# Treatment Free Management best Practices



## Kingfisher Apiaries

I run solid bottoms with migratory tops and outer covers with no inner covers. This works well...we (me and state inspector) where and are not seeing a whole lot of mites....I use primary VSH queens (and VSH Xs) and some muttfasts. I run wood n plastic for frames. Working so far.

MIke


----------



## sqkcrk

Before the mites came along, if one had a 10% loss that was considered high, I believe. Maybe Roland or TK can comment on that. So, 10% or less would be more like what I would call acceptable.

Just my 2 cents. Not meaning to be argumentative.


----------



## Solomon Parker

What are your losses today?


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries

WFS...probably not asking me but I had no losses in the winter. i did loose some last fall. I do not really keep track...just pile em up and move on. Numbers get me down lol.

mike


----------



## jbeshearse

Defining acceptable losses would probably be better suited for a different thread. I will start another thread on the general beekeeping forum to see what everyone feels are acceptable losses. For me I was setting it at 30% because I feel that those, myself included, that treat probably lose between 20% & 30 % each year. So for treatment free to be attractive and considered sustainable, it should be near or less than the comparable losses of treated colonies.

I had a 50% loss last year when you include absconds, etc.

My losses were mostly from newly hived swarms/cutouts absconding from SHB overrun. I lost 2 hives that were weakened by SHB succumb to EFB. I lost one to tracheal mites. Other than that, all my losses were a result of SHB. But that is another thread than TF best practices.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Back in the day before mites, 1-2% winter losses were normal. This year winter losses were really low--10%.. Before the past three winters with CCD, losses were running around 10%. You must look at the Bee Losses for the whole year anymore. What were your "over the summer losses"?.. What killed them? And what could you as the beekeeper have done to prevent it?? Those are the questions that any beekeeper must ask whether they be a treatment free or treatment beekeeper. Also, a good beekeeper using tried and true managment practices will take care of their winter losses in the fall....TK


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries

Ted...I take all my losses in the summer/fall like you said...then have none die in the winter...seems to work for me. 

mike


----------



## sqkcrk

Losses, winterloss, dieoff, whatever you call it. Cols seem to be dying during all seasons of the year these days.

I used to complain to a friend of mine about the number of colonies that were dead when I got back to them in SC in the spring. His response was, "Well, you need the empty equipment anyway." So, I have had the attitude that in order to maintain approximately enuf colonies to maintain the honey production to support sales and then self and family was good enuf. So, if I had losses, I worked to replace what was lost.

Acceptable? Acceptance? Losses will be what they will be and it is my job to go w/ what I have and work towards achieving my own goals. What I do has to fit my pocketbook, what I can afford to do.

So, what level of loss is acceptable? None, really. Every colony should survive. Death is unacceptable. Yours. Mine. My bees.

What is realistic today? I had a 15% "winterloss" this year. I had 30% or more last year. Five or six years ago I went from 732 down to 100. So did lots of good beekeepers. We deal w/ it the best we can, to achieve our own goals.


----------



## Solomon Parker

There are those around who don't consider me 'successful.' 

But on the other hand, due to the fact that I don't rely on income from the bees, sustainable means anything that allows me to keep keeping bees.

To me, best practices includes not using any treatments, and not using most manipulations as pest control. This creates a fast track to extinction for bees who can't handle pests and diseases on their own. Then split from the remainders. I also use small cell foundation, and I am trying out foundationless this year. Mostly it's the "let nature run its course" with the classical beekeeping methods.

This last year, my losses were 38%. One cold starvation, one bad supercedure, one dwindling cluster that froze solid. The year before it was 71%. That includes losses from the whole winter season. I haven't lost any in the summer in years.

These are my best management practices. I do what I think is best. And not just for my bees, but beekeeping in general. But I completely understand that not everyone can do the cold turkey method or wants to.


----------



## Roland

Although not "acceptable", a 33 percent loss is manageable. We generally can split 3 from 2 in an average spring. A good spring will be 2 from 1. 
That number is the same that my Great Grandfather quoted in an article from 1924. 


I will have Christian run the numbers on wintering in the 60's. He ran average honey production numbers from the 50's and 60's, WOW!!!

Crazy ROland


----------



## dragonfly

WiredForStereo said:


> To me, best practices includes not using any treatments, and not using most manipulations as pest control. This creates a fast track to extinction for bees who can't handle pests and diseases on their own. Then split from the remainders. I also use small cell foundation, and I am trying out foundationless this year. Mostly it's the "let nature run its course" with the classical beekeeping methods.


I took all my losses a few years back, and have only maintained one hive for most of my time in beekeeping. I got into beekeeping for pollination, and have never tried to make any kind of business endeavor out of it. The one hive I have that survived was already basically a feral hive when I happened upon it, quite by luck and chance. I check mite levels typically once in spring, summer, and fall, and I've treated for mites twice, probably unnecessarily in retrospect. I provide essential oil sugar syrup feedings a few times per year, and I never replace the queen, but let the hive maintain their own social hierarchy as they do by nature. The hive has swarmed a few times, and I don't try to interrupt this natural tendency, and over the past couple of years, the hive has grown in size much more than it did the first few years when I constantly wanted to interject my own opinions into the quality of it. It is an agressive colony, to say the least, but it seems to be a naturally tough survivor, so I've learned to back off and for the most part let the bees be bees, while I just intervene if I see something that I think is a truly life and death situation.


----------



## StevenG

Best management practices?
For me, starting with resistant bees, screened bottom boards, traps for SHB, straight comb, extra space during spring build up, hives in the sun. Careful and thorough autopsies on deadouts. Nutrition supplements (Mega Bee, etc) after Labor Day (when I pull the summer crop) for healthy strong winter bees. 

I had winter losses at 19% this year (last one this past weekend, counting it as winter loss). 10% is acceptable for me...hoping to get down there this coming winter. I wonder if the days of 1-3% will ever happen again?

Early Summer/Mid-Summer nuc development, carrying 10-20% of my colony count overwinter as nucs, to help build up the following spring and requeen weaker colonies. For example, if I have 20 hives, want 4 nucs going thru the winter to help in the following spring. Both to replace deadouts, and to requeen weak colonies/queens. Seems important to keep strong hives, both to stay ahead of the mites, and keep the shb in check. 

That's me, but I'm still learning as are we all. I never never never lost more than 1-2 colonies a year (out of 16-20) back when. Really want to get back down to that. But times, they have changed...:doh: This year was painful.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Acebird

> My intent here is to see what those that are successfull are doing. This is to give those of us that would treat minimally an idea of how to reach an acceptable sustainable treatment free status.


I haven't figured out what successful means. I am sure it means different things to different people. For me it means managing a small enough apiary so losses don't hurt me. Then I can just not treat for anything and replace what I loose. The hope is that nature will produce the strongest by survival of the fittest and I will learn enough to prevent a catastrophe that wouldn't have occurred if I didn't do something terribly wrong.
My management practice is pretty simple.
Leave the bees alone and winterize the hive in the fall. Try to determine if the bees have enough stores in the fall to make it through the winter. And feed honey syrup in the spring when the weather allows.


----------



## heaflaw

My Best Mgmt Practices are Sreened Bottom Boards, Managing for swarms(ckbing, reversing, early supering), Sun most of the day, Not tolerating weak hives, Requeening agressive hives, Feed in fall only & only if really needed, Replacing old combs, Trying to talk any beekeeping neighbors into going treatment free.


----------



## Oldtimer

Acebird said:


> My management practice is pretty simple.
> Leave the bees alone and winterize the hive in the fall. Try to determine if the bees have enough stores in the fall to make it through the winter. And feed honey syrup in the spring when the weather allows.


Curious. How many winters have you been using this method?


----------



## Acebird

> How many winters have you been using this method?


Oldtimer, are you treatment free? What does it matter?


----------



## David LaFerney

Acebird said:


> Oldtimer, are you treatment free? What does it matter?


If I told you I've been using bacon grease instead of motor oil in my lawnmower would "How long have you been doing that?" be a fair and reasonable question?

It matters because it's an indication of the degree to which anecdotal evidence is valid.

Sorry, a bit t:


----------



## Acebird

It doesn't matter...



> I thought maybe a discussion of what each of us considers best management practices to achive a sustainable treatment free line of bees is or would be.


The person replied to the post. There is no requirement to have a proven concept.
If you are trying to convince people that there are no benefits to going treatment free you are wasting your time. I am interested in what people are doing on this subject. Then I will make a choice if I want to do the same thing.


----------



## jim lyon

Acebird: Why so defensive. I thought Oldtimers question was pertinent as it relates to the viability of what you are proposing. What might work for a short period of time may not relate at all to longer term success. A time framework is essential in any study.


----------



## Stonefly7

Come on Ace, we will never learn from your experience, unless you share your results. You have alot of great theorys in several posts. Could you share some data?

Ill go first. I have one yard with 21 hives in it, that I applied the same method you noted. Did nothing, but check for stores. I did not do a good job at that either, because two died of starvation, and one was knocked over by a cow. Cows fault!

I did make 8 splits, from that yard, does that count?


----------



## Acebird

> What might work for a short period of time may not relate at all to longer term success. A time framework is essential in any study.


Explain to me what long term success is. What has been done in the past is not working. Many long term beekeeper will attest to that. If you are going to be treatment free then the first thing you have to be committed to is not treat. The next hurdle you have to try to accomplish is to get everyone around you to not treat. And now we are not just talking beekeepers. Until those two things occur it doesn't matter if I have gone through one winter or 50.


----------



## jim lyon

So you aren't going to give a time framework?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Acebird said:


> What has been done in the past is not working. Many long term beekeeper will attest to that.


Weasel words. Who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words


----------



## honeyshack

Acebird said:


> Explain to me what long term success is....
> ...The next hurdle you have to try to accomplish is to get everyone around you to not treat. And now we are not just talking beekeepers....


But if you are trying to convince others around you to go treatment free, one needs data to show the results. 
If you came to me to convince me to go treatment free, I would want to know your success rate, how long you had been at it and what ever data I would feel is pertenent for me to change my way of thinking.

Who else are we talking about?


----------



## jim lyon

Though I'm a larger commercial operator I feel there is something to be learned from almost everyone on here........almost. for those of you who are trying hard to succeed at being treatment free particularly those who have been so open about what you are doing and the results That have been achieved you have my respect regardless of the size of your operation. For those of you who only wish to speak about your own theories and why they are better than Thea real life experiences and hard data that others are offering well let's just say your credibility isn't such that I need to waste any time in a debate with you.


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries

I agree with jim...don't talk unless you walk the walk for MORE THAN A YEAR OR SO! Don't want to hear theories either....what is said on the screen not always works in the bee yard.
At least you do not use Tac-tic and other wonderful things like others.....
mike


----------



## Stonefly7

Well said Jim. I thought I would share the results of a test yard, using some principals shared here on this forum. My other 14 yards are not treatment free. I try to use IPM methods as best as I can. I believe OT is doing the same in his operation.

Nothing fries my eggs more than a egotistical newbee who has been keeping a hive of bees for one year, coming on this forum spreading hate and discontent with no data to support any practice, treatment or not. I will let Sol and Barry take care of the house. 

Those who are using methods that are sucessful in their operation, please continue to post new ideas, and share data, so we can see if its viable for our operation.

Kind regards


----------



## WLC

Do any of you use grease patties?
How about Honey B Healthy?


----------



## NasalSponge

I do not....I am one of those purest...no chemicals in my hives, no sugar, no fume boards...nothing...but that is just me, can't say what others are doing.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> Do any of you use grease patties?
> How about Honey B Healthy?


Better read sols sticky and think of those guidelines as the small copse of trees at the apex of Picketts charge in Gettysburg. Lots of brave beekeepers went down fighting that fight.


----------



## WLC

If I were to use cooking oil in a SHB trap, that would violate the 'sticky'?

There's not a lot of difference between cooking oil and crisco. It's just a matter of saturation.

How do you deal with SHB then?


----------



## Solomon Parker

As long as it doesn't get on the bees, I'd be open to allowing it in the same vein as manipulations like drone comb freezing. It has been brought up before and it does deserve some discussion.

In my view, it is a trap, not a treatment, the same way the drone brood are a trap for varroa. But I am open to be swayed by good strong informative discussion.

I do see hive beetles from time to time, so I'm not sure if it's the bees that are holding them off, or if the conditions are not such that they can become a problem. I have noticed the same in the hives of other beekeepers in my area as well. As long as continuing to do nothing is sufficient, that is what I will continue to do. It's the same thing I did with varroa, and that has been successful in its own way.


----------



## Stonefly7

So is HBH a viable treatment free option? I thought I read in Stephens blog, that he uses it in moderation on the test bed he's running which was for the benefit of treatment free folks wanting to try a new route.

Kind regards


----------



## Solomon Parker

HBH is currently listed in the Unique Forum Rules as a treatment.


----------



## WLC

I wonder if there are treatment free beekeepers who aren't on one kind of a treadmill or another?

If your putting oil in traps and moats (ants), that's a treadmill of another color. You are drowning pests (not too different from suffocating mites w/ crisco, etc.).

I thought the whole point of treatment free beekeeping was to get Honeybee genetics to do the work for us?


----------



## Stonefly7

WLC,

There's a good thread about breeding resistant bees in the (Queen and Breding Forum), titled (Resistant Bees), which is a good discussion on the viability of, let the bees do it! 

Are you practicing a treatment free method? Have you come up with any data yet? Im interested in good data. Stephen is doing a good research project you may glance at.

Kind regards


----------



## WLC

I've had to discard two hives and purchase all new equipment in my attempts at treatment free beekeeping. Sound familiar? I've also switched to VSH stock. No more guessing for me.

I was simply pointing out that the whole point of treatment free beekeeping is to try to get off of the 'treadmill'.

I'm not convinced that any of us can.


----------



## kennedy

Best practice in treatment free is reading Dee A Lusby not just here. all that you can. shes fond of saying theres nothing hard about it. i know that true.understanding whats going on with small cell is more interesting.what helps in that is observational study. im no master at it. if you make 8 or 10 of the same observations and you do it in a correct way you can be nearer the truth. then study what you see. there are beekeepers that are masters of observation Allen Dick is the greatest living one in my view if you read him and try to copy the way he looks at bees and other writings of his youll be a better treatment free beekeeper hes at honey bee world regards kennedy


----------



## WLC

I trust someone like Marls Spivak (and the ARS). Besides, I would rather bet on someone who won a "genius grant".


----------



## Stonefly7

WLC, sorry you had a rough go at it. I am kind of in both worlds. I have one yard that I am experimenting with trying new methods I gleen from others. I have 14 yards that I use IPM methods. I cannot afford to loose everything at once through a untested experiment.

I have good old italians, Buckfast/Allstar, and Buckfast pure genetics. Did not like the Russians for my operation, to slow to build up for my flow. Others love em. I am going to bring in some of Russell's Sunkist to see how it goes.

All the commercials I am in contact with use some sort of IPM method to manage their stock. They are still in operation and very sucessful, they just don't meet the treatment free definition.

PM me, I will help in any way I can. Plus I can put you in contact with a commercial who's sucessful up in your neck of the woods if you like. Also Michael Bush has a good site. Another beek on this site (Grant), also has some good info through e-books.

Kind regards


----------



## WLC

Stonefly7, 

Thanks for the offer. I'm pretty sure that I'll be OK this time around since I'm confident that I have good VSH stock (they've already bit both me and my assistant).

I'm not going to use pesticides in the hive. That's my version of treatment free. I am going to feed as much as they will take. I am going to use my own grease patty recipe (w/ lemongrass oil to make it attractive ). I've already set out baits for the ants (I can't do otherwise). I am foundationless (I call it 'natural comb'). I don't know if they will regress to a smaller cell size at this point.

I don't think that it's wise for me to do less since I have already spotted a 'deadout' hive in a nearby community garden, and it was a strong hive this past summer at that.


----------



## Stonefly7

Sounds good, do what works best for you. Keep us in the loop as things progress. I hope they are healthy strong hives.

Kind regards


----------



## StevenG

WLC said:


> ... I was simply pointing out that the whole point of treatment free beekeeping is to try to get off of the 'treadmill'.
> 
> I'm not convinced that any of us can.


Hi WLC! You make an interesting point about treadmills. I guess we each choose which one to tread :lpf: (I started to say "walk" but some folks jog on them) There are discussions elsewhere on the forum regarding "treatment free" versus "chemical free", and being basically bald, I no longer have many hairs to split. So...I do use the in-hive oil traps for the shb. And, perhaps once a year, HBH. Beekeeping today is such a paradox, compared to yesteryear. Nothing is simple, nothing is cut-and-dried any more. It just is... frustrating. You simply have to wonder what is the next threat coming down the pike. So, we pick our treadmills and enjoy the exerise, I guess. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Oldtimer

StevenG said:


> Beekeeping today is such a paradox, compared to yesteryear. Nothing is simple, nothing is cut-and-dried any more.


Good observation, and it also brings up something else I've wondered about.

Before mites, nobody, in my country anyway, chemically treated hives at all. So, if mites hadn't shown up, once internet forums became vogue, would we all be getting along? Or would we simply be arguing about something else?


----------



## Acebird

> Before mites, nobody, in my country anyway, chemically treated hives at all. So, if mites hadn't shown up, once internet forums became vogue, would we all be getting along? Or would we simply be arguing about something else?


What you don't know is what if nobody treated for mites when they first appeared. Some say devastation while others think there wouldn't be a problem today. Man is the only creature that is capable of making a species extinct. And we keep proving it.


----------



## NasalSponge

> Or would we simply be arguing about something else?


Yes, because after all we are beeks!! :lpf:


----------



## sqkcrk

No, we aren't. We are beekeepers. A beek is what one finds on the face of a byrd.


----------



## NasalSponge

You say tomato I say Ragu!


----------



## Oldtimer

Acebird said:


> Man is the only creature that is capable of making a species extinct.


A very untrue statement, perhaps you could study a little natural history.

I could reel off pages of examples, inter species relationships, etc that would disprove that. But in the interests of simplicity , I'll just confine it to one example even you will know about. Dinosours.

When varroa made the species jump to Apis Mellifera, there is no natural law to say they could not have wiped out Apis Mellifera. Although I'd like to think Apis Mellifera would have made it and still been much like the bees we have now, it is not guaranteed.

My own country is an excellent, if very sad, example of new species being introduced, and completely exterminating other species, who were not given enough evolutionary time to adapt.

This happens and has happened through history, recently do to the meddling of humans, as is the case with varroa, and before that many species were wiped out by other species, without humans being involved.


----------



## Acebird

> This happens and has happened through history, recently do to the meddling of humans


Yes, exactly. What single species wiped out another species other than human? It sure as heck wasn't Dinosaurs, they just ran out of food.


----------



## BeeCurious

Which species did the dinosaurs kill off?


----------



## Solomon Parker

t:

Let's try to keep it to beekeeping please.


----------



## WLC

In case you haven't noticed, Honeybees aren't native to North America and are considered livestock.

So let's not fool ourselves here. We're meddling. I won't mention the effects of Honeybee pests and pathogens on native pollinators.

I took a little time to read over some of Michael Bush's and Dee Lusby's writings.

Bush said that the downside to not treating was simply that your bees die. I think that the downside to not treating can be far worse, transgenic bees (Maori, 2007). I've also noticed that he advocates hot dipping equipment in a mixture of resin and wax.

Pardon me from pointing this out, but that's a treatment in my book. Just by heating resin with wax to a high temperature (250 degrees F), you will create esters, new and uncharacterized compounds, that can have insecticidal properties (sort of like a do-it-yourself pesticide). 

As for Dee Lusby, It's my understanding that her bees may have africanized traits. Now while that's not a treatment, but genetics, it's not something most beekeepers would even consider trying.

So my question is this: does anyone truly meet the requirements of the sticky in a reproducible manner?

Unless of course, I missed the part in the sticky that said that hot dipping and africanized genetics are O.K. .


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> Just by heating resin with wax to a high temperature (250 degrees F), you will create esters, new and uncharacterized compounds, that can have insecticidal properties (sort of like a do-it-yourself pesticide).



No need to roll your eyes. If you think this is a significant issue, please provide us with some sound data that would support this. Do we know what resin he is using?


----------



## Solomon Parker

He says 'gum rosin from Mann Lake'. That's mixed with beeswax.

I have also known a beekeeper to use paraffin.


----------



## WLC

For the layman, new and pleasant odors give it away.

For the rest, it's called esterification/trans-esterification. And yes, resins are known to have pestticidal properties to begin with even before they are REACTED with bee's wax.

As for which specific esters are formed? Why do you think that I called them 'uncharacterized'? There must be hundreds (maybe thousands) of new ones formed when resin and wax are heated together at high temperature (I'm not even count what's in the wooden equipment that's being cooked) in a metal container.

Someone needs to test of few batches of the stuff in an analytical lab.

It's not 'treatment free' by a long shot.


----------



## Barry

Before I jump off the deep end into your warnings and assertions that a "do-it-yourself pesticide" "could" be forming, I'd want to see some data that would give some benchmark to the possible affect dipping could have. We could throw all kinds of things in this pot and say it disqualifies one from being treatment free. A little balance goes a long way. You say "not by a long shot", I'll say that's an exaggeration without data to back it up. Time will also have an effect on any any kind of insecticidal odor.


----------



## Solomon Parker

What about paint and all the known volatile organic compounds contained therein? Does that count as a treatment?


----------



## WLC

If you don't already know that 'gum rosin' and other resins derived from trees act as pesticies, ...
What can I say?

If you don't know that when you heat resins and beeswax together that you will get totally new esters, what can I say?

Are you trying to tell me that you hot dip as well?

Organic chemistry is one of those courses some of us 'survived' as part of our training.

Fortunately, you can always look up the chemical properties of resins (rosins), beeswax, and how esters are formed.

Paint thinner (turpentine) generally evaporates away, so I wouldn't think that painting your equipment is comparable to cooking it in resin and wax. One is SOP, the other is not.


----------



## Acebird

Paint is usually on the outside anyway.

If you hot dip is there any concern that these esters can get out? What exposure will the bees have? I don't see that as the same thing as putting raw chemicals in the hive where exposure to the bees is the point.


----------



## Barry

"If you don't already know"
"If you don't know"

It doesn't matter what I do or don't know. What matters are your assertions and I'm asking you to show us anything legit that would give us some confidence that this is really an issue that you want to make it. Otherwise, I'll be as concerned about it as I am about the smoke that gets blown on the bees when I inspect them.


----------



## WLC

I'm saying that it should be considered a treatment and put on the sticky.

It's not just hot dipping, you're cooking new and uncharacterized organic compounds into your equipment. You know, where you keep your livestock.

As for getting african genetics into our stock so that we can get treatment free stock, I don't think that most of us could reasonably do it without taking state laws into consideration. It's unworkable.


----------



## Stonefly7

Sorry WLC, ya lost me somewhere in organic chemistry lingo. You may have to speak in laymans terms to keep me in the loop. The thread is about "Best Practices" for treatment free beekeeping, hopefully with some sort of supporting data from trial and error. 

I do paint my woodenware when time allows with the leftover stuff from Lowes. I hope I would be OK, have been doing that for 37 years. Have not noticed any losses associated with that practice.
The dipping part, I don't have time to use. Man, I have to raise bees. 

I think you said you were going to try some new queens this year. Did ya buy the Spavik line?

Kind regards


----------



## WLC

Barry:

Tree resins ALONE have pesticidal properties. That's common knowledge.

When you heat resins and waxes together, you get esterification. That's organic chemistry. 

Don't believe me? Research the issue, talk to an organic chemist at your local university, and you'll understand why it's not only a treatment, but an uncharacterized one.


----------



## Barry

And when you burn burlap you change its properties as well. So what? You're not convincing me it's something of significance.


----------



## WLC

Oh.

I got VSH Italians (packages). I was thinking about the VSH Carniolans. But, I didn't want to deal with possible swarming issues just yet.

PS-I don't paint hives. I'm into the whole 'natural microflora' bit.


----------



## Acebird

> Tree resins ALONE have pesticidal properties. That's common knowledge.
> 
> When you heat resins and waxes together, you get esterification. That's organic chemistry.


Well it is great to know chemistry but... The wax and resins could very well seal in the pesticides and any other chemical that could do harm to the bees. Isn't propolis a resin? Doesn't it come from sap of trees.


----------



## WLC

Resin acids are the substances that protect trees from insects, etc. .

Propolis does contain these acids, and is obviously used by Honeybees extensively.

However, When you heat resin and wax together, the resin acids of the gum rosin and the organic acids and alcohols of bee's wax form completely new compounds.

That kind of heating doesn't normally occur in nature. The equipment that does get this treatment can last for years in good condition while other equipment will turn colors as it grows fungus, etc. .

Don't forget, you are also disinfecting the hive equipment by using high temperatures and the resin and wax mixture. Also, just because you've plasticized the wood, doesn't mean that the new compounds formed in the process can't escape.

It's a treatment.

Here's a question for the honey producers out there:

Would you sell honey from a hive that has been treated by the above method? Don't forget, it contains totally new compounds in it that are never seen in propolis or bees wax.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Here's a question for the honey producers out there:
> 
> Would you sell honey from a hive that has been treated by the above method? Don't forget, it contains totally new compounds in it that are never seen in propolis or bees wax.


W/out evidence I have just assumed that NYC was generally poilluted w/ heavy metals from auto exhaust pollutants, so I would be more worried about eating honey produced in NYC than from hives located somewhere else like those described. I have always wondered about people in The City buying and eating "local" honey for health reasons. But that's another subject.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> completely new compounds.


Yes, you mentioned that. But which ones? I'm hearing a lot of nebulous talk about new compounds and chemicals, but which ones? Without the specific chemicals and their effects, I am apt to simply ignore these warnings. Specifics are 100% necessary. Are they carcinogens? Are they harmful to bees? Without this data, these warnings are of no value.

I would tend to agree with Mark. We know what's in the air, from power plants, from industry, from cars, from pesticides. These chemicals are known to us and their effects are known as well.


----------



## Acebird

> Would you sell honey from a hive that has been treated by the above method? Don't forget, it contains totally new compounds in it that are never seen in propolis or bees wax.


I am still looking for the answer of how these chemicals would out gas or expel from the wax. Plastics contain horrible chemicals and some are driven off in the molding process but dissipate very quickly over time. Are you now going to claim if I use plastic foundation (I wouldn't) that I am treating the hive? I follow your reasoning but I think you have to come up with some data on how these chemicals from the dipping process would affect the hive before you can claim it is a chemical treatment. I am going to assume that Micheal Bush has had his bees tested at some point where these chemicals were not found in high concentrations. Something that sounds real bad can actually be a benefit in the long run.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I have started a new thread with a poll. Let's continue to discuss this topic there and leave this thread to the topic of the original post.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...pment-be-considered-a-treatment-in-this-forum


----------



## WLC

I wouldn't consume my own honey. Yuck!

What's my whole point regarding 'things that the treatment free gurus do'?

Most folks can't produce their own africanized stock like the Lusbys, and I won't hot dip my hives because it's a chemical treatment (as well as dangerous).

My other point was one regarding how 'naturally transgenic' bees can be produced as a downside to treatment free breeding. It's far more serious than saying the downside to treatment free breeding is 'dead bees'. I would use stock from reputable breeders to avoid this pitfall.

In short, I don't think that some of what the treatment free gurus are doing is reproducible because of local regs.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> I wouldn't consume my own honey.


Then why are you here?

Trolling is frowned upon.


----------



## WLC

Bees don't distinguish between flower nectar and spilt soft drinks, etc. .
WLC, NYC.


----------



## WLC

Sol:

I've noted on the poll thread that you've started that the question, as stated, is misleading.

What I'm describing is the cooking of equipment in vats of gum rosin and bee's wax at high temperature.

One could easily be mislead into thinking that the issue is one of simply dipping equipment into wax (at much lower temperatures I might add).

Since you obviously want to deflect the issue of wether or not 'cooking equipment' is a treatment, then lets discuss how treatment free beekeepers use natural propolis as part of their best practices.

So, do any treatment free beekeepers use natural propolis (not the cooked stuff) as part of their best practices?

I've said before that I'd rather bet on Marla Spivak since she is officially a 'genius'. One of her studies used propolis that was dissolved in ethanol and applied to the inside of hive bodies.

I've also heard from a treatment free beekeeper who deliberately roughens his hives so that the bees propolize it on their own.

Furthermore, I've inquired about requeening so that I could get a greater amount of propolis into the hive (I could always requeen after the job is done).

Is anyone else thinking along these lines?

I'm interested in trying to keep the natural flora/fauna of the hive in balance as much as possible.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> I've noted on the poll thread that you've started that the question, as stated, is misleading.


Let me speak as a moderator.

Your personal tirade is derailing this thread. You turned a discussion about best management practices into a battle over whether or not wax dipping okay. If you want to state your methods, fine, do so. If you want to get into a fight over whether or not to allow wax dipping within treatment free beekeeping *in this forum*, start your own thread. If you don't like my attempt to clean up your mess, do it your own self. Start your own poll. Start your own thread. Do not continue to derail this thread by railing against dipping hives in wax and whatever else.


----------



## WLC

I've asked the question: do treatment free beekeepers use natural proplis as part of their best practices?

I'd love to hear the responses for those who use this as part of their natural beekeeping methods.


----------



## StevenG

Sol, you keep talking about wax dipping, and WLC keeps dealing with resins and chemicals added to wax in the dipping. He's on target - it is relevant to treatment free. Your comments to him have reflected your personal biases. You want carcinogenic proof, yet you consider miticides to be treatments. Do you have proof that miticides are carcinogenic? or any other standard which you expect WLC to provide vis a vis chemically contaminated wax dipping?
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Solomon Parker

I simply asked if they were carcinogenic. There are no precise details provided whatsoever. I expect WLC to provide a factual basis for the change he/she wishes to see in the definition of 'treatment-free' used in this forum as it is my job to codify it. I don't have anything for or against dipping hives in hot wax mixed with anything. I've never done it and don't plan to. But I know a number of beekeepers personally who do. If someone thinks I should tell them its a bad idea, I will need some convincing evidence. I'm sorry if you interpreted this as some sort of bias. I *do *have a bias toward evidence, facts, and the truth. 

Please direct discussions as to what is/is not treatment free to threads titled as such.


----------



## Omie

WLC said:


> I've asked the question: do treatment free beekeepers use natural proplis as part of their best practices?
> I'd love to hear the responses for those who use this as part of their natural beekeeping methods.


I have a friend that I am helping to get started in BKing. She took a weekend course for beginners with Chris Harp, and ordered her bees through him (2 nucs coming from someone in PA) which she will pick up in a few weeks. So, she's not actually a beekeeper yet.
She got a big bag of propolis from him and was taught to dissolve it in ethanol/alcohol to brush all her new woodenware with it rather than use paint/oil/wax. I know nothing about any of this technique, but apparently that's what she learned and I'll get to see her ready-and-waiting 'propolized' boxes soon when I go to her house. She knows nothing except what she was taught at that mini course.
Me, I stick with plain old latex paint until I learn something better.


----------



## WLC

Funnything Omie,

I was handed a card by a friend attending a conference, "HoneybeeLives.org, Natural Beekeeping Classes Apiary Services, Chris Harp and Grai St. Clair Rice, [email protected], New Paltz & NYC."

The technique you describe sounds like one described by Marla Spivak. Was it the green Brazilian propolis that Spivak recommends?


----------



## Omie

It looked amber colored to me, whatever that means. It was a _big honkin' sandwich bag full_...I remember wondering how much it cost and thinking "Major score!"  
Now you have me wondering if it was in fact _rosin, not propolis_- the chunks seemed awfully big for propolis now that I think about it. I'll have to look at it again and ask her more when i see her. I know what propolis tastes like, so i could test that. I keep broken rosin chunks around too because my husband and i both use it for our fiddle bows. So I think i could tell the difference. My friend wouldn't know, she called it propolis. She's only been into one hive so far- mine.

She gave me a little thimbleful from her big bag, for me to make medicinal first aid tincture out of...but now i'm _wondering_... :scratch:


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> I've said before that I'd rather bet on Marla Spivak since she is officially a 'genius'. One of her studies used propolis that was dissolved in ethanol and applied to the inside of hive bodies.


The bees are the genius, they have been doing this since they existed, except they leave out the ethanol.


----------



## WLC

Omie:

Chris Harp says that he was inspired by Marla to paint the inside of his hives with propolis. He also said that he gets his propolis from Draperbee.com .

Barry:

If bees could make ethanol, you wouldn't have to brew beer.


----------



## Omie

WLC said:


> Omie:
> Chris Harp says that he was inspired by Marla to paint the inside of his hives with propolis. He also said that he gets his propolis from Draperbee.com


Thanks. I'll check out my friend's 'stash' next time I'm over there. I'm supposed to help her install those bees from Cris harp's. She told she she was supposed to paint the entire boxes inside and out with the stuff, and use nothing else on them, no paint, oil, etc. I wonder how they'll hold up in the rain and winter.


----------



## WLC

I think that the application of propolis is more about social immunity than preserving equipment.

http://www3.extension.umn.edu/Honeybees/components/pdfs/Propolis-and-bee-health.pdf


----------



## Solomon Parker

What is the best practice concerning breeding and rearing queens? Until this point, I have not reared queens artificially expanded numbers, but I'm strongly considering raising a small batch or two this next spring using the Jenter or Mann Lake system. After that, I'd like to try grafting just for the experience.

Some (such as purveyors of graftless systems or techniques) have put forth the idea that grafting causes an interruption in the food supply for the young queen larva and causes deleterious effects. Is making large numbers of queens contrary to any interpretations of natural or treatment free beekeeping methods?


----------



## Oldtimer

IMO anyway, queen raising is very compatable with treatment free beekeeping.

If raising cells in treatment free hives with varroa mites, certain techniques have to be used to stop varroa entering the queen cells. That's about all.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> What is the best practice concerning breeding and rearing queens?


Breeding queens I leave up to the bees. But rearing queens? You might like to check out The Doolittle Method. You'll find it mentioned in many Queen Rearing Books. No grafting necassary.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Are you sure? From what I'm reading, Doolittle does require grafting. Not that I have a problem with grafting, I want to try it as well.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> Not that I have a problem with grafting.


No need for problems in the queen breeding department, there's plenty enough in the treatment free department.

Grafting / graftless are all valid methods a person can choose from to suit their own needs and circumstances. I'd hate to see one of these my way's the best way type arguments start over queen raising techniques. There's many methods to raise queens and people serious about the subject are always prepared to learn from any different ideas.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Maybe there's a language barrier. It's not that I am _averse _to grafting. I do want to try it and if I like it I will use it. I really enjoyed the videos from the huge queen producer down in South America. They make wax cups using dowels. It looks really interesting. Seems so much more interesting than plastic cups, (not that I am averse to them either.) They also place two cells in every mating nuc which seems to be a good practice as well. It selects for faster emerging queens just like the bees do when they make several queen cells.

On a related note, I saw my first virgin of the year this morning.


----------



## Michael Bush

>You might like to check out The Doolittle Method. You'll find it mentioned in many Queen Rearing Books. No grafting necassary. 

The Doolittle method IS grafting. Here are several that do not require grafting:

http://bushfarms.com/beeshopkins1886.htm
http://bushfarms.com/beesbetterqueens.htm
http://bushfarms.com/beesmillermethod.htm
http://bushfarms.com/beesalleymethod.htm


----------



## sqkcrk

I guess I got it mixed up w/ the method that used newly drawn wax foundation that was cut in a zigzag fashion, after the queen had laid eggs, so when put in a queenless colony, the bees would make queen cells along the edge of the comb. What's that method called?


----------



## Michael Bush

The Miller method would be the one where you cut a zigzag:
http://bushfarms.com/beesmillermethod.htm


----------



## sqkcrk

Yeah, I guess my brain filed Doolittle under "do little". My bad.


----------



## Oldtimer

Heck who cares? Most queen breeders develop their own methods that are a meld of various "named" methods plus a bit of their own ingenuity, and that works well for them.

If I got quizzed on what is a dolittle method or a millar method I wouldn't know a whole lot, never even read their books. I can raise a good queen though.


----------



## kennedy

Sol i have respect for all beekeeper but queen breeders most of all.its a very complicated in lots of ways best practice concerning breeding first is gentic expression all life has this thing in it . some people can look at a queen and say its full of it and that will be a great queen im not talking big fat queens its health but its more then that at least in my mind. work on your eye for seeing differences in things start by looking at volume is a good practice. in other animals people look at hair or eyes anyway check out gene expression id like to be good at queen breeding also thanks for running this forum regards kennedy


----------



## Omie

I'm wondering if and/or why these queen rearing methods are being discussed as part of 'treatment free best practices'. Are they different from non treatment free beekeepers' queen rearing practices?
What is 'treatment free queen rearing' exactly?


----------



## Oldtimer

Probably a first, but i'll go with Sol on that one.

"Treatment free queen rearing," in Sol's context would simply be rearing queens and using treatment free principles as it's been defined here by popular vote.

Why queen reaing in this section? Because the thread is about best TF management practises. So, in relation to what? His question a few posts ago was what are best practises in relation to queen raising.

I guess it could equally be asked in the queen breeding section, but then they might say "why is treatment free being discussed in the queen breeding section?"


----------



## Oldtimer

Actually I'll just expand on that & give a better description of some TF management practises as they apply, in particular, to queen raising.

It's most important, in the queen cell finishing hive. Although it's been written that varroa mites don't go into queen cells, in fact, they do, I have broken open queen cells and found mites inside. Obviously, this is not acceptable if you are charging someone money for the queen.

In my opinion, all treatment free hives must be regarded as carrying a mite load. So what practises would a TF beekeeper use to protect his queen larvae. Two that I've used. One, is just before capping, when the queen cells are at the stage mites will go in, a frame, or two, of similar age worker brood is added each side of the cells, to bait the mites away from the queen cells. This is probably the "purest" TF method.

But the method I prefer, is to attempt to get minimal mite levels in the cell raising hive in the first place, using mechanical methods such as drone brood harvesting. To do this in a langstroth hive, an empty, wireless frame is placed at the edge of the brood nest. 21 days later it's removed, if it's a good hive, using comb foundation so they are short on drone cells, and nectar's coming in, the frame will now be full of drone comb and larvae. This is cut out & discarded and the frame replaced to do the whole thing again. Many mites can be removed in this way as they will preferentially go to the drone brood.

I'm not going to be so bold to say that's "best" practise, but it's one method, others may be able to add more.

Also, I'm now only raising a few queens as a hobby, so cannot comment from experience how all this would impact on a commercial queen breeder. But to me anyway, I'm not a treatment free nazi, but do believe that chemicals in the hive that queens are raised in are likely to have a negative impact on the queen, although I have no data to prove that. So, for the few queens I raise, no residual chemicals are used in any hives that are used either as cell raisers, or mating units.


----------



## Solomon Parker

What would be the effects upon the queen who was sealed with mites in her cell? Would the shorter sealed time have a bearing on the situation? If she were competing with another queen or two in the same mating nuc, what are the chances that she would come out the winner?

I have two queen cells made from fresh comb full of drones hatching in the last few days, so this is an interesting subject. As a treatment free beekeeper, I'm interested in figuring out how to weed out possibly damaged queens. I'd love to be out working the bees, but if you look at my area http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?rid=SRX&product=NCR&overlay=11101111&loop=yes I've had rain going on all day.:waiting:


----------



## NasalSponge

That came thru here last night but missed us by a couple miles....nasty storm, spawned a few tornadoes....but wow do we need rain, hasn't been this dry in the spring here since the dust bowl days.

and to keep it on topic, do/can mites reproduce in queen cells??


----------



## Oldtimer

I deliberately raised a bunch of cells in a hive with a high mite load to investigate this. That's where when I opened some of the cells I discovered mites. I put most of the cells out in mating nucs, and most of the queens were fine. But a few were "smaller" than the others even though the cells had looked normal. Outside of the normal variance to be expected, can't prove it but IMO they were mite damaged. However they did go on to mate, I didn't use them in production hives though they were pinched. So can't say catagorically but my strong suspicion is they would have been an inferior queen.

The shorter larval development period may inhibit mite reproduction, but in this case we are concerned with the effect on the larva, rather than if the mite gets to reproduce.

How mite damaged virgins would go fighting a healthy one I don't know.

Checked your weather map, looks like another day in the office!


----------



## NasalSponge

Thanks OT...very interesting.


----------



## rrussell6870

Oldtimer said:


> never even read their books. I can raise a good queen though.


Poetry as usual! ;-)

Treatmenting and not treating has a huge effect on the majority of us breeders... the bee resources that we deplete so early on can take a huge toll on our hives, and for those of us that push production from frost to frost, it can mean devastation during winter if you do not know what your doing... 

As Oldtimer pointed out, the builders can and do get effected by mites if they are around... starters are not such a concern... but most importantly is the drone colonies... this is where so many people mess up when trying to raise queens using colonies that are not treated... simply getting a low mite count doesn't mean much when you are raising drones in early spring... test today and you may have 2, test later in the week and find 17... so the most important aspect of queen rearing in a treatment free environment is to ACTUALLY HAVE BEES THAT DO NOT NEED TREATMENT, instead of simply having bees that have not been treated... there is a HUGE difference between the two... 

For example, our island yards are virtually mite free... we actually have to take infested nucs to the islands each year just to keep our stocks exposed to mites... there are several reasons for this... one, the resistant bees refuse the allow enough mites to remain in the hives long enough to feed and multiply, with no other food source or means of reproduction, the mites eventually die off completely... this same effect is found in the far north where mites are evicted so rapidly that they starve out and die over winter... then the only way for infestation is via nucs, packages, hives, wild bees, or neighboring operations each season... in remote areas the mite populations can literally be wiped out, HOWEVER, by remote, I mean for bees, not for people, and introduction of mites each spring is highly likely due to the rapid popularity of buying package bees and nucs that had not been treated... 

Save your hate mail... that was not a "pro-treatment" statement, it was simply honesty and something that should be considered by all who wish to be able to keep bees without the use of treatments...

Being able to keep bees (alive) without treating, has to start with the bees, then the geographic area, then the logistics of the mites, then the management practices of the bee keeper, then the consistency of all of the above... its very hard work, it requires a deeper level of experience than most with five-ten years would have, and it requires a resolve to take the time to do it "right" instead of doing it "quick".


----------



## Acebird

> Save your hate mail... that was not a "pro-treatment" statement, it was simply honesty and something that should be considered by all who wish to be able to keep bees without the use of treatments...


So your way of thinking is if you want to be treatment free we should all be buying bees that have been treated. Then do what? Remember now, we don't know what we are doing.


----------



## BeeCurious

Acebird said:


> Remember now, we don't know what we are doing.



:thumbsup:

Wow! It's taken me four years to come to that conclusion.


----------



## WLC

rrussell6870:

Is 'the Island' where the ARS keeps hygienice/VSH bees?

If so, what % hygienic (frozen brood removal 24/48 hrs.) would you recommend?


----------



## rrussell6870

Lol. Imagine the mites in mathematical terms for your bee yard or even your area...(area being the distance that your bees forage and the distance of forage of other bees within that space, thus the "area" is literally the space that all bees can congregate before there is a void of bees... its not as far as most may think, but each situation is different)..

In all cases there is a "total amount", yet we will never be able to precisely conclude that amount... so we must take a guess by judging the amount of mites estimated to be in a yard and the amount of infestation after a particular mite kill, such as winter, treatment, resistances, etc... 

After such a kill, how do the mites return to colonies that are truly resistant? The number of mites within the area is effected more so by importation of the mites TO the area via honey bees in packages, nucs, and hives, than any other way... so by bringing in more mites, you are adding to their populations and thus helping them to spread faster and stronger within the area... ever wonder how varroa mites built resistances so much faster in migratory operations than in any others? It's simple math... keep bringing more mites to the area, keep promoting more generations, keep building resistances... 

Remember, NO honey bee colony can withstand too many mites... no matter how resistant they may be... the colonies resistances are based around the idea that by removing the mites from the colony, the mites can not reproduce and feed, thus will starve and die out... but by introducing more mites to an area over and over, how can this ever truly prove effective... 

Treated bee supplies carry extremely low mites, if any at all... the bees in your packages are there to feed the queen and build the wax, they die off and are replaced quickly by new brood... the same goes for your nucs... so by bringing in nucs and packages that are filled with mites, you transport mites to your yards... the mites do not simply die off as the bees do... they multiply and feed on the brood of the freshly started or expanding colony, and spread to the other colonies in the area...

This is why package and nuc suppliers are suppose to be inspected to ensure that mite loads are within the guidelines before exporting (sending from one "area" to another)... however, many of the treatment free producers are not inspected because they operate on such a small level, and even when they are, its only once in very early spring, when mite loads are still very low from winter... 

The point is that the workers in your packages, nucs, etc... are of absolutely no use to your efforts to be treatment free... UNLESS they carry mites... so for a better start each season, treated packages are actually the safest way to go if you want to be able to maintain hives that will not need to be treated in the future...

Again, its all about how many mites are in your area, where they keep coming from, and how do you stop them from coming so that your bees remain healthy without requiring treatment.


----------



## rrussell6870

Wlc, although I have indeed seen many of their hives, I stay as far away from ars as I can... we answered when they needed bees to work with in the beginning, but since then, the lack of progress in developing a viable solution seemed to lead them to a "silver bullet" type tactic that involved interbreeding primorsky... this is something that we were against from the start... ALL bees develop resistances... messing up hundreds of years of selective breeding to get the best bees for each climate in the US is just something that I would not give in to.

Acclimated bees are healthier bees.


----------



## WLC

Would you say that getting bees from a similar USDA hardiness zone is a good way to select package bees?


----------



## sqkcrk

Good luck doing so.


----------



## Solomon Parker

So, what you're telling me, and I say this in all seriousness, is that I need to expose my bees to disease more often to be assured that they are resistant?

Definitely makes sense, but from what I've seen, everybody seems to be oftentimes occupied by trying to prevent exposure. On the other hand, I have long been in the practice of doing things like feeding strange honey, switching combs around willy nilly, keeping swarmed queens, not using screened bottom boards, not pulling drone comb, and not scorching equipment. So maybe I am keeping exposure high and it's a good thing. It's not all about mites.

So we could say that the best practice is to keep them exposed.


----------



## rrussell6870

Just keep in mind that when you bring bees and combs into your area, you also bring along whatever they are have living within them..."Resistant does not mean proof"... 

Let's face it, the mechanics of resistant bees can limit productivity... the majority of people are so focussed on what goes IN to their hives, but never think about what goes into their area and how to limit the level of threats within that area to stop the threat from building up every season...

The less that your bees have to be stressing over fighting off outer threats, the more they can focus on production... its just that simple.

So if you are serious about being able to keep bees without treating, and you are in an area or situation where you can have some impact (or at least not be overly impacted by those around you), first get bees that have some resistances, or take the long road and help your bees to build their own resistances, control the amount of threats that you allow into your area, then roll up your sleeves and keep your bees alive and allow them to reproduce naturally so you can continue down the road to resistance by allowing the generations to pass.

It's simply a misconception that "treatment free" workers will help you on your path to becoming treatment free. The queen in a package or nuc is what's important... if the workers are from treated hives, there are far less mites, if any...


----------



## Barry

rrussell6870 said:


> The queen in a package or nuc is what's important... if the workers are from treated hives, there are far less mites, if any...


The last thing I want to bring into my apiary are outside queens/bees. The queen that they raise themselves is what's important to me.


----------



## rrussell6870

Not going to ask how many colonies, but just in your own head, think about how many lineages are in those Apiaries... without ever bringing in new blood, they breed back amongst themselves every generation... how long can this go on before they start to show signs of inbreeding? 

Ask yourself what type of production were you averaging before you started this, how much three years later, how much now... 

I agree fully with developing your lines by letting them progress generationally, but adding lineages to the mix from time to time is necessary for all creatures.


----------



## rrussell6870

Sol, 

We have to bring in mites to expose our bees to them from time to time... this is only done in a certain environment, under the my direction and the effects are studied extremely closely... I wouldn't recommend bringing any extra threats to your apiaries... we have zero winter losses, zero mite losses, and we stay on top of our threat levels and the responses of our colonies... this environment is designed to allow small amounts of exposure in order to allow the bees to address the threats at their own paces so that each new generation can get better and better at doing so...

Don't risk your bees man. It's more likely that you have plenty of mites in your area already... until your bees are able to successfully overwinter and you stop having losses, you need to focus more on limiting their exposures than adding more stresses for them to face.

Let us all remember that these threats were not naturally derived... human interaction created these threats and on such a level that its a wonder that ANY bees are still around... that is why I keep reminding people that their bees are not "weak" just because they fall to mites, they are exactly what they were intended by nature... WE created this threat, its not their fault... we ask a heck of a lot of them simply by asking them to survive...


----------



## Acebird

> Not going to ask how many colonies, but just in your own head, think about how many lineages are in those Apiaries... without ever bringing in new blood, they breed back amongst themselves every generation... how long can this go on before they start to show signs of inbreeding?


I would say for ever. As long as you aren't imprisoning the queens they are free to mate where they choose. This is no different than if the bees were left on their own without human intervention. On the other hand purchased queens may not have that freedom. There is where you risk inbreeding.


----------



## Solomon Parker

On a small scale, yes. However, in the case of persons like Mr. Russell, the same outfit may own every drone for a hundred miles. Much more care must be taken to prevent inbreeding in those cases.


----------



## Acebird

> However, in the case of persons like Mr. Russell, the same outfit may own every drone for a hundred miles.


Acclimated bees from an outfit that spreads across a hundred miles?:s That is like the WalMart of bees. Not for me.


----------



## kennedy

sol encouraging local treatment free beekeepers to trade queens is best practice. im told it takes 300 to 700 queens? to control area. beekeepers should be honest about treatment free in your group buy helping them. tricks to keep going short term .regards kennedy


----------



## Barry

rrussell6870 said:


> Not going to ask how many colonies, but just in your own head, think about how many lineages are in those Apiaries... without ever bringing in new blood, they breed back amongst themselves every generation... how long can this go on before they start to show signs of inbreeding?


Why do you assume they are breeding back amongst themselves? There are beekeepers and bees all around this area. I'm sure most are not treatment free breeding their own bees. I'm getting whatever new blood these beekeepers are buying and bringing in, along with any feral. If I was in an isolated area, I could see this being an issue.


----------



## Roland

Barry, How many bee hives, managed and feral, do you think are within a 4 mile radius of your apiary?

Roland


----------



## Barry

4 miles? Wouldn't it be more like 6 to 10 miles? If each bee can fly 3 to 5 mile radius (depending on who you read), 6 to 10 would be the radius. That's a lot of ground. I know there's a guy not too far as I see his road sign just down the road. There could be anywhere from 20 to 200.


----------



## Omie

Barry said:


> 4 miles? Wouldn't it be more like 6 to 10 miles? If each bee can fly 3 to 5 mile radius (depending on who you read), 6 to 10 would be the radius.


No, 6 to 10 would be the_ diameter_ of the circle around your hive. The_ radius_ would still be 3 to 5 miles from the hive.
I think you are thinking of what would be the _square mile area_ within that circle? The sq mile area within the circle would be much larger than 6 to 10 miles.


----------



## rrussell6870

Acebird said:


> I would say for ever. As long as you aren't imprisoning the queens they are free to mate where they choose. This is no different than if the bees were left on their own without human intervention. On the other hand purchased queens may not have that freedom. There is where you risk inbreeding.


That's just plain silly. The colonies in your yard have the highest effect on what queens from your yard will have to mate with. The fact that kept hives are maintained in one location takes away any notion of a "natural mating scenario", so there is no comparison to queens within a bee yard mating and queens from wild colonies mating... what you put in your yard has a huge effect on what your queens will mate with... 

An example...20 hives in a bee yard, 5 colonies within the surrounding four-eight miles... let's just say that ALL of the total 25 colonies requeen via swarming and supercedure and each new queen mates with upto 20 drones... about 18 of which are from the initial 20 hives... so a total of 40 drones from the outer 5 colonies effect the 20 hives, a total of 360 drones from the 20 hives effect the 20 hives... the outer colonies are now influenced in the reversed ratio... now what happened to the 25 swarms? Assuming only 10 survive to produce drones the following year, you will need to add that effect to the second seasons of mating... keep these figures going and you will find that the outer colonies are quickly diluted to the genetics of the yards colonies and the gene pool is closed. 

Bee yards that are left only to a "hopeful" influence of the few outer colonies that may or may not exist (and usually do not produce many drones that are healthy enough to mate due to mite infestations in the first place), do indeed end up inbreeding.


----------



## Oldtimer

Acebird said:


> Acclimated bees from an outfit that spreads across a hundred miles?:s That is like the WalMart of bees. Not for me.


This is a popular belief, but as it relates to Russell Apiaries anyway, a false one. I don't want to go too deep here because this last page or two is somewhat off topic anyway. But to point out one thing. I hear things tossed around such as references to "southern queens", like if they've been bred in the south, they're bad! Just where a queen is bred matters not. What if a Northern guy with a strain with awesome wintering capabilities sent 50 of his best, with diverse genetics, to a southern breeder, to breed from and use others for drone production in an island situation, for good mating. would the resultant queens be good to be sent back north? They would be similar to the parents, surely?

That type of scenario is what Russell Apiaries are working on, along with a lot of other techniques.

I'm not saying inbreeding cannot happen, it can, and does, all too often. But it's more about unplanned breeding in a small area, or a larger breeder who continuously breeds from a few "good ones" and does not work on genetic diversity. But having control of a large area, if it's run wisely, can be a huge plus.

I'm also leaving out disussion of a whole other range of things that can affect a packages performance and end up being blamed on the queen, such as mite loads in packages. Which is another thing I know Russell Apiaries are careful about, but some suppliers are not.


----------



## rrussell6870

Acebird said:


> Acclimated bees from an outfit that spreads across a hundred miles?:s That is like the WalMart of bees. Not for me.


You are not the first to think of that tag line... but in actuality, it is quite the opposite. 

We developed programs decades ago where we send our queens that are selected for certain traits to operations all over the nation, the selection process continues in these other climates then breeders and drone mothers are returned back to the south each year to produce queens that are acclimated specifically for those other climates... Walmart is known for buying the cheapest mass produced "junk" they can find and reselling it at a low mark up... we on the other hand are likely to be the most intently concerned breeder that focuses on quality and genetic diversity and health that you will find. 

Yes we are a large commercial breeder... that doesn't make us the "bad guys", it simply gives us the resources to make a difference. In every order that we ship, the queens are selected from upto twenty different lineages, so that buyers add upto twenty different lines to their yards as they make splits or requeen... increasing chances of inbreeding? Absolutely not.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Acebird how long have you been beekeeping?


----------



## rrussell6870

Barry said:


> Why do you assume they are breeding back amongst themselves? There are beekeepers and bees all around this area. I'm sure most are not treatment free breeding their own bees. I'm getting whatever new blood these beekeepers are buying and bringing in, along with any feral. If I was in an isolated area, I could see this being an issue.


So you would rather let your colonies rely on the "possible" influence of other bee keepers that may or may not bring in new genetics and have to treat? :scratch:

That doesn't really seem consistent with your earlier statement of not wanting any other genetics brought to your yards because "the queens that they make on their own" are what you prefer...

I only posted on this thread to try to help those that truly want to be able to keep bees without having to treat them, and without having to replace them year after year... 

Again, there is nothing special about dead bees that have not been treated... I think what the "treatment free" group is hoping for is being able to keep their bees alive and thriving without HAVING to treat. 

I was simply trying to point out that the mite populations within each area needs to be addressed in order to reach the goals of not having losses.

Resistant bees do not kill mites... winter and starvation is what kills mites... the resistances of the bees put the mites into the situations where they can be killed this way, but if you keep bringing in more and more mites, YOU become the issue... just something to keep in mind when trying to help your bees adapt.

Oldtimer, thanks. Sorry I missed your post while I was typing mine on this silly phone. Lol.

Mark, point taken... sometimes it feels like trying to teach literature and the ABC's at the same time. Lol.


----------



## sqkcrk

I have been keeping bees for 25 or 30 years, depending on what you want to count as beekeeping. I have an Associate of Applied Sciences Degree from OSU/ATI, which included the basics of Queen Rearing and Honeybee Genetics available in the mid 1980s.

I don't feel qualified to ask those here w/ greater knowledge, understanding and experience than I anything but clarifying questions. Certainly not questions challenging their knowledge or methodology.

I would have to spend some time w/ those more knowledgeable than I before I could come up w/ an intelligent question to ask. Other than "How do I go about doing (such and such)?"

To quote Harry Callahan, "A man has got to know his limitations."


----------



## Stonefly7

I don't feel qualified to ask those here w/ greater knowledge, understanding and experience than I anything but clarifying questions. Certainly not questions challenging their knowledge or methodology.

I would have to spend some time w/ those more knowledgeable than I before I could come up w/ an intelligent question to ask. Other than "How do I go about doing (such and such)?"

I hear ya Mark,

I am honored Robertl came on and explained things as well as he did. As noted in earlier posts, I have not that skill set dealing with [] first year keeps. I was hoping by now the house would have been cleaned.

Thanks for sharing Robert, and I look forward to working with you for years to come. New genitics every two to three years for me. I leave the breeding expertise to the breeder, and prefere to consentrate on production.

Kind regards


----------



## Barry

Omie said:


> No, 6 to 10 would be the_ diameter_ of the circle around your hive.


I guess I'm trying to point out how far another hive can be from mine and still have an influence. If my bees can travel 5 miles away from the hive and another hive the same, the two hives could be 10 miles apart and the bees shaking hands at their outer limits.


----------



## Barry

rrussell6870 said:


> So you would rather let your colonies rely on the "possible" influence of other bee keepers that may or may not bring in new genetics and have to treat?


Have to treat? I'm already past that. I've implemented changes years ago that have made it possible not to treat. And it isn't contingent on having a particular queen other than once the queen and bees acclimate to my location, they maintain themselves dealing/mixing with the local stock. I know Dennis Murrell has tried many different stock from breeders and hasn't seen any advantage to the success of his treatment free hives. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Dennis)



> I only posted on this thread to try to help those that truly want to be able to keep bees without having to treat them, and without having to replace them year after year...


"truly"? How am I suppose to interpret that? I "truly" don't treat and I don't replace bees year after year. Even Dee only places the importance of breeding/genetics at 1/3rd for successful treatment free beekeeping.



> Resistant bees do not kill mites... winter and starvation is what kills mites... the resistances of the bees put the mites into the situations where they can be killed this way, but if you keep bringing in more and more mites, YOU become the issue... just something to keep in mind when trying to help your bees adapt.


This might explain the initial loss when I and others went to SC, but once you get past that third year, I've not seen issues with mites.


----------



## Roland

Barry, How many bee hives, managed and feral, do you think are within a 4 mile radius of your apiary?

I am curious the numbers you think are within this distance from your Apiary. Yes, bees from farther away might have an effect, but I asked you for information at this distance.

Roland


----------



## Omie

here's a cool map radius drawing gizmo. Follow the directions at top first. 
http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm


----------



## WLC

(Just a note: it's not Varroa that kills bees, Varroa makes bees vulnerable to other pathogens that can be lethal, like viruses.)

If I'm reading this correctly, this is the genetic diversity issue that comes up again and again.

So if we took those 'acclimated' treatment free bees to another location, their resistance wouldn't be as effective in the new location.

The resistant bees may be acclimated to one type of pathogen in their original location, but are defenseless against different pathogens in a new location.

Maori demonstrated that a significant fraction of bees were resistant to an RNA virus because their genome contained a virus fragment that allowed the bees' RNAi pathway to suppress the virus.This means that the bees wouldn't be resistant to a variant or a different virus that they might encounter in a new location. 

Unless there are enough variants present in the gene pool of your local bees, then they won't be able to handle new pathogens as quickly.

But...

Maori demonstrated that retrotransposition events can create virus resistant bees, which requires the pathogen to cause this to happen. It's RNA must be present to become integrated.

This shows how you can both be right at the same time.

One hypothesis requires that resistance genes are already present in the stock, like VSH. The other hypothesis says that resistance can be acquired locally, by retrotransposition and RNAi for example.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

rrussell6870,
I'm finding your posts to be very interesting and informative keep them coming 

frazz


----------



## Barry

Roland said:


> Barry, How many bee hives, managed and feral, do you think are within a 4 mile radius of your apiary?


Roland, to soon to know. This is the first year I've had them where they are and am not familiar with who else is around. I know the area where I was keeping them, but hope to do a little investigation this summer around the area they are now.


----------



## Barry

rrussell6870 said:


> So you would rather let your colonies rely on the "possible" influence of other bee keepers that may or may not bring in new genetics and have to treat? :scratch:
> 
> That doesn't really seem consistent with your earlier statement of not wanting any other genetics brought to your yards because "the queens that they make on their own" are what you prefer...


Another thought on this. Once my bees get acclimated to my locale, whose bees are influencing whose? What I don't want is for me to bring in outside genetics via purchased queens and force the influence. I have taken the path of letting the bees make a change if they want to.


----------



## sqkcrk

Is there a difference between "acclimated" and "oriented" or "used to"?


----------



## Roland

Barry - I am confused. You did not check the area before placing your bees there? How do you know that the area is not already well foraged? Around here, MOST of us know where each others territory is. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## Barry

"each others territory"? It's "my bee's territory" if I have a piece of land to set my hives on! 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.


----------



## Roland

In the days before mites(treatment free), and today, it is advisable to keep beeyards 4 miles apart to prevent the spread of disease. This was especially true for AFB,which was cured by burning, an expensive loss.

Yes, you have the right to place your bees on your property. There is no law stating you cannot put your bees on your property, even if your neighbor has 50 hives across the fence. 

The proper etiquette in the past has been to inquire at beekeeping meetings, or with neighbors, to find out if there are other bees in the area. This maximizes honey production for all, and minimizes transmittance of diseases.

The "Bull of the woods" has always maintained, that it is the abandoned hives that are the reservoirs of AFB.

Point clarified?

Crazy Roland


----------



## Barry

Sure, but there is no way for me to know with certainty. I've done a visual around the area and talked to the owner of the property, but that guarantees nothing. "Other neighbors"? You realize how many doors I'd be knocking on if I did this?! Things must be different in your area.


----------



## RiodeLobo

Barry said:


> Another thought on this. Once my bees get acclimated to my locale, whose bees are influencing whose?


That is exactly the point that I have a question about. I am just starting out, but plan to expand this season. The area that I live in doesn't have much in the way of hives managed or otherwise, to the best of my knowledge. I have not moved my hives to the location and have not seen a single honey bee on the property even with a decent amount of forage (spring come late in this corner of the world). My concern is when i bring in my hives with natral comb, and all the drones they want to raise, will my genetics overcome the small population within the breeding area? If so won't that lead to inbreeding without introduction of other genetics?

Thanks


----------



## sqkcrk

What is it like where you live in Oregon? Maybe there is a reason why there aren't any bees there.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Roland said:


> ...abandoned hives that are the reservoirs of AFB.


Or the test criteria for AFB resistant stock perhaps?


----------



## RiodeLobo

sqkcrk said:


> What is it like where you live in Oregon? Maybe there is a reason why there aren't any bees there.


I am at 3500 ft,in a 60 mile wide valley between two mountain ranges, the first dandelions bloom in the middle of April, the last frost is the end of May. The willows are in bloom, and there are a bunch of them. I am about 1/2 a mile from a small town with gardens and such. The country around is about 2/3's farm land, of which most is cattle pasture. The other 1/3 is sage/grasslands. I know there are some apiaries around (some operations in the hundreds of hives) and one migratory operation that are based 15-30 miles south. I don't know of any managed hives within 5 miles. There is no local beekeeping club, the closet that I am aware of is about 3 hours and several USDA climate zones away.

I just bought this place, 3.5 acres, and will be moving my hives and nucs out there next month. I am planting 2 acres in a pasture/bee blend, and seeding clover where ever i can, so there should be plenty of forage later.

But back to the question, assuming I am correct (perhaps a large assumption) that in an area of a limited gene pool how would one combat inbeeding without introduction of other queens? Or is it not an issue? I would tend to think that it would be.

Thanks


----------



## Barry

"Or the test criteria for AFB resistant stock perhaps? "

That's what I'm thinkin'. I'm not going to live in a bubble. Life is dangerous. Live anyway.


----------



## Barry

RL, don't sweat it. You have plenty of time before you would have to worry (if at all) about diversity.


----------



## WLC

You sound like my buddy.

But, AFB can affect neighbors.

I wonder if saying you're 'treatment free' to other beekeepers is like saying 'I pee in the pool'.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> Or the test criteria for AFB resistant stock perhaps?


There are better ways to test for AFB resistance, otherwise known as Hygenic Behavior, than to have cases of AFB where bees can become exposed to the diseased material.


----------



## sqkcrk

RiodeLobo, sounds like your bees should do well there.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> But, AFB can affect neighbors.


Ya, that's the risk _*I*_ take not knowing and/or controlling what's around me.


----------



## RiodeLobo

Barry said:


> RL, don't sweat it. You have plenty of time before you would have to worry (if at all) about diversity.


I am not worried just collating data as they say.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> "Or the test criteria for AFB resistant stock perhaps? "
> 
> That's what I'm thinkin'. I'm not going to live in a bubble. Life is dangerous. Live anyway.


The next time I find a cpl of cases of AFB, should I save them for you? I'll give them to you and Sol, if you'll come pick them up.

Hey Oldtimer, cringing yet?


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> You sound like my buddy.


I hope you mean someone you know. 



WLC said:


> I wonder if saying you're 'treatment free' to other beekeepers is like saying 'I pee in the pool'.


If I were a "reservoir of disease" as I have been flippantly accused of being in the past, you could be right. But I keep inspecting my bees and finding them to be housed in clean fresh small cell combs that smell exactly like wax. So I don't know who's peeing in your pool, but it's not me.


----------



## Barry

Mark -

Now how is that at all on the same line as one not knowing where every beehive is in a 4 mile radius? I will take a calculated risk, but I won't be dumb and take any of your AFB. I'm cringing!


----------



## WLC

The other hive' s a deadout. So, I conveniently blame them (not AFB). Danged pool pee'rs.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> Mark -
> 
> Now how is that at all on the same line as one not knowing where every beehive is in a 4 mile radius? I will take a calculated risk, but I won't be dumb and take any of your AFB. I'm cringing!


The posts you and Sol made seemed to be saying having AFB around was a good thing or not a bad thing as it would be a way of showing AFB resistance. Unless I misunderstood you.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> "Or the test criteria for AFB resistant stock perhaps? "
> 
> That's what I'm thinkin'. I'm not going to live in a bubble. Life is dangerous. Live anyway.


So, if you knew of a colony w/ AFB, what would you do? Nothing? And let life do what it does? Or what?


----------



## Barry

I'd pay someone a personal visit.


----------



## sqkcrk

A pretty vague answer. Care to elaborate?


----------



## Oldtimer

Barry said:


> Ya, that's the risk _*I*_ take not knowing and/or controlling what's around me.






sqkcrk said:


> Hey Oldtimer, cringing yet?


What I can say, is it happened to me this year. I moved some hives to what seemed like a great spot, couple months later one of them had a few cells of AFB. This was documented here on beesource at the time. Ended up burning 4 hives at the site. BTW this area has had no reported AFB for over 20 years.

As I'm an inspector we checked known hives in the area, found 2 hives with AFB but new cases that would have started about the same time as mine. Then just a couple of weeks ago we found another guy with bees in the area who was not known to us. Checked his hives and found one with AFB but probably only a 6 or so month old infection. But when talking to him he told us he had found and burned 2 AFB hives the previous year. 

If he had reported that as he is meant to, I would have known to be more careful about moving my own hives to that location.

But also, these are the only hives this guy has, they have been there quite a few years, and he does not move them or any equipment. So where did he get his first cases from? Obviously, there is something else in the area. Likely it's either an AFB hive that's been moved there and is not registered so we don't know about it. Or, it's an old dead out that a swarm has moved into and started the whole cycle over again.


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> Care to elaborate?


You created the scenario (picture), I replied with what info you gave me. If you want more, you will have to paint more detail on your picture.


----------



## sqkcrk

I was responding to your statement and I thought that asking what you would do was prettyt straight forward. And "I would talk to somebody." was pretty vague. Who would you talk to? How would you get the AFB addressed? You seemed to express a live and let live attitude w/ no concern for AFB. Which sorta surprised me.


----------



## Roland

"abandoned hives" in my post means exactly that, abandoned by bees and humans. 

Barry posted:
"I know there's a guy not too far as I see his road sign just down the road."

What do you know about this person? If he is that close, it sounds like you will be sharing drones and pathogens, and did not follow the old time etiquette.

Yes, our area must be different, about 3/4's of a county, mostly dairy farms. Most every one knows where we have bees in their vicinity. We know the major beekeepers to our west, south, and east. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## Omie

Roland, in places like where I live, farms and properties are much smaller, so there are many more landowners in a given area. We also have dairy farms, but...lots of woods, hills, winding roads...._way_ too many places and properties to know all the people who keep a few hives within 4 miles of you. Lots of hobbyists and small homesteaders keeping bees quietly. Plus NY no longer even has a bee inspector! There are many more small BKs here and fewer large commercial ones. I keep discovering new 'hidden' backyard hives as I drive around- I've gotten good at spotting hives from the road, but for every one I spot there must be another bunch I have no idea about.


----------



## rrussell6870

"I only posted on this thread to try to help those that truly want to be able to keep bees without having to treat them, and without having to replace them year after year..." From post 137... 



Barry said:


> "truly"? How am I suppose to interpret that? I "truly" don't treat and I don't replace bees year after year. Even Dee only places the importance of breeding/genetics at 1/3rd for successful treatment free beekeeping..


Exactly the way it is written... It seems that there are two common groups amongst the treatment free croud, those that want to KEEP bees without having to use treatments, and those that are just so against the idea of treatments (and look at the word "treatment" as if it means chems, commercialism, Monsanto, the man, etc...) that they would simply disagree with any logic put before them. To me that is the difference between those that "Truly" want to keep healthy bees without having to treat or replace them... Not calling you either one, just explaining my expression.

"even Dee"?? lol. I'm not even going to go there...


----------



## Omie

sqkcrk said:


> I was responding to your statement and I thought that asking what you would do was prettyt straight forward. And "I would talk to somebody." was pretty vague. Who would you talk to? How would you get the AFB addressed? You seemed to express a live and let live attitude w/ no concern for AFB. Which sorta surprised me.


When he said "I'd pay someone a visit" I think he meant if that person near him had AFB he would visit them and talk to them. I think you were asking what he'd do if HE had AFB. hence perhaps the confusion?


----------



## rrussell6870

WLC,

Post # 140 is great. And you are absolutely right... This is exactly why I was explaining that managing your "area" while allowing your bees to adapt to a treatment free environment was just as important as managing the colonies them selves during that process... even more so...

In actuality, it does not take bees very long to cycle into clean microbes... and get a fresh start with a healthier stance to fight with... However, if the predation levels continue to rise during that process, the stresses actually weaken the colonies and you have a bunch a sad faces signing checks to send to the package producers the following year.

Great post.


----------



## rrussell6870

Barry said:


> Another thought on this. Once my bees get acclimated to my locale, whose bees are influencing whose? What I don't want is for me to bring in outside genetics via purchased queens and force the influence. I have taken the path of letting the bees make a change if they want to.


Perfectly understandable. My point was that you had said that you were not worried about inbreeding because there were "lots of other beekeepers around" and you get "whatever new blood they bring in"... So if the guy down the road has 100 hives, and you have 20, and he decides to by queens from south florida, and the guy that he buys them from grafted ALL 100 queens from the same mother and mates them in a yard of daughters from that mothers sister, where does that leave your 20 hives? His 100 will be on the downward spiral surely, but consider the effects that this would have on your acclimation... Isnt it a much safer alternative to make your own decision what new blood you allow into your yard? Say a local breeder three counties away supplies you with 2 queens each year or 4 queens every other year... of course, that is only if you can stay away from "down the road guy"... Local stocks will be effected by whatever is brought in by whoever brings it... and the number of colonies would be very minimal... so thats no really a answer to the problem, and hoping that someone that you dont even know may NOT be an idiot is reaching. lol. Like Roland said, there has always been a common courtesy rule of thumb that bee keepers try to stay out of reach of one another. It was helpful for both parties as well as the wild stocks, because in the areas between each keeper, the stocks interbred and natural selection took its place and made awesome bees that were truly acclimated to the areas... this "local stock" was good for keeping what you were mentioning, under control...


----------



## rrussell6870

sqkcrk said:


> Is there a difference between "acclimated" and "oriented" or "used to"?


In some ways... An acclimated colony would not only be used to the temp, humidity, altitude, etc.. or oriented to the types and location of forage within a geographical location, but it would also have witnessed and addressed the different forms of predation (such as becoming darker in color, smaller in average size, and faster in flight in areas of high bird predation), have learned and adjusted things such as its brood rearing times to keep rainy seasons, cold spells, fog (high humidity areas along the slope ranges of mountains), even hurricane seasons from effecting it so much... 

But mostly when we speak of acclimated bees, we refer to the ability to over winter successfully, build up and conserve stores correctly, and most importantly (yet least discussed), truly acclimated bees have reached a healthy balance of microbes from the local forage... cant fight cancer while smoking 3 packs a day and living off of microwave dinners and old charter... lol. They need to be able to be at their fittest to fight off mites and diseases... we need to be able to manipulate them to get them to do what we want, when we want... the two usually can not coexist... So the industry evolves first... from a few hives on every farm to migratory operations... we have adapted to using the acclimation of different regions to suit our goals... not so bad, but the back yard beek wants his bees to become acclimated to HIS area and not be effected by all of the others that are being hauled around, or by the queens that are produced to fit those needs... 

Sounds great to me, we just have to all work together... understanding that those migratory operations are needed to feed this nation, and understanding that not all "purchased queens" are designed to simply suit the migratory needs would help close a lot of communication gaps where people use broad terms such as "Purchased Queens" as if all were the same... I would love to help people properly acclimate their bees without inbreeding or allowing the migratory inflence keep them from their goals and allow them to stop replacing bees... But only those that are truly wanting to "Keep healthy bees without Having to treat"... not those that just want to be anti-whatever... Its so discouraging (not just for answerers, but for readers as well) to have sound advice mocked simply for the sake of wanting something to mock...


----------



## rrussell6870

RiodeLobo said:


> But back to the question, assuming I am correct (perhaps a large assumption) that in an area of a limited gene pool how would one combat inbeeding without introduction of other queens? Or is it not an issue? I would tend to think that it would be.
> 
> Thanks


It has always been managed by means of increase. If that makes sense... Operations would usually find the number of hives that they had, and buy queens for 10% of those hives, then make splits to use those queens in, but take the splits to an outer yard... they would do this every year using a different provider or stock each year... and each year, they would start a new yard with the queens... each spring, they would chose their favorites from each of their yards and spread some of these genetics into the original yards by pulling nucs and allowing virgin to mate with their original stocks... this process keeps you moving forward, keeps you diverse, and keeps you safe from "junk" bees at the same time. In most operations you can ask them about their different locations and they will tell you about the bees in each one as if each yard has its own personality... in a sense, it does...


----------



## rrussell6870

Barry said:


> Ya, that's the risk _*I*_ take not knowing and/or controlling what's around me.


Its not just Your risk... if you do not treat, do not test, do not know the bees around you, and you move your hives... those around your area are taking a risk too, and just like you, they dont even know it... Not sure if you test, but its always a good idea. From what you have said about your bees, AFB shouldnt be a concern from your colonies, but that doesnt mean that they cant pick it up and pass it on before you realize it. We move hives a LOT but we test before each time just to be absolutely sure that we do not help spread anyone elses troubles...


----------



## rrussell6870

WLC said:


> But, AFB can affect neighbors.
> 
> I wonder if saying you're 'treatment free' to other beekeepers is like saying 'I pee in the pool'.


This has been the point in a long lived debate and is the root of a lot of the issues between "treatment free" and Commercial... The idea is that treatment free guys were letting their hives be riddled with diseases and pest and as they die off, they just pass the diseases and pests off to the commercial guy that has been treating to keep these things from happening, thus forcing him to have to treat again the following year... this is where the "irresponsible beekeeping" terms come from...(its also the reason that its important to know your surroundings)

This may be the case in some instances, but I feel that sort of thing happens amongst the folks that I mentioned earlier, those that are NOT "truly" interested in keeping healthy bees without having to use treatments... instead, those folks simply keep unhealthy bees because they Refuse to use treatments... the difference is the bees and the management... The guys here are past the days of losses, thus they are not keeping hives of infected and infested bees to pollute others with... 

In short, "They went to the potty before they came to the pool". lol.


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> And "I would talk to somebody." was pretty vague. Who would you talk to?


I'd talk to the owner of the infected hive. 



> How would you get the AFB addressed?


The same way you would address a neighbors dog that keeps coming onto your property and messing with your animals, garden, etc.. Or a neighbor that has a dead elm tree and doesn't cut it down. I just dealt with this last week. I have elm trees and don't want them to get Dutch Elm disease and a neighbor several doors away who rents out the house has a dead elm tree. Had to get the city involved.

Try to get him to take care of his infected bees. If not, then I will be faced with moving the hives.



> You seemed to express a live and let live attitude w/ no concern for AFB. Which sorta surprised me.


You misunderstood me then. You, Roland and WLC seem to think that I can avoid the dangers of beekeeping (AFB) by simply knowing who is around me and that I shouldn't move bees to a new location if I'm infringing upon other beekeepers. Funny thing is, my bees are no more safe where they've been for many years on my property than the new location. In fact, there are probably more beehives around the area of my property than where I moved them to. This isn't land like Roland lives on where you can see lots of open field with houses scattered here and there. Like what Omie said is what you'll find here. Lots of homes, lots of trees, some fields here and there. This isn't commercial beekeeping area.

I've never had AFB. I had EHB one year in one hive on three frames when I was regressing bees. I'll bet you've had AFB. Perhaps you even treat for it prophylactically?

So, the point I'm making is, I will keep keeping bees in other locations as they come available. I will do this not ever knowing fully who else is keeping bees around me. On some level, I guess you could call that a live and let live attitude.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> You misunderstood me then. You, Roland and WLC seem to think that I can avoid the dangers of beekeeping (AFB) by simply knowing who is around me and that I shouldn't move bees to a new location if I'm infringing upon other beekeepers.
> 
> I'll bet you've had AFB. Perhaps you even treat for it prophylactically?


And you misunderstand me too, cause I never said what you assume I think in common w/ Roland and WLC. I think beekeepers should keep their bees wherever they wish and they should know how to keep their bees strong and healthy enuf to minimize incidences of AFB.

Propholactically? No, not at all. It's not part of my colony management protocol. Identify and burn. That's how I treat AFB. Does that make me partially Treatment Free?


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> Identify and burn. That's how I treat AFB. Does that make me partially Treatment Free?


It makes you OLD SCHOOL!!!


----------



## frazzledfozzle

It makes you responsible and sensible


----------



## Roland

Barry, my point was that if you do not know who also has bees in your area, you do not know what risks you are taking, or what the genetic implications are. Knowing your neighbors will not protect you from AFB, just give you an idea what risks you are taking.

You said:

I know there's a guy not too far as I see his road sign just down the road. There could be anywhere from 20 to 200. 

A sign seems to indicate commercial activity. Proper etiquette would be to introduce yourself. Explain your goals, and show you are responsible.

As SQKCRK said:

I think beekeepers should keep their bees wherever they wish and they should know how to keep their bees strong and healthy enuf to minimize incidences of AFB.

The problems only arise when someone is less than diligent.

If you are both must swim in the same pool, learn how to play well together.


Omie - We have a lot of small lots with houses also, but the farming community is pretty close knit, and they know each other. Most of the names go back 150 years.

Crazy, old school, Roland

Linden Apiary, Est. 1852


----------



## Barry

Solomon Parker said:


> It makes you OLD SCHOOL!!!


Actually, new school. I believe 'old school' you would still render the wax from the combs and reuse. Lusby's do this.


----------



## Solomon Parker

rrussell6870 said:


> This has been the point in a long lived debate and is the root of a lot of the issues between "treatment free" and Commercial.


As we've seen, there doesn't need to be a separation between these two groups. A proper delineation exists in the realm of commercial/sideliner/hobbyist, not between commercial and treatment-free. 

There is no meaningful difference between the two unless one applies stereotypes to either that are likely inaccurate. There are treatment free commercial beekeepers. There is no meaningful barrier that keeps one from being the other concurrently.

I maintain that the supposed battle between commercial and treatment-free beekeepers remains a farce.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Barry said:


> I believe 'old school' you would still render the wax from the combs and reuse. Lusby's do this.


Oh, I see. I've thought about if I'd do it like Dee or burn, or some sort of hybrid if I ever got AFB. I guess I'll never know until it happens. I thought Dean said she removed affected combs (six cells or more) and burned them. Maybe I misunderstood.


----------



## Barry

rrussell6870 said:


> It seems that there are two common groups amongst the treatment free croud, those that want to KEEP bees without having to use treatments, and those that are just so against the idea of treatments (and look at the word "treatment" as if it means chems, commercialism, Monsanto, the man, etc...) that they would simply disagree with any logic put before them. To me that is the difference between those that "Truly" want to keep healthy bees without having to treat or replace them... Not calling you either one, just explaining my expression.


Surely you're calling me one of them!  I don't see two different groups. We've already defined how we are going to use the term 'treatment free' for this forum. Not sure why you and a couple other's want to divide people up into different groups. The only difference I see in the two groups you made is on group "would simply disagree with any logic put before them." Whose logic? Who's in this group?



> "even Dee"?? lol.


This would be like me saying "even Russell"?? lol. Doesn't really sit well, does it?


----------



## Barry

rrussell6870 said:


> So if the guy down the road has 100 hives, and you have 20, and he decides to by queens from south florida, and the guy that he buys them from grafted ALL 100 queens from the same mother and mates them in a yard of daughters from that mothers sister, where does that leave your 20 hives? His 100 will be on the downward spiral surely, but consider the effects that this would have on your acclimation...


You're not factoring in the other 5-10 beekeepers who keep a handful of hives. They're not all buying queens from the same place. There's a diversity already there. Once my bees are acclimated, I haven't worried about the genetics around me.


----------



## sqkcrk

Old School, New School maybe both or neither. I find identifying and burning easier than rendering the comb. Especially considering the little amount of wax that one gets from old black comb and the quality and color of the wax. Not worth the trouble. Not worth the exposure.

I hope no one, who isn't using medications, is using the removal of infected comb method to address cases of AFB.

Sorry about that, but I couldn't say that w/out mentioning the unmentionable. Please don't delete the whole post.


----------



## Barry

"I find identifying and burning easier than rendering the comb."

I would too Mark. But if I was setup like the Lusby's, I'd render as well. Chemical free wax is an asset. Rendering wax via melting kills the foulbrood. I haven't seen anyone suggest that the way to deal with AFB is to remove affected frames only.


----------



## Omie

rrussell6870 said:


> It seems that there are two common groups amongst the treatment free croud, those that want to KEEP bees without having to use treatments, and those that are just so against the idea of treatments (and look at the word "treatment" as if it means chems, commercialism, Monsanto, the man, etc...) that they would simply disagree with any logic put before them. To me that is the difference between those that "Truly" want to keep healthy bees without having to treat or replace them...


I would find it impossible to divide treatment free beekeepers into two such distinct categories. First of all, there are very very few _completely treatment free_ bk's to begin with. Most are 'treatment free' to one degree or another, depending on the various definitions of TF not simply used for this forum's purposes. Second of all, I suspect most TF BK's fall variously within different combinations of beliefs and practices you mention above. You just can't pigeonhole everyone so neatly and precisely, black/white- even in a general sense.


----------



## sqkcrk

That makes sense for what you say Dee Lusby is doing, by rendering wax from her own combs to then make into foundation for her own hives. Is that what she does?

I thought it was suggested that Dee removes the combs w/ a certain number of cells of AFB. I think Sol stated that in a Post. Nothing more was described. So, I assumed that meant she doesn't do away w/ the colony and render the whole hives worth of comb.

What about the honey? How does one deal w/ that? In a Treatment Free outfit?


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> Is that what she does??


That is what she does as far as I know.



sqkcrk said:


> I thought it was suggested that Dee removes the combs w/ a certain number of cells of AFB. I think Sol stated that in a Post. Nothing more was described. So, I assumed that meant she doesn't do away w/ the colony and render the whole hives worth of comb.


That is the way that I understand it from what deknow said. My understanding is that she simply removes combs affected in more than six cells. There may be some requeening involved, deknow would have to fill in the details.



sqkcrk said:


> What about the honey? ... In a Treatment Free outfit?


One sells it.


----------



## sqkcrk

And the supers that the AFB tainted honey came from? Are great efforts taken to make sure that those frames go back into the same supers and back on the hive they came off of? If not, that's a good way to spread the disease.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> AFB honey


It seems strange to apply this sort of label since in fact AFB spores exist in every hive. Technically all honey would be AFB honey.


----------



## sqkcrk

No, I don't think you are correct about that. One may find AFB spores present in a beehive or colony, to a lesser or greater degree, but, the amount of spores present in honey extracted from a colony that shows active, or vegetative, AFB, would I imagine contain many moire spores per unit of measure.

A prescribed IPM method to address the possibilities of AFB and as an attempt to lessen the possibility of spread amonst ones own bees is to mark all supers and frames and to make sure that the frames stay in the same boxes and are only used on the same hives.

That should be added to the list of Treatment Free Beekeeping Best Practices, imo. But not limited to TFB, but beekeeping in general. Taking in mind what is practical for beekeeking operations of differing sizes.


----------



## Solomon Parker

We need to do a little more than imagine to discover an effective solution here.

When it comes down to it, I'm not afraid of exposing my bees to disease, and I'm not afraid to let them deal with it themselves. If only a similar solution to AFB had been applied to varroa infestations, we might not be in this situation today. But I know, people want to know how I can let my bees die. Why doesn't anybody ask the National Geographic film crews why they don't rescue those baby Thompson's Gazelles from the cheetahs? They're so CUUUUUUUTE!


----------



## rrussell6870

That IS the reason we are in this mess today... had the spread and destruction of varroa been known from the start, there would have been more guidelines to limit the transmissions so that the populations could have dealt with smaller levels of mites over longer periods of time to allow them to adapt... instead, it was assumed (or hoped) that the bees would "work through it" and the losses would simply stop... so shipping was continued and the treatments were made softer... thus the spread was simply overwhelming to vast numbers of colonies and hundreds of commercial operations collapsed while tens of thousands of people left bee keeping altogether... bees are precious, it takes time to build resistances... don't through every evil at them at once... again, dead bees do not get stronger... these threats are not found in nature, they are found in the environment that we (humans) created by forcing too much and expecting too much... throwing too much at them at once does not benefit your bees, nor the wild bees that may or may not be around your apiaries who will have to suffer through the pathogens and pests that thrive in perishing colonies. Take it slow sol, they will grow stronger over time, but you have to limit the exposure, not help it. There is already enough exposure out there.


----------



## WLC

There's one very important point that is being overlooked here.

Native pollinators can become a reservoir for these pathogens, and they can also succumb to them as well.

Native pollinators are important to agriculture and to the health of the environment.

Thay are already known to be in decline.

We know, for example, that viruses can move between Honeybees and other pollinators, and back again, through pollen.

I could also point out that there's nothing scientific about the 'Bond' hypothesis (Live and Let Die). There's no control involved and no known independent variables (to control).

I could also say that many pathogens not only suppress RNAi in insects like Honeybees, but by doing so, they allow other pathogens to become more prevalent.

This is also how molecular parasites, like retrotransposons, can become desuppressed and start inserting foreign bits of RNA into the Honeybee genome.

In short, there's alot wrong with applying the 'Bond' protocol to livestock (like Honeybees).

We can do better. That's why I've resorted to VSH bees. I can measure it. It's a far more scientific method of treatment-free beekeeping.


----------



## rrussell6870

Barry said:


> Surely you're calling me one of them!  I don't see two different groups. We've already defined how we are going to use the term 'treatment free' for this forum. Not sure why you and a couple other's want to divide people up into different groups. The only difference I see in the two groups you made is on group "would simply disagree with any logic put before them." Whose logic? Who's in this group?
> 
> This would be like me saying "even Russell"?? lol. Doesn't really sit well, does it?


Many people are in this group... I'm not saying that we need to distinguish between the two, just saying to keep in mind that there impressionable minds that have simply not had enough experience to learn the hardships that come with working away from treatments... many, many times I hear people (not any of you, but newbees) say "I'm just got my first two packages and I'm not going to treat so my bees will be healthy"... when I hear this, I usually ask "why do you suppose some people treat?"... the answer is always the same..."cause they are commercials and they like chemicals and have weak bees"... so I respond, "why do you suppose that they like chems and have weak bees?"... to which they reply, "cause their bees die if they don't use chems"... these poor souls are the ones that are victims of poor communications. They have taken to these theories from the poor guidance of others that say that bees are weak if they can't handle mites that are found in nature, or diseases that spread from sick colonies... they are doomed to replace or give up from the start... no one has taught them how to actually get TO the point where their bees can withstand such things... that is what I would hope that this forum would accomplish. Some (the no need to mention group) are simply running on the understanding that I described above... the majority of people here have studied enough to know that there is a difference in bees that do not NEED treatment, and bees that do not GET treatment.

Again, not trying to divide anyone. Just trying to add awareness that some newbees may come here with what appears to be a bad attitude toward anything that a commercial says, so that we can work together to help those people better understand that there is work to be done to reach their goals and begin to lay out the basics.

"Even Russell??" Doesn't bother me in the least btw... I was just giggling about the oxymorons in the original sentence.


----------



## rrussell6870

WLC, poetry... very nice post!


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> We need to do a little more than imagine to discover an effective solution here.
> 
> When it comes down to it, I'm not afraid of exposing my bees to disease, and I'm not afraid to let them deal with it themselves. If only a similar solution to AFB had been applied to varroa infestations, we might not be in this situation today. But I know, people want to know how I can let my bees die. Why doesn't anybody ask the National Geographic film crews why they don't rescue those baby Thompson's Gazelles from the cheetahs? They're so CUUUUUUUTE!


I imagine, because I don't know for sure and have no real way of finding out. I also imagine that such information is out there somewhere, that studies have been done and the data exists.

Wouldn't logic lead you to believe that it is quite likely that what I imagine is true?

By "similar solution" do you mean "burn it when you find it"? That was the original "solution"carried out by the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). When Varroa were found, each case became an epicenter where, w/in a certain radius all known colonies were killed and destroyed, by burning.

Which was how AHB was first addressed when it got to the USA.

Plenty of people do ask that question. Apples and oranges, imo.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> Technically all honey would be AFB honey.


Technically we are all Equal, when in actuality some are more equal than others.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> By "similar solution" do you mean "burn it when you find it"? That was the original "solution"carried out by the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). When Varroa were found, each case became an epicenter where, w/in a certain radius all known colonies were killed and destroyed, by burning.


If someone's position is that easy to characterize and debunk then maybe you got it wrong.

At any rate, it didn't happen the way I would have hoped. There's no reason to argue about it. I can tell you what my best practices are, and you'll disagree, but that's okay, I'm still gonna do it the way I'm gonna do it. That's the wonder of having a forum like this. At the end of the day, we can all ignore each other if we so choose.


----------



## sqkcrk

I asked you a question I didn't make any accusations. I don't know why you are taking it that way. I was not trying to debunk anything.

Okay, what did I get wrong?


----------



## Solomon Parker

I was referring to the elimination of non-resistant stock. Mr. Russell obviously favors a more gradual approach, and I respect that position. And in any case, I don't feel that burning a problem whenever it shows up is a viable option. It doesn't seem to have worked with any pest to my knowledge. If prevention doesn't work, cleanup won't either.


----------



## sqkcrk

I thought we were talking about AFB and the percentage found in honey from infected cols and otherwise healthy cols. That is what I was responding to.

"I don't feel that burning a problem whenever it shows up is a viable option." What about diseases such as AFB? And AFB tainted honey?


----------



## WLC

I'm going to start refferring to my own treatment-free beekeeping philosophy as *Environmentally Responsible Beekeeping*.

That was in a very large part why I was attracted to the concept of treatment-free beekeeping.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Great! Start a forum.


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> "burn it when you find it"? That was the original "solution"carried out by the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). When Varroa were found, each case became an epicenter where, w/in a certain radius all known colonies were killed and destroyed, by burning.
> 
> Which was how AHB was first addressed when it got to the USA.


So how did that approach work? Not to well. By the way, where is this thread going? Anyone?


----------



## sqkcrk

Well, had it been kept up long enuf, there wouldn't be any commercial bkprs and not very many noncomms either.

But, as per AFB, probably because it is a disease and not a pest, it has worked well, along w/ other methods, since the time when cases of AFB were of epidemic proportion.

Where is the Thread going? Since no one seems to be making a list of "Best Practices", it probably isn't going anywhere. Was there supposed to be a List of Recommended Best Practices for the keeping of bees in a Treatment Free manner?

Seems to me, in the case of AFB, the best practice for Treatment Free Bkprs would be identify, then kill the bees and burn the combs and scorch the supers. Just like what is recommended for nonTreatment Free Bkprs.


----------



## WLC

Where's this best practices thread going?

I thought that being environmentally responsible would not only make a good 'Best Practice', but was also a principle reason why many beekeepers became treatment free beekeepers to begin with.

Generally, many wanted to get off of the pesticide treadmill because the stuff was building up in their hives. That's environmentally responsible.


----------



## Omie

A title like 'best practices' is bound to be problematic, since exactly _who_ gets to decide what the 'best' treatment free practices are? There are many methods people use, and everyone has their personal favorites and reasons for liking their own methods.
Has TF beekeeping really come down to a standard method that can be called the 'best' way of TF beekeeping?
If the word best were replaced with favorite, well that's another story then.


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> as per AFB, probably because it is a disease and not a pest, it has worked well, along w/ other methods, since the time when cases of AFB were of epidemic proportion.


I'd be interested if anyone who has some of the old books, if rendering the wax and scorching is mentioned. My Hive and Honey Bee isn't old enough for this. It does mention the 'shaking method'. "Holding the adult bees away from the infection source until the potentially contaminated honey carried by the bees was consumed." 1907


----------



## sqkcrk

sqkcrk said:


> But, as per AFB, probably because it is a disease and not a pest, it has worked well, along w/ other methods, since the time when cases of AFB were of epidemic proportion.


Meaning the early 1900s when Apiary Inspection Programs were established to address the AFB epidemic that was impacting the beekeeping industry in a similar manner to what we have experienced w/ Varroa. Whereas, I believe that Varroa has killed more colonies than AFB ever has.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> I'd be interested if anyone who has some of the old books, if rendering the wax and scorching is mentioned. My Hive and Honey Bee isn't old enough for this. It does mention the 'shaking method'. "Holding the adult bees away from the infection source until the potentially contaminated honey carried by the bees was consumed." 1907


And if they do? Where are you going w/ this?

You will find all sorts of recommendations in the old books.


----------



## Barry

I'd like to see where/when it was a common practice to salvage and reuse, versus burn, when AFB was found. Just because the current books don't recommend it anymore doesn't mean it isn't a perfectly good way to deal with it.


----------



## sqkcrk

Well, I have tried the shake onto foundation method, in order to try to save the bees, w/ mixed results. Worked and didn't work.


----------



## WLC

You could always wax dip.


----------



## Barry

Found this in my copy of First Lessons In Beekeeping - 1941

"There is nothing in the infected honey that shows in its appearance and it is safe for human beings to consume. Comb foundation made from the infected wax is entirely safe owing to the comb having been melted, as has been proved in thousands of cases."


----------



## Barry

Mark - did you do it twice with a four day interval? That's how I've read it is done.


----------



## Roland

To the best of my knowledge, there will be few if any AFB spores in honey from healthy hives.
The newer the comb, the lower the levels. 

TO the best of my knowledge, antibiotics for AFB can not be used in Europe. The solution is BOILING the frames, and sterilizing the wood. I also believe that the "shaken"method is used often. Io the best of my knowledge, their incidence of AFB is equal or less than ours in the USA.

I believe the Paenabacillis spore(AFB), like others in that group, are very heat resistant, and can stand 180 deg F. for periods of time, so therefore MELTING the wax is not enough.

If some one has FACTS that counter this, please correct me.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Barry

The melting part, I just did.


----------



## Daniel Wasson

The first English book that mentions Foul Brood was Edmond Southerne's 'A treatise Concerning the Right Use and Ordering of Bees' It was published in 1593. In it he talks about the need to keep the hives at least 3 feet apart in order to avoid infection. This was at a time when the hive (skep) was destroyed to get the honey, so probably not a big deal to burn one with the bees that was diseased.

This info is from a book by Professor of Biology, Gene Kritsky, called The Quest for the Perfect Hive.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Omie said:


> A title like 'best practices' is bound to be problematic, since exactly _who_ gets to decide what the 'best' treatment free practices are? There are many methods people use, and everyone has their personal favorites and reasons for liking their own methods.


Again, your wisdom shines. We humans have attitudes like 'keep your disease ridden bees away from my bees' but in the end, the bees don't care who they belong to. I was watching some videos on YouTube just yesterday which appeared to be an employee training series. They had some really interesting and efficient methods, and some which seemed to be a bit unnecessary. Then they brought out the coumophos. I think I'm not going to be doing introducing fat soluble pesticides into my hives. We all have our methods don't we. Why, I'd venture to say we all have our own ways of arranging the hives in the yard, some placing pallets full of hives wherever they fit, and some measuring them off and spending time leveling the stands. Best practices are what work well. But there isn't a one to one ratio of the things we do to the successes we have. 


Omie said:


> Has TF beekeeping really come down to a standard method that can be called the 'best' way of TF beekeeping?


 Hope not. I'm not sure beekeeping lends itself to that paradigm. Just when you think you have something together, you fall asleep at the wheel and your hives end up being burned at the side of the road.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> Mark - did you do it twice with a four day interval? That's how I've read it is done.


Do what? I shook bees from an infected colony onto foundation. A number of different times. Sometimes disease showed up again in the same colony.


----------



## Barry

You shake the bees onto foundation, wait four days, shake bees onto new foundation again. The four days gives the bees enough time to use up in comb building, all of the infected honey they carry. Get rid of the first batch of comb by rendering (or burning).


----------



## sqkcrk

I hate burning plastic. And killing and burning is more efficient timewise for me. I believe that feeding sugar syrup is recommended to, when shaking bees onto foundation.

Would you put your faith in more recently published books or studies?


----------



## Barry

Another down side to using plastic! Just think of all those toxins being released when you burn it.

"faith in more recently published books or studies"

Sure, you have something that disproves melting of AFB wax for reuse is safe?


----------



## Michael Bush

>I'd be interested if anyone who has some of the old books, if rendering the wax and scorching is mentioned. 

Scorching is in every ABC XYZ of Bee Culture I have, I think, I don't have them in front of me, so I can't say about the 1868 one, but I'm pretty sure all the ones from the 40's 70's and 80's did. I definitely remember it int he 70's one I first had. I also remember some talk about rendering wax and AFB but don't remember the details of that. The scorching had lots of pictures and I tried it once on some used equipment back in the 70's before I decided not to do it anymore.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> Another down side to using plastic! Just think of all those toxins being released when you burn it.
> 
> "faith in more recently published books or studies"
> 
> Sure, you have something that disproves melting of AFB wax for reuse is safe?


First of all, I don't know if rendering wax for reuse in foundation is a bad thing or not. Even if the spores weren't killed in the rendering process, I wouldn't think that wax or comb would be a source of infection which would have much impact. No where near as much as feeding honey is.

But, I was curious if there were more recent studies that showed that doing so was not a good idea, would that make a diff. Or did you ask about the old books because you want to follow old protocols and management techniques.

Many of the old books suggest the use of Sulfa thiazol in addressing AFB and I believe you reject that idea, right?


----------



## Barry

When this kind of thing is posted in another thread:

"Arkansas law, where one cell of AFB will get your colony burned. You can not keep honey or bees wax from an infected AFB colony, Doing so, you will be convicted"

it goes against a long history of dealing with AFB without such extremism. It doesn't add up. If there is evidence to prove that _some_ of these age old practices (melting wax/lye bath/scorching) are not effective, I'd like to see it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Precisely why I have not registered. There was a law to replace that one which made registration optional, but there don't appear to be any penalties, so I'm staying off the books for now.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> When this kind of thing is posted in another thread:
> 
> "Arkansas law, where one cell of AFB will get your colony burned. You can not keep honey or bees wax from an infected AFB colony, Doing so, you will be convicted"
> 
> it goes against a long history of dealing with AFB without such extremism. It doesn't add up. If there is evidence to prove that _some_ of these age old practices (melting wax/lye bath/scorching) are not effective, I'd like to see it.


During the time that NY had an active Apiary Inspection Program, if an Apiary Inspector found AFB present in a colony, that colony was sampled, tagged and Quarantined until the supervised burning of the infected hive and colony was completed. No honey removed and no wax rendered.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> Precisely why I have not registered. There was a law to replace that one which made registration optional, but there don't appear to be any penalties, so I'm staying off the books for now.


One doesn't have to Register themselves to get on the books.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> Precisely why I have not registered. There was a law to replace that one which made registration optional, but there don't appear to be any penalties, so I'm staying off the books for now.


One doesn't have to Register ones self to get on the books.


----------



## Acebird

> During the time that NY had an active Apiary Inspection Program, if an Apiary Inspector found AFB present in a colony, that colony was sampled, tagged and Quarantined until the supervised burning of the infected hive and colony was completed. No honey removed and no wax rendered.


Think about that for a minute. It was so critical that the inspector wiped out everything connected to the infected colony that inspectors don't exist in NY anymore. Makes me think that the program was nothing more than a power hungry government exercise. I think we should use the x-ray machines in the airports to sterilize the colonies. Go high tech.
We live in a slash and burn era to deal with terminal illnesses rather than take the more simple approach.


----------



## sqkcrk

There is alot more to why there are no longer 18 Apiary Inspectors in NY than you are aware of Acebird. NYS Dept of Ag& Mkts's Apiarey Inspection didn't address the needs of most of the beekeepers of NY State and therefore widespread support of the program declined. And, faced w/ the expense of irradiation of equipment, most beekeepers wouldn't go to the trouble.

ID and burn was the simple and least expensive solution to the presence of AFB in a colony of bees. Still is.


----------



## StevenG

And proven to be effective.


----------



## CharlieN

Solomon Parker said:


> Precisely why I have not registered. There was a law to replace that one which made registration optional, but there don't appear to be any penalties, so I'm staying off the books for now.


LOL. Are you seriously advocating one doesn't need to follow the law because there's no penalty for not following the law? Doesn't that tend toward a very situational ethic? I didn't think registration was optional in Arkansas.

Are you a member of NWABA in Fayetteville?


----------



## Barry

StevenG said:


> And proven to be effective.


So would burning the beekeepers truck along with the infected hives!
The question is if it is overkill. What is the least invasive treatment for AFB that still gets the job done?


----------



## sqkcrk

What do you suggest?


----------



## Acebird

> ID and burn was the simple and least expensive solution to the presence of AFB in a colony of bees. Still is.


I guess there is disagreement on whether it is a solution or not. Are you saying that if every case of AFB was IDed and burned it would not exist today?


----------



## sqkcrk

No, I am not. Anyone who knows anything about trying to control diseases and pests knows that one can never truly ever really eradicate a pest or disease. So, the goal is to keep disease controlled, meaning, at as low a percentage of presence possible thru education and inspection.

The goal is to keep incidences of disease and pests to "an acceptable level of occurance". In otherwords, as few as possible.


----------



## StevenG

Barry said:


> So would burning the beekeepers truck along with the infected hives!
> The question is if it is overkill. What is the least invasive treatment for AFB that still gets the job done?


Naw, burning the truck wouldn't work Barry... the AFB is in the beehive.  Most folks who get so ticked at their truck simply sell it, rather than destroy it. But, to each his own I guess.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Daniel Wasson

sqkcrk said:


> No, I am not. Anyone who knows anything about trying to control diseases and pests knows that one can never truly ever really eradicate a pest or disease. So, the goal is to keep disease controlled, meaning, at as low a percentage of presence possible thru education and inspection.
> 
> The goal is to keep incidences of disease and pests to "an acceptable level of occurance". In otherwords, as few as possible.


Which was kind of my point of posting about the book written in 1593. If the disease has been in literature for over 418 years, that says quite a lot in it's self. As well, and it goes without saying that the disease was know about long before it would have been written about. The method of control then, as now was isolation and destruction, which maintained 'control' It is fast, effective, and leaves no chance for mutation or advancement. Several chemicals, such as lye, will destroy the disease, but how completely. Plus the consideration of all the work involved with stripping down the hardware, doing the work needed to clean up, shaking the bees into new equipment twice (does the first shake hardware need to also be burned?) and taking the chance of a single drop of lye splashing into your eye with a result of potential permanent blindness.

Much more acceptable to me to lose $250.00 today than 100K in a week or two from inaction or trying to take the hopeful way out.


----------



## Solomon Parker

CharlieN said:


> Are you seriously advocating one doesn't need to follow the law because there's no penalty for not following the law?


I'm not advocating anything other than treatment-free beekeeping.


CharlieN said:


> Doesn't that tend toward a very situational ethic? I didn't think registration was optional in Arkansas.?


You'll have to decide your ethics in your own situation.  The law that is on the books is about 35 years old. It's antiquated and outdated. I wish the newer one had passed when it first came up. It made registration optional. I don't believe the government really needs to be telling me that I have to tell them if I want to keep bees.


CharlieN said:


> Are you a member of NWABA in Fayetteville?


No. With all the resistance I've had to treatment-free beekeeping here, I can't imagine it getting any better in person. Plus, I'm not necessarily planning on staying here much longer.


----------



## sqkcrk

Apparently the old law is optional too.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> Apparently the old law is optional too.


Effectively, yes. The extension agent (who I know personally) will tell you as much. That's one of the reasons why a new one was up for a vote. From what I've heard, it's been sent back for discussion among the state beekeeping associations.


----------



## Oldtimer

The beekeeping history of my country clearly shows that back when a range of methods other than burning were used for AFB, and this included non treatment, AFB went to VERY high levels. I'm talking crisis levels. Compulsary burning was introduced. AFB became rare. After some years, ambivalence to laws crept in as many newer beeks had not experienced the disease. AFB again started to creep up. Some beekeepers suffering losses caused directly by others, started to agitate, laws became enforced more effectively, and AFB again declined to very low levels.

Now we have a new crop of beekeepers with a whole different outlook, and level of respect for laws. Particularly in the area of my own responsibility to inspect, mostly urban hobbyists some with anti-establishment views, incidence of AFB in my area has increased sharply in the last 2 or 3 years, and we are on the cusp, in my opinion, of a lot of these newish beeks, being dealt a hard lesson in reality. Some already have been.

You may be lucky Sol and never see the disease. But if you ever do, and discover that non treatment leads to the eventual destruction of not only your bees but your equipment, you choices will be either throw some of the treatment free dogma out the window, or leave the hobby. AFB is not mites. It has been with apis melifera for countless millenia.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> you choices will be either throw some of the treatment free dogma out the window, or leave the hobby.


 I don't see how it follows that there are only these two choices.

"dogma - An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it."
This doesn't apply either.


----------



## Acebird

> The beekeeping history of my country clearly shows that back when a range of methods other than burning were used for AFB, and this included non treatment, AFB went to VERY high levels. I'm talking crisis levels. Compulsary burning was introduced. AFB became rare. After some years, ambivalence to laws crept in as many newer beeks had not experienced the disease. AFB again started to creep up. Some beekeepers suffering losses caused directly by others, started to agitate, laws became enforced more effectively, and AFB again declined to very low levels.


Assuming this happened exactly as you say, my thoughts would be why does this happen? Laws do not affect feral bees. No one can inspect a feral bee hive so if AFB can creep up again it must be something that beekeepers are doing to the tame bees that encourages AFB. Any guesses to what that might be?


----------



## deejaycee

Acebird said:


> Assuming this happened exactly as you say,


It did. And the current situation is also as OldTimer says too.


----------



## CharlieN

Solomon Parker said:


> I'm not advocating anything other than treatment-free beekeeping.


 :scratch: Actions speak more than words?



Solomon Parker said:


> The law that is on the books is about 35 years old. It's antiquated and outdated. I wish the newer one had passed when it first came up. It made registration optional. I don't believe the government really needs to be telling me that I have to tell them if I want to keep bees.


So, until the new one is passed, the old one is in effect, whether we agree with it or not. Not liking it does not negate it. Don't like it, change it. Until it's changed, it's still valid.



Solomon Parker said:


> Precisely why I have not registered. There was a law to replace that one which made registration optional, but there don't appear to be any penalties, so I'm staying off the books for now.


Reminds me of when my son turned 18 and he told me he wasn't going to go sign up for selective service because he didn't want them to know where he was. I simply asked him if he thought about how did they know where to send the postcard reminding him to sign up on his 18th birthday?



Solomon Parker said:


> No. With all the resistance I've had to treatment-free beekeeping here, I can't imagine it getting any better in person. Plus, I'm not necessarily planning on staying here much longer.


But if you've never attended a meeting, how would you know if or how many beeks there might be advocates of treatment-free beekeeping?

Regards,

Charlie


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> No one can inspect a feral bee hive so if AFB can creep up again it must be something that beekeepers are doing to the tame bees that encourages AFB. Any guesses to what that might be?


Generally speaking feral cols are not a great source of AFB in managed colonies. They tend to get eaten up by wax moths and they are mostly of a diastance from m,anaged cols and therefore have little impact. Where as, managed cols w/ AFB are near other managed cols w/out AFB, but are a source for other cols in the yd. 

Most cases of AFB, in managed cols, occur because of bkpr management, or should I say mismanagement? Bkprs infect their own cols by transfering either infected brood frames or frames of honey or empty combs which came from infected cols. Then nurse bees feed the right number of AFB spores to the right age larvae in their brood food, thereby regenerating the disease.

Acebird, there is no such thing as "tame bees". Feral colonies and managed colonies, but they are both occupied by Honeybees. Niether of which are tame or wild.


----------



## deejaycee

Acebird said:


> Assuming this happened exactly as you say, my thoughts would be why does this happen? Laws do not affect feral bees. No one can inspect a feral bee hive so if AFB can creep up again it must be something that beekeepers are doing to the tame bees that encourages AFB. Any guesses to what that might be?


Ferals are not an issue here for the better part of ten years, since a couple of years after Varroa arrived. The ferals haven't recovered yet, though I expect there will be some recovery in the next few years. 

Pre-varroa though, yes, the ferals were a constant. Those ferals infected with AFB would die out and their weak or abandoned hives would be robbed by managed and feral hives, creating a constant source of reinfection. Not a huge source though. As someone else noted, AFB has co-existed with the bees for millenia, and in the nature of all good relationships, there tends to be a balance where the AFB doesn't cause the extinction of its hosts, or it would also cause its own extinction. Hopefully, also, wild hives killed out by AFB would also attacked by wax moths and the nests torn down before they were re-inhabited by a new swarm. 

So yes, you're right, there is a difference between the managed and wild hives. And it is the beekeeper. We move boxes and frames and honey between hives. Most importantly, we move brood and brood combs. We remove gear and store it, and then put it back on months later, potentially re-introducing infected gear. We move between hives with the same hive tool in our hands that we just dug into the previous hive and don't disinfect it between. We shore up weak hives with supplies from other hives when we (some of us) don't know why the first hive is weak to start with. When that doesn't work we combine the weak hive with our strong hive. 

Beekeepers are the single biggest source of transmission. 

Even beekeepers with a single backyard hive are a risk.. primarily because they tend to have low experience and may not recognise ill-health in the hive, and particularly won't recognise signs of ill-health in the early stages. 

With a hive in the early stages of AFB infection, with just a few cells infected and the hive is still strong enough to not be subject to robbing - if that hive is burnt immediately, you have stopped that infection point. 

The same hive, left through inexperience or inattention to become severely infected will become a target for robbing by other local hives. Say 20 hives rob that 1 - that's 20 new infection vectors. 

Approximately a third of those hives will not develop clinical signs of AFB infection. Another third will develop clinical signs, but they will recede - a proportion of those hives will re-develop clinical signs some months later, and some will not. The last third will develop clinical signs and follow the same immediate decline as the original hive. And, if not caught early, those hives will be robbed and their robbers will follow the same pattern. 

So, in our situation in NZ without ferals, and with everyone else's hives managed well... where did that one backyard hive get its infection from? Well, anywhere. AFB is extremely tenacious. The spores can survive in soil for 30 years. Or on boxes tossed into the woodshed of some retired beekeeper where the bees find a bit of propolis to rob. It's not something we can ever plan on eradicating. 

But we are generally doing a pretty good job of keeping it down. *fingers crossed*


----------



## Solomon Parker

CharlieN said:


> So, until the new one is passed, the old one is in effect, whether we agree with it or not. Not liking it does not negate it. Don't like it, change it. Until it's changed, it's still valid.


 You are absolutely right. And like a good honest citizen, I will accept my punishment when it is handed down to me, just like I do when I get speeding tickets.


----------



## WLC

But, you aren't going to register. Are you.

I don't think that 'scofflaw' is going to make the treatment free management best practices list.


----------



## CharlieN

Solomon Parker said:


> You are absolutely right. And like a good honest citizen, I will accept my punishment when it is handed down to me, just like I do when I get speeding tickets.


That is just wrong on so many levels I'm speechless Oh well... It's a free country...

I do have a question back on topic however. As a treatment free beek, how do _you_ deal with wax moths and mites? 

Charlie


----------



## Roland

My opinions in post 224 where perceived to me incorrect by another without substantiation.

I offer the following in support of my views:

From "Disinfection of wooden structures contaminated with Paenibacllus larvae subsp. larvae spores" Journal of Applied Microbiology 2001,91,212-216

An excerpt:
"After a heat shock of 80 deg C for 10 minutes, the spore concentration of a stock solution was determined by plating....." 

The spores of the stock solution survived 80 deg C for 10 minutes,greater than the melting 
point of wax. This is supported by further finding.

Other results:

Bleach was only totally effective at high concentration, above 50percent Sodium Hypoclorite.(NaOCl)

121 deg C for 20 minutes in an autoclave was 100 percent effective.

Dry heat of 160 deg C , 2 hours, was effective, externally and internally.

Paraffin dipping at 120 deg C was externally effective, internal spores remained.

Paraffin dipping at 145 deg C was effective internally.

Scorching was effective on the exterior,but rather ineffective in the interior.

Looks like I need to make an autoclave.

Crazy Roland


----------



## WLC

Sounds like evidence for why wax dipping is an effective treatment for AFB. The Australians were right after all.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Was this before or after the Australians burned the rest of the hive?


----------



## WLC

I think that they would be able to render the beeswax and dip the bodies. frames, and anything else.


----------



## Solomon Parker

So, it's not really treating the hive, it's sterilizing the equipment, is that what you're saying?


----------



## WLC

It's a very effective way to treat for AFB and sterilize and preserve equipment. Smells good too (so I'm told). I hear it's a good way to artificially propolize your hive and positively impact Honeybee immunity as well.

Now if they would only sell equipment that was engineered so that it could be done safely.

(But ,the poll says it isn't a treatment.)


----------



## rrussell6870

Oldtimer, we have seen the same influx in the US and this happens to be one of those times of increase... oddly coincidental, I received a message today from a local operation that said his inspector found one hive with, and one almost to the threshold... he had just set up that new location last fall... imagine that...

Sol, your hives are healthy right? Show them off! Don't fear the inspector... just don't mention you are treatment free and see what he finds... if he doesnt find anything, tell him you haven't treated... if he does, consider your options (and the effect that it may have on others around you) and deal with it the best way you can... 

Personally, I like my inspectors to come by, providing that its not mid-rush season... they just have a job to do, and letting them do it will help everyone in the long run... plus they always lend a few extra hands in the yards while we are working... lol.


----------

