# Screened bottom board on TBH...needed?



## MrGreenThumb (Apr 22, 2007)

I read various statements about TBHs and screened bottom boards. One is that in order to controle the mite problem is to let the bees, in a TBH, make small cell comb this will make the screened bottom board not needed? Any comments?

THX
Mike


----------



## TX Ashurst (May 31, 2005)

*Warning! This is an opinion.*

IMHO, Varroa mites are so ubiquitous and pernicious that good control means taking every advantage you have. I fully intend to keep the screen in my TBHs as even if it only helps a little, the bees need the help. That's what I do with bees. I help them to build up, and then I steal honeycomb from them.

Plus, there is no downside.


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

FWIW and my own personal opinion based on my locale(mild winters, limited rain, and long hot summers)

Small cell is just one way to reduce mites, and a good one. VMR or Russian strains are another, and screened bottoms have been at least for me very effective. 

Im not big on chemical treatments.

I decided on screen bottoms not only for mite reduction, however. I found my hives were healthier with the improved ventilation, especially when not forced to exert all their energy cooling the hive in the summer. TBH comb is not as sturdy as framed comb. I need not worry about comb failure due to heat build up with the screened bottom.

Reduced humidity mean't reduced bacterial and fungal problems. I learned this when modifying my lang boxes with ventilated tops. The bees seemed much more content foraging rather than fanning and spending the day finding water. I observed the same with TBHs that are ventilated.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Church said:


> Im not big on chemical treatments.


Me neither.



Church said:


> Reduced humidity mean't reduced bacterial and fungal problems.


In my experience - in winter, at least, poor ventilation = increased humidity = condensation, mould, dead bees.

I use screens even though I don't monitor mite drops. One of my TBHs has no bottom at all - just open space. It happened by accident and I thought I would leave it like that just to see what happens. So far, so good.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I have some of each, screened and not. I see no difference. But I can't leave the screen wide open or there is too much air and the bees can't control the temperature. This is three times the surface area of a SBB on a langstroth hive.


----------



## MrGreenThumb (Apr 22, 2007)

Why not use a screened bottom board but instead of it being open ,all the way to the ground, close it in? So as the mites fall through the bottom screen and onto wood underneath it...would this work? It would seem to help controle the mite problems and stop the all the excess air there by allowing the bees to regulate the hive temperature easier.


THX


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

The idea is the mites fall to the ground and cannot get back up to the bees. Your idea would work fine and some beeks do just that but there is sticky paper or crisco coating to "stick" them in place and kill them.


----------



## JensLarsen (Mar 14, 2007)

I read and hear different things on this. Some say it does not matter, there is a logic to it but are there any research to back this up? For me the SBB is for ventilation during winter.

ABJ had a good article on sticky-board use recently. I guess it is by Randy.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Ah Yes! The time consuming, we have nothing better to do with research money debate, ongoing discussion with screened bottom boards. (Is this where I type "sarcasim in?"

The last few comments(published) about screened bottom board from anybody closely associated with research on the matter, used words like "not significant" or "at least in my area"...which leads to confusion and more meandering about in the minds of whether they are worth it.

Studies I have seen a range from about 5% to 17% reduction in mites when used. So yes, for those utopia seeking beekeepers who want silver bullet remedies, or for the next article publisher with little else to do, then yes, words such as "not significant" could be used.

Just mere common sense should tell someone that if you used a sticky board, and can actually trap mites (and of course they are not all old-dead-male-etc.) then there would have to be some consideration in the fact that you have less mites than prior to using the sticky board.

Beyond the (lets say 5% reduction, which as Ashurst said. I'll also take anyday) there are other benefits such as ventilation. Bees do in fact use alot of energy bringing in water to cool the hive. They also use alot in dehydrating nectar down. This process is easier with good ventilation. How effective this may be or perceived, may be due to other "tools" in managing your bees. How much will a screen be if your hive is 6 boxes high and sealed tight? For me, a screeen bottom board goes hand in hand with top entrances.

Now does that mean I need to use some consideration in this manner? Yes. I consider the impact of these items in early spring, as compared to mid-summer. Do I need to help out the bees and cover them through winter in a highly windy place? Sure. I selected the site, the bees did not. I manage my bees by manipulating my management to get desired results. Thats called beekeeping. Something too many confuse with trying to be natural in some manner. You still need to manage them, just be natural.

The bees are good at regulating air flow if given the chance. They however can not prop a lid, drill a hole in the hive body, or make an imerie shim. They are good at sealing holes and openings that they feel are unneeded. 

For too many items in beekeeping, we expect silver bullets, or have a "all or nothing" view. I have heard many say "I used a screen bottom and didn't see a big change". Whats that? You were looking for BIG changes? Or how about this one "I used a screen bottom and had ants" And so I should assume that without screen bottoms you never had ants? Yeah right....

MrGreen, just because you have a TBH, does not mean you will have smallcell. And if anything, I would call it "natural" cell. To me, smallcell is those forcing bees onto a certain foundation, whether correct or not. TBHs, allow bees to make comb naturally. Some will be smaller, and some larger than using standard foundation. Smallcell comments over the years have produced many "urban legend" type comments with huge exaggerations, and fluff. Lets leave TBH's out of that.

If you think becuase you have a TBH, that somehow the bees will be all smallcell, and thus will never have problems, or at least have so few problems that other advantagous items such as screened bottoms would not be beneficial to use, then this would be wrong in my opinion. My opinion is that you give the bees every natural opportunity to be healthy. Even if its 5%.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

BjornBee said:


> If you think becuase you have a TBH, that somehow the bees will be all smallcell, and thus will never have problems, or at least have so few problems that other advantagous items such as screened bottoms would not be beneficial to use, then this would be wrong in my opinion. My opinion is that you give the bees every natural opportunity to be healthy. Even if its 5%.


Bravo BB - that's just the point - we need to create the optimum conditions in which the bees can have the best opportunity to be healthy. They 'know' how to be healthy - they have been that way for 100,000 years before we came along - so let's interfere as little as possible in what they do best: let them build the cell size they want to build and not impose artificial 'small cell' on them just because we say it is better for them. I have yet to see a natural comb with one size of cell all over.


----------



## JensLarsen (Mar 14, 2007)

I am still not sure the cause and effect with SBB and mites falling out is that clear. You see, one often do one thing, get one result and attribute it to one reason. This connection is not always correct. As a research engineer I see this very often and as I see it, science and research is all about securing the right connections so we can draw the right conclusions.

SBB in langs gives a better winter climate, hence better living conditions, hence healtier bees and then maybe more hygenic bees, hence less mites. The SBB I use on the langs are 40% of the bottom area. This gives sufficient ventilation.

The drawback with a full drop-through-SBB on a TBH is that it too large and expose the full range of combs to the outside climate, hence trouble keeping brood warm, hence sick bees, hence less immunity and then maybe more mites. The ventilation feature is solved without SBB on my two TBH.

Putting resources into securing the connection between reduced mite growth and drop-through-SBB makes sense to me.


----------



## notaclue (Jun 30, 2005)

Maybe I need to go back to school or I'm not getting it right. 

Are the TBH bottoms you're talking about on straight or angled sides? If they are straight sides, to fit Langstroth hives also, then I could see a possible problem with too much open and not enough protection when needed for the brood and the rest of the hive. But with the angled sides I would expect not nearly as much open area so there would be better control of hive conditions. Have I got it wrong?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

notaclue said:


> Are the TBH bottoms you're talking about on straight or angled sides? If they are straight sides, to fit Langstroth hives also, then I could see a possible problem with too much open and not enough protection when needed for the brood and the rest of the hive. But with the angled sides I would expect not nearly as much open area so there would be better control of hive conditions. Have I got it wrong?


I'm glad someone brought this up. 
I mostly use Kenyan (sloped sided) hives with screens (see illustrated building instructions on my site) but I have one experimental Tanzanian (straight sided) also with a screened floor. 
I have no hard experimental data to prove this (or anything else, come to that) but my gut feeling is that the screened floor on the Kenyans is about right in terms of ventilation/mite drop and that the Tanzanian needs its open floor area reducing in winter (I use drop-in correx sheets). 
Bees are very quick to propolize any ventilation they don't approve of - especially at the top and sides of a hive. They seem less bothered about vents at the bottom and I may be quite wrong in my feelings about the Tanzanians.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Here's my problem with too much SBB.

If it's 110 F outside and you have a hive wide open (maximum ventilation) then the temperature will be 110 F or higher because of heat given off by the bees.

If you close a hive off, the temperature will get higher because of the heat of the bees and if it's in the sun, even higher because of the sun on the sides.

If you give it only a very small opening, the bees are quite capable of keeping the inside temperature 94 F by evaporating water.

The question is, what size openings would be OPTIMUM for them to cool the hive on a hot day? Probably more than just the small opening, and probably less than a full screened bottom.


We KNOW that there is a such a thing as too little ventilation and we KNOW that there is such a thing as too much ventilation.

Luckily the bees are cabable of making up SOME of the difference if it's too little. But what can they do if it's too much?


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

*Chill*

I think Michael is dead on. Why all the confusion about SBB's on Lang hives. They were not originally intended for ventilation. They were intended to monitor mite drop. Am I right or am I missing something? The ventilation idea came later and then it was transfered to TBH's again as a IPM and again ventilation issues were imposed on them. I think we should know for sure by now in some and I stress some environments it is just an "off label " use as a ventilation system. AND actually it does not ventilate at all it just cools. True ventilation would have to be at the top or a circulator would be needed, right.
IMO the SBB is great if used in conjuction with a sticky board and if you are really bothered by the thought of your bees overheating to the point you cant enjoy your beer, then pull the sticky board back some and relax. In reality you are probably making them do more work reacting to the change you just made to thier perfect environment!

See the below link!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.beesource.com/news/article/000118.htm


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BjornBee 

If you think becuase you have a TBH, that somehow the bees will be all smallcell, and thus will never have problems, or at least have so few problems that other advantagous items such as screened bottoms would not be beneficial to use, then this would be wrong in my opinion. My opinion is that you give the bees every natural opportunity to be healthy. Even if its 5%. 


How is putting on a screen a "natural opportunity" A bee hive isn't even natural. I understand giving them every opportunity to survive, so they can work for us, it's an investment and we want to protect it!

Giving the bees every natural opportunity would require harvesting honey from trees!!!!! 

The only reason the Honey Bee is in trouble in the first place is because man tried to make them more efficent honey producers out of our own greed. It is very safe to say when man puts his hant to nature it is certainly a death sentence. Millions of examples can be cited form whales to rain forests.

I do not believe my TBH is the cure or the answer to small cell, ventilation or any other problem but I do believe it is the closest thing to a natural environment as we can get and still exploit the bee at the same time.

Screened bottoms...got no use for them I want survivors for that they will have to fight and that means as little interference from me as possible!


----------



## JensLarsen (Mar 14, 2007)

SBB have been around here long before varroa came. For me it is a ventilation thing and it saves the bottom board big time during winter. Less mold and dry dirt keeps the bees happy.

My hives are all insulated, including the TBHs, which helps the bees keep their desired indoor climate in all seasons. It keeps them from overheating in summer.


----------



## Ellen (Dec 25, 2006)

I think perhaps I am missing something. I have SBB on my regular hives. They have screen on the top and a sticky board underneath. Are we talking about just screening--no sticky board? Would an SBB with sticky board still be too much surface area for the bees to control temps? Or are the concerns with screens without boards?
Ellen


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

Quote from the article:
Beltsville Screen Insert Curbs Bee Mites
By Jan Suszkiw
January 18, 2000

Beekeepers no longer have to rely solely on chemicals to battle the pesky varroa mite, thanks to a new control developed by an Agricultural Research Service scientist. Entomologist Jeff Pettis and colleagues at the agency's Bee Research Lab in Beltsville, Md., developed the Beltsville Screen Insert to help thwart the mite.

This suggests the mites were here first. Regardless the point is that SSB's are only good for ventilation in certain conditions. There will always be a risk if the conditions in the area take a turn for the worst. You could loose everything in one night.

Do a risk assessment
Is it worth it?
if yes go for it!

Ellen,

We are talking about a screen only for the purpose of ventilation. You are using it like it was originally intended.


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

*Better design equals healthier bees*

My personal opinion.

The issue always arises:

"Let the bees deal with it, the heck with design" The strong will survive.

Well Im sure that most would agree that air conditioning in your car/truck isn't a bad thing. Running water in your house can be good, not to mention a flush toilet, and refrigerated food just might make that meal taste better. Getting the flu shot saves thousands of lives a year, and brushing your teeth prevents cavities and gum disease.

The luxuries we take for granted someone might argue by saying "oh heck, who needs a flush terlet anyhow, I just walk out in the woods and use some tree bark and I'm good to go"

Well it may well be a personal choice for some, but I strongly feel differently when you are the keeper of animals, bees or draft horses, if the design promotes better health, there is no need NOT to improve on designs to help your bees. 

I'm not saying my basis is from my love of bees and their humane treatment, my basis is from responsible bee keeping. The varroa mite may never have gotten here had there been more responsible practices. The improvement in management and better design of hives may reduce or eliminate it down the road......and its only the fault of the keeper not to be open minded enough to consider all avenues to prevent disease, parasites and pests.

Obviously the Varroa mite was effective in wiping out most of the "natural" populations of bees in the US......so nature doesn't always select for vigor and resistance.

The reality is beekeeping is a purely artificial environment and many beekeepers expect a lot from their keeps. Sometimes too much.

It is my personal opinion that it is irresponsible not to continue to work at providing new design and management tools to keep the hives healthy. Much more work needs to be done. Not only does it benefit the bees, the beekeeper, but protects other apiaries from diseases that may not spread given good management and design.

The reason people keep bees is probably many. Some want a hobby that is interesting and outdoors. Some want pollinators for their crops, Some are in the business of selling bee products, while others prefer honey over granulated sugar. 

By not considering new and beneficial designs and management techniques in preventing disease/parasites, many go for the mindless but easy route dosing their bees with chemicals. Its a bit hypocritical since their honey is being purchased by people who believe it is healthier than granulated sugar. 

IPM, improvements in hive design and good management reduces the need for poisoning your hives with chemicals. Over time the result from chemical treatments will weaken the hive. With good hive design and management it can only benefit the bees.....and reduce infection/parasite load.

As a whole, its obvious that the bee industry has taken a huge hit from CCD. Maybe its a wake up call to those who take too much, treat too much and improve conditions too little......

I for one would rather have 100 healthy hives that will give me years of enjoyment and a few dollars to reinvest in their improvement than 1000 hives suffering from quick fix chemical treatments and stress from less than optimal hive design. 

In the long run, both individually and as a whole, it would be wise to reduce the profit while improving conditions..........or as a whole both bees and their keepers, the industries that rely on pollinators, and those who think honey is a healthier alternative to sugar will suffer. 

Give your bees a break, cut back on your demands, build better hives, provide good management, and maybe a lot of your headaches in treating what could be avoided will decrease. 

FWIW


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>It is my personal opinion that it is irresponsible not to continue to work at providing new design and management tools to keep the hives healthy.

The point Bjorn is making is that there is little evidence to support that a SBB makes a difference in the mites.

The point I'm making is that Bjorn is right about the mites and that I see little difference on a horizontal hive with them as far as the bees doing better. I see better ventilation in a vertical hive, but a vertical hive is a chimney. A horizontal hive is not a chimney.


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

Church,
Wild creatures are meant to live wild, Helping them only takes away the natural instinct to what is necessary to survive. Take wild dolphins for instance it is now illegal in a lot of places to feed them because research show the hunting skills learned by survival instinct are perishable!!!

SO the irresponsible thing to do is make it all nice for them!

Domestic animals are a whole different world , you cannot compare the two bees are not domestic! 

Pampering you dog is great, pampering your bees will only lead to weak and sick bees.


----------



## TX Ashurst (May 31, 2005)

My, I am surprised at the emotion arising from this post. Perhaps we ought to tone it down a notch?

I have been thinking about all the bee colonies I've seen in the wild. The majority have been inside trees or wooden structures, but not all of them. The hollows they chose for themselves follow no pattern, except that they like a space with room to grow, but too much room. I've seen them in spaces where their entrance was at the top, and I've seen them at the bottom. I've even seen where they fly down an animal burrow to get at the hollow in a tree. Sometimes they have two or more holes to work with, but most often only one. 

I've also seen them with no hollow at all, where they build comb under a tree branch or under the eaves of a house. Talk about ventilation! They have no protection whatsoever from wind, rain, hot or cold. And they survive it.

At the opposite end of the spectrum from an open-air colony is where they have only one, tiny little opening. For example, Saturday I did a cut-out from a house where the bees were between the 1st floor ceiling and the 2nd story floor, at the southern (sunniest) side of the house. The access was via a space between the joists where one board had a notch. It was about 3/8" wide and 3" tall. What we found after we got in the space was two colonies of bees building comb at 90 degrees to one another, one to the right of the opening, the other to the left. Two queens, one in old, dark comb, the other in newer comb. The bees from both colonies using the same entrance, that's got to be unusual. Ventiliation was almost nothing, but both colonies were huge, with lots of stores, and doing very well.

My point is that I just don't see many hard and fast rules that the bees follow when they are not our guests. So, IMHO, we don't have to follow such rules in keeping them. As I said before, I like my screen bottomed, vertical sided TBH. I have a slot where I can slide a piece of hardboard or ply to close up the space. I put them in when it gets cold. I slide them in part way in spring and fall. And when it gets really hot, I pull them out. Is this the perfect solution? Probably not, but I am fairly certain it matters more to me than it does to the bees. I didn't put the screen on for ventilation, I put it on in hopes of loosing some mites. I think it helped with that, but I will be happy to be proved wrong. So far it's just a pissing match whether I am right or wrong.

In the end, the reason I still like the screen bottom is that I can use my shopvac to blow powdered sugar up into the hive without opening it up, and with certainty of getting it between every comb. And now, this year I am not seeing any mites to sugar, so that reason may become moot, too.

In beekeeping, if it feels good, do it. If the bees suffer or die, your pocket book won't feel good. It's bio-feedback.


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

You are mistaking punctuation to highlight a point for emotion. There is no need to tone anything down. As I have said in the past if it works for you, go for it!! The only real rule we all should be following is to have fun at it!


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

*bee keeping a science? not by some*

Miki,

I can see a logic behind it, but let me see if I can clarify. And I hope you don't think I am trying to be heated or emotional, just sharing opinions and ideas............and above all YES its fun.......after all, the world is still flat isnt it? LMAO..........


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

*bee keeping a science? not by some*

Miki,


As a biologist and a long time rancher I beg to differ; bees are purely instinctual creatures and act on the innate sense from genetics. They are not capable of free will and learning....Genetic strains exhibit traits, again, instinct not learning. 

Comparing dolphins to bees? A huge leap there. 

And yes, from "controlled breeding" can a strain be improved......look at any other livestock or plant model.......from starting with the simple rose building up to petal counts of 130 plus, to doubling the amount of milk a Holstein produces.....decades and centuries of selective breeding. 

Random open breeding in bees does little to promote specific traits, random management or hive design doesn't promote anything but random chance of success. Unlike bees, we have the ability improve upon these areas....if not we would all be living in equatoral regions as hunter gathering tribes. *not a bad idea really*

This is what separates chance from animal science......designed improvement.

Cows produce more milk with dairy improvement programs, the NPIP in chickens has increased egg production, broiler weight vs. food consumption, and overall health from rigorous study and design and selective breeding. Disease is reduced by shared management techniques, ie vaccines, proper sanitation, and healthy housing.

Bees, given their short reproductive cycle could as easily be improved and at a faster rate, and some have made great steps in that direction. 

And, the Varroa mite wiped out most of the feral bees in the US.......so tell me that not "pampering" did any good? 

How can using good design and proper care be irresponsible? Honestly thats pure nonsense. Abusing toxic chemicals is a lose-lose situation, poorly designed or placed hives benefits no one. As far as a business, reduced costs in treatment, labor and loss can only result in more profit. I doubt this could be considered pampering.

This fall take all your honey reserves from your hives and tell me in the spring how your hives overwintered......given your logic they should do fine  My point being that the weather in the States was all over the place, NOAA reports were completely off, and some keepers probably took more honey than was reasonable.....resulting in loss or weak hives in the spring........could this have caused CCD? doubtful........but Im sure it was responsible for a percentage of loss..........if we all share data, it helps everyone to improve. Theres no need to reinvent the wheel, but theres always room for improvement.

I don't advocate "pampering". I advocate innovation and good management to keep your hives productive over a long period of time. IPM is vital and more studies need to address hive design and management skills to reduce those variables that cause stress and disease.

The reason; it just makes sense. Healthy bees obviously produce more. The added benefit? The spread of disease will not be as great. The result, more bees, less disease, more profits.

I doubt anyone is going to succeed from stressed out or sick bees purely on the basis that they are trying to "toughen' them up.........thats an equation for disaster, not only to that keeper but to those around. Only with strong healthy hives can you then choose the genetic traits to breed better bees.

That concept has long been the backbone to selective breeding in any line of animals; living up to its genetic potential......and only healthy bees in the right environment can do that........only then can the variables be removed for improvement.

As far as screened bottoms, I beg to differ and have found not only Varroa Mite drop to levels that need no treatment, but overall healthier colonies. Are they weaker because they don't have to deal with Varroa Mite? Who cares, they are stronger because their home isn't infested with the mite. A break in the mite cycle may just result in less and less build up and the eventual decline of the problem. 

Bees are no different than any other livestock being cared for. Only with optimal conditions and management can one determine genetic strains that are superior, and cull those that are not. Stress and poor management only allows for disease and infection, even with the best of bees. 

But there is something to your point; the smart beekeepers will survive, the rest will just burn themselves out.

I think it was Bill Gates who said "no one ever learned from mistakes, only successes"

FWIW


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

Convince yourself if you wish that you can somehow manipulate a breed or a strain of anything to a good end. I compare dolphins and you criticize me yet you compare roses. The simple truth is the honey bee would not be in the predicament with varroa mites it is in now if man had not tried "controlled breeding" So roll your eyes if you wish but ”controlled breeding" and genetic manipulation is part of the problem not the solution. Look what “controlled breeding” did to German Shepards. If you really think YOU are in control of nature then you are in for some unpleasant surprises. It will be your off spring that will have to fix your mistakes made in the name of "controlled breeding". So I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

"rolling eyes" 
Childish for a biologist and rancher!

Hug a tree today it might not be there tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that is emotion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

*rolling eyes......*

Honestly I think you are a bit over the top.

Greed and NON SELECTIVE breeding caused hip dysplasia in shepards as it did with the "biting" gene in ****er Spaniels. Clearly you do not have a good grasp on what selective breeding is or how its applied to animal science or you wouldn't get so emotionally charged. 

With selective breeding, hip dysplasia is being eliminated from Shepards......only due to responsible breeders and culling of breeders affected. 
Poor Management and Inspections caused Varroa Mite infestation in the US.

Youve proven my point well. 

I don't see the need to be so hostile with that nonsensical rant. Name calling really doesnt accomplish much and adding hubris is unwarranted.


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

*Move this conversation to the appropraite forum*

See controlled breeding in Tailgater let everyone wiegh in on it!


----------



## TX Ashurst (May 31, 2005)

*This is neither here nor there.*

One thing that amuses me (not AT anyone, but general amusement) in the discussion of selective breeding is that humans do not practice what we preach. There have been a few attempts to control breeding in humans (in slaves, Hitler's arian program, interracial marriage prescriptions, etc.), but every time you get a group of humans exhibiting desirable traits, they use those traits to wrench control away from their masters and revert to uncontrolled breeding. In spite of the fact that we've done rather well as a species, you have to wonder what we'd be like if there was a long-term controlled breeding program for humans. Would all (remaining) men be built like A. Schwarzenegger and the women like Maria Shriver/Schwarzenegger? Would we all think Einstein was cute, but not all that smart? Who knows? But for most of us, the very thought of controlled human breeding makes us shudder. It's the culling that hurts, because we don't trust ANYONE to choose which of us gets culled, and which get to breed, nor even what traits to select. 

I suspect that those who have high empathy for animals see controlled breeding programs of animals in the same way and shudder at the very thought. Are they right or wrong? My personal opinion is a non sequiter, but I lean toward them being wrong. Of course, I've been wrong before.

Twice.


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

*Screened bottoms*

After reading Gary's angry postings I'd rather not discuss German Shepards.  But I will point out why animal science, not natural selection, has put food on our tables and hopefully reduced the need to destroy more of our wild habitat. 

There is a long history of agriculture; humans have domesticated animals for use for thousands of years. Hundreds of years of selective breeding and animal science has brought about tremendous changes in breeds of most if not all livestock and plants used by humans. Most good, some bad. The bad is selectively culled and hopefully only the beneficial traits are passed on. There is no such thing as bad selective breeding, only bad selective breeders. This is simple applied genetics. In domesticated animals, selective breeding has been the only way that we have a huge variety of breeds to suit a specific need. I certainly would not use a Rat Terrier as a guard dog when an Anatolian is available; my herds would quickly vanish. Only through selective breeding have many dog breeds become man's (and woman's) working friend. Almost every domesticated animal and plant has been improved for it's designed use. The domestic poultry certainly isn't the same as the wild jungle fowl, nor is the German Shepard a wild dingo or african plains dog. So.....given the incredibly fast cycle of the bee, selective breeding CAN produce a superior strain of bee that provides the traits desireable for domesticated use. I doubt anyone would argue that the Minn. hygenic,Russian, or SMR isn't selective since those strains were selected due to their desirable resistance to mites. Equally, bees can be selectively bred to produce more honey, reduce swarming, be less aggressive, resist other diseases etc. 

The contrary can be easily proven with the Africanized bee. Feral africanized colonies breeding with domesticated bees may impart more aggressive hives with opened and uncontrolled breeding. Artificially inseminated, "instrumentally inseminated" queened hives will not have this problem. And to be fair, YES, africanized bees were the result of man's hand, but in balance......most things in life are, we take the good with the bad, and hopefully the good will prevail. Again, selective breeding is not to blame, just bad breeders. 

The same can be said about management of livestock and crops. Through scientific studies to demonstrate increased yields, healthier animals or more cost efficient approaches, the farmer survives. The Ag. Extension program was designed for Agricultural Colleges to work with farmers and workers to benefit both.......research applied to the fields.

Many think that science fouls the best of plans in nature. I would argue that only by having information on diseases in bees, how to effectively treat them, good management skills from studies on optimal resources and design, and regulatory agencies that deem pesticides as unsafe, ordering the destruction of certain hives due to infectious disease, and regulating foreign pests, can bees be more protected, diseases isolated, and the industry protected as a whole. 

So, do screened bottoms work? I think in many cases they do or there wouldn't be published material indicating they do. If one person says "I see no difference" that may be an observation, but not a conclusion based on research. Only when all the variables are reduced, and a good data is obtained can there be a sound conclusion. 

The concept of "it works for me" may or may not have a foundation in fact, however if not investigated a cure may never be found. This is why studies are always needed to help prove or or disprove ideas.....sometimes they bring up more questions than answers. There had to be someone who first thought of a screened bottom......and so........some investigated its efficacy.

Sorry to be long winded......but to that point:

Screened open bottoms in my ecoclime work for me for the following reasons:

1. They provide a mechanical means for the bees to rid the hive of mites; studies show that a good percentage of mites fall or are groomed off the comb and fall to the hive bottom, if screened, they are eliminated from the hive. This percentage may mean the difference between the life and death of the hive. I am not going to discuss OTHER methods to treat mites.....but there are some which are effective as well. I will say that the use of Apistan and other chemicals may be short lived and in the end more damaging to the bees than other methods. 

2. Screened open bottoms in warm climates provide cross ventilation. This not only provides a drier hive, reducing disease, but allows the bees to forage and work towards building a stronger hive rather than fanning or searching out water for evaporative cooling. Certainly replacing these activities with a mechanical passive ventilation makes for a healthier hive and more honey reserves for the keeper. The extra fuel needed to cool and gather water may cost you 5 pounds of honey per hive. Hopefully someone can quantify this fuel cost.

3. Warm and humid=bacterial growth. Cold and humid=fungal growth. Summer bacterial problems are reduced and Winter fungal problems are reduced. 

4. In theory one may argue that the large amount of water bees search out in the hottest months may be the cause of Nosema and other diseases, since bees seek out water supplies that may be contaminated, bringing back a LOT of water to cool the hive, and potentially risking contamination from contaminated water. More bees going to that water source equals more chance of cross contamination. Certainly the quality of the water during the hottest parts of the year is less desireable than other times ie; after a good rain. Moreso the water supplies may be extremely limited, and with increased traffic from bees, much more easily contaminated. SO.......reduce the bees need for evaporative water cooling and you will reduce the contamination load on the hive. 

5. It has been suggested that swarming may be, in part, due to the build up of temperature or CO2 within the hive, from the mass quantity of bees.
Certainly it has been proven that CO2 gas stimulates the queen to lay; this MAY be interpreted as a trigger to build up the hive and induce a swarm.
An opened screeened bottom reduces the CO2 build up and just may reduce swarming in large hives.

6. In reducing swarming, the hive may grow much larger and it can be argued that it will overwinter much better due to better thermoregulation etc. Hives of 80,000 bees may be hard to attain in conventional hives, it may be more possible with screened bottoms. So it can be argued that a screened open bottom may provide for larger healthier hives.

7. A screened open bottom can be regulated to adjust for proper hive temperatures. This is much easier in a sloped hive vs. a vertical walled hive.

8. From the increased ventilation comes evaporation of open nectar (honey) cells, cells are capped faster and earlier in the season, when nectar flow is more abundant. The bees certainly may have faster build up, and able to produce more honey while nectar is still available, thus reducing their need to tap reserves. If the bees are still waiting to cap off the honey reserves after the nectar flow stops, they must be getting the energy somewhere, most likely from the reserves themselves, and reducing honey production or reserves. 

9. Other than cost and a bit more design, I see very few drawbacks to a screened bottom except in overwintering, and they are not hard to adjust.

OK.......now that I've stirred the pot.......


----------



## TX Ashurst (May 31, 2005)

Well, I'm with you fellars."

[O Brother, Where Art Thou? ]


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*This thread has gone way off topic*

"Industrial animal agriculture is grounded in the concept of maximizing productivity and profit. Selective breeding for maximum productivity in one characteristic of the animal (e.g. milk yield in cows, or breast meat in broiler chickens) has resulted in genotypes and phenotypes that may predispose the animals to poor health and welfare. The conditions in which these individuals are kept may also frustrate many inherited behaviors that they are strongly motivated to perform. In order to curb the resulting harmful aberrant behaviors, such as feather-pecking in chickens, we sometimes resort to mutilating the animals. In many places chickens are routinely de-beaked by means of a hot metal guillotine. Compassion in World Farming (an international organization that promotes the humane treatment of farm animals) believes that it is unethical to treat sentient beings in such ways. We have a duty to respect farm animals’ sentience by providing them with housing conditions that take their needs and wants into account, and by reverting to the use of dual-purpose, slower-growing breeds that have the potential for good welfare. Alternatives to current farming practices are available, and we owe it to the animals, and to our consciences, to pursue them."

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...eeding+cows+udder+holstein&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8


Progress?


----------



## TX Ashurst (May 31, 2005)

Hmmm. Apparently the word, sentient, has had it's definition expanded. I am accustomed to thinking that it means not only aware, but also aware at the level humans are aware, i.e. aware of what consequences will happen if a certain choice is made. Aware of the concept of right and wrong. Aware of things beyond their immediate time and place.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

TX Ashurst said:


> Hmmm. Apparently the word, sentient, has had it's definition expanded. I am accustomed to thinking that it means not only aware, but also aware at the level humans are aware, i.e. aware of what consequences will happen if a certain choice is made. Aware of the concept of right and wrong. Aware of things beyond their immediate time and place.


According to my dictionary, it means 'having the power of sense perception or sensation; conscious'. No mention of humans. Do I assume, therefore, that you disapprove of the ethical treatment of animals because they are not human?


----------



## TX Ashurst (May 31, 2005)

Nope. You can't assume a thing. My dictionary has a similar definition, but it also has several examples and every single one applies to people only. It's obviously a grey thing. I just always thought a sentient being was a human being until we bring in UFOs.


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

*Please, an animal welfare essay ?? you must be joking*

To make a point is one thing, for it to be accurate is another. The only thing that is off topic is posting essay commentary from questionable sources that are counter to the domestication and management of bees. If you suggest all beekeepers become animal welfare advocates, I think your argument belongs with PETA. 

Joyce D’SILVA the essayist that you quoted is not a scientist. She is an animal rights advocate. I am confident that a range of viewpoints are out there in internet land. 

_*Joyce became a vegetarian in 1971 after reading Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography. She became a vegan four years later and has published a vegan cookery book entitled "Healthy Eating for the New Age".

She has worked for Compassion in World Farming since 1985 and became its Director in 1991.*_

Vegans and animal rights advocates have a right to their beliefs, that all life is sacred, and no harm shall be done to even a Varroa mite..........this is hardly the place to be posting her essay.

Cmon, don't post humaniac snippets from radicals and expect not to get shot down. 


Id suggest rather than a google education you'd seek the entire concept as taught in most Ag. Universities. Again, her "essay" is one sided and doesn't take into account that selective breeding CAN, as seen in bees, produce healthier colonies. The foundations of selective breeding are not to blame, only those who abuse it. In that regard I agree with her. 

It is one sided to post the quotes of a person who's agenda is clearly not promoting SOUND scientific principles in promoting BOTH better selection in domesticated animal breeds BUT also overall health and vigor.

Profit is a long term standing; as such, her "essay" not founded in the basics of animal science, but more from the PETA sect, leaves out the fact that selective breeding is useful in disease prevention and overall health of the animal.......clearly PROFIT is lost with poorly selected strains that fail to thrive and produce the end result.

As such, its no wonder people have such a twisted idea of what selective breeding is, and how animal science may benefit all aspects of a breed in the long run. I pity those who are so short sighted and support their assuptions based on such "essay" mentalities not founded in providing the entire picture, rather supplanting misinformation to suit their own agenda.

If you subscribe to her "essay" then I suggest you not have one single bee, for you are abusing them by making them act in an unnatural fashion, you subject them to smoke, chemicals and pressures that bees in the wild are not punished by, and if you take her approach, you are guilty of animal cruelty. She claims that compassion should be used in animal husbandry; well bee keeping as a whole has very little compassion for the bee.......and certainly doesnt provide for any of her considerations in animal rights.

Please, the era of cut and paste google education hardly replaces a sound investment in the complete educational process.........to prove your point with such one sided "essay" jargon only proves the lack of a sound basis by which you present yourself. Moreso, its a bit hypocritical to cite an animal rights advocate on a bee keeping site unless you claim you have never smoked a hive, treated with any chemicals or squashed a single bee in your beekeeping days.

Whats next, Cut and Paste from PETA advocates?


----------



## notaclue (Jun 30, 2005)

*Do I need a screened bottom board with small cell in a TBH?*

MrGreenThumb

Being a recent 'gradiat' of a basic beekeeping course I was taught that IPM starts with non-chemical and progresses until you need 'soft' chemicals. Me I use the screened bottom board, natural cell size (use a strip or waxed line and let 'em build their own size cells) upper entrance and breeding (i.e. Russian, SMR/VSH...), and when I think it's needed powdered sugar to knock mites off the bees to try and stay away from chemicals that are toxic to the bees and us. 

I just thought that an angled wall screened bottom board would be more energy efficient for the bees. It's your choice what to or not to do with your bees home. Also I figure if you set up a groove in the bottom under the screen you can close off some and still allow good ventilation to help minimize moisture build up or all and still have a bottom board. SBB's really seem to be a versatile tool.


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

*If you wish to continue it here, so be it.*

“After reading Gary's angry postings I'd rather not discuss German Shepards”

First of all sorry for being away the Army tends to do that to us. Second I am not angry and I am tired of being accused of it. There is nothing on this site that can get me angry; it is just not worth getting my blood pressure up over it. All I am trying to do is point out a different approach. I am not “stirring a pot” I am here for useful dialog. 

I will address German Shepards and say, selective breeding has produced some very nice looking dogs it did not make them better. What it did improve was degenerative joint disease in the breed. That was irresponsible, now future generations have a new and improved disease to deal with! We do not take in the consequences of our actions when we mess with Mother Nature. That stems from greed and the need for everything in our world to be aesthetically pleasing. Bigger, better, plumper, juicer what’s next?

“humans have domesticated animals for use for thousands of years.”

Do you consider bees domestic? 

“There is no such thing as bad selective breeding, only bad selective breeders.’

Glad we agree, too bad they have done so much damage! 

“This is simple applied genetics. In domesticated animals, selective breeding has been the only way that we have a huge variety of breeds to suit a specific need. I certainly would not use a Rat Terrier as a guard dog when an Anatolian is available; my herds would quickly vanish.”

There have always been a HUGE variety of breeds some of which were domesticated for “specific needs” way before selective breeding was even an idea!

“Only through selective breeding have many dog breeds become man's (and woman's) working friend.” 

“Only”? Wow I wonder what we did before selective breeding!

“Almost every domesticated animal and plant has been improved for it's designed use.”

“Improved” “Designed use” At what cost? We may not know until it’s to late 

“The domestic poultry certainly isn't the same as the wild jungle fowl, nor is the German Shepard a wild dingo or african plains dog.” 

Stating the obvious, which had nothing to do with selective breeding.

“So.....given the incredibly fast cycle of the bee, selective breeding CAN produce a superior strain of bee that provides the traits desireable for domesticated use. I doubt anyone would argue that the Minn. hygenic,Russian, or SMR isn't selective since those strains were selected due to their desirable resistance to mites. Equally, bees can be selectively bred to produce more honey, reduce swarming, be less aggressive, resist other diseases etc.” 

I am not against the farmer who breeds domestic animals with desirable traits in the attempt to propagate the trait. But, what if bees were bred to swarm less and oops we ended up with lazy bees that produced more honey overpopulated the hive and a whole new virus resulted. My point is without proper research the consequences are great. What about depleting certain gene pools, is this a possible problem. 


“The contrary can be easily proven with the Africanized bee. Feral africanized colonies breeding with domesticated bees may impart more aggressive hives with opened and uncontrolled breeding. Artificially inseminated, "instrumentally inseminated" queened hives will not have this problem. And to be fair, YES, africanized bees were the result of man's hand, but in balance......most things in life are, we take the good with the bad, and hopefully the good will prevail. Again, selective breeding is not to blame, just bad breeders.”

That was definantly an Oops! So what you’re saying is everyone now affected by Africanized bee’s needs to purchase "instrumentally inseminated" queens. You take the results of mans hand very lightly when in reality it is devastating! 

“The same can be said about management of livestock and crops. Through scientific studies to demonstrate increased yields, healthier animals or more cost efficient approaches, the farmer survives. The Ag. Extension program was designed for Agricultural Colleges to work with farmers and workers to benefit both.......research applied to the fields.”

You’re kidding yourself, do you really think the farmer will survive. More cost efficient = no need for the farmer it’s happening today all over.

“So, do screened bottoms work? I think in many cases they do or there wouldn't be published material indicating they do. If one person says "I see no difference" that may be an observation, but not a conclusion based on research. Only when all the variables are reduced, and a good data is obtained can there be a sound conclusion. “

I agree with ‘in many cases they do” but that is also an observation, not a conclusion based on research. 
And the statement admits that there cases where they don’t. Thank you for proving my point!

What do you call individual beeks that put them on some of their hives and compared results and then came to the conclusion that they do not work for me? I call it research! Trail and error the best research around. But then again I am not a biologist, so I guess It does not count.

“The concept of "it works for me" may or may not have a foundation in fact, however if not investigated a cure may never be found.” 

1. I put SSB’s on my hives in the winter.
2. All my bees died with plenty of stores next to them
3. My hives without SBB’s were fine.

Conclusion, it does not work for me. Is that enough foundation for you it is for me and that’s what matters.

“This is why studies are always needed to help prove or or disprove ideas.....sometimes they bring up more questions than answers. There had to be someone who first thought of a screened bottom......and so........some investigated its efficacy.”

There was, the article is posted on this site and it had nothing to do with ventilation.

“Screened open bottoms in my ecoclime work for me for the following reasons:”

The reasons are irrelevant; IT worked for you, that is my only point! Thanks again.


“OK.......now that I've stirred the pot....... ”

I will no longer waste my time with pot stirring. Good luck with your bees Church I hope the best for you!

Again I am not angry


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Well said, Gary - that saved me a long post!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I think in many cases they do or there wouldn't be published material indicating they do.

But there is also much published material indicating they do not make any significant difference.

That was Bjorn's point.


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

*Over the top again, Gary*

Gary,

Im not sure what line of thought if any you are going with this........you took this to another thread and ranted on about man's intervention etc. but your post makes no sense. If you like to just play devil's advocate, so be it, but I question your agenda and would suggest in your free time you may want to consider researching "selective breeding" and animal science. After all, the German Shepard issue was due to NON SELECTIVE breeding.......and only NON SELECTIVE breeding will keep hip dysplasia in the G. Shepards as well as other breeds. 


Every point you make is contrary to your own position, Most if not all domesticated animals have been selective bred.  

And yes, bees are domesticated......or we wouldn't be putting them in artificial hives and manipulating them to produce products for consuption. 

Im not sure if you are talking from experience or from another location, but if screened bottoms didnt work for you..........maybe you should reconsider your management skills. 


Sorry, but youre a bit misguided.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

"To be sure, by careful selection and controlled crossing we can achieve increased yields of honey. As Brother Adam demonstrated, we can likewise select for docility, disease resistance and over-wintering ability. We can, perhaps, reduce the swarming tendency, increase calmness on the combs during inspections and even – at least in theory - select for the ability to tolerate or attack mites. But if our management, medication and handling techniques continue to cause the bees undue stress and our demands on them continue to grow, they will inevitably continue to suffer, to decline in numbers and to succumb to more and more diseases and pests. 
And we should always remember that, in matters of evolution, nature will select for the ability to adapt and survive, not for maximum convenience to mankind.
It is not in man's nature to be content with what he has. We see a creature that has evolved over countless millennia to thrive in a range of climates from tropical Africa to the Siberian tundra, so subtly adaptable that it can develop multiple, local ecotypes within a country as small as England, so flexible that it can live contentedly within a hollow log, a chimney or a gap in a wall and we want to impose our criteria on it: to make it behave as we desire and to produce food not only for itself but for us as well. 
When beekeeping was largely the preserve of monks and peasant farmers and feral swarms were plentiful, this attitude was less prevalent and in any case, due to the limited scale of individual enterprises, did little damage. Once mass production of hives, frames and foundation became possible, beekeeping on a commercial scale was an inevitable development. A century or so later, with the ready availability of lifting and trucking machinery, businesses comprising several thousands of hives are not uncommon and their potential profoundly to influence - for good or ill - the health and welfare of the bee population at large is enormous.
Another, more experienced top bar beekeeper, Marty Hardison, put it this way:

"By employing a system of migratory beekeeping, which requires transporting large quantities of hives over great distances to make optimal use of seasonal changes, we have enabled the problems of isolated regions to be the problems of all. If this were not the case, American beekeepers wouldn't be dealing with parasitic mites from the Philippines, aggressive bees from Africa, or a brood disease from Europe. Neither would there be concern for the contamination of honey from the very chemicals developed to combat these problems."


[extract from The Barefoot Beekeeper"]


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

Buckbee,

I can't tell what is your thoughts and what has been gleened from others. Care to clarify?

as you state: 

_"To be sure, by careful selection and controlled crossing we can achieve increased yields of honey. As Brother Adam demonstrated, we can likewise select for docility, disease resistance and over-wintering ability. We can, perhaps, reduce the swarming tendency, increase calmness on the combs during inspections and even – at least in theory - select for the ability to tolerate or attack mites._ 

This is selective breeding.


_But if our management, medication and handling techniques continue to cause the bees undue stress and our demands on them continue to grow, they will inevitably continue to suffer, to decline in numbers and to succumb to more and more diseases and pests. _

This is poor management. 

_And we should always remember that, in matters of evolution, nature will select for the ability to adapt and survive, not for maximum convenience to mankind._

This has been disproven by the work done with Minn. hygenic, VMR, and other strains that provide resistance via selective breeding. Indeed, nature is the final influence on vigor, but by improving the strains that "nature" has provided, we can do as the Good Brother Adam suggests, namely docile, healthy bees that are BOTH healthier and provide a good product. Brother Adam was a proponent to selective breeding. If we allow nature to select, at least in open breeding of queens, we run the risk of introducing inferior strains, more aggressive strains such as the africanized bee, etc. 


_It is not in man's nature to be content with what he has. We see a creature that has evolved over countless millennia to thrive in a range of climates from tropical Africa to the Siberian tundra, so subtly adaptable that it can develop multiple, local ecotypes within a country as small as England, so flexible that it can live contentedly within a hollow log, a chimney or a gap in a wall and we want to impose our criteria on it: to make it behave as we desire and to produce food not only for itself but for us as well. _

I'm not sure what to make of this. I am certainly content with the progress of many animal breeds that are constantly improved upon by selective breeding and good science. Certainly the British have been very instrumental in the most vigorous aspects of selective breeding. ref: the modern dairy and beef cow, etc.


_When beekeeping was largely the preserve of monks and peasant farmers and feral swarms were plentiful, this attitude was less prevalent and in any case, due to the limited scale of individual enterprises, did little damage. Once mass production of hives, frames and foundation became possible, beekeeping on a commercial scale was an inevitable development. A century or so later, with the ready availability of lifting and trucking machinery, businesses comprising several thousands of hives are not uncommon and their potential profoundly to influence - for good or ill - the health and welfare of the bee population at large is enormous.[/I

Agreed, it is not always the best to be the biggest or most profitable, without good management. Afterall, its not hard to consider that to sustain profit, one must use good management and healthy strains.......be it selected by natural sources or designed selective breeding. Domestication and modernization of any animal or plant must take into account all areas including vigor, production, health and the capability of domestic management. Bees are no exception.


Another, more experienced top bar beekeeper, Marty Hardison, put it this way:

"By employing a system of migratory beekeeping, which requires transporting large quantities of hives over great distances to make optimal use of seasonal changes, we have enabled the problems of isolated regions to be the problems of all. If this were not the case, American beekeepers wouldn't be dealing with parasitic mites from the Philippines, aggressive bees from Africa, or a brood disease from Europe. Neither would there be concern for the contamination of honey from the very chemicals developed to combat these problems."

I think what Marty is saying is that TBHs are not suitable for migratory practices bolstering his own view of the TBH as being superior, clearly TBHs are not the answer for many. But I agree that they are more suitable for many reasons. 

The management practices of migratory beekeeping is an entirely different matter. 

I personally think that if California needs 8 million hives, they should have 8 million hives IN California. Almond and stone fruit growers should consider the long term implications of trucking in out of state hives, and importing bees from Australia as a potential for problems and I do not approve of interstate management of hives. I feel it is a recipe for disaster......but has nothing to do with selective breeding, other than maybe the issue that certain strains may be more adaptable to differing climates and migratory practices. 

So.............what is it you are saying???_


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

Only a person who thinks they are loosing an argument accuses people of being contrary or over the top. Which is not true at all. I am not misguided at all and neither are you and I would never accuse you of being over the top. You had a point to make and you did, even if it were just to stir a pot. So did I and I did. Instead of saying I am misguided why don't you say I have a belief that I am sticking to and you have yours and we will just agree to disagree. I would like to believe two adults can have opposing views without resorting to baseless accusations! Again good luck, I hope what works for you brings you much success.

As far as your suggestion goes, I will not reply to the insult of my knowledge or skills. I know I do not know everything and I do not pretend to. 

Buck,
I got it.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Church said:


> Buckbee,
> 
> I can't tell what is your thoughts and what has been gleened from others. Can to clarify?


Everything except the quote from Marty Hardison is mine. I don't know how to put it more clearly.


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

Michael Bush said:


> >I think in many cases they do or there wouldn't be published material indicating they do.
> 
> But there is also much published material indicating they do not make any significant difference.
> 
> That was Bjorn's point.


Michael, would you be willing to point me to a few? It would keep me open minded.

Thanks


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

MIKI said:


> Only a person who thinks they are loosing an argument accuses people of being contrary or over the top. Which is not true at all. I am not misguided at all and neither are you and I would never accuse you of being over the top. You had a point to make and you did, even if it were just to stir a pot. So did I and I did. Instead of saying I am misguided why don't you say I have a belief that I am sticking to and you have yours and we will just agree to disagree. I would like to believe two adults can have opposing views without resorting to baseless accusations! Again good luck, I hope what works for you brings you much success.
> 
> As far as your suggestion goes, I will not reply to the insult of my knowledge or skills. I know I do not know everything and I do not pretend to.
> 
> ...


Gary, if you are insulted by me asking if you have any beekeeping experience or if your statement that screened bottoms killed all your hives, then I think it a personal issue. Im merely asking what your basis is for your statements which to me are not based on science but mere speculation.

Are you beliefs based on sound animal science or just your own personal ideology? Again, I have no problem with you having certain beliefs, but it suits no one to discuss "belief systems" when it comes to educated science. I doubt you would find me credible if I were to say "Ive never owned a dog before but its my "belief" that bomb sniffing dogs should be trained this way............." You would question my standing would you not?

This is about a logical discussion of TBHs, including management and selection of bees to use, be it selectively bred or wild. 

I hope you find peace in knowing that I do respect your beliefs, but they are not supported by science and moreso you are in my opinion clearly misguided about selective breeding...........and would only ask that you educate yourself so we can have a discussion that is on a level playing field. 

FWIW


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

You did not ask, you ought right insulted. which I will not resort to. You continue the same retoric over and over again even after your questions were answered, all just to stir a pot which is clearly your intention, on every thread we have on on going discussion on. You can keep asking the same things if you wish but as far as I am concerned this conversation with you is now boring and over. I will be on leave in NJ end of June to mid July my email is on file here I would love to continue this conversation in person. I see you are in PA. How bout it.


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

*suffer not*

Gary,

I think my observations are correct and well documented.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Church said:


> _And we should always remember that, in matters of evolution, nature will select for the ability to adapt and survive, not for maximum convenience to mankind._
> 
> This has been disproven by the work done with Minn. hygenic, VMR, and other strains that provide resistance via selective breeding. Indeed, nature is the final influence on vigor, but by improving the strains that "nature" has provided, we can do as the Good Brother Adam suggests, namely docile, healthy bees that are BOTH healthier and provide a good product. Brother Adam was a proponent to selective breeding. If we allow nature to select, at least in open breeding of queens, we run the risk of introducing inferior strains, more aggressive strains such as the africanized bee, etc.


Nature, unequivocally and for ever, selects not for our convenience but for the ability to adapt and survive. Please don't tell me that some lab has disproven the most fundamental law of evolution!

We may have other criteria: whatever they may be, for our convenience and profit, but they are OUR criteria and not what would have occurred in nature. My point is that, if you selectively breed for a set of criteria that are nothing to do with adaptability and survival, you ALWAYS create a strain that is at odds with nature - something that would not have arisen otherwise.

And may I gently remind you that Africanized bees are entirely the result of our meddling.



I said >>It is not in man's nature to be content with what he has. We see a creature that has evolved over countless millennia to thrive in a range of climates from tropical Africa to the Siberian tundra, so subtly adaptable that it can develop multiple, local ecotypes within a country as small as England, so flexible that it can live contentedly within a hollow log, a chimney or a gap in a wall and we want to impose our criteria on it: to make it behave as we desire and to produce food not only for itself but for us as well. [/I]

You said>I'm not sure what to make of this. 

It is simply a description of western man's attitude towards nature. See a cow; wonder how we can squeeze more milk from it.


Marty said (quoted by me)>>

"By employing a system of migratory beekeeping, which requires transporting large quantities of hives over great distances to make optimal use of seasonal changes, we have enabled the problems of isolated regions to be the problems of all. If this were not the case, American beekeepers wouldn't be dealing with parasitic mites from the Philippines, aggressive bees from Africa, or a brood disease from Europe. Neither would there be concern for the contamination of honey from the very chemicals developed to combat these problems."[/I]

You said>> I think what Marty is saying is that TBHs are not suitable for migratory practices bolstering his own view of the TBH as being superior, clearly TBHs are not the answer for many. 

Really? I can see no mention of TBHs in anythig he said there. His message is as clear as crystal to me: WE CREATED ALL THE PROBLEMS THE BEES ARE NOW TRYING TO DEAL WITH. (not shouting- just pointing this up).



You said>>I personally think that if California needs 8 million hives, they should have 8 million hives IN California. Almond and stone fruit growers should consider the long term implications of trucking in out of state hives, and importing bees from Australia as a potential for problems and I do not approve of interstate management of hives. I feel it is a recipe for disaster......but has nothing to do with selective breeding, other than maybe the issue that certain strains may be more adaptable to differing climates and migratory practices.

And I agree with all of that.


Brother Adam created a strain (actually, several) of bees that was (and in Germany and some other places, still is) docile, productive, easy-going and generally very nice to work with - and I worked with some of them at Buckfast Abbey for a full year, so I know this to be fact. However, as with all 'artificially' created strains of bee, it only takes one unfortunate cross with a passing mongrel drone to produce bees that are downright vicious and will follow you to hell and back, stinging all the way.

Bro. Adam discarded many crosses with other races/strains because they were unmanageable. These were, in most cases, crosses between types of bee that, because they had evolved separately in geographically distinct regions, would never normally have met.


Cows, you can pretty much control their mating, as bulls don't (yet) fly. (I fully expect Monsanto to patent one soon. My money's on a cross between a Friesian and a flamingo.)

Bees, not so easy. Anybody with the time and skill can create a strain of bee, with whatever characteristics they choose, and probably in a range of custom colours, but keeping that strain pure? Only if you use an offshore island and AI.

My point?

We once had honeybees that evolved to suit the places they inhabited. North America didn't have any. Now you have them and you want them to obey your rules, rather than those that nature laid down over 100 million years. 

Good luck.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Michael, would you be willing to point me to a few? It would keep me open minded.

I've seen them as they occurred and as far as I know there was only one that quoted anything significant in the realm of Varroa control. I use SBB because they are useful for Varroa monitoring and for ventilation.

I have no dog in this fight and don't have time to go look up studies for you. But I'm betting, based on what I've seen come through from time to time, that you won't find but one that says it's significant and many that say it is not.


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

Buckbee:

_Nature, unequivocally and for ever, selects not for our convenience but for the ability to adapt and survive. Please don't tell me that some lab has disproven the most fundamental law of evolution!_

Ok I won't tell you what you refuse to believe...........but at least in domesticated animals it is more the case than not that man's hand has benefited both the breed and man........you can have your cow and drink it's milk. I doubt we would have strains of bees at all if only evolution were at play and we ignored selecting superior traits to continue or develop. SO yes, we disprove the fundamental laws of evolution in a way with any animal or plant improvment. HOW we do this is an ethical concern. Again, there is no bad selective breeding, only bad selective breeders. Are wild genomes valuable as a resource, yes.......is diversity in genomes valuable, indeed, but are superior strains based on selection beneficial to domestication? Well, I often heard "my queen must have bred with a feral drone because she produces mean bees and I got rid of her" 

Aren't we discussing domesticated animals? Clearly survival in the wild has natural selection as its guiding force.....evolution of the varroa mite to be a predatory mite of bees is just one.....but we are not scooping up comb from cavities in trees.........at least not where I live. 

Evolution does not mean that every wild species is "the best". It is a process. Many species, at least before modern man, became extinct without any intervention other than natural selection. Some not so natural, like a catastrophic event. A meteor strike may not be in the "natural selection" process but could wipe out vast numbers without evolution at all.

In that we started this thread based on a design of a man made hive, it would be appropriate to discuss how domesticated strains of bees function in them........is this not correct? I think the logical inference is there.

We do not live in a purely natural environment any longer; the global community has broken down barriers that would normally isolate strains, which adapt to their unique environmental stressors. Unique pathogens previously isolated become more pandemic......

So forgive me for getting a flu vaccine to prevent a virus originating in Asia. Is this anti-evolution............most definately.

Should we not apply the same approach to bees? Meaning IF a mite which previously the bees had not evolved to deal with, due to geographic barriers, becomes an issue of health or survivability, shall we let the bees perish?

It has been estimated that a functional mutation occurs approximately every 1 million years. Should we wait that long to allow evolution to develop strains to the predacious mite without any help? Part of evolution is extinction, be it from man or from natural selection; are we willing to risk losing the battle by allowing nature to take its course? If yes, the average age of humans, for example, would still be about 35.......

And should we not have eradicated smallpox? 

_We may have other criteria: whatever they may be, for our convenience and profit, but they are OUR criteria and not what would have occurred in nature. My point is that, if you selectively breed for a set of criteria that are nothing to do with adaptability and survival, you ALWAYS create a strain that is at odds with nature - something that would not have arisen otherwise._

Yes but the same point as you previously mentioned can be selectively bred for, namely survival. We need not be at odds with behavior; that is up to the selection process that one decides.......and clearly the best situation is to selectively breed for both domesticated use AND vigor......they need not be contradictory.

_And may I gently remind you that Africanized bees are entirely the result of our meddling._

Again, selective breeding is not the cause, poor management was. Was the intent based on selective breeding work, yes. But the release of the bees had nothing to do with the process unless you argue that they were intentionally released. Many paths in breeding come to an end with no benefit...but some do.

_It is simply a description of western man's attitude towards nature. See a cow; wonder how we can squeeze more milk from it._

I see a cow and I do not equate it with nature........a cow is a domesticated animal used for man's purpose. 

_Really? I can see no mention of TBHs in anythig he said there. His message is as clear as crystal to me: WE CREATED ALL THE PROBLEMS THE BEES ARE NOW TRYING TO DEAL WITH. (not shouting- just pointing this up.)_

Marty is a top bar advocate and his comments are based on TBHs. So I doubt you can distance yourself from his dedication to TBHs, afterall, he teaches and writes about TBHs. 

The flaw you fail to see is bees do not deal with problems; evolution dictates that only only strains that survive pass on their genetic traits.... Evolution cannot occur within a generational lifetime.

_Brother Adam created a strain (actually, several) of bees that was (and in Germany and some other places, still is) docile, productive, easy-going and generally very nice to work with - and I worked with some of them at Buckfast Abbey for a full year, so I know this to be fact. However, as with all 'artificially' created strains of bee, it only takes one unfortunate cross with a passing mongrel drone to produce bees that are downright vicious and will follow you to hell and back, stinging all the way._

This again supports that selective breeding is beneficial to domesticated bees.

_Bro. Adam discarded many crosses with other races/strains because they were unmanageable. These were, in most cases, crosses between types of bee that, because they had evolved separately in geographically distinct regions, would never normally have met._

This again is part of selective breeding........culling the undesireable traits. I see no evidence to show that "unmanagability" is a direct relation to differing genomes. Maybe his work was not complete...........it never is with selective breeding, it is a process......and it can range from species vigor to production to managability, I think you mistake my views about selective breeding as trying to product a super bee that doubles honey production; selective breeding CAN be used to benefit the health of the bee.

Case in point, and not even with a domesticated animal; the Cheetah was on its way to extinction due to a natural event long before man which left the populations with almost sterile males. It was natural selection that would have wiped them out if man had not used selective breeding to reverse the event that caused this genetic trait. In time, with managed breeding, the cheetah may not become extinct, as was its fate before selective breeding ocurred. Natural selection is a roll of the dice.

And yes, bulls not even need be in the same country to provide semen for thousands of cows. 

_Bees, not so easy. Anybody with the time and skill can create a strain of bee, with whatever characteristics they choose, and probably in a range of custom colours, but keeping that strain pure? Only if you use an offshore island and AI._

Selective breeding is not just about pure strains, hybrid vigor, outcrossing, F1s- xs is a process...........its not like a lightswitch........or yes or no answer.......as with the hygenic strains, the drift towards the trait is beneficial against mites, the fully expressed trait is not suggested. 

_We once had honeybees that evolved to suit the places they inhabited. North America didn't have any. Now you have them and you want them to obey your rules, rather than those that nature laid down over 100 million years. _

Certainly this is not my position; I favor less vigorous management and allowing the bees more healthy hives........I am not one to push them beyond the limit; that only causes collapse. Do I want a healthy strain that produces a good amount of honey, is easy to manage and has good resistance to disease and pests? Who wouldn't? I for one don't have 100 million years to wait for strains to adapt to mites and only suggest that with good management and selective breeding may we strive towards that goal in a shorter period of time.

I hope we can agree that the goal is to have healthy productive bees....nothing more...... and clearly they are battling an uphill fight given the artificial restrants of hives, treatments and management..... A gentle assistance with selective breeding can, ideally, help.


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

*I was told I must be nice*

I was told by a moderator that I must be nice to you guys. 

Im sorry if I insulted you by inferred that you were uneducated or lacked experience, it was not my intention. As to the points you raised it was my only hope that you would educate yourselves about animal science before condemning my statements inferring I was some evil scientist in a lab producing bees of questionable moral character. 

Not only is this contrary to my feelings, as you will read in my initial posting which asked that bees be not so hard pressed, which may result in pandemic diseases and colony loss, but suggested that when bees are healthy, everyone profits. 

If I said something to offend you I am sorry.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Church said:


> I was told by a moderator that I must be nice to you guys.
> 
> 
> If I said something to offend you I am sorry.


No problem - I don't take offence that easily. I have read many of your other posts and I can see that we agree more than we differ. There is nothing wrong with muscular argument so long as nobody starts hurling insults and you didn't do that.

I'm cool.


----------

