Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Treatment Free Commercial Beekeepers?

144K views 845 replies 56 participants last post by  Tim Ives 
#1 ·
A few years ago Ted K and I entered into a wager, that within 15 years even commercial beekeepers would be treatment free. In light of some comments made on the "unwritten rules..." thread about the impact of treatments on queens, I was wondering:

Are any commercial beekeepers experimenting with an apiary or so the possibilities of going treatment free? I realize it is an economic impossibility to risk your whole operation, but is anyone testing the possibilities with a small portion of your operation?
Regards,
Steven
 
#47 ·
Jean-marc wrote:

why would anybody even contemplate trying?

A person would have to be "crazy" to go treatment free, but...... sometimes insanity has it's rewards. I am willing to bet that a person with a long family history of beekeeping(161 years) MIGHT just be able to sell their honey to the "carriage trade" at a much higher than average price.

Beemandan:

I agree, heavily parisitized bees most likely would not be as productive as mite free bees, but I can not speak from experience. We can control mites, without SYNTHETIC chemicals, to a level that we believe is below the threshold of damage. Like I mentioned before, the inspector could not find any mites with a casual inspection.

And yes, we are on the small end of commercial, the 100 year average is around 1000 hives.

Crazy Roland
.
 
#49 ·
We can control mites, without SYNTHETIC chemicals,
I guess I'm not understanding. You do treat? but with non synthetic compounds?
And I would also agree that, as a smaller commercial, you could get a premium for tf honey. This is what I believe Dean does. As a honey packer, he pays extra for tf honey and has created a market for it.
 
#48 ·
Specialkayme, by "reinventing the wheel" I'm referring to beekeepers who believe they have to go cold turkey or develop their own treatment free bees, with the attendant risks. Such bees are already available.

The other concern I have, both for the hobby beek and the commercial, is that it seems every time a successful chemical treatment comes along, a few years later the mites have developed resistance.

And believe me, I understand the difference between a guy like me seeking to manage 50 hives a year for several thousand dollars income to supplement my retirement, and the person who runs 1,000 or more and makes his entire living from the bees. I have learned so much from reading the commercial section of the forum, and appreciate your forbearance. I wonder though, if the fact that some of us who don't have our livelihoods at stake, and take risks the commercials cannot afford to take, if we by doing so and sharing information, are thus able to help you all out, maybe just a little bit.

fwiw, I neglected my hives in 2012. Reasons are not important, I just supered when needed, ignored the rest of the time. No swarm management, nothing else. I ended the season with 28 hives. Harvested from 23, but the 28 hive average was 54.96 pounds, higher than the Missouri state average. I had 17 hives on a trailer, parked on the edge of a forested pasture of grass, with some clover. Then I moved that trailer to soybeans for 2-3 weeks. My top three producers: #1, clover, 95 pounds, soybeans 75 pounds, 170 total. #2 I split May 9, produced 105 pounds on soybeans. #3 21 pounds on clover, 154 on soybeans, 175 pounds total. All were headed by B. Weaver queens. It was all the bees, I neglected them. Had I been able to do what needed to be done, the rest of the colonies should have produced better. Just thought you might find it interesting.
Kindest regards,
Steven
 
#52 ·
Specialkayme, by "reinventing the wheel" I'm referring to beekeepers who believe they have to go cold turkey or develop their own treatment free bees, with the attendant risks. Such bees are already available.
Steven,
I understand your point, but I disagree with it. I'm not convinced that such bees are already available.

I've taken treatment free queens and placed them in treated hives, then stopped treatments. They still died from mites. I tried taking treatment free nucs and letting them do their thing, and they still died from mites.

Admittedly, I haven't tried BeeWeaver's queens yet. I have an order for them for this year, but I don't have much hope that my experiences will be any different this time around.

When I discussed my apparent failure with some successful beekeepers, and asked what I did wrong and how I could fix it, the general answer was "I don't know." Some pointed to a number of different suggestions on why it failed, including cell size and location. Ultimately one of the suggestions I was given was that the TF queens I had were not "used" to the area. So I needed to get local treatment free queens, which based on the information available to me are not available. So I was told to start my own, and select for resistance from what I have.

Which all gets me back to the same point. TF available bees don't work in my area. The only way I can make it work is to "guess" on how to make it work with cell size, management styles, and comb rotation, then to select from my own stocks. I don't see how that isn't reinventing the wheel. I don't see that there is a wheel that I can place in my apiary that won't fall off the wagon. I've tried.

Your area, your experiences may be different. But if location plays ANY roll in whether or not a queen can truly be TF or not, I don't see how a migratory operation can successfully be TF. I also don't see how there can be any type of repeatable or reputable source for TF bees on a national level.
 
#51 ·
>> if we by doing so and sharing information, are thus able to help you all out, maybe just a little bit.

Hi Steven

I understand what you are saying, that kind of theme has gone through this forum many times before. Not that this kind of talk is not interesting, because it is, it that this kind of talk always leads to the same conclusion - no treatment, no bees.

Dont think commercial beekeepers dont test the limits, because we all do, and learn from our lessons. My fall mite tolerance levels was once over 5%, I then adjusted that to under 5%, I then adjusted that to under 4%, now I try to manage my fall mite levels under 2%.
Why you may ask?
Because its not just the mite that is affecting our ability to raise bees. Four different viruses, higher levels of virus, nosema, higher pesticide exposure, pesticide residues and nutrition have all compounded our hive health problems making the varroa mite exponentially lethal.

So, its not as simple as just not treating for mites, you have to consider all the other factors to the equation also
 
#56 · (Edited)
Dont think commercial beekeepers dont test the limits, because we all do, and learn from our lessons. My fall mite tolerance levels was once over 5%, I then adjusted that to under 5%, I then adjusted that to under 4%, now I try to manage my fall mite levels under 2%.
Why you may ask?
Because its not just the mite that is affecting our ability to raise bees. Four different viruses, higher levels of virus, nosema, higher pesticide exposure, pesticide residues and nutrition have all compounded our hive health problems making the varroa mite exponentially lethal.

So, its not as simple as just not treating for mites, you have to consider all the other factors to the equation also
This is actually a very interesting observation that could suggest that we need to very quickly create a viable treatment-free bee. By treating we're putting a selective pressure on the mites to improve and are removing the selective pressure from the bees. You've had to step up your treatment regimen continuously because your bees are increasingly less tolerant to the mites/viruses, so it seems that the mites are getting the upper-hand.
 
#57 ·
This is actually a very interesting observation that could suggest that we need to very quickly create a viable treatment-free bee. By treating we're putting a selective pressure on the mites to improve and are removing the selective pressure from the bees. You've had to step up your treatment regimen continuously because you're bees are increasingly less tolerant to the mites/viruses, so it seems that the mites are getting the upper-hand.
Resistance to mite treatments is always a concern, certainly varroa developed resistance to Coumaphous and Fluvalinate pretty quickly. Later mite treatments, though, seem to have held up with little resistance that I am aware of. Let's remember there are two dynamics at work here one is the resistance of mites to miticides but the other is the breeding of bees to better tolerate varroa. My own experience in recent years leads me to be optimistic that the bees are at the very least holding their own.
 
#59 ·
Resistance to mite treatments is always a concern, certainly varroa developed resistance to Coumaphous and Fluvalinate pretty quickly. Later mite treatments, though, seem to have held up with little resistance that I am aware of. Let's remember there are two dynamics at work here one is the resistance of mites to miticides but the other is the breeding of bees to better tolerate varroa.
The risk is that by treating you're making it harder to breed bees that tolerate varroa because you're taking away that selective pressure. I suppose you could still maintaing some of the pressure by only breeding from the hives that need the least treatment.

My own experience in recent years leads me to be optimistic that the bees are at the very least holding their own.
What I found interesting in the comment I was replying to was the progression of increasingly stricter controls for varroa, suggesting that the bees were losing the fight.
 
#58 ·
Is it just me….or does it seem like this thread has taken a significant shift?
It started out as a query for commercial beekeepers who’re treatment free.
 
#64 ·
Way back, I believe it was Ian that said:

no treatment, no bees.

I agree. If you do not do something to counter the mites, their chances of survival is small. StevenG has one approach. I have not been impressed with the honey production or gentleness of the Minn. hygienic, so rather choose to try to select a hygenic bee from a productive stock, than try to select a productive bee from a hygienic stock.

We do treat our bees with numerous mechanical, and "generally considered safe" chemicals(the kind you find in the food store) . We do NOT use synthetic chemicals. It is more work, and more expensive.

I have been n contact with several of the so called "treatment free honey buyers", and none of them have put their money where their mouth is.

Crazy Roland
 
#73 ·
We do treat our bees with numerous mechanical, and "generally considered safe" chemicals(the kind you find in the food store) . We do NOT use synthetic chemicals. It is more work, and more expensive.

Crazy Roland
You see, right there, read what Crazy Roland said, he is right on the money! He is not claiming treatment free, nor is he claiming to keep his bees natural, but he doesnt want to treat with chemical mite treatments and ACTUALLY works his commercial apiary accordingly.

Because thats what this conversation is all about, right, not using chemical mite treatment ,.? Why are we framing the whole issue around treatment free beekeeping?
Treatment free beekeeping is great, but not at all possible in the commercial sense
 
#69 ·
This not being the treatment free Forum, it seems that some bees are being treated with treatments that are not treatments? I cant speak for anyone but myself.....but if you are treating your bees and claiming treatment free, dont expect me to buy your honey as treatment free.
At the moment, We are well.stocked with honey.

Deknow
 
#77 ·
The way I see beekeepers throw around the term natural is what I dont agree with. There is nothing natural about it.
Ian, can you be more specific? I think it would be helpful. As the topic of the thread (I didn't start it or title it) is "treatment free commercial beekeepers", it seems to be that is the topic. We market honey from treatment free operations....we make no claims about "natural". Given that I am the only "buyer of treatment free honey" being discussed here, and that we don't "throw around the term natural" in our online writings, on our website, in our presentations, in our marketing literature, or in our book...this can hardly apply to us.

In my presentations, I do talk about "the natural model" as something to look at in contrast to "replacement beekeeping" (like Dee does), and "expansion beekeeping" (as Kirk does). The most important aspect of "the natural model" (one in which there is no beekeeper) is that, by definition, there is no surplus. Beekeeping is about changing some variables (mostly modifying cavity space...mostly above the brood nest) so that there is a surplus.

First, add a beekeeper to the equation. Second, manage the hive in such a way as to allow yourself to harvest honey. The devil is in the details of course, and the customer has the right to spend their money support whatever practices and standards they please.

deknow
 
#78 ·
I pasted these right out of my last presentation:

[wrt different models of beekeeping...this is the "natural model"]
Nature:
Smaller Colonies
Foundationless Comb w/ Original Broodnest Intact and “Unexpanded”
Plenty of drones
Prolific Reproduction
Hard Selection to the Environment…Boom And Bust
Hives Rarely Breached
Does Not Produce A Surplus

[wrt "The beekeeper's sleight-of-hand"...manipulations to produce honey]
The “Incredible Expanding Cavity” Trick
The Classic “Damaged Nest [above our heads] Needs Repairing _Before_ We Can Afford To Swarm” Con

These Two Concepts Are What Define Modern Beekeeping. These Two Concepts Are The Foundation of All Movable Comb Management Practice.
===================================

I understand that beekeeping isn't "natural". I strive to keep bees (and to support beekeepers) whose practices are the most supportive of the wildness still left in the bee...the ability to thrive on their own. This includes _not_ messing with a complex microbial culture(s). This includes selecting for traits that allow the bees to survive better (be it Dee's walk away splits, Kirk's closed population breeding program, Bob's participation in the formal Russian breeding program, or our own smaller experiment). This includes selecting for traits and management practices that avoid feeding _over_ maximizing honey production.

I'm not critical of what others do...I understand the reasons. You should hear me when we've been invited to do an intro talk for Queen of the Sun talking about how the vast, vast majority of the produce in this country is pollinated by beekeepers of the scale being (rather) vilified in the film they were about to see....and that changing that whole system of farming (and land ownership) probably looks roughly like "Mad Max"....if/when this all changes, I don't think anyone will be dancing in the streets...I think it will be because of some great calamity (famine, nuclear holocaust, plague, alien invasion, etc).

I just think it should be done differently....and I think that enough that we practice what we preach, and we've done our best to come up with a way to move this all forward. We got into this business _because_ we saw such good honey being wasted in blending...not because we were looking to start a honey business.

deknow
 
#81 ·
European Honeybees are Livestock. Livestock brought here along w/ other animals and plants not readily found here in North America in the 17th Century. So, it is proper for us to treat our bees as others treat their cattle and pigs and rabbits and horses, as livestock. As livestock, it is our responsibilty to care for them as best we can for mutual benefit. As far as keeping of bees on a Commercial Level is concerned.
 
#85 ·
I don't know about you, but I think this has been/is a good discussion! :popcorn:

As they say, all beekeeping is local, and perhaps that's one reason why the migratory beekeeper has such difficulty - they're not really "local." They must be able to cope with several different localities, each with it's attendant opportunities and difficulties.

Most of us understand that the mites are vectors for disease. Personally one of the things I look for when examining a hive, and esp. the entrance, is deformed wings. To me that is indicative something serious is going on inside my hive. My other concern is the build-up of chemicals inside the hive.

I suspected commercial beekeepers were trying many different routes to mite control, in addition to chemicals. Some (many?) of you are using mechanical means, instead of or in addition to chemicals. A couple of you have referenced the "o p" and "treatment free", but I don't care if you want to take this off in a tangent dealing with other issues related to mite control, and how to best do it successfully.

The thread has revealed at least one (Specialkayme, but I don't know if he's commercial or sideliner) has experimented with TF bees/queens, without success. (I really hope the B. Weaver trial works for you this year! - keep us posted?).
Regards,
Steven
 
#86 ·
The thread has revealed at least one (Specialkayme, but I don't know if he's commercial or sideliner) has experimented with TF bees/queens, without success. (I really hope the B. Weaver trial works for you this year! - keep us posted?).
I can't claim to be either.

I got up to 29 TF hives in 2011, and was getting ready to cross that line into sideliner. They were TF for 5 years. Not all the same genetics, obviously. Not all in the same location either. Then I suffered a 100% loss. I started spring of 2012 with zero hives. Bought some hives, bought some nucs, split HEAVILY, caught some swarms, was at 15 at the peak of last summer, but had a rough fall/winter. Still heading toward that sideliner goal, but not able to do it without the assistance of treatments.

Sorry if I misled. Just interested in a lively discussion :)
 
#89 ·
Here's another question to toss into the treatment free mix:
And I'm asking, because I'm seeking to learn.

If the end result of any anti-mite program is to enable the bees to survive the mites and thrive, producing surplus honey, etc... why would "treatment free" colonies in close proximity to "treated" bees increase the danger or risk to either?

I understand that mites "migrate" sometimes hitching a ride on bees to flowers, and catching a ride to another colony on a different bee. Perhaps by flying? Also by robbing I'm guessing. So isn't there also a risk among treated hives in close proximity?
Regards,
Steven
 
#91 ·
. why would "treatment free" colonies in close proximity to "treated" bees increase the danger or risk to either?
The menace is varroa infested, failing hives. Once they reach a certain point, every other colony in the neighborhood will have robbers collecting honey and varroa from the collapsing one. It depends on which side of the fence you are on. The tf folks probably think they are at greater risk and the conventional folks feel the same. The reality, I suppose, is whichever is most likely to have varroa infested, failing hives is adding risk to the other..
 
#93 ·
If we go onto a Blueberry farm that we are the only pollinators, we come out smelling good. If we go onto a Blueberry farm with multiple pollinators we come out smelling bad. I doubt TF bees are any worse than the others, they are just different and most likely have antigens that my bees do not have antibodies for...... or at least that is the latest theory I have concocted. :)
 
#97 ·
Excellent points, Beemandan and Ian. I do recall reading about that kind of robbing transfer, as hinted at in my last post.
And based on reports "from the field" we know that both treated, and treatment free hives, succum to the mites. So then is the problem more in the skill and ability (and luck??) of the beekeeper, and less in treated or treatment free bees?

The reason why I mention this is that a few of us TF beeks, myself included, have lost minimal (under 20%) hives each year. In my case, the losses were due to starvation, queen failure, or absconding. The one hive I had with a serious case of dwv pulled out of it, and survived to thrive. I understand that mites could have weakened the colonies, but still, my losses have been very low, generally 6-15%.

From the postings on this page, it seems rather obvious that migrator beekeeping/pollination services places serious stresses and pressures on the bees, that does not occur with stationary beekeeping.
Regards,
Steven
 
#100 ·
The reason why I mention this is that a few of us TF beeks, myself included, have lost minimal (under 20%) hives each year.
I believe that I've stated in the past that, in my opinion, survival is only one measure of success.
When I read peoples’ posts who state:

  1. I don’t test for varroa
  2. I don’t treat for varroa
  3. Varroa aren’t a problem in my bees.
I then believe that they aren’t objective enough for me to engage in a dialog comparing tf/conventional beekeeping. Do these three statements apply to you? If so, I apologize but I don't think we can have a meaningful dialog on the subject.
Regards
Dan Harris
 
#98 ·
Jim, that's kinda my point... What if we assume that a "treatment free" bee deals with varroa and survives, and a treated hive survives, why can't one assume (yes, I know about assumptions :D) that each is equally able to handle the pressures of exposure in holding yards or areas to be pollinated? Assuming the treated and treatment free hive each leaves their home base healthy. I'm just thinking out loud...

In fact, after I move, and make some money this summer from honey sales, I might be tempted to offer to buy 5 or 6 tf queens for a commercial migratory beek to try in his operation, just to see. But then, my cost of the queen doesn't fairly compare to his cost in lost production if the hive crashes... sigh...
Regards,
Steven
 
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