Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

1 - 20 of 163 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The thread title I wanted to use was:

"Is the division 'Treatment-Free' adequate to the task of understanding 'non-orthodox' beekeeping"

I'd like to see a discussion of the proposition that while it has functioned well to separate (broadly spreaking) 'chemical' from 'non-chemical' beekeeping it is now an obstacle to what would be a useful division between methods that seek to raise resistance and those that seek only to manage lack of resistance by means of manipulations.

'Treatment-free' as currently defined makes no distinction between these aims and the methods employed to achieve them. And that, it seems to me, muddles something that we'd all benefit from unmuddling.

The main argument is that there is really little difference between treating and managing against varroa. Both aim to manage the situation, rather than to attempt to repair it. Both tend to undermine any development toward resistance. There is insufficient justification for separating them.

Aiming to raise resistance is something altogether different. Its an attempt at a permanant repair, the achievement of the state of natural balance between host and pest that would have occurred without systematic treatments and manipulations. A state where beekeepers don't undermine and destroy their local feral populations just by the act of keeping bees - thereby removing the diversity and vitality that benefits all of us.

From this perspective, manipulations are a sub-group of treatments. Resistance raising is something else entirely.

What we need are conceptual divisions - and terms describing them - that follow, and make explicit, the most important realities. At present we don't have that: and the result is muddle, confusion, and unnecessary and draining argument.

My suggestion is that the categories are re-examined from this perspective, and manipulations returned to the treating 'orthodox' section. That will supply the 'Treatment-Free' section with the singularity of purpose that was envisaged by its original proponents and creators, and allow conversations to remain focussed on the only substantial alternative to 'orthodox' beekeeping.

Any thoughts?

Mike (UK)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,000 Posts
I think if you were to read over the Lusby's POV section, it's not just management they're doing, the management they do allow the bees to "repair it."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I think if you were to read over the Lusby's POV section, it's not just management they're doing, the management they do allow the bees to "repair it."
Not sure what point you're making here Barry, but...

its widely known that systematic selective propagation is fundamental to Dee's operation. Many people believe that has much more effect than the small cell stuff. Dee herself currently attributes her success: "1/3 selection, 1/3 small cell, 1/3 proper food" (or something like that).

The 'organic' folk uniformly insist that from the outset you 'take your losses'. That is, you get rid of your dysfunctional genetics.

In your post (and the way I'm responding) we're agreeing that 'management' is a term that may or may not include particular things.

What I want to do is refine that, so that we can know exactly when we're talking about doing, and not doing, things that directly affect the outcome: 'repairs mite-vulnerability' through the only possible mechanism: raising genetically-derived innate resistance.

Mike (UK)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,000 Posts
What I want to do is refine that, so that we can know exactly when we're talking about doing, and not doing, things that directly affect the outcome: 'repairs mite-vulnerability' through the only possible mechanism: raising genetically-derived innate resistance.

Mike (UK)
Go right ahead, but I'm not pursuing "manipulations returned to the treating 'orthodox' section." The description for this forum has already been hashed out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Go right ahead, but I'm not pursuing "manipulations returned to the treating 'orthodox' section." The description for this forum has already been hashed out.
Could we think about having another major section division along the lines: 'Traditional Selective Husbandry'?

Is this your call Barry or should I be putting the case to somebody else/elsewhere on the Forum?

Mike (UK)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,000 Posts
No, it was just a joke, checking to see if you were paying attention.

'Traditional Selective Husbandry', something tells me the posts would predominately be yours. It takes a lot to get me to create another forum. Somehow 43 forums seems like it should cover the bases. If there was a strong desire coming from many members, I would certainly consider it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
My suggestion is that the categories are re-examined from this perspective, and manipulations returned to the treating 'orthodox' section. That will supply the 'Treatment-Free' section with the singularity of purpose that was envisaged by its original proponents and creators...
Any thoughts?

Mike (UK)
Look out folks. We got us a mindreader over here.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,229 Posts
By pinning ad hoc definitions and rules on a forum, you've already made a policy mistake from the get go.

It's like putting a screen door on a submarine.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,229 Posts
The general forum rules are more than enough.

Right now, we're cutoff. The folks who put the rules together don't sell TF bees or queens.

We all know that the best pollen sub comes with essential oils.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,229 Posts
LOL I'll have to benchmark that for the 2014 stupidest question and funniest response competition. :lpf:

'Posts or portions of posts judged to be uncivil may be edited or deleted by a moderator. Please avoid making any kind of accusation toward another forum user. Do not impugn their motives, do not question their skills, and do not use pejoratives.'

"D'oh!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,827 Posts
Yeah, you'll have to run it by Oldtimer.
Now ****it.....I nearly choked on my Corona!
Mike....why don't you try the threads you're interested in on the general beekeeping forum? Why do you need a specific forum? I'm guessing the interest will be the same either way.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,229 Posts
To answer Mike's question:

No. It's not adequate because the actual objective is beekeeping with resistant stocks of Honeybees.

Once you have resistant Honeybees, the rest becomes moot.
 
1 - 20 of 163 Posts
Top