# "No Treatment" Study



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Ok folks, here we go!

Allen Dick has just posted the thought that we need a new thread to get this study going. A suggestion was made that we do some sort of spreadsheet in order to do a scientific statistical analysis of the data posted. So if a spreadsheet is the way to go, help me out here.

Allen, I had thought about doing more of a narrative posting, as I'm not a statistician, and I'm not sure how data from 14-50 hives over a 6 year period would fit into all those little boxes. :scratch: And I don't particularly want this to become a second job for me. 

FIRST and FOREMOST! Everyone needs to realize I am NOT a scientist. I'm simply a beekeeper trying to become better at what I do with the bees. I have no desire to become commercial, nor to get a degree in beekeeping. I'm simply doing this as a sideliner to help us all out. If you don't like what Allen and I set up, then simply ignore the thread. Deal?

Now, regarding the parameters of the study:
- I plan to start at the beginning, when I bought my first two packages as I returned to beekeeping a few years back. 
- I will post dates, and what I did with the hives. 
- I do not have a scale, so I can't do weights at the hive.
- I will post harvested honey from each hive.
- (are you ready for this blasphemy?) I do not currently do mite counts. :lookout: For my purposes, I see no point in it. If they die, they die, since I'm not going to treat for mites. If they die, I didn't want them anyway. It is possible, but not probable, I can be persuaded to change my mind. But only by reasoned, sound logic, and not accusing me of being an ignorant Neanderthal.
- I currently have 14 hives, as I've said before, going to 32-40 this year, and 50 next year or two.
- I do not plan to change my management practices, but will report on hive health and changes as I work towards my twin goals of honey production and increasing hive count.
- I believe the validity of this study lies in the fact that I am not, and will not treat for mites, and will simply report what is occurring in the normal activity of a sideliner beek.
- I will try to analyze and report when beekeeper error has killed a hive. 
- If and when a hive dies, I will do what I can to post pictures, and we'll do a post-mortem. If someone insists that bees be diagnosed for trachael mites, if there's any testing expense involved, you can provide the funds. Same for varroa mites. Currently I examine dead bees in front of the hives for DWV. That's what I saw in the only hive I've lost so far. None this year, yet. sigh....
- Anything negative will be reported.

Now, what did I miss, that we need to add to the list? Make your suggestions, and Allen Dick and I will take them into consideration. Fair enough, Allen?

And Allen, I'm depending on you and Barry to figure out the best way to post this on the forum. I suspect as the season develops, I'll add data to the posting every couple of weeks... After the initial set up. 

Allen, is this what you had in mind about the public postings?
Regards,
Steven


----------



## 11x (May 14, 2009)

i am going by the same methods for treatment. let the strong survive and the week die.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

StevenG said:


> And Allen, I'm depending on you and Barry to figure out the best way to post this on the forum. I suspect as the season develops, I'll add data to the posting every couple of weeks... After the initial set up.


Depending on what you guys come up with, I'm thinking the best way may be to simply give you a password and have access to your own WordPress page(s) for you to do what you want with.


----------



## markmaster (Jan 21, 2010)

Whatever administrative plan y'all come up with, keep the rest of us up-to-date on the findings, OK? The "no-treatment" approach interests me, as I am a firm believer in allowing natural processes to operate (as much as possible, anyway - considering that we have changed the natural environment of the bees and tend to "manage" their behaviors to encourage production, etc.).
I'd like to follow this thread.....


----------



## c10250 (Feb 3, 2009)

What exactly is the experiment? Simply not treating all hives? What will you compare the results too? I'm not sure what this would prove.

A better experiment would be to treat half, and then compare the two.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

StevenG, it appears we are rowing the same boat. I had 14 hives going into winter and plan to expand to 50 this spring. I'm a third year beek and honey production is my main focus right now but as I grow, local pollination may be a consideration. I have never treated my hives..

I have some thoughts. Should the type of bee one is keeping be a consideration in this study since they all have different characteristics? I also plan to switch to foundationless in the brood box this year. Would that be worth noting as a management factor? Is the use of essential oils going to be considered a treatment or is treatment defined as the use of commercial chemicals ?

I'm located in the panhandle of Texas(notorious AHB country although I have yet to encounter any). I would like participate in this study.


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

I agree, it can not be a no treatment only study.

The same beekeeper (important) needs to have some treated and some not. The treated ones should be atleast 4 miles maybe more from the non treated, to keep the study accurate, and not place unneed pressure on each other.
The treated colonies will need not only treatment dates, but since some treatments are weather dependant, the weather for that area as well during treatment.
In your complete study, it should include the weather year round. This would track plant stress incase of drought or flooding, and what they foraged on.

Treated colonies need counts monitored for not only mites but nosema. As well, there should be two treated sites. One Prophelatic (sp) treatments and the other treat when needed...and honey yields

All hives would need to be marked down with any feed given to them.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

c10250,

In a sense we already have the other control group...everyone else that is stationary and using chemical treatment in their hives.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Running the numbers is only one challenge in these things. Another is limiting the number of variables. If you don’t, then when you’ve completed the study it’ll only engender more questions than answers.
Best of luck.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

At this point, I suppose that it is necessary to design the experiment. I leave that to the group, but here are some thoughts.

Going back to high school science (that is in my case, 50 years), I recall that the the way to write up an experiment was as follows. There are other variations, but this is pretty basic and organizes the process:

*Preparation:*:
Purpose: A statement of what is being examined and what is to be learned
Method: The specific procedures which will be followed, timeline, etc.
Materials: A listing of what will be required and specifications

*The experiment:*
Observations: Notes, narratives, tables, and explanations of problems encountered

*Afterwards:* The write-up including a condensation of each of the above and 
Conclusions: An analysis and discussion of what was learned or not learned

No experiment is ever really a total failure, but experiments can encounter problems in design or execution which can make them inconclusive or impossible to finish. In every case, though something is learned, if only that the concept or assumptions were flawed and that it needs to be done over again.

It is possible to be too ambitious, and design an experiment which becomes too complex or too much work to complete, or which depends on information which cannot be properly assessed or measured.

It is also possible to design an experiment which is too simple and only proves the obvious.

IMO, the biggest mistake which is made, and the pros make it too is to assume that everything will go well and fail to anticipate what will happen if things go badly awry. 

If big money and strong egos are invested in an experiment, and the hives die in an unexpected way too early in the study or confounding interventions are necessary, there is a strong compulsion to keep going and to somehow salvage the investment in time, money and commitment. Too often, rather than give up the experimenters keep going, try to extract information from the wreckage, write the whole thing up as if it had not become a mess, and make up neat-looking PowerPoint presentations or try for publication.

The big educational aspect of this trial will be that it is open and public as it proceeds, so that the inevitable screw-ups and judgement calls will be obvious to observers and nobody will be fooled by jumping down to the conclusions. Conclusions are often the least useful part of many studies I have looked over and IMO, fairly often different from what I would conclude from the same data. (That is IMO why so many studies do not present any more than a minimum of data).

Anyhow this should be fun. Lets now start with writing a statement of purpose.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Good morning curious beeks!

Allen, thanks for your focusing our/my efforts. I will take your proposals into consideration, and have something for you and the group by Monday. I will post it on this thread.

Question of methodology - After we nail down parameters and protocols, and establish the thread for this, perhaps I should change the title to " 'No Treatment' Report". My thought for this is that I am not going to establish a "control" group that is treated. Nope. Simply not gonna do it. That defeats my purposes as a beekeeper. I realize that may make this "study" less of a scientific study, and more of a "report." If that's what we need to to do maintain the integrity of it, I'm fine. It also would allow others who prefer to do a more controlled study with treated and non-treated colonies to do so. 

ACBEES - I personally think you're correct, those beeks who are stationary and treat are the control group. But that's my opinion. 

honeyshack - Your comment about weather is duly noted, and appreciated. I will do what I can to calendar the weather, starting today. But, as stated above, I'm not going to treat any colonies. So we probably ought to call this a "report" after we get it set up, per Allen's suggestions above.

c10250 - the "experiment" is designed to answer those people who say that colonies that go untreated will eventually crash, die out, and you'll have no bees. So far I've gone untreated with only one death. Sceptics say there has been no controlled experiment or reportage. This study is designed to answer those questions, simply by reporting my efforts and experiences to keep my hives alive without treatments. After two more years of this plan, we'll know how many of my hives died, how many lived, what my honey production was, and whether I was crazy or not... oh, wait! My wife tells me I AM crazy, and that's not the issue here! :lpf:

Barry - Thank you for the idea of the password and WordPress pages. I assume this is something that would be posted here as a new thread? 

Those of you who have read my profile know I'm running several different types of bees. In the reporting, you'll know which type is in which hive and apiary. I currently have the Russians in a separate apiary. I will report on the forage at each location as we set this up, and will keep a running report of the types of bees in a particular hive and apiary. I currently have three apiaries, in three locations. I will be expanding to four apiaries in three locations due to space limitations in one location. The fourth apiary will be 1/2 mile from the second, on the same land. I'll clear that up as we set this up.

Any other comments or suggestions?
Regards,
Steven


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I believe that there are already two people who i know of who have done this and have reported their results. One of them posts to this forum, the other doesn't. Michael Palmer and Kirk Webster. What do they have to tell us? Again.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

As I've said before, it's easiest if you can tally responses in a table format.

Think in terms of broad categories.

If there's a good statistical test available (there often is), then you are on your way.

As I've suggested to Peter, a well designed survey is a powerful research tool.

There are many advantages to a survey approach.

You probably already have enough data on hand w/o having to reinvent the wheel.

Start by making some claims about your beloved 'treatment free' beekeeping.

The questions will write themselves.

There are many research designs that don't require control groups. They use proven statistical techniques to show significance. Also, think of the beekeeping methods that you are using now/today.

Work smarter, not harder. Up and at em.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> I believe that there are already two people who i know of who have done this and have reported their results. One of them posts to this forum, the other doesn't. Michael Palmer and Kirk Webster. What do they have to tell us? Again.


As has Mike Bush, who explains his system quite well: http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm
But I don't know how long he has been treatment free...has to be several years. This doesn't seem to be enough for some folks however. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> I believe that there are already two people who i know of who have done this and have reported their results. One of them posts to this forum, the other doesn't. Michael Palmer and Kirk Webster. What do they have to tell us? Again.

The problem is organisation and presentation as much as actually doing the work. For that matter, many are running IPM and finding they never have to treat, but how do we track that?

Maybe what is needed is to find and collate all the reports to date. 

Do the people mentioned have a coherent account published on the web of their progress, or is it in snippets?

I ask because I don't know. Maybe all the data is out there already and just needs to be found and presented, not to say that another such exercise would not be useful.

In my experience, on examining some accounts, and I am not talking about these two, BTW because I just have not looked.

There are, however, some accounts which are disjointed, incomplete and suspect simply due to lack of consistency, or overlaid with theoretical speculation, and there is one oft-mentioned one which has been re-written several times, each time differently with a different slant -- and all the original data and reporting lost, (except somewhere in my personal web archives).

What should make this one different is that it will all be reported real-time, other than the historical summary which I trust our experimenter will write up to show how he got to the starting point.

One pitfall which hopefully this one will avoid is trying to rationalize what is happening. What draws many people into question is not what they accomplish, but how they try to rationalize what is occurring. Empirical data speaks for itself, but when people start trying to prove things, everything tends to get messy.

As an example, I have no problem whatsoever, agreeing that Dee is doing what she says she is doing and that the results are what she says they are, but I doubt we will ever agree on the reasons. The same is true with several others. 

Facts are facts and indisputable, but theory is theory and always subject to debate. 

As it has been said in irony, "This obviously works every day in the field, but can it possibly work in theory?"


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Put a # of years treatment-free question in the survey.

Respondents don't have to answer survey questions that don't apply to them.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Allen Dick;505263
Do the people mentioned have a coherent account published on the web of their progress said:


> Kirk Websters beekeeping life is well documented in ABJ articles that he has written over the last 5 years or more. Mike's experiences have been told of here and in his many lectures.
> 
> Maybe, before Mike gets to busy, if it ain't to late, he can chime in here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Yeah. As I said, getting all the info together in a concise and digestible form is the real issue.

Also, I seem to recall that Kirk had big losses last winter. Is that correct?

That is not to say that occasional big losses is a condemnation of any particular path, since they come to everyone in the fullness of time.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

1. Mike Palmer is not treatment free. Mike is a great beekeeper, Mike is supportive of what we (in the treatment free community) are doing. He can of course speak for himself, but in a nutshell, when he presents at treatment free conferences, his attitude seems to be "if you don't treat, you will lose a lot of bees. You need some way to make up for those losses."....and Mike presents his overwintering nucs techniques (which is very similar to what Kirk does).

2. Kirk had some losses last year but still had a successful season. If you want to make judgements about what his losses were, or how his season turned out, it's probably best to give him a call rather than to speculate here. FWIW, we went to one of yards a few weeks ago, and I don't think we saw a nuc that wasn't alive (out of at least 50).

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

I don't want to make judgments, merely observations.

I don't see things in black and white. I see everything as interrelated and a continuum. 

If Kirk has losses, kirk had losses. I leave it to others to attribute meaning to that or not. I won't bite.

As for treatment-free as a religion, I don't go to that church. I like to think I am a pragmatist and that I make decisions based on a fact-based assessment of the situation rather than on principle.

Principles are necessary to avoid the necessity of starting from scratch in every new situation, but they must constantly be tested against (apparent) reality.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

So when are you actually going to start making a list of statements/hypotheses about treatment-free beekeeping and the variables involved?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> ACBEES - I personally think you're correct, those beeks who are stationary and treat are the control group. But that's my opinion. -StevenG


As long as they do everything else just identically to the way you do, possibly.

Otherwise, you just introduce still more variables.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> So when are you actually going to start making a list of statements/hypotheses about treatment-free beekeeping and the variables involved? 

"Patience, Grasshopper"...

Or, you could go first...


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Step one:

Define "treatment."


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Kieck said:


> As long as they do everything else just identically to the way you do, possibly.
> 
> Otherwise, you just introduce still more variables.


You don't need a control group, and there are many experimental designs that aren't bothered in the least by different treatments.

Have you ever heard of multifactorial studies?

Have any of you ever defended a thesis or taken a post graduate research design course?

You do realize that you WILL be under the scrutiny of others who do know a good research design when they see it, and they may not be as sympathetic to your cause as I am.

Case in point: of the articles and papers presented in support of treatment -free beekeeping that I've seen here, only 1 had a good research design, and guess what it showed was significant? Swarming!

KINDLY, list your claims and variables for treatment-free beekeeping, then go from there.

Like so:


Treatment free bees have a lower incidence of disease.
Treatment free beekeeping works best in isolation.
Treatment free bees develop hygienic traits.
etc., etc., etc. .

For variables:


Swarming allowed.
years treatment free.
# of hives.
commercial vs other queens.
etc., etc., etc. .

You can then design a survey or use another design.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Have you ever heard of multifactorial studies? -WLC


Yes.

But you're getting into a "study" here with so many variables -- most of them likely not even considered -- that even very complex statistical analyses are unlikely to tease out any real meaning.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Kieck said:


> Yes.
> 
> But you're getting into a "study" here with so many variables -- most of them likely not even considered -- that even very complex statistical analyses are unlikely to tease out any real meaning.


Kieck:

You need to be very objective here. Without any hypothesis to test, or variables that can be identified as dependent or independent, there's no there, there.

Claims/hypothesis and variables come first, and let the design come afterwards.

First things first.

Don't worry about the statistical tests. Those come with the experimental design which is nowhere in sight as of yet. They aren't as onerous as you might think they are. There are many techniques to make a 'mole hill out of a mountain'.

Step by step. Be objective, not subjective. Work smarter, not harder.

Yada, yada, yada.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

One of the problems of getting to ambitious is that assumptions and complications creep in.

KISS works as long as it is not overdone.

For example, we have several queen sources represented here already. Should we decide to track each stock all the way through? Is that possible, and at what cost? Or are we better off just admitting we probably cannot or will not do that given our level of interest and the time and resources available and just consider all as one group? Good question.

I had envisioned a very simple test, namely run a group of colonies for a preiod of time, record what was added and taken away and what of any significance was done, measure a few benchmarks like mite drops and nosema counts for example, and present them so that anyone can slice and dice them any which way they please.

The problem is to decide exactly what will be useful and doable and what will not since there is a cost to collecting data, and a cost to not collecting data.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Allen:

I think I see the problem.

You are ASSUMING that you are using a longitudinal study. Didn't I just warn everyone about putting the cart before the horse?

Bad idea for some very good reasons.

Rather than a longitudinal study, use a cross sectional study.

If your heart is set on following the progress of a group, simply give the cross sectional study yearly.

Longitudinal studies are known as a KISS off. They frequently fail because the sample size shrinks so much due to drop outs, that you don't have a valid sample size left before the study is complete.

It's the same as sending it to a 'committee'.

Just work on step 1 first. Step 2 is identifying objective and testable claims and dependent and independent variables. Step 3 is where a slick operator can group claims and variables into a powerful experimental design. Step 4 etc., etc. ...


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

OK, Jim, 

The point is though, that if the sample size shrinks to that point, the object of the study will have been achieved. Survival or extinction of this particular group is what this group wants to test, it seems. Perhaps not. We're discovering now what people are wanting to do and how much detail is achievable.

On the other hand, though, you may wish to help develop an experiment which can provide additional conclusions in the process. That does involve a lot more design and work, though and perhaps it is something the group can execute.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

I did a small experiment this year with 20 colonies. Half of them got an extra slab of insulation under the outer cover. Whatever the results, I think the outcome would be meaningless because the sample size is too small. I had a few courses in statistics but don't know how that is calculated. How many colonies would I need to have a meaningful sample? This would be a place to start.

dickm


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

If the difference between the two groups is obvious like 10 lived on one side and ten died on the other, it does not take a rocket sugeon to see that you proved something provided you did everything else the same. The confidence level is very high that what you see is what you see.

On the other hand, if the differences are slight and you are looking at brood area, disease levels, etc. as well to try to see the differences, the analysis gets more difficult. 

Much more difficult, and it is much harder convincing any sceptics.


----------



## sebee (Jul 19, 2009)

dickm said:


> How many colonies would I need to have a meaningful sample? This would be a place to start.
> dickm


If I remember correctly, you need to have a decent idea of the total population size in order to come up with some level of confidence statistically. 

I think because there is so much variation in terms of genetics, geography and environmental factors, it would be difficult to "prove" much. But as Allen said, if your test shows clear results, then there is probably some correlation there that we can learn from in some way.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Thanks Allen,
What you say is clear. Let's see if I can ask a clearer question. If I had 2 hives and 1 died it would not carry the same weight as when 10 of 20 died. If 500 out of 1000 died It would be a much higher level of confidence. The chances of making any statements with 2 hives is negligible. One can calculate this. I've forgotten how. It is a calculation against what could be expected by chance. Commercial beeks are at an average of 30/35% losses now. 
The start of this thread has 14 colonies and one treatment. Let's suppose that half of them die each year. Can we say that the dead ones died because they weren't treated? Or that the healthy ones are a result of management? I know they aren't commercial hives but If The average winter kill were 30% that would be 4+ hives. If 8 die, what are the chances that the extra four deaths are due to management style? The smaller the sample size the less likely the work is meaningful. It would be expressed as 1 chance in 10 (I just invented that number) that the result is not due to chance. I don't want to discourage anyone but many folks put a great deal of reliance on small studies.
This is basic stuff. Keick? Someone? 

Dickm


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

All good points. That is one reason to monitor health indicators like nosema and mites loads (both mites) because the effects of these pests are known within some broad limits and probabilities.

What you say does argue for controls, though.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> You need to be very objective here. Without any hypothesis to test, or variables that can be identified as dependent or independent, there's no there, there.
> 
> Claims/hypothesis and variables come first, and let the design come afterwards.
> 
> First things first. -WLC


Please see post #24.

First, we need to define terms. Let's start with "treatment."


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Kieck:

While defining 'no treatment' is an obvious point, you can also allow for some variability in a survey by the choices provided. This also allows one to keep the sample size of the respondents from getting too low.

Some might consider feeding with sugars a treament! So, you include a question that indicates if they are feeding: 'please check any that apply: sugar, pollen, soy, yeast, ...'


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

What about Michael Johnson? Isn't his "grant" to develope disease and pest resistant queens? How would he fit into this thing y'all are talking about?


----------



## aylen (Feb 4, 2010)

Hi Guys

From a relatve newbee, I just wanted to say thank you for such an interesting and informative undertaking. Can't wait to follow the results!


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I agree with Kieck. Define "treatment". I strike drone brood. Is that a treatment? Would it be possible to include me? What if I do not change my methods for the 5-6 years I think it will take for a sign of stability in events? If there are a fixed set of "can does" and "Can't does" , with some lattitude in between, can comparisions be made between groups?

Roland
Commercial with no Apistan, coumophos, Oxalic, bleach, etc.(non edibles)


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Roland:

One of the reasons I was advocating for a list of claims/hypotheses and variables is because of what you just mentioned.

If it was a survey, drone related methods could easily be included and could be used to form a 'group' for comparison to other groups.

As someone said (I forgot who/where), surveys/polls can be done by email. They just need to be constructed properly with a good research design in place.

I'm wondering if the 'essential oils' crowd would feel slighted if they were left out? :scratch:


----------



## Jack Grimshaw (Feb 10, 2001)

StevenG, 

Lively topic. Sounds like a b(ee)log. It doesn't have to be a "controled" experiment.

Queens? ....... requeen? your own? supercedure?

Nucs?.............. Queen source? % compared to producers?

"the "experiment" is designed to answer those people who say that colonies that go untreated will eventually crash, die out, and you'll have no bees."

They will crash eventually. That's why we make nucs. Stay ahead of the curve.


Been following a similar path for 5yrs but can't type. Between 20 -30 % winter loss.

Jack


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

IMO:

It should be designed by those of you who have the experience & knowledge of scientific study. We want it to have real meaning.
Don't exclude those who feed, but whether one does or does not should be included as a comparison.
The survey method makes sense because with everyone just writing a statement of how the year went, important variables can be left out.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Some questions are already answered...

http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...=/articles/apido/abs/2007/06/m6118/m6118.html


----------



## c10250 (Feb 3, 2009)

Now THAT'S how you run an experiment. For me, someone simply not treating the whole population, and then saying, "I only lost 20%", means nothing. What would the losses be if you treated? 0%, 10%, 50%??

It has been shown, over and over again, that you can have bees and not treat. I'm not sure what your experiment is going to show.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Ah, finally! Someone else indicates that it has been shown, over and over again, that you can have bees, they will survive, and you don't have to treat! Peter Loring Borst made the statement in another thread that people who do not treat lose 100% of their colonies. My purpose was to show that I don't have to treat any, and I will NOT lose 100% of my colonies. In fact, I have gone treatment free for 4 seasons, and have lost only one hive out of 14 in those 4 years. It is interesting that Peter has not participated in this thread at all.

Therefore you make a good point. Why should I spend my time, energy, and effort for the next two years to stretch my "experiment" out a total of six years, and present data and records here covering those six years? I can simply go about my beekeeping (since my life insurance mortality table indicates 85 years, I have another 23 years, if I maintain my health! :applause and not worry about demonstrating anything to the sceptics here. They can find the data elsewhere, if they care to look. And it will be more "scientific" than a simple presentation of experience would be...apparently more acceptable too. opcorn:
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

c10250 said:


> Now THAT'S how you run an experiment. For me, someone simply not treating the whole population, and then saying, "I only lost 20%", means nothing. What would the losses be if you treated? 0%, 10%, 50%??
> 
> It has been shown, over and over again, that you can have bees and not treat. I'm not sure what your experiment is going to show.



How about a study that compares management practices for untreated hives?

The purpose being to find the best ways to manage untreated hives.

A productive, untreated hive is a good goal.

So...

*Purpose:*

"The purpose of this study is to identify the best management practices for untreated hives."

*Hypothesis*:

Untreated hives can show increased survival and productivity through the use of common management practices.

*Variables*:

(a whole bunch of stuff beekeepers do and keep track of.)

---

It would be a way to compare what different no-treatment beekeepers are doing, and perhaps even identify the most effective practices.

In short, it has a real potential payoff for beekeepers instead of being yet another 'egg head' study.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

StevenG said:


> Barry - Thank you for the idea of the password and WordPress pages. I assume this is something that would be posted here as a new thread?


Actually it would give you access to your own "web page(s)" on the beesource site. You can incorporate whatever you want on the pages. This can then be linked to the forums. The tools are already in WordPress for you to use.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Uh, Barry. 

Do you have a survey plugin for wordpress, or would we need to go to a place like here http://www.surveygizmo.com/add-ons/wordpress-survey-plugin/ to get one if we needed it?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

It's not a plugin I currently have installed, but we can certainly use it if it's what people feel will be useful.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

heaflaw said:


> That's why IMO(strongly) this should be designed by someone in the scientific community. I don't us to go to the trouble only to be told 6 years from now that the study has no meaning because we left out some variables.


Heaflaw:

I think StevenG was under the impression that it had to be a longitudinal study (I think he finds this stuff confusing ). It doesn't. There are easier means to do a study. A cross sectional questionnaire is an example of one such approach that doesn't have to leave anyone out.

He's also right to point out that he and others have been successfully doing this no-treatment experiment for years. What do they need to prove? 

We can make this study rigorous (statistical significance/confidence level) by including those variables (especially management methodology) that you mention. A good survey always has a space under every response for written comments just in case something wasn't covered or the respondent isn't sure where something fits. A good study has a purpose and working hypothesis.

*Purpose*: "The purpose of this study is to identify the best management practices for untreated hives."

*Hypothesis*: Untreated hives can show increased survival and productivity through the use of common management practices.

*Variables*: (a whole bunch of stuff beekeepers do and keep track of.)

The above is just one approach. But, you actually need to write something down first.

Now what the 'no-treatment' and other beekeepers need to do is think of what those variables and data could be. Then, respond to this thread so we know what they are.

The idea of not using treatments (pesticides) is spreading throughout many different fields of human endeavor. It's often what's done in addition to removing pesticides that proves to be important. For example, someone suggested I use fish instead of Bt to control mosquitoes (but it's a bucket!).


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter:

You 'strenuously object' to people from other fields proposing a study? 

Does a sociologist have to be a drug addict to study crackheads (since you are so fond of analogies  )?

Why do I seem to be the only one who has proposed a statement of purpose and working hypothesis that includes much of what you have advocated?

You don't have to be a beekeeper/scientist/inspector to create and implement a research design. In fact, it's far better that the investigator is 'none of the above' to eliminate BIAS. (You aren't biased in any way now, are you? :lpf: )

So far, I'm still waiting to hear what others are proposing as the purpose of this study.

Let's start with the basics already. We need to start with lists. Claims, variables, practices, etc. .

PS: a longitudinal study proposal is just a kiss off. You might as well 'send it to a committee'.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"I think that the operative word is _advocating_. A study shouldn't be advocating anything, that is _obvious bias_ and invalidates the results."

A study that advocates nothing! AKA pure/basic research!

Purpose: "The purpose of this study is to identify the best management practices for untreated hives."

Hypothesis: Untreated hives can show increased survival and productivity through the use of common management practices.

Variables: (a whole bunch of stuff beekeepers do and keep track of.)

So...

How is identifying 'best practices' a bias? Maybe the no-treatment hives you were thinking of are found in a tree hollow. 

It's no-treatment beekeeping, not ferals.

How about some specific proposals for a study?

PS: Marketing? Hmmm... perhaps a sponsor? Don't be afraid to speak up if you get any other ideas.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Well, it seems we have a good mix of intelligent people here with varying backgrounds, and a lot of good ideas. Now, if the boys could just stop poking one another and rough-housing, maybe we can get down to business.

It seems clear to me that we _should_ be able to incorporate most or all the ideas, since this is to be something different from traditional projects in that it is open and public and hopefully receiving inputs and direction on an ongoing basis, rather than at the end.

Any number of differing operations or analyses can be done on data collected if only the necessary underlying operations and data collection points and methods are identified in advance so that the necessary manipulations (if any) are performed in a proper and timely manner and that all necessary data is collected and tabulated.

One thing that appears to have become clear is that merely owning a group of hives that survives until a deadline and writing about that is not going to be sufficient to do more than prove they did not die as predicted by some, because we will have no clear idea what challenges they faced, if any, and what mechanisms are responsible for any failures and successes.

So far we hear lots of generalities, but let's suggest at this point what data needs to be collected and why it would be useful.

I'll reiterate that in my mind regular mite drops, periodic nosema readings and occasional tracheal measurements along with some periodic analysis of brood health, honey production records and a record of splitting and stock introduction are a basic minimum for getting a glimpse into what is going on. Some of this involves cost and effort, but let's just assume at this point that the resources will materialize.

If several different stocks are in use, perhaps it would be useful to track them separately somehow.

I guess it comes down to deciding exactly what the minimum data collection activities must be, writing the management scheme, and seeing if Steve and any others who want to run similar groups are up to the job.


----------



## winevines (Apr 7, 2007)

StevenG said:


> Good morning curious beeks!
> 
> Any other comments or suggestions?
> Regards,
> Steven


Keep it simple. We have been attempting to collect data from 25 beekeepers for our SARE grant and it has been a challenge, not to mention the analysis which we are just now starting up on. One thing that would be very important would be location since beesource folks are from so many different places. Then you can look at what info you get by geographic location if you want. 

What you are describing is a descriptive study, which may not "prove" anything but would, in my opinion be a valuable project with the end result being a story of what has worked and not worked in certain situations with the folks who participated. Not "scientifcally valid" perhaps, but do not get hung up on that.. the descriptive study is perfect for what you are trying to do.

Survey monkey and similar tools let you collect data on line and download into excel. You can post links to view results and to take the surveys.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> We have been attempting to collect data from 25 beekeepers for our SARE grant 

Can you give us a quick glimpse into that or direct us to it?

Thanks.


----------



## winevines (Apr 7, 2007)

I will pm you with info. of what we are doing.

Last time I posted details on our SARE grant on beesource, there was a contingent of folks attacked and I am not going down that road again.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Just get the list of things that need to be observed and recorded put together. 

I don't think it has to be a designed experiment or survey or something with a hypothesis to be tested at this point. Can we just provide a sufficient number of reliable data points so that someone, sometime, can use them to analyze the effects of treatment free beekeeping? 

I recall (Jim Fischer's?) frustration with the early CDC work when it was so difficult to collect data because people wouldn't DO THE WORK of observing and recording without a perfectly constructed program.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> Last time I posted details on our SARE grant on beesource, there was a contingent of folks attacked and I am not going down that road again.

That is unfortunate. People do expose themsleves when posting to these forums, since any moderation is after the fact.

One has to have thick skin.

Thanks for the PM. I'm not really looking for more work, but I'll see how your experience applies here and report back.

Is the old thread still here on the forum somewhere?


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

SteveG, I would encourage you to ignore all the present rhetoric and evisceration of your idea and continue with your plans to come up with some guidelines for this study. I for one am still very interested in participating. I look forward to seeing your proposal.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Steven started this thread specifically to discuss the development of a project. Nothing else. 

To all those who are offering constructive, on-topic comments and suggestions, thank you. Keep it up.

To those polluting the thread with hair splitting, tomfoolery and tangential topics, "Please stop". Take it elsewhere. 

We're trying to work here.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

http://www.sare.org/index.htm

I looked up SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education) to see what it's about.

Taking the time to examine the application process itself can help one to shape a study so that it is part of a broader, ongiong effort.

The good part about a questionnaire is that it can be emailed without the verification/follow up restrictions of a grant study. You can include alot more people, and get any results to them in a short time frame.

The other good part about descriptive studies is that you can often find significant relationships through statistical analysis that might have remained unnoticed by other methods. Absolute 'proof' is just too elusive to even consider looking for in this type of study. But, I'd settle for significant.


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

Wow, has this thread ever gotten long.

Keep it simple.
-note the time frame for this experiment---6mo-6 years etc
-Keep some hives, note the breed of hives.
-each time you work a hive, note what is going on, hive growth, brood pattern, agitated, calm, bothered by bears, or skunks, SHB, ants, mice, etc
-note the weather
-note the forage
-do regular mite counts---that is the reason for the study, to see if the bees can take care of it themselves over a specified period of time
-do regular nosema counts----reason for the study, to see if the bees can take care of it themselves over a specified period of time
-verify if AFB or EFB or chalk brood is present
-when you requeen, mark it down, mark what kind of queen
-when and if you feed, note with what, syrup HFCS etc, the quantity they took in, 1:1 or 2:1. Make notes on the pollen you fed them, from a feeder, patties, and how much they took in and when
-note the amount of honey collected each year
-note were you able to split a hive or did it die the winter? If it died and you created a split to replace, that split should no longer be in the study, since the study is the viability of keeping hives alive past a certain point without treating
-Label each hive with a cow tag tacked on with a shingle nail, so you can identify the hive

important to keep track of the diseases and pest, to see if the hive can fight it off, or, for example, if it did not make the winter, the paper trail will lead to a reason why it died.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Here is something related:

*Honey bee colonies that have survived Varroa destructor*

*Yves Le Contea, Gérard de Vaublanca, Didier Crausera, François Jeanneb, Jean-Claude Roussellec and Jean-Marc Bécarda *

a INRA, UMR406, Écologie des Invertébrés, Laboratoire Biologie et Protection de l'Abeille, Site Agroparc, Domaine Saint-Paul, 84914 Avignon, France 
b OPIDA, 61370 Echaufour, France 
c GDS de la Sarthe et Rucher École, route de Brulon, 72000 Le Mans, France 

(Received 14 November 2006 - Revised 11 September 2007 - Accepted 12 September 2007 - Published online 14 December 2007)

*Abstract - *We document the ability of a population of honey bee colonies to survive in France without _Varroa_ suppression measures. We compared the mortality of collected _Varroa_ surviving bee (VSB) stock with that of miticide-treated _Varroa_-susceptible colonies. _Varroa_ infestation did not induce mortality in the VSB colonies. Some of the original colonies survived more than 11 years without treatment and the average survival of the experimental colonies was 6.54







0.25 years. Swarming was variable (41.50







9.94%) depending on the year. Honey production was significantly higher (1.7 times) in treated than in VSB colonies. For the first time since _Varroa_ invaded France, our results provide evidence that untreated local honey bee colonies can survive the mite, which may be the basis for integrated _Varroa_ management.​ 
http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...=/articles/apido/abs/2007/06/m6118/m6118.html


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Further excerpts from the French study:



> The 12 colonies observed in the first group of colonies survived on average at least 9.8 years, and 5 of them survived more than 11 years.
> 
> We can conclude that the Varroa infestation of untreated colonies did not cause more colony loss during that nine-year period compared to colonies treated with Apivar
> 
> We however think that environment and apicultural methods could have played a part. The areas where the experiments were done are outside France’s major agricultural zone and very favorable to the development of honey bee colonies.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Further excerpts from the French study:


The sample size was 12 colonies? I hope we do alot better than that.

Peter, you're quite right to point out the environmental and methodology issues. But, I'm not sure that each category/environment would have a big enough sample size.

We would need double digts in each category. 12 is cutting things close to the minimum.

The option we could use is to have a plan in place to collapse any category/environment so that we can get a sufficiently large sample if needed.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

People study sample size for a living will tell you that the average person has a very loose grasp of sampling. The numbers needed to get accurate sampling are surprisingly small if the study is designed correctly to avoid bias. And, accuracy doesn't improve greatly with much larger numbers. So having a small sample size is no reason to dismiss a case study.



> In 1994, a first group of 12 honey bee colonies were found surviving in two different places of France, near Le Mans and around Avignon. They were feral colonies or colonies in abandoned apiaries that had not been treated to control Varroa.


I, too, have seen these sorts of colonies and wondered how long they would carry on unattended. I have also brought them back to my place and found that they rapidly go down hill under my watchful eye. I'm pretty certain there was nothing in my management that would have caused them to fail, as I don't tend to fuss with the hives very much. I used to run 500 singlehandedly which doesn't allow for much TLC.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> People study sample size for a living will tell you that the average person has a very loose grasp of sampling. The numbers needed to get accurate sampling are surprisingly small if the study is designed correctly to avoid bias. And, accuracy doesn't improve greatly with much larger numbers. So having a small sample size is no reason to dismiss a case study.


It can most certainly limit your options for statistical analysis!


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I participated in a great number of side by side comparisons of hives with or without screened bottom boards. We normally used yards of about two dozen. That would be 12 with and 12 control. This size sample would be certainly be adequate to show a significant difference. 

The chief problem with studies involving honey bee colonies is that individual colonies vary so greatly that subtle effects may be drowned out by the noise. But in terms of varroa control, subtle effects aren't much help anyway.

The original tests done by Shimanuki reported such an effect. The screened group had slightly less varroa than the controls, a difference which the researchers acknowledged was "not statistically significant". Yet the results were touted as "promising". 

And people have been making claims for SBBs ever since. We were never able to find a difference, small or otherwise. A study of a thousand hives would no doubt produce the same results as 24. Why wouldn't it? If SBBs don't affect the hives at all one way or another, the results would always be the same.

Much depends on study design. You have to work very hard to avoid bias. For example, if I wanted to show a positive effect, I could put treatment hives at the ends of the rows, and the controls in the middle. Everybody knows when hives are kept in rows, the end hives do better in honey production. But then, the better hives are often the ones that get the most mite buildup. 

So we always interspersed treatment and controls, and arrayed the hives in patterns to avoid drifting. Markers were placed about the bee yards as well. We were pretty confident that drifting of bees was minimal. But alas, there is still a flaw in this set-up. Having treatment and control hives in the same yard can blur any effect due to the drifting of mites.

Why couldn't you do an all treatment yard and an all control yard? Because then you bring in a new variable: different location. But here is where the experiment could have been improved. Given a very large pasture, for example, one could site two apiaries approx 100 meters apart. Pay close attention to such factors as altitude, windbreaks, air flow, etc. in order to make them as identical as possible. 

Then if the one group performed differently than the other, you could point to a measurable effect. If there was no significant difference, likely it was not due to drifting, unless of course, mite drift takes place in some other manner, like in communal foraging areas, or drone congregation areas.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> And people have been making claims for SBBs ever since. We were never able to find a difference, small or otherwise. A study of a thousand hives would no doubt produce the same results as 24. Why wouldn't it? If SBBs don't affect the hives at all one way or another, the results would always be the same.

I have wondered if the effects claimed and observed by some have to do with climate or other features of the locale. That is one thing which has a huge influence on bee behaviour and which is hard or impossible to measure.

I recall Andy Nachbaur used to say that bees which were quite tame and manageable became difficult when move to Arizona. I recall a similar experience. Back in the seventies I purchased 125 hives of bees near London Ontario. At that location, they were feisty enough that full battle garb was advisable, but once in Alberta, I was working them in shorts, and sometime without a veil.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

IIRC, Africanized bees are supposed to become calmer in higher elevations.

Isn't Alberta a couple thousand feet higher in elevation than Ontario?


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Yes, Dewey Caron mentioned that a number of times. 

As for Alberta, The south is high, but the north is much lower. I'm at 2,960 Calgary is 3,550, and Edmonton is only 2200. Medicine Hat is at 2,352.

Ontario varies in altitude. North Bay is 1,200, but most fo the cities are well under 1,000.


----------



## no1cowboy (May 18, 2007)

and Grande Prairie is at 2195 ft, wich is the real north.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

StevenG, hope you haven't been discouraged from moving forward with your idea. I'd like to hear more.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Study update!

Greetings all... the nature of the "study" has changed. There have been several excellent proposals and observations posted on this thread regarding the nature of my proposed study. As I am not a scientist, nor statistician, and have no desire to become such at this stage in my life, I am changing the title of my part of the program to "Report." 

Barry is setting up the procedure by which this will be shared with any interested parties. I am currently entering 4 season's worth of data into the computer, so I can load it into whatever vehicle Barry sets up. When done, it will be self-explanatory, I hope. The time frame will be the previous 4 seasons, when I reentered beekeeping, and continue through the 2011 season, for a total of six years. But it will be in the nature of a report, of my plans, intentions, and experiences. Perhaps it will be of help to some others. I've already embarassed myself with some of my mistakes, but pleased with the ambitious nature of my expansion program. You'll understand if you read what will be posted.

My suggestion for further work is:
1) Those who have suggested a survey type instrument, please proceed and implement your suggestion. I think it would be most beneficial, and I'd be willing to participate in your survey. My guess is there are other beeks going Treatment Free who would do likewise.
2) Those who want a more scientific, and true "Study", set one up. Do the control hives/apiaries, versus the test hives/apiaries. I simply had no interest to do this, as it did not fit into my plans. I have to reach my goal of 50-60 productive hives in two more years, on a shoestring budget.
3) Those who are aware of other studies and reports of Treatment free, success and failures, continue to post links here. That is important information for us to have. It simply adds to the body of evidence, for or against, Treatment Free. It also helps us see how best to reach this goal.

All of this helps us become better beekeepers, and find a way through the difficult times in which we find ourselves. My hat is off, and my heart is with, those commercial beeks who struggle with problems we hobbiest and sideliners simply cannot imagine in our worst nightmares.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

StevenG said:


> My hat is off, and my heart is with, those commercial beeks who struggle with problems we hobbiest and sideliners simply cannot imagine in our worst nightmares.


Mine too! Bravo.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Actually, I thought the original idea of a group of people seeking a "no treatment" approach following some guidelines and reporting their data to a central website was commendable.

Langstroth wasn't a PhD or a trained scientist or a statistician, but he sure advanced modern beekeeping through simple observation. Too bad the "scribes and pharisees" have debated another good idea into the dirt. End game....no gain.

Is anyone else interested in persuing the orignal idea?????


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> Actually, I thought the original idea of a group of people seeking a "no treatment" approach following some guidelines and reporting their data to a central website was commendable. Is anyone else interested in pursuing the original idea????? 

Why exclude those who might want the option of using an occasional treatment? After all, some gung-ho No Treatment people might have a sober afterthought if faced with evidence that they are experiencing unsurmountable odds.

After all, what too often happens is that people bravely announce that they are going No Treatment or only use an Oddball Treatment and talk all their friends into it, too, and then they either lose all their hives or they cheat a little and don't tell and/or they change their story completely afterwords hoping no one will notice.

The best approach is one which does not punish honesty.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

ACBEES said:


> Actually, I thought the original idea of a group of people seeking a "no treatment" approach following some guidelines and reporting their data to a central website was commendable.
> 
> Langstroth wasn't a PhD or a trained scientist or a statistician, but he sure advanced modern beekeeping through simple observation. Too bad the "scribes and pharisees" have debated another good idea into the dirt. End game....no gain.
> 
> Is anyone else interested in persuing the orignal idea?????


No one stepped up to design or provide the spreadsheet idea for a central repository of our observations. I don't know how, and can't. So, I'm simply pursuing my plan to observe, practice, and report. As you mentioned, in many respects that's what Langstroth did. And I suspect that's what you do too (as do many of us I'm guessing) as we try to succeed in our beekeeping. 

If someone comes up with another plan to which I can submit data, or a survey, of course I'll participate. But until then, I'll do my No Treatment program, and report on it. Been doing this for my own benefit for the last 4 seasons, and will simply share those records and the next two seasons. If it is beneficial to some, great! That is my hope. If it isn't, well, I was going to do the work anyway, just hadn't planned on posting it on the web.

Perhaps as folks read what I've done, they'll have some suggestions and ideas which will help me, and others. I'm all for that! My original intent was that on the other thread, from which this one sprang, people simply moaned and groaned, tossed out a lot of ideas and thoughts, discussed cussed and re-cussed, but there wasn't much, if any, hard experience. So at least now we'll have that.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

_Why exclude those who might want the option of using an occasional treatment? After all, some gung-ho No Treatment people might have a sober afterthought if faced with evidence that they are experiencing unsurmountable odds._(Allen)

an occasional treatment? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the effort? If any participants recording the data get to a point where they can't bear the losses, they can report so and bail out. It happened with some of the participants in Mike Allsopps S. African study. In the meantime, everyone would have the recorded observations from those participant(s) that led up to the point of insurmountable odds. Isn't observations/information what we are after?

Obviously there is something to the natural cell/small cell/no treatment idea. Michael Bush and many others are practicing it and claiming it works. What's the harm in getting more volunteers to devote (x) number of hives to this project and reporting their observations on a site viewable by other beeks who can then draw their own conclusions?


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

I think I stated the problem with being too narrow. There is an incentive to cheat or bail, plus a lot of interesting detail is lost.

How does reporting an occasional treatment defeat the purpose? Treatments would definitely move that particular yard to the side, but maybe it would not need treating again. Who knows? That's what people wonder.

Besides, what constitutes a 'treatment' to one person may not to many others. Is requeening with another stock, "treating". Some might argue it is. There is a continuum, with some commercials using ten treatments a year at one end and many people using very few -- or none at the other. And the groups do not break down neatly into any one cell choice or strain of bee or another.

And, further, I don't think that there is firm agreement as to what constitutes orthodoxy in the "small cell and "natural cell" religions, ooops, I mean movement. I'm as sure there is cheating and misrepresntation in that group as any other representative sampling of humans, so encouraging concealment is not a good idea -- if we want the truth. We do want the truth, don't we?

We want to know what happens when people stop treating no matter how they do it and we want to know what is happening in their hives. Just "alive" or "dead" or "in" or "out" is not too helpful.

To my mind, we want people to manage their bees as best they can by avoiding treatments of the chemical sort, even avoiding oils, etc., but still having all options available.

As for the tabulation, I am willing to set something up if Steven's project does not accomodate it. Someone needs to design the matrix though and then we have to figure how to input the data.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

As far as setting up parameters for reporting, how about we enlist the help of the folks who say they have been treatment free for three or more years?

Anyone practicing no-chemical treatment beekeeping care to step forward and volunteer their help?


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Allen, you have seen my preliminary data, and the way I intend to approach the project.  Is that of value to continue, or do I put that in abeyance, and plug into what Acbees is talking about? I've got data on all 14 hives ready for Barry, and have annual summations as well.

Acbees, I've been treatment free for 4 years. I started treatment free. The only chemical I have added to my colonies was, the first three years, Fumigilin for Nosema, but didn't even do that last year. No powdered sugar, no grease patties, no essential oils, no mite strips. Did set the cd traps for shb though.

So, now what guys?
Steven


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

I would like to throw my hat in the ring with the "no treatment study", I'll admit I have not read each and every post thus far in this thread, but I gather that you are looking for folks who would like to contribute to this study. I have over 30 years beekeeping experience. Myself, I am going to experiment by setting up 10 hives this spring with commercial package bees (Italians), all the equipment is going to be brand new, all hives in the same location, will be using all medium boxes for brood and honey, no foundation will be used, all frames will have either a starter strip of wood, or a 1"-2" strip of homemade wax if I can make enough of them with my own wax. My salvaged wax is ALL pure, no chemical contamination whatsoever. The bees will draw all comb naturally. I plan to go no treatments other that a SBB, no sugar dusting, nothing. There are no commercial beeks around, just a couple hobbyists. If I get a queenless hive for some reason I plan to either let them raise one from brood gathered out of one of the 10 hives, or I may try to raise a couple queens in nucs to have on hand in case, but they will come from the same 10 hives genetics. Whatever happens going this route will just have to happen, no cheating, nothing, 10 hives won't break me. I firmly believe in doing it this way, no matter what the outcome. Does this sound like a plan you are looking for to include in your study? John


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

jmgi, I commend you for your willingness to experiment, and risk. As I understand it, if you go with straight Italian packages or nucs (that have been treated) and don't treat them, and not resistant stock, they will crash. Maybe not the first year, but they will. Perhaps one way to test your hypothesis would be to go with 5 Italian packages, and 5 "resistant" packages, from stock that has never been treated. Just a suggestion. And I certainly look forward to reading what your experiences are! Thank you! :thumbsup:
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Well, as they say, "Run the flag up the pole and see who salutes".

I am impressed by what you started. Let's see what Barry has for you.

Once you get something up you'll find out if you have companions or that you will be doing it yourself.

We can always tack on parallel blogs or set up a matrix for results. The thing is to make a start. That is where most projects fall down. They never start.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Count me in...that makes three. jmgi, StevenG....guess we are the pioneers on this project so far. You know how you can tell pioneers from the rest of the crowd? They're the ones with arrows in their backs(favorite joke of mine)


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

So now the ball is in Barry's court? Probably just what he needs right now! :lpf: I'll be ready when he's ready.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Wasn't this study supposed to begin on Wordpress?

Who has the keys? Maybe they're under the mat?


----------



## hotrod6779 (Jul 12, 2009)

why cant everybody just lay back and enjoy watching these fellas try to better themselves. Enjoy all the good information and for godsake be supportive. My great grandfather kept bees for 35 yrs. I keep descendants of his bees. We do treat, with kindness, respect, and a steady hand. That is all, and like the old man always said "If you want to know how its done right, see how we do it in the south."


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

>I think because there is so much variation in terms of genetics, geography and environmental factors, it would be difficult to "prove" much. But as Allen said, if your test shows clear results, then there is probably some correlation there that we can learn from in some way. 

I was just going over some of the earlier posts from this thread, trying to get up to speed with what we are doing here with the "study", I came across the above quote which pretty much defines the result of the study before it even begins. The variations in genetics, geography, environment, and I might add, management, certainly have much bearing on each separate experiment within the larger "study". Because this will not be a controlled scientific experiment, some may say the above variables listed may dull any results, positive and negative, with the study. I do strongly agree though, that the appearance of consistency within the eventual results will present a good groundwork for learning from the study in some capacity.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

In my post a little earlier tonight I layed out a general outline of how I intend to conduct my experiment with 10 new hives this year, I want to add however, that I still am open to suggestions on how to tweak a certain aspect of my plan in order to better fit a common denominator within the larger study. I am not going to introduce any treatment into any of the colonies, that's a sure bet. At the same time, I do realize that starting out the experiment with treated, large cell, non-resistant Italian package bees is not the way I would prefer to begin, some believe it is destined for failure. I also realize that should the colonies persist in good health beyond 1 1/2 - 2 yrs. I will expect to be able to requeen from either feral or local survivor genetics only. I would not consider this to be anything other than what "should be" normal management. Any thoughts?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

"non-resistant" bees are one thing....the typical "factory produced" queens that come with packages from the major suppliers (and with many "local nucs" as well) are another.

it is well accepted (even by those that question everything i say) that nutrition is at least as important as genetics, and exposure to commonly used treatments harms fertility (of queens and drones).

you might consider requeening with something localish and well raised. a breeder in your area with a good reputation is a good place to start.

read about the survey done by the barnstable beekeepers here:
http://www.ribeekeeper.org/newsletters/ribanl0811_november.pdf

deknow


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Parameter ideas:

1. Foundation(any size) or foundationless
2. Type of bees.....whatever you have
3. Nutritional supplements OK. i.e. syrup, pollen/pollen paties/pollen sub OK as long as all natural ingredients and you don't add synthetic chemicals. We don't need to let them starve.
4. No sugar dusting, acid treatments, synthetic chemicals(Apistan, fumigillin, etc), drone comb frames, menthol, grease patties. No treatments.
5. Accurate and honest reporting of observations. Fudging helps nobody.
6. Must be willing to commit 5 or more hives to this project for 3 years.
7. Requeening OK

Things to include in reporting:
1. weather
2. location
3. what's blooming
4. all normal mgmnt practices i.e. feeding, supering, brood chamber checks, requeening, swarm prevention measures
5. Type of bees starting with/general health of colonies commited to project.
6. any abnormalities in brood chamber/health of bees.
7. honey production

Just some ideas. Please feel free to add or subtract any of the above. Now for some controversial things to include/not include. Do we allow use of essential oils in feed? Should all hives be stationary excluding beeks who will move commited hives for pollination? Do we allow combining of weaker colonies with stronger colonies as long as they are both in the project? What reporting period should we use i.e. weekly, biweekly, monthly?


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

"read about the survey done by the barnstable beekeepers here:
http://www.ribeekeeper.org/newslette...1_november.pdf

deknow"

WOW! Makes you wonder where those Rhode Island beeks got their packages...terrible results.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

steven,

the newsletter is from RI, but the survey was done on Cape Cod in MA.

i think these is fairly typical results...there is a reason that bee clubs don't track the "success" of new beekeepers.

mike palmer has been a strong proponent for replacing these queens with something better. i agree with him 100%, and it is the advice we give in our book as well.

deknow


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

stevenG, I can't get the ribeekeeper link to work.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

go up a few posts...the link in my post works fine.

deknow


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> mike palmer has been a strong proponent for replacing these queens with something better. i agree with him 100%, and it is the advice we give in our book as well. -deknow


I agree, but I think a bit more detail might be nice for someone reading this thread who comes across this information. I suspect that perhaps the biggest reason for poor queens in packages is timing. Packages are produced first thing in the spring. Queens produced later in the season, when conditions might be better for queen rearing and when more drones might be available, often seem better than those very early queens.

I also think this is another example of one of those details that may get lost in the survey. Exact requeening dates (and these would have to be standarized across the country by some method, based on latitude or growing degree days or some way) and procedures may seem insignificant, but could play a role in the success of a colony over time.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

I don't see how standardized requeening dates will work. Today it is 35 and snow on the ground here in the panhandle of TX. California is doing almond pollination, Florida bees are working as well. I bet in Maine, there is at least two feet of snow. Beeks in different parts of the country in the project are going to have to be able to requeen when necessary so they don't lose a hive.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Poor queens in early package bees have not always been the case, have they? When I purchased package bees back 25 yrs. or so I don't recall having anything close to the supercedure rate, drone layers, like it seems is occuring now. They have always been produced early in the south for beeks who want to get them in time to build up on the early flowers, dandelion, fruit trees etc. I would say there is something else at work here that is contributing to poor queens in packages.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

C. I. B. :

Your insight into entrance size and SHB (and hive feeding) is exactly why discussions should continue into what should be studied. 

What other pests/pathogens might also be affected by entrance size mgt. (and hive feeding) ?

Nice one!


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee (Oct 27, 2009)

WLC said:


> C. I. B. :
> 
> Your insight into entrance size and SHB (and hive feeding) is exactly why discussions should continue into what should be studied.
> 
> ...


We found that SHB love them patties, they were all over them, and so we took them out. In closing the entrance the guard bees can defend the hive more easily and keep them out. I don't think there is any need to know the breed of bee; all breeds defend the hive and we don't need to open the entrance to an invasion.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I don't see how standardized requeening dates will work. -ACBEES


Precisely. Yet requeening on May 15th here in South Dakota is likely to produce different results than requeening on August 15th. Spring versus fall requeening, you know.

That's why something like "accumulated growing degree days in the growing season" might be the only way to try to standarize such a variable. Requeening on June 1 means very different things in California and South Dakota.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

CIB...I think knowing what race(breed) of bee you are using in this project is important since they all have some differences which could impact no chemical mgmnt. The Russians I bought last year bombed in my area. Talked to another beek north of me that lost all the Russians he bought. Russians do very well in other places. My ferals are thriving. I think reporting this could be valuable info.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Kieck, I see what you are saying now. I thought you were proposing everyone had to requeen at the same time. I don't know how you could standardize such a thing. But, it definitely has to be reported because of the impact it can have. Maybe down the road a link between requeening, the time of year, the type of queen used etc. may become apparent in a no chemical mgmnt scenario. But for now, the no chemical treatment theme should remain the main focus.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

OK, but then we even need to define "chemical treatment." Does an application of coumaphos qualify? How about vaporizing oxalic acid? And fogging with mineral oil? What about dusting with powdered sugar? And the "essential oils" used as miticides or "nutritional supplements?" Maybe even various things burned in smokers (junipers, sumac berries, burlap, etcetera) used just in opening hives?

And what about the frequency of opening hives? Dates of opening hives? Method of working through hives? And so on. . . .

That is why directed experiments with controls are so useful in such situations. The controls help reduce the variables tested in experiments so the data becomes more easily analyzed. If someone is willing to wade through all the data with all these variables, more power to them. I applaud their efforts! I just suspect we would get clearer answers more quickly by running a series of controlled experiments.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Kieck said:


> Queens produced later in the season, when conditions might be better for queen rearing and when more drones might be available, often seem better than those very early queens.


true, that is part of the issue, but then again, if i were going to requeen later in the season, i still wouldn't buy a queen from one of the major package producers.

deknow


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Just read Marla Spivak's article in the ABJ reporting the CAP funded "no treatment" study she is doing. Interesting stuff, but I feel it so far is stating the obvious. Mites are present, they carry pathogens which infect bees, the bees die. It was informative to have some info on exactly what viruses are showing up.

This gave me another idea about requeening hives in the project proposed in this thread. Spivak said they would buy another 210 pkgs. and start over in 2010. I don't think starting over every year will accomplish what we are talking about here. 

Of those participating in this project, we need to identify and track survivor colonies. If there is any requeening to be done, it should be with queens reared from these surviving colonies if at all possible. If a participant has no surviving colonies, perhaps they could get bees/queens from someone else in the project that does have survivors. If a participant has commited 10 colonies and loses half, they could buy 5 more packages and requeen with queens from their other surviving colonies or not buy packages and split their five surviving colonies. 

I guess what I'm saying is I don't think it will be enough to just identify colonies surviving in a "no treatment" management scheme. We need to try and propogate those bees.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

ACBEES said:


> Parameter ideas:
> 
> 1. Foundation(any size) or foundationless
> 2. Type of bees.....whatever you have
> ...


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

ACBEES said:


> Of those participating in this project, we need to identify and track survivor colonies. If there is any requeening to be done, it should be with queens reared from these surviving colonies if at all possible. If a participant has no surviving colonies, perhaps they could get bees/queens from someone else in the project that does have survivors. If a participant has commited 10 colonies and loses half, they could buy 5 more packages and requeen with queens from their other surviving colonies or not buy packages and split their five surviving colonies.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is I don't think it will be enough to just identify colonies surviving in a "no treatment" management scheme. We need to try and propogate those bees.


Your point is dead on. For me, it is crucial to _start_ with bees from a provider that does not treat. Thus we start with a "no treatment" colony. When I have expanded these past few years via nucs and requeening splits, my nucs and queens came from breeders that did not treat. 

But more direct to your point acbees, this year for the first time I'm doing "walk away splits." I'm going to let my splits make their own queens, thus propagating my survivor stock. Those new queens will obviously breed with whatever drones are out there. So we'll see how this goes.

I suspect part of our problem is screwing up our courage to do what we say we _ought_ to do! Sometimes following our own advice is the most difficult thing to do. :lpf:
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I assume everyone is familiar with this work. It was a very well run study, yet they could not form definite conclusions:


> This study does not explain the mechanisms leading to the relative mite tolerance in Bond bees compared to Control bees. Modelling the mite population dynamics demonstrates that the total amount of brood produced is a critical parameter that influences both how the mites distribute themselves between brood and adult bees, as well as the total production of mites. The brood measurements demonstrate lower overall worker brood production in the Bond bees.


"Possible host-parasite adaptations in honey bees infested by Varroa destructor mites" Apidologie 38 (2007) 525–533 Available online at: www.apidologie.org


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I was looking for input from others about the use of essential oils in nutritional suplements only, not as a hive treatment. -ACBEES


Call me a stick-in-the-mud, but I see modifying diets with various nutritional supplements, "natural" or not, to be a far cry from feeding to prevent starvation.

And I think we do get into an area where we need to discuss whether or not feeding pollen sub, for example, constitutes a "treatment" or "feeding to prevent starvation."



> How does one consider smoking a hive for examination a "treatment". -ACBEES


Mite drops increase after smoking. Pretty well demonstrated by data collected. Some beekeepers have even suggested using heavy smoking during hive checks to help increase mite drops, thereby hopefully reducing mite loads in their bees.

And other beekeepers have suggested that burning specific plant materials in smokers produces smoke with additional toxicity or repellent qualities to mites.

Some beekeepers go so far as to refuse to smoke their bees. They feel that smoke is too disruptive and unnatural for use in their hives.

Other beekeepers use liquid smoke (some for fire hazard precautions). Is spraying bees with a synthetic smoke chemical an "ordinary hive manipulation" or a "chemical application?"

The point here, again, is that what one person considers a treatment, another person does not.


----------



## FishmanMike (Sep 13, 2008)

Lets get this thing started. Everyone should tell if they smoke there bees or not and with what or anything else they do. May not be the most scientific study in history but what have the scientist figured out so far; we can save our bees by poisening them? Ther are people out there keeping bees without treatments and we need to learn how they are doing it and what is the differance is.I think this is one of the most intresting things beesource has talked about lately and what beesource out to be about instead of bickering amoung its members.Drop the testorone and do something constructive.:lookout:


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

I'm pulling back from this a bit, since we have gotten it going and are getting a range of diverging concepts, some of which will result in 'experiments' and written records, and perhaps even collaboration. 

That is good, however, I think each person has to decide for his/herself what the best approach is and that may change over time in response to experience and new data. It seems that what is going to happen is pretty well what has happened in the past: People will follow the path they think is best and the only thing different is that each will attempt to 1.) keep a rigorous objective _public_ record and 2.) _not_ revise it retrospectively.

I don't think we will have thesis level study, although some participants may surprise us. Maybe at some point we will have enough data to do data comparisons, but from what I have seen of the unspecific terminology used and the lack of careful distinction between ideas and products, this does not look likely. 

Some do not intend to measure parameters like mite levels or presence of and absence of disease. That is definitely going to limit the usefulness of the reports to others and the credibility. The more observations which are made, the more others can learn by looking in..

It is one thing to have a plan going in, but over a few years, the options change as do our perceptions. To be locked into one avenue might be regrettable. 

Also, the action often precedes the thought. This is counterintuitive, but very true. People do things, then think up why. Careful reporting may reveal this, but will not keep it from having a huge influence on the progress of these tests.

I guess we'll see what each person brings to the table. I have personally done a number of such tests, some documented and some not. 


One natural hive -- a swarm that built its own comb in a big toolbox and which was featured on my site did very nicely for a year or two, then died -- of varroa, I assume.
A number (50) of hives which I had built up and then neglected dwindled to 3 after several years. I am building back up from them. That 'experiment' was not documented. It was truly "no treatment'. I did not even bother to do more than lift a few lids every few months.
I am currently running about thirty-five hives, four of which are on a scale. I am using a method which I call "enlightened beekeeping". I don't treat routinely, but do monitor a few things and I do keep a written record. I have thought it appropriate to drizzle oxalic the past two falls. Otherwise nothing.
My record is not as detailed as it would have to be to be of much use to anyone or as detailed as I hope these studies will be. 

I have had one AFB breakdown and am considering how best to deal with it. I have been doing mostly walk-away splits thus far, with three outside queens introduced last year, but think that it is time to get some more disease resistant stock into my outfit, and also that I want to split more effectively so I will either raise some queens, buy some queens, or get some cells from neighbors who think the way I do.

Anyhow, I am looking forward to seeing others get their reporting going and see how they decide to progress.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Allen et.al.

I agree with you on many levels on this "study". For instance, I don't treat now, lost a hive to mites/virus? both? and now am reconsidering my position about that. I am expanding this year and am bringing in a couple of F1 VSH/SMR queens from Shad Sullivan's outfit. Hard to say if they'll survive the winter here. I am also bringing in a couple of northern raised Carnolian queens. I also may be able to get several VSH/SMR cells from a Glenn Queen if that hive survives the winter here in MA. I really am not prepared to lose all these bees and the hard work to raise them to mites when there are treatments which would save them. I plan to monitor mite levels this year - didn't last year - and if they start to build, I'll treat. Haven't decided with what but probably would try sugar dusting 1X week for 3-4 weeks before moving to something else. Long story short, I need to be flexible. I'll be happy to share my results, as they come in here or on another thread. But I agree. Most of us don't want to be locked in to one method at this point.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

I guess at this point, we should start firming up a set of guidelines for those wanting to participate in this project, a start date(how does June 1 sound?) and a way for everyone to report data other than this thread. Barry mentioned a website, how does one set that up?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Purpose*:

'The purpose of this study is to identify the best management practices for 'no pesticide' hives.'

*Hypothesis*:

'No pesticide' hives can show increased survival and productivity through the use of common management practices.

You'll need to have the above, or something similar, in order to actually have a 'study'.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

The word, "study" can have different meanings for different people, but I think I understand where you are coming from. I took a look around and see if I could find something that sums the ideas behind the word, "study", and found this: http://caret.iste.org/RatingStudy.html

Not having spent a lot of time examining it, I think it shows that 'studies' can vary from quite informal, inexpert, superficial and misdirected to very robust, technical, rigorous and authoritative and still be called, "studies". I suspect what we have coming up is going to fall somewhere in the middle. 

While a study at the reserch level would be wonderful, it seems to me, from what we have seen so far, that we cannot expect people to meet standards set by others unless those others are willing to throw in money, time, or expertise to achieve those ends, and even then, for most, this is a just a hobby and that is what it wil stay. If others find the observations useful, then good. If not, no worries.

Just considering the issues involved in studying a problem is instructive, and trying to run even a small study is quite sobering. I recorded my scale hives this winter and made two obvious oversights: first, I initially equated weight loss to consumption, and secondly, I did not realize that condensation or precipitation was getting into the counterweights and causing mysterious fluctuations.

Fortunately, I recorded everything faithfully, accurately and publicly and these two issues were quickly identified by third party observers.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

>Fortunately, I recorded everything faithfully, accurately and publicly...

IMHO that is the essence of the study. If we all do that everyone can learn something.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"I suspect what we have coming up is going to fall somewhere in the middle."

Allen, it doesn't have to fall in the middle.

I've looked at some of the other studies, both research grade and anectodal.

Frankly, I can see some room for improvement.

What do I think that this survey should accomplish?

First and foremost, it should identify what really does merit further study. Don't let all of the details seem bigger than they are. They can be tamed. Trust me. 

Secondly, it should be a survey that identifies and reports what all of the no-treatment/ pesticide-free beekeepers are doing to manage their hives! Does anyone really know?

Finally, the effort should also be fun and inclusive.

'Pesticide free' could be broadened to 'pesticide reduced'. It could include many different components as well. It doesn't simply mean a 'questionnaire' or an experiment.

So keep chopping away. 

But, let's all state a purpose and make some claims/hypotheses! 

This way, if you state a purpose that some else likes, maybe you can get some momentum going.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

WLC said:


> Frankly, I can see some room for improvement.
> 
> What do I think that this survey should accomplish? First and foremost, it should identify what really does merit further study. Don't let all of the details seem bigger than they are. They can be tamed. Trust me.
> 
> ...


Well, everyone else has taken a swing, so I guess it is your turn at bat. 

If you design and put forward something you think would be optimal, I 'm sure that people will take a look and decide if they are up to it.

You are certainly welcome to assume leadership, since I think it is quite clear none of us want the role. 

Whether others will follow or continue what they are already doing or plan will depend, I suppose, on how well you design and present the challenge.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Take the lead? Fine.

How about some statements of purpose and some claims?

Pretty please. 

I would definitely be into designing a survey on the issue. Let's just say that we still need more particulars on what 'no treatment' beekeepers do.

As for being a leader, I do have the experience (locally).


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> Secondly, it should be a survey that identifies and reports what all of the no-treatment/ pesticide-free beekeepers are doing to manage their hives! Does anyone really know?
> 
> So keep chopping away.
> 
> ...


In that spirit...

I think 'survey' is a useful characterisation.

As I understand things; in the 'hard' sciences the effort is made to control all variables except the one under study, so that any changes can be linked to that particular variable. 

Here that is impossible - there are many variables beside the one we want to study (the success or otherwise of non-treatment) So this is much more like 'social science', where the primary tool is data is drawn from various sources, that is analysed for telling regularities, patterns. Then hypotheses can be made about the causal mechanisms behind those pattens.

That being so, the question to ask is: what sort of data that we collect will shed light on the questions we wish to see answered.

If the main question is 'what are critical factors that allow treatment-free regimes to work' the we need to collect data about what we think might be those factors. I'd want to know about, in no particular order:

* Natural celling

* The presence of clear 'survivor' bees

* the origins of the queens (a multi-part question...)

* The number of medicators within the breeding pool

* The quality of forage

* The climate range

* The 'averageness' of the climate while the survey was taking place

* The presence of know harmful pesticides

* The placing of hives relative to one another

* Sun/wind shelter 

* Artificial feeding

I'm sure we can think of more possible factors of success. 

I think this shows the depth of the problem of making a survey that will supply data that can be useful in the sense of offering to yield patterns.

I suspect that simply gathering data in the form of testimony from people who already keep bees successfully without treatments would be as useful. A survey that included the kinds of things listed above, together with the length of time the regime has succeeded, and their own thoughts about what succeeds and why, would supply data about what works.

If we ended with evidence that yielded something like:

'of a sample of x number of beekeepeers who claim to have successfully kept bees without treatment for 10 years or more, 85 % do y and z', then we would have a clear indication that y and z were critical factors. And so on.

The survey has to be designed to gather data that will supply real evidence of something or other.

Perhaps we need to a) extend the list above; b) vote on the options for inclusion

Mike


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Mike, thanks for the encouragement. I think you are right on the point by saying we are looking for patterns. I don't believe anyone is going into this wanting it to be a "scientific study" that would meet the requirements for publishing in journals. If we can provide data through observation and distinct patterns can be identified, this might get the attention of the scientific community and cause further research on a more precise and controlled level in an attempt to figure out the science behind why they happen.

With the exception of a couple of items, your suggestions for guidelines were the same as mine.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Mike, you did a good job IMO of laying out the many issues with doing this study and extracting results from it that can point to management schemes that offer a degree of success, hopefully, with some form of non-treatment. 

I think that when we proceed with this study, there should be a variety of avenues to choose from when it comes to non-treatment of your study bees. Obviously, no two beekeepers in the study are going to do everything management wise EXACTLY the same. But I feel getting at least three people to commit to doing and not doing certain things in a checklist of general practices is what we need to shoot for. And we could produce a few such checklists from which to choose from, for those that want to gear the study more towards their particular style of management. But we need to get at least a few people that fall into each category of checklist items. Granted, these differences in non-treatment items should be within boundaries which still give credibility to the overall end results of the study. I hope I made some sense with all this.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> How about some statements of purpose and some claims?


You have asked this over and over and no one has bitten, so I guess it is up to you , as leader.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

I think the majority wanting to seriously participate in this project have made it pretty clear there is no interest in the "scientific controlled study" approach. there are way to many variables and too much hair splitting about what could/should be protocol. As far a leader(s), I think we should stick with the folks who came up with the idea.....StevenG and Allen. I think it is time to table discussion about what kind of study this will be and move towards deciding on a firm set of guidelines and a start date.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

ACBEES said:


> I think it is time to table discussion about what kind of study this will be and move towards deciding on a firm set of guidelines and a start date.


I think that it seems clear that each person is going to set and possibly update his/her personal guidelines as the project progresses and that we can discuss what we think should be criteria, but not enforce anything on anyone.

Steven is already several years into his 'experiment', but now has undertaken to record what he is doing,and writtten up a summary to date. I assume others are in somewhat the same position. 

As stated, I am not in the 'no treatment' camp, but lean that way, and practice IPM. So far I have not done much except a little oxalic lately. I have reported all along, but will consider providing more detail. Actually, though, I have nothing to prove personally. I have proved to my own satisfaction that the survival rate of neglected bee colonies in my region is very low and that intelligent management can reduce the attrition to low numbers.

Barry has offered to provide something in the way of a web presence, but if not, then I can set up Wordpress or another blogging system for each participant who does not already have one.

I don't know how many people actually plan to particpate. 

Let's see some hands up, folks, so we can count.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

ACBEES said:


> I think the majority wanting to seriously participate in this project have made it pretty clear there is no interest in the "scientific controlled study" approach.


That pretty much invalidates your results right there. Without an agreed upon protocol, you will gain no real insight and we will be no further along. Again, I suggest Fries study as a model.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Allen, don't you think there needs to be some kind of commonality in this project? I understand everyone has their own practices, but I think it would be helpful if all participating agreed to do/not do at least X,Y and Z. Any practices outside of X,Y and Z can be reported in the discussions.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> That pretty much invalidates your results right there. Without an agreed upon protocol, you will gain no real insight and we will be no further along. Again, I suggest Fries study as a model.


I don't know about invalidating.  Results are results, but if you mean that the efforts will not be able to be used to prove any conclusions reached, I agree.

The problem here is that this is a volunteer exercise and people are going to do what people are going to do. 

It seems clear that nobody has stepped forward to do what the critics see as necessary -- especially the critics themselves.

If you recommended a Fries study as a model, I can't recall. Did you provide a link or details? I am sure that people are interested, but I am not sure that people have the resources to meet the high standards suggested. Evidence to the contrary will be most appreciated.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

ACBEES said:


> Allen, don't you think there needs to be some kind of commonality in this project?


I asked for a show of hands, and although it is still early, it seems that there is very limited interest in doing anything more than what some are already doing.

We don't have leaders and we don't have followers, so where does that leave us?


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

>Let's see some hands up, folks, so we can count. 

I'm in, just in case I didn't make it clear enough before. 

>How about some statements of purpose and some claims? 

You can get a general statement of purpose by all those eventually involved, but if that statement of purpose must include all the variations in management to reach that purpose, then it will get more complex, I'm sure everyone realizes that.

I have suggested, and others also, that we need to come up with a few varied no-treatment schemes that the participants can choose from to enter into, and commit themselves to staying the course until which time a result is reached that suggests either it is working or not working. If we want to include a clause which enables someone to pull out of the study if total colony loss is imminent, so be it. As for me, I will stay the course I choose. 

So, we need to get a show of hands like Dick asked for, no sense going any further with this until we get that. These volunteers should not be obligated to anything yet, just show if you are interested in participating in a no-treatment study, then I think we should immediately come up with, say, three no-treatment avenues to choose from. As for me, I have a route I would like to go, but I am somewhat open to change something if I need to, to fall into a certain study group. 

I am not a scientist, or very familiar with how scientific studies are set up, so maybe what I have suggested doing won't be worth much scientifically. But I do think that we can get some good feedback out of any study we do, as long as we have some guidelines. John


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

I initiated this thread in response to a blanket statement that beeks who do not treat will lose 100% of their colonies. That is simply not true, and has been demonstrated time and time again. The few breeders who went "treatment free" lost most all of their colonies, but built from the survivors. We now have a reservoir of bee stock from which to draw, if we want to live treatment free. 

Because of the comments made on this thread, my approach has been fine-tuned and I think strengthened. It will be a much better presentation for your information. At least I am learning from it. 

Reference was made in this thread to the article/report by Marla Spivak in the March 2010 issue of _American Bee Journal_ and her "treatment free" study. In that report she is confident all 210 of her colonies will crash, and she'll start over again in 2011 with another 210 packages. Apparently she is seeking to determine what causes a colony to crash. 

However, in her study she doesn't indicate whether or not they bought the packages from breeders who do not treat, and have developed resistant stock. "In May we replaced the queens in each of the packages with queens of Italian descent purchased from a single operation in northen CA (C.F. Koehnen and Sons, Inc.) to establish relatively uniform genetics among the colonies." (p. 271-72) On page 273 she states: "We will be collecting data on the remaining colonies through 2010, or as long as they survive." Note her final qualifying statement!

Going to the Koehnen site, there is no indication of whether they treat or don't treat in breeding their stock. There is no indication that their stock is "survivor" or "resistant." So what conclusions may we draw? You start with non-resistant stock, you're going to crash. Yet the validity of her study still remains - she is seeking to determine exactly why colonies crash without treatment. There is value in that. We need to know that.

I suggest that what we have discovered thus far in this thread is that there is more than one avenue to conduct a study to help us learn about keeping bees treatment free. 
1) A report by beeks who are treatment free, and their results. This would of necessity cover a period of years.
2) A more scientific survey method seeking to discover what beeks do, and the success or failure of their efforts.
3) A scientifically controlled study comparing treatment vs non-treatment. 
4) Of course there may be other options.

There is already enough information on this thread to guide those who want to construct a survey method. You don't need to wait for permission or input from anyone else. Simply print out this thread, mine it for relevant information, and go to work. Personally I'll be happy to respond to such a survey, if one is presented.

Second, there is enough information on this thread and a couple others elsewhere on this forum to guide anyone who wants to set up a controlled experiment in his/her apiary regarding treatment/no treatment. Go back thru, glean the suggestions, construct your protocols and parameters, and start the study. 

Our study or approach does not have to be limited simply to one. There is valid information to be gleaned from each, if we want to learn. To say that a person's work over a multi-year time frame of keeping bees successfully without treatment is invalid because it doesn't fit acceptable scientific parameters is a load of horse hooey. The proof is in the pudding - their bees are still alive. I'm thinking Mike Bush and others who have been successful at this. I've not been doing it long enough.

In fact, the strength of what we are doing comes from the fact that we are taking several different approaches here. No one single approach is right or wrong, they will each gain us knowledge to more successfully keep our bees. 

Barry informed me that as soon as his schedule allows, he'll set me up so I can get my data out here. I've got it collated from March 2006 thru January 26, 2010. The reality is, I've not done anything that others have not already done. What I am doing is giving a time-line and hive-by-hive date-by-date report on what I did, and what has happened. Doing this has encouraged me to keep on, and I hope it will encourage others. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Steven, good information you presented, I plan to carry forward with my particular no-treatment study on my own if nothing comes together here. I will keep detailed hive records, also climate, flora, etc. JOHN


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I initiated this thread in response to a blanket statement that beeks who do not treat will lose 100% of their colonies.


Who ever made that statement? If you are talking about me, I never said that (tho I was accused). I wonder why you would continue to repeat such a thing? 

In fact I wrote about survivor bees in the American Bee Journal several years ago. 

The point is: why did they survive? Do you know? I don't know, but I would like to find out -- same as everyone.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Hi all,
It occurred to me that I had reported on something like this. (A study with no aims.)Fat-Beeman is one of our forum members. This is several years old, but it's on this site. He is still going.
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/dick-marron/anecdotal-evidence/

dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Hypothesis:
> 
> 'No pesticide' hives can show increased survival and productivity through the use of common management practices. -WLC


As long as you're doing it, why not include the alternative hypotheses as well? Something like:

*Hypotheses*

1) Hives with no chemical pesticides used against parasites will show improved productivity and/or greater survival over hives with chemical pesticides used against parasites.

2) Hives with no chemical pesticides used against parasites will show decreased productivity and/or lesser survival over hives with chemical pesticides used against parasites.

3) No differences will be discernible between hives with chemical pesticides used against parasites and hives with no chemical pesticides used against parasites.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> 1) Hives with no chemical pesticides used against parasites will show improved productivity and/or greater survival over hives with chemical pesticides used against parasites


The problem with this is the generality, but it raises a very good point that is often neglected and that is that some treatments, particularly formic used badly can have a huge impact on production, even if the hives have low pest levels.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

That's why we need to keep on listing statements of purpose and claims/hypotheses.

For instance, we can examine many hypotheses at once in a survey/questionnaire.

Think of it this way, each question in a survey could represent a hypothesis that we wish to examine.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

The survey that seems to be proposed by this thread is a fine idea, but I see it in quite a different light than running a scientific experiment. Maybe that's what we first need to specify: is this intended to establish the parameters of a survey, or is this intended to create the protocol for an experiment?


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

dickm said:


> Hi all,
> It occurred to me that I had reported on something like this. (A study with no aims.)Fat-Beeman is one of our forum members. This is several years old, but it's on this site. He is still going.
> http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/dick-marron/anecdotal-evidence/
> 
> dickm


I believe he treats. I've seen a video of him fogging his hives with mineral oil.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

WLC said:


> That's why we need to keep on listing statements of purpose and claims/hypotheses.
> 
> For instance, we can examine many hypotheses at once in a survey/questionnaire.
> 
> Think of it this way, each question in a survey could represent a hypothesis that we wish to examine.


You keep saying that. By now it should be clear that if it is going to happen, it is up to you to do it.

Obviously nobody else will.

It is a great idea.

Just do it.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> It occurred to me that I had reported on something like this. (A study with no aims.)

And

> I believe he treats. I've seen a video of him fogging his hives with mineral oil. 

I don't get it. Maybe you could spell out for us how it relates?

It seems the guy uses everything but the kitchen sink with no controls. These guys are planning to use nothing except requeening and normal hive manipulations to demonstate that losses and performance can be in the normal range without using chemicals and all the wierd things people put into their hives -- like your friend.

That seems like a pretty clear aim to me.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Right now, we are 'under construction'.

Building a survey does require that we clarify it's purpose, hypotheses tested, and so on.

As for an experimental design, that's the kind of thing that can be done as a result of the findings of the survey.

For example, if splitting is shown to have a strong relationship to hive health/productivity in the survey, and statistical analysis of the survey results confirm that, then you have a very good reason to conduct a much more focused experiment to examine that relationship.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

I think I am talking to a 'bot.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Allen,

If I simply cranked out a survey, what good would it be?

Besides, I think that there are some other folks who have yet to post their own ideas. Inclusion is a good thing.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

>These guys are planning to use nothing except requeening and normal hive manipulations to demonstate that losses and performance can be in the normal range without using chemicals and all the wierd things people put into their hives 

Exactly, let's not lose focus on what we set out to do in the first place, which is study the effects of no-treatments, normal pre-varroa days manipulations on mite population over a period of years. JOHN


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Who ever made that statement? If you are talking about me, I never said that (tho I was accused). I wonder why you would continue to repeat such a thing?
> 
> In fact I wrote about survivor bees in the American Bee Journal several years ago.
> 
> The point is: why did they survive? Do you know? I don't know, but I would like to find out -- same as everyone.


I mentioned no names because I wasn't sure of the exact person, or the exact quote. More than one have indicated that going without treatment is either irresponsible or doomed to failure. Marla Spivak, in her study reported in this month's issue (Mar. 2010) of _The American Bee Journal_ implied that she fully expected all 210 of her test colonies to die. 

Now, here is your exact quote, from the thread "Natural Cell Beekeeping" post #317:
02-17-2010, 12:28 PM 
peterloringborst Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ithaca< NY
Posts: 372 

Re: Natural Cell Beekeeping 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by heaflaw 
Quote: In addition, there are still no data showing that honey bee colonies selected for mite tolerance survive without mite control. Have I not read in Bee Culture & ABJ that Russians & VSH DO survive without mite control. Someone explain the contradicting statements. 

The explanation is this: They kept no DATA. All we have from various people is word of mouth, no controlled studies, no corroboration. 

The controlled studies, where they actually wrote stuff down, show mite resistance but the hives still succumbed in the end or were treated before they did.

You can't do long term longitudinal studies with dead bees. 

So when the bees start to crash, the study is over one way or the other. Most would choose to treat so they could still have bees. 
__________________
Peter Loring Borst


You specifically said "The controlled studies, where they actually wrote stuff down, show mite resistance but the hives still succumbed in the end _*or were treated before they did.*_" (emphasis mine.) That seems pretty clear cut to me. 

And, of course, spring has not yet come, and I might have some colonies that crash this year before it does. But I will at least report it, along with all my other work for the last 4 seasons, and projecting ahead for two more seasons. The only control I have is simple: Life or death. They make it, or they don't. 

Now, to answer your specific question, Do I know why they survive? Nope. I suspect it's because they're bred from survivors, and they have some sort of genetic resistance. Is it important to me that I know WHY they survive? Nope. What is important to me is THAT they survive. And if I can be a good steward of them, and propagate them thus spreading their survival traits, I shall. If they had crashed their first season, I would have replaced them with bees of a difference strain, from a different breeder, which would supposedly be "resistant" or "survivor" stock. I haven't the inclination or the time to become a breeder, but I do have the common sense to purchase and use that kind of bee.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

WLC said:


> Allen,
> 
> If I simply cranked out a survey, what good would it be?
> 
> Besides, I think that there are some other folks who have yet to post their own ideas. Inclusion is a good thing.


It would be better than the survey not done. Construct the survey, post the questions here for additional comment, then refine the survey instrument, and do it. I and others have said we'd participate in the survey. And several of us have taken information from this thread, and are proceeding with other ways of sharing information that will hopefully benefit beeks.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Just to clarify, I do think a few exceptions to the no-treatment program should be available to use, SBB's(personally, I think they have more value in ventilation than as IPM, but many do believe in them), requeening(using survivor stock, either your own or someone else's), feeding of sugar syrup and pollen substitute(personally don't like it). This would be my short list of things allowed, everything else would be not allowed in the study. Feel free to add or subtract from any of this, but lets get something finalized for gosh sake. JOHN


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

StevenG said:


> It would be better than the survey not done.


I wonder how. If everybody does their own thing and results are all over the map, what good is that? Even if everybody did similar things and had similar results, you still aren't going to find out anything you don't already know. 

There has to be an agreed upon procedure and agreed upon way of judging the results. That could be quite simple. _FOR EXAMPLE _No drugs or chemicals. Yes to smoke and harvesting honey. No to moving the hives, yes to making splits. 

Results: mites per bee using ether roll or sugar test. Colonies alive and dead at one year, two years, etc. Independent verification would be a good thing for sure.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Now, to answer your specific question, Do I know why they survive? Nope. I suspect it's because they're bred from survivors, and they have some sort of genetic resistance. Is it important to me that I know WHY they survive? Nope. What is important to me is THAT they survive. And if I can be a good steward of them, and propagate them thus spreading their survival traits, I shall.


This is the _WHOLE POINT_. _We don't know_ if it is a trait of the bees! If it isn't and you try to sell resistant queens, for example, you are guilty of false advertising. 

As I have said repeatedly, they could be surviving on account of any number of factors that have nothing to do with the bees (WLC has mentioned this over and over as well).

Could be due to a balance between bees and mites (learned behavior, not heritable). Maybe the mites are inbred, or have diseases of their own. Maybe it is a factor of isolation from commercial beekeeping.

How is your so-called study going to separate all of these variables? Because if you don't, you have discovered nothing we don't already know. We already know some bees survive and some don't.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Peter, based on what you just said, I believe we probably should at least require periodic mite inspections or counts of sticky boards, ether roll, or sugar test. This may give us some good information on what mite population is below the economic threshold. The idea is to get colonies to prosper over many years at a manageable mite infestation. Doing nothing except counting dead and live colonies isn't thorough enough. JOHN


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

For the scientist, it is important. For the beek seeking to keep bees, what is important is survival, or lack thereof. I readily confess my dependence upon the scientist and the scientific breeder to make the necessary studies and discoveries and breed a survivor bee. 

But out in my apiary, I just don't care. I want bees that survive. The bees and mites could be conducting house to house guerrilla warfare amongst the cells for all I care - Just so long as the bees win! And those are the kind of bees I want in my hives. I want _*Rambo*_ bees that require no treatment. I don't want to breed them myself. I will seek to propagate them. I don't want to contaminate my brood comb with chemicals. 

I do not understand, with all we know at this point about mites and disease and so forth, breeders that continue to breed and sell plain-Jane Italians that have no resistance. I think we are reaching a tipping point where more and more beeks are realizing, you just have to have resistant bees for long-term success. 

My hope is that there are hobby and back yard beekeepers who are reading this thread, and realizing if they buy the right kind of bee, they won't get on the chemical treadmill.

I confess, I am not doing a scientific study. I am and will be reporting, with dates and results, my experiences with several different strains of bees. If anyone wants to independently verify what I'm doing, we can set that up. And that's why, when my data is posted, it is not called a "Study" but a "Report." It is simply something anybody can do, in their back yard, as a hobbiest, or sideliner. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> The controlled studies, where they actually wrote stuff down, show mite resistance but the hives still succumbed in the end or were treated before they did.





> I initiated this thread in response to a blanket statement that beeks who do not treat will lose 100% of their colonies.


I simply do not see how you got from what I said to what you said. It's the telephone game again. When the hives are treated for mites once they reach the economic threshold, we _don't know_ if they would have died. 

There are other things besides dead hives to worry about. Some are trying to control mites so that they can have _good hives_. It is questionable whether a hive with more than a few mites can be called healthy, due to the fact that it is being parasitized, which is a bad thing in itself.

But your insistence in focusing on the bees as the sole variable here is a real problem (don't you see?)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> In fact I wrote about survivor bees in the American Bee Journal several years ago. The point is: why did they survive? Do you know? I don't know, but I would like to find out -- same as everyone.


I know! Any husbandryman or biologist can tell you. It called natural selection for the fittest strains. 

I've explained it to you about 16 different ways, and asked you to tell me what it is you can't comprehend about it. 

Do you really not know, and would you really like to find out? Or is something else going on?

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> Building a survey does require that we clarify it's purpose, hypotheses tested, and so on.


No, a survey can just be a set of questions designed to be answered yes/no. It can have more complex questions, like: 'how many', 'what percentage accuracy would you estimate for that value' and so on.

Its purpose is to try to elucidate those things that allow beekeepers to keep bees without medication, in a way that generates useful empirical data.

It doesn't need a hypothesis 



WLC said:


> As for an experimental design, that's the kind of thing that can be done as a result of the findings of the survey.


Agreed.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jmgi said:


> >Let's see some hands up, folks, so we can count.


I'll participate.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jmgi said:


> Just to clarify, I do think a few exceptions to the no-treatment program should be available to use, SBB's(personally, I think they have more value in ventilation than as IPM, but many do believe in them), requeening(using survivor stock, either your own or someone else's), feeding of sugar syrup and pollen substitute(personally don't like it). This would be my short list of things allowed, everything else would be not allowed in the study. Feel free to add or subtract from any of this, but lets get something finalized for gosh sake. JOHN


I don't think there is a need to do anything urgently other than continue the conversation constructively. We're all learning about ways of documenting what we do and don't do that might prove to be useful. Lets carry on doing that. At the same time we can start to keep close diaries of the kinds of things suggested here.

I think the idea of three or so suggested regimes is a good one. Deviations should be noted. We needn't worry too much though if the survey form is designed to pick out the different practices.

Perhaps some tickbox questions?

* How many hives do you keep?
* What were your losses over the periods June 2st 2009 to May 31st 2010?
* Do you use printed foundation? If so, what size?
* What sources have mostly supplied your queen?
* Have you used any method at all to try to preserve faltering stocks? If so what methods?

...

Mike




Here's my first: Did you make select


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Well, this thread started out as a meeting place for people who actually have bees to commit and have plans to operate within or close to some loosely defined guidelines which are more or less understood and only need a little discussion.

At first we had quite a few volunteers and it looked as if the real participants -- as opposed to the perpetual critics and posers -- would get up some critical mass and agree on how to proceed.

Now, it seems the idea has been nit-picked to death and all the enthusiasts have been either convinced this is a waste of time or gone off on their own to take a look at what they are doing or plan to do, and are being very careful about saying anything here.

At this point, I personally give up until such time as Steven gets his site. 

Hopefully can screen the responses to his blog or whatever he dicides it will be so that those who are actually participating can correspond in semi-private.

Until then...


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> I wonder how. If everybody does their own thing and results are all over the map, what good is that? Even if everybody did similar things and had similar results, you still aren't going to find out anything you don't already know.


We will have the EVIDENCE with which to counter pepole who say 'hands off beekeeping doesn't work'. To start with.



peterloringborst said:


> There has to be an agreed upon procedure and agreed upon way of judging the results. That could be quite simple. _FOR EXAMPLE _No drugs or chemicals. Yes to smoke and harvesting honey. No to moving the hives, yes to making splits.


Totally impractical due to the number of variables - you'll never get any useful number of people to follow a set regime. And there is no need. People can do their own things, and report their results in a survey - in fact in a whole series of surveys.



peterloringborst said:


> Results: mites per bee using ether roll or sugar test. Colonies alive and dead at one year, two years, etc. Independent verification would be a good thing for sure.


You are trying to impose an unsuitable experimental model that seeks to do something we've agreed cannot be done viz: control all but one or two variables. 

Mike


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee (Oct 27, 2009)

I think to do this study; we should get together, how ever many wants to get involved. We all buy say 5-10 different breeds of bees from the same places and all do everything the same naturally and see what happens to each of our hives.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

>Totally impractical due to the number of variables - you'll never get any useful number of people to follow a set regime. And there is no need. People can do their own things, and report their results in a survey - in fact in a whole series of surveys.

I agree there shouldn't be just one regime to follow for all participants, but I'm willing to bet there are at least a few following this thread that would be able to pick one management scheme out of three choices, each choice or regime differing slightly so as to appeal to more people to get involved. Look, the more people we get to commit to one of the choices, the better. Its only obvious that the more limitations we impose on prospective participants using only one set regime, the less subscribers we're going to get. Its also obvious that using a few different regime's has a better chance of revealing some strategy that works over multiple years. JOHN


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Another thing I'm not real clear on, it may have been proposed or stated early on in this thread (I'm not going back through it all to find it), but, are we trying to appeal to the scientific community with the results of this study, or we doing this for beekeepers? JOHN


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee (Oct 27, 2009)

I think it would be real simple and easy for people who cared about bees to get together on a few points and do a study. Let’s say we all use a stand 2 ft. off the ground, screened bottoms and let the bees draw all their own foundation and comb. Lg. new brood boxes and med. suppers, inter covers, one and a half inch entrance. Things like this, real simple. We could agree on real easy. Anyways, anyone interested, send me a message.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

From the sounds of it, this survey/study is headed in the direction of, "Let's see if bees can survive if left alone (or at least without chemical applications)."

If that's the case, I think we already know the answer. Certainly plenty of beekeepers are already keeping bees along these lines.

If we really want to see if such bees are _more_ successful/productive (and I think that's what the claims really state), then I think we need to have controls.

Sticking a bunch of hives out, all under the same conditions, all without foundation and all without chemical applications, doesn't provide any evidence of being more or less successful or more or less productive than putting hives out with foundation and with pesticide applications.

If the goal is a survey, put together the survey and post here. Enough beekeepers are already doing some of these things that you may already get answers strong enough to form some preliminary hypotheses for experiments.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

>If we really want to see if such bees are more successful/productive (and I think that's what the claims really state), then I think we need to have controls.

What I see we are lacking here is more participation in this discussion to get some of the answers to what we are asking. I agree with Allen, there are probably many folks reading this thread who are not talking, either for fear of being nit-picked to death, or they have just lost hope that anything productive will emerge seeing as how this has gone on for so long already, with much spinning of wheels, and backtracking. Organizing a study or experiment such as this is obviously not easy for those of us who have no background in doing do, me included. Sure, we could all go our own separate ways and do whatever we want with our bees without having to answer any questions for the beekeeping community as a whole. That's why I asked earlier in post #166 who we are doing this for? I would like this study to have a greater effect than for just me and my own bees. We all have heard of people who "don't treat" and have had success for years supposedly, where are all those people to state their case? Many surely read this forum regularly I would hope, why don't they speak up? If they are truly treatment free in terms of drugs, chemicals, oils, and still have strong colonies that produce good crops of both surplus honey and honey to winter on, queens that lay nice solid worker brood pattern with a minimum amount of drones, and are disease free with a low stable, manageable mite population year after year, I would consider them successful with what they are doing. If you are one of these people please speak up for the benefit of those who are looking for the answer. Maybe these people don't exist after all, I don't know, lets see.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

>If the goal is a survey, put together the survey and post here. Enough beekeepers are already doing some of these things that you may already get answers strong enough to form some preliminary hypotheses for experiments. 

Agreed, but what we need is more people to participate in the survey, not just the same handful that have been posting here.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Ok, to all who have committed to doing something, my thanks. Here's my last post to explain my position, then I'll wait until the data is posted. If I knew more about computers and how to do stuff online, well....that's another story... We're all ignorant in our own ways... :lpf:

I'm a sideliner. Just an average fellow who loves bees and honey. I don't give a flying fig HOW they survive, but THAT they survive. I have demonstrated time and again that there are sceptics who say it doesn't work. There are those who are making it work, and simply doing it and not talking about it. I have quoted folks and provided the links and source information. You read it, you decide.

I have committed 100% of my hives to this proposed program, to show or see if untreated hives can survive, and be productive. 14 currently, as I build to 50. 100%. Others have committed at least a portion of their hives to do a study, as they design it. That is simply _wonderful!_. I look forward to reading their results, out in the real world. Especially if they do something different from me, I can learn from them. 

Others have talked about a survey, but for some reason they refuse to get off their duffs and get a survey out there for us to respond to. 

So, Peter, and others who tell us who are trying to do something and report it, _how many hives are you committing to this project/program?_ I readily admit you know much more about how to set up the kind of controlled study you're talking about. You're a beekeeper. Do it. And then report it here, or in one of the bee journals. 

I'm going to put my data, from the field, out here for anyone to read. I'm explaining why I'm doing what I'm doing, and what I hope to accomplish. _I'm doing it._ I invite others to do likewise. Some beeks have made some excellent suggestions about protocols for an informal study. Ok, set it up, post it on a new thread (this has gotten too unwieldly), and invite other beeks to sign up. I think you'll be surprised at how many folks will participate - because they want to learn, and do something constructive. And I know you won't be surprised at those who carp about the way you've done it! :lookout: Don't wait for someone else to do it, YOU can do it. Let's have some real world experience here, and report it for all to see, and let folks learn what they will from it. At least those of us doing this will be learning something.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Lets see, where was it that I heard or read about how beekeepers in general have a long history of not being able to agree on anything? Thus progress is not made very quickly. I was really hoping we could change history. JOHN


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

The following are links to various survey products.

http://www.surveysystem.com/index.htm

http://www.zoomerang.com/

http://polldaddy.com/features-surveys/

http://www.surveygizmo.com/

http://www.questionpro.com/

http://www.surveymonkey.com/

http://www.instantsurvey.com/

http://www.spss.com/

http://www.statpac.com/

While they do have free trials, it's likely that a more in depth survey would require paying for the service.

I could most certainly use some help in sorting through what is available, and which one(s) would best serve our purposes. Don't be afraid to take a free trial so we can try things out here.

According to the following source (surveysystem.com), we would be wise to follow some steps for our survey project.

http://www.surveysystem.com/sdesign.htm

The Steps in a Survey Project 


Establish the goals of the project - What you want to learn 
Determine your sample - Whom you will interview 
Choose interviewing methodology - How you will interview 
Create your questionnaire - What you will ask 
Pre-test the questionnaire, if practical - Test the questions 
Conduct interviews and enter data - Ask the questions 
Analyze the data - Produce the reports

What are the goals of the survey project?

I'd say that we should clarify that first.

*Goal:*

It is the goal of this survey to identify management practices used by pesticide and antibiotic free beekeepers that affect hive health and productivity.

(Feel free to modfy the above.)

*Sample:*

Pesticide and antibiotic free beekeepers.

*Methodology:*

Pesticide and antibiotic free beekeepers will answer a questionnaire online and by email.

*Questionnaire :*

What questions will we ask?

We will begin assembling questions shortly. Keep em coming in the meantime.

-------------------------------------


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Here is what I'm going to do:

1.Commit five hives to this program. I don't need to buy resistant bees because the ones I am commiting are all ferals. One hive is 6 years old with no treatment, another is three. The rest are newer.
2.feed sugar syrup, pollen sub as a stimulant and to prevent starvation.
3. I will use lemon grass oil/spearming oil only in my pollen sub formula as an enticement for the bees to use the sub. which I don't view as a treatment.
4. I will keep track of the weather
5. I will keep track of what's blooming, nectar flows and pollen output as best I can.
6. I will let these bees raise their own queens. I will requeen only if necessary and in that event will use VSH/SMR/MNH queens or if possible survivor queen(s) from one of the other participant's colonies.
7. I will use no treatments(chemicals, fogging, acid, sugar dusting etc)
8. My hive configurations will be two deep brood boxes on a SBB with an upper entrance between the hive bodies and the honey supers. I will start with pierco one piece frames(that's all I have right now) in the brood boxes and will switch bees to foundationless in the brood box only. I will use medium honey supers with pierco foundation in wood frames. There will be no inner cover and tops will be migratory covers.
9. For feeding syrup, I will use a community feeder which will be a 35 gal. drum feeder of my own design. Pollen sub will be fed on the hives.
10. I will report honey production, all hive observations good and bad and all hive manipulations on a monthly basis on the website Barry is setting up.
11. These hives will all be in the same yard, but will be dispersed amongst my other "non project" hives in that yard.
12. I am looking at May 1 as my start date and will post my first report June 1, 2010.

That's what I have right now, I may add additional guidelines as I think about this.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

ACBEES, O.k, so you are using 5 existing colonies, but you will transfer them into fresh hives with the described components, correct? Then will you be feeding in foundationless frames one or two at time into the brood nest to get them drawn out until all brood frames are converted over to foundationless? Sounds like a good plan. JOHN


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Didn't think about transferring them to new equipment, but certainly can do that. Yes, I will gradually add foundationless frames and as they are drawn, will rotate out the existing one piece pierco frames. Yes, I will supplemental feed syrup via a community feeder to get them to draw the comb.


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee (Oct 27, 2009)

Let’s just go for it. Start a new thread and just tell what you’re doing and the results, like if you lose a hive or other or how good it's doing. Just for the benefit of those interested.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Was just trying to clarify what you are going to do, I guess I misunderstood that you already have the hives set up the way you want them. I hope to only feed the sugar syrup the first season so they can build out my foundationless frames also. I plan to save several (at least) full combs of sealed honey/pollen if possible every year for emergency feeding instead of syrup/pollen substitute.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

ACBEES, if you have fairly detailed records going back to when you first hived those colonies, it would be interesting to read that information too. It would give a longer history for each colony. Might add to the body of knowledge, even though its before the beginning of your "official" start date. Just a thought.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Kieck said:


> From the sounds of it, this survey/study is headed in the direction of, "Let's see if bees can survive if left alone (or at least without chemical applications)."
> 
> If that's the case, I think we already know the answer. Certainly plenty of beekeepers are already keeping bees along these lines.


I think part of the problem we are trying to overcome is that some beekeepers are successful at doing this and some are not. We are trying to find out what the difference-makers are. A good survey should may supply clear indications 

I think adding to the list of candidate questions would be progress. Suggestions for the three different management schemes, together with explanations of why they are chosen, would also be good.

I would also be good to be able to link to 'accounts' made by each participant. That is, from a single page, see who is participating (and perhaps which of three 'template' regimes they are using) then visit their (standard) 'page' and see their own outline of their regime, the standing responses to any questionaires/surveys, and perhaps any account they want to give of the reasons why they take the route they do.

That way anyone would be able to see what others are doing, and how successful (or otherwise) that regime, in that place, is. 

That would be a very useful resource for all the kinds of goals we want to achieve here. It could completed and updated by any beekeeper using a simple form. And the data would be available to anyone.

Mike


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Something that we could use here is a page that everyone can access to add suggestions to, in other words, a page that stays intact all the time with the ability to be updated by anyone. I don't even know if it is possible to do something like that, maybe someone else knows. I'm thinking that we could use it right off the bat for compiling a list of no-treatment schemes, if we decide to go with for instance, three different schemes to choose from for your personal operation. People could list particular ideas that they would like to see available to use with their bees in the no-treatment study. Then, from all the suggestions, we can develop three approaches to this that hopefully we can get majority agreement to. I hope I'm making it somewhat clear what I'm asking for here. No question, this is going to take more time than its already taken, ask long as we are making visible progress towards starting the study, I personally don't care how long it takes, we want to cover as many of the angles as we can to get a legitimate study going. JOHN


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee (Oct 27, 2009)

Well,set up the study,I follow the rules. Let us all know where it is.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

For those who have Google accounts, setting up a shared worksheet should be quite trivial. I played with this a time or two and it appears that sharing can be controlled by the owner.

Spreadsheets are perhaps not the ideal way to run a database, but it is a format that is widely used and understood. I ran all my commercial hive records for up to 4,500 hives on MS Excel, and that was not because I did not have database choices at hand or the expertise to devise other methods. Spreadsheets just work. Also, the data is in a format which can be exported to many other programs.

Anyhow, perhaps Steven or another volunteer would like to go to Google Docs and set up a simple spreadsheet with the labels down the left and the co-operators across the top.

The labeling could start off:

Name....................... Beekeeper A......................Beekeeper B....................Beekeeper C ..................... Beekeeper Z
Town
State/prov
Country
Lat/Long
Google Map URL
Number of hives
Bee Stock Source 1
Bee Stock Source 2
Bee Stock Source 3

Years in progress to date

Intents
Intent 1 (y/n)
Intent 2 (y/n)
Intent 3 (y/n)

...
---

Each participant would have a column and could add new rows to the entire spreadsheet to insert new categories, or could request to have them added.

I have not figured out the details, but this strikes me as one method of putting everything side-by side and allowing everyone to add to the concept. Spreadsheets can expandable in three dimensions (apparently not available on Google Docs), although two are probably confusing enough.

It is entirely possible the thing would blow up fairly quickly, but it might just work as long as editing is restricted to real players and backups are kept safe every day. Viewing could be open to the public. I have not even thought of report generation, but that should be possible, too, if someone has too much time on his/her hands.

Just some thoughts from the cheap seats...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I've already got 15 pages of notes and counting.

I'm just gathering up some claims/hypothesis and variables. You know, research.

It's really quite interesting how reliant no-treatment beekeepers are on management practices.

Once you cut through the philosophy, it's just beekeeping.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Just a suggestion:

If you are going to keep records, it should reflect the kind of activities that beekeepers normally do, and the kind of information that beekeepers normally keep track of. 

In short, they should be able to walk around their yard with a clip board, at reasonable intervals, and keep a tally.

You should identify what kind of information you can reasonably record, and have a need to record, first.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

If some of you are looking for ideas, this is one place to look for a splits/winter nucs/self-requeen approach to no treatment beekeeping.

http://www.mdasplitter.com/

It's a recurrent theme in no-treatment beekeeping that I've noted while gathering background information, and it might be fun to do.

In other words, don't simply stop treating, apply some management practices as well that will help you to be successful.

As for the other variables...

Take your pick.

PS: Here's a post by Mr. Palmer on splitting and mite mitigation: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=508394&postcount=13
He ends up with 16 winter nucs out of his splits from 1 hive.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> If some of you are looking for ideas, this is one place to look for a splits/winter nucs/self-requeen approach to no treatment beekeeping.
> 
> http://www.mdasplitter.com/
> 
> ...


It might be worth bearing in mind however: if you value your local wild population, don't do these things for any longer than you have to. Simply adopting smart management techniques instead of chemicals doesn't, of itself, do anything to help your bees improve their resistance. You've just swapped one form of treatment for another. And in both cases, the wild queens that are impregnated by your drones will be weakened.

Mike


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

A couple of thoughts:

1. Not all treatment free beekeepers use constant splitting (essentially to outrun the mites) to achieve their goals...some do, some don't.

2. If being "natural" is the prime consideration, one must look at how unnaturally large most honey producing colonies are. The bees are not trying to make a surplus honey crop, they are trying to sock enough away so that they can swarm. Feral coloines swarm frequently, as there are no manipulations being made to prevent it. Splitting a hive may not be "natural"...but neither are movable frames/topbars or starting bees in one sized cavity and gradually making it bigger.

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

> It might be worth bearing in mind however: if you value your local wild population, don't do these things for any longer than you have to. Simply adopting smart management techniques instead of chemicals doesn't, of itself, do anything to help your bees improve their resistance. You've just swapped one form of treatment for another. And in both cases, the wild queens that are impregnated by your drones will be weakened.


Mike:

That's an interesting point. It also reflects a philosophy that goes beyond the usual 'no chemical/antibiotics/pesticide' goal of no-treatment beekeeping.

I would think that the same methods could apply to captured swarms. Wouldn't that address the genetic diversity issue?

Nevertheless, this management practice appears to me to be very common amongst no treatment beekeepers.

While it does address the health and productivity issue of no treatment beekeeping, there's a lingering question:

"Are no treatment beekeepers successful because they effectively mitigate varroa and other pests/pathogens by a 'biological trick' (splits/nucs/requeening, etc.), or are they truly breeding pest/pathogen resistant bees?"

Any survey/questionnaire would be hard pressed to answer that fundamental problem.

However, with the right survey questions and research design...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

deknow said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> 1. Not all treatment free beekeepers use constant splitting (essentially to outrun the mites) to achieve their goals...some do, some don't.
> 
> ...


deknow:

I've stated the goal of the survey as follows-

*Goal*:

It is the goal of this survey to identify management practices used by chemical, pesticide and antibiotic free beekeepers that affect hive health and productivity.

I've modified the goal statement somewhat over time. 

Some no-treatment beekeepers use other ways to deal with pest/pathogen issues, of course.

Would anyone call using the following naturalistic: Obtaining queens from a hygienic breeder, using small cell foundation, using drone cell foundation, screened bottoms, sugar shakes, etc. ? Of course not.

If you were into naturalistic beekeeping, your apiary would have a bunch of hollow trees/logs w/ feral bees inside. The 'honey bee' isn't native anyhow. It's a moot point.

My point being, 'no treatment' doesn't necessarily mean pest/pathogen resistant (or naturalistic). The survey has a limited scope by necessity.

Congrats on the book.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Thanks fopr taking over the tabulation aspect of this project. I know it is going to be a big job, but perhaps -- hopefully -- rewarding.

One thing I can see is that there may be an unbridgeable schism between those whose goal is their personal economic benefits (income) from beekeeping and those for whom that is a secondary, unimportant or even repugnant expectation.

Having stood in or near all these camps at one time or another, I can testify that there is not a great deal of commonality in assumptions, and suspect that it may be necesary to add to the stated goals the evaluation of profitability (including risk aspects) -- or not.

That decision will determine who will find the study useful, since the foccus of most government research has been on establishing and identifying proctices which are of economic benefit to human society with only collateral interest in the 'natural' evolution of bees.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

'Thanks fopr taking over the tabulation aspect of this project. I know it is going to be a big job.'

Allen:

Just for the record, it's not a big job to tabulate information if everyone involved can come to a consensus on the format. It just seems that way at first.

Why ask for centralized reporting before participants have clear objectives in mind? 

Participants can easily keep records in Excel, or in a table format for reporting at a later date (like, when they have reached an important milestone).

Let me suggest that you read through the posts as I have, and take note that the participants want to know what to do.

My suggestion of considering the methods of mdasplitter.com or Mr. Palmer's splitting methodology are concrete and actionable. It's one way of exploring no-treatment methods that can also be productive in real terms such as resulting # of hives, Lbs of honey collected , pollen collected, etc. .

They can also feel free to adopt additional methods of interest such as screened botttoms, small cells, drone cell traps, etc. .

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/apiculture/factsheets/

They might also want to brush up on methods for monitoring pests/disease so that they can agree on standard pest/pathogen recording practices.

(Feel free to post a link to any other site that might be useful for standard practices for monitoring pest/pathogens.)

Be inclusive. Reach a consensus.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

>...it's not a big job to tabulate information if everyone involved can come to a consensus on the format.

That is exactly why I'm guessing it will be a big job. It is that word, "if", again.

> Let me suggest that you read through the posts as I have, and take note that the participants want to know what to do.

No thanks. As I say, thank you for attempting this. I have no interest in it, personally, and was just being as helpful as I could.

It will be interesting to see if you can achieve a consensus and isolate and reduce the number of variables to where they can be analysed meaningfully.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Allen Dick said:


> >...That is exactly why I'm guessing it will be a big job. It is that word, "if", again.
> 
> No thanks. As I say, thank you for attempting this. I have no interest in it, personally, and was just being as helpful as I could.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if you can achieve a consensus and isolate and reduce the number of variables to where they can be analysed meaningfully.


Allen:

Participants have to choose a methodology first. I've suggested that the methods found at mda splitter http://www.mdasplitter.com/ would be a good one for participants to adopt.


The methodology is clearly laid out and is just a mouse click away.
The methodology is commonly used in no-treatment apiaries.
This is a no-treatment protocol that isn't just another 'egg head' study but produces hives, honey and pollen over 2 years.
It is directed towards varroa mitigation which means that the participants can adopt a common method for measuring the same pest.
It's a heck of alot better than simply telling people not to treat their hives and suffer a predicted loss rate between 50% and 90% of their no-treatment hives after 1 year.
I'm still waiting for other 'ready to go' methodologies to be posted.

Well, since this isn't an 'egg head' methodology, but a livestock productivity approach, we all pretty much know what the variables everyone needs to measure will be.

http://www.mdasplitter.com/docs/NucManagement.pdf

The above flow chart makes it pretty clear. At intervals (specific dates/milestones) over 2 years:

# of brood boxes, honey supers, nucs, queens, splits, combines, feed, mite count, sales, ...

I don't think that those kind of variables are all that difficult to handle.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

WLC said:


> If you were into naturalistic beekeeping, your apiary would have a bunch of hollow trees/logs w/ feral bees inside. The 'honey bee' isn't native anyhow. It's a moot point.


I was only responding to Mike's concern about splitting being a "treatment"...I interpreted his concern to be that excessive splitting is unnatural, or not what feral bees would be doing.

I was attempting to say (without saying it bluntly) that splitting is probably "more natural" than managing bees without splitting...more in line with what any ferals in the area would be doing.

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Oh. O.K. . No argument there. Sorry.

deknow, 
would you know of any other no-treatment sites where there are other methodologies laid out for no-treatment study participants besides the split/nuc/requeen method?

I'm aware that you have your book coming out, and I'm not asking for a free peek. 

However, there's got to be something else that folks can do as a no-treatment project that isn't 'egg headed' and has easy to measure outcomes.

It would be great if it's all laid out in black and white.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

I think the majority of beekeepers who will participate have been treatment free for at least a few years. To us, our management style is already successful and we don't want to make dramatic changes or have to follow a different regimen. We just want a system to compare and contrast our variables to know why we are successful. (And to prove wrong those who say it can't be done). 

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

WLC said:


> would you know of any other no-treatment sites where there are other methodologies laid out for no-treatment study participants besides the split/nuc/requeen method?


well, first of all, _most_ beekeeping operations are this to some extent. it's probably more common to make splits and buy queens than to propagate one's own stock...but queen rearing seems to be making a resurgance on both the small and midlevel scale (this is a good thing). most beekeepers of any size lose colonies, and in some years lose more than others.

but more to your question: this coming weekend is the organic beekeepers conference in arizona, run by dee lusby. although her practices include making splits to replace deadouts, it's quite a bit different than say, kirk webster's approach, which is to keep a large number of nucs on hand to replace losses. in a good year, such a system also produces a large number of nucs for sale (and if your name is kirk webster, you have no problems selling any nucs you can produce)...in a bad year, there are bees to restock production colonies.

to further contrast their operations (besides that one is in vermont and one is in arizona), they both make their own foundation from treatment free wax, but kirk uses about 5.1mm foundation, and dee is 4.9. they are both speaking at our conference here in massachusetts this summer, and i'm sure dee will tell kirk that if he went down to 4.9mm cell size that he would not need all the nucs.

mike palmer has also been helpful to many of us...his attitude seems to be (and he can correct me if i'm wrong), "if you are not going to treat, you are going to lose some bees. you need some way to deal with that and replace the bees. overwintering nucs is a good way to do that in the north while propagating your own stock, and splitting/keeping nucs in reserve to keep ahead of problems including mites."

this intensive nuc production method _could_ be a stopgap method as stock is selected, eventually making the nuc production an income stream in most years, and an insurance policy in bad.



> However, there's got to be something else that folks can do as a no-treatment project that isn't 'egg headed' and has easy to measure outcomes.


well, the way i describe our breeding program to our customers is this:
"we breed for bees that can survive without treatments. we have a number of colonies. we don't treat them. we don't breed from the ones that are dead."

of course there is a little more to it than that....management practice is everything. you can't simply take a system and change some components of it and expect it to work...or fault it for not working.

we've chosen small cell, and most of our frames are foundationless. currently we have all top entrances and screened bottoms, but we will be experimenting with a number of things this year (i just got a nifty little hd camcorder to docuement it all...kodak zi8 for the techies). this is a starting point, nothing more. we learn more every year and refine how we do things...but it's also (i think) important to keep consistent from year to year, as if you keep changing things, the bees (and you) never can get into synch...so there is some balance here.


deknow


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> Would anyone call using the following naturalistic: Obtaining queens from a hygienic breeder, using small cell foundation, using drone cell foundation, screened bottoms, sugar shakes, etc. ? Of course not.


I'd try to take 'natural' and naturalistic' out for the sake of clarity. Like 'organic' it means a range of things to different people. 

I like the expression 'self-sufficient' meaning the goal is bees that can live without being helped. I guess the technical biological term is 'fit' (for the envionment) - but people often confuse that with other notions of 'fitness.' 

You are quite right to raise this issue. many influential writers call themselves successful 'natural' beekeepers and stay ahead of mites by using 'non-chemical' means. The ability of their bees to survive unaided is no better than that of 'chemically' addicted.



WLC said:


> My point being, 'no treatment' doesn't necessarily mean pest/pathogen resistant (or naturalistic). The survey has a limited scope by necessity.


It is essential that any survey picks out the difference. For that reason vague terms like 'natural' should be avoided. And 'treatment' has to be defined. 

Mike


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

heaflaw said:


> I think the majority of beekeepers who will participate have been treatment free for at least a few years. To us, our management style is already successful and we don't want to make dramatic changes or have to follow a different regimen. We just want a system to compare and contrast our variables to know why we are successful. (And to prove wrong those who say it can't be done).
> 
> Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?


The survey/questionnaire would be the best way to compare management practices and the health and productivity of chemical, antibiotics, and pesticide free hives.

If done correctly, statistical analysis of the survey results should be able to identify the most effective practices.

As for having specific methodologies available for others to follow, that's for those who are interested in applying some of those no-treatment methods to their hives but may not have done so before.

Since the survey is a cross sectional study, we would benefit from having participants using a particular method in the 1st year.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

deknow:

Thanks. I think?


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

I think this is getting way too complicated again and deviating from the original idea suggested by StevenG. My understanding of his idea was organizing a group of stationary beeks who would commit to not using chemical/antibiotic or non-chemical treatments(i.e. sugar dusting, fogging etc) in _*X *_number of hives for *Y* number of years and having some sort of site (viewable by other beeks) where observations and records could be posted. This information would be gathered according to a *simple *set of guidelines, the main one being *no treatments*. Sounds doable and simple enough to me. How did this get to the point where it is now being debated whether or not splitting is a treatment.:scratch:

I never got the impression this was meant to be a scientific study conducted according to a format found acceptable by researchers. I thought it was meant to gather information for the purposes of identifying possible patterns in a no treatment mgmnt. scenario over a diverse climatic/geographic area. If patterns did emerge, they could then be put to scientific scrutiny as to why they were happening.

It seems to me the simplicity of the original idea is going out the window. How about we get the simplicity part back on track.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

mike bispham said:


> many influential writers call themselves successful 'natural' beekeepers and stay ahead of mites by using 'non-chemical' means.


i think it would be more clear to name the writers you are referring to rather than speak in generalities.

but, i think you are missing my point....which was directed at your comments.

"fit" bees when living unaided in a cavity of their choosing, will tend to swarm. this is the bees "splitting" themselves rather than building a huge broodnest to take advantage of a flow to produce a large surplus.

you simply can't discount "splitting" as a treatment...it can be, but it can also be a slight redirection of the swarming imperative....a compromise between what the bees want (smaller colonies that swarm more often...reproduction at the colony level) and what the beekeeper wants (larger broodnest for honey crop, and more restrained, controlled colony reproduction).

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> I think this is getting way too complicated again and deviating from the original idea suggested by StevenG

I agree and it is filling up with posts by some who are not participating as well as some who on my ignore list for serially hijacking topics one after another.

The topic of this thread, one that Steven started to discuss his and similar projects, has now changed to discuss the survey.

To be perfectly straight about this, I do not think that the survey is a bad idea -- in fact I think it is excellent -- it is just a different topic of interest to a different set of people.

I'm going to start a new thread once again strictly for those who plan to run their bees as close to no treatment as they can and document their experience independantly, or separately on a common site. Barry is working on this I think, but if he is too busy, I can do it.

The new thread continues at http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=508814#post508814


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

ACBEES said:


> My understanding of his idea was organizing a group of stationary beeks who would commit to not using chemical/antibiotic or non-chemical treatments(i.e. sugar dusting, fogging etc) in [...] a number of years and having some sort of site (viewable by other beeks) where observations and records could be posted.


You have just set out your idea of the necessary criteria, and made a statement about what, in your view 'treating' entails. Others have been doing the same thing - that is all. We are discussing ways to best achieve something worthwhile. There shouldn't be a problem with that.

There is I would say a flaw in the guidlines you offer. Simply commiting x number of hives to non-treatment will have different results according to what else is going on around. For example, if (say) 5 hives are not treated within a larger apiary that is treated, they are pretty much bound to simply perish. If however those 5 hives are reasonably isolated from treated colonies (and come from already resistant stock) they will have a good chance of surviving. 

Perhaps there are disagreements here about whether the desired outcome is simply proof that non-treated hives can survive (which is something we already know) or whether the idea is to try to find out WHY those hives are surviving. 

Mike


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

No Treatment Report Update!

Greetings all!

I spent time on the phone with Barry last night, and we're about ready to post the data for all to see. Hopefully this will happen in the next few days. I have about 9 pages of information to post to start with. First is an introduction describing the situation and my hopes. Second is an annual summation, followed by a hive by hive record of activities. It will make sense when you see it. The data starts in April, 2006, and will run through November 2011. Thus this year and next will be more informative, mainly because my splits should be done, and I'm now more conscientious about my record-keeping. 

I'll start a new thread, with a link to the posting, and any discussion can occur on the new thread on this forum. 

Now, I realize others are working on similiar projects, and I think that's great! The more experiences we share, the more we learn.

Regarding a survey, I still think that's a good idea, and will participate when one is posted. But I don't have time myself to construct and oversee a survey.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"Allen Dick has just posted the thought that we need a new thread to get this study going. A suggestion was made that we do some sort of spreadsheet in order to do a scientific statistical analysis of the data posted. So if a spreadsheet is the way to go, help me out here." StevenG.

I was the one who made the suggestion for the spreadsheet, survey, and the application of statistical techniques.

Sooo...

What kind of data would you like to include on the spread sheet?

I've already made some suggestions for the MDAsplitter method.

What other methods are you considering for a no-treatment study, and what kind of data would you like to record?


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

WLC, that comment was made in my first post that started this thread. I think your comments came later... I don't recall though, and don't have the time to go thru 19 pages of postings to find it. 

And I've said all along I'll participate in a survey, but I don't have the scientific knowledge or ability to set one up. 

As I've reported here, my work is in the process of being posted here, and should be available in a few days.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

StevenG said:


> I'll start a new thread, with a link to the posting, and any discussion can occur on the new thread on this forum.


I'd missed this one when I posted to the 'No Treatment Study' thread about using about using the 'Selecting for parasite and disease resistant bees' thread for discussions of why various things might work. 

I reckon it might be best for Steven to go ahead and make his new thread, firmly linked to this project, and allow the other thread (if it gets any use) freedom for speculative discussions about the various mechanisms that might make a difference. 

'Selecting for parasite and disease resistant bees' is at: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=509034#post509034

Mike


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

StevenG said:


> WLC, that comment was made in my first post that started this thread. I think your comments came later... I don't recall though, and don't have the time to go thru 19 pages of postings to find it.
> 
> And I've said all along I'll participate in a survey, but I don't have the scientific knowledge or ability to set one up.
> 
> ...


StevenG:

My comments came way before this thread in the 'natural cell' thread.

I'm glad that you're posting up your work since it will give me an idea of what kind of information is routinely recorded.

However, that being said...

I think that it's perfectly reasonable to ask no-treatment beekeepers the simple question, "What information do you record?"

Let me tell you why it's important to standardize this type of information.

No-treatment beekeepers need to be able to demonstrate that their methods are economically viable and produce healthy, productive hives.

You need benchmarks and data to do that.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=510550&postcount=1

I've read through your report.

You use resistant strains, weren't truly treatment free, you don't count mites, and you are going to go treatment free from now on.

So, StevenG and Allen Dick are committed to going treatment free.

Isn't that a relief.

I do have one thing to add.

Why did you (Steven and Allen) feel that it was necessary to split off two other threads from this one if neither one of you is truly treatment free?

Guys, you really aren't helping the whole argument for 'treatment free' as a viable alternative form of beekeeping.

Quite frankly, I strongly believe that those who are, in fact, successfully treament free for a number of years (even decades) should pick up the flag at this point.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

WLC said:


> http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=510550&postcount=1
> 
> I've read through your report.
> 
> ...


WLC, what in the world have I ever posted or said, to lead you to state that I am not treatment free for mites? Quote me! and your comment "Isn't that a relief" I find to be insulting. If you have read my report, and read all of my postings, you would not accuse me of not being treatment free from the beginning. You, sir, are calling me a liar, and I am offended at your tone, your post, and your language.

All along you have attempted to tell me how to do my beekeeping and record keeping. I don't give a flying fig if you don't care for my beekeeping and record keeping, but I do care that you accuse me of misrepresentation and lying! 

If you are so hot to get involved in the treatment free movement, then do so yourself. Don't just sit back and throw brick-bats at everyone else. Put up your data. Post your information. As you have seen in my report, my records are an open book. Good, bad, and ugly. I have stated that I am willing to open my hives and my records for inspection. There is a retired commercial beek here where I live, an officer in the Missouri State Beekeeper's Association, very well respected, who would give such a report on this forum. Grant Gillard who posts on this forum regularly is an hour and a half away. I've never met the man, but based on his writings, I respect him, and would open my records and hives to him any time. 

I have no control over what Allen Dick posts or doesn't post. I've never met the man, my only association with him is thru this forum. He's free to do what he wishes. My report is in response to skeptics who have said treatment free doesn't work. Others before me, and better beekeepers at that, have demonstrated that it does. My contention is that the best guarantee of success is to start with resistant bees. Bees from breeders _who do not treat!_ I don't have to reinvent the wheel, and I can show other beekeepers if they're selective about their bees from the get-go, they can have success. I want the average back yard beek or hobbiest to see that they can succeed with bees, without treating. This winter is not yet over, but so far in four seasons, I have lost ONE hive out of fourteen I currently have. ONE hive in four, going on 5 years! What is your record?

You and perhaps a couple of others have said we need a scientific survey, and have told us how to do a survey, but you have yet to post one here for me and other beeks to participate in. You apparently have not been willing to do the work yourself. It seems that all you can do is moan and groan, and not contribute anything constructive yourself to this arena. Now, when the day comes you post such a survey, when the day comes you yourself do what you advocate others do, I will issue you a public apology here on this forum.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

Hey look...a flag on the ground.  Ok...I have been following this thread and while I understand what is being done or attempted to being done I am asking myself...what's the point? To see if you can keep bees alive by just letting them be? Bees are going to die and they may die no matter what you do or fail to do? If you breed bees that are resistant to mites yet die because you didn't have proper top ventilation and they got wet and died in the winter...what have you gained? 

I completely understand breeding for resistance and I am one here that prefers natural "treatments" (EO's in my case) to keeping my bees healthy. And my bees are healthy and I run a good number of hives that are all healthy so I know that I am doing something right. I think the main issue I see with this study is that you need to find out what works best and what doesn't work at all. If all your hives die by just letting them be you will have learned nothing especially if they all died of different causes. I think it would be a more viable study if you tried different approaches or at least which queens are utilized that do the best or carry the best traits you are looking for. At least in this way your results will have something that others can utilize either in queen selection or in method of treatment that give good results. 

Anyway...my two cents. Hope it was within the scope of what everyone is looking for with regards to posting. (Seems to be mucho talk of hi-jacking or such)

One last thing. I actually think that this thread has generated a lot of discussion about threatments vs non-treatments and I think that in and of itself has been worthwhile. So thanks to Steve/Barry/Allen for that.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

And, for sake of clarity, I am _not_ committed to going treatment free. I intend to minimize my treatments as I have but I also am seriously thinking of treating some hives that are separate from my main group.


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

Well that seems to make sense Allen. 

So as to walk the talk so to speak I will give a quick brief of how I run my operation. As said before, I do threat with EO's and nothing else.

I feed in the spring 1:1 with lemongrass, spearmint and thyme to all my hives coming out of Almonds (also I feed my hives that didn't go to Calf.) The first two feedings, usually one or two gallons each I use all three EO's. Any subsequent feedings just have lemongrass and spearmint in them. As the hives build up I test for mites using the alcohol wash method. If I get any kind of a mite count I feed that hive with thymol added. I will tell you that my mite counts after the two feeds run from zero to three. Anything above 5 gets treated. Once the flowers bloom I stop feeding all hives except splits until the splits have filled a 10 frame bottom box. I then don't run anything on the hives till fall. I do check for mite counts during the summer but usually don't have to do anything. If I do I pull any honey supers and mist the hive (using a 1:1 thymol/lemongrass mix) and throw on a quick feeder. This usually takes care of the problem. In the fall after the flow I feed the colonies patties that I make until they leave in Dec. for Calf. These are sugar/yeast and EO's patties that I make up. In the patties are again lemongrass, spearmint and thyme.

Results. Since starting this I have lost no hives to mites and have had no mite problem at all. I have not seen nosema in my hives for the last two years. The bees tend to be stronger and healthier than others I view. (I work with a very large commercial beek one day a week or so) Other things I do for my hives is that I pull all my supers the second week in August so they can pack out with honey and pollen. I rotate out my comb every three years (broodnest) and get rid of anything that shows up with EFB or AFB. I burn any hives that I suspect has EFB or AFB. I don't have a SHB problem (lucky for me it isn't in the high mountains yet) so I can't address this issue. 

And that's pretty much it. Oh one last thing. On my splits in the spring I do what I call large splits in that my splits are made up of at least 5 to 7 frames of brood as opposed to just 2 or 3. I find that a stronger split really helps in getting the hive strong for the year and seems to enable the hive to be healthier throughout the year.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

StevenG, although you may not be treating for mites, you ARE treating. 

Allen, you crack me up.

Here's the problem:

Neither one of you would get past the 'screen' questions in a survey for 'treatment free bee keeping'.

As I've said before, we need data to support any claims made for treatment free beekeeping.

If too many self reporting 'treatment free' beekeepers failed the screen questions or didn't provide supporting data (like mite load counts) in a survey, then it isn't likely that the survey would have a valid sample size.

Any study would simply show that there is no there, there.

PS: Use of botanical products would get you picked off by the screen questions also.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

WLC, in case you don't get it, we actually have no interest in your ideas and are only being polite to you. It is getting more difficult though, as you seem to think that what we do is any of your business and that you need to criticize. It isn't, actually, and you don't. Go ahead if you like, but you get to be number three in my ignore list. You might be amused to see who else is in there and what you have in common.

Anyhow, Steven and I are both old guys who both have bees which are doing very well for an extended period. We are quite happy to talk to one another and to others who are interested in a relaxed examination of what happens when we do things that makes sense to us and have no personal agenda. 

Others have offered their thoughts, too. But a lot have just shut up and gone away since you have decided that you know best. Barry has found our anecdotal approach interesting enough to give Steven a place to post. I have my own, but we like to compare notes and share here, too.

We have no interest in proving anything to you, or anyone. We are proving things to our own satisfaction in our own somewhat different ways and sharing that with others who are similarly inclined to a greater or lesser degree. If that means something, then good. If not then good.

What we do seem to be proving is that we don't have to use knee-jerk treatments and that our bees seem to do quite well without.

We'd be perfectly happy to do your survey just to make you happy, but speaking just for myself, I just don't care what you think.


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

I know many commercial beekeepers, and although I can't speak for them all, the ones I know- do as I do. They don't treat- and look at it as if they die, then they were weak and they weeded out the weak. I don't like to see any die, but I don't like to waste my time on them- on a may or may not make it. That, and the fact you not only spend time but money on them as well. I have been lucky so far and have only lost a few nucs and two hives that were weak and late small swarms. I have 58 hives and look to add 80 more this April.

I can't wait to read your results.:applause:


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Eaglerock:

Thank goodness for your post.

For a while there, I was concerned that I had spent alot of time and effort for naught.

I would like to ask you if you or your commercial friends, who are treatment free, have switched over to foundationless frames?

I ask that question because there was a claim made (I've collected dozens of them already) for treatment free beekeeping that natural comb was important for its success.

I would also like to ask you, if you would be so kind, which management methodologies do you feel have contributed to your successes/disappointments in treatment free beekeeping?

I'm striving to be as inclusive as possible, especially with regards to the mosaic of approaches and philosophies that make up the treatment free beekeeping world.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Alpha6, your post #213 above is dead on target. That was the purpose of my initial posting regarding being treatment free, to generate discussion and a place for others to "come out of the woodwork" as it were. Since this discussion began, we have learned much from many different folks who are going treatment free to one degree or another. The ideas shared have probably encouraged other beekeepers. 

Frustration was expressed that there is only anecdotal evidence, which was why I volunteered to show what I'm doing, and provide a historical time line. Barry came up with the idea of the separate blog, in which I could go into more detail. Time will tell if that is of value. Knowing my luck, I could still have hives crash this year, but we'll see, and I'll report. 

WLC, you say Allen and I couldn't get past the screening questions of a survey? I have yet to see a survey. And regarding mite counts, a good post-mortem of a dead hive would indicate what killed the hive - nosema, starvation, improper packing, mismanagement, or mites. I know I have mites, that is just a given in this day and age. But so far the bees seem to be dealing with them. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

StevenG:

The problem with ANY treatment is this: you skew productivity and health data because hives/bees that should have perished, didn't.

Also, if you use mite resistant queens/nucs/packages, but then fail to keep a mite count, there's no way to account for their efficacy. It would make any comparisons impossible.

As for the survey, I have been working on it while I was waiting on your report. I was very, very disappointed.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

Guys,

Disagreements are fine, but we could learn more and be more productive if we can avoid the accusatory language.

Lawrence Heafner


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Ok WLC, I'll bite. for the sake of information for those considering treating/not treating, please explain just HOW I am treating for mites?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Fumagilin-B for Nosema.

Not mites Steven. Not mites.

Nosema.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

WLC,

I honestly don't see what you are complaining about here, I am reading StevenG's report and just don't see it, unless you are reading from something else? John


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

WLC said:


> Eaglerock:
> 
> I would like to ask you if you or your commercial friends, who are treatment free, have switched over to foundationless frames?
> 
> I would also like to ask you, if you would be so kind, which management methodologies do you feel have contributed to your successes/disappointments in treatment free beekeeping.


Well, I have never and I am sure they will not, use foundationless frames. Commercial beekeeping is not like a back yard beekeeper. Those frames go through alot. If they didn't use wired wax starters and/or wire in the frames the comb wouldn't last long in the extractors. You have to understand those frames hit those extractors many times thoughtout the year. The comb wouldn't last long. They tried using plastic, but found the bees don't like them. But having said that, Ron said that they could use them between other frames, every other one, in order to get them to draw them out.

Now, my point to him was, how much quicker would they have drawn out the comb if they would just use natural and not Plastic. He agreed.

I am totally against Plastic frame or starters, as it is not natural. Bees have been here many thousands and thousands of years and never needed out help. I just don't like plastic-Plastic gives off a toxin.

So what’s wrong with plastic? For one thing, it migrates into the foods we eat. When you eat or drink things that are stored in plastic, some compounds in plastic are transferred into your food and are literally incorporated into you. These plastics are called "Food Contact Substances" by the FDA, but until April 2002, they were called "Indirect Food Additives." The new name is cleansed of the implication that plastic gets into your food. -ANM Health Newsletter 

I am into extracting, so I will continue using wax starters with wire. I am just never going to Plastic.

Lets face it, Plastic is what? Petroleum! I am all about not using it for things we don't need and saving it for my tank! :lpf:

As for why I don't treat. I think I stated why. I just want to stay as natural as I can, and still sell honey. I have never used chemicals, nor will I ever if I can help it. People like to hear that I don't, when buying my honey.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

jmgi said:


> WLC,
> 
> I honestly don't see what you are complaining about here, I am reading StevenG's report and just don't see it, unless you are reading from something else? John


It'll pop out at you. 



> I just want to stay as natural as I can, and still sell honey. I have never used chemicals, nor will I ever if I can help it. People like to hear that I don't, when buying my honey.


Eaglerock, that says it all.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

WLC said:


> Fumagilin-B for Nosema.
> 
> Not mites Steven. Not mites.
> 
> Nosema.


:doh: How in the world could I have missed it??? I'm guilty! You're correct! I treat! I misrepresented the "No Treatment Report" - it's actually a scam, and I get $25 for every person who clicks on it and reads it. Let's see, at 318 viewers last count, that nets me $7,950 toward my retirement fund... :lpf: 

I treated for Nosema each spring - 2006, 2007, and 2008, as reported. All along I thought we were focused on mites, and the miticides that leach into the brood comb. And I discontinued nosema treatment with the spring 2008 application, as reported. 

I don't waste my time with mite counts, because the true efficacy of the bees is if they survive! There IS no better test. I don't know how to explain it better than that. I am positive I have mites...but for four seasons now the bees seem to have taken care of the situation. We'll see what the next two seasons bring. 

And the sad part of it is, you don't see how ludicrous this has been. I'll not waste my time with you any more, and let the denizens of the forum deal with it as they wish.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

One of the pitfalls that I'm aware of in designing the study should be obvious by now.

How do you handle respondents who don't have all of the data we would like to have, and how do I design around it?

I'm still concerned about the # of responses that will be from completely treatment free beekeepers.

We might very well end up with a larger proportion of treatment than no treatment respondents.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

I posted on the old "no treatment thread" that I will be participating in this study. I will be starting 10 packages next month dedicated to no treatment. These will be basic Italian bees, though I'm not completely sure I would think that this package bee producer does treat. I will be using all new equipment, medium depth boxes for everything, foundationless, and solid bottom boards. I intend to manage them just as I managed my bees prior to the introduction of the varroa mite in this country, except I will use no drugs for any of the major bee diseases that have been around for the last hundred years. I will raise all my own queens from local feral sources if I can get them, and my own bees. There will be no mite monitoring on a tray or board because there won't be one. If they die, they die, I won't bail them out with treatments. That's it.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

IMO Stephen G did a thorough job of writing the history of his hives. We need that, but it should also be about lack of treatments & management from now on for the next how-ever-many-years we decide. How keepers like jmgi does will be very important.

Also, are we talking only varroa, or how about the big four: Varroa, Trachael, Nosema, Brood diseases.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Allen Dick said:


> WLC, in case you don't get it, we actually have no interest in your ideas and are only being polite to you.


Just for the record, I'm not included in that 'we' and I suspect I'm not alone. I'm not taking sides - I just like discussion - but the bullying nature of the put-down is pretty appalling in my view. 

Mike


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

heaflaw said:


> IMO Stephen G did a thorough job of writing the history of his hives. We need that, but it should also be about lack of treatments & management from now on for the next how-ever-many-years we decide. How keepers like jmgi does will be very important.
> 
> Also, are we talking only varroa, or how about the big four: Varroa, Trachael, Nosema, Brood diseases.



Don't forget moths and beetles.


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

WLC; I was in such a fly yesterday here in my office that I was having to run out to the other office, and kept coming back- to type- and had to gather my thoughts each time. -
Nevertheless, I wanted to add something else, which I had in my thoughts, but didn't remember until this morning.

Propolis (bee glue) is a compound made by bees by mixing balsams and resin collected from certain trees with saliva and digestive enzymes. Known for its antioxidant, antiviral, antibacterial, antitumor, and antiinflammatory properties and to promote the healing of wounds.
It is also known that the more that is in the hive, the better it is for the colony of those bees. Why? Because it has been found to keep them healthy against diseases and mites. 

So here is what my company is making; Hives that are only planed on the outside. The bees fill in all the cracks and gouges with propolis because of that. My way of using nature and not treating my hives. All 80 hives I am starting will be rough cut on the inside.

Yesterday in the store I had someone say, "Well I could rough up the inside, couldn't I?" :applause: 
So when you get a hive board that is not perfect inside, that is really a good thing.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Eaglerock:

It's a good thing that you remembered those details. Since you are using foundation because of the wear and tear of honey production, the claim that natural comb is essential to treatment free success would have been challenged. The propolized (I think that's a real word) surfaces of your 'rough cut inside' hives would offer an alternative claim.

Do you ,and the other treatment free beekeepers you know, already use this idea? 'Rough cut inside' hives with highly propolized surfaces, and wax foundation? If so, do you think it significantly contributed to your no-treatment success?


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

WLC said:


> Eaglerock:
> 
> The propolized (I think that's a real word) surfaces of your 'rough cut inside' hives would offer an alternative claim.


It is Propolis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propolis

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w0076e/w0076e14.htm

http://www.pureroyaljelly.com/propolis.html


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

WLC said:


> Eaglerock:
> 
> Do you ,and the other treatment free beekeepers you know, already use this idea? 'Rough cut inside' hives with highly propolized surfaces, and wax foundation? If so, do you think it significantly contributed to your no-treatment success?


Like I said I am, and will with the ones I am adding this spring. I do have many of the norm, but I make sure there are defects for them to fix.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

What's great about this type of method for increasing hive health is that it is broad and not specific to a single pest or pathogen.

It also allows for a comparison between natural comb and foundation (w/ rough hive surfaces).

What's a good way to 'rough up' a hive surface? I might want to try this one myself.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

*Unprinted & Wired Wax*



Eaglerock said:


> Well, I have never and I am sure they will not, use foundationless frames. Commercial beekeeping is not like a back yard beekeeper. Those frames go through alot. If they didn't use wired wax starters and/or wire in the frames the comb wouldn't last long in the extractors.


Should we make a distinction between printed and unprinted foundation? Am I right in thinking that unqualified 'foundation' means 'printed foundation' Unprinted foundation is, I would have thought, almost the same thing as no foundation - especially if rather thin, as the bees have to contribute some of the wax, and, more importantly perhaps, get to decide the cell sizes. Can you buy unprinted wired wax in the US?

Mike


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

*Re: Unprinted & Wired Wax*

Mike

I use wired wax foundation. I sometimes use wired frames in the brood chamber, and always in the supers, with wired wax foundations? What is unprinted?


----------

