# Fumidil scheduling - overwhelmed newbee



## Bluidshay (Apr 29, 2009)

Hello again,

Not sure if this belongs in the 101 section or the IPM section, because it's a medication question from someone still learning the ropes, so please move it if you feel like it belongs down there instead.

So I'm reviewing my notes from bee school tonight and I feel like I've missed a MAJOR deadline. All through my notes (but apparently not attached to my long term memory) I have written about the importance of treating new package bees with Fumidil in the spring. Our instructor noted that a good time to treat them would be, oh, tomorrow.

Guess who forgot to order Fumidil.

I'm in eastern Massachusetts. I ordered some tonight but it's just not one of those things that you can knock on your neighbor's door and borrow a teaspoon of. Although that gives me an idea...I'll make a few phone calls tomorrow. Anyway, I note that there needs to be a 30 day lag time between them drinking down a gallon of Fumidil syrup and the honey flow. If the honey flow starts sometime in June, and my bees have taken three weeks to drink 3 quarts of syrup, am I pretty much doomed?

Another question since I'm on the subject: I'm trying to be as natural as possible with my hive. How natural is Fumidil? Are there other more natural ways to treat preventatively with nocema (like using confectioner sugar or drone comb for varroa)?

Thanks for your responses...


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

Why would you treat with something unless there were signs of a problem?


----------



## Bluidshay (Apr 29, 2009)

It was recommended to us in bee school both by our textbook and by the instructor to auto-treat (even if there wasn't a problem) in New England, especially with new packaged bees (which mine are). But your post gives me hope...does that mean that it's not universal to auto-treat?


----------



## captahab (Apr 19, 2009)

This thread brings up a good point.When I questioned the person I got my nucs from about medication and other additives he looked at me like I had two heads.His attitude was the same as JPK 's.The exact words was something like " if you dont see a issue dont treat it" How many on the forum actually use all the stuff thats out there whether its a medication or suppliment? and what exactly are you using ?


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

You are not doomed......... When it arrives give them
a dose.

The latest news and info on nosema ceranae gives some 
credence to treating. Many feel that it is the biggest single
factor in "CCD".

I have always been of the mind of "don't treat unless you
need to" as well. But the latest Spanish study on nosema
ceranae has me rethinking this.

http://www.scientificbeekeeping.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48


----------



## Cedar Hill (Jan 27, 2009)

My hives are treated here in eastern MA. Our somewhat damp springs seemingly require treating. Your instructor was right on. No winter losses for over five years. OMTCW


----------



## pbwhite (Apr 13, 2009)

I would think treating now might be predicated on whether the bees were treated before they were sent out in the package.

I was advised that the new bees do not need to be treated until the fall.


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

A study done the year before last by one of the bee labs...I can't remember which but will try and research it showed that bees fed 1:1 and bees fed 1:1 with Fum B had the same results. Basically, it stated that just feeding lots of sugar water will knock down the nosema spores as well as treating them with fum B. throw in a little spearmint and lemongrass EO and you just got a natural treatment that seems to work pretty well. I think Randy Oliver's web site talks about this as well.


----------



## Bluidshay (Apr 29, 2009)

Thanks for all the responses, and it looks like there are many different schools of thought on this! Happily, I have verified that the new bees were already treated before they were shipped, so my spring dilemma is solved anyway.


----------



## Dr.Wax (Apr 30, 2008)

You are on the right track when your instincts prod you into questioning what is "natural".

_Listen to that voice._

Select for tough bees not tough pathogens.

Don't provide a crutch for weakness or you'll get more of the same.

When you use antibiotics you are using a carpet bomb rather than a smart bomb. 

In other words antibiotics kill ALL bacteria including certain helpful bacteria (that's right- not all bacteria are harmful) which are part of the intestinal tract of your bees. Bacteria which are naturally part of their immune system.

Think about that before you treat.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>does that mean that it's not universal to auto-treat? 

In 35 years of beekeeping I've never treated with Fumidil. So I guess I don't think it's an "auto-treat". Plus why do you want to put something you your hives that is illegal in most of the world because it causes birth defects? As they said above, syrup will clear up Nosema. Why add antibiotics?

http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#nosema
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesterms.htm#fumidil


----------



## Loonerone (May 4, 2009)

*nosema - treat or not*

I read the posts on nosema treatment and was just at workshop with Ross Conrad who also said he does not treat for nosema - as a newbie, coming from a bee school where everyone treats for nosema in the fall - I am being cautious about not treating, but really don't want to. My beekeeping partner (and partner in life) wants to treat his hive - I am hesitant. 

Does it make sense to get a spore count and if the count is ok, then not treat - but if it is high, treat? 

I also thought the organic,bio folks did not feed sugar water - but I read Michael Bush's post saying sugar water treats nosema - so I am confused. 

I have sugar water on my hives with thyme and sea salt as they are new and are building comb. Should I be adding lemongrass EO to fight any nosema?

thanks for further explanation. someone really needs to write a book aboout this kind of stuff.


----------



## ENCRickey (Aug 2, 2008)

I also believe that when they mean before the nectar flow they also mean, if you are planning on taking honey off the hive for human consumption. As they are a new package you are probably not planning on taking any honey off of them this year anyway, you should be clear to treat.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

We have long mild wet winters and springs here. Our bees can be in the hives for a long time with no flying, but in mild temperatures. Fumidil is expensive and after using it for a few years I stopped.

I had nosema (at least weak hives and staining) every year. Sometimes they came out of it later in the year after that, sometimes they died. I never got honey from those hives.

I ordered queens from different places to try to solve that. I also had chalkbrood issues around that time and was trying to solve that issue also. Different queens seemed to solve the chalkbrood problem but not the nosema.

So about 10 years ago I started treating in the fall only. I had fed sugar water only for all of those years in the spring, so for me that didn't work. I haven't had a hive with nosema that was noticable for these last 10 years. 

So, I suspect it is weather related. If your bees can get out every week or so after the winter cluster you may not need it. We can have months of misty rain through June. So try without it. If you get weak clusters in the spring that don't come out of it you may want to start with an annual treatment. If you don't, then you can save a bunch of money.

I never had much luck feeding it after they came down with it. They don't seem to eat so you can't reliably get the Fumidil in them. Maybe I noticed it too late since I don't get in the wet hives often either.


----------



## brooksbeefarm (Apr 13, 2008)

JPK said:


> Why would you treat with something unless there were signs of a problem?


So do you take a flu shot before or after you catch the flu? Jack


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

So do you take a flu shot before or after you catch the flu?
I will take mine before the flu season.
 when do you take a morning after pill?
LOL
Ernie


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

So you're comparing a flu shot to an antibiotic. Don't think the two are related.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So do you take a flu shot before or after you catch the flu?

Never had a flu shot... I don't plan on it...

If you insist on treating (which I would not, not only because Fumidil causes birth defects but because anything that kills Nosema is going to disrupt the ecology of the hive by killing other needed microorganisms and those that displace Nosema), the Australians did a study and showed that Lemongrass essential oil was effective against Nosema.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesmorethan.htm


----------



## brooksbeefarm (Apr 13, 2008)

Barry said:


> So you're comparing a flu shot to an antibiotic. Don't think the two are related.


Antibiotic or not scientific reshearch has shown they do help. I had the flu (not fun) before taking flu shots and haven't had so much as a bad cold for many years after taking flu shots.:thumbsup:When treating with fumidil spring and fall i would usually lose 2 to no more than 5 out of 50 hives, last year i didn't treat and lost 27 hives out of 50. I don't like using chemicals in me or my hives but if it works and you follow directions you should be safe. It's a matter of choice and what works for you in your area. I might ad that fumagilin B is the only chemical i us in my hives unless you want to call EO's a chemical. Jack


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

brooksbeefarm said:


> When treating with fumidil spring and fall i would usually lose 2 to no more than 5 out of 50 hives, last year i didn't treat and lost 27 hives out of 50.


I haven't used fumidil b in 12 years. I've had less lose these 12 years than when I did use it. So what does that say?


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Also, has been said that a good pollen sub patties help. 
Not a sugar patty.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

Barry said:


> I haven't used fumidil b in 12 years. I've had less lose these 12 years than when I did use it. So what does that say?


It says that in your climate you don't need to treat for it. I had completely the opposite happen. In my climate I do. Beekeeping is local, which is one reason that you see such a wide variation in beekeeping methods.

When reading advise on this, or any, forum look to see where the poster is from and whether you need to compensate for that.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beedeetee said:


> It says that in your climate you don't need to treat for it.


Hmm, not necessarily. Missouri and Illinois are pretty much the same. If all other factors were equal, one could make a claim that the difference is in the Fumidil, but everything else isn't equal. Beyond the location (which in this case is quite equal) there are many other factors that are at play. To tell a new beekeeper that they should use antibiotics in a prophylactic way is not wise in my book. What JPK said.

Does brooksbeefarm now treat every year because at some point in time in the past he needed to? Does he what to treat until he sees symptoms that warrant it? If not, it is this kind of drug (and chemical) use that is wrecking havoc on the bee population today, imo.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

I was referring to the difference between Illinois and Washington climate. I believe that I told the original poster that I believe that the differences in opinions that they were hearing were possibly because of differences in weather/climate.

If I don't use it, I get sick bees. Since I don't keep bees where the original poster does I told them to try going without using it. If they get sick bees they may have to try it, but they might be able to avoid the hassle and cost.

The problem with advice from a world wide forum is that what works in one area may not work in another. We all just need to remember that at times.


----------



## ENCRickey (Aug 2, 2008)

"imo" I believe that is the most relivant part of the posts. They are opinions and should be treated as such. There are as many opinions as there are beekeepers.


----------



## Loonerone (May 4, 2009)

So those of you who never treat for Nosema, you do not lose hives to Nosema? Or do you lose hives, and accept that the hives were weak, inferior, etc and so accept the loss as you move toward more viable hive genetics? Are there early symptons we might see in the fall - or do symptoms occur in late winter/early spring when we are not entering the hive? 

I am feeling upset that our bee school taught chemical treatments as if this was unquestioned. Our state bee inspection likes chemicals, too and of course he is speaking at our August bee club meeting about chemicals for fall to ensure over wintering. Aghg!!


----------



## brooksbeefarm (Apr 13, 2008)

Barry, i think the climate is quite different here in SW mo. than Chicago, Ill. Your winters are wetter and colder. From what i've read in ABJ and BC mag's that nosema may be a link to ccd, and when i lost 27 hives last year because i wanted to try the chemical free route it got my attention quick. I will use fumagilin-B this fall and spring now that i'm back up to 55 hives and see if it makes a difference.I remember the good old days when all we worried about was wax moths and AFB and would like to go back there, but this is a different time and no telling what's ahead of us. I'm not telling a new beekeeper he should use antibiotics, i'm just saying they have worked for me. Jack


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beedeetee said:


> If I don't use it, I get sick bees.


Have you ever tried to figure out why this is the case? Does every beekeeper in the Washington area have to use fumidil b? I doubt it. More than likely there are other options.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

ENCRickey said:


> "imo" I believe that is the most relivant part of the posts. They are opinions and should be treated as such.


Yep, and all of us live our lives more on the opinion side of things than the fact side. Just the way life is lived.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Loonerone said:


> I am feeling upset that our bee school taught chemical treatments as if this was unquestioned.


That upsets me as well. But the pendulum is swinging the other way and this line of thinking is being challenged and shown not to be the only route available and actually, a very dead end direction.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

brooksbeefarm said:


> I'm not telling a new beekeeper he should use antibiotics, i'm just saying they have worked for me. Jack


There's no doubt they work. But you can't avoid the obvious. For how long? Why do they need the continued drug intervention? What is the long term effect? Questions we all must face ourselves when in the same situation. Our actions have consequences down the road, if not very quickly.


----------



## BigDaddyDS (Aug 28, 2007)

When speaking to bee clubs in my area, I often times find that new beekeepers are sold a laundry list of items that they are told are _essential_ to beekeeping. On this list, usually, are all the medications. Now, I'm not accusing all the suppliers as being solely profit driven, but I also don't know why they don't even _suggest_ going the natural route when, speaking to them directly, they realize the dead end path of medication dependency and medication resistant pests and diseases.

When talking to clubs, my notes looks sort of like this:

1) Talk about problems/diseases one by one.
2) Talk about medications and cost.
3) Describe the PROPER usage of the medications, should they decide to do so.
3) Talk about natural selection and strengthening local genetics.

And, like beekeepers and their hives, each club is different and more (or less) receptive to the idea of natural beekeeping than the next. But, there's ALWAYS a new beekeeper in the audience who had NO IDEA that there was any alternatives to using medications in their hive.

DS


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

BigDaddyDS said:


> 1) Talk about problems/diseases one by one.
> 2) Talk about medications and cost.
> 3) Describe the PROPER usage of the medications, should they decide to do so.
> 3) Talk about natural selection and strengthening local genetics.
> DS


Good stuff; could I possibly suggest a 5th? Talk about the way beekeepers are also bee breeders, and the principles of traditional selection of specimens for health. 

Try to put newcomers in touch with the simple yet effective time-honoured tenets of husbandry, founded in raising disease-resistant stock. Its tough for newcomers with just one hive, but if we miss them here, they're already started out on the wrong foot.

Mike

http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/The Principles of Breeding_Seed Selection.htm


----------



## papar (Apr 10, 2007)

How about checking if you nosema first??

You can collect a sample of about 30 bees and send them to the labs in Beltsville( packed in a ziplock bag w/alcohol) where they will test for free. If you have over a million spore count, consider your options. Try something or nothing but resample the same hive and see what your results come back like. 
Waiting until you see visual signs of nosema cerana in the final stages is too late. I see plenty of strong hives that are making lots of surplus honey with spore counts in the millions.
IMO the first course of action should be finding out what you have, then consider what to do about it.

Good luck!!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So those of you who never treat for Nosema, you do not lose hives to Nosema?

No. Every time there has been a long confinement there is a lot of bee poop. Sometimes a particular hive seems to have a worst bought of it. If you feed them syrup or honey they snap right out of it. I can't say I have or have not had Nosema. I did buy a microscope and planned to look this year but got too busy and there didn't seem to be any problems with dysentary this year.

> Or do you lose hives, and accept that the hives were weak, inferior, etc and so accept the loss as you move toward more viable hive genetics?

IF I lost hives, that would be my view, yes. But I don't see that happen really. But I try not to breed from hives that have problems like dysentery and chalkbrood etc.

>Are there early symptons we might see in the fall - or do symptoms occur in late winter/early spring when we are not entering the hive?

>I am feeling upset that our bee school taught chemical treatments as if this was unquestioned.

They want it to be. 

> Our state bee inspection likes chemicals, too and of course he is speaking at our August bee club meeting about chemicals for fall to ensure over wintering. Aghg!!

Better living through chemistry.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

The days when someone said "Nosema" and we all knew what they were talking about are over. There are two distinct Nosema strains, Nosema Apis, and the more recently presented Nosema Ceranae. Some here seem to be referring to one, some to the other. We personally have not treated for Nosema A in years, have found it unnecessary, and indeed would not consider it unless observing the familiar symptoms like staining which make diagnosis easier. Nosema Ceranae, on the other hand, presents no symptoms other than continued weakening and eventual failure. The only way to diagnose Nosema C is through a spore count. Waiting until collapse is imminent to treat pretty much guarantees the loss of that colony. People should be made aware of the differences and the much different degrees of mortality in each of these Nosema strains. IMO Nosema C requires a much more aggressive approach to diagnosis and treatment, whatever you deem treatment should be. 
Many of the winter losses some blame on starvation and/or exposure might better be blamed on Nosema C, and might have been avoided if dealt with in the fall.
Sheri


----------



## Loonerone (May 4, 2009)

This information is extremely helpful - Johnk and Sheri. Can you offer info about when one might send bees to the lab to check for spores so as to make a determination about fall treatment? Are the antibiotics used the same for both nosema strains? Thank you!


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Here's an interesting article that I got from Joe (naturebee).

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004071
*A Survey of Honey Bee Colony Losses in the U.S., Fall 2007 to Spring 2008*

"The top five reasons given to explain death were poor quality queens, starvation, mites, CCD, and weather (Table 5).


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Loonerone, I am no researcher and there are plenty of research papers and studies out there on Nosema C. I can only give our experience with Nosema C. 
Fall of 2007 we sent 5 loads of bees to California. Each load is a random mixture of different out yards. One would think they would be fairly consistent in quality across the board. They seemed so at first, but by early January one holding yard of about 500 was in trouble, markedly smaller and dwindling. The queens were laying but they were not holding population. Having recently heard about Nosema C we sent samples in and sure enough there was a small to moderate spore count. We didn't sample the other yards but gave them all a drench treatment with Fum B. This yard recovered enough to get contracted. I think they would have been a total loss if we had not treated. We bought a scope that winter and when the bees got home we sampled again and the count was very low but we did find Nosema spores. Since then we have treated spring and fall with Fum B and not had a problem.
That year we had many friends that got hit hard with diagnosed Nosema C, and they now treat on a similar schedule. 
As for when to send in samples, we sample on a spring and fall schedule to make sure we are keeping it in check. In our case there was an obvious difference in this yard, with no apparent reason why. We had no mites, stores were good, we were feeding patties but they would not take down the syrup. I would say any colonies that seem to be falling behind and there is no other obvious problems would be a candidate for a closer look. In our case, the noticable difference wasn't until January. Many folks don't open their hives in January and would never know they had a problem until spring inspection and by then the bees would probably be gone. To make it through winter there needs to be good healthy winter bees and Nosema C may be rampant but undetectable except through spore counts when buttoning them up for winter. 

In the case of Nosema C, there are various home remedies that have been researched and shown to have some merit, some mentioned here, and there have been studies showing Fumigillan B does not work. European researchers have determined it takes a much larger dose of Fum B for optimal results.
Sheri


----------



## brooksbeefarm (Apr 13, 2008)

JohnK and sheri, I have also read that if you have a hive that keeps superseding that it's a good candidate for nosema c, do you know anything about this? and thanks for your post very informative. Jack


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Jack I have heard that also (and also about Nos A) but have no direct experience to share. One wonders if Nos C infections were related to the terrible supercedure rates in new boughten queens starting from a few years back. Since the increased awareness of this much more virulent strain, breeders are perhaps treating more aggressively. We, maybe coincidentally, had a very good bunch of queens this year, from several different sources.
Sheri


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> Here's an interesting article that I got from Joe (naturebee).
> 
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004071
> *A Survey of Honey Bee Colony Losses in the U.S., Fall 2007 to Spring 2008*
> ...


Thanks for this Barry,

The other most interesting findings appear to me to be:

"_While viruses and fungal pathogens have been identified as good indicators of this condition, these pathogens, on their own, are not able to explain all losses, suggesting that honey bee colonies are suffering from compromised immune systems which pathogens are able to take advantage of. Pesticides, both those applied to field crops and to hives to control bee parasites, and beekeeping management have both been proposed as contributing to the honey bees' compromised immune systems _[8]."

And

"_Of the perceived causes of losses starvation and poor queens were the most commonly identified. This is surprising, as both are manageable threats, suggesting a misdiagnosis of problems, a need to change management practices, and/or improved extension delivery methods_."

The proposistion that beekeepers are creating their own problems by failing to select for health/reproducing from weak (previously medicated) stock seems to me to be entirely consistent with the general diagnosis from beekeepers themeselves, as transmitted by the report.

How do you arrive at 'weak queens' and 'compromised immune systems'? Well one way is to breed without regard to genetic health by reproducing from stock that is vulnerable to sickness, but which has been artifically maintained through medication. 'Beekeeping management' may indeed be the cause of high losses; and the range of diseases and CCD merely _symptoms_ of ill-bred stock.

What to do? Review husbandry practice. Recognise that dumping medicines into hives may fix a problem in the short term, but will create a much larger one in the long term.

This of course only addresses the concerns of beekeepers - it does nothing to address the problems suffered by wild bees, who are affected by both the impact of new pests and strains of disease, and by the injection of poor quality genetic material from apiaries and transported bees. This is something that should concern beekeepers and everyone else - for it is the wide genetic variation found in wild colonies that supplies the material from which tolerance, or resistance to disease come. And at the end of the day, it is only mite tolerance and resistance to the various diseases - like the nosema under discussion - that can ensure beekeepers can stay in business, and crops can be pollinated. A healthy wild population is an essential part of the future of beekeeping.

On a nationwide scale you cannot medicate bees away from disease. Controlled selective breeding according to the traditional principles - select first for health, cull the weak - is the only way back to health. This is simply utterly incompatible with the combination: medicate then reproduce.

_Medication followed by reproduction_ is the cause of 'weak queens' and 'compromised immune systems'. 

Bee health needs re-thinking from the bottom up. Pressure needs to be placed on breeders to supply healthy stock where '_healthy_' means' _'mite-tolerant'_, _'disease resistant'_, _robust to the point of self sufficiency_. And the policy of medication at the first sign of disease needs to be replaced with a policy of culling failing stock. Getting weak genes out is every bit as important as getting strong genes in. 

Beekeeper are the breeders who really matter, who cause this epidemic, and who can fix it. Either they re-learn the importance of good husbandry or we'll go round and round like this till there are no more bees to keep.

Mike


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

I agree with much of you say in theory Mike but where the rubber hits the road theory is just that. We cannot eat theory. Apis M is not tolerant of Nosema C. Nos C jumped species and it will be years before any natural immunity is built up in Apis M. Are you willing to give up the pollination services provided by honeybees for the years it might require to build immunity?
Sheri


----------



## brooksbeefarm (Apr 13, 2008)

If the EPA and other responsible dept's would do their job and inspect the bees coming in from other countries it would cut down on the problems we have today. I know they can't identify every (unknown) disease that comes our way but there are some that they are aware of that get through. Seems like when we find a solution to one problem two more pop up. I remember reading about a mite in Asia that if it makes it to the US of A we can kiss our hives goodby (don't remember the name of it). I would be for banning all imports of bees to the US of A at least until we can deal with the diseases and pest we now have. There are to many of us left that remember the good old day's ( only weak hives, wax moth's and AFB to worry about) and it's hard to accept all the new diseases and pest we now have but their here and we are going to have to deal with them. Jack


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> I agree with much of you say in theory Mike but where the rubber hits the road theory is just that. We cannot eat theory. Apis M is not tolerant of Nosema C. Nos C jumped species and it will be years before any natural immunity is built up in Apis M. Are you willing to give up the pollination services provided by honeybees for the years it might require to build immunity?
> Sheri


Hi Sheri,

I understand your concern to put food on the table; yet through understanding the real causes of the problem we can design strategies to remedy the situation little by little, yard by yard.

I must correct you on one point. Every generation that is raised in a way that preserves the mechanism of selection for health brings the strains closer to resistance. The worry you have about the timescale for immunity is unfounded. Nature 'breeds in' resistance _continuously_, and when stockholder control their reproductive processes properly they do exactly the same thing. Strength of stock (which you can call broad immunity) comes from controlled breeding. 

Medication undermines the process completely. 

Carrying on in the same way condemns those unwilling to strengthen their stock to epidemic after epidemic - because it is the inadequate husbandry that weakens the stocks. We can fix things by understanding the mechanisms in play, and learning how to start putting things right. Those beekeepers that do so are already enjoying more food on their tables than those who dont. 

Can I recommend both my own website and:

Producing Varroa-tolerant Honey Bees from Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe, By E.H. Erickson, L.H. Hines, and A.A. Atmowidjojo

http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/publ/tolerant2.html

Their 'recipe' can be used for any disease or pest - it is simply traditional breeding practice applied to honeybees.

Best, Mike


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Mike I understand the mechanism whereby resistance is developed. 
But as I said before, I am not a researcher, nor am I a geneticist. I am one of the few hundred commercial beekeepers in this country working to keep food on our table (and I might add, your table as well). If the commercial beeks in this country had to take the initial hit your "recipe" calls for there wouldn't be many of us left. We certainly would not have the financial resources to rebuild from the few survivors Nosema C might leave. You don't seem to understand, or don't want to acknowledge the virulence of this newly introduced disease. I have heard of operations decimated by it, I am talking mortality rates in the 90% range. In an operation the size of ours, assuming an 80% loss, that would be a hit upwards of $400K in loss of income and bees in a single year, and we are one of the smaller operations, just a family run business. If you would volunteer to finance our "research" I might consider going that route.

I am all for breeders working on resistant bees and would support their work and purchase their products, but I am not prepared to sacrifice my family's financial future to this cause, nor I suspect are any other of the commercial keepers I know.
Sheri
PS I am curious if your philosophy extends to all forms of animal husbandry, dairy etc. Do you think pets should not be vaccinated against rabies? How about people vaccinated against such as polio?


----------



## rkr (Oct 30, 2008)

Well said Sherri!!
My wrist watch is water resistant not water proof!! Once you think if is water proof your in for a surprise!!
My bees are disease and mite resistant, but not disease and mite proof!
That is my goal but it will take awhile for me to reach that goal in a way I am comfortable with and can afford.
I work in Fire and EMS I have seen minor and moderate disasters in the past 18 yrs. The really bad things happen when 3 things that you choose not to control stack up against you IE (slick road, alcohol, and speed) or (Smoking in bed, falling asleep, dead smoke detector). Pick any three in life, but once they come together they are darn hard to avoid. Control one of the three you are able to recover most of the time.
Our bees are fighting mites, virus’, and Nosema C ; monitor and control (not eliminate all toghther)or suffer the consequences.


----------



## frostygoat (Jun 3, 2008)

Interesting discussion. Nosema is a pest. If you subscribe to the IPM philosophy, which was what brought agriculture out of the "Silent Spring" era, you should not treat prophylactically as many have said here. You must sample. If sampling justifies treatment, then you consider all treatment options. We have learned many times in the agricultural/crop model that the consequences of prophylactic treatment are severe and complicate the system for the future. Here one of the consequences may well be antibiotic resistance.

In the crop model we put ourselves on the pesticide treadmill. A new insecticide comes out and insects evolve resistance within a couple of years because growers are using it like crazy. Each time this happens the likelihood that the next product will work as well decreases. Every time resistance occurs the insect gets harder to manage. This can be prevented by judicious, justified (i.e., non prophylactic) treatment but a lot of growers don't get it. They want the quick and easy solution. Well, there's no free lunch.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> Mike I understand the mechanism whereby resistance is developed.
> But as I said before, I am not a researcher, nor am I a geneticist. I am one of the few hundred commercial beekeepers in this country working to keep food on our table (and I might add, your table as well).


Hi Sheri,

I'm going to have to write from the heart on this one, and ask for your forgiveness in advance.

I'm a life long supporter of the small organic approach to farming. I watched horrified as a teenager as the patchwork of orchards and small fields that made up the county that was the Garden of England was torn up; ancient meadows, woods and hedgrows chock full of wildlife replaced by hectare upon hectare of sterile corn by a new breed of 'farmer' - who was actually nothing more than a businessman. The small farms have been turned into millionaires residences, the country people driven ito town, local schools and shops closed. Whole species have been driven to the edge of extinction, some lost forever. Songbird numbers are reduced to a fraction of their previous numbers. As I'm sure you must realise, the catalogue of damage is long, and I won't continue the list.

Luckily there were, and still are, people who cared deeply about the importance of preserving our natural inheritance, and have managed stop and begin to reverse this insane rape of our beautiful land. The businessmen who call themselves 'farmers' cry foul, the 'bureaucracy' they say, is taking our living away from us. Other farmers - those with a connection to the land, and perhaps a memory of the loveliness that was lost in the name of 'progress' are quietly glad that the race to the bottom has been stopped before the entire land was turned into one huge corn and rape desert. With the support of EU grants, they have begun to restore the countryside. 

I'm on that side; and I think the world is shifting with us. 

I'm very sorry for you personally, but I'm afraid it is unlikely you'll find me crying if the large commercial food operations find the business model changing to favour smaller, less energy-intensive, less environmentally-destructive forms of raising food. If people have to pay a little more for it, or eat a little less, that is a price worth paying. 

Here in the UK we get by without the type of large pollination operations that go on in the US. And, universally, I think, UK beekeepers pray things stay that way. Lots of smaller farms, seviced by small local bee operations, seems to us to be kinder, saner, more hygenic, and just simply more desirable. That situation probably adds a pence to very locally raised apple, but that's a price worth paying, and you can always beat it by buying at the farm gate rather than the supermarket. 

You speak as if all 'commercial beeks' were of one kind, and were in the same position. But that is untrue. There is a diversity, and your kind of massive operation is merely one end of it. 

There is a long - indeed ancient- tradition in beekeeping of working with nature, of approaching beekeeping as an art that seeks to bend a wild animal gently toward man's interests, yet takes great care to treat it with the greatest respect. Many beekeppers still recall how farms used to ensure year-round forage for their own bees, and try to improve their locality in order to reduce the need to shift bees around. 

The attempt to turn the honeybee into yet another commodity, to work it as 'livestock' is madness to this tradition.

There is a world of difference between our approaches to beekeeping. But I would do everthing I can to work with you to encourage you to turn slowly toward a sustainable husbandry, in the belief that the investment would be in your own best long-term interests and mine. 

I think there will be increasing disapproval of the kind of methods you use, as it becomes clearer how damaging they are to the species and to other beekeepers and to wild bees. The genepool is narrowing - and that is alarming. The mechanisms by which beekeepers are causing that are becoming widely understood. The idea that 'disease' is the problem is being replaced by the understanding that 'health' is the problem. That is the responsibility of individual beekeepers.




JohnK and Sheri said:


> If the commercial beeks in this country had to take the initial hit your "recipe" calls for there wouldn't be many of us left. We certainly would not have the financial resources to rebuild from the few survivors Nosema C might leave. You don't seem to understand, or don't want to acknowledge the virulence of this newly introduced disease. I have heard of operations decimated by it, I am talking mortality rates in the 90% range.


I understand completely how preventing the rise of resistance by systematic medication leaves stock defenceless against new strains of pest and disease. Parasites and disease organisms evolve continuously - if you prevent your stock evolving with them, there will only be one end. Your strategy of medicating rather than focusing on the development and continuous maintainance of robust stock leaves you incredibly vulnerable to attack. It is likely to happen again and again. 

There is no magic cure for this. Bees need to develop resistance,and can only do so by natural selection and/or careful stockraising. If your business model cannot accomodate that fact then I'm sorry but you are probably in trouble. You need to develop a much more robust approach to maintaining your stock. Stop listening to anyone who tells you you can medicate your way to healthy bees. Read Erikson's 'recipe' carefully. There is no 'hit'. 

The fact that you are dependent on this way of beefarming for your living does not supply an argument in favour of preseving it. Business models evolve; and you must evolve with them. The argument for cheap food may take you further, but I wouldn't depend on it to supply licence to carry on as before.



JohnK and Sheri said:


> "If you would volunteer to finance our "research" I might consider going that route."


I wish someone would voluteer to fund mine! 



JohnK and Sheri said:


> "I am all for breeders working on resistant bees and would support their work and purchase their products, but I am not prepared to sacrifice my family's financial future to this cause, nor I suspect are any other of the commercial keepers I know."


I understand this completely, and I sympathise with your plight personally. But just as I don't support the vast businesses that turned the historic and rich countryside of England into corn deserts, and I don't support the fishermen who empty the oceans of fish, I cannot support your approach to beekeeping. 

BTW the idea that you can move to model in which 'breeders' supply you with healthy queens or colonies, which you mix in with yours seems unlikely to work anytime soon. If you replaced your whole genetic stock in one go you'd stand a chance. But I suspect it will always be the case that beekeepers will have to take control of their charges' health in the tradional manner - by studiously avoiding reproduction from sick stock, and by bringing strong strains to the fore. When you deny natural selection - you must replace the essential mechanism that maintains health. There are no short-cuts that will not have to be repaid with interest in the long term. The outsourcing of reproductive selection that goes on in the mammal stock will not work with bees.



JohnK and Sheri said:


> "PS I am curious if your philosophy extends to all forms of animal husbandry, dairy etc."


Yes it does. please read my website page on the methods of traditional husbandry. How to keep stock healthy by breeding only from the strongest specimens has been known since biblical times and probably for many thousand years longer. There is a golden rule, which you breach constantly - and the result is sickness. You've been sold the lie that medication will overcome your problem - it won't.



JohnK and Sheri said:


> "Do you think pets should not be vaccinated against rabies?"


I have no view, but I don't think I have any objection. The act does not seem to me to be likely to cause any great damage further down the line.



JohnK and Sheri said:


> "How about people vaccinated against such as polio?"


I keep people very separate. 

Sorry to ramble,

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnK and Sheri 
"Do you think pets should not be vaccinated against rabies?" 

I have no view, but I don't think I have any objection. The act does not seem to me to be likely to cause any great damage further down the line._

Mike, how is rabies any different than Varroa? By your argument, we are weakening the pet genetics by medicating for rabies. Shouldn't we be breeding pets to be rabies resistant?

_Nature 'breeds in' resistance continuously_

ONLY to the pests/diseases that are continuous. The moment something stops applying pressure, you start losing resistance.

_Medication undermines the process completely. _

No, it does not. Medication allows your bees to live another day. Bees that get wiped out by a pest/disease before becoming resistant are dead - and whatever good genetic qualities those bees had are gone from the gene pool. Medication can be a very good temporary fix until a better alternative comes along. While I am not a fan of overmedication and dumping chemicals into hives, I do believe that there is a time and a place for everything, medicines included.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

On the whole you are right about pets - but the dangers of not vaccinating seem to outweigh the consequences of doing so. 

As to the rest; I can't help you. You must come to understand the mechanism of natural selection, and see how continuous selection for fit strains and against unfit strains continuously equips the bloodlines to deal with the continuously evolving (and simply arriving) threats. 

Then you will be able to see the logic that underlies my position. To think that keeping unfit bloodines alive while you wait for some other mechanism to sort out the problem is simply wrongheaded. The termination of the unfit bloodlines _is_ the mechanism.

Mike


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Well Mike you have your opinion I have mine. You sorta remind me of myself about 40 years ago, lol. I found along the road that idealism is fine and working towards one's difficult goals is fine but some of us need to work for a living. Your expressed pity and condescension are most offensive. We are not poisoning the planet or poisoning our bees. Nor are we beating those around us over the head with our philosophy. We are quietly keeping our bees healthy and putting the food you eat in your mouth. You can rant all day and even early into the early morning and that will make no difference.
The world has changed, populations have grown and we are a long ways from the subsistance farming you want to regress to. I am not saying it is a good thing but it is the reality. If there are no large scale mono crop farms in your country you are importing food, period. Do you know what the import ratios of your country are?
We will have to agree to disagree.
Sheri


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> We will have to agree to disagree.
> Sheri


That's fine Sheri - I never thought we'd do much else, at least on some issues!

My main aim is help people understand where things are going wrong with their bees, and with bees in general. Its a bit of a sprawling complicated picture in many ways, but there are also simple, fundamental and permanant truths that show how to plan and act for health. Its better to have them out in the open, than have the wrong message entirely ruling the approach to beekeeping. Their implications are good for some people, not good for others; and there is isn't much any of us can do about that. Ultimately our aims are the same, and I hope we can continue to talk.

Mike


----------



## cow pollinater (Dec 5, 2007)

Mike,
While I do admire your enthusiasm for genetics, I have to point out one major flaw in your though proccess. You are assuming that people who use prophylactic treatments are not also using resistant bee strains.
I think that you will find that alot of beeks use both genetics and treatments and then select futute genetics from the bees that perform best with less need for treatment as a factor.
Since other forms of livestock were already mentioned, I'll add a dairy cow example: Breeding for low somatic cell counts will show imrovement over forty percent of the daughters of a low cell count bull. Multiple breedings to low count genetics will result in a much higher resistance to mastitis but will not eliminate high cell counts all together. Why in the world are we not supposed to treat high cell count cows while constantly selecting for better genetics??? Improvement will come in leaps and bounds, so why cull profitable animals in the mean-time??? Bees are no different. Why should we watch bees die just because they aren't resistant ENOUGH??? Dinks are dinks and I have yet to meet anyone who uses their dinks as breeders.
Rome was not built in a day and neither is genetic resistance to disease. I see no point in losing quality bees while I wait for genetics to fix the problem.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

cow pollinater said:


> Mike,
> While I do admire your enthusiasm for genetics, I have to point out one major flaw in your though proccess. You are assuming that people who use prophylactic treatments are not also using resistant bee strains.
> I think that you will find that alot of beeks use both genetics and treatments and then select futute genetics from the bees that perform best with less need for treatment as a factor.


Hi,

I don't think I can explain here any more. Some people understand, others don't You have to be able to follow through the consequences in your mind, and then you can see how the problem unfolds in various ways. I'll add a few thoughts, but really if you want to underderstand the mechanism that makes bees sick all over the developed, and, increasingly, developing world, you'll have to engage with natural selection and practice watching it play out in different places. I suppose, having learned about it 40 or so years ago, I forgot that this isn't just obvious. I guess understanding is something of an art. 

Treating prophylactically is the worst possible option as far as long-term health is concerned. It is one of the chief causes of antibiotic resistance all over the world, including MRSA, the superbug that plagues hospitals. It masks healthy and unhealthy animals, allowing breeding from both indiscriminately.

Don't forget with bees we lose control of the breeding just as soon as they reproduce. 

Bees are not large mammals with sophisticated trainable immune systems. Their chief defence systems against microrganisms and new parasites is selection for resistant strains. This can only happen if non-resistant strains are allowed to perish.

Those beeks that are acutely aware of the way medication messes with selection will be extra careful about the way they breed; and the more widespread that practice, the better chance we have of getting back to proper beekeeping with robust bees.

I think that if you think about these things, and talk about them, you'll come to see that what I am saying makes sense, and that while it can undoubtedly be fine-tuned, there are no major flaws. In the 18 years that I've worked at it, with the help of experts in every field I can think relevant, most of the flaws have been ironed out. The diagnosis is sound, and offers a way for those who want to engage with it - and have the control they need -to regain properly healthy stocks - where 'healthy' means 'self-sufficient'. Doing so will undoubtedly offer great advantages over beekeepers who carry on as before. 



cow pollinater said:


> Rome was not built in a day and neither is genetic resistance to disease. I see no point in losing quality bees while I wait for genetics to fix the problem.


Just... don't wait for someone else to do it, thinking you can then import a few of their their bees and all will be well. It won't necessarily work that way. You have to clean up your own apiary, and allow your own locality to clean itself of unadapted genes. 

I hope this helps,

Mike

PS I'm pasting this piece I wrote yesterday to another forum, which may help you see how things work through. It is a response to the idea that we must wait for the emergence of a 'superbee'.

"... I'll expand on the issue of the effect or medication + reproduction below, and then perhaps we'll be able to form a clearer view of what constitutes 'good' and 'bad' medication practice.




(another poster) said:


> If you withdraw all medication, you are effectively waiting for the emergence of a superbee which is adapted for everything as any single disease could wipe out the colony, good genes and bad genes alike.


I think this expresses a misunderstanding of the continuous nature of the aquisition of tolerance. In the wild natural selection is continuously at work. Pest and disease organisms constantly evolve toward those strains able to make better use of their energy source. Every generation sees some strains of host weaken and die, and some offer greater resistance. Natural selection ensures the latter supply the genes for the next generation. Those strains best able to resist the predator thus come forward, as their population increses in the genepool, while the weakest are eliminated. Again; this process is, and must be, continuous. Predator organisms evolve continuously, and unless the prey organism also does so its population will continuously weaken. It will fail to adapt to the ever-new disease environment.

With this in mind, you can see that all self-sufficient bees are, as you put it 'superbees'. Those wild bees that have survived are 'superbees'. Michael Bush's and Dee Lusby's stock are 'superbees'. All self-sufficient organisms are 'super-organisms'. 

The notion of an elusive 'superbee' is a myth. All we need are healthy bees, where 'healthy' means 'self-sufficient in health terms.'

By contrast the stock in most apairies is genetically crippled. It can be so described because it is not self-sufficient. It does not have the genetic make-up that allows it to survive unaided in the current disease environment - nor can it evolve to cope with that evolving disease environment.

This situation is caused by interfering with the process by which organisms gain resistance, or tolerance, or adapt - take your pick of these terms. And what has gone wrong is that that mechanism that ensures adaptation to a continuously-evolving disease environment has been systematically stymied by the continuous injection into the genepool of unfit genes. These genes come from bees that would not have survived, had they not been medicated. 

Medication followed by reproduction goes against the highest principle of stock-breeding: reproduce _only_ from healthy stock. Yet beekeepers do it systematically. That is the heart of the problem. The bees we raise are not 'healthy' where 'healthy' means robustly self-sufficient."


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Sorry to swamp you, but I was so pleased to find this today I thought I'd share it with you:

Genesis 30:31-70 (21st Century King James Version)

31And he said, "What shall I give thee?" And Jacob said, "Thou shalt not give me any thing. If thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock:

32I will pass through all thy flock today, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted animals, and all the brown animals among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and of such shall be my hire.

33So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me."

34And Laban said, "Behold, I would it might be according to thy word."

35And he removed that day the hegoats that were ringstreaked and spotted, and all the shegoats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.

36And he set three days' journey between himself and Jacob; and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.

37And Jacob took rods of green poplar and of the hazel and chestnut tree, and peeled white strips in them and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38And he set the rods which he had peeled before the flocks in the gutters, in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth animals ringstreaked, speckled and spotted.

40And Jacob separated the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstreaked and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not with Laban's flocks.

41And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger animals conceived, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the animals in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

42But when the animals were feeble, he put them not in; so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.

43And the man increased exceedingly and had large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and asses.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

My main aim is help people understand where things are going wrong with their bees, and with bees in general.
That is about the broadest statement that I have read!
Somebody must have some deep pockets!
Ernie


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Yes, that convinces me for sure, we all know what a marvel of scientific knowledge the bible is, lol. 
Sheri


----------



## rkr (Oct 30, 2008)

Careful!! :no: It's actually way more accurate than it is given credit for, considering that is not God's purpose for the Book. 
Jacob was a liar, cheat, a grifter, and a con-man. He was not attempting to better anything but his bottom line. He is a poor example of a reputable breeder. He was breeding for spots so he could have more sheep and goats. I see your point Mike, but Jacob was not interested in the future health of the herd past his own means. You, I, CB,CP, BS4U, Sheri and everyone else (well most I think) are. To use him as an example "true husbandry" would be like using Bernie Madoff as your financial model, effective maybe, a truth shepherd of others assets...no.
Happy Beekeeping
RKR

See I got to preach today even though I am at work at the FD!!!


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

what a marvel of scientific knowledge the bible is

When I read about "turning into pillars of salt" I could not see a scientific explanation.
Oh that's right! Some people have to fear something in order to make them behave according to standards of perfection.
Ernie


----------



## rkr (Oct 30, 2008)

:shhhh:t::shhhh:
Merriam-Webster Online define supernatural as
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : *departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature* b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

*"When I read about "turning into pillars of salt" I could not see a scientific explanation."*
That's what makes it supernatural


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

*Selective Breeding: Jacob's Sheep*



JohnK and Sheri said:


> Yes, that convinces me for sure, we all know what a marvel of scientific knowledge the bible is, lol.
> Sheri


Sure, but my point was to show you its there - that knowledge of breeding for health has a long history. I thought some people might be as interested as I am. Given the repeated quotes of 'land of milk and honey' in the OT I reckon bees were valued - though how much 'farmed' or selectively bred I've no idea. Given that the wisdom was clearly present I'd say more likely than not reproduction from healthy stocks was encouraged, and from weak stocks discouraged way back then, just as from the sheep, cows horses and asses mentioned. I'd be extremely surprised if corn wasn't consciously bred too - after all it was in the Fertile Crescent that farming began, from where most modern grains were bred from grasses - I don't know what sort of dating has been done, so don't hold me to this, but it seems likely selective breeding may predate the writing of these parts by several milenia. 

[I've been reminded that we use 'corn' in different ways. Over here covers wheat, rye, oats etc.] 

I'd found the quote in order show (on another thead) that is was a mistake to think 'traditional breeding' is something that followed Mendel - that it had a much longer history. I'm fascinated to think of all the farmers, monks and so on who might have been guided by that text. I think in the medieval world the presence of jabob's sheep might have been a constant reminder to many people of the principles that keep farms healthy.

And I think its a fascinating and informative piece of writing in itself. I'd love to know of more examples of selective breeding from the ancient world.

I'm not trying to make any claims for the accuracy of the bible one way or another - though I will say I think it is a genuine historical text. I don't suppose anyone here doubts that; nor that science supplies a perfectly parallel narrative to the process of breeding for health described in Genesis - do they? 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

BEES4U said:


> My main aim is help people understand where things are going wrong with their bees, and with bees in general.
> That is about the broadest statement that I have read!
> Somebody must have some deep pockets!
> Ernie


Don't follow you Ernie. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

rkr said:


> I see your point Mike, but Jacob was not interested in the future health of the herd past his own means. [...] To use him as an example "true husbandry" would be like using Bernie Madoff as your financial model, effective maybe, a truth shepherd of others assets...no.


Hi, 

I wasn't trying to use him as a model of an upstanding moral businessman, but to show that breeding for heath has a long history - and share a fascinating connection between our ancestors and ourselves. This kind of stuff excites me - but maybe I'm a bit wierd that way 

I think its probably fair to say that this wisdom has long made the difference between successful and unsuccessful farming. Seems to me there's a useful point there someplace

Mike


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_Given the repeated quotes of 'land of milk and honey' in the OT I reckon bees were valued - though how much 'farmed' or selectively bred I've no idea. _

In Leviticus allowing livestock to crossbreed is actually prohibited. You are not allowed to keep 2 strains in the same field. This prevents hybrids.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_I think its probably fair to say that this wisdom has long made the difference between successful and unsuccessful farming. Seems to me there's a useful point there someplace_

I think faith has been more important. You have to have faith to plant a seed, or livestock to breed.

I've known some unwise successful farmers.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

*Bible & selective breeding*



Countryboy said:


> _Given the repeated quotes of 'land of milk and honey' in the OT I reckon bees were valued - though how much 'farmed' or selectively bred I've no idea. _
> 
> In Leviticus allowing livestock to crossbreed is actually prohibited. You are not allowed to keep 2 strains in the same field. This prevents hybrids.


That's interesting. Any chance of chapter and verse?

Of course preventing hybrids and breeding for health are separate aims - though related.

Wiki says the term hybrid' is used in two different ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)) Can you say which is meant in Lev.?

Mike


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Psssssssttt........ *Religion and politics *belong in the
Tailgator section. Start a thread there and you'll get
loads of discussion and debate.:gh:


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

Lev. 19:19
Don't allow 2 breeds of cows in the same field. Don't sow with mixed seeds. Don't wear clothes with blended fibers.

I'll let you decide what kind of hybridization it is referring to. I think going any further probably belongs in Tailgater.

:lookout: Not trying to start a Biblical discussion here Sundance.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Can we get back to the use of Fumagillin and Fumagillin onley!
This posting has strayed far beyonds it's purpose and has been side tracked.
We need to stay on the topic.
Thank you,
Ernie


----------

