Less than 2% had survivable mite loads! - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 83
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    DuPage County Illinois
    Posts
    179

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Quote Originally Posted by beemandan View Post
    Randy Oliver seems to have a fair idea of the complex interactions of various pressures.
    I would be reluctant to make any presumptions about his research practices. I've read enough of his work to realize that he has a better grasp of it all than I do.
    Speaking as a scientist I can tell you that most of his research does not pass muster. That is why it isn't published in refereed journals.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #62

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz-kill View Post
    Speaking as a scientist I can tell you that most of his research does not pass muster. That is why it isn't published in refereed journals.
    The ‘peer’ in peer review generally indicates a PhD. I don’t think Randy has one. Therefore he lacks the academic credentials. Having said that, I know that he is involved as an investigator in a number of projects that are submitted for such journals.
    If you have a PhD in a scientific discipline and have been published, you’ve probably noticed that those sorts of publications don’t pay very well. Most contributors are paid for their research by their employers…such as governmental agencies, universities or industry. They have funded labs and paid research staff. Randy doesn’t enjoy that sort of support, so he publishes in lay journals. From that base he draws enough popular support to maintain an active paid speaking schedule and consequently is able to be self funded.
    I am not a PhD. I do have undergraduate degrees in Electrical Engineering, Business Administration, and Horticulture….all from accredited universities. I worked for a couple of years in a university beelab and have a good idea of what it takes to pass muster for a peer reviewed and published study. From everything I’ve seen, Randy Oliver has a good sense of controlled, scientific study principles. He has made many contributions to practical beekeeping.

    Since you have seen fit to publicly criticize his work, it wouldn’t seem unreasonable to ask what credentials you bring to the table.
    Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. - Emerson

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    4,214

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz-kill View Post
    Speaking as a scientist I can tell you that most of his research does not pass muster. That is why it isn't published in refereed journals.
    Talk about a buzz-kill...

    Speaking as a beekeeper, I greatly respect the work that Randy does for the hobby/industry. Further, many professors and researchers highly respect Randy. He's doing the kind of work that few "researchers" have the ability to conduct. In fact, just last night I was watching a video by Dr. Clarence H. Collison former Head and Professor Emeritus of Entomology and Plant Pathology at Mississippi State University and he was absolutely thrilled to get the next installment from Randy published in ABJ.

    I think that the vast majority of those who do publish in refereed journals can only dream to have the same interest in and impact from their work that Randy sees.
    Horseshoe Point Honey -- http://localvahoney.com/

  5. #64
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flora,IL
    Posts
    3,062

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Quote Originally Posted by Saltybee View Post
    Ok I'm being lazy and not reading the original.

    1000 queens were open mated near how many commercial hives?

    1000 queens artificially mated to TF drones would have done how well or how poorly?
    Randys yards are very well isloated, and he supplies queens to all the locals for FREE to keep it that way. His stock is also a complimation of many sources, There is not a queen trait for TF that hes has not tested or tried..
    500-1000 hives mostly honey

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,270

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Randy is conducting the empirical investigations needed for practical beekeeping. Beekeepers should always test their theories with controlled experiments, the risk of confirmation bias is too great.

    On this forum, we have a number of "gurus" that have promoted theories without a trace of controlled trial. They are genuinely proud of their refusal to actually test their brainstorms, and preen about it. "I won't test for mites." These "intuitives" are the ones deserving scorn, not Randy. Unfortunately those "gurus" have influenced an entire generation of hobby beekeepers to go off on non-productive tangents, without any factual basis in their fantasies.

    Academic beekeeping is suffering from a disconnect from the practical. Academia, currently, suffers from a fascination with the ultra-abstruse. The role of the land-grant colleges supporting practical endeavors has largely been forgotten.

  7. #66
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flora,IL
    Posts
    3,062

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    >

    When I saw Dr. Sheppard do a presentation on his research with Dave Tarpy and Sue Cobey, on that topic he seemed convinced of that "popular wisdom" and was "beating that drum". He stated that only 500 mother queens produce almost a million queens that are sold.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile...84621639a9.pdf
    That math is completely skewed, in an average season there are much closer to 6 million queens produced, most of which are open mated, and knowing many of the players personal I can assure you each of them has 20 or 30 queen mothers at a minumum. changed out each year. there are about 800 queen producers, and well over 100 that are major players. major being more than 10k queens Kohnens oliveraz and Heitkums alone account for more than a million.
    Last edited by gmcharlie; 02-28-2018 at 09:55 AM.
    500-1000 hives mostly honey

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Quote Originally Posted by JWChesnut View Post
    .Academic beekeeping is suffering from a disconnect from the practical.
    The same in my country. You have Randy! We have… Randy!

  9. #68
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flora,IL
    Posts
    3,062

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Interesting thread. Salty had a good concept, the catch is, its been tried, just as Randys current endeavor has been tried many times also, this is not to say am not in favor of it at all, just to keep thinking, the solution is not yet on the way from any one. 100% supportive of the idea. Randy scientific rigor (try working with him sometime) may find something others have missed, and we all hope it does.

    One thing to keep in your mind, Randy's criteria is for RESISTANCE, not tolerance. the current viral issues vectored by Varroa make tolerance not an viable option by anything other than luck and isolation. Its strongly suspect that most of the TF success are based on a lot of luck. IE smoked for 30 years and havent died of cancer (yet)

    Even if we managed to breed to varroa, then next level is Varro AND virus loads adds much to the complexity.

    Charles
    500-1000 hives mostly honey

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Virgil, NY USA
    Posts
    181

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    I applaud Randys hard work. Good concepts.

    I spent time with some missionary friends of mine who lived in the mountains of Nepal a few years ago. We worked with the locals and the local bees-apis cerana. These bees are supposed to be the native host of varroa and are supposed to be resistant. Most of the hives are small, compared to the monster, non swarming hives we manage. Due to the nature of the monsoon and nectar flows, there was no swarming in the village hives that summer. These people live for swarms-cultural thing. Most hives swarm at least one or more times per season.The hives normally make 2KG of honey per year. That's 2KG compared to our 30 to 60KG average. We witnessed hives crashing with PMS from high varroa loads, just like most of ours will when left untreated. The beekeeper treated with apistan to try to salvage his hives.
    The commercial beekeepers there normally kill the queens after the honey harvest , let them raise a new one and add a piece of artemesia plant (related to wormwood-has essential oils that repel and kill mites). Hence a broodless period, and a soft mite treatment. This also goes with Seeleys observations of small hive size and swarming as a method of reducing mite levels .

    These bees are may be more tolerant of the mites/viruses, but are not resistant ,even though they are the native hosts.

    Just my 2 cents and observations.
    I would love to bee TF but not counting on it coming to pass in my lifetime.
    Nick Shilliff
    gridley hollow honey
    Upstate NY 1000 hives 29 years

  11. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Huntersville, NC, USA
    Posts
    259

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    [QUOTE=gmcharlie;1605434]
    Its strongly suspect that most of the TF success are based on a lot of luck. IE smoked for 30 years and havent died of cancer (yet)

    I want to start with , I know the negative health aspects of smoking. But I want to at least be rigorous to facts. Also, I understand your analogy, but think you could have picked a better one.

    “Didn't kill grandpa

    Surprisingly, fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer. Fewer yet will contract the long list of other cancers, such as throat or mouth cancers. In the game of risk, you're more likely to have a condom break than to get cancer from smoking.”
    .

  12. #71

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kcnc1 View Post
    Surprisingly, fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer. Fewer yet will contract the long list of other cancers, such as throat or mouth cancers. In the game of risk, you're more likely to have a condom break than to get cancer from smoking.”
    .
    Whoa! Condoms break about 10% of the time?!
    Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. - Emerson

  13. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Rosebud Missouri
    Posts
    4,063

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Funwithbees
    These bees are may be more tolerant of the mites/viruses, but are not resistant ,even though they are the native hosts.
    One thing that seems to be overlooked in these, it can happen or it can never happen discussions is the fact that this statement when made about our honey bees gloss over that treated bees die due to mite pressure also.

    Randy recognizes this and mentions it in his articles as the reason to make the shift. It is sorta like the bees are never going to get used to all weather. Or bees know how to live so well they will never starve. It can be talked about less bees die one way or the other but all bees seem to die. It is more that all bees (As hives not individual bees) are sick but some are sicker since the mite switched host. Bee informed has a map with virus levels. I think it is ohio that had 100 percent of virus in the hive on the map.

    Some states treated bees and still get record high losses compared to other states. Some states non- treated bees have lower loss numbers than those states that have the high loss numbers.
    This is just a small data driven comment.

    I agree, bees no matter what you do will not be immune to problems but levels of resistance are all ready present. I expect live things to die. The question is will they ever be living long enough that it is worth keeping them with out medicine. I knew a diabetic at work that was taking medication but was dieting with the goal of being able to come off of it cause he did not want to take it for the rest of his life. Of course my dad is on heart medication and he is never coming off unless they give him a healthy heart.
    Cheers
    gww
    Last edited by gww; 03-01-2018 at 09:37 PM.
    zone 5b

  14. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Rosebud Missouri
    Posts
    4,063

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Beemandan
    Whoa! Condoms break about 10% of the time?!
    That so reminds me of a joke that shouldn't be told on a family forum.
    In the joke there are 100 nuns involved.
    Cheers
    gww
    zone 5b

  15. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Bath, Maine, United States
    Posts
    2,465

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Quote Originally Posted by beemandan View Post
    Whoa! Condoms break about 10% of the time?!
    The risk gets higher if you chain use them (so I hear).
    It is not true that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
    They can learn them, they just can't do them.

  16. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Alabama
    Posts
    3,049

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Did you notice the number of mite bombs Randy found? One of the causes of failure when trying to select mite resistance appears to be mite bomb colonies in the area that collapse then get robbed out which overwhelms the colony doing the robbing with a huge load of mites. Randy mentioned this with a comment that maybe he is selecting for bees that do not rob.

    From the results Randy published, I would question whether or not his mating apiaries are isolated enough to facilitate reasonably pure matings.

    Also worth a comment for JWChestnut that "normative" has a different outcome in the face of strong selection pressure. Varroa represent very strong selection pressure. Humans represent very strong selection pressure for commercial production traits. It seems to me that Randy is attempting to combine the two with human selection pressure for commercial production traits plus strong varroa resistance. He is fighting an uphill battle with very few commercial beekeepers willing to join the fight and lots who are willing to stand on the sidelines saying "I told you so".



    Smoking? Take the hint. http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2018/02/07
    NW Alabama, 50 years, 20 colonies and growing, sideliner, treatment free since 2005, 14 frame square Dadant broodnest

  17. #76

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fusion_power View Post
    Did you notice the number of mite bombs Randy found?
    From the results Randy published, I would question whether or not his mating apiaries are isolated enough to facilitate reasonably pure matings.
    Maybe we have a different definition of mite bomb. To me it is a heavily mite infested hive that collapses and the mites are then spread by robbers. By that definition, Randy didn’t have any mite bombs. Any colony that reached his chosen threshold was treated. In all, he states that none of the thousand hives collapsed from mites. Some surely failed from other causes but if the mite loads had been managed as he states they could hardly qualify as bombs…i.e. heavily infested.

    Secondly, having read his series on his ‘new’ push to select queens, I am pretty sure he indicated that his mating yards are relatively isolated. I am sure they aren’t absoulutely totally isolated….but who’s are?

    In my opinion, Randy’s numbers stand….as is.
    Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. - Emerson

  18. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Co, NY, USA
    Posts
    3,642

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz-kill View Post
    Speaking as a scientist I can tell you that most of his research does not pass muster. That is why it isn't published in refereed journals.
    I'm still waiting for a post discussing bees from you, either about your bees or methods. Instead it's one or two line zingers about others, world views and on everything but bees.
    Hot air is all that's been provided to the bee forum thus far., not much else to offer I guess.

  19. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,990

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    but if the mite loads had been managed as he states they could hardly qualify as bombs
    I think the point may have been If randy had gone bond in his selection processes they would have bombed
    The internet is instant, and the internet is often wrong-Kim Flottum

  20. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Bath, Maine, United States
    Posts
    2,465

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    His looks to be a prospective study rather than a controlled study. Qualifies as scientific to me either way.
    It is not true that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
    They can learn them, they just can't do them.

  21. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    4,214

    Default Re: Less than 2% had survivable mite loads!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kcnc1 View Post
    Its strongly suspect that most of the TF success are based on a lot of luck. IE smoked for 30 years and havent died of cancer (yet)

    I want to start with , I know the negative health aspects of smoking. But I want to at least be rigorous to facts. Also, I understand your analogy, but think you could have picked a better one.

    “Didn't kill grandpa

    Surprisingly, fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer. Fewer yet will contract the long list of other cancers, such as throat or mouth cancers. In the game of risk, you're more likely to have a condom break than to get cancer from smoking.”
    .

    https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basi...sk_factors.htm

    "Cigarette smoking is the number one risk factor for lung cancer. In the United States, cigarette smoking is linked to about 80% to 90% of lung cancers. Using other tobacco products such as cigars or pipes also increases the risk for lung cancer."

    Still ready to light up?
    Horseshoe Point Honey -- http://localvahoney.com/

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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
  •