Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

"treatment treadmill"

60K views 241 replies 41 participants last post by  Joel 
#1 ·
in post #21, in the thread 'm bush on treatment-free', in the tfb forum, solomon parker writes:

"I do not want a first year beekeeper to start any way but treatment-free. Once on the treadmill, there's no good way to get off."

do any of you feel like you are stuck on a treadmill and can't get off?
 
#2 ·
Not in the least; I thought the logic there was a bit loose! A bees lifetime is so short and the genetics so easily replaced by requeening that previous methods can quickly be history. I like what some are doing by way of control and comparison in running both methods. Unless you are very isolated and have a huge number of hives, the feral background is much more influential than your bees so I dont buy the argument that having treated bees at large is compromising the treatment free experiment
In my opinion," on the treadmill, no good way to get off", are loaded with emotional barbs rather than appealing to rational appraisal of the topic on its own merrits. I try to keep my mind open and peer through the haze of confusion. It will be interesting in 10 years to look back with the clarity of hindsight and see how this played out. In the meantime I wont have all my eggs in one basket.
 
#3 · (Edited)
I'll bite.

I believe in Integrated Pest Management, but do not assert that philosophy on anyone else.

My goal is treatment free, but judicious use of 'chemicals' is on the table for a year or two until I get a good mite and disease resistant apiary. Soft treatments first, stronger only if necessary (hopefully never). Letting the bees die off does not make them stronger. My goal is to find strong and healthy queens with good characteristics and mite tolerance, then, step off the treatment treadmill. I'll keep the bees alive by whatever means necessary until we get the queen issues solved so we can leave them alone.

After a 20 year beekeeping hiatus, I've only seen a handful of mites in my three hives and three NUCS this summer. I've requeened with survivor genes from Bweaver (No, they aren't that defensive) and others, -there is a strong local/feral drone influence in my queens now: I'm optimistic!

Randy Oliver warns about the Beekeeping Taliban. I want to remain open minded and at the same time help beginners when they ask, even guide them some, but let them sink or swim on their own decisions.

No offense to anyone intended with these statements, I know its a hot topic. :)
 
#4 · (Edited)
My goal is to find strong and healthy queens with good characteristics and mite tolerance, then, step off the treatment treadmill. I'll keep the bees alive by whatever means necessary until we get the queen issues solved so we can leave them alone.


I thought the logic there was a bit loose! A bees lifetime is so short and the genetics so easily replaced by requeening that previous methods can quickly be history.

In my opinion," on the treadmill, no good way to get off", are loaded with emotional barbs rather than appealing to rational appraisal of the topic on its own merrits.
my thoughts exactly.

i think the implication for the beginner who aspires to keep bees healthy without treatments is that if you ever start treatments you are committed to them forever.

i would think the beginner would be best served by learning how to recognize a colony that is suffering (an understatement for sure) from mite infestation, along with learning how to clean it up and requeen with resistant stock.
 
#5 ·
I don't like mites, nuff said. I could care less if the bees are survivor stock, vsh, or related to Chuck Norris. I'm killing mites because I don't want to see any around. That being said, I feel no obligation to treat if I don't see mites and I will not use a single method which may lead to resistant mites. I'm even going to see if I can do a Co2 mite drop type sample instead of an alcohol shake.
 
#7 · (Edited)
I want to start off by saying that I do treat my bees with Oxalic Acid vapor in the fall against the Varroa mite, I suppose I could be labeled an organic beekeeper. When I started treating last fall I had only one hive at that time and during the first week in September as I would walk down to my hive I was walking on a carpet of DWV crawlers on their death march from the hive, the hive would have no doubt died off during that winter if something wasn't done quickly, so the OA vapor treatment was the method I chose and the Dwv problem disappeared.I have never regretted it, now I have six hives, treated them in September and will do so again around the end of November to give them a good start for this coming spring.

The Varroa is a parasite and I treat it as such, if the treatment free program turns out to be successful someday and gives us all a new breed of bees that a lot of folks are looking for, I will be among those cheering but I do not think we are there yet so until then I do not have the time, money or the inclination to be replacing deadouts every spring. I do not look down on those who desire to go treatment free but I do get irritated with inflammatory remarks that are used to shed a bad light on those of us who do treat.
 
#8 ·
but I do get irritated with inflammatory remarks that are used to shed a bad light on those of us who do treat.
I get irritated when inflammatory remarks are used against treatment or treatment free beekeepers. Very much like religion and politics. If the other guy holds a different view, people feel it's open season to make snide remarks.
 
#11 ·
I have no issues with being treatment free or wanting to improve your hives resistance. I have issues with letting mites run rampant which doesn't need to be the case. If your bees keep mites down, good, but if your bees get by but you have high mite loads, it's time to re-think your strategy. There's nothing responsible in harboring a large miteload every year. I can understand some years being bad, but if it's constantly high then you need to start doing something. I don't understand what's so complicated about that.
 
#12 ·
First - nice election day logo.

Second - I find the treatment-or-not debate to always be sticky and emotional. We all love our bees, and when the management approach or opinions of others suggest or imply that our own approach is wrong or flawed - it often strikes an emotional chord, and a firey reaction.

None of us wants to be wrong. We all think long and hard about how to manage our bees, and we each feel that our approach is the best we can do.

I'm presently giving treatment free a shot. I have treated with oxalic acid, and it worked just fine in getting my bees through winter. But here's the thing:

The mites just keep coming right back.

With all that humanity is throwing at them, the fact that they're just as strong or stronger than ever really makes me feel like it's just not going to work. I absolutely understand that others see it differently, or face different circumstances that bring them to different conclusions.

But if it's at all possible - if we can - I feel like we have to try.

Adam
 
#13 ·
do any of you feel like you are stuck on a treadmill and can't get off?
Not personally, but I do find that when one goes cold turkey ones bees are very likely to up and die. Hence the treadmill.

It's interesting to see people still thinking that the treatment-free style is new and unproven. I'm happy to be on the cutting edge, but I've been doing it for almost ten years. Surely it's not new anymore.
 
#14 ·
i can appreciate that solomon.

i feel we can all thank the likes of dee lusby, michael bush, and others for pioneering the way.

i heartily agree with the advice that you and others give, to include a viable way of making increase, in order to replenish losses, (whether using treatments or not).
 
#15 ·
...it's pretty hard to un-contaminate comb (and I noticed that Mann Lake is including coumaphos in their variety pack this season). In addition, fumagillin may well be a treatment treadmill...once you start, you have to reapply.

http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/files/147880.pdf
Having seen the previous data, it is interesting to note what Zachary Huang’s lab discovered (ABJ abstract #14) about feeding fumagillin to honey bees to control Nosema ceranae. In their studies, they found that the antibiotic impacts both the parasite and the protein makeup of the honey bee intestinal tract. In fact, as the level of fumagillin decreases in the bees over time, it reaches a low level which actually stimulates spore production of N. ceranae. A similar effect is seen with N. apis, but it is not nearly so pronounced.
 
#17 ·
That's a tough question Squarepeg. It certainly couldn't hurt. Whatever is done, I recommend rapid and profuse splitting. You'll have a better chance of not having all the hives die at once, and that's my main focus. These new hives will probably also be building new clean comb which can only help as well.
 
#18 ·
I am treatment free because I have never found a reason to treat.

I have never seen a mite in/around/near my bees. And yes, I do test. I also do not even know what a SHB looks like. The only things I have seen in my hives, other than bees is: a spider last week, and an earwig, also last week.

I think something should be said for getting resistant stock in the first place and not using used equipment. :lookout:
Personally, I got Italians from California and then requeened with resistant stock.
 
#21 ·
I am treatment free because I have never found a reason to treat.

I have never seen a mite in/around/near my bees. And yes, I do test. I also do not even know what a SHB looks like. The only things I have seen in my hives, other than bees is: a spider last week, and an earwig, also last week.
Give it some time. I went for a year-and-a-half before I found mites.
 
#20 ·
It depends on the case. So much of beekeeping is subjective and local. Some have certain resources, others don't. I'm still working on a one-size-fits-all solution. I'll tell you when it's finished. ;)

I try not to opine about that which I have not done myself. However, I know of people who have used that approach and it has worked for them.

I have also experienced obtaining a treated hive, not treating it, and it promptly dying. That was my father's short foray into beekeeping. He's done it twice now. I don't recommend it.
 
#22 ·
I have also experienced obtaining a treated hive, not treating it, and it promptly dying. That was my father's short foray into beekeeping. He's done it twice now. I don't recommend it.
ouch. sounds like your dad should have bought bees from you instead. :)

so in a case like this, you are not recommending stopping treatments cold turkey, but rather agressively splitting the hive and introducing new genetics?

i do respect anyone's desire not to use treatments, but in a case like this, would it not make sense to knock down the mite load with a soft treatment prior to making the splits? (with the long term goal of avoiding the 'treadmill').

(assuming vaorra is the problem)
 
#23 ·
...this was just posted on "another forum"....talk about a treadmill.
At the Bee conference in Tampa, FL this past week, Dr Diana Sammataro gave 3 different talks on mites. One of her studies is on: what effect does what we feed our bees have on the mites in the hive. She isolated the study into 3 groups. The first group was allowed to feed in the wild, the second were fed pollen that was collected and sold to beeks and the third were fed pollen substitutes. To control the bee’s source of food, she had the second 2 groups of hives in tents. She found it is hard to keeps them alive for any great length of time in tents. All three groups had the queens in laying cages (square cage over the comb) to control the day the eggs were laid and only in the control area. On the 8th day (they day before they are capped) they were placed in hives that were heavy in mites. Each mite hive had 1 frame from each group. After they were capped the frames were removed and just before the bees hatched they were opened and the mites were counted. She just recently got the results from her first try. The natural fed bees had an average of about 43 mites on the worker brood, the pollen had an average of around 53 mites on worker brood (no drones allowed in the test cases) but the pollen substitute averaged around 273 mites on the worker brood.
As you can imagine, this was a total surprise. She showed pictures of the results. The bees from the substitute were covered with mites. She did note that these same bees were on average heaver that the other bees.
Diana is still working on this to determine what is happening with this situation.
Jim
 
#24 ·
I think the analogy of drinking is pretty apt here.

If you have a drinking problem, and you decide that you want to stop drinking, there are lots of things to consider....how are you going to stop? What are you going to do when you feel the urge to drink? How are you going to handle emotionally tough situations without taking a drink?

Well, in the end, if one wants to quit drinking, at some point they have to take their last drink...and not take another one. This doesn't mean that you won't be in a situation where you want a drink...where you think (in the moment) that a drink might help. ...it is these tough situations where the battle is ultimately won or lost, as there is always going to be something tough to deal with that seems to demand a drink.

The same is true of beekeeping. There will always be some challenge that seems to demand treatment. If you want to treat in such a situation, that is your own business (as long as you are honest about it)...but I think it is impossible to be "treatment-free" this way....parasites and disease are always evolving and changing....there will always be a challenge which would seem to be addressed by a treatment....but this is the same slippery slope of "this has been a tough day, I think I need one drink to get through it".

As long as treatments are the "back up plan", they will always be used...if not this year, then next year.

The idea that there are things called "soft treatments" and that they are somehow warm and fuzzzy is flawed in the extreme. The soft treatments (essential oils, organic acids) are more destructive to the microflora of the bees...and most definitely directly to the bees directly as well....they are substances that are less harmful to humans, but they are not "soft", and they are not "natural". Anyone that is concerned about fungicides affecting their bees (and that should be all beekeepers), should consider that thymol is a really strong antifungal agent.

The only thing "soft" about the soft treatments is the soft sell used to make beekeepers believe they are being "natural" or "organic" or "kind to the bees".

deknow
 
#26 ·
@deknow - agree with you regarding reality of "soft" treatments. Here in Maine our state apiarist tells us that the mites have developed resistance to the "hard" treatments and so the so called "soft" treatments are what remain as effective. People need to remember that they are still treatments, and while many of them are synthetic recreations of naturally occurring substances, there is nothing natural about using them in a bee hive. That said, I have some colonies that get treated, and some that don't. The hard part for me is keeping brood frames & boxes sorted out so that the TF bees don't inadvertently get treated.

Some areas are easier to do TF beekeeping than others. Thus far my TF bees have not made much honey and many have died. I'll be very interested to see what I'm left with following winter.
 
#28 ·
I think we are talking about the danger of the beekeeper falling off the wagon because of his psychological treatment dependancy. That would seem to say that you must not ever treat or it will destroy your resolve and you will be forever ****ed. Carnal knowledge can never be shed. That could be true but the bees do not have such emotional connection. That is a toothless bogeyman, lol!

Now if there is a case for developing chemical dependency or functional alteration upon the part of the bee I can buy into that; bio-accumulation in brood comb with the likes of coumophos could have subtle and ongoing effects on the bees. I think there is a fair bit of evidence to support that. Most certainly it is subject to developing resistance as well. That is a bad treatment and there are others like it, but that does not make treatment in itself all bad (unless from the angle of my first paragraph).

I think there are treatments that physically home in on anatomical vulnerabilities of mites for instance that have little effect on bees and do little more than temporarily altering the ph of the comb surfaces. A lesser evil perhaps than the mite would otherwise inflict on the hive. I think that would be a good treatment and I cannot see it creating any crippling dependency like being stuck on a treadmill. I think we should be very, very cautious about any treatment but I think it is irrational to avoid any and all as a mantra.

I will use a personal experience to create an analogy for treatment. I was instructing a course on heavy equipment operation for a bunch of rather raggedy ath and bob tailed men and came down with persistant jock itch from the foam seats. Medicated powder every nite curatively and every morning profilactically gave me great relief. Now I could have just continued to scratch if I were so inclined but this seemed a good treatment.
 
#30 ·
I think we should be very, very cautious about any treatment but I think it is irrational to avoid any and all as a mantra.
I was with you until this. Your really think it is irrational? That's the kind of argument you want to make against an opposing position? Against my position? That's a bit much.
 
#29 ·
I guess I don't look at it that way, but, maybe like an addict, the first step is recognizing the existence of a problem.

Amongst some of my Commercial Beekeeping friends we oft times talk about how it seems like we spend a lot more time nowadays throwing medications/treatments on our hives to keep as many as possible alive and populous, which was much much less so 30 years ago. Presently we are almost Honeybee Veternarians(sp?).

What one does is determined by what one's goals are.
 
#37 ·
I'll write down the first sentence and websearch it.
Just don’t forget Mark…Google is watching! After the search be prepared to find yourself inundated by related ads.

At the Bee conference in Tampa, FL this past week, Dr Diana Sammataro gave 3 different talks on mites.

Tampa, FL – vacations, air travel to, real estate
Sammataro – sumo wrestling tickets, vacations to Sumatra
mites – Raid pest control products, mitre saws


And who knows what else. ;)
 
#45 ·
Squarepeg, in some cases I do mean that, depending on the chemical. Not every item of course, but my case is for total non-treatment. The bees can handle (should handle) disease by themselves. The reason many can't is because the process of selection has not been allowed to take its natural course. Beekeepers are keeping weak bees unable to deal with disease because they have made them that way out of fear that the bees would die.

"One often finds his destiny on the path he takes to avoid it." - Master Oogway
 
#51 ·
Usually no treatment beekeeping is associated with "natural" (Dee Lusby, Michael Bush) beekeeping which involves regression to small cell. Natural beekeepers will say their bees do not need treatment because they are naturally smaller (like the smaller apis cerana and africanized bee which similarly cope with varroa). Dee says it's the smaller segments between the body parts. I think it may also have to do with them being survivor stock (hygienic) which implies some colonies will die. Philosophically I agree with the "naturalists" but the pragmatist in me needs visible proof and the lack of comprehensive, scientific studies verifying no treatment, small cell beekeeping leaves me wondering why there is not more. So for now letting colonies die and passing pests and viruses on to other colonies is not an option. At this point I am I think classified "organic" (organic treatment). Breeding hygienic, survivor stock is a good start.
 
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