Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:55:06 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Peter, I agree. I have been "maintaining" some hives minimally for the last
2-3 years. I have one hive that has survived for 3 years w/o any treatment
for mites, or nothing. I placed two deeps and a medium and let them go.
This is in the Columbia, SC area. What you described is exactly what I have
done. I installed 7 packages last year and am letting them go naturally. I am
expecting a heavy loss but if I can get 1 out of the 7 to survive, then I
consider I am ahead.
I believe all the treatments that we have been giving our bees has
artificially kept a lot of colonies alive, i.e. if we quit treating these colonies a
good portion will die and the bees will reproduce off the survivors. The bees
are better at understanding what the species need to do to survive than man
is with all the our chemicals. In essence, I created a semi natural
environment in the hive, did not harvest any honey and did not move any supers
around. The pollen stayed intact where they put it.
However, with that said, I am a sideliner and do not depend on my bees to
make a living. So, the question is what is cheaper in the long run, to treat
and not take the loss initially, or not treat and incur the compounded expense
of treating to keep colonies alive artificially. The further down the
treatment path we go the more variables and uncertain we are about the colonies
that we are treating.
Dave M.
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)
*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at: *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************
|
|
|