Non-interventionalist beekeeping?

[Jim Newmark]

I am posting as a newbie (of three years) so please don't shoot me down - just tell me where I am going off piste in this. I have read and read, over and over again and without apparent argument variations of "not inspecting is a form of neglect" Clearly a crime for which I could get drummed out of every bee organisation around. It is clear that full inspections are intended. Just why is this?
For the first year I did all that, stunning them with smoke and tearing the hive apart every week to ten days. It was infested with varroa but survived. I caught two swarms, a main and a cast, both swarming to the same convenient tree. I gave the original colony away and kept the main swarm and the cast, both still infested with varroa but during the winter one responded well to oxalic acid (one with a drop in the hundreds, the other died during the treatment midwinter with a shed of literally thousands of varroa). So last year I had a young healthy queen and they did brilliantly - building up from four seams to ten, no swarms, lots of honey. But this time I deliberately did not tear the hive apart to inspect - all I did was just watch them, with great pleasure, all summer, going about their business, happy and content, piling in the pollen, no varroa at all (that oxalic acid stuff is brilliant, isn't it?!) And no problems with a healthy cluster all winter.
So, should I inspect this year? They are again piling in the pollen and seem very content. Surely I can pretty much know their health by looking at the varroa board and using the glass top to assess activity and build up? Yes, they will definitely swarm this year - so what is wrong with a bait hive to the same tree? With a good chance of knowing where they are going to swarm surely it seems very counter-intuitive to tear apart a healthy organism and attempt to put it together again every week? What surgeon would do that to a healthy person "I know you feel perfectly well but there may be some cancer or disease in here."!
So, give me your arguments against this. I am sure they will come!

 

[Cazza]

Hi Jim
What you decide to do is totally up to you.
In the past, I have practised in the same non inspective manner for 10 years or so. This was what i was taught to do, with a glass quilt to observe weekly from above. As long as swarming is not an issue and there are no disease nasties nearby, I do not see it as a problem. If I lived far away from others and in a non EFB area I would probably carry on in that way.

However, I currently have neighbours who would prefer not to endure swarming bees and EFB is prevalent nearby so I have changed my management to currwently traditional interventionist practise.
As usual with beekeeping it's horses for courses.
Cazza

 

[Luminos]

I would get a few more colonies before you try experimenting with a hands-off approach

 

[beekeeping4you]

... give me your arguments against this. I am sure they will come!

... not from me!

Regards
Reiner

 

[For want of a better word]

It is not intervention... but too much of it!
Some say tearing the colony apart to satisfy the beekeeper that all is well, that there is a laying queen.. that has to be found, marked clipped... and found again on every inspection.. may disrupt the colony so much it takes a full week to get back to where they were... and then again in another 10 or less days!

Possibly lifting the upper brood box to look for queen cell " in the swarm season" may be prudent, and possibly a check for disease occasionally a very good practice.

My Grandfather said peeking at the bees all the time was akin to digging up seeds to see if they were growing !

 

[thorn]

In part it must depend on whether you want to maximise your take of honey. They tend to swarm on a full stomach.

Unfortunately it's doubtful that the swarms you miss will reach Headingley, but I can but hope.

 

[Skyhook]

To som extent I would agree, horses for courses. However I do think you have a duty not to 'inflict' your bees on other people.

The main issues here are disease and swarms. I live in an area with an ongoing EFB problem. It's not being harboured in colonies which are regularly checked for disease. It has to be in either hives which are not properly inspected, or feral colonies.

If your hives are harbouring EFB (or other diseases), and are continually re-infesting other colonies in the area, the your behaviour is, to say the least, anti-social. If your bees are swarming and creating a nuisance to other people in the area, I would say that was anti-social. If your hives have disease and are issuing swarms you could be causing major problems to other beekeepers in the area, and maintaining the reservoir of disease.

I would suggest that every colony should be inspected at least twice a season, very thoroughly, for disease.

If you live in a built-up area I would suggest that yopu have a responsibility to try to limit swarming as much as possible. If you are in the sticks, this wouldn't apply, and it would be up to you whether or not to allow swarming, and accept the resulting loss of honey crop.


.

 

[madasafish]

I am posting as a newbie (of three years) so please don't shoot me down - just tell me where I am going off piste in this.......

Yes, they will definitely swarm this year - so what is wrong with a bait hive to the same tree? With a good chance of knowing where they are going to swarm surely it seems very counter-intuitive to tear apart a healthy organism and attempt to put it together again every week? What surgeon would do that to a healthy person "I know you feel perfectly well but there may be some cancer or disease in here."!
So, give me your arguments against this. I am sure they will come!

I write as a TBH keeper of three years with a semi non interventionist policy and currently 3 full size hives and 2 nucs..

No-one can tell where a swarm is going to go. Bees do their own thing.
But if you read "At The Hive Entrance".. you can tell roughly by observation without inspection WHEN.
You can tell stores levels by hefting.
You can tell brood numbers by the heat above the topbars.

But queenless/drone layers etc and disease require some inspection. In three years I have had 4 queenless and 1 drone layer..No inspection = death. Expensive.

Disease? Well EFB etc.. Say no more.

A hands off regime sounds great in theory. In practise I know it does not work 100%. More like 25%...

If you can afford 75% colony losses some years, go on. Don't inspect. BUT with only 1 hive to your name, you are going to be wiped out regularly.

Anyone who treated goats.dogs,horses or cats like that would be in court with the RSPCA prosecuting. Why are bees so different?

 

[itma]

1/ If you don't "intervene" the colony will die because of varroa.
You simply can't count on varroa being controlled by a winter oxalic treatment alone.
Monitoring for varroa needn't be invasive.
And affords you the opportunity of treating before the colony's health is compromised by varroa's viruses.

2/ You owe it to other bees and beekeepers to do some disease checking. Quite apart from any suggestion that you'd want to "do stuff" if needed to help your own bees survive.

3/ Swarms. You owe it to your neighbours to practice swarm control. Failure to do any swarm control whatsoever would constitute negligence, and could leave you open to legal claims for nuisance, if you should happen to have any neighbours that fancy trying their luck in court. I haven't checked, but would be astonished if the BBKA 3rd party insurance wasn't careful enough to exclude cover against the consequences of wilful, deliberate, negligence.

4/ Stores. If you don't check what stores they have, they could easily starve as a result of your inaction. You don't need to open the hive every time to check, but if you don't even heft (and feed if needed) then you can't blame anyone else if your bees starve.

5/ Expressed simply, the better you look after your bees, the longer you are likely to have the pleasure of their company.



You don't NEED to poke through every frame every week, but you do have multiple obligations NOT to "do nothing".

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

 

[thorn]

"3/ Swarms. You owe it to your neighbours to practice swarm control. Failure to do any swarm control whatsoever would constitute negligence, and could leave you open to legal claims for nuisance, if you should happen to have any neighbours that fancy trying their luck in court. I haven't checked, but would be astonished if the BBKA 3rd party insurance wasn't careful enough to exclude cover against the consequences of wilful, deliberate,"

Negligence and nuisance are two different actions in law. There'ls no grounds for an action in negligence, and damage might be hard to prove, but frequent swarms might constitute a nuisance. However, most lawyers will ask for £5,000 up front to take on a nuisance claim, and most potential litigants tend to be put off by such a request.

 

[Shabro]

what will you do if your queen suddenly becomes a drone layer? what if she goes off lay and dies? how will you ever know?

 

[itma]

Negligence and nuisance are two different actions in law. There'ls no grounds for an action in negligence, and damage might be hard to prove, but frequent swarms might constitute a nuisance.

Yes, they are different torts.

Frimston & Smith (Solicitor & QC, NDB & Hon Sec of IBRA) wrote an interesting Case Book "Beekeeping and the Law - Swarms and Neighbours" which brings together reports of many relevant cases.
At page 7 they say

There is much academic discussion as to the extent to which nuisance also involves negligence. Very often a case is brought which makes both allegations. Certainly in the context of beekeeping it is difficult to imagine a case in nuisance which does not involve negligence.

Numerous old cases attest that repeated failure to prevent swarms is indeed negligent.


A relevant Statutory Nuisance was defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Section 79 defined the actus reus as keeping any animal in such a way as to be a nuisance, (thereby interfering with enjoyment of property), and S80 and 81 provides local authorities the power to issue Abatement Notices, and to enforce them. S82 allows any person to apply to a Magistrates Court for a similar Abatement Order.
Keeping bees negligently (by permitting repeated swarms), is exactly keeping an animal in such a way as to be a nuisance.
Local Authorities seem quite happy to go to law against someone repeatedly behaving unreasonably.

 

[m100]

Zero lost swarms by the use of clipped queens and proper management is IMHO the only acceptable way to keep bees in a built up area.

In the arse end of nowhere with a large number of colonies, plenty of forage and a correspondingly large number of bait hives at a suitable distance and with no tree or building cavities around you could probably get away without swarm control as you'd nearly always capture your swarms. In a built up area a hands off let them swarm approach is irresponsible.

A bait hive less than 100m from the parent hive is also highly unlikely to be occupied by an emerging swarm, the bees hang on the tree or nearby structure close to the parent hive whist finding a new location which could be a mile or more away.

Checking mite drop to determine overall mite load is very prone to error with the design of many open mesh floors and inserts.

Also with EFB outbreaks only a few miles to the south of your location in what is currently a very wide EFB free area, a hands off approach is IMHO totally unacceptable.

 

[thorn]

Yes, they are different torts.

Frimston & Smith (Solicitor & QC, NDB & Hon Sec of IBRA) wrote an interesting Case Book "Beekeeping and the Law - Swarms and Neighbours" which brings together reports of many relevant cases.
At page 7 they say
Numerous old cases attest that repeated failure to prevent swarms is indeed negligent.


A relevant Statutory Nuisance was defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Section 79 defined the actus reus as keeping any animal in such a way as to be a nuisance, (thereby interfering with enjoyment of property), and S80 and 81 provides local authorities the power to issue Abatement Notices, and to enforce them. S82 allows any person to apply to a Magistrates Court for a similar Abatement Order.
Keeping bees negligently (by permitting repeated swarms), is exactly keeping an animal in such a way as to be a nuisance.
Local Authorities seem quite happy to go to law against someone repeatedly behaving unreasonably.

A nuisance can be caused inadvertently, negligently or deliberately. But an action in negligence is a beast of a different colour.

 

[itma]

A nuisance can be caused inadvertently, negligently or deliberately. But an action in negligence is a beast of a different colour.

My original statement that you took issue with was -

Failure to do any swarm control whatsoever would constitute negligence, and could leave you open to legal claims for nuisance ...

... which I don't believe to be misleading.

 

[Vramin]

I think you are using very emotive language. I wouldn't say that gently removing and inspecting each frame is 'tearing' the colony apart. Of course, it's causing a little disruption, but I think the bees recover fairly quickly.

When I transferred my nuc to the hive last year the bees were foraging and returning with pollen within half an hour - hardly a sign of a colony in deep distress, IMO.

 

[user 6228]

How does all this litigation vary, if you have a box that you have put up on awall, that you dont put bees in ,but they set up home themselves. In which you do nothing but ensure that the box is securely fastened to the wall.. I.e. You are not a bee keeper at all, but a preserver of native fauna.

 

[thorn]

My original statement that you took issue with was - ... which I don't believe to be misleading.

Not so much took issue with but felt should be clarified. There's been a lot of nonsense about feared negligence actions and the Daily Mail fantasy of a claims culture on this forum in the past.

Frimston has been on my Amazon wish list for the last year following your recommendation when the ownership of swarms problem came up, but my wife never seems to look at it as birthdays and Christmas go past, and unless and until someone comes to the office with a bee related problem I can't get the firm to buy it. Maybe I'll have to buy it myself.

Has anyone on this forum been the target of an action by a neighbour or other individual (not a local authority) as a result of our hobby (either in negligence or nuisance)? I'd love to start putting together a case list to give firm guidance. At the moment everything I post on the topic is based on the general law of negligence, for want of bee related precedents. The Northern Irish case Teemore posted about last year appears to have been for a trip/slip accident brought against an employer under the Workplace Regulations, and not related to the bees themselves.

 

[Philip]

Are you not the keeper of the bees if you have placed the box with intent to attract the bees, or if they have set up home incidentally?

You control the box and therefore assume ownership [if anyone could be described as an owner of bees :: ]
I think of it as a person who has a vermin problem, one is not normally a keeper of wild rats, but once the nuisance has been identified and notified to you is it not your failure to act that is actionable?