Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 188

Thread: Transgenic bees

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    5,992

    Default

    >>Schmeiser, however, has never purchased canola
    requiring such an agreement so he was unconcerned about
    saving seed from his own field.

    Yet he used roundup in his incropping weed control practices, NOT knowing it was Roundup tolerant?
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    5,992

    Default

    >>So, I have a question that is sure to cause some amount of debate; how many of you would be willing to use genetically modified honey bees if they were truly resistant or immune to your favorite scourge?

    IF they could present us with this type of bee, lets say they were able to enhance the bees grooming behaviour, or , something, I dont know, but if they were able to get us this type of technology, then yes I would. I do think we are comming close to that achievement anyway with our regular breeding efforts so a transgenetic bees might not offer us anything more than what we already have, by the time GM bees could be developed.

    Would I rather raise a bee tolerant of disease, or continue with my regular disease watch and control? I would lean towards the option that saves me the treatments costs and pest losses.
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Reno, NV USA
    Posts
    2,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    >>So, I have a question that is sure to cause some amount of debate; how many of you would be willing to use genetically modified honey bees if they were truly resistant or immune to your favorite scourge?

    IF they could present us with this type of bee, lets say they were able to enhance the bees grooming behaviour, or , something, I dont know, but if they were able to get us this type of technology, then yes I would. I do think we are comming close to that achievement anyway with our regular breeding efforts so a transgenetic bees might not offer us anything more than what we already have, by the time GM bees could be developed.

    Would I rather raise a bee tolerant of disease, or continue with my regular disease watch and control? I would lean towards the option that saves me the treatments costs and pest losses.
    Ian,

    I think about 90% of what has been posted on this thread, so far, regarding transgenic bees is based on fear of the unknown. I posted the question originally to see if the fear among beekeepers is in line with the rest of the public, I would submit that it is. Perception I think is more important than science when it comes to policy. I think this would be a fun project but I wouldn't want to produce a bee that nobody wants. I really do wonder, though, if it was announced today that a transgenic bee was available that was "immune" to varroa mites and tracheal mites, would all of those that cited evil intentions and worse place their orders immediately. Maybe you and I would purchase ours, and then be vilified at our local club meetings. I would probably buy one of these guys if we could legally and successfully cross them with our own stock. If it was established in a closed system that the genes couldn't be transfered to the pests, I would be thrilled to have the transgenic bees escape and breed into the feral population. By the same token, I would like to see these genes incorporated into as many commercial breeding programs as possible. A genetic engineering strategy that would allow for more than one resistance gene would allow for a backup in case mites become drug resistant.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    5,992

    Default

    I hear what your saying HVH.
    Its funny how a tough questions is avoided by so many beekeepers.

    >>Perception I think is more important than science when it comes to policy.

    I dont agree with that statement at all. There is a big impression against agriculture in terms to it contribution to pollution of the environment. Here ag policy is being made to satisfy that preception. And its hurting our farming operations. The perception is not backed up, not can they explain the policy they put into place. Yet it stand strong amongst the urban vote becasue it seems to be a solution to a problem that is presisting.
    We, as in agriculture, have lobbied against this, with actual science brought upon from independent studies. It is being ignored regardless of its merit and substantial evidence.

    We have got to follow science if we are to make a true clear path for our industry. Science if followed principally, will prove an un biased opinion, and should always be herd.
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Totnes, Devon, England
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HVH View Post
    Ian,
    I think about 90% of what has been posted on this thread, so far, regarding transgenic bees is based on fear of the unknown.
    Yes, it is, to a large extent, fear of the unknown. But we should be - at the very least - wary of the unknown, particularly when dealing with a potentially disastrous imposition of a hitherto unknown, untested, un-evolved and brand new species onto a natural ecosystem that is already under severe strain from the massive doses of chemicals dumped onto it every day of the year.

    Yes, we should be afraid of profit-motivated corporations who care not a jot for the welfare of the planet, beyond the bounds of that which will line their pockets. Remember how they told us that DDT was harmless to humans? Remember Thalidomide? (For those of you too young to remember, from 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children were born with severe malformities because their mothers had taken thalidomide during pregnancy). Aspartame? These and other disasters were brought to you by those same companies who want you to buy their GM products because they say they are safe.

    When Monsanto says, 'trust us', be afraid. Be very afraid.

    I think this would be a fun project but I wouldn't want to produce a bee that nobody wants.
    Well, that's mighty good of you. I'm pleased to hear that you would refrain from releasing into the wild a novel species with unknown side effects on the rest of nature. Would that others were as responsible.

    I really do wonder, though, if it was announced today that a transgenic bee was available that was "immune" to varroa mites and tracheal mites, would all of those that cited evil intentions and worse place their orders immediately.
    Not while there is breath in my body. Not until you can prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that your GM bees will do no damage to anything else, will not wipe out other species, will not have any unpredictable effects whatsoever. In other words, never.

    I would probably buy one of these guys if we could legally and successfully cross them with our own stock.
    Like they would ever allow you to do that. See the Percy Schmeisser story: http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/s..._schmeiser.cfm

    If it was established in a closed system that the genes couldn't be transfered to the pests, I would be thrilled to have the transgenic bees escape and breed into the feral population.
    Exactly the kind of idiotic, irresponsible behaviour we don't want.

    A genetic engineering strategy that would allow for more than one resistance gene would allow for a backup in case mites become drug resistant.
    Which they inevitably will. See Darwin.
    The Barefoot Beekeeper http://www.biobees.com

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Reno, NV USA
    Posts
    2,310

    Default

    Wow! buckbee

    Nothing like some strong opinions.

    If you really want to fill up your shorts just consider that genetic engineering is very simple to do and as evil as some might think Monsanto to be, they pale in comparison to the little lab dedicated to weaponizing smallpox with the same technology. Perhaps this is a tu quoque fallacy but the technology is just as unstoppable as weapons proliferation. We are not going to be able to stop it. We can either recognize that this is part of our future and try to steer it in the right direction or we can just leave it in the hands of the Monsantos of the world.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Reno, NV USA
    Posts
    2,310

    Default

    Since I have a few more minutes, I would like to address some of buckbees points a little further.

    Quote Originally Posted by buckbee View Post
    Yes, it is, to a large extent, fear of the unknown. But we should be - at the very least - wary of the unknown, particularly when dealing with a potentially disastrous imposition of a hitherto unknown, untested, un-evolved and brand new species onto a natural ecosystem that is already under severe strain from the massive doses of chemicals dumped onto it every day of the year.
    It is possible to design compounds (high throughput drug screen) that are not toxic (low LD50) to humans but attack a unique biochemical pathway in mites. Bees would then be genetically engineered with an enzyme already found in nature that would render the compound harmless to the bees. Currently we have manmade chemicals that are more toxic to humans than the ones that could be designed. Chances are the transgene would come from a bacteria or fungi and would be integrated into the bee genome with a virus that has been neutralized. Transferring genes into human cells with an inactivated HIV virus is routine all over the world and is similar to what I have described above.
    Genetic engineering was so feared by some that a moratorium was called and a conference at Asilomar (1975) regarding the subject of safety was organized. Since 1975 the fears that people had regarding safety were never realized.


    Quote Originally Posted by buckbee View Post
    Yes, we should be afraid of profit-motivated corporations who care not a jot for the welfare of the planet, beyond the bounds of that which will line their pockets. Remember how they told us that DDT was harmless to humans? Remember Thalidomide? (For those of you too young to remember, from 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children were born with severe malformities because their mothers had taken thalidomide during pregnancy). Aspartame? These and other disasters were brought to you by those same companies who want you to buy their GM products because they say they are safe.
    Your examples of catastrophic human interventions are good examples about how perspective plays a role. DDT is a very controversial subject. Many have argued that it is not toxic to either human or birds for that matter and the pulling of this chemical was politically motivated. I would cite books, papers, and links, but the web has them everywhere you look. The argument is often followed by the proposition that even if DDT is toxic that a look at cost benefit analysis places millions of human lives on the benefit side and completely unknown costs on the other.
    Thalidomide is again another example of perspective. Thalidomide was not approved in the USA (thank God) and was a horrible terratogen unleashed upon parts of Europe. Babies were born without arms and legs. Thalidomide does, however, reduce the symptoms of nausea (women took it for morning sickness). If I were chronically nauseous and nothing better was available, I would consider using thalidomide. As a side note, you brought up Darwin, but it was because of the almost universal acceptance of Darwinian evolution that thalidomide was tested on rodents and subsequently assumed to be safe for humans (oops!)
    And, lastly, aspartame is really rather innocuous unless you have phenoketonuria. If you have a choice between being morbidly obese or eating low fat sweets with aspartame, I think the aspartame might be the right choice. Aspartame was a good choice for diabetics as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by buckbee View Post
    Well, that's mighty good of you. I'm pleased to hear that you would refrain from releasing into the wild a novel species with unknown side effects on the rest of nature. Would that others were as responsible.
    Not even close to being a new species. You, nor anyone else, would ever be able to tell your bees were transgenic except when it survived through winter while the rest of the apiary died. Could the mites acquire the transgene and become miticide resitant? Yes, it is possible under certain circumstance



    Quote Originally Posted by buckbee View Post
    Like they would ever allow you to do that. See the Percy Schmeisser story: http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/s..._schmeiser.cfm
    If the transgene allowed the inventor to sell a patented miticide why not encourage everyone to breed the transbee?

    Quote Originally Posted by buckbee View Post
    Exactly the kind of idiotic, irresponsible behaviour we don't want.
    Maybe you should consider taking an inventory of every technology that you are currently enjoying, that was ever controversial, and throw it in the trash. As an example, the next time you need an antibiotic for a nasty infection, maybe it is time to let nature take its course.

    Quote Originally Posted by buckbee View Post
    Which they inevitably will. See Darwin.
    I have read "The Origin of Species..." many times and can't recall any mention of genetic engineering.

    It is really difficult to convey disposition, tone, and body language in a post, so let me say that I have no axe to grind and don't have a malicious bone in my body. I argue with my friends all the time and never get offended. So no offense intended either.
    Last edited by HVH; 03-01-2008 at 03:15 PM.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Totnes, Devon, England
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HVH View Post
    I argue with my friends all the time and never get offended. So no offense intended either.
    None taken and none intended. I appreciate the time you have taken to answer my points, but I still think this whole approach to nature is wrong-headed.

    All my colonies have come through winter (in some cases, their third winter) with no treatment other than the occasional puff of powdered sugar. I have no use for genetic engineering - and while I acknowledge that it may have medical applications that - who knows - I or my loved ones may one day benefit from, I neither want nor need it in my food or in my bees.

    The bees have been here a great deal longer than we have - at least ten times longer, maybe much more. But is not in our nature to be content with what we have. We see a creature that has evolved over countless millennia to thrive in a range of climates from tropical Africa to the Siberian tundra, so subtly adaptable that it can develop multiple, local ecotypes within a country as small as England, so flexible that it can live contentedly within a hollow log, a chimney or a gap in a wall and we want to impose our criteria on it: to make it behave as we desire and to produce food not only for itself but for us as well.

    That is where the bees' problems lay - in 'modern' beekeeping methods. And it is in correct husbandry where we will find the answers, not in some genetically engineered silver bullet.

    In the context of evolution and the life of this planet, we are still infants playing with dangerous toys. The sooner we recognize this and put our faith in the processes and cycles of nature, rather than the pet theories of scientists, the sooner we will be able to get on with the real work of creating a new relationship with the natural world, based on respect and appreciation rather than casual disregard and exploitation.

    That is, if it is not already too late.
    The Barefoot Beekeeper http://www.biobees.com

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Reno, NV USA
    Posts
    2,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buckbee View Post
    None taken and none intended. I appreciate the time you have taken to answer my points, but I still think this whole approach to nature is wrong-headed.

    All my colonies have come through winter (in some cases, their third winter) with no treatment other than the occasional puff of powdered sugar. I have no use for genetic engineering - and while I acknowledge that it may have medical applications that - who knows - I or my loved ones may one day benefit from, I neither want nor need it in my food or in my bees.

    The bees have been here a great deal longer than we have - at least ten times longer, maybe much more. But is not in our nature to be content with what we have. We see a creature that has evolved over countless millennia to thrive in a range of climates from tropical Africa to the Siberian tundra, so subtly adaptable that it can develop multiple, local ecotypes within a country as small as England, so flexible that it can live contentedly within a hollow log, a chimney or a gap in a wall and we want to impose our criteria on it: to make it behave as we desire and to produce food not only for itself but for us as well.

    That is where the bees' problems lay - in 'modern' beekeeping methods. And it is in correct husbandry where we will find the answers, not in some genetically engineered silver bullet.

    In the context of evolution and the life of this planet, we are still infants playing with dangerous toys. The sooner we recognize this and put our faith in the processes and cycles of nature, rather than the pet theories of scientists, the sooner we will be able to get on with the real work of creating a new relationship with the natural world, based on respect and appreciation rather than casual disregard and exploitation.

    That is, if it is not already too late.
    I think on balance I would tend to be in your camp, but the other side of nature can also lead to extinction. If we could go back 20 or 30 years ago before the stuff hit the fan, this would all be moot. I fully expect every bee pest in the world to be with us in the relatively near future because of the speed at which our global economy brings goods and pests. Maybe if nature had been left to her own devices the balances you hope for would not have been tipped. I suspect we could have been a lot smarter and not imported varroa and hive beetles and such.
    On this forum there is a video link for these Japanese hornets from Hell. Every bee in the hive gets cut literally into pieces in about two hours by these hornets and then used as food to feed their young. As I mentioned in an earlier post I would like to have the technology for when we need it (maybe clone in the genes that give Japanese honey bees a defense against the hornets). The only problem is that once we have it, it will be implemented immediately. And I have to admit that it would be tempting to purchase a bee truly immune to mites.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Totnes, Devon, England
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HVH View Post
    I think on balance I would tend to be in your camp, but the other side of nature can also lead to extinction. If we could go back 20 or 30 years ago before the stuff hit the fan, this would all be moot.
    I would go back rather further - to the 1850s at least, when Langstroth popularized the concept of movable frames, which made it easy for beekeepers to interfere with the brood nest with almost no understanding of what they were doing. Even after 150 years, many beekeepers really don't understand the stresses they cause to colonies by opening them unnecessarily, moving frames around and moving hives across the country; not to mention the imposition of single-size foundation and the thermodynamic inefficiency of the whole framed hive concept.

    Yes, globalization is greatly to blame, as is the greed and irresponsibility of some beekeepers who imported stock which should not have been imported. But ultimately, I still believe it is down to our relationship with nature: we are only just emerging from the Genesis/Victorian attitude that we should have dominion over the birds and the beasts.


    On this forum there is a video link for these Japanese hornets from Hell. Every bee in the hive gets cut literally into pieces in about two hours by these hornets and then used as food to feed their young. ... I would like to have the technology for when we need it (maybe clone in the genes that give Japanese honey bees a defense against the hornets).
    The native bees in Japan learned how to 'cook' hornets without our help. I have seen bees doing the same thing to a queen, when it was badly handled by a clumsy beekeeper, making it smell wrong. They already know how to do this and it won't take many reminders for them to recover the knowledge, I imagine. In any case, is there a gene for this behaviour?

    And I have to admit that it would be tempting to purchase a bee truly immune to mites.
    There is no such thing as 'immunity' to mites. You may as well try to breed sheep that are 'immune' to wolves. Immunity to bacteria, yes, but that is a different matter altogether.
    Last edited by buckbee; 03-02-2008 at 08:43 AM.
    The Barefoot Beekeeper http://www.biobees.com

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,217

    Default

    >There is no such thing as 'immunity' to mites.

    Dogs have immunity to mites. Dogs that don't have this get mange. I often wonder if bees CAN have immunity to mites and this might be part of the whole SMR genetics is that the mites can't reproduce because of an immune response by the larvae.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Reno, NV USA
    Posts
    2,310

    Default

    buckbee,

    "I would go back rather further - to the 1850s at least, when Langstroth popularized the concept of movable frames, which made it easy for beekeepers to interfere with the brood nest with almost no understanding of what they were doing. Even after 150 years, many beekeepers really don't understand the stresses they cause to colonies by opening them unnecessarily, moving frames around and moving hives across the country; not to mention the imposition of single-size foundation and the thermodynamic inefficiency of the whole framed hive concept.
    Yes, globalization is greatly to blame, as is the greed and irresponsibility of some beekeepers who imported stock which should not have been imported. But ultimately, I still believe it is down to our relationship with nature: we are only just emerging from the Genesis/Victorian attitude that we should have dominion over the birds and the beasts."


    It may very well be that we are stressing our bees to death but its a difficult hypothesis to test empirically because everything could be called a stress. If you consider man made devices and interventions the stresses that kill bees, the null hypothesis would be that bees untouched by man will be healthy. The feral colonies in this country have been killed off at an alarming rate. I can't imagine that formic acid, fluvalinate, organophosphates, menthol, paradichlorobenzene, tetracycline, etc, are good for the bees but they might be better than varroa, foulbrood, moths, and tracheal mites. Nature is not concerned about the survival of the honey bee. Nature has no compassion. If the bee goes extinct and man with it then so be it.

    "The native bees in Japan learned how to 'cook' hornets without our help. I have seen bees doing the same thing to a queen, when it was badly handled by a clumsy beekeeper, making it smell wrong. They already know how to do this and it won't take many reminders for them to recover the knowledge, I imagine. In any case, is there a gene for this behaviour?"

    It is true that the Japanese honey bee is not likely to have a single gene responsible for its defensive response to the hornets.

    [COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]There is no such thing as 'immunity' to mites. You may as well try to breed sheep that are 'immune' to wolves. Immunity to bacteria, yes, but that is a different matter altogether.[/COLOR]

    I also don't agree with your statement. Let me give a hypothetical example. Let's say that mites require enzyme-X that bees don't need. A bee is then engineered to express an abundance of enzyme-X antagonist. The mite then starts to feed on the bee and subsequently dies after its first meal. If you want to argue that in this example the act of the mite feeding means that the bee is not immune, I would submit that our flu vaccines don't prevent the initial infection either yet we are said to be immune. The virus infects some cells in the sinuses where they are then met by T-cells, macrophages and antibodies. The initial infection is contained and the immunization is considered effective.

    Thanks everyone for the exchanges. Iron sharpens iron.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Totnes, Devon, England
    Posts
    1,020

    Default GM vs natural methods of beekeeping

    It may very well be that we are stressing our bees to death but its a difficult hypothesis to test empirically because everything could be called a stress. If you consider man made devices and interventions the stresses that kill bees, the null hypothesis would be that bees untouched by man will be healthy. The feral colonies in this country have been killed off at an alarming rate.
    However, those feral bees are far from being untouched by man insofar as - in the USA at least - all of those feral colonies originated from hived colonies, as the honeybee is not native to North America. There are those who question the observation that ferals have, in fact, disappeared. They certainly haven't from my patch.

    I can't imagine that formic acid, fluvalinate, organophosphates, menthol, paradichlorobenzene, tetracycline, etc, are good for the bees but they might be better than varroa, foulbrood, moths, and tracheal mites. Nature is not concerned about the survival of the honey bee. Nature has no compassion. If the bee goes extinct and man with it then so be it.
    Agreed - but we have some say in the matter as things stand and our next move may prove critical.

    (buckbee) There is no such thing as 'immunity' to mites. You may as well try to breed sheep that are 'immune' to wolves. Immunity to bacteria, yes, but that is a different matter altogether.
    I also don't agree with your statement. Let me give a hypothetical example. Let's say that mites require enzyme-X that bees don't need. A bee is then engineered to express an abundance of enzyme-X antagonist. The mite then starts to feed on the bee and subsequently dies after its first meal. If you want to argue that in this example the act of the mite feeding means that the bee is not immune, I would submit that our flu vaccines don't prevent the initial infection either yet we are said to be immune. The virus infects some cells in the sinuses where they are then met by T-cells, macrophages and antibodies. The initial infection is contained and the immunization is considered effective.
    So the wolves die after savaging the sheep... OK, I see your point, but then there is always the danger of that same enzyme having unforeseen side effects. For example, it may interfere with the production of wax; it may trigger some response in wax moth that cause them to become immune to bee venom; it may do something unpleasant to honey... and this is exactly the danger of using a crude and poorly-understood instrument like GM to make apparently innocent changes to one organism and then, ten years down the line, discover that you have accidentally wrecked an entire ecosystem because of some unpredictable mutation or unexpected side-effect. That is why I am wary - yes, fearful even - of people driven by the profit motive - which notoriously blinds people to possible dangers - being allowed, or worse still, encouraged to develop pet projects like 'mite-immune bees' until this science has been around for much longer, has reached a degree of maturity and all the possible dangers are fully understood.

    Before we go down that road, let's fully investigate other ways that bees may be kept that provide the conditions in which they can thrive and be naturally healthy. I suggest that these ways may be cheap, safe and effective and are likely to focus not around new ideas, but concepts that have been circulating for a number of years already. Key to this is looking at the thermodynamics of the hive: varroa cannot reproduce in temperatures in excess of about 96 deg F and high humidity (see http://www.biobees.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=247). This simply requires a different type of hive and greatly reduced interference (aka 'management') of the hive.

    I think it would be very easy to perform a comparative study with Langstroth, horizontal TBHs and Warré hives side-by-side, using the management methods appropriate for each.

    Cheaper than GM, I would think, and a whole lot safer.
    The Barefoot Beekeeper http://www.biobees.com

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Reno, NV USA
    Posts
    2,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buckbee View Post
    However, those feral bees are far from being untouched by man insofar as - in the USA at least - all of those feral colonies originated from hived colonies, as the honeybee is not native to North America. There are those who question the observation that ferals have, in fact, disappeared. They certainly haven't from my patch.



    Agreed - but we have some say in the matter as things stand and our next move may prove critical.





    So the wolves die after savaging the sheep... OK, I see your point, but then there is always the danger of that same enzyme having unforeseen side effects. For example, it may interfere with the production of wax; it may trigger some response in wax moth that cause them to become immune to bee venom; it may do something unpleasant to honey... and this is exactly the danger of using a crude and poorly-understood instrument like GM to make apparently innocent changes to one organism and then, ten years down the line, discover that you have accidentally wrecked an entire ecosystem because of some unpredictable mutation or unexpected side-effect. That is why I am wary - yes, fearful even - of people driven by the profit motive - which notoriously blinds people to possible dangers - being allowed, or worse still, encouraged to develop pet projects like 'mite-immune bees' until this science has been around for much longer, has reached a degree of maturity and all the possible dangers are fully understood.

    Before we go down that road, let's fully investigate other ways that bees may be kept that provide the conditions in which they can thrive and be naturally healthy. I suggest that these ways may be cheap, safe and effective and are likely to focus not around new ideas, but concepts that have been circulating for a number of years already. Key to this is looking at the thermodynamics of the hive: varroa cannot reproduce in temperatures in excess of about 96 deg F and high humidity (see http://www.biobees.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=247). This simply requires a different type of hive and greatly reduced interference (aka 'management') of the hive.

    I think it would be very easy to perform a comparative study with Langstroth, horizontal TBHs and Warré hives side-by-side, using the management methods appropriate for each.

    Cheaper than GM, I would think, and a whole lot safer.
    I basically agree with you that the technology and the biology of both mite and bee should be much better understood before any gene is introduced. But there is no such thing as fully understood. There will always be some risk. If we knew that, because of common usage of antibiotics, super bugs would be the result, would we have stopped their development, or should we have stopped? I don't think I would be alive today if it weren't for 20th century medical advances. Maybe someone could have bled me, but I doubt that it would have helped. A lot of spooky research went into the medical advances and I am sure there were detractors. A little wisdom is needed, but we shouldn't stop in our tracks either because we are fearful.
    Also, I think you may be a little overly optimistic about pest remediation by more conventional means. I do, however, hope that you are right.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Almeria, Andalucia, Spain
    Posts
    29

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by HVH View Post
    I basically agree with you that the technology and the biology of both mite and bee should be much better understood before any gene is introduced.
    And what makes you think you have the right to do so when so many of us non scientists without any job that needs this research for their living are against it???

    Quote Originally Posted by HVH View Post
    Also, I think you may be a little overly optimistic about pest remediation by more conventional means. I do, however, hope that you are right.
    Or maybe you are being a little overly pessimistic! :mad:

    Science is too important to be left to the scientists!

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hirschbach, Bavaria, Germany
    Posts
    643

    Default

    Haven´t we learned anything about messing with Mother Nature. If we breed chickens for larger breasts they die because thier hearts and feet cannot keep up. Then we panic about global warming and low and behold after Gore wins the Nobel award for championing the cause we discover that the global temps are dropping and the pölar caps are growing again. Nature will balence herself out it will just take her longer if we keep throwing boulders in her way!

    If you think man can fix a preceived problem nature has, you have too much faith in man, and you will only be dissappointed!

    Leave it alone!
    Procrastination is the assassination of inspiration.
    www.customwoodkitsinternational.com

  17. #57
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,598

    Default

    >we discover that the global temps are dropping and the pölar caps are growing again

    I'm curious where you obtained this piece of trivia
    a source perhaps??

    Dave

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Reno, NV USA
    Posts
    2,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dinor View Post
    And what makes you think you have the right to do so when so many of us non scientists without any job that needs this research for their living are against it???



    Or maybe you are being a little overly pessimistic! :mad:

    Science is too important to be left to the scientists!
    I've really tried to be balanced in my position here and am hoping that others can be a little more philosophical. I don't have any more trust in scientists than anyone else does on this thread and I am one (it's not just scientists as much as mankind in general). But let's not travel the same road as the PETA activist donned in glasses, leather shoes, and cosmetics. As I have stated before, if science has been your enemy, I challenge you to throw away everything you owe to science. Do any of you take any medications, have you ever had any surgeries or seen a doctor for anything? Any electronics equipment in the house? Actually, you don't need to throw the electronics equipment (stove, oven, microwave, stereo, refrigerator, freezer, TV, telephone, computer, lights, etc.........) away because you couldn't power them without the wiring. No sense in pulling the wires out of your walls either, because you wouldn't have a house. So, it's time to strip nude, and head for the hills (no car, buddy, you're going to have to walk). Take a nice rock along to sharpen your sticks because you are going to need them.
    I don't normally respond so forcefully, but I really don't understand some of the posts I have been reading. I completely anticipated the resistance that some would offer up and think that is part of a good dialectic. But I have been a little surprised by the ad hominem attack against science and technology. I hope some of you that think all of science is bad and that scientists are responsible for screwing up our planet will take a little inventory of what science has done to make your life better. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Almeria, Andalucia, Spain
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HVH View Post
    I've really tried to be balanced in my position here...................
    In your own biased way IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by HVH View Post
    ...... I don't have any more trust in scientists than anyone else does on this thread and I am one.............
    Enough said then! At least that is honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by HVH View Post
    ....I challenge you to throw away everything you owe to science. Do any of you take any medications, have you ever had any surgeries or seen a doctor for anything? Any electronics equipment in the house? Actually, you don't need to throw the electronics equipment (stove, oven, microwave, stereo, refrigerator, freezer, TV, telephone, computer, lights, etc.........) away because you couldn't power them without the wiring. No sense in pulling the wires out of your walls either, because you wouldn't have a house. So, it's time to strip nude, and head for the hills (no car, buddy, you're going to have to walk). Take a nice rock along to sharpen your sticks because you are going to need them.
    That's nonsense and you know it! To equate changing the gene structure of a species that has taken nature over a million years to perfect with simple invention and discovery is just you trying to justify your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by HVH View Post
    I hope some of you that think all of science is bad and that scientists are responsible for screwing up our planet will take a little inventory of what science has done to make your life better. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
    Maybe not, but scientists have played their part. And as for biting the hand that feeds me, huh! Get over yourself! You think you are so important but the world would do just OK without the likes of you or me for that matter.

    Why not leave this to those beekeepers who are looking for a natural solution to this problem! (Is there a smilie for rhetorical, maybe this one )

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,217

    Default

    >Take a nice rock along to sharpen your sticks because you are going to need them.

    Your assumptions of lack of sophistication in primitive living show that you obviously know nothing of "primitive" cultures or "primitive" life...
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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