# terramycin



## hartwig (Apr 29, 2009)

Trying to get things for fall treatment, I can not find any small pack terramycin in any farm supply store. Been deleted.All bee suppy catalogs I have doesn't have any either except premix stuff.What's up? we going to have to use tylan?


----------



## DRUR (May 24, 2009)

Kelleybees.com has "duramycin-10 Cat#360 6.4 oz package $6.25. Look locally for duramycin and you will probably find it.


----------



## BeeAware (Mar 24, 2007)

I have 6.4 oz packs of Terramycin if anyone needs them. [email protected]


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

hartwig said:


> Trying to get things for fall treatment, I can not find any small pack terramycin in any farm supply store. Been deleted.All bee suppy catalogs I have doesn't have any either except premix stuff.What's up? we going to have to use tylan?


It is critically important that we learn to keep without medicating. The problems we face today are almost entirely due to the fatal strategy of systematic breeding from sick (unadapted) stock. Those strains that cannot defend themselves must not be preserved as bloodlines to weaken future generations.

See http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231441 and 
http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

Mike


----------



## DRUR (May 24, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> It is critically important that we learn to keep without medicating. The problems we face today are almost entirely due to the fatal stragegy of breeding from sick (unadapted) stock. Those strains that cannot defend themselves must not be preserved as bloodlines to weaken future generations.
> 
> See http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231441 and
> http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/
> ...


Dear Mike:
Thanks for your response and I agree with your philosophy. Also, I have entered your site into my "favorites"; and although I have only briefly reviewed it at this point, finding it very informative, I intend to do a more complete study in the near future. And thanks for your hard work.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

mike bispham said:


> It is critically important that we learn to keep without medicating. The problems we face today are almost entirely due to the fatal stragegy of breeding from sick (unadapted) stock. Those strains that cannot defend themselves must not be preserved as bloodlines to weaken future generations.
> 
> See http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231441 and
> http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/
> ...


Mike, just think how you might apply your philosophy to human populations as a mental exercise.

There's a time and place for medication.

Personally I have no problem with necessary treatment to treat an illness.

Contrast this with what we have seen from a large number of beeks use chemicals as a prophylactic instead of a remedy for a condition/disease.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JPK said:


> Mike, just think how you might apply your philosophy to human populations as a mental exercise..


Hi,

I would very much rather not! I'm talking about time-tested principles of stock rearing here; and have no wish to confuse the issue with eugenics. 

We have to plan for the long-term health of the bloodline, not take actions in our own short-term interest that undermine the very viability of the species.

Every time your unadapted drones mate with wild queens, they set the circumstances for the failure of her colonies, and reduce the available genetic diversity. Is that really what you want? Do you really want to rear bees that need to be medicated just to stay alive? 



JPK said:


> There's a time and place for medication..


It emphatically is not prior to stock reproduction. 

Best,

Mike


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

Mike, you might want to give a bit of consideration to what you call "Wild" queens/colonies.

In reality there is effectively no such thing any longer in developed countries (EU) and have not been for a long time.

The bees we discover living in walls, trees and other cavities other than a modern hive are in actuality "Feral". They have been crossed with so many different sources of gene stock over the last couple hundred years that the notion you promote of pure wild stock is pretty far fetched.

You're entitled to your own opinion.

I will choose to keep bees from stock that is frugal, pest tolerant and best suited for my climate and should there be a demonstrated need to treat to get them past a transient problem then I will not hesitate to do so. 

I would take the same approach to any livestock.

Treat the acute problem rather than using chemicals as a prophylactic.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JPK said:


> Mike, you might want to give a bit of consideration to what you call "Wild" queens/colonies.
> 
> In reality there is effectively no such thing any longer in developed countries (EU) and have not been for a long time. The bees we discover living in walls, trees and other cavities other than a modern hive are in actuality "Feral". They have been crossed with so many different sources of gene stock over the last couple hundred years that the notion you promote of pure wild stock is pretty far fetched.


What I mean by wild colonies is those capable of thriving without human aid. The wild population (often called 'feral') remains the greatest hope for beekeepers. It is here that natural selection is able to play out, resulting in those strains best fittest to each local environment. Whatever their origins (in the US they are entirely escapees - though escapees from close to wild European strains) is not especially relevant. 

Their importance to the current setting is however immense. It is these strains that are capable of developing resistance to the ever-changing disease environment. This is in deep contrast to the domestic strains, where systematic medication continuously undermines the emergence of resistance. 

If we want to return to the happy circumstances of healthy bees that thrive unaided in both wild and domestic settings, we have to return to time-tested principles of stock raising. We have to realise that the nightmare of the last 30 years has been due to our selfish short-term practices, and learn to operate with the grain of nature as our forebears did.



JPK said:


> You're entitled to your own opinion.
> 
> I will choose to keep bees from stock that is frugal, pest tolerant and best suited for my climate and should there be a demonstrated need to treat to get them past a transient problem then I will not hesitate to do so.
> 
> ...


If you reproduce from your unadapted stocks, your problem won't be 'transient' - it will be a downward health spiral that will require you to import new blood on a regular basis. All the while you'll be sending unadapted genes toward the wild bees and into your neighbours' apiaries. Rather than reject it out of hand, I'd like to ask you consider the case for an 'evolutionary' approach carefully. Consider: the bees 'best suited for my climate' are those that would be there in a few years time if you and your neighbours stopped all treatment. 

BTW: this is not just my 'opinion'. The diagnosis and analysis is soundly rooted in basic modern biology and time-tested traditional husbandry. And common sense. 

If you want bees that will require your help to stay alive, carry on. It is my firm expectation however that the beekeepers who will do best in the future are those that quickly re-learn the value of sound breeding practice, and work with the grain of nature.

All best,

Mike


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

mike bispham said:


> If you want bees that will require your help to stay alive, carry on. It is my firm expectation however that the beekeepers who will do best in the future are those that quickly re-learn the value of sound breeding practice, and work with the grain of nature.


Ah, a breath of fresh air. :applause:


----------



## Tom G. Laury (May 24, 2008)

*Feral Colonies*

I find this whole notion of feral colonies as a source of breeding material to be laughable and without any basis in reality. People enamored of this idea imagine them to be survivors, living since time immemorial in some tree and harboring genetic material that will save the species. This situation exists only in their imagination. The real progress is being made by scientists and bee breeders.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

*Re: Feral Colonies*



Tom G. Laury said:


> I find this whole notion of feral colonies as a source of breeding material to be laughable and without any basis in reality. People enamored of this idea imagine them to be survivors, living since time immemorial in some tree and harboring genetic material that will save the species. This situation exists only in their imagination. The real progress is being made by scientists and bee breeders.


Hi Tom, 

If you were familiar with the basic tenets of biology, evolution and traditional breeding practice you wouldn't hold those views. They are not sustainable in light of the basic scientific knowledge of the way living organisms adapt to the ever-changing disease environment. What do you think ensured bees survival for the 100,000,000 or so years that they thrived before 'scientists and bee breeders' came along? 

If you were aware of the many keepers who haven't used medications for many years, and work in harmony wth their local wild populations, you wouldn't hold those views. Visit my website and follow the links if you want to see both scientific theory and empirical evidence. (http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/)

BTW, any progress made in raising pest and disease-resistant bees under controlled conditions faces the insurmountable problem of how you establish the new genetic material in the face of the continuing damage done by systematic medication. Locating resistant strains is the easy bit. Establishing is a different matter - but it can be done, on a purely local basis - simply by gaining an understanding of what exactly the problem is, and acting to remedy it. And you can do that without the help of 'scientists and breeders'. Every beekeeper is a breeder - just do the job properly as your ancestors did.

Best,

Mike


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

Its pretty funny that one of the foundation blocks of your assumptions works off the notion that these "Feral" colonies are in fact wild or survivors without any consideration or study of source or longevity of the feral colonies.

Consider for a moment how many colonies actually survive a winter in the wild?

What little I found on the subject indicates a phenomenally high mortality rate.

Add to that the source of the majority of "Feral" bees are the very beekeepers you're complaining about (Hives throwing swarms) and your theory is pretty much baseless.

Are there feral colonies that succeed for long periods of time? I'm pretty sure there are....are they the norm? Not likely....certainly not in geographic areas like the UK or much of Europe.

Honey Bees are livestock.

Livestock gets sick periodically but that doesn't mean that the best course of action is to let the livestock die, you treat disease and move on to breed from your strongest stock that posesses the traits you wish to select FOR.

Take a look for example at the NWC Program that Susan Cobey and Tim Lawrence embarked upon. The result is an excellent bee that is well suited for a large number of climates we find here in the US.

The notion that there are Genetically "Pure" Wild Honey Bees that are superior to other bees is comical.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JPK said:


> Its pretty funny that one of the foundation blocks of your assumptions works off the notion that these "Feral" colonies are in fact wild or survivors without any consideration or study of source or longevity of the feral colonies.
> 
> Consider for a moment how many colonies actually survive a winter in the wild?
> 
> What little I found on the subject indicates a phenomenally high mortality rate.


I return you to my earlier question: how do you think honeybees survived for 100,000,000 years prior to the arrival of humans on the scene? 



JPK said:


> Add to that the source of the majority of "Feral" bees are the very beekeepers you're complaining about (Hives throwing swarms) and your theory is pretty much baseless.


At present (in the UK) the number of unadapted domestic colonies are high in proportion to wild colonies. That is part of the problem.

Let me walk you through this with a thought experiment. Let's remove all beekeepers from the Earth for a few years. What happens? The majority of domestic colonies are gone within a couple of years. Some however survive - those with the better health and ability to live in each locality. They swarm; and the new colonies carry their characteristics - the characteristics that enabled them to survive while the others died. In each generation the process repeats; the weaker, less well-adapted strains tend not to reproduce in as great numbers as those best suited to the environment. Quite rapidly all bees around are progeny of the early survivors. The unadapted bloodlines have perished.

That this is how nature works there is no question. And it has been demonstrated that bees adapt, just as expected, when left alone. The science is available, as I've already said, from my website. If you want to quarrel with that, go ahead - but I hope you're a suitably qualified sceintist, or that you can explain to us why we should listen to you rather than the vast consensus of well founded scientific understanding.



JPK said:


> Are there feral colonies that succeed for long periods of time? I'm pretty sure there are....are they the norm?
> 
> Not likely....certainly not in geographic areas like the UK or much of Europe.


That is an open question: however where they could happily exist (with habitat available) and are not the norm it is certainly _because_ of the duff genetic material continually sent in from apiaries. In that way beekeepers cut themselves of from their greatest resource.



JPK said:


> Honey Bees are livestock.
> 
> Livestock gets sick periodically but that doesn't mean that the best course of action is to let the livestock die, you treat disease and move on to breed from your strongest stock that posesses the traits you wish to select FOR.
> 
> Take a look for example at the NWC Program that Susan Cobey and Tim Lawrence embarked upon. The result is an excellent bee that is well suited for a large number of climates we find here in the US.


With livestock you treat and send to market - but you breed only from the healthiest stock. 

Susan Cobey and Tim Lawrence bees are well suited to...? Live in managed apiaries, where continuous medication will enable them to survive? Where their drones will eliminate any competing strains in the wild population? Is that what you call 'well-suited'? Do you include resistance against disease at all as desirable traits to breed toward? 

Do you really wish to defend the practice of reproduction from artificially maintained stocks?



JPK said:


> The notion that there are Genetically "Pure" Wild Honey Bees that are superior to other bees is comical.


Who said anything about 'genetically pure'? Not me - like you I believe the notion is ill-suited to our circumstance. But I understand the difference between an animal that is adapted to its environment one that is not. The appropriate term is 'adapted'. Do you have a problem with Evolutionary Theory and natural selection?

I have to say I find the thrust of your arguments frighteningly ill-informed and arrogant. Wild bees have always been part of the art of beekeeping. The notion that they could not survive without the help of beekeepers is just ludicrous. And who gave you and your fellows ownership of the honeybee genome, to do with as you please? Honeybees are not solely 'livestock'; they also wild animals, the property of no-one, and possess an absolute right to continue as they have for millions of years.

Mike


----------



## DRUR (May 24, 2009)

Barry said:


> Ah, a breath of fresh air. :applause:


Barry, Mike's logic is invirgorating. In another thread you had mentioned the Lusby's view. Mike's logic puts that more in persective concerning the "feral" population which have disappeared in my area. I shiver to think that by raising inferior (sickly, unadaptable) drones we contribute to the demise of the wild population upon which genetic diversity is so dependent.


----------



## DRUR (May 24, 2009)

Barry and Mike:
I have tried to contact mike by pm but have never been able to use my account for that so excuse the post. I realize that this has developed into an t: area. I would suggest and encourage Mike to start a thread and discuss the issue. It is a great idea.


----------



## Ravenseye (Apr 2, 2006)

Well, the thread is off topic but that's not why it's been moderated (thank you Barry). Opinions should reflect passion about the topic, not the poster. That said, these threads contribute a lot....albeit with a few headaches. Thanks in advance for temperance.


----------



## letsrodeo (Jun 6, 2009)

:gh: goodness I love this stuff. :gh:

Dose anyone remember the origanl question??????


----------



## cow pollinater (Dec 5, 2007)

*Re: Feral Colonies*



> If you were familiar with the basic tenets of biology, evolution and traditional breeding practice you wouldn't hold those views.


I can't speak for Tom as this was directed at him in quite an insulting manner, but I work in the genetics industry in one of the first fields to employ genetic improvement and I hold "those views". I see the amazing results seven days a week.

If you want a bee that sits around and lives forever, you can probably go cut them out of a tree or even buy them as a package and dump them in a box and walk away. Dinks are a dime a dozen.
If you want a bee that:
Builds up for the almonds,
stays strong for citrus without swarming itself to death,
is gentle,
makes excess honey crops
shuts down during a dearth, AND
is resistant to brood disease and pests...
Get out your grafting tool and go to work.

You do know that border collies are direct descendants of wolves, right?


----------



## cow pollinater (Dec 5, 2007)

Another often overlooked area of genetics is management. Since the original post was about Foulbrood, I'll use Mn Hyg as an example.
Many people look to genetics as the answer to a certain problem. As in, I have AFB so if I use Mn Hyg queens the problem will go away and then they become frustrated when they still have AFB. In reality what they have is a bee that is more resistant to AFB but not AFB proof. If they also use sound AFB management techniques, then they can expect the problem to be greatly reduced.
A beekeeper that uses only genetics for improvement will see modest gains while the beekeeper who uses genetics and also top notch management will see a much bigger impact than either just genetics or just management would offer.


----------



## letsrodeo (Jun 6, 2009)

cow pollinater said:


> Since the original post was about Foulbrood,





hartwig said:


> Trying to get things for fall treatment, I can not find any small pack terramycin in any farm supply store. Been deleted.All bee suppy catalogs I have doesn't have any either except premix stuff.What's up? we going to have to use tylan?


:scratch:

All this man was lookin for was some terramycin :scratch::scratch:


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

*Re: Feral Colonies*



cow pollinater said:


> I can't speak for Tom as this was directed at him in quite an insulting manner, but I work in the genetics industry in one of the first fields to employ genetic improvement and I hold "those views". I see the amazing results seven days a week.
> 
> If you want a bee that sits around and lives forever, you can probably go cut them out of a tree or even buy them as a package and dump them in a box and walk away. Dinks are a dime a dozen.
> If you want a bee that:
> ...


I agree, careful breeding fine-tunes the strains. But when we're systematically medicating just to get 50% of hives through each winter we have to go back to focussing on breeding for health. If you living in an area where 'dinks are a dime a dozen' you are very lucky - long may it remain that way. Here 'dinks' are all but extinct. 

Mike


----------



## letsrodeo (Jun 6, 2009)

*Re: Feral Colonies*



cow pollinater said:


> You do know that border collies are direct descendants of wolves, right?


ya but do ya know the oldest bread . that they all go back to.


----------



## Tom G. Laury (May 24, 2008)

*Hot Air*

Them that can; do. Them that can't do; talk about it.


----------



## hoodswoods (May 15, 2009)

*I love this post*

Some of us believe that we have a better idea for the evolution of things, some of us believe that this theory has gotten us in trouble and we need to fix the mistakes we have made, and there is some of us that believe we screwed up by messing around in the first place.

To discount **** sapiens as part of the total path suggests alien intervention or immaculate conception occuring a 1000 years ago or so - neither of which I'm discounting - just questioning.

Some of us innoculate our children against diseases, others believe it is the source for the malady of their problems.

Hopefully one day we will find out that by intervention, modified intervention, or by non-intervention, we have found our place, and that we can turn back or move forward before it is too late and live accordingly. Border collies were once wolves, I walked on all 4's and bees had frameless hives in trees (boy my knuckles hurt). I have my prehensile fingers crossed.

Go to beesource home, do a search on 'bee terramycin' and you'll find a number of links/sources.


----------



## letsrodeo (Jun 6, 2009)

man if you squeez that tree any harder your gona kill it


----------

