Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 241 to 260 of 260
  1. #241
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,724

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    If so: the answer to your question is found in the question: how do we preserve that state of affairs?
    Preserving the state of affairs just explains how you are trying to MAINTAIN diversity.

    I still don't understand how removing an item (house, colony, whatever) ends up INCREASING diversity. I don't see you touching on that point, unless I'm missing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    Do we:

    1) adapt widespread treatments that spread treatment-dependency into wild populations, suppressing their numbers and their natural adaptation process, or,

    2) allow the process to play out so that as much as possible locally adapted wild/feral bees everywhere become all but immune to the effects of varroa, and return to the pre-epidemic semi-natural state?
    I'm sorry, but to assume that treating will spread treatment-dependancy into wild colonies is ridiculous. If that was true, you wouldn't be catching any "treatment free" ferals.

    99.8% of the feral population died out as a result of varroa within my state, according to NC State. This state has a decent sized commercial industry that treats regularly. If treating spread treatment-dependancy into the feral populations, within my state the 10,000 treated colonies would have overwhelmed the DCA's, and forced the few hundred (at best) feral colonies to be treatment-dependant, and then die out.

    The simple fact that you claim to be capturing treatment free bees means what has been happening in your area has worked to create resistant stocks.

    But even still, you are ignoring a third option, which is the entire point of this thread:
    3) If treatments make no change in the genetic make-up of a queen, then treating a formerly treatment free queen should have no effects against her other than to remove mites. So, monitor for mites, treat those that are high, and re-queen after. If the colony's genetics were previously identified is mite resistant, and treating has no effects on her genetics, there should be no harm in treating.

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    That would only be the case if no other houses held that component to be copied. What are the chances? (say largest-choice item is 16 options of window patterns: 10,000 houses.... 1:625. Against.
    That's not that bad of odds.

    But still, in moving your analogy to bees, we aren't talking about letting 1 out of 10,000 colonies die out. We are talking about (based on what many others who have gone treatment free before have found) losing 50%, 75%, sometimes 90% of colonies. Assuming we go with the smallest, what are the odds of losing a component if you let 50% of the houses burn down?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    And this: that window pattern can be restored through contact with other towns. Every town in the whole world has the same elements...
    If that's true, there is nothing special about your "area."

    You have stated before that you are in the perfect area to find resistance. A beekeeper's heaven. If the genetics that are available in your area are the same as the genetics in the whole world, what makes your place so special?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    One could think of many ways. By failing to create sufficient alarm in the local press and at oversight level, for example, about the faulty light fitting... more houses burn.
    You are confusing things with third party causal relationships.

    The question was how does putting out a house fire DECREASE the diversity of the houses? If a causal relationship occurred that resulted in more houses being burned down later, the causal relationship was the reason why you had a decrease in house diversity, not putting out the fire.

    Looking at it at the instant, if you put out the house fire, 10 seconds after it's out has the diversity of the houses DECREASED?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    Your argument seems to me to lead to a position where we must always keep all bees alive alive as long as we can, and encourage all of them to reproduce, in order to maintain local (breeding-pool level) diversity.

    Have I got that right?
    I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking how allowing a colony to die increases the genetic diversity of a hive. I'm also asking if treating a treatment free queen changes her genetics.

    Based on my questions, you assume I'm taking a position.

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    PS Has anyone else noticed that Deknow was talking about microbe diversity?
    I didn't notice that. When I asked him to explain, he didn't.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    2,980

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    here is a conversation abotu this that has formed in my head.

    Beekeepers: "Your bees are going to die".
    Me: "Why is that"?
    Beekeepers: "Because they have Varroa mites".
    Me: "So I will kill the mites"
    Beekeepers: "Try as we might we have never found a way to kill the mites, But that is okay because the bees could live with the mites if it where not for all the disease that the mites give to the bees. That is what really kills them".
    Me: "So then I can just cure the diseases that the mites give the bees"?
    Beekeepers: "Oh you don't want to do that".
    Me: "Why not"?
    Beekeeprs: "because that makes bees to weak to withstand diseases".
    Me: "Well that is what I thought you where telling me I already have"?
    Beekeeprs: (Silence)
    Me: "So what do I do about my bees dying"?
    Beekeepers: "You just get more bees".
    Me: "but that is not keeping the bees I have from dying".
    Beekeeprs: Yes it will , by letting your bees die you will end up with bees that can survive".
    Me: "dead bees that survive"? I think this is getting confusing
    Beekeepers: "No not all the bees die. some will survive and you then replace your dead ones with those".
    Me: well then I want the bees that can survive".
    Beekeepers: "Oh, We don't have any of those".
    Me: "what happened to them"?
    Beekeepers: "They got killed by Varroa mite back in 96". "Didn't we tell you that your bees will die because they have Varroa"?
    Stand for what you believe, even if you stand alone.

  3. #243
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    I'm sorry, but to assume that treating will spread treatment-dependancy into wild colonies is ridiculous.
    We need to clear this one up before we can do anything else.

    What would you expect the effect of hundreds of thousands of beekeepers sending drones possessing almost no mite resistant qualities whatsoever into their feral bees is having?

    The wild/feral queens mate with these drones. They produce offspring that consequently have fewer mite-managing patrilines than they would have done had they mated with more resistant drones. These are (much) more likely to perish. The feral population is thus diminished. I don't think that is contraversial [1]

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    If that was true, you wouldn't be catching any "treatment free" ferals.
    In areas where habitat is good and treating beekeepers are absent, or thin on the ground, progress toward resistance through natural selection occurs.

    The closer treating apiaries are, and the more of them there are, the greater the suppressive effect outlined above will be.

    A large treating apiary will force a sort of death ring around itself, decaying outward as the influence of its drones reduces.

    Within this ring escaped swarms will survive for only a short while before perishing. (It isn't hard to imagine: reports of these short-lived colonies reach the beekeeper, who will naturally conclude that ferals are not viable/there has been no rise in feral resistance.)

    Around me are areas representing both extremes and their intersections (the rings).

    Mike (UK)

    [1] It is at least implied here:

    "The course of V. destructor infestation over the years shows similarities to the development observed in a tropical island of Brazil where mite infested European bee
    colonies were left untreated since 1984: after an increase in the infestation levels of the adult bees during the first years the infestation decreased continuously leading to an obviously balanced relationship between host and parasite till today (de Jong and Soares, 1997; de Jong 2005, pers. comm.). Unfortunately, also in this case, the critical factors for this stable situation are unknown.

    Our results allow us to conclude that the problems facing the apicultural industry with mite infestations probably is linked to the apicultural system, where beekeepers remove the selective pressure induced from the parasitism by removing mites through control efforts.

    Survival of mite infested (Varroa destructor) honey bee
    (Apis mellifera) colonies in a Nordic climate
    Ingemar Freis et al
    Apidologie 37 (2006) 564–570 564
    http://www.apidologie.org/articles/a...039/m6039.html
    Last edited by mike bispham; 08-26-2013 at 11:06 AM.
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  4. #244
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Y View Post
    1. this was an actually study that required years to conduct. The question was. how many unrelated pairs of humans would have been required to successfully migrate to the Americas?
    The answer was 67 or 134 unrelated individuals.
    Interesting

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Y View Post
    The analogy to building a house and having a hand full of options does not work. not only is a hand full of options even if you are making thousands of choices not nearly enough.
    My example was:

    "Lets try an analogy: take a finite set of house-making components, say 1000. You have 10 different sorts of bricks, 15 different roof tiles, 8 different curtain colours in 4 different fabrics 5 different sorts of light fittings, and so on. These are the essential components, and the diversity has a figure - 1000."

    This is the first 5 items of 1000 - bricks, tiles, curtain colours, fabrics, light fittings. Just those gives you 10*15*8*4*5 = 24,000 combinations

    Just try to imagine what number of combinations will be presented by 1000 different items, with say an average of 6 choices each! It will, I'm guessing, run into the billions.

    It is that sort of maths that enables us to say of living things that each is an 'individual'. The mathematical probability of any two being identical are so remote as to be discounted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Y View Post
    ...but you are limited to choices of light fixtures that will all short and burn down your house. There is no good choice.
    .

    No - just one of the 5 different sorts is flawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Y View Post
    In addition it is not a matter of how many options are out here among suppliers. it s the choices you have in your apiary.
    ...and which are available from surrounding colonies. Note that in any apiary that has not been subjected to mite pressure (or which has been systematically treated for several generations - it amounts to the same thing) a significant measure of resistance (in the form of one or more of the hygeinic behaviours) can be anticipated in about 10% of colonies. That represents genes held in the background in any population, ready to be 'bought forward' by natural selection as and when that is beneficial.

    So: if you have 20 or so hives there is a good chance you have some good light fittings to hand. But you'll have to apply some skill to bring them forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Y View Post
    You are not building new colonies from the selection the world offers you are building them from the tiny corner hardware store that is your bee yard. The issue is you think that is a first rate hardware store. Most think it does not offer nearly enough options. Real world condition of the Honey Bee indicates the latter is correct.
    My analogy was intended to illustrate how colonies/queens could be lost without diminishing genetic diversity. Its bound to fail at some point if we try to stretch it too far. But: as above, you have wider resources (though they may be less use than you'd hope - or they may be very useful...) and you (in the US) can buy in resistant queens to help the process along/supply a bigger hardware store.

    But I think you are right: an apiary with a narrowish genetic base that has been treated systematically for maybe ten years wouldn't be my first choice of source material to build a resistant line of bees. And that is what is available to most commercial beekeepers. Further, since they've decimated their surrounding ferals, they are not going to get much help from that quarter either.

    I don't know their histories, but my guess is this is something like Specialkayme's and Oldtimer's situations. They tried with poor source stock, and with insufficient understanding of how to maximise their chances and failed. Now they're telling us all its impossible, and defending that position with rationales built on a shaky grasp of the mechanics of population dynamics. That's just my reading.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  5. #245
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking how allowing a colony to die increases the genetic diversity of a hive.
    I was going to stop while you consider my explanation of how treated colonies corrode nearby feral populations; but this shouldn't interfere...

    Not a hive (though that would be the context if we had stuck with Deknow's setting) - a breeding pool.

    Allowing a flawed colony to perish/replacing the queen removes from the breeding pool a genetic influence that is a standing cause of damage - the creation of more unfit bees - when what is needed (to maintain local diversity) is more fit bees. ('fit' = adapted = mite-resistant)

    I can see that if you don't accept the premise that treated bees are a standing cause of damage to wild/feral bees you can't accept this argument.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,724

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    Allowing a flawed colony to perish/replacing the queen removes from the breeding pool a genetic influence that is a standing cause of damage - the creation of more unfit bees - when what is needed (to maintain local diversity) is more fit bees. ('fit' = adapted = mite-resistant)
    Apples and oranges Mike.

    We aren't discussing whether allowing a "bad" colony to die will mean successive generations are better off. We aren't discussing whether it "should" or "shouldn't" happen, or whether the breeding pool is better off for it. I'm asking, very simply, how it is possible to allow a colony to die and yet the death of that colony INCREASES the genetic diversity of the breeding pool. Not maintain the same diversity. Not create better offspring. Just how it increases the genetic diversity of the breeding pool. That's it.

    I really don't understand why/how you are defending this statement.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,724

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    They produce offspring that consequently have fewer mite-managing patrilines than they would have done had they mated with more resistant drones. These are (much) more likely to perish. The feral population is thus diminished.

    . . .

    The closer treating apiaries are, and the more of them there are, the greater the suppressive effect outlined above will be.

    A large treating apiary will force a sort of death ring around itself, decaying outward as the influence of its drones reduces.
    If that was true, over the past 20 years the entire world would be subject to this "death ring" as it spread further and further, as the number of treated colonies outweighed (by a very high margin) non-treated or feral colonies.

    If that was true, the commercial operation to your one side would have contaminated your feral colonies that live on your other side YEARS ago.

    You tell me, on one hand, that the removal of a colony doesn't remove any of the genes from the breeding pool, as they are all still available (although in different combinations). Yet on the other hand, you tell me that we need to remove "treated" colonies from the mix, in order to remove those genes from mating pools so they don't "infect" your feral populations. You don't see the contradiction here?

    To be blunt, this conversation appears to be heading down a spiral toward "get your treatments away from me!" because it's "morally right." This is the exact type of conversation I was attempting to avoid by NOT posting this in the TF section.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Stillwell, KS
    Posts
    645

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    as the number of treated colonies outweighed (by a very high margin) non-treated or feral colonies.
    I've seen this statement made numerous times and while in most areas I'm sure you are correct, here I would say feral colonies at least equal in number managed colonies.


    Don

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,724

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    I have no idea what your area is like. But was it like that 10 or 15 years ago?

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Fort Walton Beach, Florida
    Posts
    1,256

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    One element that doesn't seem to be acknowledged is that treated colonies are also under selective pressure. If 30% of treated colonies are dying every winter, then it seems reasonable to assume that those that remain are more resistant to whatever is killing the colonies in that operation.

    (Unfortunately, this leads me to wonder sometimes if what is being selected for... is the ability to withstand treatment and still be productive.)

    The optimistic view is that eventually varroa mites will become the non-problem that tracheal mites seem to have become, in spite of the great preponderance of treated colonies in the gene pool. I think it's reasonable to assume that selective pressure dealt with tracheal mites successfully, since by the time they arrived in North America, they were no longer the devastating problem that they were for UK beekeepers in the early part of the 20th century.

  11. #251
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    We aren't discussing whether allowing a "bad" colony to die will mean successive generations are better off.
    Perhaps that's what is going wrong. I am. Why shouldn't we? We are talking about the _impact_ on future genetics. Keeping alive weak stock artificially and letting it breed impacts furture genetics. Its all pretty simple really.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    We aren't discussing whether it "should" or "shouldn't" happen, or whether the breeding pool is better off for it.
    Again I am. _IF_ you want to improve your local population's resistance to varroa... We're in the NT forum remember?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    I'm asking, very simply, how it is possible to allow a colony to die and yet the death of that colony INCREASES the genetic diversity of the breeding pool. Not maintain the same diversity. Not create better offspring. Just how it increases the genetic diversity of the breeding pool. That's it.
    By:
    a) stopping the damage that would otherwise have decreased it.

    b) allowing the breeding pool to recover and evolve its previous range of attunement (local diversity).

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  12. #252
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    If that was true, over the past 20 years the entire world would be subject to this "death ring" as it spread further and further, as the number of treated colonies outweighed (by a very high margin) non-treated or feral colonies.
    Exactly this has been recorded in Africa. The death ring spreads out like the first ripple in a pond. Because the African beekeepers were too poor to treat (and perhaps too wise as as well) behind the front wave recovery begins, and things return to normal.

    That's how natural epidemics (that are bourne by physical contact) play out. That's how they've played out since life began.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    If that was true, the commercial operation to your one side would have contaminated your feral colonies that live on your other side YEARS ago.
    You are trying to frame a complex event in simple absolutes again. The commercials have continuously been influencing the wild/feral bees. But, as I've pointed out, at a distance from the commercials the ferals are able to recover by developing mite-management behaviours. At the intersections 'contamination' continues - the genetic influence of artificially preserved colonies makes wild/feral bees non-resistant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    You tell me, on one hand, that the removal of a colony doesn't remove any of the genes from the breeding pool, as they are all still available (although in different combinations).
    I modified that by pointing out that local attunement, which is a from of diversity, can be lost. But yes, the 'bricks' all remain in the population. That's a fact. As long as you have more than a miniscule population, and don't live on an island, there can be no harm in allowing an unfit colony to die. In fact, for the population, it is necessary that they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    Yet on the other hand, you tell me that we need to remove "treated" colonies from the mix, in order to remove those genes from mating pools so they don't "infect" your feral populations. You don't see the contradiction here?
    There is no contradiction at all. Its very very simple. Try to avoid putting in your own descriptions like 'contaminate' and 'infect' - they just confuse matters.

    We have light fittings that work, and light fittings that don't. These are the analogues of alleles, alternative gene-sets, that may be expressed within a population, or may remain in the background, unused. We want to bring the alleles that code for mite-management behaviours 'forward' in the population. That is, where normally only 1 in 10 or 15 colonies carries these alleles and expresses these behaviours, we want all of our bees to carry the alleles and express the behaviours.

    So what we need to do is remove those bees that don't carry these genes from the population, and replace them with bees that do. We want to swap faulty light-bulb fittings for functional ones.

    This is what nature does through natural selection for the fittest strains.

    This is what husbandrymen do through selection and controlled mating.

    Its a straightforward time-tested method of maximising health and productivity in living organisms. Its well understood on a deep scientific level.

    The 'lost' alleles are not lost at all, and so there is no loss of diversity, because - the alternatives are held in the backgound within the population as (mostly) unused genes, just waiting for a time when they will be the better option again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    To be blunt, this conversation appears to be heading down a spiral toward "get your treatments away from me!" because it's "morally right." This is the exact type of conversation I was attempting to avoid by NOT posting this in the TF section.
    We can try harder to avoid that. I agree, lets keep the focus on the mechanics.

    That said: I _do_ want 'you' to keep your treatments away from me - but its for the very good reason that they obstruct my objective - which is, I think a fine objective that in no way damages 'you'.

    It is the case, unfortunately, that 'you' do cause 'me' actual damage. Its a fact. I guess that must be pretty discomforting if you'd never realised it before.

    Mike (UK)
    Last edited by mike bispham; 08-27-2013 at 01:40 AM.
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    5,994

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    It is the case, unfortunately, that 'you' do cause 'me' actual damage. Its a fact. I guess that must be pretty discomforting if you'd never realised it before.
    Mike something you should realise, before pontificating about his discomfort or what you think Specialkayme hasn't realised. He was a successful treatment free beekeeper for considerably longer than you have been.

    Just keeping it real.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,724

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    By:
    a) stopping the damage that would otherwise have decreased it.

    b) allowing the breeding pool to recover and evolve its previous range of attunement (local diversity).

    Mike (UK)
    You've exhausted me and derailed this thread to the point that I just don't want to discuss this anymore.

    You're welcome to discuss it with others on here, but I'm moving on.

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,724

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    That said: I _do_ want 'you' to keep your treatments away from me - but its for the very good reason that they obstruct my objective - which is, I think a fine objective that in no way damages 'you'.

    It is the case, unfortunately, that 'you' do cause 'me' actual damage. Its a fact. I guess that must be pretty discomforting if you'd never realised it before.
    With all do respect, you are better off expressing these ideas in the TF forum.

    This thread was started off with the understanding that if you wanted to (or thought you needed to) you would treat your colony. If your model involves abstaining from treatments entirely, for whatever reason, your model doesn't fit this thread. If your goal is to convince me that I, or others, should go treatment free, you are in the wrong place my friend.

    For the same reason that I don't jump into a TF thread and start telling everyone they are wrong and should start treating (because the colonies you have that fail become mite factories that migrate to my hives, making it harder for me to manage my mites with treatments).

    Two sides of the coin. Only one side is allowed to be shown in the TF section. I would appreciate it if you allowed us to discuss the other side here.

  16. #256
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,724

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    It is the case, unfortunately, that 'you' do cause 'me' actual damage. Its a fact. I guess that must be pretty discomforting if you'd never realised it before.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    Mike something you should realise, before pontificating about his discomfort or what you think Specialkayme hasn't realised. He was a successful treatment free beekeeper for considerably longer than you have been.
    Thanks OT. Good to see others notice.

    I try not to bring this up to TF beekeepers anymore, as they usually just respond with ridicule or anger. Those that don't, just respond with silence. So not much of a point bringing it up anymore.

  17. #257
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    This thread was started off with the understanding that if you wanted to (or thought you needed to) you would treat your colony. If your model involves abstaining from treatments entirely, for whatever reason, your model doesn't fit this thread. If your goal is to convince me that I, or others, should go treatment free, you are in the wrong place my friend.
    I do apologise: I hadn't realised I wasn't in the NT forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    For the same reason that I don't jump into a TF thread and start telling everyone they are wrong and should start treating (because the colonies you have that fail become mite factories that migrate to my hives, making it harder for me to manage my mites with treatments).
    If you think that's a reality is it should be discussed. Somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    Two sides of the coin. Only one side is allowed to be shown in the TF section. I would appreciate it if you allowed us to discuss the other side here.
    As it happens no such thing occurs in the TF forum. Commercial beekeepers (and/or others) constantly derail any discussion of the mechanics of beekeeping.

    In any case, anyone, anywhere, who believes that what somebody says is incorrect is entitled to air their views.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  18. #258
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    You've exhausted me and derailed this thread to the point that I just don't want to discuss this anymore.
    Just for the record, I offered to stop the discussion and/or move it elsewhere early in the conversation on just such grounds. It was you who insisted on keeping it going, saying it was perfectly on-topic, and doing so here.

    I think what has really happened is that you've run out of arguments.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  19. #259
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post

    I try not to bring this up (I was a successful TF beekeeper - till I wasn't anymore [MB]) to TF beekeepers anymore, as they usually just respond with ridicule or anger. Those that don't, just respond with silence. So not much of a point bringing it up anymore.
    Whether that is the case or not makes no difference. What matters is getting facts straight, and improving understanding of the all-important population dynamics that govern all apiaries. In that matter you've shown yourself to be short.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  20. #260
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    Thanks OT. Good to see others notice.

    I try not to bring this up to TF beekeepers anymore ('I was once a successfu TF beekeeper' [MB] ) as they usually just respond with ridicule or anger. Those that don't, just respond with silence. So not much of a point bringing it up anymore.
    That's because your premise is ludicrous. 'I'm an experienced commercial beekeeper, and I tried to go treatment free and failed... THEREFORE... no else can do it, its impossible.'

    You then set forth rationales based on a clearly hopelessly inadequate understanding of population dynamics, avoiding awkward questions, and generally acting in a manner seeming designed to stifle any discussion of practical steps that might be taken to raise resistance.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213

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