A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new back y - Page 18
Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 389
  1. #341
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    denver colorado
    Posts
    854

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    like TF or "natural" people keep getting hung up on an word to define them.
    soft bond is fine, its more or less IMP, the bees hit threshold they are out of the program
    he highlights the point I keep making. selection pressure !
    He is advocating selecting from the best mite counts, the top 4% performers and re queening most of the hives with their daughters before even bond testing the 4%.
    That's not natural selection, that's human selection! Right now Kufuss and Weaver are working on being able to make selection choices based on DNA!
    it seems to me there are 3 common things in programs that are working (Weaver,Kufuss,Comfort,Conrad,Webster,etc) 1 large sample size, 2 grafting, 3 expert level beekeeping.
    yes there is always the exception....just like we all know or have hurd someone who says not wearing a seatbelt saved there life in a crash.....its happens, but the odds are not in your favor

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #342
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Germany, BW
    Posts
    1,732

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    That's not natural selection, that's human selection!
    I live in a world without wild honeybees, everything honeybee around is bred livestock, so what? This world will not change ( in my lifetime).
    I´m happy if my human selection will start chemical free survivors.

    You can´t send a high performance cow into the wild just because there were wild cows once. She will die of udder infection in 24 hours.

    Bees perhaps are more able to survive than the cows but still need some regression time. Resistance is watered down with high performance DNA around.
    Resistance is a topic now even in profit beekeeping, so that´s fine to me.

    To propagate wild living honeybees and start an evolution progress you need an isolated area, like a protected natural habitat.

    .
    Last edited by Rader Sidetrack; 12-06-2017 at 03:10 PM. Reason: fix "quote" syntax
    zone 8a, sc, dadant square, wax comb, tf, 4 years beekeeping
    www.vivabiene.de

  4. #343
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    1,048

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Kefuss is still bond, he doesn't introduce treatments. He is just doing additional selection as I mentioned before. He is accelerating the process by requeening lines with higher mite counts. This is preferable to chemicals as it selects for other aspects of survival not revealed by a mite count.

    Someone brought up isolation and bee movement. There are 2 aspects to long term bee sustainability.

    One is not getting in the way of local adaptation. This means not treating, raising queens from successful colonies. It is also important that all keepers learn to do this instead of depending on a few keepers, maximizing selection pressure over the whole of the population rather than a few bees. The added benefit is that the slow process of genetic mutation and evolution is aided by this process.

    The other is having practices that creates an adaptive environment that moves slow enough so the bees can adapt to it. Viral environments will be different parts of the country, and will be constantly shifting. If the spread of new viral variants is slowed, then we create more stable environments for our bees and we reduce the incidence of epidemics. If we took this principle to heart we wouldn't have had varroa or tracheal mites, small hive beetle and some viruses. This point is lost on Randy Oliver who takes his bees to pollinate in California. But it is the big picture scientific principle we need to shift to. It is also the biggest risk factor for everyone's bees. You never know what is hitchhiking in on that truckload of bees. This is why the recent focus on mite bombs is so misplaced. Understand the risk factors and a way forward is possible.

  5. #344
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    denver colorado
    Posts
    854

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    The other is having practices that creates an adaptive environment that moves slow enough so the bees can adapt to it. Viral environments will be different parts of the country, and will be constantly shifting. If the spread of new viral variants is slowed, then we create more stable environments for our bees and we reduce the incidence of epidemics. If we took this principle to heart we wouldn't have had varroa or tracheal mites, small hive beetle and some viruses.
    I agree 100%
    The problem is we wouldn't have a beekeeping industry either. We would have to ban the transport of bees across state lines, possibly even county/town ones, not a reasonable soulstion for domestic live stock that is kept only to serve human needs.

    He is accelerating the process by requeening lines with higher mite counts. This is preferable to chemicals as it selects for other aspects of survival not revealed by a mite count.
    I think you are missing the point,
    say I have 2 yards a mile apart I bond one and IPM the other (treating only the hives above threshold). I then come spring I requeen them all using the one queen that had the best counts (say 2 years old low counts, hasn't needed treatments, doesn't matter witch yard it came from). Please explane to me the genetic difference between the 2 yards after re queening?

    Sence I am pinching the old queens anyway the only reason they exizested was to provide resources for the new line, the more resources I have the more f-1 variations I can test while still runing some production bees.
    Why would you let resources be lost if you plan on re-queening them any way?
    Last edited by msl; 12-06-2017 at 02:21 PM.

  6. #345
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    1,048

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    GWW
    bond is bond... you just go TF and let the chips fall.... the confusion isn't over whats bond,its over the deffention of TF

    Not much to say OT, that wasn’t the title on the transcript when I got there, or on the official page for the event when I checked later...looks like someone got a little creative with the club FB account lol
    it was more or less the video link I posted earlier and her study on nuc equipment type I posted about in the general forum.
    the one point that she made that stuck with me is stock selection vs breeding. Most keepers can do stock selection (Ie my black/yellow queen example in post 278 ) few can do real breeding..

    Its the reverse, her argument is section by bond will only succeed with isolation (ie we stop moveing bees and bringing stock form other areas) , as you note you bees are interaction with others. When you out crossed the Saskatraz, poof………..traits lost.


    Nope Weaver talks about one of the bigest issues was sorting the "lucky" hives from the resistant ones...and there were many more lucky ones, see below
    If you understand the process and let it happen, then it happens quickly. The people who understand this like Bush, Weaver and Keufus

    Weaver-The 1st round they bonded 1000 hives, come spring (9 months later) 100 lived.
    Out of the 100, 50 were in bad shape and made 0 surplus honey
    out of the other 50 that made any surplus at all, 5 turned out to be resistant their F-1s were only marginally better than the founder generation (read still massive losses…..poof traits lost) this wasn’t enough numbers to establish a breeding program, so bond another 1k hives…yikes got to respect their chutzpah

    Crunch the numbers
    only 5% of the stock selected by bond was resistant, 180 dead hives per resistant one found.

    Tell me again how bond is suitable for the new backyard beekeeper with 2 hives?

    ok so Kefuss…
    He had been breeding resistant stock for years before withholding treatments and took lower losses as such(2/3), but then applied strong selective pressure as well only breeding from less then 2% of the survivors, some years form a single queen!
    Weaver, but statistically is works out. There will be some lucky ones, but additional selection does sort it. Its still bond then additional selection. Not IPM. He also did his program before much adaptation was possible. My results are different not because I'm a better keeper, (far far worse actually), but because my starting point is different.

    I don't want to put words into Kefuss's mouth. But he was at the very beginning of varroa in Europe. He helped develop some of the chemical treatments. The big question was, could bees adapt at all. I think once he answered that question, then his understanding of adaptation let him take the next step.

    .
    Last edited by Rader Sidetrack; 12-06-2017 at 03:16 PM. Reason: fix "quote" syntax

  7. #346
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    denver colorado
    Posts
    854

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    What your missing is both Weaver and Kefuss brought in and requeend non bonded hives to recover.
    No reason not to do the same...
    If a hive has a high mite count to the point it is unliky it will overwinter what is the harm in treating it and using it to rebuild come spring? Just like Weaver and Kefuss did. Weaver from his own stock, Kefuss bought them from other beekeepers.

  8. #347
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    10,290

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    OK folks, its good that you are editing out the part of the long quote that is not relevant to your response.

    But when composing or editing your message, if you used the "Quote" function, please leave the [QUOTE=MemberID;1592183] ... ipso facto ... [/QUOTE] BBcodes syntax intact. Otherwise the quote gets jumbled up with your reply and the whole thing is very difficult to understand.


    All quotes need to start with the QUOTE in brackets and end with the /QUOTE in brackets as shown above. Remove the ... ipso facto ... text between the quote codes that you don't want, but the quote codes should remain as is.

    .
    Last edited by Rader Sidetrack; 12-06-2017 at 03:39 PM.
    Graham
    USDA Zone 7A Elevation 1400 ft

  9. #348

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    If a hive has a high mite count to the point it is unliky it will overwinter what is the harm in treating it and using it to rebuild come spring? Just like Weaver and Kefuss did. Weaver from his own stock, Kefuss bought them from other beekeepers.
    Did they actually treat?
    or just requeen?
    TF since 2008, max 1 nuc/hive, no swarm collecting, www.buckfast.fi, YouTube juhanilunden

  10. #349
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    denver colorado
    Posts
    854

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    The Weavers did, they kept the commercial operation going while they bonded some hives
    Kefuss didn't treat him self, but he brought in treated hives from other sources as replacements

    I see no reason not to use mite counts to weed out hives that have no chance of survival, treat them, and use those treated hives as resources for cellbuilders/mating nucs/re queening come spring. Its not the 90s any more, you can be sure if your hive has 10 mites per 100 (or even 5+ in many cases) in early July its not the stock your looking to breed from, no reason to bond it.
    Last edited by msl; 12-07-2017 at 01:40 PM.

  11. #350
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Germany, BW
    Posts
    1,732

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post

    I see no reason not to use mite counts to weed out hives that have no chance of survival, treat them, and use those treated hives as resources for cellbuilders/mating nucs/re queening come spring. Its not the 90s any more, you and be sure if you hive has 10 mites per 100 in early july its not the stock your looking to breed from, no reason to bond it.
    +1
    zone 8a, sc, dadant square, wax comb, tf, 4 years beekeeping
    www.vivabiene.de

  12. #351
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    1,048

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Here is a an interview with Dr. Kefuss.

    https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-xqae7-69e1d1

    He stopped treating in the late 90's. The main reason for bond is that they didn't really know what to select for. Again, bond for the baseline of selection.

    The modified bond was for those not willing to lose bees. You still lose information as you are focusing on one thing. It is not superior rather a compromise. The problem is that it is a one dimensional solution to a multi dimensional problem. Even if you can focus on the right thing, there is the problem of measuring it correctly. Hence his methods of counting mites. Kefuss is not afraid of mite bombs in his operation as they provide useful selection pressure for the rest of his hives. He has treating neighbors and his take is that mite bombs are more likely in the treating community, but again his bees can deal with it. His take is not that the surrounding bees have terrible genetics, but rather provide some useful genetic diversity and may have some useful traits that are useful.

  13. #352
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Rosebud Missouri
    Posts
    2,628

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    lharder
    The main reason for bond is that they didn't really know what to select for. Again, bond for the baseline of selection.
    You still lose information as you are focusing on one thing. It is not superior rather a compromise. The problem is that it is a one dimensional solution to a multi dimensional problem. Even if you can focus on the right thing, there is the problem of measuring it correctly. Hence his methods of counting mites. Kefuss is not afraid of mite bombs in his operation as they provide useful selection pressure for the rest of his hives. He has treating neighbors and his take is that mite bombs are more likely in the treating community, but again his bees can deal with it. His take is not that the surrounding bees have terrible genetics, but rather provide some useful genetic diversity and may have some useful traits that are useful.
    This is exactly how my thinking adds up. It is also why I think a bunch of small guys might have some success even if they are not supposed to. It is also why I have questions on the effect of open breeding making a good queens genetics weaken. My thoughts even if wrong are, One good queen with mite tollerant traits being open bread with lots of non mite tollerant bees might still have that good trait come forward first due to it being a good trait to have due to the conditions of the hive it is froms living inviroment. Rather then spending all your time doing what many say is the weakness of selective breeding narrowing the gene pool (which randy and other studies have shown has lessened the genetic make up of puppy mill bees) Maby, letting what happens with pressure on is better.

    I do not say I know what I am talking about but more that this makes sence to me.

    If I took counts, I would not act upon them for now and even if they were high, I would still want to run the hive to failure a few times just to see. Cause thinking something is going to fail with a 10% mite load in july is not the same as it actually failing. Now if they did fail every time for a few times, I would have to do something differrent. I think I went into winter with some sick bees but the question is going to be, is it going to be like efb or chalk brood that when the flow starts, the symtoms go away? I only know one way to get those types of answers and that is to just do it untill it cost too much to keep doing it.

    There are examples that it can work.

    To another point brought up in this thread earlier, I do think it makes a differance raising bees now then compared to 20 years ago when mites first showed up. I agree with the ideal that in most places it would not be starting at zero like it was when mites first appeared. I believe that stuff has happenned where ever bees are over those 20 years and is probly more noticable in some places compared to others but probly some change in all places.

    I don't know what is going to happen with my bees but also do not think I am starting at the bottom like I would have been if I tried to not treat 20 years ago.
    Cheers
    gww
    zone 5b

  14. #353

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by lharder View Post

    He stopped treating in the late 90's. The main reason for bond is that they didn't really know what to select for. Again, bond for the baseline of selection.
    What comes to my mind is comparison between Terje Reinertsen in Norway and myself.

    He started couple years earlier, climate nearly the same.

    I did , or tried to do, IPM soft bond, by looking at mite numbers and requeening from the lowest counts, and treating every year less and less.
    Terje stopped treatments alltogether in the beginning.

    Result: Terje got situation normalized in after about 10 years TF beekeeping.
    I have maybe come to that point now after 7 years soft bond and 9 years TF.
    TF since 2008, max 1 nuc/hive, no swarm collecting, www.buckfast.fi, YouTube juhanilunden

  15. #354
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    DuPage County Illinois
    Posts
    79

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by Juhani Lunden View Post

    Result: Terje got situation normalized in after about 10 years TF beekeeping.
    I have maybe come to that point now after 7 years soft bond and 9 years TF.
    Just for clarification. So you are saying that it has taken you 16 years to get to where he got in 10? I am not claiming that this comparison illustrates hard bond is superior based on this one uncontrolled comparison but just want to make sure I understand you are saying 16 years total.

    If I am reading it right then it is interesting that 10 years tf and 9 tf are pretty similar and suggest perhaps that the 7 years of soft bond did not speed the time to stability.

    Soft bond could probably be effective if mite counts had any predictive capacity for survivor ship and or genetic mite resistance. The problem is that mite counts are next to useless. Just some of the problems are counting only phoretic mites, time of year influence, and most importantly the mite is only a vector. So the type virulence of the viruses being vectored and how well the bees handle those is far more significant. Until we know more colony survival is still the gold standard test. Even as we learn more it isn't really practical for small time beekeepers to test for strains of viruses and genetic markers in the bee genome. Weaver is apparently working on these but for most of us the best selection tool is colony lives or colony dies.

  16. #355
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    DuPage County Illinois
    Posts
    79

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by gww View Post
    lharder




    This is exactly how my thinking adds up. It is also why I think a bunch of small guys might have some success even if they are not supposed to. It is also why I have questions on the effect of open breeding making a good queens genetics weaken. My thoughts even if wrong are, One good queen with mite tollerant traits being open bread with lots of non mite tollerant bees might still have that good trait come forward first due to it being a good trait to have due to the conditions of the hive it is froms living inviroment. Rather then spending all your time doing what many say is the weakness of selective breeding narrowing the gene pool (which randy and other studies have shown has lessened the genetic make up of puppy mill bees) Maby, letting what happens with pressure on is better.


    gww
    There is wisdom in what you say here. Too many focus exclusively on the queen genetics and ignore the drone. A resistant queen is well mated when she mates with a large number of drones not when she is necessarily mated with a small number of resistant drones. The honey bee genetic strategy is to bring in genetic diversity through a large number of drone matings. That gives the colony more sub-families and spreads the genetic risk. Maybe not all those drones will carry superior mite resistant genes but the more she mates with the greater the odds are that some of them will and that may be enough to increase colony survival chances. This is the general principle of honey bee genetics and is important for all honey bee activities. Some drones may provide better propolis gatherers and some provide better nectar or pollen gatherers. Some may provide stronger immune system defenses and so on. The more diversity the better the colony chances. Stability against the mites can be achieved when enough of the drones in the area carry those genes that the proportion of matings results in survivable colonies. Selecting for single traits like hygenic behavior or mite counts can help but should not be the only program because selecting for a few traits cannot be done without decreasing genetic diversity. It is not possible to do otherwise.

  17. #356

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz-kill View Post
    Just for clarification. So you are saying that it has taken you 16 years to get to where he got in 10? I am not claiming that this comparison illustrates hard bond is superior based on this one uncontrolled comparison but just want to make sure I understand you are saying 16 years total.

    If I am reading it right then it is interesting that 10 years tf and 9 tf are pretty similar and suggest perhaps that the 7 years of soft bond did not speed the time to stability.
    You got me right.

    Looking back my IPM(soft bond) period seems to have helped me surprisingly little, compared to Terje Reinertsen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz-kill View Post
    Soft bond could probably be effective if mite counts had any predictive capacity for survivor ship and or genetic mite resistance. The problem is that mite counts are next to useless. Just some of the problems are counting only phoretic mites, time of year influence, and most importantly the mite is only a vector. So the type virulence of the viruses being vectored and how well the bees handle those is far more significant. Until we know more colony survival is still the gold standard test. Even as we learn more it isn't really practical for small time beekeepers to test for strains of viruses and genetic markers in the bee genome. Weaver is apparently working on these but for most of us the best selection tool is colony lives or colony dies.
    I would say mite counting is not useless, but, as you say, the problem is the results need to be "read" or interpret correctly. There are SO many factors affecting mite numbers.

    In my soft bond period I tried to do this by making sister group comparisons. One good result was not enough, but when the whole sister group had lower than average numbers, the best of them was accepted as breeder. I reasoned this would lower the probability to make false decisions.

    In the beginning I probably had not enough mite pressure on drones on my isolation mating yard. Queens, which make the mating drones, carried so many poor genes still. With heavier mite pressure on drones the inferior variants would have been eliminated sooner in process.


    Another problem is that in short season circumstances it is very challenging to do mite counts for a larger beekeeper( if this beekeeper has some other work to do as well during the high season). Sometimes mite numbers seem to get rocket high in no time.
    TF since 2008, max 1 nuc/hive, no swarm collecting, www.buckfast.fi, YouTube juhanilunden

  18. #357
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    denver colorado
    Posts
    854

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by lharder View Post
    Kefuss is not afraid of mite bombs in his operation as they provide useful selection pressure for the rest of his hives.
    So Kefuss agrees mite bombs happen, and that mite bombs kill other hives!!!
    There for in the context of this thread (a urban/suburban BYBK set up with lots of hives belonging to others around,) purposely letting a hive colaspice from mites is bad beekeeping and irresponsible.
    In this episode, I talk to Dr. John Kefuss, the original Bond Method Beekeeper
    Ughh
    As usual Solomon is picking and choosing and hypeing… the bond test was started in Germany in 1992 and the name was coined there, Weaver went bond in 92 as well, kefuss was 99, far from the “orginal”…
    I tried to listen, but between this and him starting off asking for asking for money I turned it off…I realy liked SP when I 1st started and was totaly anti treatment, anti foundation, anti feed, anti lang, etc but as I became more educated and experienced I liked him less, and the last few years I have been totally turned off (like when he was asking for $$ to start his for profit apiary) and feel he has done more damage to the TF movement then has helped.
    TF via bond is failing
    If you look at the BIP
    2008-2013 average was 67% of beekeepers in the US were TF totaling about 18% of the hives in the us
    2016-2017 average is 35% totaling about 2% of the hives kept… let that sink in, 88% less TF hives!!!
    bond is failing them, bond will keep failing them. I feel telling them to go bond is failing the TF movement. We now at a low(by a drastic number) of TF keepers and hives, This year TF is takeing all time high losses in a year that the overall losses are are the 2nd best in 11 years ! It seems the national average losses are less do to the loss in TF keepers !!

    We have had 25 years of bond , and BYBKs still haven’t magically developed TF stock… (shocking!!!!! ) and we know they won’t .
    We need to be offering the next generation of TF(want to be) Keepers a way forward that has a good chance of success.

    I suggest The 1st step is sustainable beekeeping by any means necessary(IPM with a scaled response). People keeping their hives alive and making their own replacements for them selfs (and others) this stops the inflow of packages and outside genetics and pathogens.

    Drone culling should be taught as the rule not the exception to new beekeepers to stop the spread of out side(Poor) gentnicks.
    Once those alive hives out cross with the local back ground that had the impact of the imported gentinics limited we will have the start of localy adapted stock.

    Keeping people off the package bee treadmill with an eye towards allowing local adapted stock to come forward should be goal#1… (They are all ready taking down payments on packages in my area, dang) Too many keepers (T and TF alike)get stuck in year 1 or year 2 beekeeping… 1st year they don’t split because they “need to build up to over winter” 2nd year (if they still have bees) they “need to build up so they can get a harvest.”

    To get there we need to teach nus and a year 1 skill! It not that hard to pull a queen and 2-3 frames mid flow (our whatever regionally appropriate time) and put in a nuc… now that new beekeeper is ready to take up to 50% winter losses, if they don’t, and don’t want more hives they can sell the nuc(s) think of the change if a large % of BYBKs had a overwintered local nuc or 2 for sale!!! Once they have the confidence to make a nuc, we can talk spring splits and queen cell exchanges and requeening poor stock.

    The package bee treadmill is very harmfull to local stock and small scale TF selection efforts as we can’t/don’t control the drone stock in most cases.

    There are many people who are pushing on new BYBKs that the “worst” thing you can do is treat a hive, I suggest that is more damaging to TF people in your area to let the hive mite bomb and bring in a new package come spring. Treat and requeen with local restiant stock, or even treat and pinch the old queen letting the hive draw cells and open mate a queen seems to be better for the local stock! People can mumble about buying better stock that doesn’t exist till we do step 1# and local stock is regularly avaibul

    Next we need to do away with the idea that a BYBK is going to produce/develop TF in any way shape or form. The nature of Beekeeping is that the small guys are consumers of genetic stock, not producers always has been, always will be. IE many small scale honey producers requeen a hive every few years with purchased queens to keep production traits up that are lost in outcrossing. This is basic beekeeping, this has been the way of traits long before the mite, and will be long after.

    As such they need to be taught how to see when the stock is failing (be it from a few outcrossing or just not working in there area ) in time to take action to save the hive and re queen it.

    Next we will likly need noncem IMP/muliplaions/management. Seeley and many others feel genetics are only going to get us so far. we should be looking in to splits/drone culling/brood breaks, etc as tools that likly will be needed
    All this can be accomplished by a simple shift in message.

    Juhani Lunden what were your and Terjs starting hive counts? I would love to here more about bolth programs

    In the beginning I probably had not enough mite pressure on drones on my isolation mating yard. Queens, which make the mating drones, carried so many poor genes still.
    Mite pressure, beekeeper pressure… seems the failing of many small scale bond programs is lack of pressure (and sample size) once the mites have done their job, we are seeing the success full programs then select breeder stock form the top 5% or less that lived. The smaller guys seem to be propagating form all they have left, putting them on a tread mill of poor gentinics, aside from needed isolation, the biggest issues with bond is people not doing it, they leave the bees out to die, and don’t take the next, and most important step, added and firm pressure form breeder queen selection and re queening of the 2/3s or so lowest performing stock.

    Too many focus exclusively on the queen genetics and ignore the drone.
    scope and scale…I don’t see were the BYBK (as defined in this thread), or infact many of the great fokes contributing here have a snowballs chance on drone control. Figger its only a few hundred beekeepers in the US that are in a situation were they can or are controling the drone stock For most of us we are not breeding, we are selecting stock, a very different situation. Now if you want to look in to drone production Larry connor has a good write up for small scale producers (40 hives) http://www.wicwas.com/sites/default/.../BC2006-06.pdf

    The honey bee genetic strategy is to bring in genetic diversity through a large number of drone matings. That gives the colony more sub-families and spreads the genetic risk.
    Yes, but it also spreads out the gains!
    In nature there is a 80% (or so, math is a few pages back) yearly culling of sub par queens to regain the traits. We see Kufess, weaver, etc slecticing queens in the 2% in the Above Larry Connor piece he is suesting 3 out of 40…ie 7.5% for the little guy…

    As such the more queens you make from the best one(s), the more good queens you will get. If you don’t have the resources to mate out and evaluate the new queens you don’t get far. It’s a number game to go from one breeder queen to the next.

  19. #358
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Dickson TN
    Posts
    1,753

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Too much emphasis is put on queens and not enough on drones.

  20. #359
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    DuPage County Illinois
    Posts
    79

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    So Kefuss agrees mite bombs happen, and that mite bombs kill other hives!!!



    scope and scale…I don’t see were the BYBK (as defined in this thread), or infact many of the great fokes contributing here have a snowballs chance on drone control. Figger its only a few hundred beekeepers in the US that are in a situation were they can or are controling the drone stock For most of us we are not breeding, we are selecting stock, a very different situation. Now if you want to look in to drone production Larry connor has a good write up for small scale producers (40 hives) http://www.wicwas.com/sites/default/.../BC2006-06.pdf


    Yes, but it also spreads out the gains!
    In nature there is a 80% (or so, math is a few pages back) yearly culling of sub par queens to regain the traits. We see Kufess, weaver, etc slecticing queens in the 2% in the Above Larry Connor piece he is suesting 3 out of 40…ie 7.5% for the little guy…

    As such the more queens you make from the best one(s), the more good queens you will get. If you don’t have the resources to mate out and evaluate the new queens you don’t get far. It’s a number game to go from one breeder queen to the next.
    Some may be able to control drones or at least influence. You make a allot of blanket statements as though they were established fact when they are your opinion (which in some cases is the common belief of the beekeeping community but not necessarily true). The point is that even small timers do not have to control drone populations in order to make progress. It might be slower progress than if they had better control of drones but progress nevertheless.

    Selecting stock is breeding. Breeding is allowing certain individuals to reproduce and not others. That is selective breeding. By selection queens with proven survivabiity you increase the homozygousity of the alleles for those traits in the population. When those queens mate with random drones it is a crap shoot as to the genetic make up of those drones but by mating with more drones it increases the chances that some of them carry desirable alleles and the colony can maintain survivability.

    Numbers regarding culling are simply a description of selection pressure. The greater the selection pressure the more rapid the progress toward whatever trait one is selecting for. It may be difficult for a small timer to maintain as high a selection pressure as a bigger operator but that does not mean that progress is impossible. And actually it doesn't take that many hives to allow similar selection pressures. With as few as 20 hives a section of 2 is 10%. But there is also nothing wrong with small timers supplementing their stock with known resistant queens from the Weavers or others. They don't have to do all the work from scratch. But by following Bond they keep the selection pressure on.

  21. #360
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    8,912

    Default Re: A shift in message? The case for IPM instead of bond as the path to TF for new ba

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz-kill View Post
    You make a allot of blanket statements as though they were established fact when they are your opinion (which in some cases is the common belief of the beekeeping community but not necessarily true).
    I think he put some thoughts on paper that are the result of years of experience, a lot of thought, and trying to figure how best to attack a problem that is not going away.

    Not everybody will agree with him because he is thinking outside the box. But after 25 years of for many people who have towed the line, failure, some new ideas can't hurt?

    I too am one of those who towed the line and failed, I did what Solomon said exactly.
    Last edited by Oldtimer; 12-09-2017 at 10:05 PM.
    "Thinking Inside The Box"

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 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
  •