# Is the division 'Treatment Free' adequate to the task?



## Rusty Hills Farm

From the first thread at the top of the forum:



> Discussions of the definition of "Treatment-Free" will be deleted.


This sure sounds like such a discussion.

JMO

Rusty


----------



## Barry

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


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> I think if you were to read over the Lusby's POV section, it's not just management they're doing, the management they do allow the bees to "repair it."


Not sure what point you're making here Barry, but... 

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

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

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

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

Mike (UK)


----------



## D Semple

Yeah, how about you start your own forum and make any rules you like.


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


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


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


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


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


Could we think about having another major section division along the lines: 'Traditional Selective Husbandry'?

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

Mike (UK)


----------



## Barry

Yeah, you'll have to run it by Oldtimer.


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> Yeah, you'll have to run it by Oldtimer.


Is it a secret? Maybe Bayer bought Beesource out?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Maybe we could have a '_Treatment Free _Joke/Humor Forum' as well! 




:gh:


----------



## Barry

No, it was just a joke, checking to see if you were paying attention.

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


----------



## rhaldridge

mike bispham said:


> My suggestion is that the categories are re-examined from this perspective, and manipulations returned to the treating 'orthodox' section. That will supply the 'Treatment-Free' section with the singularity of purpose that was envisaged by its original proponents and creators...
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Mike (UK)


Look out folks. We got us a mindreader over here.


----------



## WLC

By pinning ad hoc definitions and rules on a forum, you've already made a policy mistake from the get go.

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


----------



## brettj777

Without rules we are all just monkeys flinging poo at each other...


----------



## WLC

The general forum rules are more than enough.

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

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


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


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





Barry said:


> Yeah, you'll have to run it by Oldtimer.


LOL I'll have to benchmark that for the 2014 stupidest question and funniest response competition. :lpf:


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> LOL I'll have to benchmark that for the 2014 stupidest question and funniest response competition. :lpf:



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

"D'oh!"


----------



## Oldtimer

Said the pot to the kettle.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> Yeah, you'll have to run it by Oldtimer.


Now ****it.....I nearly choked on my Corona!
Mike....why don't you try the threads you're interested in on the general beekeeping forum? Why do you need a specific forum? I'm guessing the interest will be the same either way.


----------



## WLC

To answer Mike's question:

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

Once you have resistant Honeybees, the rest becomes moot.


----------



## squarepeg

at one time i questioned the usefulness of the 'unique forum rules' and was made of aware of the forum history to which i was not privy.

mike, as relative newcomers you and may fail to appreciate the purpose and necessity of having these rules in place. the problem with them is the same problem as defining 'treatment free' in the first place. i tried to point out to you in an earlier thread that these considerations are arbitrary and with so much overlap in management philosophies among beekeepers it's a fool's quest to arrive at a set of guidelines that will be acceptable.

as an aside, here is an interesting post by randy oliver on another forum that describes how it is possible to use selection along with 'soft' treatments and make progress toward breeding mite resistance and less dependence on treatments:

"We are in the middle of selecting breeders this spring (selected about 10
yesterday). Every year for the past 5 years, the percentage of our
breeders that score zero mites in a wash of ~300 bees from a brood frame
has increased. We perform this test after almonds. All colonies were
treated with an oxalic dribble in November, and all went into the winter
with mites (I don't use any high-efficacy synthetic miticides). By
selection time in March, all have gone through 3-5 varroa reproductive
cycles, at least one with abundant drone brood (the colonies are full of
emerged drones).

Of the strong, productive colonies selected as potential breeders, most
score in the range of 0-6 mites, with a few having much more (this season
one had 15, and one nearly 30). We generally only breed from those scoring
zero or 1 mite (I selected one with 2 mites yesterday, since it was the
best honey producer we have found this spring).

That said, for reality check, none of last year's breeders would have
survived 'til winter without treatment of some sort. I will run the same
test again this season. I am not out to make extravagant claims or to
pitch anything--I simply tell it like it is. We are happy with the
progress of this program, as we can see progress on the mite front each
year. We're not treatment free yet, but we run a profitable operation
using only low-efficacy "natural" treatments."


----------



## WLC

squarepeg:

As made evident by Randy's comments, there are many ways of selecting for resistant stock and TF is but one of them.

However, as you are aware, the rules of the game have changed as have the consequences.

DWV has apparently jumped species from Honeybees to native bumble bees. 

Mike should be aware of the recent Furst paper showing that DWV was impacting native bumble bees in the U.K. .

I made people aware that DWV has been found to be hosted by both the common eastern and Hunt's bumble bee.

So, it's no longer about not treating. They have to be resistant Honeybees.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> To answer Mike's question:
> 
> No. It's not adequate because the actual objective is beekeeping with resistant stocks of Honeybees.
> 
> Once you have resistant Honeybees, the rest becomes moot.


I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

squarepeg said:


> ...you and may fail to appreciate the purpose and necessity of having these rules in place. the problem with them is the same problem as defining 'treatment free' in the first place.


The point is to refine the conceptual apparatus as understanding develops. Without doing that progress is hobbled - in any field. 




squarepeg said:


> as an aside, here is an interesting post by randy oliver on another forum that describes how it is possible to use selection along with 'soft' treatments and make progress toward breeding mite resistance and less dependence on treatments:


You can raise resistance while using 'hard' treatments for I care. It doesn't make any difference at all. As long as you can find reliable ways to assay for resistance, and you take care to use the best only as parents. (This is easier without any treatments or manipulations of course...)

'Hard Bond', 'Soft Bond' whatever. As long as raising resistance is going on, you'll get to proper, sustainable 'treatment free' after a while.



squarepeg said:


> "We are in the middle of selecting breeders this spring (selected about 10
> yesterday). ...


I tried to find the date on this, and failed. Can you? Not much use without that.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> However, as you are aware, the rules of the game have changed as have the consequences.
> 
> DWV has apparently jumped species from Honeybees to native bumble bees.
> 
> Mike should be aware of the recent Furst paper showing that DWV was impacting native bumble bees in the U.K.


Doesn't change a thing. The same rules apply.

Viruses mutate and skip species all the time. Natural Selection sorts it out all the time.

Let's try to stick to the topic eh?

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC

mike bispham said:


> Doesn't change a thing. The same rules apply.
> 
> Viruses mutate and skip species all the time. Natural Selection sorts it out all the time.
> 
> Let's try to stick to the topic eh?
> 
> Mike (UK)


It's relevant because now you have to keep mite levels, and therefore DWV, low in a treatment free setting as well.

There is a difference between 'manmade' pathogen spillover and natural events.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> It's relevant because now you have to keep mite levels, and therefore DWV, low in a treatment free setting as well.
> 
> There is a difference between 'manmade' pathogen spillover and natural events.


Only in our guilt levels. Nature doesn't care. If the virus is in bumblebees then its there, and bumblebees will sort it out. 

(reading in support of WLC's account of the situation):
"... the need for increased pathogen control in managed bee species to maintain wild pollinators, as declines in native pollinators may be caused by interspecies pathogen transmission originating from managed pollinators." [1]

The best possible method of control is of course innate resistance - primarily to the vector, varroa (also of course to the virus/s itself. 

Without that we'll always have a doughnut of mite infested collapsing feral colonies around every apiary. "increased pathogen control" of the orthodox kind simply perpetuates this problem. 

Which another good reason to work at getting the tools in place to talk clearly about raising resistance - not muddling it with 'treatment free'.

Mike (UK)

[1] Disease associations between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators
M. A. Fürst, D. P. McMahon, J. L. Osborne, R. J. Paxton & M. J. F. Brown
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7488/full/nature12977.html


----------



## WLC

Thank you Mike.

Things do get muddled unless you can cut through to the central issue.

Just a note, both Furst in the UK and others here in the US have found evidence for DWV going from managed pollinators to native ones. That's a point I was trying to make as well.

I think that there are so many important approaches and caveats to reaching 'resistance' that the TF narrative itself has become a barrier to that goal.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> If the virus is in bumblebees then its there, and bumblebees will sort it out.


Don't bet on it Mike, how do you know they will sort it out? Are you aware several species have gone extinct in your country?

In fact we have sent bumblebees from my country, to your country, in an attempt to re stock, although personally I fail to see the point when the environmental issues that lead to the original extinctions, have not been resolved.


----------



## WLC

OT:

The issues have gone past becoming the local nuisance beekeeper. 

My own view is that we need effective, 'safe', and validated methods of getting to resistance.

I found the statement, 'I don't breed from the dead colonies.' to be unacceptable. 

Collectively, we're better than that.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> My own view is that we need effective, 'safe', and validated methods of getting to resistance.


Don't we all. Nothing new, no reason to have a separate treatment free sub forum this one allows full discussion of Mikes theories, for whatever practicle value that is.

Any case Barry said no so why still going on?


----------



## Solomon Parker

brettj777 said:


> Without rules we are all just monkeys flinging poo at each other...


Without rules? Clearly you haven't been here long.




WLC said:


> Collectively, we're better than that.


Yes, we know who's better than whom.


Mike, it appears this is a futile proposition. You just don't have the populace here with the will to solve anything. If you did, it wouldn't continually be the bickering match that it is. I suggest searching for a treatment-free beekeeping Facebook group. You're far more likely to find a well behaved group of people serious about what they're doing and not interested in bickering.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> In fact we have sent bumblebees from my country, to your country, in an attempt to re stock, although personally I fail to see the point when the environmental issues that lead to the original extinctions, have not been resolved.


You said it. Its the destruction of the floral diversity by greedy landowners, aided by grants handed out by public servants entirely captured by the farming lobby that is the problem. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## LizardKing

Wow!

I never knew there was this much animosity on beekeeper forums!

Interesting......


----------



## WLC

OT:

I wasn't referring to a sub forum. I was talking about a renovation. Gut it, build it better.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC gutting & rebuilding it as per what Mike suggests is not an option because if you read what people are saying, probably a majority of them are treatment free but will perform certain manipulations etc and the TF section in it's current form allows them to discuss that.

There would have to be a separate sub forum a "no manipulation either" forum. But a separate forum for that is not needed the TF section in it's current form allows full discussion of those ideas, just, nobody can get banged on the head for mentioning manipulations but Mike may have to live with that.



mike bispham said:


> You said it.
> Mike (UK)


Well, found one thing we agree on Mike maybe there's hope , glad you actually read my posts.

There is quite a bit of interest here in some quarters in the history of English bumblebees although it makes depressing reading. Here, bumblebees have made something of a resurgence since varroa reduced the competition for them. They are also raised here commercially, and my niece is at Uni studying around Bumblebees she is about to fly out to Europe for (I think) 12 months to work with them.


----------



## D Semple

Oldtimer said:


> There would have to be a separate sub forum a *"no manipulation either" * forum. But a separate forum for that is not needed the TF section in it's current form allows full discussion of those ideas, just, nobody can get banged on the head for mentioning manipulations but Mike may have to live with that.


Then there would have to be long winded arguments on what actually is a manipulation. :scratch:

I don't think Mike has enough years to realize that we can't do anything to a hive that we don't change it's chance of survival.

Whether it's feeding, supplementing, opening the brood nest, adding supers, splitting, moving, Harvesting, wrapping, insulation, providing a wind break, etc., etc., any one of them can and does change the survivors. Where are you going to draw the line?

Don

Bumbles are alive and well here, sorry to here there are place where they are suffering.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Well, found one thing we agree on Mike maybe there's hope , glad you actually read my posts.


I don't know what makes you think I was referring to your post OT. You plainly can't see the point of the whole exercise - or maybe can but want to disrupt its chances. I have you down as agri-chem agent. You just want to stop people working at resistance. You systematically muddle every discission and pour cold water on every attempt at clarification; and that's just for starters. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> But a separate forum for that is not needed the TF section in it's current form allows full discussion of those ideas


No it doesn't. Time and again we meet 'treatment free' beekeepers who, it turns out, have been manipulating all along. When we try to talk about the difference we get clobbered and told its against the rules. We get told 'everything you do is a manipulation' - (see D Semple above). We get told it doesn't work, can't work, that all properly experienced beekeepers know this. 

Its exactly like the bad old days when any mention that 'treatment free' was an option was systematically stamped on - as it still is in some places. Its just that now its raising resistance that's the clear target.

People who don't do resistance raising seem offended by people who advocate it. And that offence gets translated into disruption of any discussion.



Oldtimer said:


> just, nobody can get banged on the head for mentioning manipulations but Mike may have to live with that.


And that is used (as one of several strategies) to systematically prevent discussion of the one thing that would permanantly and comprehensively remove the profit-opportunity that flows from bees addicted to treatments.

(Of course I could be imagining that motivation... but the effect is exactly the same. If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck.... you may as well operate on the basis that it probably is a duck.)

If I get my way I'll not only get a separate section, I'll be a moderater. I'll operate 3 month bans for people who irritate me. 

Now watch how much that notion scares the pants off them.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Ramona

Whew. Taking a deep breath and practicing my own resistance 

Can't wait until the northern hemisphere bees are all back out!


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> I suggest searching for a treatment-free beekeeping Facebook group.


Got your own forum at last! Can preach the gospel without any opposing views. Congratulations.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


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


We? You sell bees or queens?


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> No it doesn't. Time and again we meet 'treatment free' beekeepers who, it turns out, have been manipulating all along. When we try to talk about the difference we get clobbered and told its against the rules. We get told 'everything you do is a manipulation'


What's against the rules? Name calling?


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> You're far more likely to find a well behaved group of people serious about what they're doing and not interested in bickering.


I finally got a replacement battery for my Solomon Parker Decoder Ring. I was able to scan the recent post and the quoted sentence translates to mean 'you will find only people who agree with Solomon Parker'. 
I would say it is a virtual pulpit but in a real world church the congregation can toss the minister if he/she gets out of control. I'm thinking more like a virtual cult.


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> Got your own forum at last! Can preach the gospel without any opposing views. Congratulations.


I see discussing fogging with oil is part of the TF forum!


----------



## D Semple

mike bispham said:


> No it doesn't. Time and again we meet 'treatment free' beekeepers who, it turns out, have been manipulating all along. When we try to talk about the difference we get clobbered and told its against the rules. We get told 'everything you do is a manipulation' - (see D Semple above). We get told it doesn't work, can't work, that all properly experienced beekeepers know this.
> 
> Its just that now its raising resistance that's the clear target.
> 
> People who don't do resistance raising seem offended by people who advocate it. And that offence gets translated into disruption of any discussion.
> 
> 
> Mike (UK)


Mike you've made your point about the importance of raising resistance now about a hundred times. Everybody get's it, it's not that we disagree with what you are advocating we are just bored of hearing you go on and on about it. 

Just for the record I'm about a straight up bond beekeeper also, but I've got no beef whatsoever with how anybody else chooses to keep bees and in fact greatly admire the commercial guys who do so much more than just play with bees.

Don


----------



## Beregondo

My reading / participation in the treatment free beekeeping forum has been extremely limited precisely because I find that beyond transitioning to SC comb and the like, the amount of useful information is extremely limited in practical value.

Having a goal of achieving and apiary that is treatment free, I'd hoped for open discussion of various means to get there, including things like the pros/cons of IPM or occasional use of "soft" treatments during transition to preserve a set of wanted traits in a genetic line until resistance to or tolerance of mites is expressed in that line.

I found the hostility toward anything but the One True Way and censorship of any discussion of treatment of any form to be counterproductive and haven't bothered reading anything but a very occasional thread that appears in the "New Posts" page that sparks my curiosity.

I think that the satirical comment above concerning a "virtual cult" is actually fairly accurate.

I think that being able to think and discuss critically (not at all the same as just being critical and offensive) is important in both the process of discovery and development of effective practical management practices that are largely transferable over a broad range of climates and the ability to teach or pass what is discovered on to others.

For these reasons, in its current form as it is currently moderated my answer to the question, 

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

is

"No, not in my experience."


----------



## Michael Bush

>Where are you going to draw the line?

What we need is the "Spartan" method of beekeeping. We will try to kill them and then breed from the survivors...


----------



## Beregondo

Michael Bush said:


> What we need is the "Spartan" method of beekeeping. We will try to kill them and then breed from the survivors...


And, you'd only need 300 bees to start with...


----------



## Michael Bush

>And, you'd only need 300 bees to start with... 

Based on historical data, that might not work so well... you need survivors...


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> I'm thinking more like a virtual cult.


I am continually amazed at the amazing traits that are ascribed to me! First somebody called me a good beekeeper, and now I have the personal wherewithal to maintain a group of kool-aid drinking knuckle-draggers who hang on my every word and obey my proclamations? And that group has over 180 people in it? They love me! They agree with every word that tumbles out of my mouth as if it were a jewel of highest price! And it's so amazing that I am able to do this entire thing without deleting posts (except for ads) and not removing people (except ad posters). No one argues with me at all! We even get to discuss FGMO fogging without anger (though the group agrees without argument that it is a treatment and therefore not worth pursuing). And this heavenly Facebook group exists entirely under the force of my will, a perfect treatment-free beekeeping utopia! Oh JOY! 



_No, the problem with this forum is the people in this forum._ That truth is self evident.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Solomon Parker said:


> And it's so amazing that I am able to do this entire thing without deleting posts (except for ads) and not removing people (except ad posters).


Hmmm. 

A few months ago you discussed a 'removal' from the Facebook TF group.



Solomon Parker said:


> So I don't know what this five or seven year old queen stuff is about. Then again it's hard to get anything out of him before he gets shuffled off for language abuses. [HIGHLIGHT]Had to let him go from the TF Facebook group.[/HIGHLIGHT]


----------



## Solomon Parker

Tim Ives quit. He thought the F word was okay to drop in conversation and I disagreed. I did not kick him out. "I had to let him go." And went he did. But I did not kick him out.


But since you don't know the whole story, by all means, "Hmmm" away.

_
No, the problem with this forum is the people in this forum._ That truth is self evident.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Had to let him go from the TF Facebook group.


Those were your words Solomon, not mine. "Had to let him go".

Anyone who want to look at the original quote can click the little blue arrow in the quote box in post #52 to go back to the original post by Solomon.


I understand not allowing abusive language in a forum. But what happened is what happened. Revising history doesn't usually get one very far.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Yeah, that's what I said. He went. I had to let him go. Had to. Couldn't stop it. He was leaving. We had a parting of ways. I let him go. F-bombs. Never even told him to leave. 

Seriously?



Sidetrack. Appropriate.

_The problem with this forum is the people in this forum._ That truth is self evident.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well it went pretty ugly since the embittered ex moderator with an axe to grind plus attitude problem chose this thread to attempt his comeback.

And thinks it is his chance to steal the membership, amazed the current moderator has the forbearance to tolerate this behaviour.


----------



## Barry

I will only tolerate so much. So far, it's mostly amusing. People tend to do themselves in and I usually try to let the process play itself out. I certainly don't want to be accused of censorship! If I see "_The problem with this forum is the people in this forum."_ included in one more post, I'll be inclined to remove part of the problem.


----------



## beemandan

At the risk of censorship I will say....that anyone who goes through life blaming others for the difficulties in their life, whether it's the queen breeder down the road for failing hives or the citizens of Beesource for perceived bickering....that person is destined to a life of unhappiness without end.
I actually hope you can find a way out of that pit.


----------



## WLC

It's about resistant-bee-keeping.

Remember fellas?


----------



## Barry

Noooo, according to Sol, it's treatment-free.

Originally Posted by *Solomon Parker*  I suggest searching for a treatment-free beekeeping Facebook group.


----------



## WLC

Barry, you do know that you're just creating more work for yourself by keeping this section 'as is'?


----------



## Barry

How would you know what my work is? If what you want to discuss doesn't fit under the TF forum description, then post it in the main Bee forum. Or are you needing a closed group with heavy moderation in order to discuss? Don't have any of those here but plenty of them out in cyberspace.


----------



## WLC

"How would you know what my work is?"

Heh, heh. Do I really need to answer that?

Since there are 'closed' forums out there that are heavily moderated, do you still need one here?


----------



## Barry

No, that's why I will continue to run open forums where anyone can participate. I left Bee-L years ago because the structure of the list is such that before any message goes to the list, it has to first be approved by a moderator. Here, it's just the opposite, all messages go to the members without any moderation. Only those that break the forum rules get moderated after the fact. I appreciate that we don't all see things the same way. Helps me to rethink my position making sure I've thought of all the possible angles. Can't you handle the scrutiny?


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> It's about resistant-bee-keeping.


A perfect forum for you to start posting in would be the Queen and Bee Breeding forum.


----------



## WLC

Let me use an analogy. Just for illustration purposes.

I come up to a gate that has a 'Beware of the Dogs' sign on it.

I go through it and leave the gate wide open...

Barry: "You'll let the dogs out!"

WLC: "But you don't have any dogs!"

That's sums up what I've recently experienced.

"Woof, woof."


----------



## Barry

But you're still here!


----------



## squarepeg

mike bispham said:


> I tried to find the date on this, and failed. Can you? Not much use without that.
> 
> Mike (UK)


sorry for the delay in responding mike, and yes, i can. here is a link to that post from which the randy oliver quote was taken:

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=BEE-L;57464bc7.1403

and a more recent entry that touches on the subject of breeding for resistance:

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=BEE-L;15eaf6ce.1403

since we are newcomers you and i mike i think it helps to appreciate that there are many experienced and bright folks who have been thinking about this for awhile.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Barry said:


> that's why I will continue to run open forums where anyone can participate.


Unless they say something you don't like, regardless of whether they're breaking any rules or not. I can only speak from experience.


----------



## Oldtimer

A grossly untrue statement, if I ever saw one.


----------



## Fusion_power

One of the perks of owning the forum is that you get to run it how you .... ... please.

Brother Adam published an article about 1990 re breeding for varroa resistance. Too bad he is not around today, I'd love to see how he would handle breeding with some of the resistance genetics we have available.


----------



## Oldtimer

Buckfast Mite Eaters. That's what he would have done and I'd have loved to see them.


----------



## mike bispham

Ramona said:


> Whew. Taking a deep breath and practicing my own resistance
> 
> Can't wait until the northern hemisphere bees are all back out!


Not to be a killjoy Ramona, but: ever heard the expression 'On Topic'?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

squarepeg said:


> since we are newcomers you and i mike i think it helps to appreciate that there are many experienced and bright folks who have been thinking about this for awhile.


Don't know about you SP but I've been a beekeeper (off and on) and studying the problem of varroa for about 20 years. 

Mike (UK)
.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> A grossly untrue statement, if I ever saw one.


That's about as rich as it gets! From the man who's been shown wrong countless times and never yet acknowedged it once!

OT: you're positioned so as to give the resistance-raisers the hardest possible time. That's your agenda, your purpose. We don't know why, but we have a long history showing: that's what you do. Its your thing. 

You're happy to slander people who are actually doing something positive, while lying is engrained in your every post. 

A resistance raising discussion needs your input like a hole in the head. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


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


Don't you know anyone can sell tf bees? You just buy bees from a commercial breeder, and sell them on with instructions for regular splits and brood breaks, raking out drone comb and the like.

Voila! Treatment free bees!

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> What's against the rules? Name calling?


Exactly. The rules say: "you can have a daft conversation saying going round in round in circles because there's an inherent contradiction at the heart of your conceptual system and nomenclature'

And that's what we do. 

I want to break out with a clear focus on raising resistance, premised on the notion that that is do-able (and therefore posts challenging that premise are off-topic) and the built-in capacity to stop off-topic disruptions.

And then we can get on some constructive talk about raising resistance, and making real (rather than phony) tf bees.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

beemandan said:


> I finally got a replacement battery for my Solomon Parker Decoder Ring. I was able to scan the recent post and the quoted sentence translates to mean 'you will find only people who agree with Solomon Parker'.
> I would say it is a virtual pulpit but in a real world church the congregation can toss the minister if he/she gets out of control. I'm thinking more like a virtual cult.


I agree whole heartedly with Solomon when it comes to beekeeping. And I can recognise ad hominem, and despise it, and rate those who do it accordingly. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> while lying is engrained in your every post.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Give the examples or retract the statement.


----------



## mike bispham

D Semple said:


> Just for the record I'm about a straight up bond beekeeper also, but I've got no beef whatsoever with how anybody else chooses to keep bees and in fact greatly admire the commercial guys who do so much more than just play with bees.


Hahaha! That's wrong on so many levels I'm just gonna leave it alone!

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> Noooo, according to Sol, it's treatment-free.


Try to get this Barry:

Its about having an ability to discuss resistance raising in pursuit of a sustainable and meaningful version of 'treatment-free'.

Try to get this:

When you and Solomon say 'treatment-free' you are talking about fundamentally different approaches.

That is where the problem lies.

That is what I'm trying to show you.

If when I said 'car' you thought I meant 'train', and vice-versa, and we were making arrangements to travel together, we'd get in a pickle, wouldn't we?

The forum is in a pickle. Some of us are trying to make clear why, and propose routes out. (Others can't see the problem/don't want a way out)

You can play talking-at-cross-purposes for ever. Or you can have a place where sensible people can have valuable discussions. Its your call.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

That post would indicate you are confused. Barry's and Solomon's approach to TF beekeeping are very similar.

Barry though is more open minded compared to your "my way or the highway" approach, and that is probably an essential attribute to building the world leading site Beesource has become. An ability to be open to more approaches than just ones own is also a sign of greater intellect.

Alienating everyone will not carry the day here is a book you could benefit from http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034


----------



## WLC

Having an entire forum to discuss "Put Honeybees in a box, and don't treat them." is kinda 'daft'.

The 'narrative' itself revolves around only one selection method, and it's not even a primary method to select for resistance.

Not treating for resistant Honeybees is the last thing to do, not the first.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Having an entire forum to discuss "Put Honeybees in a box, and don't treat them." is kinda 'daft'.
> 
> The 'narrative' itself revolves around only one selection method, and it's not even a primary method to select for resistance.
> 
> Not treating for resistant Honeybees is the last thing to do, not the first.


Not exactly sure what the target is here, but I can clarify my position.

Not very long ago in-apiary selective propagation formed the basis of all successful apiaries in the UK. It was simply a version of traditional husbandry as used in all farming and horticultural practice from their beginnings in history. It wasn't complicated, but it was specialised, and required an understanding of some of the basics of population husbandry, and careful application of that undertanding to apiary operations.

It supplied, on the whole, a stand-alone method by which good health, vitality and productivity could be maintained.

It fell apart when varroa arrived - not because it couldn't work, but because the cost of straight application was too high (in losses) and, as importantly, most people believed it wouldn't work. This idea that it might well take thousands, or tens of thousands of years for bees to adapt, dominated the thinking. And the agi-chems weren't slow to recognise their stock-in-trade - addictive circumstances, and had the lobbyists in place to make their agenda the driver of policy, and supply supporting narratives.

We now know that wasn't the case: that adaptation is straightfoward, and that traditional husbandry - traditional beekeeping - supplies not just a viable, but the the only truly sustainable model for beekeeping. And we'd like to be able to talk about it, and work our way through the principles, opportunities and difficulties, both for ourselves, and for the benefit of others worldwide. The traditional approach has great merit, and people all over the world should be able to see that.

Given that it was a successful way of keeping bees for tens of thousands of years, and that it worked right up to the point where people starting thinking it was a good idea to medicate an open-mating organism, it seems reasonable to suggest that it - traditional husbandry - deserves to be in a category of its own. It deserves a forum of its own. Its bigger, better, more useful than 'treatment free'. 

To reply to one point above: It doesn't dictate methods in terms of transitioning. It recognizes that 'live and let die' doesn't suit everybody. 

'Traditional Selective Husbandry' describes a the natural category under which selection, treatments, manipulations, all find their proper place. From the perspectives offered by its principles of action we can see how to use them while still maintaining the over-riding objective - to gain self-sufficient, vital, productive, mite-tolerant virus resistant bees. 

I say 'we'... of course - of course - there are people who will disagree. 

The point is: do we want continue to allow them to prohibit the discussion, the exploration?

Only the owner and moderator can answer that question. 

The only question I can put is: does that outline describe something preferable to what we have now?

Maybe its the case that forums, like bees, either grow or die?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Dominic

The high costs of such a program can be offset by keeping track of mite counts, and treating hives that exceed a certain standard while eliminating its queen and placing a daughter from a more performant hive. This way, you cut colony loss costs while still eliminating inadequate genetics.


----------



## squarepeg

mike bispham said:


> Don't know about you SP but I've been a beekeeper (off and on) and studying the problem of varroa for about 20 years.
> 
> Mike (UK)
> .


just starting my fifth season here mike. what progress can you report for your twenty year investment into the problem of varroa?


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> I want to break out with a clear focus on raising resistance, premised on the notion that that is do-able (and therefore posts challenging that premise are off-topic) and the built-in capacity to stop off-topic disruptions.


I'm still struggling to understand your need. It still looks to me that you're wanting a closed group of like minded people to _freely_ discuss your ideas about TF beekeeping by _restricting_ all opposing views. Wouldn't it be easier if we all just read your web pages?


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> I agree whole heartedly with Solomon when it comes to beekeeping.


Yet he calls his FB group Treatment-Free Beekeeping! Notice the focus on *treatments*! Sol is the one who put together the rules for this forum. :scratch:


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> When you and Solomon say 'treatment-free' you are talking about fundamentally different approaches.


Provide quotes that prove this.



> That is what I'm trying to show you.


Please do.



> The forum is in a pickle. Some of us are trying to make clear why, and propose routes out. (Others can't see the problem/don't want a way out)


Let's get a handle on this. How many are "some of us"? How many are "others"?



> You can play talking-at-cross-purposes for ever. Or you can have a place where sensible people can have valuable discussions. Its your call.


Perhaps another way to look at this is to see what options *you* have. I don't set the agenda/content/focus of what gets discussed in the forum. I also don't get into policing "sensibility" on the forum. If you don't think the TF forum is the right place to discuss breeding resistance, then take it to the Queen and Bee Breeding forum. The problem isn't the lack of a place for discussion, the problem as I see it is that you don't want anyone challenging your ideas and beliefs. Perhaps a private group would serve you best. That's just not how it works here.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Barry said:


> It still looks to me that you're wanting a closed group of like minded people to _freely_ discuss your ideas about TF beekeeping by _restricting_ all opposing views.


Thus I have provided a sensible option, an *open* group of _like minded_ people who can freely discuss ideas about TF beekeeping *without need of restriction* of opposing views because they are _already _like minded. The biggest arguments we have are whether or not to feed.




Barry said:


> Yet he calls his FB group Treatment-Free Beekeeping! Notice the focus on *treatments*! Sol is the one who put together the rules for this forum. :scratch:


I'd love to call it "Beekeeping," but that's not the nature of the world today. The stated purpose of the group is: "_A group for study, discussion, and *promotion* of treatment-free beekeeping._" A group can't very well be like-minded in promotion of something if the most vociferous denizens of your association actually oppose the proposition. Here is discussion only. There is study, discussion, and promotion, thus a well defined purpose and little vitriol. So in that sense, this forum is a rousing success, producing all sorts of discussion, however with it discord, vitriol, and anger. It can hardly be argued that there is much promotion.

Secondly, at risk of banning for repeating myself I'll say that the list of treatments was actually created by Barry, I wrote the definition (anonymously), and it was voted upon by the users of the forum. It has been such a success as to remain virtually unchanged in three years, even long after my tenure as moderator was ended. My own definition is a bit stricter as I said in the beginning, but I sought an amenable solution. I still count this forum's definition set as a huge success and use a mildly modified version on my own website. 



As to the topic of this thread, Mike, you're asking too much. This is a forum. It's for discussion. That's all you're going to get. The best you do with the existing framework is to block people who oppose your views or at least those won't discuss honorably. Uncluttered, you can have some pretty reasonable discussions, at least to your view. So it works unless you're concerned with what it looks like on the outside.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> Thus I have provided a sensible option, an *open* group of _like minded_ people who can freely discuss ideas about TF beekeeping *without need of restriction* of opposing views


If I understand this....the purpose is for you folks to slap one another on the back and pump a load of sunshine. A lot of useful information in that, I'm thinkin'.


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> If I understand this....


Obviously not. :lpf:


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> Obviously not.


How could I have missed it....so obvious. It's a place where people can go to slap Solomon Parker on the back while he pumps a load of sunshine. Pump on Sol!


----------



## Solomon Parker

Sounds like you need some sunshine Dan. Come slap me on the back, you'll feel so much better. :lpf:


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> Not very long ago in-apiary selective propagation formed the basis of all successful apiaries in the UK. It was simply a version of traditional husbandry as used in all farming and horticultural practice from their beginnings in history. It wasn't complicated, but it was specialised, and required an understanding of some of the basics of population husbandry, and careful application of that undertanding to apiary operations.


In my experience the vast majority of hobby beekeepers in the uk did no active selection whatsoever before varroa arrived and they still don't do any now that we have mites.
The commercial guys bought in queens from wherever as and when they needed them.
I don't recognise these halcyon days of good natural husbandry.
In my opinion bees are getting more swarmy as beekeepers tend to propagate colonies from any old queen cells they happen to come across as opposed to grafting larvae from non swarmy stock. Nothing careful or specialised about that practice.
This vision you describe never existed in the UK as far as I can see other than among a very few non run of the mill beekeepers.
Pre varroa, hobbyists let their bees swarm then tried to retrieve the swarm and today it is much the same but the bees are usually treated.


----------



## beekuk

jonathan said:


> I don't recognise these halcyon days of good natural husbandry.


 Perhaps it was the days before varroa, when the bees were often treated for Acarine with substances like Folbex strips, Methyl salicylate, Frow mixture,Smouldering creosote, etc.


----------



## jonathan

yep. My grandfather used oil of wintergreen and other stuff on his bees and he died in 1964.
A golden age of treatment free that never actually existed.


----------



## mike bispham

Dominic said:


> The high costs of such a program can be offset by keeping track of mite counts, and treating hives that exceed a certain standard while eliminating its queen and placing a daughter from a more performant hive. This way, you cut colony loss costs while still eliminating inadequate genetics.


Yes, one of a number of strategies that lead in the same direction. But I don't understand 'high cost'. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> yep. My grandfather used oil of wintergreen and other stuff on his bees and he died in 1964.
> A golden age of treatment free that never actually existed.


a) if it had any effect at all; b) one swallow does not a summer make... try reading Manley or Ruttner - there are probably others. Any book of husbandry that has a section on propagation. Its the basics that matter.

One revealing rule: if it needs help it goes to market at the first opportunity.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

squarepeg said:


> just starting my fifth season here mike. what progress can you report for your twenty year investment into the problem of varroa?


29 rudely healthy hives without any treatments or manipulations ever? A good understanding of how to husband a population? What else do you want?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> Wouldn't it be easier if we all just read your web pages?


How would that be a disussion?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> 29 rudely healthy hives without any treatments or manipulations ever? A good understanding of how to husband a population? What else do you want?
> 
> Mike (UK)


OK well if that's the truth Mike you have my congratulations. I have been doubtful about your prospects because of the genetics available to you and your over simplistic view on everything, but end of day, proof is in the pudding, so you have my metaphorical slap on the back.

I suspect the genetics responsible at least in part for your success thus far may be AMM of French origin.


----------



## squarepeg

mike bispham said:


> What else do you want?
> 
> Mike (UK)


how many years have your oldest colonies existed? are you making gains in raising resistance and if yes by what measure?


----------



## Fusion_power

> A good understanding of how to husband a population? What else do you want?


A track record of at least 5 years treatment free is very much wanted. I personally would be interested if you would do a mite drop count on all your colonies and post the results. That would offer an excellent proof.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> Come slap me on the back, you'll feel so much better.


Thanks for the invitation Sol....but I must pass. I can't imagine how much back slapping a fellow can stand. 180 plus back slappers seems like a lot. Add to that, one must wonder how much sunshine has to be pumped to keep all of those people slapping. A monumental task, I'm thinkin'. I know you're the man for the job.
Pump on!


----------



## mike bispham

squarepeg said:


> how many years have your oldest colonies existed? Are you making gains in raising resistance and if yes by what measure?


Not long enough! I know that! 

2011-12 overwintered 3 hives
2012-13 overwintered 7 hives
2013-14 overwintered 29 hives

In each year I've got in various numbers more swarms and cutouts and raised new colonies from what appear to be the most vigourous. 

Am I making gains? I seem to have 95% prospering bees thus far (1 that I've had for 2 years has always struggled) There's no sign at all of DWV thus far this year. Whether this is 'progress' is hard to tell. Most of my bees started out as likely feral swarms, or known long-lived cut-outs, or were made from those bees. So they may have had a good (average) measure of resistance already, and I may not have improved it.

So its a work in progress, but the signs are good. I don't claim any further personal experience of 'resistance beekeeping'.

However, before you all start: my personal beekeeping record isn't what is under discussion here. Nor is the likelyhood of it succeeding, for me or anyone else. There's a thread topic: "Is the division 'Treatment Free' adequate to the task?"

My personal record beekeeping has no bearing on that issue.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> A track record of at least 5 years treatment free is very much wanted. I personally would be interested if you would do a mite drop count on all your colonies and post the results. That would offer an excellent proof.


The track record , if I can get it, will be great. But it has no bearing at all on the question of whether or not selective propagation is the way to go to get (properly) treatment free bees. That's established, a million times over. There simply isn't another way (although see my upcoming response to Jonathan)

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> In my experience the vast majority of hobby beekeepers in the uk did no active selection whatsoever before varroa arrived and they still don't do any now that we have mites.
> [...]
> The commercial guys bought in queens from wherever as and when they needed them.
> I don't recognise these halcyon days of good natural husbandry.
> 
> This vision you describe never existed in the UK as far as I can see other than among a very few non run of the mill beekeepers.
> 
> Pre varroa, hobbyists let their bees swarm then tried to retrieve the swarm and today it is much the same but the bees are usually treated.


Jonathan,

I think you are largely right. However lots did source their bees from professional breeders and commercial outfits, and those guys definately did. My two teachers (back in the late 1980's) were a local commercial beekeeper (working the fruit round here) and a third generation countryman gardener. Both were clear: my school-learned evolutionary biology was of a piece with their understanding and practice. In that it was one as well with the farming/hunting/gamekeeping community I lived in. Anyone connected in any way with the raising of animals understood the absolute need to mate good with good, and the other side of the coin: keep the sick well away from the breeding stock.

The hobbyist beekeeping books didn't, and still don't reflect that. I can only imagine that's because they were largely written by amateurs, who read each-other's books. (Manley is scathing about the amateurs and the self-appointed expert writers)

But its also true to say that beekeeping could be done well on an amateur basis without recourse to anything more than collecting swarms, and occasional division of a (better) hive. (Few people were/are so dumb as to divide their worst hive!) And yet bees remained, by and large, healthy (at least until some new imported pest came along) How was that? How were the rules of husbandry apparently suspended at that time? Perhaps there are no such 'rules'?

The explanation is very simple. At that time there was a vigourous wild/feral population, in and among the hobbyists, which constantly scubbed the breeding pool clean of any genetics that couldn't keep up. 

Hobby beekeepers could be sloppy and ignorant, and write about it in their little books, blithely unaware that without a feral population working away behind the scenes the'd be caught with their trousers down. 

And they're only no wiser now - more foolish if anything - as the 'wisdom' of treating is now passed on to each new generation in every new grand little publication by todays towny amateurs. This practice suppresses the natural development of mite resistance, perpetuating the neet to treat, and leading most beekeepers to pass on to each other the blind assumption that all the ferals are dead/dying.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> So 6 that I've had for 3 years. Of these, 2 were offspring from a swarm I'd hived the year previously.
> 
> The other 24 (I hope) are last years splits or swarms.





mike bispham said:


> 2011-12 overwintered 3 hives
> 2012-13 overwintered 7 hives
> 2013-14 overwintered 29 hives


We appear to have a discrepancy.


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> I'm still struggling to understand your need.


No offense Barry, but if you haven't got it by now I don't think you're going to.

BTW is there a public list of sponsers of Beesource anyplace that would allow us to evaluate the likelihood of pressure there might be to maintain confusion among non-buyers of treatment products?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> We appear to have a discrepancy.


Expect it. I'm working from memory, and I'm not adding in fine detail. I'm not going over my records with a fine toothcomb just to give you unnecessary detail.


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> BTW is there a public list of sponsers of Beesource anyplace that would allow us to evaluate the likelihood of pressure there might be to maintain confusion among non-buyers of treatment products?


Public all the time. Look to the right and you see them all. If they maintain your confusion, that's your issue to deal with.


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> Public all the time. Look to the right and you see them all. If they maintain your confusion, that's your issue to deal with.


They're all sponsers? I'd imagined they were just ordinary google ads. OK, thanks. I'll study them and see if I can spot any tendencies that might inflame my darkest suspicians!

Mike (UK)


----------



## D Semple

Mike I think you have done a good job of communicating why you think there is a need for a separate forum or sub-forum, how about you put up a poll to see how many others support your position? 


Don


----------



## squarepeg

squarepeg said:


> since we are newcomers you and i mike i think it helps to appreciate that there are many experienced and bright folks who have been thinking about this for awhile.





mike bispham said:


> Don't know about you SP but I've been a beekeeper (off and on) and studying the problem of varroa for about 20 years.
> 
> Mike (UK)





squarepeg said:


> just starting my fifth season here mike. what progress can you report for your twenty year investment into the problem of varroa?





mike bispham said:


> 29 rudely healthy hives without any treatments or manipulations ever? A good understanding of how to husband a population? What else do you want?
> 
> Mike (UK)





squarepeg said:


> how many years have your oldest colonies existed? are you making gains in raising resistance and if yes by what measure?





mike bispham said:


> Not long enough! I know that!
> 
> 
> My personal record beekeeping has no bearing on that issue.
> 
> Mike (UK)





squarepeg said:


> since we are newcomers you and i mike i think it helps to appreciate that there are many experienced and bright folks who have been thinking about this for awhile.


sorry mike, but your personal beekeeping record has everything to do with the credibility that you may be offered here on the forum. i don't disagree with much of what you have to say, a lot of it makes sense in theory. but most participants here are as much or more interested in the practical applications and when it comes to varroa there remains a wide chasm between theory and practicality. selecting from the best stock has been practiced from the beginning, management and manipulations are as varied as there are beekeepers, there are folks that have made this their life's work, mite resistance is increasing and it is debatable whether we have much influence over that or not.


----------



## WLC

mike bispham said:


> They're all sponsers? I'd imagined they were just ordinary google ads. OK, thanks. I'll study them and see if I can spot any tendencies that might inflame my darkest suspicians!
> Mike (UK)


I had my suspicions too.

But then it hit me, "Oh, it's a profit deal!"


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

You are absolutely right! :lpf:

_Barry _is hauling in the dollars from Beesource ads by the _*boatload*_! 










(linked from this thread) http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...r&p=1037427&highlight=Honey+Honda#post1037427


:gh:


----------



## Barry

The NY harbor is not one of my stops though!


----------



## Oldtimer

D Semple said:


> Mike I think you have done a good job of communicating why you think there is a need for a separate forum or sub-forum, how about you put up a poll to see how many others support your position?


No response so I set one up myself, put this thing to rest, here's the link

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?294588-Rules-Poll


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> No response so I set one up myself, put this thing to rest, here's the link
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?294588-Rules-Poll


This is a copy of what I wrote there:

"The questions presume things that are not part of my case, and are all too obviously phrased in a manner designed to provoke a negative result. 

I won't be voting on a poll designed by somebody who's repeatedly demonstrated interest is to prevent constructive discussion of resistance raising.

The continuing 'confusion' as to what this is all about is all too apparent btw in KPeakock's post above this one (in the poll). Whether its deliberate or just innocent confusion I don't know. But it scrambles any attempt to have a clear conversation. In my proposed section the moderator would delete it as off-topic. And this entire mischievious exercise with it.

Mike (UK)"


----------



## mike bispham

squarepeg said:


> ...mite resistance is increasing and it is debatable whether we have much influence over that or not.


No it isn't. Choosing your initial genetics and selecting from assayed best is the only way to maintain and increase resistance. Its not far off that simple. There's no scope for debate.

Resistance is also increasing anyplace where bees are free from the baleful influence of beekeepers who systematically rely on treating and manipulating.

The practicalities of resistance can be challenging or straightforward - that depends on local circumstances - almost entirely dependent on access to feral or well-bred genes and/or proximity to lousy genes.

Mite resistance is increasing only where systematic treatments (and no effort to raise resistance) is not taking place.

These are the simple and undeniable facts. The reasons why are easily comprehendable - given a basic understanding of the principles of traditional husbandry.

Those who have said 'there isn't much left to talk about' are right. The rest is detail.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Barry

I'm curious Mike, is there anybody you can point to in the bee world besides Joe Blow Beekeeper, that has written studies or articles that basically say what you espouse, that our way through varroa is practicing traditional husbandry, the way you state it?


----------



## squarepeg

mike bispham said:


> No it isn't. Choosing your initial genetics and selecting from assayed best is the only way to maintain and increase resistance. Its not far off that simple. There's no scope for debate.


and that's precisely what has been happening by design (breeding from the strongest colonies) and default (deadouts don't propagate) for many years now. i think jwchestnut has made the best case describing the limitations of how much individual beekeepers can accomplish given open mating and polyandry so i'll leave it at that. i'm still waiting for your answer as to how you 'assay' your best.



mike bispham said:


> Resistance is also increasing anyplace where bees are free from the baleful influence of beekeepers who systematically rely on treating and manipulating.
> 
> The practicalities of resistance can be challenging or straightforward - that depends on local circumstances - almost entirely dependent on access to feral or well-bred genes and/or proximity to lousy genes.


of course, and a factor to be considered when weighing management options.



mike bispham said:


> Mite resistance is increasing only where systematic treatments (and no effort to raise resistance) is not taking place.


i agree that indiscriminate treating combined with not making the effort to select doesn't advance the cause. not many will argue with that and the smart money is on those who are paying attention. i've given you randy oliver as an example of someone making progress on resistance while using treatments to maintain sustainability. jim lyons is another. i'll credit them and others like them for making progress rather than throwing them under the bus for not subscribing wholesale to your approach.



mike bispham said:


> These are the simple and undeniable facts. The reasons why are easily comprehendable - given a basic understanding of the principles of traditional husbandry.
> 
> Those who have said 'there isn't much left to talk about' are right. The rest is detail.
> 
> Mike (UK)


and therein lies the problem mike. you appear to be long on talk and short on detail. that and you haven't been at it long enough to provide first hand results. husbandry has been alive and well long before you and i arrived on the scene.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> I'm curious Mike, is there anybody you can point to in the bee world besides Joe Blow Beekeeper, that has written studies or articles that basically say what you espouse, that our way through varroa is practicing traditional husbandry, the way you state it?


Mike 'selected' several swarms that have survived for three years. There are thousands of professional entomologists who have made this their life's work....but it appears that Mike, using pseudo science, has determined that he discovered the holy grail of beekeeping. And all he's asking is that you give him a pulpit to share his gospel. I just don't understand it Barry......what is your problem?!


----------



## LizardKing

beemandan said:


> Mike 'selected' several swarms that have survived for three years. There are thousands of professional entomologists who have made this their life's work....but it appears that Mike, using pseudo science, has determined that he discovered the holy grail of beekeeping. And all he's asking is that you give him a pulpit to share his gospel. I just don't understand it Barry......what is your problem?!


Is this secret not doing anything at all to your bees?
I am sure many people have tried that and eventually lost all their bees.....


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> I'm curious Mike, is there anybody you can point to in the bee world besides Joe Blow Beekeeper, that has written studies or articles that basically say what you espouse, that our way through varroa is practicing traditional husbandry, the way you state it?


Have you been asleep for the last ten years Barry?

Why don't you visit the links page of the website that's at the bottom of every post I send?

Or are you now too being deliberately stupid?


----------



## mike bispham

LizardKing said:


> Is this secret not doing anything at all to your bees?
> I am sure many people have tried that and eventually lost all their bees.....


Another cleverdick being deliberately stupid. Is there a pattern developing here?


----------



## mike bispham

beemandan said:


> it appears that Mike, using pseudo science


You have to understand what science is before you start trying to accuse people of being psuedoscientific. Still, give a dog a bad name... I'm sure it'll go round and round like a stick among puppies...


----------



## mike bispham

squarepeg said:


> and that's precisely what has been happening by design (breeding from the strongest colonies) and default (deadouts don't propagate) for many years now.


SP,

Yes, in some places it has. Mostly in feral settings. I'm glad we agree on this.



squarepeg said:


> i agree that indiscriminate treating combined with not making the effort to select doesn't advance the cause. not many will argue with that and the smart money is on those who are paying attention.


Thank you. Doesn't that dumb money make a lot of noise?

[Mike] "Resistance is also increasing anyplace where bees are free from the baleful influence of beekeepers who systematically rely on treating and manipulating.

The practicalities of resistance can be challenging or straightforward - that depends on local circumstances - almost entirely dependent on access to feral or well-bred genes and/or proximity to lousy genes."



squarepeg said:


> of course, and a factor to be considered when weighing management options.


Thanks for support to the methods, again.



squarepeg said:


> i think jwchestnut has made the best case describing the limitations of how much individual beekeepers can accomplish given open mating and polyandry so i'll leave it at that.


Did you know JWChestunut bases his 'theories' on a single book written 40 year ago (if memory serves, and it probably doesn't) by a fly feather maker/chicken feather farmer who was trying to imitate specific flies? Based on this JC has worked up sciency-sounding accounts of the limitations of breeding that he says apply across the board. (There's actually another guy selling the same nonsense about now - but I think its JC again). I was taken in too to start with, but I looked at it carefully, and JC is full of tosh. Take no notice. You know what works - and more importantly, what is catastrophic.



squarepeg said:


> i'm still waiting for your answer as to how you 'assay' your best.


Its a developing method. Till now its been 'thrivers', with much more weight given to longeveity -my 'best/oldest'. I'm also giving weight to good producers. 

I'm working hard to equalise conditions for all so that I can make true judgements. Again, that's a developing aim.

I don't treat and my propagation systems don't create brood breaks. And that is a huge part of the assay arrangements. I'm interested in close assaying for SMR, but I may decide to simply leave them to find their own paths - productivity seems to me to supply the best overall measure of suitable adaptivity. I might approach others, including publically funded studies, with a view to exchanging material and perhaps having high-tech testing of mated queens done. These are options, not stuff I've done yet.



squarepeg said:


> i've given you randy oliver as an example of someone making progress on resistance while using treatments to maintain sustainability. jim lyons is another. i'll credit them and others like them for making progress rather than throwing them under the bus for not subscribing wholesale to your approach.


You may be surprised to learn what 'my approach' is. Given the nonsense that's been written about me here that's understandable - but please to try to keep the two things separate. 

I doubt there are many hair-spaces between Randy's approach and mine. Both are based on the same principles: both understand that those principles are indisputable facts, and belong in the position of foundations to any management approach. Randy's website has been on my links page since I loaded it 3 years ago. We corresponded on the topic - not a lot, but enough to know we're on the same page.



squarepeg said:


> you appear to be long on talk and short on detail.


When pleasant people asks sensibly for detail I supply it. Don't forget the great bulk of my posts are little more than fending off systematic attempts to suppress conversations like this. I try to include the basics when I have the opportunity. If you want detail about my understanding, ask or read my website, or both. 



squarepeg said:


> that and you haven't been at it long enough to provide first hand results.


I'm getting there. 



squarepeg said:


> husbandry has been alive and well long before you and i arrived on the scene.


There's 'Husbandry' and there's husbandry. In particular there's 'husbanding' the individual (widespread modern approach) and 'husbanding the population' (traditional approach).

Its important to understand the difference. Preferably in detail. I don't need to tell you that.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> Another cleverdick being deliberately stupid.


Mike you need to slow down.

I suspect many people here have some sympathies for your views but the way you performing none of them want to poke their head up and be associated.

Let me explain to you why my perspective is different to yours.

I've done bond, and lost all the bees. Turns out we just don't have the genetics here to follow the prescribed formula of going bond, losing 90%, breeding from the remaining 10%, and you are sweet. Both myself and several other New Zealand beekeepers have done Bond and lost everything. These include both hobby and commercial beekeepers. It has been done carefully, and using treatment free wax. Nobody has succeeded. That, here, is the facts on the ground, losing 100% of the bees does not get you anywhere.

So, what to do? Only thing I can do, is breed from the best. The bees are protected from mites as required by either chemicals, or manipulations. But some hives get a lot less mites than others and those are the ones that are included for breeder selection. Using manipulations is better in my view, than chemicals, because it keeps the hive free of chemical contaminants.

I am making progress. I have bees that can go longer between intervention to remove mites, than used to be the case. But if no intervention at all was made, I can tell you I would eventually lose everything.

The way the TF forum is currently regulated I am free to discuss any of this. Many other people in a similar situation are also free to discuss their needs.

You are also free to discuss your own ideas. Sure, there will be other opinions but take it in stride.

I consider the approach I am taking to be the most valid one in my area, with my bees. For you, maybe things are different I don't know. But disallowing discussion of manipulations will remove the ability to discuss those things from people who need them.

I am not anti resistance, a secret seller of chemicals, or any number of other accusations you have thrown at me. I am simply doing the best I can, in my circumstances. Same as everybody.

If you can, please try to understand your way has merits in some situations, but it is not the only way and the forum will not be outlawing everything else than just what you want. If you continue to insist your way is the only way and anybody doing anything else is stupid, you will continue to enjoy the same level of support you have now. In any case, changing the rules to what you are asking will be a step backwards for some people.

That's my view, and I believe it reasonable.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> I've done bond, and lost all the bees. Turns out we just don't have the genetics here to follow the prescribed formula of going bond, losing 90%, breeding from the remaining 10%, and you are sweet. Both myself and several other New Zealand beekeepers have done Bond and lost everything. These include both hobby and commercial beekeepers. It has been done carefully, and using treatment free wax. Nobody has succeeded. That, here, is the facts on the ground, losing 100% of the bees does not get you anywhere.


Perhaps. That's there. All over the world other people have found things are different. So your experience is of value locally - only. And your extrapolation of your experience worldwide is both fallacious and insulting to the many people who report their different experiences honestly.



Oldtimer said:


> The way the TF forum is currently regulated I am free to discuss any of this. Many other people in a similar situation are also free to discuss their needs.


And I don't want to change that. What I want is a place where people who understand the principles of traditional husbandry can freely discuss their ideas and experiences, for the benefit of all, without discussions being constantly interrupted and derailed by a bunch of people behaving like kindergarten kids. 



Oldtimer said:


> For you, maybe things are different I don't know. But disallowing discussion of manipulations will remove the ability to discuss those things from people who need them.


For the umpteenth time, stop DISHONESTLY MISREPRESENTING ME. 

Honesty will gain you the respect of people who's respect is worth having. Dishonesty and childlike behaviour will gain you the 'respect' only of impressionable children. And their many adult equivalents. 



Oldtimer said:


> I am not anti resistance, a secret seller of chemicals, or any number of other accusations you have thrown at me.


Then think about stopping behaving in a manner that will create exactly that impression. We can't check. But being open and honest is discernable over time. If you're going to hide behind an alias, and refuse to answer straightforward questions about your activities, you're going to need to work twice as hard to build trust. 

You're on the 'No Treatment' forum. *Stop behaving like someone who's living depends on stopping a developing understanding of raising resistance.*



Oldtimer said:


> If you can, please try to understand your way has merits in some situations, but it is not the only way and the forum will not be outlawing everything else than just what you want.


Again with the DISHONEST MISREPRESENTATION. My 'way' is to undertake management from an understanding of the facts. That's all. If you have a better way, roll with it.

Who made you God of Beesource?


----------



## Oldtimer

Sad that for the most part you just missed, or misinterpreted, what I said altogether. 

Read my post again, this time honestly. It may help. But if not, no skin off my nose, sorry.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Sad that for the most part you just missed, or misinterpreted, what I said altogether.
> 
> Read my post again, this time honestly. It may help. But if not, no skin off my nose, sorry.


You try re-writing it, much more carefully. And then apologise for that slur.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> You try re-writing it, much more carefully. And then apologise for that slur.


The way you talk to people. Are you descended from Nobility or something? Or perhaps you got bullied at school?


----------



## LizardKing

Oldtimer said:


> The way you talk to people. Are you descended from Nobility or something? Or perhaps you got bullied at school?


He must be because he talks to me this way:


> Another cleverdick being deliberately stupid. Is there a pattern developing here?


and yet complains about the way others talk to him?

I think he is a Queen, gnomeimsayin?


----------



## beemandan

OT...after some of the exchanges you've had with Mr Civility....I'm bettin' that they'll get your vote to change the NZ flag.


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> Have you been asleep for the last ten years Barry?


No, just spending all my time moderating these threads and trying to find pro treatment vendors to advertise.



> Why don't you visit the links page of the website that's at the bottom of every post I send?


I guess I could do that. Not something I typically do however. I'm here, not there, so to get me to go read something, I ask for links to the appropriate article. Don't have the time to spend searching all over. If you think I read every post that ever gets posted on this forum, you're wrong.



> Or are you now too being deliberately stupid?


There you go again, resorting to personal attacks.


----------



## Barry

So Mike, I went to your links page and started clicking on some hyperlinks. First two returned a 404 error! :scratch: Guess I'll let you provide the appropriate links here.


----------



## clyderoad

mike bispham said:


> Have you been asleep for the last ten years Barry?
> 
> Why don't you visit the links page of the website that's at the bottom of every post I send?
> 
> Or are you now too being deliberately stupid?


Why bother? The website was "Last updated: Feb 1, 2010"


----------



## D Semple

Oldtimer excellent post #130


----------



## JWChesnut

mike bispham said:


> Did you know JWChestunut bases his 'theories' on a single book written 40 year ago (if memory serves, and it probably doesn't) by a fly feather maker/chicken feather farmer who was trying to imitate specific flies? .... and JC is full of tosh. Take no notice. .
> .


Even I have no idea what Bispham is saying. Perhaps "Chicken Feather Farmer" is Briticism that flys over the head of the colonials.

My position: Use experimental science to determine what works. Theories fail. I, too, would be deeply appreciative if backyard breeders solved the Varroa conundrum. Progress towards a solution requires clear-eyed evaluation, and the roadblocks and headwinds are real and substantial. Intemperate preaching and vain hopes don't do it.

I've experimented with TF options for more than a decade. I have given these a fair trial, and despite the repeated failures continue to modify and experiment.


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> Even I have no idea what Bispham is saying. Perhaps "Chicken Feather Farmer" is Briticism that flys over the head of the colonials.


A quick search fails to turn up the evidence. Sorry JW, perhaps I dreamed it.. 



JWChesnut said:


> My position: Use experimental science to determine what works. Theories fail. I, too, would be deeply appreciative if backyard breeders solved the Varroa conundrum.


Yeah yeah, what about all that deep theory of yours that 'proves' no progress can be made? Or did I dream that too? Chesnut?



JWChesnut said:


> Progress towards a solution requires clear-eyed evaluation.


Couldn't agree more. 



JWChesnut said:


> ...and the roadblocks and headwinds are real and substantial.


In your experience...



JWChesnut said:


> I've experimented with TF options for more than a decade. I have given these a fair trial, and despite the repeated failures continue to modify and experiment.


Go and catch some nice hardy ferals and look after them JC. It isn't rocket science.


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> So Mike, I went to your links page and started clicking on some hyperlinks. First two returned a 404 error! :scratch: Guess I'll let you provide the appropriate links here.


First one: http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center...ntrolling-Honey-Bee-Diseases-and-Varroa-Mites
Works for me.

Second, yes, linkrot. Was probably this, it'll do the job anyway: http://www.cbibbg.co.uk/

Third, you know of

Forth, linkrot but I found it her... hey I know this place!

http://www.beesource.com/resources/...ney-bees-from-locally-adapted-stock-a-recipe/

Five: linkrot, found here: http://www.beelab.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@bees/documents/asset/cfans_asset_317501.pdf

And so, I expect, it goes on. I'm just pasting the titles to google Barry...

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> There you go again, resorting to personal attacks.


It wasn't meant as an attack or insult Barry, though it may have been intemperate I agree. But: if you look at what you wrote, in the context of what has been going on here recently I think you'll have to agree it wasn't the cleverest thing you've ever said. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> Second, yes, linkrot. Was probably this, it'll do the job anyway: http://www.cbibbg.co.uk/


Great, now tell me what conclusions you're drawing from this page. What about it are you using to support a claim of yours that is opposite of the scope of this forum?


----------



## Oldtimer

beemandan said:


> OT...after some of the exchanges you've had with Mr Civility....I'm bettin' that they'll get your vote to change the NZ flag.


Ha! You are very up with current events Beemandan!


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> Ha! You are very up with current events Beemandan!


Only the most important ones.


----------



## JWChesnut

Turns out the Bee-L list is having a rip-roaring discussion of Bond, simultaneous to this thread.
A infrequent contributor, Bob Harrison, with a very long history, contributed:
Dr. Harbo & Dr. Harris (Baton Rouge bee lab) asked for U.S. beekeepers to send survivor queens. Many were all that were left from over a 1000 hive operations.
For around 5 years the lab used the bond method and instrumental insemination and no progress.
The bond method was dropped and a different approach was adopted and Smr / VSH / hygienic was developed.​


----------



## WLC

Do you mean 'Bond and Epigenetics'? 'Rip roaring'? 

While there aren't any useful studies on the topic, there's a slew of other studies surveying genetic stocks in the U.S. and abroad. These include 'unmanaged' or feral stocks as well. That's where the real action is.

As for hygienic bees, they still haven't gotten a good handle on its molecular biology although they can score hygienic behaviors.


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> Great, now tell me what conclusions you're drawing from this page. What about it are you using to support a claim of yours that is opposite of the scope of this forum?


What do you mean by 'opposite to the scope'?


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> Turns out the Bee-L list is having a rip-roaring discussion of Bond, simultaneous to this thread.
> A infrequent contributor, Bob Harrison, with a very long history, contributed:
> Dr. Harbo & Dr. Harris (Baton Rouge bee lab) asked for U.S. beekeepers to send survivor queens. Many were all that were left from over a 1000 hive operations.
> For around 5 years the lab used the bond method and instrumental insemination and no progress.
> The bond method was dropped and a different approach was adopted and Smr / VSH / hygienic was developed.​


Lets: 

a) take that account with a pinch of salt - more than one subsequent poster to BEE-L has challenged it; 

b) note that the 'bond method' is one of several options to follow toward the aim of raising resistance, and that it itself comes in three flavours: 'accelerated', 'hard' and 'soft' 'bond'. 

c) Ask how we find out how the actual complex history of the development of more resistant strains/the identification of helpful behaviours went.

d) ask too whether any of that is actually helpful to the goal of raising resistance in our apiaries

e) stay on-topic - that is: continue to ask whether the goal of raising resistance is important enough to warrant a separate section in which that is the core focus, and in which management techniques that undermine it are specifically identified, and encouragements to use them are regarded as off topic - as chemical treatments are here.

Mike (UK)


----------



## JWChesnut

mike bispham said:


> continue to ask whether the goal of raising resistance is important enough to warrant a separate section in which that is the core focus, and in which management techniques that undermine it are specifically identified


I very much doubt that a forum devoted to the Gospel of Bispham will yield productive results. A genetics forum would have to be dispassionate, expert-informed and verifiably fact-based. Despite your street-corner style preaching, I don't believe you meet the dispassionate, expert, and clear-eyed criteria.

A genetics forum has to wrestle with a fundamental issue of honey bees -- they have evolved and perfected a very unusual breeding system that works to stymie and redirect genetic drift and alteration. Bispham's axioms ignore this constraint. The axioms seem to be based on a dam-sire-studbook typology that equates bee breeding with Hereford cattle.

Honeybee exhibit high levels of recombination, but low levels of speciation. They accumulate genetic variance within the super-organism with promiscuous abandon. Resistance (that is transferable) is human-induced sub-speciation. Honey bees by natural design are going to resist sub-speciation --- it contradicts their over-arching evolutionary strategy. 

Apis mellifera and Apis cerana have been in natural contact through millenia, not just with the completion of the trans-Siberian and the settlement of Vladivostok. Zones of contact exist in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and southern Iran. Iranian and Afghan bees are being killed by the Korean genotype of Varroa, however. 

Virulence of the Korean Varroa is, hypothetically, an evolved response to marginal cold-climate nest site competition. In this way, cold climate bees are similar to many temperate birds where nest site limitation is a primary selective driver, and nest parasitism is high. Unlimited nest sites lead to short-lived species with rapid turnover. Shortage leads to emphasis on survivor occupancy and an arms-race for virulence directed against the competition. The more toxic agents you can disperse, the more open squares there are on the chess-board for your progeny.

In this hypothesis, selecting for naturally long-lived colonies (i.e. "Survivors" in the TF parlance) is the absolutely wrong thing to do, as it is selecting for the most virulent of the Varroa clones. The counter-example for husbandry would be the traditional "Heathland" model where all but a minimum number of wintering hives are killed, and the working population is repopulated from repeated swarms. (Georgia package production in medieval garb).

A. cerana in Japan and Thailand swarms with abandon (and native Varroa are non-virulent), A. m. scutellata swarms with abandon, and perhaps it Varroa are clonal selected for less virulence. 

I believe looking at the swarm frequency at the West Asian edge of mellifera-cerana contact would be more worthwhile than endless arguments about what Darwin said. Perhaps I can sign you up for a tour of duty in the Hindu Kush, do you speak Farsi?


----------



## beemandan

One distinction between a genuine researcher and a zealot is that the former is too busy plying their profession to harangue anyone for a podium to present their results. And, indeed, if the researcher gets results those with podiums will stand in line to offer them up.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> What do you mean by 'opposite to the scope'?


Allow me  . . . Alternate phrasing . . .



> Great, now tell me what conclusions you're drawing from this page. What about it are you using to support a claim of yours that is outside the scope of this forum?


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> I very much doubt that a forum devoted to the Gospel of Bispham will yield productive results. A genetics forum would have to be dispassionate, expert-informed and verifiably fact-based. Despite your street-corner style preaching, I don't believe you meet the dispassionate, expert, and clear-eyed criteria.


Those who read what I actually say, rather than relying on the somewhat jaundiced views of others here, often find value in the writing. 

Such people might look at my reply to Squarepeg a couple of days ago. He asked about my methods of assay - an important issue to anyone undertaking population husbandry. The reply was sufficiently detailed to provide a basis for further discussion - which could be taken up by him or anyone else here. It supplies, for example, the grounds for criticism of my approach. Such criticism (properly made) would be welcomed by me, and any ensuing discussion would be informative to the group.

It's unlikely to happen only because the pressure group against raising resistance will supply so much grief. 

There is no element of preaching - that's just another slur. There is a determination to stick with realities - the simple realities of the need to propagate selectively in organic husbandry, the fact this is perfectly possible in honeybees, the reality that treating (in all its forms) as a method of control is self-perpetuating.

The reality that these things are relevant to any discussion of 'treatment-free'.



JWChesnut said:


> A genetics forum has to wrestle with a fundamental issue of honey bees -- they have evolved and perfected a very unusual breeding system that works to stymie and redirect genetic drift and alteration. Bispham's axioms ignore this constraint.


A 'genetics' forum is your characterisation not mine. (I'd go for 'traditional husbandry'). Your theories about inherent constraints seem to me to fly in the face of a good number of plainly observable realities. 

The first is: it is now beyond doubt that feral honeybees in the US, the UK and elsewhere are becoming progressively capable of managing varroa. A great deal is known about the mechanisms by which this happens,

Bee Realities 1, JWChesnut's 'hypothesis' 0

The second is the ability of beekeepers to dramatically focus their genetics by requeening and through drone hives. These methods combine to provide a tool at least as powerful as that used in any other field of husbandry. 

Bee Realities 2, JWChesnut's 'hypothesis' 0

Thirdly, we have the historical testimony of some of the most highly respected beekeeper-writers of all time. We can read Manley and Ruttner and see plainly how it worked for them.

Bee Realities 3, JWChesnut's 'hypothesis' 0

Forthly we have the present-day testimony of the many beekeepers, some amateur, some professional, who have made serious inroads into the varroa problem. 

Bee Realities 4, JWChesnut's 'hypothesis' 0

Fifth, we have the fact of evidence of focus supplied by the publically funded scientific community. In the US, the UK and Europe almost all primary research in respect of the problem of varroa is in the field of breeding toward resistance. Public money in agriculture tends to go toward projects with the best chance of practical success. 

Bee Realities 5, JWChesnut's 'hypothesis' 0

Your 'hypothesis', the theories you preach JW (and in your case it *is* preaching because, unlike me, you simply ignore points made against you), of the impossibility of progress toward varroa resistance, are born of an amateurish reading of genetics, and are utterly incompatible with these realities. 

The fact that you continue to preach them despite their clear inconsistency with plain realities demands close questioning of either your rational abilities or your willingness to be truthful. Or a bit of both. It isn't a pretty picture either way (or down the middle)

The ad hominem and general rudeness that accompanies the preaching further belies the frail hold these fundamentally flawed beliefs have within your own mind.

Instead of seeking to undermine my credentials, you might want to look at your own ability to be: "...dispassionate [...] clear-eyed...." 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

beemandan said:


> One distinction between a genuine researcher and a zealot is that ....


One distinction is that a genuine researcher is not merely uninterested in, but on her guard against, making slurs upon her competitors. S/he relies on grounded facts and reasoned arguments to explore the possibilities, not upon diminishing the reputation of competitors. She understands clearly that to appear otherwise would remove any credibility as a genuine researcher, permanantly, at a stroke. 

Another is that s/he responds properly to points made against her position. S/he is as interested in genuine flaws in her own position as anyone. 

Another is that s/he strives to make clear and ambiguous points, which can thus be challenged easily. S/he wants the conversation to proceed easily, even when - especially when - it seems to going against her views.

Another is that s/he understands the difficulties that emerge when understanding has outgrown the language that must be used to express it.

Another is a determination to keep emotional impulses from interfering with the process of impartial investigation.

A zealot understands none of these things. 

By these and other means they can be distinguished easily.

Next question: how do you tell the difference between a zealot and a deliberate disrupter of inconvenient conversations?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Kofu

As a relative newcomer, I appreciate the work that goes into moderating and into defining the conceptual space for good discussion. Thanks, Barry! :thumbsup:

I've plowed through to the end of this thread to say that the general framework of BeeSource is probably adequate to your needs, Mike. The best way to proceed is to put the horse in front of the cart, by starting your own thread(s) in the main discussion forum. I did that recently with questions I had about microbial ecology and practical applications for beekeeping, and I started by trying to provide some coherent substance that others could appreciate.

When discussion there ebbed, I repeated the process in the Treatment-Free forum, redefining the topic to fit the forum's rules. Again, good discussion. I can go back to add to either thread, which would bring it back up to the top of the heap, where it will stay only for as long as others post there in reply. Or I can start new threads, and hope to generate discussion around whatever topic I choose.

So put the horse before the cart. (Substance before rhetoric?) Start a new thread, explain why it's important to others, and provide some substance to give traction for the discussion that you want.

The results will be a product of your ideas and the tone you use in presenting them. No need to prod or poll about shifting the topic area of an existing forum.

I appreciate the substance you've provided, by the way, here and there, but it's scattered and hard to piece together in the context of a debate about topic-space. I personally agree that the existing TF forum is somewhat limited, in the scope set by the rules, but that's why the general forum exists as well. And the Queens and Bee-Breeding forum is available for discussion of animal husbandry.


----------



## Oldtimer

The rules poll has now closed, there is little support for a change to the forum rules at this time.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> The rules poll has now closed, there is little support for a change to the forum rules at this time.


That wasn't 'The rules poll'. That was a daft exercise set up by you to undermine my case, in which the phrasing made any response other than 'no' seem unreasonable. 

Sigh


----------



## Oldtimer

I do not agree.

If you believe in what you say Mike, you would now run your own "correctly" worded poll.

But you won't because this one was clear enough. People not only voted but also read the discussion and understood the issues, so the results of your "correctly" worded one will be similar.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Mike, you haven't responded to _Barry_'s question in post #145 asking you what it is that can't be discussed within the existing forums.


----------



## shinbone

Beregondo said:


> My reading / participation in the treatment free beekeeping forum has been extremely limited precisely because I find that beyond transitioning to SC comb and the like, the amount of useful information is extremely limited in practical value.


+1

It is like two strains of a religion each shouting that the other is completely wrong and is going to burn in hell forever.

(and I know this is an old thread, but it had the right post to quote)


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Oldtimer said:


> We appear to have a discrepancy.


----------

