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
 
#102 ·
If we are to look at thi from a militaristic view, as if we are at war with the mites, we would look for it's inherent weakness. I believe it to be inbreeding. Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the breeding all occur inside the capped cell? If so, then as the gene pool becomes more "local" over time, I suspect we are seeing more inbred mites that are less viral. This supported by the results of the experiment on that Danish island, where the hives died back , then leveled off at a sparse level. They had inbred. Mr. Borst speaks of bringing in a feral survivor hive into a commercial apiary, and having it immediately collapse. Again, the survivor had inbred mites, and when they crossed with the commercial mites, hybrid vigor resumed.

How does this tie in? If the first apiary(possibly TF) has adapted(inbred) mites, and the second apiary begins to collapse, that is far, but not too far,those mites brought back back by the robbers will have a compound effect. Not only will there be an increase in the number of mites in the first yard, but in a sort time the vigor of the offspring will will increase when two mites, one from each apiary are in a cell, and the son of a mite from the first apiary mates with the daughter from the second apiary and vise verse(sp?).

Did any of that make sense?

Crazy Roland
 
#104 ·
If we are to look at thi from a militaristic view, as if we are at war with the mites, we would look for it's inherent weakness. I believe it to be inbreeding.
Crazy Roland
Assuming mite inbreeding is a significant factor in how effectively they kill honeybees, and I think it's plausible, the only way I can see to exploit that weakness would be to stop all migratory beekeeping. That's not plausible.
 
#106 ·
Dan, The above post appears to be a claim by you that you are saying
Mites aren’t a problem in my bees. Yet that is one of the two statement you woudl use to disqualify someone from a conversation about mites. Unless of source the two must go together. "I don't have problems with mites so I don't test for mites".
 
#109 ·
Dan, The above post appears to be a claim by you that you are saying
Mites aren’t a problem in my bees.
Maybe I need to go back and read my post as that wouldn't be at all what I wanted to say. What I believe is that mites are a problem in everyones' bees...mine included. And regardless of the failure symptoms, if you look objectively, I believe you will see that mites entered into almost every collapse to some degree.
I am certainly not looking down my nose at small beekeepers. I'm one myself. My point about the tf posters is that everyone claiming success at tf in this thread is not keeping bees on a commercial level. There is a reason the commercial folks treat for mites....and it isn't because they want to support Bayer.
 
#107 ·
I think Dan is saying that there is a certain critical mass of hives that one needs in order to establish the necessity of treating. I tend to agree and I am not looking down my nose at people with a small number of hives as some of the most knowledgeable beekeepers I know have less than 50 hives.
 
#108 ·
This has been an enjoyable thread.

Roland, your analogy is in line with the thinking of other researchers. Mites do not appear to suffer from inbreeding depression the way we look at it in honey bees. If we substitute “virulence” in place of inbreeding your concept fits with the work of others, such as Tom Seeley. He studied feral colonies that were surviving and asked the question of whether it was due to increased resistance on the part of the honey bees, or lower virulence on the part of the mites. His results suggest it may be lower virulence by the mites.

If I may jump to another analogy like a virus, maybe this will be easier for me to explain. If a virus infects an individual and there are lots of other individuals around (think high population density like commercial beekeeping) then it works for the virus to be virulent and kill the host quickly because it will quickly come in contact and be passed on to the next host. But if virus is virulent and kills the host quickly in a low density situation like most hobbyist beekeepers experience then perhaps the virus dies out with the individual before it ever comes in contact with another potential host. Varroa may be acting in a similar manner as you suggest. Varroa is subject to selection too.

I still think Varroa and everything associated with it present the greatest risk to commercial beekeepers. I have not treated my population the last several years, but I worked up to it gradually. I lost bees while treating and lose more without treatment. However, I have adjusted and am able to rebuild numbers quickly. For me it is a management choice to place greater selection pressure on the lines. I do not claim Varroa resistance by any stretch, but I am able to test and evaluate lines under constant Varroa loads. My lines then go into commercial operations where they are subjected to Varroa and other stresses. It is hard to advocate for treatment free in commercial setting when I see what it is like in my operation, but to each their own.

Joe
 
#111 ·
At the risk of drifting even further off topic, it should be pointed out that, though the vast majority of varroa are a result of inbreeding, as populations increase in a hive, though, that may not always be the case. Given that fact, is it too much of a stretch to wonder if higher numbers of hives might lead to a higher probability of cross breeding in mites which are then rapidly spread via robbing?
 
#113 ·
Roland expressed a hypothesis here that I've read elsewhere, about the inbreeding of the mites which reduces their virulence. If I understand him correctly. Others have speculated that the bees and mites develop a balance, a symbiotic relationship. It does no value to the survival of the mite to kill off the host too quickly.

Is that balance attained (apparently) in local areas then upset by the influx of new mites via migratory beekeeping or robbing or when one buys a package of bees to replace deadouts, for example?

So then, looking at it from a national perspective, that symbiotic balance between the bee and the mite may never be attained. Seems to me the reality is that the mite is here to stay - we'll never get rid of it. So how do we get bees that can live with the mite and still thrive? Or is such a thing possible? Personallly I think it is, but time will tell.

And that's why I asked the original question. From the postings, it appears there are a few (very few) commercial beeks who are beginning to work with "treatment free bees" on an experimental basis.

Last year I picked up some B. Weaver queens from a man in St. Peters, MO, who was a drop-off point for a large shipment into the area from B. Weaver. Just think of the genetics getting into the area as swarms issue from those hives. Am I wrong in assuming that we will all benefit?
Regards,
Steven
 
#115 ·
> I don’t test for mites
> Mites aren’t a problem in my bees.
>We don’t have much to discuss because you really don’t have any idea how big of an issue varroa are in your bees.

Sure I do. I know how big of an issue they used to be. I lost all my hives several times. Once I wasn't losing them to Varroa and Varroa were hard to find, why would I keep counting Varroa?

Now I always look to see what my losses are about and they USED to be from Varroa. Why would I keep monitoring Varroa when they haven't been an issue for me for a decade? I have better things to do with my time.
 
#116 ·
Beemandan,

I read your post and feel you have given a lot of thought to this, more so than most perhaps, but you made an interesting statement that I have a question about; " I am certainly not looking down my nose at small beekeepers. I'm one myself. My point about the tf posters is that everyone claiming success at tf in this thread is not keeping bees on a commercial level. There is a reason the commercial folks treat for mites....and it isn't because they want to support Bayer "

Now I'm not looking to pick a fight or to offend anyone, :D but WHY does the fact that one keeps bees as a hobby or commerically for a living have anything to do with varroa? Bees nor varroa know if they are in a commerical or hobbist bee yard. If I have 2 hives and lose 1, and you have 100 hives and lose 50, we both lost 50% of our hives. So again, why discount one's input just because he has less than fifty hives?

Like I said, just honest curiosty? :scratch:
 
#134 ·
WHY does the fact that one keeps bees as a hobby or commerically for a living have anything to do with varroa?
This is an excellent question!
The truth, in my opinion, is that size of the operation doesn’t have anything to do with varroa. It has to do with objectivity.
Commercial beekeepers depend on their bees for their living. To be successful they must not allow themselves to be directed by hopes or desires but by practicality. They are pragmatists. They look at the evidence objectively and act accordingly.
The backyard beekeeper often so badly wants his bees to survive varroa without treatments that he may allow his hope to interfere with his objectivity.
Michael Bush quoted Kirk Webster about not counting mites. But I’m quite certain that Kirk Webster is a pragmatist….and that he doesn’t need to count mites to know they’re a problem. I do random mite testing…but even without I know they are the most serious problem my bees have.
We see, every day, posts from new beekeepers who’ve had their hives collapse. And, nearly without exception, when they list their suspected culprits….they fail to mention the most likely. Why do you suppose that might be?
 
#117 ·
This thread started with asking of any commercial who don't treat. If you are not commercial then keep your opinion to yourself! I dont know of any commercials who dont treat in some shape or form. You wont have strong spring populations for spring pollination if you dont treat mites. Even with russians.
 
#118 ·
"I consider counting mites as a way of evaluating Varroa resistance to be fraught with all sorts of shortcomings and difficulties. It's very time consuming and hence the size of the apiary, the number of colonies tested, the gene pool, and the income available all start to shrink. It's also very easy for the results to be skewed by mites migrating from other colonies or bee yards. And it doesn't show which colonies are more resistant to secondary infections--a trait I consider very important."--Kirk Webster
 
#131 ·
"I consider counting mites as a way of evaluating Varroa resistance to be fraught with all sorts of shortcomings and difficulties. --Kirk Webster
You see...that's only one part of my list. The other is....'Mites aren't a problem in my hives'....and I bet ya twenty bucks that Kirk Webster will readily admit that mites are a problem in his hives.
If ya don't count but acknowledge it's a problem....then I say fine.
 
#120 ·
sooooo,

I say I cant keep my hives alive with varroa levels over 3-5%

others say varroa is not an issue in their hives to the extent that they dont even monitor levels anymore, but they know they still have the mite in their hives,

what can we make of this? am I missing something or are they not recognizing something ?
 
#140 ·
We get them out of the shed by end of March beginning of April, I try to have my treatment in within that week of them out so that the treatment is done by the time I make my split round in May
I find Apivar works best when the bees are active, I find the bees more active during the spring then in the fall. Cool fall weather can stop the treatment time.
 
#142 ·
Mr. Lyon wrote:

is it too much of a stretch to wonder if higher numbers of hives might lead to a higher probability of cross breeding in mites which are then rapidly spread via robbing?

And there we have the answer to the commercial vs/ hobbiest attitudes. The larger gene pool of the commercial operator allows the mite to maintain it's virility.

Beemandan - for reference, we peaked around 420 hives last summer. Still rebuilding from CCD in 2006.

Crazy Roland
 
#143 ·
We treat our bees in the spring like Ian. One advantage is that now populations are at their lowest, so one can use less strips of apivar. The makers of Apivar recommend 1 strip for every 5 frames of bees. In our case most of our hives fall in the range of 5 -10 frames of bees, whereas if we treated in the fall we would have to use 4 strips per hive. Now we can treat with 1 or 2 strips. Most hives have the bees in the top box so no need to crack hives to place strips in the bottom box. I think the varroa are more susceptible to the treatment seeing that they are older after spending the winter on the adult bees. They have not been reproducing seeing as how there is no brood. If bees are indeed in the top box there is little chance that the varroa can crawl back up to a bee. There is limited activity in our hives. The weather is a little cool and wet here. In Ian's neighbourhood it is downright hostile. Bees may not fly for the next 2-4 weeks on account of the cold weather.

Viruses are the issue now. They are in all the bees now. They just need a chance to grow and varroa provides them with that opportunity.

Jean-Marc
 
#144 ·
As has been pointed out, inbreeding is the norm in varroa. Regardless of the size of the operation, varroa do cross breed regularly though. Tom Seeley, I believe, advanced the idea of less virulent mites after finding some heavily infested feral colonies that appeared to be surviving in spite of it.
In my opinion, even if mites became less virulent beekeepers who make their living from bees would still have to treat. The colonies that Seeley found did appear to be surviving but the mite loads were heavy all the same. And in the world of commercial beekeeping survival is not enough. Those mites are parasites. They will still parasitize developing bees, adult bees and vector disease. They will still sap the colony’s vigor, just not enough for a full collapse. A commercial beekeeper with 5000 surviving colonies that produce half the surplus or cannot build up well enough for pollination…that beekeeper is going to have to find another way to make his living.
 
#145 ·
There are two lines of thinking about natural varroa control, in my opinion.
The first is honey bee genetics. Find or breed a bee that will somehow keep varroa populations low…at the same time keeping the desirable qualities i.e. honey production, gentle demeanor etc. Russians and the various hygienics are examples of those attempts. One of the reasons that we haven’t seen greater acceptance of ‘new’ breeds of bees within commercial operations is that they have gotten the reputation for falling short in some of those other important areas.
The other natural control concept is to ‘breed’ a less virulent mite. At this juncture, I don’t see a practical way.
But…if we could breed a productive, workable, varroa tolerant bee AND a less virulent mite…..then we might have something!
 
#146 ·
At this juncture, I don’t see a practical way.
Yes, letting the virulent ones kill of their host hives and thus themselves by not treating is highly impractical for the average commercial beekeeper, I would wager.

How many commercial beekeepers raise their own queens? I find raising one's own queens to be essential in treatment-free beekeeping.
 
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