Live and Let Die - Do you really reduce the gene pool?

[squarepeg]

I was concerned about that with my hot hive this spring. They were exceedingly good at producing drones.



Yes to both. Now that I am producing a significant number of my own queens, any requeening is done in the late spring in hives already not having brought any honey in and/or failed to build up. I didn't used to do requeening at all, only splitting and dying.

I see your point though, it's less utilitarian, and I'm doing it less. But going into fall, there's just nothing to be done.

got it, thanks sol.

[taydeko]

i am still trying to understand the reasoning behing letting a hive completely die out.

I have no intention of letting colonies die completely if I can help it. I intend to requeen my hot hive as soon as possible. I would think that identifying hives that are not performing in an acceptable manner and requeening them as soon as possible would be preferable to letting the colony die completely if possible.

Ted

[D Semple]

is the hive allowed to die out completely so that is has had it every chance possible to overcome the problem, thereby proving it did indeed have the right stuff?

is it usually in the late fall or winter when they collapse, thereby making it difficult or impossible to requeen?

is there another reason i haven't considered?

Here, my July mite count's are sometimes pretty high (5 - 10%), but then our hot summer 2 - 3 month dearth hits with it's 100 + degree temperatures and the ferals I like shut down brood production and by September often look like they are going to completely die out, but then when our fall flowers come on and they build back up quickly going into winter. And, September mite counts I find to be back below 3%.

I do get a few that don't recover, but I don't let them completely die out (like you and Ted suggest), but just combine them with strong hives after killing the queen and making sure there are no other deseases involved.

I read something by I think either Ross Conrad or Sam Comfort, that said the late summer die back was important. Dee calls it "the fall brood turnover".

Don

[squarepeg]

sorry fellers, perhaps i took 'live and let die' too literally.

[Solomon Parker]

Kevin, as with many labels and assumptions made about TF, those doing it probably didn't come up with them. I don't think I had ever used the term "Treatment-free beekeeping" just a couple years ago. We used to use organic, but then they codified organic in law, then we used natural (My previous website was allnaturalhoney.com) and then somebody came up with Certified Naturally Produced or something like that, then came treatment-free. Then somebody came up with benign. I'm sticking with treatment free for the time being until somebody messes that up too.

[squarepeg]

maybe they won't mess than one up sol.

you may have blown my cover, most assumed 'peg' was a she!

[sqkcrk]

One benefit of you much more experienced beekeepers is great stories of old so-and-so's who did things you ought not to do. Your experience as an inspector provides plenty of those.

I'm glad to see how much you appreciate reading about how things were done back in the olden days.

[sqkcrk]

But I always selected from my "best" colonies, placing an emphasis on 1) survivability,

How are you determining survivability?

[Solomon Parker]

you may have blown my cover, most assumed 'peg' was a she!

I have made such a mistake more than once. Don't worry about it. TFB traffic isn't as high as you might think.

[Beelosopher]

....I also highly recommend this video, from the same conference. Kerstin Ebberston on sustainable breeding practices.

Thanks for the videos - I checked out the Michael Bush video on your site too. Really good stuff.

[squarepeg]

>>We are not talking about natural selection At least I am not . I am talking about breeding. they are not even close to the same. I don't consider the bond method natural selection. I do consider it a selection method and it is almost entirely selection by survival. that is not natural.

hmm, not sure most would agree with that one either dan.

i think the phrase commonly cited is 'natural selection by survival of the fittest'

[Solomon Parker]

i think the phrase commonly cited is 'natural selection by survival of the fittest'

Yeah, exactly what is natural selection if not selection for survival? Really, it's more like *survival until reproduction* but still.

All bees are selected by survival naturally, but many are treated to help them with it. Selection by survival is natural. That's the way it works. It's not the only survival criteria (mating, assuring progeny survive as well, etc.) but neither is Bond Method beekeeping. If you (Dan) are not sure, ask a Bond Method beekeeper because you seem to be a bit misinformed, even after 200 posts in which the issue has been informed many times.

[deknow]

Daniel, you don't need an account to view either of the videos I've posted here.

I know you were asked to repost your response....when you do, please consider the following that you said:

If there are 19 genes in each drone that determine sex. and the queen mates with 10 drones. this means there is a pool of 190 possible genes that determine the sex of every fertile egg in the hive. The chance that a drone will result from a fertile egg is almost impossible.

There are not 19 genes in each drone that determine sex.....there is one allele of one gene in each drone that is the sex determination gene. When you make a mistake in paraphrasing, it is not the fault of the work you are paraphrasing.

deknow

[Oldtimer]

Seems to me the definition of the Bond method is being changed of recent times.

Years ago, what I was reading about on the TF forum, was pretty much leave it alone beekeeping. Any hives that couldn't make it were left to die. Replacements were made by doing walkaway splits from the survivors. This method was regarded as the ultimate, buying in outside bees and queens was frowned on, although through necessity, many did it. The great majority had no interest in raising queens, other than by splitting hives and letting them raise their own.

But this year, Sol discovered how to raise queens, and has realised what a greaty stride forward this is in terms of making increase, or maintaining hive numbers, and even actually selling bees. So now what seems to be getting discussed is deliberately raising queens from a selected breeder, to requeen hives instead of letting them die. So if I've understood that correctly, the Bond method is moving a lot closer to traditional beekeeping, and it's great to see people learning more and using new skills. If the knowledge level in TF beekeeping continues to increase, with people learning and teaching new skills, there will end up little difference in management between the Bond method, and what many commercial beekeepers do.

[squarepeg]

good point oldtimer! how's your spring flow this year?

[Oldtimer]

Well pretty good, although each site will be different to another just a few miles down the road, that's because of the hilly country, various different farming methods used, and the amount of unbroken native bush still in an area.

This year I've been under a lot of pressure with big orders for bees and queens which has stretched me to the limit. But I'm now totally caught up and supplying pretty much on demand, and feeling pretty pleased with myself!

And oh, I've always known you are a guy!

[squarepeg]

oh well, it appears the cat is out of the bag.....

congrats on your success mate. (hopefully nz's use that term)

[Daniel Y]

Daniel, you don't need an account to view either of the videos I've posted here.

I know you were asked to repost your response....when you do, please consider the following that you said:

There are not 19 genes in each drone that determine sex.....there is one allele of one gene in each drone that is the sex determination gene. When you make a mistake in paraphrasing, it is not the fault of the work you are paraphrasing.

deknow

19 genes in each drone was a mistake and should be. 19 possible genes for each drone. sorry I don't have the benefit of an editor. I promise that if I ever write anything official on the subject to employ one. possibly you.
At any rate this entire subject is falling well off the map of this topic. We can beat exact word around to death. either you get the point or you don't. You either agree with it or you don't it really doesn't matter. If you are in fact right and i am wrong then get busy about breeding the better bee. that will matter.

If what I have said is said in such a way that it is nothing more than confusing. that is my lack of ability to make myself clear. So be it. I took my shot at it.

I don't in the end think that any bond method will result in a better bee, and even if it dose you will know nothing about how to do it again. so why be using it in the first place. I can break that sentence down into a very long complex reason I have it. but then nobody would want to take the time to read it anyway. my time will be better spent assessing the link you have provided and gaining some information. Maybe i will be able to apply more of the basics I already know about genetic to the information that is already known about the bee. That is after all what I am really interested in.

In all I am interested in all the confusing stuff. I think I have said that. and I think some of you have provided some sources of that information. I thank you and I ask your forgiveness if my comments in the process have been distracting and confusing.

[Daniel Y]

Okay my comments are obviously not welcome in this conversation anymore. I have far better things to do with myself than spend time writing comments that will just be deleted.

Best of luck getting your better bees through random chance.

[Adam Foster Collins]

Oldtimer,

I suppose I should not have used the "Bond Method" in the thread, as I guess there is some confusion. In truth, the 'real' Bond Method involved, as you say a totally 'hands off' approach. And even if it were practiced, I doubt it would have much effect on the gene pool, as there are usually enough other bees and beekeepers in a given area to keep most of the local genetic material afloat.

With the confines of this thread, or at least my thinking on the subject, I see more people applying a 'live and let die' philosophy to the mite issue alone, and otherwise selecting and breeding and bringing in new queens like anyone else might. And in that sense, I guess you're right. There's little difference between that and what a lot of other operations.

The core difference is just the "letting die" part.

Adam