Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

I don't understand this complaint about treatment free beekeepers

48K views 409 replies 44 participants last post by  Tim Ives 
#1 ·
In another thread, recently closed (due to acrimony, I suppose) an interesting contention was made. In short, the complaint was that treatment free beekeepers pose a risk to those who treat, because when the untreated hives collapse, they make it harder for nearby treaters to control mites and other pathogenic organisms.

The reason I don't understand this complaint is that it seems to ignore the evidence from the BeeInformed survey that indicates that treated hives collapse at similar rates to untreated. I could understand the complaint if treatment were able to prevent colony loss, but obviously, it doesn't. Even if you find the BeeInformed survey a dubious resource, just reading the news will provide plenty of examples of commercial beekeepers who treat and still lose large percentages of their colonies.

If collapsing colonies pose a threat to those with healthy hives, then logically, the risk would be far greater for those who don't treat, because they are so greatly outnumbered by those who do, and non-treaters also have to deal with a local genetic overload of less-resistant bees.

I'd like to see this discussed in a civil manner... and hope that is possible.
 
#2 ·
Most people ignore the obvious when treating any livestock...if you keep the weak alive you are in effect breeding for weakness. If you keep your stock held to harsh conditions you will be breeding for strength. So ask yourself are your breeding strong bees or strong mites and pathogens?
 
#25 ·
Also, most people who "breed" ignore the obvious fact that professional breeders understand. Heritability is based on phenotypic variation and what proportion of it is genetic. In order to make progress in selection, you must have high phenotypic varariation, in other words a large population size. In corn breeding I start with 10,000 new lines every year and will be happy in 5 years if 2 or 3 survive. If I were only starting with 20 or so (like most back yard breeders) what would be my chances for success? Unless you have the capacity to look at thousands of queens every year and innoculate with mites, and/or access to molecular markers for the trait of interest your probability of finding the proberbial needle in a haystack is pretty small. You are most likely just looking at random error rather than genetic improvement.
 
#3 ·
The reality is that there is probably truth to both arguments. Unless you live in a vacuum, or artificially inseminate your queens, your hives genetics will be influenced by the surrounding drones. In my case there are bees from the south in my area, as well as treaters, and non treaters. All of those hives will likely influence how I am able to keep bees.

When a hive collapses and mites hitch a ride on the robbers it may be possible that the sudden increased mite load could wipe out a "resistant" hive. But this is what would happen in nature, so it is very hard for me to state that others need to keep their bees away from my bees (whether I decide to treat or not). What wouldn't happen in nature is 25+ hives in a single field, or the density of hives in any area due to farming or hobby ownership.

I am getting to the point where I think the only way we could do large scale non treatment, without heavy hive manipulation or isolated yards, we would need to embrace africanized bees.

My point is, we are probably all doing something a bit wrong, so we just need to deal with it and come up with a solution to work it out with our current situations instead of expecting others to conform to our ideals.
 
#4 ·
Its definitely a little of column A, little of column B scenario.

On one hand, a *SUCCESSFUL* treatment free hive is going to be what we all really need, so that treatments will not be necessary in the first place and we all have healthier, stronger bees. Until you get to that point though, you have two hives that are essentially the same, one getting treated, one left to suffer from infestations. The infested hive helps build up pest populations that can then potentially transfer to surrounding hives.
 
#5 ·
I Until you get to that point though, you have two hives that are essentially the same, one getting treated, one left to suffer from infestations. The infested hive helps build up pest populations that can then potentially transfer to surrounding hives.
Well, this is why I'm having trouble understanding this point of view. Implicit in what you say is the assumption that the treated hive is not suffering from infestations. But something is killing treated hives too, at rates not too different from untreated hives, according to the BeeInformed survey.

To be fair, I think you might be able to make an argument that when the treated hive collapses, it might be from the toxic effects of treatment (queen loss, etc.) rather than from mite load, and so when the hive is robbed out, there would be fewer mites to infest the robbers. I don't know if that's true, but it's at least plausible, so far as I can tell.
 
#6 ·
I'd like to see this discussed in a civil manner
Based on the subject matter (pitting TF and non-TF beekeepers against each other) I'd say you have a 0% chance of accomplishing this.

You could get a bunch of treatment answers with no TF replies, or a bunch of TF answers with no treatment replies, and that will likely end in a civil manner (at least possible). But you wouldn't get much of an answer to your question (at least an unbiased one).
 
#8 ·
my understanding ray is that mite transfer between colonies occurs primarily when a strong hive robs a collapsing hive.

so it doesn't matter if the hive is treated or not, if it is collapsing and measures aren't taken to prevent robbing the mites could be spread to nearby colonies.

i the criticism has been directed more at the hard bond approach than treatment free per se.

bottom line, it's just about being responsible tf or not.

here's an old thread in which this got hashed out pretty good:


http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ping-the-risks&highlight=treatment+free+risks
 
#26 ·
That was an encouragingly civil discussion!

What I got from it was that there would be little friction between TF and non-TF beekeepers if both were responsible about not allowing collapsing hives to to attract robbers.

What I didn't understand was the assumption that this was more likely to happen with treatment free beekeepers. Later discussion in this thread brought up the question of population density, which would seem to be a problem to be found more among commercial beekeepers (who mostly treat) than among treatment free beekeepers (who are mostly hobbyists and smallltimers.)

Are there really a whole lot of hardcore Bond beekeepers? I'm not treating, but I can't see allowing the resources of a failing hive to go to waste. I have one hive that's struggled all summer. It was originally a Wolf Creek package, superceded a couple times, ended up queenless and developed laying workers. I've been giving them a frame of brood and eggs every week for 6 weeks now, and if they don't come up with a queen pretty soon, I'm going to break up their resources and use them to start some new nucs.

As a hobbyist, each hive is precious to me, and I expect that's the common sentiment among backyard beekeepers, in whose ranks most treatment free beekeepers will be found. Treatment free beekeepers own a tiny fraction of the hives in this country, and yet you still see folks trying to make them a significant source of villainy-- you can see the tendency in this thread.

Again, I just don't understand this. Even if you assume that treated hives survive at higher rates than untreated, those treated hives are still going to be a bigger threat to the untreated hives than the untreated hives are going to be to the treated hives-- just because there are so many more treated hives than untreated.

When those treated hives collapse from a mite overload and are robbed out by bees from untreated hives, that's probably going to turn out worse for the untreated bee than in the reverse situation.
 
#9 ·
I think that the premise that treated and untreated hives survival rate is the same is also a stretch. First it is a "survey" not "study", as you noted. I participated in this survey so we can use me as an example. It is true that my untreated hives survived the same as my treated ones. I think that I treated about 10 hives last August. All of those treated hives had overwintered the year before. I had 12, I think, that I did not treat. Mostly the reason that I didn't treat them was that they came from nucs that I made up with new queen cells, so they all had about 3 weeks or so of no brood. I don't treat first year hives. I don't count mites in them. I didn't lose any hives last year.

So while it is true that my untreated hives had an equal survival rate as my treated ones, it is a big stretch to say that untreated hives will survive at the same rate as treated ones.

The other factor is that commercial migratory bees will have any more stresses than my babied hobby bees. The commercial bees will probably be treated but again will have many stresses that untreated ones won't.
 
#11 ·
my understanding ray is that mite transfer between colonies occurs primarily when a strong hive robs a collapsing hive.

How long does it take for the bees of one yard to find and then rob out a hive from another yard? I'm curious about the bee behavior here. Are bees in a yard and from other yards aware of all the other hives? Are they constantly checking other hives for weakness and potential to rob or is it more happenstance that the bees come along and find an empty to rob?

The further point is that unless there is a pretty quick response time wouldn't the apiary owner notice a dead out? If so is not the best course of action to close it up to stop robbing and spread of mites/disease or if they feel their is no threat to simply place the boxes on another hive?

If I had a dead out and was concerned about such things I would not want feral or bees from other yards coming into my hives. If there was enough honey in the hive to rob I wouldn't want it taken by another yard either.

Seems to me the "Best practice" is to keep an eye on your hives and when you see robbing or even a weak hive, close it up or shut it down. Then it's a moot discussion, no?

~Matt
 
#12 ·
my understanding ray is that mite transfer between colonies occurs primarily when a strong hive robs a collapsing hive.

How long does it take for the bees of one yard to find and then rob out a hive from another yard? I'm curious about the bee behavior here. Are bees in a yard and from other yards aware of all the other hives? Are they constantly checking other hives for weakness and potential to rob or is it more happenstance that the bees come along and find an empty to rob?
During robbing season, yes, pretty much, other bees are testing for weakness constantly.

"The further point is that unless there is a pretty quick response time wouldn't the apiary owner notice a dead out?" Going by what I read on Beesource, a lot of them don't notice till after all the action is over. See all those "what happened to my hive" type threads.
 
#14 ·
i think it may have to do with the number of colonies in a yard, and whether or not they are observed on a daily basis.

i had two hives this year that i inspected after noticing just a little fighting at the entrances. there wasn't any all out robbing frenzy going on. turns out they were queenless after failing to make a new queen post swarm.

it's not hard to imagine that in a large commercial operation with hundreds if not thousands of hives it might not be possible to catch every robbing incident in time to prevent it. treatments can fail, and mites can be spread.

on the other hand, for the hard core bond keeper, robbing is going to be the inevitable result of a collapsing colony.

and no one can stop it when we're talking about an unmanaged feral hive crashing and getting robbed out.

my view is that we all should be considerate of other colonies and exercise due diligence to prevent crashes and rob outs when we can.
 
#15 ·
if there's any bees around within foraging distance robbing can start quickly. You will constantly see scouts in front of your hives in summer just testing the waters. If there's anything to rob nearby it gets even worse which is why people discourage open feeding because it sets off a frenzy.
 
#16 ·
Well I think the answer is it goes both ways. If I am running treatment free hives I certainly wouldn't want a large apiary nearby run poorly and being treated but not properly. Likewise beekeepers who are treating minimally and trying their best to do everything right may not appreciate a "Bond" apiary next door suffering 80% losses and being left to die, of whatever, and be robbed.

For me, I've spent my life being surrounded by beekeepers who are lax on disease management. However I deal with it. Just, AFB is something that really bugs me if I get that due to someone else's negligence, nothing is worse than burning your own hive.

Think you'd have to say it goes both ways.

Bear in mind RHAldridge also that the accusation you complain of was made in response to a counter accusation made the other way, and it was not in the treatment free section. The thread had to be locked because it was derailed by someone pushing his own agenda and had moved far away from the actual thread topic.

A thread like this one is only designed to pit one group against the other. To me, if there are problems caused to a beekeeper by a neighboring beekeeper, I think it's better to assess it on a case by case basis rather than categorise everyone and then try to start something.
 
#17 ·
I think part of it has to do with how people say to get there. Typically TF beeks are staunch advocates of the bond method and believe this is the only true way to be Treatment Free or obtain treatment free bees which is not the case of course. Anyone can select for treatment free bees by not treating, whether you let the hive die out in the end is up to you.
 
#18 ·
And something I have wondered a good deal about: what thought is being given to the density of bees and apiaries for a given area of forage.

Will the growing "popularity" of backyard beekeeping (perhaps in some way prompted by anxious news reports on the general health of bees) lead to more hives/bees/acre?

And what is the optimal carrying capacity for any area, or classes of forage for honey bees?

I am univeristy-trained in agronomy and horticulture. A single fairly isolated specimen or small group of anything may survive quite well, whereas larger stands, herds, colonies, fields, etc. will be constantly under seige because of the simple density and attractiveness to pests and diseases. In my farming practices (veg. and small fruits) I often see this effect at work.

Although I've seen almost no direct references to it, the modern practice of huge-scale migratory beekeeping would surely to serve to concentrate, and then disperse any bee diseases and pests on a continental-wide scale. Certainly far faster and far beyond what normal, unassisted, bee transmission or contact would be.

Perhaps some of the success of the TF apiaries is due to their relative isolation from other honey bees, and conversely some of the persistent need for treatment of treated colonies is due to the high presence of vectors of bees pests and diseases.

And in both cases conscientious beekeepers of both types are merely reacting to their local conditions, as best they can.

If anyone knows of studies related to bee/apiary densities, I would be very interested to know about them.

Certainly speaking as very new beekeeper (of the barnyard, not sideline or commercial variety), I can see that keeping bees, (if you catch the bug) could certainly be very more-ish. I have three hives and I am thinking of making more next year. But I am mindful that in my enthusiasm I could very well tip the balance and find myself under more pressure from pests than I am now.

Enj.
 
#19 ·
varroa destructor is a pretty dumb parasite if you think about it, after all killing off its host isn't exactly in its best interest.

it depends on the robbing nature of the bees for its survival.

preventing robbing and spreading to nearby colonies is something we all can do.

as time goes on, and as v. destructor and the honeybee evolve toward host/parasite equilibrium there will be less dead outs.

in the mean time we can select for less destructive mites by not letting them spread.

this is easier said than done. for example i'm not sure what i would do if i found a hive so infested mites with as winter approaches that it would be sure to die. i am leaning toward putting it in the freezer, killing the bees and mites, and salvaging the comb and stores.
 
#20 ·
The difficulty with science and bees is numbers and money. You have sixty thousand individuals bringing back to one house near anything from the surrounding 28 square miles. Add a few more hives into the area and the possibilities become greater than the lottery. No control group exists. Add the comparison between the money spent on research to the money spent on chasing a salad bug. What we're left with is any idea can be supported but few can be substantiated.

I do know that fighting among ourselves is a great way to keep the pesticides flowing.
 
#21 ·
I think that we are all aware that you can get hygienic queens/bees of many different strains and degrees of hygienic inheritance.

No fellas, TFBers don't all rely on the "bond" method to get resistant bees.

I've used VSH, and am now trying BeeWeavers.

BeeWeavers have an interesting mix in their background, including AHB.
 
#22 ·
Enjambres has the right idea. It is alot easier to keep 5 hives alive than 30 or 50 in one spot. If the commercial people are even with the non treatment, then they are doing better. Find the experiment on the danish island. The colony count dropped from a commercial level to a hobbiest level, then stabilized.

Back in the 30's and 40's, it was professional to keep commercial yards 4 miles apart to prevent AFB transfers. With the invention and use of Sulfa, Terramycin, etc, that got forgotten. We have a direct correlation between AFB and hobbiest beekeepers in the area. Often they do not
spot the AFB, the colony dies, and our hives rob them out.

With all the new diseases, which are easilty spread by migrating beekeepers, it would be nice to have a return of the gentleman's agreement of 4 miles.

Crazy Roland
 
#23 ·
WLC the Bond method gets all the headlines, but your approach seems the most logical. I to have BWeaver bees, two hives. I also have , or had one HoneyBeeGenetics hive, but I killed that queen, just clumsy Newbie manipulation. Replaced her with a local queen. I also have one captured swarm queen. I plan to get some Russian hives soon. Why not use the already mite resistant bees? Seems the simple way to go, the quick fix, easy. I also do mite counts and have set up a method to weigh active hives. Get information early so I can react. TF Bonders restrict their choices it seems to me, and that is my complaint with them. As you say, there are other options.
 
#28 ·
> In short, the complaint was that treatment free beekeepers pose a risk to those who treat, because when the untreated hives collapse, they make it harder for nearby treaters to control mites and other pathogenic organisms.
>The reason I don't understand this complaint is that it seems to ignore the evidence from the BeeInformed survey that indicates that treated hives collapse at similar rates to untreated

Exactly. I think it is an erroneous assumption.

>Implicit in what you say is the assumption that the treated hive is not suffering from infestations.

Which is patently not true.

>Treatment free does not mean disease/pest/pathogen free.

Treated does not mean disease/pest/pathogen free.

>What I didn't understand was the assumption that this was more likely to happen with treatment free beekeepers

It is a world view. If they did not have that world view they would not be treating. But I do think the assumption is erroneous.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm

In reality what is a constant threat is the continued propogation of weak genetics that can't survive being propped up by artificial means, and "super mites" who can breed fast enough to overcome treatments... these are not coming from the treatment free hives...
 
#50 ·
In reality what is a constant threat is the continued propogation of weak genetics that can't survive being propped up by artificial means, and "super mites" who can breed fast enough to overcome treatments... these are not coming from the treatment free hives...
Its been about 25 years since varroa first impacted the US. Is their any evidence that these super mites have evolved? Wouldnt a mite that breeds fast enough to overcome treatments serve to hasten its own demise? My experience is that varroa is far easier to control now than when it first affected our operation. Our bees could never have weathered even a single season without a mite treatment 20 years ago. I worry far more about the mite vectored viruses, even in bees with fairly low mite counts.
 
#29 ·
TF and Treating Beekeepers are co-evolving -- just like the parasite and host.

The reservoir of TF and feral hives allows drug resistance to be overcome, by breeding the suseptible strains back into the commercial hives. Amitraz-resistant Varroa was reported almost immediately, but it is a genetically unfavored trait in the mites, and non-treated Varroa replaces the resistant ones, if a sufficient reservior of non-resistance exsists.

As I noted elsewhere, maintaining a "reservior" of resistance in the crop was part of the initial plan for BT Corn and Soy.

A forward thinking Commercial keeper would ring his yards with feral hives -- these would maintain amitraz and fluvinate NON-resistant genes in the wild Varroa, and the non-resistant types would introgress into the managed colonies preventing the resistant types from overwhelming the drug.

The hobby keepers are providing a service to the commercial by maintaining hives with populations of non-resistant Varroa.

Varroa doesn't kill directly, but is a vector for the lethal virus load. Hypo-virulent virus adaptation seems unlikely to develop. DWV is evidently a weak virus and has a long history in North America (so has reached a natural equilibrium level), but is the major symptom of Varroa affected hives in my area. I cannot model further hypovirulence in the virus when horizontal transmission of DWV has so few barriers.

One needs to separate the goal of Treatment Free husbandry from the backyard hobby meilieu. If the goal is TF, then challenging hives with disease, selecting the most resistant, and breeding those queens is a long-term, laborious and LARGE SCALE undertaking. It is large scale because it requires isolation and saturation to prevent the bees which are promiscuous, out-crossing flying insects from simply blending into the background genotype. Backyard keepers are embedded in their landscape, and adaptation will not be accomplished on that local scale (in my landscape).

Some of the TF advocates might live in a "bee desert", and the reduced density of feral and commercial colonies might allow inadvertent semi-inbred and beneficial lines to develop. My own immediate landscape has about 2 colonies per acre around all my outyards, and the wild type is simply going to re-assert in any uncontrolled outcrossing scheme.

Directed selection is long-term because the generation time of bees is relatively long, disease expression is delayed, and inbreeding is a genuine issue. A selected graft + outcrossing with non-related drones (per the Russian Queen model) is the best approach.
This requires isolation, saturation and exchange of selected drone colonies.

Resistance is not binary (like live/dead) but is measured on a relative scale. A backyard keeper might have a nearly perfect genotype, but that hive might still (and easily) succumb. The genotype will be lost in an uncontrolled out-cross. All the effort and lineage of that genotype is lost if the colony succumbs, and in the outcross you reset the selection clock back towards the background genotype.

A far better approach is to make a rational assessment of health and vigor and propagate those colonies. Letting colonies die is wasteful and inefficient in the extreme. Selecting the breeding colonies by quantifying the traits and managing queen production will be the approach that creates a "hobbyist" bee type.

The SW already knows what a "survivor-type" is----- it is AHB. AHB have higher fecundity -- they swarm continually. Swarms are mite reduced for their initial build up due to the brood break. The swarming type is going to replace (in the wild) the type where swarming has been selected against.

Beekeeping with AHB is NO FUN. It is doable, but is a constant struggle. The "Bond" advocates are setting themselves up to be the promoters of AHB. This is totally unnecessary because a rational selection model exists that would prevent the AHB genotype from being favored.
 
#34 ·
One needs to separate the goal of Treatment Free husbandry from the backyard hobby meilieu. If the goal is TF, then challenging hives with disease, selecting the most resistant, and breeding those queens is a long-term, laborious and LARGE SCALE undertaking. It is large scale because it requires isolation and saturation to prevent the bees which are promiscuous, out-crossing flying insects from simply blending into the background genotype. Backyard keepers are embedded in their landscape, and adaptation will not be accomplished on that local scale (in my landscape).

Some of the TF advocates might live in a "bee desert", and the reduced density of feral and commercial colonies might allow inadvertent semi-inbred and beneficial lines to develop. My own immediate landscape has about 2 colonies per acre around all my outyards, and the wild type is simply going to re-assert in any uncontrolled outcrossing scheme..
Interesting post, as always, but I think one of your basic assumptions, if I'm reading you correctly, is in error. You seem to believe that genetics is the primary factor in the ability of bees to coexist with mites in a stable manner.

Since smalltime treatment free beekeepers do in fact exist, and prosper, even in places with substantial commercial presence, how can this be plausibly explained, other than by factors not directly related to genetics?
 
#30 ·
It is insane to think a person can create a better model than one that exist within a suitable area in a region and create a "breed" of honeybee for the masses. Adaption happens first, before any succession occurs. I think it is rather presumptuous to believe the honeybee passes nothing more than a genetic code to the next generation. The model you describe has only ONE outcome.
 
#31 ·
Pipi,
I have no idea what you are arguing for. Evolution/adaption/selection happens to genotypes. Transmission of "acquired" traits is a LaMarkian fairy tale, or soviet Lysenko ideology.
Bee's have some epi-genetics, in that hives have multiple fathers, and surviving bees may favor one father over others.
Yes, selective breeding, as per domestication of wheat, creation of Hopi corn, and any other example, is the efficient and successful approach to genotype change. In a promiscuous, outcrossing, flying insect - free breeding will revert to the basal genotype of a region.

An argument can be made about whether local races exist in the homogenous agricultural landscape with migratory populations. An argument can be made if the recognized local races (eg. AHB in the South-west) is a trend to be supported or resisted.

Organisms don't acquire traits, they inherit them.
 
#35 ·
rhaldridge,

Randy Oliver is reporting successful small-time keepers. There is annecdotal self-reporting on this forum of success. Myself, I lost hives in 1990-2, but recently a full apiary loss doesn't seem likely. I live in an area with high numbers of feral bees, but swarms of these bees hived into an outyard (and left untreated) show heavy DWV by the second year. So in my local case, local feral bees have no particular resistance, but there does seem to be a rebound in general vigor and the population of bee trees seems to be fully saturated. AHB genetics for rapid swarm and colonization might be the central effect.

One of the most vociferous "Bond" method keepers on this forum has 10 or 11 years experience. It appears he has lost his colonies twice in 8 years, or about 3-4 years per cycle. His experience is very similar to what I observe.

I am in touch with many novice backyard keepers. Most of them will not treat because of ideology and someone or something they read about on the internet.

They have great luck the first year. The bees grow like gang-busters. All winter long they harangue me about their miracle "system". The second year, they consider themselves veteran keepers and promote their system to anyone who will listen. Unfortunately, the 2nd year their hives don't thrive -- and they blame the weather, neonictinoids, chem-trails or my bad attitude. The third year, the hives are empty in the spring, or die off after swarming, or some such ending.

Then I hear from them about CCD, or pesticides, or non-local adaptation, or evil sugar syrup -- anything except taking an actual assay of the mites.

Often these 3rd year hobby hives stand empty and folorn at the end of the garden, until given to someone else or scrapped. You don't hear about all those failed keepers because they no longer inhabit cy-bee-space.

Some of these 3rd year keepers have been bitten by the vocation, and have learned to graft queens and make splits. This means they can make up their losses without considering if their "system" is valid. The initial system selection was driven by ideology or naive adoption of some promoted idea or other. The memory of the first year success and gang-buster growth dominates, and the later declines and losses are ignored or suppressed.
 
#37 ·
Some of these 3rd year keepers have been bitten by the vocation, and have learned to graft queens and make splits. This means they can make up their losses without considering if their "system" is valid. The initial system selection was driven by ideology or naive adoption of some promoted idea or other. The memory of the first year success and gang-buster growth dominates, and the later declines and losses are ignored or suppressed.
Well, I'm a first year keeper, and I've learned to make splits. I started with one hive, bought another package (which did poorly) caught a swarm, made a couple splits, bought in a BeeWeaver queen (unfortunately superceded) and I don't see why any of this makes my "system" (such as it is) invalid. I now have 8 hives. All good beekeepers have to make increase, including the ones who treat. If you have to compare treatment versus non-treatment, it seems only fair to compare apples to apples. Do you feel that those who treat and make up their losses are also unable to determine if their system is valid?

Again, I think a problem in your arguments is that they seem to rely entirely on genetics. You may recall that Solomon said that he had discovered that a large commercial operation had been going on quite near his yard. To me that was an indication that his cultural practices were more important than the genetics of his bees.

To be fair, I think also that there probably has been some selection in the population-at-large, despite treatment. Those who treat still lose a lot of hives; those that survive are the basis for increase for operations that raise their own bees. I would not be surprised to learn that bees in general are more resistant to mites and mite-borne diseases than they were 20 years ago, which may account for some of the successes of treatment free beekeepers.

There is certainly an academic impulse to deny the existence of successful treatment free beekeepers, or to assign them special circumstances (better climate, better forage, etc.) I saw a particularly annoying statement in the new Bee Culture by Jennifer Berry. I'm sure she's a nice enough person, but her closing remarks were staggeringly condescending. "If your bees are hungry, feed them. If they are overrun by mites, treat them. Your bees are your responsibility. If you refuse to feed or take care of them because it's somewhat unnatural, then don't become a beekeeper. It's not fair to the bees.

Take care!"

Yes I will. I'll take care not to take seriously anyone who does not accept even the possibility of successful beekeeping without miticides. Even if you are limited in your access to information regarding treatment free success stories, how could any researcher worth her salt ignore the example of BeeWeaver, which runs a large treatment free operation? Why would you not follow up on reports of treatment free beekeepers, like Michael Bush, like Kirk Webster? Why would any serious bee researcher ignore the possibility that these folks are truthfully reporting their results?

Finally, I have to say that your assumption that all new beekeepers who do not treat are driven by some sort of naive ideology (chemicals Bad!) is fairly insulting to those who have arrived at their working theories by a process of extensive research and by weighing what they've read on the scale of their own experiences. I've been an organic gardener for 50 years, and I've seen with my own eyes the results that can be achieved through developing a healthy soil, rather than attempting to circumvent many natural processes by the use of artificial fertilizer. A plant grown in healthy living soil is so much more resistant to pests and diseases than a plant with identical genetics grown in poor soil-- I've seen this a hundred times. A hive, like the soil, is a complex system containing a wide variety of bacteria, insects, fungus, yeasts, etc. Treatment may temporarily discourage the most deadly of pests, like varroa, but also damages the hive's biota in ways that have not been quantified.

I certainly don't have the answer, and will never claim to. I expect a lot of my bees to die, and that will be sad, but it was their misfortune to be the victims of a beginner. Still, I can't respect any sort of absolutist attitude regarding treatment (and I'm not accusing you of that; I've learned interesting stuff from your posts.) Given the massive losses over the last few years among those who treat, it's obvious they don't have the answer either.

Well, this thread has wandered far afield. All I really wanted to do was shine the light of reason on the basic silliness of one of the complaints that conventional beekeepers relentlessly put forward regarding the irresponsible hippy-dippy behavior of non-treaters like me.
 
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