Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

treatment free beekeeping - the risks

84K views 385 replies 42 participants last post by  GregB 
#1 ·
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.
 
See less See more
#146 ·
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.
 
#145 ·
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?"
 
#149 ·
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?
 
#151 ·
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.
 
#152 ·
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?
 
#153 ·
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.

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.
 
#154 ·
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.
 
#156 ·
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.
 
#158 ·
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.
 
#161 ·
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.

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.
 
#162 ·
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.
 
#163 ·
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.
 
#166 ·
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.
 
#169 ·
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?
 
#167 ·
>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
 
#175 ·
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.
 
#179 ·
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.
 
#182 ·
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.
 
#185 ·
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.
 
#186 ·
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?
 
#187 ·
....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
 
#191 ·
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.
 
#188 ·
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.
 
#189 ·
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.
 
#199 ·
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.
 
#192 ·
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
 
#194 ·
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.
 
#195 ·
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
 
#197 ·
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.
 
#203 ·
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top