Absolutely amazing!!!

[jbeshearse]

I do find this thread “Amazing”, but for a completely different reason than most that have posted here.

I realize that many beekeepers are set in their ways. *Almost everyone has an aversion to change. *This is not limited to senior citizens or beekeepers. **I think you are being shortsighted to dismiss all the combined wisdom that is undoubtedly present within the bee club, just because you disagree with their treatment philosophy.

This is my challenge to you. *Answer these questions and then consider those answers.

What is the combined number of bee hives represented by those that have posted on this thread to date? ***What is the combined number of years of beekeeping experience of the same posters? *How do these numbers compare to the rest of the population you are choosing to disregard?

Don’t misunderstand me. *There are a lot of times (especially surrounding resistance to change/trying new things) when I disagree with older more experienced keepers than I. *But they do, for the most part, deserve respect and have a wealth of other knowledge that I would be remiss to ignore. *They have more experience and actual time in field than I will ever have. *Why would I (you) think that I have all the answers?

Just because someone disagrees with your stance does not validate make theirs wrong and your right.

It doesn’t matter to me what your answers and eventual decisions are. *I just would like you to actually take the time to consider just where you are and how you got there.

[Rick 1456]

You express an excellent and valid point. I can only speak to my experiences. It is not about having all the answers. It is not about whos right or wrong. It about respecting a difference of opinion and entertaining the idea, you do not know it all. I never called anybody names nor disrespected anyone because they managed their hives differently than I. I just disagree in some respects. Sometimes knowledge gets overshadowed by ego. Just the way it is. I have some things working for me, that I tried to share. Just didn't want to hear it. You are crazy, you are a hot shot, are just a few of the comments vocalized . The grind I have, is that some of these are new folks getting into beekeeping. They are being told the only way to keep your bees alive is to treat with chems. Add EOs. put bleach in the sugar water to keep the mold from forming.
You can have 30 years of bee keeping. But, if you did the same thing after three years, you have three years beekeeping 10 times. Dont get me wrong. I have all the respect in the world for those folks. Just give me the same due

[squarepeg]

a maverick with manners, hmmm...

[hillhousehoney]

I guess I would say that years do not always equal knowledge. If I find a better way to do something, I am always willing to change. If a new invention comes along, that make my life more enjoyable, and productive, I may purchase that. I started in 1998. Those bees died. Restarted in 2007, small cell, these bees thrive. Rick makes a good point. The disregard for the way we do it, and saying that it does not work (which it does) just blows me away. I go to a bee meetings, and everyone is standing around scratching their heads worrying about mites, listening to speakers worry about mites, talking about new ways to worry about mites. While I enjoy raising bees. That's all. They were as happy to see me leave the club, as I was to leave. It goes both ways. I just don't hassle with it anymore. But I do make a distinction between my honey and chemically treated honey when I sell it. It increases my sales, that's for sure. No problems from me, that is why I like this forum. I should not have said "wrong". For that I apologize.

[jbeshearse]

I guess I would say that years do not always equal knowledge. If I find a better way to do something, I am always willing to change. If a new invention comes along, that make my life more enjoyable, and productive, I may purchase that. I started in 1998. Those bees died. Restarted in 2007, small cell, these bees thrive. Rick makes a good point. The disregard for the way we do it, and saying that it does not work (which it does) just blows me away. I go to a bee meetings, and everyone is standing around scratching their heads worrying about mites, listening to speakers worry about mites, talking about new ways to worry about mites. While I enjoy raising bees. That's all. They were as happy to see me leave the club, as I was to leave. It goes both ways. I just don't hassle with it anymore. But I do make a distinction between my honey and chemically treated honey when I sell it. It increases my sales, that's for sure. No problems from me, that is why I like this forum. I should not have said "wrong". For that I apologize.

Couple of things. When something is not mainstream it is up to it to covince the mainstream that is does work and it is better, not the other way around. How are you going to do that if you quit because you don't have instant credibility? You don't have credibility or respect until it is proven beyond doubt. Sorry but that is the way it is in everything. Years do not necessarily mean wisdom, but it does mean knowledge. And there is a difference. Without gaining knowledge, you can't gain wisdom.

Other thing is the "chemically treated honey". The implications are that your honey has less pesticides and other chemical in it than my honey simply because I add treatment to my hives. False advertizing. I can pretty much guarantee that the honey out of my hives has no more foriegn chemicals than your does, probably less. My honey is definitely not "chemically treated". Do I add treatments to my hive? Yes I do occasionally. Do they get in my honey. No they dont.

How old is the comb in your hives? Do you control a 6 mile diameter area around your hives to insure that pesticides and other contaminates are not being being brought back to your hives(wish I could but I can't and I venture you don't either)? I do not put treatments on my hives when honey supers are present, or two weeks either side. Usually much longer than that (that is supers, including comb). I will not allow any honeycomb or brood comb to be in my hives that is more than 3 years old. Do you? I test my honey for moisture content. Do you? The only time any of my bees see sugar water in a feeder in my apiary is when the hive has less than 5 frames in it and they are just starting our (swarm capture/cut out). How about you?

To imply that your honey is superior to mine, simply because you do not treat your bees is misleading at best. Purposfully or not. Then to charge extra for it because of that misrepresentation is well, nevermind.

Now, that I have said that: Yes I agree, the disreguard is a problem, from both sides of the aurgument. I am always happy for someone to try something new, and I always hope it works. I would never discourage it. As that is how progress is made. Both sides of the aurguemnt need to learn from each others successes and failures. If we run from each other, we will never learn, progress or gain further wisdom.

Good luck with your bees and methods. (and I mean that sincerely). Try to work with others in your area to further your successes and help them not to repeat your failures. if they don't listen, then it is their loss, not yours.

jeb

[hillhousehoney]

The opposing positions really do not matter to me anymore as I try to move beyond that. It is not a hill worth dying on. I intend my posts to be read and enjoyed by others who believe as I do. As I enjoy theirs. That's why I post on this forum only. I don't like to argue with anyone, it's not something I am comfortable with. I pick up swarms now, so no more packages = no more feeding. I don't want credibility, I was just shocked at the backlash against my views, hence, my leaving the club scene. I am quite happy doing my own thing. On the treatments in the honey thing, I respectfully disagree, and believe that Lusby will back also. Remember I said, "distinction" not "superiority". If the treatment is meant to get on a bee to kill a mite, it also gets on the wax, and then into the wax, and then into the honey, which goes into the consumer. That's not a good thing. My brood nest is fully drawn Honey Super Cell, the rest is removed via crush and strain. Thanks for the well wishes, and I extend the same to you.

[jbeshearse]

HillHouseHoney,

Thanks for the thoughtfull reply. It is a shame that you experienced backlash. It can go well or poorly depending on how it is presented. Too many times it is presented in the light that those that treat are bad guys, doing harm to the bees and selling chemical laden honey. When it is presented like that, offense is taken, and rightly so. I take what I can from our bee association meetings. Interject when I feel misinformation or poor practices are being promoted. But these are usually in the form of questions, not arguments or different points of view. THe same reasons I intefere on these forums. There are a lot of new beekeepers that read these forums and they deserve to have all the views availble to base their decisions on.

I guess we will have to respectfully disagree about the chemical free honey distinction. I do not feel that there is a basis for your honey to have less chemicals than mine. I discard wax fairly frequently. I do not have any frames that will be used for harvestable honey on the hives during treatment (or for at least two weeks after). So they don't track chemicals into the honey supers. I generally do not use excluders. I do not crush and strain.

It seems to me that even without treatment the bees are bringing back chemicals in the nectar and by contact with pesticide. Now if it is like you indicate and they are depositing this in the wax as they walk across it, then all wax is seeing some chemical. It would seem to me that you are much more likly to transfer those chemicals into your honey via crush and strain, than you would if you extracted. More contact area and more shearing to release those bound chemicals. Also more to have to strain out and depending on your mesh size (I use 400 as my finest strainer), more bits of this wax and unbwound chemicals will end up in the honey. From a sheer "keep the chemicals out" perspective, extracting would seem like a better option to me. We can't control what our bees are exposed to and bring back into the hive. That is why I discard comb after three years. I love seeing new wax and new frames. They are a work of art as far as I am concerned. I do use purchased foundation we hich can be a source of chemicals in the wax. I plan on moving to all foundationless when I can manage it. A secondary reason is that foundation is the most expensive part of my beekeeping practice.

Keep up your good work and enjoy your bees. That is why I keep bees, for enjoyment, assume you do also. Selling honey was not why I started keeping bees, but they just make so darn much of it, you gotta do something with it. First hobby I ever had that costs less than nothing.

Cheers,

jeb

[jim lyon]

On the treatments in the honey thing, I respectfully disagree, and believe that Lusby will back also. Remember I said, "distinction" not "superiority". If the treatment is meant to get on a bee to kill a mite, it also gets on the wax, and then into the wax, and then into the honey, which goes into the consumer.

You have every right to be proud of the product that you produce and make your claims accordingly. If, however, part of your marketing strategy is to suggest that others sell honey that is chemical laden without offering anything up as proof other than your assumptions is not only false it does a grave disservice to the honey industry as a whole. I do not qualify as being treatment fre by the definition of this forum and I have proof via lab testing by a major honey buyer that my 2011 crop honey has tested at 0 ppb for any miticides. Those are facts not assumptions.

[beecrazy101]

I bought two twenty dollar queens and have the same success with them as I have with the two nucs I bought. I am treatment free in my right. I think it doesn't matter what queen or maybe its just location. I have to put them in their new boxes this coming week. I am going to have five good strong hives going into the winter. Not genetics maybe its management.

[Andrew Dewey]

I've been thinking about the discussions/arguments that can take place at club meetings or other places (like BeeSource) where beekeepers meet. My college sophomore daughter has a way of saying things that implies she is starting out the conversation with "you stupid idiot!" I think that same kind of statement is felt, if not intended, on both sides at beekeeper gatherings. And that dooms any conversation and chance for mutual learning before it starts.

I would guess 80% of treatment free beekeeping is identical to treatment beekeeping. You still (most of the time) wear a veil, use a smoker, remove frames and do your best to read them. It is what you do about problems you encounter where you differ, or in actions that may get taken to minimize problems (I'm thinking of caging the queen to create a brood break)

One of the great things about the first post in this thread is that we hear of officials that are willing to consider treatment free as a valid response to certain bee parasites/pests. And that is amazing! The first part of any real discussion ought to be acknowledgement of the common problem, and then you can discuss your different approaches for dealing with the problem. Hopefully you will at least get someone who will be willing to listen to your experiences. Though fanciful wishful thinking without an understanding of the basics involved is not likely to win anybody over.

I know some dismiss the last 200 years of commercial and hobby beekeeping experiences as misguided. I think that is a mistake. The crowd may very well have gone off in the wrong direction but that is still the path that most have traveled and shouting "you're on the wrong road fella and about to go off a cliff" at them is generally not well received.

Some humility is needed too in terms of geography. In places where there is bountiful natural forage and a strong feral bee population I suspect it is much easier to make treatment free work. Just because your queen is amazing and her progeny make 100s of pounds of honey for you all while keeping varroa at undetectable levels doesn't mean we can plunk that hive down somewhere else and get the same result. But it is undoubtedly encouraging that such a queen exists and maybe a daughter would thrive at my location. Then again maybe not - after all, I am the guy in Maine trying out bees from Texas. 25% loss the first summer - I want this experiment to work and so far I'm not 100% sold, but I'm still trying.

[WLC]

I find it hard to determine if the inspector was reporting on official agency policy, if she was breaking ranks, or if she simply mis-spoke.

There are many other fields where folks are trying to take a more environmentally responsible approach to dealing with pests and pathogens. It's not just beekeeping.

[WLC]

If it was Nancy Ruppert, it's clear that she was referring to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and not treatment-free beekeeping.

It was reported elsewhere that she distributed this pamphlet at one meeting:

http://www.clemson.edu/psapublishing...ntom/EB160.pdf

How someone can confuse an IPM discussion with treatment-free beekeeping is understandable, and yet, it's also a source of amusement.

[squarepeg]

are you saying treatment free beekeeping is really just the end result of good management?

[squarepeg]

is it expensive to have honey tested for impurities? would it not be better to let acutal test results to back up claims about the purity of the honey. i might sample some of mine next year just out of curiosity.

[squarepeg]

isn't the first tenant of ipm making treatments a last resort?

[WLC]

isn't the first tenant of ipm making treatments a last resort?

Not really. It's more like you don't overuse the same chemicals that can be both wasteful and cause resistance to develop.

[squarepeg]

from wikipedia:


The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN defines IPM as "the careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the environment. IPM has been urged by entomologists and ecologists for adoption of pest control for many years. [1] IPM allows for a safer means of controlling pests. This can include controlling insects, plant pathogens and weeds. IPM emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms."[2]

1.^ Knipling EF (1972) Entomology and the Management of Man's Environment. Australian Journal of Entomology 11, 153-167.
2.^ "AGP - Integrated Pest Management". Retrieved 19 August 2012.


i stand by my post wlc. the least risk possible would be zero use except for natural methods.

[WLC]

Funny thing is I looked it up as well in, "Beekeeping for Dummies".

The short version is: "...the idea of IPM is to manage honeybee pests by the minimal use of chemicals".

I guess they forget about the pathogens.

Regardless, it's highly unlikely that a North Carolina Apiary inspector was talking specifically about treatment-free beekeeping.

She was talking about IPM, which according to what I'm reading, is against the TFB rules.

IPM allows soft treatments, etc. .

[Andrew Dewey]

My understanding of IPM is that it helps the farmer/grower understand through testing or observation what challenges in the form of pests, parasites or diseases are present. Once the problem and scope are known, a method of dealing with the problem can be decided upon. IPM in and of itself doesn't discourage or encourage chemical response to a problem, but instead sets the stage for dealing with the problem. The farmer/grower decides what the response will be and cultural practices may be an important part of the response. It may be that the farmer/grower believes that there can be no "appropriate" use of agricultural chemicals - but that belief isn't a component of IPM.

[WLC]

Folks, my point is that the OP confused an inspector's IPM talk for a treatment-free one.

IPM often stresses the problems caused by the overuse of chemicals/antibiotics.

I don't think that we want to say that IPM is 'absolutely amazing' here.