Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Winter losses vs. Summer gains

180K views 644 replies 60 participants last post by  Oldtimer 
#1 ·
From time to time, there are complaints that there is too much bickering and arguing and people aren't getting to talk about what they want. Well, I can't do anything about that, people are people.

But what I can do and what I like to do is answer questions. So I want to give everybody the free and explicit opportunity to ask serious questions. If you want to be treatment-free, or if you are weighing your options, ask away. I want to help you. I'm not going to be answering challenges or defending my methods or viewpoint. I want to help you if you want to be helped. I want to tell you what you want to know, not what you want to hear. I had tons of questions and many of them will be the same ones you are asking now. You can even go back to 2003 and see them for yourself in the archives.

So ask away. You have my ear.
 
#523 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

I've purchased BeeWeaver packages since I'm convinced that it's far better to start with resistant stock, or better yet, feral colonies, than it is to try and 'Bond' your way to resistant stock.

I've since discovered that there is a small but significant amount of African genetics in BeeWeavers.

I did put PF120's small cell medium frames in my supers. 4.9mm seems to be the natural cell size for Africanized bees.

To my disappointment, they're building ladder comb between PF120 frames in the mediums (again).

Different stock, same problem.
 
#524 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

I did put PF120's small cell medium frames in my supers. 4.9mm seems to be the natural cell size for Africanized bees.

To my disappointment, they're building ladder comb between PF120 frames in the mediums (again).

Different stock, same problem.
Part of it is just stupid plastic frames with their thin top bar thickness causes more bridge comb and laddering.

Shaving the end bars down to 1 1/4" spacing and sticking an extra frame in the box helps. I find smaller bees do better with tighter spacing.

Anonymous regards
 
#526 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Mr. Parker; If it is small cell that makes the difference, how do all of the beekeepers that have bees on 5.2 and larger have bees that survive? There are many Arkansas beekeepers that do not treat or seldom treat that have colonies survive for several years.
 
#528 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Mr. Parker; If it is small cell that makes the difference, how do all of the beekeepers that have bees on 5.2 and larger have bees that survive? There are many Arkansas beekeepers that do not treat or seldom treat that have colonies survive for several years.
I know. Yet you say yours don't. How do you explain that? I've seen it go both ways around here. I'm looking for a hypothesis which explains the data.



Yes, I use a jointer (which I encouraged you to buy for the same purpose if my memory is correct).
Same thing, I found one on Craig's List.
 
#529 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

My Bond Yard was started in 2006 with 12 colonies on Pierco plastic foundations and standard was foundation and have not been managed in any way. As of last week there are still 6 colonies that are alive. How many of your small cell colonies that have been left completely alone are still alive and how many years have they been that way?
 
#530 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

All of my colonies are small cells, ~32 as of this writing. I don't know what to do with "left completely alone" as I keep bees like any other normal person. I do not split for mite control. About 50-60% of hives are not interfered with in a given year other than occasional inspections and then honey collection in June. There is little to no inspection done between June and September in this locale.

I can say off hand, at least five hives have not been much messed with in the last two years. I have one hive that has been treatment-free for ten years, never requeened.

So your Bond yard was not small cell? Any splitting at all? Any management?
 
#532 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

No, my bond yard is standard cell foundation,wax and plastic, and have had no feeding, requeening or other manipulations, except for removing a queen or two for breeders. They have just sat in place and I have watched the entrances to see if they have survived winters and drouths. They have produced swarms, some I caught, others I did not. My purpose in making the yard a bond yard was to see how long colonies could survive with no help from beekeepers and how successful they would be in requeening themselves.

This yard is the last registered yard north of Mtn. View and it is bordered by Government lands. The closest registered yard is my home yard and it is 4.5 miles away according to a GPS.
 
#533 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

I should have come to visit you when I was in your neck of the woods the other week.

That's an interesting experiment, but I'm a beekeeper, I keep bees. That involves a lot more than just stacks of boxes in the corner of the yard as you know. If I did that, I'd be accused of being a bee haver.
 
#537 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

>In the third year and fourth year you will experience a 100 % loss.

On large cells it did not take that long. Two was sufficient. But on small cell it didn't happen. Not in the third, or the fourth, or the fifth or the sixth or the seventh or the eighth or the ninth or the tenth or the eleventh...

>To my disappointment, they're building ladder comb between PF120 frames in the mediums (again).

On any frame with a thin top bar (plastic or otherwise, small cell or large cell) the bees will connect between the boxes. This is a well known phenomena and has been documented since the late 1800.

Thick top bars:
a quick search of 50 years among the bees turns it up on page 46.

"When attending that same convention that very practical Canadian bee-keeper, J.B. Hall, showed me his thick top-bars, and told me that they prevented the building up of so much burr-comb between the top-bars and the sections. Although I made no immediate practical use of this knowledge, it had no little to do with my using thick top-bars afterwards. i was at that time using the Heddon slat honey-board (Fig. 6) and the use of it with the frames I then had was a boon. It kept the bottoms of the sections clean, but when it was necessary to open the brood-chamber there was found a solid mass of honey between the honey-board and the top bars. It was something of a nuisance, too, to have this extra part in the way, and I am very glad that at the present day it can be dispensed with by having top-bars 1-1/8 inch wide and 7/8 inch thick, with a space of 1/4 inch between top-bar and section. Not that there is an entire absence of burr-combs, but near enough to it so that one can get along much more comfortably than with the slat honey-board. At any rate there is no longer the killing of bees that there was every day the dauby honey-board was replaced."--C.C. Miller, Fifty Years Among the Bees.

"Q. Do you believe that a half-inch thick brood-frame top-bar will tend to prevent the bees building burr-comb on such frames, as well as the three-quarter inch top-bar? Which kind do you use?

A. I do not believe that the one-half inch will prevent burr-
combs quite as well as the three-quarter. Mine are seven-eighths."--C.C. Miller, A Thousand Answers to Beekeeping Questions

>Mr. Parker; If it is small cell that makes the difference, how do all of the beekeepers that have bees on 5.2 and larger have bees that survive?

In my experience they are still fighting Varroa on 5.4mm. Some of them surviving isn't everything.

>This is technically and practically impossible.
>He may say I have him wrong; but I think he'd agree that genetics are always relevant

Relevant to survival against Varroa? Not in my experience. Relevant to winter survival? Most definitely. Relevant to general health? Most definitely.
 
#539 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

[...]
This is technically and practically impossible.
>He may say I have him wrong; but I think he'd agree that genetics are always relevant

Relevant to survival against Varroa? Not in my experience. Relevant to winter survival? Most definitely. Relevant to general health? Most definitely.
It surprises me to hear you say that. Do you have no belief at all in the genetic nature of the 'hygienic' traits of grooming, allogrooming, uncapping, undertaking that (many well qualified folks) talk about?

Would it be fair to hypothesise that you have bred, or are working with, bees that rely on a small cell mechanism, whereas others' bees rely on different mechanisms to manage varroa?

Mike (UK)
 
#538 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Oldtimer said : ..."some TF beekeepers are finding they handle mites regardless of genetics."

Mike Bispham replied: "This is technically and practically impossible... There is no 'regardless of genetics.' Genetics is always there, whether you appreciate the fact or not.

Adam Foster Collins suggests:

Sometimes the genetics that tip the scales in favor of colony survival could in fact be the genetics of the mites. It is possible that in some cases, it may be the mite population that is adjusting itself to find a balance with the host on which their lives depend...

Adam
 
#540 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Adam Foster Collins suggests:

Sometimes the genetics that tip the scales in favor of colony survival could in fact be the genetics of the mites. It is possible that in some cases, it may be the mite population that is adjusting itself to find a balance with the host on which their lives depend...
One of the 'hygienic' mechanisms that seems most useful is that of 'uncapping'. Here bees detect mites in the capped cells, uncap and remove them. The more interesting part is this: they only detect those mites that have large families. If there are lots of mites in the cells they have a higher chance of being detected. (Having large families is called 'fecundity')

This is 'selection' against large families. And strains of mite that have large families do the most damage - because they can build up explosively. So in effect the bees are 'breeding' less fecund strains of mite, which they can live with.

That's an elegant solution, and also an example of co-evolution. Those mites that have large families tend to kill their hosts. In protected apiaries that doesn't matter, because they can spread into the next hive, but in more natural settings that tends to end the fecund strains.

In nature everything is trying to extract as much energy from wherever it can get it, and convert that energy to newborns just as fast as it can. That's the name of the game. Most things specialise one way or another (because that pays off in the energy-extraction-to-newborns-game - there is never another reason). And everything constantly, constantly evolves, to and fro, over and back, as advantages are gained and lost in extraction or defence of energy. Predator and prey consantly evolve (the 'arms race')

That's co-evolution. Its a fact of life, as certain as gravity. Genetics are the mechanism by which things are built. Things with the right sort of blueprints are built to suit the present resources and predators, and to compete well with brothers, sisters, cousins and further relatives, will do better than things built badly. The eternal competition for energy sorts the winners from the losers, and the better suited genes go forward into the next generation.

That's the deal. That's the mechanism of life. Fiddle with it - or don't - at your peril. Its always there.

Successful husbandrymen know this. They may not know much about the detail, but they understand the importance of 'putting best to best'. As John Kefuss says, you don't need to know how an aeroplane works to fly in one.

Mike (UK)
 
#544 ·
One of the 'hygienic' mechanisms that seems most useful is that of 'uncapping'. Here bees detect mites in the capped cells, uncap and remove them. The more interesting part is this: they only detect those mites that have large families.
Mike do you know this, or is it one of your theories presented as if fact?

That's not the way varroa specific uncapping behaviour works over here, so can you link something authoritative to back your claim?

.
 
#611 ·
Mike[/QUOTE]

Mike do you know this, or is it one of your theories presented as if fact?

That's not the way varroa specific uncapping behaviour works over here, so can you link something authoritative to back your claim?

.
Oldtimer... Fact : I see it all the time.
 
#549 ·
Oldtimer is clearly a good and experienced beekeeper who has provided a wealth of information to this forum about all things beekeeping. It's mid winter down there and up in NYC school hasn't started yet. Obviously a couple of guys with a lot of time on their hands. :D
 
#553 ·
Thanks guys. :)

Interesting post Daniel, although not quite what I was talking about. Mike and I were discussing his claim re large mite families. You say I should do my homework on it, I have indeed done my homework on it, it's something I've been looking into for a while now. Which is how I know he is mistaken.
It's really a storm in a teacup, but since people are commenting but don't know what the debate actually is, what happened was -

Mike said- "One of the 'hygienic' mechanisms that seems most useful is that of 'uncapping'. Here bees detect mites in the capped cells, uncap and remove them. The more interesting part is this: they only detect those mites that have large families". (highlighting mine)

I said I think the statement is not correct, I was specifically referring to the part I have highlighted. I asked for evidence to back the statement.

Mike didn't think he needed to supply evidence, I thought he should, argument ensued.



Probably I was foolish to press the matter, but on the other hand I don't think people should give their own (wrong) theories as if fact and refuse to be questioned.

Since it's turned into such a big deal, I'll let it go. But if Mike wishes, and does find anything on it and is able to present in a friendly way, I will still be happy to discuss.
 
#557 ·
Mike and I were discussing his claim re large mite families. You say I should do my homework on it, I have indeed done my homework on it, it's something I've been looking into for a while now. Which is how I know he is mistaken.

Mike said- "One of the 'hygienic' mechanisms that seems most useful is that of 'uncapping'. Here bees detect mites in the capped cells, uncap and remove them. The more interesting part is this: they only detect those mites that have large families". (highlighting mine)

I said I think the statement is not correct, I was specifically referring to the part I have highlighted. I asked for evidence to back the statement.

Mike didn't think he needed to supply evidence[
I think what I said was some thing along the lines of, since you can't be civil, find it yourself. Anyway, some links and further reading with insights below. Note the quote from the 3rd link, which I think substantiates my claim.

(Search was: "bees uncapping, hygiene")

http://www.apidologie.org/articles/...7/Apidologie_0044-8435_1998_29_3_ART0007.html

http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/genetic_aspects_queen_production_3.html

http://www.extension.org/pages/30361/varroa-sensitive-hygiene-and-mite-reproduction

"We have observed that VSH bees respond vigorously to highly infested brood (e.g. 15–25 mites per 100 capped cells) that is transferred into the colony (Fig. 4). They uncap and remove many mite-infested pupae quickly. They respond with much less intensity to brood with low infestation rates (1–5 mites per 100 capped cells), probably because the chemical signals that trigger removal are less concentrated and harder to detect."

Now, before anyone starts throwing tantrums, the bit about 'bees effectively breeding less fecund mites' was my own interpretation of what is going on. I don't know if this has occurred to anyone else, but seems obvious to me that given that they are selecting highly reproductive mites for removal and letting less fecund mites go, that will be the effect. If you don't have a breeder-brain maybe its not obvious. Take it or leave it, for sure someone will poke fun at it.

Link on to selecting for VSH here: http://www.extension.org/pages/30984/selecting-for-varroa-sensitive-hygiene

Good overview of US breeding programs, 2010
http://www.altigoo.com/IMG/pdf/Rinderer--Breeding_for_Resistance_to_Varroa_Destructor.pdf

This covers some distinct points:

Host adaptations reduce the reproductive success of Varroa
destructor in two distinct European honey bee populations
Barbara Locke1, Yves Le Conte2, Didier Crauser2 & Ingemar Fries1

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.248/full

"In Avignon, France and in Gotland, Sweden, Varroa miteresistant
honey bee colonies reduce the average reproductive
success of their infesting mites by about 30% compared to local
control colonies. Although these resistant populations are
genetically unrelated and separated by over 2000 km, natural
selection has in both cases resulted in the reduce reproductive
success of this parasitic mite.

From an evolutionary perspective, the Varroa mite’s strict
dependence on its host’s biology causing a reduction in host
fitness from parasitic infestation has imposed strong selective
pressures leading to a coevolutionary arms race. In most
cases of coevolution, parasites will have an evolutionary advantage
above their host due to their faster evolution caused
by a shorter generation time (Hafner et al. 1994; Schmid-
Hempel 2010).However, in this particular system, V. destructor
is of clonal origin in Europe with low genetic variation
(Solignac et al. 2005). In addition, the honey bee has 10 times
higher genetic recombination levels than any higher order eukaryote
analyzed thus far (Beye et al. 2006). These aspects
may have provided the honey bee with an evolutionary advantage
in the arms race with V. destructor, an arms race that possibly is in the hosts favor, with mite adaptations limited.
A counter-adaptation could be expected according to coevolution
theory (Thompson 1994; Schmid-Hempel 2010)
but with the lack of genetic diversity among mites this may
take a long time. On the other hand, the adapted resistance in
these two honey bee populations has evolved incredible fast
by natural selection.
Mechanistic explanations of the bees’ ability to suppress
mite reproductive success remain unknown. Both the
Avignon and Gotland populations have experienced similar
selection pressures of natural mite infestation that is unique
compared to most other European honey bee populations
due to apicultural management and both have evolved a similar
colony-level mite-resistant trait. However, these populations
have different life-history traits and different environmental
factors that would also be involved in their adaptive
responses to the mite pressure. The evolved mechanisms behind
the ability to suppress reproductive success of mites
may differ between these two distinct populations. In general,
one may expect different traits to be favored in different
populations living in distinct environments even with similar
natural selection pressures, especially in traits involved
in coevolutionary relationships (Thompson 1999). Although
the two populations have clearly both evolved the ability to
reduce mite reproductive success, the between-population
differences are less clear. Therefore, more detailed investigations
are necessary to identify and tease apart the possible
mechanistic differences.
A suggested mechanism involved in reducing the mite’s
reproductive success could be for example, the adult bee
behavior known as Varroa-sensitive hygiene (VSH), which
involves the uncapping or removal of mite-infested brood
(Harbo and Harris 2005; Ibrahim and Spivak 2006). It has
been shown that bee colonies expressing this behavioral trait
may selectively remove pupae with reproducing mites resulting
in the remaining infested cells having a misrepresented
higher proportion of infertilemites (Harbo and Harris 2005;
Ibrahim and Spivak 2006). This could potentially be a mechanism
of the Avignon population, in light of the observed high
mite infertility rates. Since the Gotland population does not
demonstrate hygienic behavior (Locke and Fries 2011) nor
had significantly high proportions of infertile mites, there is
no reason to suspect that they are expressing VSH. Instead,
the suppression of mite reproductive success in Gotland may
be due to another mechanism, such as pupal volatile compounds
that can inhibit the initiation of egg-laying of mites
(Garrido and Rosenkranz 2003; Milani et al. 2004).
Besides suppressing mite reproduction, both Varroaresistant
European honey bee populations in this study also
share the fact that they have been unmanaged, enabling natural
selection (as opposed to artificial) to shape the evolution
of their mite resistance. This is an important consideration
since it highlights the impact that apicultural practices otherwise have on these host–parasite interactions (Fries and
Camazine 2001), suggesting a human interference in coevolution
between species."

I will still be happy to discuss.
I'll believe that when I see it.

Mike (UK)
 
#554 ·
Fair enough. here is the page from my Google search for "Uncapping Behavior"
http://www.searchya.com/?q=uncappin...F1F1C1N1V0Q2Y1L1R1J0T1L1H1P&cr=1541620277&ir=

I genuinely offer it in the interest of discussion of the topic. all the other chatter can fall away but the topic is interesting and I believe important to improvement of beekeeping. the more that beekeepers understand the better they can become.

Sorry that I am not able to sort out links more specific to population of mites in relation to uncapping but my daughter will be boarding a plane in a few hours to Oregon. she will be gone a week and got up early to say goodbye.

I know I am aware of the problem with the bees detecting the mites but cannot recall where exactly I read it. In all If VSH ever makes progress it will only be after traversing a very rugged road to get there.
 
#555 ·
#556 ·
By the way Daniel the genes you referred to as recessive, that is not strictly the case. More accurately, this behaviour involves quite a few genes, I have heard as many as 27. However the precise number is not certain it is not yet fully understood.

Bee genetics is a little different in some ways. In regards to VSH behaviours, the genes involved are not recessive in the same way the term is often used in relation to say, humans. It is more that they can be "crowded", or have to appear in certain combinations.

And no I don't have a link for any of that LOL :D

It may be taken with a grain of salt if you wish. :)
 
#558 ·
> I don't know if this has occurred to anyone else, but seems obvious to me that given that they are selecting highly reproductive mites for removal and letting less fecund mites go, that will be the effect.

I did not originate the idea, by any means, but I've been saying that for more than a decade now...

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

" 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 Bush

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

"The only way to have a sustainable system of beekeeping is to stop treating. Treating is a death spiral that is now collapsing. To leverage this, though you really need to raise your own queens from local surviving bees. Only then can you get bees who genetically can survive and parasites that are in tune with their host. As long as we treat we get weaker bees who can only survive if we treat, and stronger parasites who can only survive if they breed fast enough to keep up with our treatments. No stable relationship can develop until we stop treating. "--Michael Bush
 
#561 ·
>
"The only way to have a sustainable system of beekeeping is to stop treating.
Michael, I've stripped the nuance from your quote, because the opening sentence is what new beekeepers invariably hear. (including some of the most vociferous types on this thread).

I maintain asking backyard beekeepers to sustain the massive, predictable losses that their implementation of this idea invariably results in is wasteful and counterproductive.

I maintain that rationalized and directed selection has been the system with which early modern agriculture has adopted to novel parasites. Directed selection requires 1) indentification of desirable traits, 2) amplification of these traits, 3) and backcrosses to mix with other selected traits.

For bees (like most other out-crossing species), isolation and saturation are essential to creating local races.

There is enormous inertia in species, they revert to type in unbounded outcrossing populations. Moving the whole genome en bloc and en mass is enormously difficult and wasteful. We can also anticipate (viz. AHB) that local racial adaptation fixes very undesirable traits.

If small beekeepers want to participate in genetic selection, they should confederate as part of a larger program. Not all apiaries are situated to benefit from wildings-type out-crossing. The prescription to "not treat to get to not treating" is inappropriate for these apiaries.
 
#562 ·
Mike will correct me if I am wrong but I believe he states that he lost all of his bees when he was treating and (possibly) once since which he attributes to being away from the country for most of a year. Pretty sure he has said that he repopulated with packages. I asked once if they were from a tf producer and never got a reply.
 
#560 ·
OK well thanks for providing a link Mike Bispham, in a friendly way, other than the "if you don't have a breeder brain" put down, it was helpful.

The link in fact proves what I have been trying to get across, that bees do not ONLY uncap large families, as per your original assertion. The reason this matters, is for VSH by uncapping to be effective, it is necessary for the bees to do it early in the lifecycle, before there is a large family that would be released by the uncapping. There may be a number of mechanisms in a number of bee populations around the world, but what has been shown to be happening in the NZ VSH bees that are being developed, is the bees uncap the cell while the mite family is small, in fact before she has laid a female egg, which lets the mother out so it interrupts her breeding attempt, then they re cap the cell, without having to kill the larva.

The reason it is important, if you are into this stuff, to know that bees do not only uncap large mite families, is that if that's all our own VSH ones did, it probably wouldn't work as there would already be a large mite family, and the uncapping would be too late to prevent that.

My understanding, taken from the seminar I went to run by the scientists and breeders involved in the program, is that this is how it works for the VSH population being developed here. There are also other VSH mechanisms in other places and perhaps you are more familiar with those.

This post, and the post I wrote Daniel, is based on information I got at that seminar and discussions afterwards, it is not from the net. So cannot provide any links, but there is a genuine reason for that. I guess I know my fellow NZ beeks who also attended the seminar will probably read my post, so that knowledge would be an incentive to keep me honest.

So, you may take it as opinion and a grain of salt if you wish.

If you read enough of my past posts you will see I have often been asked to provide supporting links for things, and if I can I have done so, rather than try and avoid it by name calling and abuse, which is pointless.
 
#563 ·
The reason it is important, if you are into this stuff, to know that bees do not only uncap large mite families, is that if that's all our own VSH ones did, it probably wouldn't work as there would already be a large mite family, and the uncapping would be too late to prevent that.
Not if the infant mites are too young to survive outside the cell.

My understanding, taken from the seminar I went to run by the scientists and breeders involved in the program, is that this is how it works for the VSH population being developed here. There are also other VSH mechanisms in other places and perhaps you are more familiar with those.
There seems to be a consensus that there are a range of mechanisms, often requiring several genes, and that just a few patrilines with those genes is often sufficient. Varroa resistance comes from a collection of behaviours, perhaps unique to each colony. Nobody knows the whole story.

I don't bother keeping up to speed with all this, for the reason John Kefuss gives: you don't need to know. Let the bees/natural selection figure out how to handle mites. With that said I may work up a freeze-brood testing set next year and give it a go. It might speed things along. But while I'm interested I'm not going to get into a close discussion of the mechanisms. I have better calls on my time. The bees can breed the mites they want; I'll breed the bees I want.

Mike (UK)
 
#565 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Actually Mike I dont think I've belittled you at all, that really is the pot calling the kettle black

I guess I just can't stand the way you talk down to people.
You have a very condescending and arrogant way of posting. Especially considering you have been beekeeping with mites for what... 2 years at most?

Sorry to make it personal but geez you wind me up :rolleyes:
 
#566 · (Edited)
Re: Ask Questions Here!

You have a very condescending and arrogant way of posting. Especially considering you have been beekeeping with mites for what... 2 years at most?
25 years was I think the recent guestimate. On and off, yes. But more or less continuous study, thousands - yes thousands - of hours of it, getting a tight grip on my topic.

There's a big cultural gap between popular and academic modes of discussion.

And people who gang up to belittle a person rather than fight on grounds of reason have been a pet hate of mine for a long long time. I respond to bullies by doing my best to make them look silly.

Sorry to make it personal but geez you wind me up :rolleyes:
Try to focus on the content, not its form. Its a big world and not everybody works the same way as you. However: attacking the arguments effectively gains you respect everywhere; attacking the man is universally contemptable. Playground bullying tactics from adults are beneath contempt. Everywhere.

What most of us are here for is earnest and honest dialogue leading to the acquisition of genuine knowledge. We can spot less than e & h dialogue a mile off, and we despise it because it gets in the way of our aims and goals. It couldn't be more anti-social. You can have good conversation, constructive dialogue and fun at the same time. But you have to play cricket, as we Brits say.

Mike (UK)
 
#569 ·
You posted here that you quit bees when varroa arrived on your shores and had taken it up again a couple of years ago.

My question was how long have you been keeping bees with varroa not how long have you been keeping bees.


Without going back through my posts to you I don't thinkI've been "playing the man" I think I've asked questions and queried your replys but I've never talked down to you the way you talk down to everyone who has a different point of view than yours.

I thought Solomon was hard enough to get my head round be he has nothing on you.

I don't know where you are coming from or what your motivations are but I will be really interested to see where you are in 2 years on your TF journey.
 
#573 ·
We can read that: 'The objective of my posts is to stop people (like Mike Bispham) from discussing or promulgating non-treatment methods'.

That's been pretty obvious for some time. And your methods are pretty despicable.

Mike
 
#575 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Mike, we wait another four years and see then how far you have come. At least you have some bees now. Now that is a start to work from. Good luck.
And as we watch things unfold we are free to discuss, openly, honestly, earnestly, our beliefs about the mechanisms that govern bee health? No more hidden agendas? No more evasiveness? No more playground tactics? Is that your proposition?

Mike?
 
#578 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

I'm with Bernhard It's all very well to read and study but you wont be taken seriously until you actually keep bees treatment free for a few years.
It's ridiculous for you to keep spouting forth about stuff you have read but havn't actually tried much less acheived.

As much as Solomon winds me up at least he's actually doing the beekeeping.

No one can take anyone seriously when they post about their success with treatment free beekeeping methods after less than 2 years !

And you need to stop with poor me I'm being picked on nonsense. Anyone that can read will have read your posts and will know whats been said by who.

As I've said before come back and give me advice when you have kept bees treatment free for a couple more years and I will pay attention but right now you are just a bag of wind.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top