepers. I would advise getting VSH stock as long as they can requeen yearly.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

rlsiv said:


> ...but just as I'm not willing to forego immunizations for my children...


Are you going to put them in child seats on the way to school as well? :facepalm:


I'm still not seeing an apt application of the term "snake oil." Where is the profit being made? Where is the evidence that the product is in fact fraudulent? Where is the evidence that the case in point is not typical of a large number of novice beekeepers as several in this thread seem to indicate it is? 

Vital details are missing and therefore I must conclude in agreement with Beregondo and define a thread with a seductive title and detail free anecdote as propaganda. And that's before I take time to consider the history, practices, and beliefs of the original poster.

It's like citing a study to back up the same view which wasn't designed to address it. ...he did that too? Who is pushing a point of view?


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

beemandan said:


> Perfect sense....if the tf bees fail....blame the beekeeper.
> Now where have I heard that before?


If untreated bees fail, blame the beekeeper, because he should have known better than to buy that snake oil. Or blame the beekeeper who sold him that snake oil.

If treated bees fail, never blame the beekeeper. It was something beyond his control.

Have I got it right?

My personal philosophy is to always blame myself if things go wrong. Always. Even if I suspect that the cause was something or someone other than myself, I just plain won't believe it. Why? Because if something is your own fault, you can always do something about it. If it's the fault of something beyond your control, then you're helpless to do anything about it.

I don't like feeling helpless.

I'm sure I'll kill a lot of bees before I learn to be a good beekeeper, but maybe that's the price of that education. When my bees die, it will be my own d... fault. Not the fault of Michael Bush or any of the other folks who are smart enough to be able to keep bees without treatment. They're not selling snake oil. in fact they're not really selling anything. They are saying, "It can be done, because I did it." 

That's not snake oil.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

rhaldridge said:


> Not the fault of Michael Bush or any of the other folks who are smart enough to be able to keep bees without treatment.


Just to be clear, I'm not claiming any specific level of intelligence. I may claim a certain measure of dedication to an ideal or practice.




rhaldridge said:


> in fact they're not really selling anything.


Just to be clear, I do sell honey, but I don't generally sell it as "treatment-free," don't have to. I do sell treatment-free nucs and queens, and I have very good feedback from them.




rhaldridge said:


> They are saying, "It can be done, because I did it."


I am definitely claiming that and will keep doing so.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

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


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

I've been reading this thread, and many like it, for some time now here on beesource. Inevitably, to me, it comes down to some simple points, and in many cases, the point is that folks are a bit challenged when it comes to statistics.

Inevitably, the 'works for me' types, will talk about losses in percentages, and, often those percentages are drawn from a significant count of hives, ie, statistically significant numbers. But, when you try apply the same concepts, to a small number (1 to 5 hives), statistics dont really work anymore.

I've read most of the writings from various folks on various methods, particularily the prolific posters here on beesource. From what I have read, different approaches work differently, in different areas, so it's just not realistic for me to replicate those experiences here, in our own situation.

Micheal Bush, please correct any errors, I'm going to use your postings as my example. From what I have read, you decided to start down a different road with bees some years ago, and have written / spoken extensively about your experience. Your chosen method was the small cell, actively managed approach, with little / no chemical intervention. From what I have read, the initial start down this road was devastating, on the order of 90% losses, then a rebuild process from the survivors. If memory serves correctly, that initial start was also from a large population of hives (at or greater than a hundred). It was a method that worked, after accepting the initial loss, and working on a rebuild program, that also includes losses. The rebuild is spread over multiple yards, and there have been occaisions where losses included all hives in one yard. It's a program that works, but has some scale.

Replicating that success, with a small number of hives, 2 or 3, in the back yard, is not realistic. The numbers are not there, and the diversity of location are not there. If one yard succumbs to something local, be it predators, disease, or what have you, it can go in the 'acceptable losses' column if one has multiple yards, to the point where the count of differing yards become statistically significant. On the other hand, if one has only a single location, with a small number of hives in that location, a similar local event happens in that yard, then the expectation is, lose all hives in the yard. If that's the only yard of bees, then the loss is total.

I have not chosen this example because I want to suggest Mr Bush is selling any kind of snake oil, or anything else for that matter. I choose this example, because one needs only go to his website, read everything there, and you can find this information all out there, ready to be absorbed. I've never read anything that suggests Mr Bush professes zero losses, or anything of the sort. What I have read, suggests that at the scale he's keeping bees, his method works, for him. I've also read enough to realize, it likely will NOT work for me, with a single location and less than a dozen hives.

Another philosophy I've read a BUNCH about here, is the 'sustainable apiary', and that comes from Micheal Palmer. It's a completely different philosophy, that has losses built in and expected. It's a simple concept, if you want 50 hives in the spring, head into winter with 50 hives, and enough nucs to replace your losses. Essentially the concept of spares, and it's really no different than carrying a spare tire on a vehicle. Those of us that have spent enough time on back roads far enough out in the bush, understand, after a point, two spare tires is wise. It's no different with hives, if you expect lossses, and plan for them, then you will end up in a sustainable situation.

Applying all the knowledge I've gained from reading online, and using local numbers, I've formulated our own strategy for how we deal with our bees. Over the last few years, in our area, commercial keepers have been reporting losses on the order of 50%, some higher, some lower, but overall it's in that range. So, if we want to have 5 producing hives next spring, the obvious answer is, go into the fall with 10. Right now, I have 6 double deeps, and 4 nucs (2 high, five frames) in the back yard. This is following on the concept of sustainable thru spares.

As far as how well our management methods are working, it's really not possible to make statistically significant observations. In our first year, we headed into winter with 3 hives, and came to spring with 3 live hives. We were happy, and, I can do some math. If the expected losses were typical for the area, I should expect that each hive has a 50% chance of making the winter. 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.125 . The math says, 12% probability that our experience was typical, and 88% probability that what we did was 'better than average'. Second year, we went into winter with 6, and came out with 6. But again, it's not really significant, because this last winter, local averages were in the 80% survival range for the larger scale operations. 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.51. So still right in the vicinity of 50% probability that our success was just 'dumb luck'.

If I read enough here on beesource, eventually I do understand one thing. Based on my reading, pretty much everything we have been doing with our bees is all wrong. We have them in 10 frame deeps, using plastic frames. So, the boxes are to big (should be 8 frames), the frames are wrong, bees wont draw comb on plastic. We up-spent on the mann lake frames with the metal inserts, they are stronger, but, not small cell, so that's all wrong. We did drop tests in the first year, counted only one mite, consensus here is, that's good enough, they dont need treatments. I put thymol in anyways, and lost count trying to count mites on a 24 hour drop test after the thymol went into the hives. My count was somewhere north of a thousand when I lost track, and decided not to start over. Remember, this hive had one mite on the drop test before the thymol went in.

Bottom line, in the end, ask 10 beekeepers, get a dozen different answers. Ask enough of them, and eventually somebody will agree, what we are doing is right, and many more will say it's all wrong. We have to learn to filter the information, apply it to our own circumstances, then determine if some of the things we read are appropriate for our own situation, be it risk tolerance, scale, or what have you. At some point, you gotta stop analyzing, and start doing. If it works, carry on, and if it doesn't, remember the old adage. If you are in a hole, first thing you need to do, is stop digging.

We've done it all wrong, all along. But, the bees have survived, first year we got no honey. Last year, we doubled the hive count, and got a hundred pounds of honey as bonus. This year, we increased again, and have a couple hundred pounds of honey. You know what, it 'works for me', irrelavent of how wrong it is. The goal for next year, 20 hives and 400 pounds. My hole isn't getting any deeper right now, so I'm going to keep on digging, no matter how wrong our methods are....


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Getting resistant genetics into your hives, and then building that into your apiary isn't snake oil.

It's plain old selective breeding.

I would also like to note that not only are feral colonies returning across the country, but that their resistant genetics are also being used to develop resistant stock that are currently in use by beekeepers.

I haven't seen any real differences in the kind of issues I've faced while working with Honeybees and the kinds of issues I've faced while working with different invertebrates. They are exactly the same issues with some variations thrown in.

Nobody has a 'magic wand'. (Or, would that be magic smoker/hive tool?)

Referring to the 'snake oil' issue:

On the one hand I'm very pleased to have BeeWeavers. On the other hand, I always question claims being made, no matter the source.

I'm pleased because the Beeeaver queens are a source of some truly diverse genetics.

I'm concerned because of the potential for invasiveness.

Should I really have genetics this powerful in my hands?


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

grozzie2 - you have a good handle on the issue.

As a teacher of bee school I see new beekeepers to be each spring wanting to do things treatment free and without using "chemicals."

I want to applaud their spirit while at the same time find a gentle way to tell them that the road they have chosen is not an easy one, especially for a person starting with one or two hives. "Someone", I think, "needs to have a frank conversation with them."

I say I want because I haven't found the language to communicate what I want - at the same time both encouraging and cautionary. So I try to make a focus of the school understanding what is going on in the hive empowering (I hope) students to react to what they see. Multiple eggs on the side of cells? Hmmm. Multiple eggs in the center of cells and a recently open queen cell? Two very different scenarios.

There is a dangerous naivete among new beekeepers, especially those who have a little bit of knowledge and act like their knowledge trumps the collective experiences of modern beekeepers. If I hear the term feral survivors one more time I'm likely to puke, especially when what is being talked about are swarms on the blueberry barrens likely to have come from the hives of migratory commercial beekeepers.

I sent out a mid summer invitation to critique the course and only heard back from people who for whatever reasons had decided not to keep bees. Hmmm. 

Beginning beekeepers tend to have more faith and confidence in "experts" than they probably should have, especially when they are being sold something. Maybe the board's collective wisdom can speak to strategies to encourage new beekeepers to have open minds without giving up their critical reasoning skills.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Andrew Dewey, Well said.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

grozzie2, sounds like you're taking a pretty sensible approach.

I don't see why Michael Palmer's approach-- I read an article in one of the journals the other day that called it "Attrition Beekeeping"-- can't be used in a treatment free apiary. 

The best stats available, as far as I know come from the BeeInformed survey, which shows no great difference in survival between treated and untreated bees. It's certainly not perfect data, since it's a self-reporting survey, and any statistician will be happy to list the problems with data of that sort. But, I have to make decisions based on the best data I have, and I can't make myself feel happy about ignoring data that doesn't fit into my view of "the way things should be." That's why I've come to believe that developing one's own line of mite-resistant bees is something of a snipehunt. As long as your queens are open mated, it's hard to see how their resistance can vary much from the background resistance. But that just means that there must be other reasons why some beekeepers are able to be successful without treating. These successful beekeepers *do* exist, and their existence can't just be explained away. The fact that some novice beekeepers try this management approach and fail is largely irrelevant to the debate. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

To be fair, it's not just folks on Dan's side who cling to their blinders. Plenty of folks on the other side of the debate do the same, and it's a shame in both cases. It prevents progress and useful communication.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

AD:

The Hybrid Swarm is back. Feral, resistant, and spreading not only in terms of numbers and locations, but also in terms of their genetic impact on domestic colonies.

Think of the hybrid swarm as a rich source of a genetic legacy left to us by beekeepers from another time.

I wouldn't tell a beginning beekeeper that TFB isn't doable. 75% VSH stock, re-queened yearly, would work well.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Micheal Bush, please correct any errors... Your chosen method was the small cell, actively managed approach, with little / no chemical intervention. From what I have read, the initial start down this road was devastating, on the order of 90% losses, then a rebuild process from the survivors.

Not correct. I was already doing "treatment free" for decades. The Varroa came along and devastated things. 100% losses. I was not starting down the road of regression. I was just keeping bees the way I already had for the previous 25 years. After going to small cell and natural cell I was working with commercial stock. No issues with Varroa after regressing, but still issues with winter. Went to more local feral survivors and had better wintering. There were no survivors from the pre small cell days after the Varroa. There were no losses to Varroa in the post small cell days. There were no survivors to rebuild from when doing large cell with no treatments.

This is a common misconception.

> If memory serves correctly, that initial start was also from a large population of hives (at or greater than a hundred).

Not correct. It took a lot of years for me to build up to 200 hives and I did not start that expansion until after I regressed the bees. Back when Varroa hit I had only a few hives. Up until then I varied between two and seven most of the time.

> It was a method that worked, after accepting the initial loss

No. It was starting over after losing them all.

> and working on a rebuild program, that also includes losses. 

No. Nothing to rebuild.

>The rebuild is spread over multiple yards, and there have been occaisions where losses included all hives in one yard. It's a program that works, but has some scale.

It was not a rebuild it was a "build". I never had more than one yard before Varroa. I only expanded after.

A good synopsis is here:
http://bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm

>Replicating that success, with a small number of hives, 2 or 3, in the back yard, is not realistic. The numbers are not there

I did the process of regression with 2 or 3 in the backyard. Then expanded.

>I have not chosen this example because I want to suggest Mr Bush is selling any kind of snake oil, or anything else for that matter. I choose this example, because one needs only go to his website, read everything there, and you can find this information all out there, ready to be absorbed. I've never read anything that suggests Mr Bush professes zero losses, or anything of the sort.

Every winter has losses if you have any significant number of hives. With only a few hives the statistics can certainly vary more from all to none. I learned long ago, if you surround yourself with life, you surround yourself with death. Things that live eventually die.

> What I have read, suggests that at the scale he's keeping bees, his method works, for him. I've also read enough to realize, it likely will NOT work for me, with a single location and less than a dozen hives.

I disagree. I did do this with only a few hives. Then I expanded. The idea that most people have that you need a lot of hives seems predicated on controlling the mating of your queens, and that the solution to Varroa is only genetic, but the drones I want are the feral ones that are already out there. I don't want to control them.

>Another philosophy I've read a BUNCH about here, is the 'sustainable apiary', and that comes from Micheal Palmer. It's a completely different philosophy, that has losses built in and expected. It's a simple concept, if you want 50 hives in the spring, head into winter with 50 hives, and enough nucs to replace your losses. 

And I think that's always a good plan. If you want to have four hives in the spring, maybe four hives and four nucs is a good plan. You can always combine.

BTW, here are the health certificates from my home apiary for the last decade. The inspector checks for mites in random hives and most years finds none.

http://bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm

Where are all these Varroa everyone keeps saying will kill my hives if I don't treat?


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

rhaldridge said:


> As long as your queens are open mated, it's hard to see how their resistance can vary much from the background resistance.


But I do think that background resistance is not static for TF or treated. Fits and starts to be sure and definately not yet universal.


----------



## cdevier (Jul 17, 2010)

Thanks - Everyone.
This thread had been sort of the long path to the barn - BUT I think that I have learned a thing or two.
Keep up the good work!
Charlie


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

"...There is a dangerous naivete among new beekeepers, especially those who have a little bit of knowledge and act like their knowledge trumps the collective experiences of modern beekeepers..."

Yep and as soon as they tell me "yeah,I know " for the fourth time after asking me about bees I'm thinking
"Yeah,I know: you won't be keeping bees long "
It strikes me as less naïveté and more arrogance and its a good way to shorten any help I was inclined to offer.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Modern Beekeeping?

Do you mean the kind of beekeeping that's been making the headlines?

I think that what people are trying to tell you is that it's not the model of beekeeping that they're interested in.

Most of us are interested in sustainable solutions, and that includes beekeeping.

Offering someone the same old treadmill isn't as attractive as some of the new alternatives.

Who is being naïve and arrogant?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Grozzie, that was a very excellent post.



grozzie2 said:


> Inevitably, the 'works for me' types, will talk about losses in percentages, and, often those percentages are drawn from a significant count of hives, ie, statistically significant numbers. But, when you try apply the same concepts, to a small number (1 to 5 hives), statistics dont really work anymore.


Too right. Add to that the novice beekeeper, varying climates, source of initial stock, and myriad others and you get a recipe for disaster. I recommend a minimum of 5 hives with hardware to rapidly add or replenish through swarms. I was a bit precocious and started with 20. One of the best decisions I ever made in beekeeping.




grozzie2 said:


> Replicating that success, with a small number of hives, 2 or 3, in the back yard, is not realistic.


Again an excellent point. But what if you don't need all those yards by yourself? What if you could, with your friends, have a mini co-op? Haven't seen it done yet, but I've been recommending it for a while.




grozzie2 said:


> I've also read enough to realize, it likely will NOT work for me, with a single location and less than a dozen hives.


Not saying you will ultimately be proven correct or incorrect, but I did it in a single location with less than a dozen hives. The wonderful numbers I have today came after I figured out the secrets of increase. With a good method, (and enough hardware) there's no reason with healthy bees that you cannot triple or quadruple your numbers every year, at least here, I can't speak for there, and you probably won't get any honey during the process.




grozzie2 said:


> Another philosophy I've read a BUNCH about here, is the 'sustainable apiary', and that comes from Micheal Palmer. It's a completely different philosophy, that has losses built in and expected. It's a simple concept, if you want 50 hives in the spring, head into winter with 50 hives, and enough nucs to replace your losses. Essentially the concept of spares, and it's really no different than carrying a spare tire on a vehicle. Those of us that have spent enough time on back roads far enough out in the bush, understand, after a point, two spare tires is wise. It's no different with hives, if you expect lossses, and plan for them, then you will end up in a sustainable situation.


I don't see it as a a wholly separate philosophy. In fact, I took a few elements from MP (minus the nucs, nucs don't work here) and a few elements from other places and call it "Expansion Model Beekeeping." I want 24 hives, therefore at the end of the year I try to go in with more than that, or conversely, make increase next year to again surpass the goal. I sell nucs, so it's a bit of a different issue because I can keep the extras.




grozzie2 said:


> Applying all the knowledge I've gained from reading online, and using local numbers, I've formulated our own strategy for how we deal with our bees. Over the last few years, in our area, commercial keepers have been reporting losses on the order of 50%, some higher, some lower, but overall it's in that range. So, if we want to have 5 producing hives next spring, the obvious answer is, go into the fall with 10. Right now, I have 6 double deeps, and 4 nucs (2 high, five frames) in the back yard. This is following on the concept of sustainable thru spares.


That's as good a plan as I have seen.




grozzie2 said:


> We've done it all wrong, all along.


I wouldn't consider it all wrong. There's several things you mentioned (frames, boxes, etc.) which are simply personal preference. If you had done it "all wrong" they'd probably be "all dead." But as you can see, that is not the case. So instead of throwing the whole method out despite your success, I'd recommend a bit more deliberation.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Even a complete novice TF beekeeper can be successful right off the bat if they have just one resistant colony of Honeybees.

The most likely source for them to get that resistant colony is from a trap-out or a cutout of a feral colony.

That's going to become more likely as the 'hybrid swarm' of resistant ferals continues to increase.

All these folks really want is some organic honey of their own, and a hive or two from which they can get it sustainably.

How out of touch can you be?


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Saltybee said:


> But I do think that background resistance is not static for TF or treated. Fits and starts to be sure and definately not yet universal.


I'm sure that's right.

I was thinking this afternoon about the depth of the divide betwen treaters and non-treaters, and it occurred to me that one of the major division points is the length of time one has been keeping bees. Treaters generally have been keeping bees a lot longer than non-treaters, with a few notable exceptions, and of course this is an argument employed in all these threads-- "I've been doing it a lot longer than you, so I'm right and you're wrong." 

But what if... and bear with me here... mites are less virulent and/or bees are more resistant than they were 20 or 30 years ago, when these more experienced beekeepers were forming their philosophies in regard to management. Maybe back then, not treating was indeed a certain recipe for failure. And it's hard to change one's core beliefs, just because conditions have changed. When one is told, "All the stuff you've been doing the last three decades was wasted effort," no wonder hackles are raised.

Well, maybe it wasn't wasted effort back then. Look at Michael Bush's example. As a longtime nontreater, he lost all his bees when varroa first became a problem. But maybe things have changed enough now that with a little effort and wiliness, it is once again possible to raise bees successfully without poisons. 

The evidence suggests that it is.


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

Being conversant with traditional beekeeping and realistic enough to accept that a novice beekeeper who asks for advice of a very basic nature but exhibits an unwillingness to listen to advice they asked for will likely fail does not make one arrogant and out of touch, in my opinion. 
Referring to someone as "out of touch" even rhetorically , because they have different views does not advance ones argument or viewpoint , or reflect well on oneself 
May God Bless You


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Funny thing Mike, I wasn't referring to you. 

Mike, they just want some bees and honey. The rest is like the cartoon for what dogs hear when humans speak.

They want a 'Honey Machine'. You put the bees in the bottom boxes. Then, you take the honey out of the top boxes.

I don't think that they really want to spend a lot of time actually looking through the bottom boxes though. They most certainly don't want to figure out which treatments need to be used for what symptoms.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

r haldridge,
I "challenge" new swarms against DWV/mites annually in an isolated outyard. Yes, I have been keeping longer than the hipsters, but I approach the world based on evidence and trial, not on opinion fossilized from previous decades.

I think there may be a difference in scale. 3 or 4 carefully tended hives can be kept alive longer than an apiary of hundreds of double deeps on 4 way pallets. An epidemic of mites will start somewhere in the big apiary and spread to infect others. The Seeley research on great isolation between wild hives (and failure of wild bees to maintain resistance when brought into Langs) is likely instructive in this regard.

Michael Bush seems a humble, even-tempered soul. He is underestimating the influence his writings are having on the assumptions of the legions of novice keepers. His admonitions and prescriptions are treated as the gospel incarnate by the wanna-be keepers that come to me. I recommend they buy his book, but always with the reservation that the No-Treat-For-Anything is a cul-de-sac based on faulty understanding of genetics in an otherwise lifetime achievement.

If that were true of me (his fame), I would want to test my prescriptions in a controlled, repeatable, blind and unbiased trial, before I presented them as a pattern to be followed.

There must hundreds, if not thousands, of novice keepers that want to and are trying to keep bees the Bush way. It seems like it would be trivial to break these into some control groups and assign block treatment factors, and actually test if the assumptions (small cell, microbiota, local climate) play any role whatsoever, and if the Bush prescription can be transported from Nebraska to other climes. Can the Bush system be used by a new beek, without the skills learned in a lifetime? These are questions that can be tested. I don't see any serious effort to do so.


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

Funny thing is I agree with you completely - about what novice beekeepers want 
I just don't think they can have it without knowledge and experience
That's why I advocate that they do whatever it takes to keep their hive(s) alive...
until they know enough about bees and have experienced a few situations so they can make informed decisions about TF manipulations


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Of course, if I were selling bees, and someone wanted TF bees, I'd tell them that I'd have to special order "Honeybees untouched by human hands or chemicals".

If they leave a deposit, then I'd call the local guys who do trap-outs and cutouts.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

JWChesnut said:


> There must hundreds, if not thousands, of novice keepers that want to and are trying to keep bees the Bush way. It seems like it would be trivial to break these into some control groups and assign block treatment factors, and actually test if the assumptions (small cell, microbiota, local climate) play any role whatsoever, and if the Bush prescription can be transported from Nebraska to other climes. Can the Bush system be used by a new beek, without the skills learned in a lifetime? These are questions that can be tested. I don't see any serious effort to do so.


As I've said before, I wonder about that too. Why hasn't some ambitious young academic written up a grant to do that very thing? But the academic world seems to prefer to ignore the possibility that Bush is right. I can't understand why.

I'm guessing here, but I believe that Michael Bush models his writing after the writings of the great beekeepers of the past, like Langstroth, Miller, and Doolittle. They did not have access to academic testing, so could only report their own experiences and insights. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

There are a number of folks keeping TF bees.

Paul Mccarty would be a good example of someone hiving ferals successfully.

Now as to why JW is unsuccessful, who knows?

But, I do know that Paul's bees are actual hybrid swarm ferals. He's at a crossroads of a sort.


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

rhaldridge said:


> ....
> As long as your queens are open mated, it's hard to see how their resistance can vary much from the background resistance. But that just means that there must be other reasons why some beekeepers are able to be successful without treating. These successful beekeepers *do* exist, and their existence can't just be explained away. The fact that some novice beekeepers try this management approach and fail is largely irrelevant to the debate. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it..


Could not agree more. Unless the person has a drone breeding yard that is overwhelming the local colonies with massive numbers of drones. 

There are a lot of fast cars circling the track at NASCAR but a few folks seem to win more often. There are lots of hunters chasing whitetails in the fall but there are those that regularly take really nice bucks. There are a lot of other things where when you look at everyone, they are very similar, but there is someone that excels above the others in that endeavor. Hard to pick out why and often it is even tough for that person to say why they excel. 

This poor horse is getting beating well past ground meat.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>the No-Treat-For-Anything is a cul-de-sac based on faulty understanding of genetics in an otherwise lifetime achievement.

I have always said genetics is only useful for other issues than Varroa. I do not think the solution to Varroa is genetics. It certainly was not for me. 

As far as other issues, I know of no domestic animal that is constantly treated for everything that is as genetically as healthy under adverse conditions as their wild versions that have not. Controlling both sides of the genetics of bees is a pipe dream that is only achievable on a small scale with a lot of inputs and not a very impressive outcome. The reality is that bee biology is all stacked against you. However, if you accept that the wild population is already what you should be selecting for breeding bees gets much easier.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> Where are all these Varroa everyone keeps saying will kill my hives if I don't treat?


Apparently, they're out killing about 30% of the treated hives, and not your untreated ones.

(I'm not trying to say untreated hives are mite proof.
I'm pointing out that treating does not necessarily prevent one from having higher losses than in properly managed untreated hives)


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Feral hives did not survive Varroa investation, documentation backed research.

In 1990, before varroa became a serious problem, we conducted a study of the feral honey bee population of California. Samples of bees were collected from 208 feral colonies distributed widely in nest sites throughout the state. We failed to find any colonies infested with varroa (Kraus and Page 1995a). In 1993, we reinspected 124 of the original nest sites and the findings were alarming. Around Sacramento — an area with intensive commercial beekeeping — only 25% of the original nest sites still had colonies of bees living in them. All surviving colonies were infested with varroa. Honey bees nest in enclosed cavities that are usually not easily accessible. However, in some cases the inside of an empty nest was exposed and could be inspected. In every case, dead varroa were found in the bottom of the nest — the smoking gun. The surviving colonies were examined again the following spring (1994). Only one remained and it was heavily infested and unlikely to survive.
Regards,


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Right. They were annihilated.
But, they're back.
However, California isn't the best place to find resistant ferals for some obvious reasons.
!.5 million colonies for almond pollination can dilute any feral genetics to oblivion.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

BEES4U said:


> Feral hives did not survive Varroa investation, documentation backed research.
> ,


Dr. Seeley would like a word.

http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual31234


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Maybe you can find the link wherein he collected swarms from those bee trees and what the results were when he hived them.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

rhaldridge said:


> As I've said before, I wonder about that too. Why hasn't some ambitious young academic written up a grant to do that very thing? But the academic world seems to prefer to ignore the possibility that Bush is right. I can't understand why.


Maybe you missed this.
No point rehashing…you can read the thread….and, if you do a search you will find more like it.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...all-Cell-Studies&highlight=small+cell+studies


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I love that thread. That was a fantastic thread. I remember that thread every time Dan says he's done or quits or will stay out of it, and then doesn't. Seriously, I do. True story. Read the thread, you only need to go three pages.

There's really no proof that all ferals died out. It's trying to prove a negative. No one knows the locations of all feral hives and documented the fact that each of them were all dead at some point dead. There is however a fair bit of evidence demonstrating that feral populations survived, even if in decreased numbers. Logic dictates that they should. 

Finally, we see some snake oil. "Ferals died out, therefore what you're catching isn't really feral and won't do you any good, you might as well buy packages." Also "You don't know where that queen came from, she might be [diseased, swarmy, mean, etc.] you better buy a new commercially raised queen to replace her quick!"

I must question the accusation of this thread and use of the term "snake oil." Who is making their living on treatment-free bees and selling using deceptive practices? Who is even making their living on treatment-free bees on this forum? Selling honey doesn't count, that's not what this thread is about.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Who is even making their living on treatment-free bees on this forum?


Indeed! A very important point Sol. I'm glad you brought it up and not me......


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

So again, where's the snake oil? We have plenty of commercial beekeepers, pollinating, selling queens, packages, where's the snake oil?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> where's the snake oil?


Reread the original post. It isn't about ALL tf beekeepers...simply those who would sell 'resistant bees' to a newbie along with the idea that they needn't worry about mites.
Sol....it ain't always about you.


----------



## Tim Ives (May 28, 2013)

Solomon Parker said:


> Not saying you will ultimately be proven correct or incorrect, but I did it in a single location with less than a dozen hives. The wonderful numbers I have today came after I figured out the secrets of increase. With a good method, (and enough hardware) there's no reason with healthy bees that you cannot triple or quadruple your numbers every year, at least here, I can't speak for there, and you probably won't get any honey during the process.



Figured out the secrets of increase... 

No your not going to get much honey in the process. Two choices bees to make honey or honey to make bees. After a certain poiny you can do both. Half the population to make bees, half to make honey. It's all a numbers game.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Can you picture Sol as a salesman in a gift shop? shortest career ever.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> So again, where's the snake oil? We have plenty of commercial beekeepers, pollinating, selling queens, packages, where's the snake oil?


I think deliberately misleading novices in order to make a sale is a form of snake oil. Please note my carefully chosen words - deliberately misleading. I don't think the average beekeeper (TF or not) knows enough to deliberately mislead anyone. Spread ignorance? Yes. Sales is at times a contact sport - I don't think it ought to be but then again I'm a lousy salesperson.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

beemandan said:


> Sol....it ain't always about you.


You keep saying that, but you won't say who it _is_ about, since it is I who sell treatment-free bees to newbees.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> You keep saying that, but you won't say who it _is_ about, since it is I who sell treatment-free bees to newbees.


If you tell those newbies that those bees are mite resistant....and that they needn't give mites another thought....then I will happily include you.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

No, I advocate beekeeping, and advancement in knowledge and practice. And when I talk about people, I name names.

So what you're talking about is beehavers, novices who don't really keep bees, just have them. So I must point out that those bees die a lot, treatment or no.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

rhaldridge said:


> Dr. Seeley would like a word.
> 
> http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual31234


I read that report when it was 1st published.

Thanks,


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> No,


Therefore....as I've said already...more than once....it ain't always about you Sol.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

beemandan said:


> They all started from bees I got from a fellow who only keeps ferals…so they were resistant.





Solomon Parker said:


> Isn't the definition of snake oil a fraudulent cure?


For those who don’t care to wade through the entire thread…here’s the condensed version.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

beemandan said:


> it ain't always about you Sol.


Then who is it about? Enough weasel words.


----------



## Ennui (Jun 6, 2013)

beemandan said:


> Had a lady introduce herself at the farmer’s market yesterday. I am ….well was….a beekeeper. I started six hives last year and they all failed this year. I don’t know what happened to ‘em.
> Mites? asks I.
> Nope she says. They all started from bees I got from a fellow who only keeps ferals…so they were resistant.


This is nothing more than a troll post. It provides no information and asks for nothing. It is designed with no purpose other than creating an inflammatory "discussion". It's not even a very good one, but with 7+ pages of responses, it is successful. In many forums a post like this would simply get closed or ignored. From some of the responses I've read and look at past post history, this is not the first time the original poster has done this.

To bring in a commonly used phase from many forums. "Don't feed trolls"

My apologies to anyone I may have offended. My intent is just to describe a behavior which is common on larger forums and usually exists to some extent on most forums. A behavior which, I would guess, is not familiar to some here. It is not my intent to detract from your thoughts, posts or feelings.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Then who is it about? Enough weasel words.


Weasel words?
I thought I described it pretty clearly in this post.
Which part is giving you difficulty?


beemandan said:


> If you tell those newbies that those bees are mite resistant....and that they needn't give mites another thought....then I will happily include you.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Ennui said:


> To bring in a commonly used phase from many forums. "Don't feed trolls"


You are exactly right. I should know better.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Then who is it about? Enough weasel words.





Ennui said:


> This is nothing more than a troll post.


Weasel words.
Troll post.
This is hardly worthy of a reply but…..
I made my initial post in this thread after the described dialog….and following a similar dialog with a new beekeeper about a week earlier. I find those frustrating. Not all tf beeselling beekeepers are guilty of this sort of dishonesty. For all I know, the seller in this case may not have even really been a tf beekeeper. Whatever else he might be, he is also a scoundrel. And inexperienced beekeepers can be easy prey. And anybody so-doing is, in my opinion, selling snake oil.
And if that is somehow, in your opinions, a troll post or weasel words…so be it.


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

Why do things have to go down like this. 

The bottom line with the TF stuff is that you have to committ to being a better beekeeper. My wife says I have a personal relationship with them and know more about them than I do her. Good and bad in that I guess.

I would not classify myself as truly TF though. I do feed them and sometimes use natural methods to control disease - creosote bush smoke, caging queens, etc. I do use some minor essential oils in the feed on occasion. A true TF'er would not do that.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

It may or not be about product or philosophies of bee-having, but blindly selling bees w/o telling people what to watch out for seems to be the biggest folly here. When I bought my first hive the guy made it pretty clear what to watch out for....mites, and that I should treat for them if so inclined. I don't care if your bees are resistant (allegedly), because guess what can happen at anytime...???


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

JRG13 said:


> It may or not be about product or philosophies of bee-having, but blindly selling bees w/o telling people what to watch out for seems to be the biggest folly here.


I believe that new beekeepers should get a little slack in this sort of stuff. The part of this thread that most surprised me was that there are those who blamed the failure on the beekeeper...in essence absolving the shyster of any responsibility.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Paul McCarty said:


> The bottom line with the TF stuff is that you have to committ to being a better beekeeper...
> I would not classify myself as truly TF though. I do feed them and sometimes use natural methods to control disease - creosote bush smoke, caging queens, etc. I do use some minor essential oils in the feed on occasion. A true TF'er would not do that.


I like the 'commitment' statement.

Food grade products are O.K. in organic beekeeping. I have no problems using them despite the 'arbitrary rules' that have been imposed by some. I'll feed if needed, and I won't hesitate to keep a grease patty w/ peppermint essential oils on top of a hive.

As for medicinal smoke, I don't think that there are any rules against it's use as long as you have your honey supers off.

I recently gathered a bunch of dried juniper bark and leaves just in case.

It's cheaper than new bees, and I'm thankful to Les for that insight.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

So now it's all about the evil beekeeper who sold this poor little lamb her bees and told her she didn't need to treat?



> Had a lady introduce herself at the farmer’s market yesterday. I am ….well was….a beekeeper. I started six hives last year and they all failed this year. I don’t know what happened to ‘em.
> Mites? asks I.
> Nope she says. They all started from bees I got from a fellow who only keeps ferals…so they were resistant.


Where does she say that the seller told her not to treat? Where's the snake oil?

Ennui is correct. This is classic trolling, and I feel like a fool for not recognizing it. I've been participating in online forums since Fidonet was a thing (yes, kids, I'm very old) but I guess I just wanted to believe that beekeepers were better than the usual suspects.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Well, if you buy bees from any source, and they turn out to be 'Duds', then you have very little recourse.

In a way, it's all 'snake oil'.

So, I'm not sure why you think it only applies to TF beekeepers.

It applies equally across the board.

You simply have to get new bees from another source.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

rhaldridge said:


> Where does she say that the seller told her not to treat?


"so they were resistant." 

'Nuff said. I don't believe the OP was trolling but rather pointing out an all too common occurrence.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

R Haldridge,
Dismissing a concern as trolling is a cheap shot. The post gets at a core issue in popular beekeeping. On one side, there is tremendous frustration (viz Bee-L) at the "teachings" of some TF gurus. These guru's say they are no no longer concerned about Varroa, that their "system" defeats it. There are legions of wanna-be beekeepers that absorb this "teaching", and for those in *my state and region*, the result is pure and utter disappointment. Hipster's who learned how to grow tomatoes in compost want to try the next challenge and keep bees, and assume mites are like aphids on Brocolli, an irritant, but not a disaster.

It's pure mal-practice to promote a husbandry scheme, without submitting it to a fair test. Tell these folks to come to California and hive a swarm, and wait for the mites to pack up and leave, such as the Nebraska mites have been reported to do. Doesn't happen this decade, or last.

These "systems" are promoted by advocates on websites, FB groups, forums, presentations -- the effort expended promoting these faith-miracles is jaw-dropping. How does Solomon get any work done?

We want to teach others to keep bees (and I am very good at that). It's unfair to us to have to spend hours telling the earnest "believers","Well no, the mites are going to eat your lunch, they are going to build every month and in September the bees will start dying from DWV". They still won't listen, because the "guru's" never adjust their message, that yup, in some regions mites are virulent.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Well, we all know that hygienic bees can keep mite levels down.

But, as JW pointed out, it's the viruses that kill the bees (not the mites, per se).

However, there are Honeybees out there that are able to silence viruses using their RNAi molecular immune system.

So, it's not outside of the realm of probability that these virus resistant bees exist here in the U.S. .

They exist in Isreal.

Hunter found evidence for something similar here in the U.S. .


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

They do exist here, but people don't like those bees.


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

WLC said:


> Well, we all know that hygienic bees can keep mite levels down.
> 
> But, as JW pointed out, it's the viruses that kill the bees (not the mites, per se).
> 
> ...


May Wonders Never Cease!
I agree completely with every word of this post BUT...
In the world I live in and I believe the vast majority of the novices posting on BeeSource asking for advice about problems with their bees... the bees you refer to are not the ones we are dealing with.
To say "your bees are gonna die..." I just don't see as helpful or productive.
People with new bought package bees or packages a couple of months old are not immediately concerned with breeding better bees their concern TODAY is the bees they have.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

JWChesnut said:


> R Haldridge,
> Dismissing a concern as trolling is a cheap shot. The post gets at a core issue in popular beekeeping. On one side, there is tremendous frustration (viz Bee-L) at the "teachings" of some TF gurus. These guru's say they are no no longer concerned about Varroa, that their "system" defeats it. There are legions of wanna-be beekeepers that absorb this "teaching", and for those in *my state and region*, the result is pure and utter disappointment. Hipster's who learned how to grow tomatoes in compost want to try the next challenge and keep bees, and assume mites are like aphids on Brocolli, an irritant, but not a disaster.
> 
> It's pure mal-practice to promote a husbandry scheme, without submitting it to a fair test. Tell these folks to come to California and hive a swarm, and wait for the mites to pack up and leave, such as the Nebraska mites have been reported to do. Doesn't happen this decade, or last.
> ...


How do you manage that enormously broad brush? You must have to move it around on a forklift.

So, no successful treatment free beekeepers in California, huh?

How did you arrive at this scientific conclusion?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

R Haldridge,
I use a broad brush because I have become genuinely frustrated at the lack of responsibility demonstrated by the i'net guru promoting "miracles".
I can think of hundreds of hives dead in my my county alone in some mythical chase of "TF". The destruction these charlatans have wreaked is unbelievable.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

"Charlatans," I have to add that one to the list. That one's new.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

removed


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

What is wrong with complement? :scratch:



> *com·ple·ment*(k
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Note that this post is in response to _Beemandan'_s post #160 where he was apparently trying to suggest that "complement" was misspelled. Apparently he has changed his mind as his post has been edited/blanked.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

beemandan said:


> I suppose if it's deteriorated to the point that folks are gigging one another on spelling…..


What spelling?





beemandan said:


> Complement?


Yes. People keep telling me I'm a charlatan, a half truth telling, poison spreading, newbee ruiner, and then congratulate me on how I'm an excellent beekeeper because I can keep bees treatment-free. It's a very interesting dichotomy.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> What is wrong with complement? :scratch:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that this post is in response to _Beemandan'_s post #160 where he was apparently trying to suggest that "complement" was misspelled. Apparently he has changed his mind as his post has been edited/blanked.


Actually it wasn't that. I think the word he wanted was compliment. But my error was assuming that he was gigging someone else on spelling....which was not the case.

Sheesh! That post couldn't have been up more than a minute....and you guys had already caught it.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Sure, compliment. I'm not sure who's giggling at spelling.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*3. Grammar A word or words used to complete a predicate construction, especially the object or indirect object of a verb; for example, the phrase to eat ice cream in We like to eat ice cream.*

Yeah…..that’s what I was talking about.
Don't let it happen again.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

JWChesnut said:


> R Haldridge,
> I use a broad brush because I have become genuinely frustrated at the lack of responsibility demonstrated by the i'net guru promoting "miracles".
> I can think of hundreds of hives dead in my my county alone in some mythical chase of "TF". The destruction these charlatans have wreaked is unbelievable.


Well, okay, but I've seen pictures of tens of thousands of dead hives in California holding yards... hives that were treated.

Neither your gut feeling nor my picture is really evidence of anything other than the general poor health of many bee colonies.


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

I think there are quite a few out there who still do not understand the way to the future may be a smaller scale, less industrialized form of beekeeping. The profit may be less, but there will be a stronger product.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Paul McCarty said:


> there will be a stronger product.


Kinda like buckwheat honey?


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

I have never seen a package come with; Warning, instructions not included, if you are not experienced with the usage of this product seek competent advise.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Saltybee said:


> I have never seen a package come with;


Nor do they come with any promises of mite or any other sort of resistance.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beemandan said:


> I believe that new beekeepers should get a little slack in this sort of stuff. The part of this thread that most surprised me was that there are those who blamed the failure on the beekeeper...in essence absolving the shyster of any responsibility.


Why don't you concern yourself w/ something you have control over, yourself. The next time someone comes to you w/ what happened in the OP why don't you invite the person to learn something about beekeeping and take them to your beeyard and work some hives.

I think you have established your opinion of those who mislead others.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JWChesnut said:


> R Haldridge,
> Dismissing a concern as trolling is a cheap shot. The post gets at a core issue in popular beekeeping. On one side, there is tremendous frustration (viz Bee-L) at the "teachings" of some TF gurus. These guru's say they are no no longer concerned about Varroa, that their "system" defeats it. There are legions of wanna-be beekeepers that absorb this "teaching", and for those in *my state and region*, the result is pure and utter disappointment. Hipster's who learned how to grow tomatoes in compost want to try the next challenge and keep bees, and assume mites are like aphids on Brocolli, an irritant, but not a disaster.
> 
> It's pure mal-practice to promote a husbandry scheme, without submitting it to a fair test. Tell these folks to come to California and hive a swarm, and wait for the mites to pack up and leave, such as the Nebraska mites have been reported to do. Doesn't happen this decade, or last.
> ...


Do you suppose it possible that the seller of the bees in question told the buyer nothing more than where the bees came from or that they were offspring of feral stock and that the buyer assumed mite resistance because of preconceived notions? People tend to infuse things w/ characteristics not in evidence.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Paul McCarty said:


> I think there are quite a few out there who still do not understand the way to the future may be a smaller scale, less industrialized form of beekeeping. The profit may be less, but there will be a stronger product.


Could be, but some folks I know are growing not shrinking. I mean in colony count, not girth.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beemandan said:


> Nor do they come with any promises of mite or any other sort of resistance.


I sell bees from time to time. Nucs. I don't ask the buyer very many questions beyond how are you going to get them home and get the box back to me. I guess I should ask them more questions in light of this Thread.

I do answer whatever questions they might have. But most people who buy nucs from me know something about bees.


----------



## Tim Ives (May 28, 2013)

I set newbees up with full hive body splits. They put their new equipment on. Following spring, I'll show them how to make splits. I don't get paid for the bees unless they overwinter, 92% probability. I get my box back with bees and a newly mated queen from that area. 

This does several things for me, genetic diversity, not losing equipment,don't have to come up with so much new equipment each year and I get paid.

Plus I have a extra pair of enthusiastic eyes watching the hives.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

so the colony you get back has a daughter queen from the one you supplied that was mated with drones from that area?


----------



## Tim Ives (May 28, 2013)

squarepeg said:


> so the colony you get back has a daughter queen from the one you supplied that was mated with drones from that area?


Correct....


----------

