Another small cell study [Archive] - Beesource Beekeeping Forums

DRUR

07-01-2009, 06:17 PM

DRUR, I am sure that Guys like Lusby and Michael are not fudging their data or observations......They have little to nothing to gain, and its obvious from there writings and lectures that they are not saying things out of ego.

Charlie:
I must do a poor job of expressing my position. I have the utmost respect for the above named beekeepers. I certainly don't discount their observations. Michael even post health certificates done by the state, showing no mites, but to some this is unacceptable, I am sure that the mite observations were not done in accordance with "scientific" standards; and therefore are 'discounted'. In another thread someone challenged 'small cell' group to participate in a real mite test and he would compare his russians to our test results. However, when I agreed and asked him to provide the parameters for testing for mite, there was no reply.

"whats missing is that after 15 years with the mites, we still have several methods that "help" but don't have the magic answer pinpointed...."

I don't think we will ever have this, I just think that we will reach a point where we can exist with the mites at a sustainable level.

"the answer is just that, more drone comb and Small cell foundation.... say 7 frames of small cell and 3 frames drone comb? (as opposed to natrual cell size where its sprinkled throughout)"

I think one drone frame is sufficient. Colonies have the desire to produce drones, and will throughout the colony if no other cells are made available; but hopefully by providing one drone frame this will be sufficient to satisfy the desire to produce drones.

"Based on this line of thinking the large cell size and longer uncapped times could be causing more mites on workers, wheras small/natural cell pushes them to drones."

I think that this is the theory on small and/or natural cell size. That the mites in this situation would only be devastating to the drone population and not the worker population. I think though that the large cell people do not believe there is any evidence of this from the studies done so far, which to them seem to contradict this theory. I say, that based upon the data, that the studies so far have not been sufficient to make this determination one way or the other, because no distinction is made for the source of heavy mite drops.

"In small cell foundation with no drone comb, then the mites are left with no choice but propigate on the workers despite the drawback...
intersting thought for a study....."

In small cell with no drone cell (this is what I currently have) they make drones (bullets) in the small cells. These are obvious and I have examined these on my small cells and have found no mites; but this is not conclusive because I have disrupted the mite cycle in regressing my colonies to small cell, thereby causing (possibly) destruction of mites. Just to many variables at this time for me to make my determination. I am using drone frames now, but this late in the year, these may not be used.

"combination of small cell and drones comb?"

This is what I intend to do.

It is my hope that small cell is the answer (or at least part of it); and that even a queen that does not exhibit SMR/VSH genetics can survive on small cells. If this is so, then we can begin to also select queens based upon honey production/gentleness instead of concentrating on the SMR/VSH genetics. I personally would hate to lose the genetic diversity of high producing queens because they fail to exhibit SMR/VSH hygienic behaviour.

Thanks for your comments Charlie, they are stimulating.

Barry

07-01-2009, 06:58 PM

"Based on this line of thinking the large cell size and longer uncapped times could be causing more mites on workers, wheras small/natural cell pushes them to drones."

I think that this is the theory on small and/or natural cell size. That the mites in this situation would only be devastating to the drone population and not the worker population.

This is not the theory from Lusby. If you care to read, it's right here:

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/suggested-biological-manipulative-field-management-for-control-of-honeybee-mites-part-2/

The mites and their accompanying diseases are not the problem, they are merely the advanced stages of an artificially caused problem. THE STRESS RESULTING FROM GENERALLY ACCEPTED BEEKEEPING PRACTICES OF ARTIFICIALLY ENLARGED BROOD-COMBS, NUTRITION BY EITHER BEING OUT-OF-BALANCE WITH NATURAL FLORA OR FED ARTIFICIAL DIETS OF POLLEN SUBSTITUTE AND/OR SUGAR/CORN SYRUP, OVERUSE OF ANTIBIOTICS, AND CHEMICALS, REPEATED OVER MANY YEARS IS THE REAL KILLER OF DOMESTICATED HONEYBEE COLONIES.

The most important weapon in the fight against the various parasitic Acarapis mites and their accompanying secondary stress diseases is prevention. Beekeepers must be alert to the signs of distress within their colonies from these sources. When stress symptoms are apparent, beekeepers must take action to put their colonies back into a natural biological balance with manipulative field treatments. (Note: SECONDARY STRESS DISEASES COME ABOUT BECAUSE BEES INGEST BACTERIA OR VIRAL PATHOGENS THEIR SYSTEMS CANNOT HANDLE AND/OR BECAUSE THE MITES CHEW ON THE BEES EXOSKELETON CREATING A WOUND, ALLOWING FOR BACTERIAL AND VIRAL INFECTIONS TO BEGIN THROUGH THESE WOUNDS, THAT THEIR IMMUNE SYSTEMS CANNOT HANDLE.)

This retrogression back to a natural biological balance within the colony can be accomplished through dietary change if an artificial diet is being used, and by replacing the artificially enlarged brood comb with natural sized comb foundation in harmony with the geographic region where the colonies are being maintained. Culling excessive frames of drone combs (more than 10% drone cells drawn on any one comb) will also help.

gmcharlie

07-01-2009, 08:13 PM

This is not the theory from Lusby. If you care to read, it's right here:

Thanks bary , I didn't mean to imply that was lusbys theory.... that was my own thought.....

[The mites and their accompanying diseases are not the problem, they are merely the advanced stages of an artificially caused problem. THE STRESS RESULTING FROM GENERALLY ACCEPTED BEEKEEPING PRACTICES OF ARTIFICIALLY ENLARGED BROOD-COMBS, NUTRITION BY EITHER BEING OUT-OF-BALANCE WITH NATURAL FLORA OR FED ARTIFICIAL DIETS OF POLLEN SUBSTITUTE AND/OR SUGAR/CORN SYRUP, OVERUSE OF ANTIBIOTICS, AND CHEMICALS, REPEATED OVER MANY YEARS IS THE REAL KILLER OF DOMESTICATED HONEYBEE COLONIES.

I have read the above paragraph many times and frankly it doesn't pass the smell test.... The cell sizes in question were used for 30 years before teh mites hit, and feral colonies also were affected.... haven't seen a single feral colony witha a pollen subsitute.....

.

the other part about culling drones to 10% was an oppisite to my thought... my thought would be to allow the drones at a much HIGHER level, not lower...

Lusby also sites Apis Cerana as a basic behind the logic, but then also goes right on to note the differences in the blood chemestry....... The argument of small cell was thus borne out by the writer....

I don't have an answer either just pointing out thoughts..... Obviously to me anyway that the Lusby soulution is also not the complete picture, were it, then wild bees and now the rest of us would have proven it is......

I obviously agree its a portion as I have switched most of my hives...

I still am not clear about the differences in number of overall bees and how it relates to small cell......
Another interesting question in my mind is the honey production capibilites of the larger vs smaller bees..... simple logic would say bigger bees more honey.... of course it takes less to feed larger masses also... so theroeticly they woudl be more efficient .......

The debate continues... one day one of these comments will hit the nail on the head....and we can all go AHA:thumbsup:

DRUR

07-01-2009, 10:02 PM

This is not the theory from Lusby. If you care to read, it's right here:

Thanks for the clarification Barry. I partially agree with the Lusby's on this but not totally. I kept bees from the late 70s thru the mid to late 80s, before the destructor problem. There were ferals all over the place. Before I started back sometime in late February, early March, I placed honey in lids at several locations. No honeybees worked this honey, and I had hopes of finding some bee trees and getting some freebees. When I kept bees previously the ferals would have covered these up promptly.

So, I believe destructor also did a job on feral populations (which would have been natural cells), although apparently not all colonies. Of course I know there were other new diseases, but I could not reconcile this observation of the loss of ferals in my area. I certainly do believe that an accumulation of miticideds in the colonies would affect the health on large cells, and also the stress of larger bees, but my bees previously were on large cells and did quite well. I have to reconcile my current prejudices in support small cell vs. large cells with this prior knowledge.

JBJ

07-01-2009, 10:40 PM

"It is my hope that small cell is the answer (or at least part of it); and that even a queen that does not exhibit SMR/VSH genetics can survive on small cells. If this is so, then we can begin to also select queens based upon honey production/gentleness instead of concentrating on the SMR/VSH genetics. I personally would hate to lose the genetic diversity of high producing queens because they fail to exhibit SMR/VSH hygienic behaviour." Danny

Who says the SMR/VSH or hardy survivor stock does not produce? We don't even begin to screen for mite tolerance until they have first proven productive.

The study cited seems to reflect similar results obtained by the small cellers in our region that I have contact with.

Michael Bush

07-03-2009, 03:45 PM

>Drifting 'mites', as believed by many small cell advocates to be the load leveling factor in the earlier UGA study was surely not an issue here.

I find this interesting. When the Jennifer Berry study was revealed at HAS all the small cell people have been inundated by requests to "explain" her results. I didn't do the research and have no intent of explaining anyone's results. But drifting of mites is a reality that has been acknowledged by every scientist that I know of. It's why Varroa are endemic. How much it skews research is an issue that has not been addressed but it certainly exists. I personally did not, and do not, say that I know that is the cause of any particular results from any particular study.

>the other part about culling drones to 10% was an oppisite to my thought... my thought would be to allow the drones at a much HIGHER level, not lower...

Actually Dee leaves a space at the bottom of each frame to allow for and encourage production of drones. To really understand her "drone" policy it's a target of 10% drone comb in the hive.

Here's my statistics. Every time I tried to keep commercial stock on large cell comb with no treatments 100% died from Varroa within two years as evidenced by the tens of thousands of dead Varroa on the bottom boards.

When I went to commercial stock on small cell and natural comb with no treatments 0% died from Varroa since as evidenced by no discernible Varroa in the spring and very few by fall and that what winter losses there are not more than four or five dead Varroa can be found on the bottom boards.

When I went to feral survivor stock on small cell and natural comb with no treatments 0% also died from Varroa but even less died from winter losses etc.

I find this difference so dramatic (a change from 100% to 0%) that counting mites (beyond the obvious looking for them as evidence of the cause of any losses) is irrelevant. As Dann Purvis once said in a conversation with Jennifer Berry and myself and a few others, "It's not about mite counts, it's about survival."

I think a major flaw in all of these studies, besides the obvious far to short of a term, is trying to control everything. It's the overall natural state of the hive we are trying to restore and all of the interference involved in trying to keep every thing even (like treating to get the mite levels even, or leaving out drone comb) are only interfering with having a natural system and a natural system is what we are trying to establish. That natural system does not just involve having a certain cell size and a certain percentage of drones but not interfering with natural selection for bees that can survive, not interfering with the 3000 microorganisms that normally live in a hive not interfering with the 30 some kinds of mites that naturally live on bees. Anything done in a study in an attempt to mess with that system to "standardize" the results messes with the overall system. Fumidil kills needed yeasts and fungi, Terramycin interferes with the thousands of beneficial and necessary bacteria that live in the bee's gut and in the comb and in the pollen. Essential oils interfere with all the microorganisms in the hive including bacteria, fungi, yeasts etc. Limiting drone messes with the natural proclivity of Varroa for drone which Dee has often said she thinks is a major issue as the "pseudo" drone effect she refers to is that the Varroa mistake large worker cells for drone cells.

DRUR

07-03-2009, 04:15 PM

Who says the SMR/VSH or hardy survivor stock does not produce? We don't even begin to screen for mite tolerance until they have first proven productive.
First I don't think I said they don't produce (if that is your implications). But, if I am using large cells, and my best queen dies because of mites, then we have lost her production because of the mites. Or, if she dies because of an accumulation of the miticides which have caused other problems within the colony, we lose her production.

If, however, she is on small cells, and that has an affect on mite populations, her genetics are preserved, or maybe she survived because we didn't interfer with the colony health by destroying the natural balance with all of the poisons we have subjected her to.

DRUR

07-03-2009, 04:21 PM

The study cited seems to reflect similar results obtained by the small cellers in our region that I have contact with.

Perhaps those "small cellers" in your region could post their results here, and share with others, which is exactly what I intend to do, and in an unbiased manner. I don't intend to fudge those results.

Do I want small cell to be the answer? YES

To support my viewpoint? NO,

I don't have a viewpoint. I have studied the issue and made a logical management decision based upon the results of my study. But if the small cells don't work for me without treatment, I won't sneak a treatment and lie about it.

Countryboy

07-03-2009, 09:44 PM

This thread is just a rehashing of the small cell study that was already hashed out starting here: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=418693&highlight=ellis#post418693

It's not 'another' small cell study. It's the same one served up again.

gmcharlie

07-04-2009, 08:07 AM

Thanks Michael for the complete thoughts...... very insightful....

I do have a question for you though, not to argue at all but to understand thoughts, If natural cell is the complete answer ( I do understand its working for you as I am so convinced I am switching also) then why would we continue to see feral hive losses???

Secondly why can we not seem to get wide spread acceptance of the principle???

Countryboy

07-04-2009, 08:45 AM

DRUR

07-04-2009, 10:06 AM

If natural cell is the complete answer ( I do understand its working for you as I am so convinced I am switching also) then why would we continue to see feral hive losses???

Charlie if I might take the opportunity to respond to your question that you posed to Michael?

When I was about 11-12 years, we had a milk cow. Local dairies would give us the Holstein and Jersey bull calves. We would feed these calves from the excess milk of our milk cow, raise them up and either butcher for personal use or sell them to someone else for butcher. After I became an adult, my family also had milk cows. I tried purchasing bull calves from the large dairies (none left anymore) in our area. We would always have about 50-60% of the calves die (I refused to treat).

I wonder if this isn't what has happened to our 'managed' bee population, they are generally a sickly degenerate population (due to continuous treatments), which is now continuing to pass that genetics into the wild (and/or feral) population.

Also I was in FFA in high school we did a study on the control of what was then called screwworm fly, as I can recall. There had been a major outbreak in the U.S.A. which they were having tough time controlling. Finally they bred male flies that were sterilized, and then released to breed the female flies. By being bred by a sterile fly they could not reproduce and this solved the outbreak. The saturation of sterile male flies destroyed the screw fly's ability to reproduce.

Suppose that by treating managed colonies and rearing bees which could only survive with treatments (degenerate genes), and then having these drones saturate an area, imposing their degenerate genetics on the wild bee population; logically at least this would eventually lead to the demise of the wild bee population, since they are not 'managed'. Seems like even if natural selection were taking place, in areas where there were large populations of managed colonies, this would lead to the degeneration of the wild (or feral) bee populations.

From a logical standpoint, this would go a long ways towards explaining the continued demise of the feral bee populations, even though on natural cells. Think of the screwfly above and their demise through sterile male flies.

Michael Bush

07-05-2009, 11:11 AM

>If natural cell is the complete answer ( I do understand its working for you as I am so convinced I am switching also) then why would we continue to see feral hive losses???

I wouldn't say it's the ONLY answer, but I could not get them to survive until I took that step. I think the gene pool has shrunk for a variety of reasons (mostly beekeepers buying from a small pool of queen breeders) and certainly genetics is related. But here is my answer to that frequently asked question:

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#feralbees

Question:

If natural/small cell size will control Varroa, why did all the feral bees die off?

Answer:

The problem is that this question typically comes with several assumptions.

The first assumption is that the feral bees have all but died out. I have not found this to be true. I see a lot of feral bees and I see more every year.

The second assumption is that when some of the feral bees did die, that they all died from Varroa mites. A lot of things happened to the bees in this country including Tracheal mites, and viruses. I'm sure some of the survival from some of this is a matter of selection. The ones that couldn't withstand them died.

The third assumption is that huge numbers of mites hitchhiking in on robbers can't overwhelm a hive no matter how well they handle Varroa. Tons of crashing domestic hives were bound to take a toll. Even if you have a fairly small and stable local population of Varroa, a huge influx from outside will overwhelm a hive.

The fourth assumption is that a recently escaped swarm will build small cell. They will build something in between. For many years most of the feral bees were recent escapees. The population of feral bees was kept high by a lot of recent escapees and, in the past, those escapees often survived. It's only recently I've seen a shift in the population to be the dark bees rather than the Italians that look like they are recent. Large bees (bees from 5.4 mm foundation) build an in between sized comb, usually around 5.1 mm. So these recently swarmed domestic bees are not fully regressed and often die in the first year or two.

The fifth assumption is that small cell beekeepers don't believe there is also a genetic component to the survival of bees with Varroa. Obviously there are bees that are more or less hygienic and more or less able to deal with many pests and diseases. Whenever a new disease or pest comes along the ferals have to survive them without any help.

The sixth assumption is that the feral bees suddenly died. The bees have been diminishing for the last 50 years fairly steadily from pesticide misuse, loss of habitat and forage, and more recently from bee paranoia. People hear about AHB and kill any swarm they see.

>Secondly why can we not seem to get wide spread acceptance of the principle???

For reasons that are a mystery to me, people don't want to try things for themselves.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesscientificstudies.htm#notprovenscientifically

gmcharlie

07-06-2009, 08:29 AM

Thanks Michael, thought I had read all of your site, must have missed a cpl pages....

mike bispham

07-06-2009, 12:36 PM

If natural cell is the complete answer ( I do understand its working for you as I am so convinced I am switching also) then why would we continue to see feral hive losses???

I would be wary of saying it is the complete answer. That implies it is the answer for everything. It is the varroa answer for many people.

We continue to see feral losses because not all feral hives are fully regressed yet.

I've almost picked this post at random from the thread... to make the point...

using the term 'regression' sends us off on a wild goose chase for the magic 'difference' between 'regressed' bees and ordinary ones.

The difference is 'adaptation'. What the 'regression' folk do, without fully realising what is happening, is put in place the circumstances in which their bees can adapt through natural selection. They get back in tune with the local feral populations, by refusing to medicate, letting weak strains die, and allowing the survivors to form their own patterns of living inside the hives.

One result of that is healthy bees! Another is cells that are built in the range that best suits their bees within the current disease environment.

In almost any post written by a 'regressor' if you substitute 'adapted' for 'regressed' what you get is a statement that is accurate in the terms of modern biology - i.e:

"We continue to see feral losses because not all feral hives are fully adapted yet."

(There's also the business of duff genes from artificially-maintained apriaries messing them up) - but do you see?

If we can adjust to speaking in terms of adaptation, refer in their minds to ideas of 'bloodlines' and see the sheer elegance of natural selection, a full understanding of what is happening emerges as if by magic! equipped with that we can design strategies for all local circumstances.

best,

Mike

gmcharlie

07-06-2009, 12:53 PM

Interesting comment on the difference between regresson and adaptaion.....

Seems to me from my small experiments regression is a severe form of stress. some queens won't even lay on small cells... does that not prove stress???

I am becoming a fan of natural, but I can tell you natrual is a huge varity from smaller than foundation, to much larger....

I have to admit though my foundation frames are much prettyier and uniform...

mike bispham

07-06-2009, 01:03 PM

some queens won't even lay on small cells... does that not prove stress???

Don't worry about large or small or egg-shaped... 'free-cell' or 'natural-cell' is all you need to think. Just let them choose what works for them. In every way.

Mike

Countryboy

07-06-2009, 08:58 PM

using the term 'regression' sends us off on a wild goose chase for the magic 'difference' between 'regressed' bees and ordinary ones.

The difference is 'adaptation'. What the 'regression' folk do, without fully realising what is happening, is put in place the circumstances in which their bees can adapt through natural selection. They get back in tune with the local feral populations, by refusing to medicate, letting weak strains die, and allowing the survivors to form their own patterns of living inside the hives.

Do you understand what is meant by regression? There most definitely IS a difference between regression and adaptation.

Adaptation is a response to a stimuli. Bees drawing comb the size imprinted on the foundation is adaptation - they adapt to the stimulus they are given.

Regression involves removing stimuli, and allowing bees to revert to doing things the way they prefer, without being influenced by external stimuli.

Regression has NOTHING to do with getting in tune with local feral populations, refusing to medicate, letting weak strains die, and allowing survivors to form their own patterns of living inside the hives. I don't know what you draw this assumption on.

Regression refers to allowing bees to revert to the smaller cell size they want to draw. When small cell people talk about regression, they are referring ONLY to how the bees naturally regress to smaller cells.

The refusing to medicate, letting weak bees die, and using local feral bees is the process for getting 'survivor' bees. Survivor stock don't have to be small cell. Survivor stock and regressed bees often go hand in hand, but are totally separate.

mike bispham

07-07-2009, 03:14 AM

[QUOTE=Countryboy;442333](Mike) >>using the term 'regression' sends us off on a wild goose chase for the magic 'difference' between 'regressed' bees and ordinary ones.

The difference is 'adaptation'. What the 'regression' folk do, without fully realising what is happening, is put in place the circumstances in which their bees can adapt through natural selection. They get back in tune with the local feral populations, by refusing to medicate, letting weak strains die, and allowing the survivors to form their own patterns of living inside the hives.<<

(Countryboy)
>Do you understand what is meant by regression? There most definitely IS a difference between regression and adaptation.

Adaptation is a response to a stimuli. Bees drawing comb the size imprinted on the foundation is adaptation - they adapt to the stimulus they are given. <

Hi Countryboy,

I suspect we are seeing the same things, and making our explanations of what we are seeing in different ways. We need to be able to understand each-others descriptions, and the words we use, to be able to share our ideas.

In biology 'adaptation' is the process whereby organisms change to best suit their total environment. That includes diseases.

Biological adaptation is something that happens to strains and species across several generations, through the process of natural selection for the fittest strains to the total evironment in which they live.

Drawing larger cells from printed foundation is emphatically not adaptation in this, biological, sense.

Wiki puts it like this:
Adaptation is one of the basic phenomena of biology.[1] It is the process whereby an organism becomes better suited to its habitat.[2] Also, the term adaptation may refer to a characteristic which is especially important for an organism's survival. For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation

(Countryboy)
>Regression involves removing stimuli, and allowing bees to revert to doing things the way they prefer, without being influenced by external stimuli.<

I would say, according my explanation (biology): Precisely. This is exactly the circumstance in which natural selection can work to locate the fittest strains. It so happens the fittest strains (at the moment) might make smaller cells... It is likely too that they will exhibit hygenic behaviours... In short they carry the characteristics that cause them to act in ways that are successful in thriving and reproducing, and they do so because their parents and ancestors managed also the thrive and reproduce. The successful strains won the war against pest and disease and reproduced.

Those strains that do well against the current strains of varroa may well be those that tend to be smaller, and to make small cells. If you force them to make large cells, they weaken and die; if you let them make the cells they want to make, they survive and thrive.

(Countryboy)
>Regression has NOTHING to do with getting in tune with local feral populations, refusing to medicate, letting weak strains die, and allowing survivors to form their own patterns of living inside the hives. I don't know what you draw this assumption on.<

I've drawn this picture from listening in and having conversations with the folks on the organicbeekeeping lists. They insist on withdrawing all medication, and taking the population fall. When they do that they allow natural selection to work - only the survivors get to reproduce. As their numbers build up, they do so with only survived strains. And their bees also get to choose for themselves what size cells they want - and that undoubtedly helps. But small cells are a symptom of the natural selection that was made possible by the withdrawal of medication, and is one of the mechanisms by which the adapted strains beat varroa.

(Countryboy)
>>Regression refers to allowing bees to revert to the smaller cell size they want to draw. When small cell people talk about regression, they are referring ONLY to how the bees naturally regress to smaller cells.<<

OK, if you want to look at things that way... lets identify the features so we can speak clearly to one another.

1) using no foundation or unprinted foundation allows bees to choose their own cell sizes. lets say 1) is 'free-celling'? natural-celling?

2) what happens when we do just this is that bees tend to build smaller cells, and tend to be less troubled by mites.

Am I right in thinking you want to stop the analysis right there? How would you feel if I said... they now do not need medication. Without medication the weakest die, and their characteristics die with them; the strong thrive and reproduce well, and natural selection can function again?

(Countryboy)>The refusing to medicate, letting weak bees die, and using local feral bees is the process for getting 'survivor' bees. Survivor stock don't have to be small cell. Survivor stock and regressed bees often go hand in hand, but are totally separate.<

OK - I think we are learning each-other's picture's of what is happening. It seems to me that I've often heard folks speak of 'regression' in ways that them supply a complete explanation of what has happened; and I want to add the layer of understanding that comes with following the success and failure of bloodlines through the generations.

It seems to me that if you get to the stage of not-medicating something very important happens - how take away the poisonous mechanism that has been preventing selection for the fittest strains by sending artificially-maintained strains into the next generations.

Since you stop sending duff drones out, you allow the wild bee popluation (which will have been adapting through natural selection all along) to return. And your apiary and the wild bees live happily together, exchanging adapted seed.

I'm not sure I've been able to be very clear, but... what do you make of that?

Best,

Mike

sjj

07-07-2009, 04:45 AM

[QUOTE=Countryboy;442333][I]

I've drawn this picture from listening in and having conversations with the folks on the organicbeekeeping lists. They insist on withdrawing all medication, and taking the population fall.
...

I'm not sure I've been able to be very clear, but... what do you make of that?

Best,

Mike

Well, there is a term "Social Darwinism".
It is very ideologic and controversial.
We should be explicit aware of this.

mike bispham

07-07-2009, 05:24 AM

Hi SJJ

Thanks for bringing this up. I realize what you say is true and relevant. I'm trying to find a way to have the discussions about what happens without anyone having to subscribe to anything that makes them uncomfortable. I'm sure I won't always succeed!

It seems to me that you don't need to subscribe to social darwinism, which as I understand it relates to human societies, in order to talk about the ways bee characteristics are continued, or not, through reproduction of those strains that survive, or don't. I don't know anything about it, and its not on my radar as something useful to the aim of helping bees get well.

While I am at pains not to offend anyone, nor am I about to give up the insights of modern biology as they relate to adaption to changing disease environments. I'm not personally a churchgoer, but I'm quite happy, for example, to think about natural selection as God's amazing mechanism for ensuring health in bees. I don't see any need at all for us to be drawn into evolution vs intelligent design debates, and firmly believe that to do so would be a distraction from the very important work of understanding how it is that medicating undermines the emergence of resistance through natural selection, as sick bees die, and their inadequate characteristics die with them.

While I like the insights into the mechanisms of adaptation supplied by the modern biological sciences, I'm just as fascinated by the way traditional breeder selection works through a much simpler awarness of the way traits are passed down from generation to generation. That is why I offer a return to traditional methods of husbandry as both an explanation for our troubles and a way forward.

I want to bring the experience and insights of those who work with bees into these theoretical realms; and the regression experience is very relevant. We just need to be able to speak clearly to each other.

Does most of that work for you?

Mike

Countryboy

07-07-2009, 02:47 PM

Biological adaptation is something that happens to strains and species across several generations, through the process of natural selection for the fittest strains to the total evironment in which they live.

Drawing larger cells from printed foundation is emphatically not adaptation in this, biological, sense.

Biological adaptation happens to strains and species across several generations, REGARDLESS of natural selection. Natural selection is a separate process.

When bees have had to draw larger cells from printed foundation over several generations and about a century, it most definitely IS biological adaptation. If it were not biological adaptation, bees would immediately draw the small cell if given the opportunity. As it is, it takes a couple successive generations given the opportunity to draw the cell size they want to get the small cells.

>Regression involves removing stimuli, and allowing bees to revert to doing things the way they prefer, without being influenced by external stimuli.<

I would say, according my explanation (biology): Precisely. This is exactly the circumstance in which natural selection can work to locate the fittest strains.

This is NOT the circumstance in which natural selection can work to locate the fittest strains. Do you understand what natural selection is, and how it works? Natural selection is a response to stimuli - NOT the response to a lack of stimuli. Natural selection involves a 'testing' process to find the fittest strain, and that 'testing' involves applying a stimuli.

I've drawn this picture from listening in and having conversations with the folks on the organicbeekeeping lists. They insist on withdrawing all medication, and taking the population fall. When they do that they allow natural selection to work - only the survivors get to reproduce. As their numbers build up, they do so with only survived strains.

Yes, true 'organic' beekeeping advocates not using chemicals. This process you described is natural selection. They are breeding survivor stock.

And their bees also get to choose for themselves what size cells they want - and that undoubtedly helps. But small cells are a symptom of the natural selection that was made possible by the withdrawal of medication,

Small cells are NOT made possible by the withdrawal of medication. Bees will draw small cells even if you medicate them. Drawing small cells and developing survivor stock are two separate issues.

When I get up in the morning, I take a shower. I also put on a pair of jeans afterwards. By your reasoning, it is the process of taking a shower that makes me wear jeans afterwards. (But you seem to ignore that I could still wear jeans regardless if I am showered or not, just as bees will draw small cells regardless if they are medicated or not.)

1) using no foundation or unprinted foundation allows bees to choose their own cell sizes. lets say 1) is 'free-celling'? natural-celling?

Allowing bees to choose their own size cells is known as 'natural cell'. Printed foundation of 4.9mm is known as 'small cell'.

2) what happens when we do just this is that bees tend to build smaller cells, and tend to be less troubled by mites.

The small cell study this thread was originally about would disagree with you. It did not support the hypothesis that bees drawing smaller cells were less troubled by mites.

Am I right in thinking you want to stop the analysis right there? How would you feel if I said... they now do not need medication. Without medication the weakest die, and their characteristics die with them; the strong thrive and reproduce well, and natural selection can function again?

You would be correct if you are thinking that I believe you made an invalid assumption, which renders flawed conclusions, no matter how logical your argument. Bogus info in, bogus info out.

It seems to me that if you get to the stage of not-medicating something very important happens - how take away the poisonous mechanism that has been preventing selection for the fittest strains by sending artificially-maintained strains into the next generations.

Up until 1989 beekeeping was the largest US agricultural sector which was not reliant upon chemical medications.

Bees had not went through natural selection to beat varroa prior to then, because they had no exposure to varroa.

Take away the high varroa populations, and you take away the need for medications. We didn't need medications prior to 1989.

I would have a hard time saying varroa medicated colonies are artificially maintained as varroa is still a new pest to the bees here in the US. If we continue medicating for many years, I believe we will end up with artificially maintained strains.

Since you stop sending duff drones out, you allow the wild bee popluation (which will have been adapting through natural selection all along) to return.

What does you sending out duff drones have to do with the feral bee population? It doesn't. The feral bee population will rebound (as it appears to be doing) regardless if your apiary has good or bad drones.

nor am I about to give up the insights of modern biology as they relate to adaption to changing disease environments.

And in this 'modern biology', how fast does adaptation to changing disease environments happen? After all, bees have been around for thousands of years, and we have only had to deal with mites for the past 20 years.

very important work of understanding how it is that medicating undermines the emergence of resistance through natural selection, as sick bees die, and their inadequate characteristics die with them.

But what about when you have one weak trait, and several really good traits? For example, Native Americans are biologically susceptible to alcoholism - should we allow them all to become alcoholics? Or was it good to destroy South American culture with smallpox? And let's not forget Adolph Hitler's goals of allowing Jewish 'inadequate characteristics' to die off.

There is a time and a place for everything. Both small cell/natural cell and medication have their virtues.

mike bispham

07-07-2009, 03:01 PM

(Mike) "Biological adaptation is something that happens to strains and species across several generations, through the process of natural selection for the fittest strains to the total evironment in which they live.

Drawing larger cells from printed foundation is emphatically not adaptation in this, biological, sense."

(Countryboy) Biological adaptation happens to strains and species across several generations, REGARDLESS of natural selection. Natural selection is a separate process.

No, natural selection is THE mechanism by which change occurs.

Wiki:
Adaptation is one of the basic phenomena of biology.[1] It is the process whereby an organism becomes better suited to its habitat.[2] Also, the term adaptation may refer to a characteristic which is especially important for an organism's survival. For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation

You have to get straight on this before we can have this discussion.

Natural selection causes adaptation

Mike

mike bispham

07-07-2009, 03:12 PM

Natural selection is a response to stimuli - NOT the response to a lack of stimuli. Natural selection involves a 'testing' process to find the fittest strain, and that 'testing' involves applying a stimuli.

The removal of a stimulus IS a stimulus! Any change is a stimilus.

In the case of severe stress like that caused by varroa, those strains that are unable to live perish. Their genes die with them.

Those that can survive reproduce, and the characteristics that enabled them to survive are carried into their offspring.

Nature has selected the fittest strains - in a single generation. Adaptation - of a limited kind - has occurred - in a single generation.

Over the course of several subsequent generations the same process refines the strains again and again, using various mechanisms to select for the best.

The result is strains that can thrive despite the presence of whatever it was that previously killed most of them. They are permanantly resistant.

As soon as you stop medicating and 'helping' the sick stock, this starts happening. The more natural you can be, the quicker the process works through.

Mike

mike bispham

07-07-2009, 03:17 PM

[...]

Small cells are NOT made possible by the withdrawal of medication. Bees will draw small cells even if you medicate them. Drawing small cells and developing survivor stock are two separate issues.

I think we are both partly right. Bees will draw small cells even if you medicate. And that alone will help them manage the mites. As soon as the start managing mites, as long as you stop medicating and don't make every single reproductive choice for them, natural selection begins. Before long you have resistant stock.

Before we start talking about 'survivor stock' I think I need you to tell me what you mean by that term.

Mike

mike bispham

07-07-2009, 03:27 PM

Since you stop sending duff drones out, you allow the wild bee popluation (which will have been adapting through natural selection all along) to return.

What does you sending out duff drones have to do with the feral bee population? It doesn't. The feral bee population will rebound (as it appears to be doing) regardless if your apiary has good or bad drones.

When a queen mates with a drone that does not carry those genes that supply the behaviours conferring resistance, those genes are passed into the workers. This colony is now weakened, its resistance diluted. When drones flying from unadapted colonies dominate the locality, it impossible for local wild bees to attain, or remain resistant.

In setting where apiaries dominate, the wild bees struggle to survive, and there is a continuous and highly damaging loss of genetic variation.

nor am I about to give up the insights of modern biology as they relate to adaption to changing disease environments.

And in this 'modern biology', how fast does adaptation to changing disease environments happen? After all, bees have been around for thousands of years, and we have only had to deal with mites for the past 20 years.

Honeybees have been around in much the same form for an estimated 100,000,000 years. In that time they have met hundreds of thousands of threats at least as serious as varroa. They have thrown each and every one off through natural selection for the fittest strains; and the process is, as I've shown you, rapid.

mike bispham

07-07-2009, 03:33 PM

..very important work of understanding how it is that medicating undermines the emergence of resistance through natural selection, as sick bees die, and their inadequate characteristics die with them.

But what about when you have one weak trait, and several really good traits?

Several really good traits are no good without the traits that eneble you to thrive. Ask the (dead) wild bees.

For example, Native Americans are biologically susceptible to alcoholism - should we allow them all to become alcoholics? Or was it good to destroy South American culture with smallpox? And let's not forget Adolph Hitler's goals of allowing Jewish 'inadequate characteristics' to die off.

We are talking about insects, not people. Lets keep it that way.

There is a time and a place for everything. Both small cell/natural cell and medication have their virtues.

It is the core of my argument that medication followed by reproduction is highly damaging to future generations, as it preserves the unadapted and prevents what would otherwise be rapid emergence of resistance.

But... we are suppose to be talking about small cell stuff here. And take your point that small/natural cell alone has been shown to be ineffective against varroa, but suggest that it helps, and that if it allows medication to be stopped the result is successful adaptaion to varroa = resistance

Mike

gmcharlie

07-07-2009, 08:39 PM

Mike, you make one assumption I think you need to ponder.... just because A hive "survives" does not mean its adapted and better genes... Mites may have not gotten a good hold...

One other survival stratagey I have seen mentioned is frequent swarms and news hives.... this is not really a genetic issue, but a biological one.... breeding and moving to proppigate, while the old hive dies.... Had you artificcaily got in the way of that with swarm control, did you not just mess with the "survival mechinism" of that colony.????

Rhetorical question....

Countryboy

07-07-2009, 10:36 PM

No, natural selection is THE mechanism by which change occurs.
You have to get straight on this before we can have this discussion.

Natural selection causes adaptation

And you are incorrect. Natural selection does NOT cause adaptation. Natural selection is the process of eliminating those organisms which did not adapt. Adaption comes BEFORE natural selection.

Try this experiment. Tonight, turn out all the lights and cover all the windows, and walk through your house. Will you adapt to the darkness and use other senses to avoid the bumps, bruises, and falls - or will natural selection eliminate you if you are unable to see in the dark?

The removal of a stimulus IS a stimulus! Any change is a stimilus.

That is incorrect. A stimulus causes a response - removing that stimulus simply removes the response. If I poke you with a needle (stimulus), you normal response will be to flinch or jump away (response). When I stop poking you (remove the stimulus), I am not stimulating you to stop flinching or pulling away.

Nature has selected the fittest strains - in a single generation. Adaptation - of a limited kind - has occurred - in a single generation.

Adapting can occur in one generation - natural selection takes many generations. Luck can have a good deal to do with surviving one generation - it does not mean the survivor is the fittest.

The result is strains that can thrive despite the presence of whatever it was that previously killed most of them. They are permanantly resistant.

There used to be a wax rendering facility that had an apiary there. The bees in that apiary became AFB resistant. When those bees were no longer exposed to AFB spores, they lost their resistance. This is documented. It also contradicts you. Please explain.

As soon as you stop medicating and 'helping' the sick stock, this starts happening. The more natural you can be, the quicker the process works through.

And as soon as the illness no longer pressures your stock, they lose their resistance.

As soon as the start managing mites, as long as you stop medicating and don't make every single reproductive choice for them, natural selection begins. Before long you have resistant stock.

Natural selection will select for other pressures. If small cell manages mites, mites will no longer be a selector in the natural selection.

Before we start talking about 'survivor stock' I think I need you to tell me what you mean by that term.

I consider 'survivor stock' to be stock which is proven to be able to survive common pressures, without human intervention. Small cell may or may not be a part of this.

When a queen mates with a drone that does not carry those genes that supply the behaviours conferring resistance, those genes are passed into the workers. This colony is now weakened, its resistance diluted.

It is not necessarily weakened. The drone may offer other valuable genetics, and you are discounting the queen's genetic material. Those weak genetics must also be the dominant gene trait - if it is a recessive genetic trait, it will have no impact on the colony unless the queen is also a carrier of that genetic trait.

Who are we to determine the value of a specific gene, anyways? What may appear a weak gene on the first glance may actually be a highly valuable gene. For example, bees that uncap and remove brood is destructive to the colony...but it can also be a positive impact too.

In setting where apiaries dominate, the wild bees struggle to survive, and there is a continuous and highly damaging loss of genetic variation.

That is a hypothetical setting. Any guess is plausible. Around here, feral hives dominate apiaries. The wild bees struggle to survive at times, and prosper in other times. Please keep in mind that here in the US, there are no wild bees - all bees come from managed hives, or are escapees (or descendants from escapees) from managed hives.

Honeybees have been around in much the same form for an estimated 100,000,000 years. In that time they have met hundreds of thousands of threats at least as serious as varroa. They have thrown each and every one off through natural selection for the fittest strains; and the process is, as I've shown you, rapid.

I haven't been around for those estimated years, nor have I seen what threats the bees have faced. It's just a guess what they have been through. You have not shown me the natural selection process is rapid. You claimed that, but offered nothing of substance to back up your allegations.

The Russian bees, from where they came from in Russia, are varroa resistant. Are you suggesting that one trait makes them the most fittest (best) bee?

Please keep in mind the guy who came up with the THEORY of natural selection could not explain honeybees. They were a mystery to Darwin.

We are talking about insects, not people. Lets keep it that way.

Genetics is genetics, regardless of organism. Using illustrations of different organisms just shows the flaws in your argument.

Several really good traits are no good without the traits that eneble you to thrive. Ask the (dead) wild bees.

Ah, now you recognize that genetics are a package deal. Go back and read your stuff about duff drones weakening a colony.

How can I ask wild bees here in North America, as there are no wild honeybees in North America? They are all domesticated bees.

mike bispham

07-08-2009, 01:13 AM

Mike, you make one assumption I think you need to ponder.... just because A hive "survives" does not mean its adapted and better genes... Mites may have not gotten a good hold...

You are right. But in the way of things averages come to the top. Those that survive and breed will tend to be more mite tolerant; the least mite-tolerant will be killed off and their inadequate behaviours won't go forward.

This is an extremely elegant and beautiful mechanism - but you do have to study it a bit to see just how it works.

One other survival stratagey I have seen mentioned is frequent swarms and news hives.... this is not really a genetic issue, but a biological one.... breeding and moving to proppigate, while the old hive dies.... Had you artificcaily got in the way of that with swarm control, did you not just mess with the "survival mechinism" of that colony.????

Rhetorical question....

No, good question - yes. The less interference during this critical phase the better - and the same goes even when this critical phase passes, for there will be another one, and we'll want robust and varied stock to meet it...

Mike

mike bispham

07-08-2009, 01:48 AM

No, natural selection is THE mechanism by which change occurs.
You have to get straight on this before we can have this discussion.

Natural selection causes adaptation

[CB] And you are incorrect. Natural selection does NOT cause adaptation. Natural selection is the process of eliminating those organisms which did not adapt. Adaption comes BEFORE natural selection.

I'm not going to argue the toss with you. In a sense you are right, and in another wrong. Once a change has occurred then natural selection has new material to work with, and further adaptation can take place.

The process is continuous, and the result is tolerance, which we can roughly equate with resistance and adaptation. We can say that a bee that can, as a result of natural selection live with mites, is adapted to their presence, and is mite-tolerant, or has gained resistance to the pest. These are all ways of saying the same thing from slightly different angles.

Try this experiment. Tonight, turn out all the lights and cover all the windows, and walk through your house. Will you adapt to the darkness and use other senses to avoid the bumps, bruises, and falls - or will natural selection eliminate you if you are unable to see in the dark?

You are confusing 'adapt' in the ordinary sense with 'adapt' in the biological sense. 'Adaptation' in the biological sense is something that requires at least one new generation. You need to be very clear about this distinction.

The removal of a stimulus IS a stimulus! Any change is a stimilus.

That is incorrect. [...]

You are wrong. Think about it.

There used to be a wax rendering facility that had an apiary there. The bees in that apiary became AFB resistant. When those bees were no longer exposed to AFB spores, they lost their resistance. This is documented. It also contradicts you. Please explain.

I expect genetic material from outside the apiary diluted the genes conferring the behaviours that made them tolerant. Yes, remove the pressure, and the resistance fades. With insects this happens fast because their reproductive cycle is rapid, and there is a lot of variation in the gene pool.

It therefore doesn't contradict me in the least. The fact that you think it does shows that you understand little of the mechanisms of gaining resistance.

As soon as you stop medicating and 'helping' the sick stock, this starts happening. The more natural you can be, the quicker the process works through.

And as soon as the illness no longer pressures your stock, they lose their resistance.

Yes. As I say the processes are continuous, and their effects soon felt.

Natural selection will select for other pressures. If small cell manages mites, mites will no longer be a selector in the natural selection.

Yes. Natural selection is driven by pressures, and any kind of pressure will, to a greater lesser degree, have an effect. More pressure more effect.

[
Before we start talking about 'survivor stock' I think I need you to tell me what you mean by that term.

I consider 'survivor stock' to be stock which is proven to be able to survive common pressures, without human intervention. Small cell may or may not be a part of this.

OK, I agree that definition, and that statement.

In setting where apiaries dominate, the wild bees struggle to survive, and there is a continuous and highly damaging loss of genetic variation.

That is a hypothetical setting. Any guess is plausible.

There is a difference between a guess and a deeply thought-through analysis based on knowledge of the raw mechanisms (that doesn't get lost in unnecessary detail) If you think about it, you'll see it is quite simple and obvious. Don't overcomplicate.

[
Around here, feral hives dominate apiaries. The wild bees struggle to survive at times, and prosper in other times. Please keep in mind that here in the US, there are no wild bees - all bees come from managed hives, or are escapees (or descendants from escapees) from managed hives.

Yes - what happenes is very much locally determined, and the presence of feral stock makes all the difference - as does the presence of a dominating apiary. (I use the term 'wild' as a conscious choice to avoid playing into the hands of those who wish to see - and treat - bees as just another livestock)

Honeybees have been around in much the same form for an estimated 100,000,000 years. In that time they have met hundreds of thousands of threats at least as serious as varroa. They have thrown each and every one off through natural selection for the fittest strains; and the process is, as I've shown you, rapid.

I haven't been around for those estimated years, nor have I seen what threats the bees have faced. It's just a guess what they have been through.

Its a scientific consensus position, deeply supported by a vast mass of evidence, and I accept it.

You have not shown me the natural selection process is rapid. You claimed that, but offered nothing of substance to back up your allegations.

I can - and have - shown you. I cannot learn for you, nor make you understand. If you want to engage with a promising explanation, and be part of the development of a new understanding of the causes of bee diseases, you'll have to do the work of getting to grips with the standard and simple biology that underpins it. At present everything you say shows me you have not far to go, but you need to stop, open your mind, read, understand. get a grip on the basics of natural selection before going too deep with the mechanisms, and then don't bother too much with the complexities. You don't need them, but you DO need the basics, so prioritise.

[Please keep in mind the guy who came up with the THEORY of natural selection could not explain honeybees. They were a mystery to Darwin.

You may be right but its entirely irrelevant. Biology has developed enormously since then, and honeybees are understood to be goverened by the same basic mechanisms that govern all life.

Mike

Countryboy

07-09-2009, 12:19 AM

The process is continuous, and the result is tolerance, which we can roughly equate with resistance and adaptation.

No we can't. Tolerance is tolerance, and resistance is resistance. (Tolerance and adaptation can sometimes be synonymous.) I can tolerate a tick sucking blood from me - but tolerating it doesn't make me any more or less resistant to the tick. I just adapt to the situation and tolerate it. Or if it becomes intolerable, I remove the tick.

We can say that a bee that can, as a result of natural selection live with mites, is adapted to their presence, and is mite-tolerant, or has gained resistance to the pest.

We can say it, but saying it won't make it so.

You are confusing 'adapt' in the ordinary sense with 'adapt' in the biological sense. 'Adaptation' in the biological sense is something that requires at least one new generation. You need to be very clear about this distinction.

Care to cite a reference to that?

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/217 says nothing about requiring one new generation.

Or how about these 2 definitions regarding biological adaptation?
The acquisition of modifications in an organism that enable it to adjust to life in a new environment.
The dynamic process in which the behavior and physiological mechanisms of an individual continually change to adjust to variations in living conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Countryboy
The removal of a stimulus IS a stimulus! Any change is a stimilus.

That is incorrect. [...]

You are wrong. Think about it.

A stimulus is a positive action. An inaction is a negative action.

There is a difference between a guess and a deeply thought-through analysis based on knowledge of the raw mechanisms (that doesn't get lost in unnecessary detail) If you think about it, you'll see it is quite simple and obvious. Don't overcomplicate.

A guess is a theory. A deeply thought-through analysis is still a theory.

The only things 'simple and obvious' are invalid inferences. Invalid inferences do not support a logical conclusion.

as does the presence of a dominating apiary.

What is a dominating apiary? How do I recognize a dominating apiary? Or is it just another theoretical ghost we can use as a scapegoat? I know of 3 feral hives within a half mile from my house. (and who knows how many I don't know about.)

Its a scientific consensus position, deeply supported by a vast mass of evidence, and I accept it.

No, it is theory accepted by many a scientific consensus (but scientific consensus once said the world was flat too) - and it is supported by virtually no credible evidence. It is a theory supported by many other theories.

You may be right but its entirely irrelevant. Biology has developed enormously since then, and honeybees are understood to be goverened by the same basic mechanisms that govern all life.

Biology has developed so enormously that scientists STILL cannot create life. We still don't even know all the mechanisms that govern life.

I have 15 hives, and 8 or 9 nucs. I disrupt natural selection, and try to stack odds in my bees favor. My bees are still alive.

Just out of curiousity, how many hives do you have? How is natural selection working for you?

mike bispham

07-09-2009, 01:12 AM

The process is continuous, and the result is tolerance, which we can roughly equate with resistance and adaptation.

No we can't. Tolerance is tolerance, and resistance is resistance. (Tolerance and adaptation can sometimes be synonymous.) I can tolerate a tick sucking blood from me - but tolerating it doesn't make me any more or less resistant to the tick. I just adapt to the situation and tolerate it. Or if it becomes intolerable, I remove the tick.

We can say that a bee that can, as a result of natural selection live with mites, is adapted to their presence, and is mite-tolerant, or has gained resistance to the pest.

We can say it, but saying it won't make it so.

You are confusing 'adapt' in the ordinary sense with 'adapt' in the biological sense. 'Adaptation' in the biological sense is something that requires at least one new generation. You need to be very clear about this distinction.

Care to cite a reference to that?

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/217 says nothing about requiring one new generation.

I'm sorry but you are just not familar with the ideas under discussion. You are missing the essential content of my words, and we will forever talk at cross-purposes, and waste our energy and other's patience.

While I'm happy to help, I'm not responsible for your learning. If you want to catch up we can talk.

If I can I offer some thoughts:

Make up your mind whether you are going to learn the scientific picture first, then reject it, or whether you want to continue rejecting it while you (don't) learn it. Heck, you could even approach it with an open mind.

I repeat; start with the basics. Stay clear of academic-level discussions (the paper you cite above assumes a basic knowledge - that's why you have misread it) Don't use ideological/religous critiques as your source, they will only confuse you.

You only need the basics, and it isn't rocket science. The way weak strains fall by the wayside and strong strains get to make the next generation is the simple and elegant foundation that underpins all life. Think of a living thing; apply the idea; watch it play out. Do so repeatedly until you see the marvelous simplicity of it.

Build a clear and vivid picture in your mind of the way in which competition to reproduce selects the fittest strains, and how this mechanism allows organisms to 'learn' to live with, and throw off, pests and diseases.

Watch how in biology terms like 'adapt', 'resistant', 'tolerant' and 'fitness' come to have special meanings - meanings supplied by the scientific understanding. You have to forget about how these terms are used in ordinary everyday speech, and get used to using them in the special context of biology, where they have special meanings.

Study the way traditional breeding practice mimics natural selection. Keeping stock healthy is about breeding first, medicating second; never breeding from speciamens that have needed any serious medication - that just produces... stock that will need serious medication... You can get a clear start from my webpage http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/The%20Principles%20of%20Breeding_Seed%20Selection. htm

If you have genuine questions do consider writing privately.

Good luck,

Mike

Gene Weitzel

07-09-2009, 02:59 PM

rkr

07-09-2009, 03:12 PM

http://www.scientificbeekeeping.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=50

Here is a site that speaks mite breeding as well as bee breeding. It makes some sense.

Rod

Wouldn't it be crazy if some one figured out a way to breed a “bee tolerant mite” that would take over a hive the way our bee killing mites have? Say a SC/NC mite that you intentionally put in your hive to take the place of the mites already there.

Countryboy

07-09-2009, 10:10 PM

Mike, part of your problem is that you fail to recognize that natural selection does not select for the best and fittest strains. Natural selection eliminates all but the strains who can survive the catastrophic stress. Strains which are more fit and better strains, but have a chink in their armor - if the attacking force targets that chink, they die. A weaker strain that can handle the assault will live on for another day. Natural selection often selects for WORSE strains, because the only redeeming quality of the surviving strain was it's ability to survive.

A guy I know made an interesting observation of why there are so many idiots. Most of the people with common sense got killed off during the civil war, leaving the idiots to reproduce unchecked.

Also, how many hives do you have, and how are they doing? You didn't answer that question.

In response to Gene and rkr: I remember reading a thing about a guy that measured mite drops on several hives in his yards. On hives that the mites reproduced the slowest, he split those hives. After a few years, the mites in his hives took a couple weeks longer to double their population more than normal. I think jean-marc knew him, and talked about the guy's results.

mike bispham

07-10-2009, 01:36 AM

One thing everyone in these discussions seem to ignore. The mites. If the bees are capable of adapting, natural selection or whatever term you choose. So are the mites. A parasite that completely destroys its host, also destroys itself. Might there also be some local adaptation by the mites that could explain how some folks in one area seem to have good results with small cell while others in another area seem to fail miserably? Most all the studies I have seen seem to focus only on the bees. IMO, they are easily missing half the equation. It may very well be that there is a natural system that will develop a form of symbiosis between the bees and the mites. It would also seem that there could exist even minor stress factors that when placed on either side (the mites or the bees) can cause an imbalance that will "tip the scales" so to speak to one side or the other. Without knowledge of these stress factors, this could account for some of the almost phenomenal success that some SC beekeepers have and the inability of others to reproduce that success.

You are absolutely right - co-evolution is the term we need. This is from my website:

"1.00 Primary problem 1: Natural selection; disease adaptivity; rapid evolution

All living species and the pathogens that prey upon them are in a constant state of adaptation. All life-forms take advantages of changes wherever they can; and all continually raise defences against new threats. There is a continual mutual pressure for selection against any improvement in the fitness of both prey and predator. In the case of the Honeybee, we might focus upon the predator, the varroa mite, but all of the several pathogens currently affecting bees tend to increase their populations and entrench their positions in relation to their prey; and the appropriate response is the same in every case. The bee population must adapt or die.

1.01 Multi-level mechanisms

The mechanism of natural selection for the survival of the fittest works at a number of levels. In ordinary conditions, small variations in their genetic code, their DNA, mean that some individuals in the population are better suited to the pressures of a particular environment, and so tend to thrive at the expense of other less well-suited individuals in the population. The better the range of genetic variation, the more equipped the species is to adapt to a range of environmental changes.

1.02 Speed of change

When such changes are small, the composition of any population will constantly shift, as those individuals better fitted to the current environment increase their numbers in the population. The competitive dance of host and pathogen is slow. In more extreme conditions the same mechanism may operate much more rapidly. The higher the pressure, the faster is the adaptation. The mechanism for most rapid change is the fast elimination of ill-equipped strains, those individuals least suited to the new severe environment. This is most apparent where a fatal disease destroys a large percentage of a population. Only those individuals that are resistant to the disease will survive, and the new immune population will rebuild from the small surviving population base. This is not a dance, it is an all-out war with high casualty rates on both sides, as in most circumstances the most virulent strains of the disease also perish with their hosts.

Once the exchange is over, and given good conditions, recovery of the host can be surprisingly fast. For example, starting from 1000 resistant colonies, a species able to double its population every year will recover at the rate shown in the right-hand column in the Table 1 below. (not included) It will repopulate to the limits of its environment."

Mike

mike bispham

07-10-2009, 02:26 AM

Mike, part of your problem is that you fail to recognize that natural selection does not select for the best and fittest strains.

Try to leave improvements to natural selection alone, and just work with the grain of nature - at least until you understand it well.

Also, how many hives do you have, and how are they doing? You didn't answer that question.

I stopped beekeeping 18 years ago when varroa came to my neck of the woods. I refused to medicate on principle, as I was pretty sure I could see where that would lead. My 6 colonies died, and I've spent the last 18 years seething at [edit] man/beekeepers/regulators/researchers, the unprincipled greed of pharmaceutical companies (who understand the mechanisms of life, business and politics extremely well), and... learning about natural selection and traditional husbandry instead. Instead of keeping bees I've stdied tons, corresponded with a great many people. I now feel I have a very good understanding of what went wrong, and why it continues to go wrong. To your question: this year, spotting a hopeful bit of bee country, and thinking there might be wild bees around, I put a box 10 feet up a tree. I'm now the proud owner of one healthy swarm, which I hope will be self-sufficient, and will have many self-sufficient offspring. In any event, the bees have a nice home, which they probably wouldn't have otherwise had, and I get the pleasure of a stiff neck from watching them. The next box is ready...

In response to Gene and rkr: I remember reading a thing about a guy that measured mite drops on several hives in his yards. On hives that the mites reproduced the slowest, he split those hives. After a few years, the mites in his hives took a couple weeks longer to double their population more than normal. I think jean-marc knew him, and talked about the guy's results.

Yes, working with the grain of nature, although to purists like me still interfering! See Setion 1.0 on my website Thesis, which outlines the co-evolution of predator and prey.

See this too:

Producing Varroa-tolerant Honey Bees from Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe, By E.H. Erickson, L.H. Hines, and A.A. Atmowidjojo

http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/publ/tolerant2.html

Mike

Sundance

07-10-2009, 09:32 AM

This thread has morphed/devolved into way to many
personal "attacks". Try to keep on point and not stoop
to name calling.........

Barry

07-10-2009, 11:00 AM

I agree Sundance. There will be no name calling. If you can't discuss the topic without getting personal, don't post.

mike bispham

07-10-2009, 11:12 AM

"Let me see if I got this correct, maybe I am missing something in the reading "

What many people seem to underestimate is how 18 years of study and correspondence with experts - both beekeepers and scientists- enables you to develop an understanding of the way the world works that doesn't necessarily come with just keeping bees.

Given half decent country and modern medicines - or alternative treaments - anyone intelligent can keep bees. Understanding why there is a global epidemic that doesn't fade but just gets worse is a different project. My hard-earned science-based insights are welcomed by the great majority of beekeepers who speak to me about it. Some large producers and individuals in the regulating bodies are wholly supportive. I'm sorry if that comes across as boastful, but it is simply a fact.

I'm not preaching about what individuals should or should not do, so try not to interpret me personally. I'm talking about what has gone wrong on the global scale, and what must be done to remedy it - that is, a return, on the global scale, to sound methods of husbandry that work constantly to build health in stock against the ever-changing disease environment. As well as increasing awareness of the cause of poor health in bees, and the real dangers inherent in the current path, this offers those who want to try something different the means to design a strategy that is much more likely to succeed than one that continues making same mistake.

Mike

Producing Varroa-tolerant Honey Bees from Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe, By E.H. Erickson, L.H. Hines, and A.A. Atmowidjojo, http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/publ/tolerant2.html

gmcharlie

07-10-2009, 08:38 PM

Given half decent country and modern medicines - or alternative treaments - anyone intelligent can keep bees. Understanding why there is a global epidemic that doesn't fade but just gets worse is a different project.
Mike
]

Unfortunatly our moderators considered our comments a personal attack, I think you realize that was not the intent,, but an clarifacation of credentails...

As to the above statement I totaly disagree with you. the global epidemic as passed, well and gone... hot spots sure... but losses of 90% and abouve are long gone, as well as the need for medication on every single hive..... you come here and claim that we are doing it wrong, and yet the genetic lines of bees is stronger than it was 20 years ago.

The many men and women here on this site and around the world are not fools.... they are breeding for sucess, every one of them. To lecture on genetic lines and how "if you have mites you must die off"
to newbies and those developing and learning is to stand yourself up as the expert......

gmcharlie

07-10-2009, 08:44 PM

Countryboy

07-11-2009, 12:18 AM

Try to leave improvements to natural selection alone, and just work with the grain of nature - at least until you understand it well.

You neglect to realize that natural selection does not improve a species. It weakens the species as a whole, because it selects for singular traits, and strains without that singular trait die off. The surviving strain with that one good trait which enables it to survive often does not have all the other good traits the extinct strain had.

I'm talking about what has gone wrong on the global scale, and what must be done to remedy it - that is, a return, on the global scale, to sound methods of husbandry that work constantly to build health in stock against the ever-changing disease environment. As well as increasing awareness of the cause of poor health in bees, and the real dangers inherent in the current path, this offers those who want to try something different the means to design a strategy that is much more likely to succeed than one that continues making same mistake.

We used to have sound methods of husbandry (which you want a return to), but along came that natural selection you like so well, and 'everything that went wrong' was BETTER than the old ways - right? (If the old ways were better, natural selection would have enabled them to stay competitive and on top of their game.)

I stopped beekeeping 18 years ago when varroa came to my neck of the woods. I refused to medicate on principle, as I was pretty sure I could see where that would lead. My 6 colonies died, and I've spent the last 18 years seething at

Blaming everyone else except the beekeeper who wouldn't give his bees the little extra help they needed to survive? Did you ever feed your bees during a nectar dearth or late winter if they were low on feed - or do you reject feeding on principle too, knowing where it would lead?

To your question: this year, spotting a hopeful bit of bee country, and thinking there might be wild bees around, I put a box 10 feet up a tree. I'm now the proud owner of one healthy swarm, which I hope will be self-sufficient, and will have many self-sufficient offspring. In any event, the bees have a nice home, which they probably wouldn't have otherwise had,

I'm very sure the bees would have found a very nice home, even if you did not provide a box.

There is an old saying - crap in one hand, and wish in the other, and see which one fills up first. You're doing a lot of hoping, thinking, and theorizing, and believing yourself to know what is best for bees. May I recommend you trust your bees to know what is best for them, and recommend that you just try to stack the odds in their favor? I am glad to know you're beekeeping again - tis better to have one hive, than to be an armchair expert with no hives.

I'm not preaching about what individuals should or should not do, so try not to interpret me personally. I'm talking about what has gone wrong on the global scale,

Yes you are preaching what individuals should or should not do. The global scale is comprised of individuals, and any changes to the global scheme will only happen through individuals.

mike bispham

07-11-2009, 03:44 AM

FYI For the most part your logic is not off good breeding is important, but your view of the current world wide position of bee genetics and th conspiricy to push medications and poor genetics reads like a lot of theories.....

I can apprecaite your view and the effort in your thoughts, but I don't agree with methodolgy or observations.......

Charlie

Fair enough Charlie, and I'm grateful for the clarification.

Bear in mind things are different in different parts of the world. In lots of places wild and feral bees are struggling to recover, and people there should be aware that part of the problem is the unadapted genes moving out from artificially-maintained apiary bees. It is important that factor is understood. In the states you have good wilderness, and the free bees have been able to evolve, and can help you sort your narrow genetic lines and vulnerability to sickness out. Over here things are tougher.

As you say many people do breed for health; but there needs to be a bigger emphasis, and a much better understanding of the mechanics. We still have people fresh off courses who've told to medicate as a matter of course - even prophylactically; and who have no idea of the relation between medicines and future ill health.

Again, those people who want to move toward self-sufficient bees need to be able to plan strategies that stand a chance of working, and that can only come from an understanding what goes wrong when you medicate then reproduce.

If you mean I'm a one-trick-charlie and bossy with it, guilty as charged!

As to conspiracy theories - not so much. Everyone is out to earn a crust, and that includes people who work for pharmaceutical companies, and their distributors. They have medicines to sell, and we cannot expect them to point out the dangers of medicating and then reproducing to us. In any case, they don't. Follow the money: it suits them for bees to be sick.

There is a systematic sickness in the world of beekeeping, born of the abandonment of the traditional appreciation of the importance of breeding from the best stock. If you don't replace nature's mechanism for keeping strains fit for their environment, you fail your stock, and your stock fails you. I think that is a good description of the cause of the high-loss nightmare most of us have experienced, and many of us continue to experience. Until everyone - including regulators - understands that, many people worldwide will continue to suffer high losses again and again.

New diseases will always come, and many people will be bought low from time to time. we should do what we can to stop them spreading so fast. But nurturing the peast or disease by medicating then reproducing simply prolongs the agony.

Best wishes,

Mike

Producing Varroa-tolerant Honey Bees from Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe, By E.H. Erickson, L.H. Hines, and A.A. Atmowidjojo http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/publ/tolerant2.html

Countryboy

07-11-2009, 10:00 PM

born of the abandonment of the traditional appreciation of the importance of breeding from the best stock.

What traditional appreciation of the importance of breeding from the best stock? The significance of Mendel's work wasn't recognized until the early 1900's. Genetics and breeding from certain stock is not tradtional husbandry. It is newfangled non-traditional husbandry.

And when we select and breed for certain traits, we have artificial selection, and natural selection is thrown out the window. Natural selection involves breeding at random. When we select for certain traits, we are saying we know better than Nature what is best for our bees. (And Nature has a cruel way of showing us how wrong we are.)

But nurturing the peast or disease by medicating then reproducing simply prolongs the agony.

But medication also prevents the species from extinction, which often happens when species are exposed to new pests.

But as for honeybees, maybe you are onto something with wanting traditional husbandry for varroa resistance. Traditionally, bees were kept in skeps and clay pots and bee gums. The productive hives were killed off to harvest the honey. The weaker hives were allowed to swarm off. Swarming was welcomed, because it replaced hives killed for their honey.

Frequent swarming would interrupt the mite reproductive cycle, just as walk-away splits do now. If you went back to traditional beekeeping (how it was done for thousands of years) varroa would not be a big threat to you. But this varroa resistance would not be genetic - it would be a physiological response to the small container it was in which promoted swarming.

We should also remember that with traditional husbandry, famines and food shortages were common. By intervening, manipulating, medicating, selective breeding, etc agriculture is able to produce enough food that food shortages are almost non-existant. (How many of us have seen empty shelves at the grocery store?)

Do we really want to go back to traditional husbandry?

mike bispham

07-12-2009, 02:09 AM

born of the abandonment of the traditional appreciation of the importance of breeding from the best stock.

What traditional appreciation of the importance of breeding from the best stock? The significance of Mendel's work wasn't recognized until the early 1900's. Genetics and breeding from certain stock is not tradtional husbandry. It is newfangled non-traditional husbandry.

Selective breeding is thousands of years old. It was selective breeding by South American indigenous people that produced most of our modern vegetables. There are biblical, Greeks and Roman references.

"Plant breeding has been used for thousands of years, and began with the domestication of wild plants into uniform and predictable agricultural cultigens. High-yielding varieties have been particularly important in agriculture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

The relationship between humans and dogs is an ancient one. Cave paintings such as one found in Tassili-n-Ajjer suggest that primitive man and dog were already living in harmony. [1] By the time of the pharaohs, dogs had already established their value as workers and human companions. Egyptian paintings show that selective breeding had already begun; sighthounds were clearly identified. Later, Pliny the Elder referred to the existence of--if not refined dog breeds as we know them today, at least well-defined defined dog types. The Greeks and the Romans certainly bred dogs for specific, replicable qualities http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Dog_breeding

Do we really want to go back to traditional husbandry?

If we want to return to healthy stock, where 'healthy' means 'robustly self-sufficient' yes we do. If we want to stop dangerously narrowing the genetic diversity in areas with proportionately small wild populations, yes, we do. Medicating is, in beekeeping terms, anti-social, and in environmental terms, unfriendly.

Above all we have to understand the mechanisms in play. That means, for many, some study.

Mike

PS See my page http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/The%20Principles%20of%20Breeding_Seed%20Selection. htm

mike bispham

07-12-2009, 02:41 AM

born of the abandonment of the traditional appreciation of the importance of breeding from the best stock.

What traditional appreciation of the importance of breeding from the best stock? The significance of Mendel's work wasn't recognized until the early 1900's. Genetics and breeding from certain stock is not tradtional husbandry. It is newfangled non-traditional husbandry.

Thank you so much for prompting me do something I've been meaning to do for ages. Here you go - see esp. verses 41 - 43:

Genesis 30:31-70 (21st Century King James Version)

31And he said, "What shall I give thee?" And Jacob said, "Thou shalt not give me any thing. If thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock:

32I will pass through all thy flock today, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted animals, and all the brown animals among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and of such shall be my hire.

33So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me."

34And Laban said, "Behold, I would it might be according to thy word."

35And he removed that day the hegoats that were ringstreaked and spotted, and all the shegoats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.

36And he set three days' journey between himself and Jacob; and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.

37And Jacob took rods of green poplar and of the hazel and chestnut tree, and peeled white strips in them and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38And he set the rods which he had peeled before the flocks in the gutters, in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth animals ringstreaked, speckled and spotted.

40And Jacob separated the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstreaked and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not with Laban's flocks.

41And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger animals conceived, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the animals in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

42But when the animals were feeble, he put them not in; so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.

43And the man increased exceedingly and had large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and asses.

Countryboy

07-12-2009, 12:54 PM

Look at the context of your Biblical source. They were talking of why it was wrong of him to breed like that.

It was selective breeding by South American indigenous people that produced most of our modern vegetables.

Is there such a thing as a non-modern vegetable? The term 'vegetable' has only been used a couple hundred years. Prior to that, edible plants were called herbs. People traditionally gathered herbs. The cultures that did cultivate crops weren't known for selective breeding - they saved random seed from the previous crop.

Don't be so sure selective breeding produced our modern food crops. The Appalachian hills have more genetic diversity of beans than anywhere else in the world - several thousand different varieties. And soybeans - something like 4000 different varieties were originally brought to the US from China.

"Plant breeding has been used for thousands of years, and began with the domestication of wild plants into uniform and predictable agricultural cultigens. High-yielding varieties have been particularly important in agriculture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

Be careful using wikipedia as a source. Anyone can put anything on wiki - but writing it there doesn't make it so. Keep in mind that when the British colonists came to America, they had a crop of like 50 bushels of corn from 10 or 15 acres they cultivated. A good gardener today can outproduce them with ease.

we want to stop dangerously narrowing the genetic diversity in areas with proportionately small wild populations, yes, we do.

Make up your mind. First you advocate selective breeding (which narrows genetic diversity by removing 'undesirable' genetics) and now you advocate traditional husbandry to stop narrowing the genetic diversity.

Medicating is, in beekeeping terms, anti-social, and in environmental terms, unfriendly.

But if you don't medicate when it is needed, there won't be any living bees to socialize, and the environment suffers from lack of bees.

If medicating is so bad, just consider the alternative. Extinction of a species, or destruction of populations to the point it will take years to recover the populations.

Above all we have to understand the mechanisms in play. That means, for many, some study.

It also requires hands on experience. Book smarts are worthless if they are not applied with hands on use. No one will ever completely understand the mechanisms in play simply by studying - they must actually do, and then study what they did.

mike bispham

07-12-2009, 04:02 PM

It seems to me that neither facts nor reasoning, nor careful explanation are going to work on Countryboy; and so I'm going to stop trying. The discussion has become impossible. Pity.

Mike

DRUR

07-13-2009, 06:01 AM

Thank you so much for prompting me do something I've been meaning to do for ages. Here you go - see esp. verses 41 - 43:

Genesis 30:31-70 (21st Century King James Version)

41And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger animals conceived, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the animals in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

42But when the animals were feeble, he put them not in; so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.

Excellent point Mike. Seems like someone else was selecting for survivable animals. Whether it be by "nature's selection" (survivable of the fittest) or man's management practices (good animal husbandry), it seems to me that selection for healthy stock is a most important part of a management program; as is production of honey which also makes beekeeping economically viable.

One point that I think hasn't really been discussed is that even bees raised on artificial "large" (what is now known as 'standard') cells, do not raise workers on standard cells when they are allowed to make the choice of cell size. At least that is my understanding, they simply don't raise workers in 5.4mm cells when the choice is theirs. This is what many who are anti "small cell" don't seem to understand concerning our argument. It's not necessarily about 'small cell' as it is about nature's way. It is ok for man to intervene in the selection process in order to promote those characteristice which suit his purposes (high honey production), but when that management process begins to negatively affect his ultimate goal, then he better well change. The so-called 'standard cell' size is apparently not standard if you observe the bees.

mike bispham

07-13-2009, 06:13 AM

One point that I think hasn't really been discussed is that even bees raised on artificial "large" (what is now known as 'standard') cells, do not raise workers on standard cells when they are allowed to make the choice of cell size. [..] It is ok for man to intervene in the selection process in order to promote those characteristice which suit his purposes (high honey production), but when that management process begins to negatively affect his ultimate goal, then he better well change. The so-called 'standard cell' size is apparently not standard if you observe the bees.

Hi Danny,

I agree this is important. It seems to me that there exists in the comb-building a mechanism for selection of fitter strains. Where bees are free to build their own sizes, those that build sizes that work well in terms of bringing the colony to reproduction are able to raise their populations, while those that build sizes that are not helpful in coming to reproduction do not.

Accordingly, the populations of the former increase, and their genes become more common, while the opposite happens for the latter group.

Natural comb thus supplies a 'space', 'medium' or 'mechanism' for the playing out of selection - as long as.... medication of some (any) kind does not interfere with the process by maintaining non-tolerant strains.

We need the two: freedom to build AND freedom from medication in order for tolerance to come forward, and build toward full resistance.

Either alone will be helpful, but the two together much more effective. This explains the success of wild bees (Europe), ferals (US), Michael Bush and Dee Lusby, And also explains the failings of those who ONLY allow natural cell and/or use defined small cell.

Do you agree this picture?

Mike

DRUR

07-13-2009, 06:16 AM

Also, Mike I have tried responding to your pm, but I can't seem to be able to make a reply. I personally think your doing a great job. Send me and/or post here, the web site for the BKKA.

Danny

mike bispham

07-13-2009, 06:46 AM

Danny you left out the most important bit...

43 And the man increased exceedingly and had large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and asses.

Mike

Countryboy

07-13-2009, 11:25 PM

It seems to me that there exists in the comb-building a mechanism for selection of fitter strains.

Different strains? Are you saying that the size of cells is determined by genetics? Do you have any evidence to back that up?

There is evidence to back up the notion that cell size is determined by physiological changes, while genetics is unaffected. For example, bees draw smaller cells until they reach the size suitable to them (4.9 to 5.0mm).

I'm not aware of any bees that draw 5.4mm cells generation after generation, when they are allowed free reign to choose cell size.

Where bees are free to build their own sizes, those that build sizes that work well in terms of bringing the colony to reproduction are able to raise their populations, while those that build sizes that are not helpful in coming to reproduction do not.

Can you give me an example of bees building cell sizes which do not benefit reproduction? If a cell gets too small, they chew it out and make it bigger. Even the largest cells are drawn to reproduce queens.

Natural comb thus supplies a 'space', 'medium' or 'mechanism' for the playing out of selection - as long as.... medication of some (any) kind does not interfere with the process by maintaining non-tolerant strains.

What does medication have to do with cell size? Do medicated bees draw different sized cells than non-medicated bees? Is there a correlation between the different medications and the cell size being drawn? For example, how will my cell sizes differ if I do, versus do not use Fumadil?

We need the two: freedom to build AND freedom from medication in order for tolerance to come forward, and build toward full resistance.

Over the course of history, whenever a species has been exposed to a new predator/pest/disease, that species has often went extinct or suffered catastrophic losses. Even when the species suffered catastrophic losses before resistant strains were identified, those resistant strains often lacked beneficial traits which the non-resistant strains possessed before that strain died out.

How do you propose our bees get this natural resistance to mites without catastrophic losses or the bees going extinct in the process? How do you propose we keep all the good traits of our non-resistant bees? By your own admission, your bees died under your management philosophy. Why would anyone want to duplicate your success?

mike bispham

07-14-2009, 05:55 AM

Most of your post raises issues I've already dealt with. If you sincerely want to know the answers to them, refer back and do the homework.

[I]
How do you propose our bees get this natural resistance to mites without catastrophic losses or the bees going extinct in the process?

In the wild the catastropic loss phase has almost certainly passed and the population is rebuilding rapidly with tolerant stock from the relatively small population that possessed the necessary behaviours and general health levels. Wild bees have done what they've done probably millions of time in the past - they have adapted the presence of a new predator. For now they are living - and thriving - with a much less aggressive mite; over time they'll throw of the mite altogether.

This is the process necessary for health in species, and the process that will save the bees for beekeepers to mess with more.

It hasn't happened in most apiaries, because beekeepers have been badly advised to try to minimise losses by medicating, and because the understanding that breeding away from disease is a necessary component of husbandry has not been passed on to them. Failure to breed against disease on a widespread and systematic basis has resulted in ever-weaker stock.

Encouraging bees to work on larger cells than they would chose to has added a further stress.

Its all very simple - and very complicated at the same time. If you want to understand you can.

Mike

mike bispham

07-14-2009, 08:01 AM

Try to leave improvements to natural selection alone, and just work with the grain of nature - at least until you understand it well.

We used to have sound methods of husbandry (which you want a return to), but along came that natural selection you like so well, and 'everything that went wrong' was BETTER than the old ways - right? (If the old ways were better, natural selection would have enabled them to stay competitive and on top of their game.)

This is so misconceived it isn't funny. Natural selection has been present in all life forms from the beginning of life on earth.

About 11,000 years ago, in Asia, people learned how to mimic the process by controlled selective breeding, and began to domesticate crops and animals. these were the first farmers - rather than hunter-gatherers. Selective breeding, for health and for other desirable traits, was the central feature of farming (husbandry) right up to the post war period - 60 odd years ago. Then, let by the developments in antibiotics, the old ways of making healthy stock through careful breeding gave way to specialist breeding and medicating for ill-health.

Evidence in the form of references (yes one is wiki, but see how well the article is referenced, and look up those references if you are suspicious)

History and nature of domestication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication

The nature of selection during plant domestication
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/nature07895.html

Contrary to your belief that vegetables have only been around for about 300 years [!] many have existed in more or less their current form for thousands of years - bred that way by our ancestors.

Importantly; until quite recently all farming and gardening was done by selecting the healthiest seed for the next generation. That is the only way to raise healthy stock If you fail to do it, your stock's health will fail. Unless, that is, you draw on heathy genes from outside your own stock - from other farmers or stockbreeders, or suppliers of sperm in the case of AI - or from the wild, in the case of bees.

Its so simple its silly.

The global scale is comprised of individuals, and any changes to the global scheme will only happen through individuals.

You got that bit right.

Mike

mike bispham

07-14-2009, 08:37 AM

... "stress" is a generic claim that means nothing whatsoever, ...

In terms of natural selection, any change in the environment that affects an organism negatively constitutes a pressure toward adaptation. The same can be said of positive changes, though terms like 'opportunity' would be used rather than 'stress'. If the pressure tends to demand the organism to change in order to thrive it can be described as a 'stressor'. The presence of toxic chemicals and new pests and diseases, reduction of available forage and nesting habitat, and the injection of unadapted genes from artificially maintained apiaries can all be described as 'stressors'.

'Stress' is being used synonymously with 'environmental pressure'. That makes sense - from inside the understanding supplied by basic biology. If, like you, you stand outside the understanding provided by basic biology, it probably doesn't add up. Its another example of a term being used in a special way - like 'adapted' or 'fitness' - which we did early. Again with the homework.

Mike

gmcharlie

07-14-2009, 01:26 PM

In terms of natural selection, any change in the environment that affests an organism negatively constitutes a pressure toward adaptation.
A pressure to adapt an stresses are entirely different. try Webster...

The same can be said of positive changes, though terms like 'opportunity' would be used rather than 'stress'.

Stress is never a positive, again look at Webster..

If the pressure tends to demand the organism to change in order to thrive it can be described as a 'stressor'. The presence of toxic chemicals and new pests and diseases, reduction of available forage and nesting habitat, and the injection of unadapted genes from artificially maintained apiaries can all be described as 'stressors'.

If is the key word in this line..

'Stress' is being used synonymously with 'environmental pressure'. That makes sense - from inside the understanding supplied by basic biology. If, like you, you stand outside the understanding provided by basic biology, it probably doesn't add up. Its another example of a term being used in a special way - like 'adapted' or 'fitness' - which we did early. Again with the homework.

Mike[/QUOTE]

You used stress as a negitive conotation, you implied directly that beekeepers and unatural cell size (in your opinion) were stressing the bees, in order to allow mites and other issues to gain a stonger foothold.

You totaly disregaurd the adaptation that is already in place. nevermind the fact that the oldtimes built foundation in what they had measured their bees on.

This would be anologous to us being stressed and open to mites from the damage teh spaniards did to the Aztecs.

The bees have long since adapted to the cell size... in fact the only time I have seen bees "Stressed" was/is during regerssion... I have seen this year alone 2 of my hives Refuse small cell foundation... no honey stores or eggs laid...

You cannot use a term in one sense and then interpet it to fit your defination... I might but a language difference, but not this...

Once again you insist on claiming unadapted Genes from artificaly maintained Apairies.....

I still reject your basic argument.....

mike bispham

07-14-2009, 02:25 PM

Can we see if we can agree on exactly what it is we disagree about, as a preliminary?

Once again you insist on claiming unadapted Genes from artificaly maintained Apairies..... I still reject your basic argument.....

This is the argument that medication interferes with the process of adaptation to the ever-evolving pest/ disease environment, yes?

My position is that by medicating you preserve bloodlines that would otherwise perish. Future generations therefore carry those characteristics that required medication in the first place, and of course similarly require the same medicine.

Could you explain exactly what it is about this picture you disagree with?

Mike

mike bispham

07-14-2009, 03:01 PM

A pressure to adapt an stresses are entirely different. try Webster...

Look at this statement: "Stress influences cellular processes, an individual's physiology, genetic variation at the population level, and the process of natural selection. " http://mit.biology.au.dk/aces/research.htm

[MB] "The same can be said of positive changes, though terms like 'opportunity' would be used rather than 'stress'."

Stress is never a positive, again look at Webster..

That's exactly what I said - I didn't say 'never' but I'm not going to quibble. Some people say a bit of stress is good for you - but I don't thnk we'd talk that way if we were speaking about natural selection. An environmental stress causes an adaptation that sidesteps the stress. 'Pressure' is more neutral in terms of benefit I guess. We don't have to go overboard on precision.

Webster doesn't mention any meanings specific to natural selection, so it doesn't help here. wiki has a useful article on 'abiotic stress' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic_stress

I think I agree that sticking with 'pressure' might be easier. Thanks for the opportunity to think about it.

Mike

DRUR

07-14-2009, 05:36 PM

I would bet that Mike and Charlie would be best of friends if they sat down and discussed the beekeeping issue, just don't give either one a baseball bat, LOL.

My experience is that by treating sick stock, it interferes with our ability to make an informed choice on selection of breeding stock.

My primary reason for not treating is that it contaminates the honey. I don't want to consume your medicine residues when I eat your product.

Next, does regression 'stress' the bees. Sure, but when I diet it also stresses me, but seems to me that is a good thing. I could get used to gluttony, and raise gluttonous children, and I guess refuse to change or alter my and their behaviour because it might stress them out.

Charlie to me, this is not the issue, the issue is what is best. Nothing is wrong with using selection in our management program to focus on those desired traits, but their has to be some logical justification for our choices.

Charlie, my problem is I don't know of anyone who is on so-called 'standard' cell who is not or 'will not treat' under any circumstances. Wonder why?

The other issue to me (this is why I started my thread on 'survivability') is how much (if any) does the natural cell size contribute to the survivability (from mites) as opposed to hygienic behavior. Logically speaking at least, hygienic behavior could adversly affect honey production. Use to be, in beekeeping we would requeen for scattered brood pattern, the more scattered the more apt to requeen. Why because logically her brood production was being reduced and thereby causing a reduction in honey production.

Now, maybe we were destroying queens exhibiting hygienic behavior; but our decisions were made on the then available information. But maybe this exhibited hygienic behavior does affect honey production, but is something we have to live with. So, much more work to be done, let's not shoot each other before we win the revolution.

With kindest regards

Countryboy

07-15-2009, 12:06 AM

In the wild the catastropic loss phase has almost certainly passed and the population is rebuilding rapidly with tolerant stock from the relatively small population that possessed the necessary behaviours and general health levels.

Almost certainly? Says who? Based on what evidence?

Do you seriously think there is now a super breed of mite resistant bee that is wild/feral, and is the dominant wild/feral bee out there? You say that is why the feral population is 'rebuilding rapidly'. Yet, when people catch swarms or do trapouts or cutouts of those wild/feral bees, no one is finding those superbees. Please explain that.

For now they are living - and thriving - with a much less aggressive mite; over time they'll throw of the mite altogether.

The varroa mite is a less aggressive mite now? Since when?

because beekeepers have been badly advised to try to minimise losses by medicating, and because the understanding that breeding away from disease is a necessary component of husbandry has not been passed on to them. Failure to breed against disease on a widespread and systematic basis has resulted in ever-weaker stock.

I hate to state the obvious, but mites are NOT a disease. What disease are you advocating beekeepers breed away from? Mites are a parasite, not a disease.

If you want to understand you can.

Quite true - you can make yourself believe anything is you ignore reality and suspend disbelief. If you want to believe something bad enough, you will believe it - regardless of the facts.

About 11,000 years ago, in Asia, people learned how to mimic the process by controlled selective breeding, and began to domesticate crops and animals. these were the first farmers - rather than hunter-gatherers. Selective breeding, for health and for other desirable traits, was the central feature of farming (husbandry) right up to the post war period - 60 odd years ago.

Theory, not fact.

Those cattle guys in the western US didn't do selective breeding with the old longhorns. They would just round up the wild cattle in the brush country and drive them to market. And what about the Appalachian folks who would turn hogs loose in the hills and hollers, and round them up at butchering time? Awfully selective breeding.

The grain farmers just saved seed. They didn't save seeds from the best plants in a field of crops. Mendel realized that seeds from tall peas grew tall pea plants - before that, you saved and replanted seeds from all the peas.

Evidence in the form of references (yes one is wiki, but see how well the article is referenced, and look up those references if you are suspicious)

Theories are NOT fact, and those espouse theories. If you want to provide evidence, facts would be greatly appreciated.

Contrary to your belief that vegetables have only been around for about 300 years [!] many have existed in more or less their current form for thousands of years - bred that way by our ancestors.

Read what I said again. The word vegetables has only been used for a few hundred years. (That does not mean the plant has only been around that long.) Prior to that, edible plants were called herbs.

What factual evidence do you have that these plants were bred by out ancestors, rather than our ancestors finding wild plants they liked eating and started cultivating that plant without breeding it?

Importantly; until quite recently all farming and gardening was done by selecting the healthiest seed for the next generation.

Where are you coming up with this? Planting 'bin run' seed does NOT involve selecting the healthiest seed. It involves getting some grain from the storage bin (seeds selected at random with the scoop shovel) and planting them.

Many people advocate saving seeds from only the largest and best looking fruits or vegetables. Yet, seeds from small or deformed fruits grow produce of equal quality as seeds from perfect fruits.

If you fail to do it, your stock's health will fail.

Please provide some proof. There are a LOT of farmers over the years who have planted bin run seed with no ill effect.

I grow some heirloom tomatoes. I don't save seed based upon the healthiest plant, or the most productive plant. Often, I save seeds from the 'less desirable' tomatoes (the pretty ones get eaten or sold) and my seeds grow just fine.

And the speckled shell beans my family has been growing for several generations...the beans that dried down in the pod before we picked them get saved for seed, or we dry seeds after we shelled them out and those get saved for next years seed. We don't select the healthiest seed - we just save seed that is good enough, and our plants health hasn't shown any sign of failing as you claim it will.

My position is that by medicating you preserve bloodlines that would otherwise perish. Future generations therefore carry those characteristics that required medication in the first place, and of course similarly require the same medicine.

Could you explain exactly what it is about this picture you disagree with?

You assume that resistance to parasites is genetic, and neglect to look at physical factors. You neglect to recognize that whatever you are medicating against is the most important selective factor in the short term, but the short term survival you seek does not offer long term benefits for other things. Medicating allows short term survival, so you can take advantage of the long term benefits.

My plants in my garden require some medicine called water. Yes, I could select for drought tolerant plants and let everything die except for the most drought tolerant. I would have a lot less plants, and a lot less variety to eat. While thistles are probably edible, I think I would prefer to eat less drought tolerant plants like my tomatoes and beans and sweet corn.

An environmental stress causes an adaptation that sidesteps the stress.

SMALL environmental stresses may cause an adaptation. Large stresses typically cause extinction of a species.

this is not the issue, the issue is what is best.

And what is best is different for different people, and what is best depends if you are looking at short term or long term.

my problem is I don't know of anyone who is on so-called 'standard' cell who is not or 'will not treat' under any circumstances. Wonder why?

I believe that is because you are just getting back into beekeeping. There are some on here who use standard cell and don't treat. I believe John Jacob has some standard cell survivor stock. Honey Householder doesn't treat either, but his management is custom tailored to his operation. Some people just outbreed the mites by splits or nucs.

gmcharlie

07-15-2009, 08:50 AM

gmcharlie

07-15-2009, 08:54 AM

[I]
I believe that is because you are just getting back into beekeeping. There are some on here who use standard cell and don't treat. I believe John Jacob has some standard cell survivor stock. Honey Householder doesn't treat either, but his management is custom tailored to his operation. Some people just outbreed the mites by splits or nucs.

My main Method, Shown to me by Mel dissolken (check out his website, he is a REAL contributor to bee managment...

Outbreeding and splitting... As mentioned mites are a parisite, not a gene issue.

gmcharlie

07-15-2009, 09:04 AM

Can we see if we can agree on exactly what it is we disagree about, as a preliminary?

This is the argument that medication interferes with the process of adaptation to the ever-evolving pest/ disease environment, yes?

My position is that by medicating you preserve bloodlines that would otherwise perish. Future generations therefore carry those characteristics that required medication in the first place, and of course similarly require the same medicine.

Could you explain exactly what it is about this picture you disagree with?

Mike

Certianly,...

The main premise of your preaching is that our current problems are based on beekeeper and corperate neglect.

The issue of a asian mite traveling was based on global travel and started a problem.
In the 20 years since, the Bayer's and beekeepers of teh world have united to SOLVE the problems, not neglect them or propigate them.
The first few year Apistan and such were the only real soulutions. since then the entire industry has bred treated and MANAGED mites to a point where the industry is doing okay again. There has been no neglect on the part of beeks, and in fact the beeks have helped restock the US supply. This has been done by both MANAGING, and Treating stock long enough to work out other issues.

Claiming any hive that has mites must die, is nonsense. Anyone in this business would love to dump the meds, and most are activly working towards it, but Genetics and letting hives perish, to propagate some noshin that its "they only way to save the worlds bees" is way off target.

Treating for mites is no ones first goal in the business. I am sure in a few years it will be all but unnesary.... like UFB/AFB.... sometimes it just has to be handled....

To advise new beeks that Powdered suger on the bees will somehow continue mites to mutate is irresponsible...

Barry

07-15-2009, 09:20 AM

I am sure in a few years it will be all but unnesary [treating].... like UFB/AFB....

Wow, you went way out on that limb! Bayer better get ready cause in just a few years, their product will be sitting on the shelves.

DRUR

07-15-2009, 09:10 PM

My plants in my garden require some medicine called water. Yes, I could select for drought tolerant plants and let everything die except for the most drought tolerant. I would have a lot less plants, and a lot less variety to eat. While thistles are probably edible, I think I would prefer to eat less drought tolerant plants like my tomatoes and beans and sweet corn
Now that made my laugh... THANKS! so on target!

Yes, but there are areas of the country which only dryland farm, and so then to survive you would have to select for drought tolerance.

Notice my new thread I posted asking if anyone was on large cell (a.k.a. standardard, etc) and not treating. Many people have stated that they "know" others who are doing this, but alas no one steps forward to make that acknowledgment.

I will not treat because I will not contaminate the end product. My bees therefore better be survivors. Hmm want to know why I am going the small cell route. How many are doing no treatments on large cells? Something to think about.

Barry

07-15-2009, 10:22 PM

Try here:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214153

Sometimes it's better to use the search function on the home page, www.beesource.com

mike bispham

07-16-2009, 05:43 AM

Do you seriously think there is now a super breed of mite resistant bee that is wild/feral, and is the dominant wild/feral bee out there?

You say that is why the feral population is 'rebuilding rapidly'. Yet, when people catch swarms or do trapouts or cutouts of those wild/feral bees, no one is finding those superbees. Please explain that.

If it takes a 'superbee' then all self-sufficient bees are 'superbees.'

For now they are living - and thriving - with a much less aggressive mite; over time they'll throw of the mite altogether.

The varroa mite is a less aggressive mite now? Since when?

Since/where/ they have co-evolved to be able to survive.

I hate to state the obvious, but mites are NOT a disease. What disease are you advocating beekeepers breed away from? Mites are a parasite, not a disease.

We can cover both with 'predator'.

About 11,000 years ago, in Asia, people learned how to mimic the process by controlled selective breeding, and began to domesticate crops and animals. these were the first farmers - rather than hunter-gatherers. Selective breeding, for health and for other desirable traits, was the central feature of farming (husbandry) right up to the post war period - 60 odd years ago.

Theory, not fact.

I've given you sources, and I'm sure you can use google. Suggest you treat youself to some education.

Those cattle guys in the western US didn't do selective breeding with the old longhorns. They would just round up the wild cattle in the brush country and drive them to market. And what about the Appalachian folks who would turn hogs loose in the hills and hollers, and round them up at butchering time? Awfully selective breeding.

Ever heard of natural selection???

Theories are NOT fact, and those espouse theories. If you want to provide evidence, facts would be greatly appreciated.

Scientific understanding ('theories' if you like) is grounded in empirical data. That is your 'fact'. You misunderstand the terms and the relation between them

Contrary to your belief that vegetables have only been around for about 300 years [!] many have existed in more or less their current form for thousands of years - bred that way by our ancestors.

Read what I said again. The word vegetables has only been used for a few hundred years. (That does not mean the plant has only been around that long.) Prior to that, edible plants were called herbs.

What factual evidence do you have that these plants were bred by out ancestors, rather than our ancestors finding wild plants they liked eating and started cultivating that plant without breeding it?

The many many archeological studies that supply the understanding. Like the ones I directed you to. Please, please, for all our sakes, get an education.

Importantly; until quite recently all farming and gardening was done by selecting the healthiest seed for the next generation.

Where are you coming up with this? Planting 'bin run' seed does NOT involve selecting the healthiest seed. It involves getting some grain from the storage bin (seeds selected at random with the scoop shovel) and planting them.

Many people advocate saving seeds from only the largest and best looking fruits or vegetables. Yet, seeds from small or deformed fruits grow produce of equal quality as seeds from perfect fruits
If you fail to do it, your stock's health will fail.

Please provide some proof. There are a LOT of farmers over the years who have planted bin run seed with no ill effect.

'Bin run' as opposed to 'selected.' yes you can get away with bin run for some time - your land selects the seed for you, as the strong stuff grows and the weak doesn't.

I grow some heirloom tomatoes. I don't save seed based upon the healthiest plant, or the most productive plant. Often, I save seeds from the 'less desirable' tomatoes (the pretty ones get eaten or sold) and my seeds grow just fine.

In the short term they may. But after a while quality will suffer. Characteristics, including heath, are passed from parent generations to offspring. Plant the weakest and after a while you will find you only get weakly.

And the speckled shell beans my family has been growing for several generations...the beans that dried down in the pod before we picked them get saved for seed, or we dry seeds after we shelled them out and those get saved for next years seed. We don't select the healthiest seed - we just save seed that is good enough, and our plants health hasn't shown any sign of failing as you claim it will.

Again, after time they will. Do you spray them?

My position is that by medicating you preserve bloodlines that would otherwise perish. Future generations therefore carry those characteristics that required medication in the first place, and of course similarly require the same medicine.

Could you explain exactly what it is about this picture you disagree with?

You assume that resistance to parasites is genetic, and neglect to look at physical factors. You neglect to recognize that whatever you are medicating against is the most important selective factor in the short term, but the short term survival you seek does not offer long term benefits for other things. Medicating allows short term survival, so you can take advantage of the long term benefits.

I can see that this makes sense to you, and is tempting. It doesn't make sense to me. It denies the natural mechanism by which health is maintained; competitive natural selection. It doesn't appear to be working very well either. Can you show me any studies that support this theory? Perhaps we should try to focus in on this particular issue.

My plants in my garden require some medicine called water.

Water is an essential for life and cannot be called medicine.

There are some on here who use standard cell and don't treat. I believe John Jacob has some standard cell survivor stock. Honey Householder doesn't treat either, but his management is custom tailored to his operation. Some people just outbreed the mites by splits or nucs.

Sure. But the strains HH raises will need to be similarly tended - they are not self-sufficient. That doesn't seem to matter to you, and perhaps that is another key point on which we part company.

Mike

gmcharlie

07-16-2009, 08:02 AM

Notice my new thread I posted asking if anyone was on large cell (a.k.a. standardard, etc) and not treating. Many people have stated that they "know" others who are doing this, but alas no one steps forward to make that acknowledgment.

.

yes, I have 30 hives on standard cell foundation for the last 4-5 years and have not treated with anything. sbb, Drone comb on a cpl of them (didn't notice much difference, Queen removal and replacment are the only real methods of mite control. Haven't lost any to mites.

I also this year bout 3 of Glenns queens to see how they compare.

And this year I switched 20 hives over to natural cell.

Do I have mites, yup.... haven't killed any hives yet.... when I start to see cripples(deformed wings) the queens goes to a nuc for 2 weeks to break the mite cycle A queen cell or virgin put in her place. then either leave the virgin, or put the old queen back depending on the time of year

beemandan

07-16-2009, 11:21 AM

Notice my new thread I posted asking if anyone was on large cell (a.k.a. standardard, etc) and not treating. Many people have stated that they "know" others who are doing this, but alas no one steps forward to make that acknowledgment.

Its already been done. More than once. People responded. I think folks are just tired of repeating themselves.....from both 'camps'. This ol' dead horse has been beaten too much for most of us.

Countryboy

07-16-2009, 12:08 PM

If it takes a 'superbee' then all self-sufficient bees are 'superbees.'

Where are these self-sufficient bees you speak of? If people catch a feral/wild swarm or do a cutout/trapout, and those bees succomb to mites - can we call that strain self-sufficient?

Since/where/ they have co-evolved to be able to survive.

What are you talking about? When a hive collapses from mites, you will find a big pile of dead mites. The mites have not become less aggressive for their survival. They still overwhelm their host, leading to their own destruction.

We can cover both with 'predator'.

No, we can't. Diseases are not predators and it is ridiculous of you to suggest such.

I've given you sources, and I'm sure you can use google. Suggest you treat youself to some education.

You gave me sources to theories, but you neglected to give me sources to factual information. I suggest you get away from your computer, and start spending time in the real world to treat yourself to some education.

Ever heard of natural selection???

It's a theory. However, it should be noted that the theory of natural selection does not improve a species. It simply eliminates the 'lesser fit' - and the supposedly 'fitter' remain unchanged.

Scientific understanding ('theories' if you like) is grounded in empirical data. That is your 'fact'. You misunderstand the terms and the relation between them

Theories are grounded in assumptions, which are often invalid assumptions. Scientific understanding comes from proofs. I think versus I know.

The many many archeological studies that supply the understanding. Like the ones I directed you to. Please, please, for all our sakes, get an education.

I hate to state the obvious, but archaeologists just guess what was done.

'Bin run' as opposed to 'selected.' yes you can get away with bin run for some time - your land selects the seed for you, as the strong stuff grows and the weak doesn't.

I would encourage you to gain some gardening experience. I hate to state the obvious yet again, but weak plants grow too. Only dead plants don't grow. Weak plants produce too, althoughthey don't produce the quantity that stronger plants produce.

In the short term they may. But after a while quality will suffer. Characteristics, including heath, are passed from parent generations to offspring. Plant the weakest and after a while you will find you only get weakly.

But that's not applicable to the present situation. You are creating imaginary scenarios. I'm not planting the weakest. I'm plainting a random mix of strong/medium/weak seeds, and my crops do just fine. Trying to improve one trait usually comes at the price of removing another trait. By keeping a mix of good and bad, your overall strength is stronger because you have not eliminated traits.

Again, after time they will. Do you spray them?

How long will it take before they fail? I spray them with a garden hose if it is really dry. I do mulch them, and I do weed them. If I don't weed them, I end up with a smaller crop of beans, and have an unwanted crop of thistles to eat. If bean bugs are bad, I will treat them - but I have never seen an infestation of bean bugs bad enough to cause failure. I just get a reduced yield that year if I don't treat. (I don't treat for bean bugs more years than I treat.)

It denies the natural mechanism by which health is maintained; competitive natural selection.

Wait a minute. Firstyou say natural selection IMPROVES health, and now you say it just MAINTAINS it. Make up your mind.

I have found than in my garden, I am able to maintain health WITHOUT selection.

Can you show me any studies that support this theory? Perhaps we should try to focus in on this particular issue.

I will refer you to the study you did. How much honey did your hives produce after they died out? Had you medicated, I believe your hives would have produced more honey.

Water is an essential for life and cannot be called medicine.

But if your bees will die unless they are medicated, then the medication is essential for their life. Which means we can't call it medicine by your reasoning. ;)

gmcharlie

07-16-2009, 12:15 PM

[I]

I will refer you to the study you did. How much honey did your hives produce after they died out? Had you medicated, I believe your hives would have produced more honey.

Okay country boy, this has to stop Your makeing my sides hurt!!!!:lpf:

mike bispham

07-16-2009, 12:28 PM

Questions for countryboy and charley

1) Why do people pay prizewinning racehorse owners large stud fees?

2) If you sowed wheat from 2 different suppliers on identical pieces of land, and one yielded twice as well as the other, which would you keep to sow next year?

3) If you sowed wheat from 2 different suppliers on identical pieces of land, and both yielded equally, but one suffered badly from an infection, which would you keep to sow next year?

4) If you kept sheep, which ram lambs would you keep for tupping, sending the rest to market: a) the stronger and healthier; b) the weaker and more feeble?

Tell me why in each case.

Mike

mike bispham

07-16-2009, 01:01 PM

If it takes a 'superbee' then all self-sufficient bees are 'superbees.'

Where are these self-sufficient bees you speak of? If people catch a feral/wild swarm or do a cutout/trapout, and those bees succomb to mites - can we call that strain self-sufficient?

Errr, no. At least not in that setting. It might have been self-sufficient in the wild. But any thriving wild animal or plant is 'self-sufficient'. How do you describe viable wild populations? Maybe there is a better word that self-sufficient...

Since/where/ they have co-evolved to be able to survive.

What are you talking about? When a hive collapses from mites, you will find a big pile of dead mites. The mites have not become less aggressive for their survival. They still overwhelm their host, leading to their own destruction.

In the wild... those mites-bee combinations that result in the death of the colony, also result in the death of the mites. The mite strains perish, along with their hosts. End of story for that lineage.

Less harmful mite strains, which do not kill their their hosts get to survive and reproduce.

The survivors then are those mite-bee combinations that can live together. (If you bring those bees into an apiary containing highly aggressive mites, they may well not survive of course.)

Now ask me how you get highly aggressive mites - how could they possibly evolve in the first place?

We can cover both with 'predator'.

No, we can't. Diseases are not predators and it is ridiculous of you to suggest such.

That's what biologists call them (sometimes - if they want to) Anything that tries to eat something else is predating. The predated is prey. But we don't have to use that language if you don't want to. I was looking for a word that covered all harmful 'infections'. What you prefer?

Do try to bear in mind we live in different countries with different linguistic norms. Sometimes my normal use is strange to you, and yours to me.

Mike

DRUR

07-16-2009, 02:16 PM

I would like to make the record here about a 'treatment' for which I have not made a decision yet, that being powdered sugar for mites.

Per (as I can recall) gmcharlie made the point that the primary reservation concerning treating with powdered sugar was during a honey flow for contaminating honey with the powdered sugar; however this is not a health problem (my understanding) for either the honey bee or man.

I am on the record in many prior post concerning current die offs of colonies and the resulting loss of high honey production genetics. This is a concern of mine. Just seems to me that great strides have been made in beekeeping concerning this genetic aspect for which the beekeeper is striving, that being high honey production.

Just seems to me that some concessions should/could be made until such time that the health/survivability genetic can catch up without destroying all the other genetic progress for those traits which we have previously bred for.

Under no circumstances do I support treatment of bees in a manner which would have a tendency to contaminate the end product (honey) which would be harmful to man, i.e., current miticide treatments. However, so far at least, this is not the case concerning powdered sugar treatments.

When selecting for traits, you usually breed for positive traits from two different lines, one lacking a needed trait, and the other supplying that trait. Seems to me that if you breed for survivability alone, at the sacrifice of honey production, then We are making the same mistake again, whereby we previously selected for one trait (honey production) at the loss of health. It just seems to me (at this time with my limited knowledge) that the powdered sugar treatment is one of the least intrusive methods, and also one which would have the least enviromental affect.

We need a healthy bee that produces bumper crop of honey, if we intend to continue to be the highest per colony honey producing section of the world. Just my opinion.

Countryboy

07-16-2009, 10:48 PM

1) Why do people pay prizewinning racehorse owners large stud fees?

Bragging rights.

My neighbor raises whitetail deer bucks with monster racks. (high 200 scores) For some unknown reason, nutrition plays a much larger role than genetics. Simply by feeding the doe an extremely high protein diet, and by feeding the buck fawn an extremely high protein diet causes the buck to grow a much larger rack. Adding in genetics of deer with super monster racks just adds a few more points to the score. And just like the prizewinning horse, good genetics make it just a smidgen faster than other horses - and the main value of that smidgen is bragging rights. The horses that didn't win the race will still get you where you needed to go.

2) If you sowed wheat from 2 different suppliers on identical pieces of land, and one yielded twice as well as the other, which would you keep to sow next year?

That depends. Odds are, the high yielding variety is a result of hybrid vigor. I would likely get a horrible crop if I replanted that seed, and hybrid seeds won't grow true to parent. (Just as hybrid bees are often vicious.) Also, the hybrid seed is illegal to replant, so I can't save seed to sow it next year.

Odds are, I might plant both varieties again next year.

Ok, I will be honest - personally, I would look at other variables since a double yield is too extreme. Was one planted before the fly date? Was one planted too late? Was the population correct for the date drilled? Did I have inconsistent seed depth on one, which will cause MASSIVE yield differences.

There are many different varieties of soybeans, and some mature faster than others. Shorter season beans typically don't have the yield that longer season beans do, but farmers will usually plant both short and long season beans. If you have a super early frost, you lose yield on the long season beans, but long season beans can take advantage of good weather when the short season beans have already shut down.

3) If you sowed wheat from 2 different suppliers on identical pieces of land, and both yielded equally, but one suffered badly from an infection, which would you keep to sow next year?

Assuming this is conventional non-GMO seed which is legal to replant, I would save the seed which suffered badly from the infection/disease. It has the greatest potential to do better - treat against the disease, and yield will improve, surpassing the yield of the undiseased crop.

4) If you kept sheep, which ram lambs would you keep for tupping, sending the rest to market: a) the stronger and healthier; b) the weaker and more feeble?

Sheep operations I have been around typically did not save buck lambs because you don't want inbreeding. We clamped them. My Grandpa eventually went to Polypay sheep - while they were not the quality of a Dorset, they would often have triplets, and I believe they lambed twice a year. What he lost in quality, he made up for in quantity.

But any thriving wild animal or plant is 'self-sufficient'.

But not all self-sufficient plants/animals are thriving. Some just do good enough to get by.

The mite strains perish, along with their hosts. End of story for that lineage.

Less harmful mite strains, which do not kill their their hosts get to survive and reproduce.

Which is where we are still at. The mite strains actually live on though - on mites riding on drones that visit other colonies. The mites in a colony die off with the host, but they plant a seed in a new colony.

Now ask me how you get highly aggressive mites - how could they possibly evolve in the first place?

I decline. I'm not convinced they ever evolved - I believe it is highly likely they were always this aggressive.

That's what biologists call them (sometimes - if they want to) Anything that tries to eat something else is predating. The predated is prey. But we don't have to use that language if you don't want to. I was looking for a word that covered all harmful 'infections'. What you prefer?

Parasites feed off their host, but they aren't predators. Why try to find a one word fits all scenarios, rather than calling each one what it is? A bird that eats bees is a predator, and a mite is a parasite, and foulbrood is a disease. There is no one single solutions that fits all these, so we should never try to call all these the same thing. It is untruthful and dishonest.

Just seems to me that some concessions should/could be made until such time that the health/survivability genetic can catch up without destroying all the other genetic progress for those traits which we have previously bred for.

Good point Danny, but often that concession is medication. It sometimes allows the bees to live another day. I plant many heirloom variety crops in my garden. I never plant all my seed though, because a drought/fire/June snow can wipe out an entire crop. By not using all my seed, I have some seed left as a spare. With bees, we don't have the luxury of sticking some in the freezer for a couple years until growing conditions improve.

I believe there is a time and a place for everything, medications included. I also believe that proper nutrition is more important than genetics. Keep your livestock on a healthy diet, and they will have more strength to fight off parasites/pests/diseases. (Common bees with great nutrition are better than Minn Hygienic bees with poor diet, IMO.)

mike bispham

07-17-2009, 02:35 AM

Thanks for an honest and constructive post Charlie.

Can I ask how you think Michael Bush's and Dee Lusby's and all the wild bees got to be able to live and thrive whilst still having varroa mites? What is the difference in a) the bees, b) the mites and c) how did those differences come to be?

If you sowed a mix of different wheat strains too thickly, it would be, broadly speaking, the fastest that get to make it to maturity, since they would shade those that germinate later. The resulting seed would tend to be fast-germinating. The crop would have 'selected' for speed of germination.

A single generation might not seem much different to the next, but if you carried on oversowing year after year you'd expect to start to notice that this stuff was fast out of the ground.

Of course that selection might carry traits you didn't want - it might grow spindly for example. And so, as you say, it would have been wise to have kept some of the original seed to mix back in. You might like the speed of germination, and try to preserve that, but try to crossbreed with a sturdy variety.

So we can see a mechanism by which a trait is selected - quite accidentally in this case - and a remedy, and plan a wise course of action.

Do we agree that?

Mike

mike bispham

07-17-2009, 02:48 AM

(On predator/prey)
That's what biologists call them (sometimes - if they want to) Anything that tries to eat something else is predating. The predated is prey. But we don't have to use that language if you don't want to. I was looking for a word that covered all harmful 'infections'. What you prefer?

Parasites feed off their host, but they aren't predators. Why try to find a one word fits all scenarios, rather than calling each one what it is? A bird that eats bees is a predator, and a mite is a parasite, and foulbrood is a disease. There is no one single solutions that fits all these, so we should never try to call all these the same thing. It is untruthful and dishonest.

For the purposes of natural selection the effects are the same in each case. If you think about it, the relationship is the same whether is tiny (bacteria) middle size (a mite) or large (a bird or lion). The thing just wants to eat you - or part of you. All its interested in is the energy you can supply. And from your point of view (or the bees in this case) all you are interested in is that it doesn't eat you, or part of you. So all you need to focus on is your defence. And you need defences against all the different sorts of active threat - small, middle and large.

As the relationship is the same in all cases (Wants to eat/doesn't want to be ate) you can talk about all with the same covering terms. Prey and predator works fine - and biologists use them for that reason.

It's not dishonest, just convenient. but since it may cause confusion here I'll stop doing it that way. And actually, since we want to be able to talk about both animals and plants in the same ways, its probably even less suitable.

Mike

mike bispham

07-17-2009, 02:54 AM

(The mite strains perish, along with their hosts. End of story for that lineage.

Less harmful mite strains, which do not kill their their hosts get to survive and reproduce.)

Which is where we are still at. The mite strains actually live on though - on mites riding on drones that visit other colonies. The mites in a colony die off with the host, but they plant a seed in a new colony.

I agree this nasty trick is a tough one for the bees. But lots of (I want to say predators) bugs(?) play the same sorts of tricks. It's war out there - a jungle! Everyone is out to survive any way they can.

But the important point is; the bees have always found a way to defend themselves, and they've already done so this time. The mites have 'found' that if they don't actually kill their hosts they get to survive and reproduce in greater numbers. Don't forget in the wild there often isn't a nice warm hive just next door to dive into. Kill your host and you kill yourself. End of lineage.

Mike

gmcharlie

07-17-2009, 08:13 AM

Mike if you ask Michael he will tell you he used meds in getting to this point. Lusby refused and suffered huge losses....

I would say Michaels bees are just as healthy despite the used of meds/treatments to get to that point.

I am at almost the same point, mites are not a big issue for me. that said I dont hesitate at powdered sugar or the thought of needing to medicate should I goof and let the mites get ahead. I won't let a good gentle honey producer die because of excessive mites.

To teh exact same point, we have a new pest here called the Japenese beetle. so are familiar with it.... It is a VORACIOUS feeder of plants. they strip entire trees of folaige and are currently becomeing a threat to Soybeans (some variites) they will eat EVERY tree and shrup on my place they find tasty...

The seem to love grapes (first to go) Sasparillia and peaches, as well as the young leaves of every fruit tree... I use sevin... as much as I need as well as every other thing I can think of.

They are a parisite, no genetic stratagy will be forthcoming in my lifetime, should I let the grapes and peach trees be decimated?? give up the nice natural lifestyle of raising my own?
Not going to happen... I will fight the darn Japs.... and hope some birds other than my chickens start to find them tasty.... in the mean time I will keep the fruit alive, despite my wish of not useing sevin....

mike bispham

07-17-2009, 10:29 AM

To teh exact same point, we have a new pest here called the Japenese beetle. so are familiar with it.... It is a VORACIOUS feeder of plants. they strip entire trees of folaige and are currently becomeing a threat to Soybeans (some variites) they will eat EVERY tree and shrup on my place they find tasty...

The seem to love grapes (first to go) Sasparillia and peaches, as well as the young leaves of every fruit tree... I use sevin... as much as I need as well as every other thing I can think of.

They are a parisite, no genetic stratagy will be forthcoming in my lifetime, should I let the grapes and peach trees be decimated?? give up the nice natural lifestyle of raising my own?

Not going to happen... I will fight the darn Japs.... and hope some birds other than my chickens start to find them tasty.... in the mean time I will keep the fruit alive, despite my wish of not useing sevin....

No I think if you have a hope of getting shot of a foreign invader, try. If it becomes established however you may want to think about other strategies.

I am at almost the same point, mites are not a big issue for me. that said I dont hesitate at powdered sugar or the thought of needing to medicate should I goof and let the mites get ahead. I won't let a good gentle honey producer die because of excessive mites.

My chief bug with bees is that what systematic medication does is - or can do - is prevent adaptation. If it doesn't I don't have a problem. Erickson's 'recipe' includes medicating - but the idea is to systematically allow the resistant strains to come through in order to wean the apairy off medication. And then continue - for ever - to systematically select for health - ie for strains that don't need medication. The end-result is bees that are self-sufficient. You can get by on minimal treatment, and when the drones mate with wild queens they don't spoil their resistance.

If the aim is to reduce the need to treat by selecting for non-peast/disease prone strains, that's fine. Continue treating, minimally, while you work through.

But if the aim is to say, I don't care if my bees need treatment or not because I can always medicate, then I'll object, saying that's bad husbandry.

I don't think we're all that far apart here. I think my argument is mostly with regulators who promote just medication as a response to ill health and neglect to promote good husbandry - in the sense of selective reproduction aiming at not needing medicine. And anyone else who pushes the same tune. And those who go round claiming high losses are a mystery. And those who seem to think that the furture of beekeepining consists in requeening every year with special 'resistant' strains. Etc.

There seems to me to be a lot of promotion of such nonsense by a collection of interests who make money out of selling stuff, and precious little promotion of the the idea that actually selecting for health is an infininately better way to go.

There is a better way, that just doesn't get promoted because there's no money in it.

Mike

mike bispham

07-17-2009, 10:54 AM

Mike if you ask Michael he will tell you he used meds in getting to this point. Lusby refused and suffered huge losses....

I would say Michaels bees are just as healthy despite the used of meds/treatments to get to that point.

Charlie, if you read Michael's page on four steps to healthier bees I think you'll see what you've written is misleading in places.

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

The nitty gritty comes about half way down the page under 'No Treatments' and includes the following:

"Upside of not treating [...] But the most obvious up side is that until you quit treating you can't breed for survival against whatever your issues are. As long as you treat you prop up weak genetics and you can't tell what weaknesses they have. As long as you treat you keep breeding weak bees and super mites. The sooner you stop, the sooner you start breeding mites adapted to their host and bees who can survive with them. "

Michael goes on to talk about the relationship with local bees. He doesn't say anything about how propped-up bees mess with local bees. That's my moan, and it probably matters more here in the UK where propped-up colonies probably outnumber wild ones, and therefore do more damage.

Mike

gmcharlie

07-17-2009, 12:37 PM

That admission Came from Michael himself on a discussion of small cell and regression losses about a month ago....

gmcharlie

07-17-2009, 01:00 PM

>I am not positive, I am hopeing michael will comment, on it. but from what I read teh reason for colony loss during teh regression was based on the reappearnce of varro and the REFUSAL to treat.

Dee was the one who had a lot of losses while regressing (other may have also) and she refused to treat with anything for anything. She actually lost a lot of them to AFB at the time. I think refusal to treat was part of the issue. I did not experience those kinds of losses, but then the year I was regressing I used FGMO fog and finished the year off with oxalic acid vapor. The mite drop was negligible. The oxalic only put 100 or so mites on the trays per hive.

>I gather that was beased on another assumption of this thinking, and that was pure wax (no chemical residue).....

Yes.

>Since that time we (beeks) have developed the powdered sugar treatment, which is non chemical and has no lasting effects.

Actually it was around long before it got popular here and people are still arguing over it's efficacy.

>I belive that anyone trying now and haveing issues would go ahead and use the sugar as a temp fix to avoid the colony loss. It does not have the residual side effects the purist sought.

Or cut out some drone brood...

>Again I seriously don't belive any of even the most purist would object to an intermedite step of a sugar dusting.

Dee will probably only mildly object if you insist it's only an interim step and only because there was just cause and you weren't regressed yet...
__________________
Michael Bush www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen

This was froma thread tittled

"what survivibility of small cell without treatment"

Started By Drur.... good reading also

Countryboy

07-19-2009, 01:14 AM

Can I ask how you think Michael Bush's and Dee Lusby's and all the wild bees got to be able to live and thrive whilst still having varroa mites? What is the difference in a) the bees, b) the mites and c) how did those differences come to be?

You are asking others to speculate when they don't have all the facts. Surely you realize how ridiculous this is, as without all the facts, no one can give a totally correct answer. We could all guess until we are blue in the face, but that doesn't make us right. We could make guesses that sound like they could be correct, but plausible does not mean it is correct.

Michael Bush and Dee Lusby probably don't know every single factor involved with their bees and mites. They just know what they observed, but there may have been factors at work that they don't see. Perhaps God has cursed the mites on their bees, and blessed their bees - that could have profound effect, and we would not observe the forces at work.

If you sowed a mix of different wheat strains too thickly, it would be, broadly speaking, the fastest that get to make it to maturity, since they would shade those that germinate later. The resulting seed would tend to be fast-germinating. The crop would have 'selected' for speed of germination.

Have you ever planted wheat Mike? It really sounds like you are talking about theoretical plantings, with no real knowledge of how planting wheat works.

Where I live in central Ohio, we plant wheat in October as soon as the fly date is past, and we can plant to about the end of October. The closer to the end of October, the thicker you sow. You plant a higher population of seed. This is with the exact same seed strain. The earlier in October you plant, the longer the plant has to get established, and the higher yield per stalk. When you plant in late October, your plants don't have as long to get established before winter - each stalk will end up having a smaller head and yielding less, but with a higher plant population your total yield for the field remains the same.

Wheat is normally planted by drilling it into rows. When drilling wheat in rows, I don't think it is possible to plant it so thickly that it shades out other seed from germinating. I've seen seed spills where it appeared that every seed germinated and tried to grow. The plants were ALL stunted due to competition for water and nutrients.

You also assume that farmers replant wheat seed from last year's crop. This is very rare. Most farmers buy new seed every year to take advantage of hybrid vigor. Bin run seed doesn't carry the hybrid vigor of the parent plant. When the higher yield of hybrid vigor exceeds the added cost of buying seed, farmers do what pays the mortgage.

A single generation might not seem much different to the next, but if you carried on oversowing year after year you'd expect to start to notice that this stuff was fast out of the ground.

Possibly. Possibly not. Other factors would cloud any study you did. For example, Consistent planting depth has a larger bearing on yield than strain of wheat. Nutrients and fertilization play a large factor also.

If you sowed too thickly year after year, saving seed the LAST thing you would notice is how fast it came out of the ground. The first thing you would notice is the stunted cops due to competition for water and nutrients. The second thing you would notice is VERY poor yield. The next thing you would notice is your shrinking bank account, because you have no extra wheat to sell, and you can't pay your bills. You will see that you are losing money by planting wheat. Then you will be too busy trying to find a crop that you can make money with, and you'll never take the time to see how fast your wheat came up.

Of course that selection might carry traits you didn't want - it might grow spindly for example. And so, as you say, it would have been wise to have kept some of the original seed to mix back in. You might like the speed of germination, and try to preserve that, but try to crossbreed with a sturdy variety.

But it's not cost effective for one farmer to try to develop their own genetic line. Seed companies can recoup their costs by selling high dollar seeds to farmers. The farmer sells his wheat to be ground into flour - he doesn't sell it for seed prices.

So we can see a mechanism by which a trait is selected - quite accidentally in this case - and a remedy, and plan a wise course of action.

Do we agree that?

No, we can't agree. Your model is based upon fantasy and unrealistic theories, and isn't grounded in practical reality.

For the purposes of natural selection the effects are the same in each case. If you think about it, the relationship is the same whether is tiny (bacteria) middle size (a mite) or large (a bird or lion). The thing just wants to eat you - or part of you.

If it either wants to eat you, or eat a part of you, then the effects are NOT the same in each case. It also matters if the organism attacking you is internal or external, because defense mechanisms are different.

If you catch a cold, you may cough up phlegm and mucous. That is your body's defense to remove the virus - if a lion is attacking you, your body will not produce phlegm and mucous because the relationship is different. If a lion attacks you, you might shoot it with a gun to defend yourself - but a gun is useless against a cold virus.

So all you need to focus on is your defence. And you need defences against all the different sorts of active threat - small, middle and large.

No, you don't need defense against all parasites. For example, there are microscopic parasitic bugs that live in your clothes and on your skin, eating the particles of dead skin. While they are a parasite feeding off the host (you) they pose no threat to you, so there is no need of a defense.

But the important point is; the bees have always found a way to defend themselves, and they've already done so this time.

It's easy for a species to exist until they get hit by a new disease or pest they have no resistance to. Every species finds a way to defend itself, up until the point that species goes extinct.

The mites have 'found' that if they don't actually kill their hosts they get to survive and reproduce in greater numbers.

Then why mites still killing so many hives, with the mites dying with the hive? It is simply not as you say. In order to survive, the mites will need to reproduce in smaller numbers, not greater numbers. Smaller numbers of mites will yield mite populations which won't overwhelm hives, which will lead to a sustainable mite population.

Don't forget in the wild there often isn't a nice warm hive just next door to dive into.

There isn't? Swarms never seem to have a problem finding homes, and I think it would be a very rare drone congregation area that had drones from only one apiary. (managed or unmanaged)

Kill your host and you kill yourself. End of lineage.

Which is what is happening. Mite infestations still end in mite colony death.

They are a parisite, no genetic stratagy will be forthcoming in my lifetime, should I let the grapes and peach trees be decimated?? give up the nice natural lifestyle of raising my own?
Not going to happen... I will fight the darn Japs.... and hope some birds other than my chickens start to find them tasty.... in the mean time I will keep the fruit alive, despite my wish of not useing sevin....

But charlie, you are forgetting the predator to the Japanese beetle. Moles. They eat Japanese beetle larva. Encourage moles to live in your lawn, eating every grub. Encourage the moles to live in your neighbors' lawns too - otherwise the beetles from there will replace all the grubs your moles eat.

No I think if you have a hope of getting shot of a foreign invader, try. If it becomes established however you may want to think about other strategies.

Wait a minute. You advocate medicating (sevin) against a foreign invader (Jap beetles) but you are totally opposed to medicating against mites, which are another foreign invader.

My chief bug with bees is that what systematic medication does is - or can do - is prevent adaptation.

It also prevents extinction of the species, which is often what happens to a species confronted by a foreign invader.

But if the aim is to say hell, I don't care if my bees need treatment or not because I can always medicate, then I'll object, saying that's bad husbandry.

As opposed to saying, 'I'll never treat my bees. They should adapt and become resistant to the mites on their own.' That's equally bad husbandry.

I don't think we're all that far apart here. I think my argument is mostly with regulators who promote just medication as a response to ill health and neglect to promote good husbandry - in the sense of selective reproduction aiming at not needing medicine. And anyone else who pushes the same tune. And those who go round claiming high losses are a mystery. And those who seem to think that the furture of beekeepining consists in requeening every year with special 'resistant' strains. Etc.

Look at grain production. Farmers don't save seed to replant every year. They buy new seed (requeening) every year. But this is also what allows you to have food on your table. When was the last time you heard of a developed country having a food shortage? While people in the Western world have seen high food prices, they haven't seen food shortages.

There seems to me to be a lot of promotion of such nonsense by a collection of interests who make money out of selling stuff, and precious little promotion of the the idea that actually selecting for health is an infininately better way to go.

There is a better way, that just doesn't get promoted because there's no money in it.

Money isn't everything, but the lack of it is. If something is truly a better way, the money WILL gravitate there. It won't happen overnight - and simply because the money hasn't moved there yet doesn't mean the money won't go there in due time.

We often look for short term gains at the expense of long term gains. But we can't ignore short term benefits, looking only at long term gains because you still have to pay the short term bills right now until the long term investments pay off.

I wanted to add something to the talk the other day about sheep. Whenever Grandpa would have weak/feeble lambs, he didn't allow them to die so he had 'healthier' stock. He would bring them in the house and have them in a crate in the coat/boot room by the back porch. He would bottle feed the weak/feeble/sick lambs, and doctor them back to good health, and then return them to the barn. You make the best use of what you have. If your livestock needs doctoring - you doctor them back to good health. That is good husbandry.

mike bispham

07-19-2009, 02:08 AM

You are asking others to speculate when they don't have all the facts. Surely you realize how ridiculous this is, as without all the facts, no one can give a totally correct answer. We could all guess until we are blue in the face, but that doesn't make us right. We could make guesses that sound like they could be correct, but plausible does not mean it is correct.

There is a difference between guessing and constructive theorising informed by sound science.

And we all 'theorise' all the time. You 'theorise' that if humans didn't 'take care' of bees they'd become extinct. You theorise that God might have blessed Michael Bush's bees and cursed his mites. You theorise that selecting for health will make no difference to the next generation. These are your theories.

As to your response on the business of selection. I think the mental model you are using, based on your own experience, is too rigid and artificial to allow you to see what happens in more natural settings. You are a 'follow-the-instructions-on-the-packet' farmer. You don't work at selecting for the heathiest because you don't need to -that is taken care of by your seed suppliers.

In earlier times farming was an art that required an understanding of the way characteristics move through the generations, and the need for selection of seed. All animal breeding involves the selection of the healthiest specimens for breeding, and only then for desirable traits.

These are simply truths. They are relevant to an understanding of what is going wrong in beekeeping.

Nothing I say will move you unless you want to be moved. You don't.

May I ask, do you have religious objections to the idea of natural selection for the fittest strains? I know many people do, and I'm wondering if that is part of what is happening here. Please don't answer if you don't want to - I'm not prying, but you've mentioned God as a possible cause, and I'm curious to know if that is a factor in play.

I wanted to add something to the talk the other day about sheep. Whenever Grandpa would have weak/feeble lambs, he didn't allow them to die so he had 'healthier' stock. He would bring them in the house and have them in a crate in the coat/boot room by the back porch. He would bottle feed the weak/feeble/sick lambs, and doctor them back to good health, and then return them to the barn. You make the best use of what you have. If your livestock needs doctoring - you doctor them back to good health. That is good husbandry.

Sure. I doubt that stopped your grandfather making careful judgements about which rams and ewes were retained for making the next generation.

Mike

Countryboy

07-19-2009, 10:49 AM

There is a difference between guessing and constructive theorising informed by sound science.

What is the difference? An 'educated' guess is just as much a guess as speculation.

You 'theorise' that if humans didn't 'take care' of bees they'd become extinct.

No, I said they might go extinct before building a natural resistance to the mite, which is the common response to many organisms confronted by a foreign invading organism.

You theorise that selecting for health will make no difference to the next generation.

No, I didn't. It can make a difference - and when we select certain traits, it OFTEN makes a difference - a horrible negative impact from unintended consequences.

I think the mental model you are using, based on your own experience, is too rigid and artificial to allow you to see what happens in more natural settings.

I disagree. I do observe what happens in the natural setting. Wild plants/animals don't have near the yield that managed crops can pruduce. I think your mental model is flawed by a lack of practical reality based on real life experiences.

You are a 'follow-the-instructions-on-the-packet' farmer. You don't work at selecting for the heathiest because you don't need to -that is taken care of by your seed suppliers.

Actually, I am NOT a 'follow the instructions on the packet farmer'. My ag management is VERY unconventional. I don't select for healthiest seed because I am satisfied with the current health of my plants. I'm not trying to fix imaginary problems, because it isn't broken - my management works for me.

Ironically, I am a small time seed supplier. :) My customers demand strains NOT selected for 'fittest'. Some of my seed varieties produce 'weak' plants, which I have to baby to get them to survive - and my customers love them. Go figure.

In earlier times farming was an art that required an understanding of the way characteristics move through the generations, and the need for selection of seed.

No, in earlier times farming had very little understanding of genetics. Keep in mind it wasn't until Mendel that it was discovered that tall peas grew tall peas, and traits were inherited. In early times, farming just required faith in God - look at how many cultures had tons of gods centered around farming.

All animal breeding involves the selection of the healthiest specimens for breeding, and only then for desirable traits.

Why am I reminded of the British bulldog - that useless result of breeding.

These are simply truths. They are relevant to an understanding of what is going wrong in beekeeping.

But you aren't stating truths. You are stating assumptions and theories, and attempting to pass them off as truth, and using these mal-informed theories to portray yourself as some kind of expert on what is wrong with beekeeping.

For knowing what is wrong with beekeeping, how is your approach working for you? That's right, your bees died off. You are unable to keep your own bees alive, yet you want ot tell everyone what is wrong with beekeeping.

Mike, if you knew what was right with beekeeping, you would be a successful beekeeper. Your experience shows what is wrong with beekeeping is your own management.

May I ask, do you have religious objections to the idea of natural selection for the fittest strains?

It is not a religious objection - it is a common sense objection. Natural selection DOES NOT select for the fittest strains. Natural selection eliminates the most inferior/weakest. It does nothing to improve fitness. The remaining strains are exactly the same health as before.

Also, it should be pointed out that when man selects for traits, it is NOT natural selection. It is UNNATURAL selection. (True natural selection eliminates organisms taking into account forces we don't always see.)

Have you ever seen someone belittle another, to make them seem better by comparison? That is how natural selection works - it exposes a weakness, and everything else appears fitter by comparison, but in reality, the 'fittest' is unchanged by natural selection.

Sure. I doubt that stopped your grandfather making careful judgements about which rams and ewes were retained for making the next generation.

Mike, do you have any knowledge of raising sheep? You do NOT retain rams for breeding. That results in inbred stock and birth defects. (or is that your idea of natural selection?)

And like Michael Bush's tagline says, 'Everything works if you let it.' When managed properly, strong stock works for you. When managed properly, weaker stock works for you too.

mike bispham

07-19-2009, 11:32 AM

There is a difference between guessing and constructive theorising informed by sound science.

What is the difference? An 'educated' guess is just as much a guess as speculation.

I've no experience of your bees. I will 'theorise' that if you pour petrol in your hives your bees will die. If you drop your hives in a lake, your bees will die. If you mate unadapted bees with unadapted bees, you will very likely get unadapted bees.

Agreed?

You theorise that selecting for health will make no difference to the next generation.

No, I didn't. It can make a difference - and when we select certain traits, it OFTEN makes a difference - a horrible negative impact from unintended consequences.

I agree - yet generally speaking, when you breed from healthy parents you are much more likely to get healthy offspring.

I think the mental model you are using, based on your own experience, is too rigid and artificial to allow you to see what happens in more natural settings.

I disagree. I do observe what happens in the natural setting. Wild plants/animals don't have near the yield that managed crops can pruduce. I think your mental model is flawed by a lack of practical reality based on real life experiences.

Of course not. That's because they have been specially bred (or genetically-modifed artificially) and are heavily managed. But I'm talking about health here, not yield. If you greedily put yield above health sooner or later you will come unstuck.

In earlier times farming was an art that required an understanding of the way characteristics move through the generations, and the need for selection of seed.

No, in earlier times farming had very little understanding of genetics. Keep in mind it wasn't until Mendel that it was discovered that tall peas grew tall peas, and traits were inherited. In early times, farming just required faith in God - look at how many cultures had tons of gods centered around farming.

Until reletively recently farmers had no understanding of the actualy mechanics by which traits came foward (as you say until Mendel).. but they knew very well how to breed for traits, and were well aware of the importance of the traits of strength and good health. The principles have been known for thousands of years -I've given several examples and references including one from the OT. I could collect many more for you, but you'd just dismiss them as 'theories'.

All animal breeding involves the selection of the healthiest specimens for breeding, and only then for desirable traits.

Why am I reminded of the British bulldog - that useless result of breeding.

Well there you go - how not to breed! There are endless similar examples.

These are simply truths. They are relevant to an understanding of what is going wrong in beekeeping.

But you aren't stating truths. You are stating assumptions and theories, and attempting to pass them off as truth, and using these mal-informed theories to portray yourself as some kind of expert on what is wrong with beekeeping.

I'm not trying to pass myself off as an expert, I am arguing, with the support of well-understood and totally accepted science and tons and tons of empirical evidence behind me - that failure to select for health is very much part of the problem. Beekeepers routinely breed from bees that die without help - and what they get is more bees that die without help. You keep on arguing with that simple, truthful, and frankly inarguable proposition.

For knowing what is wrong with beekeeping, how is your approach working for you? That's right, your bees died off. You are unable to keep your own bees alive, yet you want ot tell everyone what is wrong with beekeeping.

My bees dies because I refused to participate in the stupid game of preventing the rise of resistance. I could almost certainly have kept them alive, had I chosen to. I expected them to die. I realise you can't grasp the point of that.

May I ask, do you have religious objections to the idea of natural selection for the fittest strains?

It is not a religious objection - it is a common sense objection. Natural selection DOES NOT select for the fittest strains. Natural selection eliminates the most inferior/weakest. It does nothing to improve fitness. The remaining strains are exactly the same health as before.

Natural selection keeps species fit by removing the weakest strains from the breeding genepool, and choosing the stongest specimens to breed from (by competitive mating).

Also, it should be pointed out that when man selects for traits, it is NOT natural selection. It is UNNATURAL selection. (True natural selection eliminates organisms taking into account forces we don't always see.)

I agree, of course. Human selection mimics the mechanisms of natural selection. Selective breeding tends to keep domestic organisms strong in a way that parallels natural selection.

Have you ever seen someone belittle another, to make them seem better by comparison? That is how natural selection works - it exposes a weakness, and everything else appears fitter by comparison, but in reality, the 'fittest' is unchanged by natural selection.

The species is strengthened by the removal of weak genes. It is the species that matters, not the individuals. Individuals die, the strongest win the mating game. It isn't fair at all - but that's the way it works. Trying to equalise things just makes the whole business of life go wrong.

Sure. I doubt that stopped your grandfather making careful judgements about which rams and ewes were retained for making the next generation.

Mike, do you have any knowledge of raising sheep? You do NOT retain rams for breeding. That results in inbred stock and birth defects. (or is that your idea of natural selection?)

Yes, fresh blood is selected regularly, but not always. It depend largely on how much genetic variation they contain. And when you select the fresh blood, do you choose feeble specimens?

And like Michael Bush's tagline says, 'Everything works if you let it.' When managed properly, strong stock works for you. When managed properly, weaker stock works for you too.

Michael works with the grain of nature. He lets weak colonies perish, and multiplies from the strongest. He selects self-sufficient wild bees as preferred lineage. He doesn't medicate at all, never mind reproduce deliberately from previously medicated bees.

I don't know why you have to keep arguing about something so plainly true and simple. Good husbandry involves breeding choices, and if you continually breed from your strongest specimens you will strengthen your stock. If you allow breeding from enfeebled specimens you will get more enfeebled specimens. For heaven's sake stop trying to argue black is white.

Mike

Radar

07-19-2009, 05:54 PM

mike bispham

07-19-2009, 10:53 PM

<My bees dies because I refused to participate in the stupid game of preventing the rise of resistance. I could almost certainly have kept them alive, had I chosen to. I expected them to die. I realise you can't grasp the point of that.>

But you are quite happy that someone else did what you refuse to do and now thanks to them you have bees.

I don't accept your assumption that I now have bees because others medicated. I think the whole varroa epidemic would have been over in a matter of 5 or 10 years had the right path been followed. Medicating has prolonged and vastly worsened the problem. Tens of thousands of beekeepers have stopped keeping, and countless wild colonies that have gained resistance have perished because a policy of medication without selection route was adopted.

Can I suggest this conversation is now getting in the way of the small cell study and might be better continued on another thread? What do others think? Moderator?

Mike

Countryboy

07-19-2009, 11:42 PM

If you mate unadapted bees with unadapted bees, you will very likely get unadapted bees.

Agreed?

No. Too vague. Unadapted to what?

I agree - yet generally speaking, when you breed from healthy parents you are much more likely to get healthy offspring.

It depends on your definition of healthy. There are enough exceptions to the rule that it is VERY general. I can show you communities of healthy parents whose offspring have a MUCH higher occurrence of mental retardation - go figure.

Of course not. That's because they have been specially bred (or genetically-modifed artificially) and are heavily managed. But I'm talking about health here, not yield. If you greedily put yield above health sooner or later you will come unstuck.

But sick plants don't yield good - healthy plants yield vigorously. You can not determine health without looking at yield. if you look at health without looking at yield, you come unstuck.

I'm not trying to pass myself off as an expert, I am arguing, with the support of well-understood and totally accepted science and tons and tons of empirical evidence behind me

That is what 'experts' do - although armchair experts often claim not to be experts, while acting like one.

that failure to select for health is very much part of the problem.

What is health, and what criteria are examined to determine whatever you are calling health? You seem to think humans know best, and know every factor that influences health, which is ridiculous.

You keep on arguing with that simple, truthful, and frankly inarguable proposition.

When you espouse invalid assumptions, you don't have truth Mike - plain and simple, and THAT is easily arguable.

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

My bees dies because I refused to participate in the stupid game of preventing the rise of resistance. I could almost certainly have kept them alive, had I chosen to. I expected them to die.

Ah, you are the King. Bees live and die by your command. You are all knowing and all powerful, right?

Natural selection keeps species fit by removing the weakest strains from the breeding genepool, and choosing the stongest specimens to breed from (by competitive mating).

What determines the weakest strains? Strains are not selected on overall strength - they are eliminated by one 'weak' trait. Other highly valuable traits are lost when that strain is eliminated because of a weak trait.

Competitive mating - is that like how mites breed? Mama mite lays her eggs, they hatch, and the brothers and sisters mate before they ever leave the cell. Heavy competition there.

Human selection mimics the mechanisms of natural selection. Selective breeding tends to keep domestic organisms strong in a way that parallels natural selection.

Human selection ATTEMPTS to mimic natural selection. But since we don't know all thetraits something has, how can we possibly determine what has the best traits? It doesn't parallel natural selection - it makes a mockery of it.

The species is strengthened by the removal of weak genes.

But it is not just the weak genes that are removed. The good genes accompanying the weak genes are lost too.

That's like saying chemotherapy strengthens people - it kills bad cells (and good cells too). Anyone who has ever been around anyone on chemptherapy knows it weakens that person, and everyone around them who helps care for them.

It is the species that matters, not the individuals.

A species is made up of individuals. Each individual impacts the species as a whole.

Individuals die, the strongest win the mating game.

Cunning tends to have much better success than strength. Watch two big bucks fighting over a doe, and then see the little puny buck sneak in and take care of business.

Yes, fresh blood is selected regularly, but not always. It depend largely on how much genetic variation they contain. And when you select the fresh blood, do you choose feeble specimens?

It depends on their overall traits. Stock is a package deal - you take good traits with bad. A simple cost benefit analysis provides your answer. Will the stock make you money?

Michael works with the grain of nature. He lets weak colonies perish, and multiplies from the strongest. He selects self-sufficient wild bees as preferred lineage. He doesn't medicate at all, never mind reproduce deliberately from previously medicated bees.

He will also tell you that ideally he wouldn't feed his bees, but in reality he often feeds. (he doesn't let every weak colony perish) And he does feed pollen in early spring, which is a medicinal act against nutritional deficiencies. Or feeding sugar water to bees with nosema - he doesn't just let them die off because they got dysentary.

I don't know why you have to keep arguing about something so plainly true and simple.

Because it is not as plainly true and simple as you would like to think it is.

Good husbandry involves breeding choices,

That's true - but breeding choices have less impact on health and vitality than other things. Breeding choices are not as important as you would like them to be.

and if you continually breed from your strongest specimens you will strengthen your stock.

And if you breed from mediocre average stock, you'll still end up with some pretty good stock, as long as you take care of them and manage them good.

If you allow breeding from enfeebled specimens you will get more enfeebled specimens.

You don't get it do you? Simply because one is not trying to select from the 'best' stock does not mean they are selecting from the 'worst' stock.

For heaven's sake stop trying to argue black is white.

I'm not. I'm simply not ignoring you while you try to proclaim that anything that is not black is white.

I have a question for you. What is your favorite kind of tomato? What kind of tomato do you put on a sandwich? (or make into sauce, etc)

mike bispham

07-19-2009, 11:57 PM

For heaven's sake stop trying to argue black is white.

I'm not. I'm simply not ignoring you while you try to proclaim that anything that is not black is white.

Fair enough. And now that you are putting up reasoned arguments I'll be able to respond, and we'll learn more about what the complications are, and how much attention we have to pay them. For that I'm grateful.

For now:

I have a question for you. What is your favorite kind of tomato? What kind of tomato do you put on a sandwich? (or make into sauce, etc)

I'm no expert but my first choice for growing is Gardeners Delight, a small and well-flavoured variety.

Mike

mike bispham

07-20-2009, 12:22 AM

If you mate unadapted bees with unadapted bees, you will very likely get unadapted bees.

Agreed?

No. Too vague. Unadapted to what?

Unadapted to 'the disease environment.' That is, that combination of present attacking organisms and micro-organisms that the bees have to be able to fend off in order to thrive without aid.

I'm grateful that you asked for this definition. Can I ask if that wording makes sense to you?

I agree - yet generally speaking, when you breed from healthy parents you are much more likely to get healthy offspring.

It depends on your definition of healthy. There are enough exceptions to the rule that it is VERY general. I can show you communities of healthy parents whose offspring have a MUCH higher occurrence of mental retardation - go figure.

I agree - we need to have a definition of 'healthy' I have suggested 'self-sufficient', meaning, 'can thrive without human help'. If you'd like to comment on that proposed definition for our working purposes, or suggest another, I'm listening.

As to mental retardation; you might want to look at narrow lineage.

Yes it is general. But we can work on an 'all else being equal' basis, and on a statistical basis.

All else being equal... the offspring of 2 parents carrying character trait A are more likely to carry the same characteristic than pairings in which only one parent carry that trait. And much more likely than pairings where neither parent carries it - though that is not impossible. These likelihoods can be found, reported as facts. And they play out to result in firm statistical facts - Mendel spotted the numbers, and biology looked for and found the mechanics.

It is those mechanisms that work in natural selection, where the weak lineages are winnowed by failure to reproduce, and the characteristics that make the strong strong - whatever they are, go forward into the next generation in greater proportions that they would have done had the weak also gone through.

The process plays out again in each generation, and it is what keeps each generation one step ahead of the ever-changing disease environment, and one step of the rest of the predators.

Where husbandry works with this by selecting actively for strength and resistance to disease the result is stock that is stronger and more resistant than where 'husbandry' doesn't make such selection.

Take an extreme example. From say four flocks of 100 sheep (so that interbreeding is not an issue) imagine picking out the weakest in every generation and raising only those, and using the weakest from each generation to make the next. What would be likely to happen? How would those flocks compare with the rest, where normal breeding selection constantly selects the healthier breeding individuals?

Mike

mike bispham

07-20-2009, 12:59 AM

that failure to select for health is very much part of the problem.

What is health, and what criteria are examined to determine whatever you are calling health? You seem to think humans know best, and know every factor that influences health, which is ridiculous.

I'm glad you made this point. I think we have to agree this issue before we can have a discussion. Health for me is the freedom from ill-health, that allows organisms to thrive and reproduce without artificial aid.

This is entirely separate from considerations of economic value.

My bees dies because I refused to participate in the stupid game of preventing the rise of resistance. I could almost certainly have kept them alive, had I chosen to. I expected them to die.

Ah, you are the King. Bees live and die by your command. You are all knowing and all powerful, right?

Can I not accuse of exactly the same thing? You think you know better than nature which individuals are fit to live or die? Don't take this the wrong way; but it seems to me that it is you who is the one 'playing God'.

Natural selection keeps species fit by removing the weakest strains from the breeding genepool, and choosing the stongest specimens to breed from (by competitive mating).

What determines the weakest strains? Strains are not selected on overall strength - they are eliminated by one 'weak' trait. Other highly valuable traits are lost when that strain is eliminated because of a weak trait.

Strains are reproduced and elimiated in nature for a variety of reasons, and combinations of 'traits'. This is, I reckon, another tricky term. The 'trait' of 'good health' is conferred by particular combinations of genes; if the strain doesn't have this 'trait' it fails. In this usage 'trait' denotes a vague need, and those circumstances that meet, or don't meet it.

You can look more closely at particular traits like hygenic behaviour. This is one of the complications that I try to avoid, because that can be legitimately done, by not looking at deep mechanisms unnecessarily. the 'trait' of good health = self-sufficiency is all we really need to focus on in order to understand why selection matters.

Competitive mating - is that like how mites breed? Mama mite lays her eggs, they hatch, and the brothers and sisters mate before they ever leave the cell. Heavy competition there.

I don't know details of mite selection - but I do know I don't need to. Mites are living organisms, and as such subject to the universal law governing living organisms: natural selection for the fittest strains ensures those best able to thrive do so at the expense of those least able to.

Human selection mimics the mechanisms of natural selection. Selective breeding tends to keep domestic organisms strong in a way that parallels natural selection.

Human selection ATTEMPTS to mimic natural selection. But since we don't know all thetraits something has, how can we possibly determine what has the best traits? It doesn't parallel natural selection - it makes a mockery of it.

To my mind the notion of 'attempt' is already wrapped up in the word 'mimic'.

The asnwer to your question: we try first to identify features that indicate good health and strengthen them because first and formost we want good healthy strong stock. And we breed toward those traits - health and strength. Second we try to indentify weak traits - things like disposition to known problems, to infections, low immunity, failure to thrive. And we breed away from those traits.

We thus look for traits at both extremes - vivid good health, size and strength at one end, weakliness a the other. This is a science and an art - some people have a good 'eye' for stock, some don't. There are rules, but gut judgements also come into play.

The species is strengthened by the removal of weak genes.

But it is not just the weak genes that are removed. The good genes accompanying the weak genes are lost too.

No; the good genes come through in the individuals who survive and reproduce. Nature can't afford to throw away good stuff - life is far too competetive for that to work.

Individuals die, the strongest win the mating game.

Cunning tends to have much better success than strength. Watch two big bucks fighting over a doe, and then see the little puny buck sneak in and take care of business.

Yes, intelligence is another (usually) welcome trait. And success in cunning breeds cunning...

I don't know why you have to keep arguing about something so plainly true and simple.

Because it is not as plainly true and simple as you would like to think it is.

Good husbandry involves breeding choices,

That's true - but breeding choices have less impact on health and vitality than other things. Breeding choices are not as important as you would like them to be.

On the larger scale, and in the long run, they are. At the moment modern stockbreeding and seed sciences and modern working practices keep farmers going. But stockbreeding and seed selection are still of primary importance to husbandry. Most beekeepers have never learned it - they haven't needed to. And that - the poor breeding decisions that result - are a large part of the problems in beekeeping. Disease is ever-present because the wrong stock selection decisions have been made.

I think we agree that selection makes a difference, but disagree over how important it is. Perhaps this is because we have different perspectives and aims. You want to pay the bills at the end of the year, and your mind is fixed on yields and short-term fixes. I want to see the bee return to the healthy self-sufficient animal is was and can be.

Mike

Countryboy

07-20-2009, 10:26 PM

I'm no expert but my first choice for growing is Gardeners Delight, a small and well-flavoured variety.

I trust you do not eat any tomato products made with tomatoes from any other variety.

I must ask though, why you would plant a variety of tomato that literally requires the plant to be propped up? Why are you not selecting the healthiest tomato plant - one which can support itself?

I'm confused. There are other tomato varieties which produce larger yields and larger fruits. There are other tomato varieties with strong stalks capable of supporting their own weight. There are other tomato varieties which have larger leaves, and in plant competition, the plant with the biggest leaves wins.

I also trust that you do not remove any other vegetative growth from your garden. Natural selection will select the fittest plants for your garden - you are only encouraging the growth of weak, sickly plants (like Gardeners Delight) when you remove heartier plants.

I'm sure you don't water your plants either, allowing natural selection to choose plants that thrive best in your climate. If drought resistance is necessary - so be it.

I'm sure you allow these to grow only from volunteer plants, and would NEVER start plants indoors in an unnatural environment which props up that weak species. If the plant can't handle the rigors of your climate - let it die.

I'm sure you would never fertilize your tomatoes either - if your soil is deficient, you should allow selection of tomatoes that thrive with that nutrient deficiency. Knowing your opposition to medication of weak strains, I'm sure you would never medicate any of your tomato plants.

I'm sure you would NEVER take steps to protect against insect damage such as cutworms or tomato hornworms. You should be selecting plants that are insect resistant.

And lastly, why do you care how the tomato tastes? The taste of the plant has no bearing on plant health.

Countryboy

07-20-2009, 11:38 PM

Unadapted to 'the disease environment.' That is, that combination of present attacking organisms and micro-organisms that the bees have to be able to fend off in order to thrive without aid.

I'm grateful that you asked for this definition. Can I ask if that wording makes sense to you?

No, it does not. It fails to recognize parasites or predators which are not diseases. It also fails to identify what a 'disease environment' is. For example, a hive being medicinally treated for AFB will not have AFB in it - and since no AFB spores are attacking the bees, those bees are actually adapted to that environment by your definition.

I agree - we need to have a definition of 'healthy' I have suggested 'self-sufficient', meaning, 'can thrive without human help'. If you'd like to comment on that proposed definition for our working purposes, or suggest another, I'm listening.

Can thrive without human help....hmm. What about human involvement? Humans hurt things too, not just 'help'.

But the ONLY way we can have this scenario, is for no humans to be on the planet. Either no humans, or no healthy plants. We either hurt or help - there is no neutral position.

As to mental retardation; you might want to look at narrow lineage.

Narrow? I'm talking of communities with hundreds of thousands of people - with elevated rates of mental retardation.

Yes it is general. But we can work on an 'all else being equal' basis, and on a statistical basis.

No, we can't. All else is NEVER equal in the real world, and statistics are numbers on paper that are never truthful. Statistics work most of the time, but the exceptions to the rule make them unreliable in the real world.

All else being equal... the offspring of 2 parents carrying character trait A are more likely to carry the same characteristic than pairings in which only one parent carry that trait. And much more likely than pairings where neither parent carries it - though that is not impossible. These likelihoods can be found, reported as facts. And they play out to result in firm statistical facts - Mendel spotted the numbers, and biology looked for and found the mechanics.

This works on physical traits, and not personality/character traits. Even then, other factors often produce greater influence. Short parents produce taller children when the children have a better diet than their parents had.

It is those mechanisms that work in natural selection, where the weak lineages are winnowed by failure to reproduce,

What defines weak lineages? Natural selection simply eliminates strains, typically with death, which cannot withstand whatever pressure they are facing at that exact moment in time. Pressures change, and what was strong yesterday is weak today, and will be strong again tomorrow, and vice versa. Natural selection happens when death occurs at the moment of weakness, never allowing that strain to be strong again.

The process plays out again in each generation, and it is what keeps each generation one step ahead of the ever-changing disease environment, and one step of the rest of the predators.

Where husbandry works with this by selecting actively for strength and resistance to disease the result is stock that is stronger and more resistant than where 'husbandry' doesn't make such selection.

I hate to state the obvious, but you just contradicted yourself. First you say natural selection keeps each generation one step ahead (proactive) and then you say husbandry works with this by artificially selecting as a knee-jerk reaction to yesterday's problem. With husbandry, we can't forecast what tomorrows problems will be - we can only respond to them.

Take an extreme example. From say four flocks of 100 sheep (so that interbreeding is not an issue) imagine picking out the weakest in every generation and raising only those, and using the weakest from each generation to make the next. What would be likely to happen? How would those flocks compare with the rest, where normal breeding selection constantly selects the healthier breeding individuals?

How can such a scenario happen? It can't without inbreeding. It's ridiculous to propose a scenario involving inbreeding, and then imagine what effects would happen if no inbreeding occurred.

Health for me is the freedom from ill-health, that allows organisms to thrive and reproduce without artificial aid.

Try again. That's like saying you are alive when you are not dead.

This is entirely separate from considerations of economic value.

But they are inseparable. How can we try to keep them separate and have any realistic result?

Don't take this the wrong way; but it seems to me that it is you who is the one 'playing God'.

I was taught that God is a loving God. If myself actively trying to stack the odds in favor of surviving and to help all the opportunity to thrive means I am playing God - then I take that as a compliment.

The 'trait' of 'good health' is conferred by particular combinations of genes; if the strain doesn't have this 'trait' it fails.

But good health is dependant upon external pressures. How can internal genetics determine external pressures? It can't. External pressures change.

I don't know details of mite selection - but I do know I don't need to. Mites are living organisms, and as such subject to the universal law governing living organisms: natural selection for the fittest strains ensures those best able to thrive do so at the expense of those least able to.

But you don't allow natural selection to work. You keep advocating artificial selection of the healthiest stock, while ignoring the other side of the equation - the strength of the parasite.

we try first to identify features that indicate good health and strengthen them because first and formost we want good healthy strong stock.

But that is dependant upon the external pressures, and we are selecting in hindsight. We are trying to breed for what would have been strong stock in a previous generation - we don't breed for strong stock in the future, simply because we don't know what pressures we will have in the future.

And we breed toward those traits - health and strength.

No, we don't. We breed towards what would have been strength and health yesterday. We ignore present and future strength, and concentrate on yesterday.

Second we try to indentify weak traits - things like disposition to known problems, to infections, low immunity, failure to thrive. And we breed away from those traits.

That's breeding for yesterday's problems. That is like pouring water on ashes to put out a fire. Unless the fire is still going, you're wasting your time.

We thus look for traits at both extremes - vivid good health, size and strength at one end, weakliness a the other. This is a science and an art - some people have a good 'eye' for stock, some don't. There are rules, but gut judgements also come into play.

I've never seen extreme stock - neither great nor miserable. What is wrong with continuing good/normal stock bloodlines, and giving them a good diet and medicating for problems as necessary?

No; the good genes come through in the individuals who survive and reproduce. Nature can't afford to throw away good stuff - life is far too competetive for that to work.

Natural selection works by selecting for ONE trait at a time. It does not evaluate for all traits something possesses.

Good genes are good for one specific trait. If that trait is being selected for, all other genes that organism possesses are continued. If an organism has many good traits, but lacks the one trait being selected for, all those good genetic traits are lost.

For example, some plants are highly productive, but are not drought tolerant. Drought tolerant stock doesn't produce so vigorously. A long drought can make that good producer go extinct. The surviving strain didn't inherit the high production.

Yes, intelligence is another (usually) welcome trait. And success in cunning breeds cunning...

Excuse me? Since when? The last I knew, high and low intelligence occurred at random. Genius parents can have retarded offspring. Retarded parents can have genius offspring.

At the moment modern stockbreeding and seed sciences and modern working practices keep farmers going.

Only in a few countries. Most of the world isn't 'modern'.

But stockbreeding and seed selection are still of primary importance to husbandry.

Only in a few countries. It ranks a lot lower in other countries.

Most beekeepers have never learned it - they haven't needed to.

Sounds like a good reason.

And that - the poor breeding decisions that result - are a large part of the problems in beekeeping.

If they haven't needed to, then they weren't poor breeding decisions.

Poor breeding decisions would make stock breeding and seed selection of higher importance.

The tail doesn't wag the dog, as much as you would like it to.

Perhaps this is because we have different perspectives and aims. You want to pay the bills at the end of the year, and your mind is fixed on yields and short-term fixes.

I can assure you that you do not know my aims and perspectives, and it is ridiculous of you to suggest that you do. You have made it quite clear that you cannot recognize things that are staring you in the face.

I do not know how I can make it any clearer - I look at BOTH short term AND long term. It really is possible - you seem to think that it has to be one way or the other, with no compromise between the two.

I want to see the bee return to the healthy self-sufficient animal is was and can be.

Say abracadabra and snap your fingers, and your mites will disappear. :applause:

I will try to stack the odds in favor of my bees believing there is a time and a place for everything, medicine included.

mike bispham

07-21-2009, 02:07 AM

But stockbreeding and seed selection are still of primary importance to husbandry.

Only in a few countries. It ranks a lot lower in other countries.

According to you, in which countries does it rank lower? Assumening we can speak of 'developed' and 'underdeveloped' countries (and you may disagree with that), in which of the two does selection for breeding purposes rank higher, and why?

Most beekeepers have never learned it - they haven't needed to.

Sounds like a good reason.

They haven't needed to in the past because there were plenty of wild/feral bees around to make up winter losses, and to supply vigourous drones for mating to keep apiaries healthy. Nowadays in many places the wild/feral bees populations are much lower (though seem to be recovering) and apiaries cannot rely on them for fresh and vigourous blood. For that reason it is all the more important to reproduce from the stronger colonies.

And that - the poor breeding decisions that result - are a large part of the problems in beekeeping.

If they haven't needed to, then they weren't poor breeding decisions.

Poor breeding decisions would make stock breeding and seed selection of higher importance.

And that is exactly the situation. Worldwide people are finding they need to medicate more and more; bees are being imported in huge numbers to make up for high losses. Some of this health decline is due to changes in agricultural practices, some may be due to climatic changes, and much is due to the introduction of new pests and diseases. It is my argument that in the case of these last causes of decline selective breeding in apiaries is needed to locate the most resistant strains. That is simply good husbandry.

I argue, furthermore, that by medicating and then reproducing from artificially maintained stock, we are perpetuating the non-resistant strains. The new pests and diseases are not going to go away. They are now part of the environment. For that reason for as long as we obstruct the rise of resistance, we will continue to have bees that require medication and that are more likely to fail to thrive. It goes against all the well-established principles and practices of good breeding to not select for resistance to problems - and vulnerability to varroa is undoubtedly a problem.

The tail doesn't wag the dog, as much as you would like it to.

Characterising matters the wrong way around does not make it so!

Perhaps this is because we have different perspectives and aims. You want to pay the bills at the end of the year, and your mind is fixed on yields and short-term fixes.

I can assure you that you do not know my aims and perspectives, and it is ridiculous of you to suggest that you do.

Well I've been open about my aims. You can see where I'm coming from. You even know my name. If you wanted to you could reveal something about yourself - that might help me understand why it is you see things as you do.

I look at BOTH short term AND long term. It really is possible - you seem to think that it has to be one way or the other, with no compromise between the two.

I can see that it is wise to keep strains that flourish in the different kinds of conditions that are likely to occur. I think that is the main argument you are making. If you live in a place that is prone to drought it would be good to store seed that does best in all conditions - normal, dry and wetter. You can sow according to the predicted weather.

You now transfer this idea to bees. What you are saying is that your bees may have qualities that will some day prove worth saving, and you want to act like a kind of Noah, to maintain strains that may one day prove valuable. You want to act as a kind of 'seed bank' for honeybee genes. Have I got that right?

I want to see the bee return to the healthy self-sufficient animal is was and can be.

Say abracadabra and snap your fingers, and your mites will disappear.

Magic doesn't come into it. If you leave them alone natural selection will do the job it has always done. Human selection will do a similar job - if you take the right steps. Those bees able to live with mites will flourish, and quite quickly mites will become less and less of a problem.

Do the job wrong and they will simply do what all organisms 'try' to do - get fat on your bees. They will self-select for resistance to whatever medication you attack them with, meaning new forms of treatment will be necessary on a regular basis. Your bee strains are fatally addicted to drugs. The kind thing to do is wean them off - think of it as tough love. You won't lose your valued strains, though it would be wise to 'dilute' them a bit with some fresh, vigourous, and (it goes without saying I guess) self-sufficient blood.

I will try to stack the odds in favor of my bees believing there is a time and a place for everything, medicine included.

There's a time and place for everything eh. Hmmm. I can think of counterexamples.

You'll help your bees limp along, but you are not doing them any favours in the long term. These pests and diseases are not going away. Select for health and you'll be able to forget about medicating and abnormal winter losses in a few years time.

Mike

Countryboy

07-21-2009, 11:15 PM

mike bispham

07-22-2009, 04:29 AM

Ignoring my post about tomatoes?

Once again, why do you deride those who 'prop up' weak bees instead of selecting healthier stock (your words) when you use propped up tomatoes, instead of selecting for the healthiest tomatoes?

It reeks of hypocrisy.

OK. I didn't actually think you were serious.

First, let me emphasise again that what I am doing is trying to explore how the issue of selection contributes to bee health GENERALLY. That is, I'm not attacking the individual decisions made by individual beekeepers, but I am attacking the policy set out by regulators; which pushes a policy of medication once problems arise, and completely fails to encourage breeding for strength.

As part of that effort I'm trying to explain to those who wish to hear it how and why selection makes a (big) difference, and how medication is actually among the main causes of the problems.

So please stop taking this personally! How you keep your own bees is entirely up to you. All I'm trying to do is encourage exploration of the natural mechanisms that govern the health of organisms, and especially the ways they adapt to new threats, in order that effective strategies can be formed for improvements in bee health - at all levels.

To your tomatoes. As I see things at the moment there is no big danger in the tomato world. The seedsmen seem to be doing an ok job of supplying seed that works. The issue is of no concern to me. There is no hypocracy - bees are what concern me, not tomatoes! And I choose the tastiest tomatoes because I enjoy good flavour! I'd rather have a smaller yield and enjoy the eating anyday. (This is of course a gardener's, not a producer's perspective)

What is of concern to me is that there seems to be a very large problem in the world of bees, and that some people are pushing 'solutions' that certainly work in the short term, and in individual cases, but are actually perpetuating the problem that they seek to treat. That seems to me to be very wrong. And the great majority of beekeepers are unaware of this, and unaware too of the mechanisms that are in play, and of the fact that they can, if they wish, do something about it.

Suppose I said I care much more about BEES than I care about MY BEES, or, yes your bees. I care about the viability of the species, and am concerned that the longer present policies continue the greater will be irreversible loss of genetic diversity. I have an intense dislike of human activities that result in the irreversible destruction of God's Creation generally, and I'm particularly fond of Honeybees. I can't do much about most of the destruction, but I CAN show people something about what is going wrong with Honeybees.

Suppose I said I am taking a conservationists perspective, rather than the perspective of someone whose livelihood depends on bees.

Does any of that help you understand why it is I am trying to defend the future of BEES?

None of that means that I want to do anything that would threaten anyone's livelihood - far from that I want to show people how they can have healthier bees!

Mine is an explanation that seems valuable, and a great many people seem to agree with that. And many individual beekeepers like yourself, and people whose livelihoods depend on selling medication, or on selling queens or nucs, or importing whole colonies en mass to people whose apiaries need constant propping up, find it unwelcome. And that is understandable, though, in my view, short-sighted. Everyone and everyone can benefit from a better understanding of the mechanics of health through selection.

If you still want me to reply to your questions about my tomato choices let me know.

Mike

beekuk

07-22-2009, 10:06 AM

>It reeks of hypocrisy. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Countryboy.
on the uk beekeeping forums,nobody does.

deknow

07-22-2009, 10:13 AM

the world of tomatoes is entirely different from the world of bees.

wrt tomatoes (or virtually any row crop, for that matter), our system has a hard separation between "breeding" (both in terms of selection and in terms of producing a large amount of seeds for sale), and "production" (where crops are grown for sale).

in all but a small percentage of the producers, no seeds are reatained for next year. there is no breeding going on (either for selection or for production of seed). there is no expectation that one will harvest from this year's tomato next year. there is no effort made to select for specific traits (other than which variety of produced seed works the best on a specific plot, so that those seeds can be reordered next year).

there are beekeepers who practice beekeeping this way (new packages every spring, kill the bees every fall), but it is not the norm, it is not what i strive for, and it doesn't take advantage of the bees ability to be managed differently (a tomato seed costs less than a penny, a package of bees costs quite a bit more).

in the case of bees, we have the option to breed/select bees specifically for local areas. we see this working with unmanaged flora and fauna in all areas (those that are well suited for that environment do well, those that are not die).

if you think beekeeping should be practiced like growing row crops, have at it.

wrt natural selection making species weaker, i understand what you are saying, but it is a flawed argument.

yes, on one hand, natural selection will eventually cause one species to die off, and it's replacement (which may be it's decendent) will take it's place. yes, the original species did become "extinct", but the niche remaines filled, and nature did it's thing (adapting to changing conditions). if there were no natural selection, the original species would still die off, but would leave an empty niche...and without natural selection, what would occupy that niche?

every living organism on the planet is the offspring of "survivor stock" going back countless years. every branch of the tree of life that was selected against is gone. your contention is that these dead branches are where true adaption and genetic diversity lies.

if as a population gets "less well adapted" by culling of those that can't care for themselves, and if "less well adapted individuals" die, then the whole process of natural selection should have already ended all life on earth. it seems to work opposite.

i can't remember which is which, but wrt dogs and cats (not just domesticated), one can be traced back to one specific ancestor, and the other to 3 ancestors (i mean individuals, not species). this kind of bottleneck is how nature operates, and although i understand your reasoning, i think you migh look around at the practical outcome all around you, it flys in the face of your reasoning.

deknow

mike bispham

07-22-2009, 11:19 AM

the world of tomatoes is entirely different from the world of bees.

wrt tomatoes (or virtually any row crop, for that matter), our system has a hard separation between "breeding" (both in terms of selection and in terms of producing a large amount of seeds for sale), and "production" (where crops are grown for sale).

I agree. Very few gardeners (I don't know about farmers) keep tomatoes for seed.

A much better example, if we want to talk about keeping seed, is beans. Again, my experience is only of gardeners, and here I know runner and french beans and the like are often kept. Sown again and again after some years they become very reliable, since they are continually 'tuned' to grow well in that particular location. Such varieties are called 'landraces'. Gardeners know they can aim for short-cropping early or late characteristics by saving the seed from only the first or last to crop, or can move toward long-cropping by saving seed from beginning, middle and end of season. There may not be much change after just one season, but over the generations these traits become established.

Most gardeners keeping seed will neither know nor practice this kind of development of traits. But just by keeping the seed that has grown well, with nature filtering out what is unsuited to that place, the lineage remains healthy. It goes without saying that disease-prone varieties will not be saved. Gardeners will aim to save nice healthy seed, in the knowledge that doing so brings the desirable traits that confer resistance into the new generation, and makes them available to future generations. Both the natural winnowing of poor lineages and the deliberate pushing forward of healthy ones work as selection mechanisms that keep the landraces healthy.

These days few gardeners know about this sort of stuff. It has become a kind of lost wisdom. But talk to the old guys and you'll soon find someone who remembers. I've pasted a few links below for those who are interested.

Mike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landrace
http://www.primalseeds.org/bioloss.htm
http://www.scottishlandraces.org.uk/what_are_landraces.htm

mike bispham

07-22-2009, 11:33 AM

>It reeks of hypocrisy. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Countryboy.
on the uk beekeeping forums,nobody does.

Its much worse than that, two have banned me! One closed my thread (the first time ever) giving as reason 'Author a raving lunatic'!

But several journals have approached me for articles on the strength of what I've said on forums. Make of that combination what you will.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/explanation.php?dir=articles/explanations&article=ad_hominem.php

Mike

mike bispham

07-22-2009, 11:45 AM

in the case of bees, we have the option to breed/select bees specifically for local areas. we see this working with unmanaged flora and fauna in all areas (those that are well suited for that environment do well, those that are not die).

wrt natural selection making species weaker, i understand what you are saying, but it is a flawed argument.

yes, on one hand, natural selection will eventually cause one species to die off, and it's replacement (which may be it's decendent) will take it's place. yes, the original species did become "extinct", but the niche remaines filled, and nature did it's thing (adapting to changing conditions). [...]

if as a population gets "less well adapted" by culling of those that can't care for themselves, and if "less well adapted individuals" die, then the whole process of natural selection should have already ended all life on earth. it seems to work opposite.

We are not talking about competition and natural selection among species, but competition and natural selection among varieties within a species.

Every time sexual reproduction occurs, a unique individual is formed. Each unique individual is slightly different from all others. Some are stronger, weaker, more cunning, more prone to disease, less prone to disease, more and less prone to different diseases... and on and on. In short, some are better suited to any particular environment than others.

Nature now works with these differences, allowing those combinations that thrive and are successful at reproduction to form the new generations, while those combinations that do not thrive are consigned to the garbage bin of history, where their feeble genes can do no harm.

Life is a process, in which each generation refines the genetic materal from which the next, and all future generations, will be built. It is this process that has kept viable every living species that exists today. Pests, diseases and large predators constantly evolve to take best advantage of their food source. Every species must constanty evolve in response. Sexual reproduction giving rise to constant diversity, together with automatic selection allows that.

There is competion between species - which is what you are thinking about - and competition within species - which is what I am talking about. It is 'varieties', or 'lineages' that survive or don't - and which the breeder aims to promote or terminate, not 'species'.

This is the main reason why genetic diversity within a species is of great importance. A healthily-diverse species has millions of varieties to fall back on. Amongst its numbers will be individuals that will be able to live through even drastic changes in the environment - like the arrival of a new disease or parasite. A genetically narrow population will not have that cushion. All individuals may fall in the face of a new epidemic; and the result is extinction. This is the 'genetic bottleneck' scenario that should be avoided at all costs.

Mike

DRUR

07-22-2009, 12:12 PM

[I]
Michael Bush and Dee Lusby probably don't know every single factor involved with their bees and mites. They just know what they observed, but there may have been factors at work that they don't see. Perhaps God has cursed the mites on their bees, and blessed their bees - that could have profound effect, and we would not observe the forces at work.

Have you ever planted wheat Mike? It really sounds like you are talking about theoretical plantings, with no real knowledge of how planting wheat works.

I wanted to add something to the talk the other day about sheep. Whenever Grandpa would have weak/feeble lambs, he didn't allow them to die so he had 'healthier' stock. He would bring them in the house and have them in a crate in the coat/boot room by the back porch. He would bottle feed the weak/feeble/sick lambs, and doctor them back to good health, and then return them to the barn. You make the best use of what you have. If your livestock needs doctoring - you doctor them back to good health. That is good husbandry.

1. Yes there is probably more to this statement than meets the eye, but we live in a fallen world and suffer the consequences thereof; although our individual actions do have an affect.

2. Well Countryboy I have planted wheat with good success in the past. Varieties saved from generations in bygone past called turkey wheat (bearded variety). I moved to Kentucky for a year, lost (ate) my seed. In Kentucky they raised an non-bearded variety. I returned to Texas and ?purchased? an unknown variety of seed wheat. Tried for several years to raise this purchased seed wheat and lost every crop from some black looking smut, even on different locations.

But I have had more experience with crimson clover. For years from late 70's thru mid 80's I had a crop of crimson clover which reseeded. During the mid 80?s I wanted to expand my acreage so I purchased seed planted and adjacent pasture, and got a nice crop the next spring. The following year the adjacent pasture (purchased seed) had no crimson re-seed, de nada. My longstanding pasture re-seeded spottily. Thinking, oh just a bad year, and wanting to thicken up my spotty pasture, I once again purchased crimson clover seed to give a boost and help my spotty pasture. The following year I had no clover left at all. Later found out that there were different varieties of crimson clover and now only the poor re-seeding variety (soft seed) was available. The 'Dixie' variety destroyed my 'flame' variety (hard seed), which was/is no longer commercially available.

Now couldn't also a bee with a genetically sickly constitution overwhelm a healthy constitution by flooding with inferior drones? I think so. This is one of the reasons (and Michael Bush would agree) that we need to maintain a large genetic pool.

3. Yes, but it would be foolishness keep the sick sheep for breeding stock. He had a market for the sick sheep he raised. Difference here is that a sickly queen produces drones which breed out healthy constitutins.

deknow

07-22-2009, 12:36 PM

We are not talking about natural selection among species, but natural selection among varieties within a species.
natural selection _within_ a species is what leads to new species. this is well demonstrated by darwin's finches on the galapagos.

This is the main reason why genetc diversity within a species is of great importance. Awell-diverse species has millions of varieties to fall back on. Amongst its numbers will be individuals that will be able to live in through changed in the environment - like the arrival of a new disease or parasite.
perhaps this would be true if one had an infinitely large population, in an infinitely large niche. yes, genetic diversity is important (essential), but it should not (and is not) infinite. this is why large populations contain more genetic diversity than small populations. the natural selection that has gone on since the beginning of life on this planet has left many "dead branches" behind. one of the things that happens as a result of natural selection is that some of the diversity of genes is lost...and this is as it should be (and is). "diversity" is a continuum...on one side is 0 diversity (1 set of genes for the entire population), on the other is infinite diversity (one in which no genese are ever lost, no matter how harmful they are to the individual). reality is somewhere between the two extremes.

at some point, within a population (within a species), genes disapear from the genome. the system that we live within (nature, specifically as it occurs on this planet) seems to have taken a long term hold on the planet, so something about how it works keeps working. although the larger the population, the slower genes disapear, i don't think it follows that one should interfere with the process by preserving reproducing individuals. a larger population can afford a larger number (even a larger percentage) of weak individuals, just like a company with one employeee can't afford to have that employee be a poor worker, sick all the time, or rude to customers...whereas large companies have enough resources to support such an employee.

There is competion between species - which is what you are thinking about - and competition within species - which is what I am talking about. It is 'varieties', or 'lineages' that survive or don't - and which the breeder aims to promote or terminate, not 'species'.
these are essentially the same things. species A may outcompete species B, and strain A may outcompete strain B within a species. competition within a species is what leads to new species (ie, darwin's finches all started from a relatively fixed population. competition within this species within several different niches is what lead to the evolution of new species to fill these available niches. this would not have happened (or not as quickly, not in the same way) had there been others occupying those wide open niches).

polar bears, i believe, started out as grizzly bears. if we had been around to artificially preserve the genetic diversity of the grizzly bears living on the ice, they would still be grizzly bears, and we would not have polar bears at all. these genetic bottlenecks are are part of the whole cloth from which life evolves. when we interfere, we end up with populations that continue to need interference (ie, my tomoatoes don't "volunteer" from one year to the next in any significant numbers unless i keep the weeds down....and even when they do, they don't produce significant fruit).

deknow

gmcharlie

07-22-2009, 02:08 PM

mike bispham

07-23-2009, 02:43 AM

Mike, in argue with countryboy on the tomatoes you entirely miss the point...

ALL the food you eat and grow are what is considered "domesticated" You DO NOT EAT ANY survivor stock..... (except for a few odballs)

Wheat corn all fruits and beans are domesticated, by breeeding traits we like, not survivors.. Take stawberries for example, wild straberries are small, so that thrush and wrens eatr them and broadcast the seeds.

True suvivor stock is normaly bitter and low producing....

Hi Charlie,

I thought the point was to make me seem a hypocrite for not eating only wild tomatoes, or something like that - after all that was the accusation that followed.

Hence contryboys argument, breeding for survior traits only is not the holy grail, and the only thing to look for.

Nobody ever said anything about holy grails. The point is that to raise bees that need continous medication just to stay alive when with a bit a sensible breeding you can have perfectly self sufficient bees seems daft. To do so through ignorance of your options more so. To have whole countries suffering massive depopulations and pollination problems for the same reason, still more so. And to realise that all this trouble is because, unknown to pretty much all participants, it is the systematic medication that is causing the problem.. well it is time this was discussed.... because until people understand the mechanics of health, strategies will be misinformed, and may have hughly undesirable results. The purpose of beekeeping should not be solely to enrich agrochemical manufacturers and distributors.

For example; at present the US has massive imports of australian bees, raised from just a few foundation stocks and thus genetically narrow, and having had no exposure to varroa utterly vulnerable. Their drones are flying around your country impregnating your wild bees and your colonies with their terminally useless genes. How does that make you feel?

To get back to your point - as I recall wild honey is not bitter, and wild bees not especially low producing. They are fit as a fiddle though.

Mike

mike bispham

07-23-2009, 03:11 AM

natural selection _within_ a species is what leads to new species. this is well demonstrated by darwin's finches on the galapagos.

Quote Mike:
This is the main reason why genetc diversity within a species is of great importance. A well-diverse species has millions of varieties to fall back on. Amongst its numbers will be individuals that will be able to live in through changed in the environment - like the arrival of a new disease or parasite.

perhaps this would be true if one had an infinitely large population, in an infinitely large niche. yes, genetic diversity is important (essential), but it should not (and is not) infinite. this is why large populations contain more genetic diversity than small populations. the natural selection that has gone on since the beginning of life on this planet has left many "dead branches" behind.

Hi deknow

I think your are right about most of what you say in your post, but I'll pick up on a couple of points just to make sure we're on the same page.

(I'd rather replace 'infinite' with 'large'. Almost evertime you use 'infinite' in reasoning it goes wrong.)

Larger populations do not necessarily contain more genetic diversoity than small ones. If a population has been through a genetic 'bottleneck' at some point in its history, and has not thereafter had an new blood, then it may have a relatively narrow genetic content despite being large. This is not a good thing. The whole population may be felled by a new disease for example, where a more diverse but smaller population would have had some individuals who were able to survive and repopulate.

Leaving dead branches behind is a small price to pay for having a mechanism that supplies the ability to live in the face of constant attack.

Natural selection does, as you rightly point out, drive the bifurcation of species into first varieties, then sub-species, then entirely different species; but, it is only the first part that concerns us here...

It is the maintenance of health through the selection of the strongest, mainly thorugh the mechanisms of death of the weak lineages and competive mating, that ensures that species remain fit. That is what has allowed the wild bee population to survive and begin to recover, now tolerant of varroa. And it is those same mechanisms, copied by humans, that can allow bees in apiaries to escape the ill-health that plagues them.

one of the things that happens as a result of natural selection is that some of the diversity of genes is lost...and this is as it should be (and is). "diversity" is a continuum...on one side is 0 diversity (1 set of genes for the entire population), on the other is infinite diversity (one in which no genese are ever lost, no matter how harmful they are to the individual). reality is somewhere between the two extremes.

Not so much infinity as the number of viable different individuals. But yes.

at some point, within a population (within a species), genes disapear from the genome.

Not following you here.

the system that we live within (nature, specifically as it occurs on this planet) seems to have taken a long term hold on the planet, so something about how it works keeps working.

Yes. natural selection for the fittest strains is what keeps the millions of species healthy. That is why it is regarded as the foundation of biology.

although the larger the population, the slower genes disapear, i don't think it follows that one should interfere with the process by preserving reproducing individuals.

Do you mean the 'Noah' argument that Countryboy makes is misconceived?

When we interfere, we end up with populations that continue to need interference (ie, my tomoatoes don't "volunteer" from one year to the next in any significant numbers unless i keep the weeds down....and even when they do, they don't produce significant fruit).
deknow

Absolutely. Then we call them 'domesticated'.

Mike

gmcharlie

07-23-2009, 08:08 AM

Hi Charlie,

I thought the point was to make me seem a hypocrite for not eating only wild tomatoes, or something like that - after all that was the accusation that followed.

Thats why I clarified.... seems this discussion was degrading into a bit of a mess on both sides..... I love a good discussion... don't mind a bit when someone says my point is stupid and explains why, but sarcaasm and bitterness clouds the discussion....

For example; at present the US has massive imports of australian bees, raised from just a few foundation stocks and thus genetically narrow, and having had no exposure to varroa utterly vulnerable. Their drones are flying around your country impregnating your wild bees and your colonies with their terminally useless genes. How does that make you feel?
well if A few Aussie drones are mixed in that adds to the diversity of the US population, not decreases it. We have russian, and itialians in droves. these Drones add to the feral population's diveristy, not detract. they are not killing off the other drones, nor dominating in any way.

To get back to your point - as I recall wild honey is not bitter, and wild bees not especially low producing. They are fit as a fiddle though.

Not the point, didn't say bitter honey, was pointing out that breeding for traits we want and need to feed the world are not always the natrual traits you like so much, in fact they SELDOM are.

This case is a prime example, Wild swarms in my part of the country, are very swarmy (potinatal to avoid mites?) and seem to be a bit more mite prone than my breed stock... in fact so much so I don't catch wild swarms........

mike bispham

07-23-2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by mike bispham
For example; at present the US has massive imports of australian bees, raised from just a few foundation stocks and thus genetically narrow, and having had no exposure to varroa utterly vulnerable. Their drones are flying around your country impregnating your wild bees and your colonies with their terminally useless genes. How does that make you feel?

[Charlie]
well if A few Aussie drones are mixed in that adds to the diversity of the US population, not decreases it. We have russian, and itialians in droves. these Drones add to the feral population's diveristy, not detract. they are not killing off the other drones, nor dominating in any way.

Hi Charlie,

I think if you are in a position to take that view you are lucky. But I suppose my point was more general - that is, in general terms it is not a good thing to have thousands of colonies of completely non-resistant bees flooding ito any country. My reasoning is that any drones mating with local bees will - very likely confer non-resistance on their offspring. A juggernaut full of such bees parked up for a few weeks or two is halfway to the kiss of death for the resistance of any local bees - both wild and apiary raised by people like yourself who eschew medication and work hard at developing resistant stocks. For those keepers who, unlike you, do not have the support of heathy wild bees, and who are struggling to encourage resistance, it could easily undermine years of effort. It just seems to me to be another way of making a hard job harder. There seems to be a nice mechanism; we'll sell you bees that will inhibit your bees from becoming healthier, and then we can sell you more bees...

I suppose, that aside, you may have a point about the aussie bees adding to the gene pool, but I think the cost is almost certainly far greater than the benefit.

Not the point, didn't say bitter honey, was pointing out that breeding for traits we want and need to feed the world are not always the natrual traits you like so much, in fact they SELDOM are.

This case is a prime example, Wild swarms in my part of the country, are very swarmy (potinatal to avoid mites?) and seem to be a bit more mite prone than my breed stock... in fact so much so I don't catch wild swarms........

The first trait that interests me is health, as defined by self-suffiency. Bees that are not self-sufficient are, where they form a substantial part of the population, a menace, since they undermine resistance in the locality.

Again, you are in the enviable position of having the support of resistant blood surrounding you. Not many people are these days - lots would welcome a few self-sufficient bees to start breeding from, and would willingly accept a bit of swarminess as a price worth paying. Are yours truly self-sufficient? Do you not treat or manipulate at all?

Mike

DRUR

07-23-2009, 05:23 PM

But I suppose my point was more general - that is, in general terms it is not a good thing to have thousands of colonies of completely non-resistant bees flooding ito any country. My reasoning is that any drones mating with local bees will - very likely confer non-resistance on their offspring. A juggernaut full of such bees parked up for a few weeks or two is halfway to the kiss of death for the resistance of any local bees - both wild and apiary raised by people like yourself who eschew medication and work hard at developing resistant stocks.

Just to relate some personal experience with regard to this point. When I kept bees during the 70s and 80s we had a healthy bee population, both in close vicinity and in the surrounding East Texas piney woods. However, I was also aggravated at migratory beekeepers who wintered close by. We were inundated by them. Our 'prime' honey flow begins middle of April and ends the end of May. The Migratories were here through about the middle of May, making their splits, building their colonies to migrate to richer pastures up North. Also, of note is that our swarm season is April to May.

When I got back into beekeeping I searched for ferals, in my immediate area. I was STUNNED, there was no action in the lids of honey I placed around in over a 1 mile radius, NONE. My guess is that the migratory 'managed' colonies through their drones overwealmed the feral population, producing swarms, generation after generation that could not survive without treatments. This is just my guess anyway. If the Aussie bees are ever confronted with destructor, then their genetic lines will be narrowed to those who can survive, otherwise these bees will be generally less survivable when it comes to the destructor problem. This is just plain logic once you reason it through.

sqkcrk

07-23-2009, 05:31 PM

Or it could be that feral colonies succumbed to varroa and nosema and there aren't enough of them to repopulate the vacancys.

DRUR

07-23-2009, 05:46 PM

Or it could be that feral colonies succumbed to varroa and nosema and there aren't enough of them to repopulate the vacancys.
My suspicion is that it is a combination of both. When destructor and tracheal came on the scene the ferals had not been winnowed for survivors. I am sure there was a collapse in the feral populations, but there should have been some survivors with a diverse genetic pool. However, after the initial collapse, if the survivors were constantly subjected to drones which could not survive without treatments, and beings the ferals were not being treated, logically at least, this over time would/could lead to the extinction of the feral population. Or that is my 'reasoned guess".

Countryboy

07-24-2009, 12:58 AM

To your tomatoes. As I see things at the moment there is no big danger in the tomato world. The seedsmen seem to be doing an ok job of supplying seed that works. The issue is of no concern to me.

You argue selective breeding, and then turn around and say that you don't care about selective breeding. Genetics is genetics, and it doesn't matter the species. Gravity is a big danger to tomato plants, causing major damage if the plants aren't artificially supported. Not to mention late blight, verticilium, fusarium, tomato hornworm, etc. And I won't even go into the necessity of artificially removing weed pressures to keep the tomatoes from being choked out.

What is of concern to me is that there seems to be a very large problem in the world of bees, and that some people are pushing 'solutions' that certainly work in the short term, and in individual cases,
Suppose I said I care much more about BEES than I care about MY BEES, or, yes your bees. I care about the viability of the species, and am concerned that the longer present policies continue the greater will be irreversible loss of genetic diversity. I have an intense dislike of human activities that result in the irreversible destruction of God's Creation generally, and I'm particularly fond of Honeybees.
Suppose I said I am taking a conservationists perspective, rather than the perspective of someone whose livelihood depends on bees.

You are arguing emotion, rather than facts and logic. I could care less about what you want or feel.

but I CAN show people something about what is going wrong with Honeybees.

But you're not showing anyone anything. If you want to show them, do it with your own bees.

It's easy to condemn things, and say how bad they are. Instead of trying to convince people what you think is wrong in the world of honeybees, why don't you try showing people what is right? And do it with your own bees, citing your own personal accomplishments. (and the bees work too)

Mine is an explanation that seems valuable, and a great many people seem to agree with that.

It seems valuable, or it is actually valuable? If it only seems valuable, sell it before anyone realizes it actually has no value.

If you still want me to reply to your questions about my tomato choices let me know.

Sure. Why do you advocate selective breeding for one speacies, but not another?

there is no breeding going on (either for selection or for production of seed).

Right...the new hybrid varieties get invented out of thin air.

there is no expectation that one will harvest from this year's tomato next year

Right...that's why many people I know save seeds. Or is that just a Central Ohio characteristic?

there is no effort made to select for specific traits (other than which variety of produced seed works the best on a specific plot, so that those seeds can be reordered next year).

Right...the seed producers just ignore verticillium or fusarium wilt. They just put a V or an F on the seed packet for kicks- it couldn't possibly have anything to do with verticillium or fusarium resistance.

there are beekeepers who practice beekeeping this way (new packages every spring, kill the bees every fall), but it is not the norm, it is not what i strive for, and it doesn't take advantage of the bees ability to be managed differently (a tomato seed costs less than a penny, a package of bees costs quite a bit more).

Some people buy packages of bees in the spring, just like some people buy a new pack of seeds every year. Some people overwinter their bees, and some people save seed and replant every year.

You get what you pay for too. If tomato seeds are worth less than a penny, why did I average 6 cents a seed for my tomato seeds?

Look at the price per bee in a package, and the price isn't that much different than you penny tomato seed. (and those bees are worth a lot less than my 6 cent seeds)

Very few gardeners (I don't know about farmers) keep tomatoes for seed.

I know very few gardeners who don't keep seed. They may buy some seed, but if they find a variety they really like, they save seed.

A much better example, if we want to talk about keeping seed, is beans.

Yes, beans. Like Appalachian beans. There is more genetic diversity of beans in the Appalachian region than anywhere else on earth. Small area, with something like 4000 different varieties of beans. You can find very few commercially grown.

Most gardeners keeping seed will neither know nor practice this kind of development of traits. But just by keeping the seed that has grown well, with nature filtering out what is unsuited to that place, the lineage remains healthy.

But you ridicule and condemn others for doing that very thing with bees. Those gardeners DON'T select the healthiest seed to replant...they plant a mix of everything they saved, good seeds and bad. Many beekeepers don't bother breeding from the best stock they have - they breed from a mix of everything, good bees and bad.

But I don't know of gardeners saving seed trying to develop traits. They save seeds trying to keep specific traits. They pick a variety for a specific trait - they don't try to breed for traits.

Now couldn't also a bee with a genetically sickly constitution overwhelm a healthy constitution by flooding with inferior drones? I think so.

Bees make drones after the colony is strong. When times get tough, they boot the drones from the hive. I would find it unlikely that a sickly strain of bees would have the strength to outproduce the level of drones from a healthy hive.

(ie, my tomoatoes don't "volunteer" from one year to the next in any significant numbers unless i keep the weeds down....and even when they do, they don't produce significant fruit).

You must be growing the wrong tomatoes. I grow varieties that could become a noxious weed if not controlled. They are a broadleaf. They can shade out thistles. And they will be loaded with tomatoes. They are a very hearty variety. And the ONLY reason I grow this variety is because customers want this variety.

You DO NOT EAT ANY survivor stock..... (except for a few odballs)

Huh? Are you saying I'm an oddball?

Take stawberries for example, wild straberries are small, so that thrush and wrens eatr them and broadcast the seeds.

True suvivor stock is normaly bitter and low producing....

The wild strawberries we have here are super sweet. Really super sweet. They taste GREAT. They are also soft and crush easily, and they are also small. Commercial berries often aren't as sweet, but are bigger and won't bruise and spoil as quickly.

I thought the point was to make me seem a hypocrite for not eating only wild tomatoes, or something like that - after all that was the accusation that followed.

The point was that you badmouth those who don't selectively breed their bees for the healthiest fittest bee, but you yourself won't selectively breed for the healthiest fittest tomato.

The point is that to raise bees that need continous medication just to stay alive when with a bit a sensible breeding you can have perfectly self sufficient bees seems daft.

And to raise tomatoes that need artificially supported physically, need artificial weed suppression because they can't shade out the weeds, when with a sensible selection of tomato variety, you can have a tomato that doesn't require caging or staking, and will choke out other weeds - is this not daft too?

And where are these perfectly self sufficient bees you keep talking about? I know of very FEW beekeepers who have self sufficient bees. When people hive feral bees, they often lose their self sufficiency because their self sufficiency is not a genetic component, but rather an effect of management.

And to realise that all this trouble is because, unknown to pretty much all participants, it is the systematic medication that is causing the problem

Do you think there is a slight chance that it is unknown to pretty much everyone, because it really isn't the source of all this trouble?

The purpose of beekeeping should not be solely to enrich agrochemical manufacturers and distributors.

Money talks. If there is that much money in agrochemical manufacturers and distributors, then maybe we need to find a new career...or maybe we need to start being more efficient and productive so our current occupation pays us competitively.

For example; at present the US has massive imports of australian bees,

We do? I heard they were talking about bringing some, but I wasn't aware of massive imports. No wonder Georgia and California producers are still the only options my local bee supplier sells. Now I believe Canada has imported quite a few bees from Australia.

raised from just a few foundation stocks and thus genetically narrow, and having had no exposure to varroa utterly vulnerable. Their drones are flying around your country impregnating your wild bees and your colonies with their terminally useless genes. How does that make you feel?

If they are capable of flying around and reproducing, they don't sound like terminally useless bees to me.

And what do you mean, how does it make me feel? My emotions are irrelevant and don't affect the realities of the situation.

And what is the difference between an Australian bee that was never exposed to mites (just like our American bees) as opposed to the Russian bee, which came from a region with varroa mites, and those Russian bees lose their varroa resistance within a couple generations? If the Russians can lose the varroa resistance, what makes you think Australian bees can't develop resistance?

To get back to your point - as I recall wild honey is not bitter, and wild bees not especially low producing. They are fit as a fiddle though.

Fitness is debatable. Honey yields tend to be quite lower than in Langstroth hives, typically because the bees are in smaller cavities than a conventional hive, and they swarm off instead of making surplus honey.

Leaving dead branches behind is a small price to pay for having a mechanism that supplies the ability to live in the face of constant attack.

But most attacks aren't constant. They come in spurts, and resistance is lost quickly when the attack ceases. Look at AFB resistant bees - as soon as AFB was no longer a threat, they lost their resistance. AFB is still a problem, but the bees haven't redeveloped their resistance to it.

That is what has allowed the wild bee population to survive and begin to recover, now tolerant of varroa.

Right...that's why when you put a feral colony in a Langstroth hive, it often instantly loses its varroa resistance.
Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with the feral colony being in a small cavity, and swarming frequently (and outbreeding the mites) rather than some genetic component? (which ironically tends to vanish the moment the bees are put into a larger cavity, such as a Langstroth hive.)

Yes. natural selection for the fittest strains is what keeps the millions of species healthy. That is why it is regarded as the foundation of biology.

But it's not regarded as the foundation of biology. You mean biology isn't the study of living things?

I am sure there was a collapse in the feral populations, but there should have been some survivors with a diverse genetic pool. However, after the initial collapse, if the survivors were constantly subjected to drones which could not survive without treatments, and beings the ferals were not being treated, logically at least, this over time would/could lead to the extinction of the feral population. Or that is my 'reasoned guess".

But typically, when you breed a recessive trait to a dominant trait, the dominant trait wins. If you breed two recessive traits together, you get the recessive being visible. As soon as the recessive is bred again with a dominant trait, the weak recessive trait disappears again.

Do you really think being weak and needing treatments is the dominant trait? Do you really think that survivor stock is a recessive trait which only shows up when bred to other recessive gene survivor stock?

mike bispham

07-24-2009, 01:04 AM

For years from late 70's thru mid 80's I had a crop of crimson clover which reseeded. During the mid 80?s I wanted to expand my acreage so I purchased seed planted and adjacent pasture, and got a nice crop the next spring. The following year the adjacent pasture (purchased seed) had no crimson re-seed, de nada. My longstanding pasture re-seeded spottily. Thinking, oh just a bad year, and wanting to thicken up my spotty pasture, I once again purchased crimson clover seed to give a boost and help my spotty pasture. The following year I had no clover left at all. Later found out that there were different varieties of crimson clover and now only the poor re-seeding variety (soft seed) was available. The 'Dixie' variety destroyed my 'flame' variety (hard seed), which was/is no longer commercially available.

Danny, thanks for this. Do you have any more understanding of the topic? Is there any way to know whether seedsmen are supplying viable reseeding varieties? I suppose its in their interest not to - but its a pretty depressing picture isn't it - reminds me of the whole GM business model...

Mike

mike bispham

07-24-2009, 01:06 AM

mike bispham

07-24-2009, 01:12 AM

but I CAN show people something about what is going wrong with Honeybees.

But you're not showing anyone anything. If you want to show them, do it with your own bees.

It's easy to condemn things, and say how bad they are. Instead of trying to convince people what you think is wrong in the world of honeybees, why don't you try showing people what is right? And do it with your own bees, citing your own personal accomplishments. (and the bees work too)

This is a fair point, but if you look I'm doing just that wherever it is possible. I'm pointing to examples of people who make selective breeding work, and to scientific papers that show experimental work that has demonstrated the same things.

In the UK for the last 20 years or so it has not been possible for a small hobby beekeeper to keep bees without medication. The wild bees were almost completely crushed, outnumbered by the apiaries that medicated pretty much systematically. Fingers crossed that has changed now, and in a few years I'll be able to show you just what you ask for. But it will take a few years. You can't hurry bees.

Mike

mike bispham

07-24-2009, 01:51 AM

The point was that you badmouth those who don't selectively breed their bees for the healthiest fittest bee, but you yourself won't selectively breed for the healthiest fittest tomato.

The point is that to raise bees that need continous medication just to stay alive when with a bit a sensible breeding you can have perfectly self sufficient bees seems daft.

And to raise tomatoes that need artificially supported physically, need artificial weed suppression because they can't shade out the weeds, when with a sensible selection of tomato variety, you can have a tomato that doesn't require caging or staking, and will choke out other weeds - is this not daft too?

If you are bothered about tomatoes find a tomato forum. The idea here is to talk about bees, and to in the face of unprecedented levels of ill-health in bees it seems sensible to talk about one of the most important ways of inducing health - selctive breeding. I cannot for the life of me think of a good reason why you, a beekeeper, should want to try so hard to obstruct this conversation.

And where are these perfectly self sufficient bees you keep talking about? I know of very FEW beekeepers who have self sufficient bees.

That is precisely my point! That is the reason there is so much ill-health around! That is the reason for high winter losses, and the failure of the industry to meed the demand for pollination. That is the underlying problem! Beekeepers do not even AIM to keep healthy stock. They do not even know HOW to keep healthy stock. And when you offer to show them, some of them put every possible obstacle in the way of even having a discussion about how to keep healthy stock. They WANT unhealthy stock!

The problem is these aims conflict with larger aims of having a heathly country-wide stock capable of meeting the challenges supplied by existing and incoming diseases, and with the desires of millions of other beekeepers who'd like a return to the good old days when disease wasn't a constant presence, and nice healthy swarms would arrive on the wind each May.

When people hive feral bees, they often lose their self sufficiency because their self sufficiency is not a genetic component, but rather an effect of management.

They lose their self-sufficiency because they interbreed with the non-self-sufficient bees in the apiary. What have you got against wild bees?

And to realise that all this trouble is because, unknown to pretty much all participants, it is the systematic medication that is causing the problem

Do you think there is a slight chance that it is unknown to pretty much everyone, because it really isn't the source of all this trouble?

I'm know a lot of people whose views I respect very much agree with the broad diagnosis, and agree too that the conversation is well worth having.

The purpose of beekeeping should not be solely to enrich agrochemical manufacturers and distributors.

Money talks. If there is that much money in agrochemical manufacturers and distributors, then maybe we need to find a new career...or maybe we need to start being more efficient and productive so our current occupation pays us competitively.

First; knowledge is power. If you know how to raise healthy bees you can escape the constand round of medications and the fear of high winter losses. Second, just maybe we should start putting the bigger picture ahead of our own personal needs. When we all act solely for our own personal gain in ways that are destructive of our own livelihoods, something has gone wrong.

raised from just a few foundation stocks and thus genetically narrow, and having had no exposure to varroa utterly vulnerable. Their drones are flying around your country impregnating your wild bees and your colonies with their terminally useless genes. How does that make you feel?

If they are capable of flying around and reproducing, they don't sound like terminally useless bees to me.

That is because you are refusing to see the point of self-sufficiency as a desirable trait, and would, it seems, rather have bees that dies from disease when not in beekeepers hands than have nasty ferals about. Is that what underlies your constant refusal to cope with the notion of selecting for health, and natural selection?

And what is the difference between an Australian bee that was never exposed to mites (just like our American bees) as opposed to the Russian bee, which came from a region with varroa mites, and those Russian bees lose their varroa resistance within a couple generations? If the Russians can lose the varroa resistance, what makes you think Australian bees can't develop resistance?

It is interbreeding with non-resistant bees that causes loss of resistance. Those non-resistant bees may come form australia (where they have had no contact with varroa) or form US apiaries (where the development of resistance has been stymied by continuous medication + reproduction. Com one - its not that hard.

To get back to your point - as I recall wild honey is not bitter, and wild bees not especially low producing. They are fit as a fiddle though.

Fitness is debatable. Honey yields tend to be quite lower than in Langstroth hives, typically because the bees are in smaller cavities than a conventional hive, and they swarm off instead of making surplus honey.

Fitness is not debatable. Fitness means fit to survive in the environment. Self-sufficient.

Leaving dead branches behind is a small price to pay for having a mechanism that supplies the ability to live in the face of constant attack.

But most attacks aren't constant. They come in spurts, and resistance is lost quickly when the attack ceases. Look at AFB resistant bees - as soon as AFB was no longer a threat, they lost their resistance. AFB is still a problem, but the bees haven't redeveloped their resistance to it.

Whenever non-resistant bees are bought in, or medication + reproduction occurs on any scale, local resistance is lost through dilution of the local resistant genepool.

Free from such interference: if the predator remains in the environment, then natural selection with maintain resistance. As the threat recedes, resistance recedes. Organisms are selected for those traits they need to survive on an ongoing basis.

That is what has allowed the wild bee population to survive and begin to recover, now tolerant of varroa.

Right...that's why when you put a feral colony in a Langstroth hive, it often instantly loses its varroa resistance.

See above

Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with the feral colony being in a small cavity, and swarming frequently (and outbreeding the mites) rather than some genetic component? (which ironically tends to vanish the moment the bees are put into a larger cavity, such as a Langstroth hive.)

Yes, that too may well be a factor. Another reason to select for bees that can be self-sufficient in larger cavities - ie hives.

Yes. natural selection for the fittest strains is what keeps the millions of species healthy. That is why it is regarded as the foundation of biology.

But it's not regarded as the foundation of biology. You mean biology isn't the study of living things?

Yes it is and yes. Living things live because natural selection keeps them healthy where healthy means able to live in the face of constant and ever-changing attack.

I am sure there was a collapse in the feral populations, but there should have been some survivors with a diverse genetic pool. However, after the initial collapse, if the survivors were constantly subjected to drones which could not survive without treatments, and beings the ferals were not being treated, logically at least, this over time would/could lead to the extinction of the feral population. Or that is my 'reasoned guess".

But typically, when you breed a recessive trait to a dominant trait, the dominant trait wins. If you breed two recessive traits together, you get the recessive being visible. As soon as the recessive is bred again with a dominant trait, the weak recessive trait disappears again.

Do you really think being weak and needing treatments is the dominant trait? Do you really think that survivor stock is a recessive trait which only shows up when bred to other recessive gene survivor stock?

Self-sufficiency is a product of a whole range of genetically-supplied traits. Just what are needed will change as the environment changes. Some may be dominant and some recessive - it doesn't matter - natural selecton (or husbandry) will sort the useful from the irrelavent. Jacob was good at raising sheep, but I doubt he knew much about recessive traits.

Mike

BEES4U

07-24-2009, 07:11 AM

137 replies and 3,248 views.
And the conclusion is----------------
Regards,
Ernie

mike bispham

07-24-2009, 07:32 AM

137 replies and 3,248 views.
And the conclusion is----------------
Regards,
Ernie

...That there is interest and grounds for discussion.

Mike

BEES4U

07-24-2009, 08:13 AM

That there is interest and grounds for discussion.

And, the postings are very lengthy too!
Ernie

BEES4U

07-24-2009, 08:18 AM

Ok, I am going to jump in and get wet!
I have all of the breeder queens that are available from Glenn Apiaries that can be used in a small cell study.
I should not set up the study until next spring when I can stock the 5 frame nucs.
Regards,
Ernie

gmcharlie

07-24-2009, 08:24 AM

Hi Charlie,

I think if you are in a position to take that view you are lucky. But I suppose my point was more general - that is, in general terms it is not a good thing to have thousands of colonies of completely non-resistant bees flooding ito any country. My reasoning is that any drones mating with local bees will - very likely confer non-resistance on their offspring. .

Good thought, At the moment though I disagree with one key point. I don't belive these traits are a genetic issue. I may be wrong, time will tell. Common sense tells me that genetics and parisistes are generaly unrelated. I do realize the blood of some bees is poisen to the mites, and that is genetic, but I think thas a taxinomical issue at this point. certianly differnt races of anything are more resistant/suceptibale to things... such as African more restiant to sun the Eurpeans......

Mites to me are the same as the Japenes beetles on my grapes.... a pest to be managed, as we learn more we may find strains that are more capable of handeling them.

I bought 500.00 worth of Hygenic breeder queens this year to see what I can do with them... But at the moment I still belive this is a learned trait, not a genetic one.

Are yours truly self-sufficient? Do you not treat or manipulate at all?

Mike

Depends On your description of treatment. I feed< I will sugar dust occsaionly if I think something is developing...

Manipulation, most defiantly.... I use Mel Disslokoens techinques, I requeen in the fall, I spilt hives and I remove queens to screw up mite breeding patterns

Glad to get back to discussion instead of argument.

Charlie

mike bispham

07-24-2009, 09:36 AM

At the moment though I disagree with one key point. I don't belive these traits are a genetic issue. I may be wrong, time will tell. Common sense tells me that genetics and parisistes are generaly unrelated. I do realize the blood of some bees is poisen to the mites, and that is genetic, but I think thas a taxinomical issue at this point. certianly differnt races of anything are more resistant/suceptibale to things... such as African more restiant to sun the Eurpeans......

Have you read this Charlie?

Producing Varroa-tolerant Honey Bees from Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe, By E.H. Erickson, L.H. Hines, and A.A. Atmowidjojo

http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/publ/tolerant2.html

As far as I can see the question of learned behaviour or genetic behaviour is not an issue - the point is to locate those stocks that are healthiest, where 'healthy' is read as something like 'thrives without help', and to reproduce from them. Whatever it is that carries the trait 'self-sufficiency' gets pushed forward.

But if you are wrong (and I am right) that necessary traits come solely, or mostly through the genetic material, it makes the presence of unadapted/non-resistant bees more or less toxic.

Mites to me are the same as the Japenes beetles on my grapes.... a pest to be managed, as we learn more we may find strains that are more capable of handeling them.

By objection to this strategy (and I want to be clear its the strategy - not you are your choices I am criticising) is that unless resistance is sought and bought to the surface the problems simply continue year after year. You have to keep adopting new techniques, new medications (the druggies are talking about 'rotation' these days...). What nature and selective breeding do is allow the resistant strains to come to dominate, thus doing away with the need for medication and manipulation. This is true whether it the traits are genetically derived or learned.

The main reason I find this important is not because it helps the beekeeper - if beekeepers want to make their lives hard that's up to them - but because it undermines local wild bees and the bees of neighbouring apiaries. The bees you raise are conditioned to your regime - and as your drones mate with queens outside your own apiary they will tend to confer the need for that regime on their offspring. That means wild bees near you will need ... occasional sugar dusting, and 'Manipulation, most defiantly....' etc. - and of course they won't get it so they'll perish.

If you are surrounded by self-sufficient bees going way back into a wilderness, that doesn't matter all that much - though not everyone would thank you for it. However, in places where apiary bees represent a large proportion of total colonies that mechanism is sufficient to inhibit the rise of self-sufficiency entirely.

Of course if the drones were going off and teaching the queen hygenic behaviour, and the queen was passing the lessons on to her colony, everyone would be thanking you. But I don't think that's what drones get up to...:)

Glad to get back to discussion instead of argument.

Charlie

I agree - thanks,

Mike

mike bispham

07-24-2009, 09:40 AM

DRUR

07-24-2009, 09:58 AM

Did Glenn Apiaries make any claims about resistance to varroa Ernie? Just curious.

Mike

Mike the Glenn Apiaries site is here: http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/

DRUR

07-24-2009, 10:02 AM

Manipulation, most defiantly.... I use Mel Disslokoens techinques, I requeen in the fall, I spilt hives and I remove queens to screw up mite breeding patterns
Charlie can you explain a procedure for me? Please give me a detailed description of what is meant by breaking the cell down to the midrib? What is meant by midrib? Have you done this and does it work?

mike bispham

07-24-2009, 10:23 AM

Mike the Glenn Apiaries site is here: http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/

Marvellous stuff, thanks so much Danny. Wortha quote:

"With hybrid corn, it really did not matter to farmer Smith, what farmer Jones grew in his field. His yield is the same whatever his neighbor plants. But with bees it really does matter what is in other beekeepers hives. Because whether we realize it or not, each hive is part of a genetic network. Drones from your hives are mating with queens from neighboring hives, and feral drones mate with your queens. We are all painfully aware of how often queens are superceded these days. These queens are mating with drones from miles away. You may not think that you are involved in bee breeding, but in fact we all are. We either have a positive affect or a negative affect on the whole gene pool.

The amazing thing is that beekeepers have so much control over this genetic network. Except for the few feral colonies around, we determine which queens are in the hives. And when you control the queen, you control the colony. If we decide to make changes in this genetic network, we already have the tools to do so.

We are really in uncharted territory in this endeavor to make the whole bee population resistant to mites. So nobody really knows how it will progress.

If we are dealing with a recessive trait, both the queen and the drones she mates with have to carry the genes. The more hygienic drones are out there, the more hygienic the bees will be. Requeening with hygienic queens is the key, she will produce drones carrying the hygienic genes. It is in all of our best interest that the bees be hygienic." http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/mite_resistant_queens.html

I'd like to learn more about this business of recessive and dominant traits - though I think it isn't really needed it might contain something that will make life easier.

Also; is it time to start a discussion about the problems that might occur when trying to establish a resistant apiary? The point is; locating resistant queens and/or swarms is only the start. If you don't have a strategy for establishing the new lines they are likely to be diluted away. A good strategy should involve research and preparation, and a clear idea of the mechanics involved, so the effects of various acts can be evaluated. It is likely to be different in each locality, so there can be no simple template - but it should be possible to work through the variants and come up with a framework we can post as a guide.

Mike

DRUR

07-24-2009, 11:49 AM

Marvellous stuff, thanks so much Danny.
:) Thought you might like the site. Hmmm, seems to support much of your argument. Notice their intent is to supply bees displaying hygienic behavior so that this genetic trait can be distributed across the country, that being resistance to mites. Now, if this can be done in this manner, couldn't the opposite have been done to the feral populations, saturating the drone pool with bees which required medication to make it; thereby reducing the feral population to a bunch of weak, sickly bees, unable to survive without the 'drug' pushers.

gmcharlie

07-25-2009, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by BEES4U
Ok, I am going to jump in and get wet!
I have all of the breeder queens that are available from Glenn Apiaries that can be used in a small cell study.
I should not set up the study until next spring when I can stock the 5 frame nucs.
Regards,
Ernie

Bees, can you explain the detail plan of your proposed study? I also bought queens from gleens to evaluate, not on small cell though....

gmcharlie

07-25-2009, 08:08 AM

Charlie can you explain a procedure for me? Please give me a detailed description of what is meant by breaking the cell down to the midrib? What is meant by midrib? Have you done this and does it work?

The process of braeking the cell to the midrib is probably better termed "break teh bottom of the cells out to the midrib" basicly open the bottom of the cell so the repairs can be mad in the vertical position.

Queen cells hang down, so we break the cell and it gets to hang naturaly.

Works great, the bees are happier as they have a location for a queen cell (just a guess on there mood) and you know right where the cell will be. I usually do 5-8 cells on a split, and then either leave them alone, or cull after they develop... I like a bit higher number to ensure a good queen.

As to mite control, if you read Mels site you can see he loves splitting into nucs and mid year requeening. His theoryis that queens slow down in the fall allowing mites to catch up as they multiply expotentaily the whole year. so after teh queen slows up the mites catch up.. he claims a queen after the solistace, doesn't reconize fall and lays like a spring queen.... I personaly have no idea how to prove or disprovethis, and go on his word and experince.. It does in fact make a bit of sense...

His theory on splits is that the delay of the virgin queen causes a backup of breeder mites looking for larve... when the queen does start, the mites flock to the first few larva.. a mite load of 3-4 mites per larve cause that larve to die, and the mites with it, interupting that mite cycle.

Bottom line though is I apply it a bit differently as I don't requeen always like he suggest... I do break up the mite brood.
On a strong hive makeing honey, I remove the queen and start a nuc, first week is queen cell, probably let her hatch and wait a cpl days (depends onpending weather and my travel schedule) But don't let her breed and return usually.... I will return the old queen at times Keep in mind it should have been at least 3 weeks since they had a laying queen. This means those mites really want to lay in the new larve as fast as they can. those first larve will die from too many mites...

The nuc will get the virgin queen, there is a good brrod pattern from the old queen, a small mite problem from the workers transported, but both hives now have the mites under control. I lost 3 weeks of brood in the big hive, but honey/pollen should be up from the fact no brood to tend, and the nuc is decent from the strong queen laying. at this point the nuc has more mites % wise so I don't combine, that virgin queen is left in it to see how she does... if mites are real bad then this is only a mateing nuc and never goes anywhere if they have the mites in control I let them grow...

Countryboy

07-25-2009, 09:18 AM

In the UK for the last 20 years or so it has not been possible for a small hobby beekeeper to keep bees without medication.

Large hobby beekeepers could? Commercial beekeepers could keep bees without medication? What was so special about ONLY small hobby beekeepers not being able to keep bees without medication.

Being unable to keep bees without medication should tell you something. If it was not for the medicaiton, bees in the UK would be extinct or near extinct. Yet, you ignore this and keep telling people how wrong it is to medicate their bees.

The wild bees were almost completely crushed, outnumbered by the apiaries that medicated pretty much systematically.

Crushed by what? Certainly you are not suggesting the wild bees were impacted negatively by the medicated bees, are you?

They may have been outnumbered due to the wild bees dying from mites, while the medicated bees lived another day.

Fingers crossed that has changed now, and in a few years I'll be able to show you just what you ask for. But it will take a few years. You can't hurry bees.

And it will have been made possible in large part by having medicated bees that prevented extinction of the species.

If you are bothered about tomatoes find a tomato forum. The idea here is to talk about bees, and to in the face of unprecedented levels of ill-health in bees it seems sensible to talk about one of the most important ways of inducing health - selctive breeding. I cannot for the life of me think of a good reason why you, a beekeeper, should want to try so hard to obstruct this conversation.

You say you want to talk about selective breeding, but then you say you don't. Make up your mind. Selective breeding is selective breeding - it does not matter if you are selective breeding bees, tomatoes, beans, cows, horses, etc.

That is the reason there is so much ill-health around! That is the reason for high winter losses, and the failure of the industry to meed the demand for pollination.

Last I knew winter losses typically were due to starvation, moisture, or freezing in bitter cold. I didn't know it was 'ill-health'.

No 'industry' meets demand for anything. Individuals do.

There is no such thing as unmet demand. Demand is always met because increased demand increases price. (and if you aren't willing to pay the increased price, you aren't demanding - you are just requesting)

Beekeepers do not even AIM to keep healthy stock. They do not even know HOW to keep healthy stock. And when you offer to show them, some of them put every possible obstacle in the way of even having a discussion about how to keep healthy stock. They WANT unhealthy stock!

What qualifies you to know what is best for other beekeeping operations? What qualifies you to know how to keep healthy stock?
Your bees died off because you do not know how to keep healthy bees. If you knew how to keep healthy bees, your bees would have stayed healthy.

They lose their self-sufficiency because they interbreed with the non-self-sufficient bees in the apiary. What have you got against wild bees?

I have nothing against wild bees. Why do you feel self-sufficiency is a genetic trait, rather than a management trait? What factual evidence do you have to support that?

The last I knew, when wild/feral bees are put into a conventional hive, they are subjected to a different management than they are subjected to in the wild. When that change alone makes them susceptible to mites, it clearly shows that it is the management, and not genetics that enabled the bees to be self-sufficient. You can get bees to outbreed mites - either split them regularly, or put them in a small hive which makes them swarm off regularly.

I'm know a lot of people whose views I respect very much agree with the broad diagnosis, and agree too that the conversation is well worth having.

And popular opinion makes something fact? If enough 'respected' people share a common opinion, that makes it fact? You need only to look at an election after the fact to see how ridiculous that notion is.

First; knowledge is power.

No, knowledge is NOT power. Applied knowledge is power, but knowledge alone is worthless.

If you know how to raise healthy bees you can escape the constand round of medications and the fear of high winter losses.

Big if. Did it ever cross your mind that the knowledge of how to have healthy bees involved knowing when and how to properly medicate your bees?

I wasn't aware medications prevented high winter losses from moisture, starvation, or freezing.

Second, just maybe we should start putting the bigger picture ahead of our own personal needs.

I know of no bigger picture than my own needs. If I can't pay my bills and put food on the table and a roof over my head, I'm nto going ot care about any bigger picture.

I encourage you to go live as a homeless person on the streets and see if your perspective changes.

When we all act solely for our own personal gain in ways that are destructive of our own livelihoods, something has gone wrong.

But what defines destructive? Short term or long term?

Hay farmers want their hay crop to grow tall and thick. Mowing that growing crop is destructive. It halts future growth. So why do hay farmers keep mowing their hay fields with a haybine? (And what is wrong with it?)

That is because you are refusing to see the point of self-sufficiency as a desirable trait, and would, it seems, rather have bees that dies from disease when not in beekeepers hands than have nasty ferals about.

It is not that I refuse to see the point of self-sufficiency (to your definition) as a desirable trait, but rather that I fail to see it as a genetic trait. I see it as a management issue. I also look for bees that survive to live another day - I would rather have medicated living bees than a pile of dead 'self-sufficient' bees.

It is interbreeding with non-resistant bees that causes loss of resistance. Those non-resistant bees may come form australia (where they have had no contact with varroa) or form US apiaries (where the development of resistance has been stymied by continuous medication + reproduction. Com one - its not that hard.

You can believe anything if you try hard enough.

Resistance comes from continued low level exposure over generations. For example, glyphosate (RoundUp) has become the herbicide of choice for many farmers due to how effective it is. But at the edges of fields, you have a little spray drift which isn't strong enough to kill weeds just outside the field. Those plants quickly start developing resistance to RoundUp. We are starting to see RoundUp resistant giant ragweed here. It crossbreeds with non-resistant giant rag. We still have resistant giant rag. Interbreeding with non-resistant strains is not sure to cause loss of resistance. (Lack of exposure to RoundUp will cause loss of resistance though.)

Fitness is not debatable. Fitness means fit to survive in the environment. Self-sufficient.

So bees that are outbreeding mites due to swarming frequently are fit as a fiddle? They are able to achieve the bare minimum level of fitness required to survive in that environment under those conditions.

Whenever non-resistant bees are bought in, or medication + reproduction occurs on any scale, local resistance is lost through dilution of the local resistant genepool.

Then why will non-resistant bees become resistant to a disease when you keep 'diluting' the local stock, as long as they have continued pressure? And why do they lose resistance as soon as the pressure is gone? There used to be AFB resistant bees at a wax rendering facility.

Organisms are selected for those traits they need to survive on an ongoing basis.

If they don't go extinct. A constant influx of new non-resistant bees allows the population to remain viable long enough for the bees to slowly develop a resistance. It is not a matter of organisms with a specific trait surviving a disease or pest - organisms can actually develop traits over time.

Yes, that too may well be a factor. Another reason to select for bees that can be self-sufficient in larger cavities - ie hives.

How are you going to do that? Bees that draw wax and make honey super fast? Forgetting the AHB already?

Living things live because natural selection keeps them healthy where healthy means able to live in the face of constant and ever-changing attack.

That is completely false [edit] to suggest that they are kept healthy because they are alive. Things remain alive until they succomb to an attack - often health is perilously low (but they are alive) right up until the point of death.

Natural selection selects for the absolute minimum level of health needed to remain alive. It does not keep things healthy.

Self-sufficiency is a product of a whole range of genetically-supplied traits.

And sometimes it is not genetic, but rather their environment which enables them to be self-sufficient. Do not confuse the two.

gmcharlie

07-25-2009, 09:27 AM

Have you read this Charlie?

Producing Varroa-tolerant Honey Bees from Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe, By E.H. Erickson, L.H. Hines, and A.A. Atmowidjojo

http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/publ/tolerant2.html
No I hadn't seen that one, thanks, A bit dated, he obviously thinks along the same lines as you, in that survivor stock is the answer. his test/method is based on that stratagy.

As far as I can see the question of learned behaviour or genetic behaviour is not an issue - the point is to locate those stocks that are healthiest, where 'healthy' is read as something like 'thrives without help', and to reproduce from them. Whatever it is that carries the trait 'self-sufficiency' gets pushed forward..
This is the sticking point. from 20 years with mites, I don't belive its this simple. if it were 20 generations would have been enough to solve the problem, Since we can assume 1 year as a hives/queen succes with mites, thats a minum of 20 already passed her in the USA. more where your at. should be at the point where there is nothing but suvivor stock left, yet this is not the case.

But if you are wrong (and I am right) that necessary traits come solely, or mostly through the genetic material, it makes the presence of unadapted/non-resistant bees more or less toxic..

Agreed...

By objection to this strategy (and I want to be clear its the strategy - not you are your choices I am criticising)

Understood..

That means wild bees near you will need ... occasional sugar dusting, and 'Manipulation, most defiantly....' etc. - and of course they won't get it so they'll perish.

If you are surrounded by self-sufficient bees going way back into a wilderness, that doesn't matter all that much - though not everyone would thank you for it. However, in places where apiary bees represent a large proportion of total colonies that mechanism is sufficient to inhibit the rise of self-sufficiency entirely. ..

Interesting point.... the climates under which you mention do vary, here int eh midwest where I live Feral stock outnumbers domestic by probably close to 20-1 on most areas (my yard is an exception of course).. areas like California, with over 1 million domestic hives are a differernt issue.
not sure what your situation is over there.

Of course if the drones were going off and teaching the queen hygenic behaviour, and the queen was passing the lessons on to her colony, everyone would be thanking you. But I don't think that's what drones get up to...:)Mike
But, if I read your theories right, this is exactly what you propose, that the genetic makeup of the drones as well as the queen needs to be transported, Hence your frustration at the Aussie content.. genetic material from non resitant bees.....
were that the case in my area all suvivor stock (at least 95% of the bees) would already be geneticly resistant, and passing off that material to my bees.

This is my point, its more than genetic, more than a learned trait... small cell seems to matter to some, not to others, Genetic lines at times, not at others.... some hives do fine for a year or two, then become overrun......I am not ready to let a good gentle large honey producer die off, not until someone can explian why and how, (with data that smells good) why the mites grab hold in some cases, and not in others...... even within the same colony..... and blameing stress will not cut it.....

now if you can say Losban (just an example) of 4 ppm wakens the hive and allows mites to propigate, and can back it up... then yes Losban stresses are a factor...

Until then its a weak excuse... Kinda Like mY mooma beat me for a murder.... Momma beat all the kids 100 years ago.. get on with it... the bees are adapted to most stresses... Such as large cell. while it may play a part in hygenic behaivor or mite reproduction, stress on the bees after this many generations is nonsense....

DRUR

07-25-2009, 10:48 AM

The process of braeking the cell to the midrib is probably better termed "break teh bottom of the cells out to the midrib" basicly open the bottom of the cell so the repairs can be mad in the vertical position.

Well, Charlie, I know I am a little slow on the uptake but please be patient, I am almost there. I have never heard the term 'midrib' applied to a cell before. I assume it is the middle of the cell, but wanted a clarification of this term.

What I do understand is that you destroy the cell (bottom half) with larva you want the bees to make a queen with. How deep, down to the 'midrib'. Now I am assuming that this is 1/2 of the depth of the cell. But it is this that I am not sure of.

Mel's reason for doing this is that he then kills the rest of the larva with flour (blocking first the entrance of the keepers with bullets). So that he gets several queen cells on several different frames. This is to get queens from several different frames to make four splits from the original colony, then to rejoin all when honey production begins by killing all the queens, and letting them raise 1 new from 3 combined nucs.

However, I am now making splits by removing the Queen from the main colony with a couple of frames of bees and merging brood, and letting the main colony raise a new queen. Do you see any reason for me to follow the above procedure instead of just letting the colony select their own larva and raise their own queen without breaking the cell down to midrib? Also, if you could please define the term 'midrib' so I am sure. Thanks for your input.

DRUR

07-25-2009, 10:51 AM

Also, just to clarify my understanding of a point of discussion here. My understanding is the mite resistance from hygienic behavior (or for Mike behaviour:)) is a genetic trait. See this article here http://www.agweek.com/articles/?id=4823&article_id=14539&property_id=41
for somewhat of a clarification. Thanks for everyone's input.

DRUR

07-25-2009, 11:21 AM

Charlie (and Mike correct me if I am wrong) it seems to me that (and also Mike's position), that initially when the mites hit us, there was no general hygienic trait to withstand the onslaught, hence there was a major population collapse of all but those who had the hygienic trait to withstand the mites. This would have caused a winnowing of the feral populations where only those colonies that could withstand the mite survivied.

This would have also happened in the managed populations, which according to the Lusby's caused 90% loss. But then the 'managed' bees were treated thereby allowing the non resistant bees to once again flourish (albeit temporarily until mite resistance to the medication developed). These drones then breed the feral queens, reducing their mite resistance and causing a further collapse in the feral population and a loss of feral genetics that had been winnowed by the initial collapse. Note in the above article by Marla Spivak ( http://www.agweek.com/articles/?id=4823&article_id=14539&property_id=41 ), queens must be bred to at least 50% drones with hygienic behaviour (mite resistance) to successfully pass that behaviour (genetic as I understand the term) on to the colony.

Aussie bees, which have not been subjected to the mites, have not been winnowed for this hygienic behavior (mite risistance); so assuming they would also be subject to 90% loss, then there would not be a very good chance of 50% of the mite resistant drones breeding feral (or wild) bees to pass on or maintain hygienic traits. Since collapse from mites turn up in the second or third year of the colony (which is when the mites exist in sufficient number to destroy them); then continued importation of Aussie bees which are not mite survivors (as they don't have the mite problem) would prevent the survivors from flourishing.

So, now the 'survivors' get a double barrel of adversity, first from the commercial beeks who are medicating and maintaining non survivor drone producers, and also from the imported Aussie bees that are probably at least 90% non survivor stock.

mike bispham

07-25-2009, 02:48 PM

Do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this just hypothetical theorizing on your part?

Its sourced from a collection of widespread reading, discussion with biologists and beekeepers, tied together by good old reasoning.

Some people can follow an argument. Some are good at evaluating which theories you can rely on and which you can. Others reject anything they haven't experienced themselves as 'just theories'. You can't reason with them if your reasoning involves theories, because, no matter how well-referenced those theories are, they'll reject them as 'just theories', or 'just internet documents'.

I can't reason with you man. I'm going to stop trying to. If you can be reasonable, we can talk again.

Mike

AR Beekeeper

07-26-2009, 05:28 AM

You fellows are whipping a dead horse.

beemandan

07-26-2009, 05:38 AM

You fellows are whipping a dead horse.

Its OK. They seem to be enjoying themselves and the horse isn't complaining. And, pretty much, everyone else has moved on.

mike bispham

07-26-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike bispham
"As far as I can see the question of learned behaviour or genetic behaviour is not an issue - the point is to locate those stocks that are healthiest, where 'healthy' is read as something like 'thrives without help', and to reproduce from them. Whatever it is that carries the trait 'self-sufficiency' gets pushed forward.. "

This is the sticking point. from 20 years with mites, I don't belive its this simple. if it were 20 generations would have been enough to solve the problem, Since we can assume 1 year as a hives/queen succes with mites, thats a minum of 20 already passed her in the USA. more where your at. should be at the point where there is nothing but suvivor stock left, yet this is not the case.

This is the problem of medication. By maintaining the stocks that don't have what it takes to survive without maintenance, you perpetuate the problem. Those stocks a) don't locate the traits that are needed, and so continue to exp[erience exactly the same problem; and b) continually send their genetic material into neighbours and nearby wild colonies, and undermine any emerging resistance there too.

This is why I keep on emphasising; medication is the problem. Rather than trying to keep bees 'healthy' by medicating them, we should seek to raise self-sufficient stock in the first place. It is, actually, madness to think that you can do otherwise.

Quote: Originally Posted by mike bispham
"But if you are wrong (and I am right) that necessary traits come solely, or mostly through the genetic material, it makes the presence of unadapted/non-resistant bees more or less toxic.. "

Agreed...

Good - thanks.

Quote: Originally Posted by mike bispham
"That means wild bees near you will need ... occasional sugar dusting, and 'Manipulation, most defiantly....' etc. - and of course they won't get it so they'll perish.

If you are surrounded by self-sufficient bees going way back into a wilderness, that doesn't matter all that much - though not everyone would thank you for it. However, in places where apiary bees represent a large proportion of total colonies that mechanism is sufficient to inhibit the rise of self-sufficiency entirely"

Interesting point.... the climates under which you mention do vary, here int eh midwest where I live Feral stock outnumbers domestic by probably close to 20-1 on most areas (my yard is an exception of course).. areas like California, with over 1 million domestic hives are a differernt issue.
not sure what your situation is over there.

Here in the UK the situation is mostly one where apiaries dominate, and medication is widespread. Accordingly the wild bees are continually suppressed. The loss of habitat due to changes in farming practice has also bee severe. We need to make an effort on several fronts simultaniously to make progress.

Quote: Originally Posted by mike bispham
"Of course if the drones were going off and teaching the queen hygenic behaviour, and the queen was passing the lessons on to her colony, everyone would be thanking you. But I don't think that's what drones get up to...Mike"

But, if I read your theories right, this is exactly what you propose, that the genetic makeup of the drones as well as the queen needs to be transported, Hence your frustration at the Aussie content.. genetic material from non resitant bees.....

Yes. Both parents contribute the genetic material, and the traits that confer health (self-sufficiency) may come from either. Howerever, there is evidence that the trait conferring hygenic behavour is recessive, and only comes through if BOTH parents carry the gene. In this case the math changes a lot. I'm planning to look into this soon.

were that the case in my area all suvivor stock (at least 95% of the bees) would already be geneticly resistant, and passing off that material to my bees.

If they didn't have high levels of resistance, they wouldn't have survived.... Where survivor stock is not partially undermined by unadapted genes held in apiaries, it would probably be the case that most are resistant, and that 'most' is sufficient. But if the gene conferring hygenic behaviour is as important as we think it is, and recessive, there will be a continuous gradual backsliding, that can only be countered by continuous natural selection.

But yes - the wild bees near you should have high levels of resistance, which will diminish as they come closer to your apiary, where they will have been impregnated with unadapted/inadequate genetic material. By 'inadequate' I mean not capable of conferring the resistance to the current disease/parasite environment that is needed for self-sufficiency. Or, to look at it another way, not able to confer the levels of health that mean medication is unnecessary.

This is my point, its more than genetic, more than a learned trait... small cell seems to matter to some, not to others, Genetic lines at times, not at others.... some hives do fine for a year or two, then become overrun......I am not ready to let a good gentle large honey producer die off, not until someone can explian why and how, (with data that smells good) why the mites grab hold in some cases, and not in others...... even within the same colony..... and blameing stress will not cut it.....

Freedom to build the kind of home that works is something that clearly helps. Whatever the mechanism, if it helps them stay fit and reproduce it will be replicated; if it doesn't it wont. As long as... the beekeeper doesn't mess up that selection process by interfering.

I agree just calling 'stress' doesn't contribute much.

At the moment it seems right to say; let natural selection show you what works, then work with it.

Mike

mike bispham

07-26-2009, 07:45 AM

[
I am reasonable. Try using facts and logic.

Here's an exercise.

You buy a bag of while beans and a bag of brown beans. Both kinds are the same size and weight, and they don't interbreed, but apart from that their germination rates and general growth qualities are similar. In the way home, crossing the corner of one of your fields, the nice dark soil of which has been prepared for seeding, you trip and all the beans go flying. You pick up as many as you can in the half-hour you have spare, and then go home. Later, when you drill that field, you miss that corner, and some of the beans you spilled germinate and grow.

Now, can you make an educated guess as to whether you will get more brown beans or more white beans?

Mike

gmcharlie

07-26-2009, 07:48 AM

Danny, In Mels "midrib" he means the midrib of the COMB, which is the bottom of the cell. THe Rib between the cells on one side and the other... (It took me a bit also)

As for the reason for it as opposed to letting them raise there own, it has to do withteh qualityand timing of the queen cell. when forced they don't have time to make a nice vertical cell and lay an egg in it, so they use the closest thing they can get, sometimes they won't even make one lacking a good source in the right position. they other thing you will not is that these emergency queens don't last. they are genearly smaller and superceded quickly which causes another delay in hive growth. the theory is that the poor cell design from the emergency hurts the development.

This opening of the cell wall allows great/better queensto be raised. You also know where they are in the hive, and you can make sure they raise 3-5 instead of hopeing for 1...

Its very fast for me with 40 hives.. when I do one, then I don't have to search for queen cells.... I know exactly what frame to check to see if they hatched and how they are doing.

As for the suggestions the hygenic behaivior is genetic, I find it doubtful.....extremly doubtful... yes there is a test for it, and I belive the test works...... its like drawing the line between instinct and genetics........
Hard to define the differences .....

I used to raise a lot of hogs, Polland China's are excellent moms, large litters and meaner than SNOT..... Yorkshires, are gentle, and lousey moms (the lay on a LOT of the babies) Geneticly there the same... (except for the spots gene)...... yet a huge difference in behaviors....

The Aussie influnce is a bit interesting, in areas like texas and california, maybe.... but in this part of the country where I live, Not hardly.... the percentage if domestic hives and wild hives, this theory doesn't hold any water. if every drone from a domstic hive kiled off all the wild drones it wouldnt work..... The math simple does not hold up....
In my county before I had hives there were 6 domestic hives in the County.... none within 11 miles of my farm.... and yet I had plenty of bees... in fact we average 4 feral hives per square mile here.

In the past with foundation, domestic hives average about 5% drones, and wild hives around 20%....... Personaly I suck at statistics, but if you do the math you will figure out that probably the highet potential for beekeeper influance in wild hives is around 2%...

I do understand Mikes concept, as well as Lusbys, and others..... but here is the reality, if they were correct and had the complete answers, then the problem would be solved. If per see, the Assies all died from mites, and Glenn's never did, then NO ONE in there right mind would buy the Aussies.....
(or any others that exibit that problem)

An interesting note to ponder and remains to be seen yet, Lets take Glenns for example, the breeder queens are AI and line breed for hygenic traits...... so what is the resitance difference between the line breed breeder queens, and the open breed queens that the second line sellers produce???

Is there a differnce between them for mites?? if so why wouldn't everyone switch to a totaly mite restant line??? Forgo the open breeding entirely??
(working on evaluating this myself)

mike bispham

07-29-2009, 02:46 PM

I used to raise a lot of hogs, Polland China's are excellent moms, large litters and meaner than SNOT..... Yorkshires, are gentle, and lousey moms (the lay on a LOT of the babies) Geneticly there the same... (except for the spots gene)...... yet a huge difference in behaviors....

Do you know that they are genetically identical apart from a single gene controlling spots? Can you supply a reference? Even if so (and I doubt it) how would you know that it wasn't the same gene also controlling behaviour?

How could you explain the difference in behaviour apart from genetic differences? Behaviour is either genetic or learned - can you supply a satisfactory account of how all of one kind get to learn to respond differently? If not, then the cause has to be genetic - there isn't another explanation available.

The Aussie influnce is a bit interesting, in areas like texas and california, maybe.... but in this part of the country where I live, Not hardly.... the percentage if domestic hives and wild hives, this theory doesn't hold any water. if every drone from a domstic hive kiled off all the wild drones it wouldnt work..... The math simple does not hold up....

Imagine your apiary as the centre from which unadapted drones fly out. These will tend to weaken wild colonies in a circle around you. But if there are adapted wild colonies (and if they are there then they are by definition adapted, and resistant) on the other side of that circle, they will send in good drones towards you. There is a kind of 'buffer' zone between you and the wild where bees are neither fully adapted (because of the genetic input from your apiary) nor fully vulnerable (because of the genetic input from the wild bees). Can you picture that?

In my county before I had hives there were 6 domestic hives in the County.... none within 11 miles of my farm.... and yet I had plenty of bees... in fact we average 4 feral hives per square mile here.

So what does that tell you? When was this? Could it have been because varroa had not yet arrived, or because the wild bees had adapted to it, and could tolerate it?

In the past with foundation, domestic hives average about 5% drones, and wild hives around 20%....... Personaly I suck at statistics, but if you do the math you will figure out that probably the highet potential for beekeeper influance in wild hives is around 2%...

You haven't taken into account the numbers of hives, nor the vigour of the drones, nor the factor of a recessive gene. We haven't gone through the math yet, but it seems likely that just small proportation of none-resistant drones will have a dramatic effect on resistance.

I do understand Mikes concept, as well as Lusbys, and others..... but here is the reality, if they were correct and had the complete answers, then the problem would be solved.

It may well be that once we've understood why the Lusbys, Michael Bush and others who practice both non-medication/interference and natural cell keeping, we will be able to set out a simple plan to recover full health. If enough people follow it the problem will be solved.

But 'the problem' is multifaceted. There is enormous sales pressure from suppliers of medications, the regulators do not understand why Lusby's etc work, breeders like supplying bees that soon need to be replaced and so on.

None of this is any good reason not to pursue an understanding of the mechanisms that will empower anyone who wants to to raise healthy bees that don't need propping up with medication and faffing around.

If per see, the Assies all died from mites, and Glenn's never did, then NO ONE in there right mind would buy the Aussies.....
(or any others that exibit that problem)

If people understood that nine-tenths of the aussies would die if left alone, while a well-founded apiary built from bees carrying two 'hygene' genes could both survive without help and help rebuild the wild population, more would make the choice.

An interesting note to ponder and remains to be seen yet, Lets take Glenns for example, the breeder queens are AI and line breed for hygenic traits...... so what is the resitance difference between the line breed breeder queens, and the open breed queens that the second line sellers produce???

See Marla's paper: A sustainable approach to controlling honeybee diseases and varroa mites http://www.entomology.umn.edu/Faculty/spivak/SAREHyg2005.pdf

First, there is no guarentee at all that the second generation queens are mated by drones carrying the gene. Due to its recessive nature, all you are buying is the name.

Second, unless you can maintain queens having two of the necessary genes in the line, the behaviour disappears. It is 'diluted out' by drones originating in arificially maintained apiaries - and rapidly so - because of the recessive nature.

Is there a differnce between them for mites?? if so why wouldn't everyone switch to a totaly mite restant line??? Forgo the open breeding entirely??
(working on evaluating this myself)

Absolutely there is a difference! Maintaining a line means controlling the breeding. The best way to do this, as Marla will tell you, is soak the area in bees that carry the genes from both parents, then maintain the high genetic defence with an ongoing selective breeding program.

What she doesn't say, and I think she should, is don't whatever you do let those vulnerable to mites send out genetic material. Terminate the defective line. Whatever you do, don't medicate bees then let them reproduce. That is anti-husbandry, period.

Note how this account explains how the problem we all share is being caused by failure to adhere to normal breeding practices. Don't breed from sick animals - all you'll get is more sick animals. Actually all you need to do is follow the principles of traditional breeding practice to the letter.

Mike