A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new back y
Page 1 of 40 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 797
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,911

    Default A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new back y

    This post is triggered by a highly respected TF advocate recently posting advice to a new BYBK (backyard Beekeeper) Planing on getting 2 hives and had a question of what to do if his hive started having mite problems “ let them fail and start over the next year” this is compounding on all the post I have seen telling new BYBK (backyard Beekeepers) “let them die and try again next year with better bees” bees that are nearly impossible to buy, and even good TF stock can be mite bombed by a failing hive.

    This is a dangerous message and I feel we should be speaking out against it. Mite bombing is poor beekeeping, and can kill your good TF hives, your neighbor’s hives, and ferals. It serves no purpose in developing or selecting stock, especially as a BYBK isn’t going to develop any sort of stock with a few hives surrounded by other BYBK.

    People are being taught the worst thing they can do is treat, they should be taught the worst thing you can do is mite bomb your neighborhood and you need to do everything in you power to stop it.

    There seems to be an attitude that somehow treating a hive to save is going to set back the development of TF bees as if they are some sort of addict in treatment trying to get clean. Seems kind of simple, don’t breed from a queen that went over threshold, the biggest setback to becoming TF isn’t treating to save a hive, It’s not having bees come spring

    As usually Randy Oliver puts it well
    The only bees that need to die are the queen and drones; both are easy to intentionally kill at the appropriate time (during swarming season). Requeen with resistant stock, best obtained locally. The ultimate evolutionary result is exactly the same as if you had allowed mite-infested colonies to die, but you get honey in return rather than a bunch of deadouts
    The University of California’s definition is -“
    Integrated pest management (IPM) is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed “
    beyondpesticides.org says
    A well-defined Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a program that should be based on prevention, monitoring, and control which offers the opportunity to eliminate or drastically reduce the use of pesticides.
    As I read it the whole point behind IPM is(or can be) to be TF when you can, and only use pesticides when pest monitoring hits a threshold that indicates it is needed to head off loss.

    I feel there needs to be a shift in tone to BYBK…… from "let them die and you have to pay all that $$ again" to "Monitor your mite counts, if you hit threshold they are going to die anyway, treat to protect your investment and re queen, or at very least euthanize the sick hive to protect the area and your other hives"
    Tom Seeley, Mike Palmer and Randy Oliver agree
    If you pursue treatment-free beekeeping without close attention to your colonies, then you will create a situation in your apiary in which natural selection is favoring virulent Varroa mites, not Varroa-resistant bees. To help natural selection favor Varroa-resistant bees, you will need to monitor closely the mite levels in all your colonies and kill those whose mite populations are skyrocketing long before these colonies can collapse. By preemptively killing your Varroa-susceptible colonies, you will accomplish two important things: 1) you will eliminate your colonies that lack Varroa resistance and 2) you will prevent the "mite bomb" phenomenon of mites spreading en masse to your other colonies. If you don't perform these preemptive killings, then even your most resistant colonies could become overrun with mites and die, which means that there will be no natural selection for mite resistance in your apiary. Failure to perform preemptive killings can also spread virulent mites to your neighbors' colonies and even to the wild colonies in your area that are slowly evolving resistance on their own. If you are not willing to kill your mite-susceptible colonies, then you will need to treat them and requeen them with a queen of mite-resistant stock-Tom Seeley
    There is a vast difference between breeding for survivor stock and simply allowing commercial bees to die from neglect! By introducing commercial bees year after year into an area, and then allowing those package colonies to first produce drones and then to later die from varroa, these well-meaning but misguided beekeepers screw up any evolutionary progress that the local feral populations might be making towards developing natural resistance to varroa. Not only that, but those collapsing “mite bombs” create problems for your neighbors. Referring to yourself as a bee-keeper confers upon you a responsibility to the local beekeeping community. Allowing hives to collapse from AFB or varroa makes you a disease-spreading nuisance
    Some may make the argument that by treating your bees that you are working against nature by propping up weak stock that should be allowed to die. The reality is that it serves no purpose whatsoever to allow colonies to unnecessarily die from varroa, and if you do so, you actually do a disservice to surrounding beekeepers, as their colonies will quickly pick up the mites from your collapsing hives. The ensuing domino effect can wipe out all the hives in a neighborhood!–Randy Oliver
    Mike Palmer (20min 18s) https://youtu.be/6GF3TOKf97U?t=20m18s

    Coming from different angles to the same issue, all agree that mite levels need to be monitored and action must be taken to prevent mite bombs THIS is the message we should be sending to new BYBK’s… Keep track of your mite and take action when needed to protect your stock and the stock of others

    Lastly there is the impact on the new beekeeper , quoting Square Peg, as he said it better than I could
    The beginner is often left disheartened and has lost return on investment. many are left with a negative view of treatment free and such examples provide ammunition to those who vigorously oppose the tf approach.

    in my opinion, and until the time comes when treatment free bees become more readily available, the recommendation for folks to continue accepting the losses until at some point they end up with bees that can survive off treatments is neither palatable nor sustainable..
    In light of the above information, taken as a whole, I cannot see one good reason for the TF group to promote or suggest that a new (or for that matter any) BYBK go bond.
    It has no advantage, and is dangerous to other beekeepers stock, as such it’s a blackeye on the TF cause, and one of the positions anti-TFs attack with vigor…and RIGHTLY so. A few years back I took 100% losses, 10 TF hives based on feral stock I had grown from 3 swarms, to a package bee Mite Bomber who set 6 package bee hives 300m from me and went 007 cause the internet said that’s what you do to be TF.

    Now someone running a true breeding program is a different story, Bond can and does work to a degree, but its not suitable for someone new, with a low hive count, or in an area with other keepers.

    Here’s the take home
    Monitor your mites, Mite Bombing is bad beekeeping, and can have a large negative impact on the development of TF bees in you apiary and in the wild. If Seeley, Palmer, and Oliver agree on a subject we should take notice.

    Letting hives die are a poor return on investment, both to the pocket book of the BYBK and to the Street Credit of the TF movement. When Mike Palmer refers to some of the TF Gurus as BS on BS in a lecture posted on YT and Randy Oliver calls others the Beekeeping Taliban… well you know there is an image issue

    For the new BYBK, BOND is about as effective as adding copper wire and magnets to the hive

    The BYBK is not going to be selecting for, or developing jack squat for stock

    We should be teaching TF is HARD and you need to work harder and have to be a better bee keeper then someone who just treats by the calendar.

    We should be promoting to ALL(not just TF) BYBK the use of drone frames and culling, not just for the added benefit of Mite reduction , but to castrate unproven (sub 2 years TF) and other undesirable hives to stop their genetics from flowing. The main streaming of drone trapping can be a boon to the TF movement.

    We should NOT be teaching that TF is easy hands off bee having IE don’t bother with mite counts or doing anything and just sit back and see what happens.

    We should be teaching (for many/most) Trying to be TF is going to take good beekeeping- mite counts and “manipulations” at a min to get the bees threw the 1st years IE drone culling, brood breaks, simulated swarms, OTS etc … and yes even up to sugar dusting and organic acids if the mite counts dictate. This needs to be kept up until mite counts tell you such action can be reduced and the hive will be fine without being a threat to the nehoborhood .

    As a side note Seeley and Conrad have a good study running right now, and have been seeing good results with only physical management techniques VS MAQS I am very interested to see the spring numbers, the fall mite counts were looking good https://mysare.sare.org/sare_project...=annual&y=2016


    Reasonable, rational, and logical responses excepted

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Idaho Falls, ID
    Posts
    685

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Wow, great summary. I have read those same articles, and i also think a middle-of-the-road effort is the way to go. What Randy Oliver in the ABJ article calls "The Bond method, without the needless carnage."

    I have two strong hives that have not been treated in the two years they have been alive, and those are the ones i plan to grow into more colonies (gave away splits last year). But i also have a few hives that struggle with mites and cannot shake them. Those i treat, and do not plan to propagate. All of my hives are swarm catches, but that does not mean they were from a surviving stock, they are likely from someone else's backyard stock.

    After reading Oliver in this month's ABJ i decided i am going to use my strongest, untreated hive for queen rearing, and use those daughter queens to requeen my other hives. Eventually we are gonna beat this, but it is going to take an effort. Too many of my cohorts default treat by the calendar, as you say.
    -- Joe
    "Make your own decision and embrace the consequences." -- jwcarlson

  4. #3

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    There had been discussions about that and it is propagated in this community that a new tf beekeeper must monitor and use IPM and in future must breed from best hives or purchase good queens.

    There are many stories told which confirm this.

    Bond may be possible in some locations but most of us need to do something to hold at bay the mites in an unfriendly environment.

    Treated hives can be mite bombs too if they are not treated thoroughly or treated with bad timing.
    Bees drift into neighbors hives to escape the smell of thymol.

    Some new beekeepers need the experience of a hive, treated or not treated dying on them to realize what´s going on.
    No matter how this hive is managed.
    It´s needed to open their eyes to try to be a better beekeeper or just get some feeling for the bees and what´s happening in a beehive.

    I speak of my own experience.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Algoma District Northern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,854

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    MSL;

    Well thought and presented. I have had a lot of similar feelings but you do an excellent job of condensing and connecting them.
    Frank

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Bergen County, NJ
    Posts
    904

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    I started with one "commercial" Nuc and one "local, carniolan" Nuc. I split the commercial Nuc and requeened with TF queens from a reputable NE breeder. I also raised a queen from a swarm capture. Two of the 3 TF lead hives crashed by September. Cause was debated but I saw crawling mites on bees.

    I immediately decided I am not going to go into winter empty handed only to try same again in 2017. So I treated DWV littered carniolans with Apivar and rest (local and TF queen) with OAV.

    I am NOT a TF beek. Having said that, I have never seen a sane TF proponent advice on BS to get commercial bees and "let them die". IF anyone did, I am glad I skipped reading it.

    Almost EVERYONE says beekeeping is local. Randy Oliver (awesome dude) himself says local TF is possible through collaboration between BYBK, unless you live next to a huge TF commercial entity.

    Having attended beekeeping meetings for a year now, there is a problem on the Treatment side too. Beekeeping Taliban exists that side too. Hit-them-hard-hit-them-often is no better than bond-method. If anything, that practice promotes regions littered with drones that do nothing but spread genetics that perpetuate the need for the practice. I got buried for saying this, but in one of the meetings some beeks were proud to announce that they got garage full of terramycin to work around the recent Fed regulation. I have no respect for such attitude.

    Local beek meeting after meeting is littered with reports of people losing bees. All treated according to rigorous regimen prescribed. That does not mean TF will do any better. For me, it just means People aren't "thinking" through what they are doing, why they are doing, ask questions, tweak methods, experiment etc.

    Another problem is, some people seem to think they are here to save others. Regardless of Treatment or TF, one cannot fix the silly & stupid. Some people ought not have bees. Some people need to learn through their own experience.

    In summary, I quickly realized bond method is not for me, I will continue to explore multiple options to minimize treatments and in NO hurry to be labeled as one way or the other. Its a journey and not a destination.
    Last edited by DaisyNJ; 03-31-2017 at 08:27 AM.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Keosauqua, IA, USA
    Posts
    237

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    I didn't have time to read the full post but I wanted to say this-

    The idea of a out of state hive with bad mite tolerance setting back progress is that of its drones mating with feral hives, and your neighbors hives etc.
    That's why I'd advocate for a immediate requeening of that hive with some good genetics.
    "In all honesty, I don't think any of us know what were doing. Just what we've done."

  8. #7
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    2,545

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Now someone running a true breeding program is a different story, Bond can and does work to a degree, but its not suitable for someone new, with a low hive count, or in an area with other keepers.
    Bond has worked well for me. Neither packages nor feeding are suitable for me. For me, the question is not one of whether to be treatment free, but how to be treatment free. And that is a different thread.
    David Matlock

  9. #8
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chardon, Ohio
    Posts
    689

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    By doing some type of IPM, which by definition requires that you do meaningful mite counts, you gain valuable information on how each hive is performing with respect to mite issues. All you need to do is write that information down so you have a record. With that information you can make valid choices on what hives to propagate and which queens need fast replacement and without it your breeding program is mainly a total waste of time. Even if you have bees good enough you never need to treat any more you should be doing mite counts on every hive several times a year if you want to make sensible breeding decisions. This is exactly what Oliver says anyone must do if they intend to carry on a meaningful breeding program. A bunch of workers that can not deal with mites are still fine workers and can contribute a lot more to anyone's program alive than they can contribute dead. It is not the workers fault their mom had crappy genetics. Bond was a stupid idea from the start and has not improved with age. It never made genetic sense.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Birmingham, AL, USA
    Posts
    62

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Thanks for the post. As a new BYBK I agree. Your words were my thoughts some days ago, and I had a post saying as much, but being new around here I thought it best not to actually post what I wrote. Obviously you wrote it better anyway.

    I appreciate everyone's experiences and opinions. There is a lot to learn and I try to take in as much as I can before making my own decisions. I am afraid there are many more new BYBKs that don't do as thorough a job. They run with whatever the first person they talk to tells them. My guess is more than half the people in my beek class are in this category, based on conversations with them over the past couple of months.

    Since the class I've talked to other, more experienced keepers in the area and they tell me that over the years, the majority of the people in these classes stop keeping bees after a couple of years. I wonder how much of that has to do with this topic?

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    1,407

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    No, IPM uses proxies which are our arrogant ideas about what is important.

    Its an error prone, so you throw out good genetics and retain bad.

    Bond is the ultimate truth teller. That is not to say that monitoring shouldn't be done, re mite counts and behaviour. However, this is like examining the universe using only light telescopes. It won't tell you the entire picture. Its likely the underlying virus dynamics are more important, and who is equipped to have a close look at that?

    The idea of mite bombs is OVERBLOWN. I have had hives overcome by mites and viruses and these bees aren't flying to your neighbors. The reports of sudden increase in mites in a hive is far more likely to be internal hive dynamics as the hive transitions to winter configuration. Ie, most hives will have a spike in mite count in fall as brooding stops.

    Bees from a mite bomb are crawling on the ground. The hives most affected are nearest neighbors, hives in the same apiary. Notice my careful choice of the word overblown. I believe some prevention of hive to hive transference is helpful using things like robber screens, and is most helpful for hives in the same apiary. Also notice my use of "believe". We may have some reason to believe so, but there is NO work done documenting how important it is and there is lots of finger pointing based on casual observations reinforcing internal biases.

    There may be place for IPM, in areas where bees cannot survive to the extent where losses can't be replaced. But I wouldn't do this at the beginning, rather start doing if genetics in the area are shown not to be able to survive. But bond should be part of the process regardless to obtain proper information about what is actually working (re selection proxies).

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    10,180

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    good thread. in my opinion and what i believe most people experience when it comes to beekeeping is that it becomes a life long learning process, or at least i believe it should.

    those folks who are willing to search for knowledge and glean from the collective experience of others generally move up the learning curve a little more gracefully.

    opportunities for new knowledge and helpful tips come in many forms from picking the brains of your locals, books, websites, ect., and in my opinion there is no one stand alone resource that has it all.

    having said that, and after spending enough homework time on beekeeping to at least have a four year degree in it, i have to say that beesource ranks at the top in terms of what has influenced my learning.

    and what beesource is to me is not so much a website, but an impressive collection of knowledgable and experienced bee people who tend to be generous with their time. many thanks barry and to all who participate.

    good cases can be made for both the use and the nonuse of treatments. each individual beekeeper is responsible for making those decisions. due the the nature of bees and the influence that colonies in a given area have over each other our management decisions have the potential to affect bees other than our own.

    michael bush makes a good point about how anything miticidal introduced into a hive has the the potential to alter the microbial balance in the hive in a way that favors virulent pests and pathogens. there is more we need to learn about that, but i believe it will prove to be an important part of why i am having success off treatments.

    i put it this way some time back and barry incorporated it into the 'unique forum rules':

    "Any post advocating the use of treatments, according to the forum definition of treatment will be considered off topic and shall be moved to another forum or deleted by a moderator, unless it is employed as part of a plan in becoming treatment free."

    this allows for the contingency that there may be those who might consider treatments as a stop gap measure to save a colony which has not been able to 'do it on it's own', and prevent the loss of time, money, and a live colony of bees.

    what often appears to be the case is that beginning beekeepers have made the decision to go tf without understanding that this may involve losing colonies in what can potentially become a disappointing and expensive process.

    it makes perfect sense to me for someone to do whatever is necessary to save a colony in the short term and while attempting to come up with measures that will lead to their bees being able to be kept off treatments.

    bottom line: don't be constrained by this or that definition and make your choices based on what it is you feel is appropriate for you, your circumstances, and your goals.
    journaling the growth of a (mite) treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Birmingham, AL, USA
    Posts
    62

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by squarepeg View Post
    bottom line: don't be constrained by this or that definition and make your choices based on what it is you feel is appropriate for you, your circumstances, and your goals.
    [/B]
    I agree, and I think a lot of people would, but I think the problem is that experienced keepers aren't always reminding new keepers of this. If folks are coming to beesource to learn, they will get a wide-range of opinions. So I don't think it would be anyone here that would be the problem. But, I do think the people here can take this message to the local clubs and beginners classes. That's where I'm seeing it. And, reiterate this message constantly for new people.

    I also think everyone needs to start any new conversation with someone seeking advice this way. Instead of launching into what I do or I think, I should tell that person first that "my exact situation won't be the same as yours, and what I do may not work for you".

    I think some experienced folks see that as common knowledge but for the new keeper nothing is common knowledge. I think it's the responsibility of anyone giving advice to provide this disclaimer. Actually, this is probably the best advice one can give a new keeper!

  14. #13
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    2,545

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    those folks who are willing to search for knowledge and glean from the collective experience of others generally move up the learning curve a little more gracefully.
    You're talking about me, right.
    David Matlock

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,911

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by DaisyNJ View Post
    I have never seen a sane TF proponent advice on BS to get commercial bees and "let them die". IF anyone did, I am glad I skipped reading it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    Everyone has to make their own choice. I would let them fail and start over the next year.
    next we have scope creep
    Quote Originally Posted by DaisyNJ View Post
    Almost EVERYONE says beekeeping is local. Randy Oliver (awesome dude) himself says local TF is possible through collaboration between BYBK, unless you live next to a huge TF commercial entity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cryberg View Post
    This is exactly what Oliver says anyone must do if they intend to carry on a meaningful breeding program. .
    Quote Originally Posted by lharder View Post
    . But bond should be part of the process regardless to obtain proper information about what is actually working (re selection proxies).
    This post is in regards to new BYBKs. Yes they could help by accepting QCs and trying them in their hives, but they are not going to be breeding or developing stock.
    BYBK, as I use the term, is a suburban/urban beekeeper with 2 or so hives, in my area most are limited by zoning laws to 1-3 hives, as such even adding a cell builder, much less a few mating nucs is an imposailty for many not just from a leagle stand point, but from a resources one as well . Furthermore given the reinstrest in the hobby and change in zoning laws there are a LOT of BYBK were they are allowed(at least in my locacation), I am aware of 6 of them within 2.25K of my hives( totaling about 25 colonies),
    I see scope creep as an issue that keeps poping up when addressing this subject, its meaning less to talk about “selection” to a BYBK, too often advice given is not geared to the OP’s situation, people seem to forget what its like to be new with 1-2 hives, to many of us the loss of a few hives is no big thing, to them its their whole world..
    Now a RBK (rural beekeeper) with a few years’ experience and 10 or so hives, Or a group with a club apiary, that is a completely different situation when you are talking about selection and propagation
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by lharder View Post
    .but there is NO work done documenting how important it is and there is lots of finger pointing based on casual observations reinforcing internal biases. ).
    “Our study indicates that the horizontal transmission of Varroa mites could additionally jeopardize the IPM performed by the beekeepers. We used two neighboring study sites to quantify the invasion rates of Varroa mites in relation to the density of honey bee colonies” . Autumn Invasion Rates of Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) Into Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colonies and the Resulting Increase in Mite Populations EVA FREY AND PETER ROSENKRANZ 2014
    Our results surprisingly indicate that detectable hierarchical genetic variation exists between apiaries, between colonies within an apiary, and even within colonies. This finding of within-colony parasite diversity provides empirical evidence that the spread of V. destructor is not accomplished solely by vertical transmission but that horizontal transmission (natural or human-mediated) must occur regularly. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...PMC5089174/#R5
    I should clairfie that I am not saying you need to treat on your way to becoming TF, I am saying montor your mites and don't let mite bombs happen, there rest is between you and your bees and you leave mine out of it
    Last edited by msl; 03-31-2017 at 06:36 PM.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    2,545

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    MSL, you quote Randy Oliver, "Requeen with resistant stock, best obtained locally." If I were starting now in my location, I would want to start with resistant stock obtained locally.
    David Matlock

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,911

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Absolutely!
    The rub is, for most BYBKs, truly resistant locally adapted stock is practically unobtainium, even more so when they are new
    I beleave randy's point was to do that when or if what you have starts to fail as most new BYBK will not have the right stock for their location the 1st time around
    Plenty of cases of people being sold local TF bees that weren't resistant, or at least wasn't resistant in the new location, and there are plenty of people who still try to make a go with commercial stock.

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Isle of Wight, VA
    Posts
    2,774

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Is the point of the OP to say that BYBKs need to use chemical treatments or understand IPM methods or non-chemical means to begin beekeeping. IPM runs the whole spectrum of chemical to non-chemical intervention. For the monthly classes I teach with new beeks, most of it is just so over their head as far as what to do and when, that they stick their head in the sand when it comes to mite treatments. They say they don't see any during inspections, and I tell them they are still there. I will hear later on that they lost their bees over the winter or they absconded in Oct.

    In this part of VA, very few long time beekeepers in the local clubs have to use chemical means to control the mites so there is a lot of support for those that attend the club meetings to be using brood breaks, powdered sugar treatments and drone brood culling to reduce the mites to a manageable level. There also needs to be a better definition at the local club level of what it means to be "treatment free". My apiary certainly wouldn't qualify based on the manipulations I do, but I'm certainly chemical-free, which is what most backyard beekeepers would like to be.

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    10,180

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    yep.
    journaling the growth of a (mite) treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,135

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    This post is triggered by a highly respected TF advocate recently posting advice to a new BYBK (backyard Beekeeper) Planing on getting 2 hives and had a question of what to do if his hive started having mite problems “ let them fail and start over the next year”
    I saw that very same post and reply. Shrugged shoulders and moved on, nothing I can do anyway.

    But glad you brought it up, your opening post is excellent.

    When I went TF, hard bond was the only respected option, it eventually cost me every bee that was in the program (from memory i think 27 hives). So got me nowhere, other than thinking that some kind of IPM approach may have been a better option, as with 100% losses it could not have been worse.

    The people who used to smoke and now don't, are often the people who will give a smoker the hardest time. Likewise, people who went TF and lost everything, maybe several times, can become the harshest critics of TF.

    My own opinion is an IPM approach will give more satisfying results for many people, but with often low experience levels they need good support to do it right, correctly done IPM is more complex than simply get bees, don't treat. I believe the new moderator here is doing a great job of allowing some of these discussions to happen, plus allow advice tailored to peoples particular circumstances.

    A parting thing, it seems to be the hardest thing, for a person who got bees, went TF, and it just worked without much effort or even knowledge, to accept that it is not always like that for everyone.
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

  21. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    10,180

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    for the sake of balance and fairness, and with regard to the criticism being waged against michael bush for the comment he made in the post quoted below,

    i believe it's unfair to not recognize the part of the comment that precede's the part under criticism:

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    Everyone has to make their own choice. I would let them fail and start over the next year.
    bold/italics mine

    my read of that is that michael prefaces what his approach with "it's up to you", and then finishes sharing what he would do.

    taking the second part of the comment as stand alone puts it out of context. it is etiquette on this forum that each of us is entitled to our approach and...

    "there are no know it alls"

    i don't see michael bush deserving the label of 'taliban' for being passionate about his take on bees. jmho.
    Last edited by squarepeg; 03-31-2017 at 06:53 PM. Reason: grammar saves lives, thanks rader.
    journaling the growth of a (mite) treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

Page 1 of 40 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •