# Head-scratching trying to be TF



## blackandtan

Going into my 2nd winter and trying to be TF. I've had an interesting learning experience over the last year.

Last year I got a nuc from a TF guy up the road, it was a swarm he caught and his wife made him sell it. The bees overwintered fine but they had queen issues this year and didn't get a solid laying queen until the flow was over. To be honest they were struggling so much I had discounted them. . . 

This spring I bought 2 nucs from a larger apiary that treated but really bragged about their varroa resistance (Russian bees and ankle biters etc etc). These bees were booming and got so big I was able to successfully split one of the hives. Now going into winter these hives are loaded with varroa. A local beek helping me, that is TF, told me to treat then split and requeen in the spring but that those queens are terrible for TF. So I followed his advice and treated with OAV, my TF experience ended after a year. I'm really frustrated by this as I got these from as I got them from someone that claimed to have spent years developing varroa resistant bees. 

I did a final hive check today and that first hive . . . the one I had discounted . . . and didn't treat . . . is suddenly looking ok. They have built up more than I expected and have decent stores. The craziest thing, I put the sticky board in for a week and I only counted 20 mites. I was shocked. It appears that the guy with 10 hives in his back yard has raised better treatment free stock than the guy that had 100s of hives and brought in russian/VSH bees in their drone yards each year. 

I don't even know where to put this experience but it has made me scratch my head. Maybe I've been overthinking and over researching this TF thing and just should have negotiated a split with the original beek.

One last thing, the original hive is on 4.9 mm foundation while the other two nucs I got were 5.4. Once again scratching my head.


----------



## wvbeeguy

whether treatment free or treating it is solid practice to know mite load, by sugar shake or alcohol method. Once you know your mite load you can then determine how to decrease/break varroa cycle if TF, determine which queens/hives are handling varroa , etc. or decide to treat if that is what you want to do, based on data rather than guessing which hive is handling mites better. Data helps you determine which to raise stock from or who to purchase stock from as well.


----------



## blackandtan

Yes, I plan on doing alcohol wash next year. I got busy (with a new baby) and it all got put on the back burner for awhile. By the time I caught it they were already starting to crash. It's quite the learning curve.


----------



## Harley Craig

if the larger apiary had such great genetics why did he treat? TF isn't for everybody, when they get loaded with mites is where its gut check time. One of my colonies looked like crap come fall last yr. I could see mites on bees so you know it was bad tons of crawlers from DWV anyone who wasn't crazy would have treated or expected them to die. Heck I figured they would die through winter. They come out shining and was one of my biggest producers this yr and so far I haven't seen a lick of DWV or any crawlers.


----------



## 1102009

blackandtan said:


> Going into my 2nd winter and trying to be TF. I've had an interesting learning experience over the last year.
> 
> Last year I got a nuc from a TF guy up the road, it was a swarm he caught and his wife made him sell it. The bees overwintered fine but they had queen issues this year and didn't get a solid laying queen until the flow was over. To be honest they were struggling so much I had discounted them. . .


Very interesting! Your first hive, is it still the same queen, do you know? Do you have all hives in the same bee yard?

A tf friend of mine who is a swarm catcher got a bee colony this year, which lived in a mast for some time. They are carni mutts , draw 4.9 on wax foundation right from the start and were regressed to small bees already.
it should be interesting how they do over winter they don`t have problems with varroa yet.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

Personal opinion only: There is a LOT more to being TF than buying TF bees. Being TF requires more knowledge and better skills than treating beeks need. TF does NOT mean you can dump the bees in a box and they will take care of themselves. It means knowing--and understanding--what is happening inside your boxes every minute. It means knowing what to do and when to do it to help your bugs stay alive, well, and productive. It is HARDER to be TF than to treat. So anyone who thinks TF means the bees will take care of themselves and the beek needs to do nothing is in for a great big ol EXPENSIVE shock!!!

JMO

Rusty


----------



## blackandtan

The original swarm hive requeened itself. It took a while, it was the middle of June before they had a good laying queen.

I also totally agree that it is harder to be TF than to treat. Thankfully I've got some advisors that treat when needed and then requeen. I think TF is something I'm working towards in the long term.


----------



## dsegrest

blackandtan said:


> Going into my 2nd winter and trying to be TF. I've had an interesting learning experience over the last year.
> 
> Last year I got a nuc from a TF guy up the road, it was a swarm he caught and his wife made him sell it. The bees overwintered fine but they had queen issues this year and didn't get a solid laying queen until the flow was over. To be honest they were struggling so much I had discounted them. . .
> 
> This spring I bought 2 nucs from a larger apiary that treated but really bragged about their varroa resistance (Russian bees and ankle biters etc etc). These bees were booming and got so big I was able to successfully split one of the hives. Now going into winter these hives are loaded with varroa. A local beek helping me, that is TF, told me to treat then split and requeen in the spring but that those queens are terrible for TF. So I followed his advice and treated with OAV, my TF experience ended after a year. I'm really frustrated by this as I got these from as I got them from someone that claimed to have spent years developing varroa resistant bees.
> 
> I did a final hive check today and that first hive . . . the one I had discounted . . . and didn't treat . . . is suddenly looking ok. They have built up more than I expected and have decent stores. The craziest thing, I put the sticky board in for a week and I only counted 20 mites. I was shocked. It appears that the guy with 10 hives in his back yard has raised better treatment free stock than the guy that had 100s of hives and brought in russian/VSH bees in their drone yards each year.
> 
> I don't even know where to put this experience but it has made me scratch my head. Maybe I've been overthinking and over researching this TF thing and just should have negotiated a split with the original beek.
> 
> One last thing, the original hive is on 4.9 mm foundation while the other two nucs I got were 5.4. Once again scratching my head.


I think your experience is not unique. A lot of mites seem to have developed a resistance to TF bee keeping.


----------



## Oldtimer

blackandtan said:


> So I followed his advice and treated with OAV, my TF experience ended after a year. I'm really frustrated by this


Don't be.

OAV leaves no permanent residue so no long term damage done. You killed a bunch of mites and gave the bees a better chance to live through winter and be available to you for requeening with better genetics come spring.

Sounds like a win win.

Course, you'll never know if they would have survived had you done nothing. But, despite some success stories, most times bees loaded with mites in fall don't make it. There is a reason those guys that sold you the bees treat.

All up I think you are pretty smart, understand the bees, making the right decisions, and will achieve your goals.


----------



## Dan the bee guy

I've been studying for a way to be treatment free and it seems that some successful treatment free beekeeper never check for mites. The ability to survive high mite loads is what their bees are capable of. Of corse some beekeeper are constantly splitting their bees then they tell people they are treatment free. Then people buy those bees and they die from mites . So to find a way to treatment free depends on the bees you have and your skills as a beekeeper.


----------



## lharder

Producing lots of new colonies to replace losses is key. However, tf beekeepers should use bees that survive mites their second winter or more as the basis of their breeding program. I have lots of 1st year survivors. Now I get to see who are second year survivors if any. When I sell bees, I will be able to tell people whether they come from 2nd year or even 3rd year survivor bees. I should also be able to tell them what my mortality rate is so they know what to expect. Perhaps tf breeders could also reverse the trend to short lived queens as well.


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney

Technically, the backyard TF guy didn't raise the stock he sold you, but maybe donated some drone sperm though Keep your head up, you are attempting something many don't dare try or say can't be done, and you still currently have a TF hive. It's smart to do your homework on the bees you receive, in the end its about propagating bees that don't need treatments to survive.


----------



## JRG13

If they struggled all year, the mites didn't have much to build up on either, can't compare boomers to duds year end. That hive could easily boom next year and become a mite factory as well.


----------



## blackandtan

fieldsofnaturalhoney said:


> Technically, the backyard TF guy didn't raise the stock he sold you, but maybe donated some drone sperm though Keep your head up, you are attempting something many don't dare try or say can't be done, and you still currently have a TF hive. It's smart to do your homework on the bees you receive, in the end its about propagating bees that don't need treatments to survive.


He caught the swarm in his yard. It was one of his


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney

Ahhh, the details, kind of like beekeeping. Is this the same TF friend whose advice you followed?


----------



## blackandtan

fieldsofnaturalhoney said:


> Ahhh, the details, kind of like beekeeping. Is this the same TF friend whose advice you followed?


No, I found the original seller on craigslist. It was just dumb luck he was treatment free. He helped me get started but he's not the best a answering emails (maybe I had a lot of questions :s). He said all he did for mites was small cell. And said, "When I have a problem I just do what Michael Bush says." He's a good ol' guy and always returns my calls . . . it just might take him a week or two.

I was lucky enough to find a few other folks through bee clubs. One of them suggested the OAV treatment followed by requeening in the spring. He said that was better than just letting the bees die. Made sense to me.


----------



## Fusion_power

IMO, most Russian bees are poor for mite tolerance. I don't say this lightly and I know some folks have good results with them. When someone says "I'm treatment free!", I ask "how long?". Most anyone can be treatment free for a year, maybe two. If someone has been treatment free for 4 years or more, he is definitely using mite tolerant genetics. I also agree that constant splitting does not produce mite tolerant bees. Splitting a colony gives a brood break that disrupts - but does not stop - the mite's development cycle. That break can be just enough of a survival factor to help a marginal colony through a year of infestation.

If the guy you got the first colony from can set you up with 2 or 3 more colonies, that is definitely the way to go. I'll also toss in a plug for Carpenter apiaries. His bees have good to very good mite tolerance. They are almost as good as the strain I've been using since 2005.


----------



## 1102009

blackandtan said:


> He helped me get started but he's not the best a answering emails (maybe I had a lot of questions :s). He said all he did for mites was small cell. He's a good ol' guy and always returns my calls . . . it just might take him a week or two.


reminds me of my mentor , but after getting me started he changed and got enthusiastic about helping me 

do, what dar says,


> If the guy you got the first colony from can set you up with 2 or 3 more colonies, that is definitely the way to go.


those bees are adapted to your location

you will find many useful informations and help here in forum


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney

blackandtan said:


> And said, "When I have a problem I just do what Michael Bush says."


Priceless:lpf:I didn't know Michael lived in GA


----------



## Fusion_power

He talks really loud. Can hear him all the way from Newbraska on a still day.


----------



## aunt betty

Was all about TF until I read that feeding sugar syrup is a treatment. HbH...treatment. Once I realized I was not a TF beek by definition all thoughts of not treating for mites went out the window. There are people in this forum who are both financially and emotionally connected to this TF concept. It's a bad idea IMO. 

Myself...I'd prefer to not keep bees within 7 miles of a TF beek.


----------



## Harley Craig

aunt betty said:


> Was all about TF until I read that feeding sugar syrup is a treatment. HbH...treatment. Once I realized I was not a TF beek by definition all thoughts of not treating for mites went out the window. There are people in this forum who are both financially and emotionally connected to this TF concept. It's a bad idea IMO.
> 
> Myself...I'd prefer to not keep bees within 7 miles of a TF beek.



Don't know many that consider feeding as a treatment. The only thing I consider it treating is foolishness. In other words, you can't breed a stronger bee to overcome guys who rob too much honey .


----------



## Terry C

aunt betty said:


> Was all about TF until I read that feeding sugar syrup is a treatment. HbH...treatment. Once I realized I was not a TF beek by definition all thoughts of not treating for mites went out the window. There are people in this forum who are both financially and emotionally connected to this TF concept. It's a bad idea IMO.
> 
> Myself...I'd prefer to not keep bees within 7 miles of a TF beek.


 Well , I'm sure happy for you . I do feed when necessary , but haven't treated and I'm going into my second winter with 4 strong hives . Of course I have the advantage of getting bees from a TF breeder - 13 years so far w/out treating . I'm also very isolated (closest freeway is 90 miles away) , the nearest hives are also from that same breeder as are a large percentage in the area . You just keep propping up your bees with chemicals , I'm glad you don't live near me too . Your inferior bees might mix with my TF bees and dilute their genetics .


----------



## AR Beekeeper

Don't be too proud of those TF bees Terry, their genetics may become diluted faster than you think. There are many colonies that are not registered, there are feral bees that survive just because they are isolated, but they produce drones.

Honey bees face many problems, but one of the worst is beekeepers that lock into a beekeeping methodology without considering real life conditions. If I were given a choice between having a beekeeper that treats when needed and one that has the "Death before Treatment" attitude, I will take the "Treatment" beekeeper every time.


----------



## Terry C

AR Beekeeper said:


> Don't be too proud of those TF bees Terry, their genetics may become diluted faster than you think. There are many colonies that are not registered, there are feral bees that survive just because they are isolated, but they produce drones.
> 
> Honey bees face many problems, but one of the worst is beekeepers that lock into a beekeeping methodology without considering real life conditions. If I were given a choice between having a beekeeper that treats when needed and one that has the "Death before Treatment" attitude, I will take the "Treatment" beekeeper every time.


 I didn't say I wouldn't , just that I haven't . As you say , if it comes right down to it I would but I haven't come to that bridge yet . As far as the genetics , I figure as long as Ed has been up there breeding bees there's a pretty good chance some of those genetics are present in the feral colonies - if any- near me . Time will tell , there's no substitute for several generations of bees .


----------



## beemandan

> haven't treated and I'm going into my second winter with 4 strong hives 

I hope you understand that surviving a single winter hardly qualifies as a successful tf enterprise. I hope you can make the same claim this time next year...but I won't be surprised if you can't. 

Good luck.


----------



## Terry C

beemandan said:


> > haven't treated and I'm going into my second winter with 4 strong hives
> 
> I hope you understand that surviving a single winter hardly qualifies as a successful tf enterprise. I hope you can make the same claim this time next year...but I won't be surprised if you can't.
> 
> Good luck.


Yes , I understand this . They will be closely monitored next year for mites . I have learned here that the THIRD (was 2nd) summer will tell - I think part of the reason counts were low last summer is because all 4 colonies had a brood break while re-queening themselves . I'm hoping to avoid that this year , which means I need to on my toes as far as mite checks .


----------



## 1102009

> Myself...I'd prefer to not keep bees within 7 miles of a TF beek.


Since I started to keep bees august 2014 this endless discussions follow me with every beekeeper I meet.

The moment crisis comes people need someone to blame. Even me, seeing this:







This was a commercial beekeepers nucs pictured in january, he left them to die having no time. They were near my first hive.

Now I try not to blame someone anymore but to be informed, so I can decide my management. 

There are two kinds of approach to TF in my opinion:
One is to do no interventions and let the bees swarm and die. This can`t be done, because of the commercial beekeepers who need our consideration.
The second is to struggle for healthy TF bees in spite of the surroundings and a struggle it is, as I heard, me having friends who are TF some years.

I will do the second and try not to be a varroa distributor . I know if sugar feeding is a treatment I`m not treatment free. There has to be some compromise.

If all my hives die of varroa or other circumstances I will start all over and go on trying TF . Maybe I`m just crazy or too rich (. Thank god I`m a hobbyist.


----------



## Fusion_power

> Myself...I'd prefer to not keep bees within 7 miles of a TF beek.


I'd be very happy if you would maintain at least that distance away from my treatment free bees. Further would be better. My treatment free bees have less than 1 mite per day drop in 48 days as measured a year ago. I've not yet seen treated bees that were less than 1 mite per day except perhaps just after 3 courses of treatment. I'm fairly certain that the mite drop I see is heavily weighted by mites brought back to the hive from foragers picking up mites on flowers previously visited by a "treat em often" beekeeper about 2 miles east of me.


----------



## 1102009

Hi dar,


> mites brought back to the hive from foragers picking up mites on flowers


Really? I never thought this would be possible. 

After main flow, when my neighbor`s bees were harvested and had no stores left, I was very much in fear my hives would be robbed, so I reduced the entrances. Good idea! Since I have carnies, and they are very, very small, I saw them buckfast of him trying to get inside, but my bees won`t let them.
Next year maybe I will have small buckfast-carni-hybrids after making splits, I`m excited how they will fare.


----------



## 1102009

Hi dar


----------



## jadebees

Re: mites caught from flowers, by foragers. Varroa is a phoretic mite, which means, it travels around in that way, also the reason robbers, and bees scavenging mite killed hives make a varroa population explosion in other hives. It only takes 1 mite from a flower to infest a hive. There's maybe 1000's hitchhikers in an infested hive. Good luck with TF. I had all my greatest fails from that wonderful idea.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

I have a hard time believing that bees pick up many mites from flowers. Most invasions are from bees robbing and returning to their hive with mites or from bees drifting into foreign colonies after their own suffers collapse.


----------



## jadebees

AR beekeper, you are right. It only takes one mite to start a hive towards infestation. The robbing behavior is usually the last straw in the colony collapse. It's almost as if a whole region or beeyard has a disease not just one hive. Perfectly clean hives very isolated often get just a few mites from flowers by foragers. As they stress and start to decline they are more likely to rob or be robbed. Which is usually the coup de Gras. You will see the mite levels just enormously explode ,breeding just stops, the colony is doomed.


----------



## 1102009

jadebees said:


> AR beekeper, you are right. It only takes one mite to start a hive towards infestation. The robbing behavior is usually the last straw in the colony collapse. It's almost as if a whole region or beeyard has a disease not just one hive. Perfectly clean hives very isolated often get just a few mites from flowers by foragers. As they stress and start to decline they are more likely to rob or be robbed. Which is usually the coup de Gras. You will see the mite levels just enormously explode ,breeding just stops, the colony is doomed.


Please show me a clean hive. Never seen one.:scratch:


----------



## jwcarlson

Fusion_power said:


> I'd be very happy if you would maintain at least that distance away from my treatment free bees. Further would be better. My treatment free bees have less than 1 mite per day drop in 48 days as measured a year ago. I've not yet seen treated bees that were less than 1 mite per day except perhaps just after 3 courses of treatment.


You should sell queens.


----------



## JacobWustner

Don't be discouraged by all of the negative nancy's! Treatment free is definitely the way to go if you feel that way. People who say you will regret it are just jealous that they haven't done it yet! Everyone suffers losses, treaters and treatment free! On a small scale, there is no reason you can't be successful if you follow the instructions of successful TF beekeepers! And there are many!

I find it interesting that there are so many people here that treat and feel that is necessary for their opinion to be shared here.

Remember, whether or not you feel feeding sugar is a treatment, it is not honey and therefore makes bees sick over time. That is part of the reason everyone still has to treat. So, just keep open mating with feral colonies far away from commercial yards, and keep on the small cell sizing, and save enough honey and pollen for them to eat!


----------



## Michael Bush

> Being TF requires more knowledge and better skills than treating beeks need. TF does NOT mean you can dump the bees in a box and they will take care of themselves. It means knowing--and understanding--what is happening inside your boxes every minute. It means knowing what to do and when to do it to help your bugs stay alive, well, and productive. It is HARDER to be TF than to treat.

Raising bees requires beekeeping skills. I don't think treatment free requires any more skill, but since the Varroa etc. have showed up beekeeping has gotten harder and bees are more vulnerable. It reminds me of a quote by David Berg in Roger Kuputnik and God. I probably won't get it perfect but it goes something like this: "When I was growing up all the old Jewish men would tell me, it's hard being Jewish. As I got black friends they would tell me, it's hard being black. As I got Native American friends they would tell me, it's hard being an Indian. Finally I realized, it's hard being a human being." Beekeeping isn't hard because you're treatment free or because you treat. Beekeeping is just complicated and further complicated by the fact that often the bees are doing well or not doing well for reasons we don't see or understand. And because there is no instant feedback mechanism for us when we do things. Our interference often doesn't show results for several weeks or it doesn't show at all because the bees recovered from it because they are adaptable or because their feedback mechanisms balanced things back out. Just as a for instance, you introduce a new queen to fix a problem her bees won't be emerging for three weeks. They won't be foraging for six weeks. They won't have replaced most the bees in the colony for 9 weeks. So the results you were hoping for may not come to full effect for 9 weeks... A bee colony is an economy with it's own checks and balances and not much you do has an immediate effect. It takes time for that to work through the economy and things to catch up with the change. So we often think we fixed (or broke) something when we do something and things suddenly change. But sudden changes are more likely due to the weather, the climate, the flow than us. So we come to erroneous (superstitious even) conclusions because of "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc". We did something and we think what happened immediately after was our doing. Not a bad basis for a theory, but not a good basis for a conclusion, especially with an organism that is self adjusting all the time...

Yes, you can put bees in a box and leave them alone and some of those will live and some will die. But if you learn to be a good beekeeper you can keep a lot more of them alive and you can make a lot bigger crops of honey and the bees will thrive. In other words it is possible for you to make things better with good decisions. However, it's just as possible for you to make things worse with bad decisions.


----------



## deknow

....and grant me the wisdom to distinguish between the two.


----------



## snl

JacobWustner said:


> I find it interesting that there are so many people here that treat and feel that is necessary for their opinion to be shared here.


Those who are TF also feel it is necessary for their opinion to be shared here........... YOU just did!


----------



## jwcarlson

snl said:


> Those who are TF also feel is necessary for their opinion to be shared here........... YOU just did!


He has a good reason though. Needs to sell some videos.


----------



## JacobWustner

snl said:


> Those who are TF also feel it is necessary for their opinion to be shared here........... YOU just did!


Yes I did! But I dont go to forums about using treatments and start bashing people and telling them to stop!  So why all the nasty replies?


----------



## Michael Bush

>Yes I did! But I dont go to forums about using treatments and start bashing people and telling them to stop! So why all the nasty replies?

Welcome to the "treatment free" forum.


----------



## beemandan

JacobWustner said:


> start bashing people and telling them to stop!  So why all the nasty replies?


Nasty replies? Where is that in this thread? Where was anyone told to stop? Simply because someone disagrees with you....well...just read my tag line. It may be appropriate here.


----------



## Michael Bush

>>>Welcome to the "treatment free" forum.
>> Simply because someone disagrees with you....well...just read my tag line. It may be appropriate here.
>Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. - Emerson

It's wonderful to have a forum where we can freely discuss how to keep bees without treatments and have every discussion turn into how impossible or at the very least how difficult it will be from people who are not doing it... Where you will not only be persecuted for being treatment free, but you will be persecuted for complaining about being persecuted...


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> you will not only be persecuted for being treatment free, but you will be persecuted for complaining about being persecuted...


Spoken like a true martyr. 
I was right. My tag line fits.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Spoken like a true martyr. 
>I was right. My tag line fits.

See.


----------



## Fusion_power

Sometimes MB's subtle humor almost escapes me. "Welcome to the treatment free forum" indeed. I'm just glad I'm not the only treatment free beekeeper posting here. If not for Squarepeg, Michael Bush, and others, it would be a lot worse.


----------



## jwcarlson

I don't understand how asking questions or pointing out discrepancies qualifies as persecution.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I don't understand how asking questions or pointing out discrepancies qualifies as persecution.

It doesn't necessarily. Of course that depends on the tone of the question but I could give you a long list of names treatment free beekeepers get called in the process of asking those questions and of course they are NOT usually questions but rhetoric aimed at putting down the idea, rather than honest questions. And the point of this forum is to talk about HOW to keep bees without treatments. Not why you think it's impossible or at best, so difficult that no beginner should even consider it. You can post all of those warnings over on the regular forums as people already do. I'm not referring to this thread in particular, just all of them. They often start well and then quickly degenerate. I stay out of most of them, but sometimes, I'm just get too tired of it all and I lose my patience...

I'm sorry, you can all go back to persecuting us over feeling persecuted... as well as everything else.


----------



## jwcarlson

Michael Bush said:


> I'm sorry, you can all go back to persecuting us over feeling persecuted... as well as everything else.


I didn't mean to spin the thread out of control, it just didn't feel very honest when you used what is now known to have been ineffective control method as an example to imply that even if you treat all your bees are going to die.

Re: tone most of the time it is impossible to get a good read on that on the good ol' internet. 

Carry on!


----------



## Michael Bush

> it just didn't feel very honest when you used what is now known to have been ineffective control method as an example to imply that even if you treat all your bees are going to die.

People are often using what is currently recommended only to find out it was ineffective. How do you know what is NOW currently recommended IS effective when you are, as i did, just taking the word of the experts. I took the word of the experts, I treated, all my bees died from Varroa. More than once. What is dishonest about that? I stopped treating, went to natural comb and small cell and I lose a lot less bees and not from Varroa. I've been pretty specific about what I have done. The reward for that is always someone taking it out of context and trying to discredit you. I will continue to be very specific about what I have done, but frankly I wonder if it's worth it since "everything you say can and will be used against you" and usually out of context. The only people who seem confused about what I've done, seem to be the people who want to be confused about it. I don't respond well to being accused of dishonesty, especially when I have been totally transparent on what I have and have and have not done... sorry. Maybe I need to repeat my entire history in all it's detail every time I make a comment. But I'm pretty sure you would all be sick of that very quickly...


----------



## jwcarlson

Honest or dishonest was not the correct term to use.

It doesn't seem relevant to the point you were trying to make, especially in 2016. The difference being the first or one of the first major waves of resistant mites compared to some methods that have now been used for a couple of decades by beekeepers without showing any resistance expressed.

I do apologize for the use of the word "honesty", the one I used earlier (disingenuous), was more applicable.

I need to remember everything is a bomb in the TF forum and if you don't come in dressed in your disarming blast suit it can get ugly in a hurry.

Now where's that time machine... :banana:


----------



## Michael Bush

> the one I used earlier (disingenuous), was more applicable.

Disingenuous is the same meaning with a slightly less bad connotation. I'm not sure I see the difference.

n 2000 and 2001 I was doing what was recommended at the time. I lost my bees anyway.

People today are still using recommended treatments though the treatments have changed and often losing their bees anyway. Somehow that is supposed to be different and I'm not supposed to compare my failure then to their failure now, but it all looks like the same failure to me.


----------



## Oldtimer

Let's quit the semantics and get to tin tacs.

Making statements that imply treating ones bees killed them all, then not treating the following year caused them all to live, is dishonest. We can argue semantics over exact wording etc but I'm saying the IMPLICATION is dishonest.


It is no surprise that every year there are 1 or 2 year beekeepers complaining they lost most or all their bees, and asking why. Generally they are asked if they treated for mites and they say no, I thought if I let the bees deal with it they would be OK.

It no surprise they thought that, cos they have inferred that view from what they read. Effectively, it is what they have been told. Or why did they think it?


----------



## jwcarlson

Michael Bush said:


> Disingenuous is the same meaning with a slightly less bad connotation. I'm not sure I see the difference.


I suppose. I know you are quite intelligent, and your pretending not to understand how comparing treating with a now known to be ineffective control is not germane to what we're talking about in 2016 strikes me as disingenuous. 

Who is experiencing 100% losses using known, well-timed, and effective mite treatments in 2016 like you did in 2001?



Oldtimer said:


> It no surprise they thought that, cos they have inferred that view from what they read. Effectively, it is what they have been told. Or why did they think it?


To steal a phrase... the devil is in the implications here. Go out and talk to 1st or 2nd year beekeepers and it becomes blatantly obvious that they have been mislead. Not only on here, but out in the 'real world'.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Who is experiencing 100% losses using known, well-timed, and effective mite treatments in 2016 like you did in 2001?

Hundreds of beekeepers who email me and who I meet at meetings every week. That's every week. Do the math.


----------



## jwcarlson

Michael Bush said:


> Hundreds of beekeepers who email me and who I meet at meetings every week. That's every week. Do the math.


I hate math even though I've always been good at it.
Do they ever get the ship righted? If so what methods? If not do they simply stop keeping bees? If they stop were they maybe not very good beekeepers to begin with?


----------



## beemandan

deleted


----------



## beemandan

deleted


----------



## Michael Bush

>I hate math even though I've always been good at it.

Try 52 times 100 for a ballpark...

>Do they ever get the ship righted? If so what methods? If not do they simply stop keeping bees? If they stop were they maybe not very good beekeepers to begin with?

They are all over the map from experienced to new from good beekeepers to poor as are all beekeepers, treatment beekeepers and treatment free beekeepers. Of course keeping bees alive and thriving is an art and the root of all success is understanding beekeeping. There are, of course also, treatment free beekeepers who are either starting or struggling or succeeding. They are all over the map too. Beekeeping is tough compared to what it once was. It always paid to be a good beekeeper, but it used to be the difference between a moderate crop and a great crop. Now it's often the difference between the hive surviving or not. I have a lot less reports of people who are not treating losing their bees but of course everyone loses bees sometimes.

I am certainly not going to try to delineate every beekeeper I encounter for you. I also don't do a survey on each beekeeper so I can do such answers. I suppose it would be nice to get each to fill out a survey and compile the results, but I doubt it will ever happen.


----------



## lharder

With stats the devil is in the details. Its one thing to quote them but another to explain them. Snapshots in time are not so useful in describing the success or not. Then there are the rumours. There was a story circulating about a well known migratory keeper suffering another bout of ccd. Still waiting for verification to talk about that one. Kinda matches some other speculation about tf keepers where context was totally ignored. 

I'm more interested in trends. A 50 % or a 90% survival rate are meaningless without breaking the data down and tracking year to year data. For instance treating keepers may be able to maintain good survival rates, but only by increasing the number of treatments. Its starting to look like thresholds for treating might be beginning to change as well. Is this on scientific footing? No but time will tell.


----------



## Michael Bush

Looking at the BIP survey results for the last few years on things like treating vs not treating and small cell vs large cell it becomes obvious that there are only slight differences in the losses. True they are missing a lot of details that would make that data more useful, but the bottom line is that there isn't that much difference in losses. The difference is in which bees are being lost.

“If you’re not part of the genetic solution of breeding mite-tolerant bees, then you’re part of the problem”– Randy Oliver

“Beekeeping had the dubious honor of becoming the first part of our system of industrial agriculture to actually fall apart...We blame the weather, the mites, the markets, new diseases, consumers, the Chinese, the Germans, other bee-keepers, the packers...the price of gas...anything rather than face up to what’s really happening. We are losing the ability to take care of living things. Why?...The old beekeeping is dying, and a new one is struggling to be born. Are you going to the funeral, or assisting with the birth? You have to choose.”—Kirk Webster


----------



## snl

Michael Bush said:


> Looking at the BIP survey results for the last few years on things like treating vs not treating and small cell vs large cell it becomes obvious that there are only slight differences in the losses. True they are missing a lot of details that would make that data more useful, but the bottom line is that there isn't that much difference in losses. The difference is in which bees are being lost.


On treating.....

"True, but does that mean they treated properly, at the proper time, with a treatment that works, and their colonies died from varroa? Or they treated when it was already too late, or with something that doesn't really work, or maybe their bees died from a million other reasons? Too often you seem to be meaning, while not saying, "People today are still using recommended treatments and still losing their bees from varroa, so why bother treating."

Michael Palmer


----------



## Oldtimer

EDIT


----------



## Fusion_power

If I had 50% losses, I'd have to re-think being treatment free.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks FP, however I removed my last post after realising this is the TF forum, message possibly not appropriate.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Statistics...

I can only speak for my trials. Treated colonies have 3 % losses/year. Non treated colonies between 15 and 90 % per year. There is a clear and significant difference. 

I think it doesn't help to propagate the idea, that treatment free and treated apiaries have the same rate of losses. That's simply not the real picture. Just jiggling with numbers.

It would be more helpful for the treatment free movement to stay real and propagate careful and slow progress. Instead of all-in and "no worries, the same losses as treated hives". Which is irresponsible to propagate, it costs other people a lot of time, money and especially: bees.

Stop this. It does more harm to the treatment free movement as it does good. Nobody who lives in the real world and not only keeping bees in the internet, will believe anything anymore, if he has severe losses when trying.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Michael Bush

>"True, but does that mean they treated properly, at the proper time, with a treatment that works, and their colonies died from varroa? Or they treated when it was already too late, or with something that doesn't really work, or maybe their bees died from a million other reasons? Too often you seem to be meaning, while not saying, "People today are still using recommended treatments and still losing their bees from varroa, so why bother treating."

But that goes both ways. The non-treating numbers include everyone who is simply not treating. It does not take into account anything else they are or are not doing. It does not take into account if they keep buying wimpy packages or if they are raising their own queens. It does not take into account anything to do with management. So both of the groups are skewed. My point is that there are often people acting like all the bees that are not treated are dying when that is OBVIOUSLY not the case. I'm sure those who are managing treatment free in a way that respects the ecology of the colony, raising bees that have resistance to Varroa, and are on natural comb are having better luck than those who are putting a package in a box on large cell foundation and just not treating. I'm also sure that treating too late is not as effective as treating at the "right time". In my experience even that is hard to pin down since it's best to treat when there are no supers (required for most treatments) and also best to treat then there is no brood. In some places that window doesn't even exist and in others it's a very small window. But certainly you can do anything poorly and those groups in the statistics make no differentiation for that.


----------



## GBF

Michael Bush said:


> >"True, but does that mean they treated properly, at the proper time, with a treatment that works, and their colonies died from varroa? Or they treated when it was already too late, or with something that doesn't really work, or maybe their bees died from a million other reasons? Too often you seem to be meaning, while not saying, "People today are still using recommended treatments and still losing their bees from varroa, so why bother treating."
> 
> .


There is yet one thing - most of the treaters still don't able to take in consideration that treated hives can died or fly away because over pumped with chemical..


----------



## Oldtimer

Some of what has been said is nonsense. But I don't want to give the correct figures here because then I will be accused of "attacking treatment free in the treatment free area".

Michael could you start a thread in one of the free speech areas and repeat your assertions, so I can correct them with actual, real figures.

Thanks.


----------



## Oldtimer

OK, no response.



Michael Bush said:


> Looking at the BIP survey results for the last few years on things like treating vs not treating and small cell vs large cell it becomes obvious that there are only slight differences in the losses.


This is not true, but if it was it would negate the argument that commercial beekeepers are creating weak genetics and mite bombs.

You see, your argument is that losses are about the same whether the bees are treated or not. But you have elsewhere argued that commercial beekeepers are creating weak genetics by saving the weak bees that should have died.

It's a "have my cake and eat it too" argument. When it suits you are saying commercial beekeepers are saving weak bees. But when it suits you are saying commercial beekeepers are not saving any bees, cos you say losses are about the same.

I am still happy to run through the actual figures with you in a different forum.


----------



## Michael Bush

>This is not true, but if it was it would negate the argument that commercial beekeepers are creating weak genetics and mite bombs.
>You see, your argument is that losses are about the same whether the bees are treated or not. But you have elsewhere argued that commercial beekeepers are creating weak genetics by saving the weak bees that should have died.

Everything is black and white to you. A lot of those people not treating are starting from scratch. They are starting with those weak genetics and those numbers are included. The main difference in losses is which bees you are losing. The weak ones? Or the ones that respond well to treatments?

>It's a "have my cake and eat it too" argument. When it suits you are saying commercial beekeepers are saving weak bees. But when it suits you are saying commercial beekeepers are not saving any bees, cos you say losses are about the same.

How many of those bees that people are not treating and losing came from those commercial beekeepers? We have numbers that are all thrown in together on both sides of the chart.

>I am still happy to run through the actual figures with you in a different forum.

You are free to post whatever is appropriate on whatever forum you like. I'm not sure why you want me to facilitate that.


----------



## DaisyNJ

As a newbee, I need to be careful jumping into heated debate. Who knows, I could be here in 3 years arguing against what I say today. But

@OT, isnt the difference in what the end product is, assuming same number of hive casulaties ? 

Option 1: Use methods that results pests evolve against in short period -> X dead colonies + more resistant pests
Option 2: Use methods that weed out weak bees (and help evolve) -> X dead colonies + more resistant bees


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh yes you were right Daisy.

I was just pointing out some incorrect claims that were made regarding the bee survey, plus refuting a commonly used argument by showing where it does not even make sense. There are 2 opposing arguments presented to us in these situations that we are supposed to buy. But they cannot both be true.



Michael Bush said:


> I am still happy to run through the actual figures with you in a different forum.
> 
> You are free to post whatever is appropriate on whatever forum you like. I'm not sure why you want me to facilitate that.


Why you facilitate it? Because 1. you made the inaccurate claim, and 2. I have already run through these figures on a number of occasions, but you still have them wrong, perhaps you did not read my posts. You are using imaginary figures that suit the world the way you think it should be, not the real figures. You will find participating in the discussion to be of benefit.


----------



## Michael Bush

>But they cannot both be true.

Of course they can.

"Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth." --Blaise Pascal


----------



## Oldtimer

["Contradiction is not a sign of falsity"] Oh I get it now. Much past posts are a lot easier to relate to now. LOL



DaisyNJ said:


> As a newbee, I need to be careful jumping into heated debate. Who knows, I could be here in 3 years arguing against what I say today.


Daisy you are wise, well beyond your time on the forum.


----------



## Harley Craig

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Statistics...
> 
> I can only speak for my trials. Treated colonies have 3 % losses/year. Non treated colonies between 15 and 90 % per year. There is a clear and significant difference.
> 
> I think it doesn't help to propagate the idea, that treatment free and treated apiaries have the same rate of losses. That's simply not the real picture. Just jiggling with numbers.
> 
> It would be more helpful for the treatment free movement to stay real and propagate careful and slow progress. Instead of all-in and "no worries, the same losses as treated hives". Which is irresponsible to propagate, it costs other people a lot of time, money and especially: bees.
> 
> Stop this. It does more harm to the treatment free movement as it does good. Nobody who lives in the real world and not only keeping bees in the internet, will believe anything anymore, if he has severe losses when trying.
> 
> Just my thoughts.





these statistics are fine, but it doesn't prove anything anymore than the BIP survey or other blind data that is out there. I question how long did you do your TF trial? Let me first say that your loss number on treated colonies is impressive in itself, but I wonder if you just took some of these bees, stopped treating them and then got the high failure numbers, Since you posted a spread, I can only assume you did it for at least 2 seasons. How did you replace your losses?, did you take more splits from the treated colonies to replace them, or did you split your surviving non treated colonies to supplement you losses? It is not uncommon and often warned by TF beeks that you can expect high losses starting from scratch with treated bees so your TF numbers don't surprise me.


----------



## Michael Bush

>["Contradiction is not a sign of falsity"] Oh I get it now. Much past posts are a lot easier to relate to now. LOL

Reality is full of paradoxes.


----------



## Oldtimer

Are contradictions full of reality?


----------



## Mycroft Jones

Oldtimer said:


> Are contradictions full of reality?


Yes. Human knowledge is a finite and limited thing, imperfectly passed along from human to human.


----------



## deknow

...or from human to hunum.


----------



## Oldtimer

Such wit.

But anyhow, to recap. We are being asked to believe that treating beekeepers cause weak genetics because they don't lose as many hives as non treaters. Assumed to be keeping some weak ones alive and adding weak genetics to the gene pool.

But at the same time, we are being asked to believe that treating beekeepers actually do lose around as many hives as non treaters.

We have also been asked to believe it is a waste of time treating as it makes virtually no difference anyway.

Blaise Pascal, whoever he was, might be fine with all that, or for all I know might have been quoted out of context. But for me, I see a contradiction.


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> Blaise Pascal, whoever he was,


Probably a crony of Cheap Trick guitarist Rick Neilson (Everything works if you let it). Exactly the sort of people I'd go to figure out my life's philosophy.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

1600s French philosopher and mathematician, don't know if he ever kept bees.


----------



## deknow

Michael, shame on you for being inspired by artists and great thinkers.

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
Walt Whitman


----------



## Michael Bush

>But anyhow, to recap. We are being asked to believe that treating beekeepers cause weak genetics because they don't lose as many hives as non treaters. Assumed to be keeping some weak ones alive and adding weak genetics to the gene pool.

Since the data is not broken down much we can make a lot of assumptions, but let's keep it simple. If what you and other people who believe in treating say was true, then not killing mites would result in a huge increase in losses for those not treating even if their stock was a bit stronger because it would also have to make up for not killing the mites. The numbers did not show that. If what I am saying is true then one contributing cause for that difference would be mite resistance by natural selection. The industry keeps dumping tens of thousands of weak non-resistant bees back into the system which waters down those genetics and despite that the losses are not that different. Seeing this as a contradiction is simply being obtuse.

>But at the same time, we are being asked to believe that treating beekeepers actually do lose around as many hives as non treaters.

If you factor in all of the new beekeepers with weak packages, yes. Apparently they do. I'm sure the treaters will argue, correctly, that many of those who were treating were new beekeepers who didn't know how to treat properly. Of course the treaters are killing mites which is in their favor, while watering down everyone's genetics which is all our disfavor and poisoning the wax which is in their disfavor.

>We have also been asked to believe it is a waste of time treating as it makes virtually no difference anyway.

A evidenced by the numbers. When it all equals out it made no significant difference except that you can choose to be part of the solution or to perpetuate the problem.

>Blaise Pascal, whoever he was...

He would be in the running for the wisest man who ever lived along with the smartest... he would have quite a bit of competition of course... but he would be in the running.

>... might be fine with all that, or for all I know might have been quoted out of context. But for me, I see a contradiction.

In context in the original French:
http://www.penseesdepascal.fr/Soumission/Soumission11-moderne.php

This translation is slightly different (though the one I gave is a common translation) and here it is in context in English:
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION-6.html

See # 384 and feel free to read before and after enough that you feel you know the context...

He covers a lot about contradictions if you do this search you can see much of it here:
contradiction site:http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees


----------



## Michael Bush

>Probably a crony of Cheap Trick guitarist Rick Neilson (Everything works if you let it). 

But the actual origin of that would be the Tao Te Ching. Rick just wrote a song based on James "Big Boy" Medlin's script for a movie.

"The master accomplishes more and more by doing less and less until finally he accomplishes everything by doing nothing." --Laozi, Tao Te Ching


----------



## Oldtimer

Gotta love it. 

Also, the argument presented in post #87 is so full of holes that faith, and faith alone, is required to believe it. It is simply a repetition and attempt to minimise / gloss over, the same contradictions I pointed out in post #83. I'm not going to argue it all over again because "those who want to see, can see". - - [Oldtimer] 

I would also point out that shining a light on fallacious and contradictory statements is a different matter to supporting the concept of breeding towards treatment free bees.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I think the same. It does no good to the treatment free movement, to preach such things like: you get the same losses when not treating. Which is simply not the case. It costs a lot of bees, time and money if you simply stop treating without a good plan. Instead of repeating the same old mistakes (like thousands before you) you better have a strategy.

Talking about loosing bees: what happened to husbandry-is-evil-Mikey? :scratch:


----------



## ulimann

man reading this thread made me realize once again why I seldom post. Started out with 2 packages and went for 9 years treatment free.One of the 2 hives stayed with me all that time .Went to the local bee club twice ,bunch of good old boys heavy into treating. Had no mentor just went for it. Kept introducing carnis and Russians. Always had 5 to 8 hives, had a bunch of losses but just kept on goeing until 05 when bears did me in. Started back up 4 years ago treatment free again with Russian mutts and keep introducing new Russian queens aiming for 25 hives this year.You don.t have to be genius to be a beekeeper ,just an interested observer learning from your mistakes.This constant criticizing on a treatment free forum is almost pathological. I would urge anyone beginner or not that feels the need to be treatment free to go for it.I don't have a need to defend my choices to anyone ,I am only saying this to encourage newbees to go for it, yes losses will happen ,keep your head down and go for it and learn from your mistakes.


----------



## Fusion_power

> keep your head down and go for it and learn from your mistakes.


It helps if you have a few good mite tolerant queens and an occasional crop of honey along the way.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Better learn from other people's mistakes. Why repeat? Doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Fusion_power

I'll take a page out of Bush's book.

"Most men learn only from their own mistakes, wise men learn from the mistakes of others." - Otto von Bismarck


----------



## SRatcliff

ulimann said:


> You don.t have to be genius to be a beekeeper ,just an interested observer learning from your mistakes.This constant criticizing on a treatment free forum is almost pathological. I would urge anyone beginner or not that feels the need to be treatment free to go for it.I don't have a need to defend my choices to anyone ,I am only saying this to encourage newbees to go for it, yes losses will happen ,keep your head down and go for it and learn from your mistakes.


No you don't have to be a genius to be a beekeeper, but there was a steep learning curve especially for someone like me who had virtually no agriculture experience. Before, I never paid attention to floral cycles or dearths or insect diseases etc. An experienced farmer would(should) know what questions to ask when starting beekeeping. I've paid for my mistakes, and have definitely learned from them. I think we need better educators for beginners, or at least more people who are teaching a realistic approach to beekeeping, not carelessness nor scare tactics.


----------



## squarepeg

i was lucky and (unknowingly) got bees that were being kept off treatments to start with. my experience with them was low losses from the beginning and getting gradually lower with time as i've learned from my mistakes.

i believe if one can locate a beekeeping operation in their general location having success off treatments, get started with those bees, and emulate the practices of the supplier, their chances are good for getting a result similar to the supplier.

i also believe if one starts with bees that have come from a supplier utilizing an aggressive treatment regimen and tries to manage them cold turkey off treatments their chances are good for poor results. 

the dilemma for the beginner is finding a source for treatment free bees and mentorship as we seem to be more the exception than the rule. that was the purpose behind me starting the 'treatment fee member listing' thread.

michael (bush), in your travels around the country you undoubtedly come in contact with treatment free beekeepers in many locations. you've mentioned 'knowing of' a large number of them. have you considered putting a page on your website with a listing so that prospective treatment free beekeepers might locate folks in their general areas to network with?


----------



## Michael Palmer

SRatcliff said:


> I think we need better educators for beginners, or at least more people who are teaching a realistic approach to beekeeping, not carelessness nor scare tactics.


Boy that's the truth. Better educators and better programs...not just designed to sell package bees by the teacher.


----------



## RichardsonTX

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/first-year-care-for-your-nuc/

This is good info for anyone to read about how to start taking care of your first nucleus hive. 

Most folks on here know Randy but I thought I'd post this in case someone who was getting their first nucleus hive was looking for directions on how to care for it.


----------



## jwcarlson

Michael Bush said:


> They are starting with those weak genetics and those numbers are included.


Yet -


Michael Bush said:


> Genetics is important *at least a little* to everything--wintering ability, being in tune with the flows, hardiness, vigor etc., tracheal mites and probably somewhat in regards to Varroa, but in my experience *it's not the deciding factor in Varroa issues*.





Michael Bush said:


> I'm sure *genetics plays some part* but I tried all the usual and they all failed: SMR (now VSH), MN hygienic, Weaver Buckfast, Russians etc. None of them survived on large cell without treatment. *Any bee survived Varroa on small cell*, but still local feral stock would survive the winter and winter is a bigger issue in recent years.


Emphasis mine...
So are these guys propping up bad genetics or just propping up use of the wrong foundation? And your answer will obviously be both... so which is most important?
Because there are piles and piles of dead bees shaken from packages onto Mann Lake 4.9mm plastic that fail miserably from varroa even as quickly as year one...


----------



## Fusion_power

Genetics makes a difference with my bees. While I use and will continue to use 4.9 foundation, it did not directly impact tolerance to varroa. There are other things that 4.9 does that I value including a significant boost to spring buildup.


----------



## Michael Bush

>So are these guys propping up bad genetics or just propping up use of the wrong foundation? And your answer will obviously be both... so which is most important?

We are talking about survival. Genetics is HUGE. Georgia bees don't winter well here. California bees don't winter well here. The statistics we are discussing are statistics on losses. Most of those are in the winter. Many of those are due to genetics.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Probably they just can't stand top entrances.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

*Island population of European honey bees in Northeastern Brazil that have survived Varroa infestations for over 30 years*
Igor Medici de Mattos , David De Jong, Ademilson Espencer E. Soares
Apidologie online 9.3.2016: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-016-0439-5


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Isn´t this the same island where there are not found any bee viruses at all?


----------

