# treatment free beekeeping - the risks



## squarepeg

ok, looks like i'm about to get opinionated here and open a can of worms, but.....

for what it is worth, i accept with humility that i haven't been around as long as a lot of you have, and don't have the years of experience to draw on and.....

for what it is worth, i am striving to avoid treatments, and avoid even putting syrup on my hives and.....

i absolutely respect each and everyone's right to practice beekeeping as they see fit, unless.....

it involves practices which puts at risk nearby colonies of bees not belonging to that person.

let me explain.

it occurred to me after participating on the 'treatment free beekeeping' forum, that a beginner like myself might get the idea that it is better to practice what i would describe as a 'hands off' approach. 

this concern was reinforced by a recent post in which the poster described letting the bees take care of making themselves queenright, and not doing much more than adding boxes. the poster received accolades from others on the forum.

in fairness, i don't know the poster, nor do i know what all they do or don't do with their bees. this is definitely not a personal attack.

and i can tell from reading that a lot of folks who participate on the forum and advocate tfb are outstanding beekeepers. 

and one of my all time beekeeping heros, michael bush, also promotes this approach.

here's the problem: if a hive is allowed to become sick and collapse, that hive is likely to get robbed out by nearby healthy hives.

whether it's mites, bacteria, viruses, or otherwise, that problem is likely to get carried back to the healthy hives and threaten them.

so the question is, do we as beekeepers have some responsibility to our neighboring beekeepers and to the feral bee population in this regard?

maybe i have missed it, and if so, i apologize. but rather than seeing advice given regarding how to manage bees successfully so as to not require treatments, what i see is advice given to let the bees work it all out for themselves and eventually you will have treatment free bees.


----------



## BeekeepingIsGood

After 4 years of beekeeping as part of a co-operative along side individuals with various experience levels and 1 mentor who was formerly a provincial bee inspector and seeing a wide variety of situations occur in our 30 hives I'm:

- Still very interested in going treatment free with my own hives.
- But I am a little weary of blindly recommending the hands-off-aproach. 

I think messing with the bees as little as possible is great. I think making beekeeping more accessible to more people is great.(the number 1 question I get asked by prospective beekeepers is 'how much time does it take?")

I also think people need to put in a certain amount of effort into understanding as much as possible how to work with the bees(or understanding how to not work with them and let them do their own thing responsibly.)

and yes, taking efforts to minimize spreading disease.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Yep, that sounds to me like one of the main hypothesis for T.F.B.

Sounds like articles I read, long ago, by Charles Mraz in "Gleanings in Bee Culture".


----------



## Barry

squarepeg said:


> so the question is, do we as beekeepers have some responsibility to our neighboring beekeepers and to the feral bee population in this regard?


We do. One can take a hands off approach, but if any contagious diseases show up, you better get your hands involved pronto!!


----------



## mike haney

"...here's the problem: if a hive is allowed to become sick and collapse, that hive is likely to get robbed out by nearby healthy hives...."
Not "likely",its certain.
"...whether it's mites, bacteria, viruses, or otherwise, that problem is likely to get carried back to the healthy hives and threaten them..."
Again,not "likely",but CERTAINLY .
This is the reason the government has mandated the use of removable frame hives-to enable inspection for disease.
If diseased hives are left untreated and allowed to contaminate others hives,the logical response of government is to protect MY property from YOU and the most "likely" result will be more mandates concerning treatment .


----------



## JRG13

I dunno, there's treatment free and then there's just being lazy in this scenario. If you know a hive is dead or going down from disease I would think any beekeeper worth a lick would take care of it so it wouldn't get robbed out etc.... because he'd be putting his other hives at risk too. Then again, the whole thing about treatment free is to make your bees stronger, so maybe you really want your other bees to rob them out and keep the survivors....


----------



## mike haney

"...., the whole thing about treatment free is to make your bees stronger, so maybe you really want your other bees to rob them out and keep the survivors...."
But ones freedom to determine the management of ones livestock/property ends where your management endangers MY property/livestock ,and setting those boundaries is one of the primary functions of a civilized society.
Based on history one can easily foresee where this path leads.
Just this summer there was a thread here concerning a mans entire bee yard being CONFISCATED and BURNED by the government due to willfull lack of treatment of disease.
I sympathize with ones conviction to not treat ones bees but not to point that I would sacrifice MY bees.


----------



## johno

HI guys is not America wonderfull, some are free not to treat their bees and others free to treat theirs. I personally will treat mine and do anything to keep them alive and productive and if a hive should fail to re-queen I will provide them with a queen cell from my varoa resistant Queen (I hope) and keep my hive alive. When all you non treaters eventually breed a truly survivor bee, I am sure your queens will be in demand from all and sundry. Untill then I will do whatever it takes to keep my bees alive
Johno


----------



## WLC

Native bees and pollinators are vulnerable to the pests and pathogens that treatment-free beekeepers allow to exist as 'clinical' infections in their hives.

So, while your treatment-free hives may be able to 'survive', I wouldn't be so sure that you can say the same for local native pollinators.

Therefore, you're risking native pollinators by not treating 'exotic' Honeybees that often carry invasive pests and pathogens that got there because of globalization.

Furthermore, you can say that european Honeybees have caused a world of harm to native pollinators, regardless of their treatment status.

Let's not get into the pollinators (treatment or not) that travel across the country.

You're not simply risking your own bees, or your neighbor's bees.

What about our native bees?

Hmmm?


----------



## Barry

Yeah, what about them? Do have any studies in mind that shed light on this?


----------



## WLC

Here's a new one:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0030641

However, you are aware of the impact that varroa has had on native pollinators, no?


----------



## G Barnett

Someone told me that being treatment free is only just a feel good thing. So why would anyone really want to go treatment free?

So who treats the feral honeybees and the native bees?


----------



## libhart

Just yesterday there was a thread about treating and I had some thoughts. Before they congealed in my head someone had already made a good posting of where my brain was going. If bees were cute and fuzzy, you'd have to treat. The point the other poster made was that if we didn't treat our dogs for heartworm because we were going to breed heartworm resistant dogs, or if you don't treat a horse for some disease it has because you want horses that can live with that disease, the Humane League or SPCA or whoever would come and confiscate the animal for neglect. Not to push this down another path...but I find it curious that the same folks who would be most appalled at not treating a disease in a dog or horse or cow or steer or whatever other fuzzy animal one owns seem to often times be the same people who don't treat their bees.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> However, you are aware of the impact that varroa has had on native pollinators, no?


Sure, so are you claiming that TF beekeepers are more to blame in this area?


----------



## WLC

Yes, I suspect that they are.

TFB hives are in general more 'clinical' and less productive.

They can serve as a recurring source of infection in the area for native pollinators.


----------



## G Barnett

WLC, what types of treatment interventions do you apply to you hives? I am certainly not one to create problems or tlet them exsist, if there is a way to do so with minimal impact. 

I do not advocte for the use of anti-biotics for every sniffle in human, but obviously treatments must be applied appropriately. The over-use of antibiotics and hand sanitizers has created resistant strains of human bacteria. Could the inproper use of honey bee treatment create a similar issue?


----------



## RiodeLobo

Kinda like closing the barn door after the horses ran away. Treatments do not equal disease free, a treated hive can be a vector as well.


----------



## Ted adams

G Barnett said:


> Someone told me that being treatment free is only just a feel good thing. So why would anyone really want to go treatment free?
> 
> My thinking is Let the experts find the cure or strain ob bee's that do not require treatment. I am not the expert or have the resources to discover the perfect bee. I do have the ability to keep bee's alive and increase their numbers until the treatment free bee is breed. I myself am not treatment free, I go to the doctor, my dog goes to the doctor,there is not a treatment free cat. Do we really know how many bee's in the wild have died from mites, just because a hive has been in a hole for years does not mean it is the same hive or another has moved in.


----------



## G Barnett

This is a great discussion. I am just trying to learn how to do a good job, be successful and contribute a little to a natural thing. 

Does on consider feeding syrup, Bee Pro Patties+ with Pro Health, SuperBoost and hive mangement treatment. Or does treatment consist of more applications through the year?


----------



## WLC

It's obvious that commercial operations and globalization were responsible for the spread of a multitude of Honeybee pests and pathogens across the U.S. .

I think that we can all agree that there is an inherent risk to local pollinators (both native and non-native alike) associated with going treatment-free in order to get 'survivors'. Something I'm trying out myself.

The risk is certainly present in the initial stages of going treatment-free.

I would say that it's still present in survivor hives unless someone has some hard evidence that it's not the case.

So, in going treatment-free, you are presenting a local risk to native pollinators, perhaps more so than treated hives.

I've yet to see a study showing that treatment-free hives have a substantially lower pest/pathogen load than treated hives.

As a TFB beekeeper responded when I asked, "How do you know that they are resistant?"

The TFB response, "They didn't die."

That's the wrong answer to give a conservationist.

There's a hidden risk in TFB beekeeping that rarely sees the light of day.

WLC.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> Yes, I suspect that they are.


That's fine, but I have no basis to believe your suspicion is true. If anything, TFB bees would die at a much faster rate than treated bees, at least those that can't deal with the pressure, thus ending any negative influence. Treated hives simply lower the level to a point the bees are not adversely affected but may still be having an affect on the native pollinators. I think unless there has been a good balanced study on this, we're both simply guessing.


----------



## JRG13

I agree with Barry, and TFB hives only pose a risk depending on how high the mite pressure is. If they're maintained at a low level, I would say their risk is equal to treated hives unless they're getting 100% kill and general opinion is no one gets 100% kill.


----------



## squarepeg

G Barnett said:


> This is a great discussion. I am just trying to learn how to do a good job, be successful and contribute a little to a natural thing.
> 
> Does on consider feeding syrup, Bee Pro Patties+ with Pro Health, SuperBoost and hive mangement treatment. Or does treatment consist of more applications through the year?


really good question g. i base my approach to feeding on what michael bush has to say on his website. basically, it's let them have honey, from stronger hives if necessary, and feed syrup only to avoid starvation. when i do use sugar, i use vitamin c to lower the ph.


----------



## WLC

The name is Bond.

Bond: Live and Let Die.

Those first colonies that die from mites and DWV, most certainly do have a very high mite and pathogen load.

Hives that have been treated for mites won't show anything like the DWV levels that you'll see in a treatment-free, Bond: Live and Let Die, colony.

Bombus terrestris and Bombus pascorum were described as "displaying wing deformities with 'infected Honeybees almost certainly the source of the infection (Genersch et al. 2006)" (de Miranda 2010).

Let's face the fact that we're seeing DWV, in our treatment-free hives, at a rate that isn't seen in a hive treated for mites.

It's a risk some can't seem to face.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. 

Here's the Genersch paper:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/bienenkunde/forschung_lehre/Genersch et al_JIP 91, 61-63_2006.pdf

This one shows RNA viruses in Hymenopteran pollinators:

http://www.fgp.huck.psu.edu/pdf/Singh_PLoSOne_2010.pdf


----------



## Eddie Honey

libhart said:


> Just yesterday there was a thread about treating and I had some thoughts. Before they congealed in my head someone had already made a good posting of where my brain was going. If bees were cute and fuzzy, you'd have to treat. The point the other poster made was that if we didn't treat our dogs for heartworm because we were going to breed heartworm resistant dogs, or if you don't treat a horse for some disease it has because you want horses that can live with that disease, the Humane League or SPCA or whoever would come and confiscate the animal for neglect. Not to push this down another path...but I find it curious that the same folks who would be most appalled at not treating a disease in a dog or horse or cow or steer or whatever other fuzzy animal one owns seem to often times be the same people who don't treat their bees.


Good thread.
Good post libhart

I think treating our dogs, cats, livestock is a little different than some of the stuff done to treat our bees.

Some chemicals/medicines we put on the hive cause death of healthy bees and brood and it seems like the bees don't like it one bit. It's almost like putting a pack of flea-bitten dogs in a room and setting off sulpher candles to get rid of the fleas on the dogs. Most of the fleas will be gone but some of the dogs may die and all of the dogs will have not liked it and have tried escaping the fumes. Probably a poor analogy but....

We treat/medicate our furry pets much like we medicate/treat ourselves; with medicines that have minimal side effects.


----------



## Mr.Beeman

I haven't treated any of my feral based hives this year. They all seem to be happy and healthy when I checked them last week.
My uncle treats his hives with a fogger and baby oil. Seems to keep his bees healthy for over 30 years.


----------



## StevenG

Having read all the posts thus far, I'm not sure where to begin. 
I restarted with bees in 2006 by purchasing treatment free bees. I have been treatment free since. My two best colonies this year produced 175 and 170 pounds of honey, treatment free. A couple of years ago I saw some dwv in one hive, but it disappeared by the end of the season. I have not seen more than a couple of bees in a couple of hives since then. 

Treatment free does not mean leaving them alone. This year I practiced "Let alone beekeeping" which I remembered from the 1970's when Charles Koover espoused it in Gleanings in Bee Culture - some of you old timers might remember him. It was a serious mistake for me, and I wrote a thread elsewhere about that experience. I do not recommend it, and explained why there.

To blame treatment free beekeepers for the demise of native pollinators is wreckless and irresponsible. The pathogens were here before we went treatment free. The native pollinators will adapt and survive, or die off. In much the same way as my breeder provider lost 90%+ of his colonies when first hit, and bred the survivors, to develop his line of treatment free bees. I try to manage my hives to prevent swarming, but not too seriously. I don't mind swarms as it is my way to help introduce survivor bees into the feral populations. And what are you "treaters" doing to help the feral populations?

Treatment free beekeepers can be good or bad beekeepers, just like treating beekeepers can be good or bad. The treatment methodology alone does not determine the quality or competency of the beekeeper.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## jbeshearse

StevenG said:


> Having read all the posts thus far, I'm not sure where to begin.
> The pathogens were here before we went treatment free. ......
> 
> .....And what are you "treaters" doing to help the feral populations?
> 
> Steven


Actually Steven waht you say is true in one way, the way you meant it, but not true in a very significant other way. None of the bees, managed or feral were treated for varroa mites, tracheal mites, Small hive beetles, Nosema Ceranae prior to thier introduction into the US in the last 20 years or so. So in effect, treatment free was the way of beekeeping here in the "Golden age". Only with the artificial importation of theses pathogens did treatments become necessary. Consider, we are asking the US bee population to instantly (from an evolutionary standpoint) evolve resistance to at least 4 new pathogens at the same time. I suppose we could just call our bees invasive and let them die out as that is what nature really had in place here in the US prior to their introduction by man. If we introduce something into an ecosystem that was not there to start with, we should bear some responsibility to help them survive.

As a "Treater", I collect swarms, and do cut outs from basically "feral" populations. I do not treat these unless it becomes apparent that they will die out without help. I do not use those that do not perform well as grafting candidates. Survivability is the first rule in selection. How do I judge that? Colonies with lots of bees and lots of field force (larger honey crops) get selected. Why? Because it is those colonies that will likely propogate the species not a weak sruggling "resistant" hive. Does it cost me? Sure it does. I allow colonies to dwindle to a point prior to beginning treatment, so it costs field force, etc. which translates into lost harvest.

Several of the posters on treatment free have mentioned lack of swarming from their hives. This is not a desirable outcome. The strong should reproduce and that is what a swarm is. If your hives are not swarming then they are not adding to the feral population, except for drones. The chances of a colony that does not swarm having a lot of drones is not very high. I usually judge that a colony with a lot of drones is healthy and happy. With varroa, drones are favorites, so they are the first to fall in a hive that is overrun with varroa. So once again that struggling resistant hive is not adding much to the local feral population.

In closing I will ask these questions: Do you know of any beekeeper that would rather have to check for pathogens, access the hive against them, spend the money and time to treat for the maladies than to just place a hive and harvest honey?

I think we would all prefer to be back 30 years when that was possible. Do you?

jeb


----------



## cerezha

RiodeLobo said:


> ...Treatments do not equal disease free...


 I like this! Treat or not treat attracts so much attention on this forum. I think, the important point is to have *healthy* (and happy) bees! If your bees are healthy, they would not spread disease and would not negatively affect others. They also would not require "the treatment". The problem is that in many cases people keep bees in sort of chronically semi-healthy condition... Such condition is unstable and may shift into disease any moment - at least I got this impression from reading this forum. The whole commercial beekeeping - sounded like reports from the battle-field, how many colonies already dead, how prepare troops for winter... disease control and prevention at the battle-field... blame on general (queen) if battle lost ... I think, it is common sense that if somebody diseased and potentially could spread disease, that person (animal, bee etc) should be prevented from spreading disease to * healthy *individuals.


----------



## cerezha

WLC said:


> ....There's a hidden risk in TFB beekeeping that rarely sees the light of day...WLC.


 I agree that TFB may potentially be a reservoir for disease. It is often happened in nature - there are natural "reservoirs" for many diseases including nasty ones. Technically, the existence of the reservoirs makes disease persisting. From another hand, it seems to me that the scale of "treated" operations especially in commercial beekeeping is much bigger. Treated bees are not "disease-free", they still could spread a disease (even stronger variety of disease). Commercial operators also transport bees long distance for pollination spreading disease. In this equation (to me) commercial beekeeping is over-weighting the "treatment-free" population. It should be noted that chronic treatment of the bees creates stronger varieties of pathogens, which than effectively spread via massive operations. "Treatment-free" is usually local and is not involved in massive bee-transit. At least, it seems to me this way. 

Interesting observation. It is my concern that EHB presents risk for wild bees. So, I have mixed feelings - I love my honey bees but I do aware that they may compete with native varieties. Since I introduced honey bees in my yard, I noticed that actual number of wild native bees are increased (have no explanation to this). We also have native California plants garden. Honey bees are completely uninterested in native plants - they foraged in nearby community vegetable garden and blooming trees (pepper-tree, etc). So, we have honey bees and native species leaving next to each other. At least in urban environment, I do not see a competition. I do not know if parasites and diseases transferred to wild bees from EHBs. It seems to me that honey bees used non-native sources for foraging (mainly trees, eucalyptus, for instance) and there is a niche for wild species. Combination of the native plants, wild and honey bees creates very nice "close-to-nature" environment - we have bunch of birds, butterflies etc. Also, it looks like bees had some influence on squirrels - we have much less these days.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> It's obvious that commercial operations and globalization were responsible for the spread of a multitude of Honeybee pests and pathogens across the U.S.
> 
> WLC.


Obvious? Or assumed so? As I experienced the spread of varroa mites across NY State back in the latter half of the 1980s I found it interesting how long it took for there to be nowhere in the State where Varroa could not be found. It took somewhere around five years from the first signs of Varroa, yes, in a commercial apiary/operation, to being widespread. Yet, nothing was obvious to me how that occured.

One can easily jump to the conclusion that it was thru commercial beekeepers bees in close proximity to noncommercials, or infested packages and queens, but, what about those apiaries which were geographically isolated wherein no new bees were brought in via packages or queens and were located far beyond flight distance from any commercial operations. Areas of Essex County,NY come to mind. Schroon Lake, Moriah, Mineville, those sorts of places where folks w/ a small handful of hives eventually also had varroa mites. How did they get them? No obvious way apparent to me.

How did varroa, shb, and nosema cerana get to the US? We closed the Borders, shut down importation of Queens from Europe, back in the early 20th Century to avoid thge Isle of Wight Disease, aka tracheal mites, only to have it show up in 1984. How did that happen?

One concern amongst Apiary Inspectors is that the new crop of beekeepers w/ Treatment Free/Hands Off/Bond Beekeeping in mind will be aloof to the knowledge of bees, bee diseases and pests, the identification of those pests and diseases, to the extent that they will become reposetorys of diseases and pests. 

Smaller sized beekeeping operations have been found to have higher percentages of AFB. So, smaller sized operations managed by someone w/ the idea that bees should be allowed to build their own resistance to pests and to diseases too will, I predict, be where those diseases and pests will be found more often.

The greatest defence against bee pests and dieases is knowledge and experience, not philosophy. Gain the knowledge, then decide what your philosophy should be. Going into beekeeping w/ your mind made up about how things aught to be done before you know how things work is, in my opinion, not a good way of becoming a beekeeper.


----------



## WLC

"To blame treatment free beekeepers for the demise of native pollinators is wreckless and irresponsible."

Well, it's more like: if you go treatment-free, you are taking the risk of spreading pests and pathogens to native species.

I think that it's important enough to consider before making a commitment to go treatment-free.

If you had a chance to read the 'RNA Viruses in Hymenopteran Pollinators' paper in the link above, you would read that pollen seems to be the way that viruses can spread amongst native pollinators.

Pollinators apparently infect the pollen, and the pollen can then infect other pollinators.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

When I began keeping bees, back in the mid-1960's, I was entirely 'open' to whatever worked best and worked for me. I usually bought into, and even purchased treatment products, Fumagillin and Terramycin (to name a few), but never actually found a need to use them (a waste of money). It's been a while since then, I have learned not to waste my money on 'treatments - cures - remedies'. I have rarely lost a colony for any reason, usually those I've lost were due to my own shortcomings. Though laying workers, developing in colonies that were queenless for too long, got weak, then robbed out is where most of my losses occur.

I've had AHB usurpation swarms take over several nucs and a few full-size hives, but this doesn't usually kill a colony, just makes it trickier to maintain EHB genetics.

I know there are Varroa present, and sometimes DWV, vectored by Varroa, or maybe not just Varroa. I sometimes see a colony or two affected by what I've heard called, PMS (parasitic mite syndrome). But that usually only persists for a month or so.

I use some foundationless, some PF120 or PF100 frames, some HSC frames, a few RiteCell foundations, and a few other frames/foundations. 

I remember, as I was learning about the Small Cell theory and Dee Lusby, and being warned that if I didn't 'treat', my colonies would all die within two years, or maybe three. None ever did. I began to relax from the anxiety this created in me, and haven't regretted it, yet.

Maybe someday Varroa and other pests will become a problem for my bees and I. Maybe then I'll change my tactics and begin using some of the many treatments available to me (I doubt that HopGuard will be one - it was tested here in Arizona, but never registered/labeled for use here).

I often wonder why my experiences seem to be so different from many of my fellow beekeepers. But not enough that I lose any sleep over it.

--------------
WLC,
I think that the point is, treated or not, the pathogens/pests are there. If treating eliminated pathogens/pests, we'd only need to use them occasionally, because they'd eradicate the pest organisms. And, eliminating virus could only be accomplished if *all *the host organisms were also totally eliminated.

Treating honey bees will not stop them from sharing their pests. If it were that simple, it would work between honey bees, too. It doesn't.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

While reading this thread so far I'm struck that the treatment/non-treatment debate is masking what I think is the real crux of the matter - responsible beekeeping.

Barry noted earlier in this thread that if one's hives develop an infectious disease you need to deal with it. And I absolutely agree.

That presupposes that the beekeeper will recognize AFB and have or know the resources for positively identifying it and dealing with it. With some new beekeepers (especially those who are starting on their own without local support) over whelmed by a mid summer populous hive, who knows what is going on in there?

So education is important. And not just about honey bees but about the role they fill in the environment and what other insects are filling that role too.

I had dismissed the Xerces Society as the lunatic fringe. Nevertheless, I saw a researcher I respect was going to be speaking at a Xerces talk, so I went. The big thing I got out of the talk was that alternative pollinators are here and doing what they do; my honey bees will benefit from cultural changes on my land as much as the already existing natural pollinators do.

Like not mowing my grass fields until after the first frost. They were primarily being mowed ahead of that for aesthetics not a crop so it wasn't as big a change as it might have been. Other things I've done that are beneficial to both my honey bees and native pollinators: plant tress (Apples and Linden) to provide additional food resources at specific times of the year, not eliminate "weeds" and other undesirables in my blueberry fields, again increasing food resources. Some things I've done just for the alternative pollinators - leave a few standing dead trees, leave a few patches of bare dirt in the blueberry fields instead of trying to recover them to grow blueberries on. I don't use any ag chemicals on the blueberries and my fields don't look anything like the well manicured derocked fields I see along the roadside. But no matter, I hope my fields are healthier. To go along with that hope I now need to learn to recognize blueberry pests/diseases as the last thing I want is for my well intentioned endeavors to harm someone making their living from berries.

In beekeeping, both treatment and treatment free, I don't think we can ever stop being open minded and learning about how our activities influence the surrounding environs. I know I have much to learn. Right now I'm working on how to get the bees to make and put surplus honey in the supers. What little honey there was in the supers this fall has been fed to light hives, along with an insane (to me) amount of sugar syrup.

I'm open to the question of am I running more hives than my area can support. In this as in lots of beekeeping issues, beekeeping is really local.


----------



## Michael Palmer

sqkcrk said:


> Obvious? Or assumed so? As I experienced the spread of varroa mites across NY State back in the latter half of the 1980s I found it interesting how long it took for there to be nowhere in the State where Varroa could not be found. It took somewhere around five years from the first signs of Varroa, yes, in a commercial apiary/operation, to being widespread. Yet, nothing was obvious to me how that occured.


I remember when Acarine first came to my bees. I don't run a migratory operation. No migratory operations anywhere nearby. I remember the day I saw my first varroa mite. Sat me down under a tree and said to myself..."Here we go." I'm not migratory and I have no migratory apiaries anywhere nearby. I didn't buy in any bees, and there weren't any packaged bee beekeepers nearby.

No fingers should be pointed at anyone. As Mark has said, don't jump to conclusions.


----------



## squarepeg

Andrew Dewey said:


> While reading this thread so far I'm struck that the treatment/non-treatment debate is masking what I think is the real crux of the matter - responsible beekeeping.
> 
> 
> In beekeeping, both treatment and treatment free, I don't think we can ever stop being open minded and learning about how our activities influence the surrounding environs.


thank you andrew. this articulates better than i did the point i was trying to make.

i refused to sell a hive of bees this year to an individual who just wanted to park them on his property, and was not interested in managing them at all.

i remember my first summer with bees, and how overwhelmed i was in trying to work them, and how unsure i was about what was going on in there.

my concern is that it would be too easy for a beginner to adopt the 'hands off' approach, while at the same time thinking they were practicing cutting edge beekeeping.

in my view, not being open minded, and adopting an approach based more on philosophy than science, has with it the risks of spreading problems beyond one's yard.

for me, i hope i can learn skills to manage my hives in a way that allows my bees to thrive on their own. but i am not opposed to lending them a helping hand when it is indicated.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> TFB hives are in general more 'clinical' and less productive.
> 
> They can serve as a recurring source of infection in the area for native pollinators.


So, a hive that is treated routinely for mites, nosema and afb (presumably because these are recurring issues for the beekeeper) and fed sugar in the spring, and when ever there is a dearth.....these hives are likey to always be strong (even with disease present) and not get robbed for the syrup being fed? These bees that are demonstrably sick enough to require treatment (or they will die?) Are less likely to to be robbed out and spread disease over the prolonged (by treatments) life of that hive than an untreated hive that doesn't have a bottle of syrup on?
I don't buy it. The treated hives are typhoid Mary in this regard....the syrup makes her a sexy typhoid Mary that all the bees in the neighborhood will be attracted to.

We take great pains to keep our honey free of drugs and sugar syrup.....who is responsible if my harvest is contaminated by someone else's hives being robbed? 

Deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Pollinators apparently infect the pollen [w/ viruses] , and the pollen can then infect other pollinators.


Is that what you meant? Mean?


----------



## deknow

Michael Palmer said:


> I remember when Acarine first came to my bees. I don't run a migratory operation. No migratory operations anywhere nearby. I remember the day I saw my first varroa mite. Sat me down under a tree and said to myself..."Here we go." I'm not migratory and I have no migratory apiaries anywhere nearby. I didn't buy in any bees, and there weren't any packaged bee beekeepers nearby.
> 
> No fingers should be pointed at anyone. As Mark has said, don't jump to conclusions.


mIke...we had Jim Tew present to our club last weekend. He showed a slide of the underside of a bee (in order to show the sting)....there were at least 3 varroa under the tergits.... the slide was from 1981.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> We take great pains to keep our honey free of drugs and sugar syrup.....who is responsible if my harvest is contaminated by someone else's hives being robbed?
> 
> Deknow


Who ya gonna sue Dean?


----------



## G Barnett

Andrew Dewey said:


> While reading this thread so far I'm struck that the treatment/non-treatment debate is masking what I think is the real crux of the matter - responsible beekeeping.


I think that this is the summary of the discussion. Being responsible in your management. I always thought of my self as a natualist, but keeping bees has opened my eys so much more to my local enviroment. My desire to be more responsible in my natural community has increased. So my belief is effective management with the skills and knowledge to help my bees be healthy.

So as squarepeg put it, "i hope i can learn skills to manage my hives in a way that allows my bees to thrive on their own. but i am not opposed to lending them a helping hand when it is indicated." This sums it up for me.


----------



## deknow

There always have bee beekeepers who don't look at their bees, ever. The one location I have seen this clearly with treated bees, there week several years of spontaneous strips still in the hive (with mites literally crawling on them). If someone is going to be irresponsible, better they are so without chemicals.

This was on one side of one of our locations...on the other side were hives with treated but visible afb and literally every other disease visible..the inspector had me go back and bring a comb to a club meeting because it was so bad.

Anyone claiming that untreated bees have high dwv. Have not inspected our hives. 
Deknow


----------



## jim lyon

deknow said:


> We take great pains to keep our honey free of drugs and sugar syrup.....who is responsible if my harvest is contaminated by someone else's hives being robbed?
> Deknow


As do we and anyone else who wants the freedom of knowing they can market their products where they choose without having to worry about the results of testing which is now the routine when selling to major honey packers. In the final analysis, though, it is all about being a responsible beekeeper. Whether you choose to treat or not you have the moral obligation to care for your hives and not to put neighboring hives at risk.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> mIke...we had Jim Tew present to our club last weekend. He showed a slide of the underside of a bee (in order to show the sting)....there were at least 3 varroa under the tergits.... the slide was from 1981.
> 
> deknow


Where was the photo taken? Somewhere in Europe or Asia? I was in school under Jim , 1984 to 86, and don't recall any specific instruction about Varroa or Tracheal Mites. Maybe they were covered during the Diseases and Pests Lecture, but I don't recall so. I think I would recall a photo like that, had I seen it in 1984 or 85. That's why I ask.

Did you talk to Jim about that?


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> There always have bee beekeepers who don't look at their bees, ever. The one location I have seen this clearly with treated bees, there week several years of spontaneous strips still in the hive (with mites literally crawling on them). If someone is going to be irresponsible, better they are so without chemicals.
> 
> This was on one side of one of our locations...on the other side were hives with treated but visible afb and literally every other disease visible..the inspector had me go back and bring a comb to a club meeting because it was so bad.
> 
> Anyone claiming that untreated bees have high dwv. Have not inspected our hives.
> Deknow



Your Inspector had you get a frame of Foulbrood to take to a meeting? Does that mean your Apiary Inspector doesn't regulate AFB, enforcing the control and destruction of the disease? Were these hives you described abandonded hives? How is it that you have access to them? Why isn't the Apiary Inspector enforcing State Law?

How did you handle the frames you refer to? What did you do w/ them after the meeting?

Back when I started Apiary Inspection Apple Orchards commonly owned beehives for the pollination. They considered it less expensive to own hives which they threw packages into each Spring rather than pay for pollination service, which may have not been as dependable then as now, I don't know. But, many, if not most, of these Orchards didn't do a very good job at beekeeping and they were often found to be diseased w/ AFB. Next to negelected I would say. 

Over time this was reecognized by Apairy Inspection and measures were taken to address the problem.


----------



## Beelosopher

sqkcrk said:


> The greatest defence against bee pests and dieases is knowledge and experience, not philosophy. Gain the knowledge, then decide what your philosophy should be. Going into beekeeping w/ your mind made up about how things aught to be done before you know how things work is, in my opinion, not a good way of becoming a beekeeper.


I felt compelled to comment on this because I think it assumes a fair amount of irresponsibility of new beekeepers/treatment free seekers. I agree with what you are saying here but I think it inherently happens the other way around, especially with hobby bee keepers like myself who may only ever have 2-5 hives. In my mind I have a philosophy on how I want things to be done with the bees I take on. I am in the knowledge seeking phase, so I am open to change to a point. However at a certain point, if I am forced to make too many concessions to my philosophy, bee keeping won't be appealing to me personally and I won't pursue it. Fortunately for me it seems many here are able to manage in a treatment free manner with success and stabilization of their population after several years. 

The other bit of good news is, I will venture to say, most hobby beekeepers are taking on bees to learn something new (the endgame is not honey, wax or pollination). i.e. they are very open to buying lots of books, talking to lots of people and learning how to crack the code on keeping bees, whether treated or nontreated. I am a fanatical researcher, so perhaps this is untrue for many, but from my perspective the above applies. My goal is to, in the least, be able to know something is wrong and/or possibly diagnose a disease in a hive by the time I take a hive on. Or at least have the brains to post pictures on beesource, or ask a local beekeeper to have a look. 



WLC said:


> Well, it's more like: if you go treatment-free, you are taking the risk of spreading pests and pathogens to native species.


so you are saying treated commercial bees are fully eradicated of pests and pathogens and don't pass anything on to the native species? One could argue those pests and pathogens from treated commercial bees are of a more robust variety than that of the nontreated bees and are therefore potentially more dangerous.


----------



## squarepeg

deknow said:


> There always have bee beekeepers who don't look at their bees, ever.


very good point. my intent was not to divide beekeepers along the lines of treatment free vs. treatments used. if someone else's syrup/chemcials end up in your honey because they let a hive collapse, especially if the hive collapsed due to beekeeper negligence, i would find blame with the negligent beekeeper.

i'll use michael bush again as an example of a master beekeeper who has developed methods which allow for healthy bees without chemicals. of course, even mr. bush's bees are not immune to disease brought in by nearby hives, (whether managed or feral), that have collapsed and been robbed by his bees.

my concern, (and the reason i started this thread), is with the advice repeatedly given on the tfb forum, that encourages letting hives get weak, and even die, in order to end up with superior survivor stock.

the spread of disease that can result from this practice is why most states regulate beekeeping.


----------



## jbeshearse

deknow said:


> mIke...we had Jim Tew present to our club last weekend. He showed a slide of the underside of a bee (in order to show the sting)....there were at least 3 varroa under the tergits.... the slide was from 1981.
> 
> deknow


Was the slide of a honeybee from a US apiary? Was it Apis Mellifera. The first reported varroa found in the US in September 1987 in Wisconsin (ABC&XYZ of Bee Culture). Are you sure they were V Destructor and not a lesser known mite (mellitiphis alvearius, etc)


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> mIke...we had Jim Tew present to our club last weekend. He showed a slide of the underside of a bee (in order to show the sting)....there were at least 3 varroa under the tergits.... the slide was from 1981.
> 
> deknow


Maybe you misread the date or maybe it was mislabeled? According to "Honey Bee Pests, Predators, & Diseases" it says under Varroa mites "On September 25, 1987, a migratory beekeeper and an apiary inspector in Wisconsin found varroa mites (Varroa jacobsonii) while they were in the process of checking colonies for American foulbrood prepraratory to moving the bees back to Florida. Within a few weeks, varroa mites had been found in Florida, Illionois, Ohio and Pennsylvania followed by finding infestations in several other states(Graham 1987 a, b). The widespread movement of colonies for pollination and honey production was obviously responsible for the rapid spread of varroa mites."

So WLC isn't the only one who likes to use the word "obvious" or "obviously". 

But my real point was, since varroa was not observed in the US until 1987, that slide must have been from somewhere else, some other country. Maybe not even an apis mellifera, but an apis cerana, varroas' original host. I think it matters, because Dean seems to imply that varroa have been in the US well before being found in commercially managed miugratory bee hives. Wheteher he meant to imply that or not.


----------



## deknow

....and those that treat are specifically maintaing stock, producing queens or drones, from constantly diseased stock.....if they were not diseased, treatment would not be necessary.
Am I to understand that untreated sick bees that die in a year are more harmful than treated sick bees that are propped up year after year? That the untreated hive will negatively affect more hives in the area via robbing in one year than the treated hive will in 3?
if the claim is that untreated bees are sick and treated bees are healthy, how do you reconcile untreated hives that survive and treated bees that are sure to perish without treatment?

Deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Beelosopher,
Just to keep an open mind seeking knowledge. I can see that having a life point of view, a philosophy of life lets say, may already exist in a persons mind. Fine. Nothing against that. To a greater or lesser degree this may be partialy ingrained in a person early on in life. But, don't let that keep you from learning. As it appears it does not in your case.

I remember early days when I read and read and sought info from books and magazines as you describe. That's good. and I am sure a certain amount of that occurs in many people today. Keep it up.


----------



## deknow

If you are curious, you should email Jim. I'm reporting what was presented..... Jim stated explicitly that he doesn't know where the photo was taken and that it doesn't prove that varroa was 'n the u.s. earlier than the books say.....but he did show the slide and stated that he has always been "haunted" by it.....so he clearly isn't convinced that it was taken elsewhere. I misread no date, and the slide was not labeled...all I have to go on is what was presented.

Deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> ....and those that treat are specifically maintaing stock, producing queens or drones, from constantly diseased stock.....if they were not diseased, treatment would not be necessary.
> Am I to understand that untreated sick bees that die in a year are more harmful than treated sick bees that are propped up year after year? That the untreated hive will negatively affect more hives in the area via robbing in one year than the treated hive will in 3?
> if the claim is that untreated bees are sick and treated bees are healthy, how do you reconcile untreated hives that survive and treated bees that are sure to perish without treatment?
> 
> Deknow


It would help if you would refer to hives treated for diseases as being medicated, imo. Medications address diseases. Hives infested w/ a pest or pests are treated for those pests. They are infested, not infected. They are not sick. Not in the same sense as a colony infected w/ a disease.

Plenty of unmedicated hives die from disease. While varroa mites have killed more colonys of bees than all diseases since records have been kept.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> If you are curious, you should email Jim. I'm reporting what was presented..... Jim stated explicitly that he doesn't know where the photo was taken and that it doesn't prove that varroa was 'n the u.s. earlier than the books say.....but he did show the slide and stated that he has always been "haunted" by it.....so he clearly isn't convinced that it was taken elsewhere. I misread no date, and the slide was not labeled...all I have to go on is what was presented.
> 
> Deknow


Okay. Thanks. I will. I just thought it prudent to ask the question and explore other possibilities.


----------



## jbeshearse

Robbing is being mentioned time and again as a major culprit in pathogen transmission. I agree. The question is; Are we inadvertently selecting bees that are prone to being robbers? I had virtually no robbing in my small apiary (20 hives). Until I purchased 4 production queens. Before their introduction my bees wouldn't even clean up my extractor or other equipment. Up to the point I added the production queens my bees were self raised(open mated). After introduction of the new queens robbing has become prolific in the apiary.


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> Okay. Thanks. I will. I just thought it prudent to ask the question and explore other possibilities.



....it's also prudent to consider the source. If Jim Tew hasn't dismissed this as absolutely irrelevant, and in fact found it noteworthy enough to discuss in a presentation with over 100 beekeepers present, then we shouldn't dismiss it here. 

Deknow


----------



## johno

Gentlemen, medicated or treated puts the discussiononto a different plane. I have been treating all my hives and some nuc's with a formic acid fume board in the fall. I no longer do mite drop counts, just treat and my bees go into winter with a greatly reduced mite load, my bees are therefore not diseased and are less likely to become diseased from the viuses passed on by mites so I fail to see that I could be influencing any other polinaters in any way. 
Johno


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> ....it's also prudent to consider the source. If Jim Tew hasn't dismissed this as absolutely irrelevant, and in fact found it noteworthy enough to discuss in a presentation with over 100 beekeepers present, then we shouldn't dismiss it here.
> 
> Deknow


I would never do that. I hope you don't consider my questions as dismissive. Jim is free to say things he previously was not free to. I wonder what this means, if this is a photo of varroa in the US in 1981? What is the source? A question for Jim for sure. Is this an Africanized Honey Bee, perhaps?


----------



## jbeshearse

deknow said:


> ....it's also prudent to consider the source. If Jim Tew hasn't dismissed this as absolutely irrelevant, and in fact found it noteworthy enough to discuss in a presentation with over 100 beekeepers present, then we shouldn't dismiss it here.
> 
> Deknow


I s not being discounted however your first reference in context could easily be taken to mean that varroa were in the US in 1981. After others citing sources you added that Jim himself does not know where the photo was taken and that it doesn't prove that varroa was in the US earlier than the books say. 

So in effect in see no significance to that Photo in this discussion.


----------



## Beelosopher

johno said:


> Gentlemen, medicated or treated puts the discussiononto a different plane. I have been treating all my hives and some nuc's with a formic acid fume board in the fall. I no longer do mite drop counts, just treat and my bees go into winter with a greatly reduced mite load, my bees are therefore not diseased and are less likely to become diseased from the viuses passed on by mites so I fail to see that I could be influencing any other polinaters in any way.
> Johno


So the "no treating" perspective would be that you are breeding a super mite. Only the strongest mites will survive your treatments and eventually will be able to withstand your treatments. Now you are sending out a super mite to influence the other pollinators. 

"just treat and my bees go into winter with a greatly reduced mite load, my bees are therefore not diseased"

Based on what a lot of former "treaters" tunred "nontreaters" have reported on beesource, not sure this is as bullet proof and causal as you indicate. I would venture, less diseased, for the current moment in time. But how long will this hold up?


----------



## Joseph Clemens

If someone, somewhere, could provide just such a 100% effective treatment/medication that could be proven to completely eradicate the pest/disease being targeted, such as has happened with small pox. I think I'd be much more interested in trying such treatments. But, I have never heard of such treatments, other than the burning or chemical sterilization of AFB infected beekeeping equipment.

I have heard that despite a long history of treatment and burning, AFB is still around. I've also read that AFB is caused by _Paenibacillus_ _larvae_ ssp. _larvae_, and that there are now many strains that are resistant to many of the 'treatments' for this disease of honey bees. Also, that this same bacteria is often present in hives, bees, and brood, without them ever showing any symptoms of AFB. To me, this would make it prudent to develop honey bees that were resistant/immune to the bacteria that causes AFB, rather than to keep using treatments/medications that are not effective at eradicating the causative organism.

In this thread it has been suggested that both treatment-free beekeeping or treatment beekeeping have the effect to enhance the transfer of these pests/diseases to other organisms, especially other species of pollinating insects. I believe that the only way to be certain honey bees do not transfer their pests to other pollinators is to eliminate honey bees from the equation, though even this option would be highly problematic.


----------



## jim lyon

Beelosopher said:


> So the "no treating" perspective would be that you are breeding a super mite. Only the strongest mites will survive your treatments and eventually will be able to withstand your treatments. Now you are sending out a super mite to influence the other pollinators.


Based on my experience in dealing with thousands of hives yearly since varroa first showed up here around 1990??? is that as an industry we are far better off now than when our initial exposure to varroa devastated most operations. If the "super mite" was the threat that many claim then present day beekeeping after 20 to 25 years of constant treatment for mites would be in dire straits. Such, however, is not the case at all. By almost any yardstick the industry has adapted very well. Personally I have seen a steady lowering of mite problems in recent years and its my theory that better bred bees are increasing at a faster rate than any potential super mites. Am I alone in this assessment? Is there anyone out there who has kept bees continuously throughout the varroa era that would dispute this?


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> If you are curious, you should email Jim.
> Deknow


Did. We'll see if he gets back to me before we loose this Thread.


----------



## deknow

jbeshearse said:


> I s not being discounted however your first reference in context could easily be taken to mean that varroa were in the US in 1981.


....the same was true of how it was presented by Jim Tew.


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> Am I alone in this assessment? Is there anyone out there who has kept bees continuously throughout the varroa era that would dispute this?


I think your observations are accurate. But, in my personal case I will need a few more years to feel like the corner has been turned. I know commercial beekeepers who experienced diebacks as low as pre-varroa days winterlosses used to be. And my losses last year were lower than in the last 6 years or so, since "CCD", but I am not sure how much that was the bees, the mite treatments, the weather, or the manager/management. I have had 40 colonies fail since bringing almost 500 colonies back North from SC this past Spring. 8% Summer Dieback since April 28th?

From what I have heard from other beekeepers their numbers are up and their losses are fewer. Varroa treatment materials are becoming softer. Small steps perhaps, but forward steps.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> ....the same was true of how it was presented by Jim Tew.


And we have had AHB in the US before they arrived here by outward migration too. But, I don't think that means they had any impact.


----------



## jim lyon

sqkcrk said:


> From what I have heard from other beekeepers their numbers are up and their losses are fewer. Varroa treatment materials are becoming softer. Small steps perhaps, but forward steps.


...and that is the point I am trying to make, that the trend is up and not down. I am not trying to minimize the challenges we face today only pointing out how much worse they used to be. People can talk theory all they want but the fact is the industry has been in an ongoing real life experiment for almost a quarter of a century and despite all the warnings, as near as I can tell we are still waiting for the mythical super mite to appear.


----------



## squarepeg

....and those that treat are specifically maintaing stock, producing queens or drones, from constantly diseased stock.....if they were not diseased, treatment would not be necessary.
Am I to understand that untreated sick bees that die in a year are more harmful than treated sick bees that are propped up year after year? That the untreated hive will negatively affect more hives in the area via robbing in one year than the treated hive will in 3?
if the claim is that untreated bees are sick and treated bees are healthy, how do you reconcile untreated hives that survive and treated bees that are sure to perish without treatment?

Deknow 


if that was to me, then:

>....and those that treat are specifically maintaing stock, producing queens or drones, from constantly diseased stock.....if they were not diseased, treatment would not be necessary.

i don't think i would claim that those who treat would have constantly diseased stock.

>Am I to understand that untreated sick bees that die in a year are more harmful than treated sick bees that are propped up year after year? That the untreated hive will negatively affect more hives in the area via robbing in one year than the treated hive will in 3?

my opinion is that treated or not, a sick hive that collapses and is robbed out is a threat to neighboring colonies.

>if the claim is that untreated bees are sick and treated bees are healthy, how do you reconcile untreated hives that survive and treated bees that are sure to perish without treatment?

i wouldn't make that claim either, my opinion is that both treated and untreated colonies can become sick and perish.

as suggested by you and others, it comes down to being responsible. it is my opinion that the 'live and let die' approach is irresponsible, unless one's bee's are contained in a biosphere.


----------



## G Barnett

jim lyon said:


> as near as I can tell we are still waiting for the mythical super mite to appear.


Jim, 
If the super mite is to appear (let's hope not), i would think that this would take some time, since it is a complex multi-cellular organism. Whereas, a single celled bacteria can evolve much more rapidly and become treatment resistant. 

After being involved in this tread, I still believe good and purposeful hive managment, with purposeful intent, should be the rule of the day. 

Thanks to all for thought provoking discussion.


----------



## Michael Palmer

deknow said:


> ....there were at least 3 varroa under the tergits.... the slide was from 1981.
> 
> deknow


Where was the slide taken? Not North America


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> ....and those that treat are specifically maintaing stock, producing queens or drones, from constantly diseased stock.....if they were not diseased, treatment would not be necessary.
> 
> 
> if the claim is that untreated bees are sick and treated bees are healthy, how do you reconcile untreated hives that survive and treated bees that are sure to perish without treatment?
> 
> Deknow


In these cases, are you refering to TM and Tylosin when you refer to treatments? Most beekeepers that I am aware of who use TM or Tylosin do so as a preeventitive medication. A propholactic application of an antibiotic for the prevention of AFB. The use of TM or Tylosin does not imply the colonies being medicated are themselves sick. Anymore than someone who gets a flu shot is sick.

Also, do you consider varroa infestated colonies sick? Whereas a percentage of varroa infested colonies may most likely perish, if treated or untreated, it is in my opiniuon a stretrch to say that "treated bees that are sure to perish without treatment". Certainly many of them will, which is true of untreated hives in general.


----------



## jbeshearse

jim lyon said:


> Based on my experience in dealing with thousands of hives yearly since varroa first showed up here around 1990??? is that as an industry we are far better off now than when our initial exposure to varroa devastated most operations. If the "super mite" was the threat that many claim then present day beekeeping after 20 to 25 years of constant treatment for mites would be in dire straits.[\QUOTE]
> 
> However, in this particular system, V. destructor is of clonal origin in Europe with low genetic variation (Solignac et al. 2005). In addition, the honey bee has 10 times higher genetic recombination levels than any higher order eu-karyote analyzed thus far (Beye et al. 2006). These aspects may have provided the honey bee with an evolutionary advantage in the arms race with V. destructor, an arms race that possibly is in the hosts favor, with mite adaptations limited. A counter-adaptation could be expected according to co-evolution theory (Thompson 1994; Schmid-Hempel 2010) but with the lack of genetic diversity among mites this may take a long time. On the other hand, the adapted resistance in these two honey bee populations has evolved incredible fast by natural selection.
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402190/
> 
> This pretty much says that the bee will overcome the mite and agrees with what is being observed.


----------



## StevenG

A couple of observations, if I may. 
First, there is a difference between a diseased hive, and a hive infested with varroa. Disease and pests are not the same thing. Treatments for each is different. 

Second, the varroa mite can be a vector for disease, i.e. dwv, Israeli xxxx(forget the specific name of the virus), and possibly others. 

Third, proponents of treatment admit they do not eliminate ALL the mites in their colonies, they just get the mite load down to a survivable level for the honeybees. 

Fourth, both treated and untreated hives, based on the previous three propositions, CAN BE vectors for disease in a person's apiary and to others, via robbing, absconding, swarming, etc.

Now, how many of us had a smallpox vaccination when we were younger? The vaccination gives a small dose of the disease, the body's response builds resistance. If we accept the concept that the honey bee is a super organism, then could not a developed resistance, a survivability to varroa, function in much the same way as a smallpox or other vaccination in a human? The pathogen, pest, disease is still present, maybe in the body (hive, colony) maybe in the environment. But now the colony can survive. 

Regarding treatment free and swarming, I can't speak for other treatment free beekeepers, but I lose swarms all the time. I try to practice the traditional methods of swarm control, but not always to great success. Of my 6 hives in the back yard, I've caught 4 swarms in the last couple of years, and those are only the ones I saw. At the height of the honey flow, my hives can have 3-6 extracting supers on them. They are as productive as the hives I had back in the '70's. 

And to answer a previously asked question, YES!!! I wish beekeeping was as easy now as it was back then. Plus, Midnight or Starline queens were only $2.50...but then again, I could only sell a pound of honey, labelled and bottled, for a dollar. sooooo......
Regards,
Steven


----------



## sqkcrk

The adequate application of antivarroa mite treatment, at the right time and frequency, can do more than reduce/knock down the number of varroa in a colony, by knocking down those mite counts one also reduces the potential impact of nosema a. and c., and the viruses which varroa can vector.

If one does what one can do effectively one will reduce the impact of those things one can not do much about. such as viruses.


----------



## StevenG

True, Mark. And that makes me wonder... are we not all in fact after the very same thing? Reducing the impact of varroa and related issues in what we hope is the best manner possible? Therefore we are simply arguing/discussing the "best" way to accomplish that. 

In the discussion, (and there is now another thread dealing with Hop Guard, but since I don't treat, I haven't read) we've seen that the application of chemicals can have unintended side consequences. Sometimes negatively impacting the honeybee itself. Queen issues, brood mortality, etc. What I like about treatment free, and the main reason (besides the cost in $$ and time) I decided to go treatment free is that I thus avoid those side issues and problems. In addition, by not preventing swarming 100%, I am helping repopulate the feral population with bees that do not need nor will they ever get treatments. 

As I indicated in an earlier post, I had one hive with a large dwv infection (?), but after a few weeks it disappeared. Occasionally, rarely, I see dwv in my hives...and I look for it. 

Rightly or wrongly, I have come to the conclusion after 6 years down this path, that my treatment free bees are demonstrably able to handle varroa and the various varroa related issues that confront us. Plus, and best of all, I got my best crop yet this year! 

I'm not telling someone not to treat, I'm just pointing out that there is more than one way to "skin the cat" as they say. And I don't think treatment free beekeepers and bees are the bane for the rest of the populations some folks make us out to be. If someone would do or could do a bonafide scientific study, I'll wager treated bees are a more harmful vector for pests and disease in general, than are treatment free bees. (I don't say "untreated" bees, because generally untreated bees that are not truly treatment free or survivor bees succumb to varroa). 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## sqkcrk

StevenG said:


> Rightly or wrongly, I have come to the conclusion after 6 years down this path, that my treatment free bees are demonstrably able to handle varroa and the various varroa related issues that confront us. Plus, and best of all, I got my best crop yet this year!
> 
> Regards,
> Steven


That's good for you. Keep doing what you find that works for you. The only real way you will know how well able your bees handle varroa is to expose them to varroa. Not that I would want to do that if I didn't have to.

It seems as though you have something which works for you, keep doing it. What I do keeps my operation alive and this years crop is better than last years by 15 lbs., so I too will keep doing what I am doing. I don't feel ill towards those who don't treat or medicate. It's a choice we all have to make and have the right to make.


----------



## WLC

First of all, the Locke paper cited above has co-evolution between varroa and Honeybees as a working hypothesis, but they're still looking for conclusive evidence. So, we can't take that for granted.

I think that the risks involved in treatment free beekeeping, or Bond bees, are most certainly there in the initial 'live and let die' survivor selection process.

You risk losing whatever you invested into a number of hives.

I also think that there's the 'nuisance' issue, where beekeeping neighbors see treatment-free bees as a cause for concern.

Finally, I've raised the environmental concern for native pollinators, particularly during the initial 'Bond' phase of treatment-free beekeepng.

I think that there's a real difference between between a beekeeper who demonstrates 'due dilligence', but still loses hives, impacts neighboring hives, and native pollinators, unintentionally;
and treatment-free beekeepers who cause similar (if not greater) problems, but do so due to negligence, or through their own beliefs, becoming local 'scofflaws' by ignoring best practices.

Quite frankly, I thought that the 'RNA virus in Hymenopteran Pollinator's paper did a very good job of showing how Honeybees can transfer viruses to other pollinators via contaminated pollen.

If you're impacting native pollinators, with pests and pathogens carried by an exotic livestock species (Honeybees), because you don't treat by choice or by negligence, then you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim to be 'environmentally responsible'.

That's the real risk here. You can't justify treatment-free beekeeping as environmentally superior to beekeepers using standard practices.

What's really crazy here is that I'm hearing treatment-free beekeepers sounding like the Monsantos of the world, deflect, delay, deny.

They're taking some real risks here, but they won't own up to them.

By the way, I do have the proper educational/research status to keep untreated hives. However, I am willing to say that there is a risk to pollinators involved, even though I'm in Mid-Manhattan.


----------



## pedrocr

WLC said:


> By the way, I do have the proper educational/research status to keep untreated hives. However, I am willing to say that there is a risk to pollinators involved, even though I'm in Mid-Manhattan.


I'm having trouble following your argument but I'm a beginner so I may not have all my facts in order.

You're saying that if you don't treat you'll have more disease carrying bees capable of passing it on to other honey bees and natural pollinators. Treating bees doesn't erradicate mites/disease it just brings it down to a level that the colony can survive. Mites/viruses will reproduce pretty quickly, so as long as a few reach the natural polinators or neighboring hives the deed is done. Transmission doesn't depend so much on your colonies having a lot of mites, just on having mites at all. Reducing mites/viruses in your bees might slightly delay transmission but as the near universal widespread of varroa teaches us it won't really stop them. So the natural pollinators will be getting the diseases anyway and there's no one to treat them, their only option is to gain resistance or die. 

I can't really see a scenario where treating your own hives helps other hives or natural pollinators in any meaningful way. The discussion if it helps or hinders your own bees is of course a totally separate one.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> "... inspector in Wisconsin found varroa mites (Varroa jacobsonii) ... to moving the bees back to Florida. .... The widespread movement of colonies for pollination and honey production was obviously responsible for the rapid spread of varroa mites."


 Exactly! From Wisconsin to Florida! But, it does not explain how Varroa get into remote, isolated areas Mark and Michael Palmer pointed out. Only one explanation I could see is that Varroa was "transported" by wild/feral species... Anybody knows about this part of bee-history? Also, bee swarms has been found inside the trucks and even airplanes - it potentially could helps spreading infected feral bees. If I remember correctly, it took approximately 5 (correct me if wrong) years for AHB to travel on their own "legs"(winds) from Brazil all way to California, Texas etc. Perhaps, we just underestimate the ability for wild/feral bees to travel and potentially spread diseases. 

I told this beautiful story about Russian bees in some other post. Briefly - when Varroa arrived in remote village in the middle of Russia (thus, "Middle-Russia bees), most bees were wiped out in one season. Villagers clean-up and disinfect their beehives and put them (empty) in their gardens. Apparently, one swarm, who took place in abandoned church cupolas survived. Withing few years, those bees established new colonies in villagers beehives and now widely popular as a "Russian bees" resistant to Varroa... Those survivor bees were also called "holy-bees" since they were originated from the feral hive in church's cupola.


----------



## squarepeg

>I can't really see a scenario where treating your own hives helps other hives.....

pedro, the scenario that helps other hives, managed and feral, is the one where the beekeeper does what is necessary, be it good management, 'natural' treatments, synthetic treatments, or otherwise, to not allow their colony to collapse to the point of not being able to defend itself, and succumbing to robbing by other bees, which then carry pests and diseases back home with them.

i have only dealt with american foulbrood myself. that was a no brainer. the hive was destroyed.

i have not had to deal with collapse from varroasis. if it shows up, i would consider removing such a hive to a safe location, busting it down to a single box, reducing the entrance, installing a robber screen, killing the queen, using a soft treatment to rid of the mites, requeen from resistant stock, and try again.


----------



## WLC

It's the 'Bond: Live and Let Die' methodology, that treatment-free gurus advocate as a way to produce 'survivor' colonies, that is the problem.

Plenty of colonies will develop heavy pest and pathogen loads, that will affect the local environment, before survivor colonies are obtained.

They're taking a risk, with everyone's 'environment', to reach their goal.

That's not 'green'.


----------



## jim lyon

squarepeg said:


> >I can't really see a scenario where treating your own hives helps other hives.....
> 
> pedro, the scenario that helps other hives, managed and feral, is the one where the beekeeper does what is necessary, be it good management, 'natural' treatments, synthetic treatments, or otherwise, to not allow their colony to collapse to the point of not being able to defend itself, and succumbing to robbing by other bees, which then carry pests and diseases back home with them.
> 
> i have only dealt with american foul brood myself. that was a no brainer. the hive was destroyed.
> 
> i have not had to deal with collapse from varroasis. if it shows up, i would consider removing this hive to a safe location, busting it down to a single box, reducing the entrance, installing a robber screen, killing the queen, using a soft treatment to rid of the mites, requeen from resistant stock, and try again.


Squarepeg is, according to his own signature, a novice but boy does he catch on fast. :applause:


----------



## pedrocr

squarepeg said:


> pedro, the scenario that helps other hives, managed and feral, is the one where the beekeeper does what is necessary, be it good management, 'natural' treatments, synthetic treatments, or otherwise, to not allow their colony to collapse to the point of not being able to defend itself, and succumbing to robbing by other bees, which then carry pests and diseases back home with them.
> .


I don't see how this helps at all. No one claims to be able to keep bees without varroa touching them and mites will grow fast in bees that are not resistant to them. So I can't see any real difference between a hive coming into contact with a few mites from a well treated hive and a huge amount of them from robbing a mite dead-out.


----------



## pedrocr

WLC said:


> It's the 'Bond: Live and Let Die' methodology, that treatment-free gurus advocate as a way to produce 'survivor' colonies, that is the problem.
> 
> Plenty of colonies will develop heavy pest and pathogen loads, that will affect the local environment, before survivor colonies are obtained.
> 
> They're taking a risk, with everyone's 'environment', to reach their goal.
> 
> That's not 'green'.


Did you see my reasoning for why having a high or low pathogen load should make no difference? Could you tell me where you think I'm mistaken?


----------



## cerezha

G Barnett said:


> ...If the super mite is to appear (let's hope not), i would think that this would take some time, since it is a complex multi-cellular organism. Whereas, a single celled bacteria can evolve much more rapidly and become treatment resistant.


 True. The resistance to penicillin in _Staphylococcus Aureus_ has been developed over 20 (more than that!) years. Now we DO have the super bacteria, who practically tolerates any antibiotics. The trick is that, yes, we DO have a super bacteria, but somehow we are still alive! The reason is, that our bodies have a natural immunity to many pathogens, thus luckily to us, the super bacteria in most cases could not penetrate our natural protection. Chemistry - fails, but Nature - not yet... I would imagine that similar situation is with Varroa - since more and more people select/prefere feral, more healthy (and resistant) stocks, the general population of bees slowly enriched with "good" genes and, yes, good beekeeping practices help a lot.


----------



## squarepeg

pedro, i believe it is generally accepted that most hives have a least some mites, so i don't think we're talking about completely isolating a healthy hive from mites.

and i'm not sure how a healthy hive would come in contact with unhealthy hive in any other way except robbing. in what other ways are you considering?

if i a hive is being robbed, it has been weakened. perhaps by an overload of mites, which could hitch a ride back to a healthy hive, and maybe pushing the mite load in the healthy hive above tolerance. 

in varroasis, the bees in the sick hive may have also succumb to virulent pathogens, which would also be brought back to the healthy hive.


----------



## JRG13

Few things, just because your bees don't show signs of being sick does not mean they're not vectoring the disease. Treatment free or not, bees are still having to adapt to mites. Letting hives die off to create survivor stock isn't necessarily the smartest approach. You could be sacrificing a lot of genetic diversity this way. Selecting mite tolerant hives etc... isn't rocket science, I think everyone tries to select from their strongest hives that would survive w/o treatment. Selecting for traits already present in the organism isn't evolution, it's just pushing the genetic diversity into a spectrum with the desitred trait(s) you're looking for. I would imagine a true evolved novel mite respsonse will come from a treated hive since the mite pressure affects them more. Genetic analysis on survivor stock definitely needs to be a key focus in bee research.


----------



## WLC

pedro:

http://www.fgp.huck.psu.edu/pdf/Singh_PLoSOne_2010.pdf

If you take the time to read the above, you'll understand why increasing the Varroa load, and subsequently the virus load of a colony, as part of a beekeeping practice, is a cause for concern.

It affects native pollinators. So, it's almost impossible to justify with an 'environmentally friendly' argument.

It's not just an environmental risk, it risks the whole premise behind 'treatment-free' beekeeping.

The 'Bond: Live and Let Die' hypothesis is deeply flawed.


----------



## pedrocr

squarepeg said:


> pedro, i believe it is generally accepted that most hives have a least some mites, so i don't think we're talking about completely isolating a healthy hive from mites.


Right, that's my point, the fact that your neighbours treat or not has no bearing of if your bees will be in contact with varroa as it's widespread. It only changes how many mites you'll be in contact with.



squarepeg said:


> and i'm not sure how a healthy hive would come in contact with unhealthy hive in any other way except robbing. in what other ways are you considering?


We've just established that all colonies will come in contact with varroa, are you saying that robbing is the only vector for it? I don't know which vectors exist but I assume robbing isn't the only one.



squarepeg said:


> if i a hive is being robbed, it has been weakened. perhaps by an overload of mites, which could hitch a ride back to a healthy hive, and maybe pushing the mite load in the healthy hive above tolerance.
> 
> in varroasis, the bees in the sick hive may have also succumb to virulent pathogens, which would also be brought back to the healthy hive.


I see your point that if you have a hive that already has pathogens and gets a sudden influx from a robbed hive, it might take it over the top in it's own mite count. But since pathogens multiply exponentially if your hive was already unable to deal with the ones it had it was going to die anyway. At best this means your hive was depending on your treatments to stay alive and since the pathogen load went up and your treatment regimen didn't it tipped the scale. I think this says more about how unsustainable treatment is than how dangerous not treating is. And it certainly doesn't explain how it's a danger to natural pollinators who nobody is treating anyway.

My point is very simple:
- The amount of pathogens in your neighbor's hives shouldn't affect *if* your bees will come in contact with pathogens only to *how many* of them.
- Since viruses and varroa can multiply very fast getting 10 pathogens or 1000 pathogens into a hive that has none should only be the difference of a couple of pathogen life cycles thanks to exponential growth. Since these life cycles are pretty short this isn't really a substantial amount of time.

Michael Bush has some simple math to illustrate some of this here:

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesvarroatreatments.htm


----------



## pedrocr

WLC said:


> pedro:
> 
> http://www.fgp.huck.psu.edu/pdf/Singh_PLoSOne_2010.pdf
> 
> If you take the time to read the above, you'll understand why increasing the Varroa load, and subsequently the virus load of a colony, as part of a beekeeping practice, is a cause for concern.
> 
> It affects native pollinators. So, it's almost impossible to justify with an 'environmentally friendly' argument.
> 
> It's not just an environmental risk, it risks the whole premise behind 'treatment-free' beekeeping.
> 
> The 'Bond: Live and Let Die' hypothesis is deeply flawed.


The article you linked actually helps establish one of my premises, that you don't need very high pathogen loads concentrated in a single hive to spread disease. Here's a vector that doesn't require robbing or even direct contact between bees. You still haven't explained why you think my reasoning for why that doesn't have a big effect on the health of other bees is wrong. I'll state it again:

Treating an apiary might reduce the pathogen load in the polen but it will surely not eliminate it completely. Native pollinators will still be bringing in the pathogens back from foraging and getting infected by them. Those pathogens will multiply within their populations exponentially. If they don't develop resistance the difference between bringing in 10 pathogens or 1000 is how soon they'll die, not if.


----------



## WLC

pedro:

"Our finding that RNA viruses have a broad host range and are
freely circulating in the pollinator community has important
implications on export/import and movement of managed
pollinators that may bring in new or more virulent strains of
existing pathogens into the environment, with the potential for
deeper impact on our agro-ecosystems and natural ecosystems."

Can you understand why allowing hives to succumb to viruses by not treating them for varroa is THE issue now?

It's higher virus titers that cause death. Not simply virus infection.


----------



## pedrocr

WLC said:


> pedro:
> 
> "Our finding that RNA viruses have a broad host range and are
> freely circulating in the pollinator community has important
> implications on export/import and movement of managed
> pollinators that may bring in new or more virulent strains of
> existing pathogens into the environment, with the potential for
> deeper impact on our agro-ecosystems and natural ecosystems."


All your quote says is that RNA viruses circulate broadly between species and then makes the point that moving bees around helps bring into contact with the local pollinators viruses that might not have been there yet. It doesn't mention concentrations at all.



WLC said:


> Can you understand why allowing hives to succumb to viruses by not treating them for varroa is THE issue now?
> 
> It's higher virus titers that cause death. Not simply virus infection.


Nowhere does your quote (or as far as I can tell the article) establish that higher concentrations imply higher mortality. Restating the same facts instead of engaging my argument isn't helping me understand your viewpoint better.


----------



## squarepeg

pedro, 

although i do have a science background, it is neither in entomology nor microbiology.

as far as the rationale for not exposing healthy hives to collapsing unhealthy ones via robbing, i am relying on what randy oliver, who's background and experience gives him standing, has written in this regard. (see scientificbeekeeping.com)

mr. oliver absolutely recommends removing sick colonies from healthy yards. he quarantines them, or puts them in what he calls 'hospital yards'.

interestingly, mr, oliver was among the first of commercial beekeepers to abandon the use of synthetic miticides, due to comb contamination and the development of resistance to them by the mites.


----------



## squarepeg

>Nowhere does your quote (or as far as I can tell the article) establish that higher concentrations imply higher mortality. Restating the same facts instead of engaging my argument isn't helping me understand your viewpoint better. 

on this point pedro, my background does allow me to say unequivocally that it is generally accepted a higher titer of pathogen does result in increased morbitity/mortality.


----------



## pedrocr

squarepeg said:


> on this point pedro, my background does allow me to say unequivocally that it is generally accepted a higher titer of pathogen does result in increased morbitity/mortality.


I can easily believe that higher concentrations of pathogens in a hive lead to higher mortality. My point is that given how fast the pathogens multiply the limiting factor for the concentration in the hive isn't concentration in the environment it's how well the bees/pollinators handle the exposure. They're going to get it anyway and when they do the limiting factor for the concentration is going to be their ability to handle the pathogens. I don't see where the environment concentration is going to make much difference. That's the main point of my argument that no one seems to dispute. I'm not necessarily convinced by it myself but any argument that states that treatment free endangers other hives has to explain why that's wrong.


----------



## WLC

Pedro:

An untreated colony that is allowed to succumb to viruses will release a huge amount of virus particles into the environment.

Allowing an entire apiary to do so continuously is ill-advised.

You should consult the scientific literature if you don't understand the relationship between varroa mite counts, virus titer, and Honeybee mortality.

The quote from the article is clearly stating that these viruses are a threat to native pollinators.

As for your argument...



WLC.


----------



## crofter

Is there not a threshold level in the number of organisms necessary to initiate contagion. Mark's reference to the difference between infection and infestation seems to be of importance also. Maybe some broad brush painting here.


----------



## pedrocr

squarepeg said:


> as far as the rationale for not exposing healthy hives to collapsing unhealthy ones via robbing, i am relying on what randy oliver, who's background and experience gives him standing, has written in this regard. (see scientificbeekeeping.com)
> 
> mr. oliver absolutely recommends removing sick colonies from healthy yards. he quarantines them, or puts them in what he calls 'hospital yards'.


This might make sense from a management perspective. In the short term you may want to reduce exposure to get any hives whose chances of survival might be marginal to have a higher chance and thus get a bigger crop. But it certainly doesn't avoid that any hives get a given pathogen (they probably already have it if it's so far along in one hive in the same apiary), and if they do and they're not resistant, you'll still need to treat or they'll die. And you'll still want to breed from the hives that wouldn't have died even if you hadn't quarantined the sick colony. So the quarantine seems like a "let's maximize honey production" measure and not a "let's save the bees from the treatment free folks" kind of measure.


----------



## squarepeg

the flaw in your point as i see has to do with what is called threshold. if the amount of pathogen that they 'get' exceeds that which their immunity can handle you will get disease. if your are not convinced that robbing can lead to levels of pathogen that exceed this threshold, then maybe there is no convincing you. 

i see no problem with being treatment free, as long as responsible measures are taken to prevent robbing should a hive collapse.

and i certainly respect your right to your point of view.


----------



## pedrocr

WLC said:


> Pedro:
> 
> An untreated colony that is allowed to succumb to viruses will release a huge amount of virus particles into the environment.
> 
> Allowing an entire apiary to do so continuously is ill-advised.
> 
> You should consult the scientific literature if you don't understand the relationship between varroa mite counts, virus titer, and Honeybee mortality.


So you restate the same thing without actually discussing anything, refer me to "the literature" that even though I assume you know doesn't allow you to make simple statements derived from that knowledge that teach me anything new that might help me gain knowledge. That's not helping me learn anything, it's just a suggestion that if I want to learn I should not read this forum and instead go read something else (the literature).



WLC said:


> The quote from the article is clearly stating that these viruses are a threat to native pollinators.


That would be swell if the question was "are RNA viruses a threat to native pollinators?". Since the question is "are treatment free hives a threat to native pollinators?" it doesn't help.



WLC said:


> As for your argument...
> 
> 
> WLC.


I made the argument, not because I wanted to convince anyone, but exactly because I wanted to put into something debatable the extent of my knowledge on the matter, hoping that it would either advance the discussion or allow someone else to explain where my knowledge was lacking. Your ellipsis helps neither of those goals. I see why these discussions can get tiring.


----------



## pedrocr

squarepeg said:


> the flaw in your point as i see has to do with what is called threshold. if the amount of pathogen that they 'get' exceeds that which their immunity can handle you will get disease. if your are not convinced that robbing can lead to levels of pathogen that exceed this threshold, then maybe there is no convincing you.


I agree that there's a threshold to be overcome between a hive having a pathogen at all and having it in enough concentrations to cause disease. It's just my understanding that once a hive is infected if it's not naturally resistant the pathogens will multiply and you will cross the threshold anyway. So imagine these two scenarios with two hives, one yours, one your neighbor's. Pathogen A exists in your neighbor's hive and causes disease after some threshold. Now:

- Your neighbour doesn't treat, his hive dies, is robbed out by your hive, bringing back enough Pathogen A to pass the threshold. You get disease.
- Your neighbour treats, his hive doesn't die yet still caries the pathogen as the treatment doesn't eradicate it. Your hive still comes into contact with the pathogen at lower dosages, it multiplies inside your hive, passes the threshold and you get disease.

So in these two cases the result is the same. Now the interesting case, and this might be where you're coming from is this scenario:

- Your neighbour treats, his hives don't die yet still carry the pathogen as the treatment doesn't erradicate it. Your hive still comes into contact with the pathogen at lower dosages, it multiplies inside your hive but not enough to pass the threshold and cause disease. If at any point your neighbor's hive dies and your bees rob it, the threshold gets passed and you get disease.

Is this a good characterization of what you're thinking? I see where this could be the case if your hive has enough resistance to Pathogen A to keep a small concentration at bay but enough concentration overcomes that resistance and allows multiplication. I don't know if that kind of fragile equilibrium is common in our hives.



squarepeg said:


> and i certainly respect your right to your point of view.


It's not really a point of view as I'm far too inexperience to have one. It's just the extent of my limited understanding.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg:

He's too inexperienced to have a point of view, yet he goes on and on...



Would Barry stoop to using a 'sockpuppet'?

Heh, heh.


----------



## squarepeg

i'll give it one more shot pedro, i'm still having fun here. and let me reiterate that my purpose for starting this thread was to give up and coming beekeepers the 'other side' of the 'treatment free' approach.

again, the problem with your scenario is that i don't know of any way my bees are going to be contaminated by my neighbor's bees unless my neighbor's bees get so sick and weak that they succumb to robbing by my bees.

you say that you are sure there are other ways, but are you sure? when you find out what they are, let me know and we might be able to pursue that line of argument.


----------



## JRG13

There's a similar premise in agriculture. You can have resistant varieties. RNA viruses are a little easier to knock out, DNA viruses can usually still be detected even in resistant lines. the problem there is obvious, that plant can still vector the virus and now you have a population of the virus living in your resistant line. This is how breaking strains are created, levels of infection below threshold for your resistance which allows the pathogen to mutate to become more virulent. I look at it this way... even if I had mite resistant bees, I would monitor mite levels and try to eradicate them if their numbers get too high. Why stress the bees when you don't have to and why harbor large pathogen loads that might evolve to break your resistance.


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> If I remember correctly, it took approximately 5 (correct me if wrong) years for AHB to travel on their own "legs"(winds) from Brazil all way to California, Texas etc. Perhaps, we just underestimate the ability for wild/feral bees to travel and potentially spread diseases.


Since you asked for correction here it is. Fifty years, not 5. AHB originated in Brazil in 1953 or 54. The year I was born or the year after. The natural outward migration took 50 plus years to get thru the highest concentration of beehives in the Americas, Mexico, and into the United States and it's further outward migration has slowed since getting to where it is in the US now.


----------



## sqkcrk

crofter said:


> Is there not a threshold level in the number of organisms necessary to initiate contagion.


Yes crofter, regarding AFB there certainly is a threshold level of spores necassary to initiate contagion in a honey bee larvae. There is also a threshold level for varroa, though this is somewhat harder to determine, though some will say that there is a specific treatment threeshold. The same is true for Nosema. It is 1,000,000 spores per bee. But this figure is contested by the likes of Randy Oliver because how Nosema impacts a colony of bees is not precise or certain.


----------



## JRG13

I saw a documentary on how they got released, it was pretty interesting.


----------



## WLC

JRG:

RNA viruses were shown to be vectored by pollen. In fact, they suspect that these viruses may be inside the pollen itself. They've shown that these picorna viruses were pretty much ubiquitous and in many hymenopterans sampled.

Evolution in those virus pools is certainly a major issue.

So, why help things along? I feel that we need to use an approach to obtaining treatment-free bees that isn't as vulnerable to the current conditions as they've been described in the scientific literature.

We keep hearing about 'natural selection', but the TFB advocates seem to forget about the evoution part.

Bond: Live and Let Die TFBs aren't up to the challenges presented by the current picorna virus landscape in the environment.

We need to be alot smarter about this than we've been in the past.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Howdy ho, there buckaroo's --> I think I hear a version of this poem being spoken here. Poem

Or maybe it's the one about the chicken and the egg.


----------



## sqkcrk

JRG13 said:


> I saw a documentary on how they got released, it was pretty interesting.


I would like to see that documentary to see if it jives w/ the mythology.


----------



## squarepeg

Joseph Clemens said:


> Howdy ho, there buckaroo's --> I think I hear a version of this poem being spoken here. Poem
> 
> Or maybe it's the one about the chicken and the egg.


sorry joseph, i don't get it. can you explain?


----------



## jbeshearse

One thing to remember here. When we treat (poison) varroa we are not creating a super
Mite that is any more virulent to the bees. The Supermite is resistant to the poison. That is all. We are not building resistance in the mite to any naturally evolving bee characteristic. We are actually stressing the mite and making it evolve and select resistance to our treatments . Could this actually make the mite less capable of developing a resistance to bee evolved solutions?


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> ... migration took 50 plus years to get ... in the Americas, Mexico, and into the United States....


 Mark, many thanks for clarification. Let see. What is the distance between US and Brazil? Let's guess 4500 miles (probably more), 90 miles/yr. Slow but it still could explains how Varroa get into isolated area situated 100 miles from the near affected apiary within few years... Also,for varroa, I would imagine that migration speed would be much higher since it does not require bee reproduction as in case of AHBs.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

The discussion in this thread has basically been extrapolated from one small experimental investigation into the world of hymenoptera and gives a tiny glimpse into their world -- to me such a myopic view into that world is like the Elephant and the Six blind scholars. To base such broad assumptions on such a small view of the picture, reminds me of that poem.

And the chicken and egg analogy --> What came first the virus or the bee? Or, where did the virus originate, with the wild hymenoptera or with the _Apis mellifera_? If, as is mentioned in the paper, that some of these viruses seem to be unique to North America, and the honey bee isn't, how then can the honey bee be seen as the origination of these viruses?


----------



## JRG13

WLC,

I pretty much said that in my first post in this thread minus a pure treatment free approach. I totally agree with the evolution and selection scheme. I hear a lot about survivor stock and it would be nice to correlate it to something tangible.

We manipulate behavior enough to suit our own needs and combat mites and disease to some extent as well. 

Mark, I think it was on Netflix, basic thing was, that guy in Brazil wanted to produce the King honey cropping bee. So he collected a bunch of queens in Africa and brought them back here. They had the hives screened off so the queen's couldn't leave until some temporary contractor came along on his first day, thought to himself, who would screen up hives like that, removed them all and all the bees absconded. I didn't quite understand why they would all just abscond though.


----------



## squarepeg

Joseph Clemens said:


> The discussion in this thread has basically been extrapolated from one small experimental investigation into the world of hymenoptera and gives a tiny glimpse into their world -- to me such a myopic view into that world is like the Elephant and the Six blind scholars. To base such broad assumptions on such a small view of the picture, reminds me of that poem.
> 
> And the chicken and egg analogy --> What came first the virus or the bee? Or, where did the virus originate, with the wild hymenoptera or with the _Apis mellifera_? If, as is mentioned in the paper, that some of these viruses seem to be unique to North America, and the honey bee isn't, how then can the honey bee be seen as the origination of these viruses?


still not sure what you're getting at.

to which 'broad assumptions' are you referring to?


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Abscond, maybe they were _Apis_ _mellifera_ _scutellata_ or hybrids thereof. Abscond is one of the things AHB are known for, and they seem to do it more often than any other honey bee species or hybrid.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Maybe the assumptions being expounded by the non-treatment and treatment factions alike: 

Such as the assumption that the viruses found in the pollen were originating with the honey bees and not with the other hymenoptera species. (Chicken and the egg analogy).

Or that non-treated bees were primarily responsible for vectoring pathogens to hymenoptera species, instead of the other way around. I see this as an unproven theory, expounded by the author, but without convincing supporting evidence - it appears to be assumed. All I see proven is that some wild hymenoptera species, pollen, and honey bees all share some of the same viruses.

The Elephant and blind men poem --> Are managed and untreated honey bee colonies responsible for vectoring viruses to pollen and wild hymenoptera species? Are managed and treated honey bee colonies responsible for vectoring viruses to pollen and wild hymenoptera species? Much more work would need to be done in this line of research, before I would feel confident I had any idea what the actual scene was. (Hence the Elephant and blind man poem reference).


----------



## JRG13

All kept bees are responsible for vectoring. Maybe absconding was the wrong word, but the way they showed it, was basically as soon as the screens were opened, the queen left and the hive followed her. I just didn't understand why they would want to leave so immediately unless they were so undomesticated they really didn't want anything to do with a man built hive. They were housed in the hives awhile before the screens were removed.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I spent a little more than a decade keeping nothing but bees that exhibited most of the behaviors described for AHB; they were likely AHB, but I never bothered to have them tested. 

An analogy would be that they do resort to many unpleasant and undesirable behaviors, "at the drop of a hat".

An example would be: I once screened a captured, likely AHB swarm, into its hive, feeding them and watching to see that their queen had begun to lay and the eggs to hatch. I then opened their entrance. The next day the box was empty, but the eggs and larvae were still there. A few days later I discovered that they had moved into another nuc, about seven colonies over from where they had been, they had killed the resident queen and taken over that hive. So they exhibited absconding and usurpation, both common AHB traits.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> Yes crofter, regarding AFB there certainly is a threshold level ...


 There is always threshold in host-infection/parasite relationship. In normal circumstances, everything lower than threshold (assuming no treatment) actually creates an immunity and made host stronger... over the threshold - usually it means death at the end. In normal host-parasite relationships, parasite is not interested to kill the host, it is interested to co-exist at moderate (below threshold) levels. Since, Varroa is not natural parasite to EHB, this relationship with the host is unbalanced, which leads to unusually high mortality in EHB population. 
If we are talking about just spreading the infection (virus), of coarse, higher concentration of the pathogen in environment would increase the chance of infection, it is just statistical probability (easier to cross the threshold). Also, higher number of pathogens in environment could "serve" a bigger community - more individuals exposed and thus, higher chance that pathogen will meet the individual who is more sensitive to it. Once, this "sensitive" individual got sick, pathogen could multiply and reach threshold level for the normal population. It's called epidemic. There are two sides in this equation: one is increase of the threshold (more pathogens needed to make bee sick) and another is to keep the concentration of the pathogen below established threshold. Later required constant "treatment" or as Mark graciously called it "medicate" to keep levels lower than threshold.


----------



## TooFarGone

My recollection of the Brazilian bee release is that the hives had queen excluders on them. The beekeepers that were managing the apiary went on vacation. The substitute beekeepers removed the excluders and 16 swarms escaped. They then moved northward at the rate of about 200 miles a year until they got here.


----------



## WLC

Joseph:

There's one thing that varroa mites do very well to Honeybees when left untreated.

They can inject viruses and cause an overt infection with the resulting production of prodigious numbers of virus particles. Varroa has been shown to be a vector, activator, and reservoir of DWV for example.

Deliberately leaving varroa mites untreated will drastically increase local virus levels.

It's not chicken or the egg.

It's VARROA.

Get it yet?

They're little virus filled hypodermic syringes.


----------



## JRG13

That's what I figured TooFar, that swarms had escaped but the documentary made it seem like the bees just wanted out and first chance they got they left the hives.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

WLC,

I don't disagree that Varroa are bad, or that they perform as you describe, what I don't seem to get is how you reach the belief that Varroa which are treated are somehow less disagreeable, than those that aren't treated. You may have fewer Varroa, if you treat for them, but those that remain will still be doing their dirty little deeds, just with less competition from other Varroa. A vacuum that they will be working hard to fill.

When I first heard of Varroa (a little more than 20 years ago), I also heard the warning that if I didn't treat I would surely lose my hives within two, or at most, three years. Sure enough when I looked, there were Varroa in my hives, there were even a few young bees emerging with DWV (and once in awhile still are), I decided to wait and see, before using any treatments. And I was planning to use treatments. I have yet to lose even a single colony due to Varroa. I'm still waiting . . . for the Varroa to drop, so to speak. If Varroa begin killing my hives, I will, quite possibly give much more thought to using treatments.

Concerning treating -vs- non-treating having differing direct environmental effects, possibly generating negative affects on various other hymenoptera species. I simply need more compelling evidence, before I buy into it more completely. A smoking gun would be nice, but watching the gun be shot and seeing the projectile hit its target, would be even better.


----------



## pedrocr

WLC said:


> squarepeg:
> 
> He's too inexperienced to have a point of view, yet he goes on and on...
> 
> 
> 
> Would Barry stoop to using a 'sockpuppet'?
> 
> Heh, heh.


I don't actually "go on and on" as I've so far made a single point that was only my hypothesis, not my opinion or point of view. An hypothesis that squarepeg has engaged and helped me learn from whereas you just repeat the same tired facts that have no bearing on the issue and resort to calling me names. Feel free to ignore my posts from now on as I'll ignore yours.


----------



## pedrocr

squarepeg said:


> i'll give it one more shot pedro, i'm still having fun here. and let me reiterate that my purpose for starting this thread was to give up and coming beekeepers the 'other side' of the 'treatment free' approach.
> 
> again, the problem with your scenario is that i don't know of any way my bees are going to be contaminated by my neighbor's bees unless my neighbor's bees get so sick and weak that they succumb to robbing by my bees.
> 
> you say that you are sure there are other ways, but are you sure? when you find out what they are, let me know and we might be able to pursue that line of argument.


What I've gathered from reading this forum is that these days you can't expect not to have varroa in your hives, only to not have it in enough quantity to cause disease. So you might not get it from your neighbor's bees, but you'll get it eventually. Is that not the case? Do people still expect to be able to have varroa-free hives?

Bringing the thread full-circle here's what I conclude from the thread:

- If you have a dying hive, whether you treat it or not, you should take steps to avoid contaminating other hives with it as it collapses. If its a treated hive, other hives will rob it and get a few pathogens and some of the chemicals used to treat it, if it's untreated more pathogens and less chemicals.
- If you have untreated hives that are doing fine, it might be because they have higher resistance to pathogens than other hives, so they may increase the concentration of pathogens in the environment (maybe by visiting the same flowers and infecting the polen). On the flipside if you're treating you may be able to reduce the total concentration (if your treatments actually work and the pathogens don't just bounce back) while also introducing other changes in the environment (like killing off some of the beneficial organisms that live in hives). I don't see either option as being more responsible.

The second point is important. Keeping honey bees is never "natural", it's always an intervention in the environment and you can do both types (treatment or not) responsibly. I think the jury is still out on if you can do both in a sustainable way, and I say this wondering which way it will go, not advocating treatment free.

PS: I just noticed how the title of this thread is a bit slanted. It's "treatment free beekeeping - the risks" as if the status quo (treatment) is the basis for comparison. In reality keeping hives in any way is a human intervention in the ecosystem so the real discussion to be had is "treatment vs no treatment - the risks and rewards". And as I said, the jury is still out on which way that will go.


----------



## WLC

Joseph:

"Bond: Live and Let Die" = more Varroa=more virus.

That's the risk.

"Detection of Deformed wing virus, a honey bee viral pathogen, in bumble
bees (Bombus terrestris and Bombus pascuorum) with wing deformities
Elke Genersch a,¤, Constanze Yue a, Ingemar Fries b, Joachim R. de Miranda c"

The photo of the dead bumblebee, with shrivelled wings due to DWV infection, in the above paper should fit your description of smoking gun, powder burns, and bullet.

Recombinant viruses of this type are a cause for concern as well:

"Recombinants between Deformed wing virus and
Varroa destructor virus-1 may prevail in Varroa
destructor-infested honeybee colonies
Jonathan Moore,1 Aleksey Jironkin,1 David Chandler,2 Nigel Burroughs,1
David J. Evans2 and Eugene V. Ryabov2"

Maybe you're the "What, Me Worry?" type? 

I am aware of the africanized stock that treatment-free beekeepers are using in Arizona, etc. .

Africanization is one of those risks associated with TFB. No wonder you don't have a mite problem (do your bees do well on small cell?).

I'm using VSH Italians. I won't touch africanized stock by choice and by law.


----------



## WLC

pedro:

So, you just noticed that the title is just a bit slanted?

It's about the risks of going treatment-free.

Why do you think I was so critical of the key method used to go treatment-free, Bond: Live and Let Die?


----------



## squarepeg

beyond the title of this thread, and explained in the original post, i outlined my primary concern with the 'hands off' approach of 'letting the bees work it out on their own'. it has also been called the 'bond method', or 'live and let die' this approach is regularly espoused on the 'treatment free beekeeping' forum, and that is why i used the title tfb -the risks.

a better title would have been, 'the bond method as proposed on the tfb forum - the risks'. 

as stated, i am a proponent of not using treatments, but as part of an integrated pest management approach, and not based on an arbitrary philosophical point of view.

the point i was trying to make was that up and coming beekeepers, who almost always find themselves overwhelmed by the challanges of managing bees at first, would look to a 'hands off' approach as a desirable way to go. 

i could see how someone new to beekeeping, would interpret what is proposed in the tfb forum as cutting edge, the 'new way', and easily decide to follow such an approach.

unfortunately, and as been affirmed by others in this thread, we can't practice beekeeping in a vacuum. letting hives get weak and die, and also robbed, has the likely potential to spread disease to other hives. if those who practice the bond method are taking responsible precautions to prevent this, ok. but i have never once seen any comments on the tfb forum that demonstrate this has even been considered.

joseph, thanks for explaining. that vectoring stuff is interesting and relevent, but i am not knowledgeable about it to comment. i do want to say that the bigger point for me is not whether one treats or doesn't treat, but acts responsibly in the case of a collapsing hive.

many thanks to all who are participating.


----------



## sqkcrk

yer welcome.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> squarepeg:
> 
> He's too inexperienced to have a point of view, yet he goes on
> 
> Would Barry stoop to using a 'sockpuppet'?
> 
> Heh, heh.


Heh, heh. How about I stoop and out who WLC is? Heh, heh!


----------



## sqkcrk

Yeah, I thought that WLC's taunt was a low blow. Not what I expect from WLC.

Inquiring minds do want to know though.


----------



## Daniel Y

WLC said:


> Joseph:
> 
> Deliberately leaving varroa mites untreated will drastically increase local virus levels.


I get the point. but is it true? Has anyone actually shown that their is more viruses in a hive with a higher Varroa population? Does this mean that Varroa is the only means that the virus is introduced to the colony? If not then the Varroa population probably does not have a drastic impact on the virus population since it will accour anyway.

I still don't see how a hive being treated for varroa (indication that it is infected) is any less risk to the local bee population than one that is not being treated (Assume varroa are present)

The idea of higher numbers equals greater risk I don't agree with. All it takes is one. And pretty much every hive in existence has at least one. To now start blaming that on how your neighbor keeps bees is a febble minded as the whole "He doesn't have enough beekeeping experience to be intelligent" thinking. 

Most likely any varroa you have in your hives, came from your hives. If they don't have it they will. And nothing anyone is doing is changing that.

Until you have something that destroys 100% of the mites 100% of the time nobody has any room to talk. you are all adding to the infestation in my hive.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> I am aware of the africanized stock that treatment-free beekeepers are using in Arizona, etc. .
> 
> Africanization is one of those risks associated with TFB. No wonder you don't have a mite problem (do your bees do well on small cell?).
> 
> I'm using VSH Italians. I won't touch africanized stock by choice and by law.


Now that's a "whole nother kettle of fish". If there is one topic on which I have had to rethink my position recently it is AHB. I have been around Africanized bees that made even a seasoned beekeeper like myself retreat and regroup. However I hear many others claim to have been around bees in other areas of the US and the world that have an entirely different temperament that still were considered Scutellata (AHB). My theory is that there has been a hybridization of sorts that has occurred, the extent of which has been determined by the local climate and that this is (and I'm still theorizing here) the reason beekeepers with localized bees in certain geographic areas are able to be sustainable without treatments and it may well be a part of the reason that general bee health in the industry is on a slight uptick. I just dont think one can any longer generalize the subject of AHB. If that is getting away from the intent of the thread I apologize but I do believe there may well be a relationship with the topic at hand.


----------



## Barry

I love when people hide/cover up truth. They end up giving away their power to other people.


----------



## squarepeg

>I still don't see how a hive being treated for varroa (indication that it is infected) is any less risk to the local bee population than one that is not being treated (Assume varroa are present)


dan, i don't disagree with this at all. what is your opinion on letting a colony die out and getting robbed?


----------



## WLC

Barry:

How about you make yourself useful and see if Mike B. is posting as pedro from portugal?
The tone and style are too familiar.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Barry:
> 
> How about you make yourself useful and see if Mike B. is posting as pedro from portugal?
> The tone and style are too familiar.


Maybe you should stop hiding behind a stone wall lobbing personal attacks at others and just come out into the light and expose your true self as almost all of the rest of us do.


----------



## squarepeg

jim, interesting point on the ahb. where i live, feral hives are likely to greatly outnumber managed hives, and these survivors represent what is right genetically for coping with all these stressors. my bees were bred from feral bees, and are showing pretty good mite resistance so far. i haven't seen some of the traits associated with ahb, i.e. usurpation, bearding with inspections, ect., but i did have to requeen two hives this year because they were just too aggressive.


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel,
Knocking down the number of varroa mites in a colony reduces the efficacy of viruses already present or brought by the mites. The mites act as a vector, a means of transmission, a means of getting the virus into the bees where they can reproduce exponentially thereby being effective killers of the colony.

The viruses may already be there, but not able to do their work until they have a means to. In other words the opening in the exoskeleton of the bees made by the varroa mites. Fewer mites, fewer damaged bees, equals a smaller viral load.

At least that's how I think it works.


----------



## jim lyon

sqkcrk said:


> Maybe you should stop hiding behind a stone wall lobbing personal attacks at others and just come out into the light and expose your true self as almost all of the rest of us do.


Are you suggesting letting everyone know who is behind these posts about......beekeeping? Think of the ramifications.


----------



## sqkcrk

"the risks"


----------



## WLC

MarK:

I was victimized at work and at home by an ex-con, cyberstalker a few years back.

I suggest that you all respect my desire for privacy.

Understood?

WLC.


----------



## sqkcrk

So, you must be a distant cousin of mine. She was too.

You call for respect while being disrespectful? Okay. I'll try to keep your situation in mind.

"Understood?" Understood. How about some reciprocating? Don't call others out and question their identity if you don't want your identity questioned. "Understood?"


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> MarK:
> 
> I was victimized at work and at home by an ex-con, cyberstalker a few years back.
> 
> I suggest that you all respect my desire for privacy.
> 
> Understood?
> 
> WLC.


Cyberstalking? Beekeeping? Sorry but that isnt really adding up to me. Would you also be afraid to publish a study under your name for fear of some sort of reprisal? No one is asking for any personal information other than your professional resume that you like to hint about so freely.


----------



## pedrocr

WLC said:


> Barry:
> 
> How about you make yourself useful and see if Mike B. is posting as pedro from portugal?
> The tone and style are too familiar.


Is this an accepted form of conduct in this forum?



WLC said:


> MarK:
> 
> I was victimized at work and at home by an ex-con, cyberstalker a few years back.
> 
> I suggest that you all respect my desire for privacy.
> 
> Understood?
> 
> WLC.


I suggest you respect my desire to not be called a sock puppet. Understood?


----------



## sqkcrk

pedrocr said:


> Is this an accepted form of conduct in this forum?
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you respect my desire to not be called a sock puppet. Understood?


No pedrocr, it is not. We call it out when we see it. You are welcome here and should feel as free as anyone else to make comments and ask questions w/out undo derisive comments from others.

People w/ cyber security glass houses should not throw stones.


----------



## squarepeg

barry, thanks for not editing or deleting any of this. i personally enjoy a forum that is open and free, within limits of course. most of us are here for sharing and learning, but there is a certain entertainment value to it as well, (where is acebird when you need him?  ).

wlc, i don't really care anything about your identity. my opinion is that you are able to bring some unique perspective into these discussions, and i find that valuable. i do notice that threads you participate in oftentimes spin off topic or get personal, which makes it difficult to advance the conversation.

i'm not the mom here, just making observations.

again, i thank all for participating. 

so far, it looks like most who have expressed an opinion don't believe it is responsible to allow a hive to die, (via the 'bond' method, as promoted on the tfb forum) and get robbed out, and most believe that it is a threat to neighboring colonies.

is there anyone who has a good argument to the contrary?


----------



## WLC

There hasn't been a solid defense against the 'Bond' protocol since I've been on Beesource.

:banana:
(Barry, does this ring a bell?)


----------



## pedrocr

squarepeg said:


> so far, it looks like most who have expressed an opinion don't believe it is responsible to allow a hive to die, (via the 'bond' method, as promoted on the tfb forum) and get robbed out, and most believe that it is a threat to neighboring colonies.
> 
> is there anyone who has a good argument to the contrary?


I agree that letting the hive die out by disease and be robbed is to be avoided as a public health measure. If that's your only question we're in full agreement. 

The other two questions that came up are:

- Does an untreated thriving hive that might have more pathogens but also has more resistance pose a risk to other, less resistant hives?
- If so do beekeepers have an obligation to do something about it?

My impression so far is that the risk if it exists is small and that there is no obligation from the no-treatment beekeeper to do anything about it. The non-treating beekeeper has decided that the way for his bees to survive is to build resistance, and the treatment beekeeper has decided it is treatments. They both need to live with those decisions.


----------



## jbeshearse

Pedro,

If you have a pathogen that is 90% deadly and 100% transmissible, isn't it irresponsible to not do everything you can to not allow it to spread?

Are you the guy that goes to work/uses mass transit with the flu and gives it to his co-workers and then feels no responsibility for you part in their sickness?

Why do you think it is mandated to burn AFB hives?


----------



## pedrocr

jbeshearse said:


> Pedro,
> If you have a pathogen that is 90% deadly and 100% transmissible, isn't it irresponsible to not do everything you can to not allow it to spread?


The crux of the matter is if you think that a hive that has for example 1000 mites is a significantly higher risk to others than another that only has 100. Since the experience seems to be that everyone gets mites no matter what I don't see that you can actually do anything to "not allow it to spread". Given that treatment will probably select for nastier mites it's not clear at all which of the two options represents a worse risk to neighboring hives. 



jbeshearse said:


> Are you the guy that goes to work/uses mass transit with the flu and gives it to his co-workers and then feels no responsibility for you part in their sickness?
> 
> Why do you think it is mandated to burn AFB hives?


Staying home with the flu has a known benefit of reducing transmission of the virus. Less people will get the flu if you stay home. Reducing mite counts doesn't have any bearing on if your hives will get mites that I've seen. The same number of hives (all of them) will still get mites if you treat.

I haven't seen much about AFB as we don't have it here but if the idea with the burning was eradicating the disease it doesn't seem to be working. I don't think we can know if it's reducing the spread as the counterfactual "what would have happened if we had not burned those hives?" isn't observable. But maybe there are controlled experiments that test some of that.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

BTW, earlier in this thread I mentioned that for more than a decade after I first relocated to this vicinity (Marana/Tucson area of Arizona), I kept what were likely AHB. However, it has been more than another decade since I imported non-AHB queens and, at least reduced the AHB genetics in all my hives, where I commonly work them daily, in no more protective gear than shorts and a T-shirt. I find that I also need to monitor regularly for usurpation by AHB, to maintain my desired level of EHB.

I am in a fairly isolated (isolated from other beekeepers), location on the North edge of the Western side of the Saguaro National Park. Even the nearest agriculture is more than six miles away, farther to the North and West. Though my colonies may still be experiencing some influence from AHB, from usurpation swarms and open mating of my queens (though I import almost all of my breeder queens), I heavily flood my mating area with select/desirable drones and open mate my production queens. 

I find one of the main hypothesis in this thread highly suspect -- 'that hives, untreated for Varroa, which are robbed heavily, through being robbed, transfer lethal levels of disease to the robbing hives'. For more than twenty years now, I've had frequent bouts of robbing among my hives. Periodic dearths are the norm in my area. Back when all my colonies were AHB and now that they are EHB, I've still never treated. The only hives ever lost, were weaker mating nucs, weaker, primarily because they were queenless too long and hadn't been boosted with added brood. Some had even developed into laying worker colonies, before being robbed out. None of the stronger (robber) colonies has ever shown the slightest falter after being the benefactor of robbing those weaker colonies - quite the contrary. I cannot unequivocally say that this hypothesis is false, just that in my experience I have seen absolutely no evidence to support its validity.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> There hasn't been a solid defense against the 'Bond' protocol since I've been on Beesource.


well, hopefully there is one now.


----------



## pedrocr

It seems a lot of this thread revolves around the revulsion people have with not doing anything to help sick animals. This has at least two parts:

First, people can't stand that someone would knowingly not treat an animal that's sick, in this case a hive. Those same people might be fine with requeening the same hive from different stock, effectively replacing it with a totally different animal. But whatever your beliefs are I think we can all agree that seeing a hive die sucks.

The second part, that's particularly important to this thread is people looking at the whole population of hives and saying "there are diseases living among them, don't just stand there, do something". The argument for treatment free is that treatments are actually not better than not doing anything *for the interests of the whole population of hives*, while obviously being an advantage for the particular hive in question.

This is I think an important distinction. By saying that treatment free beekeepers have an obligation to treat/manage to benefit the neighboring hives you're effectively prioritizing the few hives over the whole population if it turns out that we really need to stop treating for the global good of all hives. If it turns out treatments are actually a better solution then we all need to treat and this isn't an issue at all.


----------



## sqkcrk

pedrocr said:


> I haven't seen much about AFB as we don't have it here but if the idea with the burning was eradicating the disease it doesn't seem to be working. I don't think we can know if it's reducing the spread as the counterfactual "what would have happened if we had not burned those hives?" isn't observable. But maybe there are controlled experiments that test some of that.


pedro, if I may, a sort of History Lesson and explanation for the burning of AFB infected hives. Those visibly expressing the disease.

In the early 20th century in the US American Foulbrood was rampant. Beekeeping equipment and management techniques were less sofisticated. LOg gum and box hives w/out removeable/inspectable frames were quite common if not the normal hive found in commerciala nd noncommercial operations. There was little understanding of the disease. There were no medications at first. There were also thousands and thousands more hives than exist today.

I don't have the numbers in my head or available, but the infected colony count was epidemic and spread across the Nation. Because of this AFB Epidemic Apiary Laws and Apiary Inspection Services were established in most of the States which had bee hives and especially a thriving beekeeping/honey producing industry.

Sulfa thiazole, as a medication was developed and used to counteracts AFB. But, the disease effects the equipment, so burning that equipment became the best measure for CONTROL. As much as anyone has tried, eradication has not been accomplished. We have learned that the eradication of any disease or pest is next to impossible. Control and containment thru Education, Knowledge, Identification and the destruction of the diseased material when found have established a relatively low colony infection percentage. 

I would maintain that the efforts to control AFB are working well. The fear which some have is that w/ the rise of the treatment free beekeeping philosophy and especially top bar hive let alone beekeeping, the fear is that there is a greater potential for AFB to become more common.I don't think it has to be that one necassarily follows the other.

Especially w/ no one regulating disease in each State. Apiary Inspection Services are feeling the economic crunch as must as anyone else.

Therefore, I would say that we do know "what would have happened if we had not burned those hives".


----------



## jbeshearse

I would tend to agree that robbing of varroa infested hives have little to no effect on surrounding apiaries. If a treated hive are the robbers then any pathogens acquired are "treated for". If the robbers are from treatment free then they are resistant anyway, right?

Foulbrood, nosema ceranae are something altogether different. 

Now maybe this is a bad assumption on my part but I will state it anyway. 

The treatment free (bond method) beekeepers are less likely to check for pathogens than those that treat. As such they are more likely to allow communicable diseases to be transmitted outside their apiaries.

These is a large difference in managing bees treatment free and just letting them live or die and collecting honey. Treatment free keeping when done correctly, in my opinion, in todays industry requires more work than treating, not less.

This flies in the face if those Tfb's that indicate otherwise and by doing so mislead new keepers that are trying to do the right thing.


----------



## pedrocr

sqkcrk said:


> (...)
> 
> Therefore, I would say that we do know "what would have happened if we had not burned those hives".


Thanks for that. I find it a bit ironic that the case that's brought up of a form of control keeping infections lower is not to treat but to destroy the hives. This is obviously not feasible for varroa and today there is no expectation that any hive will not be exposed to varroa, something that burning hives with AFB may very well accomplish. 

The argument I made was that reducing some hive's pathogen count from 1000 to 100 may very well not reduce it's risk to others as it will still spread at least a couple of pathogens to the neighbor hive and those will then multiply inside it. Obviously that argument doesn't hold if you actually kill all the pathogens (and all the bees). That's exactly the distinction I was making, treatments to other hives can't really control *if* your hives will be exposed to pathogens just *when and how much*. The second part of the argument was that if you get at least some mites/pathogens in a hive those will multiply up to the same level whether you start with 10 or 100, it just depends on the ability of the hive to resist them (Michael Bush's mite math was all about that).


----------



## Ian

Mark I agree totally with this, 
but it also depends on the prevalence and type of viruses present within the colony or area. I believe viral populations follow cycles as does most everything else on this planet. And because we are unable to do anything about the prevalence of viral loads within our hives, the viral cycles work or acts within its own interaction in its environment. Some years levels of a particular virus may be higher than others in our colonies. I think its the reason why some winters we here in Canada can winter with varroa levels of 4% successfully, yet have near operation wipe outs with the same varroa levels.
I do believe it is why we see areas of territory effected by heavy losses at a time. Its not that particular area has higher mite counts than the rest, or that the areas are worst beekeepers that the rest, I believe its because those areas have environmental back ground levels of virus and other pathogens that take advantage of the mites presence and compound the problem

So yes, taking care of the mite is probably our only pratical solution right now, but I think we have to start looking at viral levels within our hives and how we can manage this issue as well. If we can manage our viral population levels, we should be able to better predict the effectiveness of our varroa control on our hives





sqkcrk said:


> Daniel,
> Knocking down the number of varroa mites in a colony reduces the efficacy of viruses already present or brought by the mites. The mites act as a vector, a means of transmission, a means of getting the virus into the bees where they can reproduce exponentially thereby being effective killers of the colony.
> 
> 
> The viruses may already be there, but not able to do their work until they have a means to. In other words the opening in the exoskeleton of the bees made by the varroa mites. Fewer mites, fewer damaged bees, equals a smaller viral load.
> 
> At least that's how I think it works.


----------



## pedrocr

jbeshearse said:


> I would tend to agree that robbing of varroa infested hives have little to no effect on surrounding apiaries. If a treated hive are the robbers then any pathogens acquired are "treated for". If the robbers are from treatment free then they are resistant anyway, right?
> 
> Foulbrood, nosema ceranae are something altogether different.


Why are they different? Doesn't the same thing apply? Treated hives will have to be treated, treatment free hives will have to be resistant or die.



jbeshearse said:


> Now maybe this is a bad assumption on my part but I will state it anyway.
> 
> The treatment free (bond method) beekeepers are less likely to check for pathogens than those that treat. As such they are more likely to allow communicable diseases to be transmitted outside their apiaries.
> 
> These is a large difference in managing bees treatment free and just letting them live or die and collecting honey. Treatment free keeping when done correctly, in my opinion, in todays industry requires more work than treating, not less.
> 
> This flies in the face if those Tfb's that indicate otherwise and by doing so mislead new keepers that are trying to do the right thing.


So if you're a treatment free beekeeper and as you suggest you spend an extra effort figuring out if you do have those transmittable diseases, if you find one what do you do? If you're not going to do anything with the information you don't really need to spend time obtaining it. If you're suggesting that you have an obligation to treat if you find they have it, then that's the whole discussion in this thread.


----------



## squarepeg

i would not suggest any obligation to treat, and there is merit to the resistance aquired through survivor stock, i just don't want anybody near me letting their hives get sick and die without removing them before they get robbed out.


----------



## jbeshearse

Here is what makes the whole thread irrelevant if you just talk about varroa. Varroa are a manageable. Those that treat have a large arsenal against varroa at their disposal. This that don't treat and have resistant bees are covered also. So if you want to just talk about varroa and what they vector, then it is a purely academic discussion with little to no implications in the real world (familiar with the saying, those that can do, those that can't sit around and talk about it). 

Communicable Disease transmission brings the thread int a more realistic arena.


----------



## pedrocr

jbeshearse said:


> Here is what makes the whole thread irrelevant if you just talk about varroa. Varroa are a manageable. Those that treat have a large arsenal against varroa at their disposal. This that don't treat and have resistant bees are covered also. So if you want to just talk about varroa and what they vector, then it is a purely academic discussion with little to no implications in the real world (familiar with the saying, those that can do, those that can't sit around and talk about it).
> 
> Communicable Disease transmission brings the thread int a more realistic arena.


So what's the difference in your scenario between varroa and foulbrood and nosema? Is it that you don't have good treatment for those and are relying on your hives not coming into contact with them?


----------



## squarepeg

it is the communicable diseases associated with varroasis and parasitic mite syndrome that are the concern, in addition to increased mite loads which can lead to varroasis and pms.


----------



## jbeshearse

Pedro, that is pretty much it. By law here, if your hive gets AFB, you burn it. So that is not manageable. Nosema ceranae is also a fatal disease if not caught early. These are disease, not parasites. For varroa we have economic thresholds. That is not the case for nosema ceranae and AFB. We can delay treatments to not effect production in varroa infested hives for the most part until the flow is done. Also I do not worry about varroa leaving behind a lasting vector that can't be manages by reducing them to
A level below the economic threshold. Nosema and AFB(EFB to a degree) leave behind a contingent load that can spread an kill at a much layer time.


----------



## squarepeg

>I would tend to agree that robbing of varroa infested hives have little to no effect on surrounding apiaries. If a treated hive are the robbers then any pathogens acquired are "treated for". If the robbers are from treatment free then they are resistant anyway, right?

the robbers, treated or not, could possibly bring back to their hives pests and pathogens raising levels above threshold and putting the colony at risk.

>These is a large difference in managing bees treatment free and just letting them live or die and collecting honey. Treatment free keeping when done correctly, in my opinion, in todays industry requires more work than treating, not less.

>This flies in the face if those Tfb's that indicate otherwise and by doing so mislead new keepers that are trying to do the right thing.

100% agreement on these 2 points


----------



## jbeshearse

squarepeg said:


> it is the communicable diseases associated with varroasis and parasitic mite syndrome that are the concern, in addition to increased mite loads which can lead to varroasis and pms.


They really are not a concern. If you manage the mite load you also manage the vector associated with them. The vectors are generally only successful if the mites get above your economic thresholds


----------



## pedrocr

jbeshearse said:


> Pedro, that is pretty much it. By law here, if your hive gets AFB, you burn it. So that is not manageable. Nosema ceranae is also a fatal disease if not caught early. These are disease, not parasites. For varroa we have economic thresholds. That is not the case for nosema ceranae and AFB. We can delay treatments to not effect production in varroa infested hives for the most part until the flow is done. Also I do not worry about varroa leaving behind a lasting vector that can't be manages by reducing them to
> A level below the economic threshold. Nosema and AFB(EFB to a degree) leave behind a contingent load that can spread an kill at a much layer time.


In that case we're back to the main question of the thread. Treatment free beekeepers are trying to breed bees that are resistant to those diseases so they don't have to do that management. Do they have an obligation to treat anyway because their neighbor is relying on treatments or even on not catching it in the first place?


----------



## squarepeg

jbeshearse said:


> They really are not a concern. If you manage the mite load you also manage the vector associated with them. The vectors are generally only successful if the mites get above your economic thresholds


do you feel that it is likely or unlikely that the robbing bees would bring back sufficient new mites as to increase the load above economic threshold.


----------



## squarepeg

pedrocr said:


> In that case we're back to the main question of the thread. Treatment free beekeepers are trying to breed bees that are resistant to those diseases so they don't have to do that management. Do they have an obligation to treat anyway because their neighbor is relying on treatments or even on not catching it in the first place?


pedro, for the last time, that is not the main question of this thread. please read my opening post. 

i am for treatment free and developing resistant bees. i am against the 'live and let die' approach, unless responsible measures are taken to prevent the spread of disease (mainly via robbing). such responsible measures have not been discussed in the tfb forum.

comprende?


----------



## Ian

How do you determine mite thresholds if they are continually changing with the prevalence one two three or more pathogens interacting within the hive. Thresholds have to look past the mite vector and also include the levels other pathogen within the hive that interact with the bees. 
Otherwise the mite load threshold means nothing. If you cant rely on that threshold number, then you will find yourself treating regardless





jbeshearse said:


> They really are not a concern. If you manage the mite load you also manage the vector associated with them. The vectors are generally only successful if the mites get above your economic thresholds


----------



## jbeshearse

pedrocr said:


> Why are they different? Doesn't the same thing apply? Treated hives will have to be treated, treatment free hives will have to be resistant or die.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you're a treatment free beekeeper and as you suggest you spend an extra effort figuring out if you do have those transmittable diseases, if you find one what do you do? If you're not going to do anything with the information you don't really need to spend time obtaining it.


Yes if a treatment free keepers bees get AFB, I want them to destroy the colony before it it's spread to my bees. if they are not inspecting and don't know they can't an wont. "ignorance doesn't excuse violation" no matter what people would like to
Believe.


----------



## jbeshearse

Ian said:


> How do you determine mite thresholds if they are continually changing with the prevalence one two three or more pathogens interacting within the hive. Thresholds have to look past the mite vector and also include the levels other pathogen within the hive that interact with the bees.
> Otherwise the mite load threshold means nothing. If you cant rely on that threshold number, then you will find yourself treating regardless


I personally watch brood patterns and for crawling bees a well as DWV. When these reach a level in my hives that I feel will result in hive death I take steps to intervene. Infestation levels and time of infestation determine my course if action. However, if I see symptoms in a number of hives near each other at the same time, all the hives get treated. If they don't need it it causes no harm, if they did, then it helps. This also means that any resistant hive in the group become more robust that the non resistant hive


----------



## squarepeg

jb, when it comes to a sick and dying hive full of mites that is being robbed out, do you feel that it is likely or unlikely that the robbing bees would bring back sufficient new mites as to increase the load above economic threshold.


----------



## pedrocr

squarepeg said:


> pedro, for the last time, that is not the main question of this thread. please read my opening post.
> 
> i am for treatment free and developing resistant bees. i am against the 'live and let die' approach, unless responsible measures are taken to prevent the spread of disease (mainly via robbing). such responsible measures have not been discussed in the tfb forum.


As I've said before if all this is is a question of "should you do something about dying/dead hives to not have them propagate disease" then we probably all agree on that. Although there might be doubts if it's really an issue. If you want to narrow the focus of the thread to just that, then there's nothing left to discuss. I think there's a broader issue at play that's interesting and that should be discussed. This thread seemed a good place for that as we were already on topic, if the moderation feels otherwise we can open another thread.



squarepeg said:


> comprende?


That's not portuguese if that's what you were going for, and if there's something in my english you object to point that out instead.


----------



## pedrocr

jbeshearse said:


> Yes if a treatment free keepers bees get AFB, I want them to destroy the colony before it it's spread to my bees. if they are not inspecting and don't know they can't an wont. "ignorance doesn't excuse violation" no matter what people would like to
> Believe.


AFB is a separate issue to the extent that you might even be required to burn the hive if you're in the US. I'm more interested in your opinion on other diseases where there's no legal requirement to do anything about it if you find them. Are you arguing there's an ethical one?


----------



## jbeshearse

squarepeg said:


> do you feel that it is likely or unlikely that the robbing bees would bring back sufficient new mites as to increase the load above economic threshold.


I think the rate of increased exposure could push them over the edge from not requiring treatment to requiring treatment. But it is still manageable. What is difficult to manage in my area are SHB. If you have an adjacent keeper that allows his hives to die and sit there for two weeks while being robbed out, that will produce thousands of SHB that even your non robbers will have difficulty with. Varroa do not cost me equipment and comb. SHB and AFB do.


----------



## squarepeg

pedro, your english is probably better than mine. 

my objection was in your framing the point of this thread. 

the sidetracking is ok by me.

the question of whether nontreaters should be compelled to treat by treaters is also settled, the answer is no.

on the question of whether it is responsible to allow hives to become sick, die, and robbed, it appears that most agree it is not responsible. although some of the finer points regarding the degree to which a rob out can spread disease are still being fleshed out.

if i have offended you, please accept my apology.


----------



## jbeshearse

pedrocr said:


> AFB is a separate issue to the extent that you might even be required to burn the hive if you're in the US. I'm more interested in your opinion on other diseases where there's no legal requirement to do anything about it if you find them. Are you arguing there's an ethical one?


AFB is not a separate issue, just one that is inconvenient to some because it is more black and white. But to answer yor question directly; YES, beekeepers have a responsibility to act ethically and part of those ethics should be to cause others as little pain as possible. 

Then I will say again; For the beekeeping industry as a whole, while varroa are a problem and have economic impact, they and the impact are manageable. To further the thought and to paraphrase someone's earlier post here; without the problems posed by today's pathogens, honey would be less than $1.00 per pound. Treatments and pests are a pain, but we are being paid to manage them.


----------



## squarepeg

jbeshearse said:


> I think the rate of increased exposure could push them over the edge from not requiring treatment to requiring treatment. But it is still manageable. What is difficult to manage in my area are SHB. If you have an adjacent keeper that allows his hives to die and sit there for two weeks while being robbed out, that will produce thousands of SHB that even your non robbers will have difficulty with. Varroa do not cost me equipment and comb. SHB and AFB do.


thank-you jb, and i agree. i also strongly agree (100%) with a couple of points you made a few posts back, we may have cross-posted.


----------



## pedrocr

squarepeg said:


> pedro, your english is probably better than mine.
> 
> my objection was in your framing the point of this thread.
> 
> the sidetracking is ok by me.


I was just trying to bring some structure to the several points being discussed. I thought the robbing out scenario was mostly settled but I see there are some questions about that. I'm sorry for the overstep.



squarepeg said:


> the question of whether nontreaters should be compelled to treat by treaters is also settled, the answer is no.


I'm not sure everyone agrees there. I find jbeshearse's comments about treatment free beekeepers having to stay on top of diseases particularly interesting.



squarepeg said:


> on the question of whether it is responsible to allow hives to become sick, die, and robbed, it appears that most agree it is not responsible. although some of the finer points regarding the degree to which a rob out can spread disease are still being fleshed out.


Yep, that sounds about right.



squarepeg said:


> if i have offended you, please accept my apology.


No worries there.


----------



## jbeshearse

squarepeg said:


> thank-you jb, and i agree. i also strongly agree (100%) with a couple of points you made a few posts back, we may have cross-posted.


Square, we can't agree, where's the fun on that? 

Here is what really bothers me about the Bond method. Some if not most that practice it then market their bees and honey as a superior product. When in reality, they have no justifiable basis or proof for those claims, just their opinion. They actually have less knowledge if their product than one practicing treatment free management in a
Manner that they would know what is in their hives and honey. "oh look, lots of dead bees, but looks like they are going to pull through, can't wait to harvest this chemical free honey". Meanwhile there neighbor is over there continually treating their garden with seven dust.


----------



## pedrocr

jbeshearse said:


> AFB is not a separate issue, just one that is inconvenient to some because it is more black and white. But to answer yor question directly; YES, beekeepers have a responsibility to act ethically and part of those ethics should be to cause others as little pain as possible.


You're basically saying treatment free beekeeping is unethical and shouldn't be done, no?



jbeshearse said:


> Then I will say again; For the beekeeping industry as a whole, while varroa are a problem and have economic impact, they and the impact are manageable. To further the thought and to paraphrase someone's earlier post here; without the problems posed by today's pathogens, honey would be less than $1.00 per pound. Treatments and pests are a pain, but we are being paid to manage them.


So is the real problem that someone might just succeed in breeding resistant bees, making beekeeping easier and thus less profitable? I hope I'm not offending you, I'm not trying to twist your words, it's honestly what I read from them.


----------



## jbeshearse

Oh now I don't believe for a minute you are unintentionally twisting my words. I never said that treatment free beekeeping is unethical. I also didn't say that we don't want treatment free bees. Look back through some of my posts and you will see just the opposite stated. 

But just in case you are not willing to do that:

Treatment free beekeeping is an admirable goal and method as long as it is practiced responsibly. We would all like to be able to keep bees likeyou could 30 years ago, before varroa, tracheal mites, nosema ceranae, DWV,and SHB.


----------



## pedrocr

jbeshearse said:


> Oh now I don't believe for a minute you are unintentionally twisting my words. I never said that treatment free beekeeping is unethical. I also didn't say that we don't want treatment free bees. Look back through some of my posts and you will see just the opposite stated.
> 
> But just in case you are not willing to do that:
> 
> Treatment free beekeeping is an admirable goal and method as long as it is practiced responsibly. We would all like to be able to keep bees likeyou could 30 years ago, before varroa, tracheal mites, nosema ceranae, DWV,and SHB.


I'm glad you think that but I'm still wondering what you suggest would be the ethical thing a treatment free beekeeper should do if he finds nosema (to name one) in his hives? By definition he can't treat, and he'd like to let the hives be so that he can try to find a few that are resistant. If it gets to a point that a hive is doomed he can decide to hasten that and disinfect the hive somehow. But what about those hives that are above your threshold for treatment but are still viable from the point of view of the treatment free beekeeper? What is he ethically bound to do to those?


----------



## deknow

....by the logic being espoused here, any beekeeper who is unable to prevent or capture all swarms is contributing to the same ills as treatment free beekeeper. I don't think there is a single commercial beekeeper who could honestly claim they never had a swarm get out....likewise, new beekeepers must also be dangerous, as they are not experienced enough to reliably prevent swarming.

If it is irresponsible to keep bees without treatments, it is more irrespinsible to have more hives than one has time to prevent 100% of swarms.

Deknow


----------



## jbeshearse

First off, the beekeeper in your example is managing his apiary. As he is aware of what his bees are dealing with. That is a big plus over live and let die. But to answer your question, I would expect him/her to do what any other keeper would do (treatment free or not). That is to monitor the hive and in the event robbing begins, to take measures necessary to stop the robbing. Robber screens, entrance reducers etc. then if the hive fails, Discard or clean and disinfect what is left behind.


----------



## deknow

If one is bound by some code of ethics regarding bees, such ethics would also need to be applied to ants (who's nest is destroyed by plowing a field to grow broccoli....and mites don't rate enough to be treated ethically?
The answer is this is not about ethics.....treating people ethically requires that your ethics be applied to all people.....when ethics are only afforded time people and organisms who are directly useful to us, it is not ethics, it is selfish interest.


----------



## pedrocr

jbeshearse said:


> First off, the beekeeper in your example is managing his apiary. As he is aware of what his bees are dealing with. That is a big plus over live and let die. But to answer your question, I would expect him/her to do what any other keeper would do (treatment free or not). That is to monitor the hive and in the event robbing begins, to take measures necessary to stop the robbing. Robber screens, entrance reducers etc. then if the hive fails, Discard or clean and disinfect what is left behind.


That sounds reasonable to me. I'd certainly do as much, if nothing else for concern for my own bees. And if that's all he needs to do he doesn't even need to know he has nosema, only if his hives are being robbed and if any die.


----------



## squarepeg

deknow said:


> ....by the logic being espoused here, any beekeeper who is unable to prevent or capture all swarms is contributing to the same ills as treatment free beekeeper. I don't think there is a single commercial beekeeper who could honestly claim they never had a swarm get out....likewise, new beekeepers must also be dangerous, as they are not experienced enough to reliably prevent swarming.
> 
> If it is irresponsible to keep bees without treatments, it is more irrespinsible to have more hives than one has time to prevent 100% of swarms.
> 
> Deknow


i see some difference in that scenario.

wouldn't a swarming hive would most likely be a healthy hive? 

and, i'm not sure i see a way any that my hives would come in contact with the swarming hive. as opposed to my bees robbing out a sick and dying hive.

i'm happy to allow some swarms to get away and become feral. this is because if they make it on their own in the wild, they will be contributing survivor drone genes to my bees.

this raises another practical consideration, feral colonies can become sick and get robbed out too. not much anybody can do about that.

but when it preventable by responsible beekeeping, my opinion is that it should be prevented.


----------



## deknow

That is precisely my point....escaped swarms become unmanaged colonies that offer the same problems any untreated bees might. If it is irresponsible to keep an untreated or unmanaged hive, it is just as irresponsible to create them intentionally or not.

Deknow


----------



## deknow

A swarming hive could be healthy, or it could be prosperous (and full of mites) as a result if feeding.

Deknow


----------



## jbeshearse

Maybe I got lost in this thread somewhere. I don't think that it was said that it is irresponsible to keep bees without treatments. 

Both those that treat and those that don't can be responsible or irresponsible. 

I personally feel that some irresponsible beekeepers use "treatment free" as an excuse for that irresponsibility. Of course there are plenty of keepers that wholesale treat that use that as an excuse fir irresponsible practices also. 

Personally, I think we all need to practice Integrated pest management protocols, which are not necessarily chemical free but can be if you so desire. 

There is a great temptation by many on both sides of the issues to villanize the others for no good reason. I for one am not going to blame any collapse, noe or in the future, on another beekeeper. At the end of the day, we are each responsible for the survi al or death of our bees.


----------



## deknow

Unless you can make a case that escaped swarms are somehow managed more responsibly than an "irresponsible beekeeper", then any hive that swarms is causing the same problems as the irresponsible beekeeper.

Deknow


----------



## squarepeg

jbeshearse said:


> Maybe I got lost in this thread somewhere. I don't think that it was said that it is irresponsible to keep bees without treatments.
> 
> Both those that treat and those that don't can be responsible or irresponsible.
> 
> I personally feel that some irresponsible beekeepers use "treatment free" as an excuse for that irresponsibility. Of course there are plenty of keepers that wholesale treat that use that as an excuse fir irresponsible practices also.
> 
> Personally, I think we all need to practice Integrated pest management protocols, which are not necessarily chemical free but can be if you so desire.
> 
> There is a great temptation by many on both sides of the issues to villanize the others for no good reason. I for one am not going to blame any collapse, noe or in the future, on another beekeeper. At the end of the day, we are each responsible for the survi al or death of our bees.


agree 100%


----------



## squarepeg

deknow said:


> Unless you can make a case that escaped swarms are somehow managed more responsibly than an "irresponsible beekeeper", then any hive that swarms is causing the same problems as the irresponsible beekeeper.
> 
> Deknow


unless....

you make the case that managed hives, because of their artificial homes, and the hive manipulations, and the taking of resources, might be more susceptible to problems, than a swarm that finds a nice tree somewhere and is never molested in any way.


----------



## deknow

.....is there any evidence to support such a case?


----------



## jbeshearse

deknow said:


> If one is bound by some code of ethics regarding bees, such ethics would also need to be applied to ants (who's nest is destroyed by plowing a field to grow broccoli....and mites don't rate enough to be treated ethically?
> The answer is this is not about ethics.....treating people ethically requires that your ethics be applied to all people.....when ethics are only afforded time people and organisms who are directly useful to us, it is not ethics, it is selfish interest.


You can purposefully draw on an out of context meaning or can stay in context and have a meaningful discussion. Ethical has several meanings. One deals with morality and that is not in context being used. Another definition is being in accordance with rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession. Any time you bring out of context meanings into a discussion it tends to feel like you are trying to deflect away from directly addressing the points being discussed.


----------



## sqkcrk

pedrocr said:


> Thanks for that. I find it a bit ironic that the case that's brought up of a form of control keeping infections lower is not to treat but to destroy the hives. This is obviously not feasible for varroa and today there is no expectation that any hive will not be exposed to varroa, something that burning hives with AFB may very well accomplish.


People do treat colonies of bees as a preventitive medication. But, once the disease has become established in a hive it becomes a disease of the equipment. That equipment cannot be medicated. It must be destroyed.


----------



## squarepeg

deknow said:


> .....is there any evidence to support such a case?


don't know. do you think it's possible?


----------



## jbeshearse

deknow said:


> Unless you can make a case that escaped swarms are somehow managed more responsibly than an "irresponsible beekeeper", then any hive that swarms is causing the same problems as the irresponsible beekeeper.
> 
> Deknow


No that is absolutely not correct. When a hive swarms from a responsibly managed hive then you have a better understanding of what you just allowed to enter the outside populations and as it was responsibly managed there is most likely less chance of that something being bad. If a swarm leaves an irresponsibly managed colony, then you have no idea what just left, why it left or the damage it could cause. I had at least 7 swarms leave the hives at my house this year (and I do feel that in itself was irresponsible). I can tell you why they left (or at least make a very educated guess). They did not leave because they were failing or were overrun with pests.


----------



## deknow

Were, if you want to work with a specific definition, I suggest you post it and it's source. I don't think you will find one that isn't related to morality.
An electrician that charges for work he/she didn't do is unethical. One who interchanges the live and ground wire is incompetent.....unethical only if it was done maliciously. Ethics are related to morality. Best management practices or professional guidelines are related to practical matters.


----------



## jbeshearse

*Re: treatment free beekeeping - the risksh*

I Have spent enough time on thread. It has been interesting and hopefully not too decisive but beneficial to those Who have spent time on it

Cheers everyone


----------



## deknow

...and now that those swarms are established and unmanaged, and if they issued from colonies that require treatments to stay healthy, they atell now a problem, no?


----------



## jbeshearse

deknow said:


> Were, if you want to work with a specific definition, I suggest you post it and it's source. I don't think you will find one that isn't related to morality.
> An electrician that charges for work he/she didn't do is unethical. One who interchanges the live and ground wire is incompetent.....unethical only if it was done maliciously. Ethics are related to morality. Best management practices or professional guidelines are related to practical matters.


You have to read context in any discussion or it quickly deteriorated into folly. And ti gave the definition of ethical as used in context right out of dictionary.com

Later Guys/Gals


----------



## deknow

squarepeg said:


> don't know. do you think it's possible?


If it were the case, feral hives would be plentiful thought the u.s.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: treatment free beekeeping - the risksh*

cheers jb! and many thanks...


----------



## squarepeg

deknow said:


> If it were the case, feral hives would be plentiful thought the u.s.


they actually are plentiful here. 

and after two years of seeing what problems i have caused interfering with my hives, i am led to the opinion that it is not only possible, but probable.

it almost seems intuitive that this would be the case, but a study would be nice.


----------



## deknow

The whole premise of beekeeping is based upon the fact that through .management, hives can be larger, more productive, and less swarmy than bees that are not managed.
Sometimes it does feel that our hives that we only see a couple times a year do better, and other times it seems that our bees that are inspected weekly (very urban locations....swarm prevention is top priority) do better. In some places feral bees do great, and in others not so much.

Deknow


----------



## squarepeg

have you read michael bush's piece on 'colony decisions'? it's on his website, you have to scroll down and find it on the left. this seems to support what i have noticed in this regard.


----------



## WLC

Whether a beekeeper causes a swarm or not, it's no longer their property if it's not in their equipment.

You can only be responsible for your own property.

However, if through failing to follow standard practices with your own property (hives), set by ordinance, you cause problems elsewhere, then yes, you bear some responsibility.

I still think that the environmental impact of TFB on native pollinators is the key issue that undermines any 'environmentally responsible' claims made for TFB.

In other words, if you don't follow standard practices while keeping exotic pollinators (like Honeybees), you are responsible for the environmental impact.

You made a choice, like using the Bond protocol, and you negatively impacted a native species.

There's no excuse for it. It's a fatal flaw.


----------



## deknow

jbeshearse said:


> You have to read context in any discussion or it quickly deteriorated into folly. And ti gave the definition of ethical as used in context right out of dictionary.com
> Later Guys/Gals


Dictionary.com? ...together would be better served with a real dictionary (Webster's or Oxford) if you want an accurate definition.The one you supplied is obscure nd/or incomplete at best. It is difficult (if not impossible) toconsider ethics separately from morality......it is not unethical for a farmer to plant tomatoes in the fall (even though it does not accord with standard practices...it would, however, be unethical to to try and convince a farmer to buy seedlings to plant outside this time of year if one knew better.
the concepts of "rightness" and morality are closely linked.


----------



## squarepeg

squarepeg said:


> have you read michael bush's piece on 'colony decisions'? it's on his website, you have to scroll down and find it on the left. this seems to support what i have noticed in this regard.


sorry deknow, wasn't sure if you saw this or not.


----------



## squarepeg

sorry wlc, i haven't looked up the citations you listed.

can you abstract what the current thinking is re the honeybee's impact on native polinators?


----------



## WLC

This is from the Genersch study:

"Honey bees (Apis mellifera) productively infected with Deformed wing virus (DWV) through Varroa destructor (V. destructor) during pupal stages develop into adults showing wing and other morphological deformities. Here, we report for the first time the occurrence of
bumble bees (Bombus terrestris, Bombus pascuorum) exhibiting wing deformities resembling those seen in clinically DWV-infected honeybees. Using speciWc RT-PCR protocols for the detection of DWV followed by sequencing of the PCR products we could demonstrate that
the bumble bees were indeed infected with DWV. Since such deformed bumble bees are not viable DWV infection may pose a serious threat to bumble bee populations."

I would argue that beekeepers using standard/best practices are 'greener' than TF beekeepers on the basis of mitigating their environmental impact.

Frankly, it's a more important issue than how other non-native Honeybee colonies are impacted by TFB practices.


----------



## squarepeg

interesting. do you predict this will lead to the epa whatever appropriate agency to get involved?


----------



## WLC

No, the EPA and other agencies won't move to protect native 'bee' pollinators. It's bad for business.

What I do predict is that the whole issue of 'environmental impact' will become more commonplace in discussions concerning TFB.

There's no point in trying to be 'green' without sorting through all of the issues involved.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC,
I would pose the idea that modern agricultural practices to more harm to Native Pollinators than does TFB practices, by the destruction of habitat. Just as it effects managed honey bee hives. Though I am sure what the study sights is probably true also.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

Many native pollinators have been squeezed into pockets by the agriculture that you're speaking of. Their ranges have been greatly reduced.

Those very same pockets also make good beekeeping locations.

That's something you need to be aware of when TFBing.


----------



## sqkcrk

Native pollinators face the same reduced forage range that managed pollinators (honey bees) do. Beekeepers need to be aware of that. That's my point. Understand?


----------



## WLC

Yes. Exactly.

You're right on top of each other.

Except, you can always order new Honeybees. 

Some of those native bees are so rare, there's the risk of local extinction.

Here's a link to a study on bumble bee diversity in the U.S. :

http://www.farmlandbirds.net/sites/default/files/Cameron et al_2011.pdf


----------



## D Semple

WLC said:


> Whether a beekeeper causes a swarm or not, it's no longer their property if it's not in their equipment.
> 
> 
> I still think that the environmental impact of TFB on native pollinators is the key issue that undermines any 'environmentally responsible' claims made for TFB.
> 
> In other words, if you don't follow standard practices while keeping exotic pollinators (like Honeybees), you are responsible for the environmental impact.
> 
> You made a choice, like using the Bond protocol, and you negatively impacted a native species.
> 
> There's no excuse for it. It's a fatal flaw.



WLC, I wanted to say "I think you have been surrounded by concrete breathing smog too long and need to get out of the city" but instead I'll just say I think you are just making excuses.

I keep nothing but local feral derived captured bees and we have an abundance of managed hives, feral colonies and local pollinators. The local pollinators are so thick I view them as the competition.

Where’s your concern over the damage Roundup ready crops, and systemic pesticides are causing our local pollinators. 


Don


----------



## D Semple

I really don't care that others treat, but I also find it ironic that the folks who are suggesting that I'm irresponsible managing treatment free hives, see no problems with:

Feeding their bees sugar, HFCS, and pollen substitutes
Apply treatments and antibiotics as preventive measure
Import packages and queens from known areas with AHB and small hive beetles
Recycle wax full of known miticides and chemicals
Pack 30 - 50 hives into a yard, where they share water sources
Propagate bees that can only survive with treatments

And I could go on and on

Please folks, we are all on the same team and the vast majority keeping treatment free hives I would venture a guess have less than 5 hives, and in total hive count we are probably out numbered 100 to 1.

Don


----------



## WLC

Have you even thought of asking what the environmental impact might be of raising TFBs?

Of course, it might be less in an agricultural area when compared to a metropolitan area because of lower biodiversity.


----------



## cerezha

WLC said:


> ....What I do predict is that the whole issue of 'environmental impact' will become more commonplace in discussions concerning TFB....


 I was reading this whole post and reading .. and reading... it is just cycling - the same repetitive questions and the same repetitive answers from the same people. 

We need to remember that EHB is invasive species in America. That's it! EHB itself presented huge 'environmental impact' to native species. Any EHB could compete with wild species and transfer deceases to them - in exact way how Europeans transfer diseases to native people in America. It is kind of double-standards: one is concerns about 'environmental impact' of a few non-treated beehives and at the same time did not see a bigger picture, how EHB occupied wild habitats in America and endanger wild species. If DWV is transferable from EHB to wild species - it really does not matter if it comes from treated or non-treated beehive, it is very alarming anyway! For environmentalist in particular. But keep in mind that real "environmentalist" is likely to recognize EHB as an invasive specie and would act accordingly. References to 'environmental impact' in this thread I think is not really honest because any managed beekeeping is not green at all by definition (managed). If somebody wants to minimize EHB impact, there are lot of things may be done: create artificial habitats for wild species (search Google), plant native plants etc., but it is entirely different story. Sergey


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Have you even thought of asking what the environmental impact might be of raising TFBs?


To what point? People on beesource.com are keepers of Honey bee, not bumbles or hylictidae or sweat bees. Sure, we can be concerned w/ the impact of what we do as beekeepers, how our bees effect other flying, pollinating, stinging, hymenoptrous insects, but we are going to keep bees. That's what we do. What do you expect beekeepers to do once they have considered the environmental impact of raising TFBs?


----------



## TooFarGone

Wasn't the Deformed Wing Virus identified in the USA prior to the arrival of the Varroa mite? 

Inquiring minds want to know...


----------



## sqkcrk

Let me look that up. I think you are correct.

First isolated in Japan w/ varroa jacobsonii. "the mite transmits the virus in the same way as acute paralysis virus (Ball 1989)." No reference as to when it first occured in the US. But, apparently varroa are required to transmit the virus.


----------



## JRG13

What's Round-up ready crops have to do with it? Glyphosate is a lot less toxic than most of the other herbicides farmers would be spraying w/o it.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

If someone is touting that TFB is greener or even more 'organic' than beekeeping using standard practices, then they can't say that when environmental impact is taken into account. 

What do I expect TFB beekeepers to do? How about discussing the risk openly and honestly without the usual shenanigans?

No, varroa isn't required to transmit DWV. Varroa is infected with its own recombinant version of DWV/VaDV-1 which it injects directly into to Honeybees.

sergey:

When is the last time that you recall anyone discussing the environmental impact of any form of beekeeping? Discussing it maybe once a year isn't that painful. By the way, I have done the type of conservation work that you speak of.

When I asked myself the impact question, and then researched the literature, the risk became apparent. By the way, I still rarely get straight answers from TFBers when I ask them.

Kindly stop implying that TFB is greener than other forms of beekeeping. It's not. In fact, I suspect that it's the opposite.


----------



## D Semple

JRG13 said:


> What's Round-up ready crops have to do with it? Glyphosate is a lot less toxic than most of the other herbicides farmers would be spraying w/o it.


Loss of forage for native pollenators


----------



## Ian

I agree, RR crops eliminate those flowering weeds within the farmers field. I assume your talking corn fields.
But you have to also look at the flip side of that. When the farmers grow flowering crops, which our bees forage on, better weed control makes for more flowers to forage on


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> Barry:
> 
> How about you make yourself useful and see if Mike B. is posting as pedro from portugal?
> The tone and style are too familiar.


Victor, I see you have a hard time figuring out how far to appropriately push something!


----------



## WLC

Barry:

The name is WLC. 

It's a matter of internet etiquette. 

Don't call me by my given name without my permission.

By the way, I hope that you checked the IP. It could have been :banana: 'you know who'.


----------



## deknow

....as they say...

To Victor, the pose is spoiled


----------



## deknow

So anyone you think might be posting under a pseudonym should be outed publicly and investigated by the mods.....but you get to enjoy anonymity? I hoprobably Pedro demands your identity get revealed.....he would be justified in doing so.

Deknow


----------



## Ian

I find it funny how people like to hide behind tag names. Its as if what they say isnt credible enough to stand behind with their actual name. 





WLC said:


> Barry:
> 
> The name is WLC.
> 
> It's a matter of internet etiquette.
> 
> Don't call me by my given name without my permission.
> 
> By the way, I hope that you checked the IP. It could have been :banana: 'you know who'.


----------



## squarepeg

you guys are way too much sometimes.

i wanted to do a wrap up post on what i think was a great discussion here but....

i'll have to get to it later.

in the meantime i have breaking news......

broke up an ursupation in my yard today, and caught the usurping queen.

i've even got photos, watch for the new thread.

again, many thanks to all who participated.


----------



## squarepeg

wow, what a thread.

i just reread the whole thing and think the collective wisdom shared here is amazing.

i found one loose end i have with joseph clemens in his post 155. joe, you mention not seeing the spread of disease when when some of your nucs and smaller hives were robbed.

that makes sense because these were not sick and collapsing hives, just too weak to defend theirselves. not all cases of robbing have to be of a diseased hive.

i think this thread has run it's course, and i took the liberty of putting together a list of comments that really spoke to me in my search for answers and opinions to my original question. they appear in the next
post.

sincere thanks to all and cheers...


----------



## squarepeg

notable quotes:

by me, to start the thread 

>so the question is, do we as beekeepers have some responsibility to our neighboring beekeepers and to the feral bee population in this regard?

>>maybe i have missed it, and if so, i apologize. but rather than seeing advice given regarding how to manage bees successfully so as to not require treatments, what i see is advice given to let the bees work it all out for themselves and eventually you will have treatment free bees.



by beekeeping.isgood.ca

>I also think people need to put in a certain amount of effort into understanding as much as possible how to work with the bees(or understanding how to not work with them and let them do their own thing responsibly.)



by barry

>We do. One can take a hands off approach, but if any contagious diseases show up, you better get your hands involved pronto!! 



by mike haney

>Just this summer there was a thread here concerning a mans entire bee yard being CONFISCATED and BURNED by the government due to willfull lack of treatment of disease.



by wlc

>Native bees and pollinators are vulnerable to the pests and pathogens that treatment-free beekeepers allow to exist as 'clinical' infections in their hives.



by steveng

>Treatment free does not mean leaving them alone. This year I practiced "Let alone beekeeping" which I remembered from the 1970's when Charles Koover espoused it in Gleanings in Bee Culture - some of you old timers might remember him. It was a serious mistake for me, and I wrote a thread elsewhere about that experience. I do not recommend it, and explained why there.



by cerezha

>I think, it is common sense that if somebody diseased and potentially could spread disease, that person (animal, bee etc) should be prevented from spreading disease to healthy individuals. 



by sqkcrk

>The greatest defence against bee pests and dieases is knowledge and experience, not philosophy. Gain the knowledge, then decide what your philosophy should be. Going into beekeeping w/ your mind made up about how things aught to be done before you know how things work is, in my opinion, not a good way of becoming a beekeeper. 



by andrew dewey

>While reading this thread so far I'm struck that the treatment/non-treatment debate is masking what I think is the real crux of the matter - responsible beekeeping.



by g barnett

>So as squarepeg put it, "i hope i can learn skills to manage my hives in a way that allows my bees to thrive on their own. but i am not opposed to lending them a helping hand when it is indicated." This sums it up for me. 



by jim lyon

>Whether you choose to treat or not you have the moral obligation to care for your hives and not to put neighboring hives at risk. 



by beelosopher

>I will venture to say, most hobby beekeepers are taking on bees to learn something new (the endgame is not honey, wax or pollination). i.e. they are very open to buying lots of books, talking to lots of people and learning how to crack the code on keeping bees, whether treated or nontreated.



by me again

>my concern, (and the reason i started this thread), is with the advice repeatedly given on the tfb forum, that encourages letting hives get weak, and even die, in order to end up with superior survivor stock.



by jbeshearse

>Robbing is being mentioned time and again as a major culprit in pathogen transmission. I agree. 



by jrg13

>Genetic analysis on survivor stock definitely needs to be a key focus in bee research. 



by pedrocr

>I agree that letting the hive die out by disease and be robbed is to be avoided as a public health measure. If that's your only question we're in full agreement. 



by jbeshearse



>(bond method) beekeepers are less likely to check for pathogens than those that treat. As such they are more likely to allow communicable diseases to be transmitted outside their apiaries.


>>These is a large difference in managing bees treatment free and just letting them live or die and collecting honey. Treatment free keeping when done correctly, in my opinion, in todays industry requires more work than treating, not less.



by me


>i am for treatment free and developing resistant bees. i am against the 'live and let die' approach, unless responsible measures are taken to prevent the spread of disease (mainly via robbing). 



by jbeshearse

>I would expect him/her to do what any other keeper would do (treatment free or not). That is to monitor the hive and in the event robbing begins, to take measures necessary to stop the robbing. Robber screens, entrance reducers etc. then if the hive fails, Discard or clean and disinfect what is left behind. 

>>Both those that treat and those that don't can be responsible or irresponsible.


----------



## StevenG

opcorn: Wow... I leave town for a few days, and return to 10 new pages...
I am a Treatment Free beekeeper... As such, I have been labeled Bond Beekeeper, and I'm responsible for behaving irresponsibly and causing the demise of native pollinators. By being TF = more varroa = more disease... wow...such a heavy load to bear! What a crock.

Varroa is here, and treatment beekeepers and treatment free beekeepers have no control over it's spread thru the native pollinator populations... WE DID NOT IMPORT IT TO THIS COUNTRY! So stop blaming us!

Now, think about this... My Treatment free bees have NOT collapsed due to varroa... Yes I've had some dead outs, and I've done the post mortems, and know why they died... starvation, or queen issues... However, everyone agrees that treated hives do collapse due to varroa... So let me ask you folks this: Just who contributes varroa to the native pollinators and other beekeepers? A treatment free beek whose bees do not succumb to varroa, or the treating beekeeper who knocks the threshold down, but still incubates varroa, and has hives collapse? hmmmmm? :lookout: My bees survive and thrive without beinng artifically propped up, and any swarms that issue from my hives probably do likewise... instead of vectoring varroa, perhaps they are better enabled to help control it? Limit it? Ever think about that as a possibility? 

Next, I have never ever ever advocated a "live and let die" approach... to me that is irresponsible... the work has already been done by those pioneers years ago... you do not have to "reinvent the wheel" buy your treatment free bees from a bonafide source... they've already done the work, and invested time and money, no reason for you to lose your money. To me that's just stupid. Unless you are a scientist doing a controlled study, but that's another article.

Maybe instead of treatment free beekeepers being the vector and destructor of native pollinators, it is the treated hives that incubate varroa, develop varroa resistance, and when those hives swarm or crash, what has been incubating there is now spread throughout the environment? 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## squarepeg

StevenG said:


> :
> Next, I have never ever ever advocated a "live and let die" approach... to me that is irresponsible... the work has already been done by those pioneers years ago... you do not have to "reinvent the wheel" buy your treatment free bees from a bonafide source... they've already done the work, and invested time and money, no reason for you to lose your money. To me that's just stupid. Unless you are a scientist doing a controlled study, but that's another article.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Steven


i was wondering what happened to you steven, when you didn't answer a question i posed to you, but you just answered it there.

the premise of the thread was not that tf beekeepers are causing the demise of native pollinators. that bond hives might be was offered by one of the posters, and would better be the subject of another thread.

many thanks.


----------



## StevenG

Glad I answered it Squarepeg... there was so much to deal with, most of it I chose not to.... to any of you who have specific questions for me, ask them on my "No Treatment of Honey bees" report in the sticky threads above... or here, your choice... 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## cerezha

WLC said:


> ... Kindly stop implying that TFB is greener than other forms of beekeeping. It's not. In fact, I suspect that it's the opposite.


 ? My point was that ALL honey-bee-keping is not green as well as most agriculture! With this said, I do not see much difference in beekeeping practices from "ecological/environmental impact" point of view - I think, all approaches has its impact. My personal conclusion from this thread (it was useful) is that the difference between methods began when hive actually died - treated ended up with smaller amount of Varroa; untreated potentially may have more Varroa. Than, next step is related to decency of the bees. If they are robbers - than,they could rob dead hive and bring varroa into the hive. As somebody pointed out, robbery may be genetically determined (I have no knowledge on this). My bees are housed in decent home with high moral standards - therefore, they do not rob! They do not touch wet frames outside the beehive! They just do not know how to rob. So, may be this attributes to their health. They are non-treated/medicated and so far are doing very well. I am against any extremism and a humanist, therefore, I do not support the ideology "die or survive". From another hand, I do not treat my bees simply because I do not see the necessity. Also, since I am beginner, I realized that sometime it is better do nothing rather than interfere without proper experience... I practice minimal invasion into the nest since my bees really do not like it!


----------



## Rick 1456

Like Steven G,
Been away from the computer and wow. Spent the last hour going through the posts. I can't claim I am a Bond TFB,,,,,,None of my hives have perished in four years of TFB.  Every year, I have seen less DWV. This year very few and I look for them inside and out ! I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing. Y'all do the same.


----------



## squarepeg

rick, you would fall into that group of outstanding beekeepers on the tfb forum that i acknowledged.

and again, maybe i missed it somehow, but when i read about 'going cold turkey', and 'it's heartbreaking at first', and 'you will have lots of losses at first', and when i don't see any discussion about the responsible way to minimize the risk to nearby colonies when those losses occur, and when i see posts from what appear to be up and coming beekeepers talking about 'all i do is add boxes', and responses to that like 'amen', and (i am sincere when i say nothing personal and no offense meant to those posters),

well, it made me think there ought to be some discussion about it.

seems like this is one of those passionate disagreements among beekeepers. my intent was not to create more diviciness, and i hope i didn't, but rather expand the discussion, and give other beginners like myself a little more food for thought.


----------



## Rick 1456

Cyber chatting has is short comings
I haven't been offended at all. Not that it matters really. Just a pebble on the beach Perhaps to "stir the pot". Many years ago, I smoked. No, I was not on fire. (humor, a Popeye laugh is heard) After I quit, I found myself more impassioned about those who still did. JMO, but I think this may play some into both sides of this ,,,,,,discussion. It's all good. I had my eyes opened in many aspects from this thread. Just like others, I see some things differently. If I can tweak a management style, I will and I have. I wonder how many new beekeepers really do "just get bees" and they end up "Yard ornaments"? Most of the ones I've met, actually would do better to not go into the hives as much. That too, is a matter of opinion and style. They are extremely curious and worry about the bees to a fault. The ones that do, just add boxes, it would seem, are not in this hobby long. One would have to ask, in that scenario, if there was time for the hives to become a Pandoras' box. Perhaps if the bees were in ill health to begin with. Just something to ponder. Maybe, that is the "crust of the Biscuit"  Healthy Bees to start.
Who has all the right answers? Putting Chems in the hive just did not work for me and how I want to keep Bees. LOL  If you kept hives near mine, you would do well to get Sperm from my Drones (another Popeye laugh)


----------



## julysun

Is there some method to sort these 12 pages by poster? I think it would let me see the full set of posts from each Beeman and better understand what each has to say.


----------



## StevenG

squarepeg that's one of the reasons I quit reading the Treatment Free section of the forum - arguing about definitions and many espousing poor beekeeping. I got tired of saying the same thing over and over again. I will maintain with my last breath that the worst way to go treatment free is to simply quit treating! You simply cannot succeed that way! You have to get treatment free bees. If you have hives that have been treated and want to go treatment free, you requeen with treatment free queens and in 6 weeks you're treatment free. It is literally as simple as that. But for some reason some folks think they can beat the odds, or that they have to reinvent the wheel and let their bees suffer because they're too cheap or too lazy to do it ...sigh... I started to say right...then thought about responsibly...either way I'll get slammed, and I know it's a value judgment but... you pays your money, you takes your chances. I simply think to go treatment free cold turkey without a treatment free package or queen is murder, pure and simple. :lookout:Regards,Steven


----------



## Rick 1456

Well StevenG,
Not interested in "slamming" you or anyone. This is just my story, what I did, and how it worked. I guess there are always exceptions to rules and the norm. I'll try to make the story short and to the point. I got back into beekeeping about 7 years ago at the request of a friend. Mites and shb were unknown to me. I did not have time to research like I needed to so I went with what my bee buddy said was "in the books". We got our first package from a supplier but we made sure it was reputable and from a same temperate zone. I'm in Maryland, the supplier was from Tenn. Supposed to be russians. In hind sight, I think Carniolan. Close enough. We treated because we were supposed to. We made splits, did well actually for about three years. I finally caught up on my bee education and realized what was going into those hives and effects on the bees ect. I picked up a swarm and parted ways with my bee partner as far as keeping bees together. I kept mine, he had his and I decided to go TFB at that point. There were four hives left. I took the three, he kept one as a yard ornament in reality. Up to that point, they had been treated for mites with apiguard and thymo alternating per instructions.l. I moved those three to my yard with my swarm hives. I had made some splits from them by that time. Quit treating those hives at that time.(two years ago) I still have them, but obviously they have re queened them selves. My bee buddy quit treating his hive. I should say, I quit treating it. I made a nuc from them last year and that hive has done well. We took five gallons of honey from that yard ornament back in Sept. and left them more than enough stores. 
More wordy than I wanted. Two points. There is an element that I succumbed to. Treat because you have mites and your bees will die if you do not. I learned differently. You very well may have bees that are of good stock, and can deal with mites. You will not know unless you let them run the course. You get, or have good bees from a good supplier, the odds are at least in your favor. Like I said, not directed anywhere, just what happened to me. A lot of dumb luck, but most things I've learned have been because I did it wrong at least once.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> sqkcrk:
> 
> What do I expect TFB beekeepers to do? How about discussing the risk openly and honestly without the usual shenanigans?


Other than discuss these things you feel are so important, what can people do? What are you talking about that we can control?


----------



## StevenG

Rick, thanks for your post... when I went treatment free and posted my plans here, I was slammed and lambasted. I was told the hives would be dead within three years, that such a thing as treatment free was irresponsible and impossible. I trusted the breeder who sold me the bees. And it worked. Others like me (and you) have had success, and that success continues to grow. Were you lucky? Did you get good bees to start with? Will they make it past that three year mark? Who knows? I really hope your bees come thru winter good and strong, and give you a bounteous harvest next year! 

From what I've read, heard, and personal experience, bees that go treatment free cold turkey have a 95% chance of crashing within two years. I have people asking me for my advice, which I give with the caveat - this is what I did, why, and what worked and didn't work. Like I said on my sticky thread, I'll tell it all, the good, the bad, and the ugly... and man oh man, some of it has been downright ugly!

Anyway, I come from the position that by the time a hive is up and running, at the end of the first season or into the second, those bees are cash value worth $150. Just the bees. The economic value goes up from that. If they produce the Missouri state average of around 50 pounds per hive, sell that honey for net $3 a pound (I know, conservative, but you can't get much more than that in my area), that's another $150. So right there, in bees and harvest, you have $300. Why would anyone want to risk $300 by going cold turkey, when a $20 queen will more than likely guarantee success? 

I do not take your comment as a slam, you were simply sharing your experience. Sounds like you got good bees, and may they continue to work well for you.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## squarepeg

very, very, cool stuff. thanks


----------



## StevenG

This thought came to me earlier today, let me toss it out there and see what happens... An analogy:\

You live in a nice neighborhood, keep your house neat and tidy, and the yard also. A family named Smith moves in the house on the west side of yours. A family named Jones moves into the house on the east side of you. All of you have children, they attend the same school, you all attend the same church around the corner.

The Smiths mow their yard regularly. She's a good housekeeper - you've been in the house. Kitchen always neat and tidy, they even wash their windows every spring. You never see any roaches in the kitchen. Kids wear clean clothes to school all the time. In fact, their house a year after they move in could be a centerpiece in "House Beautiful." She bakes cookies for the kids' school parties, and takes food she's prepared to the church potluck meals.

The Jones, however...he might mow the yard every month or so... city has cited him for letting it get too high. You've had to put some mousetraps in your basement since they moved in. He came over one time, asking for some help with a project in his basement... that's when you discovered she can't keep house. Dust all over everything, carpets soiled, dog has left urine stains on them. Kids wear clean clothes to school a couple times each week, rest of the time they're obviously picked up off the floor. Your wife has been in her kitchen, dishes are left a couple of days...she saw a couple of roaches on the dishes in the sink and by the trash can in the corner. Mrs Jones also sends baked goods to school and takes food she's cooked to the church potluck meals. But...you don't touch them because you've been in her kitchen.
However, Mr. Jones' folks are very active for their age, and stop in a couple of times a year. They spend a week visiting, and he mows the yard, and both vacuum and scrub and clean...

So, which neighbor would you prefer? 
In case you didn't get it, what makes treatment free bees treatment free is their hygenic behavior. Treatment bees get the twice a year visit. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## squarepeg

i would agree, except.....

it's impossible to define treatment bees by 'get the twice a year visit', in the same way it's impossible to define treatment free bees as 'bond' bees.

it's arbitrary and divicive to try and put any given beekeeper in this camp or that.

it's obvious that the trend is toward resistant genetics, better management, softer or no treatments, better diet, ect.ect.ect.

the bees are evolving, and so must we.

i do agree that the 'unique rules' associated with the tfb forum get in the way of our evolving together. there can't be that kind of unbalanced bias in an open discussion forum.


----------



## beecrazy101

Well what a thread. Missed one day and had to catch up with all of it. I am treatment free and the first year beekeeper. I was going to start two years ago but got taken and bees were a dud. Since then I read a lot on the internet (not beesource) and decided to go foundationless and treatment (chemical) free and haven't even thought of going down the other road. Throughout all my readings I always wonder why is there such disagreement and blame thrown around. But the obvious is that everyone thinks they are doing right for their bees. Well I have found out that my path is one that I am going to keep going down. I started with two and have five going into the winter in lower Alabama which is still a couple months away. I do inspection through out the year and stayed on top of my bees so everything that I read would make more since with actual behavior. I have few mites and some SHB but the hives are very strong and thriving well. They all have plenty of stores already but I am leaving it for urge bees for I shall start splitting as early spring. Enjoyed this thread though. Enjoy your bees however u decide to keep them.


----------



## StevenG

Forgive my ignorance Squarepeg, I thought mites were treated for twice a year, once in spring before honey flow, once in late summer or early fall after the honey flow.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## jbeshearse

Steven, How about this analogy:

Same three families. However, You all have dogs. You treat both dog and yard for fleas, The Smiths do also. The Jones don't. When you stop treating, your yard, dog and house (since the dog comes inside) get fleas. Do you live with the fleas or reat for them? If you don't treat, does your dog become immune from them, the skin issues and the interal parisites that come with the fleas?


----------



## sqkcrk

StevenG said:


> Forgive my ignorance Squarepeg, I thought mites were treated for twice a year, once in spring before honey flow, once in late summer or early fall after the honey flow.
> Regards,
> Steven


So, when you write about treatment free bees and treatments you are only writing about treating for varroa and nothing else?


----------



## squarepeg

steven, no, it's not always done that way.

jb, how 'bout this: 

you've been giving your dog periodic baths in an organically produced all natural shampoo that keeps the fleas on your dog knocked back.

you get a new neighbor with a dog, and every three months, they put on a new flea collar that contains every carcinogen know to man but it kills the fleas. your dog and the new neighbor's dog play all the time and no one has fleas.

then another new neighbor moves in, and has a long haired dog that is nothing but a flea factory. this neighbor doesn't believe in doing anything for the fleas. all three dogs now run together all the time. 

the flea collar is doing the trick, but you are now having to shampoo your dog every day, and even then, the fleas are now in your house.

would you consider having a talk with the third neighbor? would you buy a flea collar? would you take your dog down the road and let 'em out?


----------



## jbeshearse

That is about right Squarepeg. 

When the dog comes over to do his business in your yard, you could open feed it with the flea birth control that is on the market.

Then since he is not paying attention to his dogs fleas, he may think he has a flea proof dog and his methods are working perfectly. And since it works so well, he may try and convince others to use his method. Then sell offspring of his flea proof dog as a better breed.


----------



## squarepeg

steven, the longer answer is that the premise of your question implies that everyone who is not a tfb applies mite treatments twice a year before and after honey harvest. this is obviously not the case.

it's just as incorrect to suggest that every tfb practices the bond method.

what i see out there is more of a continuum of practices. 

not to repeat, but it makes more sense to talk about it as ipm, with tfb being the goal, and hopefully the end result of good beekeeping practice. 

nobody is treating for bragging rights, or because it is fun and cheap.

what if you had, say, $350,000 (or any meaningful amount, your life savings?) invested in bees, boxes, trucks, forklifts, packing house ect.? assume you are married with 12 kids, and they all depend your your bee operation to survive.

trying to place beekeepers in an either/or category might be like fitting a square peg in a round hole.


----------



## jbeshearse

squarepeg said:


> trying to place beekeepers in an either/or category might be like fitting a square peg in a round hole.


Careful Squarepeg, If someone only has a hammer, they may force a squarepeg in a roundhole.

:ws:

Oh wait, that would take a screwdriver, or a hammer....

(sorry for the off thread humor)


----------



## StevenG

sorry jb... but that analogy doesn't work for me, as the dog is incapable of housekeeping, which is apparently what the bees do to control the mites.

squarepeg, excellent points.
Also, if I had $350,000 invested in a bee business, I'd be darn well sure part of it was located in Florida so I could winter down there! :lpf:
Seriously though, if I had that kind of money invested in a bee business, I'd set aside one of my apiaries as a test for treatment free bees. I'd run the test for about 5 years, and if it was a success (by that the bees survived, and produced honey, and expenses and labor were lower than treating)then slowly change all my bees over to treatment free bees. I would not be surprised if in a couple of years some commercial beekeepers don't do just that...some perhaps already are.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## squarepeg

steven, zactly!

jb,


----------



## jbeshearse

StevenG said:


> sorry jb... but that analogy doesn't work for me, as the dog is incapable of housekeeping, which is apparently what the bees do to control the mites.
> 
> Steven


Ever seen a dog scratch? How about using it's teeth the de-flea itself? How about casting a deformed pup aside and not feeding it?..

But is is just an analogy, and as all all it is imperfect. Not really an attempt to solve anything. We will all probably continue to keep bees as best we can.

Cheers,

jeb


----------



## jbeshearse

That reminds me. I was going through my top bar hive (which is a cross combed mess) yesterday. Removed a piece of comb they had attached to the floor. There was a wax moth larva there. Small. On the the workers grabbed it and flew away with it, before I could squish it.


----------



## StevenG

sqkcrk said:


> So, when you write about treatment free bees and treatments you are only writing about treating for varroa and nothing else?


Mark, at this point yes... I have given my bees HBH...haven't given anything else in about 5 years though.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## jbeshearse

I always fret while I am pushing a bee that is harassing a SHB out of the way so I can kill the beetle. Wonder if I am discuraging good behavior.


----------



## StevenG

Gotcha Jeb... I always used flea collars and baths for my dogs though... they were house dogs, and never seemed to get ahead of the fleas.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## squarepeg

jbeshearse said:


> I always fret while I am pushing a bee that is harassing a SHB out of the way so I can kill the beetle. Wonder if I am discuraging good behavior.


try not to loose too much sleep over it jb.


----------



## jbeshearse

Steven,

Funny thing is, I used to live in a house that had neighbors on both sides. Niether did a good job of knocking the fleas down and I always had fleas in the yard and house, no matter how many times I treated. If I didn't treat, they were horrendous.

I moved to my current location with no neighbors with dogs. I have two dogs, three cats. Pretty much never have fleas. I do use a treatment on the dos and cats sporadically, but only if I start to see any fleas. (attribute it to the roaming cats that come through the neighborhood.


----------



## G Barnett

squarepeg said:


> what if you had, say, $350,000 (or any meaningful amount, your life savings?) invested in bees, boxes, trucks, forklifts, packing house ect.? assume you are married with 12 kids, and they all depend your your bee operation to survive.


I would like to think I would use the same intentional and dedicated hive management for my four hives that I would practice if I had a $350,000 operation, but I could be wrong. Then again should we all not do our best, no matter what?

And it continues...


----------



## Rick 1456

Wow, look what happens when you go to bed. 
SG, appreciate it. I seem to fall into the 5 % a lot and I'm ok with it. I might give the same advice but an encouraging caveat depending on circumstances.
Entrances on my hives are too small to allow the neighbors dogs in.  LOL


----------



## Beelosopher

StevenG said:


> Mark, at this point yes... I have given my bees HBH...haven't given anything else in about 5 years though.
> Regards,
> Steven


Wouldn't using HBH be considered treating (I suppose that this would go by your definition of treating)? From what I read it has essential oils in it.

on your blog attempt for treatment free you note:

*2. “No Treatment” means I shall not put any medications in my hives. Nothing for mites, nothing for Nosema. No essential oils, no powdered sugar dustings, no treatments of any kind.
*

As a new guy I am just trying to determine which is the best way to start so I am not trying to push a semantics agenda, just curious.


----------



## bbrowncods

Steven, What do you have against roaches? Maybe their hygenic.


----------



## StevenG

Beelosopher, I did give HBH, once in a feeding to the hives a few years back...not since... Is there a difference in a "treatment" given externally, versus one such as HBH which is consumed internally by the bees? Since HBH is given in sugar syrup or patties... just a thought...

bbrowncods, I actually like roaches...especially the big ones, as they're rather crunchy underfoot. (I see you're in Kabul, I do earnestly hope you return home safe and sound)
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Beelosopher

StevenG said:


> Beelosopher, I did give HBH, once in a feeding to the hives a few years back...not since... Is there a difference in a "treatment" given externally, versus one such as HBH which is consumed internally by the bees? Since HBH is given in sugar syrup or patties... just a thought...
> 
> Regards,
> Steven


Hey your guess isas as good as mine  

Moreover I am just trying to sort out my strategy for the spring and decide what I should do (I think I have a line in on 2-3 nucs that are treatment free local survivors). It seems like a lot of people who claim non treatment have treated at some point (or what may be deemed as a treatment by some). So I am trying to decide if an IPM approach like Randy Oliver's is more appropriate than an absolute "no treatments ever." Having no real experience with bees leaves me to learning and relying like others like yourself who have made a go at a version of treatment free. My goal is to learn about most of those nuances, which can be difficult to extrapolate when you aren't working with that person daily.

I am also trying to determine if 2-3 hives is too few to manager a treatment free regiment.


----------



## squarepeg

beelosopher, sounds like a perfectly responsible approach, best of luck to you!


----------



## StevenG

Beelosopher, I restarted with bees 6 years ago, after a year of reading and preparing. Subscribe to one or both of the journals, that will be a big help, as is this forum.

I started with two hives, with the intent to grow over the years to 50ish, experimenting and studying along the way. So the short answer is that you can keep as many or as few treatment free hives as you want.

Some treatment free beeks will treat for Nosema, some will give HBH, some will practice IPM and break the brood cycle, others will use drone frames, removing and freezing when full.

Personally all I've done is buy treatment free bees. Over 6 years I've medicated for Nosema once (because that's what we did each spring in the old days) and given HBH in one or two feedings. Seems to me the key is to develop a plan and work it. When absolutely necessary, modify it. I have just never treated for mites, don't even do mite counts. I know I have them, but the bees are taking care of them, so why bother? And that approach is heresy to a lot of folks.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Andrew Dewey

StevenG said:


> And that approach is heresy to a lot of folks.
> Regards,
> Steven


The landscape is shifting so quickly as new products come out. I don't know personally of anyone using the hard chemicals of Apistan and Checkmite anymore, as the general consensus seems to be that the mites are resistant to them and they don't provide adequate control (any more.) I'm troubled by US beekeepers who try the latest gee whiz products that are not approved for use in the US. I understand that oxalic acid is approved for use in other countries and that there isn't a champion to shepard oxalic through the approval process. But still, when people talk about honey purity it is hard to reconcile the use of unregistered compounds. And the standards shift too - Certified Naturally Grown now allows the use of Thymol, presumably for use by people transitioning their apiaries to CNG.

As someone who is willing to reach for a bottle or jar of ag chemicals when they seem called for, I want to use products that are the gentlest on the hive, me and the consumers of my honey. Heresy? I hope not - it appears to me to be a reasonable extension of IPM.


----------



## StevenG

Andrew, sorry I wasn't very clear. I meant heresy in that I don't do mite counts.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## cerezha

Beelosopher said:


> ... So I am trying to decide if an IPM approach like Randy Oliver's is more appropriate than an absolute "no treatments ever." ...


 Well
than you need to read the whole tread - it is all about positives and negatives of no-yes-treatment approaches...


----------



## Kirk Osborne

My father-in-law has 4 hives. He lives out in the middle of nowhere... seriously excluded from other beekeepers. He owns about 80 acres, most of which goes untouched, filled with a variety of pooen and nectar sources. 

He adds supers and takes supers off. That is the extent of his involvement. His bees take care of themselves. He's had bees for over a decade. They survive harsh Indiana winters. He doesnt wrap for winters; however, he does have them in a great place, as far as a windbreak is concerned. 

As I read through this thread, I am astonished by how many people refuse to cosider the different locations, set-ups, and resources that are available to the bees. 

I don't think my father-in-law is much of a beekeeper; however, his bees consistantly stay alive. He doesnt feed, treat, or even crack the hives open to inspect them (unless he is checking on whether to add a super). It can happen. 

I do not plan on trying his methods; however, I do believe it is possible to have bees that do not NEED treatments. 

I appreciate this thread, but please keep in mind that beekeepers can and do have different experiences.


----------



## squarepeg

>I appreciate this thread, but please keep in mind that beekeepers can and do have different experiences.

and i appreciate your post kirk. hopefully that would be exactly the conclusion one would reach after reading the thread.

i would bet your fil has the benefit of feral survivors contributing genes to his apiary.

i would also bet that your father in law keeps a close eye on his hives, and realizes there may be a problem if one is acting way different than the rest.

if he has been keeping bees awhile, it's almost certain that he has had a hive gone queenless at some point. do you think he lets these die out, and then get repopulated later by a swarm? just adding and removing supers doesn't make sense.

>I do believe it is possible to have bees that do not NEED treatments

yes, of course it is possible.


----------



## Kirk Osborne

Actually, he doesnt watch them at all. He checks for honey, takes honey from the hive, and adds more supers to get more honey. There is no management at all beyond the honey aspect of it. His hives are a mess - full of burr comb, queen cells, and enough propolis to drive most Americans nuts. Despite what most of us would think (the bees inevitably failing), the bees seem to be strong and doing well. Again, he is kind of out in the middle of nowhere, all by himself and the bees he started with have most certainly reproduced with the genes of the feral bees from his area. 

His parents used to be beekeepers long ago. They stopped and the equipment lay dormant for a long time. Most of it was pretty messed-up by moths and mice. About 10 years ago, my father-in-law noticed bees in one of the hives. He set it up properly and in the same year made a few splits - totaling 3 hives. A few years later, he ordered a package of bees and set up another hive. 

This past year, he tried adding another split, for a 5th hive, but it is weak and not doing very well. I am curious to see if even the weak hive will manage to save itself this winter. As always, I am rooting for the bees; however, it isn't looking good going into Fall. I would have fed them already, and left them extra honey.

Again, I do not encourage beekeepers to do thi; however, given his unique circunstances - it seems to work for his bees, in his environment.


----------



## squarepeg

very interesting kirk, and i appreciate it.

i was short on time this morning, but i was going to post again, and say that i didn't intend to point fingers or launch a personal attack at anyone. 

in a scenario like that, one might argue that disease could be introduced into the feral population, (and maybe into other native pollinator populations), afb being one of the more deadly, but other pests and diseases too. sounds like there may not be any other managed hives within miles of your fil, but they could be at risk too.

i'll take you back to that last page of posts on the tfb thread 'absolutely amazing'. not to repeat, but one of the reasons i started this thread was to expose the possible consequences associated with being too 'hands off', i.e. the risks that extend well beyond one's own bees.

as i've said, my goal was to allow beginning beekeepers like myself to have all the facts, because i wasn't seeing that happening in the tfb forum.

again, i'm not the momma, nor the sheriff, and i do believe that most of us want to practice beekeeping responsibly.

best regards.


----------



## Rick 1456

Along those lines:
There is a book called, "At the hive entrance." You can have a "un intrusive" practice and still know a lot about what is going on in your hives. It takes some time, and a few mistakes,,,,in my case many,,, and you learn. Hands off does not necessarily mean don't know.


----------



## cerezha

Rick 1456 said:


> .. There is a book called, "At the hive entrance." ..


 I did not know about the book (sounds very interesting), but this is exactly, what I am doing - observing my bees mainly from outside of the hive body. Just bees behavior could tell a lot. Also, yes, entrance and landing board. I would add to this a sticky board - it is really simple and useful diagnostic tool. I must admit that all these more "natural" ways are good for bee-enthusiasts at small scale. It would be difficult to implement similar approach(es) in commercial beekeeping.


----------



## squarepeg

rick and sergey,

i'm in full agreement with you on this. i was able to pick up on two of my hives being queenless this year, after noticing they were not foraging as much, and especially not bringing in as much pollen, as compared to the other hives. 

rick, 'hands off' for the sake of this discussion has been linked to 'the bond method'.

actually, i try to be as hands off as i can. i avoid going into my hives unless i have a definite purpose for doing so. this is partly because of shb, and kind of like we were talking about before about not getting in the bees way.

i am going to be more care next year in my manipulations, and avoid forcing my bees into too many unecessary 'colony decisions', the best example of this being i have learned to not put an empty box of foundation in between the brood box and a honey super. i believe this led to swarming in several first year colonies.


----------



## Rick 1456

I think the book has been re printed and available from some of the Bee Supply company. (Mann Lake ?) LOve to find one at a yard sale  
My bad, I took Bond Method as letting a hive and queen die due to Mites. Hands off was adding boxes, harvesting honey, no other mgt.


----------



## squarepeg

yep, but it's the 'no other management', taken to the extreme. 

(afterthought, is it the mites that kill? or all of the nasty contagions that they vector...)


----------



## cerezha

Rick 1456 said:


> My bad, I took Bond Method as letting a hive and queen die due to Mites....


 I learned couple of things from this thread:
- if bees were bred to live with regular treatment, as many commercial bees are, than of coarse stop treating will probably kill bees.
- if bees are sort of "feral" and did not see treatment before (or had a minimal treatment) - they shall probably die from the standard treatment - the concentration of chemicals may be too much. 

The bottom line - the "Bond Method" may potentially work on feral bees, but the truth is that feral bees do not need such extreme - they already have some mechanism of survival. For bees bred with treatment (many commercial) - sudden stop of the treatment would probably kill them since regular treatment becomes part of their life (addiction) and they just become extremely vulnerable if treatment suddenly stopped.


----------



## squarepeg

>The bottom line - the "Bond Method" may potentially work on feral bees, but the truth is that feral bees do not need such extreme - they already have some mechanism of survival. For bees bred with treatment (many commercial) - sudden stop of the treatment would probably kill them since regular treatment becomes part of their life (addiction) and they just become extremely vulnerable if treatment suddenly stopped. 

i'm not sure i arrive at those conclusions from this thread myself, but my bottom line sergey is this:

i don't care how you accomplish keeping your hives healthy, as long as you do. we should all care if one allows their bees to become weak, sick, and/or die out from transmittable pests and diseases, and does not take responsible measures to prevent these collapsing hives from getting robbed out by other bees.

the consensus on this thread seems to be in agreement on this.

this does imply that beekeepers have a responsibilty to take care of business in such a way as to not pose threat to others. this is why there are laws on the books mandating removable frames and inspections. this is why the guy in florida had his hives confiscated and destroyed. this is why it may not be alright to say, 'well, whatever works for you.....'.


----------



## TooFarGone

John Kefuss - some background on the guy that originated the "Bond Method".


http://survivorstockqueens.org/John Kefuss Keeping Bees That Keep Themselves.pdf


----------



## Rick 1456

Thanks for that post. Seems a lot like Kirk Websters "Collapse and Recovery.) Mite pressures the bees into a change. So, if you are a BAT Bond, you are 007. I'm a soft Bond,,,,006.75  (you have to read the J Kefuss link.)


----------



## squarepeg

very cool stuff tfg.

there's no doubt that breeding for resistance will prove out to be the most powerful weapon.

looks like these guys advocate requeening with proven genetics, (like i suggested in post #80). 

they don't really get into how or when they intervened when the colonies collapsed in their controlled experiment. 

these are obviously experts who knew what they were doing, and it's likely that they went about it responsibly.


----------



## Rick 1456

I would think the intervened "after the storm" was over so to speak. The one I had that I believe went through this, had started their spring build up, then supered the queen, then swarmed. Just an observation. I had reduced the entrance and had a robber screen in place. Really interesting stuff. I guess the test will be when when we start sending queens to each other to see what they do


----------



## squarepeg

you bet!


----------



## cerezha

TooFarGone said:


> John Kefuss - some background on the guy that originated the "Bond Method".
> http://survivorstockqueens.org/John Kefuss Keeping Bees That Keep Themselves.pdf


 Nice summary of the method. Interestingly, treatment-free approach may be profitable as stated in brochure cited above. They made 3000 breeder queens per year and sell 650E each (I could not believe, is this right? ) Negative impact of dying hives was not discussed or mentioned.


----------



## TooFarGone

Sergey,

I do not know for sure, but I suspect there are open mated queens and then there are breeder queens with which the genetics are more controlled (possibly with instrument insemination) . I think over here, some breeder queens sell for$180 - $250 while the open mated queens are maybe $20 or $30. At 650E, he seems to have a product that lots of people want! It sounds like the big die off of his hives occurred years ago and the Varroa mites are controlled, as evidenced by the small amount of change the visiting beekeepers got for finding mites and collecting a penny a piece!


----------



## bbrowncods

Are we really keeping bees healthy with all the treatments? Foulbrood has been around for at least 100 years and there is still no cure, and it is not eradicated. I have a feeling that in 100 years the same will be true for V. mite as well. Is there a difference between a 'feral colony' and a 'managed colony'? If so, would we not want to mimic the feral colony's existance: The stongest survive? We may eventually get the hybrid super bee but I wouldn't hold my breath.
The problem I see is that feral management cannot survive on a commercial level. The irony is that neither can the Bee.

I definitely don't know squat, so these are just my thoughts to throw out for discussion...

This is from a beekeeping calander:
• Treat for Trachael Mites, either with Menthol Crystals, Shop Towels or Sugar/Oil Patties.
• Medicate with Fumidil-B for Nosema control. Mix two parts sugar to one part water for fall syrup, then mix one level teaspoon of Fumidil-B per gallon of water, or one (0.5 g.[500 mg]) bottle of Fumidil-B to 44 lbs of granulated sugar with enough water to make six gallons of syrup. (Note spring treatment in March). Feed two gallons per hive.
• Treat all hives for tracheal mites using either a mesh packet of methol crystals, or the shop towel method.• Just after Christmas when the temperature is above 50 degrees, feed pollen substitute – 1 to 1 ½ pounds per hive. Mixture: three parts soybean meal, one part dried brewers yeast and one part powdered milk.
•Test, and if necessary, treat for Varroa mites. One treatment is to use 2 Apistan strips per hive body. Record date of installation. Leave strips in for 45 – 56 days, but no more. Varroa treatment must be in by February 1 in order to install honey supers April 1.
• Treat for Trachael Mites, either with Menthol Crystals, Shop Towels or Sugar/Oil Patties.
• Medicate with Fumidil-B for Nosema control (mix as directed and feed in sugar syrup). 
• Test, and if necessary, treat for Varroa mites, after supers have been removed. One treatment is to use 2 Apistan strips per hive body.

That is for one year. As a consumer, if anyone told me that the above regimen went into getting this jar of honey you just handed me, I would put it down softly and walk away. Why bother?


----------



## Andrew Dewey

@bbrowncods - much of your information is dated. I know of no one treating for Trachael mites. And Apistan is regarded in my area as not having been an effective treatment for 4 or 5 years. I'm not quite sure why it is still being marketed.

Again in my area AFB has not been a problem for many years and I teach beekeepers to be alert to it, recognize it, but not to prophylacticly treat. The law requires destruction of the colony and woodenware by burning if it is discovered, and I am ok with that.

My thought is that people to choose to treat do so after consideration of the alternatives. For someone whose family livelihood depends on keeping bees alive it takes a very brave person to be completely treatment free. Thankfully the area of colony health is dynamic and there is always new stuff to learn.

Long term I see us moving away from treatments as bees are developed to be economically successful while coexisting with mites. But this is not going to be an overnight process for most. At the peak of the summer I had about 40 colonies and woodenware for another 10. While I am a hobbyist not dependent on bees for my livelihood, if most of my bees were to die on account of my giving up treatments, I'd probably give up the hobby. At some point the bees have to at least come close to paying for themselves and the cost of regular restocking deadouts is not something I'll realistically pay year after year.


----------



## sqkcrk

bbrowncods said:


> Are we really keeping bees healthy with all the treatments?


Did you receive no treatments before being deployed to Afghanistan? I bet you are more healthy than most who Post here.


----------



## bbrowncods

sqkcrk said:


> Did you receive no treatments before being deployed to Afghanistan? I bet you are more healthy than most who Post here.


LOL! I probably am! At least I haven't grown compound eyes yet...


----------



## bbrowncods

@Andrew- I know you are right. The first time I find those red devils in my hives I will throw what ever I have at them! Not sure I would have the self control to let them be.


----------



## sqkcrk

bbrowncods said:


> LOL! I probably am! At least I haven't grown compound eyes yet...


But what about the treatments? I bet you got a bank of shots before you departed for Afghanistan, no?


----------



## bbrowncods

sqkcrk said:


> But what about the treatments? I bet you got a bank of shots before you departed for Afghanistan, no?


No. Treatments are used to cure disease. I don't have any diseases. I did get some immunizations - different than treatments.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

@bbrowncods - in any event, bee safe over there.


----------



## sqkcrk

bbrowncods said:


> I did get some immunizations - different than treatments.


Well, semantically true. But the way the term treatments is used amongst beekeepers I think immunizations is what terrimycin used against AFB would be, if applied as a preventitive. Which is its most common use.

And, yes, of course, what Andrew wrote, "bee safe over there".


----------



## pedrocr

sqkcrk said:


> Well, semantically true. But the way the term treatments is used amongst beekeepers I think immunizations is what terrimycin used against AFB would be, if applied as a preventitive. Which is its most common use.


I looked up your example (terrimycin) and it seems to be an antibacterial which will surely kill much more than just AFB, so it's hard to consider it an immunization for AFB.

I think the difference is more than semantic. I could consider using vaccines on my bees if those were available as that's just another way of building resistance in a hive, even if not in the genetics. Absent those, breeding for it is our best bet of creating resistant bees. Preventative treatments are not vaccines.


----------



## sqkcrk

Let me reiterate in a fashion, TM and Tylosin are used as a prevetitive of American Foulbrood. This is how it is and has been used in the industry. Bees w/ a resistance to AFB have been bred and their genetics are widespread in the queen rearing portion of our industry. 

I understand that this may be something which people who don't make their living w/ bees or do not have a number of years of experience in beekeeping may see differently, but that's how I see the use of TM and Tylosin in regards to AFB treatment/prevention. That being said, I don't use those drugs on my bees. I inspect my bees and when I find AFB I burn it.

I concede the point to those w/ obviously a different point of view and a way of looking at what we are talking about.

Peace be w/ you.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I was keeping, what I believe were AHB's (and they probably were), then I found out about mites, Varroa and tracheal, also Nosema ceranae. I also heard how I could expect to lose colonies, without treatment, after two or three years. I've never 'treated' - then or now. It had already been at least five years, and I hadn't lost a single hive, yet. It's been more than twenty years now, I still haven't treated, or lost any hives.

Sure makes me think that the need for Varroa treatments is overrated - to say the least. I know this suggestion may be highly controversial, but perhaps the interaction(s) between bees, treatments, and mites, are what results in lost colonies, it may not simply be colonies reacting to the presence of mites, but the presence of mites and toxic mite treatment compounds (maybe a backlash effect). Might some losses commonly attributed to Varroa, be partially the result of backlash from earlier mite treatments and toxic chemicals present in the combs. My bees had and have mites, especially Varroa, and now that they've been EHB for more than a decade, apparently it isn't only AHB that can tolerate/resist mites.


----------



## jim lyon

Joe: What makes you think that what you refer to as EHB do not contain some level of hybridization with AHB?


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Imported from non-AHB areas, Cordovan EHB queen mothers, whose open mated daughters, also Cordovan, are producing primarily Cordovan offspring, drones and workers. Being open mated in the area where I flood with Cordovan drones. They also exhibit virtually none of the many obvious traits associated with AHB.

Not to say that the AHB in my area couldn't gain the Cordovan trait from those same drones, but it would be unlikely that they would not then exhibit any AHB trait other than tolerance for Varroa.

On rare occasion (twice in the past decade, or so), I have had a colony, headed by one of these Cordovan daughter queens, develop into colonies that became quite difficult to manage, with several of the traits associated with AHB's. As soon as I identified them, I broke them down into nucs, eliminated those queens, destroyed all their drones and drone brood, gave them cultured queen cells.


----------



## Rick 1456

First, no issue with those that need to do what they have to to keep their bees or financial consequences will result. I have said this before, I have the "luxury" of doing what I do. I'm not interested in imposing a "will" on anyone, just share beliefs and ideas. If AFB or any disease such as that was found in my hives. There would be a fire. 
I do not understand the comparison of a vaccination to a prophylactic application of a bactericide, fungicide, or most anything that has unknown collateral damage to beneficial species that may/could be part of the "scheme" of things. Since we are anthropomorphizing, kill all the flora and fauna in your lower intestine because you have, an "issue". (I know, mites ect, are not just an issue ,,,entertain my point)


----------



## pedrocr

sqkcrk said:


> Let me reiterate in a fashion, TM and Tylosin are used as a prevetitive of American Foulbrood. This is how it is and has been used in the industry. Bees w/ a resistance to AFB have been bred and their genetics are widespread in the queen rearing portion of our industry.


That's more than clear to me. I was just pointing out that there's a clear difference between preventative treatment and immunization. In your original post you said "I think immunizations is what terrimycin used against AFB would be" and that's what I was responding to.

Both immunization and preventative treatment are used in humans by the way. There is no malaria vaccine and you're given preventative treatment if you go to an area where there's risk of catching it.


----------



## squarepeg

rick, the deal with preventative antibiotics for afb is probably a little before our time, but i'll take a stab at it.

with afb, as sqkcrk has pointed out, there are zillions of spore left behind after infection sets in a hive. these spores are all over the equipment and even in the honey. 

these spores can easily find their way into other hives when frames containing spores are put into other hives, when supers from an infected hive end up being used on another hive, and if the honey from an infected hive is robbed out and/or fed to another hive.

i have read that afb can even be transmitted from one hive to another via the hive tool.

a lot of the old time beekeepers found that applying antibiotics in the spring and fall reduced their afb losses. the only problem with this is that the spores remained, and the disease still surfaced from time to time.

(australia i believe, and maybe other places too, have laws against using antibiotics, and have a strict burn policy).

this is why one should think twice about buying really old used equipment.

i got bit by this, (because i didn't know better at the time), when afb showed up in one of the old hives i first bought. the old time beek who passed away had been using antibiotics for years. when the treatments were stopped, the afb reared its ugly head.

it happened this spring, less than two years after taking over the hive. i found what i thought was afb, moved the hive to a safe location, sent a sample off to beltsville, it was confirmed, and the hive was destroyed by burning.

i went ahead and gave my other nine hives a one time treatment of tylosin. i did this because i had been moving brood frames around from one hive to another to equalize them, and i had supers of drawn comb that i didn't know from which hives they came.

i have since culled out the few remaining old frames from those original hives, and have avoided moving frames from one hive to another. all of my supers have been numbered and will stay with the same hives that drew them out.

so all of the old boxes and frames are gone, i'm keeping a good eye on things, and don't plan to use antibiotics again. so far, so good.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> Well, semantically true. But the way the term treatments is used amongst beekeepers I think immunizations is what terrimycin used against AFB would be, if applied as a preventitive. ..


 Pleeeeese
Do not mix everything. Immunization created natural protection against particular pathogen and designed to avoid "treatment". Feeding antibiotics as a "preventive" measure is just a crime because it creates a super-pathogen.


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> with afb, as sqkcrk has pointed out, there are zillions of spore left behind after infection sets in a hive. these spores are all over the equipment and even in the honey.


Did I say that? I don't think so.


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> Pleeeeese
> Do not mix everything. Immunization created natural protection against particular pathogen and designed to avoid "treatment". Feeding antibiotics as a "preventive" measure is just a crime because it creates a super-pathogen.


Okay. I don't know what I am talking about. Or I don't know how to express myself accurately. Or I don't know how to make a fair and accurate comparison in how drus/chemical treatments/chemicals are used in humans and insects. Okay.


----------



## squarepeg

sqkcrk said:


> Did I say that? I don't think so.


apologies mark. i thought you had mentioned something about the equipment becoming 'infected', and i paraphrased.


----------



## squarepeg

cerezha said:


> Pleeeeese
> Do not mix everything. Immunization created natural protection against particular pathogen and designed to avoid "treatment". Feeding antibiotics as a "preventive" measure is just a crime because it creates a super-pathogen.


'crime' may be a bit of an overstatement. microorganisms can develop resistance to antibiotics, rendering the antibiotic less effective or noneffective. there are strains of afb now resistant to terramycin. but so far, there aren't very many 'super-pathogens'.

you are correct re immunization, it's the provoking of one's immune system with a less virulent form of an organism, to induce natural resistance to the more virulent form.


----------



## sqkcrk

That's okay. If given a prompt I might have said something about that. I just didn't remeber doing so.

I do think that zillions is a bit of an exageration. AFB is communicable, if I used that word correctly, but not quite as dangerous as you seemed to present. But, as you did present, it is mostly transfered by the beekeeper.

You, and others, have some knowledge of the disease, and I often refer back to "Honey Bee Pests, Predators, & Diseases" to refresh my mind, but I urge you (plural you) to read the literature. Know and understand what it takes, beyond cross equipment contamination, to regenerate the disease in the larval and pupal stages.


----------



## squarepeg

so much for my 'stab at it'. 

not sure 'zillion' is a word, probably shouldn't have used it.


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> 'crime' may be a bit of an overstatement. microorganisms can develop resistance to antibiotics, rendering the antibiotic less effective or noneffective. there are strains of afb now resistant to terramycin. but so far, there aren't very many 'super-pathogens'.



I could be wrong about this, but I don't think there are ANY AFB super-pathogens. Unless I don't understand what constitutes a super-pathogen.

Resistance to TM is determined in the Lab by establishing a zone of inhibition in a petri dish. What I have always found interesting is when a lab determined zone of inhibition shows a certain level of resistance to AFB in a smaple from a colony/apiary which has never been treated w/ TM, what does that mean?

I have always maintained that a natural resistance must already exists. Maybe some scientist could show me another way to see this? Sergey?


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> so much for my 'stab at it'.
> 
> not sure 'zillion' is a word, probably shouldn't have used it.


gazillion is probably what you meant. Though I don't know how many that is numerically.


----------



## squarepeg

>What I have always found interesting is when a lab determined zone of inhibition shows a certain level of resistance to AFB in a smaple from a colony/apiary which has never been treated w/ TM, what does that mean?

this means that the resistance traveled with the afb as it spread from one hive to another.


----------



## sqkcrk

Hmmmm, I don't know. Not a satisfying answer. Where did the resistance originate from? How did it travel? I think it coulkd be a genetic thing. Some people are naturally immune or resistant to some diseases, I believe. Where does that come from? Genes? Genetic makeup?

I'm sure that there is much I don't understand or know. I would possit that the same is true of most of the folks replying to this Thread and their knowledge and understanding of bees, bee diseases and the medications used, or not used, to address them.


----------



## squarepeg

good questions mark.

let's say someone is treating against afb with terramycin. the treatment is somewhat effective, but there happens to be some afb that survive because they have a genetic predispostion in their biochemistry making them immune to the treatment.

these organisms survive, reproduce, and kill the hive. the hive gets robbed, and the now resistant strain is spread to other hives, some of which have never been treated.

when the afb is tested from these previously untreated hives, it is found to be terramycin resistant.


----------



## TooFarGone

Mark,

If one treats an organsim with an antibiotic that kills most of them, the ones that survived had some kind of resistance to the antibiotic. These organisms multiply to fill the space vacated by the dead organisms. Their offspring will frequently retain the resistance to the treatment. As futhrer treatments are applied, the most resistant organisms survive. Over time, the only organisms that are left are all resistant to the applied treatment. In reference to your question about AFB and resistance in untreated hives, one scenario would be as follows: AFB forms spores that are extremely long lived and can be transmitted between hives on equipment and by manipulation of equipment. If AFB spores from proviously treated hives (and therefore have some resistance to the treating agent) are transferred to the new hive, these spores retain the resistance and show it if tested in the lab. I do not know the resistance mechanism in AFB and could only speculate on that, but it is likely transmitted genetically.


----------



## sqkcrk

Yeah, that could be.

I guess that lab testing for resistance really only tells us what we already know. The over use of antibiotics produces resistant strains of diseases that antibiotics are used to treat.


----------



## squarepeg

i think it's why some who use preventive ab's for afb rotate between tm and ty.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> Okay. I don't know what I am talking about. Or I don't know how to express myself accurately. Or I don't know how to make a fair and accurate comparison in how drus/chemical treatments/chemicals are used in humans and insects. Okay.


Mark, OK
"Treatment" or as you like to call it "medication" is when you "treat" human, animal insect with the agent, which actually kills the pathogen. Antibiotics work this way. When you inject vaccine (vaccination), it does not kill a pathogen, instead, it stimulates the immune system of the human/animal/insect to produce special "antibodies", which will neutralize the pathogen. Vaccine is normally a modified pathogen itself. So, your comparison of the vaccination with treatment was quite far from reality. Unfortunately, it is difficult to create a vaccine to all pathogens, thus we still need to use antibiotics and other chemicals. Speaking about bees, it is not possible to create a vaccine against mites. But I do not see any reason why not - against viruses transferred to the bees by mites. I am not familiar with insect's immunology and I do not know if any work in this area ever done - it would be interesting scientific project. May be when I retire I could work on it.


----------



## squarepeg

wlc,

isn't that the beelogic thing?


----------



## StevenG

opcorn: sorry Mark, I don't think cerezha caught your saracasm.


----------



## squarepeg

'lost in translation' happens in the cyber world too, even to among the unilingual.


----------



## cerezha

squarepeg said:


> ....so far, there aren't very many 'super-pathogens'...


 It is not true. If you work in the medical hospital, you would know that even very "innocent" bacteria like _E.coli_ developed extremely aggressive strains, which could kill. Those strains an many cases are not sensitive to the most antibiotics. If I remember correctly, in medicine, there are 3 levels of 'defense' against bacterial pathogens. 1st - something like penicillin, which is not effective these days in many cases; second - stronger antibiotics, which supposed to kill most pathogens and 3rd - last defense, extremely strong antibiotics (just a few) to use if anything else does not work... Any medical doctor will tell you that 3rd-level antibiotics used more and more often these days. The problem with this is that there is no 4th defense - if bacteria tolerate 3rd defense, it means that there is no treatment available. Same - with bees, more antibiotic used for "prophylactic" - more resistant bacteria become. The reason, why super-bacteria did not kill us yet is because we do have a natural immune protection that, thanks God, is still working and protecting us. In this sense, one need to keep in mind that stress (for human or bee) is immune system killer - more stress, less immune protection. Provide good living conditions for the bees and they will use their natural protection against many pathogens. Spray them with chemicals - more stress, less natural protection.


----------



## sqkcrk

Only being half sarcastic. It was pointed at Sergey. I am glad he answered in his knowledgable style. I will try to incorporate what he wrote into my understanding about how drugs and other medications act and are used in the treatment of bee maladies.


----------



## squarepeg

like i said serg, less than a handful know to man, and mostly found in these relatively rare clinical settings. they are definitely a serious problem. the truth is that there are just not many of them, and they are not widespread.

part of the training that professionals who are licensed to use antibiotics includes how to avoid such pitfalls. so far we have seemed to outsmart the pathogens overall, but it is an ongoing challange.


----------



## squarepeg

serg, i hope wlc chimes in, because it turns out (i think) that researchers have figured out how to get natural immunity to ipv by feeding (i think) transpose rna to the bees.

you could do a search on 'beelogics' and read about it.


----------



## sqkcrk

b-e-e-O-l-o-g-i-c-s

Better spell it correctly if you are going to search for it. Though maybe the search would correct the spelling for you.


----------



## squarepeg

mark, i know i miss posts sometimes because i use 'what's new' alot. did you see my post #331. i tried to show how it might work in the real world.


----------



## sqkcrk

Yes, see Post #333. My Reply.


----------



## squarepeg

apologies mark, i missed that one! and you are spot on about the lab test.


----------



## cerezha

StevenG said:


> opcorn: sorry Mark, I don't think cerezha caught your saracasm.


 What you expect from ESL?


----------



## cerezha

squarepeg said:


> 'lost in translation' happens in the cyber world too, even to among the unilingual.


 it is happening with me all the time!


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> apologies mark, i missed that one! and you are spot on about the lab test.


I should have warned you.


----------



## squarepeg

its ahhhright. good thread, thanks again ya'll.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> b-e-e-O-l-o-g-i-c-s....


Well
Based on what is on the WEB-site, they are trying to use small RNA to neutralize the virus. It does not create immunity etc. It would help (if any) as long as one feed "medicine" to the bees. Stop feeding - no more protection to the bees. Very smart commercial solution for couple of reasons:
- sounded very 'green"...
- requires constant use of "medicine";
- RNA is expensive to make, so "medicine" would be expensive too... if I am correct
- RNA is not stable in the solution, so it would require "replenishing"...

The bottom line - very typical Monsanto.


----------



## cerezha

squarepeg said:


> serg, i hope wlc chimes in, because it turns out (i think) that researchers have figured out how to get natural immunity to ipv by feeding (i think) transpose rna to the bees.


 see my comment below (or above?) - it does not create immunity...


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> ... It was pointed at Sergey...


 Sure and I happily grab it!


----------



## sqkcrk

And I appreciate it.


----------



## squarepeg




----------



## StevenG

Sergy, understand the ESL situation, that was my guess. And appreciate the information and knowledge you bring to the discussion.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## squarepeg

esl? someone help me out here.


----------



## StevenG

esl, English as Second Language


----------



## squarepeg

10-4 (acknowledged, affirmative)


----------



## jredburn

There is a fellow by the name of John Kefuss in France that has a system for breeding your own resistant bees. It starts with the instruction to take the first 500 hives and ->. He is successful at what he does.
If you only have a hive or two you don't have a snowballs chance in Hell of raising resistant bees. 
Another way of looking at it is this. Your young child has Appendicitis so you sit back and say "Don't Operate!" because the child might live and go on to produce children that don't get sick.

I don't believe in commercial pesticides of any kind. They create bees that are incapable of surviving and bugs that become resistant. Then you have week bees and strong bugs in an endless cycle. 
If you cannot accept personal responsibility for those in your care, then get the ** out of the hobby. You can paint the inside of the boxes to keep SHB out, smoke the hive with Grapefruit leaves to keep the mites down and feed the bees to keep them fat and healthy.

Just my opinion, I don't mean to address any on in particular.
Regards
Joe


----------



## sqkcrk

Have you tried John Kefuss' ideas and how did they work for you?

I think I would have died when I was 12 and not passed on my apendisitis genes. But I didn't. I'm not sure what you are getting at. That people should do that w/ their bees or that they shouldn't?

How does painting the insides of boxes keep SHB out?
What is it in grapefruit leaves that when burned they keep mites down?
Yet you advocate feeding? Seems like knowing how and when to take only enuf honey from your bees would mean not having to feed. Wouldn't that be preferable for a hobby beekeeper?


----------



## deknow

...what do you believe is functionally different between "commercial pesticides" and, say, smoking with grapefruit leaves? If the leaves are actually effective, wouldn't it lead to the same results? Likewise with feedging.

Deknow


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> I have always maintained that a natural resistance must already exists. Maybe some scientist could show me another way to see this? Sergey?


 I mist this one - of coarse, natural resistance exists, it is called immunity. It did not work 100% time, but it is quite robust. The problem with immunity is that it takes up to 10 days for immune system to respond on pathogen in full force. If pathogen is in huge amount - it could kill before immune system kills the pathogen... this is why the initial concentration of the pathogen is important. Immune system keeps us alive every moment. Same - for bees. Sorry for delay - this thread is humungous - I could not catch up!

Well, it seems to me I mixed up - Mark, are you talking about natural resistance of the AFB to antibiotic? My passage above is for "natural resistance" of the victim, not pathogen. As for pathogen - this survived in antibiotic AFB is a "super-bacteria", which travels to another host and kill, kill, kill... this is why fire is used - because, pathogen already turned into super-pathogen, which is not completely destroyable by antibiotic.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> Have you tried John Kefuss' ideas and how did they work for you?...


 Mark, as a businessman, you should pay respect to Kefuss - he is selling his special breeder queens for 650E each! He managed to turn his approach into profit. I am impressed!


----------



## Oldtimer

Ha! So hoopla can pay! 

Bit like hoopla around supposed "chemical free" honey can pay, in the hands of a skilled spin doctor!


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> Well, it seems to me I mixed up - Mark, are you talking about natural resistance of the AFB to antibiotic?



That there are AFB strains which naturally have differentr levels or fdegrees of resistence to the effects of Terrimycin.


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> Mark, as a businessman, you should pay respect to Kefuss - he is selling his special breeder queens for 650E each! He managed to turn his approach into profit. I am impressed!


I don't disrespect Mr. Kefuss, I'm just asking. Apparently he is a good businessman. Hundreds of other breeders of special breeder queens are too. Breeder queens commonly sell for something similar to what you report Kefuss getting. And more, thousands. So, I'm not surprised. 

I know people who have paid that much for breeder queens and have traveled thousands of miles to retreive them.

How much does he sell his regular queens for, the nonbreeder queens? 

Maybe I need to learn more about Mr. Kefuss before I ask anymore questions about him because asking questions so often make people think I am being critical, when actually I don't know the answer to the question.


----------



## Ramona

sqkcrk said:


> I don't disrespect Mr. Kefuss, I'm just asking. Apparently he is a good businessman. Hundreds of other breeders of special breeder queens are too. Breeder queens commonly sell for something similar to what you report Kefuss getting. And more, thousands. So, I'm not surprised.
> 
> I know people who have paid that much for breeder queens and have traveled thousands of miles to retreive them.
> 
> Maybe I need to learn more about Mr. Kefuss before I ask anymore questions about him because asking questions so often make people think I am being critical, when actually I don't know the answer to the question.


I just googled "john kefuss bees" and found a lot of links including bee journal articles. You'll probably do better reading for yourself...lots of goodies to absorb!

Ramona


----------



## BeeCurious

sqkcrk said:


> Maybe I need to learn more about Mr. Kefuss before I ask anymore questions about him because asking questions so often make people think I am being critical, when actually I don't know the answer to the question.



Ask Kefuss directly: [email protected]


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> because asking questions so often make people think I am being critical, when actually I don't know the answer to the question.


Is that how it works? I always thought it showed a thirst for knowledge. I guess people's brain are wired differently.


----------



## Oldtimer

It's about how things come across on the net Ace. I'm very careful before asking for links any more because I have been accused of "putting people on the spot", and "intimidating" people. I'll tend to google first then if all else fails then I'll ask for a link if I think it won't cause offence.

Likewise the motive behind a question can be totally misinterpreted.


----------



## sqkcrk

Randy Oliver is asking treatment free beekeepers to monitor varroa mite counts monthly and report the findings to him. Kim Flottum sent out the request via his e-blast. Are any of you interested in doing this and helping Randy Oliver?


----------



## squarepeg

that's extremely cool mark, probably worthy of a new thread of it's own.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> Randy Oliver is asking treatment free beekeepers to monitor varroa mite counts monthly ...


 I used to do sticky board/24hr. I have numbers for perhaps 6-7 months. Since I noticed wax moth activity, I replaced sticky board on oil pan and could not count. My mite counts were quite stable - around 50 for the large hive and 7 for smaller beehive, which swarmed, had difficulties to establish the queen and never produce any honey to me, but doing well. Last count in the end of July was actually 20 for the large one and 5 or 7 for the small one. Based on my experience, the mites count on the sticky board should be somehow normalized to the size of hive - bigger hive should have a higher numbers because more bees, larva etc. My bees clearly have a habit of cleaning themselves and each-other, so I believe that my "mite counts" represents the number of mites removed from the adult bees. For proper "scientific" count, one should use standardized test like ethanol method or Germans just freeze number of bees and than mix them with ethanol or water (forgot). There were link in some thread to very informative German video how they propagate mite-resistant stocks. They have a national program for this.
I am reluctant to do a real mite-count tests on my bees because being "feral"/survivor, they are quite sensitive to the invasion into the hive. But, once I remove oil pan, I will continue to do sticky board on regular basis - it just helped to me to monitor overall bees well-being without invasion.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

sqkcrk said:


> Randy Oliver is asking treatment free beekeepers to monitor varroa mite counts monthly and report the findings to him. Kim Flottum sent out the request via his e-blast. Are any of you interested in doing this and helping Randy Oliver?


I have already e-mailed Randy that I intend to do monthly counts and send him results as he requested.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> Randy Oliver is asking treatment free beekeepers to monitor varroa mite counts monthly and report the findings to him. Kim Flottum sent out the request via his e-blast. Are any of you interested in doing this and helping Randy Oliver?


I am all for the research but I question how valid it is if you only have one or two hives. Can that be compared to a commercial beekeeper that may have 30 or 40 in an apiary? My thinking is the mite counts might be lower if you only have a few hives in the apiary. Heck, maybe that is what the data will show. Well, you would have to run that hypothesis.


----------



## Oldtimer

cerezha said:


> for smaller beehive, which swarmed, had difficulties to establish the queen and never produce any honey to me, but doing well.


Isn't that an oxymoron?


----------



## Roland

I might be persuaded to help Mr. Oliver, but found little value in how many mites died, was more interested in how many will be born.

Crazy Roland


----------



## StevenG

I'm conflicted... I'd like to help, but... I've had treatment free bees for 6 years now, and have never done a mite count. My hives simply survive. Not sure how a mite count now from my apiary would help...though it might... still, the hives have lived. Maybe I should be more curious, but I've had serious time constraints this year especially.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> that's extremely cool mark, probably worthy of a new thread of it's own.


And so I started such a Thread. Y'all come.


----------



## cerezha

Oldtimer said:


> Isn't that an oxymoron?


 Absolutely! Moreover: being scientist and keeping bees is enormous oxymoron of my current life... thanks for compliment, it is quite difficult to make a nice oxymoron. "And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true. Tennyson " Idylls of the King "


----------



## squarepeg

bumped to make it easier to find with search next time.


----------



## squarepeg

bumped again to make it easier to find with search next time.


----------



## dennis crutchfield

a person can be chemical free I have for 18 years. but you will have to work your hives differently. making splits and breaking mite brood cycles.. and lost a lot of hives.. I did. lost 65 hives over the first 10 years. I now have a bee that has not been treated for years. I have this year started adding tea tree oil and spearment and lemon oil , wintergreen and such for different issues. but my mites died with my hives. I now have no mites. I do have hive beetles both the last two years. I am dealing with them naturally also. but thru the years I have kept feral, buckfast and ankle biters and carnolians together and cross bred the survivors. it can be done. but learn all you can and deal with the problems quickly. Specially at first if you want to keep them alive.


----------



## squarepeg

(bumped to make it easier to find next time)


----------



## GregB

squarepeg said:


> (bumped to make it easier to find next time)


Thanks SP.
I have not seen this talk yet; good to review.


----------

