Ain't this poor horse dead enough yet? You've been beating it soooo long that there can't be much of the carcass left.




Rusty

 

Neigh! That was just waking it up!

M

 

Since most people don't already have bees that can do that, part of the goal of the forum must be to direct them toward getting bees that can do that. That will mean identifying the differences between those that can thrive alone and those that can't; and working through the ways to have the former and not the latter.

Great, have at it. Personally, I think you put too much weight in trying to attain/find/raise the "right" bee. The experience of Dennis Murrell and myself has been that of using bee stock from a variety of sources.

 

Great, have at it.

Thanks Barry.

Personally, I think you put too much weight in trying to attain/find/raise the "right" bee. The experience of Dennis Murrell and myself has been that of using bee stock from a variety of sources.

If you and Dennis Murrell tried to find the wrong bee, and deliberate did the wrong things with it, would you expect the same results?

Maybe we're talking about the same thing. Any race/line that has some resistance is fine by me, and the more resistance the better - there isn't so far to go. Given that, what matters is ensuring you don't backslide in each generation. That means some sort of assay in each generation followed by selection for propagation.

Mike (UK)

 

Mike, have you considered that one of the adaptations that some "survivors" have incorporated is frequent swarming? Bees have adapted to Varroa by swarming, and benefit from the inherent broodbreak that swarming provides.

 

Yes I have Adam. But they can all go into the pond, and any that swarm too soon/too often/don't respond to my asking nicely not to swarm (by giving them room) won't get much weight.

I reckon that's the way to handle it.

Mike (UK)

 

Mike's assumption is the bees with greater fitness will be bees with most suitability to being kept for human honey production.

Alternatively, consider whether varroa contributes fitness to a genotype of bees. I know this sounds absurd --but: Genes are transmitted without delay by drones which are capable of being created by 6 week old queens -- these particular "selfish" genes might find that high parasitism promoted their competitive advantage over genes that create long-lived colonies. The genes don't care if the colonies live for three years, only that they can expand and replicate -- and r-selection -- quick, rapid expansion with low-investment propagules -- such as drones -- is typical of very successful "weed" strategies.

Varroa has been challenged by hundreds of millions of feral hives across continents -- it persists a high levels because it is performing a critical evolutionary function. Mike is completely missing the logic of his own position.

Mike is equating what is convenient for a British pensioner (easy collection of surplus honey), with what is adaptive for a species. Colonies die all the time, it is the ones with the greatest reproduction that dominates a population. A gene that promotes the toxic death of its direct competition with have the greatest reproductive capacity.

 

Mike's assumption is the bees with greater fitness will be bees with most suitability to being kept for human honey production.

Your 'greater fitness' is I reckon commensurate with the sticky's 'letting them cope with disease on their own'.

That is: the topic of conversation here starts from the premise that it is possible to get, or make, or maintain, bees with 'greater fitness'.

Challenging that premise, while perhaps not off-topic, is a bit eccentric. We're here to talk about ways of raising 'fitter' bees. It is assumed that is possible.

I know this sounds absurd --

Yes. As I recently showed your 'hypothesis' leads directly to absurdities in the form of contradictions to well attested realities: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...94414-Is-the-division-Treatment-Free-adequate-to-the-task&p=1074828#post1074828

I notice you didn't contest any of that post.

Mike is equating what is convenient for a British pensioner (easy collection of surplus honey), with what is adaptive for a species.

I'm not theorising about such things. Its known that breeders can concentrate desirable traits, and that's what we're setting out to do.

Colonies die all the time, it is the ones with the greatest reproduction that dominates a population.

Sure. But the dominant factor governing successful reproduction is efficiency at energy-gathering and conversion (to offspring). (Including successful storage/defence). "Energy is the fundamental object under contention in natural selection". See primer: Energetics of Evolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann#The_Boltzmann_equation

Both we and Nature want something very similar: bees that are good at their job (of passing on their genes): and part of the spec for both of us is: high productivity. So in selecting for self-sufficiency and high productivity we are doing just what nature does - which automatically fixes any problems below decks.

 

I don't have time to go find your quotes, but you have placed heavy emphasis on feral bees as the answer and have had negative things to say about commercial breeders. I have used commercial stock in my hives. It hasn't been an issue with me at least. I haven't gone out of my way to spend a lot of time breeding a resistant bee. They do it themselves.

 

I don't have time to go find your quotes, but you have placed heavy emphasis on feral bees as the answer and have had negative things to say about commercial breeders.

Just a mo: are we talking about mite-resistant breeders (like Weavers) or commercials who are working toward resistance, or commercials who simply medicate systematically?

You're right in thinking I am keen on ferals, esp. as here where there are no bred resistant bees to be had. As I'm sure you know I'm not the only one to adopt that approach.

I have used commercial stock in my hives. It hasn't been an issue with me at least. I haven't gone out of my way to spend a lot of time breeding a resistant bee. They do it themselves.

Do you do anything else Barry? Do you not treat and select from most productive? (Selecting for resistance). Do you use small cell? Do you have a healthy local breeding pool (ferals, non treating/beekeepers)? Do you create artificial brood breaks - deliberately or accidentally?

Let us have some detail about your particular context, so we can try to understand why works for you might not work for others.

BTW I posted recently about Randy Olivier's take on tf and 'domesticated' bees. Did you see that? Any thoughts?

Mike (UK)

 

Mike, in one traditional form of husbandry the effect of parasites on crops or animals was reduced by rotating the crop or animal through a series of fields. That rotation had to start somewhere with one individual reasoning it out, or an individual noticing that it worked and deliberately perpetuating the system. I suspect when the process first started there was someone arguing against it, perhaps as being unnatural, against tradition, too complicated, or too much work.

 

Adrian,

I'm sure you're right about all these things. What bearing does any of it have on raising resistance?

Mike (UK)

 

I'm sure that saying this will prove to be a pointless exercise, but in my view, suppressing swarming is taking from the bees a tactic that they have used to survive for millions of years. Of course, rather than letting one's bees fly away into the trees, one could get exactly the same effect by making a split-- same brood break, same effect on brood parasites as swarming. If you're going to try to breed resistance into your stock, to me it seems vastly more reasonable to work within the species' natural behavior than to try to subvert it by artificially avoiding all brood breaks. And that is exactly what you are doing when you provide your splits with mated, laying queens. (I'm not attacking this practice, I'm just saying that this is an inconsistency in Mike's philosophy that bothers me and prevents me from taking his anti-manipulation rhetoric seriously.)

 

I'm sure that saying this will prove to be a pointless exercise, but in my view, suppressing swarming is taking from the bees a tactic that they have used to survive for millions of years.

Yes. And if I thought it was having a detrimental effect I'd adjust accordingly. But it seems to me that the main cause of swarming, most of the time, is too little space. When bees have nowhere to put honey they go into swarming mode. So simply giving them room isn't selecting for lower swarming rates. Its just working with their normal healthy system.

Of course, rather than letting one's bees fly away into the trees, one could get exactly the same effect by making a split-- same brood break, same effect on brood parasites as swarming.

If you cramped them deliberatedly you'd achieve the same thing.

The point is this: I want to select bees that are good at managing mites, and the only way I'm going to find out which ones fit the bill is to not cramp them and not artificially brood break them.

Doing anything else will ruin the assay system.

If, worse, I systematically split in order to control varroa for them then I've removed the pressure that would tell me which are resistant, and, worse, I've maintained those that are not resistant. They are now free to multiply, spreading around exactly the genes I'm trying to replace in order to raise resistance. There is no difference (in terms of undermining resistance) between that and chemical treating.

If you're going to try to breed resistance into your stock, to me it seems vastly more reasonable to work within the species' natural behavior than to try to subvert it by artificially avoiding all brood breaks.

The 'species' natural behavior' takes place in a setting in which those that don't behave well are killed pronto. Those that behave best have their genes promoted.

That is the most important part.

Take away natural selection, and fail to replace it with a system of human selection that is as effective at ensuring the fittest reproduce in the greatest number, and the result can only be declining health.

And that is exactly what you are doing when you provide your splits with mated, laying queens. (I'm not attacking this practice, I'm just saying that this is an inconsistency in Mike's philosophy that bothers me and prevents me from taking his anti-manipulation rhetoric seriously.)

Its traditional husbandry of the sort that has been practiced for thousands of years, and which has given us all the domesticated species - vegetable as well as animal. It isn't 'Mike's philosophy', its traditional husbandry, and its necessary to avoid wasteful losses and human-hand addictive scenarios.

Its also necessary to fulful the aims of this forum: "bees [that] cope with disease on their own."

Yes, its 'unnatural'. Anything you do is unnatural, by definition. The important this is to do those things that Nature would be doing anyway, but quicker, and without the waste. (Nature is extraordinarily wasteful)

Mike

 

Mike, how about spending time talking about the experiences you are having right now with your bees and what you're learning from them. Perhaps taking a break from theory and spending time on actual beekeeping, we could all relate better.

 

Barry, I have 28 overwintered hives which I'm encouraging to build (early) so as to give myself plenty of bees to work with. I'm aiming to triple numbers this year, with 60 entering next winter as 6 frame nucs, some to be offered for sale next spring.

I'm also making 4-8 hive outstands in what I consider to be worthwhile places. And developing three dedicated mating sites.

The outstands and home hives will be production colonies, which I'll evaluate for breeding stock.

So I'm developing a breeding apiary aiming at producing varroa resistant bees for sale, with a touch of honey production on the side. The goal is that this supplies about a third of my living, taking about a third of my time.

My experience right now is that almost all colonies overwintered through the wettest winter on record (and probably the windiest too) and I understand why the 5 that failed did so. All look good - lots of pollen coming in, only a very slight touch of dwv from a couple of colonies. The older and larger ones remain competitors. One that has always struggled still struggles.

What am I learning? Small late colonies can come through mild wet winters on almost no stores; more comb and stores = faster building (of course); evaluation for selection purpose continues to be a puzzle but I think I've thought about it enough to be happy that I'll make the right sorts of choices. Thriving older hives will be the best evidence of resistance.

I'm sure there's lots more, but that's the sort of stuff that occupies my mind just now.

Mike (UK)

 

Obviously, I didn't look very far, on the topic of "beekeeping husbandry."

I did not realize that in British Beekeeping, it's a big thing, with a General Certificate available to beekeepers who have three years of experience under their belt. And if that's not enough, you can get an Advanced Husbandry Certificate.

The documents that attach to those pages are pretty interesting too. I realize on the one hand that "husbandry" in that context covers the whole gamut, but then I wonder what slice of that approach do you mean when you use the word, Mike?

 

Excellent question: I don't know, I haven't done the courses, and I don't know anyone that has. But I do know that UK beekeeping is reliant on treatments. FERA (the uk bee oversight body) does issue guidance about treating 'lightly' to locate those that have some resistance, and making increase from them, but is a small part of a big 'husbandry' course that is largely focusssed on recogning diseases and treating them. Its 'orthodox' modern beekeeping.

As to 'husbandry': the uk beekeeper's model is the 'veterinary' approach used by all kinds of husbandry nowadays - but without the 'population husbadry' that underpins health everywhere else.

While the 'veterinary approach' largely works with closed mating systems, with (opem mating) bees its a disaster - the treaments rapidly become addictions.

Its that trap we're trying to get away from here, by having 'bees that can cope with disease on their own'

I try to speak separately about 'individual husbandry' and 'population husbandry'. They are very different things. In 'traditional husbandry' the latter formed the foundation of animal health, and the former was used to help maintain income.

In tradional husbandry all less healthy individuals are strictly kept out of the breeding pool. Sires are the very strongest individuals only - your prize bulls.

This is not for fun: its necessary to remain competitive. The best breeder is the richest farmer. Its about both health and productivity - and recognises that the two are intimately linked.

Amateur beekeeping has never really gone in for strict breeding. It didn't need to - bees were kept healthy enough in the large feral/wild populations, and - well it was only a hobby. Lose the ferals, and the need changes hugely. Get the population addicted to human help and the ferals won't survive anywhere near treating beekeepers. Now its a very different picture. The populations are sick, and the sickness is perpetuated by beekeepers. We're trying to break the grip, the cycle, of treatment - more treatment-addicted bees, by raising bees that can cope with the predators on their own. That requires dumping the veterinary approach (what the UK beekeeper education industry calls 'husbandry') and applying the methods of traditional husbandry.

Mike (UK)

 

Watch this Mike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7M1X0bWYyo

 

Can you summarise it, preferably providing times for key parts, and tell us what you think we should take from the reference?

Just citing book and film names and urls without close references to page numbers means we have to wade through the entiure thing to find out what it is you want to show us. That's obviously not practical.

Mike (UK)

 

And this one killing the brood over sulfur pits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M788T26WIlY

 

Can you summarise what's happening there for us Pete?

Mike (UK)

 

Mike,

.....consequently to get at their honey, the necessity for destroying the Bees follows,and the suffocating fumes of brimstone at length bring these worthies to the ground to the unwelcome pit in which they are buried, and are, alas, no more! a few minutes close the existence of thousands that had laboured for their ungrateful masters; and their once happy domicile becomes a scene of murder, of plunder, and of devastation, which is a disgrace to Bee-masters,

page 51, Humanity to honey bees, or, Practical directions for the management of honey bees upon an improved and humane plan, by which the lives of bees may be preserved, and abundance of honey of a superior quality may be obtained by Thomas Nutt

http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cac...edu/cache/e/3/f/e3f5f36ce0db88c5b92aa6682d2056f1/5707376.78.s.text.content.html

The old literature is full of references to killing bees, even Manley (who you're using as an example here) wrote, in 'Honey Farming' page 16.

Every village had two or three skeppists, and most of them would let you have the bees that were to be 'taken up' rather than kill them.

remember, here we're talking about the early twentieth century and still, there's a remnant of the historical practice being followed.

 

Mike:

Here's a link to an article describing one version of tube hives found at an archeological site in Israel:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904114558.htm

40cm X 80cm clay/straw, unbaked tubes.

 

Mike:

Here's a link to an article describing one version of tube hives found at an archeological site in Israel:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904114558.htm

Interesting. Does it tell us anything about how to keep bees that can cope with disease on their own?

Maybe someone should start another thread. I think what the questioners are trying to get to is a reason to say that making increase artificially upsets the swarming propensity of bee populations, and that is bad, so bad in fact that it should rule out any artificial increase, and thereby rule out any selective propagation.

Its a theory. But I think it should have its own thread. This one is about clarifying 'Treatment Free'.

Mike (UK)

 

Since I don't understand your assumption I am hardly in a position to explain it, am I.

That's why I asking you to explain it.

But, just being given the run around by obtusification, one of your common avoidance techniques. What are you afraid of? You can't explain yourself?

 

Since I don't understand your assumption

See my reply post #71

What are you afraid of?

Being sucked into a nonsense dialogue with what appears to be a committee whose apparent reason for being is...

"trying to create confusion and obtusification"

...in relation to the effort to find the best ways of: how to keep bees by letting them cope with disease on their own..

That's what this forum is for.

 

Well no, that's just another tactic typical in a Bispham thread, avoidance of answering questions perceived as too hard. You do it a lot.

In this case I'm asking you to explain what assumption you referred to, but you seem unable. Don't worry. Same thing happens to lots of people who allow their mouth to run away with them.

But hey, if you do figure out what you were talking about please let's know.

 

O.K. Mike, but here's one last link to an article with a nice photo of a stack of tube hives found at an archeological site:

http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Antiquity 2008.pdf

 

WLC, Mike has already dismissed the relevance of your tube hives in post 69

And when he flat refuses to even explain his own statements (admittedly cos he was shooting his mouth of and now realises he was wrong), you got no show with yours.

 

OT:

He bought up the 'skep' issue. I just wanted to show that at least some of the ancients practiced a more sustainable form of beekeeping. In fact, I believe from what I've read that the clay/straw, tube beehives are still in use in some parts of the Mideast.

While current laws prohibit the practice here, I can see the appeal in using tube hives which can be made from readily available materials.

Clay, sand, straw, water, and Honeybees are the main requirements.

They still build with adobe in the SW.

 

>Did skeppists really not know how to make splits?

Good grief.

 

Good grief what?

Mike (UK)

 

It always seems that the treatment free forum always has the most conflict.
I read this entire subject and it seems everyone is putting mike down for trying to develop good resistant stock. Maybe he can and maybe he cant but is this not the whole purpose of the treatment free forum.
Keep doing what your doing mike people will have to do it eventually.

 

I have watched all the Heathland Beekeeping videos on youtube, and I recall that the stocks are "thumped out" and used to restock skeps that are built up for next year to be overwintered. What I didn't put together at the time was that those bees also have a brood break forced on them by the 'thumping".
So to rework my previous analogy (post #17): Under this system think of the bees as part of the crop being rotated through a series of fields (skeps). Each year the harvest is taken, the seed (bees) are gathered and put into a new field (skep), and the old field (skep) is left fallow (empty). Admittedy, this doesn't raise resistance - it was never meant to - but it does serve the bees by allowing them to break free of brood diseases and live on fresh comb.

 

I have watched all the Heathland Beekeeping videos on youtube, and I recall that the stocks are "thumped out" and used to restock skeps that are built up for next year to be overwintered. What I didn't put together at the time was that those bees also have a brood break forced on them by the 'thumping".

Adrian,

In that operation new stocks come from prime swarms and casts made in early summer, and from little mating nucs made up from spare collected casts,a nd from culled queen cells. What with the drove bees, I doubt that business is ever short of stocks, and probably sells a great many (the bees would be another crop).

In the much more usual village settings that dominated beekeeping till the 21st C., I would imagine a similar sort of maintenance of stock numbers. I still can't see a great deal of benefit in killing colonies, unless are there just too many at the end of the year, not enough having been sold, and/or a culling of older and/or weaker is desired.

So to rework my previous analogy (post #17): Under this system think of the bees as part of the crop being rotated through a series of fields (skeps). Each year the harvest is taken, the seed (bees) are gathered and put into a new field (skep), and the old field (skep) is left fallow (empty). Admittedy, this doesn't raise resistance - it was never meant to - but it does serve the bees by allowing them to break free of brood diseases and live on fresh comb.

The old fields still contain the 'plant' - a colony with a nice new queen. So there is no 'fallow' I agree its had a brood break, and that may have had some benefit. And that this was probably very like the more common village, secular estate and and abbey settings.

Its worth noting that in all those settings prior to the industrail revolution, and in most well into the 20th C, a large wild native population was also present, which would tend to maintain and transfer naturally selected traits into all but the largets operations.

Its also worth noting that this operation is geared up to this way of working, and the size of its skeps might well be chosen in part to facilitate it. I'd think pretty much all skeps would swarm - certainly all the more vigourous - simply because that's what bees do when they run out of room. Larger skeps would tend to swarm less reliably - though all else being equal those that did would be the more vigorous and productive colonies - or perhaps those with a propensity to swarm.

It all very interesting, but I think we should be careful how much we analyse this model and extrapolate to a proposed norm. And we shouldn't simply assume no artificial selection of any kind is going on.

Mike (UK)

 

I'd still like my simple question answered, ie, what was the assumption he referred to?

But I guess some folks would rather spend pages arguing and obtusificating, that answering a simple question.

And it is that attitude, why Bispham threads always go the way they do.