Treat or not to treat

[libhart]

Just to be a bit of a smarty pants (the cleaner version of what originally was in my brain)

Question is what are your intentions. The option most people picked is, "I would like my bees to be treatment free".

I'd like mine to be treatment free too, but that's not my intention.

[beemandan]

The following poll suggests that the great majority of new beekeepers wish to avoid chemical treatments.

I would submit to you that beekeepers universally wish to avoid chemical treatments.

[beemandan]

I can't do anything to insure that one sentence in a post that is talking about the biggest 1% of beekeepers isn't taken out of context.

In light of the rest of your posts, I think I represented the meaning of your sentence perfectly.

[deknow]

....and Americans would all like to be rich....but those that try by selling Amway, buying lottery tickets, or Anthony Robbins videotapes don't get there. It isn't just what you want, it's what you do to get there that counts.

Deknow

[jim lyon]

Wrt. Jim's comments I would suggest that a BIG operation has both the manpower and organization to preferentially pull old comb for nucs.....not to mention the financial motivation (otherwise "good" combs are used for nucs to be sold to others, and the comb that need to be culled are burned).
deknow

Gosh Dean just because you feel that we would have the manpower to make sure that our customers get bad combs dosent mean that we would do it. When I have sold nucs they have always been pretty large quantities and all I am thinking about are things like where are the best bees with the most brood so that I can do this as efficiently as possible. Oh sure I know of a few commercial guys that would probably be concerned with getting rid of the bad stuff but I know far more fair and honest folks that would make sure their customers were happy. Come on down to Texas next spring and spend a few days splitting with us, it will give you a whole different perspective.

[beemandan]

It isn't just what you want, it's what you do to get there that counts.

Amen to that.

[cerezha]

I would like to hear from more members here with at least 10 hives that do not or have not treated for several years to get more of an idea as to expected losses and success rates. One or two hives is just a fluke but to have a sustainable system of treatment free every year is much more impressive ( I know there are some of you out there!)

Xcugat
There is a sticky note just at the beginning of the Bee-forum about treatment-free 6 years experience by StevenG. It is quite elaborate report with year-to-year details for each beehive. Report is here:
http://www.beesource.com/2010/no-tre...bees-report-3/

enjoy, sergey

[Keith Jarrett]

Big government and big corporations = the same thing. "How can we take in more money." "We don't care about anything else."

Well... Let me help you here, AceBird.

Big Goverment= "how can we TAKE (TAX) in more money"
Big Cororations = " how can we EARN more money"

keith

[cerezha]

I would submit to you that beekeepers universally wish to avoid chemical treatments.

Did you do the poll? It is only way to prove your words. Otherwise, it is empty words - they may wish one thing but do another... I am sorry, but I think if such poll would be performed for mature/commercial beekeepers here, it will show the opposite results. My feeling based on experience at beesource - treatment-free is minority here. Sergey

[cerezha]

Big Goverment= "how can we TAKE (TAX) in more money"
Big Cororations = " how can we EARN more money"
keith

EARN - really?!!!!!! may be "steal" the better word? Sergey

[D Coates]

Did you do the poll? It is only way to prove your words. Otherwise, it is empty words - they may wish one thing but do another... I am sorry, but I think if such poll would be performed for mature/commercial beekeepers here, it will show the opposite results. My feeling based on experience at beesource - treatment-free is minority here. Sergey

I think you may have missed a nuance in Beemandan's quote. That being, "wish". Most beekeepers do "wish" to avoid chemical treatments. I would LOVE to avoid the time, money, and effort consumed by chemical treatments. Everything is made of chemicals so unless you want to remove them physically you're using a chemical in one way shape or form. Logically, who in there right mind wants to do these things and pay these costs if they aren't neccesary? There's nothing to argue about here.

[D Coates]

EARN - really?!!!!!! may be "steal" the better word? Sergey

Huge difference, if you don't want to do business with big corporations you don't have to. Therefor they "earn" no money from you.

You can't avoid the Government, they'll get money from you in one way shape or form.

[deknow]

In light of the rest of your posts, I think I represented the meaning of your sentence perfectly.

So, what do you think is going on?

1. I meant that ALL commercial beekeepers (beekeepers who make a living with bees) dump bad comb...and for some reason I'm backing off on the claim? I'm hardly shy about expressing my opinions even if they are not going to be well received...if that is what I thought, I would say so. It's also worth noting that some commercial beekeepers I count among my very good friends....do you think I'm claiming that Kirk Webster and Mike Palmer (among others) are dumping old comb in nucs?

2. That you know the "meaning" of my post better than I do?

3. That I'm nuts and have no idea what I'm talking about?

...or what?

I'm also curious which of "the rest of my posts" indicate that I think badly of all commercial beekeepers?

...or is it even a distant possibility that I'm being honest and upfront and in fact, that a post that was talking specifically about the biggest 1% of migratory commercial beekeepers was not referring to every commercial beekeeper in the U.S. or on the planet?

Honestly, I think it's funny that I would be accused of "backpedaling"...I said what I meant and meant what I said....and when what I said was placed out of context in order to show that I said something I didn't, I clarified my position....not by changing it, but by pointing out what I actually said.

Since we are taking single sentences out of context in order to 'prove' that the poster is full of it....One of your posts earlier in the thread contained this funny claim:

Sergey, what's new about not treating? Back in the eighties commercial beekeepers didn't treat for mites.

...by the mid/late 80's they did. Before that they were using antibiotics copiously...and before that, sulfa drugs....ditto with fumidil. Has there ever been an approved (or unapproved) treatment that commercial beekeepers have shied away from? If there were something effective against chalkbrood it would be being used today (well, some are using bananas). Heck, Randy Oliver (and others) were paying to do RNAi trials for Beeologics/Monsanto. No one seems to admit to using coumaphos anymore...but someone is buying it. No one would have stopped using apistan if resistance hadn't developed. In general, the commercial beekeeping industry has embraced every treatment that has come along...and stayed with them until they lost effectiveness. Heck, wasn't Tylan just approved a few years ago...now there is another new antibiotic for foulbrood.

So what is new about not treating? Since the introduction of treatments, they have been baseline beekeeping. I've had a state inspector claim some bees weren't treated...until I asked about fumidil...the answer was, "well....fumidil...". One researcher I know got bees from one of the bee labs...they commented to the lab that they wish they could get untreated bees...the lab's response was, 'we don't treat our bees'...when asked what they do for varroa, the answer was, 'well, we treat for mites'.

Since when does 'treatment' mean only mite treatment? Since when is mite treatments not treatment?

I know several bee researchers that don't treat and don't feed...I'm not going to out them, but the approach is so controversial that they generally keep it on the DL.

deknow

[deknow]

EARN - really?!!!!!! may be "steal" the better word? Sergey

here is a good example of exactly what I've been accused of. We have an LLC....meaning that we are a corporation. I understand the drift of the post, and I am not confused thinking that Sergy means all corporate entities are "stealing"...he is talking about big corporations that influence policy to their own benefit. He is not talking about a small business that is incorporated.

deknow

[deknow]

Huge difference, if you don't want to do business with big corporations you don't have to.

Err, sure, under the new health care legislation, you can pay a tax to the government if you don't want to buy insurance from a big corporation.

deknow

[sqkcrk]

I would prefer the size of the farms to be small or smaller with a lot more people farming them if that is the answer to abandon pesticides. If this works for beekeeping than I am in favor for that also. Mark used the word "passion" their is no passion in a major corporate entity other than chasing dollars. Anything they can get away with that will increase the bottom line is deemed acceptable.

Big government and big corporations = the same thing. "How can we take in more money." "We don't care about anything else."

Acebird,
Who are you going to work those farmers, imported slave labor? Theconomics isn't there for what you dream of.

When I used the word "passion" I was refering to the tone of my response, as opposed to "anger". I don't know how you took that leap into the major corporate.

[sqkcrk]

.....hold on a second you two.....

but i don't think either one of you is part of that group.

Do you really think that the 1% of beeks with 99% of the bees are selling nucs w/ good comb?

Deknow

Dean, I don't know where the cutoff is in your mind between someone like myself who runs between 400 and 600 and as much as 800 and "the 99%". I believe you are refering to DM, right?

I can't say what all of the rest of the commercial nuc producers and sellers do, only one who produces thousands of nucs and his nucs are made up from combs found in the hives, and as I said, no one is directed to go for the oldest combs. There are new frames and foundation in those nucs too. A frame of capped brood, a frame of honey, a frame w/ pollen and open brood a frame of foundation or two, and a frame of empty comb. W/ a queen cell added.

Your experience is different from mine. What can I say? I can see why you see this the way you do.

[Acebird]

EARN - really?!!!!!! may be "steal" the better word? Sergey

[sqkcrk]

My feeling based on experience at beesource - treatment-free is minority here. Sergey

Sergey, I would love to be treatment free, but I am not. Because I have chosen to make a living keeping bees.

I would also love to be thin, but I am not. I am however thinner. Just as I am this year using softer chemical treatments, MAQS and Apigaurd. I know that is not the samer as no treatments at all, but it is a step to better beekeeping, in my opinion.

Also, I would suggest that you try to write about the use of treatments in the Treatment Free Forum and see how long your Thread lasts before being shut down.

Asw a nuc seller I have gotten more bad comb from those I have sold nucs to then they have gotten from me. So, especially after recieving 5 nuc boxes returned w/ 25 frames of AFB scale, I no longer accept frames from customers. All I want back is the box.

Were I not familiar w/ AFB, maybe I would be painting nuc buyers w/ Dean's brush.

[sqkcrk]

EARN - really?!!!!!! may be "steal" the better word? Sergey

You are a Scientist, right? Which Corporation do you work for?