Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Treatment Free: It's a path, not a solution

41K views 253 replies 40 participants last post by  drummerboy 
#1 ·
I have been treatment free for about 15 months now. I mean that in the "truest" sense - no manipulations or additions of any kind for the purpose of combating mites. The bees have struggled, and one could say that the treatment free approach I'm using is "not working" very well. So I have been considering my alternatives. And I find myself wondering if it's really fair to ask treatment free to "work". Isn't it really just choosing a different way to approach beekeeping - one with a certain set of challenges that must be overcome? One could say that it's "living with mites", but then again, that is what everyone does. I feel like it's often just about living with mites, and not fighting them directly.

I quit treating last April, and entered last winter with 11 hives. Came out with 8. Lost two or three through the spring and early summer and have built back up through cut-outs and swarms to 18 at this point. I have just set up nucs for the year. 10 of my number are those nucs.

Over the last few years I have done a lot of study; reading everything I could find on ways of dealing with varroa, working with the bees - and in the end, I feel that for me personally, it just make the most sense not to interfere with the mite.

At the end of the day, I've come to believe that keeping bees without treatments (for the most part) really just amounts to managing bees with mites. Sure, you can graft from your best and work toward a more resistant bee, but with most of us living in areas where there are plenty of other, treated bees around, your progress could be slow.

Many people who are treatment free talk about making increase from "catching swarms" and "feral survivors", but I believe that most of those bees are just swarms from other people's treated bees, so all that collecting just amounts to replacing lost bees with new bees. The only difference really is that you worked for them, rather than paid for them, and in many cases, you can at least count the fact that if they came early enough in the season, the queen probably wintered at least once in your locality.

There are so many challenges that face bees (pesticides, pests, disease, weather) and beekeepers (economics, pests, disease, weather, insanity) that the death or poor performance of a colony could be the result of any combination of things. Mites are one, albeit a major one.

If you look at treatment free in the broadest sense; across all the people who take that approach, it really isn't about some genetic secret. It isn't about small cell. It isn't about not feeding sugar syrup, pollen sub or using three deeps or all mediums. There really isn't "a solution" in terms of some remedy that will rid the bees of mites.

It's about not treating.

So from what I can see, it really boils down to not fighting mites, and then managing day-to-day, month-to-month around the results. It's about deciding that you don't want to artificially combat mites and then replacing the work of doing so with other work.

Isn't it?

Adam
 
See less See more
#144 ·
Ray: Excellent points all. There is already evidence that Amitraz can cause some issues with queens and we know for a fact that hives treated with Coumaphous cant raise cells. I wouldnt be surprised to find out fluvalinate has some issues as well, these are pesticides designed to kill insects, albeit insects smaller than honeybees. Spring treatments (while making increase) in particular have to be looked as a potential reason for under performing or early failing queens.
 
#149 ·
Yes. It could be my weak interpretation, but I feel like Dr. Delaplane has way too deep a resumé to dismiss what he's saying too quickly. Then again, I may be too ready to listen deeply to those with way more experience than I - leading to lots of indecision and rethinking of methods. Keith Delaplane has more experience, more formal education in the field of entomology, and access to a much broader range of beekeepers and geography than I do. I can't help but approach things he and people like him say with an open mind. I start by assuming they know something I don't, and then try to "catch up" with further consideration and research.

I think he makes some very interesting points, and ones worth serious consideration. But again, it could be just me.

Adam
 
#150 ·
The most interesting part of the talk, to me, was his description of the experiment where they inseminated queens with, I think, the semen of 15 drones, 30 drones, and 60 drones. The results were pretty astonishing. Makes one think that the whole business of bee breeding is almost incomprehensibly complicated.

(For folks who haven't watched the video, the colonies headed by the 30 drone and 60 drone queens were significantly healthier, and maybe smarter-- the pink syrup portion of the experiment.)
 
#151 ·
For folks who haven't watched the video
Sometimes, RAldridge, your droll humour is quite funny LOL. :)

Also the part you refer to about the benefits to the colony from larger numbers of drones mated with was very interesting and something I had not really considered in the past, I only thought it mattered that she had "enough".

I found the video a bit slow moving and after a while considered turning it off, but in the end it was a worthwhile watch and along with RAldridge, without naming anyone, would recommend it to any "folks who haven't watched the video". LOL
 
#155 · (Edited)
Mike I will not answer everything you raised, point by point. Too boring.

But in general terms, in the latter part of your post you explained your rational for thinking drone laying queens and workers are a good thing in the general scheme. I have already considered the theory you presented years ago and discarded it. I was also thinking about this theory at the same time I wrote my previous post that you claim to have refuted. Your theory is not something nobody has thought about before. And your theory certainly does not disprove my previous post. It's another theory that's all, and a rather bad one. There's a difference.

You ask why I just said no without explanation? And you suggested I am lazy. That was funny, cos you are right. I am too lazy to offer explanation when I know you will not accept it. But just cos I'm a nice guy, I'll give it a shot.

But first, you demand proof. But, when you made your original assertion in post #146, you didn't offer any proof. So, why do you demand higher standards from others, than yourself?

I have not dissected all returning drones after a queen mating to examine their entrails, you are correct. But by saying that you may have outsmarted yourself not me, because mated drones do not return to the hive. Surprised an expert such as yourself did not know that LOL. ;) I still find you light on facts.

However the reasons I have for believing that drones raised in worker cells do not compete successfully with normal drones, is from what I have read, and from personal experience. According to the reading I have done, drones raised in worker cells are viable, and capable of mating. But dissections have found they contain very little and sometimes no sperm. The belief of authors I have read is they are little or no use if you want queens mated. my own experience in this matter is not conclusive, but is certainly consistent with what I have read. Sometimes in winter a queen will go drone layer, and sometimes in a strong hive (our winters are mild), a hive can get filled with literally thousands of worker sized drones. On two occasions when this happened, as an experiment, I have made bees raise queen cells to see if they will mate. But despite the presence of a hive nearby with thousands of these drones, and the drones flying busily on warm days, none of these queens ever mated.
OK so it's only 2 experiments so not conclusive. But it is consistent with what I've read.

I have no references to my reading material so call me a liar again if you wish. It's stuff I read over the years probably not even on the net. I do recall Mike Bush discussing it at least once but cannot give you the reference for that either.

So you may go ahead and attempt to disprove everything that I said, but it won't bother me, I don't care. I am happy to discuss stuff with the willing, but have no interest in trying to convert anyone who refuses to accept anything I say. What you accept or don't accept is entirely over to you, and is not my problem. Refute away.
 
#156 ·
I was also thinking about this theory at the same time I wrote my previous post that you claim to have refuted. Your theory is not something nobody has thought about before.
A major part of bringing it up is to try to discover whether anyone has considered it before. Especially in a scientific fashoin.

And your theory certainly does not disprove my previous post.
It does undermine your rationale for dismissing it.

I'm not looking to proove anything by the way. I'm trying discover what the evidence is for certain beliefs, in order to be able to base my reasoning on that evidence. And I haven't asked you for proof. I've asked for evidence that supports your opinion. Evidence that might - and might not - convert that opinion to some sort of firmer knowledge.

You ask why I just said no without explanation? And you suggested I am lazy.
I'm not sure I did. I did try to point out that giving good reasons is a lot harder than just throwing assertions and opinions about. But infinitely more constructive.

But first, you demand proof.
Evidence

But, when you made your original assertion in post #146, you didn't offer any proof. So, why do you demand higher standards from others, than yourself?
I didn't make any ungrounded claims, and was clear that what I suggested was speculative. And I gave a detailed rationale.

If you want to _show_ that the rationale is flawed, either through poor reasoning, flawed premises, or counter-examples, or any other (valid) way, go ahead. You haven't done that yet.

I have not dissected all returning drones after a queen mating to examine their entrails, you are correct. But by saying that you may have outsmarted yourself not me, because mated drones do not return to the hive. Surprised an expert such as yourself did not know that LOL. ;)
What I said was:

"You could well be right, but my question to you is: how do you know that? What evidence can you offer? Do you analyse the drone's entrails on the return of the queen?"

Rather shot yourself in the foot there didn't you :).

However the reasons I have for believing that drones raised in worker cells do not compete successfully with normal drones, is from what I have read, and from personal experience. According to the reading I have done, drones raised in worker cells are viable, and capable of mating. But dissections have found they contain very little and sometimes no sperm.
That is very interesting, thank you. Is there any chance you might direct me to the reading?

Note, that doesn't impact on my speculations about failing queens...

The belief of authors I have read is they are little or no use if you want queens mated. my own experience in this matter is not conclusive, but is certainly consistent with what I have read. Sometimes in winter a queen will go drone layer, and sometimes in a strong hive (our winters are mild), a hive can get filled with literally thousands of worker sized drones. On two occasions when this happened, as an experiment, I have made bees raise queen cells to see if they will mate. But despite the presence of a hive nearby with thousands of these drones, and the drones flying busily on warm days, none of these queens ever mated. OK so it's only 2 experiments so not conclusive. But it is consistent with what I've read.
Again, interesting, thank you.

I have no references to my reading material so call me a liar again if you wish. It's stuff I read over the years probably not even on the net. I do recall Mike Bush discussing it at least once but cannot give you the reference for that either.
Asking somebody for the reasons for their beliefs doesn't amount to calling them a liar.

So, if we accept your position, the laying-worker thesis is in doubt. That still leaves the (stronger) failing queen thesis in play, doesn't it?

Mike (UK)
 
#158 ·
I've come across the the theory that a laying worker hive is a last-ditch attempt to pass along its genes, in that the drones produced from laying workers pass along their patrilineal genetics. This to me presents no contradictions with evolutionary strategy, in that most often a hive goes queenless not because of any genetic weakness, but because a bird ate the queen on her mating flight. A big strong laying worker hive would produce many more drones than a weak sick hive, so the better genes would tend to dominate.
 
#159 ·
That's what Mike has just been trying to say for the last few posts, did you read them?

This is the problem with having a theory and working things out by logic (ones own of course), but being light on facts.

While it is a tidy little theory that a doomed drone only hive is trying top pass on it's genetics, the reality is that a hive with failed queen and drones in worker cells is actually an aberration brought about through a failure of some kind. IE, the queen was not able to mate properly, or she died prematurely without the bees having a chance to supersede.

As I've pointed out, all the evidence is that worker sized drones contribute virtually zero to the mating pool. So a hive will contribute the most, by running normally, and contributing a good number of drones throughout the season. Not just a quick spurt of stunted ones while the hive has it's death throws.

In addition, drone laying workers in EHB are almost invariably brought about by some mistake, or series of mistakes, made by the beekeeper. They rarely occur in the wild when the bees are left to their own devices. They are an aberration, not a breeding strategy. And prior to mites, drone laying queens where a rarity. When I started beekeeping there were no mites and we used no chemicals in the hives. Drone laying queens were such a rarity that my first season in an outfit with 4,000 hives I didn't see one. The next year we had one or two can't remember. Now drone laying queens are so common that even in my small outfit I get several per year. I believe it is brought about by our assault on the bees and their environment with chemicals, it is not natural, nor a breeding strategy, it is an aberration.
 
#160 ·
Reading all these theories people are putting together, without backing them on facts, is kind of like science fiction, and I believe there are some members here with good potential as designers of a science fiction scenario for a story.

In science fiction, entire planets are created with life forms etc all tailored to the planet environment and relationships with each other based on adaptively. I enjoy these type of films, Avatar was a great example. A neatly designed planet ecosystem all fitting together and working within the theories of evolution. Such a place could exist. But that does not mean it does exist. In the pages of theories presented here, all logical of course, there is a lack of facts, in other words, while logical, much is conjecture.

Such as, this drone theory. Neat theory, but, not the reality.

Do you guys really want to construct a theoretical world around you partly true partly false? When postulating theories at least take the time to see if it is also the reality. There are pages of theory here without one supporting fact.
 
#164 ·
Friedrich Ruttner (Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee) at first seems to recommend 8km between mating stations and unwanted genetics, though he seems to moderate this to 4km a little further on.

He also recommends raising vast numbers of drones from selected queens. His method is to tie in bits of drone comb to make whole frames, have them laid up by the selected queen/s, and then raised and housed in nursery hives that become 'drone colonies'.

He also talks about a 'guard ring' of such hives around the mating station, outlining the sorts of numbers required for mating a specific number of queens.

He speaks of the short lives of drones, and the need to co-ordinate drone-raising and mating requirements.

Mike (UK)
 
#162 ·
In German studies, drones traveled up to 5 km. A single Drone Concentration Area had 238 separate colonies represented (based on mark and recapture studies). In an Arizona study, a 2 x 5 km block had multiple flyways and congregation areas (26!) where flyways crossed.

The discussion in both studies have drones making optimization decisions -- they distribute over several areas and optimize for time spent aloft, and mating likelihood.

A recent German study shows strong bias by drones to the closer DCA versus distant. No description of the Queen preference.

A obligate out-crossing mating system with promiscuous queens is going to maintain enormous variability in the F2 generation (i.e. the daughter queen's workers).

Most of the discussion on this forum conflates bee genetics with dog breeding. It is very different imperative-- the whole evolutionary strategy of the bee is stable morphology-- it is all about forcing flowers (and parasites) to evolve to what the bee desires, not changing the bee to the flower.

There is fascinating microsatellite studies of Mediteranean bees. In Algeria, where thousands of Italian queens were imported during the colonial period, there are zero Italian genetics in the mitochodria DNA-- it is all the native "Moroccan" subtype. Mitochondria descends outside the nucleus recombination-- and indicates the wild type has completely suppressed the "improved" introduction at tje queen level. This can be interpreted both as a case study in "local" races and as a cautionary tale about improving genetics in bees through wild out-crossing.

Yes you can change the genetics of the honeybee, but to maintain lines with high entropy, you need isolation and saturation. Think offshore islands (per Baton Rouge trials), multi-hundred unit daughter colonies surrounded by sterile water or cornfields. Saturation and Isolation-- the keys to moving an outcrossing genotype -- unless you have that the "selection" is going to revert very quickly. Remember the future colony will express the F2 generation in its social survival-- double hybrid distance from the mother queen.

If you are in a suburban backyard with a woodlot of hollow trees and a yard of 15 to 20 hives-- your genotype is going to regress to the wild norm-- simple and cruel mathematics. (Many of the most vocal advocates of TF beekeeping are in this type of apiculture).

In order to resolve whether this type of yard has any contribution to make to changing genotype through non-treatment selection, an evaluation of the "survivor hive" concept needs to be made. Two possibilities pertain: wild hives reflect the agricultural predominance of the southern queen breeders, or wild hives represent a unique "survivor genotype" local to the area. I haven't seen real evidence to support the "survivor hive" theory, but the published record is riduculously spotty for the core question. Some of my reluctance to embrace the "survivor hive" postulate is due to the Africanized Hybrid that increasing dominates my region -- the genetic drift is moving to AHB, and not to some other equilibrium.

Sources:
Arizona Study: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25085360?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102527347043
German Study: http://dunkle-biene.de/downloads/dca---drone-congregation-areas.pdf
German Near site selection: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00040-004-0763-z#page-1
 
#167 ·
Journal article available online -- Use Google Scholar Search -- specialized search option just for Academic sources.

Honey Bee Drone Flyways and Congregation Areas: Radar Observations
Gerald M. Loper, Wayne W. Wolf and Orley R. Taylor, Jr.
Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society
Vol. 65, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 223-230
-- really cool paper on flyways and DCA is Arizona. MUST READ


Drone competition at drone congregation areas
in four Apis species1
Nikolaus KOENIGER, Gudrun KOENIGER*, Michael GRIES and Salim TINGEK
Apidologie 36 (2005) 211–221
-- Great bibliography

Koeniger N., Koeniger G. Pechhacker H. (2005) The
nearer the better? Drones (Apis mellifera) prefer
nearer drone congregation areas, Insectes Soc. 52

Landscape analysis of drone congregation areas of the honey
bee, Apis mellifera
Alberto Galindo-Cardonaa*, Journal of Insect Science: Vol. 12 | Article 122
 
#169 ·
Interesting paper.

Of central interest to me is the idea that to get good breeding, we need to maintain drone yards, or drone colonies at least a mile from the apiary containing our mating nucs. Do we?

So quotes from the paper:

"Selected drone congregation areas were regularly observed for five years to verify that the dimensions of these congregation zones did not change greatly during this time (Ruttner and Ruttner 1968). When strange colonies were introduced into the vicinity, new drones were found at the congregation areas on the first day in equal proportion with local drones. This was true for congregation zones both near and distant to the apiary (2-3 km)...

"Drone congregation areas are commonly visited by drones from almost every apiary in the neighborhood..

"Areas as far as five km from an apiary may be visited regularly by numerous drones; some drones were found coming from more than six km away...

"Although the number of drones in a congregation area is quite variable, one such area had an estimated 25,000 drones from more than 200 colonies (Winston 1987). Several regularly frequented DCA’s were observed 500-1000 m from the nearest apiary.

"it was determined that the composition of the DCA contained equal representation from the local colonies, approximately 240 in number. Considering the density of colonies around the congregation area and average flight ranges of males, the results suggested that most colonies within the recruitment parameter of a DCA delegated equal proportions of males to a DCA. Consequently, the relatedness of a queen to her mates – and ultimately the inbreeding coefficient of the progeny – should be minimal. The relatedness among the drones mated to a common queen is also very low, maximizing the genetic diversity among the different patrilines (paternal sub-families) of a colony."


Now, reading that, I feel like it really wouldn't make a bit of difference if I went to the trouble of locating drone yards a mile away. All the DCA's in the area are still going to be frequented by those drones; in relatively equal parts to other colonies in the area. So diversity is maintained through the drones splitting up and spreading themselves out between DCA's. Queens don't really need to do anything to "avoid" their own drones, as the genetics are as diverse as there are enough healthy colonies in the area to produce drones.

It seems to me that it is enough for me to maintain healthy bees, graft queens and open mate. My colonies will influence the gene pool of the area proportionately.

So if you really want to influence the genetics, you have to have more colonies in the area than anyone else. And that "flooding the area" approach is done by many, and has been done for a long time.

Trying to maintain yards at distances for better mating with your own queens might just be a waste of time...

Adam
 
#171 · (Edited)
Trying to maintain yards at distances for better mating with your own queens might just be a waste of time... Adam
It might be unnecessary, but it might also tip the scales your way. It will be dependent on how many treaters you have around, and how many resistant hives you have. You wouldn't expect to be able to maintain resistance with a few hundred treated hives around if you only had half a dozen. From that extreme example, and its reverse, you can extrapolate that the more you can get your drones into the game, the better.

As I said before, it seems to me that more attention you pay to this aspect, the more you increase your chances of success - at least if there are treaters around. If there are ferals all around your yard its a different story. I haven't read anything yet that makes me think its not a good idea, for me, to try to maintain say 4 outstands at a mile or two's distance around my yard as a genetic measure. And to encourage them to raise good numbers of drones.

We've read that ""it was determined that the composition of the DCA contained equal representation from the local colonies... " and that DCA's are populated more by nearer colonies. The latter makes more sense to me. As distance increases the likelihood of drones from a given colony must decrease.

I've read somewhere that you only need a few patrilines with mite-management behaviours to provide resistance. Probably there's an optimum of some sort, though given that there are several distinct behaviours the picture must be rather complex. But I think an equally important issue is that you want to maximise the chances of the daughter queens of the one mated to carry the right genes - not just for immediate purposes, but into the future. The next generation queen will be a product at random of her mother and one of the mated drones, and may or may not inherit the required behaviours from her mother (50% chance in each case). So the more resistance-carrying drones her mother has mated with the better - at least up to a point.

That's my attempt at rationalising matters on the info we've seen. But really I'm running with the intuition that more good colonies * more drones = more positive matings, and the longstanding understanding of people like Ruttner, Manley, and Solomon, that keeping dedicated drone colonies around a mating yard makes a positive difference. It makes sense, whereas taking no action against my local treaters doesn't. I don't need to know the ins and outs of it all.

Mike (UK)
 
#170 · (Edited)
Erickson published the "recipe" for breeding resistant stock in 2000. This recipe is very distinct from an undirected "Bond" approach.
His six steps are:
1. Identify Varroa-tolerant colonies in your
apiaries.
2. Move all colonies identified as Varroa tolerant
to a single isolated test apiary. This
apiary should be at least 3-4 miles from
managed colonies treated for mite control.
3. Monitor Varroa levels in the selected
colonies every three months.
4. Graft only from those colonies with the
lowest mite loads…Never use colonies
with known problems such as disease,
poor productivity or unacceptable defensive
behavior, no matter how Varroa-tolerant
they may appear.
5.Mate all queens in the isolation test apiary.
6. Requeen colonies in your other apiaries
as queens become available. Once requeened,
these colonies become candidates
for future selections of improved
Varroa-tolerance, hence, the need for
good record keeping. (viz: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/169463...roducing+varroa+tolerant+honey+bee+RECIPE.pdf )

The promoters of a "Live-and-let-die" theory don't address the issue of inbreeding or genetic swamping -- the Erickson prescription and the Russian program address these explicitly.

On inbreeding read: Harbo and Harris : viz: http://www.researchgate.net/publica...unselected_drones/file/9fcfd50c8b649c009c.pdf

Note they did 3 conditions: Resistant x Resistant crosses, R x Control , and C x C. The R x R queens were 100% hygenic, but produced on 1/2 the brood of free mated sisters. The loss of productivity is the mark of inbreeding. The Russian breeding program now takes out-crossing very seriously through grafting from one lineage for the virgin queens and yearly drone hive circulation from out-yards to saturate drones of a different lineage.

Improved selection requires A) isolation and B) saturation. There is very strong inertia in the bee breeding system (promiscuous obligate out-crossing) to revert to the normal genotype.
 
#172 ·
I have been treatment free for about 15 months now. I mean that in the "truest" sense - no manipulations or additions of any kind for the purpose of combating mites. The bees have struggled, and one could say that the treatment free approach I'm using is "not working" very well. So I have been considering my alternatives. And I find myself wondering if it's really fair to ask treatment free to "work". Isn't it really just choosing a different way to approach beekeeping - one with a certain set of challenges that must be overcome? One could say that it's "living with mites", but then again, that is what everyone does. I feel like it's often just about living with mites, and not fighting them directly.

I quit treating last April, and entered last winter with 11 hives. Came out with 8. Lost two or three through the spring and early summer and have built back up through cut-outs and swarms to 18 at this point. I have just set up nucs for the year. 10 of my number are those nucs.

Over the last few years I have done a lot of study; reading everything I could find on ways of dealing with varroa, working with the bees - and in the end, I feel that for me personally, it just make the most sense not to interfere with the mite.

At the end of the day, I've come to believe that keeping bees without treatments (for the most part) really just amounts to managing bees with mites. Sure, you can graft from your best and work toward a more resistant bee, but with most of us living in areas where there are plenty of other, treated bees around, your progress could be slow.

Many people who are treatment free talk about making increase from "catching swarms" and "feral survivors", but I believe that most of those bees are just swarms from other people's treated bees, so all that collecting just amounts to replacing lost bees with new bees. The only difference really is that you worked for them, rather than paid for them, and in many cases, you can at least count the fact that if they came early enough in the season, the queen probably wintered at least once in your locality.

There are so many challenges that face bees (pesticides, pests, disease, weather) and beekeepers (economics, pests, disease, weather, insanity) that the death or poor performance of a colony could be the result of any combination of things. Mites are one, albeit a major one.

If you look at treatment free in the broadest sense; across all the people who take that approach, it really isn't about some genetic secret. It isn't about small cell. It isn't about not feeding sugar syrup, pollen sub or using three deeps or all mediums. There really isn't "a solution" in terms of some remedy that will rid the bees of mites.

It's about not treating.

So from what I can see, it really boils down to not fighting mites, and then managing day-to-day, month-to-month around the results. It's about deciding that you don't want to artificially combat mites and then replacing the work of doing so with other work.

Isn't it?

Adam
I heard an interview with Thomas Seeley on NPR. He remarked that if bee keepers were to stop treating their bees for mites, they would loose some of the colonies, but the ones that remained after 3 years would be the ones that had figured out how to manage their mite problem and, since bees pass on learned behaviors to their offspring, as long as that colony continued, the management problem would be solved. I've been a bee keeper, with two top bar hives and one Warré hive for 10 years. Occasionally I see mummies thrown out of the hive and a couple of times I've seen K wing but not for long. My bees appear to be mite free and when I inspect the hives in the spring, I look for mites on the floors of my hives. I occasionally see 2 or 3, but when I inspect my bees as they are flying in, I don't see mites. The only thing I've done so far for the bees is to feed them their own honey in a dearth, cover them with hive cozies and put up robber screens in late summer. Robbing has been a real problem in the past, but the robber screens make a huge difference. Check out Backyardhive.com to see the robber screen they have developed.
 
#179 ·
No. I'm still on my own, and doing everything with 100 ish hives will be my limit until my son joins me. Its a good thing, now I have a resistant strain I can focus on becoming a better beekeeper. I still have to spend quite a lot of time working up my infrastructure. I've just had a fun summer trying to raise queens. Got the hang of it just too late to mate them I expect! All in place for next year though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldtimer
#184 ·
I hit the up arrow on your quote CrazyIvan, and it took me to the original post, back ten years ago when a whole bunch of treatment free beekeepers were all talking with each other, subjects included the "failing chemical route", and the inevitable success of the "treatment free path", the way of the future.

I could not help but notice that none of those treatment free beekeepers are with us now.
 
#186 ·
I could not help but notice that none of those treatment free beekeepers are with us now.
Quite a few including the discussion starter are still with us. Any member name with a nations flag beside it has logged in since the forum software change, so ignor the rest. Hover the name and it will show last seen. In addition to squarepeg, found a four day and two more less than a month since last log in.
 
#195 ·
we need to resist the temptation to put 'anything' in our bee hives that the bees wouldn't put there themselves.
This is an oversimplification, used to vilify the use of chemicals.

Among things many beekeepers of all persuasions put in their hives that the bees would not have put there themselves, potentially is - smoke, sugar, plastic, wire, their own hands (cos we do manage them), and more.

My view is practical. I run the hives for my benefit, same as any other livestock. I do not pretend to be "natural". This does not mean I am hard on the bees, the opposite is the case. Happy and healthy bees are the most productive, so that is what works for me. I do my best to work with them and help them achieve that.
 
#196 · (Edited)
Agreed (I think?); Humans generally complicate the most simple stuff, usually to justify action or inaction. It is our way, our folly, our nature...:D

Your view is 'your' view. Hopefully its an open door ;) Practicality, designed (or justified) for ones own personal benefit, while entirely human, doesn't always fit very well with the rest of the world around us.....just saying.

imho; Treating bees like 'livestock' has caused the majority of issues (name any) bees and beekeepers currently face.
 
#197 ·
My view is practical. I run the hives for my benefit, same as any other livestock. I do not pretend to be "natural". This does not mean I am hard on the bees, the opposite is the case. Happy and healthy bees are the most productive, so that is what works for me. I do my best to work with them and help them achieve that.
OT we do understand that bees can be treated like livestock, and its associated "features and benefits"
Can you understand there are different points of view.
Chem free
TF
Log hangers
AMM resurrectors
Research based keepers and professors.
Breeders (brother Adam)

each has their own path, some with Chems some with out.

reminds me of the argument between bow deer hunters and gun deer hunters. Each thinks their way is the "best", farest, most humain , most efficient, etc. They think each other ignorant of the facts.
their facts........

OLD saw IMO


imho; Treating bees like 'livestock' has caused the majority of issues (name any) bees and beekeepers currently face.

If enough bees remain in the wild it is unlikely we humans wipe them out "trying to Save them"

save on , savers, and wild on,, wilders

GG
 
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