# Discussion point - could swarming be our saviour?



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

For some elaboration of the above argument in support of feral colonies, I just found this http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/varroaabstract.htm


----------



## shoefly (Jul 9, 2004)

Plausible. I have heard a similar argument discouraging the combination of a weak hive with a strong hive. 
Somebody must have done research on the survivability of a swarm versus the old hive. If the swarm is significantly more likely to survive you may have a point. 

Somewhat unrelated to your points but it reminds me of our american business model, which seems in a continuous "swarming mode". Maybe that is why it is relatively successful.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Tom Seely in his study of feral bees concluded that their survival was not due to any change in the bees. That left,for him, two other possibilities. The unlimited swarming that went on and the possibility of mites that had become non-virulent. 
I had the thought that it could be the new wax. The process of regression requires a lot o new waxmaking. So does frequent swarming. I just read that in Scandinavia comb is rotated out frequently. AHB, who do well with the mites also swarm frequently. Add to that, that research is going on studying the presence of 2-Heptnone in wax as a potential ally in the mite war. Apparently the bees add it when they work the wax. Perhaps it fades in old comb.
Wouldn't it be a fine joke if small colonies that swarmed often was the answer. Goodbye commercial beekeeping!

Dickm


----------



## Man O' War (Jul 11, 2005)

For the backyard hobbyist, the event of a swarm
originating from their property, would not be a thing
most beekeepers would want to deal with.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

You forgot number 9, swarming requeens the beekeepers colony providing a young vigerous queen which is known to aid greatly in the health of the colony.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I love swarms when I catch them. I hate them when I don't.







If you want the bees to swarm, that's easy. Don't do anything. They will swarm almost every year.









Of course, I think the feral bees aren't surviving because they swarm, they swarm because they are surviving and they are surviving because we haven't forced them to build unatural comb.


----------



## BillS (Feb 2, 2005)

Michael,

I agree with you. Swarms build natural size cells. They also break the brood cycle.This seems to help with the varoa mites. They leave behind all of the build up of bad stuff in the old wax as well. The only thing I am not sure of is does swarming help with the t mites at all?What a concept, let nature teach us how to do it!

Bill S


----------



## BillS (Feb 2, 2005)

Forgot to add:
The best bees I have are from a swarm that just moved into some empty boxs I had. They are dark in color. I don't know of any one keeping bees less than 5 miles away, so I think they were from a feral hive. They produce more honey than any other hive I have(Ihave 4).They winter well too. They were hard to work when they first showed up. At Michael's suggestion I killed the old queen and let them raise a new one. They are calmer now and still good producers.

Bill S


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I understood the question. I just don't think swarming is the answer. But a break in the brood cycle, a new queen etc. can be simulated with a cut down split, AND you can get more honey.









I admit, if I was retired and the hives were all in my backyard (I'm not, but most of them are) I'd probably be more prone to let them swarm and catch them because I love to catch swarms and they do have the vigor you're speaking of.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Yes, I appreciate the difficulties of swarms and neighbours - and the propensity of bees to swarm at times when we don't happen to be around to catch them - AND their love of gathering 30 feet up a tree. 
So maybe at least part of the answer lies - as Michael suggests - in developing ways of artificially swarming them such that they THINK they have swarmed naturally - or, at least, can be persuaded to behave AS IF they have swarmed naturally, i.e. retain that wonderful swarm vigour (Brit. spelling). 
The trick here must - I think - lie in the timing.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>swarm vigour (Brit. spelling). 

I read a lot of books by British authors growing up and the British spelling always looked right to me.







But I got tired of my teachers counting them as mispelled.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>>I read a lot of books by British authors growing up and the British spelling always looked right to me. 

But of course, my dear chap - it IS right!


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

DickM -
>Tom Seely in his study of feral bees concluded that their survival was not due to any change in the bees. That left,for him, two other possibilities. The unlimited swarming that went on and the possibility of mites that had become non-virulent. 

And the third possibility, that their survival may have been due to the LACK OF INTERFERENCE BY BEEKEEPERS!

Of course, if we call ourselves beekeepers (the kind who like to get a crop of honey) we will have to do some 'interfering'. What we need to be ever-watchful of is the NATURE of our interference, i.e. are we doing procedure X with due regard to its full ramifications within the colony? 

In the UK right now there is a new TV series by the wonderful David Attenborough, which uses the very latest hardware to film the tiniest creatures, whose behaviour has literally never been observed before. I wonder how much more would be revealed about honeybees by such technology than even we suspect goes on in those boxes?

I really think we have to 'get back to basics' and rethink 'modern' beekeeping if our bees are to survive and prosper.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Naturebee,
>You forgot number 9, swarming requeens the beekeepers colony providing a young vigerous queen which is known to aid greatly in the health of the colony.

Absolutely right - and they choose when to re-queen, and they select the egg/larva themselves.

MB,
>they are surviving because we haven't forced them to build unatural comb.

I think this is the other key: bees NEED to swarm (or feel like they have swarmed) and they NEED to build new comb to their own specifications. If we can facilitate these two key behaviours within our management plans, I think we will be 90% of the way towards sustainability.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>>>And the third possibility, that their survival may have been due to the LACK OF INTERFERENCE BY BEEKEEPERS<<<<<

Buckbee,
Good to get your input and to know you are watching us!

I couldn't agree more. The trouble is that there really can be nothing natural about beekeeping. If left to nature many countries wouldn't even Have bees. New 'keepers are taught how to reduce swarming and increase colony size, first thing. Skep beekeeping may have been more "natural." I put 11 packag3es on small cell foundation last spring. Included was a lot of starter strips. I think of a package as a swarm. If what they built was a natural size, then there's a lot we don't know about bees. I've certainly got a mixture of cell sizes.

Dickm


----------



## shoefly (Jul 9, 2004)

Well yes, interference is a necessary evil if you have any kind of harvest objectives.

The swarm vigor certainly seems to prove the swarms ability to quickly draw comb. Does that mean the recruits for a swarm are the 12-17 day old wax-producing bees? It would make sense that the swarming bees are of a certain age and not just a cross section of all ages. 

Secondly, can somebody cite a scientific study showing that swarms are more likely to survive than the original hive they came from?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

> The trouble is that there really can be nothing natural about beekeeping.

Well, there's the rub, as Shakespeare might have said. I would contend that there CAN be quite a lot MORE natural about it than current practice allows or encourages.

For example:

- we could allow bees to build their own comb, whether in frames or on top bars

- we could allow the bees to decide when and whether they want to swarm and time our interventions accordingly, e.g. artificial swarming

- we could use hives that allow bees to build the size and shape of comb that they prefer (the Langstroth shape is particularly poor in this respect)

- we could keep hives per apiary down to less than a dozen - maybe less than ten - to reduce robbing and competition in times of forage shortfall

- we could use bees that have adapted to our locality and climate, instead of importing 'superbees' from all over the world

That's for starters. I know the commercial guys will say I am being a purist (or worse) and I'm not suggesting that everyone does all of this right now, but I do think that this is the direction we should head if we want our bees to regain their natural state of health and vigour (or vigor, even).

The plain fact is that what we are doing now is pretty much what beekeepers have been doing for a hundred years or more and the bees are telling us that it ain't working. The fact that it appears to have worked at all is more a testament to the adaptability of the bees than to the skill of beekeepers.

One definition of madness is to go on doing the same thing and expecting a different result. If we don't change our way of relating to bees, there is only one possible result, and it is staring us in the face.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

er, sorry guys, that turned into a bit of a rant


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>er, sorry guys, that turned into a bit of a rant

And a darned good one at that Buckbee. I need to ponder what you said for a while.

George-


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Good points Buckbee,
Using them, the hobbyist coud probably effect some change. It seems to me that if we don't solve the problems of the commercial 'keepers, we don't really solve any problems. This is probably a dumb question to ask of you, but have you ever seen 500 or 1000 hives in a yard? I did last year for the first time.See: "Riding With the Big Boys," Bee Culture, May 2005. My conception of bees and agriculture changed forever. 

The Citrus in Florida needing pollination is measured in Square miles and bees in semis. I don't see any local queens possible where the bees move thousnds of miles in a season. The ones I saw went from Florida to Maine. If you take away pollination services many 'keepers won't make ends meet with honey alone. Last year it was close to cost for some at .80 a pound.

Most of them control swarming with splitting and changing new queens for old. They don't find a queen, kill her, and insert a new one in a cage. They simply slam in a queen cell in a protecter and expect 80% of the newly hatched queens to kill the old ones.

My rant is not to disagree, just to help refocus the problem. Rob Harrison visits here once in awhile. When he talks I listen. He's commercial, in a tough climate, and seems to have solved many problems with his experimentation and choice of bee. That means it's not impossible.

Dickm


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I tried to make a comprehensive list of things that we change from nature by the way we raise bees:
Genetics:
We breed less:
Defensive.
Swarming.
Propolis.
Burr comb.
Nervousness on the comb.
We breed more:
Hoarding.
Spring build up and fall let down.
We are now breeding:
AFB resistance.
More hygienic (meaning they tear out cells that are infested with mites or other problems)
Suppressed Mite Reproduction (I dont think we really know what this is except there are less mites) 
Disturbances:
Smoking.
Opening the hive.
Rearranging the frames.
Confining the queen with an excluder.
Forcing the bees through an excluder.
Forcing the bees through a pollen trap.
Robbing honey.
Food:
Pollen substitute instead of pollen.
Sugar syrup instead of honey.
Poisons, chemicals and other foreign substances in the hive:
Essential oils.
Organic acids (formic oxalic etc.)
Miticides. (Apistan and CheckMite)
Pesticides (from crop spraying and mosquito spraying)
Antibiotics (TM and fumidil).
Because of embossed wax foundation:
Organization of the hive:
Cell size.
Amount of drone cells.
Orientation of cells.
Distribution of cell sizes.
Population of the hive.
We try to get less drones.
We do get less subcastes of different sizes.
Accumulated contaminates that are wax soluble.
Because of frames or bars:
Spacing between combs.
Thickness of combs.
Distribution of thickness of combs.
Accumulation of chemicals and possibly spores in the wax of the foundation.
Ventilation around the combs. Top bars on frames have spaces on the top. Natural combs are attached solid at the top.
Because of supers, expanding and contracting volume of the hive to prevent swarming and to overwinter.
Natural hives vary in many ways anyway, but because of hives:
Ventilation?
Size
Communication inside the hive?
Condensation and absorption and distribution of condensation.
Beespaces above and on the ends where in a natural hive it is usually solid at the top with no communication there and only passages here and there at the whim of the bees elsewhere based on either convenience of movement or ventilation.
Entrance location. 
Detritus at the bottom (wax scales, dead bees, wax moths etc.)
Miscellaneous:
Some clip the queen, which keeps her from making any kind of flights after she is clipped (and hopefully mated). Some of us have observed queens outside of the hive on occasion. For what reason I can only imagine, but what if its important?
We mark the queen with some paint.
We replace the queen more often than nature does.
We often interfere with nature replacing the queen by not allowing swarming or supercedure to complete.


Anyone have anything else to add?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

dickm,
To be frank, I'm not really concerned about the problems of the commercial beekeeper - I really only care about the problems of the bees, as without bees, there are no beekeepers, commercial or otherwise.

Last spring, I opened all the hives at B*ckf*st Abb*y to find that more than 50% of them were dead. Many appeared to have starved, while for others the cause of death was unclear. Unfortunately, I was not in a position to insist that lab tests were carried out. Other beekeepers around here fared little better; some lost everything. We are in a fluvalinate-resistant area, so some were using Apiguard, others oxalic, formic or lactic acids. Something is badly wrong with this picture.

If 'hobby' beekeeping is unnatural (see Michael's comprehensive list above) then 'commercial' beekeeping (which has only existed in the modern sense for less than a hundred years - the flick of a bee's wing in terms of evolutionary time) esp. as practised in N. America, is utterly indefensible and unsustainable in terms of the welfare of bees. (Oh boy, am I in trouble now!)

We simply cannot push against nature to the extent of having 500 or 1000 colonies in one yard and expect nothing bad to happen. This is like growing an oilseed rape monoculture on the same land ten years in a row and expecting no disease to erupt. It is the arrogance and ignorance of mankind that has brought nature to her knees and now we are reaping the harvest of our own sowing. 

(Now I am sounding like a preacher - sorry guys.)


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Buckbee,
Sorry to hear about your losses. Unfortunately that is a common story. How many hives are at your location now? I have 20 and had about the same losses last year. I've never used anything but O/A. I'm thinking the problem now is the queens, which I have had to buy. I'm going to try to manage without that this spring. 

>>>I'm not really concerned about the problems of the commercial beekeeper -<<<

However, they aren't going to go away. The tail is wagging the dog at present and the wags are going to get bigger. Soon there will be a GM bee. As if the huge machine operations haven't done enough damage. 

When half my apiary died I bought new queens. I don't have enough years left to breed my own queens from the survivors. If we wanted to be really natural, we could celebrate our losses as being natures way of having an input. Only 1 out of 3 or 4 swarms ever makes it. Our bee club is circling the prospect of raising our own queens next summer. It seems a daunting prospect. Can you still find a remote spot to breed in in the UK?

Dickm


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

We did manage to make up the losses from nucs (many of which did better than full colonies: never underestimate the value of nucs)and by the end of the season were nearly back to full strenght, i.e. 240 production colonies + 100 nucs. I have now left the Abbey to pursue my own TBH/organic approach.

Isolated mating is still carried out using Bro. Adam's mating apiary on Dartmoor (est. exactly 80 years ago), which is one of a very few places in the UK where it can be done.


----------



## The anonymous buzzing bee (Jul 26, 2005)

>>I really think we have to 'get back to basics' and rethink 'modern' beekeeping if our bees are to survive and prosper.

Are TBHs the way forward? Any practical suggestions?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

You can get natural comb with foundationless frames in standard equipment. You can do a lot of things naturally without going to TBHs. Not that I don't like them, I do. I have several and enjoy them a lot. The nicest thing about them is the simplicity.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Of course, if we call ourselves beekeepers (the kind who like to get a crop of honey) we will have to do some 'interfering'. What we need to be ever-watchful of is the NATURE of our interference, 

>>then 'commercial' beekeeping (which has only existed in the modern sense for less than a hundred years - the flick of a bee's wing in terms of evolutionary time) esp. as practised in N. America, is utterly indefensible and unsustainable in terms of the welfare of bees. (Oh boy, am I in trouble now!)


So do you blame the total distruction and loss on beehives taken down by small hive beetle as beekeeper mismanagement, too? You guys are getting way too far ahead of yourselves, and by the sounds of it, real full of yourselves. 
The face of beekeeping is ever revolving. We as beekeepers have to be right on top of the ball at all times to ensure the health and productivity of our hives. 
It is some of our livelyhoods you know...
It is too easy to simply say, swarming will solve our current mite problems. As a beekeeper, manage swarming is our biggest job. Bees in the trees do not make me money, nor do they make up for my witering losses, nor does it set my hives up for a 200lbs honey crop. By managening swarming we are mearly manipulating our hives to their full potential. If our interfearance is so unnatural to them, then why are my bees flurishing, and making me a **** fortune! Must be doing something right. 
Go ahead, promote swarming. It is good news to me, for there will be less honey on the market;')
I tend to focus my attention of ever evolving bee genetics. That is the true answer. Focus our attention of promoting genetics,and speed natures natural selection.

>>I just don't think swarming is the answer. But a break in the brood cycle, a new queen etc. can be simulated with a cut down split, AND you can get more honey.

Agreed.

[ November 29, 2005, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Ian ]


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

<I tend to focus my attention of ever evolving bee genetics.>

Has our evolving genetics gotten us anything? Where is this varroa resistance? SHB? Who sells a guaranteed <hives up for a 200lbs honey crop.> queen?

Don't get defensive if someone looks a little further than normal for some answers. It's not an attack on you. Ian, you're making a living off of this stuff. You're the man. The rest of us are dreamers. If we can dream up something useful, let us do it without affecting your profit crop. Then take advantage of it. The correct answer would have been, "Let us know how it works out." lol

Hawk


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>>Has our evolving genetics gotten us anything?<<<

Yes. Hope this is a correct answer.

Dickm


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Has our evolving genetics gotten us anything? Where is this varroa resistance? SHB? Who sells a guaranteed <hives up for a 200lbs honey crop.> queen?


Maybe you should have a good chat with any of the serious queen breeders in your country. Even your local breeders. Inthe past three years even, we ( I ment those who are dedicating their passionate time) have been able to make strides in tolerating the v mite, which I would not have beleived myself if I hadnt stumble upon some of their queens myself. Focusing are attention to promoting specific trait for specific areas, and not making a one size fits all honeybee type. Im sure some of you southern beekeepers would not appreciate how our queens would perform in your environment. But up here, they are gold. 
Fortunately we dont have to deal with the SHB quit yet, and I am hoping it stays that way.

>>Who sells a guaranteed <hives up for a 200lbs honey crop.> queen?

Perhaps you should visuit some of your northern state beekeeper friends. Im not saying you can buy a queen to promote a 200lbs crop. All queens have that potental. Im saying our manipulations in the spring promote that 200lbs crop. 

>>Don't get defensive if someone looks a little further than normal for some answers.
>>If we can dream up something useful, let us do it without affecting your profit crop. Then take advantage of it

The deffensive attiude I sometime have here is mearly caused by the overwhelming lack of respect and continous "commercial beekeeper" bashing. I like exploreing into details and elaberating on honeybee biology, but I hate opinions that explain that all our beekeeping problems are associated to commercial management. All of our obsticals stem from nature itself, commercial or hobbiest alike. AFB was beekeepings biggest obstical in the 1800's also you know.


----------



## power napper (Apr 2, 2005)

Hello Buckbee(oh boy am I in trouble now)is a posssibility I suppose. I share the concern of the commercial operators bringing me (my bees)something that I did not ask for. I know of one beekeeper that bought a hive from a commercial keeper and it was so hot that he and his partner placed it in a very remote area--instead of taking care of the problem they placed it in someone elses lap in my opinion. Luckily a bear took care of the problem.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

The bees may survive but how much honey would they make???? If you want a couple or three hives in your back yard and can watch them every day and catch the swarms...ok. You MIGHT I stress MIGHT make enough to eat a little during the winter! A hive of 60,000 bees makes 4 times the honey that a hive of 30,000 bees make. Bees swarm = small honey crop unless you get a late crop! I make my living at selling honey. No honey = no money!! And yes you have to see the bees in Florida to believe it....I know of over 500 hives within 1/4 mile of one of my yards and thats ONLY the ones I see by the road! First time I went to Florida to box bees for orange there were 6 of us in motel parking lot with truckloads of supers and forklifts. amasing site! Rick


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Yep, I knew I would get into trouble!

I didn't set out to knock commercial beekeepers, but when I look at the problems out there in the apiaries, it is hard to draw any other conclusion than the biggest problem the bees have is - beekeepers. And the commercial guys have to accept that they are the ones largely responsible for shipping bees around the world and therefore it is mostly them who have spread varroa from its source in SE Asia all over the world. Recent discovery of SHB in Portugal (thankfully destroyed) was the result of a commercial beekeeper importing queens from Texas.
I know of commercial beekeepers right here in Devon (UK) who routinely use antibiotics and organo-phosphates (illegally) while continuing to sell their honey as 'healthy and natural'. If the public knew what goes into their hives, they would be horrified. 
If you want to make your living from bees, that's fine, but don't bleat about how hard done by you are - it is your choice - nobody forced you to be a beekeeper: you have other choices. Have the honesty to admit that most of your problems are of your own making and that if you continue to push bees to their limits, sooner or later you will find those limits. The everlasting search for chemical cures is a dead end: if we don't learn to work with nature - in agriculture as well as in beekeeping - we are all in big trouble. 
And - while I'm on a roll - please persuade the US government to take climate change seriously before the whole planet is screwed.

Now I'm REALLY in trouble...


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

No you are not in trouble. I agree with you about pollution and air quality! I never had allergies until the last 8 yrs or so. Now back to bees. Beekeeping is as close to nature as you can get. ut for anyone to keep bees and be successful(other that a few hives for fun/enough honey to eat) you must prevent swarming. Preventing swarming is the MOST important thing you can to in relation to making a crop. I also believe our currant method by alot of queen breeders is not the best. Buying a AI queen to graft from with no history may not be as good as picking the best 4 or 5 queens from top producing hives along with disease/mite resistance. Genetics is the key. Moving bees does spread paracites/disease. I kept 150 colonies for past 20 yrs until last 5 years when began migrating to Fl for winter and back to Ky in spring and expanding to 1000+ colonies next yr. I started with two hives with the idea to have 10....never thought I ould be where I'm at...but still love it probably even more. And that may be because of forklift ect an dless lifting!! Rick


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>still love it probably even more. And that may be because of forklift ect an dless lifting!! Rick

Ha ha. Ihear you on that.


>>I know of commercial beekeepers right here in Devon (UK) who routinely use antibiotics and organo-phosphates (illegally)

Fist off buckbee, what is this statement intended to accomplish? Beekeepers who are using sutch treatments illegally should be put out of business. If you know of sutch substances being used in an "illegal" manner, then turn them in to your state bee inspector and hold them accountable. This is exactly what devestated the South American honey industry. It is nothing to fool with.

Second off, you are tainting all commercial beekeepers to be using illegal or illegally using substances in there hives. This is a very stronge claim to be bosting about, and as sutch, should be backed with references. 
How is this comment going to hold any weight in any arguement? I dont like argueing on "hear say"


>>The everlasting search for chemical cures is a dead end:

I agree. There is less and less choices to be used in controling pests in all aspects of agriculture. Something is going to give. Food is being produced too cheaply, and too abundantly. But still readily accessible to a very small portion of the world population. As soon as our costs of production rise and crop qualities drop due to inadequate pest and disease control, many people will starve, but it will not be us. 
To think "organic" agriculture is the answer, you are being nieve. Organic agriculture, to put it simply is "farming without inputs". And that is why it has never been able to expand into large production, as we commonly think current agriculture exists. 
Did you know, that the average life span of an organic farm in Canada is 5 years,...


>>it is hard to draw any other conclusion than the biggest problem the bees have is - beekeepers.
>>they are the ones largely responsible for shipping bees around the world
>>Have the honesty to admit that most of your problems are of your own making and that if you continue to push bees to their limits, sooner or later you will find those limits.

Okay, buckbee. You heard my opinion already and I have clearly heard yours. We both know where we stand on this. 
So give me an answer to the problem. To get back to nature and stop all commercial agriculture(beekeeping) practices doesnt solve any problems, but mearly elaberates on the already existing ones. 
Your saying to stop all bee movement around the country and world, then where are all the bees going to come from to pollinate the Almonds. Or all the other crops in need for pollination. The beekeeping industry strictly found in California will not be abel hold that responsibilty. Where is all the honey going to come from, if we stop raising bees in their un-natural environmnets? Who is going to supply the huge order for wheat, cattle, hogs.....? 
If you are going to sit there and critisize me( and in me I mean commercial food producers) then give me a viable option..


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

Before mites, winter loses ranged from as low as 5% to well over 40% depending on where you wintered and how you prepared them, according to the books.

I have only been interfering with Bees for 10 years.
I guess I fit somewhere in the middle. I am not a hobby keeper, but far from commerical. The last few years I have run about 20 or so hives, and this year I expanded to 42. Mostly by making splits.
I have NOT found mites to be a problem as of yet. I may someday, but so far they are more than manageable. 
My hive loses when I prepare for winter correctly are very low, when I dont theyre higher.
I have many colonies that are 7 years old and a few may be older.
I average approximately 100lbs of honey per over wintered colony for the season.

Here is a history:
I have yards in Round Top at two locations and one in Catskill.

Round Top:
Fall 1995: lost 5 of 5 hives to bears (3 days to move 5 hives, 2 days for bears to find)
Fall 1996: lost 1 of 1 to robbing (first purchased package)
Winter of 97/98: Lost 2 of 4 hives  Not wrapped
Winter of 98/99: Lost 3 of 7 hives  Not wrapped
Winter of 99/00: Lost 3 of 10 hives - Wrapped
Winter of 00/01: lost 2 of 14 hives  Wrapped, feeder box,
Winter of 01/02: lost 2 of 14 hives  Wrapped, feeder box,
Winter of 02/03: Lost 1 of 14 hives  Wrapped, feeder box - paper & sugar
Winter of 03/04: Lost 10 of 14 hives Not Wrapped, feeder box - paper & sugar
Winter of 04/05: Lost 1 of 17 hives - Wrapped, feeder box - paper & sugar
Winter of 05/06: Going in with (33) hives. Of these several are light on stores, but are being feed. All hives are wrapped with feeder boxes, syrup and sugar.
05 Season: Purchased (5) packages, hived (3) swarms, and split 9 hives. 
(Gave (1) of the over wintered 05 hives away and made an Observation hive with frames from another.)

Mite treatments for these hives:
1995: Apistan
1996: Apistan
1997: Checkmite (spring only)/ No treatment in the fall
1998: No treatments
1999: HBH in spring and fall syrup
2000: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring and fall syrup 
2001: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring and fall syrup 
2002: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring and fall syrup
2003: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring and fall syrup
2004: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring and fall syrup; December 04 OA Trickle method
2005: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring syrup; Feb 05 OA Trickle method; Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in Fall syrup 


Catskill:
This yard was started in the spring of 2002. I moved (6) hives that had over wintered in Round Top for (2) seasons of Russian stock. 
Winter of 2002 -03: Lost 3 of 6 hives from moisture. I wrapped and did not take into consideration the added moisture from the river.
Split remaining hives used bought Russian queens. (4th season for 3 hives, 1st for 3 hives)
Winter of 2003-04: Lost 2 of 6 hives, (1) cold Starved, (1) moisture a mouse had blocked off the air flow. No wrapping. 
Split (1) hive allowed to raise its own queen. (5th season for 3 hives, 2nd for 1 hive, 1st for 1 hive)
Put all (5) hives on SBB.
Winter of 2004-05: Lost 0 of 5 hives. Wrapped all w/ open SBB all winter. Empty box w/ paper and granulated sugar on top bars.
(6th season for 3 hives, 3rd for 1 hive, 2nd for 1 hive)
Outside of the (3) Russian queens bought in 2003, these hives have raised their own queens when ever needed.
Winter of 05/06: Going in with (9) hives. . All hives are wrapped with feeder boxes, syrup and sugar.
05 Season: (5) over wintered and (4) splits from this spring that raised their own queens. (7th season for 3 hives, 4th for 1 hive, 3rd for 1 hive, and 1st for 4 hives)

Mite treatments for these hives:
2000: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring and fall syrup (at Round Top)
2001: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring and fall syrup (at Round Top)
2002: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring and fall syrup
2003: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring and fall syrup
2004: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring and fall syrup; December 04 OA Trickle method
2005: Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in spring syrup; Feb 05 OA Trickle method; Wintergreen & Spearmint oils in Fall syrup 05:

[ November 30, 2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: MountainCamp ]


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Ian,
I don't want this to degenerate into a slanging match and I apologize if my remarks about commercial beekeepers caused offence. 
Regarding 'turning in' errant bee farmers, I'm sorry to say that the bee inspectors have a tendency to 'turn a blind eye' to such practices, and as I have no physical evidence, it's hard to know where to go with it. 
I don't know about organic farms in Canada, but here they are definitely on the increase. The organic farm where I keep my bees (see http://www.riverford.co.uk/) was converted in 1987, so that's 18 years and it's still growing and prospering. To describe organic farming as 'farming without inputs' is frankly ignorant. No farming is possible without inputs - it's a matter of the source and qulaity of your inputs. Organic farmers use composted manure and plant waste, seaweed, bone meal, etc, plus crop rotation and companion planting (see http://www.ofrf.org/general/about_organic/). Quote from same site: 

"Is organic food really a significant industry?

Approximately 2% of the U.S. food supply is grown using organic methods. Over the past decade, sales of organic products have shown an annual increase of at least 20%, the fastest growing sector of agriculture. In 2001, retail sales of organic food were projected to be $9.3 billion (Organic Consumer Trends 2001. Published by the Natural Marketing Institute, in partnership with the Organic Trade Association, http://www.ota.com/consumer_trends_2001.htm). "

The only way we are going to survive as a species is to treat the whole earth with the same respect we treat our own personal living space. You don't crap in the corner of your sitting room, so don't dump your crap (including industrial waste, pesticides, phosphates, etc) where it will poison water supplies. If a piece of land will support sustainably an output of X tons/acre, don't force it by artificial means to produce 2X tons/acre.

That's the basic principle. 

Applied to beekeeping, 
it may mean that we need more beekeepers over a wider area with fewer hives. Maybe we shouldn't try to cram 500 or 1000 hives into an area where nature would have 3 or 4. It may mean that it becomes impossible to make a decent living just from beekeeping. But guess what, NOBODY has a God-given right to be a full-time beekeeper. Maybe you need to diversify - find something else to do part-time, like I and many others do. 

Let's face it, with oil getting scarcer and more expensive (if you think you are paying a lot for it over there, I can tell you that in Europe we are paying the equivalent of around US$9 per gallon) you are not going to be able to transport hives from Florida to California economically. 

And don't expect me to provide all the answers. I brought up the issue for discussion: I don't pretend to be a guru! You have to figure it out yourselves.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Mountaincamp,

Thanks for the hive records. What conclusions do you draw from them?

And do you have a quantified recipe for your winergreen & spearmint oil treatment?


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

I personally think that far too many winter colony loses are attributed to mites solely as the cause, it is easy and everyone now accepts it, when there are many contributing factors. As I have read winter loses before mites ranged up over 40%, so why now when we see 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, or even higher winter loses are they all blamed on mites?
I think that mites have an effect on bees and a colony as a whole. They reduce the lifespan of an individual bee and reduce the colony population when not controlled.
I try to counter act these two situations by feeding light syrup in the fall to keep the queen laying longer. This gives me a larger population going into winter and more younger bees than if I did not feed them or if I feed them a 2:1 syrup and the queen shutdown. It is the younger bees that will make it to spring, not the older field workers.
You need a base population to form a cluster and keep things going till spring.
I also add the oils to my fall and spring feeds. The oils are supposed to reduce the ability of the mites to reproduce and reduce the adult mites numbers as well. I add 20 drops of wintergreen and spearmint oil each to a gallon of syrup. As a side note, I pulled 2 frames of brood & bees to make an OB hive for someone. I spent a half hour over the weekend looking for a mite in it and could not find one. The hive that I took the frames from was 3 years old.
The other winter preparation that I thing is essential is wrapping the hive with felt paper or having a very dark hive box. We discussed hive wrapping at recent club meeting and only about a ¼ of the members wrapped their hives. The ones that did wintered significantly better than the ones that did not. My winter loses were generally all toward the end of winter / early spring. Winter here can see low temperatures in the range of -25F or about -33C. With late winter and spring temperature still getting down to 0F or -17.4C or lower as late as early April with daytime highs averaging in the upper 20s and 30s by then. 
A cluster that is anchored by brood and can not more to food is dead. The wrapping allows them to loosen up on the sunny days and get stores. It makes a big difference at this time of year.
I also place an empty box on top of the hive. I use this box to feed syrup in the fall and early winter. I make sure that each hive is set with a sheet of paper and granular sugar on it for winter. The box allows me to open a hive at anytime and assess where the cluster is and how they are set for food. Before using the empty box, many times I found the cluster up against the inner cover to the sunny side (S / SW) of the hive. The problem was that they inner cover was a barrier to feeding them. They had to break cluster to get to food that I feed. Also, they never like to inner cover being popped when they were that high in the hive. The empty box resolves these problems, I dont disturb them when I open the hive and I can place sugar or syrup right where the cluster is located. The feeders or sugar is placed on the top bars so that can feed as a cluster.
I believe that all aspects of what I do contribute to the colonys survival. 
I also believe that winter plays an important role in keeping mites in check as well. It breaks the brood cycle for an extended period of time. During this time a number of mites will die and their population will decrease. I do not know how mites react on wintering bees and at what temperatures within the cluster they can survive or die at. However it all must play some role.
My only conclusion from what I do is that it works for me. When I prepare my hives correctly for winter, they survive, when I dont they die.


----------



## Jackbee (Aug 26, 2005)

Buckbee we are paying around 5-6 dollars Euro equivelent for our gasoline in the US. Gas is going down. Your gas cost numbers at 9 $'s would be for the Canadians.

Not to be a razzer, but you do drive a motor car don't you? 

Economies tend to adjust to cost/value/buying power of any given money/currency in any given country. Rememder MONEY is not fixed at any given level. Floats free. The transportation cost are rising as we speak and the economy will absord these increases over time. Ever hear of inflation?

As far as the US is concerned adout enviro issues we are making strides but you have to consider that the modernizing countries are not in a position, or so they say, to concern themselves with the enviroment since they are more concerned about feeding their populations???
The two most egregious offenders of the over population phenom are India and China. They are, at breakneck speed, modernizing and it seems that the enviroment is not a major concern to them. Are you aware of the most recent hazardous, whatever, spill that is now occuring in Harbin China? 

I can honestly say that we are in fact doing " the right thing " as concers the enviroment. Also remember, this is not a top down form of government that we have here. We MAY, have, what you have one day, however we are not there yet. 

I don't have much to say about bees right now except that I'm learning and interested.

Cheers


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

MountainCamp,
Thanks for that. Down here in SW England our winters are usually quite mild, rarely below -5C and then only for short periods. I think, as you suggest, long, cold spells are actually good for bees (assuming they are well-stocked) as mites probably don't like the cold and maybe AFB spores and other nasties don't either. I also think your 'do a bit of several things' approach is sound - we cannot pin our hopes on a single technique.

What do you do about swarming?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

"What do you do about swarming? "

I'm against it. I regard each swarmed colony in my apiary as something of a failure (even if I catch the swarm). It disrupts production, attracts undue attention and results in weakened colonies. My bees will have to live without salvation.


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

I start feeding light syrup here the 2nd or 3rd week of February when we still have a lot of winter left to go.
I make my splits up here about 3 weeks before the swarm season starts. So my splits are made the 2nd or 3rd week of April. When I get a good day of weather.
The splits raise there own queens so they have a 4 week or so break in the brood cycle.
The brood and the nurse bees all go with the split, so the queen has all open comb and starts freash. 
If the hive needs to be requeened, then I leave a frame with some eggs and remove the queen.
This basically eliminates swarms for the season for most hives and queens.
I have a hive that is almost all made up of foragers with nothing to do but bring in nectar for an early crop. It will also be ready for the later summer & fall flows. The other hive will be ready to produce a summer & fall crop.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>the bee inspectors have a tendency to 'turn a blind eye' to such practices, and as I have no physical evidence, it's hard to know where to go with it. 

If you had any real evedence I'm sure you would go somewhere with it, including your "turn a blind eye" inspectors. 
The problem with argueing on fabricated stories or hear say, is they can completely take down the credability of ones arguement.


>>To describe organic farming as 'farming without inputs' is frankly ignorant....composted manure and plant waste, seaweed, bone meal, etc, plus crop rotation and companion planting

>>Approximately 2% of the U.S. food supply is grown using organic methods. Over the past decade, sales of organic products have shown an annual increase of at least 20%, the fastest growing sector of agriculture. 


Yes, it was ignorant to say, for I over simplified my statement. I'm talking world wide food production here. Not just your neich American market. Yes, organic agriculture has increased greatly in the last two decades, but your only condidering its growth in a wealth counrty, not world wide, and your not considering population growth over the last two decades.

I will correct my statement saying, Organic agriculture, to put it simply is "farming without inputs" when attributing it to large scale. And that is why it has never been able to expand into large production, as we commonly think current agriculture exists. Just try to find enough manure to cover all of the world producing acres, then try to find a more economical method to apply it. 

You are argueing sustainability, arnt you? How can you ever imagine mass food production without our current innovations and technologies as being sustainable?


>>But guess what, NOBODY has a God-given right to be a full-time beekeeper. Maybe you need to diversify - find something else to do part-time, like I and many others do. 


Not sure your intention here. Why do I have to have gods given right to produce honey? I am mearly making a living. 400 hives along side of a 250 cow/calf pure bred stock/beef farm, and 1200 acres of crop land. Do you think I have time for something else to do part time? Oh ya, I also am a father of two, a job on its own...


It is a crying same when there are opinions floating about that farmers dont need to be able to make a living on food production. For it is the people who are contracting the work out to the farmers. Lets let the people produce the food insead, and see if they have time to hold their standard of living....


>>And don't expect me to provide all the answers. I brought up the issue for discussion: I don't pretend to be a guru! You have to figure it out yourselves.

Give me a break,. YOu didnt bring up the issue to disscuss!! You slaged all the worlds commercial food producers and blamed them on the earths demize!! Shal I pull up one of your quotes??

I always hold by a simple rule when argueing/debating issues.

Dont critasize the problem when you dont have an answer to solve it.

[ December 02, 2005, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Ian ]


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Mountaincamp,

I'm slowly working towards a system of production almost identical to what you described. I still havn't been able to get the large spring crop, but I think that has to do with my crush and strain harvest method. The bees have to build about 50% new comb every year. Oh well, at least I'll never have to worry about having diseased comb.


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

There was a time in history when all agraculture was organic. Actually for most of the last 5000 or so years. Of course there were alternating peroids of famine. Most folks died before they were 30, but they didnt have to worry about thier chlorestoral levels. I mean , hey, now I have to go to the gym to keep from getting fat. I wonder how many antibotics were in that steak I ate for dinner. How will I have enough money to last till I am 75 or older?
Maybe we should go back to how it was, clean air, no pesticides, no antibotics....a healthier time!

Ok, enough sarcasm. Because of comercialised agraculture, we have the prosperity to take the time to look at its shortcommings, instead of scratching the dirt with wooden hoes.
Because its an industry it has the rescources to study its problems and fund solutions and it will, because there is money to be made by improving the methods.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Ian,
I'm not taking any sides just giving information.

At EAS there was a young lady from one of your universities that did a study on the pollination of rape. She found a low level of pollinaters of all kinds where fields were continuous for miles. She actually proved that an occasional swath of land taken out of production and let go fallow, resulted in a larger crop of rapeseed in the remaining acerage. This, because those pollinaters need a little wilderness to propagate. Now this was organic!

Dickm


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>a low level of pollinaters of all kinds where fields were continuous for miles.

Must be somewhere in Saskatewan, I bet. Vast acerages in that provence. Yet still many beehive operatiors. Here in Manitoba, you will be hard pressed not to find an operator in areas. But we dont seem to be crowded. (not too many fights of terrirory here)

>>She actually proved that an occasional swath of land taken out of production and let go fallow, resulted in a larger crop of rapeseed in the remaining acerage. This, because those pollinaters need a little wilderness to propagate.

I will argue that it wasnt in relation to the pollinator. Rape is self pollinating unlike Buckwheat that requires pollinaiton for seed set. If your young lady was from Saskatewan, then the swaths of land taken out are common practice. But for moisture retention. Sack. is a dry provence on average. By summerfallowing in strips, they reduce wind erosion, which is the huge disadvantage to summerfallowing. 
Summerfallow is one method of farming organically in terms of finding a method to control weeds. Once practice by all farmers on vergin land, even my father. But soil erosion, pulverized soil structure,and exausting reserve nutrients are its downsides. 

Soory buckbee, I just noticed you are from England, not the US. Never the less, my arguement hold the same, as England is a counrty of wealth


----------



## Canoe Caper (Jan 25, 2005)

The Totnes bee is not really suitable for UK damp conditions. Most of BA's work fought with rather than worked with the wet UK environment. Fine bees for elsewhere though.
Varroa has just about eliminated our feral colonies.
Shook swarming onto fresh foundation is recommended as a routine hygene procedure, ideally annually.
In Germany, I believe it is law to be able to discern the outline of a hand through the brood comb.
Anticipate this requirement to be applied to those exporting to the EEC (Europe).
German honey consumption is very much higher per head than elsewhere in Europe.

Rgds.
Malcolm


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Ian,

"Most organic farmers are motivated by more than economic objectives - their aim is to optimize land, animal, and plant interactions, preserve natural nutrient and energy flows, and enhance biodiversity, all of which contribute to sustainable agriculture."
see http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/9901sp3.htm

Around here, it is very noticeable that wild plant species are making a big comeback since farmers reduced their chemical inputs. This can only be good for the bees.


When I said:
>>But guess what, NOBODY has a God-given right to be a full-time beekeeper. 

I simply meant that, when commercial beekeepers are confronted with suggestions that their ways of doing things are damaging to bees and/or the wider environment, they tend to get defensive and say things that suggest they put more importance on their own income than on the interests of the bees or the planet. 

Blue.eyed.Wolf,
Nobody is suggesting that we 'go back' to primitive agricultural systems. The fact is - as Ian already said - that we are over-producing food. There is no world food shortage - only very uneven distribution of wealth. Most Americans and Europeans eat far more than is good for them. Obesity is one of our top three health hazards. I suggest you educate yourself about modern organic agriculture.

"Sustainable agriculture must become the primary goal for agricultural and rural policy. A more sustainable agriculture seeks to make the best use of natures goods and services as functional inputs. It does this by integrating regenerative processes (such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration and natural enemies of pests) into food production processes. It minimises the use of inputs that damage the environment or harm human health. Put simply, it is agriculture that minimises negative externalities and maximises the positive side-effects."

New Farming for Britain - Towards a National Plan for Reconstruction, July 2001, by Jules Pretty, Professor of Environment and Society, University of Essex

For suggestions about how food production could be organized, see: 
http://www.naturallygrown.org/ http://www.wholesomefood.org/

I append a short article, which may give some people pause for thought:

................................................

Why fruit & veg were better for us 50 years ago

Fruit & vegetables are not as good for us as they were 50 years ago, according to a scientific study. Modern farming methods mean that the amount of essential minerals in the food we eat has been reduced alarmingly. There is up to 75% less calcium & 93% less copper in fruit & vegetables, the study says Runner beans which used to contain a significant amount of sodium - vital for the working of the nerves & muscles - now have almost no traces of it at all. The levels of other important minerals such as iron, phosphorous, potassium & magnesium have also plummeted.

Nutritionist David Thomas said he was 'astonished' by his findings. "Minerals have been recognised as being very important to our physiology, but the general public has no idea that there has been this dramatic decline in the levels of such elements in our food," he said.

His research showed that broccoli has 75% less calcium, which is essential for building healthy bones & teeth. Carrots have 75% less magnesium, which protects against heart attacks, asthma & kidney stones. Spinach, famous as a good source of iron, was found to have 60% less iron than it had 50 years ago.

Mr Thomas said he believed the reduction in the mineral content of food was a result of modern farming methods which use massive amounts of fertilisers on the soil. The fertilisers encourage plant growth, but this is at the expense of the minerals which are important for good health. Mr Thomas said: "We are made up of these substances. If they're deficient then the body cannot cope as well as it would otherwise."

He based his conclusions on data from The Composition of Foods, a comprehensive study of all major foods dating back to 1940 By comparing figures over a 50 year period he was able to plot certain trends. A similar analysis, comparing data from 1930 & 1980 was published in the British Food Journals in 1977. It compared 20 vegetables & found levels of calcium, iron & other minerals had declined significantly.

Professor Tim Lang, of the renowned Centre for Food Policy at the Thames Valley University, said the results revealed an important trend which needed to be exposed. "These are big percentages," he said. "The nature of production is altering what we are eating. Plant breeders have been trying to develop tomatoes, carrots & fruit that look nice, resist disease & can withstand being shipped halfway around the world. They have been less concerned about the minerals in the food." "We are dying prematurely of coronary heart disease & cancer & we are being told to cut down on fat & eat more fruit & vegetables. But at the same time they are changing the content of what they are eating.

Mr Thomas runs a company called Trace Minerals UK, based in Sussex, which distributes a mineral supplement called ConcernTrace. Professor Lang said that despite his commercial interest, Mr Thomas had carried out a legitimate piece of research. Percentage losses follow:

Vegetables
Runner beans nearly 100% of sodium
Watercress 93% of copper
Carrots 75% of magnesium
Broccoli 75% of calcium
Spring onion 74% of calcium
Swede 71% of iron
Spinach 60% of iron
Potatoes 47% of phosphorous

Fruits
Orange 67% of iron
Avocado 62% of sodium
Strawberry 55% of calcium
Melon 45% of magnesium
Passion fruit 43% of potassium
Rasberry 39% of calcium
Blackberry 35% of calcium
Rhubarb 32% of potassium

Duncan Cross is a speaker, researcher & writer on health subjects. He specialises in children's & adult's behavioural problems, physical & mental conditions, many of which are amenable to dietary intervention.

..................................................


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

I don't want to labour the point, but I just read this and thought I would pass it on:

" I think the planet is in much more serious trouble than most people realise, that we could be on the verge of an ecological catastrophe if things carry on this way. I've just been reading a book by Jared Diamond called Collapse? in which he talks about how throughout history, civilisations have collapsed because they've done one of two things in particular: either destroyed their forests or practised unsustainable agriculture.

Easter Island or the Mayan civilisation. There are lots of examples where civilisations have disappeared quite rapidly because of these two factors, and he's saying that if this happens again - and all the indications are that it could - it won't just happen on a local level, it could happen on a global level.

So those of us who share this perspective have a responsibility to work together, not just on a national basis but on a planetary basis, to raise awareness of the precariousness of our so-called civilised society. If the oil runs out or if civil unrest becomes a serious issue - could well be about oil or food shortages - most of us are incredibly vulnerable. Think of all the centralised food systems based on industrial fanning production, certainly in all the major conurbations of Britain, and in south east England in particular. If those systems failed, most of us would have very little capacity to get food. So we really need to think very seriously about a more sustainable approach to agriculture, based on relocalising food distribution systems. I think it's an urgent imperative.

I'm quite optimistic that we can do this. I believe millions of people intuitively share these concerns and yearn for something different. If we can harness the power of that latent awareness, we can use it to drive change, politically but also through the marketplace. In a world where we can easily feel very disempowered, if everyone woke up tomorrow completely committed to buying in-season local, organic where possible, sustainably produced food, the future of agriculture would completely change. We're the powerful ones, it's our buying habits that affect the future of farming."

Patrick Holden, Director, Soil Association 
http://www.soilassociation.org/

Article from Country Smallholding Magazine, January, 2006 (p.71)


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I think we can all agree that sustainable agriculture is a very good thing. I thing the debate is over which practices need changing, how to change them, and how long we have to accomplish these goals. I feel that sustainability starts with the consumer, not the producer. Supply side economics has repeatedly failed in both communist and capitolist countries throughout the last century. Consumer power is perhaps the last power many of us have. Don't buy a product unless you have a thorough understanding of how that product is made, and what effect that product will have on future generations. Likewise, I make a effort to do more good with fewer resources. Its really not all that hard. ....Umm can we reopen tailgater.. believe it or not, I opened this sight with full intentions of reading/posting about swarms.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>if everyone woke up tomorrow completely committed to buying in-season local, organic where possible, sustainably produced food, the future of agriculture would completely change. We're the powerful ones, it's our buying habits that affect the future of farming."

Ahh, yes. I can listen and find some common ideas with this tone, buckbee unlike your previous posts. 

Everything is economic, and blaming one sector of the economy is truely unfair, but targeting the problem as a whole is more objective.

I think it all comes down to the consumer, and their interest in the food produced. And by simply educating themselves into the food production practices, I think they will have a better grasp on how the food is produced and why it is produced that way. And that will support locally produced food termendiously. I dont mean a shift to organics, some yes, but a shift to supporting local farms is essential.

But still, there is an over riding factor to all of this. And that is many many people in the world cant afford to feed thier families, let alone themselves as we do. to simply stop modern day agriculture, will simply starve out most of the world. 

You still havent convinced me that switching to organic production world scale is even remotely feiasable and or sustainable. I understand your concern of the environment and share some concern on how agriculture has displaced areas of nature. I will also make that arguement on economic development, usually found in massive conquore. 
And I will argue current agriculture is unsustainable due to rising costs of production and low value of produce. But I will not argue our productive unsustainabillity. 

Our world population depends on three staples of food. Rice, Maze,and wheat. They are produced by the billions of lbs each year world wide. How is organic production going to meet those commentments?

>> believe it or not, I opened this sight with full intentions of reading/posting about swarms.

Aspera, food production has everything to with beekeeping. Everthing discussed here is directly related to beekeeping in everyway from supply and demand, to production practices, to world wide distribution of honey itself. Not only that, but most honey produced the the world is directly related the production of crops itself. Any full time beekeeper knows exactly how healthy thier farming neighbours are..

[ December 03, 2005, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Ian ]


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

buckbee,

though if you have time, vuisit www.deerwood.mb.ca .

It is an orginization out in my neck of the woods, to which I have become a boardmenber. Might be right up your ally. Not sure how up to date the page is, but these guys are collecting data, govnt sponsored without influence, that is starting to counterdict alot of "facts" on souluble polutants in our water sheds directly related to agricultural practices. 

Anyhow, if you get a chance, I would like to know what you think.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Ian,
It looks like a very worthwhile project. However, as soon as I saw the name of Dennis Avery, I smelled a rat. He is widely known to be in the pay of the agri-chemical industry, directly or indirectly, and has written a lot of rubbish about organic food. Here's what GMWatch say about him:


"Dennis Avery is a Senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and Director of its Center for Global Food Issues, where his son Alex Avery also works. He is also an Advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and author of 'Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic' and of a nationally syndicated weekly column for the financial newswire Bridge News.

Avery is a fervent supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, factory farming and free trade.

Avery claims organic farming takes up too much land and thus destroys wildlife habitat. He argues that if it were widely adopted it would cause an 'environmental catastrophe' not to mention 'mass starvation'. Alternatively, says Avery, it would lead to measures for population control - possibly forced abortions. He has suggested its promotion may be part of a deliberate strategy to achieve such goals.

Avery is the originator of the 'E. Coli myth' - the idea that people who eat organic foods are at a significantly higher risk of food poisoning. Avery published an article entitled 'The Hidden Dangers in Organic Food' in the Fall, 1998, issue of American Outlook, a quarterly publication published by the Hudson Institute. Avery's article began, 'According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and natural foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (0157:H7).'

However, according to Robert Tauxe, M.D., chief of the food borne and diarrheal diseases branch of the CDC, there is no such data on organic food production in existence at their centers and he says Avery's claims are 'absolutely not true.' Even Gregory Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has commented critically on Avery's dubious use of statistics: 'looking at a few selectively reported cases from a single year doesn't seem to be convincing anybody who doesn't already have a predilection to believe you in the first place.'

However, stories about 'killer organic food' have appeared in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. Ironically, a UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report concludes organic practices actually reduce e-coli infection and reduce the levels of contaminants in foods. Avery's attribution of danger to organic farming on the basis that it makes use of manure is, in fact, nonsensical. In the UK, for example, conventional farmers use about 80 million tonnes of manure a year as a fertiliser. Just 9,000 tonnes goes on organic land.

The Hudson Institute is funded by many firms whose products are excluded from organic agriculture: eg, AgrEvo, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, Novartis Crop Protection, Zeneca, Du Pont, DowElanco, ConAgra, and Cargill.

Before joining Hudson, Avery served from 1980-88 as the senior agricultural analyst for the U.S. State Department where he was involved in assessing the foreign policy implications of food and farming developments. "

For the full story, see http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=15&page=A


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I dont know the name Dennis Avery, was he perhaps a guest speaker at some time. Or perhap he is one of the fellow who is making his thesis in relation to the project. I doubt he is related to the project. Where did you find this fellow?

I know Tim Ball was a speaker last year. Interesting fellow, countering many "know" theories. Believe him or not, at least there is other factual opinions out there. 

The page needs updating, but all in all that is what we are all about. 

I cant find the name Dennis Avery.

[ December 04, 2005, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Ian ]


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

>>if everyone woke up tomorrow completely committed to buying in-season local, organic where possible, sustainably produced food, the future of agriculture would completely change. We're the powerful ones, it's our buying habits that affect the future of farming."

I'm in the heart of the sustainable agriculture/ organic farming movement in the Green Market Program NYC. It is a huge investment in education for both farmers and consumers. We can lay out our great plans based on biodynamics and permacultures. It doesn't mean much if it doesn't work,(as it often doesn't) you have a crop failure and can't feed your family. The problem with this concept is the same problem we face with commerical beekeeping, we are trying to grow unusual concentrations of simlar crops in a confined area. The natural result of this is to maximize the pests and disease that thrive on these crops. If all agriculture went organic the likelyhood of collapse is a virtual certainty. Organics is easy to talk about, spend a season or two applying the theories that are out there and make sure you can feed your family too. It is one area with lofty ideals and allot of cheap talk. Mostly from those who don't actually have to make a living off organic farming.
How much more are you willing to pay for this ideal of organic food with naturally managed hives. 2, 3 ,4 how about 10 times what you pay now. Humane raised, organic, free range chicked at one of our markets sells for $7 lb. it takes many, many 4 lb chikens to feed your family, by insurance, pay the market costs, fuel, non-antibiotic feed, fencing, labor ect. Eggs are $3.75/ dozen. Organics is a great concept that is very labor intensive and prone to failure on the scale needed to feed the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm doing everything I can in that direction. I have a problem with those sitting on the sidelines pointing the bony finger who talk high ideals. Most farmers I know are on a year to year survival basis. Mass supermarkets with perfect produce are slowly eliminating the "organic" farmer. Buckbee, Where do buy your groceries? What produce is in season from October through June in your neck of the woods?

As someone who depends on my bees for a living and in the mainstream of sustainable agriculture I know it will be slow process. The consumer has this conception of clean, "pure", perfect, products and won't care about how it directly effects them until it actually does.

As far as swarming goes it is the natural method of propagation for Honey bees and contrary to our goals as beekeepers to manipulate bees to make a surplus crop of honey we can use. Successful beekeepers will find a way to work with that urge instead of working against it by such methods as well timed splits, checkerboarding and adding foundation to strong hives well before the process begins..


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Ian,
see http://www.deerwood.mb.ca/pesticide/pest02.html under the second image


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Joel,
I completely appreciate what you say. The path towards organic is strewn with big boulders and the certification costs are often prohibitive for the small grower. 
I have long supported the 'localization' movement and was a director of the Wholesome Food Association for a couple of years. There is a similar organization in the USA, see: http://www.naturallygrown.org/ and http://www.wholesomefood.org/

I get most of my produce locally, some organic, some all-but-certified. We can grow quite a lot here through the winter in our mild climate, but yes, some is imported.

I don't think that organic is the answer to everything, but I do think it is part of the answer, including within beekeeping.

>>As far as swarming goes it is the natural method of propagation for Honey bees and contrary to our goals as beekeepers to manipulate bees to make a surplus crop of honey we can use. 

And yet this was not always the case (see my previous posts).

>>Successful beekeepers will find a way to work with that urge instead of working against it by such methods as well timed splits, checkerboarding and adding foundation to strong hives well before the process begins.

Yes - if we can work with it and still give the bees the feeling that they have fulfilled their swarming urge - and I still have an idea that it's not a bad plan to let at least some colonies 'go all the way', as part of an overall management plan. 

I shall continue to experiement.


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

Buckbee, in my last posting I had lumped you into the pot with some friends of mine, that swear that anything "natural" is good, and anything man made is evil. Then hop in their SUV and drive home.

After reading your fallowing postings I see I jumped the gun. Sorry.

Actually I stand on both sides of this issue, 
Yes we have contaminated the inviornment with chemicals, I wont drink my well water because of it.
Yes , we have bread our food to be big and pretty at the expence of nutrition. 

And yes, we have narrowed the genitics of our food crops to just a few strains....a biodisaster waiting to happen.

But we are now aware of it, in no small part to the "naturalists" and the "Organics". However, and this is where my friends and I dissagree, it is not through less science and less technology that we will solve these problems, it is through MORE science and technology.


Oh, just to shake things up in this discution, I think gene splicing is a powerful tool in solving some of these problems. Under a watchful eye of course.


Aspera, I dont that had much to do with swarming, however I do agree with someone that said " feral hives are swarming because they survived, not surviving because they swarmed."

I for one am going to let some of my fives swarm to help rebuild the ferral colonies with the better genitics that have been comming out. 

Keeping a strong wild population of ...anything.. is like backing up your computer files. You never know if you'll need it, but if your little world crashes, its good to have a back up.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

There, I found Dennis Avery.
He isnt involved with the project, that I am aware of. But I assume he is one of the fellows who helped set up the pesticide conatainer management sites here in Manitobe, as the graphic shows.

Doesnt mean I dont agree with some of what he says though,

>>Avery is a fervent supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, factory farming and free trade.

buckbee, you make that sound bad,.?


>>Avery claims organic farming takes up too much land and thus destroys wildlife habitat. He argues that if it were widely adopted it would cause an 'environmental catastrophe' not to mention 'mass starvation'.

I agree in basically what he has said here, as I mentioned in my pervious post. So I will not elaborate.

>>E. Coli myth' - the idea that people who eat organic foods are at a significantly higher risk of food poisoning

Bean spouts, alfalfa sprouts, ect, ingredients found uncooked in salads, I have heard statistically attribute for more ecli poisoning that that of meat annually. Dont agree with his organic spin on the stats.

I dont agree in spinning stats, because it leaves room for lost of arguement. It may be an unfair arguement, he is dishing back exactly what organic promoter have been doing againt modern day farming to promote thier causes. Its the key to their campain. "Distort the fact, the public dosent know any better"
Well, I guess it comes down to which stats you believe.


>>conventional farmers use about 80 million tonnes of manure a year as a fertiliser. Just 9,000 tonnes goes on organic land.

I dont agree that the manure causes greater degree of food contamination. Dont know where he is comming from there. Hey, we all use it in our production practices,a nd it is probably one of the best fertilizers you can get. Our studdies have shown that a few hours of direct sunlight kills all ecoli bacterias. So surface spreading of manure, to be let sit in the sun for a few hours before incorperation is a good management practice. Dont see organic producers doing this practice any different,.?


Joel, well said.

>> Oh, just to shake things up in this discution, I think gene splicing is a powerful tool in solving some of these problems. Under a watchful eye of course.

Yikes, I woundered if this wrench would be throwen into the machine.

In my opinion, this technology is increadible, and extreamly interesting. It has benifeted our farm to the point of better weed control, in turn has allowed us to cut back on the tillage of our land, in turn has greatly increased the structure of our soil. 
There are technologies investing into disease resistance, and they have even developed a drought resistant wheat in Aulstralia. 
The problems associated with it is the main driver is Agrabusiness. They seem to only promoting certain traits and characteristics that in turn force the use of developed products. Taking things to the point where they are starting to take the common seed ownership rights away from the farmer.
But, this technology has the "potential" of promoting traits in plants, to avoid many obsticals faced with farming today.

[ December 05, 2005, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Ian ]


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Blue.eyed.wolf,
Thanks for taking the trouble to look further.

> Oh, just to shake things up in this discution, I think gene splicing is a powerful tool in solving some of these problems. 

Don't even get me started on GM! I have been over the arguments more times than I care to remember and I remain deeply suspicious of the likes of Monsanto, Bayer et al.

Just for the record, here is something I wrote after a conference at the British Beekeepers Association conference on this subject in 2002.


Commentary on the
BBKA GM Conference 20th September 2002

Philip Chandler attended the meeting representing Devon Bee Keepers Association. 

This conference attracted criticism for having no representation from consumer groups, the wholefood trade, the organic movement or any qualified scientists holding views on GM contrary to the industry line. 

The BBKAs position is that this was an opportunity for beekeepers to listen to and question industry and government representatives. Because of pressure from other interested groups, BBKA has promised to schedule another conference to present the arguments against GM.

I was the only speaker from the front to raise objections to the official view - expressed several times throughout the morning session  that GM is safe for bees and honey and that we have nothing to worry about. A number of beekeepers spoke from the floor to support my position and to express their own concerns about GM.

While the majority of county BKA representatives who expressed views were clearly concerned about the possibility of widespread planting of GM crops (notably, representatives from Scotland), a small number expressed pro-GM opinions, notably Dr John Abson from Cambridgeshire BKA. I do not know to what extent he represented the views of other beekeepers in his county.

My biggest concern is that Norman Carreck (IACR-Rothamsted) a member of the Technical Committee of the BBKA consistently supported the industry line, foresaw no potential dangers and wanted to abandon the 6-mile limit. I would not care to accuse them of collusion with, or being unduly influenced by biotech corporations, but when I suggested that we were being pressured into accepting commercialisation of GM and should wait at least 25 years for long-term research results, Alan Johnson (past BBKA president and former chair of the Technical Committee) replied that this could be too late. Too late for biotechs to make a killing in the UK market? Too late for what? He did not comment further.

My overall impression was that the majority of beekeepers have strong reservations about GM crops and their potential impact on the environment and in particular bees and honey. While the industry repeatedly asserted that GM is safe for both bees and people, no independent research was cited. Attendees voted to maintain the 6-mile limit for the time being. Other cautionary items were also supported by majority vote, but for some reason do not appear in the press release. These included a request for more independent research and a statement acknowledging the public demand for GM-free honey.

*****

Footnote added 26th September

At the conference, I asked Norman Carreck of IACR-Rothamsted (Integrated Approach to Crop Research; receives grant support from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council of the UK) to send me research papers to back up his claim that 'GM is perfectly safe for bees', which he reiterated several times in his talk, as did Dr Paul Rylott of ABC and Dr Roger Turner of SCIMAC.

He sent me ten papers, at least five of which, to my non-scientific eye, appear to demonstrate that there is indeed much to be concerned about:

1. Environmental Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants Using Honey Bee Larvae; Research Group Entomology, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, November 2000
Abstract: [last sentence] "Our results suggest that the proteinase inhibitor may have an impact on development and mortality of honeybees."

2. Effects of ingestion of a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin and a trypsin inhibitor on honey bee flight activity and longevity; Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Ltd, October 2000
Abstract: [third to last sentence] "...aprotinin-fed bees began to fly and also died about three days sooner than Cry1Ba-fed or control bees."

3. Effects of transgene products on honey bees and bumblebees; Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Ltd, November 2000
Abstract: [last sentence] "Results so far suggest that transgenic plant impacts on pollinators will depend on a case-by case analysis of the gene concerned and its expression in the parts of the plant ingested by the bees."

4. Impact of Proteins Used in Plant Genetic Engineering: Toxicity and Behavioural Study in the Honeybee; INRA (France) December 1997
Abstract: [third to last sentences] "At the individual level, behaviour experiments, based on a conditioned proboscis extension response, had the following 3 effects, depending on the protein tested: (1) chitinase did not affect learning performance; (2) beta-1,3 glucanase affected the level of conditioned responses, with the extinction process occurring more rapidly as the concentration increased; and (3) CpTI induced marked effects in both conditioning and testing phases, especially in high concentrations."

5. Do GM Crops and their Products Have Side Effects on Bees and Bumblebees? Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Ltd, November 2001
Summary: [2 sentences extracted] Low concentrations of the inhibitors had no effect on these parameters, but higher doses reduced digestive proteolytic activity and bee longevity in some cases." "Although the Cry1Ba-fed bees were unaffected by this treatment, those fed with aprotinin began to fly and also died about three days sooner than control or Bt-fed bees in the same colonies."

The other papers comprised: two by Prof. Ingrid Williams on the EU regulatory framework; one on flying distances; one in French [no translation available at present] and a further paper by Prof. Williams containing the following sentence: "Consequences [of commercial growing of GM crops] may be identifiable and potentially deleterious, for example, the spread of herbicide tolerance, with resulting progeny becoming weeds of agriculture or invading non-agricultural habitats, or less predictable, resulting in loss of identity or even extinction of wild plant species."

I cannot claim a level of scientific knowledge beyond 'A' level biology, but the above quotes must surely render any claim that 'GM is perfectly safe for bees' somewhat premature, at the very least. It is particularly noteworthy that these papers were sent to me in response to a request for justification of such a statement!

It was also clear from these papers that all the studies were short term (less than a full season) and conducted on small colonies - in some cases a mere handful of bees. To extrapolate from such limited, reductionist tests into the real world, where the ecology is far more complex than can be reproduced in a laboratory and colonies comprise 50,000 or more individuals, is surely preposterous.

I will endeavour to obtain further comment on these matters from suitably qualified people.

Philip Chandler


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Ian,

>>The problems associated with it is the main driver is Agrabusiness. They seem to only promoting certain traits and characteristics that in turn force the use of developed products. Taking things to the point where they are starting to take the common seed ownership rights away from the farmer.

You hit the nail squarely on the head. The agrichemical industry are in this for their own ends - don't be fooled by their 'feed the world' BS.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Pesticides, plastics, transgenics and modern land management are tools that can be used, misused and abused. These things will undoubtably play an important role in sustainable agriculture and eco-friendly lifestyles of the future. I've never seen a solar panel that didn't have plastic, and i feel that pesticide research/application plays an important role in public health. Transgenics only differs slightly from seed irradiation, selective breeding, grafting, chemical mutagenesis and other techniques used to create unnatural crops such as canola, corn, dairy cattle, roses, wheat, and broccoli. The issue is that we should be trying to preserve wilderness, natural biodiversity and human selected genetic diversity rather than all growing the same crops, and living on 1 acre suburban housing plots.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>don't be fooled by their 'feed the world' BS.

I'm not commenting it from thier stand point. This beleif if from my own actual farming experience, observations, and readings. 
They arent forcingme to use thier products.

Your a stronge speaker Aspera. Well said. 

Now the question I pose to you is, how do we go back and reintroduce natural biodiversity into agriculture? I cant see it possible. We have domesticated our plants and animals to give us what we exactly want. Sadly enough, biodiversity dosent give us the returns we need to operate high production cheap food.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{and living on 1 acre suburban housing plots.}

Which are usually built on the best land for farming!


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

Maintaining biodiversity could be left to the hobbyists. There is a heritage garden movement. Folks that keep old lines of seeds and livestock going. I'm workin with some chickens, my sister is going with some old lines of beans. I dont know if there is a bee keeping thread in it, unless keeping bees itself would qualify as heritage gardening.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Well, there are a lot of things that I think we can do both in terms of agriculture and lifestyle. Basically it all comes down to paying people to protect nature and biodiversity, or at least not providing economic incentive for was resources and destroying land. No one has a right to do those things. Looking at famine and ecologic damage, it seems like these things are caused by poor economic and political structures. I think that cities and largescale farming both have an important role in wildlife and biodiverstity preservation (they both decrease the human footprint on the earth). However, free education, better sewage treatment, water and energy conservation and clean air regulations will all make America a nicer place to live. These things will also require social justice and better wealth distribution, especially in places like Nigeria and Columbia. Seed/sperm banks, organic farming, and wildlife habitat all serve to maintain biodiversity and illustrate good reasons for the first world to take more interest in (politically/finacially assist) the tropics. Also, the oceans are a mess. We need to stop studying mercury levels and collapsing fisheries and do something about it. A friend of mine once commented that everyone seems to think that the way things were when they grew up was "normal". Well, I geuss that I want the the Earth better than normal.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Sorry, I got a bit caried away. Also, the above should read "incentives for wasting resurces".


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

Absoultly Aspera!


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

>...I remain deeply suspisious of the likes of Monsanto....

Suspision is a good thing, transgenics is not something that should be whipped up and truned loose. But are you totally against the science, or leary of some who practice it?

I hope you understand I am not challengeing your position, I am exploring a view that differs from my own.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

When I have more time, I will give you a fuller reply, but for now, here is a brief statement from Greenpeace with which I concur:

While scientific progress on molecular biology has a great potential to increase our understanding of nature and provide new medical tools, it should not be used as justification to turn the environment into a giant genetic experiment by commercial interests. The biodiversity and environmental integrity of the world's food supply is too important to our survival to be put at risk.
Genetic engineering enables scientists to create plants, animals and micro-organisms by manipulating genes in a way that does not occur naturally.

These genetically modified organisms (GMO) can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, thereby contaminating non 'GE' environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way.

Their release is 'genetic pollution' and is a major threat because GMOs cannot be recalled once released into the environment.

Because of commercial interests, the public is being denied the right to know about GE ingredients in the food chain, and therefore losing the right to avoid them despite the presence of labelling laws in certain countries.

Biological diversity must be protected and respected as the global heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival. Governments are attempting to address the threat of GE with international regulations such as the Biosafety Protocol.

We believe:

GMOs should not be released into the environment as there is not adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health.

We advocate immediate interim measures such as labelling of GE ingredients, and the segregation of genetically engineered crops and seeds from conventional ones.

We also oppose all patents on plants, animals and humans, as well as patents on their genes. Life is not an industrial commodity. When we force life forms and our world's food supply to conform to human economic models rather than their natural ones, we do so at our own peril.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Here's some more:

# Unnatural gene transfers from one species to another are dangerous. Biotechnology companies erroneously claim that their manipulations are similar to natural genetic changes or traditional breeding techniques. However, the cross-species transfers being made, such as between fish and tomatoes, or between other unrelated species, would not happen in nature and may create new toxins, diseases, and weaknesses. In this risky experiment, the general public is the guinea-pig.

# Biotechnology companies also claim their methods are precise and sophisticated.
In fact, the process of inserting genes is quite random and can damage normal genes. Genetic research shows that many weaknesses in plants, animals, and humans have their origin in tiny imperfections in the genetic code. Therefore, the random damage resulting from gene insertion will inevitably result in side-effects and accidents. Scientists have assessed these risks to be substantial. (Refs: Palmiter, R.D. et al (1986) ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENETICS 20: 465; Inose, T. et al (1995) INT. JOUR. FOOD SCIENCE TECH. 30:141.)

# Unpredictable health damaging effects.
When genetic engineers insert a new gene into any organism there are "position effects" which can lead to unpredictable changes in the pattern of gene expression and genetic function. The protein product of the inserted gene may carry out unexpected reactions and produce potentially toxic products. There is also serious concern about the dangers of using genetically engineered viruses as delivery vehicles (vectors) in the generation of transgenic plants and animals. This could destabilise the genome, and also possibly create new viruses, and thus dangerous new diseases. (Refs: Green, A.E. et al (1994) SCIENCE 263:1423; Osbourn, J.K. et al (1990) VIROLOGY 179:921.)

# Genetically engineered products carry more risks than traditional foods.
The process of genetic engineering can thus introduce dangerous new allergens and toxins into foods that were previously naturally safe. Already, one genetically engineered soybean was found to cause serious allergic reactions, and bacteria genetically engineered to produce large amounts of the food supplement, tryptophan, have produced toxic contaminants that killed 37 people and permanently disabled 1,500 more. (Refs: Nordlee, J.A. et al (1996) THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 688; Mayeno, A.N. et al (1994) TIBTECH 12:364.)

# Increased pollution of food and water supply.
More than 50% of the crops developed by biotechnology companies have been engineered to be resistant to herbicides. Use of herbicide-resistant crops will lead to a threefold increase in the use of herbicides, resulting in even greater pollution of our food and water with toxic agrochemicals. (Ref: Goldberg, R.J. (1994) WEED TECHNOLOGY 6:647.)

# Health-damaging effects caused by genetic engineering will continue forever.
Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, genetic pollution is self-perpetuating. It can never be reversed or cleaned up; genetic mistakes will be passed on to all future generations of a species.

# Inadequate government regulation.
Biotech companies claim that government regulatory bodies will protect consumers. However DDT, Thalidomide, L-tryptophan, etc. were approved by U.S. regulators with tragic results. Recently it was found that 80% of supermarket milk contained traces of either medicines, illegal antibiotics used on farms, or hormones, including genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH). The facts show that regulators are not protecting the public adequately. (Ref: Epstein, S.S. (1996) INT. JOUR. HEALTH SERVICES, 26:173.)

# Ethical concerns.
Transferring animal genes into plants raises important ethical issues for vegetarians and religious groups. It may also involve animal experiments which are unacceptable to many people.

# Gene transfer across species and competition from new species damaging the environment.
When new genetic information is introduced into plants, bacteria, insects or other animals, it can easily be passed into related organisms, through processes such as cross pollination. This process has already created "super weeds". Existing species can also be displaced from the ecosystem with disastrous effects, as happened with genetically modified Klebsiella soil bacteria. (Ref: Holms, M.T. and Ingam, E.R. (1994) Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America (Supplement), 75:97)

# Crops are now being engineered to produce their own pesticides.
This will promote the more rapid appearance of resistant insects and lead to excessive destruction of useful insects and soil organisms, thus seriously perturbing the ecosystem. In addition, the pesticide produced by the plant may be harmful to the health of consumers. (Refs: Union of Concerned Scientists (1994) GENE EXCHANGE, 5:68; Mikkelsen, T.R. et al (1996) Nature 380:31; Skogsmyr, I. (1994) THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS 88:770; Hama, H. et al (1992) APPLIED ENTYMOLOGY AND ZOOLOGY 27:355.)


----------



## chillardbee (May 26, 2005)

I don't think swarming is the answer but creating breaks in the brood cycle by requeening or making splits or nucs could help while using other treatments as well.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

If doing things like releasing rabbits in Australia or sparrows and starlings in North American cause problems with the ecology, image organisms that were not even "approved" by "Nature". Anywhere. At all.

Part of what makes me very uncomfortable is things like Starlink corn which is not approved for human consumption and we were instantly put in a position where the genes showed up in every corn supply in North America. Apparently the "lab guys" didn't know that corn is wind pollinated? Didn't know that dust (and pollen) blows all the way from Oklahoma to North Dakota sometimes? Or from Wyoming to Iowa somtimes?

What happens when it's discovered that a whole generation of humans have violent allergic reactions to the proteins from the Bt that were spliced in? How do we remove those genes from the corn supply? We are already have an outbreak of peanut allergies after generations have been eating peanuts and peanut butter, what if we get even more allergies to protiens that humans have not ever been in the habit of eating?

The other thing that bothers me is, not just that these are loose in the environment, but I have to suspect that was the intention when Starlink corn was released. Surely they couldn't NOT know that was what would happen? I said from the start it could not be contained, ESPECIALLY in a plant like corn that is wind pollinated. Did they cause this GMO to spread on purpose in order to desensitize the public to the concept of eating GMOs? Or was it just so they can sue every farmer who has the gene show up (uninvited) in their corn like they did with the Canola farmers?

It just seems purposeful to me and that makes me very concerned about the tactics and motives of the GMO companies.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Leaving the agricultural debate alone and getting back to the issue about swarming, the idea of swarming reducing Varroa and disease loads makes a lot of sense to me. Researchers keep telling us that feral bee colonies are rapidly disappearing (blaming Varroa, mainly), but Africanized bees continue to spread through the U.S. To me, it makes sense logically that the AHBs can continue to spread because their swarming tendencies lower their parasite and disease loads enough that they can survive while other feral bees are dying.

Are there other explanations for the continuing spread of AHB while feral bee colonies are dying from Varroa or diseases?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Leaving the agricultural debate alone and getting back to the issue about swarming, the idea of swarming reducing Varroa and disease loads makes a lot of sense to me}

It shouldn't as disease and pest problems do not leave with the swarm in fact a majority of the problem remains with a weakend population less capable of overcoming an afflicition. It is futher complicated because whatever percentage of AFB or mite for example that leave are with another weekend colony that may be nothing more than a vector for the problem.

{To me, it makes sense logically that the AHBs can continue to spread because their swarming tendencies lower their parasite and disease loads enough that they can survive while other feral bees are dying.}

Although swarming is the normal method of propagation for honey bees and AHB's do this well their disease and pest resistance is more closely related to increased hygenic behaviors displayed by most colonies of aggressive bees. This hygenic behavoir may be the single most important trait for disease and parasite resisant breeding. 


There may be a tie in the fact that hives that swarm are usually healthy populous hives. They are that that way due to better hygenics and other disease/pest resistant inbred traits. Your concept may be accurate from the point that swarms could be naturally more healthy bees in reverse of bees that swarm are more healthy because they swarm.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

<Are there other explanations for the continuing spread of AHB while feral bee colonies are dying from Varroa or diseases?>

I don't know for certain, but several people have note the aggressive bees frequently exhibit varroa resistance. Over the past century we have selected bees for many traits, but not mite resistance. AHB is largley wild, not feral and unselected. Additionally, scutella comes from the birthplace of the honeybee, and Africa remains the source of most honeybee diversity. An interesting sidenote is that there were rumors that the SMR trait resulted from Southern scute hybrids selected for docilty. While this may not be true, I have noticed that only very careful breeding produces bees that are both varroa resistant and gentle.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Are there other explanations for the continuing spread of AHB while feral bee colonies are dying from Varroa or diseases?

Sure. Smaller cells. Shorter capping and emergence times than domestic bees on artificially sized comb.

And who says that both the AHB and the feral bees don't die from disease? And who says a lot of both don't survive?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Are there other explanations for the continuing 
> spread of AHB while feral bee colonies are dying 
> from Varroa or diseases?

Sure - the basic "game plan" for AHB has less
of a concept of "overwintering", so the colony
is focused on building up to swarm, and more
swarms result, in some cases a dozen swarms a
year. With more swarms, some of them HAVE to
survive, no matter what happens.

AHB also have the nasty habit of simply moving
in and taking over EHB hives, so we have to
assume that this is happening "in the wild" just
as often as (perhaps more often than) it happens
in managed hives.

Even if survival rates were identical when AHB
and EHB are subjected to the same conditions
(which I feel to be a fair assessment), AHB
get "more rolls of the dice" than EHB due to
the swarms themselves.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I have to confess, I like this! Now we're discussing the advantages of swarming again! And now, I'm going to play devil's advocate just a bit:

First, what's the difference between "wild" and "feral?" And, if you want to include domestication in your distinction between the two terms, are honey bees truly domesticated? (Really, this is a rhetorical question just to make everyone think about how these terms get used.)

Second, if non-Africanized, feral swarms show similar rates of survival to the AHB swarms, why are so many people getting worked up over the lack of pollinators? Dr. Orley "Chip" Taylor at the University of Kansas claims that Varroa is responsible for virtually exterminating feral honey bees around Lawrence, Kansas. If the colonies are as plentiful as they were before, why are so many people claiming they're not? And, doesn't this simply go back to supporting the idea that swarming might be an effective tool to reduce disease/parasite loads?

Third, does it matter whether the bees swarm to reduce mite loads or mite loads decline because bees swarm? Strictly speaking, as scientists we can't test an idea that a bunch of bees discussed the problem of Varroa and chose to swarm to reduce loads. From an evolutionary point of view, the reason for the behavior might be less important than the effect that the behavior produces. So, either by trying it or just through omniscience, is swarming a good tool to improve the health of bees?

And finally, just to stir the pot a little more, the idea of swarms acting as vectors still may not change the effects of the action from an evolutionary perspective. Just remember, in evolution, as long as the organisms can successfully propagate, the rest of their lives are of little consequence. As humans we forget that; we seem to think that evolution would have a profound effect through some diseases, but the diseases destroy the infected creatures after the creatures have already reproduced. If a bee colony casts a swarm and survives for another two months, and a second one casts a swarm and dies from any disease immediately (assuming both swarms survive) which one had greater success from the perspective of evolution? If a bee colony casts a swarm, the colony dies from any disease but the swarm casts another swarm before the original swarm dies, and so on, why wouldn't the strategy prove successful evolutionarily?

Sorry, this got longer than I intended. I just like to see the thought others have along these lines.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>First, what's the difference between "wild" and "feral?"

Let's put it in the relm of another species. A bobcat is a wild cat. The breed was never domesticated and still is wild. A feral cat is, by breed, a house cat (domesticated) but when a particular house cat has reverted to being wild (born that way probably) then it is feral. The reason for the distinction is that, as far as we know, the bees here were escapees from domestic hives at one time. Had they been native and wild on this continent, we would simply call them wild bees.

>And, if you want to include domestication in your distinction between the two terms, are honey bees truly domesticated?

A good philosophical question, since they are not like a cow that lives in a pen, and they can leave anytime they wish and sometimes do.

>Second, if non-Africanized, feral swarms show similar rates of survival to the AHB swarms, why are so many people getting worked up over the lack of pollinators? Dr. Orley "Chip" Taylor at the University of Kansas claims that Varroa is responsible for virtually exterminating feral honey bees around Lawrence, Kansas.

Certainly some combination of tracheal mites, varroa mites and viruses have decreased the number of feral bees. I'm sure they have also dcreased the number of AHB colonies.

>If the colonies are as plentiful as they were before, why are so many people claiming they're not?

I don't think anyone is saying they are as plentiful as they were before. But they are also not extinct.

>And, doesn't this simply go back to supporting the idea that swarming might be an effective tool to reduce disease/parasite loads?

I hate to agree with Jim  but I think one of the big advantages is simply the reproductive advantage. AHB cast more swarms and therefore have more "offspring". Some percent of those offspring survive. Some of that, IMO, is natural sized comb. But both the true feral EHBs (as opposed to recent escapees) and the AHB ferals have that advantage. The EHB, however are not reproducing at the same rate. And both are getting hit by hitchhikers from crashing domestic hives

>Third, does it matter whether the bees swarm to reduce mite loads or mite loads decline because bees swarm?

Is there any evidence of either? Maybe they do delcine. Maybe they don't. I haven't seen any studies on the subject.

>is swarming a good tool to improve the health of bees?

I have no idea. But it certainly doesn't improve productivity.







I have seen no evidence that it improves the health of the bees. either.

>And finally, just to stir the pot a little more, the idea of swarms acting as vectors still may not change the effects of the action from an evolutionary perspective.

>Just remember, in evolution, as long as the organisms can successfully propagate, the rest of their lives are of little consequence.

Exactly Jim's point above. But not necessarily from an evolutionary point of view, just a survival and proliferation of the AHB genes point of view.


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

It seems to me that if treac. mites are IN the bees, and v. mites are ON the bees, and if foul brood can be passed by feeding tainted honey, and the last thing bees do before they swarm is fill up on honey.....then you would have a swarm, full of foulbrood spores, covered with v. mites, coughing up treac.mites, stressed out by trying to build a new hive.

Buckbee, thanks for answering my question. I would like to continue that conversation. But since this thread is about swarming, I will save this thread and swarm over and start a new one. 
Sorry folks, didnt know that was the protocal, was just following the conversation as it evolved.

(please note, all the above was said with a twinkle in my eye, not a snarl on my lips)


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Thanks guys for bringing this conversation full circle, back to my original post about swarming. And thanks BEW for taking the GM thread off to another place!

There has been some interesting thinking tossed into the pot, and - let's be honest - it's all theory until we test it out for real.

So here's a suggestion.

Supposing - those who are interested - set aside a couple of hives next season for an experiment along these lines:

1. For as many hives as you want to commit to this, do nothing but observe the bees up to the point where they show signs of preparing to swarm.

2. Do a mite check of some sort (roll some bees in powdered sugar, for example) just before they are due to swarm.

3. Set out some bait hives, containing nice smells, within range of the test hives.

4. Unless your test apiary has plenty of conveniently placed low branches, make a simple 'gallows' or two, on the horizontal bar of which rub some old wax and propolis to attract the swarm, incase they don't take an instant fancy to your bait hives.

5. Catch any swarms that do not re-house themselves and hive in the usual way.

6. Once they are settled in, do another mite check and compare with results from 2.

7. Observe their build-up and do comparative tests against the original colonies before bedding-down time.

8. Repeat in the spring of the following year.

If a decent number of people take part, we should have some data to discuss next year, against which we can judge our theories.

Anyone up for it?


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

As for me, I am still building my hive count, so I will be splitting and dividing, and catching swarms this year, and probably next. Would a split fit into your theory?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

If you mean taking some frames to another hive, complete with bees and brood, then this wouldn't be equivalent to swarming, as you will simply be dividing the mites between two colonies.

The point is to allow a swarm to emerge and see if their mite load is significantly lower than the mother colony.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>It seems to me that if treac. mites are IN the bees, and v. mites are ON the bees, and if foul brood can be passed by feeding tainted honey, and the last thing bees do before they swarm is fill up on honey.....then you would have a swarm, full of foulbrood spores, covered with v. mites, coughing up treac.mites, stressed out by trying to build a new hive.

Exactly. Except for the SHB larvae and the wax worm larvae and the mites IN the cells, the rest they take with them and, from what I've heard, even the SHB adults will follow them.

So what pests will they leave behind?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Swarms (shook or natural) certainly should
have a reduced incidence of brood diseases,
based upon what we know of the epidemiology
of these diseases. Leaving the comb behind
is simply an extreme case of regular comb
recycling.

But if swarming was an effective solution to
any OTHER disease/pest problem of bees, we
would find swarms with lower incidence of
pests/diseases, and hence, better survival
prospects (on a statistical basis) than
managed hives.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

I don't know. This is all theory until tested in the field.

However, I think we can reasonably assume that AFB spores and tracheal mites are everywhere and only bees that are vulnerable, through having their immune system compromised by whatever means, will actually show symptoms. Similarly in humans, viruses are everywhere and only people who have lowered immunity show symptoms.

I would argue that, far from being stressful, the act of swarming and building new comb is a healthy and necessary experience for the bees. It is stopping them swarming that causes them stress, IMO.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I have never had any problems nor seen any eveidence of stress in preventing swarming. You just fool them into thinking it's not a good time to swarm. A few empty frames in the brood nest at the right time has always worked pretty well for me. How is that stressful?

If you mean the people who search the hive everyday for swarm cells and destroy these, yes, I think that is very stressful AND a waste of time.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>> the act of swarming and building new comb is a healthy and necessary experience for the bees. It is stopping them swarming that causes them stress'

I agree, that swarming places the bees into a fresh new house, which holds less bacterial diseased and accumulated residues. But I dont agree that swarming is any less stressfull onthe bees than the manipulation I perform to reduce thier swarming tendencies. 

>>It is stopping them swarming that causes them stress'

How do you measure stress in the colony? You cant associate high v-mite counts in a hive to not swarming, and therefore by not swarming, causing the hive more stress,.?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I agree with all of the aforemention vitues of swarming and "shook swarming" methods. In temperate climates, bees highly prone to late season swarms fair poorly. By some estimates, 70% of all swarms die. It could be mites, or it might be starvation. In any case, swarming has some pretty clear drawbacks.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Buckbee:

Your suggestion is exactly what this topic needs: let's try it, try to generate some actual data, and compare the results. The only way we will ever really know if it might be a useful idea is to test this hypothesis. I intend to try some of this during the coming spring, and I'll let you know what I find with my bees. Right now, I doubt I'll have good numbers, so I hope others will try this idea and post numbers as well. My hives are isolated, and my disease and parasite levels (at least of the big ones: Varroa, tracheal mites, AFB, etc.) are zero. Not low; zero.

I've had a couple other thoughts and come up with a couple questions on the topic as well. 

1) As far as Varroa levels are concerned, remember that Varroa is a parasite, and the relationships between host populations and parasties populations change with respect to host population levels. For example, if the population of a host doubles, the population of its parasite will almost always increase exponentially. Twice as many bees might have ten times as many mites. Larger, concentrated host populations mean that parasites don't spend as much time searching for their next host. The same principle applies to agricultural crops and the insects that feed on those crops.

2) Swarms don't carry brood with them, and Varroa reproduces on the brood. This means, as far as Varroa is concerned, that swarms should take fewer mites with them when they leave. Some of the bacterial diseases, like AFD, can travel with them, but even the relative concentrations of these diseases might be diluted by the move.

3) Swarming, from an evolutionary perspective, is very successful. If 70 percent of swarms die before they become established, the success rate is relatively high. Compare 30 percent survival to the survival rates of bumblebees or yellowjackets (less than one percent). Or, to keep things more similar, most ants "swarm" by sending out virgin queens and males. Of these new queens, roughly one out of 1000 will successfully establish a colony. Among ants that create new colonies by "budding" (similar to honey bee swarms, a new queen takes a portion of the workers and establishes a colony), the success rate is roughly 20 percent.

So, now my questions. Are bees in large colonies necessarily "healthier" than bees in small colonies? We manage for large colonies to produce greater quantities of honey, but couldn't a small colony that survives be "healthier" than a large colony that dies (from diseases or parasites)?

Also, Jim Fischer mentioned AHB taking over EHB hives. I searched the scientific literature that I had at hand, and I couldn't find any example of AHB directly invaded and superceding an EHB colony. I did find solid information about Cape honey bees (Apis mellifera capensis) taking over African honey bee colonies, as well as information about Africanized traits appearing in EHB colonies after superceding queens mated with AHB drones, but no examples of AHB moving into an existing hive to take it over. If anyone knows of documented examples of AHB invading and taking over EHB hives directly, please let me know where to find them.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I've seen pictures and heard several bee scientists talk about (and show pictures of) AHB swarms taking over EHB colonies. I'm not sure where that information is available on line.

It seems like some of those I saw were from the Tuscon lab.

Wait, I found a refernce to the "cape bee" trait:

"Africanized Bees (AHB) Showing
New Traits 
Dr. Gloria DeGrande-Hoffman of the Tuscon Bee Lab reported a disturbing phenomenon about invasion of European colonies by AHB. Shiny black AHB bees, which look like workers, enter European colonies. They are accepted because they have nectar and pollen loads. They are intercastes (capable of laying AHB eggs) and look like virgin queens. Slowly the hives become africanized. Also a small AHB swarm will settle on European colony (usually a weaker one) and gradually the workers, intercastes and virgin queens will enter and take over the colony. The presence of these intercastes are indicative of the cape bee from South Africa where workers can lay viable eggs that develop into females. This is a trait that beekeepers do not want in our domestic population of European bees. It can be devastating to the queen-breeding program. This invasion can happen at any time during the bee-flying season."
http://www.msstate.edu/Entomology/beenews/beenews0202.html

But I've also seen pictures and discussions of AHB swarms moving into EHB hives.

I think it was Diana Sammataro who presented some of that at HAS and I've also seen some of that presented at a "master beekeepers" workshop put on by University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Seems like that was presented by Larry Connor.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks for the information, Michael! I've heard a lot of people claim AHB will "take over" EHB colonies, but very little evidence exists, even yet. By the way, even though this claim comes from a researcher, it's still a sort of hearsay. I still haven't found an example in a refereed, scientific journal. While it may be happening (and seems to be, based on this report), I'm surprized no one in research has published it if they can verify it. Scientists want to publish as much as possible.

Even their report says the trait is "...indicative of the cape bee from South Africa..." which, as far as I know, has never been imported into this hemisphere. Stating that the trait is "indicative," to me, means that these people are saying that cape bees are here.

I'd like to point out that among bumblebees, kleptoparasitic traits (stealing an established colony) have been used to separate genera, Bombus and Psithyrus, but it seems that we have both hive-building and kleptoparasitic traits in a single species of honey bee. Does anyone know of an EHB colony taking over another honey bee colony?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Ian,
>How do you measure stress in the colony? 

Now there's a good question. Of course, we have no 'scientific' way to do this, but I think we as beekeepers have ways of knowing when the bees are 'happy' and when they are not. 

I am fairly confident that the 'smarm-prevention' technique that many still use - despite the obvious and observable fact that it usually fails - of repeatedly cutting out queen cells, does cause the bees stress. Artificial swarming, if carried out at the right time, may cause them less stress, but it often doesn't work either - at least, not consistently.

If we take as a baseline that bees are stressed least when they can get all the food they need, are disease-free and have few parasites, do not have to deal with chemicals not found in nature, do not have to compete with a hundred other colonies packed into a space where nature would have two or three and are not forced to build comb on artificially even-sized (and possibly over-sized) foundation or even (yuk) plastic, we should be able to get some clues as to what stresses we can avoid.

Jon,
Thanks for your insights - I shall ponder them.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Jim,
>But if swarming was an effective solution to
any OTHER disease/pest problem of bees, we
would find swarms with lower incidence of
pests/diseases, and hence, better survival
prospects (on a statistical basis) than
managed hives.

Good point, but my guess is - and it's only a guess - that this would have been the case 100-150 years ago and back, because it was through swarming and collecting swarms that colonies were perpetuated.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Jon K,
>So, now my questions. Are bees in large colonies necessarily "healthier" than bees in small colonies? We manage for large colonies to produce greater quantities of honey, but couldn't a small colony that survives be "healthier" than a large colony that dies (from diseases or parasites)?

Another good Q - two, even. Bro. Adam had to introduce big modified Dadant hives to cope with the productivity of his Buckfast queens, yet 20 years earlier, he and most other UK beekeepers were using the much smaller WBC hive and British Black bees. The Blacks were well adapted to the unpredictable British climate and overwintered well with smaller colonies.

Could it be that the advent of 'over-sized' colonies for increased honey production has indeed contributed to creating better conditions for both diseases and parasites?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

If I recall correctly, Brother Adam encountered much skepicism from many more experienced beekeepers at the time. Now, decades later, Minnesota has "discovered" unlimited brood nest management, which makes for very healthy hives (at least in Minnesota). others have similar comments about the productivty of 2 queen hives. Personally, I really like a populus hive, except that I'm not a very good queen finder.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Now, decades later, Minnesota has "discovered" unlimited brood nest management

I have some 1800's versions of ABC XYZ of Beeculture that call the third deep a "food chamber" and say that it will "revolutionize beekeeping".









"There is nothing new under the sun" Solomon.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>despite the obvious and observable fact that it usually fails - of repeatedly cutting out queen cells, does cause the bees stress. Artificial swarming, if carried out at the right time, may cause them less stress, but it often doesn't work either - at least, not consistently.


No no no. Swarm prevention doesnt usually fail. This manipulation is the reason we are able to get our bees to produce 200lbs on average crops. Instead of 90% of my hives swarming off in the spring, I have reduced it down to 20%, 15% in good years. Howdo you call that failure. Working with bees is alot to do with working with averages...

My spring work has never involved cutting queen cells. If a beekeeper is cutting queen cells, they dont really know what they are doing. 
Either they are supercedure cells, which leads to a totally different topic, or they are trying to prevent swarming in a colony which has already started swarming, which is hard to stop, especcially by mearly cutting cells. Swarm work should be done before swarming prep by the colony. 

After my spring work, if I find a colony swarming, I rairly interfear with what they are doing. My work didnt work in the spring to prevent it from happening, so I let them continue what they want to do. Usually 15-20% of my hives. There are more factors at work than what I can usually pickup on... 
besides, its a matter of how much work you really can get done in a short season,


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If a beekeeper is cutting queen cells, they dont really know what they are doing. 

I second that.







It is the most labor intensive and least effective method of swarm control I ever tried.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

So then, how would we measure stress in a colony?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

<So then, how would we measure stress in a colony?>

An interesting and germane question worthy of it own thread. This is something that I think about frequently. The best that I've come up with is resistence to disease, honey production, and ease of handling, but these all seem like poor measures.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

In mammals, hormone levels in the blood can be used to test for stress. The higher the levels of some hormones, the greater the stress the animal is facing. I imagine something similar could be measured scientifically in honey bees, but work like that takes a lot of dedication.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Depends on the mammal, the sampling method and the type of stress your looking at. So far, urine/salivery glucocorticoid (usually cortisol)levels seem to work well, but only on a population basis. Epinephrine is usually useless as the testing process induces acute stress because of the need to draw blood. There has been a bunch or really good work lately looking at brain microdialysis for neurotransmitters, and telometric blood pressure monitoring, but behavioral testing is still the gold standard.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm assuming we would be looking at population-level stress indicators. I know, ecologically and evolutionarily, the colony functions as a single entity, but it's still composed of a population of bees.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>resistence to disease, honey production, and ease of handling, but these all seem like poor measures.


For these are all traits, not in relation to stress.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

let me refraise that. They are signs, and symtoms of stress, but what I mean is that they can also are expressed as genetic traits and charateristics


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

I suspect that any attempt to measure stress in a colony is doomed, as the act of assessment will unavoidably cause more stress. This is a well known principle in experimental science - it even has a name, which escapes me right now.

Surely we can agree that any action or force that causes disturbance to the natural functions of a colony will cause a degree of stress. And we all know how bees tend to behave when they are disturbed beyond their tolerance level. We don't need a computer to count the number of stings!

In just about all animals, including bees and humans, stress is likely to result in increased occurrence of abnormal behaviour, greater susceptibility to disease and parasites and disturbances to reproductive capacity. All of these things are happening to our bees: QED it is likely that they are stressed. If we can find ways to reduce stressful manipulations and general interference, including chemeical inputs, my guess is that they will respond positively.

Seems like common sense to me.


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

Not nice, Buck. This is driving me crazy. There's a word for the dilemma when observing/comducting the experiment affects the outcome of the experiment.

Help.

Hawk


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Heisenberg Principle - I think.


----------

