View Poll Results: Please give your preference

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • The rules of this forum are fine how they are

    52 98.11%
  • the rules are fine but manipulations such as MDA splitter should not be allowed to be discussed on the forum

    0 0%
  • If you chose option 2, should manipulations to control mites have to be discussed in the general forum

    1 1.89%
  • If you chose option 2 should there be an extra section set up where manipulation cannot be discussed so it can still be discussed here

    0 0%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Rules Poll

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,486

    Default Re: Rules Poll

    [Mike: "In the medium and long term there's no difference. Its all perpetuating loser bees."]

    Quote Originally Posted by bluegrass View Post
    Not at all.. If you can maintain the mites at a tolerable level the bees get exposed to lower viral loads which their immune systems can deal with... Over time they can develop immunity that helps them tolerate heavier loads without manipulations.
    Bees don't have the sort of advanced 'learning' immune responses that mammals have. They develop immunity through natural selection.

    With bees: if you stop the selection, you stop the development of immunity that can only occur WITHIN A POPULATION.

    And this MUST be allowed to occur; because the various pathogens are constantly evolving better ways to attack - the bees MUST have the means to counter this constant development.

    I suggest you look up 'evolution' AND 'arms race' and do some studying.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluegrass View Post
    What weaver did with chemical treatments is the same concept as controlling mites with manipulations. By slowly using less and less chemicals they controlled the mite loads at tolorable levels until the bees developed enough immunity to handle them on their own.
    Why do you think you can just make stuff up?

    Really, why? It took me about 10 seconds to find the evidence and present it. Did you think I wouldn't bother?

    That isn't what Weavers did at all. Here's the proper story in their own words:

    "The Chemical Free Bee Dream... Came True:

    1995 Weaver Apiaries divided into 2 companies, BeeWeaver and The R Weaver. During BeeWeaver's first season Danny started leaving yards of bees untreated for varroa mites.

    1995-2000 BeeWeaver bred from surviving colonies (literally a handful in each yard the first several years) and continued to leave more yards untreated. In the process we lost 1000s of colonies, but we noted remarkable improvement in survival rates each season.

    2001 BeeWeaver stopped treating hives for varroa mites completely. By 2001 nearly all BeeWeaver colonies had been chemical free for more then a year, but 2001 marked the year no acaricide was used in any colony.

    2009-present BeeWeaver Bees are tested at Penn State and found to be resistant to diseases carried by varroa mites. Bringing our understanding of what BeeWeaver bees had become to a new level. BeeWeaver stock had become naturally hardy and less likely to succumb to bee diseases and infections. Simply by letting natural selection drive our bee breeding program BeeWeaver stock became the best all around bee.
    "

    [edit]

    As everybody can plainly see Beeweavers applied the principles of Natural Selection. They also made positive artificial selections.

    In other words what they did is absolutely consistent with the tenets of traditional husbandry that I've been arguing for.

    For the record: as I've said on many other occasions; there are other ways to achieve the same result, that involve much less loss. You don't have to take the 'live and let die' route in order to gain resistance.

    You just have to understand certain realities of living things, and apply that understanding to your occupation.
    Last edited by Barry; 03-16-2014 at 07:41 AM.
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    5,695

    Default Re: Rules Poll

    Bluegrass is correct they reduced treatment slowly. According to their web site it was done over a six year period.

    When Bluegrass referred to the bees building immunity, he meant their whole population, not one individual bee.

    So, just wondering what is he is supposed to "confess", or why he has to "apologise".

    You need to slow down Mike.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Danbury, CT
    Posts
    2,887

    Default Re: Rules Poll

    In 1995-2000 they bred from survivors and left more yards untreated. (meaning they were still treating some yards)

    in 2001 they stopped treating. (That is 6 years on weaning bees off of mite treatments) As opposed to doing it like Kirk Webster recommends where you just stop treating and see how it all shakes out in the end.)

    When mites first came to the USA none had any tolerances to mites... it has only been through the gradual spread that some have developed resistance and immunity.
    Last edited by bluegrass; 03-16-2014 at 10:18 AM.
    Always question Conventional Wisdom.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    5,695

    Default Re: Rules Poll

    The poll has now closed. Have to say it is the most near unanimous poll result I've ever seen, guess the rules how they are will stay.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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