WOW.
I didn't expect such emotional responses to a suggestion to try soft treatments first.
Granted, my response to one of the posters on this thread anthropomorphism of bees was a bit extreme; my intent was to prompt what I perceived as a somewhat condescending post addressing what I'm sure that poster considered a morally corrupt practice of not treating to consider that there might be moral considerations beyond the infested hive...ie, preventing larger scale hardship on the species because mite susceptible genetics remain in the gene pool.
Mark:
My reference to concerns about short term financial interest was in no way intended as denigrating. Failure to maintain short term solvency is a short step from bankruptcy.
Segregating a portion one's hives and not treating in order to have hundreds and in the case of some outfits thousands or tens of thousands of hives adapted to survive without treatment is an expensive process and would take years to accomplish.
Once accomplished, there would be far fewer males in the drone pool distributing genes that require treatment.
"Short term financial interests? What is short term when outfits have been able to stay viable in business since 1986?"
How much do you spend on treatments in a year?
I suspect the amount is not insubstantial.
The savings of not treating over one man's lifetime may or may not come out on the profit side of the ledger.
But if we think generationally, it is cheaper to take the loss and convert to non treatment.
We'd have bees that took care of mite on their own and aren't dependent for survival on us.
On the other hand, I think guys like Kirk Webster will tell you you might expect 90% losses short term by not treating.
Looking out for short term financial interests may be folly in the long run, costing a good deal over time, and leaving bees dependent on human treatment intervention, but it keeps the lights on, the wife happy and the kids tuition paid.
The folly is in leaving the situation status quo, so that three generations from now our [collective] great grandkids are still worried about mites in their bees.
Or managing one's bees based on emotion rather than wisdom. (I'll admit that my second post was couched in very emotional in an attempt to persuade a poster whom I perceived was motivated by emotion to treat to consider alternatives, both to his perspective and protocol, and was a bit extreme.)
Personally, so long as my living expenses are not dependent on my hive count, I'll treat as little as I possibly can.
But you can bet that if some other stressor compromises a hive's health and a line of bees whose genes I work to develop is in danger of perishing without treatment, I'll seriously consider doing so, weighing the whole cost (contaminated comb on one hand, for example, and loss of the work that went into them and income potential from them on the other).
"How does the successful treatment use of a commercial beekeeper effect you?"
Substantially.
The decisions of a single commercial guy can have a greater effect on what genetics are or aren't present in the drone pool than MANY hobbyists with one to ten hives.
don't think that commercial beeks are fools, or wicked, greedy, bad guys.
When assert that it's folly to not treat because of short term financial interests, I'm talking about us as a whole community not coming up with a pragmatic, practical path to something more sustainable long term, spmething wise ofr our progeny, and getting off the tread mill of spending for treatments.
I'm not intending at all to say a guy is foolish for protecting the business that provides for his family.
Respectfully,
B