# Treatment Free Commercial Beekeepers?



## hpm08161947

It is an interesting question. I have never heard of any. Off the top of my head I would doubt that a commercial operation would last very long on TF..... too much mixing in with the other guy.... just to name one thing.


----------



## gmcharlie

The key might be defining commercial... I know lots of guys makeing a liveing on "treatment free" MB probably fits that... I know Dve burns and some others also... But large scale migratory or honey operations are different....


----------



## deknow

Off the top of my head....Dee lusby, Kirk Webster, Bob Brachmann, les crowder....Chris Baldwin is darn close (no varroa treatments). Sam comfort would probably qualify, but I'm not sure he would want to be considered a commercial anything.

Deknow


----------



## hpm08161947

I know we have been through this conversation before and if we look at all who make money from bees we can name several operations. As I read the OP... it sounded as if he was referring to operations like TK.... migratory, these are the kind that would really put TF beekeeping to the test. I -- myself -- was thinking of putting up a TF yard, but I could never get Solomon to donate the bees...


----------



## Roland

I earned the name "Crazy" because I predicted that ONLY commercial people would be treatment free in 20 years. My reasoning being because of the large capitol expense of building chambers to decontaminate the equipment on a yearly basis to prevent the spread of CCD. The small hobbiest will get tired of having their bees die every year, whether they treat or not, once they get CCD.

It is alot easier to pull off treatment free in a sedentary commercial operation than a migratory, although the critical point then becomes overwintering success.

We are risking the whole operation treatment free, but we are on the small end of commercial and have some resources not available to the average beekeeper(translation: good support equipment such as metal and wood working equipment, and methods from long ago).

Crazy Roland


----------



## StevenG

I don't know how many years its been since we had a variation of this conversation, and I asked because time has gone by. Then folks who went "treatment free" were considered nuts, to be kind (as "Crazy" Roland mentioned). But there have been more and more demonstrating that it can work and be cost effective. At least, as mentioned above, for the sedentary beekeepers. Obviously hobbiests and sideliners, with less invested and less to lose, have been more willing to try it. By less to lose I mean they won't starve or "lose the farm" if the bees fail, unlike commercials. 

B. Weaver, for one, touts their queens as able to turn around a hive. Other breeders might be making the same claim for their "treatment free" bees, I don't know. Thus it is conceivable that a migratory operation with one of their apiaries treatment free could withstand the mite pressure from a nearby "treated" operation. But hey! If a nearby operation is treated for mites, wouldn't that lessen the pressure on treatment free bees? I mean, both are dealing with mites, right? 

Perhaps I should have phrased my question focused on the migratory folks. But I imagine they'll be the last to test the theory in their operations, because of the perceived risk. And they may wait until some of their sedentary colleagues demonstrate honey harvest and winter survivability by using treatment free bees. Not being mercenary or anything, but believe me, I understand it all comes down to economics, and how the beekeeper will survive as a viable operation to make a living and support the family.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## beemandan

When discussing treatment vs untreated we tend to focus on survival. While that is one essential measurement it doesn’t tell the entire story. What are the sublethal effects of varroa? Generally speaking, in my opinion, it could all be lumped into colony vigor. I’ve recently read a number of posts from experienced, commercial beekeepers lamenting the fact that flowering plants no longer seem to produce the same amounts of honey. Yards that were once high yielding that no longer seem productive. How much of these losses could actually be attributed to varroa parasitization? For the larger commercial beekeeper, even with stationary yards, the risks are much greater than the easily measurable annual colony losses.
Just to add another perspective to this thread.


----------



## hpm08161947

I am pretty certain we will never see a migratory TF operation, but I think that a stationary TF operation could be profitable. People seem to be willing to pay a premium price for TF bees and I am sure Solomon is correct when he says people line up to buy his nucs.

I suspect that once you have established your TF bees that moving a different set of TF bees in with them or in close proximity could be a problem. In other words I wonder what would happen if I bought some Solomon nucs and some MB nucs and intermingled them in the same yard? Would they self-destruct? I hypothesize - yes..... unless of course Solomon's bees are derivatives of MB's, which I do not think they are....


----------



## deknow

Chris Baldwin is migratory. He gave up mite treatments several years ago (you should ask him directly for specifics) because "...it was the right thing to do." I believe he has had some EFB (perhaps "IADS ") and has used some TM at times. Again, for accurate specifics, ask him....he is migratory, and he does sometimes do almonds.

Deknow


----------



## Specialkayme

There was a commercial operator at EAS that was talking about how he went queenless. I'd have to look at my notes to remember his name, but he operated in GA mainly, and sold queens as a side income. His main income was from pollination, although I don't know how migratory he went.

He was talking about how the first few years he had massive losses from going treatment free, but now he's at the national average, or slightly under, of hives lost each year. And he doesn't have to pay for the treatments.

I was surprised to hear this. I tried treatment free twice before, and lost all my hives. I even tried treatment free queens, and they collapsed from mites. At least personally, currently to me "treatment free"="no longer a beekeeper." I'm certain some commercial operators will figure it out, and then make it more financially viable to the rest of the beekeeping sectors, but until that large operator who has a large enough gene pool can choose to sacrifice colonies _en masse_ to create a truly treatment free strain, then I don't really see it being successful and catching on. I hear others mention that it should start with the hobby beekeeper, as they have less to lose (i.e. not their livelihood), and I once agreed with them, but now I'm of the opinion that the hobby beekeeper doesn't have a large enough gene pool to truly select for DEPENDABLE resistance to varroa. As it's a multi gene effect, the true resistant strain should have hygienic traits, grooming traits, chewing traits, and resistance to virus traits, and the hobby beekeeper would only have access to one MAYBE two of these traits at best, while the commercial operator with 1,000 colonies has the best odds to hold colonies that possess three and maybe four of these traits, all be it in whatever random compilation. At least, all passing thoughts in my personal opinion.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

A bee that would stand up treatment free to the rigors of the common model for commercial honey producers/pollinators in the US would be most welcome, of course, but no one to my knowledge so far has been able to consistently pull it off. Practically speaking from the commercial point of view, I would think to carry the badge "treatment free" the results should be scalable, verifiable and duplicatable within a certain time frame. Anyone can get lucky on a small scale over a particularly favorable winter; consistent survivability over several seasons is a bit more difficult. 

When talking to some treatment free proponents, it appears to me that raising nucs to repopulate the dead outs is sometimes a major part of the survival strategy. I question if requeening and replacing the dead bees qualifies as "non treatment"? It might just be a matter of semantics, but we are really not all on the same page as to the definition. It is, as beemandan mentions, not just an issue of survivability, but a ratio of cost of treatment/ costs to replace dead bees/ loss of honey production etc. The perception of "right thing to do" is also a factor, but making a living to feed the kids is the right thing to do too.? 

Unfortunately, in my experience, there are no commercials who have successfully, over several years, been able to be treatment free and not had major crashes. 
Kudos top those working towards this goal. We all wish them luck.

Sheri


----------



## JRG13

I think part of the issue is migratory bees are not affected by regionality as they're moved all over. They get exposed to a lot of biotypes of pathogens, not just ones isolated to certain areas. A lot of TF success that people tout is to get local bees/queens, which works for non-migratory operations unless they're set up near migratory yards, but when regionality no longer plays a role it becomes a little more difficult. I think it's doable, but it will raise your costs overall I would assume, even with cutting costs on treating which makes for poor economics in the long run.


----------



## Solomon Parker

hpm08161947 said:


> People seem to be willing to pay a premium price for TF bees and I am sure Solomon is correct when he says people line up to buy his nucs.


The line is short, I will admit. There are relatively few within driving range.




hpm08161947 said:


> unless of course Solomon's bees are derivatives of MB's, which I do not think they are....


They are unrelated for as far back as I am aware of.




JohnK and Sheri said:


> When talking to some treatment free proponents, it appears to me that raising nucs to repopulate the dead outs is sometimes a major part of the survival strategy.


It is for some. See MDASplitter, etc. I have had one overwintering deadout in the last two winters. To me, the sorts of energy intensive manipulations like brood breaks and mass numbers of nucs are not evidence of a sustainable situation.




JohnK and Sheri said:


> Unfortunately, in my experience, there are no commercials who have successfully, over several years, been able to be treatment free and not had major crashes.


Major crashes are usually part of the process in my experience. "Treatment-free" is not something that is simply tried. It takes several years in my experience.

I am personally dubious at least for the time being that treatment-free migratory bees are possible. Bees did not evolve with much moving in mind. It is very stressful on them. My worst loss in my ten years of beekeeping came after moving my bees from Oregon to Arkansas. This is my experience, I really can't speak to anything else.


----------



## jdawdy

What percentage of large, treatment free operations are located in the arid Southwest or south Texas? I ask because in my area varroa is not a major problem. Perhaps the climate gives operations like Dee Lusby's a boost?


----------



## JRG13

You have a good point jdawdy, I wonder how much actual varroa pressure or lack of in certain areas contribute to success or lack thereof of TF keepers.


----------



## beemandan

Africanized bees tend to handle varroa. So…if you’re beekeeping in an area that is that is substantially Africanized, mites are less of a problem.


----------



## Mbeck

beemandan said:


> Africanized bees tend to handle varroa. So…if you’re beekeeping in an area that is that is substantially Africanized, mites are less of a problem.


That maybe true but ...
If you keep bees where Africanized bees are present mites have a longer season to increase.


Does that make it wash?


----------



## Barry

jdawdy said:


> Perhaps the climate gives operations like Dee Lusby's a boost?


I don't think it's the climate. When I looked through their hives, you could easily find mites. I think it has more to do with their bee genetics.


----------



## jim lyon

I would hope the goal of commercials would be to treat responsibly and for their product to be free of any detectable contaminant from any of their treatments. The goal of being treatment free by the Bee Source definition is no doubt of secondary importance to the commercial beekeepers that I know. It's a nice notion but I just don't see the incentive when there are so many good options for mite control.


----------



## beemandan

Mbeck said:


> Does that make it wash?


What?


----------



## DRUR

beemandan said:


> Africanized bees tend to handle varroa.


Only because they are survivors like most other treatment free bees. Africanized bees invaded a bee yard at the Weslaco Research Center [South Texas close to Mexico border], and took about 20 colonies [early 90's time frame]. All died of mites, but with larger sample, some being survivor then the survivors would survive and spread ther genetics. 

I have 2 colonies right now that are what I call Hyper Hygenic. They pull maybe 70% of the brood. I considered requeening but am hesitant to destroy their drone pool.

That being said, I will say that my nastiest bees handle the beetles best.

Also, I am small cell totally treatment free [except for screened bottoms] and no winter losses ever [3 winters now], except if you consider one that still has good population but no queen a loss. I did drop a frame of larva and eggs a couple of weeks back and there are now 2 queen cells with the bottoms cut out but no eggs yet.

Good friend that is large cell treatment free [except for essential oils] has 20-25% winter losses. Our genetics are from the same sources. But you might also check out my post #21 here: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?278949-Bees-up-and-left-a-hive-full-of-honey/page2&
with regard to my migratory efforts.

Kindest Regards
Danny Unger


----------



## The Honey Householder

I've been treatment free for over 10 years now. I know the way I do it doesn't count, but it sure keeps the package producers in business.:digging:


----------



## Barry

and sugar producers! :lookout:


----------



## Roland

Beemandan wrote:

I’ve recently read a number of posts from experienced, commercial beekeepers lamenting the fact that flowering plants no longer seem to produce the same amounts of honey. Yards that were once high yielding that no longer seem productive. How much of these losses could actually be attributed to varroa parasitization?

Guilty as charged. I have tested your theory, and do not believe it is true for me. Our bees still make honey, but not when and where they did in the past. Plants that never provided a flow in the past, have done so recently. Sweet clovers that never failed, have failed. If it was across the board, I would have to agree.

As for mites, the last inspector could not find any , but he did not look REAL hard. We strike drone brood, and see very little DWV or other tell tale signs. 

The key to treatment free beekeeping will be a higher value to treatment free honey. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> The key might be defining commercial... I know lots of guys makeing a liveing on "treatment free" MB probably fits that... I know Dve burns and some others also... But large scale migratory or honey operations are different....


Sorry, but, sideliner maybe, but not a commercial beekeeper from what I can see. But, you are correct. Depends on the definition.


----------



## beemandan

Roland said:


> Guilty as charged. I have tested your theory, and do not believe it is true for me.


Would you agree that the more heavily parasitized, the less vigor and the less vigor, the less honey produced regardless of the forage?


----------



## hpm08161947

beemandan said:


> Would you agree that the more heavily parasitized, the less vigor and the less vigor, the less honey produced regardless of the forage?


I think we can agree with that. The problem is when I have a very poor producing area or a big producing area I can nearly always come up with the reason why and it usually has to do with Botany.... not always, but nearly always.

Treatment Free honey yield VS Treatment honey yield, I would imagine that experiment has been done. Out in the field and on an appropriate scale I think it would be hard to carry out.


----------



## Solomon Parker

hpm08161947 said:


> Treatment Free honey yield VS Treatment honey yield, I would imagine that experiment has been done.


I would imagine it hasn't. But I could be wrong. Deknow can provide the details, I'm certain.


----------



## jim lyon

I have a warehouse full of honey that tests as clean as any "treatment free" honey. I have yet to find a buyer interested in those quantities that is willing to offer me a penny a pound more. So again, where is the incentive? What is the point?


----------



## hpm08161947

Solomon Parker said:


> I would imagine it hasn't. But I could be wrong. Deknow can provide the details, I'm certain.


No... on second thought I am sure you are correct - at least I would think it has never been done on the scale that it would take to convince me of it's accurateness. The trouble of assembling that large a number of TF and T hives from the same genetics and placing them in similar environments probably preclude the scientific method....


----------



## hpm08161947

jim lyon said:


> I have a warehouse full of honey that tests as clean as any "treatment free" honey. I have yet to find a buyer interested in those quantities that is willing to offer me a penny a pound more. So again, where is the incentive? What is the point?


How much do you spend on battling mites? And perhaps the labor to carry out that battle. Guess you could trash fumigillan too.....; Pretty big risks for small gains....


----------



## jim lyon

hpm08161947 said:


> How much do you spend on battling mites? And perhaps the labor to carry out that battle. Guess you could trash fumigillan too.....; Pretty big risks for small gains....


I havent used fumagillan in years. I spend about $1.25 per hive per year for a thymomite strip and a few cents for an oxalic dribble. However if you factor in the labor of a brood break via requeening all your bees.......


----------



## beemandan

hpm08161947 said:


> The problem is when I have a very poor producing area or a big producing area I can nearly always come up with the reason why and it usually has to do with Botany.... not always, but nearly always.


I'm not discounting weather, climate or even botany. Those are all factors. I'm only saying that, everything else being equal, heavily varroa infested colonies will likely produce less honey than those less parasitized. And, as a commercial beekeeper that and other additional losses of production should be taken into account above and beyond the survival numbers alone. This was my only point. The treatment/treatment free discussions tend to focus solely on relative survival rates....and I'm simply saying that it is more than that alone.


----------



## squarepeg

i was wondering jim, when you finish pollination and get into the requeening phase, i'm guessing you double or more your number of colonies.

do you just keep increasing, combine them later for pollination, sell bees...?


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> I have yet to find a buyer interested in those quantities that is willing to offer me a penny a pound more.


And if you were treatment free and could get ten cents a pound more (just making up numbers) but your hives produced 20 percent less (again made up number) because of it ...and ignoring any other differences...you'd still be in the hole.


----------



## jim lyon

Using your hypothetical yes I agree. That gets me back, though, to my basic point which is that if you can have good bees and honey that tests free of residues then what do I gain with the "mythical" title of being treatment free. 
Let me be clear. I send lots of samples out to lots of buyers with an accompanying letter telling them what we do and asking that they feel free to test the samples for proof. They appreciate that, they tell me they love my honey and they bid pretty much exactly what they bid to everyone else.


----------



## StevenG

Jim, I agree that for the commercial beekeeper, treatment free honey has no economic value over honey that comes from treated hives. The commercial beek is going to treat responsibly to avoid contaminating his honey and thus destroying his market if detected. My hypothesis is that the economic advantage that accrues to the commercial beekeeper is less cost involved in treatment free bees. No chemicals to buy, no additional equipment, no time and labor spent in treating. 

Having kept bees as a hobbiest in the 1970's and '80s, and for the last 8 years, I see no difference in honey production between my Starline hybrids back then, and my B. Weaver or Purvis bees now. In fact, apples to apples (similar pasture, similar colony strength, my bees today seem to have a slight edge on the ones back then. Now the caveat, I do not do any intentional brood breaks. I do let the colonies requeen themselves if something happens to the queen. 

My (limited) experience has been that the forage is not as good or widely available today compared to 30 years ago, and that has more impact on honey production than does my use of treatment free bees. 

I appreciate the replies from the various commercial folks here. My purpose in the initial question was to see where the commercials were, and to faciltiate sharing of information, either success or failure. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## jim lyon

We fill up the equipment we have and just keep making them bigger and bigger. If the bees come back from California as strong as I think they will I am not sure what we will do this year. Keep an eye on the for sale forum.


----------



## StevenG

It seems to me the key to going treatment free, especially for the commercial beekeeper, is not to reinvent the wheel, as it were. That could be very expensive and disastrous. The cheapest and easiest way to go treatment free is to requeen with treatment free queens in your regular requeening schedule, or use treatment free package bees when you replace losses with package bees.

So what bees are treatment free: 
Minnesota Hygenic bees - I have tried them, and found them lacking. They did not produce acceptable honey surpluses, nor did they survive.
Russians - did not produce acceptable surpluses.
Purvis bees - I split from these, they survived well, and produced good surpluses. By splitting, I mean when I sought to expand my operation by splits, I did walk-away splits to increase colony numbers. Sometimes I would introduce a new queen to the split.
B. Weaver bees - I split from these also, they survived well, and produced good surpluses. 
Feral swarms - I haven't had much luck from these, though I've not caught many.

When I have done my walk away splits, I have found that even third and fourth generation queens and their colonies still exhibit the same traits of honey production and survivability as the original queen.

There are others who advertise "treatment free" bees, but I've not used them. And the only "treatment" I use is a screened bottom board. That's it. Otherwise, I manage my colonies just as I did 30 years ago.

I may be crazy, but I still think some commercial beek is going to try one of these bees sooner or later in one of his yards, to see if it makes economic sense. We all know beekeeping is all about risk, and trying to balance the risk with the anticipated rewards.
Kindest regards,
Steven


----------



## jean-marc

I think the experiment of going treatment free in commercial beekeepers has been done in the past. Unfortunately I do not think those guys are around to tell how they made out. As Jim pointed there is absolutely no incentive to go treatment free. There are so many risks and perils in this business, why would anybody even contemplate trying? The risks are huge, the benefit almost non existent. I for one will wait until I see others having success going treament free before I would even consider it on 10% of the outfit. We, the beekeeping industry is in a situation were even low levels of varroa mites are vectorin viruses that take out your hives. Point being the so called low levels of 15 years past does not cut it today. 

Some have challenged Dee Lusby as to her "commercial" status. When pressed to give some generalities on her production she would not divulge. I doubt that it would be sustainable on a commercial level.

Jean-Marc


----------



## Specialkayme

StevenG said:


> It seems to me the key to going treatment free, especially for the commercial beekeeper, is not to reinvent the wheel, as it were.


With all do respect, I don't know if there is a wheel to reinvent. If you talk to 10 different, successful, long term treatment free beekeepers (and I'm talking more than one or two hives, as that doesn't denote an actual successful system in my book), you'll likely end up finding 9, or maybe even 10, different systems on how they do it.

Some use small cell
Some use large cell
Some use foundationless
Some rotate comb every 3 years
Some rotate comb every 5 years
Some don't rotate comb at all
Some promote the use of one particular queen
Some promote the use of another particular queen
Some promote the use of multiple different kinds of queens
Some promote the use of local (feral) queens
Some use screened bottom boards
Some use upper entrances
Some feed
Some don't feed
Some treat, softer and softer, until they claim they don't need to anymore
Some go cold turkey
Some have large losses
Some have complete losses
Some claim to never have noticed a difference in losses (although admittedly not many)
Some use brood breaks
Some use re-queening techniques
Some "just let bees be bees"
Some claim success based on genetics
Some claim success based on geographic location (isolation)
Some claim success based on techniques
Some don't claim success, and claim it's the bees doing what they do best
Some say you have to start with a treatment free hive
Some say you have to start with a treatment free nuc
Some say you have to start with a treatment free package
Some say you can place a treatment free queen in a mite ridden colony and they will survive
No-one appears to be the same

The list is not exclusive, of course, just meant to prove a point. I don't see a "right" way to go treatment free, or a "wrong" way (other than through treating, which has it's own definitional nightmare), or a "proven" way. Without having anything proven, how can we expect an industry to adopt it?


----------



## HarryVanderpool

jim lyon said:


> It's a nice notion but I just don't see the incentive when there are so many good options for mite control.


I'm in total agreement with Jim.
I would add that after all these years of practice, if beekeepers don't have a handle on managing mite populations, they are REALLY SLOW LEARNERS!
As for selecting queens for mite resistance:
Many of us are worried that some queen producers may be going way down the wrong road by taking their eye off of the aspects that really count such as productivity and gentleness and focusing soley on mite proof bees.
Give me good queens that keep us all in business and I will take care of mites.
But to answer the OP's quesstion:
No. I do not know one single (successful) commercial beekeeper that does not do their job as a good beekeeper and address mite populations.


----------



## squarepeg

got it, thanks jim!


----------



## Ian

If you do not treat for disease, you will not have any hives. Easy to practice that on 50, but not 1000


----------



## jim lyon

StevenG said:


> Jim, I agree that for the commercial beekeeper, treatment free honey has no economic value over honey that comes from treated hives. The commercial beek is going to treat responsibly to avoid contaminating his honey and thus destroying his market if detected. My hypothesis is that the economic advantage that accrues to the commercial beekeeper is less cost involved in treatment free bees. No chemicals to buy, no additional equipment, no time and labor spent in treating.
> 
> Having kept bees as a hobbiest in the 1970's and '80s, and for the last 8 years, I see no difference in honey production between my Starline hybrids back then, and my B. Weaver or Purvis bees now. In fact, apples to apples (similar pasture, similar colony strength, my bees today seem to have a slight edge on the ones back then. Now the caveat, I do not do any intentional brood breaks. I do let the colonies requeen themselves if something happens to the queen.
> 
> My (limited) experience has been that the forage is not as good or widely available today compared to 30 years ago, and that has more impact on honey production than does my use of treatment free bees.
> 
> I appreciate the replies from the various commercial folks here. My purpose in the initial question was to see where the commercials were, and to faciltiate sharing of information, either success or failure.
> Regards,
> Steven


Nice post Steven. Of all the treatment free testimonials I read on Beesource I always find Stevens experiences among the most intriguing. Keep us posted on how your bees are doing.


----------



## Roland

Jean-marc wrote:

why would anybody even contemplate trying?

A person would have to be "crazy" to go treatment free, but...... sometimes insanity has it's rewards. I am willing to bet that a person with a long family history of beekeeping(161 years) MIGHT just be able to sell their honey to the "carriage trade" at a much higher than average price. 

Beemandan:

I agree, heavily parisitized bees most likely would not be as productive as mite free bees, but I can not speak from experience. We can control mites, without SYNTHETIC chemicals, to a level that we believe is below the threshold of damage. Like I mentioned before, the inspector could not find any mites with a casual inspection.

And yes, we are on the small end of commercial, the 100 year average is around 1000 hives.

Crazy Roland
.


----------



## StevenG

Specialkayme, by "reinventing the wheel" I'm referring to beekeepers who believe they have to go cold turkey or develop their own treatment free bees, with the attendant risks. Such bees are already available.

The other concern I have, both for the hobby beek and the commercial, is that it seems every time a successful chemical treatment comes along, a few years later the mites have developed resistance. 

And believe me, I understand the difference between a guy like me seeking to manage 50 hives a year for several thousand dollars income to supplement my retirement, and the person who runs 1,000 or more and makes his entire living from the bees. I have learned so much from reading the commercial section of the forum, and appreciate your forbearance. I wonder though, if the fact that some of us who don't have our livelihoods at stake, and take risks the commercials cannot afford to take, if we by doing so and sharing information, are thus able to help you all out, maybe just a little bit. 

fwiw, I neglected my hives in 2012. Reasons are not important, I just supered when needed, ignored the rest of the time. No swarm management, nothing else. I ended the season with 28 hives. Harvested from 23, but the 28 hive average was 54.96 pounds, higher than the Missouri state average. I had 17 hives on a trailer, parked on the edge of a forested pasture of grass, with some clover. Then I moved that trailer to soybeans for 2-3 weeks. My top three producers: #1, clover, 95 pounds, soybeans 75 pounds, 170 total. #2 I split May 9, produced 105 pounds on soybeans. #3 21 pounds on clover, 154 on soybeans, 175 pounds total. All were headed by B. Weaver queens. It was all the bees, I neglected them. Had I been able to do what needed to be done, the rest of the colonies should have produced better. Just thought you might find it interesting. 
Kindest regards,
Steven


----------



## beemandan

Roland said:


> We can control mites, without SYNTHETIC chemicals,


I guess I'm not understanding. You do treat? but with non synthetic compounds?
And I would also agree that, as a smaller commercial, you could get a premium for tf honey. This is what I believe Dean does. As a honey packer, he pays extra for tf honey and has created a market for it.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

HarryVanderpool said:


> I would add that after all these years of practice, if beekeepers don't have a handle on managing mite populations, they are REALLY SLOW LEARNERS!


Well Harry, there is a good reason why we were short in the almonds this year & mites had a hand in that. I am always amazed at what they do.


----------



## Ian

>> if we by doing so and sharing information, are thus able to help you all out, maybe just a little bit. 

Hi Steven

I understand what you are saying, that kind of theme has gone through this forum many times before. Not that this kind of talk is not interesting, because it is, it that this kind of talk always leads to the same conclusion - no treatment, no bees. 

Dont think commercial beekeepers dont test the limits, because we all do, and learn from our lessons. My fall mite tolerance levels was once over 5%, I then adjusted that to under 5%, I then adjusted that to under 4%, now I try to manage my fall mite levels under 2%. 
Why you may ask? 
Because its not just the mite that is affecting our ability to raise bees. Four different viruses, higher levels of virus, nosema, higher pesticide exposure, pesticide residues and nutrition have all compounded our hive health problems making the varroa mite exponentially lethal. 

So, its not as simple as just not treating for mites, you have to consider all the other factors to the equation also


----------



## Specialkayme

StevenG said:


> Specialkayme, by "reinventing the wheel" I'm referring to beekeepers who believe they have to go cold turkey or develop their own treatment free bees, with the attendant risks. Such bees are already available.


Steven,
I understand your point, but I disagree with it. I'm not convinced that such bees are already available.

I've taken treatment free queens and placed them in treated hives, then stopped treatments. They still died from mites. I tried taking treatment free nucs and letting them do their thing, and they still died from mites.

Admittedly, I haven't tried BeeWeaver's queens yet. I have an order for them for this year, but I don't have much hope that my experiences will be any different this time around.

When I discussed my apparent failure with some successful beekeepers, and asked what I did wrong and how I could fix it, the general answer was "I don't know." Some pointed to a number of different suggestions on why it failed, including cell size and location. Ultimately one of the suggestions I was given was that the TF queens I had were not "used" to the area. So I needed to get local treatment free queens, which based on the information available to me are not available. So I was told to start my own, and select for resistance from what I have.

Which all gets me back to the same point. TF available bees don't work in my area. The only way I can make it work is to "guess" on how to make it work with cell size, management styles, and comb rotation, then to select from my own stocks. I don't see how that isn't reinventing the wheel. I don't see that there is a wheel that I can place in my apiary that won't fall off the wagon. I've tried.

Your area, your experiences may be different. But if location plays ANY roll in whether or not a queen can truly be TF or not, I don't see how a migratory operation can successfully be TF. I also don't see how there can be any type of repeatable or reputable source for TF bees on a national level.


----------



## Ian

just to be clear, when the term treatment free beekeeping is used, are you guys referring actual going treatment free as by definition, or just no chemical treatments for the mites? Huge difference between the two,


----------



## HarryVanderpool

Keith Jarrett said:


> I am always amazed at what they do.


Me too.
Oh wait, you were talking about beekeepers; right?


----------



## Keith Jarrett

HarryVanderpool said:


> you were talking about beekeepers; right?


Yeah know Harry I really am baffled, with so much at steak in the almonds with so much overhead to get the bees out here to Cali I am stunned the way they take care of there bees. I truely mean no disrepect to others that have fallen on hard times.


----------



## pedrocr

Ian said:


> Dont think commercial beekeepers dont test the limits, because we all do, and learn from our lessons. My fall mite tolerance levels was once over 5%, I then adjusted that to under 5%, I then adjusted that to under 4%, now I try to manage my fall mite levels under 2%.
> Why you may ask?
> Because its not just the mite that is affecting our ability to raise bees. Four different viruses, higher levels of virus, nosema, higher pesticide exposure, pesticide residues and nutrition have all compounded our hive health problems making the varroa mite exponentially lethal.
> 
> So, its not as simple as just not treating for mites, you have to consider all the other factors to the equation also


This is actually a very interesting observation that could suggest that we need to very quickly create a viable treatment-free bee. By treating we're putting a selective pressure on the mites to improve and are removing the selective pressure from the bees. You've had to step up your treatment regimen continuously because your bees are increasingly less tolerant to the mites/viruses, so it seems that the mites are getting the upper-hand.


----------



## jim lyon

pedrocr said:


> This is actually a very interesting observation that could suggest that we need to very quickly create a viable treatment-free bee. By treating we're putting a selective pressure on the mites to improve and are removing the selective pressure from the bees. You've had to step up your treatment regimen continuously because you're bees are increasingly less tolerant to the mites/viruses, so it seems that the mites are getting the upper-hand.


Resistance to mite treatments is always a concern, certainly varroa developed resistance to Coumaphous and Fluvalinate pretty quickly. Later mite treatments, though, seem to have held up with little resistance that I am aware of. Let's remember there are two dynamics at work here one is the resistance of mites to miticides but the other is the breeding of bees to better tolerate varroa. My own experience in recent years leads me to be optimistic that the bees are at the very least holding their own.


----------



## beemandan

Is it just me….or does it seem like this thread has taken a significant shift?
It started out as a query for commercial beekeepers who’re treatment free.


----------



## pedrocr

jim lyon said:


> Resistance to mite treatments is always a concern, certainly varroa developed resistance to Coumaphous and Fluvalinate pretty quickly. Later mite treatments, though, seem to have held up with little resistance that I am aware of. Let's remember there are two dynamics at work here one is the resistance of mites to miticides but the other is the breeding of bees to better tolerate varroa.


The risk is that by treating you're making it harder to breed bees that tolerate varroa because you're taking away that selective pressure. I suppose you could still maintaing some of the pressure by only breeding from the hives that need the least treatment.



jim lyon said:


> My own experience in recent years leads me to be optimistic that the bees are at the very least holding their own.


What I found interesting in the comment I was replying to was the progression of increasingly stricter controls for varroa, suggesting that the bees were losing the fight.


----------



## Ian

pedrocr said:


> This is actually a very interesting observation that could suggest that we need to very quickly create a viable treatment-free bee. By treating we're putting a selective pressure on the mites to improve and are removing the selective pressure from the bees. You've had to step up your treatment regimen continuously because you're bees are increasingly less tolerant to the mites/viruses, so it seems that the mites are getting the upper-hand.


its not in the mites best interest to harbor and vector a virus which will kill off their hive, 
instead what I am seeing is the introduction of the virus to the equation which complicates the whole bee/mite balance.


----------



## Ian

pedrocr said:


> What I found interesting in the comment I was replying to was the progression of increasingly stricter controls for varroa, suggesting that the bees were losing the fight.


dead hives are also a lost fight


----------



## Ian

pedrocr said:


> quickly create a viable treatment-free bee. By treating we're putting a selective pressure on the mites


As speaking specifically to treatment free, your implying solely to the mites and treatments related to mites

what about the rest of the list of treatments ?


----------



## sqkcrk

Been hanging back for a while before jumping in. Here's a question. Why do you keep bees? For your sake or thiers?

Are we supposed to sacricfice the good for the perfect?


----------



## Roland

Way back, I believe it was Ian that said:

no treatment, no bees. 

I agree. If you do not do something to counter the mites, their chances of survival is small. StevenG has one approach. I have not been impressed with the honey production or gentleness of the Minn. hygienic, so rather choose to try to select a hygenic bee from a productive stock, than try to select a productive bee from a hygienic stock.

We do treat our bees with numerous mechanical, and "generally considered safe" chemicals(the kind you find in the food store) . We do NOT use synthetic chemicals. It is more work, and more expensive. 

I have been n contact with several of the so called "treatment free honey buyers", and none of them have put their money where their mouth is.

Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk

If you can't get a premium price for a specialty product, what's the point?


----------



## jean-marc

That was my point earlier. Lots of risk ,no reward. Not even an incentive . I guess so much for the "carriage trade".

Jean-Marc


----------



## Ian

there is nothing natural about beekeeping yet we pretend it is
other than we natually need to eat


----------



## Specialkayme

Ian said:


> there is nothing natural about beekeeping yet we pretend it is


And you are welcome to go the complete natural way by hunting down feral colonies, climbing trees with smokers in hand and harvesting their honey.

Other than that, modern day beekeeping is the closest thing to "natural" that is possible to still achieve the desired end product.


----------



## deknow

This not being the treatment free Forum, it seems that some bees are being treated with treatments that are not treatments? I cant speak for anyone but myself.....but if you are treating your bees and claiming treatment free, dont expect me to buy your honey as treatment free. 
At the moment, We are well.stocked with honey.

Deknow


----------



## Daniel Y

Ian said:


> there is nothing natural about beekeeping yet we pretend it is
> other than we natually need to eat


I don't know of any other animal husbandry that discusses "Natural" to the degree I see in beekeeping. Even gardening calls it Organic which is just another way to tend to something unnaturally. In fact every type of animal I have kept. On a large scale which means 100 plus individuals I have kept. dogs, rabbits, hogs, cattle. and on a small scale the list gets way to long. It is well known that the keeping of the animal introduces health problems of it's own. These health issue woudl not exist if the animal was not being kept. One of the more obvious examples woudl be infectious diseases and the impact they can have. An infectious disease in an enclosed heavily populated area will spread like wild fire. so much so it case cause extinction where disease woudl have little impact on a natural population. Real life example was the loss of 400 out of 700 rabbits in 90 days. You don't keep rabbits naturally and keep many rabbits.

Keep bees leave the natural to mother nature. she is far better at it than you will ever know. Plus she has a hideous survival rate anyway.


----------



## Ian

ya, why do we figure we can keep bees without controlling disease ? Let nature loose in an un natural setting.


----------



## Ian

Specialkayme said:


> And you are welcome to go the complete natural way by hunting down feral colonies, climbing trees with smokers in hand and harvesting their honey.
> 
> Other than that, modern day beekeeping is the closest thing to "natural" that is possible to still achieve the desired end product.


There is nothing about modern day beekeeping that is natural, why pretend it is?
Let me also pretend that growing my 3000 acres of wheat is also "closest thing to "natural" that is possible to still achieve the desired end product"


----------



## Ian

Roland said:


> We do treat our bees with numerous mechanical, and "generally considered safe" chemicals(the kind you find in the food store) . We do NOT use synthetic chemicals. It is more work, and more expensive.
> 
> Crazy Roland


You see, right there, read what Crazy Roland said, he is right on the money! He is not claiming treatment free, nor is he claiming to keep his bees natural, but he doesnt want to treat with chemical mite treatments and ACTUALLY works his commercial apiary accordingly. 

Because thats what this conversation is all about, right, not using chemical mite treatment ,.? Why are we framing the whole issue around treatment free beekeeping?
Treatment free beekeeping is great, but not at all possible in the commercial sense


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> You see, right there, read what Crazy Roland said, he is right on the money! He is not claiming treatment free, nor is he claiming to keep his bees natural, but he doesnt want to treat with chemical mite treatments and ACTUALLY works his commercial apiary accordingly.
> 
> Because thats what this conversation is all about, right, not using chemical mite treatment ,.? Why are we framing the whole issue around treatment free beekeeping?
> Treatment free beekeeping is great, but not at all possible in the commercial sense


...but Roland also says:


> I have been n contact with several of the so called "treatment free honey buyers", and none of them have put their money where their mouth is.


As a bonafide "treatment free honey buyer", I think it is only fair to point out that he is not offering treatment free honey....and seems to be complaining that he can't find a buyer to pay a premium for it as treatment free honey. I do put my money where my mouth is.

If you want a standard that promotes "non-chemical" treatments...have at it. If you want to pay a premium for such honey...have at it. If you want me to change my own (well established and consistent) standards you are not going to get very far.

deknow


----------



## Specialkayme

Ian said:


> There is nothing about modern day beekeeping that is natural, why pretend it is?


Who's pretending?

Natural is a relative term. One can be more natural in their management practices than another. Does that mean that either of them are natural? Probably not, but one can be more natural than the other.

I think the greater question is, why do you care? If "natural" beekeepers, or those who claim to be, don't sell their honey for prices greater than you do, it doesn't affect your bottom line. They are selling their product for the same thing you are. I don't see how their attitude of their own management practices, or what they label it, in the least affects you.

If I grew wheat, and I said my wheat seeds came straight from god himself and it's the greatest wheat on the planet, if it doesn't increase my wheat sales and thereby doesn't decrease my competitor's wheat sales, who are my competitors to judge me? It's an issue between the buyers and the sellers (and perhaps the federal government in "truth in advertising" or "fraud" cases), but it has nothing to do with disinterested third parties.


----------



## Ian

>> I also don't see how there can be any type of repeatable or reputable source for TF bees on a national level.

We agree on the same level,

The way I see beekeepers throw around the term natural is what I dont agree with. There is nothing natural about it.


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> The way I see beekeepers throw around the term natural is what I dont agree with. There is nothing natural about it.


Ian, can you be more specific? I think it would be helpful. As the topic of the thread (I didn't start it or title it) is "treatment free commercial beekeepers", it seems to be that is the topic. We market honey from treatment free operations....we make no claims about "natural". Given that I am the only "buyer of treatment free honey" being discussed here, and that we don't "throw around the term natural" in our online writings, on our website, in our presentations, in our marketing literature, or in our book...this can hardly apply to us.

In my presentations, I do talk about "the natural model" as something to look at in contrast to "replacement beekeeping" (like Dee does), and "expansion beekeeping" (as Kirk does). The most important aspect of "the natural model" (one in which there is no beekeeper) is that, by definition, there is no surplus. Beekeeping is about changing some variables (mostly modifying cavity space...mostly above the brood nest) so that there is a surplus. 

First, add a beekeeper to the equation. Second, manage the hive in such a way as to allow yourself to harvest honey. The devil is in the details of course, and the customer has the right to spend their money support whatever practices and standards they please.

deknow


----------



## deknow

I pasted these right out of my last presentation:

[wrt different models of beekeeping...this is the "natural model"]
Nature:
Smaller Colonies
Foundationless Comb w/ Original Broodnest Intact and “Unexpanded”
Plenty of drones
Prolific Reproduction
Hard Selection to the Environment…Boom And Bust
Hives Rarely Breached
Does Not Produce A Surplus

[wrt "The beekeeper's sleight-of-hand"...manipulations to produce honey]
The “Incredible Expanding Cavity” Trick
The Classic “Damaged Nest [above our heads] Needs Repairing _Before_ We Can Afford To Swarm” Con

These Two Concepts Are What Define Modern Beekeeping. These Two Concepts Are The Foundation of All Movable Comb Management Practice.
===================================

I understand that beekeeping isn't "natural". I strive to keep bees (and to support beekeepers) whose practices are the most supportive of the wildness still left in the bee...the ability to thrive on their own. This includes _not_ messing with a complex microbial culture(s). This includes selecting for traits that allow the bees to survive better (be it Dee's walk away splits, Kirk's closed population breeding program, Bob's participation in the formal Russian breeding program, or our own smaller experiment). This includes selecting for traits and management practices that avoid feeding _over_ maximizing honey production.

I'm not critical of what others do...I understand the reasons. You should hear me when we've been invited to do an intro talk for Queen of the Sun talking about how the vast, vast majority of the produce in this country is pollinated by beekeepers of the scale being (rather) vilified in the film they were about to see....and that changing that whole system of farming (and land ownership) probably looks roughly like "Mad Max"....if/when this all changes, I don't think anyone will be dancing in the streets...I think it will be because of some great calamity (famine, nuclear holocaust, plague, alien invasion, etc).

I just think it should be done differently....and I think that enough that we practice what we preach, and we've done our best to come up with a way to move this all forward. We got into this business _because_ we saw such good honey being wasted in blending...not because we were looking to start a honey business.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Specialkayme said:


> And you are welcome to go the complete natural way by hunting down feral colonies,


When you use the term "feral", do you mean invasive European Honeybees?


----------



## Specialkayme

Good point Mark. Allow me to amend my statement:

"And you are welcome to go the complete natural way by moving to Europe and hunting down feral colonies, climbing trees with smokers in hand and harvesting their honey."


----------



## sqkcrk

European Honeybees are Livestock. Livestock brought here along w/ other animals and plants not readily found here in North America in the 17th Century. So, it is proper for us to treat our bees as others treat their cattle and pigs and rabbits and horses, as livestock. As livestock, it is our responsibilty to care for them as best we can for mutual benefit. As far as keeping of bees on a Commercial Level is concerned.


----------



## Ian

I agree


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> We market honey from treatment free operations....we make no claims about "natural". Given that I am the only "buyer of treatment free honey" being discussed here, and that we don't "throw around the term natural" in our online writings, on our website, in our presentations, in our marketing literature, or in our book...this can hardly apply to us.


thats great


----------



## Roland

Deknow, you where not the buyer I had in mind.

Crazy Roland


----------



## StevenG

I don't know about you, but I think this has been/is a good discussion! opcorn:

As they say, all beekeeping is local, and perhaps that's one reason why the migratory beekeeper has such difficulty - they're not really "local." They must be able to cope with several different localities, each with it's attendant opportunities and difficulties.

Most of us understand that the mites are vectors for disease. Personally one of the things I look for when examining a hive, and esp. the entrance, is deformed wings. To me that is indicative something serious is going on inside my hive. My other concern is the build-up of chemicals inside the hive. 

I suspected commercial beekeepers were trying many different routes to mite control, in addition to chemicals. Some (many?) of you are using mechanical means, instead of or in addition to chemicals. A couple of you have referenced the "o p" and "treatment free", but I don't care if you want to take this off in a tangent dealing with other issues related to mite control, and how to best do it successfully.

The thread has revealed at least one (Specialkayme, but I don't know if he's commercial or sideliner) has experimented with TF bees/queens, without success. (I really hope the B. Weaver trial works for you this year! - keep us posted?).
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Specialkayme

StevenG said:


> The thread has revealed at least one (Specialkayme, but I don't know if he's commercial or sideliner) has experimented with TF bees/queens, without success. (I really hope the B. Weaver trial works for you this year! - keep us posted?).


I can't claim to be either. 

I got up to 29 TF hives in 2011, and was getting ready to cross that line into sideliner. They were TF for 5 years. Not all the same genetics, obviously. Not all in the same location either. Then I suffered a 100% loss. I started spring of 2012 with zero hives. Bought some hives, bought some nucs, split HEAVILY, caught some swarms, was at 15 at the peak of last summer, but had a rough fall/winter. Still heading toward that sideliner goal, but not able to do it without the assistance of treatments.

Sorry if I misled. Just interested in a lively discussion


----------



## Ian

StevenG said:


> Most of us understand that the mites are vectors for disease. Personally one of the things I look for when examining a hive, and esp. the entrance, is deformed wings.


That is probably the biggest issue with varroa right now, the viruses un predictability really throws a wrench into our assessments


----------



## hpm08161947

StevenG said:


> I don't know about you, but I think this has been/is a good discussion! opcorn:
> 
> Steven


Yes, I would agree. The thread is one of the better ones I have read in my time on Beesource. It may need to be preserved.


----------



## StevenG

Here's another question to toss into the treatment free mix:
And I'm asking, because I'm seeking to learn.

If the end result of any anti-mite program is to enable the bees to survive the mites and thrive, producing surplus honey, etc... why would "treatment free" colonies in close proximity to "treated" bees increase the danger or risk to either? 

I understand that mites "migrate" sometimes hitching a ride on bees to flowers, and catching a ride to another colony on a different bee. Perhaps by flying? Also by robbing I'm guessing. So isn't there also a risk among treated hives in close proximity? 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## beemandan

StevenG said:


> Most of us understand that the mites are vectors for disease.


To my thinking the vectored diseases are part of the equation. Another biggie, in my opinion, is the new mites feeding on pupating bees. By the time the bee emerges it has already been heavily parasitized resulting in a shorter lifespan, less vigor and increased susceptibility to every other disease and parasite. Add to that the parasitism by phoretic mites, further sapping the life from the colony. Mites are the major enemy for so many reasons.


----------



## beemandan

StevenG said:


> . why would "treatment free" colonies in close proximity to "treated" bees increase the danger or risk to either?


The menace is varroa infested, failing hives. Once they reach a certain point, every other colony in the neighborhood will have robbers collecting honey and varroa from the collapsing one. It depends on which side of the fence you are on. The tf folks probably think they are at greater risk and the conventional folks feel the same. The reality, I suppose, is whichever is most likely to have varroa infested, failing hives is adding risk to the other..


----------



## Ian

StevenG said:


> Here's another question to toss into the treatment free mix:
> 
> 
> I understand that mites "migrate" sometimes hitching a ride on bees to flowers, and catching a ride to another colony on a different bee. Perhaps by flying? Also by robbing I'm guessing. So isn't there also a risk among treated hives in close proximity?
> Regards,
> Steven


Not so much that way Steven, its when the hive crashes due to the mites where bees from out lying areas seek out that hive and rob it of its resources. That is where the mite transfer is done,


----------



## hpm08161947

If we go onto a Blueberry farm that we are the only pollinators, we come out smelling good. If we go onto a Blueberry farm with multiple pollinators we come out smelling bad. I doubt TF bees are any worse than the others, they are just different and most likely have antigens that my bees do not have antibodies for...... or at least that is the latest theory I have concocted.


----------



## cg3

hpm08161947 said:


> If we go onto a Blueberry farm that we are the only pollinators, we come out smelling good. If we go onto a Blueberry farm with multiple pollinators we come out smelling bad.


Do you have any control over this, maybe at negotiations?


----------



## hpm08161947

cg3 said:


> Do you have any control over this, maybe at negotiations?



To a degree. Many farms are too large for us to cover all of it - or even get close and quite a few blue berry farmers like to have multiple beekeepers since the feel one may be weak and another strong.... I doubt there is much to this thinking but it is quite common. Plus the farms are generally so close together....


----------



## jim lyon

StevenG said:


> Here's another question to toss into the treatment free mix:
> And I'm asking, because I'm seeking to learn.
> 
> If the end result of any anti-mite program is to enable the bees to survive the mites and thrive, producing surplus honey, etc... why would "treatment free" colonies in close proximity to "treated" bees increase the danger or risk to either?
> 
> I understand that mites "migrate" sometimes hitching a ride on bees to flowers, and catching a ride to another colony on a different bee. Perhaps by flying? Also by robbing I'm guessing. So isn't there also a risk among treated hives in close proximity?
> Regards,
> Steven


Glad others have found this thread enlightening. 
I presume the primary method of spread is via robbing only because it seems to make sense. Here is one thing I do know for sure. When varroa first impacted us in the early 90's it impacted all other beekeepers around us within a year. It seemed to hit so hard and so fast that we didn't really know what had happened or how to diagnose it. I assumed it would be something a bit more subtle and manageable like trachael mites. At that time we were still wintering most of our bees and so the almost instantaneous spread seems like it could only bee a result of robbing by nearby yards. 
One more point that I would like to make is that if there were a way to run just a yard treatment free I might well do that as I would be curious to see the results myself. The problem in a migratory operation, though, is that no group of bees really stays segregated. They are all hauled into holding yards, transported, and relocated into much larger winter holding yards and.....well you get the picture. I could mark select untreated hives but then that wouldn't really be a fair test either with all of the commingling nor would leaving some up north be a fair test. So I really just wouldn't know how to go about it.


----------



## StevenG

Excellent points, Beemandan and Ian. I do recall reading about that kind of robbing transfer, as hinted at in my last post. 
And based on reports "from the field" we know that both treated, and treatment free hives, succum to the mites. So then is the problem more in the skill and ability (and luck??) of the beekeeper, and less in treated or treatment free bees? 

The reason why I mention this is that a few of us TF beeks, myself included, have lost minimal (under 20%) hives each year. In my case, the losses were due to starvation, queen failure, or absconding. The one hive I had with a serious case of dwv pulled out of it, and survived to thrive. I understand that mites could have weakened the colonies, but still, my losses have been very low, generally 6-15%. 

From the postings on this page, it seems rather obvious that migrator beekeeping/pollination services places serious stresses and pressures on the bees, that does not occur with stationary beekeeping.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## StevenG

Jim, that's kinda my point... What if we assume that a "treatment free" bee deals with varroa and survives, and a treated hive survives, why can't one assume (yes, I know about assumptions ) that each is equally able to handle the pressures of exposure in holding yards or areas to be pollinated? Assuming the treated and treatment free hive each leaves their home base healthy. I'm just thinking out loud...

In fact, after I move, and make some money this summer from honey sales, I might be tempted to offer to buy 5 or 6 tf queens for a commercial migratory beek to try in his operation, just to see. But then, my cost of the queen doesn't fairly compare to his cost in lost production if the hive crashes... sigh...
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Ian

Steven, look at www.saskatraz.com
this breeding project runs much along the lines of what you were originally asking about

It does not follow "treatment free" management. But I do know they manage their yards without any varroa control of any kind


----------



## beemandan

StevenG said:


> The reason why I mention this is that a few of us TF beeks, myself included, have lost minimal (under 20%) hives each year.


I believe that I've stated in the past that, in my opinion, survival is only one measure of success.
When I read peoples’ posts who state:


I don’t test for varroa
I don’t treat for varroa
Varroa aren’t a problem in my bees.
I then believe that they aren’t objective enough for me to engage in a dialog comparing tf/conventional beekeeping. Do these three statements apply to you? If so, I apologize but I don't think we can have a meaningful dialog on the subject.
Regards
Dan Harris


----------



## pedrocr

beemandan said:


> I then believe that they aren’t objective enough for me to engage in a dialog comparing tf/conventional beekeeping.


Care to explain why?


----------



## Roland

If we are to look at thi from a militaristic view, as if we are at war with the mites, we would look for it's inherent weakness. I believe it to be inbreeding. Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the breeding all occur inside the capped cell? If so, then as the gene pool becomes more "local" over time, I suspect we are seeing more inbred mites that are less viral. This supported by the results of the experiment on that Danish island, where the hives died back , then leveled off at a sparse level. They had inbred. Mr. Borst speaks of bringing in a feral survivor hive into a commercial apiary, and having it immediately collapse. Again, the survivor had inbred mites, and when they crossed with the commercial mites, hybrid vigor resumed.

How does this tie in? If the first apiary(possibly TF) has adapted(inbred) mites, and the second apiary begins to collapse, that is far, but not too far,those mites brought back back by the robbers will have a compound effect. Not only will there be an increase in the number of mites in the first yard, but in a sort time the vigor of the offspring will will increase when two mites, one from each apiary are in a cell, and the son of a mite from the first apiary mates with the daughter from the second apiary and vise verse(sp?). 

Did any of that make sense?

Crazy Roland


----------



## Ian

thats crazy enough it did make sense

but thats just Crazy Roland talk


----------



## davo

Roland said:


> If we are to look at thi from a militaristic view, as if we are at war with the mites, we would look for it's inherent weakness. I believe it to be inbreeding.
> Crazy Roland


Assuming mite inbreeding is a significant factor in how effectively they kill honeybees, and I think it's plausible, the only way I can see to exploit that weakness would be to stop all migratory beekeeping. That's not plausible.


----------



## beemandan

pedrocr said:


> Care to explain why?


I am a bit embarrassed to use percentages as I only run around 200 hives. Year over year, last year I lost 30. If I looked subjectively I could easily claim that none were varroa related……but of any that were tested for mites early in the season I could have predicted most of which would collapse.
I would even go so far as to modify my list.
It you claim:


I don’t test for mites
Mites aren’t a problem in my bees.
We don’t have much to discuss because you really don’t have any idea how big of an issue varroa are in your bees.

This thread started as, what appeared, an honest question about who commercially was running any treatment free hives. It has now broken down into the well worn tf vs conventional arguments. I’m betting that every last tf beekeeper who has entered the discussion is maintaining less than 50 hives. There’s a message in there, I’m thinkin’.
Best to ya
Dan


----------



## Daniel Y

Dan, The above post appears to be a claim by you that you are saying 
Mites aren’t a problem in my bees. Yet that is one of the two statement you woudl use to disqualify someone from a conversation about mites. Unless of source the two must go together. "I don't have problems with mites so I don't test for mites".


----------



## hpm08161947

I think Dan is saying that there is a certain critical mass of hives that one needs in order to establish the necessity of treating. I tend to agree and I am not looking down my nose at people with a small number of hives as some of the most knowledgeable beekeepers I know have less than 50 hives.


----------



## JSL

This has been an enjoyable thread.

Roland, your analogy is in line with the thinking of other researchers. Mites do not appear to suffer from inbreeding depression the way we look at it in honey bees. If we substitute “virulence” in place of inbreeding your concept fits with the work of others, such as Tom Seeley. He studied feral colonies that were surviving and asked the question of whether it was due to increased resistance on the part of the honey bees, or lower virulence on the part of the mites. His results suggest it may be lower virulence by the mites. 

If I may jump to another analogy like a virus, maybe this will be easier for me to explain. If a virus infects an individual and there are lots of other individuals around (think high population density like commercial beekeeping) then it works for the virus to be virulent and kill the host quickly because it will quickly come in contact and be passed on to the next host. But if virus is virulent and kills the host quickly in a low density situation like most hobbyist beekeepers experience then perhaps the virus dies out with the individual before it ever comes in contact with another potential host. Varroa may be acting in a similar manner as you suggest. Varroa is subject to selection too.

I still think Varroa and everything associated with it present the greatest risk to commercial beekeepers. I have not treated my population the last several years, but I worked up to it gradually. I lost bees while treating and lose more without treatment. However, I have adjusted and am able to rebuild numbers quickly. For me it is a management choice to place greater selection pressure on the lines. I do not claim Varroa resistance by any stretch, but I am able to test and evaluate lines under constant Varroa loads. My lines then go into commercial operations where they are subjected to Varroa and other stresses. It is hard to advocate for treatment free in commercial setting when I see what it is like in my operation, but to each their own.

Joe


----------



## beemandan

Daniel Y said:


> Dan, The above post appears to be a claim by you that you are saying
> Mites aren’t a problem in my bees.


Maybe I need to go back and read my post as that wouldn't be at all what I wanted to say. What I believe is that mites are a problem in everyones' bees...mine included. And regardless of the failure symptoms, if you look objectively, I believe you will see that mites entered into almost every collapse to some degree.
I am certainly not looking down my nose at small beekeepers. I'm one myself. My point about the tf posters is that everyone claiming success at tf in this thread is not keeping bees on a commercial level. There is a reason the commercial folks treat for mites....and it isn't because they want to support Bayer.


----------



## beemandan

Daniel Y said:


> Dan, The above post appears to be a claim by you that you are saying
> Mites aren’t a problem in my bees.


Maybe the confusing word is 'subjectively'. I said that I could look at my failures subjectively and claim that none were varroa related. But...if I looked * objectively *every one has varroa as a major element. Does that clarify it.
Gotta go...got some of my bees in the trees already....sheeesh.


----------



## jim lyon

At the risk of drifting even further off topic, it should be pointed out that, though the vast majority of varroa are a result of inbreeding, as populations increase in a hive, though, that may not always be the case. Given that fact, is it too much of a stretch to wonder if higher numbers of hives might lead to a higher probability of cross breeding in mites which are then rapidly spread via robbing?


----------



## StevenG

beemandan said:


> I believe that I've stated in the past that, in my opinion, survival is only one measure of success.
> When I read peoples’ posts who state:
> 
> 
> I don’t test for varroa
> I don’t treat for varroa
> Varroa aren’t a problem in my bees.
> I then believe that they aren’t objective enough for me to engage in a dialog comparing tf/conventional beekeeping. Do these three statements apply to you? If so, I apologize but I don't think we can have a meaningful dialog on the subject.
> Regards
> Dan Harris


Hi Dan! Guilty as charged!  With this caveat: I have always maintained that my bees have varroa, but they seem to be able to handle the mite problem. Now, I don't test for varroa, because in my case and my operation it would be a waste of time for these reasons: I know the mites are there, after all, doesn't everyone have them to some degree or another? And I know (by surviving) that my bees take care of the problem. 

I've never said "my way or the highway." What I have said, and continue to maintain, is that "this is what I do, and so far it seems to be working. Might it work for you?" I judge the success of my bees by two criteria: surviving, and producing a surplus crop that is at least as large as the Missouri state average, but preferably larger. My bees aren't in the best pasture, but it works. 

I also maintain it starts with the bee. That is why I've tried several different strains, and will continue to experiment. Now, the nice thing about people like me who have smaller operations is that we can afford (I can't, but I'm willing to) to take losses that commercial beeks cannot afford to take. I spent a year reading about bees and mites and all before restarting in beekeeping. That's why I bought the bees I bought. At first I thought B. Weaver's ad was a bit of hype, but so far, it works for me. 

And that is why I've wondered if a commercial operator has tested these "treatment free bees" in a part of their operation. Because we may never really know their true value until put to the ultimate test, which is a migratory commercial operation. I hope I do not come across as being judgmental or close minded re; the commercial folks, because I do understand their pain and frustration. Each year your whole livelihood is on the line. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## StevenG

Roland expressed a hypothesis here that I've read elsewhere, about the inbreeding of the mites which reduces their virulence. If I understand him correctly. Others have speculated that the bees and mites develop a balance, a symbiotic relationship. It does no value to the survival of the mite to kill off the host too quickly. 

Is that balance attained (apparently) in local areas then upset by the influx of new mites via migratory beekeeping or robbing or when one buys a package of bees to replace deadouts, for example? 

So then, looking at it from a national perspective, that symbiotic balance between the bee and the mite may never be attained. Seems to me the reality is that the mite is here to stay - we'll never get rid of it. So how do we get bees that can live with the mite and still thrive? Or is such a thing possible? Personallly I think it is, but time will tell. 

And that's why I asked the original question. From the postings, it appears there are a few (very few) commercial beeks who are beginning to work with "treatment free bees" on an experimental basis. 

Last year I picked up some B. Weaver queens from a man in St. Peters, MO, who was a drop-off point for a large shipment into the area from B. Weaver. Just think of the genetics getting into the area as swarms issue from those hives. Am I wrong in assuming that we will all benefit? 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Specialkayme

Roland said:


> If we are to look at thi from a militaristic view, as if we are at war with the mites, we would look for it's inherent weakness. I believe it to be inbreeding. Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the breeding all occur inside the capped cell? If so, then as the gene pool becomes more "local" over time, I suspect we are seeing more inbred mites that are less viral.


Didn't the varroa mite fist live on an island in the south pacific?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...=X&gbv=2&tbm=isch&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CCoQrQMwAA

I would think if it didn't inbreed itself to death on an island initially, it won't here.


----------



## Michael Bush

> I don’t test for mites
> Mites aren’t a problem in my bees.
>We don’t have much to discuss because you really don’t have any idea how big of an issue varroa are in your bees.

Sure I do. I know how big of an issue they used to be. I lost all my hives several times. Once I wasn't losing them to Varroa and Varroa were hard to find, why would I keep counting Varroa?

Now I always look to see what my losses are about and they USED to be from Varroa. Why would I keep monitoring Varroa when they haven't been an issue for me for a decade? I have better things to do with my time.


----------



## beeman2009

Beemandan,

I read your post and feel you have given a lot of thought to this, more so than most perhaps, but you made an interesting statement that I have a question about; " I am certainly not looking down my nose at small beekeepers. I'm one myself. My point about the tf posters is that everyone claiming success at tf in this thread is not keeping bees on a commercial level. There is a reason the commercial folks treat for mites....and it isn't because they want to support Bayer "

Now I'm not looking to pick a fight or to offend anyone,  but WHY does the fact that one keeps bees as a hobby or commerically for a living have anything to do with varroa? Bees nor varroa know if they are in a commerical or hobbist bee yard. If I have 2 hives and lose 1, and you have 100 hives and lose 50, we both lost 50% of our hives. So again, why discount one's input just because he has less than fifty hives? 

Like I said, just honest curiosty? :scratch:


----------



## RAK

This thread started with asking of any commercial who don't treat. If you are not commercial then keep your opinion to yourself! I dont know of any commercials who dont treat in some shape or form. You wont have strong spring populations for spring pollination if you dont treat mites. Even with russians.


----------



## Michael Bush

"I consider counting mites as a way of evaluating Varroa resistance to be fraught with all sorts of shortcomings and difficulties. It's very time consuming and hence the size of the apiary, the number of colonies tested, the gene pool, and the income available all start to shrink. It's also very easy for the results to be skewed by mites migrating from other colonies or bee yards. And it doesn't show which colonies are more resistant to secondary infections--a trait I consider very important."--Kirk Webster


----------



## Ian

If I close my eyes hard enough, and long enough, I cant see the problem, so if I cant see it, there must be no problem


----------



## Ian

sooooo, 

I say I cant keep my hives alive with varroa levels over 3-5%

others say varroa is not an issue in their hives to the extent that they dont even monitor levels anymore, but they know they still have the mite in their hives,

what can we make of this? am I missing something or are they not recognizing something ?


----------



## Ian

the only thing I know for certain is that everyone stands strongly behind their convictions


----------



## sqkcrk

beemandan said:


> Maybe the confusing word is 'subjectively'. I said that I could look at my failures subjectively and claim that none were varroa related. But...if I looked *objectively *every one has varroa as a major element. Does that clarify it.
> Gotta go...got some of my bees in the trees already....sheeesh.


Would you please send that nectar flow North. Nothing much coming in here in SC.


----------



## squarepeg

Ian said:


> the only thing I know for certain is that everyone stands strongly behind their convictions


 now that's more truth than poetry ian.

what time of year is the 3-5% rate detrimental, and do you still have it this high sometimes despite treatment?


----------



## sqkcrk

Ian said:


> the only thing I know for certain is that everyone stands strongly behind their convictions


Oh, I don't know about that. I'm just dealing w/ life as it is for me.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Oops, nevermind!

After I posted I realized that I might be wrong  and revised the post. But Mark was too fast for me.


The bulk of SC is to the east of GA. But since the border does not run north-south and runs at an angle, there is a _portion _of SC that is north of a portion of GA.


----------



## sqkcrk

All I know is GA is South of SC. But thanks.


----------



## Ian

squarepeg said:


> now that's more truth than poetry ian.
> 
> what time of year is the 3-5% rate detrimental, and do you still have it this high sometimes despite treatment?


oh, ya, thats a fall time mite level, my spring is under 1%


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> Oh, I don't know about that. I'm just dealing w/ life as it is for me.


as am I, you cant say it isnt fun though talking about this kinda stuff, . ?


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> Would you please send that nectar flow North. Nothing much coming in here in SC.


It hardly qualifies as a nectar flow here...just a few of the bees jumping the gun.


----------



## squarepeg

Ian said:


> oh, ya, thats a fall time mite level, my spring is under 1%



thanks ian. do you have some stubborn hives that are still that high after treatments in the fall, and are you saying that it's pretty certain they won't make it through 'til spring?


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> "I consider counting mites as a way of evaluating Varroa resistance to be fraught with all sorts of shortcomings and difficulties. --Kirk Webster


You see...that's only one part of my list. The other is....'Mites aren't a problem in my hives'....and I bet ya twenty bucks that Kirk Webster will readily admit that mites are a problem in his hives.
If ya don't count but acknowledge it's a problem....then I say fine.


----------



## sqkcrk

Ian said:


> as am I, you cant say it isnt fun though talking about this kinda stuff, . ?


Check my Post total for the answer.


----------



## squarepeg

mark, it's just now starting here in northeast alabama. i'll bet you'll see some this weekend when the temps get up there.


----------



## beemandan

beeman2009 said:


> WHY does the fact that one keeps bees as a hobby or commerically for a living have anything to do with varroa?


This is an excellent question!
The truth, in my opinion, is that size of the operation doesn’t have anything to do with varroa. It has to do with objectivity. 
Commercial beekeepers depend on their bees for their living. To be successful they must not allow themselves to be directed by hopes or desires but by practicality. They are pragmatists. They look at the evidence objectively and act accordingly. 
The backyard beekeeper often so badly wants his bees to survive varroa without treatments that he may allow his hope to interfere with his objectivity. 
Michael Bush quoted Kirk Webster about not counting mites. But I’m quite certain that Kirk Webster is a pragmatist….and that he doesn’t need to count mites to know they’re a problem. I do random mite testing…but even without I know they are the most serious problem my bees have.
We see, every day, posts from new beekeepers who’ve had their hives collapse. And, nearly without exception, when they list their suspected culprits….they fail to mention the most likely. Why do you suppose that might be?


----------



## Ian

squarepeg said:


> thanks ian. do you have some stubborn hives that are still that high after treatments in the fall, and are you saying that it's pretty certain they won't make it through 'til spring?


I usually only treat once, and I treat during the spring. maybe an Oxalic somewhere in there also

but to your question, yes and no, there is no real answer to that question, because it all depends on the viral loads in the hives and that is an unknown. If the mites bring low levels of viral infections, then 5% is a breese, but if the mites are loaded with virus, looks like under 2%ish is what we need. 
It seems as if the viral loads over the last few years has been consistantly heavy

Couple of years ago, when this particular area had operators seeing heavy losses through winter, I had put my hives in with a 4% load, Got kicked with a 35% loss that winter. I treated with Apivar that spring, and it turned my hives condition right around. through my rounds I had forgot two hives just because that what happens sometimes, one big hive and one medium strength hive. 
When I got back to them a couple of weeks later, the big hive had crashed and was crawling with DFV and the medium strength hive was completely dead. The rest of the yard was booming.

my mite counts are my operational average counts. I treat on a operation stand point. I use to treat by the yard but my treatment schedule got to confusing from year to year as I moved my hives in and around. I can not get away without a treatment at least once a year


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> Check my Post total for the answer.


no doubt !


----------



## squarepeg

understood ian. thanks for taking the time to explain.


----------



## Ian

no prob squarepeg, if that is your real name,.?

like how your so objective !


----------



## festus

Ian when in the spring do you treat


----------



## Ian

We get them out of the shed by end of March beginning of April, I try to have my treatment in within that week of them out so that the treatment is done by the time I make my split round in May
I find Apivar works best when the bees are active, I find the bees more active during the spring then in the fall. Cool fall weather can stop the treatment time.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

Ian said:


> the only thing I know for certain is that everyone stands strongly behind their convictions


Real beekeepers, that are results oriented do.
Sadly, there are those that only feel comfortable doing right by there bees only when no one is looking.
BUT WAIT!! They don't treat; they dont treat!!!


----------



## Roland

Mr. Lyon wrote:

is it too much of a stretch to wonder if higher numbers of hives might lead to a higher probability of cross breeding in mites which are then rapidly spread via robbing?

And there we have the answer to the commercial vs/ hobbiest attitudes. The larger gene pool of the commercial operator allows the mite to maintain it's virility. 

Beemandan - for reference, we peaked around 420 hives last summer. Still rebuilding from CCD in 2006. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## jean-marc

We treat our bees in the spring like Ian. One advantage is that now populations are at their lowest, so one can use less strips of apivar. The makers of Apivar recommend 1 strip for every 5 frames of bees. In our case most of our hives fall in the range of 5 -10 frames of bees, whereas if we treated in the fall we would have to use 4 strips per hive. Now we can treat with 1 or 2 strips. Most hives have the bees in the top box so no need to crack hives to place strips in the bottom box. I think the varroa are more susceptible to the treatment seeing that they are older after spending the winter on the adult bees. They have not been reproducing seeing as how there is no brood. If bees are indeed in the top box there is little chance that the varroa can crawl back up to a bee. There is limited activity in our hives. The weather is a little cool and wet here. In Ian's neighbourhood it is downright hostile. Bees may not fly for the next 2-4 weeks on account of the cold weather.

Viruses are the issue now. They are in all the bees now. They just need a chance to grow and varroa provides them with that opportunity.

Jean-Marc


----------



## beemandan

As has been pointed out, inbreeding is the norm in varroa. Regardless of the size of the operation, varroa do cross breed regularly though. Tom Seeley, I believe, advanced the idea of less virulent mites after finding some heavily infested feral colonies that appeared to be surviving in spite of it.
In my opinion, even if mites became less virulent beekeepers who make their living from bees would still have to treat. The colonies that Seeley found did appear to be surviving but the mite loads were heavy all the same. And in the world of commercial beekeeping survival is not enough. Those mites are parasites. They will still parasitize developing bees, adult bees and vector disease. They will still sap the colony’s vigor, just not enough for a full collapse. A commercial beekeeper with 5000 surviving colonies that produce half the surplus or cannot build up well enough for pollination…that beekeeper is going to have to find another way to make his living.


----------



## beemandan

There are two lines of thinking about natural varroa control, in my opinion.
The first is honey bee genetics. Find or breed a bee that will somehow keep varroa populations low…at the same time keeping the desirable qualities i.e. honey production, gentle demeanor etc. Russians and the various hygienics are examples of those attempts. One of the reasons that we haven’t seen greater acceptance of ‘new’ breeds of bees within commercial operations is that they have gotten the reputation for falling short in some of those other important areas. 
The other natural control concept is to ‘breed’ a less virulent mite. At this juncture, I don’t see a practical way.
But…if we could breed a productive, workable, varroa tolerant bee AND a less virulent mite…..then we might have something!


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> At this juncture, I don’t see a practical way.


Yes, letting the virulent ones kill of their host hives and thus themselves by not treating is highly impractical for the average commercial beekeeper, I would wager.

How many commercial beekeepers raise their own queens? I find raising one's own queens to be essential in treatment-free beekeeping.


----------



## jim lyon

Solomon Parker said:


> How many commercial beekeepers raise their own queens? I find raising one's own queens to be essential in treatment-free beekeeping.


I would hazard a guess of at least half and that is assuming that you are counting those that are buying cells but still relying on their own drones. I am always a bit hesitant about bringing too much in the way of new genetics into the outfit in a given year because we are pretty happy with the way our bees seem to have adapted to our scaled down treatments. We have added VSH stock from Glenn in the past and will continue that with some of the other good treatment free breeders out there. You don't have to look hard here on Beesource to find some.


----------



## beeman2009

Beemandan,

I think you make an excellent point. One's objective/goals will greatly influence the decisions that one makes. I disagree with the fact that a backyard beekeeper can afford to close his eyes to reality anymore than a commercial beekeeper can. The end result will be dead hives & loss of money for both, obliviously on a much larger scale for the commercial beekeeper. And yes, varroa is, for most, the largest issue they have to deal with. I say most because SHB are my worst problem. I won't bother to say anything about mites because you wouldn't believe me anyway.

You made another statement; " We see, every day, posts from new beekeepers who’ve had their hives collapse. And, nearly without exception, when they list their suspected culprits….they fail to mention the most likely. Why do you suppose that might be? " I think the answer to that question lies in your own words, NEW. That one single word tells me that the loss of those hives were due to multiple mistakes and yes I would agree that varroa will most of the time come into play. This is because they are not be properly trained to spot & deal with these issues. And again there also lies the problem. No agreement between beekeepers as to how to spot & deal with problems. As I see it, it the " ACCEPTED " beekeeping practices that have helped create the problems we all face regardless what level we keep bees on.


----------



## beemandan

beeman2009 said:


> I disagree with the fact that a backyard beekeeper can afford to close his eyes to reality anymore than a commercial beekeeper can. The end result will be dead hives & loss of money for both, obliviously on a much larger scale for the commercial beekeeper.


Without getting argumentative I will also disagree. When a backyard beekeeper loses hives to varroa, it may have a small impact on the household budget. With a commercial beekeeper, large scale varroa losses will be financially devastating.....like if your job disappeared tomorrow. I cannot even begin to compare the two situations.

The further south you go...the more serious shb become. I see that you are in TN....which means that I am south of you. I understand small hive beetles.

If you told me that you tested for varroa in a recognized formal fashion...then I would believe whatever you told me about your varroa. If you tell me that they aren't a problem for you and you don't do any testing...I'll believe that you have no idea.

Good luck


----------



## jim lyon

It is important to point out that if you want to truly get bees that have some level of resistance to mites the breeder needs to get actual mite counts by pulling pupae and doing systematic counts. That takes some degree of patience and pain staking work. Good nreeders do that. We recently screened 80 of our own hives as potential breeders via ether rolls. 77 were negative. Do those hives have mites? Heck yes they do but with so much open brood it's really hard to get a handle on what the true mite numbers are. Any claims by beekeepers that mites aren't a problem for them need to be asked how and when are you testing.


----------



## beemandan

beeman2009 said:


> This is because they are not be properly trained to spot & deal with these issues.


Again, I may disagree. I sometimes reply to new beekeeper's posts about their losses when they describe classic varroa collapse. I specifically ask if they tested or treated for varroa....and for the most part their replies indicate an understanding. Are there some that truly don't know or understand? Sure. But for the most part....they know....in my opinion from my observations.


----------



## beeman2009

Beemandan,

Thanks for your well wishes and I wish the same for you. I think that it may be safe to say that we don't completely agree, and don't completely disagree. It is clear that we both have a passion for beekeeping and that we both are truly concerned about the future of beekeeping. As to varroa testing, I do test using sticky boards, powder sugar rolls, and ether rolls. I am always open to suggestions from others because I am the type who never stops learning.

Best to you & yours.


----------



## squarepeg

very nice exchange here, and very imformative. thanks to all for contributing.

just a sideliner here, starting my fourth season, and have not treated for mites (yet).

after starting with treatment free bees, and having zero losses the first three winters, i lost 6 out of 18 this winter. a heavy mite infestation was identified in one, while queen failure (perhaps brought on by mites) appears to have been the problem in the other five.

as a beginner, i did find it overwhelming (in a good way) at first. there was so much to learn and do that i simply put testing for mites on the backburner. after buying treatment free bees and experiencing no losses i was lulled into complacency toward mites.

i will definitely be testing all of the hives this year, and will try to use that information to help decide which queens to graft from, which hives to requeen, and which hives to dequeen and split up into mating nucs.

i am trying to make a profit with the sideline, but i don't mind experimenting to see if i can propagate a line of bees that can coexist with mites off treatments.

if it is not possible to keep my losses to a minimum, i will consider using a fall treatment, most likely an organic acid.


----------



## cg3

squarepeg said:


> starting my fourth season, and have not treated for mites (yet).
> 
> after starting with treatment free bees, and having zero losses the first three winters, i lost 6 out of 18 this winter.


Well, that's pretty much my story, too. Same numbers- but I DID treat.


----------



## sqkcrk

Early days yet. I haven't treated yet either. Some time after splits are made and soon before colonies go North for apple pollination.

 And before someone corrects my sense of direction, NY is North of here. lol


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> How many commercial beekeepers raise their own queens?


Few.


----------



## cg3

sqkcrk said:


> And before someone corrects my sense of direction, NY is North of here. lol


I sense, from the confusion, that you are still in Colorado.:no:


----------



## sqkcrk

Er, no. SC.


----------



## cg3

Confusion is legal in CO.


----------



## Gino45

p counting Varroa?

Now I always look to see what my losses are about and they USED to be from Varroa. Why would I keep monitoring Varroa when they haven't been an issue for me for a decade? I have better things to do with my time.[/QUOTE]

Michael, I appreciate the efforts you have made in the name of treatment free beekeeping and I admire the success which you have achieved while being treatment free.

You other guys, give it at least 5 years of treatment free success, imo, before bragging about it too much.

I don't 'count' my mites either; however, I do sometimes take pieces of drone cell larvae and break them open too see how 'prevalent' the mites are. No count, just observe. I just had an unusual experience when I found lots of what was apparently chalkbrood in some drones and few mites. What I usually see is mites! And if I see a lot of mites I will tear out some drones (natural cell).

So Michael, I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to break open a piece of drone comb or 2 this year so you can tell us your mite observations (lots, some, few, none), as I remain curious while knowing full well that if I went treatment free................................................it would be bad.

H


----------



## Solomon Parker

I've been at this ten years. 

...and I've seen Michael Bush's drone brood.:lpf:


----------



## jim lyon

squarepeg said:


> i will definitely be testing all of the hives this year, and will try to use that information to help decide which queens to graft from, which hives to requeen, and which hives to dequeen and split up into mating nucs.
> 
> i am trying to make a profit with the sideline, but i don't mind experimenting to see if i can propagate a line of bees that can coexist with mites off treatments.
> 
> if it is not possible to keep my losses to a minimum, i will consider using a fall treatment, most likely an organic acid.


That's a really good perspective. Mites invariably build up as the season progresses. To refuse to use the simple safe and effective tools that we know work has just never made much sense to me. The key is always the timing of the treatment more than the number of treatments.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

jim lyon said:


> The key is always the timing .


Well said, Jim


----------



## Michael Bush

>So Michael, I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to break open a piece of drone comb or 2 this year so you can tell us your mite observations (lots, some, few, none)

The bee inspector does this on a few of my hives every year and here are his results for the last nine years:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm


----------



## squarepeg

michael, did you have any winter losses this year?


----------



## jim lyon

Do you feel such visual inspections in the spring are a true indication of whether you might have mite related problems in the fall?


----------



## Solomon Parker

If hives aren't dying, what does it matter?


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> If hives aren't dying, what does it matter?


It isn't that MB's colonies don't fail....it is that he insists that NONE of the failures are related to varroa.
And he also doesn't to ANY testing. 
It is a broad claim without any objective evidence.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> If hives aren't dying, what does it matter?


i am very interested in knowing what the infestation rates are in operations like yours and michaels.

it would tell us what levels are possible when it comes to equilibrium and coexistance, and give us a benchmark to work toward.

for the hives that have died, it would be interesting to see if the levels exceeded that benchmark.

it would be even more interesting if survival did not correlate with infestation rate.

beyond survival, it would be interesting to know if production is affected by infestation rate, as has been suggested here.

i understand that given your approach, the answers to these questions are irrelevant, and you have indicated your lack of desire to pursue testing... 

but i think the information could advance the beekeeping community's general understanding of the issue and help us all with our management decisions.


----------



## Solomon Parker

From what I've seen, I'd suggest that most of his failures are due to lids blowing off in the middle of winter, pesticide use by farmers, and other beekeepers messing with his hives.

The scale that you guys predict and insist should happen just doesn't.

That's why I keep feeling like I have to get involved in these conversations. It's a bunch of conjecture, talking about things no one is done and all sorts of wild predictions saying that it can't. No, there are no migratory commercial beekeepers. So nobody should be commenting because nobody has done it? That's the most consistent logic I can see in this conversation. You want to discuss treatment-free commercial beekeeping, discuss with with people who do it. And believe what they say! And don't discount anybody's experience because they don't run as many hives as you do. *Nobody* fits the subject of the thread, so you can't exclude anyone from participating because they only fit half. There is no 'Sideliner' forum. There are a bunch of treatment-free sideliners.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> it would be even more interesting if survival did not correlate with infestation rate.


I lost 0 hives this winter, and 1 the last winter. Either you believe me and it correlates, or you don't believe me and it doesn't correlate. I have more hives that starve to death in summer. Four, last summer, if you're wondering.



squarepeg said:


> and you have indicated your lack of desire to pursue testing...


No one takes my word for it. Why would they take my numbers? They won't even accept Mike's documented inspection results at face value.

It's not going to help me, no one will believe it, and it won't make a difference. Where is the upside? Like I have said before. Write the check and I'll do it. It's gonna have to have an upside.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> It's a bunch of conjecture,


Conjecture? Like this?


Solomon Parker said:


> From what I've seen, I'd suggest that most of his failures are due to lids blowing off in the middle of winter, pesticide use by farmers, and other beekeepers messing with his hives.


----------



## squarepeg

i'll take your word for it sol, as i do michael's

face value doesn't tell the tale, as is evidenced by the numerous testimonies here on beesource of hives collapsing with no obvious visual indication of mites. short of an alcohol wash or something comparable it's not possible to know.

sorry, i can't pay you to do it, but it would be priceless to know what the % infestion rate was last summer in your 23/23 surviving colonies. (awesome success by the way )

i see folks trying to get past the differences here, do you think we can?


----------



## beemandan

Solomon, I don’t believe I have ever questioned the number of losses you or MB report.
But…when someone claims that before they went to small cell they lost all of their hives to varroa….and once the converted, they never lost another to mites…I’m sorry but until I see some _objective_ data…….I’m unconvinced.


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> Conjecture? Like this?


That's not conjecture. That's eye witness testimony. That's what I saw. I've been there.


----------



## beemandan

Ok Sol........you've witnessed farmers improper use of pesticides in and around his hives, you've witnessed other beekeepers messing with his hives.....and.....you've witnessed most of Michael Bush's hive failures.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> i see folks trying to get past the differences here, do you think we can?


Of course we can.


As I reported (here on Beesource and on my blog at the time) in November of 2011, I was doing my final fall inspection. I had this one hive since spring of 2007. It was a nuc I purchased from FatBeeMan. It had probably swarmed at least once and likely superseded one or more times. It had been split a substantial number of times, maybe as many as a dozen over the years. When I checked this hive in November of 2011, it was massively infested with mites. There were several frames of bees and some brood and I remember quite vividly that there were mites everywhere. There were many to be seen hanging onto bees. They were crawling on the comb. I could see some in brood cells. I fully expected this hive to crash and die. So, I wrote it off. 

But it was not the one hive that died that winter. It survived. I made a nuc of it in the spring and used it to draw comb through bee season 2012. It starved out in late summer. (Can't keep nucs in NWA, but that's a story for another day.) It did not have readily visible mites through 2012.

It is my _experience_ that massive visible and obvious mite infestations do not necessarily correlate with hive collapse.

And the offer still stands. If someone wants to pay for my time and materials, I will be happy to test every hive every weekend all year.


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> Ok Sol........you've witnessed farmers improper use of pesticides in and around his hives, you've witnessed other beekeepers messing with his hives.....and.....you've witnessed most of Michael Bush's hive failures.


I witnessed most of them that year.

It's obvious what we have to say doesn't fit your world view. It's obvious our experience as beekeepers, me for ten years, him for like 30, doesn't mean anything to you. That's fine.


----------



## jim lyon

I don't think this thread should be about why Mr Bush lost bees. What I respectfully asked was a simple question. "Do you think a spring visual inspection is a true indication of whether you might have varroa related failures later in the year". 
As I said yesterday I checked 80 hives via ether roll this spring and 77 of the samples were negative and I know how little even that means 4 months from now. Spring is the reverse of fall. its a time when there is far more open brood than there are mites. It's a target rich environment for a phoretic mite. That's just a simple fact.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> When I checked this hive in November of 2011, it was massively infested with mites. There were several frames of bees and some brood and I remember quite vividly that there were mites everywhere.


A small cell nuc from fatbeeman. And MB insists that he rarely sees a mite since converting to sc. Do you not see how inconsistent that sounds?



Solomon Parker said:


> It's obvious our experience as beekeepers, me for ten years, him for like 30, doesn't mean anything to you.


I’m going to be frank…and then let it go. I tend to believe your reports about your bees are pretty objective. I believe that your reports about MB's losses are somewhat subjective. And I won't say anything about anyone else's reporting for fear of the moderator's intervention.


----------



## Solomon Parker

If it's a simple fact, why ask?


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> Do you not see how inconsistent that sounds?


Nope. As has been established previously, my bees are unrelated to Mr. Bush's and I do not put the same stock in small cell as he does. So you cannot judge my statements and his statements to be inconsistent because we are not talking about the same thing or in the same context. Furthermore, Mr. Kuchenmeister's bees are treated, though the hive I purchased was four years removed and did not contain a single original frame.




beemandan said:


> I believe that your reports about MB's losses are somewhat subjective.


Perhaps you can explain how I can correctly interpret what I see in front of my face in Arkansas, but I cannot do the same in Nebraska. It's hives without lids for Pete's sake.


----------



## jim lyon

If anyone reading this believes that a spring visual inspection of a sampling of your hives is proof that you don't have a varroa problem now is the time to state your case.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Who is making a case based solely on spring visual inspections?


----------



## jim lyon

I am just interpreting the links he offered us, are you aware of any other documentation?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Are you choosing to disregard the man's word as well?


----------



## Specialkayme

At what point in this 10 page thread did we switch from a peaceful discussion of whether a Commercial Operator can, or is, treatment free, to a discussion over what Sol's losses were from? Or whether they were statistically significant? Or whether anyone "credits" his "findings" like they "should" with someone who has 10 years of experience? Just asking so if I go back and decide to re-read this thread for it's valuable information I can skip the p***ing contest in the middle.

A shame that this "Commercial" thread has turned the typical route of just about any thread in the "Treatment Free" section.


----------



## jim lyon

Re read my posts and don't trivialize this or accuse me of something I haven't said Sol.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I would be happy if treatment-free methodologies and adherents were not constantly derided and criticized.

Are there any treatment-free commercials? No. And therefore none to comment. End of discussion.


----------



## Ian

Solomon, what do you think it would take to allow a commercial op, lets say 800 honey producing hives, to sustain itself treatment free?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ian, all I can offer in response to that is to take what I do and multiply it by approximately 32. 

I does not yet work on a migratory scale, though I hope it can one day.

This op would need to raise its own queens and develop a localized strain of bees that survive and produce a good honey crop. They will want to sell as much of that crop as possible as local (and throw in treatment-free if it makes the sale) honey. I personally don't sell my honey as treatment-free, just local. Most people don't understand that bees are treated or want to take the time to have it explained to them. But I will if they want. All they know is that my honey tastes better than the stuff from Walmart. And they're more than willing to pay five times the price and get it in a mason jar (reusable by the way). And there are so few beekeepers around here that most people don't know one, other than me.

That's really all I got. It's pretty much the same as Dee Lusby and Kirk Webster have done, but with local adaptations.


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> Ian, all I can offer in response to that is to take what I do and multiply it by approximately 32.


And what exactly is it that you "do" that makes it work?

If it's convert to small cell, incorporate treatment free queens of proven genetics, and cease all treatments, while expecting a large number of losses over the next five years, it's possible (although I doubt you'll get a commercial operator to agree to that).

If it's trade in a migratory operation for a fixed location operation, sell honey in mason jars instead of in bulk, and manage their 800 hives as if they had 25, I don't think it's going to be possible.

If it's to get something that works, not know how or why it works, but blindly believe it does work, while recording no data to ensure that either 1) you have a problem now, or 2) how you solved your problem along the way, or 3) ensure you are in the process of solving your problem while you are fixing it, all the while passing judgment onto others who don't believe what you are saying, criticize you somehow (for a variety of reasons, some legit, most not), and ridicule them for not blindly having faith, well, that's not much of a plan in my book. 

If it's close to the last option, there's no way to tell if what you are doing is going to work along the way. If you don't record anything, or monitor anything, the commercial operator may start the 'experiment' with 800 hives, be down to 700 after 3 years, and then have a complete loss after year 5, all because he couldn't tell that a problem was coming and end the 'experiment' before he went bankrupt.

You can blindly believe in faith, or work on principles when you are a hobby beekeeper, or when you sell honey for side income. If you lose it all, you can just start back up again. If you try to stand on faith alone, or principles alone when it's your livelihood on the line, you may find yourself homeless.


----------



## Solomon Parker

And that's why I don't talk to Mr. Specialkayme.

Suffice it to say, no. Pretty much none of that.


----------



## Gino45

Michael Bush said:


> >So Michael, I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to break open a piece of drone comb or 2 this year so you can tell us your mite observations (lots, some, few, none)
> 
> The bee inspector does this on a few of my hives every year and here are his results for the last nine years:
> http://www.bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm


Thanks for posting that, Michael. Pretty impressive that not even your drones have mites. You are fortunate that there are zero mites in your hives. I wish that I could make the same claim.


----------



## Solomon Parker

With all due respect, zero mites was not the claim, nor does the evidence provided demonstrate such.


----------



## jim lyon

I would agree with Sol on this point. What Mr. Bush does appear to do though is
offer up these links as prima facie evidence that mites are not a problem with his bees and that is where I have an issue. I am not accusing him of lying or anything of the sort. If he wants to present further evidence (nothing formal just the results of his own methods would suffice) of his mite levels as the season progressed I would be interested in hearing about it. He will correct me if I am in error but the only statements he has posted, that I am aware of, indicate that he really dosent monitor mite levels because varroa are no longer a problem for his bees.


----------



## Mbeck

I never participate in the treatment free forum. I don't believe I'm able to understand the case that is made for it by many of the people that practice it which is my issue not thiers.

Solomon has roughly 25 hive? If he could split those 4-5 times successfully ( I've no idea if this is possible in his climate or following his standards) he could easily be at 800 hives in 5 years?

As I understand many agree that remaining stationary is going to be an important factor in successfully being treatment free. It would also be important to be in a traditional high honey producing area, I don't believe he is.

Would 25 treatment free hives that could be split into 800 within 5-6 year located in a higher than average honey production area be worth a lot ? I would think they would even if they produced 20# less honey than hives treated and heavily fed.

The Guy in Ohio ( forgot his name) that shakes packages and feeds every year might double his count if he could reduce his labor with treatment free hives.

I'm not suggesting the old "if it could be done someone would do it" but rather maybe an opportunity is being lost. 

If some one were able to travel the country and develop sucsessful treatment free yards of 25 to 50 hives and demonstrate to traditional commericals continued sucsess splitting and in production I'm willing to bet that many would decide to keep a couple hundred.


----------



## beemandan

Removed voluntarily by poster.


----------



## Ian

Solomon Parker said:


> Ian, all I can offer in response to that


That is what the commercial operators are saying also. Comparing the sustainability of a 25 treatment free operation to the sustainability of an 800 hive commercial operation is like comparing apples and oranges. Two totally different scales of beekeeping. 

So all the insight of a treatment free beekeeper as yourself makes for interesting discussion, but it holds absolutely no relevance to commercial beekeeping practices


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> There are a bunch of treatment-free sideliners.


By what criteria or definition of sideliner?


----------



## sqkcrk

Michael Bush said:


> >So Michael, I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to break open a piece of drone comb or 2 this year so you can tell us your mite observations (lots, some, few, none)
> 
> The bee inspector does this on a few of my hives every year and here are his results for the last nine years:
> http://www.bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm


IMO, a visual inspection for varroa mites is a poor way to attempt detection. Just sayin'.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> With all due respect, zero mites was not the claim, nor does the evidence provided demonstrate such.


No mites observed doesn't mean no mites present or zero mites.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Right, no one was claiming zero mites. That's what I said.


----------



## sqkcrk

Yes, that's what you said.

I had an Inspection here in SC just a few days ago and the report reports no hives w/ varroa. I'd be surprised if I have colonies w/ zero mites. I am also sure that if left untreated, many colonies would suffer and die from an over abundance of varroa mites by sometime in Sept. ot Oct. For what that is worth in this discussion.


----------



## squarepeg

which begs the question, 'how many mites are too many?'

i believe this is referred to as 'economic threshold'.

i have found various numbers offered here and there.

ian mentioned having to lower his presumably due to increased virulence of the viruses the mites vector.

sol has a case where a high (number not available) infestation was survived by the colony.

it would be nice to know what levels are being tolerated by tf colonies, and if there is indeed a threshold at which one should consider at least requeening.

i'll be looking at that myself this year in my yard, although the ones with the highest counts are slated for requeening.

the six colonies i lost this winter could have produced a fair amount of honey. this will be my third year to sell honey, and if i'm lucky, i may finally recoup what i have spent so far and then some.


----------



## sqkcrk

I don't believe the answer can accurately be answered or the number/percentage easily and accurately determined. Having seen cases where samples of similar size taken froma single colony showed a variety of resultant numbers of varroa mites per sample.


----------



## squarepeg

yep, i think that is part of the problem mark. plus, it may turn out to be one of things that varies with location.

but the % infestation by alcohol or ether appears to be the most widely accepted measure in use by those trying quantify it, as imperfect as it is.


----------



## jim lyon

In the case in point I suppose only the inspector or Mr. Bush know just what this particular visual inspection consists of. Perhaps it's just looking at some drone brood (which may or may not be a good indicator of varroa numbers in a given hive) or perhaps something else. I know it's been a loooong time since I have ever actually spotted a mite on a bee. A number of years ago I got a magnifyfying glass and looked for several minutes on a bee covered frame of brood and wasn't able to see a single mite. A subsequent ether roll of those same bees showed a pretty significant number. That surprised me because at the time I just didn't have a concept for how mites will burrow in to the " neck area" and between the abdomen and thorax. I think it is really important on a forum read by people of all different levels of experience to emphasize that good mite detection methods are critical to making good treatment decisions.


----------



## Ian

That number/percentage is hard to guage, but if you account for the time of year and considering other health factors of the hive, you can make a measurement that gives you a reference to work on.

Without some sort of reference it would be impossible to assess the colony condition. This way we can act proactively instead of acting in a reactive manner


----------



## Ian

well that is, a reference is useful, unless you dont measure disease within the hive, and just let them die. 

oh wait, these treatment free bees dont have disease, and dont die, 
or wait, maybe its that these treatment free bees do have disease and dont die, because , . . . 
or wait, maybe its that these treatment free bees do have disease and do die, but the keeper doesnt know of any disease in the hives so they dont know what killed them,. 

hmmm


----------



## Solomon Parker

I am experiencing the not dying part. And if by disease, you are speaking of mites, I have those too. I do see them, once or twice a year on individual bees and occasionally a few in broken drone brood. That's why I keep questioning the overall relevance of mite testing. Y'all say it doesn't matter because the mites will show up again and kill the hives. I say it doesn't matter because most of the hives aren't dying anyway.

It used to be I claimed that they weren't dying of mites. Jim was incredulous. Now they don't seem to be dying, so they can't be dying of mites.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

Ian said:


> oh wait, these treatment free bees dont have disease, and dont die,
> or wait, maybe its that these treatment free bees do have disease and dont die, because , . . .
> or wait, maybe its that these treatment free bees do have disease and do die, but the keeper doesnt know of any disease in the hives so they dont know what killed them.....


OR that the tf beekeepers primary income is derived from books and speaking fees, or.........


----------



## JRG13

Man this thread keeps on giving, that was a good one Harry. But, I didn't take MB post as having no mites, just that tests confirm what he is saying about them in his bees/apiary/location. I do not know why people have a hard time believing a colony can be mite free. I would say the most important aspect is endemic pressure in the area, and I believe some areas are just naturally low. Combine that with good bees and a good beekeeper, you get instant success. The real test would be picking up some of these hives, and putting them into a commercial setting and see what happens.


----------



## beemandan

HarryVanderpool said:


> OR that the tf beekeepers primary income is derived from books and speaking fees, or.........


I'm glad someone else said that.


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> I know it's been a loooong time since I have ever actually spotted a mite on a bee.


I was doing a bee workshop last Saturday....new beekeepers...first time in a hive....and one fellow is holding a frame and inspecting and he asked 'what is the red spot on this bee?' And I looked, expecting to see a dusting of red pollen....and he kept pointing at a particular bee....and suddenly I realized what he was seeing. First time in a hive....now there is a keen observer!


----------



## squarepeg

sol, is it accurate to describe what you have done over the past 10 years is allow the bees to select for themselves by not treating and allowing the survivors to propagate?

i believe you report only one winter loss for 2011, and none for 2012. have you kept track of the losses over the ten years, and if yes, can you report them in terms of percent loss for each year?

looking back, is there anything that you would have changed or done differently?

many thanks.


----------



## Ian

I have made reference to the Saskatraz project a few times, they are a hard core survivour project, and can relate to this discussion. They are not treatment free though. But it would be about as close to a commercial treatment free project as you can get. 

These guys have loads of testing and analysis behind their work. They know exactly whats going on in the hives. They are working very closely with other breeders here in Canada and seem to be making some head way in their overall goal of varroa tolerance, to a certain extent. 

The reason why I keep referring to the Saskatraz project is that never have they ever claimed that they have been able to breed a type of bee that is resistant to the mite or is unaffected by the mite. Right from the start they suffered demoralizing losses, and still do today. And these guys have dedicated the last 10 or more years on this project, full time with huge breeding efforts from abroad.

The point is, this whole notion that someone can just simply quit treating, and breed a few generations of survivours to achieve a treatment free operation is ridiculous. I wish it were so easy, I would of gone treatment free 10 years ago as would of the rest of the country.

There is alot of interesting conversation in the treatment free forum, useful discussion. Do not get offended if you get a different direction of feed back from the commercial forum. I also find all this discussion interesting, but you got to cover the basics, or I will shoot you down every time,


----------



## Markt

squarepeg said:


> sol has a case where a high (number not available) infestation was survived by the colony.
> 
> it would be nice to know what levels are being tolerated by tf colonies, and if there is indeed a threshold at which one should consider at least requeening.


Phrases like a colony survived or a colony tolerated don't mean the same thing as a colony was in good health. The whole goal of a commercial beekeeper is to produce the largest surplus possible, be that extra bees for pollination or extra honey in the warehouse. Going back to Ian's 800, even supposing they did survive being treatment free with a reasonable level of loss (Which I think would be a stretch) I'd imagine he would take at least a super or two less honey off of each of those for the year. Don't know what his margins are like but in my case I know that last 50 lbs is sort of important. (Of course I like to eat three times per day, to each their own)


----------



## Ian

biggest complaint from the VSH stock is that they are lousy producers


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> is it accurate to describe what you have done over the past 10 years is allow the bees to select for themselves by not treating and allowing the survivors to propagate?


Not exactly. I breed for gentleness, spring build-up, honey production, and reasonable propolis production. In the past, I have sampled queens and nucs from other sources, but not in the past two years. It's much less passive that your statement would infer.



squarepeg said:


> i believe you report only one winter loss for 2011, and none for 2012. have you kept track of the losses over the ten years, and if yes, can you report them in terms of percent loss for each year?


I have in a sense. They've been reported on my blog so you can go research the actual numbers. It goes something like this: 0%, 9%, 28%, 37%, or something. It's hard to keep track. Before then all I can tell you is that from 2003 to 2008, I went from 20 to 6, but that was without any efforts to make up numbers. I realized I had overstepped my capabilities and so decided to reduce my numbers by attrition. I didn't have enough boxes and frames for 20 hives, but I did for about 10 or so. From 2005 to 2008 I was in Arkansas while they were in Oregon, so they only had sporadic inept management buy a guy I knew. I'm certain he did more damage than good. Anyway, those first five years, it averages out to about 15-25% per year. And I did have a commercial beekeeper's feed yard down the road, so I was well influenced by the whole of beekeeperdom as he came from Almonds every spring and left to clover in the summer, and back in the fall. And I'm not isolated here either.



squarepeg said:


> looking back, is there anything that you would have changed or done differently?


Sometimes I wish I had never defended my case against doubters. It has not yielded one fruit. They bicker and nit-pick and mischaracterize. I wish I had discovered queenright cell builders and started grafting sooner. It's far more efficient than walkaway splits.



Ian said:


> The point is, this whole notion that someone can just simply quit treating, and breed a few generations of survivours to achieve a treatment free operation is ridiculous.


Maybe it's not a "you can" situation, but it is an "I did" situation. But there are other factors as well. I started brand new on foundation, hives never treated, not just ceased treatments, small cell, and active expansion, catching feral swarms. Like I've been saying, I can only share my experience. It may very well be that you "can't simply just..." But that's simply not what I'm doing and neither is anybody else who seems to be making it. So it's really a red herring.


----------



## squarepeg

got it. thanks sol, and to all who have contributed to this thread.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Update: Just finished checking my South Yard, and I did in fact lose a hive there since the last time I checked it earlier this year. So that brings this winter's losses up to 4%.


----------



## squarepeg

i don't believe you promised 0% anyway sol.


----------



## camero7

> I have made reference to the Saskatraz project a few times


Ian,

I heard these bees were pretty testy. True or just rumor?


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> Maybe it's not a "you can" situation, but it is an "I did" situation.


I'd agree with that sentence more than anything you've said previously Sol.

I don't think I ever said that you didn't. And I can't definitively say that someone else "can." But it's at least possible that they can. I just know that I "didn't".


----------



## Ian

camero7 said:


> Ian,
> 
> I heard these bees were pretty testy. True or just rumor?


I did not hear that, 
I did buy 200 mated queens from them last year, and the hives performed very well, and not any more aggressive than thing else I used. 
Just one season with them so far though


----------



## squarepeg

ian, are you using those queens to requeen, make splits, whatever's needed, ect.?


----------



## Ian

I bought them and made up nucs with them. They just recently started breeding for commercial sale, I wanted to support their project. But because of our limiting climate, the queens raised were too late for our spring split so I used them in my nucs. This season I will see their true nature during the entire season. They will be run beside some of my own queens and some Cali queens.


----------



## squarepeg

understood ian, very cool. it will be interesting how they stack up on benchmarks to your existing stock.

sorry i haven't had a chance to read the linked material yet, been in the beeyard the past couple of days and i'm behind on my reading.


----------



## camero7

Ian said:


> I did not hear that,
> I did buy 200 mated queens from them last year, and the hives performed very well, and not any more aggressive than thing else I used.
> Just one season with them so far though


Thanks


----------



## StevenG

My goodness, I leave town for a few days for the Dadant celebration, and look what happens to the thread I started! :gh:

Ok, what I've gleaned so far, which pretty much was what I expected, there are only one or two commercial beekeepers "testing the waters" with treatment free bees. You have to tease that out of their postings, but it's there. They seem to be using tf bees, as a means to move from the hard chemical miticides to softer treatments. As we all know, it is a great risk to them. 

Randy Oliver did a nice presentation on mites at the Dadant celebration. He talked about how his goal is not to kill all the mites, because then they breed for resistance to the treatment. Instead he seeks a 50% knock down, which enables the colony to apparently thrive (my words), without breeding a resistant mite. In the first part he talked about how treatment free bees make this job easier, but in his experience they still need help. He concluded this section with the Warner Bros. cartoon graphic "That's All Folks!" The next 20 or so minutes dealt with treatments. So in his scheme of things, treatment free bees are a help, but not the solution.

I was fortunate to be able to ask him a question: "There are several, a few, major producers and sellers of Treatment Free or Resistant bees. Have you used them in your operation, and what has been your experience?" His answer, paraphrased - Yes. Several producers and beekeepers regularly offer me bees or queens or to buy such for me to test. I've used a few. But my operation in California tied in with Almond pollination is that they're not successful. They all need some sort of help in my area. Which is not to say that they don't work in other areas, just not in mine.

Unfortunately I was not able to ask a follow up question, which would have been: "So to achieve success with a treatment free bee you need to acclimate it to your particular locale?" As I think about it, my successful treatment free bees have come from Texas and Kentucky, similar areas to where I am now. In my "migratory" operation (my 20 hive trailer! :lpf I do not leave my county when I haul them from what clover there is, to soybeans. So my bees are acclimated to my particular locale, and they were raised in the south/midwest south. 

Perhaps that is what mitigates against, at this point, successful treatment free commercial operations, hauling them from your home yard to Almonds, and elsewhere for pollination purposes. They never really have an opportunity to acclimate to a particular locale.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Solomon Parker

StevenG said:


> They never really have an opportunity to acclimate to a particular locale.


Or is it the stress of moving itself, stress from exposure to new and varied diseases and maladies, varying temperatures and conditions, or something I haven't thought of?

Can this stress, no matter its source, be eventually overcome?

What is it exactly to which the bees acclimate, I guess is my question. I know from my own experience that if you move treatment-free hives, most of them die within two years. It's like starting the process all over again. However, buying queens from somewhere else doesn't seem to cause the same problems. It's one of the reasons why I don't ship nucs. I can't vouch for what they'll do somewhere else.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

At least the mites are stressed when moving. :wink:


----------



## Michael Bush

>No mites observed doesn't mean no mites present or zero mites. 

I certainly DO have Varroa mites. The point is the level of mites. Someone asked me to uncap a few drones. I was just showing that someone else had already done so on my hives for the last decade and what those results were.


----------



## Roland

Way back in post 189(I have been busy), Sol wrote:

Are there any treatment-free commercials? No.

We have over 400 hives, and use only mechanical methods to treat mites. Why do you not consider me not be commercial and treatment free? And what about Ron Householder? 

Crazy Roland


----------



## Ian

I know a guy who runs 1200 honey producing hives and uses drone brood for part of his mite control program. Also uses organic acids to help knock the mites down, 
but then he tests his disease pressures frequently and will use a chemical treatment if his mite populations get too high.

I guess with a treatment free operation, he would let the bees die off naturally


----------



## Solomon Parker

Roland, the answer is in your post. You treat for mites. No disrespect, it's right in there.

In my book, no means no and free means free. No treatments equals treatment free. That's no indictment against anyone. It just is.


----------



## cg3

He's got a point about Householder, though.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Not familiar, sorry. Would love to hear about him.


----------



## hpm08161947

Solomon Parker said:


> Not familiar, sorry. Would love to hear about him.


I believe he would qualify as a TF commercial, using your definition. He;s on here a fair amount so maybe just searching "Householder" or is it "Honey Householder"..... either ought to work.


----------



## mnbeekeeper

hpm08161947 said:


> I believe he would qualify as a TF commercial, using your definition. He;s on here a fair amount so maybe just searching "Householder" or is it "Honey Householder"..... either ought to work.



but that opens another can of worms. because i believe any one that was willing to work hard could bring in packages in the spring make a crop and shake them out in the fall. i mean sure its hard work but its not the hardest part of commercial beekeeping. i think surviving winter and working the bees accordingly in the spring is the hardest part. where are his treatment free bees now. dead in a snowbank or dead in some elses beeyard or alive but treated with something in some one elses boxes. where did he get those packages from treated bees i would have to think. maybe im wrong.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> Roland, the answer is in your post. You treat for mites. No disrespect, it's right in there.
> 
> In my book, no means no and free means free. No treatments equals treatment free. That's no indictment against anyone. It just is.


Symantics. Roland does treat for mites in the true sense of the word, he manages his mites through a manual control method. Or does treatment free mean "does nothing" to manage mites? Because, if so, then Honey Householders method would be treating to and he doesn't use chemicals.


----------



## sqkcrk

hpm08161947 said:


> I believe he would qualify as a TF commercial, using your definition. He;s on here a fair amount so maybe just searching "Householder" or is it "Honey Householder"..... either ought to work.


I disagree Herb. By Solomon's definition it seems unless one does nothing one is treating. So, getting rid of (selling) all the insects and arachnids in a hive would be a treatment.


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> I disagree Herb. By Solomon's definition it seems unless one does nothing one is treating. So, getting rid of (selling) all the insects and arachnids in a hive would be a treatment.


Guess I need to go back and read Solomon's definition of TF. Solomon was willing to let me feed HFCS and still be TF....


----------



## Solomon Parker

The definition of 'semantics' is taking the individual meanings of words rather than the meaning of the overall passage. So no, Mark, not semantics. The meaning of the passage is: he treats. He said he does.

Honey Householder doesn't count because he doesn't fit the definition of 'keeping bees' in my view. There's no sustainability there. Keeping bees would involve keeping them all the time. He seems to regularly throw them away. As far as I understand, keeping is the opposite of throwing away.

I also haven't heard that he migrates.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> By Solomon's definition it seems unless one does nothing one is treating.


Nothing for disease. I still keep bees in the usual manner.



hpm08161947 said:


> Guess I need to go back and read Solomon's definition of TF. Solomon was willing to let me feed HFCS and still be TF....


Good luck, it's not written down. If you are referring to the official definition in the TF forum, that was not my definition. I wrote it, got it voted on, passed, and amended and finalized it. It was politics. That's the way the world works. It was a well crafted compromise that the majority could vote for and agree was a step in the right direction. I have been clear from the beginning that I am a purist and that I believe the responsibility for handling disease and pesticides is up to the bees and the bees alone. And that includes not only chemical methods, but mechanical ones including striking drone brood, screened bottom boards, and breaking the brood cycle. I do none of these things.


----------



## hpm08161947

Solomon Parker said:


> Honey Householder doesn't count because he doesn't fit the definition of 'keeping bees' in my view. There's no sustainability there. Keeping bees would involve keeping them all the time. He seems to regularly throw them away. As far as I understand, keeping is the opposite of throwing away.


Therefore.... Householder is a TF Beehaver.... not Beekeeper - Semantics???


----------



## sqkcrk

Would Dean buy his honey?


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> Would Dean buy his honey?


I was just thinking that.... looks like TF honey to me, definition or not.

So yes... Dean should be able to buy it and label it TF honey if he wishes.... right??


----------



## Solomon Parker

I can't speak for Dean, but considering the way he markets his honey, I doubt it. I can't think of anyone concerned about how their honey is made would buy honey from somebody who kills all their bees every year. 

And yes, 'beehaver' is semantics. But I didn't say it, you did! Not my style.


----------



## deknow

....except that Dean's customers expect some degree of "sustainability" however you want to define it.
The main advantage of running our own business is that we don't have to subscribe to or market based on someone else's criteria.
Touting ron's approach as "treatment free beekeeping" is like touting the maintenance department of a car rental agency for the high quality and reliability of their fleet. The fact that the cars are new and are replaced when they exhibit problems makes the claim that they are "well maintained" rather meaningless.

Deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

deknow said:


> The main advantage of running our own business is that we don't have to subscribe to or market based on someone else's criteria.


Excellent point. The same goes for treatment-free and why my ilk quit using the term 'organic.'


----------



## hpm08161947

Solomon Parker said:


> I can't think of anyone concerned about how their honey is made would buy honey from somebody who kills all their bees every year.


Not that it really matters, but I believe Householder no longer kills his bees every year. Instead he sells them as one big mass of package bees to buyers usually from the deep south.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> ....except that Dean's customers expect some degree of "sustainability" however you want to define it.
> The main advantage of running our own business is that we don't have to subscribe to or market based on someone else's criteria.
> Touting ron's approach as "treatment free beekeeping" is like touting the maintenance department of a car rental agency for the high quality and reliability of their fleet. The fact that the cars are new and are replaced when they exhibit problems makes the claim that they are "well maintained" rather meaningless.
> 
> Deknow


So, just to be clear, you wouldn't buy Ron's honey. Right?


----------



## deknow

Well, I wouldn't sell it as treatment free honey.

Deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

I c.


----------



## beemandan

And one other thing to consider when using Ron Householder as an example……what do you suppose he does with his comb between seasons?
I'm thinkin' that it's a safe bet that there's a chemical involved.


----------



## Ian

hpm08161947 said:


> Not that it really matters, but I believe Householder no longer kills his bees every year. Instead he sells them as one big mass of package bees to buyers usually from the deep south.


so in that case, he is not killing off his hives, but sell them off as a profit, and then buying in packages in the spring to raise for his honey production. 
I call that treatment free right to the definition

If the boarder opens some day, Im going back to those kinda days,
might even call myself a treatment free beekeeper


----------



## hpm08161947

Ian said:


> so in that case, he is not killing off his hives, but sell them off as a profit, and then buying in packages in the spring to raise for his honey production.


The last time I heard, Householder was running 800 hives with a 1/2 ton pickup and making 50 Tons of honey a year, which made him the largest honey producer in Ohio.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ian said:


> I call that treatment free right to the definition


Paradichlorobenzene?

_p_-DCB is poorly soluble in water and is not easily broken down by soil organisms. Like many hydrocarbons, _p_-DCB is lipophilic and will accumulate in the fatty tissues.
The United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that _p_-DCB may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen, although there is no direct evidence.[SUP][4][/SUP] Animals given very high levels in water developed liver and kidney tumors.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a target maximum contaminant level of 75 micrograms of _p_-DCB per liter of drinking water (75 μg/L).[SUP][5][/SUP] _p_-DCB is also an EPA-registered pesticide.[SUP][6][/SUP] The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a maximum level of 75 parts of _p_-DCB per million parts air in the workplace (75 ppm) for an 8-hour day, 40-hour workweek.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]
Under California's Proposition 65, _p_-DCB is listed as "known to the State to cause cancer".[SUP][7]

:wc:
[/SUP]


----------



## hpm08161947

On a large scale I do not know of anyone using paradichlorobenzene...... it would be very labor intensive on a couple thousand boxes. I do not know... but suspect that in upstate Ohio he may well use nothing.


----------



## cg3

Solomon Parker said:


> Paradichlorobenzene?


Is that an assumption or a fact? Bt, sunlight, freezing weather?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Bt seems popular these days. I leave comb on the hives. 5-deep stacks, all year long.


----------



## cg3

I was leaving comb on the stack but SHB just showed up this year. Now I'm afraid to leave any extra space, at least until I figure out a strategy. But up in Householders area, the population contains many brass monkeys and bare-breasted witches. I'm not sure he needs to worry much about wax moth.


----------



## jim lyon

By using excluders we are able to keep our extracting comb free of brood and pollen and see little if any moth damage in them even when stored in the heat of summer. Any dark brood comb stays on the bees until October. We rarely fumigate with anything. Any product requiring each individual comb to be treated is never going to be used much commercially.


----------



## beemandan

cg3 said:


> I'm not sure he needs to worry much about wax moth.


You believe he'd risk his entire operation to chance?
I don't know him personally but it appears that he's been doing his method successfully for a while. Success in this business doesn't come with the roll of the dice....which may explain the paucity of tf commercials.


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> We rarely fumigate with anything.


Of course, you aren't storing all of your brood comb sans bees between seasons. Can you imagine having to do that without some sort of fumigant?


----------



## hpm08161947

beemandan said:


> Of course, you aren't storing all of your brood comb sans bees between seasons. Can you imagine having to do that without some sort of fumigant?


In upstate Ohio, from Oct to March.... I doubt there are many wax moths flying....


----------



## beemandan

hpm08161947 said:


> In upstate Ohio, from Oct to March.... I doubt there are *many* wax moths flying....


I'm seeing the word 'much' or 'many' describing the possibility of wax moth damage in Ohio. I really don't have a dog in this hunt but, as I said earlier, success in this business doesn't come by taking unnecessary chances. And with hundreds of brood boxes in storage every year....I know I wouldn't risk losing them.


----------



## cg3

beemandan said:


> I'm seeing the word 'much' or 'many' describing the possibility of wax moth damage


Maybe because we're just speculating. I'm not sure when he shakes his bees out, but in that part of Ohio there's a hard freeze in Oct., guaranteed.


----------



## jim lyon

Agreed Dan. You store brood comb in a warm place for even a month, cleanup might involve sending in the boys with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.


----------



## camero7

hpm08161947 said:


> In upstate Ohio, from Oct to March.... I doubt there are many wax moths flying....


I got some wax moth damage here on boxes in storage this winter. Never had it before and I'm north of that I believe.


----------



## The Honey Householder

WoW guys. My ears are burning. 
After shaking the bees out in the fall I just stack the brood boxes up in the bee yards until all the brood hatches. Mid Nov. I start clean up. By the first of the year I start spraying HFCS into the frames an reseting the yards. 

I would have commented before this, but I had packages that had to be put into the hive. One load down and one to go.:wiener:

Sorry still chemical free.

Don't claim to be a beekeeper, just a honey producer. 1000 hives and shooting for 100 tons of honey this year, and yes still a 1/2 ton pickup does the job. I did add a fork lift in the warehouse to load all that honey. Not getting any younger.

TF HONEY PRODUCER:thumbsup: Really who is counting.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

Ron, I am curious what your practice is to prevent wax moth damage.


----------



## The Honey Householder

BEES, 6-7 brood boxes full of brood makes a lot of bees. 
After shaking I stack 6-7 brood boxes up on a queen excluder. I try and leave 5-10% of the bees behind to hatch the brood. Fall shake out are 8-10 lb of bees, so its OK to leave a few behind.

I sell tons of bees and with no brood it makes it easy to treat for the mites.:scratch:


----------



## Ian

Solomon Parker said:


> Paradichlorobenzene?


didnt even know what that was in reference to until the chorus chimed in.

I use our good old Canadian winter to control those nasty little things,
they get about one month of opportunity around here. 

cold falls under treatment free


----------



## Fishman43

The Honey Householder said:


> 1000 hives and shooting for 100 tons of honey this year.


224 lb average per hive... You must have some great bee yards!


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Fishman43 said:


> 224 lb average per hive...!


Hmmm ...224 lb per hive? :scratch: Here's what Ron said


The Honey Householder said:


> 1000 hives and shooting for 100 tons of honey this year,


This is what my calculator says ...
100 tons * 2000 lb per ton / 1000 hives = 200 lbs average per hive


----------



## Barry

The Honey Householder said:


> I would have commented before this, but I had packages that had to be put into the hive.


Hey Ron, can you tell me how you start package bees every year, bring them up to "BEES, 6-7 brood boxes full of brood makes a lot of bees.", and then get a crop of honey off them as well? This has to require a boat load of feed. With hives full of feed, have you had your honey tested? How does one keep the honey and the feed from ever mixing? Somehow all your numbers just don't add up in my mind, but I'm happy to be shown where my thinking is off the mark.


----------



## jim lyon

Hey were all shooting for a 200+ lb. average but I am thrilled if I can eke out 100 though. The recently released 2012 honey report showed a national average of 56 lbs.


----------



## Chris Baldwin

Hey I have not read all of this. And really do not know how this works but....
I run 1800 colonies without mite treatment. Last hard chemicals 2003. Oxalic 2004 and 05.
Some apigaurd 2007. Match my neighbors crops. Send bees toalmonds. In forty years
have NEVER bought outside bees other than breeder queens.
All you nonbelievers - it can be done. I keep bees like I did pre-mites.


----------



## Ian

hmmmm

how do you manage the mites Chris?


----------



## Chris Baldwin

I have not done an ether roll since 2004. When I see a mite I say "Oh, a mite". I don't care. Its genetics. When I said I keep bees like pre-mites I meant exactly that. 
And I am tired of being called crazy or a liar. I have spoken to, had supper with, drank a beer with many of the top names in bee research and never, not one has said they would like to see my operation. I guess I might endanger their job security. Bob Reiners SD State Apiarist is the only one. I think he believes. I am just one guy. I wish the whole industry would get on board and believe. And demand the queen breeders get to work on it.


----------



## Ian

sooo, how do you manage the mites?


----------



## Chris Baldwin

The bees bees do it themselves.


----------



## Ian

what are your annual losses ?


----------



## Chris Baldwin

Last three years -May 1 thru March 1 about 30%. Lots of guys treating are doing worse.


----------



## Ian

soo, what have you done to bring in this mite tolerance ability?


----------



## Ian

Chris Baldwin said:


> All you nonbelievers - it can be done. I keep bees like I did pre-mites.


tell us how it can be done on an 1800 hive scale


----------



## HarryVanderpool

Chris Baldwin said:


> Last three years -May 1 thru March 1 about 30%. Lots of guys treating are doing worse.


And lots of guys that treat are doing a whole lot better.
30% is totally unacceptable.
30% 0f 1800 is 540 hives that you are proud to lose every year?
That is $81,000.00 of lost revenue in almonds alone!!?
None of this makes any rational sense to me.
And your overuse of the words, "believe" and "belief" is unusual for the context.
No one is calling you a liar. But maybe you are forgetting; we keep bees too!
We wern't born yesterday.
If it sounds too good to be true.....


----------



## jim lyon

Chris: Glad you are joining the discussion. In fairness to Chris I don't think the question is so much how much revenue he may be losing each year by not treating but whether he is self sustaining and whether he is happy with and able to live off of the revenue stream that his bees provide. Please give us more specifics as far as your management practices as a fellow South Dakota migratory beekeeper my mind is open but I would like to hear more specific information. I would also like to hear exactly why you have chosen this route. Do you feel it is only possible to produce as pure product by never treating or do you feel that your bees are better off in the long run or is it both? Just tell your story and state your case Chris this forum is usually a little long on theory and a little short on actual working experience so don't be offended when folks in the business ask hard questions.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I hope you don't get discouraged Chris, I'm interested to hear more, though I suspect as in my case, there simply isn't much more.

I also get conflicting statements like unacceptable losses which are too good to be true.


----------



## sqkcrk

I don't remember what managing bees premites was like, other than not managing mites. There aught to be a list of details. Maybe people don't know how to express what it is they do.

I was talking to a VT beekeeper a cpl days ago, face to face, and he said that Michael Palmer, another VT beekeeper, has been having trouble finding mites. Perhaps Michael's "secret" is stationary beekeeping, growing his own queens, and nucing colonies in July for overwintering to cover winterloss.

Is Chris doing these things too?


----------



## Ramona

Solomon Parker said:


> I hope you don't get discouraged Chris, I'm interested to hear more, though I suspect as in my case, there simply isn't much more.
> 
> I also get conflicting statements like unacceptable losses which are too good to be true.


Ha ha Solomon, that was funny! 

Chris spoke at the 2011 Northeast Treatment-Free Beekeeping Conference in Leominster. He gave a great talk on the history and management of his operation, spent a week with us and our attendees sharing and talking non-stop. There was one day post-conference when we let him take a nap.

We had one disgruntled attendee who wondered why we let the commercial migratory guy in. Sometimes you just have to laugh...

Ramona


----------



## sqkcrk

Ever thought to have Ron "Honey Householder" at your conference?


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

Chris, welcome to Beesource. I would like to know whether you bring in queens or are using your own lines of bees.


----------



## Ramona

Mark: Chris is migratory. He goes between South Dakota and Texas and does almond pollination in California. Mike Palmer is not treatment free.

Jim: Chris is your neighbor in SD...you could visit him. He's really friendly.

Ramona


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

Ramona, do you remember the essence of Chris's operation? Anything else you remember?


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> "BEES, 6-7 brood boxes full of brood makes a lot of bees.", and then get a crop of honey off them as well?


Barry, the way I interpreted it, at the end of the season, he shakes out the bees and then stacks the brood boxes with brood, still in the comb, 6 - 7 boxes high. The brood emerges....and that emerging brood makes a lot of bees. I guess those bees keep the moths at bay until it gets really cold.


----------



## sqkcrk

Ramona said:


> Mark. Mike Palmer is not treatment free.


Yes, I know that. Hasn't he been at your conference too?


----------



## Solomon Parker

HarryVanderpool said:


> And your overuse of the words, "believe" and "belief" is unusual for the context.


I don't think so. The problem I have dealt with is simple. There is a huge contingent of beekeepers who simply won't _believe_ that what I say is actually what is happening. Responses run the gamut from it's impossible to can't be done to you're isolated to won't work migratory to you're gonna crash this winter, no this winter, no this winter, you're really gonna crash soon, soon I tell you! CCD is going to get you!

One experience that Chris has had (and maybe he's simplifying) that I have not is being called a liar. Though it's been everything short of the actual word. The word "lies" has been used, and also "poison."

So yes, it is precisely the case that "believe" is the key word. But it's not a faith type of belief. It's the existence of excessive incredulity that will not allow me to be telling the truth because it doesn't fit the world view of the hearer. If one believes it is possible, one is taking the first step to believing the story of one who does it. Now we have some evidence (and corroboration) that it is possible and actually happens, and the hope that I have held is fulfilled. I'm certainly happy to amend my statement that treatment-free beekeeping can't be done on a migratory commercial scale.


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> I guess those bees keep the moths at bay until it gets really cold.


I'm still interested to hear about how much of that 200 lbs. of honey is syrup.


----------



## sqkcrk

And the skepticism works both ways I see.


----------



## Ramona

Mark: Chris is treatment free migratory. He runs between South Dakota and Texas and goes to Caifornia to pollinate the almonds. Mike Palmer is not treatment free. He has spoken at our conferences as well and is incredibly generous in sharing his beekeeping knowledge and experience toward developing an apiary with minimal inputs.

Jim: Chris is your neighbor in SD and maybe even Texas. You could visit him and see what he does. He's really friendly and a lot of fun.

Ramona


----------



## Solomon Parker

It's a simple question Mark. Do you get 200 lbs of honey from a package generally? I don't. It would stand to reason that since the bees aren't overwintered, they never have to use much of their stores, and a major portion of anything going in is going to be coming back out. Dean has well documented the volume of syrup in honey. This isn't speculation or slander, this is evidence based inquiry.


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> Ever thought to have Ron "Honey Householder" at your conference?


It wouldn't even occur to me. I don't think our attendees would find such a presentation helpful towards their goals. I don't think I would find it very inspiring towards my own.

In fairness to Ron, he is doing his thing, and I can't say I have a problem with that...and although there is a lot of tongue in cheek claiming of "treatment free" from his model, I don't think anyone really believes that. There is nothing sustainable about such a system without the constant influx of relatively cheap package bees from the south (ask Ian how the lack of availability of package bees from the south has affected his management).

deknow


----------



## Ramona

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> Ramona, do you remember the essence of Chris's operation? Anything else you remember?


He stopped treating. Bees died. He bred back from the survivors. A huge heat wave came on his birthday. A LOT of bees died. He bred back from the survivors.

Ramona


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ramona, that sounds familiar, is there a video posted somewhere or did I read that somewhere?


----------



## Ian

Solomon Parker said:


> I'm still interested to hear about how much of that 200 lbs. of honey is syrup.


pull the reigns back cowboy


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> Yes, I know that. Hasn't he been at your conference too?


We first me Mike Palmer in Nebraska....he asked to be invited to a Nebraska state beekeepers meeting that was focusing on treatment-free beekeeping...._because_ he felt that the things he was doing with overwintering nucs would be helpful to beekeepers that aren't treating. He has been at our conference twice, and he is invited every year.

As you know, Mike speaks with authority and experience about his methods...and the overwintering of nucs is helpful to anyone who's practices result in losing any number of hives, or who want to expand, or who want to sell quality nucs. These are all things that are helpful to beekeepers whether they are using treatments or not. Every talk I give to beekeeping clubs I mention Mike, and suggest they bring him in if they haven't already.

This is, of course, rather the polar opposite of what Ron is doing. Nothing that Ron is doing is geared towards getting a hive through the winter....or towards breeding 'better' bees....or towards doing anything other than buying early packages every year. This isn't the kind of beekeeping I want to spend my time practicing or teaching.

I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean that Mike Palmer is having a hard time finding mites in his bees. He is treating for them, no? It would be hard (impossible) to come to any conclusion about mites on Mike's bees without knowing what he treated with and when...how he was looking for mites...etc.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

You are right about that. I don't know what Michael uses regarding mites or how he is looking for them.


----------



## Ian

HarryVanderpool said:


> If it sounds too good to be true.....


Harry, If I could manage my hives with only a 30% treatment free, Id be the first in line. Problem is I have seen first hand of beekeepers loosing 80% plus directly related to viral infections, It put these guys out for a while, one guy is still working to get going again.

Managing "pre mite" days is a dream all beekeepers want to go back to, please tell Chris


----------



## Ramona

When we were trying to keep bees without treatments we sought out the biggest treatment free beekeeper we could find and ended up in Arizona with Dee Lusby. We got to see with our own eyes what everyone had told us was impossible. Having that model has given us the courage and vision to deal with our own losses as we are building our bees. Many folks have plenty to say about Dee but we have been to Arizona to see her bees seven times now and no one can tell me that her bees aren't real or that we are imagining the honey they produce.

I challenge anyone to meet Chris and tell him to his face that he is a liarabout any aspect of his bees or operation.

"Seek and ye shall find". There are multiple models out there for anyone who really wants the information but everyone is different in their goals, aspirations, values and beliefs, preferences and circumstances.

Arguing or debating about what someone is or isn't doing doesn't affect what the doer is actually doing. I much prefer to go to the sources and see for myself.

Yes, there are all kinds of obstacles...time, money, family, job, etc. When you really want something, you figure it out. Or at least you figure out what you really want 

Ramona


----------



## Ian

that was a great inspirational post Romona, unfortunately my banker doesnt care either way. 

Nobody has called anyone a liarabout, 
because one beekeeper asks a question to another beekeeper who doesnt know the answer to, doesnt qualify as liarabout


----------



## Ramona

Solomon Parker said:


> Ramona, that sounds familiar, is there a video posted somewhere or did I read that somewhere?


Except for the "heatwave on your birthday" part it probably sounds familiar because the scenario is familiar. No treatments-bees die-breed back from the survivors.

We went to see Tim Ives in New Jersey last Friday. He talked about his treatment free history and referred to a survivor colony as his "$3500" hive. He caught swarms from that hive and after some time brought them to breed with an old beekeepers bees who had been treatment free for some years. He now runs 120 hives in Indiana in the middle of corn and soy. His big emphasis is three deeps going into winter packed with honey and no artificial feeds
ever . He is on my list of operations I would like to visit to see for myself.

Ramona


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> Do you get 200 lbs of honey from a package generally? I don't.


Keep in mind.....those packages are installed on fully drawn comb. Makes a world of difference, in my opinion.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ramona said:


> His big emphasis is three deeps going into winter packed with honey and no artificial feeds


Very interesting. From my beginning, I have kept big hives year 'round like Dee, 5 deeps is the goal. I think I am evolving toward the decision to largely end my use of sugar. I used maybe 30 lbs. of granulated sugar this year, on yearling hives and a couple that were knocked over by a migratory trampoline.


----------



## camero7

I believe this is Chris Baldwin's web site for those interested:
http://southbeekota.com/


----------



## Chris Baldwin

Well folks I am a busy guy and tapping this out on my phone isn't very handy. Just wanted to let you know that there is a treatment free commercial beekeeper. I run my bees like most. Honey up north in South Dakota. Winter in Texas. Bees to California. Sell nucs, brood, and cells in Texas. All queen replacement is done March and April. As to my 30% loss about half is queen failure during Summer, the other Fall collapse. Again all nucs and queens are done in Texas in the Spring.
I learned how to raise cells forty years ago and other than breeders have not purchased 100 queens in that time. I have NEVER had to by brood or bees from outside sources to keep my numbers. I started leaving some yards untreated when I wintered bees in Nebraska. Got some to live but not thrive. Then I tried some Russians and they gave me a real leg up on resistance but (sorry, Tom Rinderer) some Russian lines were terrible. So now I am back to grafting from whatever does well for me under my style of management.(without treatment ) And progress has been slow but my bees are better each year. I am thrilled how good they look now.
I simply quit treating, built back from survivors selecting the best. Have I taken a hit? You bet. But I believe that this is the ultimate long term answer. How much time and resources do some of you spend on mite monitoring and control? I just keep bees. True, I wonder what six months will bring but so far things keep improving.
Sooooo.....
Well I have work to do. Please accept I am not going to jump in here every five minutes. I would be more than happy to visit on the phone to answer specific questions. But don't know if giving out phone numbers here is cool. Go Southbeekota home page. You can find my number and more. One more thing- I really cringe when people call my bees Russians. I am quite removed from that program. What I have are bees that live and do well. Got to go.


----------



## Solomon Parker

camero7 said:


> I believe this is Chris Baldwin's web site for those interested:
> http://southbeekota.com/


Aha, I did hear that story before. It was back when I was looking for a source of treatment-free queens.


----------



## D Semple

Barry said:


> Hey Ron, can you tell me how you start package bees every year, bring them up to "BEES, 6-7 brood boxes full of brood makes a lot of bees.", and then get a crop of honey off them as well?


Youtube - TheOhioCountryboy - he did a couple of very nice and interesting videos on how Ron builds up his spring packages and does early splits. I find it amazing that Ron is recieving and installing packages in Michigan right NoW, this early in the spring.

Hey Ron, how about sharing what you look for in a great yard? (you can pm me if you like  )


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

Mr Semple, I believe Ron is in Ohio.


----------



## Ian

Chris Baldwin said:


> One more thing- I really cringe when people call my bees Russians. I am quite removed from that program. What I have are bees that live and do well. Got to go.


but your web page says such,

just to tap into your management style,

out of the 1800 honey producers, how many go to texas for the split down?


----------



## gmcharlie

Ron is a bit busy this week I belive .... Just a guess but I am betting it will be tuesday before he can even consider a response. 
I looked at ohio country boys site... which video?
I was at Rons a cpl weeks back, fantastic operation and a really smart honey producer. whole family is part of it. when he says he makes over 100 lbs a hive. hes not kidding. and its not syrup... He does have an advatage, he is near a really large alfalfa pellet mill, so lots of forage in his neck of the woods...


----------



## Specialkayme

Just to be clear, saying "I don't know how you do it" does not equal "You can't do it." I also don't view either of those statements as saying someone is a "liar" is "lying" or anything to that extent. Maybe that was not what those comments were referring to, I don't know. 

For most here, a healthy set of criticism is good for the business. Let's say that person A doesn't treat a colony, and it dies from mites. Person A hopefully learns that not treating will result in an unfortunate situation for them. Now lets say that person B steps forward and they say they are not treating for mites, but their bees are still alive. Person A has a different personal experience, so is obviously skeptical. In order for person B's experiences to outweigh person A's experiences, to person A at least, a strong case would need to be presented on how it was done and why it was different than person A's trial. Now, if you ask person B how they did it, and what they did differently, and they respond "I don't know," well, there's a problem. Person A doesn't have enough evidence to persuade him that if he doesn't treat anything other than what he experienced first hand will happen. Person B not knowing what they did, or why they succeeded while others didn't, doesn't help their position that "others can do it too." Frankly, they don't know that. Furthermore, saying "it can be done" or "I have done it" or "trust me" or "have faith" adds nothing to the conversation.

If you can take 1+1 and make it equal 3, congrats to you. But unless you can tell me how to do it, how I can do it, when I keep getting 2, I'm going to be skeptical.


----------



## D Semple

gmcharlie said:


> I looked at ohio country boys site... which video?
> ..


http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...Method-Honey-Production&highlight=householder


----------



## Chris Baldwin

Perhaps I should retract my statement that some Russian lines were terrible. And say they did not fit my management. Although our web page says Russian Bees I try to be clear as to what I am doing. I am not a Russian cooperator. I am not bringing in new Russian stock. I am pursuing resistance that the Russians gave me while selecting top performers under my management. So I do cringe a little. What do I have? I don't know.
I am not Randy Oliver's Taliban. I am not trying to push my bees on anybody. What I do desire is an open mind that mite resistance is real. And given time and dedication that mite resistance can be advanced through proper pressure and selection in ANY strain of bees. And that's not painless. But it is doable. And I believe the ultimate answer.
For those still wondering, I let lots of bees die to get where I am. Now you could not pay me to treat for mites. Why step back? I said earlier I am just one guy. I am nothing special. Anyone that can rear queens could follow the same course. What if a bunch of people were doing this? How much more could be accomplished? That's what gets me down. Won't anybody go for it? Remember your not taking anything with you when you go. But you are supposed to leave the world a better place when you leave.


----------



## Specialkayme

Chris,

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on someone else getting to the point you are at today, but still having some type of treatment regiment?

You had heavy losses when you didn't treat, as most do when they head down that route. The loser colonies die out because (at least according to those who do the bond method) their genes don't need to be further spread.

It is, however, theoretically possible to move in that direction without forcing colonies to die along the way. Instead, simply breed from your _most_ resistant stock, while treating the colonies that wouldn't survive without treatments, then requeening them with your most resistant stock. It may (and likely would) take significantly longer to accomplish the same goal, as more "inferior" genetics are still floating around, at least for a number of years. But eventually you could get to the same goal, without having massive losses. At least, that's what I believe Mike Palmer was working towards. And also this is what I theoretically assume.

Your thoughts on that Chris?


----------



## The Honey Householder

Barry said:


> Hey Ron, can you tell me how you start package bees every year, bring them up to "BEES, 6-7 brood boxes full of brood makes a lot of bees.", and then get a crop of honey off them as well? This has to require a boat load of feed. With hives full of feed, have you had your honey tested? How does one keep the honey and the feed from ever mixing? Somehow all your numbers just don't add up in my mind, but I'm happy to be shown where my thinking is off the mark.


Berry, the question was how I keep from moth damage. After I shake the bees in the fall I stack 6-7 boxes of brood with 5-10% of the bees left behind to hatch the brood. That many full brood boxes makes a lot of bees. Two years ago some of those shake out stack made another 50-60 lb of later fall honey (or spring feed).


----------



## The Honey Householder

Chris, welcome. I've hear stories about you before from another guy here in Ohio. Sound like you know what your doing.:thumbsup: Maybe one day I'll be there too.


----------



## Ian

Specialkayme said:


> For most here, a healthy set of criticism is good for the business.


Exactly right Specialkayme.

Chris, I would love to know a what level your bees keep the mites down to. There has been a tremendous amount of attention towards mite tolerance and I have yet to hear of someone who can claim complete success. There has to be a secondary mechanism at work in your apiary.
Because which ever way you cut it, mite growth compounds itself, and unless the hives can keep the mite levels below 1% at all times, the hive will fail to mite load infections. I have yet to hear of a bee that can maintain a mite load below 1% throughout the year.

Let me read between the lines a bit, tell me if Im off course at any time, 
you manage 1800 honey producers, take them all to Cali, and Id suspect shake them in January? if not then, March? 
move the hives down to Texas, and split them down, how many times? 4 or 5 times? Do you sell some of those splits off?
You bring 1800 back up to the Dakotas. 

I know how nucing works, it breaks the mite cycle, I also take advantage of this in my own operation, but there is a point of time in operation when those nuced hives need to be cleansed of their mite loads. Oxalic or what ever. 

Perhaps your hives show tolerance to the mite, and keep the levels downish, perhaps its your other operations during the year that help cleanse the hive of mites also?


----------



## Barry

The Honey Householder said:


> Berry, the question was how I keep from moth damage. After I shake the bees in the fall I stack 6-7 boxes of brood with 5-10% of the bees left behind to hatch the brood. That many full brood boxes makes a lot of bees. Two years ago some of those shake out stack made another 50-60 lb of later fall honey (or spring feed).


OK, but I also asked about your feeding practices. Can you shed some light on that? I recall this comment from a thread longer ago that never got answered:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...r-Method-Honey-Production&p=604987#post604987
You wouldn't ever have feeders in hives that are supered, would you?


----------



## sqkcrk

Ramona said:


> I challenge anyone to meet Chris and tell him to his face that he is a liarabout any aspect of his bees or operation.
> 
> Ramona


Now that would be just plain rude, dontcha think? Chris has been asked to explain what he does and how he does it and all we have gotten from him, as far as I can recall, is "just like I did before mites." Which doesn't tell us much. I'd like to hear some details from Chris. To see if what he does might fit my management style, not to cut him down.


----------



## sqkcrk

Chris Baldwin said:


> Well folks I am a busy guy and tapping this out on my phone isn't very handy. Just wanted to let you know that there is a treatment free commercial beekeeper. I run my bees like most. Honey up north in South Dakota. Winter in Texas. Bees to California. Sell nucs, brood, and cells in Texas. All queen replacement is done March and April. As to my 30% loss about half is queen failure during Summer, the other Fall collapse. Again all nucs and queens are done in Texas in the Spring.
> I learned how to raise cells forty years ago and other than breeders have not purchased 100 queens in that time. I have NEVER had to by brood or bees from outside sources to keep my numbers. I started leaving some yards untreated when I wintered bees in Nebraska. Got some to live but not thrive. Then I tried some Russians and they gave me a real leg up on resistance but (sorry, Tom Rinderer) some Russian lines were terrible. So now I am back to grafting from whatever does well for me under my style of management.(without treatment ) And progress has been slow but my bees are better each year. I am thrilled how good they look now.
> I simply quit treating, built back from survivors selecting the best. Have I taken a hit? You bet. But I believe that this is the ultimate long term answer. How much time and resources do some of you spend on mite monitoring and control? I just keep bees. True, I wonder what six months will bring but so far things keep improving.
> Sooooo.....
> Well I have work to do. Please accept I am not going to jump in here every five minutes. I would be more than happy to visit on the phone to answer specific questions. But don't know if giving out phone numbers here is cool. Go Southbeekota home page. You can find my number and more. One more thing- I really cringe when people call my bees Russians. I am quite removed from that program. What I have are bees that live and do well. Got to go.


Thank you Chris.

Were you at the ABF Mtng this year?


----------



## The Honey Householder

Berry, I do my feeding in the frames. You can feed with supers on the hive, if you know how to manage them. You feed enough to make bees, not fill supers. All my hives have supers on them right know. It takes about 30,000 lb of HFCS to feed 1000 2 lb packages to production. That would be like filling a 1 gallon feed, filled 3 times to build them up for production. By putting the feed into the frames I can start my bees 3-4 weeks ahead of most (one brood cycle). Just think if you had one more month for your bees to build up, what kind of crop your hives could make. 

Jim, I'm shoot for 200 APH, but only the weather will tell that story. Where did you fine the national APH. The real question is how many report there REAL APH.:scratch:


----------



## jim lyon

The Honey Householder said:


> Jim, I'm shoot for 200 APH, but only the weather will tell that story. Where did you fine the national APH. The real question is how many report there REAL APH.:scratch:


http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/Hone/Hone-03-18-2013.pdf
A 200 lb.average for our outfit is pretty much a dream. We will occassionally have a yard do that but it's not like the "old days". We have found a "well timed" nuc is by far the most dependable and productive unit. We quit packages years ago because our buildup is so erratic and I always figured it took the first medium just to pay for the package. 8 frames of brood by the third week in May is where we expect them to be.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Got to hang out with Sam Comfort at NEOBA's Big Bee Buzz this past weekend. While he no longer migrates his bees, he's about as commercial as you can get. And he has essentially come to do what I suggested a treatment-free commercial would have to. He has become stationary, though he now has bees in seven states. And he sells honey for amazing prices, as much as three times what I sell it. 

He also runs mostly non-Lang hives, topbar hives, and now Warre-ish box hives.

Great guy to hang out with.


----------



## hpm08161947

Solomon Parker said:


> And he sells honey for amazing prices, as much as three times what I sell it.
> 
> He also runs mostly non-Lang hives, topbar hives, and now Warre-ish box hives.
> 
> Great guy to hang out with.


Do you happen to know the states (any of them) that Sam keeps bees in?

Is he retailing his honey? Maybe a special contract with Whole Foods... or something like that? Is honey the majority of his Gross? If honey was all I did... my gross would be more than cut in half, but then again... I am not in an amazing honey yield area. I wonder how much of his gross is speaking engagements... maybe nothing... but he is very popular. 

I have no argument that he is commercial... just curious about how he does it.... guess I should have gone....(NEOBA) LOL


----------



## Solomon Parker

I think he has hives in Florida, New York, Hawaii, and maybe New Jersey, maybe Vermont, I don't remember them all.

I'm not sure the exact routes of his sales, but he does refer to it as hustling, hard work. He also sells nucs, queens, and shook swarms.

Speakers (in the beekeeping world) don't get paid as much as you might think. It isn't politics.


----------



## Mbeck

Keeping hives in Hawaii is a good idea but must be a hardest to run a business.
I can just imagine telling customers " No I won't be available next month I get horrible cell phone reception at my Mauna Kea yard".


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

It must just absolutely awful being able to write off regular travel to Hawaii as a business expense!


----------



## Solomon Parker

Apparently they bring in loads of honey and swarm constantly.


----------



## cg3

Both Varroa and SHB are recently arrived there, a place with no natural brood breaks.


----------



## camero7

Well, i'm not a commercial, just a sideliner. This winter I've had heavy losses in my nucs, which I have never treated. Sent some bees to Beltsville and they came back with 8.8 varroa/100 bees and 9.2/100 bees. No nosema or tracheal. I suspect they also have a bad virus load but I never saw DWV. Last winter not treating those nucs. Lesson learned. Going to treat the survivors this week.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I don't mean to be argumentative Cam, but the point is to lose the bees that can't cut it and breed from the survivors. Seems like it would be a waste to scuttle the whole thing now. I humbly submit that splitting is the most correct course of action.


----------



## Solomon Parker

cg3 said:


> Both Varroa and SHB are recently arrived there, a place with no natural brood breaks.


Brood breaks are one method of natural control so it seems that natural selection for colonies with the propensity to swarm would be the obvious course of their survival in such a situation.


----------



## Mbeck

I wonder to what commercial end these tropical bees are kept.
Do these treatment free genetics have anything to offer a Mainland keeper?


----------



## sqkcrk

They're probably just as rare there as here on the mainland. Huge numbers of queens come from Hawaii, commercially so.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I used to know a commercial beekeeper who used Kona queens back in the day. I have no idea why someone would use queens from an isolated island with no mite problems. Yes, they died when not treated. Completely illogical waste of money that I still don't understand.


----------



## gmcharlie

Solomon Parker said:


> I used to know a commercial beekeeper who used Kona queens back in the day. I have no idea why someone would use queens from an isolated island with no mite problems. Yes, they died when not treated. Completely illogical waste of money that I still don't understand.


Its easy Soloman, you can get queens a bit cheaper than Aussie queens in JAN.. when they need them for the almonds.... not about genetics, its timing.


----------



## Ian

Its the reason why we buy queens from Cali and Hawaii, its all about timing. We need our queens beginning to mid May, our local stock is ready by June. Everything happens at the same time here.

Because they are mated on an isolated island does not mean anything in terms of genetic progress. These outfits bring drone semen into the ops. I think if you would talk to some of these commercial queen breeders, youd be impressed. Im told that Olivarez Honey Bees has a hygienic queen avaliable that is very impressive. 
The obvious advantage to mating in an isolated environment is it provides more control on mating


----------



## Ian

Solomon Parker said:


> Completely illogical waste of money that I still don't understand.


Solomon you speak as if your in a bubble, 

I keep hearing snips of commercial treatment free, and the only feed back I can gather from them is breeding,

If we can find operators who practice treatment free on a commercial scale Im interested in their story but to me it looks like they are an exception and far in between. I think if we are able to dig deeper into these operation we will find mite management at some point of their yearly hive work. 
And this is great, some of it is nothing new, it is the route many of us have already adopted


----------



## Solomon Parker

I took some time to think about it yesterday after I posted that and came up with the conclusion that you'd want queens available in the middle of winter that don't know how not to brood constantly. Mites won't be a problem for a while anyway.

The whole thing is totally antithetical to the way I think and do things. The long term goals are all wrong. The selection pressures aren't there.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ian said:


> Solomon you speak as if your in a bubble,


Like I said, not the way I think or do things. Sustainability is always forefront for me. Is this going to work long term? Is this going to work by itself if I get injured or sick? If I have to move for a couple years will I have bees when I get back? In all cases, the answer has proven to be yes.

Sam Comfort has demonstrated that his system does work when he's not around. It's cheap. It may not be incredibly efficient but for the dollars and the hours invested, it's a very intriguing proposition.


----------



## Ian

I dont want queens that will not brood up constantly. We have so little time to execute on the prairies that we need every week.

We both hold different philosophys towards beekeeping, which is fine. Your reliance on bees are different than mine, my acceptance of industrialized agriculture is different than yours. 

Bees are not natural here in my area, nor is agriculture, nor is the way we keep the bees. How long will it take to breed a bee that natually adapts to our un natural setting? and then throw mites and diseases into the equation !


----------



## Solomon Parker

Are there no feral bees in the area?


----------



## beemandan

Puts me in mind of that Arizona treatment free beekeeper who continues to propagate those excessively defensive, year-round broody, swarmy, absconding, usurping, nonproductive….mite tolerant bees. Now that’s long term thinking!


----------



## jim lyon

Solomon Parker said:


> I used to know a commercial beekeeper who used Kona queens back in the day. I have no idea why someone would use queens from an isolated island with no mite problems. Yes, they died when not treated. Completely illogical waste of money that I still don't understand.


First off they have had varroa for several years now and secondly they have been importing drone semen from some good sources for quite some time. These breeders do an excellent job of providing the industry queens at a time when there are few other options. I know many beekeepers who are able to use these for fall and winter splits that pay for themselves many times over in pollination income. Book some queens from Kona and you will get a delivery date you can count on. One more thing about them is their stock comes originally from Weavers. Ring a bell with anyone?


----------



## Solomon Parker

jim lyon said:


> First off they have had varroa for several years now


I said "back in the day" Jim. No need to get defensive.

Again, thinking differently. I'm coming to see that's the key with commercial and treatment-free.


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> Puts me in mind of that Arizona treatment free beekeeper who continues to propagate those excessively defensive, year-round broody, swarmy, absconding, usurping, nonproductive….mite tolerant bees. Now that’s long term thinking!


Errr, I've worked with those bees...actually visited them 7 times over the last 6 years, and there are 3-4 colonies in the operation that are particularly "enthusiastic"...and the honey they non-produce generates a large part of my income. Last month I had the chance to do a few inspections while Dee rested in the truck...I used smoke the way I would with any unknown bees, and they were entirely manageable.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion....not every opinion is actually informed or accurate.

deknow


----------



## deknow

It's worth noting that my post (number 4 in a thread with over 360 posts):


> Off the top of my head....Dee lusby, Kirk Webster, Bob Brachmann, les crowder....Chris Baldwin is darn close (no varroa treatments). Sam comfort would probably qualify, but I'm not sure he would want to be considered a commercial anything.


It took quite a while to get to any of these....the fact that no one really seems curious indicates to me that no one really wants to know.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

deknow said:


> the fact that no one really seems curious indicates to me that no one really wants to know.


It seems to me no one wants to admit or allow for. There has been a pretty strong effort to discount each case for one reason or another.

But that's okay. Like you said, Sam isn't hung up on it. Mike Bush would really like to be working bees full time, but he can't right now. Dee doesn't give a flying rip what this group thinks or she'd be here too. Kirk is his own person doing his own thing. Nobody who does it is all that bothered how they look in this forum's eyes.

What does this all mean? If you want to do treatment-free, look somewhere else. Commercial beekeepers for the most part aren't interested in treatment-free, especially the ones who use Beesource.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Puts me in mind of that Arizona treatment free beekeeper who continues to propagate those excessively defensive, year-round broody, swarmy, absconding, usurping, nonproductive….mite tolerant bees.

Hmm... I must not know that person. The only one I know in AZ is Dee and hers produce about 20 barrels of honey a year with very little work on Dee's part per hive. The kind of bees you describe would be a lot of work...


----------



## Ian

Solomon Parker said:


> Are there no feral bees in the area?


No, just casts off from the year before, but nothing that would linger for anymore than a few years


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> It's worth noting that my post (number 4 in a thread with over 360 posts):
> 
> 
> It took quite a while to get to any of these....the fact that no one really seems curious indicates to me that no one really wants to know.
> 
> deknow


then can you speak in behalf of these guys? Can I dig into their management program through you?


----------



## Ian

Solomon Parker said:


> It seems to me no one wants to admit or allow for. There has been a pretty strong effort to discount each case for one reason or another.


by not accepting blind faith doesnt count as discounting the case


----------



## hpm08161947

Ian said:


> I dont want queens that will not brood up constantly. We have so little time to execute on the prairies that we need every week.
> 
> 
> Bees are not natural here in my area, nor is agriculture, nor is the way we keep the bees. How long will it take to breed a bee that natually adapts to our un natural setting? and then throw mites and diseases into the equation !


Ian.... if you can get Kona Queens in Manitoba..... wonder why I can not cross the border with a load to bees to sample that prairie nectar? I assure you - you would be welcome to come on down try some southern swamp honey..... Once upon a time I understood the border ban.... these days I don't see the sense in it.... unless it is just pure protectionist politics... on both sides.

BTW... isn't grass a naturally occurring thing on those prairie.... (never seen a prairie... but would love to)


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ian said:


> by not accepting blind faith doesnt count as discounting the case


What's the point in even discussing it then? I am supposed to believe you when you tell me there are no bees in your area. What would make me want to do that? Statements like "I think if we are able to dig deeper into these operation we will find mite management at some point of their yearly hive work," show a fundamental mistrust of anything that anyone says that doesn't mesh with your world view. 

I guess what I'm saying is, why should anyone jump through your hoops? You just keep moving the hoop. What's the point? Just accept that there are no treatment-free commercials and move on. No one appears to be able to change your mind.


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> by not accepting blind faith doesnt count as discounting the case


Of course it doesn't....but if one wants to have a discussion about the possibility of commercial treatment free beekeepers (presumably everyone posting here wants to be part of that conversation), and a number of names are given, that someone would express some curiosity. Here we are at post 336+...how about Bob Brachmann? How about Kirk Webster? These folks aren't invisible.

deknow


----------



## Ian

hpm08161947 said:


> Ian.... if you can get Kona Queens in Manitoba..... wonder why I can not cross the border with a load to bees to sample that prairie nectar? I assure you - you would be welcome to come on down try some southern swamp honey..... Once upon a time I understood the border ban.... these days I don't see the sense in it.... unless it is just pure protectionist politics... on both sides.
> 
> BTW... isn't grass a naturally occurring thing on those prairie.... (never seen a prairie... but would love to)


that issue is out of my hands, I can only buy queens from Cali


----------



## Ian

lets talk about these guys then, if they are there, actually managing commercial treatment free operations, 

Two points I have gotten from this discussion, 

#1 dont know what disease levels are in treatment free operations discussed here, because it doesnt matter

#2 use breeding to be able to manage treatment free operations

I cant hang my hat on those two points. I also know of a survival project here that does not make any of the claims made by keepers here, and they full disclose their operations. 

like I said before, because I do not accept blind faith, does not mean Im discrediting whats said. Answer some questions
listing beekeepers names who commercially keep treatment free is awesome, as it shows beekeepers doing it, but if thats all you give me here in this forum, that is all I can take that information at, names


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> then can you speak in behalf of these guys? Can I dig into their management program through you?


I've posted quite a bit about what I know about most of these people...but if someone wanted to know about your indoor overwintering setup, and they really wanted to know, they wouldn't ask me, they would call you up.
When I give formal presentations of treatment free beekeeping, I do discuss and contrast what Dee does, what Kirk does, what Bob does.
Kirk is pretty well known, and has a bunch of articles on his own website that explains his approach and practice better than I could: http://KirkWebster.com
Bob is part of the Russian breeding program and is easy to find through their directory
The mention of Chris Baldwin's name was completely ignored until he came here to post on the forum from his phone.

When I wanted to see for myself (and not take anything on blind faith), I went to visit Dee, Kirk, Bob, etc.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> ...but if thats all you give me here in this forum, that is all I can take that information at, names


Exactly....now, what other aspects of beekeeping do you really want to know about that you would simply forget about if not fully explained to you in all details on beesource?

What do you want to know? What answers will you accept? What will you claim is "blind faith"?

deknow


----------



## Ian

absolutely, seeing things first hand is what we need to do, and much the reason we hold yearly conventions and such. 

for the sake of this forum discussion, lets assume I cant go down to where ever these guys work, nor would I want to bother them.
so lets take what we know from their example and talk about it. You brought their names up, and you say you talk on this subject, so deknow ( the only name I can put to you ) lets dig deeper,..


----------



## Michael Bush

>then can you speak in behalf of these guys?

Dee's work is on here and on her web site, and has been observed by several of us.
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/

Kirk has published his methods in the bee journals and those articles have been put online.
www.kirkwebster.com

I think their writing speaks for itself.

>#1 dont know what disease levels are in treatment free operations discussed here, because it doesnt matter

Well, you CAN know what mine are. They are measured by the bee inspector every year:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm

> Mites invariably build up as the season progresses.

Actually, that has not been my experience. They build up some early in the spring and drop off all summer into the fall in small cell hives... very little of the worker brood ever gets infested.

>I think if we are able to dig deeper into these operation we will find mite management at some point of their yearly hive work

Not in my operation nor, in my experience, others who have been listed whose operations I've seen, such as Dee, or Kirk. Of course some will say making splits is Varroa control. No doubt anything you do has an affect, but to not split to prevent swarms would be mismangament, in my view, and I don't think I make any more or less than other people. While it may be true that my home yard is being manipulated for queen rearing, and that probably has more of an effect, the rest of my yards are just managed as usual.


----------



## Ian

this is a commercial forum so we have to assume many of us ride on the coat tail of our banker

tell me how I can take my 1000 hives, manage them from April to October, through a month long splitting, through a three month honey flow, and prepare them for winter without considering disease as the foundation to my management strategy. Nosema, varroa mite, AFB, viral loads, pesticide, 
What breeding efforts am I going to have to tap into that will give me the ability to put these thoughts out of mind,


----------



## Ian

I have listened to some of your speaking engagements on YouTube Michael, very much enjoyed your talk


----------



## Ian

I have adopted a nuc strategy in my operation. I will manage a large number of nucs for the following season, and using hygenic queens, and even so, I have to slap those mites down at least one time of the year with Oxalic or chem to allow for satisfactory wintering. Thats not considering nosema either


----------



## deknow

Ian, I'm reluctant to enter into this if you aren't willing to read what Kirk and Dee have written (Dee's writing can be difficult, I'm happy to help you with anything you are having difficulties understanding...but they are here on beesource under POV).

We've now gone from the "there are none" mantra of 300+ posts, to "tell me how to manage my bees and my debt load with the bank". Honestly, i'm not trying to be evasive, I just don't think you are going to believe anything I tell you. I would have thought Chris's contributions would have answered some questions.

deknow


----------



## camero7

I think Kirk is a better example than Dee. I would never have those Africanized bees that Dean posted videos of. Also she is very evasive about her yields and whether the hives are profitable. There is no doubt in my mind that Kirk has a sustainable apiary that is no treat. And I classify him as a commercial. And he has written extensively on his methods and ideas. http://kirkwebster.com/


----------



## deknow

Cam, I don't recall a P&L statement from you for your pollination, nuc resales, and honey production...where do I find that?


deknow



camero7 said:


> I think Kirk is a better example than Dee. I would never have those Africanized bees that Dean posted videos of. Also she is very evasive about her yields and whether the hives are profitable. There is no doubt in my mind that Kirk has a sustainable apiary that is no treat. And I classify him as a commercial. And he has written extensively on his methods and ideas. http://kirkwebster.com/


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> Ian, I'm reluctant to enter into this if you aren't willing to read what Kirk and Dee have written


what ever you feel comfortable with. I have read into those websites and leaves me with questions, 
I guess bind faith is pretty much part and parcel of this management strategy 
definetly admire the work of these beekeepers, cant translate it into my operation management yet

Chris came aboard , and made his claim, and made a brief explanation. Cheers to that,
questions that came from that were left un answered. And the discussion was left at that.


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> We've now gone from the "there are none" mantra of 300+ posts, to "tell me how to manage my bees and my debt load with the bank".
> deknow


this is a discussion in the commercial forum, right? so you must understand the debt load comments to be real.


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> I have read into those websites and leaves me with questions, I guess bind faith is pretty much part and parcel of this management strategy definetly admire the work of these beekeepers, cant translate it into my operation management yet


Too bad it is a crime to ask questions based upon what you have read, otherwise this discussion could be more productive, or you could call/email the writers themselves. Perhaps in the future things will change and asking questions will be encouraged 



> Chris came aboard , and made his claim, and made a brief explanation. Cheers to that,
> questions that came from that were left un answered. And the discussion was left at that.


Yeah, it would have been helpful if he invited anyone with questions to call him, and gave his website so you could find his number.

Get serious.

deknow


----------



## camero7

> Cam, I don't recall a P&L statement from you for your pollination, nuc resales, and honey production...where do I find that?


I have never claimed to be a commercial beekeeper making my living off the bees. In fact I'm still in the red as I expand. I read with interest Dee's assertions on another forum and her failure to back up those claims. I haven't seen Kirk's P&L either but I have no doubt that he makes his living from his bees. Haven't seen your P&L statement either Dean. You post yours and I'll post mine!


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> this is a discussion in the commercial forum, right? so you must understand the debt load comments to be real.


Of course they are real....but I don't know the details of your debt or your relationship/history with your banker. 

In all the conversations on the commercial forum I've read and participated in, I've never seen someone try to disrupt a conversation about what truck to buy, when to move bees, how to make up numbers by requiring that the answers also specify how to manage the debt someone is already in.

Now, if we want to talk about being honest and forthcoming, can I assume that since we don't read about offlabel use of Amitraz by commercial beekeepers that none of the commercial beekeepers who participate in this forum were using Amitraz at all while it was not permitted? What standards of full disclosure are being expected of whom?

deknow


----------



## deknow

camero7 said:


> I have never claimed to be a commercial beekeeper making my living off the bees. In fact I'm still in the red as I expand. I read with interest Dee's assertions on another forum and her failure to back up those claims. I haven't seen Kirk's P&L either but I have no doubt that he makes his living from his bees. Haven't seen your P&L statement either Dean. You post yours and I'll post mine!


The only evidence there is that Kirk is being truthful and Dee isn't is that Allen accused Dee of being untruthful. You can take Allen's word for it, or you can take Dee's. Only one of them actually has data to base their assertion upon.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ian said:


> I have to slap those mites down at least one time of the year with Oxalic or chem to allow for satisfactory wintering.


You ask how to do it, and here is the key. It's the threshold for satisfactory one time, or two time losses.

Dee reported about a 90% loss (of 1000) over a couple years, but that was with extremely stressful shakedowns. I experienced 75% (of 20, not a totally insignificant number) over five years, but I did no shakedowns. Later when I moved, I experienced a fresh 66% loss as the bees were not acclimatized but I can not necessarily fault disease in that case. At any rate, losses have consistently diminished since then, 9% last year, 4% this year.

My point is this: If one is not willing to lose bees for at least one winter and probably three and split back from it, one will probably not be successful with treatment-free. It seems to me that commercials are approaching the treatment-free idea from the same perspective that newbees usually do. "I'm just going to skip treatments and expect the same results." Just the other day I read about a guy who kept some treatment-free nucs and a bunch of them died, so now he's going to treat. Why? That's like taking three steps up the stair case and giving up and taking the elevator because ya didn't get to the top! And no one is going to sell you the queens that are going to do it for you. You have to make your own. No one sells a migratory treatment-free queen....yet, and again I hold out hope. 

On the other hand, a more consistent approach is one I hear from some other newbees, usually the ones I meet in person, which is "if I have to treat, I'm not going to keep bees." They go in with the correct frame of mind and they seem to come out better and more successful for it. 

Yes, if you stop treating, some bees are going to die. It's not a speed bump, it is the road. The destination is a sustainable population with an acceptable loss rate.




Sam Comfort enlightened me the other day. He said something to the effect of: "this guy is the perfect example of somebody who took Dee's method and ran with it." Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't, but with so many factors in the equation, how do you tell?


----------



## Ian

thats the whole point Slolomon, loss after loss after loss. So, if its just about breeding the survivors, why is it that the queens that I buy from my closest survivor project still have a threshold where I need to knock the mites down. 
Instant genetic change over, better mite tolerance I hope, but still climbing mite counts. Throw some nucing in there, keep the hives going. But I still need to build those big hives to bring in the honey. Those hives fail if mite levels climb. 
anyway we are talking in circles, good luck in your beekeeping operations this season


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ian said:


> So, if its just about breeding the survivors, why is it that the queens that I buy from my closest survivor project still have a threshold where I need to knock the mites down.


I know nothing about the project or your threshold and so cannot comment. All I can do is relate my experience and what I do is hard Bond method and quickly my losses came to be more than acceptable.


----------



## sqkcrk

Ian said:


> If we can find operators who practice treatment free on a commercial scale Im interested in their story but to me it looks like they are an exception and far in between.


Or you have to play w/ the definition of what it means to be commercial.


----------



## beemandan

camero7 said:


> Also she is very evasive about her yields and whether the hives are profitable.





Michael Bush said:


> I must not know that person. The only one I know in AZ is Dee and hers produce about 20 barrels of honey a year with very little work on Dee's part per hive.


Ok…now we have numbers. I believe I’ve seen Dee post on BeeL that she runs about 800 hives. A barrel contains…55 gal? 20 barrels x 55 gallons = 1100 gallons. 1100 gallons divided by 800 hives……..
She can keep those ‘productive’ bees....


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> It's worth noting that my post (number 4 in a thread with over 360 posts):
> 
> 
> It took quite a while to get to any of these....the fact that no one really seems curious indicates to me that no one really wants to know.
> 
> deknow


Lusby's and Webster's storys are well known and documented, so what's to know? Crowder I am not familiar w/. I didn't know that Bob Brachmann is treatment free. I'll have to give him a phone call to learn the details.

It surprises me actually. When I suggested Michael Bush as a speaker for last Fall's ESHPA Mtng he didn't seem to know him. But I guess I shouldn't assume that all treatment free beekeepers know each other.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> Mike Bush would really like to be working bees full time, but bees don't provide health insurance.
> 
> Kirk is his own person doing his own thing. Nobody who does it is all that bothered how they look in this forum's eyes.


Does Michael have medical problems requiring health insurance? I don't have health insurance.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> But I guess I shouldn't assume that all treatment free beekeepers know each other.


They don't. I just met Sam this past weekend. He and Michael are the only ones I've met in person. Met Ed Levi too, but he's quite a bit more active on the soft stuff. He could tell you his mite levels though, he keeps real close track. He keeps them under 5% or so and losses this year under 8%.


----------



## hpm08161947

Gee.. it really is pretty hard for TF and non-TF beekeepers to have a conversation for very long. I for one an still interested in establishing a TF yard.... not convert everything.... but just one yard. So I am naturally interested in the operations of TF Commercials and how they function. Since Dee Lusby always comes up - I wonder if she bottles and retails those 20 barrels of honey.... seems like it would be pretty hard to make a go of it on a $26,000.00 Gross (Bulk Sales). Of course she may sell queens, nucs, package bees for all I know.... I bet Deknow knows....


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> Does Michael have medical problems requiring health insurance?


I'm purdy sure that's not how insurance works, at least not yet.


----------



## sqkcrk

But you knew of them, didn't you?

So Dean, how does Bob Brachmann keep bees w/out treating?


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> But you knew of them, didn't you?


I only know what I've seen and read. Few dare be as forthcoming as me, online at least. I really need to knock it off.


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> But you knew of them, didn't you?
> 
> So Dean, how does Bob Brachmann keep bees w/out treating?


he cant comment on that Mark, your have to call Bob to find out


----------



## funwithbees

we run 600-700 colonies. Our bees are mongrels,queens are from a breeder that started with 18 lines of hygenic bees.but they are the best performing bees i have seen in years. They produce honey( when there is a flow ) like the bees used to when we first started in the 80's. Still have to treat.Our best hives made 6 mediums of fall honey this year to harvest.We have tried most of the advertized resistant queens on the market over the years. they all die from the mite/virus loads if left untreated,sooner or later. We worked in a coop with jack Griffis and the Honeybee Improvement program in Mi. back in the 90's breeding from our untreated THRIVING 2 year survivors and AI breeding them with drones from the same program. We spent a lot of time(4 years) and money and still had dead bees. No silver bullet.



Mites are always an issue and need some type of treatment whether it is different styles of management, chems or organic acids etc. I may be going out on a limb, but there is really no such thing as a mite resistant bee.Some are more resistant to the viruses ie;russians,as they tend to last longer before the viruses kill them as opposed to other stocks.They still have plenty of mites and seem to manage them ( reduce the mite load) better by being a very swarmy bee.We ran 100 colonies of relatively pure russians a few years ago and this was my observation.



I spent some time in the mountains of Nepal 2 summers ago and worked apis cerana cerana and apis cerana indica with a missionary friend who lived in the remote village of Jumla in the mountains. The bees were kept in topbar/log hives and swarming was actually looked forward to. the hives usually only make 2-3 KG of honey per year surplus and the beeks were excited for swarms to increase production and hive numbers. At the time I was there we witnessed some colonies sucumbing to PMS and crashing, just like ours do when left untreated. This appeared to be due to the weather patterns and bloom, there was almost NO swarming for the normal period that swarms usually issue. We used apistan to try to save this farmers hives. Most of the commercial beeks there (50 colony ave.) kill all the queens after the flow and put in a sprig of artemesia plant( a relative of wormwood that contains essential oils that repel and kill mites). So the bees are treated for mites during a queenless /broodless period.

They also have an insect called a psudo-scorpion that lives in the crevices in a hive and you can actually see them eat mites. These bees do not propolize the cracks and the scorpions have a place to live.



My question is how can we say that this bee ( apis cerana) which, is the native host of varroa, is resistant to mites? It seems that the management( swarming) and the psudo scorpions normally control the mite populations. Why would the natives treat with artemesia and kill queens to reduce the mite populations it they were naturally resistant. 



I am not against non treatment and would LOVE to not treat myself, but when your paycheck depends on your bees making honey, you hafta do what is necessary. Dead bees dont make honey. We use formic in early may,late july to have healthy bees going into fall so the winter bees are not heavily mite laden. A fall only treatment is too late as the bees raised in the early fall are already weakened and those need to survive till spring broodrearing.

lots to consider
Nick

Virgil NY _Not spring here yet


----------



## DRUR

I started from scratch in March of 2009, totally treatment free and on small cell, screened bottoms w/top entrances. I bought hygienic queens from different sources for genetic diversity. The colonies I bought were all on large cell but I quickly [within a few months] converted them to small cells by dropping small cell frames in between the large cells and as the small cell frames were drawn out I removed the large cells. After my first 2 years, I covered my costs of all my bees, queens, and equipment purchased, including 20 frame extractor, uncapping plane etc, even kept up with my gas expense. But, of course I am small time and don’t count; and this was during a time of severe drought here in Texas.

Last year, I had my greatest losses. Moved my bees to west Texas on sunflowers with the bee coordinator telling me that they don’t spray, while we are standing there ¼ mile off a plane is spraying sunflowers. Then he tells me they only spray early in the morning or late in the evening when the bees aren’t out. He is telling me this at about 10:30 a.m. while we are standing there watching the plane spray the sunflowers, needless to say I moved my bees back several hundred miles to a friends house until we found irrigated cotton in that same area that the farmer assured us wasn’t getting sprayed. I went with 16 colonies, and brought home only 13, all with low bee populations. I lost down to 9 before I could get them built back up for winter. So, I guess I can say from experience that moving [migrating] all over the State is hard on bees, even treatment free bees. All 9 of those came through the winter, but one was queenless but still had a good bee population. I have still cleared several thousand more than I have invested.

I have now split to 17, and hope to split more and sale 15-20 colonies this year and produce 600-1000# of honey as I have a local market for that much honey, and I clear a whole lot more than the wholesale price of $2.00 per pound. I have sold 10 double deep colonies over the last 2 years, all treatment free, and those I have sold them to have only suffered 1 loss [cause of loss unknown, but I suspect they starved during the drought], all treatment free. I wouldn’t consider myself commercial but I am not doing this for the fun of it either; but rather, I do it to earn money to at least help provide for my needs.

I have had a few losses over the past 4 years, but my greatest losses were covered above while moving my bees all over Texas during the drought last year. Of course I am not materialistically inclined, and having food and raiment I try to be content [I Tim. 6:8]. 

Can this be done on a commercial scale, apparently as Chris Baldwin, Dee Lusby, Michael Bush and others are doing. But don’t try to fit my methods and needs into your category because I don’t know that I would want to live my life in your shoes, nor would you probably want to live yours in mine. My life is somewhat like a boxing match, I try to roll with the punches, and if I get knocked down, I try to get back up and avoid that same left hook next time. But I won't treat my colonies although I will use management techniques that enhance my chance of success, whatever that might be, other than chemical treatments.

Kindest regards
Danny Unger


----------



## deknow

A few thoughts...

1. When I'm choosing my friends and picking people to do business with, like everyone, I pick those that I think are most likely to take any personal and business information I tell them, or they figure out/come across in the course of our relationship....and post it all over the internet.

2. When I have questions about something I read, instead of asking the author or someone else who might know the answers to the specific questions I have, I find it's more productive and a better use of everyone's time to simply ask a third party to explain the whole thing to me _without_ letting them know what my understanding is based upon what I've read. The best part about this approach is that it doesn't require that I actually read the things I say I read, and I can criticize the person I'm asking for not answering the questions I never asked.

3. Just as Dee's P&L, production numbers, and tax returns should be publicly available for everyone who doesn't share such things to critique, Michael's electronic medical records should also be open for public scrutiny.

deknow


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

Solomon Parker said:


> " but bees don't provide health insurance".
> ..snip..
> What does this all mean? If you want to do treatment-free, look somewhere else. Commercial beekeepers for the most part aren't interested in treatment-free, especially the ones who use Beesource.


Solomon, what you don't seem to want to acknowledge, or maybe don't understand, is how seriously we commercial beekeepers depend on our bees health and productivity for our livelihood. This is no hobby. I'm not sure of Michael Bush's bees, but our bees MUST pay for insurance, and the utilities and all the food and gas and any other living expenses we have. We buy our own health insurance. We pay for our children's education. We buy our own retirement funds. If the bees don't pay for it, it doesn't get bought.
It is easy to speak of 50-70 percent losses when the meal on the table comes from another job. It would be a major disaster for a commercial beekeeper. A business plan that suggests multiple years of big losses is a hard thing to contemplate, and financially impossible for most. It isn't that commercial beekeepers aren't interested in treatment -free. The length of this thread is evidence to the contrary. They just aren't willing to bet the farm, literally, on a hope and a prayer, and consolation that those losses will decrease over time. A couple years of 50% or more loss to a typical commercial keeper would mean major hardship and possible bankruptcy. 

Your is an entirely different viewpoint from most for whom this forum was created. You shouldn't be disillusioned or take it personally when someone with their family's well being at stake asks for concrete information. Most who take big risks without pretty good odds of a positive outcome aren't in business any more. 
We are all looking forward to the time when the stats on smaller operators can be expected on a large scale, and some larger operations are setting aside some to experiment with, but beekeeping isn't so lucrative that we can take the financial hits that have been suggested.

You are probably correct that this forum isn't the best place for those focused on treatment -free, which is why there was a forum on Beesource specially created for them. 
Sheri
P.S. I am pretty sure if Mr Bush wanted to work bees full time he most certainly could, and pay his insurance as well.


----------



## sqkcrk

But, Dean, you claimed no one was interested, so I asked.

Do you believe that Bob Brachmann is a treatment free commercial beekeeper? I will speak to Bob myself for details about his management practices. But I would think that you would be able to answer the question as to whether you believe he is treatment free or not.

Solomon,
I know only one person who you consider a commercial beekeeper who can walk away from their bees for two years and still maintain a commercial status.


----------



## deknow

I expect I know quite a bit more about Dee's production than Michael does. I also expect that those beekeepers posting here expect their friends and associates to keep confidential information confidential.

You can trust me to tell the truth. You can't expect me to post about everything I know from every source. You can also expect me to keep a confidence confidential.

deknow


----------



## deknow

JohnK and Sheri said:


> It is easy to speak of 50-70 percent losses when the meal on the table comes from another job. It would be a major disaster for a commercial beekeeper.


So, if a commercial beekeeper has a spouse that works...a job that provides insurance, are they somehow not a commercial beekeeper?

Diversifiying a business or family income is generally seen as a smart approach to business in general. It seems a bit odd to present this as somehow "cheating" at being a commercial beekeeper...these are smart things for a commercial anything.

deknow


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> But, Dean, you claimed no one was interested, so I asked.
> Do you believe that Bob Brachmann is a treatment free commercial beekeeper?


Did you read my posts where I said he was?

deknow


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> It's worth noting that my post (number 4 in a thread with over 360 posts):
> 
> >>Off the top of my head....Dee lusby, Kirk Webster, Bob Brachmann, les crowder....Chris Baldwin is darn close (no varroa treatments). Sam comfort would probably qualify, but I'm not sure he would want to be considered a commercial anything.<<
> 
> It took quite a while to get to any of these....the fact that no one really seems curious indicates to me that no one really wants to know.
> 
> deknow


your willing to point these guys out, and curious why we are not asking about them, and then get offended when we ask you about them,... 

oh please, in general terms, tell me the secret


----------



## Solomon Parker

JohnK and Sheri said:


> Your is an entirely different viewpoint from most for whom this forum was created.


And as I've mentioned repeatedly, there's no other option for someone like me who does have a day job and yet pours a whole lot of time and energy into making money on bees too.  And despite my requests and those of others as well, the situation remains firmly on this same road. There is no Sideliner forum.

And what you don't seem to what to acknowledge is that I continually acknowledge how seriously you commercial beekeepers depend on your bees health and productivity for your livelihood. But that doesn't change the answer to the question as to how a commercial beekeeper is going to become treatment-free. It's the same way everyone does. They simply quit treating. So if you as a group are not interested in doing it, stop asking the question.


----------



## funwithbees

Solomon, what you don't seem to want to acknowledge, or maybe don't understand, is how seriously we commercial beekeepers depend on our bees health and productivity for our livelihood. This is no hobby. I'm not sure of Michael Bush's bees, but our bees MUST pay for insurance, and the utilities and all the food and gas and any other living expenses we have. We buy our own health insurance. We pay for our children's education. We buy our own retirement funds. If the bees don't pay for it, it doesn't get bought.

well put sheri. deknow, you have a good point as well. 

Bob Brachmann is a good friend of mine and he is treatment free. From the outside looking in( MY personal opinion)his treatment free management of the russians is due to selling lots of nucs and the continous splitting keeps the mite loads manageable for the russian lines.Maybe Mark can clarify when he speaks with Bob. Same management as a few others in upstate that have treatment free operations.These are not on a 1000 hive plus operations.

It can be done, but special management or treatments are required.
Nick:digging:


----------



## Ian

Solomon Parker said:


> They simply quit treating. So if you as a group are not interested in doing it, stop asking the question.


Id wonder if you would have the same stand point if I dropped you into managing my beekeeping op of 1000. Your perspective would change or my bees would all be dead, and the banker would be locking the door. Then how far would your treatment strategy go,? No bees, no operation, no treatment free strategy

remember the question is being asked on a commercial forum, not the treatment free forum,


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> your willing to point these guys out, and curious why we are not asking about them, and then get offended when we ask you about them,...


I'm not offended...you are going to get more accurate information from them directly.



> oh please, in general terms, tell me the secret


The "secret" is that if you want to be treatment free, you have to make it a priority. There are many ways to accomplish this....but it isn't going to happen by accident.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ian, I would love to take over management of your hives. As you may remember, I started out wanting to be a commercial beekeeper. I have ten years of experience keeping bees and I feel that I would be a valuable asset to your operation. Please contact me via PM to discuss compensation.


----------



## Ian

You are welcome to come work for me anytime! Im looking to hire someone who has a beekeeping background. It would help my spring time work load quite a bit,
but, . . . I think you were tongue in cheek


----------



## Solomon Parker

You said managing! What's this bait and switch? :lpf:


----------



## Ian

ha ha ha, no no no Solomon, I m not going to hire you to manage, yikes 
cheers!


----------



## Ian

>>>The "secret" is that if you want to be treatment free, you have to make it a priority. There are many ways to accomplish this....but it isn't going to happen by accident.<<<

Yes, that holds true to alot of what we do as business owners, 
it is what separates us from the day jobers 

but as many day jobers will tell you, sometimes they can want something so desperately and not get it because it simply is not just that easy.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I didn't think so. Your operation livelihood on it and you'd never make such a stupid decision as to turn it over to someone you don't trust.


----------



## Ian

no, not referring to you, but your philosophy of hive management. It simply would bankrupt me soon as my equity would run out.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Well, predicting the future is where I get off.


----------



## Ian

So Solomon, I dont understand your philosophy at all. You believe in natural beekeeping, I get that, but you will not manage diseases with treatment,.? Yet you will manipulate the hive and inadvertely manage disease,.?
Dont think for a second that these named commercial treatment free beekeepers dont manipulate their hive to exaggerate the bees ability to deal with the mite.


----------



## Ian

how is colony manipulation helping you breed for mite resistance any different than if you would dribble a few mils of Oxalic acid at specific times of the year?


----------



## DRUR

funwithbees said:


> the outside looking in( MY personal opinion)his treatment free management of the russians is due to selling lots of nucs and the continous splitting keeps the mite loads manageable for the russian lines.


I split but my splits don't go queenless for any length of time. I keep hearing this and wondering how splitting would lower the mite load? Many and maybe most who split to sell those splits have already raised or will be shortly purchasing queens for those splits. I realize virgins are placed in breeding nucs, but after the queens are laying aren't they generally just combined with a split. There would be little if any break in the brood activity. I am making splits now to sell and I want a queen shortly after the split. But that wouldn't/doesn't break the mite cycle does it?


----------



## Ian

dilution is the solution,


----------



## hpm08161947

I imagine that the notion that TF beekeepers are really selecting for less virulent mites would not be an acceptable hypothesis among the TF people here?


----------



## funwithbees

most of the splits are done with cells, so there is a good long broodless period.

Nick


----------



## deknow

hpm08161947 said:


> I imagine that the notion that TF beekeepers are really selecting for less virulent mites would not be an acceptable hypothesis among the TF people here?


It's certainly possible. We've had a couple of nucs from another treatment free beekeeper totally crash when placed in our yard....so many mites that it looked like 220 grit sandpaper had been dragged over the capped brood. The hives surrounding them were also treatment free, and were fine.

But the real objection to your hypothesis is going to come from the folks who are treating...after all, the corollary is that by treating (never mind migrating), conventional beekeepers are selecting for more virulent mites.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ian said:


> You believe in natural beekeeping,


I don't subscribe to anything called "natural beekeeping."



Ian said:


> you will not manage diseases with treatment,.?


That is correct.



Ian said:


> Yet you will manipulate the hive and inadvertely manage disease,.?


I don't know what manipulation you are referring to that manages disease.



Ian said:


> Dont think for a second that these named commercial treatment free beekeepers dont manipulate their hive to exaggerate the bees ability to deal with the mite.


I don't.



Ian said:


> how is colony manipulation helping you breed for mite resistance any different than if you would dribble a few mils of Oxalic acid at specific times of the year?


I don't know what manipulation you're talking about that helps with mite resistance. Resistance is from the bees. Any manipulation would be helping, not increasing resistance. I'm against helping. What does increase mite resistance is allowing bees to die that don't have resistance and artificially increasing the numbers of the survivors through prolific splitting and/or queen rearing to create new hives.

Oxalic is supposed to kill mites. I wouldn't know, I've never used it. But if it does kill mites, it's helping, and I don't help. Read my resume. It says "Does not help, does not treat, will argue with anything."



Ian said:


> So Solomon, I dont understand your philosophy at all.


That is correct.


----------



## hpm08161947

deknow said:


> But the real objection to your hypothesis is going to come from the folks who are treating...after all, the corollary is that by treating (never mind migrating), conventional beekeepers are selecting for more virulent mites.
> 
> deknow


How does a mitecide distinguish between a virulent mite and a less toxic mite? Seems like the selection pressures would be equal....


----------



## Solomon Parker

hpm08161947 said:


> I imagine that the notion that TF beekeepers are really selecting for less virulent mites would not be an acceptable hypothesis among the TF people here?


I believe in that hypothesis. The way to breed for less virulent mites is to let the virulent ones kill themselves off with the hives they infest. But is that the only mechanism at work? That I do not believe.


----------



## Ian

manipulation >>> splitting


----------



## deknow

Actually, I don't think I mentioned this before, but Jim's suggestion from earlier in the thread that perhaps in large operations mites that are usually essentially cloning themselves are outcrossing instead is intriguing...not something I'd heard expressed in quite the same way before.

deknow


----------



## DRUR

funwithbees said:


> most of the splits are done with cells, so there is a good long broodless period.


Tugging on my chain again? You consider 2 weeks a good long broodless period? I doubt that would do much in breaking the mite cycle my friend.


----------



## The Honey Householder

Really there is nothing wrong with sharing what you want to share. 
Really in big business you can't share the company secrets. 
I enjoy reading about how others run there operations, and tell people about how I run mine. I've learned years ago there is more then one way to run an operation and still make a good living. The real thing is to find a way that works for your operation and then improve on that each year. 

This is my job, and I have to make it work.:digging:


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ian said:


> manipulation >>> splitting


I don't split anymore, especially not honey production hives. I graft queens, place cells in mating nucs made up of weaker hives, and grow them into full size hives. The hives set aside for honey production don't get split. They just sit there going full steam.


----------



## DRUR

Ian said:


> manipulation >>> splitting


Splitting was a management technique that existed long before destructer existed. Give me a break. I also feed syrup, I guess that is manipulation. I also reverse boxes, that's a manipulation.

Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## deknow

hpm08161947 said:


> How does a mitecide distinguish between a virulent mite and a less toxic mite? Seems like the selection pressures would be equal....


virulent is a difficult word here...are we talking about "virus carrying" or "marked by a rapid and severe and destructive course"?

deknow


----------



## hpm08161947

deknow said:


> Actually, I don't think I mentioned this before, but Jim's suggestion from earlier in the thread that perhaps in large operations mites that are usually essentially cloning themselves are outcrossing instead is intriguing...not something I'd heard expressed in quite the same way before.
> 
> deknow


Please excuse my ignorance... but from what you are saying - I gather mites do not normally engage in sexual reproduction? If so, that would make selecting for less virulent mites even easier..... should make mitecides work better too.


----------



## hpm08161947

deknow said:


> virulent is a difficult word here...are we talking about "virus carrying" or "marked by a rapid and severe and destructive course"?
> 
> deknow


I am assuming that mites nearly always carry viruses - some of these viruses are virulent... and others perhaps much less so. A virus free mite population would not so quickly destroy a hive... would it?


----------



## DRUR

Solomon Parker said:


> I don't split anymore, especially not honey production hives. I graft queens, place cells in mating nucs made up of weaker hives, and grow them into full size hives. They hives set aside for honey production don't get split. They just sit there going full steam.


Everyone manages his own bees to try to maximize production. My honey production hives are the only ones that get a break in the brood cycle, but not because of the mites. I will take 2 colonies [my brood producers] to feed sealed brood into 1 honey producer without a queen. Our major flows here only run about a month. I will let the honey producers raise a queen during that period but no brood. I want them concentrating on nectar production. By feeding syrup to my brood producers only, it keeps the syrup out of my honey, and those brood producers can concentrate on raising brood instead of having to gather nectar. I can then build honey production colony populations up to 70K-100K without threat of swarming as they don't have a queen. But this is to maximize honey production, not to break the mite brood cycle. 

That being said. When the heat of summer hits here from July thru August, oftentimes there is no brood in colonies as it is to hot here. That does 'naturally' break the mite cycle, but it's not through my intervention.

Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## cg3

hpm08161947 said:


> A virus free mite population would not so quickly destroy a hive... would it?


Maybe we should be treating the mites.


----------



## deknow

hpm08161947 said:


> I am assuming that mites nearly always carry viruses - some of these viruses are virulent... and others perhaps much less so. A virus free mite population would not so quickly destroy a hive... would it?


But a mite population will spread any viruses that are there or show up there.
Mites carrying viruses are going to weaken the bees more than mites not carrying viruses..so will be able to reestablish and take hold faster than mites without....so after a mite treatment, what is going to come back the fastest and in the greatest force? Mites with viruses and mites on colonies that have viruses.

Do populations of benign mites occupy a niche that otherwise would be wide open for virus carrying mites? What happens when you knock them down?

There are lots of variables here, but one thing is for certain, treating (especially rotating treatments) skews the host/parasite relationship and will prevent the establishment of any kind of balance.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

DRUR said:


> Everyone manages his own bees to try to maximize production.


I'm not sure that's what Sam Comfort does, but maybe in his own way, that's the result.



DRUR said:


> When the heat of summer hits here from July thru August, oftentimes there is no brood in colonies as it is to hot here. That does 'naturally' break the mite cycle, but it's not through my intervention.


I have never seen a living queenright hive without brood here, but I don't look in the broodnest in December or January. They do scale it well back in summer though.


----------



## beemandan

There are several people on this thread that are promoting tf beekeeping for commercial beekeepers. They acknowledge the financial risk. Not one of them has taken that same risk. Each maintains a separate dependable income, albeit one is bee dependent. If they had real faith…..wouldn’t they take the chance….put it all on the line as they suggest for the commercial beekeeper?
Two of the most prolific writers (other than those who write books and such but don’t earn their living actually beekeeping) are Dee Lusby and Kirk Webster. 
Dee Lusby insists that it is all cell size driven. She maintains her hive count by walkaway splits in an area that is Africanized….and is unwilling to acknowledge that.
Then you get a fellow like Kirk Webster who eschews the idea of small cell. But Kirk Webster refers to cycles of collapse and recovery. And states that there are some size limitations to what a commercial operator can maintain tf. (PS I really believe that Kirk Webster is the ‘real deal’).
Two totally contradictory philosophies.
Neither of whom are migratory.
Which is the approach the hopeful tf commercial beekeeper is to pursue? Small cell with Africanized bees or selected stock and a reduced scale with cycles of collapse and recovery..
If any one of you who are advancing a tf enterprise were to throw all caution to the wind and put your livelihood on the line, as you suggest others do….and succeed….you might get an audience. .
Until that time I believe you will be viewed as armchair quarterbacks in the commercial beekeeping world.


----------



## DRUR

Solomon Parker said:


> I have never seen a living queenright hive without brood here, but I don't look in the broodnest in December or January.


Once temperatures here exceed 100+F for extended periods, I seldom see brood in any of my colonies. Usually that is from early July through mid August. We will often run humidity of 60-70% with temperatures well above 100F, often above 105F and sometimes over 110F. I am about 55 miles due south of tyler Texas, between Palestine and Elkhart in Anderson County, Texas.

Danny


----------



## Ian

DRUR said:


> Splitting was a management technique that existed long before destructer existed. Give me a break.


a colony dividing itself is one of the ways the bees seem to be leaning towards in managing the mites. 
nucing out a colony works along the same line, splitting up the hive and its pest, 2,3,4,5 times, and sending it off with a new queen

so if a beekeeper is managing a yard with nucs as one of the pillars, is it the bees or is it the act of nucing that is allowing those hives to survive,
I bet this is a huge strategy in many non treatment operations, except Solomon


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> I'm not offended...you are going to get more accurate information from them directly.


But that doesn't help the rest of us know any more. The discussion is here, not in a private phone conversation. 




> The "secret" is that if you want to be treatment free, you have to make it a priority. There are many ways to accomplish this....but it isn't going to happen by accident.
> 
> deknow


I'd like to hear the many ways.


----------



## DRUR

Ian said:


> a colony dividing itself is one of the ways the bees seem to be leaning towards in managing the mites.


Ian, I would tend to agree with you here. My first year before I was completely on small cell, my bees were swarming like crazy. I did do mite counts that first year and they were high. I have either gotten better at managing the swarming or the mite counts are no longer sufficient to stimulate the swarms [I no longer do mite counts].



Ian said:


> nucing out a colony works along the same line, splitting up the hive and its pest, 2,3,4,5 times, and sending it off with a new queen
> so if a beekeeper is managing a yard with nucs as one of the pillars, is it the bees or is it the act of nucing that is allowing those hives to survive,
> I bet this is a huge strategy in many non treatment operations, except Solomon


Depends on how he handles his nucs. I will often do a walk away split. The split that went queenless will make queen cells on several frames. I will then split other colonies and put one of these frames with queen cells until the queen starts laying. I then combine these smaller splits with a laying queen with new splits with larger bee populations, but the mite cycle will not be broken when combined with the new split as the already emerged and laying queen from the small split would be mixed with the supposedly mite infested bees from the larger split, who never had a break without a queen. 

My management technique only works if I have queens to immediately produce bees again. Elm flow starts here about the middle of January. If the bees are fed or have sufficient stores they will start building rapidly. But our major flow here starts at the end of April and is over by end of May or early June. So my populations must be at 70-100K by end of April or early May to work for me. This will take the whole period from Mid January through late April, about 3 1/2 months to reach these maximum populations and it won't happen if I am 30 days without a laying queen.

Danny


----------



## Barry

Ian said:


> oh please, in general terms, tell me the secret


AFAIK Ian, the secret is you will have to first be able to endure a substantial loss before you may see a gain. Not sure I could do that if beekeeping was my income.


----------



## Ian

DRUR said:


> Depends on how he handles his nucs.


No Im talking about brood breaks so much as Im talking about dividing up the pests and setting them back behind a new laying queen


----------



## sqkcrk

Ian said:


> So Solomon, I dont understand your philosophy at all. You believe in natural beekeeping, I get that, but you will not manage diseases with treatment,.? Yet you will manipulate the hive and inadvertely manage disease,.?
> Dont think for a second that these named commercial treatment free beekeepers dont manipulate their hive to exaggerate the bees ability to deal with the mite.


Ian, have you ever heard of The Bond Method? Or "Live and Let Die" Method of beekeeping. That is pretty much his "philosophy" or technique. At least that's the way it looks to me.


----------



## Ian

not familiar with Bond Method. Live and Let Die, Is that not a naturalist take on it?

Its a Guns and Roses song, thats for sure, ROCKS !


----------



## Ian

beemandan said:


> If any one of you who are advancing a tf enterprise were to throw all caution to the wind and put your livelihood on the line, as you suggest others do….and succeed….you might get an audience. .
> Until that time I believe you will be viewed as armchair quarterbacks in the commercial beekeeping world.


whats the saying, 
dont tell someone who is doing it, that they cant,


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> Until that time I believe you will be viewed as armchair quarterbacks in the commercial beekeeping world.


Fair enough.

This is an equation with two variables. This is a discussion with two principle positions. One sees that they possess one variable and see the other as lacking the variable which completes the equation. The other sees the same thing.

Both sides see the other as "armchair quarterbacks," talking about it but not doing it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ian said:


> Is that not a naturalist take on it?


It's a natural selection take on it, though the selection is not entirely natural. It's treatment-free, not management free, not hive free, not intervention free, and not harvest free.


----------



## deknow

Barry said:


> But that doesn't help the rest of us know any more. The discussion is here, not in a private phone conversation.


...and all of the stuff that Dee wrote is hosted here on your site...no one seems to want to discuss it.
...and all the stuff that Kirk wrote is hosted on his website....no one seems to want to discuss it.
There is nothing "private" or "phone conversation" about any of it. Both of these sources help "the rest of you" know more. ...but no one participating here seems to have any questions about what has already been written.

Don't you think Dee's writings and Kirk's writings are a good place to start for people that want to know more?



> I'd like to hear the many ways.


Kirk and Bob both make and winter a lot of small colonies (not sure if Bob is doing nucs or singles or something else)....expansion beekeeping. Kirk has his own closed population breeding program. Bob is part of the Russian program. Kirk gets a reliable summer flow and leaves the fall flow for the bees. Bob sometimes gets a summer flow but has a reliable fall flow harvest. Kirk makes his own foundation from his own wax. Kirk has never borrowed a dime for his business...and has made a profit with his bees every year. These two are not far from one another....Kirk is near Middlbury VT, Bob is near Buffalo, NY.

Dee practices replacement beekeeping....splitting strong hives to make up any losses. She only propagates via walk away splits these days. Dee doesn't distinguish between brood and honey comb (she uses all deeps), and after extracting, comb gets rotated to another yard.

Everyone seems to raise their own queens. Everyone seems to find their own way based on their resources, needs, and environment.

We also drove to NJ the other week so we could hear Tim Ives speak. I understand he is on Facebook...I don't do Facebook, so perhaps someone else will point to what he has written about his approach.

deknow


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

Here is a link to the Bond Test, and variants of it 
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...XVgQ3R&sig=AHIEtbRfrgdZ6Ln2ePAoJhoc-hGye9oXZw


----------



## DRUR

Ian said:


> No Im talking about brood breaks so much as Im talking about dividing up the pests and setting them back behind a new laying queen


Yes, I have heard that theory about outbreeding the mites, but I have my doubts that would ever work here for an extended period. I have tried to make splits July-August after the honeyflow is over here, but I can't get my queens to lay in the heat. I can split early June and get a queen and maybe a few weeks of laying from that queen, then it is all over until we get our first cold front. That usually occurs towards the end of August and then we will consistantly have temperatures under 100F and the queen will start laying for winter. I can then split and usually raise bees until the end of October, but they are not as inclined to draw comb after the days begin to shorten.

Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> ...Live and Let Die.....
> 
> Its a Guns and Roses song, thats for sure, ROCKS !


Now _that's_ offensive. It's a freaking Wings (Paul McCartney) song covered by Guns and Roses!

deknow


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> Don't you think Dee's writings and Kirk's writings are a good place to start for people that want to know more?


I do. Have none of their writings been discussed? I haven't been current on reading these threads for a couple weeks.



> Kirk has never borrowed a dime for his business...and has made a profit with his bees every year.


You know I've taken issue with statements like this before. What does "made a profit" mean to me or any other person trying to get a real understanding to the question of is it possible to be a commercial beekeeper and be TF? I already know firsthand about the Lusby's and from reading, Kirk. I wouldn't say they live your average lifestyle. As Sheri mentioned earlier, most commercial beekeepers have a laundry list of needs that their income (profit) has to support. How do you quantify your "made a profit" remark?


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> Now _that's_ offensive. It's a freaking Wings (Paul McCartney) song covered by Guns and Roses!
> 
> deknow


the only one I have herd was GnR, 
relax man


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> There are several people on this thread that are promoting tf beekeeping for commercial beekeepers. They acknowledge the financial risk. Not one of them has taken that same risk. Each maintains a separate dependable income, albeit one is bee dependent. If they had real faith…..wouldn’t they take the chance….put it all on the line as they suggest for the commercial beekeeper?


It is not in my interest to detail for you all of the risks and/or financial commitments we have undertaken...but they are substantial. Our business is not only beekeeping related, it supports us and some commercial treatment free beekeepers. I'm not sure what you are suggesting that I should do that I'm not doing. The only promoting of TF practices to commercial beekeepers I do involves buying their honey.



> Two of the most prolific writers (other than those who write books and such but don’t earn their living actually beekeeping) are Dee Lusby and Kirk Webster.
> Dee Lusby insists that it is all cell size driven. She maintains her hive count by walkaway splits in an area that is Africanized….and is unwilling to acknowledge that.


1. Given that Barry hosts Dee's writings here on Beesource, I'm not sure what the excuse is for misrepresenting what she actually says. She absolutely does not insist that it is all cell size driven. Here is where you say, "yes she does", then I respond with, "no, she always insists that it is a 3 part equation....genetics (breeding), environment (including cell size), and nutrition."....then you say, "if she is saying that now, that is new...she used to say it was only about cell size"....and I respond, "actually, you can look at the writings here on beesource, they are dated and have been here a long time, you are wrong."...then you say, "no, you are wrong." ...do we get the picture?

2. FWIW, I worked some of her hives a few weeks ago....the ones we drove up to and opened without smoke were defensive. The ones I used smoke on like a normal beekeeper were manageable like any bees....there are a few standouts in her yards (I know them by now), but 3-4 hot hives out of 7-800 probably isn't too different from many commercial operations.



> Then you get a fellow like Kirk Webster who eschews the idea of small cell. But Kirk Webster refers to cycles of collapse and recovery. And states that there are some size limitations to what a commercial operator can maintain tf. (PS I really believe that Kirk Webster is the ‘real deal’).
> Two totally contradictory philosophies.
> Neither of whom are migratory.


Chris Baldwin is most assuredly, "the real deal" as well...and he is migratory.



> Which is the approach the hopeful tf commercial beekeeper is to pursue? Small cell with Africanized bees or selected stock and a reduced scale with cycles of collapse and recovery..


I wasn't aware that there were only two choices in this game.



> If any one of you who are advancing a tf enterprise were to throw all caution to the wind and put your livelihood on the line, as you suggest others do….and succeed….you might get an audience. .
> Until that time I believe you will be viewed as armchair quarterbacks in the commercial beekeeping world.


I think people should do what works for them...I haven't suggested that anyone change their operation. Commercial beekeepers have to solve their own problems...be it debt, mites, honey prices, transportation, pesticides, etc. How I'm seen in the "commercial beekeeping world" is irrelevant...the question asked here was are there treatment free commercial beekeepers...the answer is yes. I spend my time and money they way I think it is best spent....you all should do the same.

deknow


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> the question asked here was are there treatment free commercial beekeepers...the answer is yes. I spend my time and money they way I think it is best spent....you all should do the same.
> 
> deknow


great, now that is covered, lets dig deeper into detail


----------



## Solomon Parker

Bond Accelerated Test, BAT, now there's a heckuva thing!


----------



## deknow

Barry said:


> I do. Have none of their writings been discussed? I haven't been current on reading these threads for a couple weeks.


...only the recent misstatement that she says it's only about cell size.



> You know I've taken issue with statements like this before. What does "made a profit" mean to me or any other person trying to get a real understanding to the question of is it possible to be a commercial beekeeper and be TF? I already know firsthand about the Lusby's and from reading, Kirk. I wouldn't say they live your average lifestyle. As Sheri mentioned earlier, most commercial beekeepers have a laundry list of needs that their income (profit) has to support. How do you quantify your "made a profit" remark?


Well, I think he means (it is his phrase) that he made money as a beekeeper every year. Beekeeping never put him in the hole, never put him at the mercy of a banker....he is able to live his lifestyle without debt.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Isn't Kirk Webster's lifestyle what one might call Homesteadlike, in the modern sense of the word? Not that bees aren't an important part of the whole life sustaining income generating means of support.


----------



## Barry

And I'm OK with anyone wanting to live a non-conventional lifestyle, but I think it is very basic to these arguments that we get some kind of understanding what one is calling "successful" in the commercial realm. I can say I make a living at recycling and that may sound successful to some, but then if I said I do it by picking up discarded cans for cash, rent a room in my friends basement and ride my bike everywhere, not sure everyone would want to follow my ways!


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> Dee practices replacement beekeeping....splitting strong hives to make up any losses. She only propagates via walk away splits these days. Dee doesn't distinguish between brood and honey comb (she uses all deeps), and after extracting, comb gets rotated to another yard.
> 
> Everyone seems to raise their own queens. Everyone seems to find their own way based on their resources, needs, and environment.


I don't know about the other's, but Dee incurred significant loss to get where she is today. Is there a way for existing commercial to be TF without a significant loss?


----------



## Ian

If its all about breeding, it would be that simple and none of us would be treating today


----------



## Barry

Ian, have you read the 22 part writing by Dee?

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/the-way-back-to-biological-beekeeping/


----------



## Ian

nice reference Barry

Dee has a deep love for beekeeping that I really admire 

I read what she has to say from time to time on other forums and take from it what I can relate to.


----------



## jim lyon

I mentioned eons of posts ago that the bottom line for me is why. I appreciate that the thread is asking the question who and not why but it is basic to the approach of commercial beekeeping to have a financial incentive to take the plunge and hope to survive the inevitable losses that all tf advocates concede is part of the process. What is in it for me or anyone else who chooses to do this? Isn't that really the bottom line? I won't get any more for my honey, my honey won't be one bit more pure. The real irony here is that I am doing a lot of the same things successful tf advocates are doing by nucing like crazy every year but the big difference is we choose to reduce our mite loads in the fall with compounds that never show up in our honey the next season. To me it's an easy call. Currently we are awash in strong hives and our varroa levels are at a 20 year low. I will concede that Kirk and probably a few others are in fact tf beekeepers. They made a decision that I don't fully understand but it seems to work for them and their lifestyle so I have no reason to criticize those who "walk the walk". But who here fully understands why they should let maybe 90% of their bees die, I know I don't.
A couple of days ago I sold 100 queen cells to a beekeeper who was a former customer of ours who I hadnt heard from in a few years. He told me that he was trying to make a comeback with his beekeeping operation, that he had to sell a lot of his stuff to make ends meet. As he put it, "I wanted to be all natural and I lost pretty much every hive I had". He said he bought a few more hives, moved them to Texas to rebuild them and is living in a tent down here. The nicest guy you will ever meet. I was pretty sure by the tone of his voice he wasn't going to make the same management decisions.
Gotta get some sleep, the days are long this time of year. Tomorrow is the 29th, y'all know what that means to beekeepers this time of year dont ya? It means you better have that 3-19 graft out of the builders before sundown.  And so it goes.........


----------



## deknow

Barry said:


> And I'm OK with anyone wanting to live a non-conventional lifestyle,.....


As a group, do migratory commercial beekeepers live a "conventional lifestyle"?

deknow


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> nice reference Barry
> Dee has a deep love for beekeeping that I really admire
> I read what she has to say from time to time on other forums and take from it what I can relate to.


...same reference I gave several pages ago....when I asked if you had read it, the answer was:


> I have read into those websites [references had been given for Kirk and Dee's writings] and leaves me with questions, I guess bind faith is pretty much part and parcel of this management strategy


...so the real answer is that you haven't read what they have written on the subject you claim to want to know more about. It is obvious you haven't read the stuff...why did you claim you had when I asked, and admitted that you didn't when Barry asked?

I guess it's obvious why you are having trouble articulating the questions you have from reading through Dee's writings.

deknow


----------



## deknow

I think it's also worth pointing out that in the cases of the three beekeepers who's honey we sell, they had all decided to be treatment free before we met them, and their treatment free honey was generally going to packers at commodity prices. None of them went treatment free in order to meet our standards or in order to be able to up the price of their product.

deknow


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> Given that Barry hosts Dee's writings here on Beesource, I'm not sure what the excuse is for misrepresenting what she actually says.


I don’t care what she says. I think what she does is the test.
God help me….I’ve read Dee Lusby’s ramblings. I also frequently read her posts on BEEL. I refuse to read her Yahoo site….I am unwilling to be counted as one of her thousands of followers. Once you’ve waded through that, then a look at her practices tells the story.

Genetics – AHB. Look at it however you want….walkaway splits do not constitute any true genetic selection, except in her case where it occurs in an area populated by AHB.

Environment – cell size. Yep 4.9mm is the natural cell size for….AHB. Funny thing…Kirk Webster says his foundation mill produces 5.2 which he believes in correct….and probably is for EHB.

Nutrition – feed them nothing…..nada. If they are starving…..tough luck.



deknow said:


> Chris Baldwin is most assuredly, "the real deal" as well...and he is migratory.


I didn’t realize that Chris Baldwin is a prolific writer. My apologies to him. He may also be the real deal.

I’d love to sit here and debate the work of others with you….but the sun’s rising, the truck needs loading and there are bees to tend.


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> ...same reference I gave several pages ago....when I asked if you had read it, the answer was:
> 
> 
> ...so the real answer is that you haven't read what they have written on the subject you claim to want to know more about. It is obvious you haven't read the stuff...why did you claim you had when I asked, and admitted that you didn't when Barry asked?
> 
> I guess it's obvious why you are having trouble articulating the questions you have from reading through Dee's writings.
> 
> deknow


Arent you a real treat deknow, I have been following the Dee and Ed Lusby for 10 years. 
I comment to Barry thanking him for PROVIDING A NICE REFERENCE. This is Barry's site, right?

my comments and questions still stand on the matter


----------



## Michael Bush

>tell me how I can take my 1000 hives, manage them from April to October, through a month long splitting, through a three month honey flow, and prepare them for winter without considering disease as the foundation to my management strategy. Nosema, varroa mite, AFB, viral loads, pesticide

Pesticides are always an issue. The latest research shows you are making them more susceptible to Nosema by treating for it, more susceptible to AFB by treating for it... and the mechanism that causes this to be true:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033188

>What breeding efforts am I going to have to tap into that will give me the ability to put these thoughts out of mind

I'm not saying breeding isn't important, but I think it's overrated. The microbes in the bees (which Fumidil and Terramycin etc. are killing), the small cell, I think have had more to do with the health of my bees than genetics. Genetics are more important to wintering.

> I read with interest Dee's assertions on another forum and her failure to back up those claims.

I don't understand how people think you should "back up those claims". If the question is whether Dee makes a living keeping bees, she doesn't make any money doing anything else and hasn't for quite some time and she's still paying the bills. Since everything everyone does actually "back up" then gets criticized and taken out of context, I don't know why anyone would put their financials out for everyone to see.

> I haven't seen Kirk's P&L either but I have no doubt that he makes his living from his bees. Haven't seen your P&L statement either Dean. You post yours and I'll post mine! 

Seems like a lot of fairly personal information...

>Dee reported about a 90% loss (of 1000) over a couple years, but that was with extremely stressful shakedowns.

Those couple of years were way before the Varroa. She and Ed regressed the bees back in 1984 for tracheal mites. I've never had any significant losses from not treating. I had very significant losses when I was treating.

>Ok…now we have numbers. I believe I’ve seen Dee post on BeeL that she runs about 800 hives. A barrel contains…55 gal? 20 barrels x 55 gallons = 1100 gallons. 1100 gallons divided by 800 hives……..
She can keep those ‘productive’ bees.... 

I don't do Dee's books and I am making no specific claims on numbers but she has sold 20 barrels at a time on several occasions that I know of and I'm certain she makes at least that in a bad year. But you also have to understand she has managed those hives in such a way that she can take care of them with no hired help and she is no spring chicken. It's not how many pounds of honey per hive, it's how many pounds of honey for the hours of work.

There seem to be a lot of requests for information that seems rather personal in the course of these discussions. I'm not sure I understand the motivation.

Obviously you have to determine what kind of lifestyle you want, and what kind of income will support it, and how to get through lean years, as all farming does.

Many of you think you are taking less risk by treating for all of these diseases and pests. I think the evidence has accumulated over the last few years to prove you are taking more risk by treating for Nosema and AFB and that there are many downsides to treating for Varroa.


----------



## Ian

Michael Bush said:


> >tell me how I can take my 1000 hives, manage them from April to October, through a month long splitting, through a three month honey flow, and prepare them for winter without considering disease as the foundation to my management strategy. Nosema, varroa mite, AFB, viral loads, pesticide
> 
> Pesticides are always an issue. The latest research shows you are making them more susceptible to Nosema by treating for it, more susceptible to AFB by treating for it... and the mechanism that causes this to be true:
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033188
> 
> >What breeding efforts am I going to have to tap into that will give me the ability to put these thoughts out of mind
> 
> I'm not saying breeding isn't important, but I think it's overrated. The microbes in the bees (which Fumidil and Terramycin etc. are killing), the small cell, I think have had more to do with the health of my bees than genetics. Genetics are more important to wintering.


I think this issue has become very evident recently as farmers use fungicides on a regular manner and mixed in with what beekeepers are using in the hive. Mal Nutrition defiantly decreases the bees health


----------



## hpm08161947

I keep going back and forth on this subject.... but one question that I really would like answered.

What would Deknow give me for a barrel of TF honey. This of course being honey that he knows is TF.

This little piece of info would be important to me....


----------



## Ian

Michael Bush said:


> There seem to be a lot of requests for information that seems rather personal in the course of these discussions. I'm not sure I understand the motivation.


I dont know what personal information is being asked, being a commercial beekeeping forum, the comments on maintaining a solvent operation is a real thing. 
I dont think these commercial treatment free operators are all succeeding in the same way, Dee uses small cell and breeding of her local stock, I suspect Chris to use a lot of nucing,.? and Russian stock, during his yearly work. I believe I read Kirk accepts heavy losses on a cyclical basis, 

very interesting digging into these operations,


----------



## deknow

Michael Bush said:


> I don't do Dee's books and I am making no specific claims on numbers but she has sold 20 barrels at a time on several occasions that I know of and I'm certain she makes at least that in a bad year. But you also have to understand she has managed those hives in such a way that she can take care of them with no hired help and she is no spring chicken. It's not how many pounds of honey per hive, it's how many pounds of honey for the hours of work.


Also, there is no input of feed. It is difficult to asses anyone's productivity without knowing what the inputs are into the system. No employees, no fancy trucks (Dee has a great truck, but it is _not_ fancy), no feeding.



> Many of you think you are taking less risk by treating for all of these diseases and pests. I think the evidence has accumulated over the last few years to prove you are taking more risk by treating for Nosema and AFB and that there are many downsides to treating for Varroa.


Not sure this is a fair (or complete) assessment. One has to look at short term vs. long term. If the short term puts one out of business, the long term (at least from the perspective of an individual business) is somewhat irrelevant. If you are already treating for nosema and AFB, and the spores are endemic in your operation, the short term losses are likely to be significant.

deknow


----------



## deknow

hpm08161947 said:


> I keep going back and forth on this subject.... but one question that I really would like answered.
> 
> What would Deknow give me for a barrel of TF honey. This of course being honey that he knows is TF.
> 
> This little piece of info would be important to me....


When you have a barrel (or even a few buckets) of treatment free honey to sell, we can talk about a price...in private. I'm not going to state what we are paying, just as package bee resellers don't state what they pay the producer, and beekeepers don't state what they are paying for bought in honey.

deknow


----------



## rhaldridge

This has been a fascinating thread to read.

Maybe this is an impertinent question, but how rosy is the future for commercial beekeepers who treat? I keep reading all sorts of alarmist journalism, seeing films, seeing stats, and so on, all telling me that commercial beekeepers are in trouble. For example, I recently read a book called The Beekeeper's Lament and the author was taking the position that bigtime beekeepers are like the last of the cowboys, a dying breed. From the book I got the impression that the big outfits are trapped on a treadmill, and can't get off, because it would mean immediate financial disaster. The author implies that as the bigtime beekeepers are aging out of their businesses, there are not enough young would-be beekeepers to replace them. And so on...

Is there any truth to these rumors of decline? I really want to learn that this is all nonsense, that beekeeping as a profession is still something a young person might consider as a rewarding career with a reasonable chance of success.

I'll never be a professional. I'm too old, and have too many other things that I want to do. But bees are so crucial to a good way of life that I find it depressing to think that it might be coming to an end, at least for the kind of beekeeping you folks are discussing here.


----------



## hpm08161947

deknow said:


> When you have a barrel (or even a few buckets) of treatment free honey to sell, we can talk about a price...in private. I'm not going to state what we are paying, just as package bee resellers don't state what they pay the producer, and beekeepers don't state what they are paying for bought in honey.
> 
> deknow


Gee.. this is a mysterious subject. Is there a figure out there for TF "mark up"....... I have always known what the general going price was for a bucket of honey, so perhaps somewhere there is a general price for a bucket of TF honey. I can always get $150 for one of my buckets.... could I expect $175 for a bucket of TF?

Actually Dean is the only one I have heard that buys TF honey with a premium.... at least that is what I have read into the inuendos.... are there others?


----------



## Ian

>>I'll never be a professional. I'm too old, and have too many other things that I want to do. But bees are so crucial to a good way of life that I find it depressing to think that it might be coming to an end, at least for the kind of beekeeping you folks are discussing here.

the way I see it, as agriculture leans more and more on pesticides to farm, and as farmers take the land and turn it into something extremely specialized to its purpose, it forces beekeepers to adjust their management practices to be able to exist along side agriculture. How that is? Likely less chemical dependency as out side chemical exposure makes our treatments toxic and a more focused attempt to maintain proper colony nutrition. Not one answer to the equation, as all our beekeeping environments are different


----------



## deknow

There is nothing mysterious about it. If you want to buy/sell a commodity, you will find a varieity of somewhat accurate published going prices. If you want to sell something more rare, there is no "standard" published price.

WRT who pays what for treatment free honey, it would be hard to imagine that anything accurate would come from someone who wasn't either actually buying or selling treatment free honey.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> the way I see it, as agriculture leans more and more on pesticides to farm, and as farmers take the land and turn it into something extremely specialized to its purpose, it forces beekeepers to adjust their management practices to be able to exist along side agriculture. How that is? Likely less chemical dependency as out side chemical exposure makes our treatments toxic and a more focused attempt to maintain proper colony nutrition. Not one answer to the equation, as all our beekeeping environments are different


I think the opposite. The more pesticides, fungicides, antibioitics, probiotics, etc, the less well the resident microbes (soil, root, hive, bee gut, etc) are able to survive and perform the functions that are required to produce and assimilate nutrition and fight diseases. The more these systems are compromised, the more inputs will be required to keep healthy bees.

deknow


----------



## Ian

I think a lot of the losses seen this year was due to mal nutrition, but killed off by the other compounding factors


----------



## Ian

makes me wonder how can I manage my operation in a more "natural" sense when the environment around me (and everyone else ) is changing to such an un natural setting,
to me, more management is going to be required to adjust to our surroundings
more management doesnt mean more chemicals


----------



## deknow

For instance (and it is difficult to pick one isolated thing out like this), 24 metheline cholesterol is a sterol that bees need to raise brood. This is the stuff the colony runs out of after about 3 brood cycles with pollen sub only....they can't raise more brood without the stuff, or with sub that has some real pollen in it.

There is some of this in raw pollen (I think...it is hard to know because some of the research is done on trapped pollen that has already started to ferment, but since it is collected outside the hive, it is sometimes considered fresh, unfermented pollen). There is much more of this in pollen that has fermented properly (I think this stuff is formed during the first few/12 hours of fermentation post collection from the flower).

If fungicides are being used, and the fungus that produces this stuff is inhibited, there may not be enough for proper nutrition. Where is it going to come from? It will have to be added to the equation somehow.

deknow


----------



## Ian

ya, that is exactly it. IF the bees cant get it from the surrounding environment , how do we get it to them?


----------



## Ian

A fellow from close to here had started up a Russian breeding program in his op. He quit using them pretty much completely because he couldnt keep them from the trees. More often I am hearing this is how the bees want to manage the mites, but how useful is that strategy in terms of beekeeping?


----------



## deknow

There are certainly bigger questions to ask. Chief among them (at least in my mind) is whether or not we can replace the microbial systems that are at the foundation of larger life forms and processes with engineered chemical solutions.

I don't think we can in the long run, and I expect it will be a painful lesson for humanity. 

deknow


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> A fellow from close to here had started up a Russian breeding program in his op. He quit using them pretty much completely because he couldnt keep them from the trees. More often I am hearing this is how the bees want to manage the mites, but how useful is that strategy in terms of beekeeping?


Well, you can take a single example of a concept that doesn't/didn't work, and try to draw a conclusion that it doesn't or can't work.....but that is a logical fallacy.

We have examples in Kirk and in Chris of beekeepers that have incorporated some of the Russian traits into their operations and management successfully. We have Bob, who is using actual Russian breeder association stock successfully.

Seems pretty useful.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> Maybe this is an impertinent question, but how rosy is the future for commercial beekeepers who treat? I keep reading all sorts of alarmist journalism, seeing films, seeing stats, and so on, all telling me that commercial beekeepers are in trouble.


Yes we've been reading that stuff for a while, it's not exactly new.

In my country, when varroa made it's presence felt in year 2000, there were 350,000 managed hives, and an estimated 4 million wild ones. Now, the wild ones number close to zero, other than escaped swarms which last one season. But despite the books and doomsday scenarios, managed hives have increased to 450,000 now.

However here we are not faced with all the same problems as US beekeepers. I have huge respect for US commercial beekeepers. They are nothing if not adaptable. Wiley, intelligent people who stare adversity and new threats in the face, and somehow make yet another profit, each year.

It must be galling for them to hear their doom constantly being predicted by alarmist new age book writers, movie makers & similar, who are beekeeping neophytes, if they even have any bees.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> If you are already treating for nosema and AFB, and the spores are endemic in your operation, the short term losses are likely to be significant.
> 
> deknow


Whereas I have lost 600 colonies out of 700 thru not treating for varroa, I have seen no indication that high nosema counts or 4 cases of AFB per 400 or 600 colonies warrants the expense (treatment costs and labor) of treating for Nosema or AFB.

I have friends who routinely treat w/ fumidil and TM, but they have thousands of colonies and they have employees, so they don't see every brood frame each year as I do. For whatever that's worth.


----------



## sqkcrk

hpm08161947 said:


> Gee.. this is a mysterious subject. Is there a figure out there for TF "mark up"....... I have always known what the general going price was for a bucket of honey, so perhaps somewhere there is a general price for a bucket of TF honey. I can always get $150 for one of my buckets.... could I expect $175 for a bucket of TF?
> 
> Actually Dean is the only one I have heard that buys TF honey with a premium.... at least that is what I have read into the inuendos.... are there others?


Send him a PM.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> Whereas I have lost 600 colonies out of 700 thru not treating for varroa, I have seen no indication that high nosema counts or 4 cases of AFB per 400 or 600 colonies warrants the expense (treatment costs and labor) of treating for Nosema or AFB.


Those are good numbers Mark. I don't mean that the number you lost was good, I mean providing numbers is good.


----------



## sqkcrk

Had I thought to do so and I had the financial backing to do so, perhaps I would have given breeding from the survivors a try. But I didn't. As others have not also.

Michael Palmer and Kirk Webster went thru massive die backs too and have addressed the problem in both different and similar ways. I have heard that Kirk raises his own queens and Michael has said so himself. They are both also "stationery"(is that the word for "paper"?), nonmigratory and don't pollinate.

I believe it comes down to how one wants to make their income and what ones' skills and abilities are. Lately I have found that I am good at killing bees. (Off Topic Comment).


----------



## D Semple

I shouldn't post here because I'm a TF guy with only 40 hives, but after looking at 25% losses this winter I sure wouldn't want to incur this percentage of losses if my lively hood depended on it. 


Don


----------



## JRG13

Here's the question... why not make or take 100-200 hives from your operation and go from there. Keep the rest in production so you don't lose your shirt in the process and see what you end up with out of those 100-200 colonies. Don, what do you contribute the main factor in losing your hives?


----------



## sqkcrk

It just occured to me that I am a Commercial Beekeeper and a Treatment Free Beekeeper, but not a Treatment Free Commercial Beekeeper.

I have an apiary here in SC which has never been medicated for AFB and never been treated for Varroa or anything else. The rest of my bees move South and North and get mite treatments.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> I have an apiary here in SC which has never been medicated for AFB and never been treated for Varroa or anything else. The rest of my bees move South and North and get mite treatments.


Be careful....next thing you know you'll be the keynote speaker at the NE Organic Beekeeping Conference.


----------



## sqkcrk

They'd have to invite me, pay transportation, lodgings, and feed me. They may not have the budget.


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> It just occured to me that I am a Commercial Beekeepe
> I have an apiary here in SC which has never been medicated for AFB and never been treated for Varroa or anything else. The rest of my bees move South and North and get mite treatments.


So would you sell me some starter stock 

I work for bees :lookout:


----------



## sqkcrk

If I sold you a hive I would no longer have a Treatment Free Apiary. I already took a nuc out of it.


----------



## Oldtimer

beemandan said:


> Be careful....next thing you know you'll be the keynote speaker at the NE Organic Beekeeping Conference.


Ha Ha that's hysterical! 

Actually Mark does look the part, a beard to rival ZZ Top and that ageing hipster look, he'd fit right in LOL! 

He'd be the most qualified person there also.


----------



## hpm08161947

Oldtimer said:


> Ha Ha that's hysterical!
> 
> Actually Mark does look the part, a beard to rival ZZ Top and that ageing hipster look, he'd fit right in LOL!


And he is pretty easy to feed too... as long as you stay clear of "Barley" :no:


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> He'd be the most qualified person there also.


Amen to that


----------



## sqkcrk

Qualified or certifiable?


----------



## Michael Palmer

sqkcrk said:


> They'd have to...... feed me. They may not have the budget.


----------



## Michael Palmer

sqkcrk said:


> It just occured to me that I am a Commercial Beekeeper and a Treatment Free Beekeeper, but not a Treatment Free Commercial Beekeeper.
> 
> I have an apiary here in SC which has never been medicated for AFB and never been treated for Varroa or anything else.


Around here they call that the Home yard. Always gets neglected.


----------



## sqkcrk

You'd feed me, wouldn't you Michael?

Tell us about your brush w/ treatment free beekeeping.


----------



## rhaldridge

Oldtimer said:


> I have huge respect for US commercial beekeepers. They are nothing if not adaptable. Wiley, intelligent people who stare adversity and new threats in the face, and somehow make yet another profit, each year.
> 
> It must be galling for them to hear their doom constantly being predicted by alarmist new age book writers, movie makers & similar, who are beekeeping neophytes, if they even have any bees.


Here's a quote from one beekeeping neophyte. Or I guess he could be an alarmist new age book writer:



> Bret Adee, who is an owner, with his father and brother, of Adee Honey Farms of South Dakota, the nation’s largest beekeeper, described mounting losses.
> 
> “We lost 42 percent over the winter. But by the time we came around to pollinate almonds, it was a 55 percent loss,” he said in an interview here this week.


From this article today in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/s...eaths-in-2012-sound-alarm-on-malady.html?_r=0

I asked how well the majority of commercial beekeepers (who treat) are doing. Apparently no one here cares to discuss it, which isn't exactly reassuring.


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay. Well, let me answer you this way. Those who need pollination have gotten what they need. So, whereas commercial beekeepers may be having difficulties, overall, the commercial beekeepers are doing what needs doing.

Specifically, regarding my own operation, I have had a number of losses this Winter but I didn't do an inventory when I got into my hives this March, so I don't know the percentage. I have had quite a few die from starvation. Maybe I fed too much protien pattys?

The weather here in SC has been horrendous this March causing the need to feed. I usually don't feed syrup in the Spring in SC.

What else would you like to know?

Most of the Commercial Beekeepers on beesource won't bother to comment on this Thread. Better things to do.


----------



## hossein yeganehrad

Hello every one , i'm the beekeeper with 2000 hive in Canada and 2000 in Iran also i manage other 3000 for other farmer, i have developed over 4 product for biological disease control for bees. SEARCH A.F.B and Caspian solution in Google you will find that. and other natural product for human disease. the problem is not to find natural product is the beekeeping industry i have problem to have beekeeper and industry trust you . please see the website at www.caspianapiaries.com and on gallery see the video then you know how much problem is in beekeeping just to trust
each other.
in Apitherapy confrnce last year on Portland i was only commercial beekeeper, look like beekeeper they don't know value of bee product and all health food store is chines bee product , don't spend your time to find solution for bee disease find solution for beekeeper and industry to work with each other. i see many coument about my product before they use the product.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> I asked how well the majority of commercial beekeepers (who treat) are doing. Apparently no one here cares to discuss it, which isn't exactly reassuring.


It's not they won't comment, many of them have been there and done that, only to be argued with by pedantic beekeeping neophytes who know nothing, but have a strong opinion anyway. Commercial guys being real world beekeepers they don't have the time, especially when they are unwelcome. Although there are a few hardy commercial beekeeper souls who continue to post, and try. Although you do have to be thick skinned.

Most of the alarmist drivel I read comes from new age writers, film makers, or politicians of some kind, whose hands on knowledge of bees is almost zilch.

I look at the source, then decide if what they might say is worth spending the time. If it's someone who would know, I'll pay attention.

Did I say modern beekeeping is without problems? No. That would be somebody twisting my words. I said modern commercial beekeepers stare adversity in the face, and deal with it.


----------



## rhaldridge

Mark, what would you say is the difference between you and the big outfits that are complaining of disastrous losses?

Is it a difference in scale? I remember you saying (I think in this thread) that you saw every brood frame you own, every year. Obviously this is not possible for the leaders of outfits like the Adees'. It sort of makes me wonder if in beekeeping, the trend of agribusiness to get bigger and bigger might be suffering its first major reverse. Maybe there's something about bees that make close personal attention more important than scale. Certainly it seems as if most of the treatment-free beekeepers mentioned in this thread are not huge operations. In my reading of the thread, the commercial beekeepers who have commented have said fairly consistently that they believe the approaches used by the treatment-free beekeepers would not work at the larger scale they operate on. 

The Adees lost 55 percent of their hives. Bill Dahl lost almost 80 percent. If these numbers were reported by treatment free beekeepers, the scorn in here would have been thick enough to shovel.

Maybe beekeepers who want to be treatment free must accept some limitations on the expansion of their businesses. What do you think?


----------



## rhaldridge

Oldtimer said:


> Most of the alarmist drivel I read comes from new age writers, film makers, or politicians of some kind, whose hands on knowledge of bees is almost zilch.


In which of these categories do you classify the Adees, Bill Dahle, and Jeff Pettis, research leader at Beltsville, Md? They all seem to be fairly alarmed.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> The Adees lost 55 percent of their hives. Bill Dahl lost almost 80 percent. If these numbers were reported by treatment free beekeepers, the scorn in here would have been thick enough to shovel.


I saw one treatment free beekeeper report 100% losses with no scorn at all. Perhaps you are being unduly negative.





rhaldridge said:


> Maybe beekeepers who want to be treatment free must accept some limitations on the expansion of their businesses. What do you think?


Look how many beekeepers are trying to be treatment free, and would like to do it full time. Then take a look how many succeed. That will give you your answer.


----------



## Gypsi

I'm not commercial, I started winter with 5 hives, ended with 4 plus one full of stores (queen took off with her entourage just as a norther came in, I couldn't catch her..) If I manage not to mess up the split I'm trying, I'll enter honey season with 5 hives. I'm not in an agricultural area and no large operations near me. If that will benefit anyone's research. I found one mite in all of 5 hives when the inspector and I went through in September. And I'm treatment free. ducking back into my corner now.


----------



## rhaldridge

Oldtimer said:


> Now how did I know you would say something stupid like that. They are the ones I listen too. Obviously.
> 
> As a professional writer, you should be able to read what I say, accurately. I would have thought.
> 
> It's the know it all neophytes with an opinion and an attitude I get tired of. To put it plainly, for you.


I don't get it. You attribute alarmist rhetoric to a whole crop of silly strawmen, none of whom made any appearance in the NY Times article. Then when I point out that beekeepers who run more hives than you ever will are also alarmed and suffering serious losses, you don't want to hear about it. Which is pretty funny, since you say that they are the ones you listen to. 

I'm claiming no personal experience of beekeeping whatsoever, nor have I ever. If I have offered an opinion-- and I don't believe I have--I should not have done so, since, once again, I have no experience. 

But I do have a functioning brain, so I am worried when I hear prominent and well-respected beekeepers talking about serious and possibly unsustainable losses. If you don't like what these beekeepers (who run bigger outfits than you ever will) have to say about colonies dying in unprecedented numbers, then have the courage to argue with them about it, instead of whining at me.

Let me make a suggestion. If you don't like my attitude, don't read my posts. I'd really appreciate it, and I'll certainly return the favor.

Ray


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> You attribute alarmist rhetoric to a whole crop of silly strawmen, none of whom made any appearance in the NY Times article. Then when I point out that beekeepers who run more hives than you ever will are also alarmed and suffering serious losses, you don't want to hear about it.


I don't want to hear about it? Sorry but you assumed wrong there I certainly didn't say that. And the NY Times article, where does that come into what I said, I never mentioned it. I don't like you attributing things to me, that never happened. 
Also, you seem to be taking all this incredibly personally. Why? The only time I addressed you was to answer a question you directed at me, other than that you were not in my thoughts at all. Chill some.



rhaldridge said:


> In any case, I won't be asking you any more questions. Ray


But you still are.



rhaldridge said:


> I don't get it.


You got that right.

Not sure why you are so wound up. Maybe you didn't like me saying that commercial beekeepers are adaptable and intelligent? Cos that's not what your book said?

Seriously, let all this go, it's getting silly. If reading something I said gets you so wound up, take your own advice and use the block button.


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> Mark, what would you say is the difference between you and the big outfits that are complaining of disastrous losses?
> 
> Is it a difference in scale? I remember you saying (I think in this thread) that you saw every brood frame you own, every year. Obviously this is not possible for the leaders of outfits like the Adees'. It sort of makes me wonder if in beekeeping, the trend of agribusiness to get bigger and bigger might be suffering its first major reverse. Maybe there's something about bees that make close personal attention more important than scale. Certainly it seems as if most of the treatment-free beekeepers mentioned in this thread are not huge operations. In my reading of the thread, the commercial beekeepers who have commented have said fairly consistently that they believe the approaches used by the treatment-free beekeepers would not work at the larger scale they operate on.
> 
> The Adees lost 55 percent of their hives. Bill Dahl lost almost 80 percent. If these numbers were reported by treatment free beekeepers, the scorn in here would have been thick enough to shovel.
> 
> Maybe beekeepers who want to be treatment free must accept some limitations on the expansion of their businesses. What do you think?


Size may have something to do w/ it. But I know a sizeable outfit that has figured out how to handle things. I don't know all the things they do, but they don't seem to have the losses that others do. The owner is a very hands on guy and works his bees literaly almost every day.

Mostly, I don't know.


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> The Adees lost 55 percent of their hives. Bill Dahl lost almost 80 percent. If these numbers were reported by treatment free beekeepers, the scorn in here would have been thick enough to shovel.


Actually they do. Dee Lusby has reported huge losses periodically. As has Kirk Webster. And even Chris Baldwin.
The only scorn I’ve seen is when a group of small scale, non commercial, treatment free beekeepers try to push their contradictory methods on people who must actually earn a living from their bees.
Sun is rising....those bees won't split themselves....there's work to be done.


----------



## jim lyon

rhaldridge said:


> I asked how well the majority of commercial beekeepers (who treat) are doing. Apparently no one here cares to discuss it, which isn't exactly reassuring.


.......and I said my bees are doing quite well. Feel better now?


----------



## sqkcrk

What about the majority of commercial beekeepers though Jim?


----------



## jim lyon

I can only speak for a few and they run the whole gamut. Honestly it is hard for any one person to see the whole picture but certainly the California situation this year suggests that it has been a tough winter overall. One thing about commercial beekeepers is that they are resilient. I know the Adees are well on their way to getting their hives restocked and I would assume the same from any others wanting to remain in the business. This is really nothing new to the industry it's just one of those years and I wouldn't expect the NY Times to fully comprehend that, that wouldnt make as good a story.


----------



## sqkcrk

If it bleeds it leads. Don't believe everything you read.


----------



## gmcharlie

YOu know watching all the banter back and forth here, The main point of the thread is are there some commercial guys without treatments. the answer is yes, and they all have various methods. some like Ron, have gone to replacing bees, some have bred to hardier bees and taken the losses to get there. Others have just figured out how to manage a 30% loss every year...... so the real answer is so far no perfect magic bullet is there, but most are coping well thru various methods.


----------



## Ian

how many hives did Adees run before their loss?


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> Size may have something to do w/ it. But I know a sizeable outfit that has figured out how to handle things. I don't know all the things they do, but they don't seem to have the losses that others do. The owner is a very hands on guy and works his bees literaly almost every day.
> 
> Mostly, I don't know.


Maybe that' s it. I do know that farmers who are in the field every day get better results than absentee farmers.


----------



## hpm08161947

Ian said:


> how many hives did Adees run before their loss?


80,000 Colonies..... must have some hired help....


----------



## rhaldridge

beemandan said:


> Actually they do. Dee Lusby has reported huge losses periodically. As has Kirk Webster. And even Chris Baldwin.


I think the difference is that the beekeepers you mention were willing and able to accept high losses on the road to achieving much lower losses. But now they don't have those high losses. Think about it as a two trendlines: The successful treatment free beekeepers' losses are declining, if you believe what they say. But according to the research head at Beltsville, this will be the roughest year yet for bee losses among commercial beekeepers.


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> Dee Lusby has reported huge losses periodically.


Where are these huge periodic losses reported?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Where are these huge periodic losses reported?

Here's a link to one instance:
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/beekeeping-on-the-fringe-with-ed-dee-lusby/

600 colonies down to 250, as printed in BeeCulture and re-posted at Beesource.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Okay, we've established the huge, where's the periodic?


----------



## rhaldridge

jim lyon said:


> .......and I said my bees are doing quite well. Feel better now?


I'm glad for you, but no, not really. Would you be willing to hazard a guess as to the difference in your beekeeping approach and the Adee's? Is it just bad luck, do you think, that they had such large losses? Do you think those kind of losses will be sustainable, year after year, or will some beekeepers, maybe the ones who are marginally capitalized, be driven out of the business? Do you think this is an acceptable situation, or should beekeepers be trying different paths in hopes of finding one that works better?

I've gotten the impression that you're an honest no-nonsense kind of guy, so let me ask you what seems to me the crucial question here: is commercial beekeeping as it is presently conducted a healthy and growing industry, or is it an industry declining under the pressures of stuff like Varroa mites, CCD, and cheap Chinese honey? I guess what I'm asking is this: can the industry go on successfully without any major changes in philosophy?

Now, I have no idea whether or not treatment-free beekeeping is an answer or not, though I find those who write about the decline of microflora in treated colonies to be fairly persuasive. I'm just a hobbyist whose life will go on pretty much unchanged if my bees die. But I am aware, as any thinking person should be, that if too many bees die, everyone's life will change, and not for the better. 

This has been a fascinating thread to me, as a student of the stranger aspects of human nature, because it started from the assumption that there were no such animals as commercial treatment free beekeepers. After this was disproven, which took a lot longer than it should have, when even a newbie like me has heard of and read Kirk Webster, then the emphasis shifted to all the reasons that it wouldn't work for the majority of beekeepers. From there it devolved into silly season nonsense about how the only people concerned about the longterm prospects for the industry are new age book writers, movie people, and politicians, even after I posted quotes from Bret Adee and Bill Dahle about their disastrous winter. Unless you think that the NY Times deliberately misquoted them, they seem to be a whole lot more concerned than many of the beekeepers here.

I just can't believe that you get to run as many hives as those guys do by being bad beekeepers. I read an interesting book recently, The Beekeeper's Lament, a sort of snapshot of John Miller's operation written by a John McPhee wannabe (she's not there yet.) Miller's attitude when CCD first started hitting was that it was due to PPD-- Piss Poor Beekeeping. That was before he got hit badly. After that, he got a lot more humble.

My impression of commercial beekeepers is that they are intelligent, hardworking, persistent, and able to succeed in an extremely tough and volatile business. But judging by this thread, a couple of them could use a little humility, and a willingness to learn from those who are trying a different path.

I'm not getting paid to write about this, so I'll let it go. But I'll give you a quote form the end of that NY Times piece, since it appears not too many people actually looked at it:



> Eric Mussen, an apiculturist at the University of California, Davis, said analysts had documented about 150 chemical residues in pollen and wax gathered from beehives.
> 
> “Where do you start?” Dr. Mussen said. “When you have all these chemicals at a sublethal level, how do they react with each other? What are the consequences?”
> 
> Experts say nobody knows. *But Mr. Adee, who said he had long scorned environmentalists’ hand-wringing about such issues, said he was starting to wonder whether they had a point.*
> 
> Of the “environmentalist” label, Mr. Adee said: “I would have been insulted if you had called me that a few years ago. But what you would have called extreme — a light comes on, and you think, ‘These guys really have something. Maybe they were just ahead of the bell curve.’”


----------



## rhaldridge

Rader Sidetrack said:


> > Where are these huge periodic losses reported?
> 
> Here's a link to one instance:
> http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/beekeeping-on-the-fringe-with-ed-dee-lusby/
> 
> 600 colonies down to 250, as printed in BeeCulture and re-posted at Beesource.


Hmm. That's not as bad as the losses Bill Dahle reported this winter, from 15,000 hives down to 3000.


----------



## Specialkayme

rhaldridge said:


> My impression of commercial beekeepers is that they are intelligent, hardworking, persistent, and able to succeed in an extremely tough and volatile business. But judging by this thread, a couple of them could use a little humility, and a willingness to learn from those who are trying a different path.


Are you one of the ones who are "trying a different path" or are you just lecturing others on what they should be doing?

I tried the different paths. I tried going foundationless. The bees didn't build comb anywhere near the cell size I was told they would. Those bees died from mites. I tried just letting them be bees. They died from mites. I tried small cell. They died from mites. I tried breaking the brood nest over and over again. They died from mites (the nucs did). I tried MH queens. They died from mites. I tried breeding from survivors. They died from mites. I tried buying tf queens, and tf nucs. They died from mites. Do you get the trend?

My treated colonies live (although the treatments do take their toll on the colonies). My non-treated colonies die. That's my observation, based on personal experience and trial and error. My bees do better with treatments than without. Your own mileage may vary.

Just because my bees live better with treatments, does it mean everyone's will? Probably not. Just like everyone's bees won't do better in the long run WITHOUT treatments.

Would Sol's bees do better with treatments? My experience says they would. His says they would not (although he has never treated, so I don't see how he can compare the two). But you couldn't pay him to treat his bees, so we'll never know. Do most commercial operators' bees do better with treatments? Their experience says they do. Sol (and many other tf keepers, not trying to single you out Sol, I could replace the same with a number of tf advocators) says they would do better without treatments (even though some have tried). But you couldn't pay them not to treat their bees at this point.

Some day we will hit that turning point where everyone can go tf (I hope, although the discussion a few pages back about the asian bee was very interesting, and may change my overall perspective). That day is not today.


----------



## jean-marc

rhaldridge said:


> I'm glad for you, but no, not really. Would you be willing to hazard a guess as to the difference in your beekeeping approach and the Adee's? Is it just bad luck, do you think, that they had such large losses? Do you think those kind of losses will be sustainable, year after year, or will some beekeepers, maybe the ones who are marginally capitalized, be driven out of the business? Do you think this is an acceptable situation, or should beekeepers be trying different paths in hopes of finding one that works better?
> 
> 
> It is unlikely that it was bad luck. Last year there was a major drought in the midwest. So that part of the equation is bad luck I suppose. I do not know how much honey they got last year but likely it was down. Low crop equals low immunity in the bees. If it is not addressed early onthen there will be consequences to the bees.
> 
> Evidently those kind of losses are not sustainable. For the Adees it means roughly 40,000 x $150 per hive of lost revenue or $6 000 000.00.Yup I think I would be alarmed. Most beekeepers are marginally capitalized. After that kind of loss it takes a couple of seasons to return to where you were. 2 seasons like that and most if not all are in big trouble. A third one and most would be finished I would think.
> 
> A good crop matched with a good price and many problems go away in the commercial beekeeping world.
> 
> Jean-Marc


----------



## rhaldridge

Specialkayme said:


> Are you one of the ones who are "trying a different path" or are you just lecturing others on what they should be doing?


Please point out where I've "lectured" anyone or told anyone what they should be doing. Really, please do this. If I have, I will apologize humbly. I have no basis for giving anyone any advice about beekeeping. 

I don't even have any strongly held opinions about beekeeping, except the one that tells me people shouldn't be jerks even if they have a million hives and the wisdom of Solomon. I don't have enough experience to be entitled to an opinion about anything related to beekeeping, or so I believe. However, I do feel entitled to present certain facts, and ask questions. Apparently some folks find this to be obnoxious.

I don't much care. You can't be friends with everyone.



> Would Sol's bees do better with treatments? My experience says they would. His says they would not (although he has never treated, so I don't see how he can compare the two). But you couldn't pay him to treat his bees, so we'll never know. Do most commercial operators' bees do better with treatments? Their experience says they do.


You seem to be holding commercial operators to a different standard than you do Sol, if I'm permitted to make an observation. Do you think most commercial beekeepers have tried to go treatment free? I'm dubious. My guess, from what I've read here and elsewhere, is that if they tried it at all, they may have tried a yard or two for a season or three, as you did, and decided it couldn't be done. If Kirk Webster had not been an unusually highly motivated individual, that would have been his experience as well, and we would not have the example of his success, which I think is a valuable example. Do you disagree?. 

In the book I referenced about John Miller's operation, the author seems to be unaware that that any treatment free beekeepers exist, and she spent a lot of time with commercial operators. I'm thinking that if treatment free beekeeping was being tried by a lot of commercial operators, she might have noticed. But that's just an inference, not a fact.


----------



## rhaldridge

jean-marc said:


> It is unlikely that it was bad luck. Last year there was a major drought in the midwest. So that part of the equation is bad luck I suppose. I do not know how much honey they got last year but likely it was down. Low crop equals low immunity in the bees. If it is not addressed early onthen there will be consequences to the bees.


I admit to profound ignorance, but here's a quote from NYT article:



> Precisely why last year’s deaths were so great is unclear. Some blame drought in the Midwest, though Mr. Dahle lost nearly 80 percent of his bees despite excellent summer conditions.


----------



## Ian

Did the US not experience huge losses during its last dry spell,.? Lots of factors involved, but I am thinking mal nutrition may of played a huge role in these losses.
doesnt matter if your a treatment pro or con beekeeper, poor food = colony stress


----------



## Ian

rhaldridge said:


> I have no basis for giving anyone any advice about beekeeping.
> 
> I don't even have any strongly held opinions about beekeeping, I don't have enough experience to be entitled to an opinion about anything related to beekeeping, or so I believe.
> 
> However, I do feel entitled to present certain facts, and ask questions. Apparently some folks find this to be obnoxious.


yes


----------



## Specialkayme

rhaldridge said:


> However, I do feel entitled to present certain facts, and ask questions.


Facts and questions are welcomed. Opinions veiled in the form of facts, and lectures directed in the form of questions usually aren't.

If facts and questions are what you seek, and opinions and lectures are what you would like to avoid, I would suggest you word your posts carefully. As I'm sure a writer would always do.

If you don't mean to be lecturing, maybe you shouldn't get so defensive when someone calls you out.



rhaldridge said:


> My guess, from what I've read here and elsewhere, . . . which I think . . . In the book I referenced . . .I'm thinking . . . But that's just an inference, not a fact.


You are full of alot of thoughts, inferences, and suggestions. Your input is very welcomed, but perhaps you should yield to those who have tried, either successfully or unsuccessfully, to do what we are talking about, rather than telling me about a book you read.

But probably too much about that. Back to the topic at hand.



rhaldridge said:


> Do you think most commercial beekeepers have tried to go treatment free?


I don't think some have. I don't think most have. I think ALL have. 

Two different instances lead me to this conclusion. One factual, one situationally hypothesizing. Factually, varroa appeared in North America in 1987 (http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/entomology/apiculture/pdfs/2.03 copy.pdf). By 1988 it was in 12 states (http://www.clemson.edu/extension/beekeepers/factsheets/varroa_mite_control_in_sc.html). The first varroa treatments didn't hit the market until AFTER varroa hit the commercial beekeepers (I read in an article in ABJ a few years ago that Apistan didn't arrive in the US until the early 90's. I couldn't find that article again, so it could be that my memory is not correct). Between the time when each commercial operator first saw a varroa mite, then first saw his colonies begin to crash, and up until he put that first treatment in the hive (probably Apistan at the time), that beekeeper was treatment free. All commercial operators that were in existence since 1985 have been treatment free at one point. It didn't work, and the bees just didn't "figure things out." That is why they needed treatments. That's why the colonies crashed. That's why they used treatments.

As far as situationally, most treatment free operators keep talking about how much time, money, and work you save by not treating. Talking to them, you would think treating is akin to building a house. But, if you do assume that it takes SOME work to treat, do you think that every commercial beekeepers since 1985 has treated everyone one of his colonies twice a year, every year? Do you think that no commercial beekeeper has ever skipped over one hive? Or one yard? Or the whole operation? Do you think that no commercial beekeeper has ever gotten sick, their wife gotten sick, their family been put through some life changing moment that they were unable to treat their bees? I think at some point in the last 28 years it has happened to most. Probably not their entire operation, but likely a yard, or certainly a hive.

Now beekeepers are cheap by nature. They have to be. If they didn't need to spend the $$$ to buy treatments, would they voluntarily? If they visited this colony the next year, after skipping a treatment, and noticed it was alive and thriving, do you think they would say "oh well, time to throw more money away!" Or do you think they would say "hey, wait a minute, this hive is still alive . . . maybe I don't need to spend that money on treatments". If it worked on one hive, they'll try it on more than one. Eventually expanding until it either works or it doesn't work. I don't hear anyone saying that it worked for them.

No, I don't think most commercial beekeepers have devoted entire operations, or entire yards, to a treatment free experiment voluntarily. I do think that some hives over the past 28 years have not been treated, and the beekeeper noticed. They are still being treated now. There's a reason.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Specialkayme said:


> Would Sol's bees do better with treatments? My experience says they would.


I would find it hard to see how they could possibly do any better, treated, not treated, magic, etc. The last two winters, I lost one weakling hive each. Realistically, there is no better.


----------



## Ian

Beekeeping is a business like any other business, business are always in a state of flux as they follow the market and react to the conditions

very important that we all keep an open mind on our management because if we cant adjust to the changes, we will be the first out
I seen this exact thing happen with grain farming 15 years ago. The ones farming today brought in the breeding, brought in the technology and adopted the changing farming practices.

I dont see treatment free as the beekeeping model going ahead, but I can take many aspects from what these managers are doing and incorporate it into my operation. My model is completely different than a beekeeper like Solomon or Jim, but the interesting thing about this whole exercise is that we are all here sharing our thoughts and it will make us stronger beekeepers for it. 

an open minded man can see through the argument and make sense of it all

what Im trying to say is, Blah blah blah blah, half of you just skimmed over that anyway
lets get back to discussing the facts


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> people shouldn't be jerks even if they have a million hives and the wisdom of Solomon.


I don't know whether to be complemented or insulted.




rhaldridge said:


> You seem to be holding commercial operators to a different standard than you do Sol, if I'm permitted to make an observation. Do you think most commercial beekeepers have tried to go treatment free?


I'm not sure who you're talking to, you seem to be quoting whatshisname and talking to me.

No, I do not think most commercial beekeepers have tried to go treatment free. I do not believe in trying to go treatment free. As have bloviated ad nauseum, treatment-free is not something you 'try.' It is not the opposite equivalent to treating. It cannot be handled with the same gloves. It does not produce the same results.




Specialkayme said:


> All commercial operators that were in existence since 1985 have been treatment free at one point.


I'm sorry but no. Having been in these discussions for quite a number of years, every one that has claimed to be treatment-free 'at one point' or 'before varroa' admitted to using something else for something else (usually foulbrood). Either one helps the bees deal with disease, or one doesn't. Neglecting to treat for one year doesn't count.


----------



## Barry

The personal remarks need to be kept out of discussions. Words like "stupid" and "nonsense" don't belong here.


----------



## squarepeg

Ian said:


> ..... but the interesting thing about this whole exercise is that we are all here sharing our thoughts and it will make us stronger beekeepers for it.
> 
> an open minded man can see through the argument and make sense of it all


excellent point ian.


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> Realistically, there is no better.


So it's not possible for your bees to produce more honey than they already are?


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> I don't know whether to be complemented or insulted.


I believe he was referring to the wisdom of King Solomon, not necessarily you Sol. So I don't think there was any compliment or insult intended toward you.

Could be wrong. Just how I read it.


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> Neglecting to treat for one year doesn't count.


Neglecting to treat for one year does make you a treatment free operator . . . for that year.

The same as if I decided to stop treating today. Tomorrow I would be a treatment free beekeeper. My success and experience would be meaningless, but I would in fact be treatment free. When you first started, you didn't treat. That first day were you a treatment free beekeeper? That first year? At what point do you become a treatment free beekeeper? Do you have to not treat from day one? I believe Mike Bush used to treat. At what point after he stopped did he become "treatment free"? As soon as he didn't use treatments.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Even the Lusby's treated bees for a significant period. See this article:
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ntrol/small-cell-foundation-for-mite-control/

What's more, according to that same article, published in ABJ, November 1996, the Lusby's abandoned treatment in the "mid 1980s", and suffered repeated, significant losses *after *ending treatment.


> We have had our share of honey bee losses due to mites over the past 10 plus years, with some apiaries in elevations over 4400 feet experiencing up to 80% losses more than one year in a row.
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ntrol/small-cell-foundation-for-mite-control/


Note the article above was written _before _the additional large loss noted in post #538 of this thread.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well there's the periodic. If a beekeeper who treated had losses like that some people would say they had a crisis coming, caused by treatment.

I think the commercial beekeepers who read this thread will have an idea what happened to these large commercial operations that lost a lot of bees. But it will not be stated here.

RHAldridge, I think time will give you a better perspective on things. If your own bees survive and you are still here in 10 years, you will see that there are still large commercial beekeepers. The "crisis" you believe we are in atm did not cause their extermination.

I say this because I've been hearing for more than a decade about the beekeeping "crisis", that will wipe out bees in 3 years. The 3 years does not get touted so much now, but the "crisis" is still touted in such a way as to make headlines that will help sell paper.


----------



## Ian

Dee claims a good part of here success ( aside from breeding ) to small cell, 
there has been a lot of beekeepers using small cell with both good and poor results, just hear say

so what is it about Dee's bees that has her to believe that the small cell is making a difference ?
is it the type of bees she is breeding within her region? who do prefer smaller cells naturally, and its the bees fending off the mites? perhaps nothing to do with the cell size ?
I think I even read that in one of her postings one time,


----------



## rhaldridge

Specialkayme said:


> I believe he was referring to the wisdom of King Solomon, not necessarily you Sol. So I don't think there was any compliment or insult intended toward you.
> 
> Could be wrong. Just how I read it.


That's right. Sorry. I tend to use the wisdom of King Solomon as a trope without thinking, which is bad. I understand he had a lot of wives, so maybe he had areas of unwisdom. 

Solomon the beekeeper: I was trying to point out that SpecialK was saying that you didn't know whether or not your bees would be better with treatment, while at the same time giving a pass to commercial beekeepers who treat and saying that they* knew* their bees were better *with* treatment. If you aren't allowed to compare because you haven't treated, then why are they allowed to compare if they haven't given treatment free a serious trial?

All that said, as many have pointed out, no one with any sense *blames* commercial beekeepers for treating. It seems obvious to me they simply cannot afford to take the chance, or to accept the losses that dedicated beekeepers like Kirk Webster did in pursuit of treatment free bees.

What I was trying to bring out (and apparently I failed miserably to make this clear) is that with the massive losses that beekeepers who treat are now experiencing, there may come a time when all the Apistan and Hopguard in the world cannot stave off disaster. Maybe it would be a good idea to pay attention to what thoughtful guys like Michael Bush and Kirk Webster are saying about beekeeping. I don't know if they are right or wrong, but I think it would be foolish to dismiss them as sideliners and folks who are content with a low standard of living.

SpecialKayme, I assume you were unable to point to an instance in which I lectured someone.

If your standard for "calling you out" is "calling names" in a fact-free and unresponsive post, that's a little sad. I have to admit that one of my many character flaws is a certain lack of patience with folks who are unable to respond to what I've actually said. When someone's only argument is that I'm a wet-behind-the-ears neophyte and should tug the forelock to my betters, I am, strangely enough, unconvinced. In fact, I'd go so far as to admit that sort of argumentative tactic makes me think that the person addressing these remarks to me must be wrong, or else they'd try to put forward a better argument.


----------



## Oldtimer

RHA, in regard to what you said about commercial beekeepers not having trialled TF, you have assumed they haven't and unfortunately, you have assumed wrong. Have you, for example, checked to see if I am a treatment free beekeeper? You come across as thinking the commercial beekeepers know little more than you do. But they are aeons apart. It's obvious why few of them say anything here though.

As to what you said to Specialkayme re lecturing, much of what you say sounds like a lecture, to me. And if that's how I hear it, I'm sure there will be others. And in fact when I begged to differ with some of your opinions, your reaction was hardly that of somebody prepared to learn.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Specialkayme said:


> So it's not possible for your bees to produce more honey than they already are?


We're not talking about honey, we're talking about hives dying. My hives do quite well for the area considering I don't feed them much, and nothing in the spring.



Specialkayme said:


> I believe he was referring to the wisdom of King Solomon


Yeah, I got that. Perhaps you should stick to clarifying your own statements.




Specialkayme said:


> Tomorrow I would be a treatment free beekeeper.


No.




Specialkayme said:


> That first day were you a treatment free beekeeper?


Treating was never an option. I don't not do it just because my bees aren't dying.


----------



## Specialkayme

rhaldridge said:


> SpecialKayme, I assume you were unable to point to an instance in which I lectured someone.


Unwilling actually.

If you want to say you're right, fine. I could care less. I've got better things to do with my time than sort through these posts and put one up where you are arguably lecturing someone. And everyone else on here has better things to do than listen to you and I quibble about something that isn't related to this topic.

Shall we move on?


----------



## Barry

Ian said:


> so what is it about Dee's bees that has her to believe that the small cell is making a difference ?


I'll rephrase your question so I can answer it.

What is it about small cell that Dee believes makes a difference with her bees?

***********
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/beekeeping-on-the-fringe-with-ed-dee-lusby/*

NATURAL COMB*

The Lusbys have, for several years, been investigating the ramifications of the cell size honey bees use. Their extensive research has turned up some interesting, and intriguing information.

Historically, man-made foundation started the same size as the size bees naturally produced. However, the cell size bees naturally produce is to some degree dependent on where in the world they are. Like many animals, those closer to the equator tend to be smaller than those closer to the poles. That is, honey bees in the southern U.S. naturally build cells a tiny bit smaller than bees in Canada. This discovery has complicated what is ‘natural,’ but not the fact that natural is still, well, natural.

Years ago beekeepers believed that larger bees would be better able to take advantage of flowers with the nectar deep within, normally out of reach of the bees’ tongues. Long tongues were selected for, and some advantages were gained. However, larger bees were deemed the answer to even longer tongues, and to produce larger bees foundation with slightly larger cell base size, hence slightly larger (eventual) cells. It was believed bigger was better. Well, maybe, maybe not.

The Lusby’s theorized that this larger cell size, and larger bee, produced an environmental stress on both individual bees, and the entire colony. Generally, colonies handle this subtle but persistent pressure with indiscernible outward signs. It is, however, difficult to measure because essentially all comb produced now is artificially large, at least to some degree.

Measuring cells produced by feral colonies in their part of Arizona, coupled with the results of their research led the Lusbys to initially produce foundation with a smaller-sized cell base on an experimental basis. Their first attempt was a cell base with a parallel-side-to-parallel-side measurement of 5.0 mm. (see diagram).

Since most foundation produced now is in the 5.22 mm to 5.55 mm range, reducing cell base size to 5.0, (a 4.3 – 10% reduction) seemed significant. But after a few trials the differences seemed minimal. Their time spent, however, continued to uncover more information supporting their belief that ‘natural’ cell size was better for bee stress reduction.

The 5.0 mm cell size did show promise, however. The Lusbys noted some reduction in parasite infestation and less incidence of disease. But not enough to be commercially economical, and colony losses continued.

It should be noted here that along with the inclusion of smaller cell-sized foundation in their management scheme, the Lusbys discontinued the use of all drugs, medications and acaricides, except a propolis, sugar and vegetable shortening combination in a patty. The early results were predictable – colony losses mounted, but not as rapidly as other, untreated colonies. Something was going on.

Further research indicated that, at their latitude, a cell size of 5.0 mm may have been 0.1 mm too large, and they found a cell size of 4.9 mm may be better. Precise measurements of feral comb supported the 4.9 mm size, so they began to search for a foundation mill to produce this size cell base. This wasn’t an easy task. Not only were current manufacturers not using mills that small, most were reluctant to make a switch without some hard evidence the cost would be worthwhile.

One did, however. Tom Industries, in El Cajon, CA agreed to make a few small-sized mills, for a price, to see if they worked.

Lusby’s make their foundation the old fashioned way, one sheet at a time. They dip a board in melted wax, let the wax cool and peel it off. One dip is enough. Then they run this through the hand powered mill. Result – eight sheets to the pound.

So far they’ve found that colonies on their new natural comb seem to swarm less (There is more space for brood – about 1250 more cells in a two-story chamber than using Duragilt.) and have fewer mites.
The few-mites thing, along with less disease incidence, has been aided by continual selection for tolerant colonies. But the two have worked. Independent sampling by USDA researchers have confirmed that, indeed, fewer mites than normal are present in these small-cell colonies.

So far the Lusbys have changed over most of their colonies. Their early observations indicate faster build up, healthier colonies and more honey production. But these are early results.

They are passionate in their belief that this management scheme is the answer to the stresses of desert beekeeping, both mites and whatever diseases their bees encounter.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

Please, let’s keep the discussion respectful and quit the personal back and forths. Remember the old adage: “If you can’t say something nice, turn the other cheek”? …..Oh, it was something like that….

Sheri


----------



## rhaldridge

Very interesting!

(Standard disclaimer, complete noob, got one hive very recently, but read a lot) I've wondered if a useful analogy for what is wrong with the bees is elderly cars. I've got about 50 years of experience in keeping old junkers running, and what I've noticed is that one thing can go wrong, or two things or three, and the car will still run, though not as well. But at some point, one thing too many goes wrong, and then the car becomes a yard ornament until you get around to fixing it. I can't help but think that this might be sort of the situation with bees. It might be the culmination of a lot of stuff going wrong over the 150 years of modern beekeeping. For that reason, the approach of some treatment free beekeepers seems to have a certain logic to me. The Lusbys are a good example of this, I think. They fixed a couple of things and the car is running a little better. 

One element of their approach that Barry didn't touch on is that their colonies have a much greater range of microflora and fauna in the hive and in the bees. I find the idea that treatment destroys possibly vital elements of this microcosm to be persuasive, as should anyone who's ever taken antibiotics and gotten a terrible case of the touristas.

I think there's a lot to be learned from Kirk Webster's approach too. I find it hard to characterize brood breaks as treatment, because the natural tendency of colonies to swarm is a brood break that requires no intervention from a beekeeper.

I'll never be a commercial beekeeper. I'm too old and have too many other things to do before I die. But I have enormous respect for folks like the Lusbys and Webster. As chemical means of controlling pests and disease continue to lose effectiveness (a trend which I hope no one here would dispute) where are the beekeeping technologies of the future going to come from?


----------



## jim lyon

rhaldridge said:


> I'm glad for you, but no, not really. Would you be willing to hazard a guess as to the difference in your beekeeping approach and the Adee's? Is it just bad luck, do you think, that they had such large losses? Do you think those kind of losses will be sustainable, year after year, or will some beekeepers, maybe the ones who are marginally capitalized, be driven out of the business? Do you think this is an acceptable situation, or should beekeepers be trying different paths in hopes of finding one that works better?
> 
> I've gotten the impression that you're an honest no-nonsense kind of guy, so let me ask you what seems to me the crucial question here: is commercial beekeeping as it is presently conducted a healthy and growing industry, or is it an industry declining under the pressures of stuff like Varroa mites, CCD, and cheap Chinese honey? I guess what I'm asking is this: can the industry go on successfully without any major changes in philosophy?


I suppose I am an optimist. I dont see an industry in decline as much as an industry in flux. I have been doing this commercially for 40 years and the beekeeper has ALWAYS had challenges but for most of the time it was massive losses from foliar spraying and low commodity prices. Years ago beekeeping organizations were lobbying for indemnity 
programs for spray loss and commodity price supports. With the arrival of varroa, high grain prices and the resulting loss of bee pasturage the challenges have shifted to how to raise a honey crop and where to place your hives so that they have enough forage to stay strong. The growth of the Almond industry in California was a huge game changer. In the matter of a few years rental prices went from $30 to almost $200 and the demand for well over a million strong hives was suddenly needed. At the same time honey prices shot up from the .70 range to $2.00 a lb. For those beekeepers able to raise even a 60 lb. crop and have a strong hive to rent out the next February the rewards are huge. I know many beekeepers who have done very well indeed. The incentive is there so, yes, I have confidence that the industry has a good future but only for those willing to change and evolve with it. 
The differences between my operation and the Adee's? Well we share some similarities in the migratory nature of our operations but I cant speak about the specifics of their treatment regime because I have no knowledge of what they do and if I did I wouldn't feel free to discuss it in a public forum. I would speculate, though, that there are most likely at least some differences in philosophy and management practices. This I will say, though. I have the greatest respect them as both people and as beekeepers. As I said before the experiences of others that I am aware of "run the gamut". Some have struggled but I know of more than one story of beekeepers whose bees have thrived in the past year.
At the risk of reiterating what I have previously asked in this thread and have yet to get an answer. I will ask one more time. Why should I expose my operation to potential losses of 90% or more? What's in it for me? As near as I can tell treatment free bragging rights here on Beesource is about the only upside and the loss of what my family has spent decades building up is the downside. Currently 4 families live off the income from our operation and we are doing just fine thank you.


----------



## Ian

Thanks Barry! Usually its my wife that re phrases my questions lol

I have read that previously from your source of references which lead me to the question why is it Dee is seeing an advantage, yet others who have also tried see no advantage?

>>So far the Lusbys have changed over most of their colonies. Their early observations indicate faster build up, healthier colonies and more honey production. But these are early results.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Would an exposition of the Pseudo-Drone Theory be appropriate? That would be more directly related to the varroa question.


----------



## Ian

she is beekeeping in an somewhat isolated area, as far as I understand

so then does her success have anything to do with the small cell?


----------



## Oldtimer

It's her bees. 

After she went small cell she continued to have massive losses, so it's not just small cell. Eventually she was left with a bee that can survive in her environment, with her methods

However even now, by my standards anyway, she has big losses. These are made up by constant splitting.

Don't try to buy some of her bees though, they have African genetics.


But having said all that, the elephant in the room in these treatment free discussions, is production. Treatment free folks hold up survival as the yardstick. But commercial folks need production.


----------



## Ian

I have always read about her splitting her hives, but I dont hear the term nuc,

is her split what I would consider a nuc?


----------



## rhaldridge

jim lyon said:


> At the risk of reiterating what I have previously asked in this thread and have yet to get an answer. I will ask one more time. Why should I expose my operation to potential losses of 90% or more? What's in it for me? As near as I can tell treatment free bragging rights here on Beesource is about the only upside and the loss of what my family has spent decades building up is the downside. Currently 4 families live off the income from our operation and we are doing just fine thank you.


If I were you, I'm sure I would feel the same, and it's sure as hell nobody else's business how you run your operation. 

There might be more to treatment free than bragging rights on Beesource. Do you think Kirk Webster cares about that? I don't even think he's on Beesource, is he? From reading his writings, he seems to be a guy who cares deeply about bees, and wants to advance the art of beekeeping. It seems unfair to characterize him as an irrelevant outlier in the commercial world. His bees are doing pretty well, it appears.

I hope for the best for you and everyone else who is doing the necessary work of making honey, pollinating crops, and keeping their bees alive. But if next winter, your losses approach 80 percent, as Bill Dahle's did this winter, and this continues for several more years, what will you do?

I really hope you're right, and this is just one of those cyclic downturns in the industry that have been coming along ever since wax moths made their appearance. I *really* hope so. Anyway, I guess I've sufficiently annoyed folks here, though that was not my intention, and I'll slink away now.


----------



## Barry

Ian said:


> she is beekeeping in an somewhat isolated area, as far as I understand
> 
> so then does her success have anything to do with the small cell?


I'm not sure how much her bees have changed over time (pre and post cell size change). It got to a point that the main thing they did change was the cell size.


----------



## hpm08161947

From what I am reading... yes I am reading Lusby.... these days she relies on walk away splits...




Ian said:


> I have always read about her splitting her hives, but I dont hear the term nuc,
> 
> is her split what I would consider a nuc?


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

This has been an interesting thread, with lots of divergent points of view.
Unfortunately, some of the frustration shown on this thread comes from these differing points of reference. 

Remember, this is the commercial/pollination board. 

Some have commented on the dearth of commercial beeks on this thread. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, as a group we are BUSY this time of year. Second, we have had similar discussions many times and it has proven to be a very divisive topic. It is a little like religion that way.
But, in the hope of peacekeeping thru dialogue I will try to define my perspective a bit. 

It is all well and good to provide the names and specifics of treatment free operations. We can all look at what/how they do it and maybe learn something, but not everything can be applied to all beekeepers. 
There are many different beekeeping models out there. The keeper with a couple hundred hives who sells retail honey locally and overwinters is much different from the 2000 colony keeper who derives half (or more) of his income from pollination. And both are MILES apart from the backyard beekeeper with 10 colonies and even further from one with little to no experience with bees at all. You just can’t fit the backyard beekeeper model into typical commercial/migratory beekeeping. That isn’t to denigrate backyard beekeepers or anyone else it is just a fact.
To be blunt, most of the examples given would not be considered “commercial beekeepers” by other commercial beekeepers. Again, this is not to denigrate the examples, it is just hard to translate to a migratory operation expected to put roof over heads.

Some of the management techniques that even a larger stationary keeper might use are problematic for a migratory keeper, which is the perspective I am coming from. 

To name a few of the suggestions:
*Multiple nucs to repopulate dead outs: we give up almond income, honey production and income from splits from the nuc colonies. 
*Small cell: how would one quantify the costs of regressing 2500 colonies to small cell? Yikes.
*Take 100-200 as trial tf hives: it comes down to the money. I don’t normally like getting into the personal financials, but will this once just to give a scope of the impact of “experimenting” on 200. That could cost us income of about $315 ea, (rough figuring - $140 almonds, $150 honey, $25 sold bees). That comes to $63000.00. Of course, of small consolation is we wouldn’t have some of the expenses associated with those colonies, after all one doesn’t ship dead bees to California and back, one doesn’t extract the honey, etc. 
*Start with packages every year: might be a good strategy to save money on treatments, and optimize hive honey averages. If not wanting to take bees into almonds it makes economic sense. However, those bees are usually NOT treatment free, as the supplier of the packages most likely treated his bees to allow for the surplus to sell. We sell packages to tf beekeepers every year.
*Bond method: Not an option financially for most of us.

I think I speak for many commercial keepers as well as Ian when I repeat the question, “why would we “risk the farm” when our model is working well?” From the financial survival standpoint, there is no reason. Our bees, and those of most I know, have consistently come out of almonds in terrific shape, (knock on wood) giving us ample bees to take care of our deadouts ( from queen failure, not disease), plus. I have heard of percentage losses to rival the Adee's, but know many who have done well for many years. Commercial beeks, like all ag related endeavors must roll with the punches and allow for the unexpected. Being too close to the edge in any business is a recipe for disaster.

More power and good luck to those trying to assure colony health without reliance on medications, by risking the health of their own, but I don't think there are many out there. It is, after all, mostly about the money. Hence the term, “Commercial”. 
Sheri


----------



## Ian

rhaldridge said:


> Do you think Kirk Webster cares about that? I don't even think he's on Beesource, is he? From reading his writings, he seems to be a guy who cares deeply about bees, and wants to advance the art of beekeeping.


as do I, I care deeply about my bees and want to advance the art of beekeeping, but Im a commercial beekeeper, so that probably would not count in your book,


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> It's her bees.
> 
> After she went small cell she continued to have massive losses, so it's not just small cell.


They changed cell size twice before things leveled off and they grew back. I won't say her bees don't play a part in their success, but it appears the main change that took place was the change in cell size.


----------



## jim lyon

rhaldridge said:


> If I were you, I'm sure I would feel the same, and it's sure as hell nobody else's business how you run your operation.
> 
> There might be more to treatment free than bragging rights on Beesource. Do you think Kirk Webster cares about that? I don't even think he's on Beesource, is he? From reading his writings, he seems to be a guy who cares deeply about bees, and wants to advance the art of beekeeping. It seems unfair to characterize him as an irrelevant outlier in the commercial world.


I have never characterized Kirk in such a way I don't question his devotion to beekeeping for a moment, I just don't fully understand why you would put yourself and your bees through the losses. It just dosent compute with me. The industry currently has the tools needed to control varroa and do so in a manner consistent with respect for the integrity of the honey that we raise and I have the test results to prove it. SpecK made a good point a while back. What exactly is the time frame to qualify as treatment free? I am for about 10 months a year. Is that enough? At what point do the treatment free benefits kick in? 1 year? More? Anyone?


----------



## Ian

hpm08161947 said:


> From what I am reading... yes I am reading Lusby.... these days she relies on walk away splits...


how can an operation re build hundreds of hives after a loss event with walk away splits? I know the math, that would take years of rebuilding, 
she must nuc out some of her hives,


----------



## Oldtimer

Ian said:


> is her split what I would consider a nuc?


Deknow will be the man to ask as he has more to do with her. But from what I've been able to make out it's pretty simple. Deadouts are replaced by a box with brood taken from another hive, the queen is not even found, whichever split has no queen is left to make a new one. Boxes from dead hives are simply stacked on live ones.

That's what I've been able to gather from reading, and what I saw being done on a video I watched of her working. But whatever else she may do I don't know.

While this may seem primitive, it has meant that the strongest and so presumably most mite resistant hives, are the ones most likely to be split and produce another queen.


----------



## Ian

ya, thats how I split my hives, I take a full box of brood and bees off a two story hive and I drop a queen in the hive that is queenless


----------



## Ian

What she is doing reminds me of what they do at the saskatraz survivor project, good stuff is coming out of that project, but I dont think they have claimed to be able to supply a treatment free bee to commercial ops yet.

With her breeding, in a region known to harbour Africanized bees, how much of a factor does she think that has to play in her mite tolerance bees


----------



## Oldtimer

She has said it's 1/3rd small cell, 1/3rd the bees, and 1/3rd something else I cannot remember, somebody else will have to fill me in.

But there's many opinions. Michael Bush used to say the bees didn't matter, all you need was small cell. (Now he's moving to natural comb). StevenG, runs treatment free bees successfully on large cell. Others have converted to small cell and lost all their bees to mites. So who knows?

And Sheri, thanks for the excellent summary, which has thus far passed without mention. But it is a great summary of the situation.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

Ian and I are coming from the perspective of businesses being built up over many years, and one might be tempted to think we are just of the mindset "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Of course, in at least my case, that would be true. 
But the issue goes deeper than that. 
Over the years we have seen several folks just starting out, wanting to be tf on a sideliner level, eventually hoping to be commercial. It is sad that these folks were under the impression it is as easy as breeding from the survivors/ don't feed corn syrup/use small cell etc and in a couple years they would have a tf successful operation. Someone forgot to tell them they needed survivors to breed from, and that those might be very rare indeed. Before investing their life savings, people need to know that not everyone who heads down that road comes out like the few positive examples we have seen. 

Anyone who has been in the business for any length of time knows of cases like that. Unfortunately it is one of the ways we grow. We end up buying that beautiful, 2-3 year old tf comb from them when they go bankrupt/get discouraged. 
Sheri


----------



## Ian

Although she provides a very interesting model for beekeeping, I cant see any part of it that would at all fit into an operation like mine,

she seem to be raising bees just for the fact of raising bee ( besides her absolute passion ) , with me production is first and formost because I have a bottom line to maintain. I am constantly working my hives to exploit their fullest potential. Where as Dee ( to me ) seems to using a real laid back approach considering honey more of a secondary issue, 

just my impression


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes, as somebody who is attempting treatment free beekeeping, I've tried to learn as much as possible from Dee Lusby, one of Treatment Free beekeeping's success stories. Best I've been able to tell most of her beekeeping time is spent splitting hives and making up deadouts. Reading between the lines, her honey production last season was around 10 barrels, from a claimed 6-7 hundred hives. Not sure how someone would survive on that so maybe Deknow could give the correct figure if I am wrong.


----------



## Roland

Sheri - good summary a way back. Then...

"Someone forgot to tell them they needed survivors to breed " 

Roland - And mites are a walk in the park compared to CCD. It can get worse.

As to the Adees loosing bees, I have faith that they have the skills to quickly rebuild numbers in a Southern location. Concerned, but not worried.

What is more alarming to me is all the people that non nonchalantly let their bees die, and do not have the resources to replace them. Follow the money. When commercial people are buying their replacement bees from TF hobbiests, and the hobbiests stop buying replacement bees from commercial people, I will know where the truth lies.

Maybe it is time for all parties to put their money where their mouth is. If all parties really believe in what they have written, then throw down your money behind what you believe in. Run at least 300-400 hives as you see fit. All of us commercial people already have. Money talks, **** **** walks. See you in 10....20... 160???? years.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Michael Palmer

Roland said:


> As to the Adees loosing bees, I have faith that they have the skills to quickly rebuild numbers in a Southern location. Concerned, but not worried.


I assume that the Adee's have enrolled in the USDA program that pays 60% of the cost to re-stock their dead-outs from CCD. So if they lost 30,000 colonies and it cost $50 per to re-stock, they received close to a million bucks.


----------



## Ian

wow, that will buy them a lot of packages, 
whats all the fuss about then?


----------



## sqkcrk

I know some beekeepers who are in that program. I wonder who evaluates the situation to determine losses were due to CCD? And how those evaluations were done.


----------



## Ian

what are the premiums dues to enroll? 

we have a provincial insurance program, steep premium and a 30% deductible,


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> I wonder who evaluates the situation to determine losses were due to CCD? And how those evaluations were done.

You can read the details of the USDA ELAP Honeybee program here. Note that while this program covers CCD losses, losses do *not *have to be determined to be CCD in order to be eligible.

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/elap_honeybee_11.pdf

According to that link, the program has expired, but as that document was published in 2011, funding _may _now have been extended.


----------



## jim lyon

I will publicly display my ignorance here and say I didn't realize ELAP was still being funded. The NAP program is still in effect that will pay enrolees up to (I think) 50% of either their proven yields or a crop average for an area as determined by the USDA. Personally I think it's government largess that needs to go. I am sure I part company with many of my commercial colleagues on that one.


----------



## cg3

A million bucks is, what, 25K packages? Considering the tight supply, at least for hobbyists, are there really that many extra available?


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> Where are these huge periodic losses reported?


An exchange on BeeL

Dee Lusby on Dec 17, 2012
_Once you reach clean and sustainable, and naturally sized with Nature, problems stop and you fall to normal 2-3% losses per year, with up to 10% in real bad years_

Allen on Dec 17, 2012…referring to a recent visit to Lusy’s. Quotation marks are Allen’s.
_If that is true, Dee, then why were half or more of the hives in your yards empty, and why are you down to 'several hundred" hives?_

Lusby’s reply on Dec 17, 2012
_Probably because equipment has been setting the the yards since the 1980s_

While Dee explained that most of the empty boxes had been sitting in her yards for thirty years, in her reply she totally ignored Allen’s quote regarding being down to several hundred hives.

700 - 800 to several hundred….qualifies as huge to me.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

jim lyon said:


> I will publicly display my ignorance here and say I didn't realize ELAP was still being funded. The NAP program is still in effect that will pay enrolees up to (I think) 50% of either their proven yields or a crop average for an area as determined by the USDA.


The ELAP program may indeed be dead, as the earlier link indicated. (Sometimes its difficult to tell as some govt programs seem to just keep getting extended.) :lookout:

The NAP program mentioned by Jim does cover honey as a crop. Details are here:
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsRel...ype=detail&item=pf_20110830_distr_en_nap.html

I did see a reference on that page to the 50% Jim mentions:


> *How Much Loss NAP Covers*
> 
> 
> NAP covers the amount of loss greater than 50 percent of the expected production based on the approved yield and reported acreage.


----------



## Oldtimer

Wow, so even in 2012, the majority of Dees hives were deadouts. So looks like for someone trying to be treatment free commercially, it takes more than 30 years to get to Zen.

Dan was there any mention of her AFB problem?


----------



## sqkcrk

I wish it were more practical to be treatment free as a commercial beekeeper, but I haven't seen that it is.

The proof is in the pudding. "I'm from Missourii, you'll have to show me." And two or three examples aren't enuf to make me want to follow their example. And I doubt that other commercial beekeepers, for the most part, feel differently.


----------



## acbz

Not going to spend much time participating in this argument. But I'm friends with the son of Bill Dahle who was quoted in the NYT "Mystery Malady" article. Met him several years back at a Marla Spivak queen rearing course. Great family. I sent him a note to say hello and sorry to hear about their bad year etc. Heard back from him today, he said their mite levels were awfully high last fall and it took a heavy toll. He also said they're getting great bees out of almonds and splitting them 3 for 1. Where is the mystery malady? I guess mites don't sell newspapers. I'm pretty sure I know what their opinion of going treatment free would be.


----------



## sqkcrk

acbz said:


> I'm pretty sure I know what their opinion of going treatment free would be.


Well, that is what I call plain speaking. NOT!! Please tell us what you mean.


----------



## jim lyon

Now you've done it Aaron.  

:digging:


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> Please tell us what you mean.


My sense of his post is that Bill Dahle recognizes that much of his losses were a result of varroa. With that in mind….one wouldn’t expect him to even consider going treatment free.


----------



## deknow

...it's amazing how people justify what they want to hear.

No, Allen did not visit Dee "recently"....2005 was the most recent.
No, none of the statements regarding Dee's numbers or production are accurate...and no, I won't give further details on her numbers....just as I won't betray the confidences of those posting on this thread who have told me things confidentially.
No, Dee doesn't keep nucs anywhere.

This had a potential to be an interesting topic....an opportunity that has been squandered by those that feel the best way to learn what someone else is doing by talking louder, and listening less. Honestly, you want me to give more details when the facts are trumped by speculation. If you don't believe what I say, why do you want to ask questions.

deknow


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> Dan was there any mention of her AFB problem?


Oooohhhhh...now you're asking for trouble!


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> .This had a potential to be an interesting topic....an opportunity that has been squandered by those that feel the best way to learn what someone else is doing by talking louder, and listening less.


I couldn't have said it better myself!


----------



## sqkcrk

Dean,
I haven't seen enuf in the way of examples to make me think that attempting treatment free beekeeping on a 400 plus colony operation would be worth the risks and investment. I don't have the monetery cushion. And three or four examples tell me that others are also not yet willing to go that route.

Maybe, some time in the future things will be different, but it will take someone, a number of someones, running hundreds and thousands, migrating and doing pollination. That is the way I see it.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well hopefully, one day we'll all be varroa mite treatment free, if efforts are continued to find a genetic solution, ie, resistant bees.

Not saying that day will come cos I don't know, but, here's hoping.


----------



## deknow

I'm not sure when I told anyone they should change what they are doing.

I tried to answer the question, "are there treatment free commercial beekeepers", and tried to explain at least some of the things they do.

In return, others have been happily spreading misinformation...I'm not sure why, but I fail to see how any of this is productive or in any way honest.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

I don't think you told anyone to change anything either.
Yes, you answered the question and explained some of the things they do. It's not your fault that that is not enuough.
I don't know what's up w/ the disinformation. Maybe some folks don't see things the way you see things. Maybe some folks read what they do about Dee Lusby, from her Posts elsewhere, and read into them what you don't know from hands on experience. Which is not dishonest, just a different point of view about things.


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> Maybe some folks don't see things the way you see things. Maybe some folks read what they do about Dee Lusby, from her Posts elsewhere, and read into them what you don't know from hands on experience. Which is not dishonest, just a different point of view about things.


I've been through most of her yards 7 times over the last 6 years...sometimes working unsupervised doing splits and such.

Allen didn't visit "recently" to 2012 (has someone that has seen your hives 7 years ago seen them "recently"?).
The numbers cited for losses and production are factually incorrect.
I've written before on beesource about my observations wrt afb in her operation...I'd hardly classify it as a "problem".

Dee can be difficult at times, and she can be hard to understand....but she is honest as the day is long.

There are things that we can all have different opinions about, but facts and numbers are quantifiable. Honesty and forthrightness are qualifyable....I've offered nothing but honesty and forthrightness in this thread....it would be more productive if others did the same.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Yes, I agree. And I believe you.


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> Honestly, you want me to give more details when the facts are trumped by speculation. If you don't believe what I say, why do you want to ask questions.
> 
> deknow


you brought these name into the conversation and asked why these beekeepers were not being talked about,
then you scream that they are being talked about

If you have information that would clear the air, then by all means , pass it along, 
if not, quit yelling about the conversation


----------



## beemandan

If you are recommending an unconventional method of doing business to a group of people who have been in that business for years….and when they ask for specific results….but you will only say ‘trust me’…..guess what their response is likely to be?


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> I responded to Sol’s question about where it was reported that Dee had had losses. The time reference in the exchange between Dee and Allen indicated current times.


That would be a good conclusion if it were correct....but for the third time, Allen hasn't been to Dee's since 2005. That is the fact. Your interpretation is flawed...probably from looking at things out of context.



> A quote from Allen last December _why are you down to 'several hundred" hives?_
> The word ‘are’ indicates a relatively current period…don’t you agree?
> So what part of my post is dishonest? And, I suppose you are saying that Allen was dishonest in his message.


Hmmm, "several hundred" seems to me to include the 700-800 hives she is running by herself, with no help. She keeps less bees than she did when her husband was alive to work with her. None of this leads to any conclusion over a specific number of hives, nor a specific production/income....both of which have been cited, based on no reliable data....which is dishonest.



> While on the topic of honesty….your assertion that Dee’s bees are not especially defensive strikes a bit of a dishonest tone to anyone who viewed the video of your visit to her apiaries….a video that is now, conveniently, removed from the public domain. I don’t blame you for removing it as it surely undermines your case.


1. Those videos were shot (and posted unedited) while doing about 200 walk away splits...essentially without smoke.
2. On separate occasions, several years apart, in separate yards, both Michael Bush and I have inspected hives (with others around) using a normal amount of smoke...the bees were entirely manageable. On another occasion (3 years ago, I think), Dee asked me to grab a jar of bees for a speaker that was doing an apitheripy talk...I smoked the bees, put on a veil (no gloves), pulled brood frames and rolled bees into a jar.
3. This is the most amusing accusation yet....that I pulled the videos. These videos have never been taken down. When I first wanted to put these online, Youtube had a 5 min. limit to the length of the video. At the time, google had an experimental video service that had no such restriction, so that's where I posted them. Since that time, google bought youtube, and eventually all the google video content was automatically migrated to youtube...where they still live today, with no interruption. Eventually the google video links were discontinued. I'd like to find the time to upload higher rez versions on vimeo (which is what I use for video these days). These videos have been "live" since 2008 with no interruption. When Bee-l was having this "discussion", no one bothered to ask....seems rather familiar a way to arrive at the "truth", eh?
Is it really more productive to say something has been taken down (when it hasn't) or to ask where it might have gone (which happened automatically which I couldn't stop from happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Videos


> On April 15, 2011, Google announced via email that after April 29 they would no longer allow playback of content hosted on their service, but reversed the decision one week later in lieu of greater support for migration to YouTube.[4][5] Google Videos was shut on August 20, 2012. The remaining Google Videos content was moved to YouTube.


http://www.youtube.com/user/GoldenRuleHoney?feature=watch



> I, ordinarily, believe that a difference of opinion between adults is normal. An interpretation of information can be viewed on opposite poles. I don’t believe that when someone takes a different view that it is the result of dishonesty. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is evidence of projection


Errr, ok, so posters here are making "honest mistakes" because they can't be bothered with the facts? They are "honestly" making things up? I don't think it's dishonest to disagree about something...but in an honest discussion, there is some responsibility for the participants to get their facts straight...and not make up "facts".

deknow


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> If you are recommending an unconventional method of doing business to a group of people who have been in that business for years….


When did I do that?

deknow


----------



## Ian

like the video of Dee's bees,
sheets of brood in some of those hives

got to say though, those bees seemed a bit hot, but sometimes the camera can be mis leading


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> That is the fact. Your interpretation is flawed...probably from looking at things out of context.


Maybe…but you do understand tense? Are = present tense Were = past tense
Allen used the present tense.



deknow said:


> Hmmm, "several hundred" seems to me to include the 700-800 hives she is running by herself, with no help.


Hmmmmm, no matter how much help she has….several hundred to me means around three hundred.


deknow said:


> Errr, ok, so posters here are making "honest mistakes" because they can't be bothered with the facts?


Errr, speaking of 'honest mistakes'.
From BeeL
Dee Lusby January 17, 2013
_And as you explained about Dean here......he did good filming, but not as you evidewntly see it, for the bees though flying having to reorientate with fast whole yard divisions were NOT stinging_ 

Michael Palmer January 18, 2013 
_Well that's not true. I know Dean, and have talked with him about his _
_filming incident. Dean told me that there were so many stingers in his _
_sneakers that you couldn't tell what color they were.


_


----------



## Ian

did you see the bees in the face of Dee working through the third hive? Yikes, 

I dont understand, she keeps bees in a region known to have Africanized hives, she breeds her queen in her region, does one plus one not equal two here? Probably has some Africanized genetics , chances are high, look at how the bees are acting,

Working my hives, even in the foulest weather, I dont have bees that hot,


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> I've been through most of her yards 7 times over the last 6 years...sometimes working unsupervised doing splits and such.
> deknow


So you often go to her hives and make splits from them for her.... unsupervised! She's a brave soul.  

Seriously though, this thread is about the viability of treatment free commercial beekeeping. Dee has put herself out there as the public face of treatment free small cell beekeeping. 

But because her results are shrouded in secrecy, it is not possible to determine if her operation would be commercially viable.

I have made my best guess at her production, based on what little information I have been able to glean. I stated at the same time that I could be incorrect and invited you by name, to correct me if I was wrong. So no dishonesty at all, please retract any dishonesty allegations you have levelled at me. You've also been overly quick to accuse others, while being less than forthcoming yourself.


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> Maybe…but you do understand tense? Are = present tense Were = past tense
> Allen used the present tense....
> Hmmmmm, no matter how much help she has….several hundred to me means around three hundred."


This is the problem. You are trying to have an argument with me about something you misunderstood Allen say ...and it's something that I actually know about. But either you think my wife and I "mistook" 300 hives for 700-800 hives through 7 visits _and_ that Allen visited Dee recently but I just don't know about it, or you think I am making things up.

Email Allen and ask him when he was there last, how many hives he thinks she has now, and what he bases that number upon. Figure it out.



> Errr, speaking of 'honest mistakes'.
> ...
> Michael Palmer January 18, 2013
> _Well that's not true. I know Dean, and have talked with him about his _
> _filming incident. Dean told me that there were so many stingers in his _
> _sneakers that you couldn't tell what color they were._


_
Well, I'll cut Mike some slack cause he's my buddy, and I understand that that far North the air gets pretty thin...(sorry Ian :lookout: ).
That's almost, sorta, kinda true...but certainly not an honest presentation of the facts.

I was dressed in an inspectors jacket (a wedding present from Dee...remember, this was a working wedding honeymoon...we got Dee an online ordination and she married us in the desert....was there something in this thread about a "normal lifestyle"?), white painters pants from walmart, and some brown woven nylon hiking boots.

Let's just say, the boots didn't go over too well with the bees. I still have one of the boots...I'll try to photograph it.

The bees were crazy for the camera (someone suggested the bees might think I was stealing their souls) and the boots.

They would cling to the inside of the ladies legs (there are a few crotch smoking shots in the videos...remember, these were unedited and unprepared...we were just going through yards and after a few days, I felt like I could try to narrate what was going on). Also, if you are going to watch these, please not that smoke is hardly used, except on us.

Once we started to tear through a yard, we would have bees in the air and around our veils...no clinging. I won't say I didn't get a few stings in a day, but it was louder than anything else.

So, after the first two days, I showed Dee my boots, and she dug into a closet and pulled out a pair of white leather sneakers....from a backpack she found, dropped by an illegal being chased by border patrol...in my size. Problem solved, no more ankle biting.

Every time I go back, my shoes are there....but I wear a different pair (also found in a backpack)...why? I stopped getting stung, but I got an itchy foot fungus! (I know, TMI, but it is what happened).

So, that is the story of the shoes....and they were covered. If you look at the pictures from our recent trip, you will see that they are still crazy for the camera, as Anita was there, so I could photograph a photographer.

Mike, we would love to have you back down south where the air is thicker, and you can recharge your braincells at the NETFBC. Do tell them how we fed you, treated you, and got you in front of a young, receptive and enthusiastic audience who were eager to LISTEN (well, Dee didn't like seeing that sugar in the hive..).

But it's ok you didn't tell them about the foot fungus, I don't think I told you that part 









deknow_


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> Well, I'll cut Mike some slack cause he's my buddy, and I understand that that far North the air gets pretty thin...(sorry Ian :lookout: ).
> That's almost, sorta, kinda true...but certainly not an honest presentation of the facts.


ha ha ha the air is not thin, just **** COLD 

I guess I'll just raise my eyebrow a bit, make a semi serious expression on my face and shrug my shoulders,
just as everyone else did, put that elephant back into the corner of the room


----------



## Markt

Gotta bear in mind that temperament is pretty much as important as honey production in my books... That's not saying I won't requeen a hive that's never stung me and doesn't make a decent amount of honey but who wants to get nailed every time they enter a yard? I do 90% of my supering in a t shirt and save the suit for splitting and pulling honey... Don't think I'd be ready to give that up


----------



## deknow

The same day that I told Mike the shoe story (which he misremembered in telling on Bee-L), he told me a story about a bee club that tossed a vendor out of a meeting....because the vendor was gay and the club was homophobic.

A sad story if true...but the _real_ story is that the club doesn't allow vendors at all...the vendor was told this when he asked to setup, he setup anyways, and was kicked out like any other vendor would be. I have firsthand knowledge of the incident and the club rules and practices.

I'm sure Mike didn't make that story up...but it doesn't make it true. It doesn't serve the truth to spread it.

deknow


----------



## mnbeekeeper

there seems to be a common connection between commercial farmers and commercial beekeepers and i do know both very well. this whole chemical thing is so sad. i here from farmers well if i dont spray and use gmo seed and neo nic seed i wont get a good crop and my family will not eat. 

and so comm. beeks say if i dont treat for mites, and when i say treat i mean use a chemical not soft but harsh, the bees will die and my family will not eat. 

what i see both have in common is this. we are both only helping the weak survive. in nature it is only the strong survive. i dont see it any other way. we all got here because the strongest survived and the weak died. now that humans control everything on this planet all we do is help weak things survive a little bit longer. and we just keep breeding weaker and weaker everything. i mean people animals bees plants. i think that is the big message that guys like chris baldwin are trying to get across you have to only run the strong. not help the weak along untill they cant be helped anymore. 

as a young commercial beek starting out trust me i need to eat just like you and i will do what i have too to eat but i will not turn my head away to any one that is trying to make the world a better place after they leave. i can only hope i can run my bees like chris someday with out chemicals and see that the bees are surviving because it works for them not me. 

i really liked his quote. in the end you take nothing with you when you go and your supposed to leave the world a better place. i think he is some one that just might be doing that. thanks chis baldwin.


mike feist age 28, commercial beek 8 years strong. 400 my own hives still working for a 2000 hive outfit.


----------



## sqkcrk

So Mike, are you treatment free? I'm not sure from what you wrote. If so, I look forward to hearing your story of growth over the next 5 to 10 years.

Best wishes.


----------



## sqkcrk

In this Thread, wasn't the AFB question sourced from Allen's comments on Bee-L? I have read a number of times, from Solomon if I recall correctly, that Dee doesn't treat for AFB and when she finds it she leaves it alone if it is a small number of cells. I guess she must burn those hives w/ higher numbers of cells of AFB. Not that I know. Is that your understanding Dean?


----------



## mnbeekeeper

like i said i have to eat too. but my point was im not turning my head to the idea tf commercial is possible and actually i really hope i can some day get there. im not trying to stoke the fire. i just wanted to say im young and in the business and i hope to pursue what methods chris baldwin is using in his outfit. because i think its better than sitting on the same old wagon going down the same old road. and yes im on that wagon now but im one of the few just waiting for my chance to jump off. and thats how things change its that small percent of people willing to try something new or make a difference.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks and Good Luck.


----------



## deknow

I've seen AFB in Dee's operation, and posted about it here on beesource many times (this is a problem with the search function...it won't look for 3 letter words like AFB or VSH).
It is the characterization that it is a "problem" that I'm calling you on.

What I've seen (and I've been through everything in her operation more than once, most of it 6-7 times in the last 6 years) is something between 1-2% AFB (never seen more than one in a year).

No antibiotics. No differentiation between brood and honey frames. Boxes and combs move from yard to yard as part of the harvest.

Less than 6 cells of scale on a comb and it stays where it is...with the bees. More infection than that gets culled/burned....but tossed in the back of the truck like everything else (this made Sam Comfort visibly, "unComfotable").

No burning hives.

If AFB were a problem in this situation, her bees would all be dead.

So, what is the "problem" we are supposed to have heard about?

deknow


----------



## Ian

mnbeekeeper said:


> i here from farmers well if i dont spray and use gmo seed and neo nic seed i wont get a good crop and my family will not eat.


Well, ya, 
lets get some treatment free wheat farmers and talk about their hardships too! There are many, but like the treatment free beekeepers it aint as rosey as many people would like to think


----------



## Ian

mnbeekeeper said:


> i just wanted to say im young and in the business and i hope to pursue what methods chris baldwin is using in his outfit. because i think its better than sitting on the same old wagon going down the same old road.


and what methods is that exactly,? breeding?


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> Less than 6 cells of scale on a comb and it stays where it is...with the bees. More infection than that gets culled/burned....but tossed in the back of the truck like everything else (this made Sam Comfort visibly, "unComfotable").
> 
> No burning hives.
> 
> If AFB were a problem in this situation, her bees would all be dead.
> 
> deknow


yes, I have also read her talk about handling AFB in this manner on another site, 
AFB is a taboo topic so thought it would be best not to discuss it, 

seems to me she has picked a threshold level, where as 6 scales or more , the comb is out. How did she come up with that criteria ? 
Very interesting indeed, Id say she is a bold woman, but like deknow mentioned, her hives are still thriving


----------



## Ian

most operations AFB criteria is one scale and its out, around here anyway


----------



## deknow

Not only is it taboo (I've been criticized for talking about this before), but to characterize someone as having an AFB "problem" is a serious allegation. When it turns out that, like Mike's glass of wine being characterized as a "drinking problem", that there is no "problem", it is the accuser that looks silly.

I daresay the majority of commercial beekeepers in the US would love to have a 1-2% AFB "problem" that doesn't grow, and doesn't require antibiotics and detective work (to find "the source") and hive burning to control.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

So, we are not allowed to discuss AFB on beesource? Or are y'all refering to the Beekeeping Community at large? I've never had a problem discussing AFB or telling my AFB story.

Hi, my name is Mark and I have AFB.


----------



## Ian

I agree, if everyone could get past the taboo part of these discussion, I think understanding the "whys" in the management practices might be more so accepted,


----------



## mnbeekeeper

i guess im willing to take on some hard ships for a greater outcome. its to easy to sit there and say ya that wont work. it seems that is the biggest difference in all of the conversations is some people want to play it safe and do what works and some people want to venture out experiment and see if there is another way.


----------



## deknow

I should also add that we do use Dee's honey to feed our bees if/when we feed them (we had a barrel of honey damaged in shipment, and was able to convince the insurance company to let us keep it for bee feed rather than them tossing it into a dumpster)...we also have scraps and such from every barrel...so, not just one batch has been fed to our bees.

We have never had a case of AFB. The state apiarist knows that we do this, has inspected our bees, and sees no problem...his conclusion is that the honey is "clean"...whatever that means.

deknow


----------



## Ian

>>>i guess im willing to take on some hard ships for a greater outcome

that doesnt answer the question on how Chris is managing his bees treatment free,
if that is the model to follow, how is he able to achieve a sustainable 1800 hive commercial pollination and honey operation? While everyone elses ops SEEM to be falling apart,.?


----------



## sqkcrk

If you are willing and able to go treatment free then go ahead and do it and tell us how it works out. Brash and bold talk is cheap. Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. Show us the way.


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> I should also add that we do use Dee's honey to feed our bees if/when we feed them (we had a barrel of honey damaged in shipment, and was able to convince the insurance company to let us keep it for bee feed rather than them tossing it into a dumpster)...we also have scraps and such from every barrel...so, not just one batch has been fed to our bees.
> 
> We have never had a case of AFB. The state apiarist knows that we do this, has inspected our bees, and sees no problem...his conclusion is that the honey is "clean"...whatever that means.
> 
> deknow


its a known fact, that if the operation has AFB problem present in its hives, spores will show up in the extracted product. 

Thats a bold move deknow, why risk your hives? I wouldnt do that regardless whos honey it is,


----------



## deknow

New Zealand was smarter about antibiotics than the US (they didn't allow them), so there may be some cultural differances at play...but in the US (someone back me up here), 1-2% is fairly normal in a large operation that does treat with antibiotics and does burn infected hives.
No one here would consider what Dee has as a "problem".

deknow


----------



## mnbeekeeper

im not trying to fight here. im just saying what he said. keep and open mind. ill let you know in 30 years. he said he does not buy bees he does not buy queens, anymore, and his out fit is a continuous living organism. so that is my model and plan for the future. self sustaining. and bees that live and thrive with no treatments. i believe him. why cant you.


----------



## sqkcrk

Who says I don't? I was talking to you. You haven't yet put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## mnbeekeeper

you know how farmers cant raise their own seed anymore. well maybe we should feel really lucky we can still raise and select our queens. how scary would it be if monsanto sold us our queens.


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> Hi, my name is Mark and I have AFB.


ha ha haha ha 

no, I was referring to talking about someone else's AFB , TABOO! Stray from the topic! Back to the mites!


----------



## deknow

I think AFB is more endemic than people realize.

In one study, 77% of colonies without clinical symptoms were found to contain spores.
http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/1053/1/Avhandling.pdf

I don't think isolation or eradication is a solution.

deknow


----------



## Ian

mnbeekeeper said:


> you know how farmers cant raise their own seed anymore. well maybe we should feel really lucky we can still raise and select our queens. how scary would it be if monsanto sold us our queens.


do you know any farmers? by the sounds of it, not
we keep over 2000 acres worth of seed every year, cleaned from our best crop,
we cant how ever breed from seed that has been developed as Hybrids, for the many reason we all know about, AND because I signed a paper saying that I would not rip off another business tech,


----------



## Ian

mnbeekeeper said:


> im not trying to fight here. im just saying what he said. keep and open mind. ill let you know in 30 years. he said he does not buy bees he does not buy queens, anymore, and his out fit is a continuous living organism. so that is my model and plan for the future. self sustaining. and bees that live and thrive with no treatments. i believe him. why cant you.


That sounds great! I believe, I believe,


----------



## Ian

What I have been trying to get at from starting within the center point of this topic was what outside influences on these treatment free operations is allowing these treatment free operation to survive? Not all treatment free operations follow the same management , there are the common threads which tie each operation together, but on their own they do not provide success,

So Dee manages much differently than Chris, because Dee is stationary and in a desert and Chris is migratory and a pollinator. Looking at each op, what outside factors in their management program influence their results?


----------



## deknow

If you make a list of priorities, and being "treatment free" is down below all of your other priorities, you will never get to it...no matter what your approach.

There will always be something to treat for in the short term.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> ...there are no nearby beekeepers to infest her, and I'd hazard a guess there are almost no feral hives.


Not true for most (if not all) of her yards. There are migratory commercials in the area, well within flying distance.
There are plenty of feral hives in the area as well.



> There is no reason at all why she could not wipe her AFB out in 2 years and be done with it.


...see above.



> An argument against that is she may want her bees to be immune. But bees have been living in balance with AFB for millennia, and have not overcome it.
> So it is doubtful that in one human lifetime we could expect our bees to evolve resistance. I can hardly think of an easier outfit to clean up than Dees she has every advantage.


It's worth noting that Dee has the advantages she has because she didn't do what every expert told her she had to do.



deknow


----------



## Ian

I currently use nucs as a strategy in my operation to sustain my numbers, nucs exploit an advantage to keeping ahead of the mite cycle, I believe its practice that treatment free are using,.? Except Dee, which is puzzling me. How can an operation sustain or build back heavy losses with walk away splits. 
The difference might be she beekeeps in a desert type environment, which Im not familiar with. About how many times would she take a split off a hive through out the year? For my operation it is no more than one, then into the honey flow. That is why I build up nucs during the spring.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> ...how many posts were in this thread before anyone would even acknowledge that there _were_ treatment free commercial beekeepers. Perhaps it would have helped if I had named some specifically before the 5th post in the thread.
> Open minded indeed.
> 
> deknow


Perhaps not as open minded as you might wish us to be and not immediately all embracing. But, I for one, am willing to see what others have done and decide for myself what course of action I am willing to take.

I still maintain that 3 or 4 beekeepers out of thousands does not constitute a critical mass. Especially when definitions of what commercial means have been stretched.


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> Especially when definitions of what commercial means have been stretched.


thinking the same thing, 
like Sherri mentioned a while back, a lot of new guys will jump on board to treatment free without having a management plan in place. Just stopping the treatment is one of the steps, how to get those bees to respond to their environment favorably with the presence of the pests is the rest of the story. I want to hear the rest of the story ! Paul Harvey give us the rest of the story! ( may he RIP )


----------



## DRUR

sqkcrk said:


> I still maintain that 3 or 4 beekeepers out of thousands does not constitute a critical mass.


That critical mass that you refer to might also be characterized as following the herd instinct, and not all of us want to be involved in that.



sqkcrk said:


> Especially when definitions of what commercial means have been stretched.


And if you keep contracting that definition only a few of you will be left therein. I guess that is one way to prove treatment free doesn't work for 'commercial beekeepers'. I am out of here, I have splits to make.

Danny


----------



## Michael Bush

> At what point do you become a treatment free beekeeper? 

When you stop treating.

>Do you have to not treat from day one?

You have to pick when day one occurs, but sooner or later, if you're going to be treatment free, you need to stop treating.

> I believe Mike Bush used to treat.

I'm not sure I would characterize it as "used to treat" I got desperate enough when Varroa killed them all and everyone was saying it was impossible to keep them alive without treating for Varroa and I had found NO ONE who said it was possible. So for a few years I tried some things for Varroa until I discovered Dee and regression.

> At what point after he stopped did he become "treatment free"? As soon as he didn't use treatments. 

I guess that depends on the purpose of using the term. From the point of view of honey, I think it's that there are no chemical inputs that would end up in the honey, but from the point of view of having a stable, balanced, healthy ecosystem in the hive, that may take a few years to stabilize.

>I dont know what personal information is being asked, being a commercial beekeeping forum, the comments on maintaining a solvent operation is a real thing. 

How about medical information, or speculation on other people's profits and productivity. I understand that profit and productivity are important, but I don't think most people want everyone else to know how much money they do or do not make.


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> thinking the same thing,
> like Sherri mentioned a while back, a lot of new guys will jump on board to treatment free without having a management plan in place. Just stopping the treatment is one of the steps, how to get those bees to respond to their environment favorably with the presence of the pests is the rest of the story. I want to hear the rest of the story ! Paul Harvey give us the rest of the story! ( may he RIP )


I'm guessing that defs for "commercial beekeepers" will follow the "who is driving at a safe speed" rule. Anyone "smaller" than me isn't commercial...anyone bigger than mr is "too big".

So, what is the unstretched definition of "commercial" so we can be careful not to stretch it?

I would venture a guess that there are more new 'conventional commercial beekeepers' that fail because of false illusions than there are new "treatment free commercial beekeepers" that even try. Why isn't this a larger concern to this group?

Mike Palmer's wife works...probably a job that provides health insurance and significant income. Does that disqualify him from the "commercial club"?

This reminds me a bit of the art world....on the street level, anyone that gets a good gig and is making a good living is a "sellout" to those that don't. I don't think there is anything to be ashamed of for diversifying one's resources....and it's not a "badge of honor" to be so far in debt that every decision needs to be run by the banker.

In some circles (like sane people) figuring out how to be able to afford to do what one wants to do is considered "smart".

deknow


----------



## Ian

>>I understand that profit and productivity are important, but I don't think most people want everyone else to know how much money they do or do not make.

Its the crutch of the whole conversation, 
general terms of course


----------



## Ian

>>and it's not a "badge of honor" to be so far in debt that every decision needs to be run by the banker.

I agree, but its the reality of farming today, debt is a real thing.

that is where beekeeping is interesting, because a fellow does not need the huge reserve of capital to start up, build and sustain a beekeeping operation. Most of it is will,
grain and cattle farming is pretty much an inherited game now a days


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> So, what is the unstretched definition of "commercial" so we can be careful not to stretch it?


to be able to measure something, we need reference points. There is one end of the spectrum , and then there is the other. I like to operate somewhere in the middle of things 
Where would we put Dee on this spectrum? How about the Adee farm ?


----------



## deknow

I'm not criticizing you for having debt...we have debt...it's hard to run any kind of business debt free.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> to be able to measure something, we need reference points. There is one end of the spectrum , and then there is the other. I like to operate somewhere in the middle of things
> Where would we put Dee on this spectrum? How about the Adee farm ?


But what do we know about the "other end of the spectrum"? How much honey do the Adees produce? What quality of honey? How much from pollination? Labor expenses? Trucking expenses? Do they buy bees to replace losses? How much do they feed (both in terms of cost and volume...it's hard to compare honey production between fed bees and those that winter on their own stores)? What are their medication expenses?

Can we assume that if they don't tell us about offlabel treatments that they aren't used? Didn't they get fined for OA? Did they ever publicly admit they used OA before being busted?

Mike Palmer is the only one I recall who, when talking about his honey production, also talks about how much he had to feed.

deknow


----------



## Michael Bush

>> I believe Mike Bush used to treat.

>I'm not sure I would characterize it as "used to treat" ...

I lost my train of thought... Before I treated for Varroa, out of desperation, I had been treatment free for 25 years... if I had it to do over, I would never have treated at all.


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> But what do we know about the "other end of the spectrum"?


thats what I am saying, and I agree with what you said, its like measuring where you stand in politics, it never one camp, and the other. Lots of in between and idea sharing. I think a lot of people characterize a conversation like this to be one or the other. It doesnt count the beekeepers who take examples from both


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> Mike Palmer is the only one I recall who, when talking about his honey production, also talks about how much he had to feed.
> 
> deknow


ya, it definitely is intimidating to put all "your" stuff out there to be looked over and talked about. That is why I give all of these guys the upt most respect when looking through their website, or forum comments. Sometimes it is alot easier just not to say anything at all, but then where would we be? They do it for a reason, to start a discussion. Someone who does not like the feed back will not put it out to begin with.

I keep an open blog, about the farm, and I get a tremendous amount of activity on it. I speak my mind, and all my neighbours read it. So very intimidating but Im having fun in the mean time but most importantly I am learning piles of stuff as I interact with beekeepers around the WORLD !

the point is we all have that passion and drive to better our bees, I hope disagreements in conversation does not cloud our perspective. I love disagreement, it is the biggest motivator in pulling out substance in a conversation !


----------



## Ian

here I am, a large grain and cattle producer, who keeps bees. I am very familiar with the chemical world and would have to say I have a good perspective on the issue in general.

Then I watch a YouTube vid of Michael Bush talking about treatment free beekeeping and most everything that he said in his talk made sense, (wish we could get you up here some time Michael ! )

Just how the heck do I make that transition to achieve the sustainable non chemical way to manage bee? I simply cant make that connection right now, because of obvious reasons stated within the last 34 pages of this topic. But it does not mean Im not listening. I would hope to think the other side of the conversation would have a similar perspective on the issue,


----------



## mnbeekeeper

cheers to that ian. cheers to that! let the record show last summer i started with 200 new hives new queens and treated in may and treated in augst. as soon as the honey was off. and i still went down to 70 live hives as of march first this year. so for me its all about finding a way the bees can fix their problems because i cant do it i guess..... 

so when chris baldwin said keeps bees like the old days... thats what caught me. ive heard nothing but great stories of how easy it used to be before mites. 

i plan to go visit with him while im down here in tx.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

deknow said:


> I'm guessing that defs for "commercial beekeepers" will follow the "who is driving at a safe speed" rule. Anyone "smaller" than me isn't commercial...anyone bigger than mr is "too big".
> 
> So, what is the unstretched definition of "commercial" so we can be careful not to stretch it?
> 
> I would venture a guess that there are more new 'conventional commercial beekeepers' that fail because of false illusions than there are new "treatment free commercial beekeepers" that even try. Why isn't this a larger concern to this group?


The definition, in my eyes, has some wiggle room. We try to maintain a large tent and encourage input from a wide range of beekeepers. Nevertheless, for purposes of this forum, it is having the bees as 'primary income' for the beekeeper. That is a good flexible guideline. 
Someone who has one hive and sells his honey, but is supported by his wife, a trust fund, or his day job would NOT be considered a commercial beekeeper in most peoples eyes. At what number of hives (past or present?) does one "qualify"? Who cares? This whole semantics question of who is "commercial" is irrelevant, imo. We can all learn and take what is useful to us from each other. If someone wants to call himself a commercial beekeeper it really doesn't matter to me. It is NOT disrespectful to say someone is NOT a 'commercial', at least on my part. What matters is: is his experience relevant to mine? I know beeks that have never had over a dozen colonies at a time who know way more about bees than I ever will. I wouldn't put them in charge of controlling varroa in a couple thousand colonies, but I might pick their brains about queen genetics or refer others to them to learn their overwintering techniques. Most of them wouldn't think of trying to advise me on large scale beekeeping. They don't consider themselves commercial beeks and could care less, even if they do sell their honey.
Then there will always be the new guy with 1 colony (that died over winter) telling me he has the answer to the world's "Colony Collapse". Of course, his bees didn't die of varroa, it was some evil pesticide some evil farmer sprayed.  
The guy with little/no experience, full of vague talk and idealism about how commercials should run their businesses, doesn't have credibility in the eyes of commercial beeks or most hobbyist beeks either, for that matter. It is a matter of relevant information, not scale of the beekeeper.

Yes, I am sure there are more conventional beeks that fail than tf, but it is my experience the _percentage_ of failure is WAY higher amongst tf beeks, on any size scale. 
The topic of this thread was tf, but conventional beginner beekeeper failures, are of course a concern, and false illusions can be one of several factors contributing to conventional beekeeping failure too. Starting a business, or even buying several new colonies, can be a sizable financial commitment, and no one says it is easy. Lots of things can contribute to failure or success.

"Following the herd" has been implied as being negative. The analogy I like better is "why reinvent the wheel?" If I were to go into a new endeavor, I would seek out SUCCESSFUL examples of where I want to be, not follow a path piled high with the carcasses of failed attempts. Heed the experiences, good and bad, of those who are where you want to be. This goes for tf or conventional beekeepers, hobbyist, sideliner or commercial. If you are in it for the money, a good business plan with honest numbers and realistic expectations goes a long way. It is problematic trying to figure out what numbers to put into the equation when it feels like the numbers being given you are skewed by a particular philosophy. That philosophy might explain why a path is chosen, but the implications of going down that path should be clearly identified and quantified. 

Whether you want to be a migratory beekeeper who's bees are the total support of your family, a Dee Lusby, a Michael Palmer, or a 2 hive hobbyist, you need to know the economic impact of every decision you make, not just whether to treat or not. Listen and learn from those doing what you want to do. If your priority is to be tf, fine, we have some examples and there is an entire forum dedicated to this here on Beesource. 
If your priority is to maximize your investment, and stay in business long enough to see a profit, let alone pass the business to another generation, you might want to look at the techniques of those who have done just that.

Sheri


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes it was easier before mites.

But when I hear stories like you just told mnbeekeeper ie "I treated but still lost X number of hives", I have to wonder, did the person after treating, test to see if the treatment actually worked?

If a person treats, finds a pile of dead mites on the floor & thinks yes, good kill, sweet, That might be fatal, if they only got 70% of the mites. Mites build their population back exponentially.

Anyhow I'd really like to see you succeed. But be aware there are many beekeepers who have failed because they wouldn't treat. I know some personally it's been tried in my country also. Just this year I dealt with a really nice couple, great folks, who have (or had) 300 organically certified hives, going on three years, and had so far been able to live on that by selling to Boutique markets. When they spoke to me I marvelled at their success. But within a few months, they were back wanting to buy bees, nearly all hives had crashed. The wife went back to a paid job, and they bought all they could afford from me which was 50 hives, plus treatment to try and save whatever was left of their existing hives, they have thrown organic out the window.

But at least, I believe they will survive. Others have been ruined and never gone back to bees.

But what you want to do is not impossible, please come back & update from time to time. Maybe you could do what I do, not all my eggs are in one basket. I have treated hives, and some completely separated treatment free hives. Doing this can also give a useful reference point as to how one group is going against the other.

But if treating, DO CHECK that it worked.


----------



## Ian

>>>"Following the herd" has been implied as being negative. <<<

I am a down hill skier, Nancy Green, 80's Alpine medalist said it best,

to win, you do what the winners are doing !


----------



## Ian

>>>cheers to that ian. cheers to that! <<<

I love to be cheered on! ha ha ha 




mnbeekeeper said:


> so when chris baldwin said keeps bees like the old days... thats what caught me. ive heard nothing but great stories of how easy it used to be before mites.


ya, but, these are not pre mite days,
mnbeekeeper, what were you mite levels before your treatments? Nosema?
do you think a beekeeper pre mite days even acknowledged viral infections within the bees?

how do you know your losses had anything to do with pest pressures ?


----------



## Ian

...


----------



## Nick Noyes

I am going to probably regret getting into this but....

What would happen if all the beekeepers in the U.S. went treatment free tomorrow and vowed to never treat again. Everyone on the Treatment Free wagon would be o.k. with this? Our food supply in the U.S. would stay the same and we would have treatment free bees in 10 years? There would be no repercussion?
I am not against someone going treatment free, I think it would be great. I just don't believe it's a viable solution on a large scale.


----------



## mnbeekeeper

its not about going treatment free tomorrow. its about building bees over time that dont need to be treated. you cant believe that things evolve to survive.


----------



## mnbeekeeper

gmo corn is not evolution. people eating at mcdonalds their whole lives and being fat is controlled evolution. bees will not survive on treatments and supplement feed in the long run. it just dont add up in mother natures kitchen. you must realize its been a short amount of time we have been feeding and treating the bees. back only 50 years beekeeping was much different. how do you not feel we are having a huge impact on how bees are surviving.


----------



## Oldtimer

Nick Noyes said:


> I am going to probably regret getting into this but....
> 
> What would happen if all the beekeepers in the U.S. went treatment free tomorrow and vowed to never treat again. Everyone on the Treatment Free wagon would be o.k. with this? .


The treatment Free folks would be very Ok with it. 

Until the reality set in that their support net was gone. They could no longer prop themselves up by buying packages of treated bees to replace their deadouts.

In the much longer term, bees would survive, and I think that could be surmised because of what happened that produced the primorsky bees. What would they be like? Some of the more resistant bees are less desirable in other respects, and these bad traits may be more apparent than they would have been had breeding proceeded in a more controlled manner, as it is now.


----------



## sqkcrk

mnbeekeeper said:


> gmo corn is not evolution. people eating at mcdonalds their whole lives and being fat is controlled evolution. bees will not survive on treatments and supplement feed in the long run. it just dont add up in mother natures kitchen. you must realize its been a short amount of time we have been feeding and treating the bees. back only 50 years beekeeping was much different. how do you not feel we are having a huge impact on how bees are surviving.


Fifty years back we were in the process of recovering from epidemic levels of AFB thru use of TM and Apiary Inspection identifying diseased colonies and enforcing the burning of said diseased colonies. We were also dealing w/ Tracheal mites, aka Isle of Wight Disease. Maybe you weren't aware of this?

Periodically there have been maladies effecting beekeeping down thru the ages.


----------



## sqkcrk

Nick Noyes said:


> What would happen if all the beekeepers in the U.S. went treatment free tomorrow and vowed to never treat again.


A rhetorical question Nick? All commercial beekeepers would go out of business. All commercially traded honey would be forgien. Our grocery stores would be stocked w/ a huge amount of imported produce. Pollination would be imported from Mexico and Canada and offshore, for a time. Other things I can't imagine at this time. Twenty or thirty years later we might see treatment free bees being kept at commercial levels, hundreds and thousands.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Nick Noyes said:


> I just don't believe it's a viable solution on a large scale.


That makes the question not worth answering. That and the fact that humans are notoriously weak at predicting the future. I don't see the point in exploring a hypothetical that those involved have essentially vowed would never happen.


----------



## Markt

Here's a different spin and I'd better use the digging hole animation for my safety first off... :digging:

Going way back to somewhere around page 5 I think it was brought up that bees are a foreign species and would be considered invasive if they weren't so necessary to us. I would say that the pressures from varroa keep us on our toes so to say, those that don't want the trouble/can't keep up exit the industry. Because of this I think that if you 'cured' varroa tomorrow all of a sudden you would see the return of people that throw bees in a box throw some supers on once a year and produce a crop. Honey would probably tend back down towards 70 cents a lb dragging the price of bees and pollination back down with it. In short varroa is bad for bees but I'm not convinced that it's bad for commercial beekeeping. 

How you manage it is your choice (Splitting/Formic/Amitraz/Drone Comb Removal/Whatever) but the point is that you have to have beekeeping knowledge to decide what to do, even if that knowledge just sees you check your mite levels and not treat. The days of 'bee having' without management instead of beekeeping are over and I think it's in our financial best interest to keep it that way. Remember this is production agriculture and price protection is as important as anything.

Alright let me have it. k:


----------



## deknow

JohnK and Sheri said:


> The definition, in my eyes, has some wiggle room. We try to maintain a large tent and encourage input from a wide range of beekeepers. Nevertheless, for purposes of this forum, it is having the bees as 'primary income' for the beekeeper. That is a good flexible guideline.


Ok, I asked the question specifically because we (quickly) came to a point in this discussion where examples of TF commercial beekeepers were largely dismissed as "not being commercial". It's been said that the only examples given would only be considered commercial with a "stretched" definition. In a previous post, you said:


> To be blunt, most of the examples given would not be considered “commercial beekeepers” by other commercial beekeepers. Again, this is not to denigrate the examples, it is just hard to translate to a migratory operation expected to put roof over heads.


We can't really have a discussion about a topic if the definition of the topic keeps changing.

Someone like Mike Palmer isn't making all of the family income with bees...he has a spouse that works a responsible job. Someone like SQCRK had some inheritance to build his operation with (he has shared that on beesource before). It's all well and good to say that in theory there is a large umbrella, but in discussion there has been a lot of dismissing going on...and no one seems willing to tell us where the lines are, only that the examples we are giving are outside those undefined lines. 



> Someone who has one hive and sells his honey, but is supported by his wife, a trust fund, or his day job would NOT be considered a commercial beekeeper in most peoples eyes.


Of course not.



> At what number of hives (past or present?) does one "qualify"? Who cares? This whole semantics question of who is "commercial" is irrelevant, imo.


It's relevant if anyone wants to explore a question like, "are there commercial treatment free beekeepers?"....like in this thread. Repeatedly, virtually all of the examples are dismissed as not being commercial beekeepers....without anyone providing a reasonable set of criteria to qualify.



> It is NOT disrespectful to say someone is NOT a 'commercial', at least on my part.


Of course it is! I know Mike Palmer takes great pride in the business he has built (as well he should)....as do the examples of TF commercial operations that we have been discussing. Telling someone who is making a living with their bees that they are not commercial is disrespectful...especially when the criteria are so ill defined.



> Yes, I am sure there are more conventional beeks that fail than tf, but it is my experience the _percentage_ of failure is WAY higher amongst tf beeks, on any size scale.


Yes, but you cited this as a specific problem. Can you even name a single person who, with little/no experience tried to be a treatment free commercial beekeeper (without passing go) and failed/lost everything?



> If I were to go into a new endeavor, I would seek out SUCCESSFUL examples of where I want to be, not follow a path piled high with the carcasses of failed attempts.


I won't disagree, but will point out that most innovations come at the end of a long string of failures...like finally trying a cotton filament as a way to make artificial light in a bulb. I'm amazed by how much subtlety is required for almost anything, and almost nothing works "the way it should" the first time (or first 100 times) we attempt it, even if we are starting with a detailed procedure that has already been proven. 



> It is problematic trying to figure out what numbers to put into the equation when it feels like the numbers being given you are skewed by a particular philosophy. That philosophy might explain why a path is chosen, but the implications of going down that path should be clearly identified and quantified.


We know (from looking at the tested pollen collected by commercial beekeepers if from no other source), that some percentage of commercial beekeepers are using offlabel treatments. Using "innovative" (illegal) treatment regimen is part of a lot of commercial operations...but that isn't clearly identified or quantified by anyone...nor for anyone looking to get into "commercial beekeeping".



> If your priority is to maximize your investment, and stay in business long enough to see a profit, let alone pass the business to another generation, you might want to look at the techniques of those who have done just that.


With that approach, someone with a dream of opening the best hamburger joint on the continent would be better served buying a McDonalds franchise...not an inspiring choice....and not likely to be inspiring for the next generation either.

deknow


----------



## hpm08161947

deknow said:


> Someone like SQCRK had some inheritance to build his operation with (he has shared that on beesource before).



So Mark is a "Trust Fund Baby"..... In that case, I think I am going to hit him up for more than lunch if I am helping him with those bees this morning.... 

On second thought... that makes him a TF beekeeper, but I believe that TF has about petered out... :lpf:


----------



## beemandan

Nick Noyes said:


> I am not against someone going treatment free, I think it would be great. I just don't believe it's a viable solution on a large scale.


This is pretty much what Kirk Webster says....and I agree. Treatment free on the scale that exists and is necessary for large scale pollination will, I believe, never be treatment free. Clearly, an individual like Kirk can maintain a treatment free operation....but it will come at a cost in labor and lifestyle that will be unacceptable to most....in my opinion.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Clearly, an individual like Kirk can maintain a treatment free operation....but it will come at a cost in labor and lifestyle that will be unacceptable to most....in my opinion. 

In my experience treatment free is MUCH less labor than treating. A stable system system does not require constant attention to prop it up.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

LOL, Mark a trust fund baby? LOL. I guess by that criteria, "having a little help from family", any 2nd or 3rd generation beek is a trust fund baby. Hear that, Brett?

I really wonder why someone would worry about whom I might consider a commercial beek. Especially on behalf of those who probably wouldn't want to be lumped into that pile to begin with. Sorry, I am not going to catagorize every poster on this thread one way or the other. Even if I had a concrete criteria, (which I don't) how would I know who fit that criteria? Mostly, it is the OBVIOUSLY non commercials I am referring too. We have had some relatively small beekeepers contribute to this thread about their tf operations, and when their example is used as evidence of tf commercials, well, that just won't fly. That isn't to say we might not have something to learn from these smaller beeks, but they just don't fall under the original question of 'are there tf commercials'. 

I have gone through the "recipe" some of these beekeepers use and pointed out "MY" opinions on their potential effect of most commercial beeks on a larger scale. I have acknowledged there are examples of tf commercials, but there are darn few of them. I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings (again, why would they care?) but I don't consider Michael Bush or Dee Lusby commercial beekeepers. If you feel it is denigrating, it is in your mind, not mine. Michael Bush is one of the most knowledgeable beeks around and has done as much towards educationg other beeks as anyone out there. Beekeepers starting small, hoping to grow to commercial size might incorporate his techniques successfully and be among the first tf commercials, inspiring the rest of us to move in that direction.

I agree that innovation usually comes trying something new, taking a chance and accepting initial failure. As I said, if you believe in a particular goal or technique, the losses may well be worth it. Some people are more financially willing and able to take the huge losses associated w initial tf development. Some are not. Although I have never seen a bee that is truly tf when put into a migratory operation, I won't rule out that one will eventually be developed. We are ALL hoping that, after all.

As for tf failures. It IS a particular problem, in my eyes, due to unrealistic expectations many hold going in. I have no problem people making this choice, more power to them, they just should go into it with open eyes. As there are so many less examples of tf keepers than conventional ones, they are less likely to find a knowledgeable mentor. Add to that the tendency in some tf proponents to minimize the impact of initial probable losses. 
When you come right down to it, if you shadow a tf beek, you are pretty much guaranteed huge losses for at least a couple years, specifically due to the tf. While a conventional beek can also fail for a number of reasons (which all apply to the tf as well), elimination of disease in the operation will have a profound impact on survivability. It is fairly easy to find a conventional beek to shadow if one is willing to relocate, and is recommended again and again for those looking into going commercial. This is part of "following those who are successful". You will learn all the tricks, even ones you might not approve of. Same goes for tf, go learn the tf tricks from "them's that's doin". Some of their tactics are shocking to conventional beeks as well.

As for the "best" burger joint to emulate, well, that depends on your definition of 'best' doesn't it? We are again, contemplating letting philosophy impact financial decisions. 'Best' might be "biggest" in some eyes and McDs might be the epitome. I don't follow their financials but they may be the most profitable as well. If you were looking at best quality food, yeah, most anyone else would be better, ha. Commercial still comes down to making money. If you want to make money* plus* be an inspiration, yeah, that complicates things. 

Sheri


----------



## Mbeck

This thread needs some #'s

How many hives do I have to run Treatment free to make $10,000.00 or even how do i make $10,000 as a treatment free beekeeper? What do I produce? Where and how do I get paid for it? What's the model?
Outline a plan for me to get set up and run those hives in Miami Florida or in Miami Manitoba. (I'd prefer someplace in between like Weeki Wachee!) Depends is not an answer.

I have a few hives and can roughly imagine how much I might make per hive over the long term. If I were to ask almost any commercial how to make $10,000 after an initial joke or two nearly every one could share how they do it and have concrete real answers that given reasonable skill,capital and drive would have decent chance of succeeding in making $10,000.00


----------



## Ian

>>Outline a plan for me to get set up and run those hives in Miami Florida or in Miami Manitoba. <<

ahhhh, boy, wish I was in Miami Florida right now, 
still burred under a big snow bank up here,


----------



## Ian

>>This thread needs some #'s<<

might need another 35 pages to draw that out


----------



## mac

Seems like you regard anyone not being migratory as not being commerical. Why or why not??


----------



## Ian

>>If you want to make money plus be an inspiration, yeah, that complicates things.<<

thats my goal Sherri !


----------



## Ian

mac said:


> Seems like you regard anyone not being migratory as not being commerical. Why or why not??


Im not migratory


----------



## Mbeck

I checked out your site.
Come down half of Canada is already here!


----------



## deknow

JohnK and Sheri said:


> I really wonder why someone would worry about whom I might consider a commercial beek.


Well, you are the moderator of the commercial forum, and as a participant, have been handing out rather arbitrary and contradictory judgements (both in terms of criteria an specific people) over who is and who isn't commercial.
We are trying to address a question about commercial treatment free beekeepers, we have to know who we are and are not talking about.
From my perspective, all of this adds up to difficulty in even figuring out what anyone is talking about.






> Mostly, it is the OBVIOUSLY non commercials I am referring too. We have had some relatively small beekeepers contribute to this thread about their tf operations, and when their example is used as evidence of tf commercials, well, that just won't fly.


Did this happen? I don't remember Michael Bush, Sol, or myself being referred to as commercial beekeepers. The ones I listed, Dee, Kirk, Bob Brachmann, Chris Baldwin, Tim Ives...none of them are "obviously not commercial".




> ....but I don't consider Michael Bush or Dee Lusby commercial beekeepers.


....and this I don't understand. Michael is not a commercial beekeeper...he is not making his living keeping bees.
Dee does make her living keeping bees....perhaps moreso than someone like Michael Palmer, who likely has health insurance through his wife's job.

If you don't want to have a definition or criteria that's fine, but it seems difficult to make these kinds of characterizations...especially in a case that may not be so clear cut.



> If you feel it is denigrating, it is in your mind, not mine.


With all due respect, if you are handing out judgments as to who is and who isn't a commercial beekeeper (which you have been), and you classify some that do rely on bees for the vast majority of their income as not commercial, and some that don't rely on bees for the vast majority of their income as commercial, it is denigrating and belittling to those that have made sacrifices and made things work without the outside help.
Tell Mike Palmer he isn't commercial because his wife has a job, and let me know if he feels if it is denigrating.



> Although I have never seen a bee that is truly tf when put into a migratory operation, I won't rule out that one will eventually be developed. We are ALL hoping that, after all.


A few years ago, we attended an entrepreneur workshop. One of the instructors was semi retired from the metals business. He asked everyone the same questions after they presented what their business was going to be:
"What do you want"? ...usually the answer was, "$20,000 to start my deli"..or some such.
But the second question he asked everyone was way more important:
"What are you willing to give up"?
The point being that if you are holding all the cards, yet don't have everything you need (especially capital), you have to give up some of those cards to some extent to get what you need.
I've tried to make this point several times....if this isn't a priority that gets put above some other priorities, it won't just happen.



> As for tf failures. It IS a particular problem, in my eyes, due to unrealistic expectations many hold going in. I have no problem people making this choice, more power to them, they just should go into it with open eyes. As there are so many less examples of tf keepers than conventional ones, they are less likely to find a knowledgeable mentor. Add to that the tendency in some tf proponents to minimize the impact of initial probable losses.


I've tried to point out a few times that with all the illegal treating that goes on (no specific accusations, but we all know what goes on) that it isn't fair to characterize TF operations as being somehow secretive about their problems while conventional beekeeping is all out in the open. After all, the losses by Dee, Chris, Kirk, etc are known and in this discussion in the first place because those beekeepers have made this information public. You don't have to read between the lines to know about the losses of any of these beekeepers.



> When you come right down to it, if you shadow a tf beek, you are pretty much guaranteed huge losses for at least a couple years, specifically due to the tf. While a conventional beek can also fail for a number of reasons (which all apply to the tf as well), elimination of disease in the operation will have a profound impact on survivability.


That's all true (although I think Michael Bush would argue with some of it)...but you are not considering that there may be long term gains that offset the short term losses.



> Commercial still comes down to making money.


Of course it does...but if it only had to do with making "the most money possible", it probably wouldn't be "commercial _beekeeping_".

deknow


----------



## mnbeekeeper

Ian said:


> >>If you want to make money plus be an inspiration, yeah, that complicates things.<<
> 
> thats my goal Sherri !


me too. me too. and maybe thats what makes us different from the rest. i have already given up so much to get where i am and will keep giving up god knows what else to get to where i want to be. thats my goal and im sticking to it. thanks every one. many great points made. if we all agreed this would be no fun at all.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

I am done with the who is and isn't a commercial keeper question. As I stated before It doesn't matter who calls themselves what. If other's find their posts relevant, great. EVERYONE is welcome to post here, but since this is the commercial/pollination board please try to keep it at least a bit relevant to that. I confess I haven't seen, nor want to see, the financials of any of the discussed beekeepers. If Dee or anyone else wants to be known as a commercial beek, fine. I was under the impression she/they were more in the line of researchers. If so, I apologize, but I doubt my opinion matters to her.
I never said you or Sol or any of your list said the smaller examples were commercials, what I said is "some of the examples given wouldn't be considered commercial". Sometimes a post might be general in nature, and not referring to you or Sol or whomever.

It seems like sometimes people want to fight for the sake of fighting. I have repeatedly referred to "INITIAL" losses, with not everyone being able to afford those INITIAL losses. I have no idea of the percentage of positive end results that eventually justify those losses. My experience with tf beekeepers suggests that it seldom does. Granted, failure is usually due to lack of capitalization after years of heavy losses. I will concede if they held out longer _perhaps_ they would have been successful, but in those cases, we will never know. We have been presented with examples of success. I have no reason to challenge their validity. What is the argument here? 

My entire focus is that anyone going into tf know what they are getting into. What is so wrong with that? I would advise the same on any business. There is a lot of conventional beekeeping info out there, very little tf. Not saying info isn't there, it is just more difficult to find. Again, learn the tricks of the trade from the successful 

I agree that one must put their priorities in order. The wide divergence of opinions in this thread is mostly a reflection of different priorities. Everyone has the right to determine and pursue their own. Not everyone has a top priority of being tf, although it might be something they are interested it. Another priority might rule the course of action, even as assessment/investigation of tf continue.

Deknow wrote "..... if it only had to do with making "the most money possible", it probably wouldn't be "commercial _beekeeping_".

Truer words are seldom spoken, lol.

Sheri


----------



## sqkcrk

Michael Bush said:


> In my experience treatment free is MUCH less labor than treating. A stable system system does not require constant attention to prop it up.


Michael, do you believe that someone could run 1,000 coloniesof bees for pollination, migrating to one State for the Winter and another for the Smmer to produce honey and not prop them up thru constant attention? Or treating for mites?


----------



## hpm08161947

Mbeck said:


> I checked out your site.
> Come down half of Canada is already here!


The other half is here in coastal NC.... Ian must be pretty lonely.


----------



## sqkcrk

Mbeck said:


> This thread needs some #'s
> 
> How many hives do I have to run Treatment free to make $10,000.00 or even how do i make $10,000 as a treatment free beekeeper? What do I produce? Where and how do I get paid for it? What's the model?
> Outline a plan for me to get set up and run those hives in Miami Florida or in Miami Manitoba. (I'd prefer someplace in between like Weeki Wachee!) Depends is not an answer.
> 
> I have a few hives and can roughly imagine how much I might make per hive over the long term. If I were to ask almost any commercial how to make $10,000 after an initial joke or two nearly every one could share how they do it and have concrete real answers that given reasonable skill,capital and drive would have decent chance of succeeding in making $10,000.00


Be careful who you listen to Matthew. Anyone who will tell you how to make $10,000.00 w/bees may be lying to you. I'd never attempt to tell anyone how to make money w/ bees, let alone a specific amount.


----------



## Oldtimer

Let's look at it from the perspective of somebody with a foot in each camp.

I used to be a commercial beekeeper, but retired. Got bored, now I have some hives, I'm a hobbyist. At todays count I have 108 hives, and 200 ish nucs. I also am in both camps re treatment free. Most of the hives get treated if needed, but I also have some treatment free, small cell hives.

Being able to focus all my attention on just a few hives, they have done extremely well, and profitably, and now earn me a not unsubstantial sum of money. Of the treated hives, over the last 4 years I've been doing this, I have lost only 3. That's simply because I know pretty much what's going on with each individual hive, if one has something wrong, I fix it.

Less so the treatment free hives. They went well initially, but this year were hardly productive, and losses of them are starting to mount. Goes very much against the grain for me, losing a hive. But I am toughing it out, attempting to stick faithfully to the methods promoted by the prominent treatment free beekeepers.

Based on what I'm seeing in my own hives, I doubt I could survive commercially on the treatment free hives, in fact more accurately, I am sure I couldn't. Production is much lower, and they keep dying.

To take another tack on the subject, The people I get my treatment free information from here on Beesource, I know a number of them started out with high ideals, and wanting to be commercial beekeepers. But they didn't achieve it, because they are treatment free. They just could not get increase hive numbers enough. Eventually they resigned themselves to keeping bees, but getting their income by means other than what their bees produce.

Then there are the other "successful TF commercial beekeepers" mentioned. I don't know and in any case would not share their incomes, but I do know they live, shall we say, simply.

Treatment free commercial beekeeping is a noble goal. For those who want a fair income, I would not recommend trying it. But that's now. In the future, as bees are continually bred and improved, it may be possible.

Another thing, I keep hearing bandied around by those who wouldn't know, that your bees are just as likely to die whether you treat them or not. That is a total misrepresentation of the facts. The large outfits that from time to time have big losses, have completely different circumstances to the treatment free hobby beekeeper with 1/2 dozen stationary hives. If these large guys did not treat, given what their bees are exposed to, they would probably have 100% losses. That's why they treat. Not because they are idiots.

I also feel rather more entitled to speak on this, than somebody who has had one hive for 2 weeks, but has done a lot of talking, getting most of his assumptions wrong. And we have been told the commercial guys who treat should not be able to comment, because they have not tried both. Wouldn't that also apply to some TF beekeepers who have not tried both? They have no point of reference to see how their bees are doing against a similarly run treated hive. Add to that, that a lot of commercial beekeepers have experimented with TF. Sqkcrk, for example, has told us he has a stationary bee yard that has never been treated. If it's got quite a lot of hives, that makes him a more experienced TF beekeeper than most here.

My intention with this post is not to offend anyone, it's more about injecting some reality & exposing some of the dross. My own feelings on the matter are bees are getting better and better, and moving ever closer to that goal of not needing treatment, even if kept under commercial conditions. Let's hope it happens. If I didn't want that, I would not be trying to develop treatment free bees myself.

Throughout my postings on Beesource, I have told things how I see them. Where this is in conflict with somebody elses beliefs, I have sometimes been attacked, and on occasion ridiculed. Having my share of human failings, I have sometimes responded in kind. But none of that changes what I've seen over my time of working with bees.


----------



## sqkcrk

mnbeekeeper said:


> me too. me too. and maybe thats what makes us different from the rest. i have already given up so much to get where i am and will keep giving up god knows what else to get to where i want to be. thats my goal and im sticking to it. thanks every one. many great points made. if we all agreed this would be no fun at all.


Are you willing to give up family time and sleeping in your own bed? Months away from family and friends? And other things too?


----------



## sqkcrk

Were Dee, Kirk, Chris, Michael, Tim, or Bob to attend EAS, ABF, or AHPA, wold they register as a Commercial Beekeeper and pay the registration fee commensurate w/ that designation? I saw Sam Comfort in PA this past January. I wonder if he registered Commercial?

It matters how you identify yourself. It also matters how others identify you. Are you a member of the tribe or an outsider?

Yes Dean, I used money inherited from my Parents to by honey and build my building. Something I would have found difficult to do had my Mother and Father not died and left something to me and my siblings. I would wager that I am more open and forthcoming w/ information and personal details than a lot of the other persons on this Forum. Perhaps I reveal too much at times. I hope others have benefited from my willingness to put my thoughts, opinions, and experiences out there for scrutiny. I know my comments are a source of entertainment for a number of my beekeeping friends who will never show up here on beesource. They wonder why I do.


----------



## sqkcrk

Oldtimer,
I was treatment free when "CCD" hit my hives. I went from 732 colonies in May down to 100 by the next March. I had treated for mites the years before then and have since then.

I have one apiary in SC which has one hive in it which has survived two years now w/out any mite treatment. I don't treat for AFB, so that doesn't need mentioning. This two story hive came from a really strong colony of bees which had scores of AFB scale. I shook all the bees into a box of waxed plastic frames. Before I left for NY I put another box of waxed plastic frames on top. Which apparently they drew out, filled and capped. Though when I checked it a cpl weeks ago there wasn't much honey, but there were scads of bees and brood. W/nectar coming in now, it should come along nicely, I hope.


----------



## DRUR

sqkcrk said:


> Michael, do you believe that someone could run 1,000 coloniesof bees for pollination, migrating to one State for the Winter and another for the Smmer to produce honey and not prop them up thru constant attention? Or treating for mites?


:scratch:*Wasn't this question answered earlier by a commercial beekeeper? *
*Post #281*


Chris Baldwin said:


> Hey I have not read all of this. And really do not know how this works but....
> *I run 1800 colonies without mite treatment.* Last hard chemicals 2003. Oxalic 2004 and 05.
> Some apigaurd 2007. Match my neighbors crops.* Send bees to almonds.* In forty years
> have NEVER bought outside bees other than breeder queens.
> All you nonbelievers - it can be done. I keep bees like I did pre-mites.


*Post #283*



Chris Baldwin said:


> I have not done an ether roll since 2004. When I see a mite I say "Oh, a mite". I don't care. Its genetics. When I said I keep bees like pre-mites I meant exactly that.
> And I am tired of being called crazy or a liar. I have spoken to, had supper with, drank a beer with many of the top names in bee research and never, not one has said they would like to see my operation. I guess I might endanger their job security. Bob Reiners SD State Apiarist is the only one. I think he believes. I am just one guy. I wish the whole industry would get on board and believe. And demand the queen breeders get to work on it.


*Post #319*



Chris Baldwin said:


> Well folks I am a busy guy and tapping this out on my phone isn't very handy. Just wanted to let you know that there is a treatment free commercial beekeeper.* I run my bees like most. Honey up north in South Dakota. Winter in Texas. Bees to California. Sell nucs, brood, and cells in Texas.* All queen replacement is done March and April. As to my 30% loss about half is queen failure during Summer, the other Fall collapse. Again all nucs and queens are done in Texas in the Spring.
> I learned how to raise cells forty years ago and other than breeders have not purchased 100 queens in that time. I have NEVER had to by brood or bees from outside sources to keep my numbers. I started leaving some yards untreated when I wintered bees in Nebraska. Got some to live but not thrive. Then I tried some Russians and they gave me a real leg up on resistance but (sorry, Tom Rinderer) some Russian lines were terrible. So now I am back to grafting from whatever does well for me under my style of management.(without treatment ) And progress has been slow but my bees are better each year. I am thrilled how good they look now.
> I simply quit treating, built back from survivors selecting the best. Have I taken a hit? You bet. But I believe that this is the ultimate long term answer. How much time and resources do some of you spend on mite monitoring and control? I just keep bees. True, I wonder what six months will bring but so far things keep improving.
> Sooooo.....
> Well I have work to do. Please accept I am not going to jump in here every five minutes. I would be more than happy to visit on the phone to answer specific questions. But don't know if giving out phone numbers here is cool. Go Southbeekota home page. You can find my number and more. One more thing- I really cringe when people call my bees Russians. I am quite removed from that program. What I have are bees that live and do well. Got to go.


Kindest Regards
Danny Unger


----------



## Oldtimer

Well that's interesting I somehow missed those posts. It does look like things are moving along with resistant bees.

Maybe one or two of you other commercial guys could pick up the challenge & buy 100 queens off him and do a load or two of hives, don't treat, & see what happens.

Wish I had the opportunity.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks Danny. My memory isn't as good as others/yours.

I wonder why exposure to other hives while in Almonds doesn't cause Chris problems?


----------



## DRUR

sqkcrk said:


> Thanks Danny. My memory isn't as good as others/yours.


well maybe 707 posts. I mean those posts were only 300 posts ago. I guess Chris's posts caught my attention beings Chris answered the question of this thread: "*Re: Treatment Free Commercial Beekeepers?*". Nuff said, maybe this thread should come to an end.

Kindest Regards
Danny Unger


----------



## Roland

Maybe he has trained his girls not to go to the "other side of the tracks"?


Crazy Roland


----------



## mnbeekeeper

DRUR said:


> well maybe 707 posts. I mean those posts were only 300 posts ago. I guess Chris's posts caught my attention beings Chris answered the question of this thread: "*Re: Treatment Free Commercial Beekeepers?*". Nuff said, maybe this thread should come to an end.
> 
> Kindest Regards
> Danny Unger


thanks danny. sure is nice in texas this time of year. the last 35 days away from home, family and my BED have not been fun but at least its a nice warm place to be keeping bees!! my 400 early march splits are already coming up on 3 frames of brood. very nice!!


----------



## deknow

This Just In:

Amitraz linked to deficiencies in memory retention 

Deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

That would have been funnier had it come right after Post 707. Dean, timing is everything.


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> That would have been funnier had it come right after Post 707. Dean, timing is everything.


Especially if the audience can't remember something they read 3 hours ago.
Deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Three hours ago? Is that when I read Chris' Posts? Now I'm really concerned about my memory.

I didn't take your "trust fund" comment the way Sheri and Herb did. Not when I read your Post. You weren't refering to me, were you? I didn't think so. My take was that you were taking the arguement to the rediculous extreme to make a point. Did I get that right?


----------



## deknow

I neither said nor implied anything about a trust fund. In a previous discussion, you mentioned some inheritance that helped you establish/maintain your business. That is what I was referring to.
deknow


----------



## jim lyon

Check out Randy Oliver's most recent article in the ABJ on nucing to control varroa for a blueprint of pretty much exactly what we have been doing for about 5 years now. The only difference is we have chosen not to treat at the 19 day window" if mite counts are low enough. It allows you to go treatment free for an entire honey season.


----------



## Ian

do you still call them survivours if they have the managed advantage of being nuced ?


----------



## jim lyon

Ian said:


> do you still call them survivours if they have the managed advantage of being nuced ?


Survivors? I like it. They have survived our operation at least.


----------



## Mbeck

sqkcrk said:


> Be careful who you listen to Matthew. Anyone who will tell you how to make $10,000.00 w/bees may be lying to you. I'd never attempt to tell anyone how to make money w/ bees, let alone a specific amount.


I may not have worded that correctly. Perhaps I should have said that many commercial beekeepers have shared information to the extent that it is easier to begin to understand how they make a living. I can look at local/migratory commercial operations here and understand to a extent the "flow". Of course I can't fully understand as I don't have the experience of a commercial. I don't have an example of a treatment free operation here in Florida or understand the cost of operations verse value and markets of goods produced elsewhere.

If the value of your bees as survivor stock is directly related to the hardships they are able to withstand under a particular beekeepers care I would like to respectfully submitt that mine are very valuable indeed.


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> If you look at the pictures from our recent trip, you will see that they are still crazy for the camera, as Anita was there, so I could photograph a photographer.


Were you filming this one as well?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySwNNpQPjK8

Right around 3:25 "Third Deep", we lose conversation!


----------



## Oldtimer

Nice one!

At 4.40, a little sign comes up, says "Dees bees hate the paparazzi. They are attacking the camera, but not me". LOL


----------



## Barry

All I can say is, when I looked through the hives, I didn't have a camera to my face and it sounded no different. You'll notice how quickly the bees leave the brood comb once they are removed from the hive.


----------



## sqkcrk

I sure hope Boris doesn't see Dee's frames.


----------



## jim lyon

Their"flightiness" on the comb sure looks like Africanized behavior to me. But, come on Dee, for crying out loud, use that smoker a little more.


----------



## beemandan

No rough handling that I could tell either. Say what you will.....I don't want any of those bees in my yard!


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> Their"flightiness" on the comb sure looks like Africanized behavior to me. But, come on Dee, for crying out loud, use that smoker a little more.


I thought that the bees were running on the comb too. But, I don't really know if that indicates AHB or what else it indicates.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> Were you filming this one as well?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySwNNpQPjK8
> 
> Right around 3:25 "Third Deep", we lose conversation!


Who all was there when this video was made? I heard Dee refer to Dean and Ramona. Who was the guy standing back a ways. Heavy set w/ a beard. It must have been Deans' voice which I thought sounded like Peter Borst.

What was the "Y" shoe was talking about?
Tracheal mites hide in the burr comb? Never heard that one before.
Doesn't Dee let anybody handle her equipment? Seems like people could have helped some. I would have or would have tried.


----------



## Gino45

German bees, which were part of the old feral strain here in Hawaii most definitely run on and will hang 'swarmlike' from the bottom of a frame that is being examined. I've seen this behavior many times when working with ferals in Hawaii.


----------



## jim lyon

sqkcrk said:


> I thought that the bees were running on the comb too. But, I don't really know if that indicates AHB or what else it indicates.


Their behavior reminds me a lot of a load of bees we left in south Texas for a couple of years and they became extremely difficult to work with. We had to requeen them all when we got them back to South Dakota.


----------



## Oldtimer

This, from the video, was interesting, and is a bit different to what I'll normally see with my bees, shows what appears to be 3 brood cycles, starting out from a central point. Seen similar with Dees bees quite a bit. My bees do that to a small extent but mostly lay up a comb as one slab, mostly of a similar age.

Perhaps it's because the hive is expanding in population fast and didn't have a lot of bees not so long ago.

The other thing is how when she takes boxes off, the hive appears almost empty. But it's cos all the bees are in the air, rather than sitting around on the combs.

I would Love to show Dee my hives. The bee behaviour is so different, I would love to see her reaction I'm sure it would be an enjoyable day for both of us.


----------



## Gino45

But you wear gloves when you work them? Certainly not when doing queen stuff, I'll wager.


----------



## Oldtimer

That is Dees hand in the pic with gloves, the pic is from Deans video. She would have to be a hardy soul to be working those bees with no gloves. 

You are correct I don't wear gloves just would not be able to do queen stuff, don't wear a veil either as gentleness is high on the list I select for.


----------



## deejaycee

sqkcrk said:


> What was the "Y" shoe was talking about?


Housel positioning - she orders her comb with the theory that theres an inside and an outside face to the comb - one has a right side up Y when you look at the centre of the comb, the other side has an upside down Y.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh Hi Dee! 

I was talking about the other Dee!


----------



## deejaycee

Oldtimer said:


> Oh Hi Dee!
> 
> I was talking about the other Dee!



LOL hey mate! 

yeah.. gotta admit... everytime I hear "Dee's Bees" over here I do an internal twinge and think about changing my business name.


----------



## sqkcrk

deejaycee said:


> Housel positioning - she orders her comb with the theory that theres an inside and an outside face to the comb - one has a right side up Y when you look at the centre of the comb, the other side has an upside down Y.


Looking at the bottom of the cell?
What happens if one turns the frame around? How does that screw things up?


----------



## Michael Palmer

sqkcrk said:


> Looking at the bottom of the cell?
> What happens if one turns the frame around? How does that screw things up?


You get your Housel positioning off by 180 degrees. And that will cause your bees to supersede. Whoa Mark, you didn't know that? Is that why you have to truck your bees south of the Mason Dixon...I hear backward Housel positioning is normal there and bees winter better....where Housel is the Eucharist.


----------



## sqkcrk

You really should include a smily face or something when you are being sarcastic. Unless you weren't.

?


----------



## beemandan

I always like the comment…’but they weren’t stinging’.
You give those girls a patch of bare skin and make that same claim.
Out in an isolated desert yard…no problem. But take those same bees somewhere semicivilized, where humans, pets or livestock might become a target and you’d be likely to find yourself on the front page of the newspaper.


----------



## jim lyon

beemandan said:


> I always like the comment…’but they weren’t stinging’.
> You give those girls a patch of bare skin and make that same claim.
> Out in an isolated desert yard…no problem. But take those same bees somewhere semicivilized, where humans, pets or livestock might become a target and you’d be likely to find yourself on the front page of the newspaper.


The primary reason I requeened all my south Texas bees was that I felt it was a real safety issue to landowners and the occassional passerby in addition to livestock. I isolated them (when I moved them north) and felt obligated to deal with them. There were some awesome hives among them but they were just such a pain (literally) to handle.


----------



## Ramona

The video you all are referencing was shot by Anita Deeley, a woman and first time visitor to Dee's beeyards. Her blog is BeverlyBees.

Each yard we visited has between 20 and 50 colonies, each colony 4 boxes in March, at least 2 of the boxes occupied by bees, so no, all the bees are not in the air!

Mike, do you think that when bees draw comb in nature, without foundation, that there is an order to the cell orientation? What do the combs and cells look likein a natural hive?

This trip through the yards was not a work up but to check for deadouts and mostly to give the conference visitors a chance to see the bees and how they are generally managed. No "help" was needed.

Dean did go through one yard with the smoker amd the bees were very calm.

For anyone serious about understanding her bees, Dee is a generous and gracious host. We have worked the bees with her over the past 6 years and are still alive and continue to return to her yards. 

Sometimes I wonder what you "guys" are so afraid of!

Ramona


----------



## beemandan

Ramona said:


> For anyone serious about understanding her bees, Dee is a generous and gracious host.


I don't doubt that. 



Ramona said:


> Sometimes I wonder what you "guys" are so afraid of!


It's hard for me to believe you wrote that. Responsible beekeepers don't keep bees that are that aggressive anywhere other than the most remote beeyards. What are we afraid of? Dead or injured pets, livestock, people, lawsuits...etc.


----------



## Ramona

beemandan said:


> I don't doubt that.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard for me to believe you wrote that. Responsible beekeepers don't keep bees that are that aggressive anywhere other than the most remote beeyards. What are we afraid of? Dead or injured pets, livestock, people, lawsuits...etc.


The bees share water tanks with cattle - that is their water supply.

No one is asking anyone to keep Dee's bees or to keep bees irresponsibly. What I'm referring to is endless commenting on the nature of her bees and management without bothering to see for yourself.

The video's serve as an introduction but in no way can tell the whole story. It's hard for me to believe that so many feel comfortable commenting without personaly experiencing the bees they are commenting on.

Ramona


----------



## jim lyon

I fear for the safety of others around our hives constantly. In any given year I can only guess how many incidents we have where friendly folks come near enough to our yards just to chat while we are working them. Many of our locations are located where hunters routinely walk and of course the rancher on a horse or 4 wheeler pass near a yard is just a common occurrence for us. My experience is that oneof the biggest problems with bees like that is they follow you so far away from the yard that you need a huge buffer zone around the yard. Again, it's not the beekeepers I worry about. It seems to be working well for Dee in her locale and I think that is great but for most of the rest of us no thanks.


----------



## beemandan

Ramona said:


> What I'm referring to is endless commenting on the nature of her bees and management without bothering to see for yourself.


Nice try....but no cigar.
Some things just can’t be rewritten.



Ramona said:


> Sometimes I wonder what you "guys" are so afraid of!


I’m sorry but this had nothing to do with endless commenting



Ramona said:


> "guys"…. afraid of!


Now if you said it was an effort to embarrass the gender….I might have bought into it.

Gotta go...sun's up...bees are flying....there's work to be done.....those bees don't know it's Sunday.


----------



## BeeCurious

Ramona said:


> Sometimes I wonder what you "guys" are so afraid of!


If someone else visits Dee I'd be interested to know if her house is decorated with giant gingerbread cookies in the form of children...

You can PM me.


----------



## jim lyon

I have never said anything denigrating about Dee nor do I have any reason to but if someone would ask me a question about the temperament or handling characteristics of Africanized bees I might have to refer them to that video particularly since its in a region known to be preferred and populated with Africanized bees. I should mention, though, that foraging bees whether its water , nectar or pollen are not agressive bees. Got no dog in this fight, though. Time to get back to work.


----------



## Barry

Ramona said:


> The bees share water tanks with cattle - that is their water supply.


Sharing water tanks: big ones by the way, many thousands of gallons and near 20' dia. if I remember right.



> No one is asking anyone to keep Dee's bees or to keep bees irresponsibly. What I'm referring to is endless commenting on the nature of her bees and management without bothering to see for yourself.


Some of us have kept Dee's bees. Myself and two others that I know of ended up removing her stock from our bees due to excessive aggressiveness.

Let me add, I think the conflict arises when one tries to constantly down play images of bees "attacking a camera" as an unusual event, when to most observing of the images, would consider it excessively aggressive behavior. My experience, there was a range of aggressiveness across all their yards. Some that I would consider tolerable, some, like the one in the video, I would never tolerate, unless of course I had thousands of acres of wilderness around me, but even then. . . .

I will also point out that the hives they kept at their home yard in the industrial lot did not express this aggressiveness. With dogs, a goat, and people walking around them in close quarters, I never observed any hives with "chasers". I chalk this up to the fact that they used this yard as their holding place for swarms that were dropped off from in town Tucson. These would have a high degree of European genes. They would then move them to their out yards in the desert.


----------



## Barry

Ramona said:


> Mike, do you think that when bees draw comb in nature, without foundation, that there is an order to the cell orientation? What do the combs and cells look likein a natural hive?


I know for a fact there is order. The order I've seen from cut-outs is random. I have feral comb sent to me from another member taken from a gum that shows this as well. Old dark wax comb by the way, not new light colored wax. I don't doubt some have seen some kind of order, but if it isn't seen in all circumstances, how can you claim it's the *right* way?


----------



## beemandan

In for a bite of lunch…..
When I see video of those bees attacking the camera…I can’t laugh it off as the bees not liking the paparazzi. Those bees don’t know that is a camera. They are attacking an object that their instincts identify as an enemy. When those same instincts get focused on a child or someone’s grandmother…can you imagine the result?
...now back to the bee mines.


----------



## sqkcrk

A black and shiny object moving around would get most beehives going after it I would imagine.


----------



## loggermike

You never know what will set some bees off. My gentle cordovans once went into a stinging frenzy when I used a vac to take bee samples from the entrance for nosema testing.
We can safely assume Dee is keeping Africanized bees. They are known to be highly varroa resistant and 4.9 is there natural cell size.It works for her and thats fine with me. Those bees would never cut it where almond pollination hives are set next to roads, schools and back yards with kids playing around them.

I cannot fathom how Mr. Baldwin keeps his bees free of damaging levels of varroa if he is pollinating almonds.But happy he is able to do so.

Oh well ,back to the bee mines for me too. Fences to put up, and hives need shaken after that terrible experience in almonds where they came back heavy and overpopulated!


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> A black and shiny object moving around would get most beehives going after it I would imagine.


I sure don't experience this when I'm taking pictures/video of my bees. I also don't think the camera set them off. You're just seeing the nature of these bees in this particular yard. We pulled up to one yard where the bees were hitting the glass before we ever got out of the truck and we were behind some brush many yards away from the hives. Again, this wasn't the norm for all the yards, but there were a few like this.


----------



## Oldtimer

Same here, I take shots of my bees & they take no interest in the camera at all.

I think what's going on with the bees in the video, is you have someone dressed head to toe in white, pointing and waving a black object at the bees. That of course will be the focus, same as if they'd waved a black rag, or whatever.

Particularly once the object has been "scented", it's going to be the focus of attention. Just like when angry bees find that little rip in your trousers. Once it's been found and marked, that's where the bees attacking you are going to be focussing.

Housel? Schmousel.


----------



## sqkcrk

So, we have moved this Thread from are there and can there be successful Commercially run beekeeping operations that are Treatment Free to Dees' Bees, what they are like and how they act. Whether AHB or not.

So, what is the consensus of opinion about Treatment Free Commercial Beekeepers? Are they real? Are Comm. TF operations something that is practical, affordable, doable? Is it the future? I know we have been presented w/ a handful of examples. Is it something I could do? Or Michael Palmer? Opinions?


----------



## squarepeg

well,
yes
depends
perhaps
yes
yes
all over the place.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> So, we have moved this Thread from are there and can there be successful Commercially run beekeeping operations that are Treatment Free to Dees' Bees, what they are like and how they act. Whether AHB or not.


I don't think it is off topic. Dee has been offered up as a treatment free commercial beekeeper. There appears to be considerable opinion that her success, if you can call it that, is probably a result of keeping AHB.
In part, the answer to your question is....one way to be a treatment free commercial beekeeper is to choose to keep AHB in Arizona.


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay. I agree that what we have seen is ilustrative and interesting. Maybe my wording wasn't right. Conversations move around sometimes.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> Conversations move around sometimes.


It'd get pretty dull if they didn't, I'm thinkin'.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Ramona said:


> Mike, do you think that when bees draw comb in nature, without foundation, that there is an order to the cell orientation? What do the combs and cells look likein a natural hive?
> Ramona


I don't know, you tell me. I guess they do. Why wouldn't they?

But as far as Houseling positions goes...Bologna! You show me a central comb and the combs to the side of that one being oriented differently. 

Have you got a central comb to show? 

Sorry, but I listened to Dees explanation on why Houseling is so important. I don't buy it...shelves on the bottom of the incorrectly houseled comb that causes the colony to supersede?? Think about it.


----------



## sqkcrk

"shelves"?


----------



## rhaldridge

Here's a treatment free beekeepers with hives that look pretty strong, but don't seem as aggressive as Dee's bees.






I'm almost completely ignorant, but aren't these pretty strong hives for mid_March in Indiana?


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> Here's a treatment free beekeepers with hives that look pretty strong, but don't seem as aggressive as Dee's bees.


OK fine....I see three hives in the video....is this guy a commercial beekeeper?


----------



## sqkcrk

I don't have Flashplayer, so I can't see it.


----------



## rhaldridge

beemandan said:


> OK fine....I see three hives in the video....is this guy a commercial beekeeper?


No, I guess not. He has about 150 hives and seems to be trying to build up to the commercial level. I found out about this guy by reading Randy Oliver's take on neonicotinoids. The beekeeper, Tim Ives, keeps his hives in patches of woods in the middle of corn fields.

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

Interesting piece, partly about Ives.


----------



## squarepeg

bees need trees.


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> He has about 150 hives and seems to be trying to build up to the commercial level.


That seems fine to me. I'll admit I only watched the first few minutes of the video....I mean how long can you watch someone trying to remove the wraps from their hives? I wish folks would do a bit of editing before uploading these things.

If the guy has 150 treatment free hives and has been doing so successfully for more than a few years....I say congratulations.


----------



## jim lyon

beemandan said:


> That seems fine to me. I'll admit I only watched the first few minutes of the video....I mean how long can you watch someone trying to remove the wraps from their hives? I wish folks would do a bit of editing before uploading these things.


I watched the whole darn thing waiting for something to happen. Nice hive apparently but 16 minutes, gone forever. A little background info and a peak inside would have been nice.


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> I watched the whole darn thing waiting for something to happen.


I think I have ADD. Something doesn't happen in a couple of minutes....I outta here. It has served me well.


----------



## sqkcrk

No, that would be ADHD.


----------



## beemandan

And while I'm on the subject of amateur videos. When those folks carry the camera...still recording....from hive to hive....it makes me seasick. The first time they do it...I give 'em a pass but the second time....bye bye.
If you hope to become a you tube celebrity, you need to clean it up a little.
Video editing software isn't rocket science....well maybe sort of...


----------



## jim lyon

Dan just isn't patient enough to include all the letters.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> No, that would be ADHD.


It isn't Attention Deficit Disorder? You mean....I've got something else? 
How'd I get that?......no don't tell me....I don't really want to know.


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> Dan just isn't patient enough to include all the letters.


Back in the old days....that's what it was called. Impatient. That can be me.


----------



## Ian

beemandan said:


> That seems fine to me. I'll admit I only watched the first few minutes of the video....I mean how long can you watch someone trying to remove the wraps from their hives? I wish folks would do a bit of editing before uploading these things.


ha ha ha, I did the exact same thing! give us something to watch,


----------



## sqkcrk

beemandan said:


> And while I'm on the subject of amateur videos. When those folks carry the camera...still recording....from hive to hive....it makes me seasick. The first time they do it...I given 'em a pass but the second time....bye bye.
> If you hope to become a you tube celebrity, you need to clean it up a little.
> Video editing software isn't rocket science....well maybe sort of...


When I was 10, back in 1963, Grandpa B sent us a short film he had made w/ his handheld camera while in Hawaii. He did the same thing. We could hardly watch it.


----------



## Ian

rhaldridge said:


> No, I guess not. He has about 150 hives


rhaldridge, I have not gotten the chance to go through his site, probably will, looks interesting

whats the crutch to his success? 
(dont say faith)


----------



## beemandan

And then there are those Beesource threads with an interesting subject line. I click on it and see a five paragraph post that starts with the words…’A little background’
(or something to that effect)….and I can’t click on the back button quick enough.

Ok Mark…forget Dee’s bees. I have now strayed waaaayyy off topic.
The saving grace…the sun’s up and the bees are flying.
I’m outta here.
A good day to all.


----------



## sqkcrk

Me too beeman. I especially avoid those long Posts w/out paragraph breaks in them. See ya.


----------



## Ian

>>>Tim's secret is "fat bees" and Randy explains fat bees best in this article. Briefly, fat bees are young/nurse bees that produce valuable Vitellogenin, or "Vg"<<<

I found this as one of his credits to chemical free beekeeping,


----------



## Ramona

We went to see Tim Ives speak in northern New Jersey on March 15. He mentioned "fat bees" and stressed that it is important the bees eat only real honey, no artificial feeds at all, and that they go into winter with three deeps packed full of honey, pollen and bees.

Not sure if Tim is aware of how Dee manages her bees but the idea of the bees only eating real honey and pollen and overwintering in three deeps packed with real food, looks almost exactly like Dee's hives. (Dee will swap capped honey frames with extracted wets during a flow to open up space for the queen to lay but makes sure the third box is full of capped honey before winter...otherwise does not take anything from the third deep down.)

WRT trees, he had never been east before and couldn't believe how many trees we have. His "trees" are narrow strips at the edges of cultivated corn and soy. By overwintering hives with huge resources, his bees build up even bigger on the very early weed blooms in the cultivated rows.

Many questions after his presentation and much from New Jersey locals who said their flow patterns prohibit Tim's management. He laughed and said that that is exactly what other beekeepers in his Indiana area say, that it is impossible to do what he is doing. 

Ramona


----------



## rhaldridge

Ian said:


> rhaldridge, I have not gotten the chance to go through his site, probably will, looks interesting
> 
> whats the crutch to his success?
> (dont say faith)


He hasn't got a website, as far as I know. All he has are a few videos (and I agree they could use some editing) online. He is an officer of the Michiana club. 

But I have the impression that he relies on having monster hives. In the videos I've watched, the thing that struck me was that those 3 deep broodnests are always boiling over, even in March in northern Indiana. In another video, he's using a stepladder to super up a hive. In April... he's stacking 6 mediums on that 3 deep broodnest. I think he breeds his own queens, if I'm remembering correctly, using a lot of local feral stock. On another note, I read somewhere that he expects his hives to average over 300 pounds a season. I don't know how he keeps those monster hives from swarming.

I got interested in him due to a Randy Oliver piece about neonicotinoids. Tim Ives keeps his yards in patches of woods in the middle of corn and soy fields, and has had no unusual losses. 

The reason I posted that video here was as a response to the video of Dee's bees, which as a beginner, I found pretty scary. In another of Ives' videos, he's doing an inspection of a 3 deep 6 medium hive without a veil.

I have written to him, in hopes of learning more about his approach.


----------



## rhaldridge

Ramona, do you know if there's a transcript or a video of Tim's presentation?

Ray


----------



## Ramona

rhaldridge said:


> Ramona, do you know if there's a transcript or a video of Tim's presentation?
> 
> Ray


Here is link to the Northern New Jersey Beekeepers club page with contact info. I have no idea if they recorded or not.

http://www.nnjbees.org/ai1ec_event/monthly-meeting/?instance_id=638


----------



## rhaldridge

Ramona said:


> Here is link to the Northern New Jersey Beekeepers club page with contact info. I have no idea if they recorded or not.
> 
> http://www.nnjbees.org/ai1ec_event/monthly-meeting/?instance_id=638


As far as I can tell, they didn't record it, but I did find this bit in a newsletter:



> In conjunction with our sister bee club, Morris and Somerset Counties Beekeepers, we are proud
> to present Tim Ives, licensed carpenter, Vice President of the Michiana Indiana Beekeepers Association, and
> Apiary director for Peace Bees/ Unity Gardens project will talk about how over-wintering in three deeps has
> dropped his average winter losses from over 50% to less than 8%, eliminated the need to feed, and has allowed
> him to super earlier, with more supers per hive, extracting honey 3 times in the season.


----------



## Ian

rhaldridge said:


> He hasn't got a website, as far as I know. All he has are a few videos (and I agree they could use some editing) online. He is an officer of the Michiana club.
> 
> But I have the impression that he relies on having monster hives.


I see,
I associate monster hives with huge breeding grounds for varroa,

I assume he has an internal breeding program in place,.? perhaps another mite strategy? 
I am interested to hear his management techniques


----------



## Ian

>>>In conjunction with our sister bee club, Morris and Somerset Counties Beekeepers, we are proud
to present Tim Ives, licensed carpenter, Vice President of the Michiana Indiana Beekeepers Association, and
Apiary director for Peace Bees/ Unity Gardens project will talk about how over-wintering in three deeps has
dropped his average winter losses from over 50% to less than 8%, eliminated the need to feed, and has allowed
him to super earlier, with more supers per hive, extracting honey 3 times in the season.<<<

over how many years has he been running these averages?


----------



## rhaldridge

Ian said:


> >>>In conjunction with our sister bee club, Morris and Somerset Counties Beekeepers, we are proud
> to present Tim Ives, licensed carpenter, Vice President of the Michiana Indiana Beekeepers Association, and
> Apiary director for Peace Bees/ Unity Gardens project will talk about how over-wintering in three deeps has
> dropped his average winter losses from over 50% to less than 8%, eliminated the need to feed, and has allowed
> him to super earlier, with more supers per hive, extracting honey 3 times in the season.<<<
> 
> over how many years has he been running these averages?


No idea. I've tried to contact him via a couple of email addresses, and if he responds, I'll ask him.

Since he doesn't treat for varroa, I guess he's figured out a way to deal with it. I do have the impression that he is trying to breed resistant bees, and his former high losses might be a clue that it was an initially painful process.

If I were in Indiana, I'd try to talk him out of a queen or two.


----------



## rhaldridge

Ian, Tim was kind enough to contact me and explain a little about his operation.

He started in 2002, and for several years he lost 50 to 90 percent of his package bees. In 2006, he started catching swarms, most of them feral, and he found that these did not die as easily-- he had 15 hives from swarms that year and all but one survived the first winter. So I guess he's been successful at this for about 6 years, gradually building up to the number of hives he has now. He doesn't graft, he makes increase using splits. He tells me that a couple of local beekeepers have started using his management system, and they've both had results just as good or better.

Reading his email, I got a bad case of honey envy. I'd asked him about how he controls swarming in those massive hives, and he indicated that had been a problem prior to 2010. That year he put 10 supers on each of 40 hives the first week of April (previously he'd waited to super until May, but his bees were swarming in late April.) In early July, he took off an average of 7 mediums of honey from each hive. He pulled an average of 5 supers in late August, and pulled honey again in October. He checkerboards his supers to help with the swarming impulse. He also believes that keeping the hive's wax builders maxed out is one key to preventing swarming.

I think I've accurately related some of what he told me.

Anyway, I'm impressed.


----------



## squarepeg

interesting, thanks rh.


----------



## Daniel Y

Does anyone have any info on how or why wax builders effect swarm impulse.
How do you influence the population of wax builders in the colony?

I have had claims made that bees will not draw foundation in late winter early spring. Yet at the very same time I had 4 colonies all drawing plastic foundation. I was relying on where I placed the fraems which I have observed makes a difference. But I have never heard of influencing wax maker population or that it effects swarm impulse.

I have read that expanding the brood nest prevents swarming and that wax makers woudl be required to draw new comb if old brood comb was not available. but that info specifically stated that brood nest expansion in late winter early spring cannot be accomplished with foundation alone. Somebody forgot to tell my bees about that though.

In all I am wondering if I influenced wax maker population without knowing it. Because my bees where drawing foundation since the end of January. The colony so far is 3 deeps and a med tall and at last inspection the brood nest was still expanding. No sign of a queen cup anywhere and only light foraging going on.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Wax builder info: http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/walt-wright/colony-age-effects/

Just a short note: skep beekeepers used to shake bees in Octobre and let them build new comb. Completely removing them from the combs. They shook bees of three skeps into one empty skep. Feeded them.

It works almost any time of year. You need bees, food and at least some warmth. You get wax builders in early spring only if you winter them from late autumn. See Walt's info.


----------



## beemandan

Daniel Y...I think you might get more response if you posted this elsewhere....maybe a new thread in the general forums.


----------



## sqkcrk

Which has what to do w/ this Thread?

Mrs. Moderator?


----------



## Daniel Y

Dan and Mark, You might want to actually read the thread. from the post by rhaldridge *" He also believes that keeping the hive's wax builders maxed out is one key to preventing swarming."*

The claim that bees will not draw foundation came from Walt in his booklet Nectar Management. and was specifically claimed due to the lack of wax makers.


----------



## beemandan

Daniel Y said:


> Dan and Mark, You might want to actually read the thread.


Your usual pleasant response. 
My equally pleasant response.
A. Commercial
B. Not a thread about the nuts and bolts of basic beekeeping.


----------



## deknow

I mentioned Tim Ives a few times earlier in this thread. There are at least a few things that I found interesting about his approach that he either didn't articulate, or hadn't considered.

Wax Building: What does it have to do with this thread? I think quite a bit...at least for some beekeepers.
Many of the pesticides bees are exposed to are not water soluble, and thus we know they accumulate in the wax.

Keeping the bees building comb does at least 2 things...
1. There is a constant renewal of "fresh wax" in the hive that can act like a sponge to absorb some of the agricultural pesticides that might not get absorbed in wax that is already somewhat saturated.
2. There is a constant "sink" of these oil soluble pesticides _from_ the biomass of the superorganism and _to_ the comb (especially in the honey supers where there is little or no brood..like Tim does).

Both of these mechanisms could certainly believably be protecting the colony from some of the effects of pesticide exposure. Dismissing this aspect of Tim's management would be wholly unscientific without a closer look and consideration.

There is also another aspect to Tim's management that I find intriguing. He overwinters in 3 deeps, with the top deep full of honey, the bottom deep with pollen, and the middle deep with mostly honey and bees.

Tim claims that the way he keeps the queen out of the supers is that the first super above the brood nest is always full of undrawn foundation. He claims that the queen won't cross or lay in the foundation. ...but we know the queen can lay in foundation, and we know that the queen will cross foundation to lay...so what gives?

Tim never puts this (medium) box of foundation on by itself...it is always accomanied by (it seemed like a minimum of 2) drawn medium honey supers....and he does this early (like March). His observation is that the bees use all the stored honey and pollen to build up very large populations early.

What I think is happening is what I would call SHM (strategic honey moving). The box of foundation is placed at the same time as a couple of honey supers. The empty comb up top stimulates the bees to move honey from the bottom 3 deeps into the super. The bees are stimulated by moving the honey. The broodnest is being opened up by honey being moved out. The queen is laying in the cells emptied of honey...in the brood nest, so the opposite situation exists from when the bees are on a flow and the queen can't lay in the cells as they are filled with honey as soon as the brood emerges. There is no motivation for the queen to lay in the box of foundation or in the supers, as the broodnest is getting bigger (from honey being moved out of the nest).

As for what makes the bees draw wax...need. Nectar in their honey stomaches and no place to put it. The need to raise more brood than the brood nest will hold.


----------



## squarepeg

this may be apples and oranges dean, i.e. tim's large established colonies vs. my overwintered nucs last year having to draw all but the few frames they started with.

i tried putting a medium of foundation above the single deep and below the one or two freshly drawn mediums of honey last year and it put all nine colonies into swarm mode.

in this case it seemed to act more as a barrier which precipitated backfilling in the deeps.

other than this nuance tim's approach and the one that i am evolving are very similar. 

for my clime, a medium of pollen on the bottom and a medium of honey on top with a deep in between seems to be just right for overwintering.


----------



## squarepeg

ps: agree with what you said about the wax.


----------



## rhaldridge

Dean, can you direct me to the posts where you discussed Tim Ives? I'm finding his approach very interesting, and the thread is so massive I'm hoping I can avoid searching every page. When I tried searching Beesource, all I got were links to threads, not individual posts.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Dean, can you direct me to the posts where you discussed TimIves?

See post #457. Also, Ramona posted about Tim #781.

You can search a thread on Beesource with the "_Search Thread_" function, accessed above the first post on each thread page, but below the large "Bold" thread title.

.


----------



## deknow

squarepeg said:


> this may be apples and oranges dean, i.e. tim's large established colonies vs. my overwintered nucs last year having to draw all but the few frames they started with.


I think it's probably more valuable to consider the differences rather than focus on the similarities. A nuc is entirely different than 3 overwintered deeps.



> i tried putting a medium of foundation above the single deep and below the one or two freshly drawn mediums of honey last year and it put all nine colonies into swarm mode.


If my SHM hypothesis has any merit, it would not apply here....I think the large reserve of honey in/around the brood nest coupled with a large population before there is a lot of foraging going on is necessary for the honey to get moved (it has to already exist in the hive, there has to be a large enough population to move it around). You likely don't have this in an overwintered nuc or smaller colony.



> in this case it seemed to act more as a barrier which precipitated backfilling in the deeps.


Exactly...there probably wasn't enough of a population to deal with the brood and move honey around...a large population is key to Tim's model (according to him, and according to my best analysis).



> other than this nuance tim's approach and the one that i am evolving are very similar.


This is hardly a nuance....instead of producing a monster crop, your bees are swarming.



> for my clime, a medium of pollen on the bottom and a medium of honey on top with a deep in between seems to be just right for overwintering.


If I had to guess what Tim would say to this, I imagine it would be on the order of, "That's what all the beekeepers around me say". Overwintering is one thing, getting the bees to convert a large store of honey into a large broodnest early in the season requires more resources than "overwintering" does. It requires room, stores, population, and stimulation. In his case, Tim seems to have figured out how to mesh all of these in his area with his bees....and found a way to accomplish the stimulation without feeding.

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

interesting point dean.

i haven't had syrup on the hives for a couple of years, and have let the bees determine their own colony size.

would i have more population for the main flow if i left even more honey? not sure.

last year spring came early and there was a lot of winter honey left when the early flows started.

this year has been the opposite.

other than the timing of it, i don't see a big difference in colony build up.

another difference in a location like this in which flow is bimodal, is that the bees will consume a fair amount of their spring honey to make it through the 2 - 3 month summer dearth. too many bees might actually cause less harvestable honey.

like you said, it's about meshing it all......

i don't care if i get a monster crop, but i predict it will be respectable once all of the hives have their full compliment of comb.


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> Dan and Mark, You might want to actually read the thread. from the post by rhaldridge *" He also believes that keeping the hive's wax builders maxed out is one key to preventing swarming."*
> 
> The claim that bees will not draw foundation came from Walt in his booklet Nectar Management. and was specifically claimed due to the lack of wax makers.


Well, when you put it that way ...


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> Well, when you put it that way ...


That made sense to you?!


----------



## Barry

rhaldridge said:


> When I tried searching Beesource, all I got were links to threads, not individual posts.


If you use the forum search function, use the advanced search. You'll want the Search Single Content Type tab. Search for Posts is default.


----------



## sqkcrk

beemandan said:


> That made sense to you?!


No.


----------



## Daniel Y

I suppose you woudl have to be familiar with Walts writings. In his book Nectar Management. Walt takes great care to make a case that bees will not draw foundation pre swarm period (Late winter / Early spring). He actually makes the case that wax makers are not present in the early colony and this is part of the reason for a three week delay between swarm cut off and honey foraging in the spring.

Now another beekeepers seems to be claiming that plentiful Wax makers during this period are key to his methods. again doing something Walt claims is not done.

So far I have received one link to an additional article by Walt where he explains an exception to the no wax maker situation in a second year colony that finishes their first season without completing there comb building.

Not only that but I am sure there is no reason to think that hives that are 3 times plus the strength of a typical colony would have anything to do with being able to operate treatment free.

This is a beekeeper that supposedly is successfully operating treatment free and with a method that appears to be significantly different as well as making a claim that runs directly counter to claims made by Walt in his book. In fact it seems he thinks that specific difference is significant. As far as I know Walt has never altered his claims concerning early season wax makers in the colony.

I don't think you are as confused as you seem to want to pretend you are. I think you want to be antagonistic. you did not need to respond to my question given you had nothing to offer in the way of an answer. that you failed to see any importance in my question is your lack of knowledge not mine. If you do not like my bluntness in responding to your rude behavior, then don't speak to me. Your ignorance does not make my question irrelevant. It is relevant for reasons you don't seem to know anything about. That is something that is common.

It is a bit surprising to me that a person can post a video and a statement on a thread about treatment free beekeeping that includes a treatment free beekeeper. Then a direct question can be asked about how he does it. included in the answer to that question is the specific point that early Wax Makers are assured. Yet neither of you can make the connection about how early wax makers in the colony is relevant to the conversation. and that you seem to know little to nothing about the issues of early wax makers. And somehow this makes me the one that does not know what they are doing. Okay you enjoy that. I don't care. I know that Wax makers in the early build up of the colony could make a significant difference in how that colony functions. And I also understand in fair detail exactly why. At least according to Walt. And now there is a treatment free beekeeper that is making the claim that this very specific and significant issue is at least one of the reasons for his success at being treatment free. There may also be a claim in there that this situation of wax makers can be manged. altered manipulated or stimulated. In the link provided Walt makes no such claims. he makes a case for a specific temporary exception to the no wax maker situation. That is not what I am looking for and I don't believe that is what is being claimed in the comments above. I am hearing that Tim says an abundance of wax makers in late winter early spring is critical to his methods of keeping bees treatment free.

Now please explain to me how that entire conversation and my question are in fact not relevant to the topic of keeping bees successfully with treatment free methods. Or do you just not know what you are talking about. Just becasue you don't know what is being talked about does not mean it is off topic.


----------



## deknow

> Now another beekeepers seems to be claiming that plentiful Wax makers during this period are key to his methods. again doing something Walt claims is not done.


If you are referring to Tim Ives, I did not hear him make any claims about waxbuilders....the things that I posted were my analysis of what might be going on based on what he presented.

WRT much of the rest of your post, you are correct. If we were to count the incorrect statements made by a small handful of posters in this thread...it would be a big handful....and this is telling.

The truth seems to be that few here are really curious. Curious people ask questions. Ignorant people make false statements out of ignorance.

When our friend told us about Tim Ives we looked him up, and found that he was speaking nearby.....nearby meaning a 4 hour drive each way to New Jersey.

Curiosity led us to be on the road for 8 hours that day/evening.

How curious were the other posters about what Tim Ives was doing (based on the fact that I mentioned his name as a commercial treatment free beekeeper)....not even curious enough to ask, "who is Tim Ives"?

deknow


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> How curious were the other posters about what Tim Ives was doing (based on the fact that I mentioned his name as a commercial treatment free beekeeper)....not even curious enough to ask, "who is Tim Ives"?
> 
> deknow


are you going to get as offended when we ask about Tim as you did when we asked about Dee?


----------



## jim lyon

Aww come on Dean, a lot gets lost in 500+ posts. The fact that a name was randomly dropped means little in the context of the discussion. I would be interested in learning more about exactly what he is doing and how it might apply to the discussion at hand.


----------



## beemandan

Ian said:


> are you going to get as offended when we ask about Tim as you did when we asked about Dee?


Have you read all of his reading assignments and traveled to hear the guy speak yourself? If not, then you can't hold a discussion on the topic.
Sun's up....


----------



## deknow

In the case of Dee's operation, there are many pages of her writings hosted here on beesource....are you curious enough to have read them?

If you had, you would not have insisted that she _must_ be keeping nucs to repopulate.

...but outside of the personal financial/production figures that were demanded (the kind of data that we don't have on any contributor here or commercial operation...with the possible exception of Mike Palmer), what questions were being asked?

I was told that I had taken down the videos of working with Dee's bees in 2008.
I was told that she only has 300 hives.
I was told that she doesn't make her living as a beekeeper.

...these are just off the top of my head...I won't waste time digging through the thread....all 3 are false statements, ones that I tried with varying degrees of success to address. In response? A gross misunderstanding of what Allen Dick posted on Bee-L was used as "evidence"....has anyone been curious enough to (as I suggested) email Allen and ask him specifically what he meant? I didn't think so.

Has anyone here who claims to be interested in commercial treatment free beekeeping taken Chris Baldwin up on his offer to chat on the phone about things? I didn't think so.

deknow


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> In the case of Dee's operation, there are many pages of her writings hosted here on beesource....are you curious enough to have read them?
> 
> If you had, you would not have insisted that she _must_ be keeping nucs to repopulate.


Yes, thats why I asked if her "splits" were full hive splits, or what I would consider as nucs.


----------



## Ian

>>>I am hearing that Tim says an abundance of wax makers in late winter early spring is critical to his methods of keeping bees treatment free.<<<

Daniel Y, I cant track down where he talks a whole lot about this. 
Can you explain to me why you think these wax makers are so critical to treatment free beekeeping? 
Why call them wax makers, why not young bees?


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> Has anyone here who claims to be interested in commercial treatment free beekeeping taken Chris Baldwin up on his offer to chat on the phone about things? I didn't think so.
> 
> deknow


Seriously, my interest goes about as far as chatting in this thread, 
Chris knows about this thread, if he was really interested in chatting with us he would be here. 
I dont know about you but Im enjoying the conversation


----------



## beemandan

beemandan said:


> traveled to hear the guy speak yourself?





deknow said:


> Has anyone here who claims to be interested in commercial treatment free beekeeping taken Chris Baldwin up on his offer to chat on the phone about things?


Sorry, I missed one…or phoned the guy?
Also…don’t’ forget those reading assignments.
Trucks loaded…been fun…gotta go.


----------



## beemandan

Ok, you’ve read a boatload of tf beekeepers' writings. You traveled great distances to hear them explain how they do it. With that in mind Dean…I must ask…which treatment free strategy(s) have you successfully implemented in your beeyards?
Ok...sandwich has been wolfed down...must unload the beekeeping stuff and replace with market stuff for the Wednesday afternoon farmers' market....and a shower is in order.


----------



## Oldtimer

Dean I think you somehow got the glass 1/2 empty today. Life ain't all that bad.

Me, I've read everything Dee has written in her section on Beesource. When I saw mention of Tim in this thread, I didn't rush off & see him, no. But watched his video plus read the links given, plus followed other links given in those links.

If I did that, I'm sure others did, I don't think you need to be so negative.

I would say though, that to a commercial beekeeper watching the video, the video of Tim working the hives shows considerable lack of experience in handling bees in a commercial scenario, and a commercial beekeeper could easily decide to go no further. I would understand that. 

Which is not to say Tim is not on to something, and listening to him speak in the video he strikes me as particularly open minded, a guy who will learn and investigate.

To me, Tim's method has a lot in common with the checkerboarding method developed by Walt, although it is not the same, but the effect will be similar. However I've often seen Walt poo poo'ed about his checkerboarding method, which always pains me somewhat.

In the TF world we are constantly hearing about the latest thing, the latest "success". After having been exposed to several years of this, I am still really none the wiser about how to run a treatment free hive, and less inclined to rush off and personally visit, or call, every person with a new idea. 

It is apparent Tim is a speaker in considerable demand. This is a possible red flag to me. Commercial beekeepers make their money from their bees, and less so by talking about them. Which again, is not to say he may not be getting results, but I consider a commercial beekeeper to be one who makes his living by his bees.

Don't want to be taken wrong though, I was impressed by what I saw of Tim as an intelligent, and honest guy, who does not speak in riddles. The kind of person we need working in the TF area.


----------



## rhaldridge

Ian said:


> >>>I am hearing that Tim says an abundance of wax makers in late winter early spring is critical to his methods of keeping bees treatment free.<<<
> 
> Daniel Y, I cant track down where he talks a whole lot about this.
> Can you explain to me why you think these wax makers are so critical to treatment free beekeeping?
> Why call them wax makers, why not young bees?


I think it was something I wrote. I asked Tim how he kept those monster hives from swarming, and he said that he checkerboards his supers, and in passing said that he thought that helped at least partly because it kept a lot of young bees making wax instead of thinking about swarming. Or at least that's how I interpreted what he said. I don't know that it is directly applicable to his method, except that his methods involves very heavily populated hives in very early spring, which as a beginner, I understand can be hard to keep from swarming.

I don't really feel comfortable posting his email here without his permission, but if you go to this website, you can find it.

http://www.theunitygardens.org/

He seems to be a very helpful and straightforward guy. I'll be interested to see if anyone from here has any questions for him.


----------



## rhaldridge

Sorry... somehow I double-posted.


----------



## TWall

I watched the videos Tim Ives has posted on youtube. The hive he follows throught the three videos looks very strong. It was surprising to see how strong it was in March 2012. Although, the winter last year was non-existant. I wonder how that hive is doing this year?

I wonder what his mite levels are like?

He gives his bees a lot of space. I wonder if they truly need that with his management system or that is just how he does it? He mentioned adding foundation but nothing about cell size or type of foundation.

As I was watching the videos I had a feeling that there are some common themes with how Michael Palmer keeps his bees. Both have supers stacked higher than I want to work. Although, it would be nice to have colonies that strong.

Tom


----------



## Daniel Y

Ian said:


> Daniel Y, I cant track down where he talks a whole lot about this.
> Can you explain to me why you think these wax makers are so critical to treatment free beekeeping?
> Why call them wax makers, why not young bees?


The comment about wax makers in this thread and was second hand. I am not interested in if he actually said it. I am not interested in weather it makes treatment free beekeeping more successful. I am interested in how he believes he influences wax makers in the hive at a time when others say they are not present.

Walt calls them wax makers not me. I would assume it is for the same reason he gives for distinguishing between a reproductive swarm and a crowding swarm. When describing a bowl of fruit it is fine to refer to any fruit as fruit. But when discussing apples and oranges you must describe apples and oranges. Young bees are a bowl of fruit. A bowl that contains many different fruits. Walt is attempting to describe the individual fruits in the bowl. So he refers in his writing to wax makers, house keepers, guard bees cell cleaners, honey processors. All tasks that woudl be performed by young bees.

In addition my interest in Wax Makers specifically are two fold.

1. Walt claims his methods will not work if you do not have drawn brood comb. The single main reason for this claim is that wax makers are not present in the hive. I have found this is not so in my hive and my bees are in fact drawing foundation. and am looking for any reasons why.

2. Walt describes a three week period from the swarm cut off date to the foraging for nectar. This lull as he calls it is due to the need to rear wax makers and house bees. IF this rearing of house bees wax makers honey processors etc could be stimulated pre swarm cut of. some this three week period might be reduced.


----------



## Ian

Daniel Y said:


> I am hearing that Tim says an abundance of wax makers in late winter early spring is critical to his methods of keeping bees treatment free.





Daniel Y said:


> The comment about wax makers in this thread and was second hand. I am not interested in if he actually said it. I am not interested in weather it makes treatment free beekeeping more successful. I am interested in how he believes he influences wax makers in the hive at a time when others say they are not present.


so it has nothing to do with treatment free beekeeping then, just good old beekeeping


----------



## Daniel Y

Ian said:


> so it has nothing to do with treatment free beekeeping then, just good old beekeeping


My specific interest doesn't. That is why I asked for sources of information leading to it. Why woudl I go to another forum to ask for more information on something that was said in this thread? I did not then take this entire conversation into the nether realms over it. everyone that deludes themselves about the rules did. Including you.


----------



## Ian

Daniel Y said:


> I did not then take this entire conversation into the nether realms over it. everyone that deludes themselves about the rules did. Including you.


Im not making that point, perhaps your quarrel is with someone else.


----------



## Daniel Y

My apologies. I misjudged the intent of your comment.


----------



## Ian

Daniel Y said:


> So he refers in his writing to wax makers, house keepers, guard bees cell cleaners, honey processors. All tasks that woudl be performed by young bees.


got to love those young bees !


----------



## hpm08161947

So how does one enhance these populations of young waxmaker bees? After the flow I see little to no comb building...


----------



## Daniel Y

I find they will draw comb if.
1. it is checkerboarded, or what I call put within the boundary the bees consider home.
2. they have sugar water or other liquid food source. any nectar flow at all for example.

I found that placing sugar water on my hive last late summer early fall did get my bees to draw an additional box of med foundation. they filed it with honey and I used it as winter stores on two late trap outs I had.

I am seeign this lack of checkerboarding at work again right now. I placed med full of foundation on top of my hive. and the bees have moved into it but are not yet drawing the foundation. I could add drawn and filled frames from one of my other hives. or I can ad sugar water. or I can do both. Any one of the above I say would cause the bees to start drawing that foundation. I intend to wait a week and find they have done nothing. then do one or the other or both of the above and see what they do in the following week.
Today will be one week since I added this foundation.


----------



## Markt

Daniel Y said:


> I find they will draw comb if.
> 1. it is checkerboarded, or what I call put within the boundary the bees consider home.
> 2. they have sugar water or other liquid food source. any nectar flow at all for example.
> 
> I found that placing sugar water on my hive last late summer early fall did get my bees to draw an additional box of med foundation. they filed it with honey and I used it as winter stores on two late trap outs I had.


Bees under two weeks old will draw wax whenever stimulated by gathering and more specifically curing sugar of any kind so long as it's 13 C or 55 F outside... I just don't see what that could have to do with varroa control...


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> The comment about wax makers in this thread and was second hand. I am not interested in if he actually said it. I am not interested in weather it makes treatment free beekeeping more successful. I am interested in how he believes he influences wax makers in the hive at a time when others say they are not present.


Answers to questions like these can be found in many places in Beekeeping Literature, such as "Practical Beekeeping", "The Encyclopedia of Beekeeping", "ABCand XYZ of Beekeeping", etc., etc.

You may find specific answers to questions which arise from reading Walts' texts and watching Tims' videos by corresponding directly w/ them since they do not wish to spend much time on beesource.com having their thoughts and ideas responded to by those who throw stones at them.

May you do well in your search for greater knowledge of the things in which you are interested.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> since they do not wish to spend much time on beesource.com having their thoughts and ideas responded to by those who throw stones at them.


Mark...when did this happen.....and who did it?!


----------



## sqkcrk

I believe that if you reviewed Threads that Walt has Posted and Threads he has participated in he would characterize comments in that way. Though I can't really speak for him. Discussing this doesn't further the Thread, imo.


----------



## Tim Ives

Ian said:


> so it has nothing to do with treatment free beekeeping then, just good old beekeeping


That's the same thing Randy Oliver said when he was here


----------



## Tim Ives

hpm08161947 said:


> So how does one enhance these populations of young waxmaker bees? After the flow I see little to no comb building...


The most proficient wax builders are young 8-18 day old bees. So wax builders are in relations to the number of brood frames. But there is a maximum limitation to how many frames can be laid out in a 21 day cycle. What are maximum limitations? Queens can only lay so many eggs per season, bees can only draw up so much new comb and can only grow to a certain limitation. Which is what I've been working on to figure out. Yes...A LOT of trail/error. 
My theory on how I'm getting around mites is bees are brooding up way earlier in a 3 deep system vs 2 deep. 2 deep systems are on the verge of starvation by March on my area. A 3 deep will already have a brood cycle in, plus queens have 50% more room in a 3 deep vs 2. Drone brood doesn't start till around 3/11 when fresh pollen starts coming on. Mites need drone brood to be most prolific. Mites have to many immature females in worker brood. Plus I suspect, to cold for mites in late Feb. Once brood is capped very little of the cluster is on capped brood. Cluster will cover the open brood. Which I seen several years back when going to reverse hive bodies, because that's what all the oldtimers around me said you had to do. But once getting into bottom deep and it was 60% laid out with capped brood(which I thought was dead first time I seen it). I just put everything back together and kept watching closely. Few weeks later a crazy amount of bees. Rechecked bottom deep all laid out again with open brood. 
The more hives I got the easier it was to see the average of what was going on. Anything below average got split, above average got supered. 
Supering was a lot of trial/error.I'll go over that later.

Since there's a lot of questions,speculation and opinions on what I'm doing on here. According to advanced search of my name. Probably best if I read thru and just create a new thread..


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes that would be interesting.


----------



## loggermike

In this video, Danny explains how they went from typical treatment management to non treatment. Its worth watching. The video of Binfords talk is good too. How the family business started is kinda funny.
http://www.beeweaver.com/bee-breeding-survivor-chemical-free-stock-daniel-weaver-part-1


----------



## Tim Ives

hpm08161947 said:


> In upstate Ohio, from Oct to March.... I doubt there are many wax moths flying....


Same as Northern Indiana. Supers go on late March and come off early Oct. I've never had a problem with wax moths.


----------



## camero7

If boxes are not stored where it will freeze, wax moths can be a significant problem even in cold areas.


----------



## sqkcrk

All of my honey supers stay here in NY for the Winter, stacked on wearhouse pallets w/ a plastic tarp cover and a pallet on top to weigh the tarp down so the top supers don't blow off. I have never had any wax moth damage in those stacks.

Deep supers used for brood supers will have some pollen in them. If they don't get back on strong colonies early enough in the Spring they will often have wax moth damage.

Seems like the presence of pollen is the problem.


----------



## Tim Ives

camero7 said:


> If boxes are not stored where it will freeze, wax moths can be a significant problem even in cold areas.


Yep.....


----------



## Tim Ives

sqkcrk said:


> All of my honey supers stay here in NY for the Winter, stacked on wearhouse pallets w/ a plastic tarp cover and a pallet on top to weigh the tarp down so the top supers don't blow off. I have never had any wax moth damage in those stacks.
> 
> Deep supers used for brood supers will have some pollen in them. If they don't get back on strong colonies early enough in the Spring they will often have wax moth damage.
> Seems like the presence of pollen is the problem.


I'm doing similar using pallets. Plywood at the bottom to keep mice out. Every 3rd super I use aluminum foil, just in case. 6 stacks of 12 to a pallet. Stored in open lean pole barn.


----------



## sqkcrk

You like those ladders don't ya? heh,heh

I sometimes put 6 excluders down on the pallet before stacking supers 10 high. Sometimes I put excluders between supers too. This keeps mice to just a couple supers. Mice Motels. My equipment isn't tight enough to keep mice from getting in even if I tried to keep them out.


----------



## Tim Ives

sqkcrk said:


> You like those ladders don't ya? heh,heh
> 
> I sometimes put 6 excluders down on the pallet before stacking supers 10 high. Sometimes I put excluders between supers too. This keeps mice to just a couple supers. Mice Motels. My equipment isn't tight enough to keep mice from getting in even if I tried to keep them out.


I think I own a total of 5 queen excluders, somewhere??


----------



## Tim Ives

Chris Baldwin said:


> Perhaps I should retract my statement that some Russian lines were terrible. And say they did not fit my management. Although our web page says Russian Bees I try to be clear as to what I am doing. I am not a Russian cooperator. I am not bringing in new Russian stock. I am pursuing resistance that the Russians gave me while selecting top performers under my management. So I do cringe a little. What do I have? I don't know.
> I am not Randy Oliver's Taliban. I am not trying to push my bees on anybody. What I do desire is an open mind that mite resistance is real. And given time and dedication that mite resistance can be advanced through proper pressure and selection in ANY strain of bees. And that's not painless. But it is doable. And I believe the ultimate answer.
> For those still wondering, I let lots of bees die to get where I am. Now you could not pay me to treat for mites. Why step back? I said earlier I am just one guy. I am nothing special. Anyone that can rear queens could follow the same course. What if a bunch of people were doing this? How much more could be accomplished? That's what gets me down. Won't anybody go for it? Remember your not taking anything with you when you go. But you are supposed to leave the world a better place when you leave.


Amen.........


----------

