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.
 
#392 ·
I wish I understood some of this discussion. I do understand how to super bees to maximize both honey production and beekeeper efficiency. Making a good honey crop isnt really rocket science, it takes a lot of field aged bees to make honey, they need a lot of empty space above the brood nest to encourage hoarding and they need a nectar source. We give pretty much every hive 3 mediums at the start of the main white honey flow. If every hive isn't good enough to super then we haven't done our job well. Quite often if the flow is heavy we follow up with an additional super where needed and move a boxes around as needed to make the most efficient use of our equipment. We take off that early crop and super back with newly extracted combs which seems to really stimulate additional production. This allows us to segregate our earliest whitest honey and have found that its easier for the bees to quickly fill up boxes directly above the brood nest than to place them on top of a tall hive. The biggest problem with putting on too many boxes is that too often hives just work right up through the middle if the flow is poor and we have to either sort through lots of comb or just run lots and lots of part full frames which don't like to run through an automated extracting system very well.
I keep hearing all this talk about losses or the lack of them. It's not an issue I worry about or even keep track of that much. Our spring "losses" are the 10 to 15% of the queens that don't catch, there always seem to be 10% or so summer losses which I usually attribute to either poorly mated queens or "second catch" queens moved at the wrong time and maybe another 5 to 10% winter losses (after the move to Texas). During spring nucing season I don't even concern myself with losses, just how much brood there is to work with and what I am going to do with it. If there wouldn't be enough brood to go around then I would consider that a problem but that hasn't happened since our last bad hive crash, nearly 10 years ago, after that year I vowed to never use any more "hard" chemical treatments in our hives.
 
#393 ·
"Functionality of Varroa-resistant honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) when used in migratory beekeeping for crop pollination."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22606798

Well, perhaps the question becomes, 'Why do commercial pollinators still treat if they can use resistant stock for pollination?"

I think that the sustainable agriculture philosophy of TFB doesn't really apply to almond pollination, for example.
 
#396 ·
Agreed. Tim's experiences are interesting reading. I never criticize those who "walk the walk". Likewise I don't expect to hear criticisms of other successful methods that may differ from your own.
 
#402 ·
Is there a place in the world where varroa mites and bees live in a "balanced" environment? Like, where did the varroa mite originate, and have the bees in that location been wiped out, or did they adjust and learn how to survive the mites?

I live in fire ant country, and to make an analogy, we have been poisoning fire ants for decades. The poisons used keep changing to meet the adaptations in the ants biological changes. Regardless of how well the toxins work, each toxin is only a temporary fix. We're making stronger ants. My limited biology, and I do stress limited, reminds me that ants and bees are both hymenopteran.
 
#404 ·
Is there a place in the world where varroa mites and bees live in a "balanced" environment? Like, where did the varroa mite originate, and have the bees in that location been wiped out, or did they adjust and learn how to survive the mites?
Yes, Southeast Asia on apis dorsata and apis cerana I believe. The story as I understand it is that years ago someone took apis mellifera to SE Asia, the varroa took them as hosts, some infested hives were brought to the Weatern World from there. Roughly speaking, that's the story. Plenty more detail out there I'm sure.
 
#403 ·
Someone asked:

Well, perhaps the question becomes, 'Why do commercial pollinators still treat if they can use resistant stock for pollination?"

'cuz the "resistant stock"(read Minn. Hygienic) is mean, lazy, builds slow, and does not make as good a honey crop as say a Cordovan or Strachen NWC. By using a more productive bee and slowly tapering treatments(from hard to soft, or otherwise), a commercial person can maintain bee performance at all times, and still arrive at the same goal as a TF person, but without the beginning losses. It is all about the "area under the curve".

Crazy Roland
 
#406 ·
Tim:

Your bees are derived from the 'hybrid swarm'. That's the scientific term for the U.S. feral population.

BeeWeaver, for example, mates their queens with the hybrid swarm to get their resistant stock.

The hygienic bees are however a domestic line of bees. Although the study I referred to showed that VSH are viable for migratory pollination, they do have 'baggage' of their own.
 
#407 ·
Depending on how you test and when you test mite numbers will vary widely. Anything over 1% in the spring when the hive is full of brood is, in my opinion, unacceptably high. Anything under 3% in September is very good. We did 1/2 cup mite checks on 50 potential breeders this spring and found a grand total of 4 mites. I found that gratifying but hardly definitive evidence that mites won't be a problem for us this summer. Interestingly enough our late summer mite numbers are the lowest I have seen since first encountering varroa in the early 1990's. Encouraging for sure but not enough to make me ever rest easy.
 
#410 ·
Nosema levels 0.0 million on USDA tests past 3 years. I won't get this years back till next year. DWV+ everything else negative. I'm not seeing Dwv bees as much anymore.

SHB different story. But haven't seen as many this year vs previous.
 
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