treatment free beekeeping - the risks

[squarepeg]

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]

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.

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.

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.

if i have offended you, please accept my apology.

No worries there.

[jbeshearse]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

....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]

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]

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]

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]

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.