# Biodynamic beekeeping - a weekend with Michael Weiler



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

Philip,

I visited your biobess.com site. It looks like you are just getting it started, but I look forward to some good content.

I think the idea of doing things naturally, appeals to most beekeepers. There is always the fear of losses any time we make changes in our operation, but a little experimentation is always a good idea.

I'm going to bookmark your site and keep an eye on it.


----------



## guatebee (Nov 15, 2004)

I see biodynamic beekeeping or holistic bee management as a great challenge, as well as a fascinating new approach to modern apiculture. 
A great many folks may indeed become interested and captivated by this trend, if I may already call it that, since it simply MAKES TRUE SENSE.
And I beleive humans are in a stonger search for sense nowadays. Those who have the privilege of working outdoors, may start enjoying it more and becoming more aware that it is a privilege in fact.

Hollistic beekeeping does even apply to large commercial operations of thousands of colonies. It is actually more an attitude, a purpose, rather than a method.

Thanks for posting your experience. I sure hope to read and learn more on the trend.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

I was particularly impressed to hear about the guy who runs 500 colonies, without queen excluders, foundation or routine sugar feeding. That should make a few people think!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I was particularly impressed to hear about the guy who runs 500 colonies, without queen excluders, foundation or routine sugar feeding. That should make a few people think! 

I only run about 50 but that sounds like a good description of what I'm doing.







And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

http://www.beesource.com/pov/simon/10principles.htm
http://www.beesource.com/pov/simon/beebackwards.htm

And then there are all the top bar hive people...


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Excuse me for being a hard-nose, but some of
the items that were presented as "fact" are
clearly and compellingly known to be not only
wrong, but willfully ignorant expressions of
some sort of anthropomorphization of bees into
"people", rather than the insects that they are.



> Michael's argument against them [queen
> excluders] is that by denying the queen access to
> the honey its 'energetic' qualities are changed.
> As an example, he said that honey from oilseed rape,
> ...


Did he explain how giving the queen "access"
somehow changes the basic properties of the honey
so that it will not crystallize?

As the queen does not even touch honey in the
cell, but is instead fed by workers, I have a
hard time imagining a mechanism by which the
queen could have this effect, moreso given the
distance between where the queen might wander
and where the bulk of the honey would be in
the supers. If this phenomena actually existed,
then the lowermost super in any hive would
tend to produce canola/rape honey that crystallized
less (or more slowly), as the queen would be
mere inches away from that super on a regular
basis, closer than the queen would be to the
bulk of the honey if she were allowed to
"wander the supers at whim".



> Rudolf Steiner had given eight lectures about bees...


I've read Steiner's lectures, and his book "Bees".
I'm not sure I understand much of it, but I am
fairly certain that it has little or nothing to do
with beekeeping. Read up on "Waldorf Education"
and "Anthroposophy" if you want to try to
understand Steiner and the cult that follows his
"teachings". Here's a decent overview presented in
a non-challenging and positive tone:
http://www.waldorfanswers.com/RudolfSteiner.htm



> On the face of it, a reduction in the
> working population [by allowing drone comb]
> ought to result in lower honey yields...


Huh? Everyone knows that colonies deprived of
drones produce less. The bees are quite willing
to make sufficient drone cells even when given
foundation. As so many have found when trying
to "regress" their bees, foundation is a mere
*suggestion* to the bees, and does not stop
them from doing exactly what they please.



> In the biodynamic system...


Beware of any practice that relies upon newly-minted
terms, moreso when it is claimed that "a system"
exists.



> Against the general trend, biodynamic
> beekeepers raise queens exclusively from those
> generated by the swarming impulse


...which leads to breed stock that becomes
more and more likely to swarm at the drop of
a hat rather than stay home and make a crop!



> Refined sugar is certainly more difficult
> for the bees to deal with than their natural food


Complete ignorant blather. "Refined sugar" is
either sucrose or fructose, depending upon which
sort you use, and to a bee, all sugars are
created equal, as long as they are free from
contamination with indigestible non-sugar components. 
(See http://bee-quick.com/reprints/sugar.pdf for
a rundown of every type of sugar and sweetener
known to man as of 2003.)



> and some believe that it causes dysentery and other disorders.


Completely false. What causes dysentery is
indigestible junk in HONEY, stuff that would
never be found in properly handled feed like
sugar and HFCS.



> In any case, no-one can dispute that bees
> prefer honey and that they know better than we do what is good for them.


No, bees prefer NECTAR. Honey is a bee's "beef
jerky" or "hardtack", something that they can
survive on, but not what they prefer. One can
test this with ease by observing how much of
the honey left over from winter is consumed by
a hive after a feeder of thin syrup is placed
upon the hive. Take some photos, and track
number of cells of honey opened and emptied
versus amount of syrup consumed.



> ...successful and sustainable relationship
> with our bees must be based on a truly holistic
> approach: we need to learn more about how the
> colony works as a complete, living entity and
> ...


I'd suggest reading "The Secrets Of The Hive" by
Tom Seeley for a more accurate (and thereby useful)
set of holistic information about how a hive
"works as a complete, living entity" and "the
manifold ways in which it interacts with its
environment and with other living things".

Tom gives actual citations to real hard-nosed
science to back up his statements about bees.



> For me and many others this was an inspirational weekend


I am sure it was enjoyable, but the amount of
disinformation handed out seems to have been
excessive.


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

Awe come on Jim. You gotta love the name. I'm waiting to see the show on late night paid TV.

On the other hand, I believe that even the radical fringe may have something to teach us if we can first sort through all the smoke.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

A couple of points I'll add to Jims.

I ran without excluders for 10 years. In virtually every hive I had brood in the center frames well into the 3rd and sometimes fourth honey super. To suggest the queen will not move up and lay and move out horizontally instead goes against the principles of how bees build thier hives in the wild. I have seen no difference in honey production despite all the claims I would by using "Honey Excluders".

Although I firmly believe nectar is better for bees it is a fact that nectars are either sucrose based, fructose based, or sucrose/fructose base. The breakdown to the 7 simple sugars found in honey is done by the bees and quite successfully with sucrose based nectars. 

The concept of a wholistic approach sounds nice but is idealistic. We are working against the laws of nature by crowding a large population of individuals into an area they would not naturally populate in such numbers. Nature's answer to this is disease and pest. 

Although supersedure does take place when a queen is old, by the time this comes about you've already missed at least 1 peak season by not replacing the queen sooner. Much supercedure takes place because a queen is genetically inferior resulting in depopulation of a hive through chalk brood, other disease, or mite damage (prevelant in hives headed by non-hygenic behavior queens). During these times the workers perceive the depopulation as a failing queen, although other factors apply. Since she is genetically inferior so will be her offspring. So this supercedure logic doesn't make sense to me.

I can't extract 40 frames of honey in a centifuge extractor or truck bees 1500 miles a year without foundation. The result would be many blown out frames and damaged combs from bouncing hives. 

In closing though, let me say thanks for posting this information. I hear the science behind much of what we do but I also hear the voices in the wilderness like MB who are having success on a higher scale. I question though can someone like me, dependant on my bees for the food on the table, risk the experiment in light of what is the norm, especially in light of what sounds like a system based on anecdotal information? I'm still listening though! Keep posting, I'd really like to see some results that this type of approach is viable on a larger basis.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Philip,

while Jim raises some intersting points which certainly merit some thought and discussion, I must apoligise for my countryman [edit by moderator] in his reply. 
I suspect his grade school permanent record must have a comment to the effect of 
"does not play well with others"

Jim,
take a chill pill dude
we all have problems (with bee's, you may have others)
how do you deal with them?
all you do is shoot down peoples ideas 
this isn't 1985 and we ain't building the internet at ATT
This isn't some academic discussion of technical issues, it's a converstaions about managing a biological system, which we do not and probably can not know everything about. 
we're a bunch of (mostly) hobbiest trying to figure out how to deal with the problems of beekeeping.
We're blessed with some knowledgeable folks (a few are commercial bk's) who come here on there own time and try to help some rookies out
You add little to the conversation other than what's wrong with other peoples thoughts
how do you deal with the mites?? 
Do you pump em full of Apistan??
There may be scientific evidence that that kills mites and causes the bee's to survive (for a while)
if that's what you want to do, blow your socks off dude, you might want to try dosing em with DDT, there was a lot of scientific evidence this was a good idea a while back (doh, they changed their mind on that one, sorry)
some folks, on this forum particularly, think maybe getting off the chemical bandwagon is a good idea.
It may not be the best or most "efficient" approach
our bee's may not make as much honey as somebodies who's are gassed up with the chem de'jouir
but perhaps some folks feel like there's a "better" way 

I gotta quit this
I'm gonna sit on the porch and relax
I hope you have good luck with your bee's
I hope you add a little consrtuctive comment on this site
I hope your honey is a clean as I hope mine is

Dave

[ September 29, 2005, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Barry ]


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Joel,

what a novel approach
a thoughtfull intelligent discussion of the issues at hand
I must say, I appreciate very much the time and effort folks with knowledge and experience spend coming here and sharing their know/how with the many rookies who read this forum
while I read many of your posts and some of your comment don't jibe with some of the things I'm trying to do, I very much appeciate the knowledge you add to the discussion.
As a small time rookie it's very possible that the same principals that apply to your larger operation may not nessecarily be the best for my little backyard setup, (most of them are) I'm very appreciative of your efforts to help to us rookies

Dave


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I must apoligise for my countryman being a total 
> ******* in his reply.

Hmmm... 7 letters, clearly an adjective, something
censored in ostensibly "polite" conversation...

> take a chill pill dude

I'm so cool, you could keep meat in me for a month.








I just dislike seeing myths repeated as "insight",
moreso when facts are easy to find and easy
to understand, and the some of the myths can
mislead the novice into a path that leads to
no crop, a dead hive, and giving up the craft.

> converstaions about managing a biological 
> system, which we do not and probably can not 
> know everything about.

"We" know quite a bit, so let's leverage what
we DO know to make our bees as productive as
possible (and if you want to think of them as
"happy bees", that's fine too).

> We're blessed with some knowledgeable folks 
> (a few are commercial bk's) who come here on 
> there own time and try to help some rookies out

I'm trying to help too. Sorry you don't like
an unemotional presentation of "myth versus
study data", but no harm was meant.

> You add little to the conversation other than 
> what's wrong with other peoples thoughts

Well, you only registered in June, so it seems
that you haven't read very many postings.

> how do you deal with the mites??
> Do you pump em full of Apistan??

While Apistan still works around here (knock on
wood!) I was one of the very early adopters of
powdered sugar as a way to knock back mite
populations during summer. I also promoted it. 
It works. I am happy to support what works.
It also scales well up to several hundred hives,
something that not many "alternative treatments"
can claim.

> I gotta quit this

A good idea. Your personal attack addresses
no issues of interest, and as such, adds
nothing at all to the group memory.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Good luck Jim

I hope the Apistan continues to work for you
I believe I'll try a different path

Dave


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Dave, Thanks for the comments. I too learn a great deal here. Many times operators like you and Phillip take the time to attend lectures, learn new techniques and are kind enough to share them here. I really appreciate the fact Phillip Posted so much information because I have so little time to do those types of learning experiances it seems. I believe the future lies elsewhere than mass bred bees, drugs and the quick easy temporary answers we depend on now. I've spent a great deal of time learning and implementing techniques for control and elimination of Foulbrood without drugs. I've done similar work with mites. By sharing we all gain a little better perspective on this craft we so enjoy!


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Great points Jim and Joel.

Too often one can fall into "New Age" concepts simply because they sound wonderful. Pyramids under the bed anyone?????

I am all for minimalistic treatments and practice small cell brood boxes in addition to thymol and FGMO.

I am ordering Oxalic Acid and vaporizors to have on hand should treatment be required. So far none has been needed.

A final note.... I detected no condisention in Jims reply at all. Just good points backed by reference.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

It sure is a cool name though!!!!!! =))


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Jim,
Thanks for your comments.

My purpose in posting that review was to describe another way of thinking about bees - as being primarily a part of nature, rather than creatures to enslve and bend to our will. It is not just a matter of not using chemicals, and it is certainly not about casting magic spells or any other hocus pocus, but taking a look at what we do in the wider context of the natural world and sustainable agriculture.

The argument about queen excluders has raged back and forth since they were invented and some swear by them while others swear at them. If they work for you, that's fine. I use top bars and so have no need for them, nor supers, foundation, smokers, extractors, decapping machines, tanks of sugar syrup, etc. But I am not aiming to keep 2000 colonies spread over a couple of counties. My interest is in small-to-medium scale beekeeping and getting more people interested in just having a couple of hives in their garden.

Michael and his colleague Gunter prove that it is possible to run 500 colonies using the Demeter standards and produce enough honey to earn a living in Germany without using synthetic chemicals and without excluders or foundation. Now whatever 'scientific' evidence you dig out to prove that it is not possible, that remains a fact and convinces me. 

I do not claim to be a Steiner devotee and I don't pretend to fully understand his bee lectures either, but I am willing to concede that the biodynamic approach to agriculture does result in some very fine farms and smallholdings, perhaps as a result of the close attention to detail that its advocates practice, or perhaps it has to do with the biodynamic 'preparations' - who knows. But I do know that if I had to choose between leaving the care of the planet in their hands or those of the corporate agrichemical people, I would not hesitate to choose the biodynamic crew, for all their 'oddities'.

There is room in this world for many opinions and points of view and it is always folly to think that one's own approach to bees - or anything else - is the only one possible.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> another way of thinking about bees - as being
> primarily a part of nature, rather than creatures 
> to enslave and bend to our will.

And it is an interesting point of view.
I agree that many beekeepers often "fight with"
their bees' hard-wired natural behavior on many
issues, a fight that the beekeeper is doomed to lose.

But once we take the bees OUT of nature, and put
them in a box, we might as well understand and
exploit their natural behavior to our own ends
rather than let them run their "natural yearly
cycle as they see fit".

The cold hard fact is that a colony of bees has
no intention of providing YOU with any honey. 
If left unmanaged, hives will produce much, much
less, and swarm often. THIS is the true agenda
of the bees, to merely survive and "reproduce"
via swarming. If you do not wish to "bend them
to your will", then you might as well go back to
the "honey hunter" approach, where feral hives in
trees are located and robbed of their honey.

> Michael and his colleague Gunter prove that 
> it is possible to run 500 colonies using the 
> Demeter standards and produce enough honey to 
> earn a living in Germany without using synthetic
> chemicals and without excluders or foundation.

And there are others who do the same thing in
using different approaches, without invoking
myth or antropromorphisim in the process, and
without claiming that other approaches are
somehow more "unnatural" than theirs.









> Now whatever 'scientific' evidence you dig out 
> to prove that it is not possible, that remains 
> a fact and convinces me.

My point was that specific MISinformation and
DISinformtation was being bandied about, myths
that do nothing to enhance one's knowledge of
bee behavior, myths that mislead beekeepers.

If they are going to claim that their approach
is somehow more natural, this implies that they
have a working knowledge of bee behavior, and 
perhaps a BETTER understanding of how bees react
to one set of conditions versus another. What I
saw was a shocking lack of understanding of 
well-known aspects of natural bee behavior.

Excluders (or the lack thereof) and one's choice
of foundation (or lack thereof) have no particular
impact on a well-managed colony.
It is _*Management practices*_ (the contribution of the
beekeeper) are what make the difference.

And sorry, management practices of ANY sort
are "bending the bees to our will", so we might
as well admit what we are doing, and do a good
job of it, making each season as easy as possible
for the bees. I have to laugh about the
accusation that anyone is "enslaving" bees, as
it should be obvious to even the casual observer
that the bees are free to leave their boxes
whenever they please by absconding, and free to
"return to nature", where they will live without
the claimed "enslavement" imposed by the
beekeeper.

Funny how bees don't tend to do that, isn't it?
The value added by the beekeeper results in
a stronger colony, one that votes with its
wings every day that they WANT to stay.

> But I do know that if I had to choose between 
> leaving the care of the planet in their hands 
> or those of the corporate agrichemical people

It is not an "either/or" choice. There are lots
of alternative approaches, most not wrapped up
in the least little bit of fuzzy thinking or
mystical claims about bee behavior (that if
researched at even a cursory level, are revealed
as untrue).

> it is always folly to think that one's own 
> approach to bees - or anything else - is the 
> only one possible.

I'm glad we agree on that. My problem is when
someone wants to take a "holier than thou"
posture in regard to their practices, claiming
that their approach is somehow "better", or
"more natural", or "more responsible", and then
stands there and either prove that they are
blissfully ignorant of large swaths of hard fact,
or prove that they are lying to support an
approach that (apparently) cannot be supported
without such lies, and without appeals to vague
concepts like one's "social agenda".

Fuzzy thinking never helped anyone be a better
beekeeper. Fuzzy thinking kills colonies.
It is the fuzzy thinking that I did not like,
and I made no objection to anything else.

If someone is going to presume to "instruct"
others, they should at least do their homework,
and be able to answer simple rational questions
rather than wrap things up in a set of "beliefs"
that are not to be questioned. Here in the USA,
we call such appeals to the 1960s flower child
in all of us "Drinking The Kool-Aid" (a reference
to the Jim Jones cult), as one MUST drink the
Kool-Aid of belief in some sort of mystical
premise before one can adopt the "management
practices".

Me, I want management practices that I can
apply to 100 hives as a test, and see if I
get better results than with the 100 hives
I manage "as usual". Nothing else can ever
convince a rational person.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Jim,
I'm glad we can discuss this rationally - and thank you for taking the time to comment further.

I agree that woolly notions and off-the-wall beliefs can get in the way of good beekeeping - and many other things, too. However, I really don't think that anything I heard the German beekeeper say came straight out of Steiner's lectures without being filtered through genuine observation and practical know-how. While for certification purposes, Demeter expects the land around 'biodynamic' hives to be treated according to Steiner's suggestions, nothing is done to the bees that you or I would not do - assuming you have no objections to organic acids. 

What impressed me about MIchael - and continues to impress me about other people in the BD movement - is their genuine concern for and involvement with the whole process of interacting with nature in a sustainable and non-destructive manner. Having worked for a commercial beekeeping operation and observed others, my observation is that this level of awareness is far from universal.

>>>But once we take the bees OUT of nature, and put them in a box, we might as well understand and
exploit their natural behavior to our own ends
rather than let them run their "natural yearly
cycle as they see fit".

But we cannot and do not 'take the bees out of nature'. They are forever intimately a part of nature - and a vital part at that. Hence my wider concern that GM crops could pose problems for them and for us.

>>THIS is the true agenda
of the bees, to merely survive and "reproduce"
via swarming. 

Yes, that is absolutely true. And by artificially housing 20-30 colonies in a territory that would in nature be occupied by only one or two, we are of course 'interfering' and thus have to 'manage' them according to our plan rather than theirs. To that extent, we are exerting our will, I agree.

>>And there are others who do the same thing in
using different approaches, without invoking
myth or antropromorphisim in the process, and
without claiming that other approaches are
somehow more "unnatural" than theirs. 

I don't remember any athropomorphism creeping in - did you have something specific in mind? And to which myths are you referring?

>>What I
saw was a shocking lack of understanding of 
well-known aspects of natural bee behavior.

Were you referring specifically to Steiner's lectures here?

>>...it should be obvious to even the casual observer
that the bees are free to leave their boxes
whenever they please by absconding, and free to
"return to nature", where they will live without
the claimed "enslavement" imposed by the
beekeeper.

I wasn't being that literal about 'enslavement' - and the bees don't leave unless there is gross interference, Largely, I suspect, through lack of alternative housing. 

>>Me, I want management practices that I can
apply to 100 hives as a test, and see if I
get better results than with the 100 hives
I manage "as usual". 

Hey, there's nothing to stop you trying the BD approach! No incantations required...

Best wishes,
Phil


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

drobbins,

The use of profanity is prohibited on this board!

- Barry


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I'm glad we can discuss this rationally 

Any discussion other than a rational one would
not be "a discussion", would it?









> their genuine concern for and involvement with the whole process of 
> interacting with nature in a sustainable and non-destructive manner. 
> Having worked for a commercial beekeeping operation and observed others, 
> my observation is that this level of awareness is far from universal.

It is true that "agriculture" has become very much an "industry".
On the other hand, agriculture's fondness for monocultures tends
to assure that beekeepers will be needed for pollination, as there
is no chance for "native pollinators" to survive in extensive
monocultures. 

> But we cannot and do not 'take the bees out of nature'. 

Well, we have as far are letting them live as they would "in nature",
building up, swarming, limited by the volume of holes in rotted out
trees, etc.

> They are forever intimately a part of nature

No disagreement there. The only problem is that even "nature" is
not very "natural" any more. There are very few areas that have
not been massively modified by man, and even what may look like
an "untouched forest" has very few of the attributes of the
original natural ecosystem prior to "the hand of man". So I
think that those who search for "natural" anywhere except on
coral reefs are either going to be disappointed, or lack the
training/education to see the unnatural aspects of "nature"
as it now stands.

> Hence my wider concern that GM crops could pose problems for them and for us.

I'm not getting pulled into a discussion of GM crops.
That's a very complex issue, one with many pros and cons.
So far, I'm still undecided.

> And by artificially housing 20-30 colonies in a territory that would in nature
> be occupied by only one or two, we are of course 'interfering' and thus have 
> to 'manage' them according to our plan rather than theirs. To that extent, we 
> are exerting our will, I agree.

If it is agreed that we have to manage, my point is that there are
things that we can agree are "best practices". Anything less, would 
be, uh, "less than best".

> I don't remember any athropomorphism creeping in 

1) The whole subject of bees somehow being "more comfortable" 
without foundation, and the use of foundation "caus[ing] the bees 
unnecessary stress".

2) "queens raised by artificial means as inevitably inferior to those 
raised within the colony by natural means" (Funny how artificially
inseminated queens sell for hundreds of dollars each, while swarm
and supercedure cells have almost no market value.)

3) Michael acknowledged that queens raised under the supercedure 
impulse  arising when a colony considers that its queen needs 
to be replaced  are probably the best queens of all. (Funny how
this is the opposite of the consensus among science and beekeepers
whose sole source of income is beekeeping.)

4) "with a little chamomile tea added..." Oh come ON! What sort of
new-age, burnt-out ex-hippie, granola-head concept is THIS?
It may be native to Western Europe, but where did it actually
grow before man cultivated it, and what could it possibly do for
bees when added to their feed? 


> And to which myths are you referring?

Myths about queen excluders, myths about honey being somehow "better"
than sugar syrup or HFCS, myths about requeening from swarm cells,
myths about foundation being somehow "bad", myths about "enslavement"
myths about feed (other than honey) causing dysentery, and so on.

>> What I saw was a shocking lack of understanding of
>> well-known aspects of natural bee behavior.

> Were you referring specifically to Steiner's lectures here?

No, I was talking about the points made in the lecture you
attended. They evinced near complete ignorance in several
areas of the well-trodden path of science.

> I wasn't being that literal about 'enslavement' - and the bees 
> don't leave unless there is gross interference, Largely, I 
> suspect, through lack of alternative housing.

Oh wow, there's LOTS of alternative housing - swarms seem to always
find a well-defended home that takes forever to disassemble to
remove the swarm, at least around these parts.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Buckbee uses a term Sustainable. I would like to expand on that word adding agriculture. 

Sustainable agriculture is a common term among the large and extended (4 states) group of farmers in every discipline I'm involved with. It involves stepping outside the norm of the large Commercial Ag corporations and involve several key areas.

1) Production of Alternative products (heirloom vegatables, regional wines, gourmet cheeses,High quality Milk, yogurt, smoothies, cottage cheese, custom cheeses for cows and goats, Distinct local honey varieties, creamed honey, honey based hair, skin and bath products, raw pollen, raw honey, propolis, candles etc. for Apiarists. 
2) Alternative mgt. practices (organic raised, humane raised, free range, minimal processing, no nitrate meats etc.)
3) Co-ordinated inter-communication between Farmers.
4)Alternative farm incomes - Agri- tours, bed & Breakfast, apprentice programs etc.
5) Ongoing education Farmers - introducing cutting edge methods for managment, marketing.
6) Group buying power for insurance, market bags, advertising, education, supplies and such.
7) Targeted consumer education about "where your food comes from.

Small scale farming today is an excercise on the edge. Any breakdown due to well meant misinformation about disease control or other management conditions could be devestating for those on this precipice. We must use the minimal amount of the best science has to offer while keeping focused on new, proven management techniques. We are the "new age" Farmers but all know to well the risks of unproven new ideas and feel good management plans. Our rule is to think with our heads not our hearts and and apply good managment (health and business) principles to anything presented and take what is usuable from that.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

As a side note to this post I spoke with my Market Neighbor about his use of biodynamics in running his 900 free range chicken farm. He only started this year but spoke very confindently about the success so far. His first name, if you can imagine, is "Nester". Now that's what I call destiny!


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

> I don't remember any athropomorphism creeping in

>>1) The whole subject of bees somehow being "more comfortable" without foundation, and the use of foundation "caus[ing] the bees unnecessary stress".

(a) I don't think humans are the only animals to experience comfort/discomfort. (b) English is not his first language. (c) Taking 'stress' to mean something like 'a stimulus causing a sense of discomfort or disharmony' then I support the idea that foundation causes stress to bees, as it is designed and formed with our purpose in mind, not theirs. Bees do NOT naturally construct rectangular slabs of uniform cells, that is something they are alomost forced to do by foundation. Therefore, it causes them stress. As does ANY interference in their natural processes. If we don't need to use it and the bees don't want to use it, then WHY USE IT?

>>2) "queens raised by artificial means as inevitably inferior to those
raised within the colony by natural means" (Funny how artificially
inseminated queens sell for hundreds of dollars each, while swarm
and supercedure cells have almost no market value.)

Yes it is odd. I wouldn't pay good money for an artificially inseminated queen.

3) Michael acknowledged that queens raised under the supercedure
impulse  arising when a colony considers that its queen needs
to be replaced  are probably the best queens of all. (Funny how
this is the opposite of the consensus among science and beekeepers
whose sole source of income is beekeeping.)

In the books on queen rearing I have read, supercedure queens are almost universally upheld as being the best, as they are the ones raised by the bees 'at their leisure' to replace their existing laying queen. 

4) "with a little chamomile tea added..." Oh come ON! What sort of
new-age, burnt-out ex-hippie, granola-head concept is THIS?
It may be native to Western Europe, but where did it actually grow before man cultivated it, and what could it possibly do for bees when added to their feed?

I don't know the answers - except that it is a wild plant in Europe (where your bees probably come from) - but you have no cause to mock if you do not know the chemical constitution of chamomile yourself. It has a well-known medicinal effect on humans, and may well do on bees for all you know.

> And to which myths are you referring?

>>Myths about queen excluders, 

Where's the myth? Some people use them, others don't. I can't comment on the OSR crystallisation issue, as I haven't tried it yet. But then, neither have you.

>>myths about honey being somehow "better" than sugar syrup or HFCS, 

I stand by the principle that the bees know what is best for them. They make nectar into honey, not HFCS.

>>myths about requeening from swarm cells,

That is current practice, and it works for them (the Germans), so who are you to criticize? I questioned Michael about whether using swarm cells caused the promotion of the swarming tendency and he said that their bees did not swarm any more than their neighbours' bees. He doesn't believe that swarming is an inherited trait. Others do, but I have seen no proof either way. 

>>myths about foundation being somehow "bad", myths about "enslavement"

I have covered both of these elsewhere.

>>myths about feed (other than honey) causing dysentery, and so on.

I have seen signs of dysentery in sugar-fed bees, never in honey fed. That doesn't prove anything, but honey is what they store for winter: the bees know better than we do. 

Sucrose is NOT chemically identical to nectar, as any basic book on the chemistry of plants and bees will tell you.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

>> 2) "queens raised by artificial means as inevitably inferior
>> to those raised within the colony by natural means"
> Funny how artificially inseminated queens sell for hundreds
> of dollars each, while swarm and supercedure cells have
> almost no market value.

I don't find this odd at all. Of course one is going to sell their "product" for a profit. Look at all the time spent to produce a AI queen. That hardly proves value/quality though. And what is a value to one may not be so to another.

Regards,
Barry


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Bees do NOT naturally construct rectangular slabs 
> of uniform cells, that is something they are 
> alomost forced to do by foundation. Therefore, it
> causes them stress.

This is yet another example of extremely non-rigorous 
(or, as I like to call it, "fuzzy") thinking. 
While it is true that bees build combs to fill whatever 
space they occupy, it does not automatically follow 
that a rectangular space causes anything that might be
called "stress". Bees are highly adaptable
creatures, and if they were to set up shop in
a wall of a house, their combs, if allowed to
grow for long enough WOULD be rectangular.

Bees build comb to fill a space. Bees clearly
have no problem setting up shop in a wide variety
of spaces, including rectangular ones. If they
did not find a space acceptable, they would either
not set up shop, or they would abscond after some
period of time. It is therefore reasonable to
conclude that there is *NO* stress caused
by such arrangements, and highly unreasonable to
conclude otherwise.

As for "uniform" cells, the bees do not strictly
"obey" the foundation, so there is no such thing
as a comb of 100% "uniform cells", or it is a
very rare thing in a brood chamber. In a honey
super, the bees are quite happy to draw out cells
that might be called "uniform", but even then,
a sharp eye will notice variation.

> As does ANY interference in their natural 
> processes. If we don't need to use it and the 
> bees don't want to use it, then WHY USE IT?

We can only observe what the bees prefer in
order to infer what they "want". When offered 
choices, bees make their choice, and reveal their
preferences. As for "interference in their 
natural processes", you are just a tad late
to be worried about that. You are a beekeeper.
Your mere "keeping" of bees is a massive
level of interference in their natural processes.
You "harvest" honey, and you (try to) "prevent" swarming.
These are two very basic and massive ways to mess
with the bee's minds and reproductive instincts.
If you want natural, buy a bee-lining box and go
harvest honey from feral hives. (No, even THAT would
mess with the bees too much - you'll have to just 
watch them and admire from afar, rather like a bird
watcher.)

> [chamomile tea] It has a well-known medicinal 
> effect on humans, and may well do on bees for 
> all you know.

The above is yet another example of the endemic
anthropomorphism that permeates these sorts
of mythical views of bees. Bees are insects,
so there is no connection whatsoever between
what might be "good for" humans and "good for"
bees. The differences are so basic that adult
bees consume *NO PROTEIN AT ALL*.

> [queen excluders] Where's the myth?

The myth about the queen's travels through the supers
making the (canola/rape) honey less prone to 
crystallization for one. Its a real knee-slapper.

> I can't comment on the OSR crystallisation 
> issue, as I haven't tried it yet. But then, 
> neither have you.

I don't need to try it to know that it is complete
bunkum, for the reasons I stated. There is no
such thing as "action at a distance" on the
macro scale of honey, and there is no possible
impact that a queen could have on canola honey
that would not be detectable in the bottommost
super of any hive, if there was such a
phenomena as a result of the queen's "travels"
in the supers.

>> myths about requeening from swarm cells,

> That is current practice, and it works for them 
> (the Germans), so who are you to criticize?

With a name like "Fischer", it should be clear
that I am of German extraction myself, so I feel
free to critique the practices claimed to be used
by the practical and pragmatic beekeepers from
whom I am descended. Requeening from swarm cells 
is clearly a poor practice. Certainly you would 
agree that supercedure cells would be superior to 
swarm cells, so I don't know why this point is even
under discussion. Bottom line, inbreeding results 
in nasty bees. This is well-known fact, and it 
takes a very very large operation to provide the 
genetics required to assure that one is not inbreeding.

>> myths about honey being somehow "better" than 
>> sugar syrup or HFCS,

> I stand by the principle that the bees know what
> is best for them. They make nectar into honey,
> not HFCS.

You are confusing very different issues here,
one must first isolate what the bees prefer
when given choices from what the bees CAN do.
Bees have no choice, they can only make honey
as stores for overwintering. But when given
dining options, such as sugar syrup or HFCS
when they have sufficient honey, the bees tend
to vote with their little feet, and every study
ever done shows that bees prefer man-made feeds
to honey every time, and also prefer man-made
feeds to nectar when given choices between them.
Why? The HFCS or sugar syrup is ready-to-eat,
has a high sugar ratio, and is pure.

> I have seen signs of dysentery in sugar-fed 
> bees, never in honey fed.

The general case is the exact opposite of your
stated experience. Controlled studies refute
your claim that sugar-syrup feeding causes
dysentery. All I can guess is that you somehow
had high ratios of impurities in your sugar.

> Sucrose is NOT chemically identical to nectar, 
> as any basic book on the chemistry of plants and
> bees will tell you.

Sucrose breaks down with ease into glucose and
fructose with the enzymes provided by the bees,
and many nectars contain very very high
percentages of sucrose versus fructose or glucose,
so I am forced to reject your statement as
misinformed. While some plants do have a higher
fructose content than others, they all contain
significant quantities of sucrose. While some
very specific plants (such as orange trees)
contain very high ratios of glucose, this type
of plant is rare.

> [AI queen prices]. That hardly proves 
> value/quality though.

The value of CONSISTENT quality is "priceless".
Beekeeping (on a larger scale) requires one
to have consistent queens, as one is forced to
take a "mass production" approach when faced
with a large number of hives. The techniques
used to produce 98% of the actual honey
consumed require such consistency. I don't think
I need to defend the value of controlled and
highly advanced genetics, as every beekeeper
reading this has taken advantage of these
advances, even if they think that they are
breeding from "feral survivor queens" or other
such nonsense terms applied to swarms that
issued from managed hives and settled as the
most recent tenants of popular nesting spots.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"The differences are so basic that adult
bees consume NO PROTEIN AT ALL."

strictly speaking they do - they convert pollen to hypophaeryngeal secretions, and they must metabolize protein to do that. It would be better to say that they have little nitrogen turnover within their own body, i.e. they do not create new tissue once an adult. That is why the hive is best looked at as a super-organism where the tissue turnover takes place with the brood and not the "adult" cells, i.e. bees.

Keith


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> they convert pollen to hypophaeryngeal
> secretions, and they must metabolize protein
> to do that

But they themselves are not utilizing the protein
for their own benefit, they are using it for
the benefit of the brood. So have they actually
consumed protein? I think not - they have
prepared protein for brood much as a chef who
is himself allergic to milk might prepare clam
chowder for a customer in a restaurant.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Why is there all that yellow feces from the nurse bees flying then? Did they not have that as waste product from eating the pollen to create the brood food? If you eat and poop pollen then how can you say they don't consume it? I agree they are not using it to build their own bodies up but they are eating it. Does a cow "not comume" the portion of hay they use up to secrete milk?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Why is there all that yellow feces from the 
> nurse bees flying then?

How do you know that these are "nurse bees"?

> If you eat and poop pollen then how can you say 
> they don't consume it?

I didn't claim that any specific bee ate or "pooped"
pollen, you did.

> Does a cow "not comume" the portion of hay they > use up to secrete milk?

Comparing mammals to insects does not provide one
with a useful metaphor.

I'll let Keith explain if he is willing.
As I recall, he has some medical education,
and can provide a more complete and accurate
answer than I could.

Keith? Fire at will.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Comparing mammals to insects does not provide one
with a useful metaphor.

It's not a metaphor. It's semantics. I'm just saying that your definition of "consuming" is not consistent with how it is used in other similar contexts.

>I didn't claim that any specific bee ate or "pooped" pollen, you did.

Yes. I did. From my observation you see a lot of it when the bees are rearing brood and not when they are not, so it seems reasonable to me that it is waste from digesting pollen to feed brood.

>I'll let Keith explain if he is willing. As I recall, he has some medical education,
and can provide a more complete and accurate
answer than I could.

Yes, those uneducated among us could use more explanations of your interpretation of the English language. I only have 16 semester hours of college chem and 8 semester hours of college Anatomy and Physiology and another 8 hours or so of other Biology. While this should be helpful to understanding bee biology, none of this helps me with your interpretation of English. Nor does my Latin or Greek, which is usually helpful with language issues. I'm sure it's beyond me.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

OK, Mike, if you are going to get testy about it...

When I said "consume", I meant the overtly
obvious - to eat it and gain something tangible
from the experience. There is a difference
between me pouring a glass of milk for a child
and drinking one myself. The same sort of
difference appears to be at work in Keith's
"strictly speaking" comment, but I hesitate
to attempt to interpret Keith's words. Aside
from agreeing that he is "strictly correct",
I do not wish to argue with anyone about this
basic issue.

As adult bees have no need for protein, they
do not metabolize anything but sugars (carbohydrates)
once they reach full adulthood (some period of time
after they emerge from their cells, I forget
exactly how long).

Keith was nice enough to point out a special
case - one that requires a highly technical
interpretation of "metabolization" for which
I am grateful. Its very hard to make ANY
general statement without these sorts of
"gotcha" exceptions cropping up, and Keith
did a fine job of putting perspective on
the whole "feeding brood" aspect of adult
bee life.

I defer to Keith on his "strictly speaking"
point, as he brought it up. I refuse to
presume to explain what he said, as it would
be poor manners, moreso when what he said
was short, clear, and to the point.
However, it is also poor manners to argue with
me about what Keith said, isn't it?









Given all the years of seemingly applicable
education you've had, I think you are well
qualified to have an intelligent discussion
*WITH KEITH* about his "strictly speaking"
comment. I was a mere Physics major, so
I have little of value to contribute to such
a hyper-technical biology discussion between
two much-better educated people than I can
ever hope to be.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

whoops


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>When I said "consume", I meant the overtly
obvious - to eat it and gain something tangible
from the experience. 

No, you did NOT mean the overtly obvious. The overtly obvious is that it goes in one end, out the other and gets processed by the body into something. You mean the obscure and unobvious that the bee keeps none of those nutrients for itself in the process. But if it goes through their system being digested and, apparently, most of the constituents that were not defecated, secreted as something else, how can you say they did not consume it.

It IS just semantics. And I think we are all in agreement on the adult bees not requiring pollen (once they get through that initial period after emergence) but what is commonly meant by "consume" is nothing as complex, and discrete as you are describing.

Websters:
"1 : to do away with completely : DESTROY <fire consumed several buildings>
2 a : to spend wastefully : SQUANDER b : USE UP <writing consumed much of his time>
3 : to eat or drink especially in great quantity <consumed several kegs of beer>
4 : to engage fully : ENGROSS <consumed with curiosity>
intransitive senses
1 : to waste or burn away : PERISH
2 : to utilize economic goods"

And thanks, Keith, I'm sure it was enlightening for someone.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> No, you did NOT mean the overtly obvious.

Oh well, then, I stand corrected.
Who am I to presume to say what goes on in my 
own mind when I have you to explain to me what I
was thinking?









> But if it goes through their system being digested 
> and, apparently, most of the constituents that were 
> not defecated, secreted as something else, how can 
> you say they did not consume it.

So, let me see if I got this straight...
You clearly must have "consumed" my simple statement,
nearly identical to statements found in most, perhaps
all reference-grade texts on bee biology. The proof
that you "consumed" it is the large amount of 
defecation that you have done all over the
thread as a result.









On the other hand, if you were a chef, and I a customer
at your restaurant, would you be "consuming" my steak
simply because you prepared it for me? I hope not!
I ordered it, I ate it, I paid for it, so I'd call
myself the "consumer". While you might have trimmed some
fat off and tossed it into the garbage while preparing
my steak, this waste byproduct did you no good, and
generating the waste certainly would not have made you
feel full or do anything towards meeting your minimum
daily adult (I use the term loosely in this context given
the level to which the discussion has sunk) requirement
for 7 essential vitamins.

> what is commonly meant by "consume" is nothing as complex, 
> and discrete as you are describing.

You need to e-mail me your shipping address ASAP so I can
Fed-X you a bottle of "No More Tears" shampoo. I am concerned
that you may suffer a fatal level of dehydration from all this
crying and whining over mere semantics.

> It IS just semantics.

OK, I'm glad you agree, but why then do you 
persist in this exercise in futility?

> And I think we are all in agreement on the adult bees 
> not requiring pollen

[Double take...]

Then why argue the point with me?

[Sighs, glances at current stock of single-malt,
pours a stiff one, drinks, and continues typing]

> Websters:

Webster's? How tacky.

Behold the awesome power of the 17 volume, 150 pound
Oxford English Dictionary... no, never mind, I'm
not going to type all that text, as you would then expect
me to defend the OED, come up with the lame excuse that 
some words have different meanings in the USA from the 
OED's anglo-centric slant, etc, etc.

Tongue firmly planted in cheek,


jim


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

Jim, did you by chance pour more than one stiff one? I think you actually made a joke.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"And thanks, Keith, I'm sure it was enlightening for someone."

The whoops thing was a palceholder for a post I took down to verify a fact.

Keith


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Jim,
We can argue indefinitely about all these points, but we will never reach a real place of agreement because we are coming from quite different models of the universe.

In your world, if you can't see it, hear it or touch it, then it doesn't exist. Period. Unless an idea is backed by a double-blind, published, scientific study, then it is clearly mythic or the misguided product of a bunch of deranged hippies.

And, of course, you may be right.

But somehow I think you are missing something. Have you never in your life had an experience that hinted of something beyond the mere material world? Do you imagine that we already know everything there is to know about how nature works?

May I encourage you to leave a little ***** in your armour to allow the possibility of a revelatory moment? 

With best wishes,
Phil


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> We can argue indefinitely

I thought you were _"glad we can discuss this
rationally"_ - when did it become an argument?









> we are coming from quite different models 
> of the universe.

Well, I'm a physics wonk, so I actually have
several favorite models.

> if you can't see it, hear it or touch it, 
> then it doesn't exist

Nothing could be further from the truth.
I could make you a long list of things that
I am quite sure exist, each of them having
no "proof" of their existence beyond some
very messy math.

> Unless an idea is backed by a double-blind, 
> published, scientific study, then it is clearly 
> mythic or the misguided product of a bunch of 
> deranged hippies.

I think it would be more accurate to say that
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

I think it would also be fair to say that some
things are so wrong that they no longer fall
within the province of "opinion", and sit firmly
in the land of animistic self-delusion.
On the other hand, I take long walks and have
conversations with my dog knowing full well
that he recognizes only a handful of words,
and can only really "understand" my tone.

> Have you never in your life had an experience 
> that hinted of something beyond the mere 
> material world?

Have you ever stared a galaxy in the face with
a really, really big telescope? Who needs
fantasy when reality is so impressive? Honestly,
call up the nearest university, and ask when
they open up their telescope for "public viewing",
it will put a new part in your hair.

> Do you imagine that we already know everything 
> there is to know about how nature works?

Certainly not, but things we DO know rather
firmly contradict many of the statements made
at the talk you attended. Just because we
don't know _everything_ does not imply that
we don't know _anything_.

> the possibility of a revelatory moment?

Some guys get to go into space.
Some guys get to find their God.
I get to wake up and see my wife
sleeping in the half light of dawn.
That's enough revelation for anyone.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>>Some guys get to go into space.
Some guys get to find their God.
I get to wake up and see my wife
sleeping in the half light of dawn.
That's enough revelation for anyone. 

Jim! I take it all back! There is poetry in you as well.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Then why argue the point with me?
>OK, I'm glad you agree, but why then do you 
persist in this exercise in futility?

I really think it would be helpful, Jim, if you would learn English. In your personal language, bees don't "eat" honey because they need water to go with it. Apparently, humans don't eat rice, because they have to mix it with water to cook it. Although bees don't just pick pollen up, chew it and spit it out to feed brood, in your language bees don't "consume" pollen even though they eat it, absorb it through their gut, chemically change it and excrete it. It makes communication difficult when you change the common meanings of words to suit yourself.

Why not just say that adult bees do not require pollen for their own sustenance, but only to feed brood. Does that cover it?

>Then why argue the point with me?

Then why argue the point with me?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>even if they think that they are
breeding from "feral survivor queens" or other
such nonsense terms applied to swarms that
issued from managed hives and settled as the
most recent tenants of popular nesting spots.

Jim, seems like we've been through this. Of course this statment is hard to ignore, but I havent had the time to devote to a proper response. I still dont have enough time, so heres a short response:

http://www.beesource.com/pov/ahb/jee1995.htm

This study says that there are definite genetic differences between commercial stock and feral stock in the southern United States.

"Based on mtDNA haplotypes and allozyme variability we report significant differences between feral and commercial populations of honey bees from the southern United States."

So, contrary to your opinion, these bee scientists apparently believe, based on DNA eveidence, that "feral" bees are quite different at a fundemental genetic level.

Dr. Larry Connor and I had a discussion about the feral bees weve both been finding back in June of this year. He has also observed the same differences from commercial stocks that I have pointed out in previous discussions.

And, of course, many of us on this board have discussed what we are finding and the differences in winter clusters and behaviors for some time.

Personally Ive seen dramatic changes in what I find in feral hives between 31 years ago and now. Back then most of the ferals I took out of houses and trees were of a dark leather color and had similar habits to the Italians as far as overwintering size and other behavior such as brood rearing during what time of the year etc. Now about half of the ones I find are black and overwinter on significantly smaller clusters and are much more frugal than even the Carniolans on brood rearing and cutting back in a dearth or for winter.

So I would have to say, contrary to your opinion, which seems to be founded entirely on your speculation and no formal study and no actual experience with these dark ferals, by my observation and those of several respected bee scientist, based on behavior, looks and mitochondrial DNA, feral bees are quite different from commercial stock.

And frankly I find your use of the term "some other such nonsense" discourteous and disrespectful at best.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Michael, what is the method of establishing if a hive is feral as opposed to a swarm settled in an existing location (without DNA). I've caught what I believe is my 1st feral swarm (May) that issued from a nearby tree alleged to be inhabited continually for 3 yrs. The bees are a color match to what you describe (almost a midnight). I have not established them as far as winter cluster or other traits. Only suspicsion. 

1) Does this criteria fit your definition of Feral?
2) If I want to breed from this stock should I be wintering them in the north then taking them south in the spring.
3) Is it a wasted excercise with 1 feral hive (if it assuming I breed 10 or 15 queens from this hive) in a breeding yard of 60 hives of my own stock of 10 yrs work to expect any significant contribution. 
4) Should I be isolating this stock from mine, buying feral queens and concentrating on one discipline as opposed to incorporating them into my stock (which I'm pretty happy with)?

Opinions? Thanks!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>what is the method of establishing if a hive is feral as opposed to a swarm settled in an existing location (without DNA).

The size of the bee is a pretty good indication. If they have been feral for a few generations of swarms they are almost 3mm shorter than typical domestic bees.

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/table.htm

According to Baudoux a bee from a 4.7mm cell (in the range of typical in a natural comb hive) 12mm long while one from a 5.5mm cell is 14.82. 2.82 is pretty noticable without even measuring them. But you can measure them if you like too.

Black is another indicator of the "different" ferals I've been finding in recent years since the Varroa hit. Other characteristics are that the queens are flightier, the bees often are runnier, but sometimes not, and they overwinter on smaller clusters. They also stop brood rearing in dearths sooner and are, all in all, more conservative in brood rearing only really rearing brood all out if there is a flow or feeding going on.

> The bees are a color match to what you describe (almost a midnight). I have not established them as far as winter cluster or other traits. Only suspicsion. 

After a winter you'll have a better idea.

>1) Does this criteria fit your definition of Feral?

Partially.

>2) If I want to breed from this stock should I be wintering them in the north then taking them south in the spring.

I'm not sure I understand your intent? Are you a migratory beekeeper?

>3) Is it a wasted excercise with 1 feral hive (if it assuming I breed 10 or 15 queens from this hive) in a breeding yard of 60 hives of my own stock of 10 yrs work to expect any significant contribution. 

If that one was nearby there may well be more feral hives nearby. Odds are the queen will fly further than the drones from your yard and she will likely breed with drones from somewhere else. The above study would support that the ferals don't seem to be interbreeding with the Italians that much. Probably the drones fly at different times and the size difference (according to other studies) may play into it.


>4) Should I be isolating this stock from mine, buying feral queens and concentrating on one discipline as opposed to incorporating them into my stock (which I'm pretty happy with)?

That's always a tough choice. That, of course, si up to you. If you like what you have, maybe you should try to keep the ferals somewhere else as a seperate experiment to see how you like them.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I am migratory, wintering in the south. I do winter hives in NY and then take the survior stock south to breed in April in SC. I have ordered a considerable variety of commercial stock over the years and have settled on a cross that includes the Hawaiin strain of cordovans, carnolian and buckfast over the past 6 yrs. The bees seem to be hardy, run a buckfastish brood nest and outperformed our other stocks this year by a notable difference in both pollen and honey production. Wintering (cordovan influence)is improving but I need to concentrate more on mgt and wintering in the north (lkke I did as a hobbyist) before I'm convinced. My goal is to be out of migration within 5 yrs and possibly wintering nucs in a controlled environment. I share some of Jim's skeptisim on Ferals. Not that feral bees are a superior strain, they are the ultimate survivor stock, but how we acurately identify them without expensive DNA testing. I'm a small (150 hive) operation with everything based on commercial mgt. paractices. I'm trying to systematically move into as much chemical free, non-bee mill queen mgt. as nature will allow. It's difficult due to the many aspects (regressing to small cell foundation, refining a consistisent breeding stock etc.). Your posts make indicate it may be possible as you have no axe to grind against chemical use apparrently and have been able to step away with 50 hives. That 50 range is outside the fringe of hobbyist experimentation. If you're having success we should be able to extrapolate that to larger numbers. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I went out to feed Saturday and Sunday and discovered I have 94 hives in my back yard. Half of them are nucs, but still... If the nucs survive I may have to move some more of them to my outyard come spring.







There are only four or five out there and a couple more in town, so I'm probably over 100 right now. Most aren't that big though and I'll probably do some combines before winter.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> So I would have to say, contrary to your 
> opinion... my observation...

...is simply another opinion.









> those of several respected bee scientist

I'm not doubting THEIR findings, as they went
and did some DNA work to back up their claims.
My problem is when someone starts selling products
(bees) for a profit as "different" without any
proof that the specific bees sold are themselves
any different.

> based on behavior, looks and mitochondrial DNA,

Well, I understand the validity of mitochondrial
DNA as a way to verify parentage, but you don't
have any of that for the specific bees you have collected, do you?

"Looks" are more than a little vague, given the
wide range of appearances within even my
"pedigree" hives, all obsessive-compulsively
requeened with stock of known parentage from
reputable suppliers of stock bred from AI queens
in what they want to call a "closed breeding
program".

As for behavior, I'm not sure that we can nail
that one down so clearly, since the behaviors
have to be directly observed to be the basis
for a claim, and the claimed "behavior" is itself
part of the claimed "value added" being sold,
isn't it?

> feral bees are quite different from commercial 
> stock.

SOME feral bees certainly were found to be during
the study, but are those YOU have found any
different? What is the basis for touted them as somehow "different"? 

It appears to be "looks", and "looks" alone.

And, in regard to the DNA differences, do those differences mean anything?

Do those differences have any connection with the
specific claims being made as to advantages in
the area of "survivability"?

> And frankly I find your use of the term "some 
> other such nonsense" discourteous and 
> disrespectful at best.

Sorry, I call 'em as I see 'em. If it is any
consolation, I am just as hard on the queen
producers who claim that they are "breeding for
resistance" to this and that. The theory is
simple - don't try and sell me something
intangible - sell me tangible things, and honestly
admit to what I can expect of your bees.

What is "nonsense" is making statements like
the following series:

a) Some ferals are different, in ways not clearly
defined

b) Therefore, all ferals, including those I can
find must ALSO be different

c) The differences make for "better" bees

d) Pay me money for these bees, as they are
better.

That specific sequence simply does not hold up
to even cursory scrutiny.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>It appears to be "looks", and "looks" alone.

Color, survivability, size, brood rearing behavior (cutting back at different times), overwintering behavior (more frugal, significantly smaller clusters), flying before daylight when the Italians are not, flying in 50 degree F or slightly below when the Italians are not. That's a bit more than "looks" alone.

>a) Some ferals are different, in ways not clearly
defined

I think I clearly defined them on several occasions including this one.

>b) Therefore, all ferals, including those I can
find must ALSO be different

I have no idea where you got this. I have enumerated differences and ways to tell that they have been feral for some time, on several occasions. Bee size, and cell size being very useful. Behavior being a very useful. I often find ferals that are obviously just Italians by behavior, although usually darker. I used to find them more often than now, but about half of them still are. I don't assume they are different merely because I found them in a tree.

>c) The differences make for "better" bees

Nothing succeeds like success. IMO survival is a very nice trait.

>d) Pay me money for these bees, as they are
better.

I don't actually remember ever saying they are better. Better is a pretty subjective thing, even with bees. What I have done is to say what their characteristics are.

Is frugality a good trait? There are advantages to the Italian bee mindset to rear brood like crazy and advantages to being more frugal and not wasting stores to rear brood when it isn't needed. From a beekeepers point of view it's rather convenient to be able to manipulate brood rearing for when you think the timing will be best. That is probably easier to stimulate in Italians than other breeds.

I have only said that they are surviving and handling mites on small cell comb. I don't know and have stated several times that I don't know, how they would do on 5.4mm comb.

>>even if they think that they are
breeding from "feral survivor queens" or other
such nonsense terms applied to swarms that
issued from managed hives and settled as the
most recent tenants of popular nesting spots.

>Sorry, I call 'em as I see 'em. 

Some people have learned to disagree while being both courteous and respectful. It's a talent that is very useful at times. Perhaps you should investigate this.

However, you did NOT say this in disagreement with something that was said. You pulled it right out of the blue. Apparently the current train of thought didn't offer enough opportunities for verbal abuse.


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

I'm going to step between the two of you for a minute and hope I'm not too seriously injured in the process.  

Whenever I buy packages, the suppliers are always willing to make claims about the superiority of their bees. Usually with no backing other than the suppliers (I believe honest) belief. Not terribly different from when I buy a car. Every sales dude says that his is the best. (Honesty may be more of an issue here.)

I haven't bought any queens from Michael and I don't have any plans in the near future to do so, but if I were in the market for queens, I would say he's provided as much evidence as to his "product's" characteristics as anyone and more than most.

If I wanted to pass judgement on his queens, or anyone else's for that matter, I'd want to buy some and see how they did for me. Then I might feel qualified to put thumbs up or down.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Whenever I buy packages, the suppliers are always 
> willing to make claims about the superiority of 
> their bees. Usually with no backing other than 
> the suppliers (I believe honest) belief.

Yeah, and that is a SERIOUS problem when they
lead beekeepers to think that they are buying
bees that are somehow "immune" or "resistant"
to this or that. The best example is "we haven't
treated our hives", as if the open-mated progeny
of their queens are going to have any such
attributes.

Some of the advertising is just plain fraudulent.
Unwary beekeepers buy their bees, don't test or
inspect for diseases, and are surprised when their
hives dwindle and die.

> I'd want to buy some and see how they did for 
> me. Then I might feel qualified to put thumbs 
> up or down.

One does not need to "test" to see that many 
of the claims made are spurrious on their face.

Its rather like when Hummer came out with the "H2".
I did not need to test drive the thing to find
out that I did not want to give them my money.
I raced down to the dealership with my checkbook
in hand only to be surprised to find out that 
the name _"H2"_ did *NOT* mean that it ran on 
Hydrogen. Bummer.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Some people have learned to disagree while being 
> both courteous and respectful. It's a talent that 
> is very useful at times. Perhaps you should 
> investigate this.

Its not "disrespectful", its just a clearly
presented logical argument that you cannot refute.

Rather than addressing the point that there is
no connection between the findings of the study
that you offered as some form of "proof" and
your own (lack of) findings, you want to fall
back to a passive-aggressive tactic of playing
"hurt".

Horsepucky! If you want people's money, you had
better be able to back up your claims with
more than "nothing succeeds like success", as
your "success" may be due to factors that
have nothing to do with the bees themselves.

I have yards where varroa is not a problem.
Does this imply that I have "special" bees?
Of course not - the yards are merely isolated.
But I could make all the claims you make about
your ferals about bees that happen to be in
these yards, as they require little if any
action in terms of diseases and pests, and
I have very good records to document my
experience.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Michael, are you wintering nucs outside? What size equipment (frames, boxes, expanded foam?)and has this been reasonably successful? I'm assuming you can't supplemental feed over the winter due to climate so is it a small cluster, small hive, less energy to heatm, less food or massive stores needed in a small space. 
Don't mean to pick your brain, just answer what you have time for.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Its not "disrespectful", its just a clearly
presented logical argument that you cannot refute.

Out of the blue you use terms such as "nonesense" to describe your opinion of something already discussed elsewhere and NOT being discussed here. I saw no logical arguments for me to refute.

>Rather than addressing the point that there is
no connection between the findings of the study
that you offered as some form of "proof" and
your own (lack of) findings, you want to fall
back to a passive-aggressive tactic of playing
"hurt".

The point in quoting the study was that you are saying that all feral bees are merely recent escapees of no different genetics than the commercial stock. The study quoted refutes that. Obviously I have no genetic testing equipment and have no plans to buy any. It's barely worth buying all the eqiupment to raise the queens, let alone invest in more eqiupment to do genetic testing for no other reason than to make you happy, which I doubt that it would anyway. You would merely come up with a different argument.

>Horsepucky! If you want people's money, you had
better be able to back up your claims with
more than "nothing succeeds like success", as
your "success" may be due to factors that
have nothing to do with the bees themselves.

What claims do I need to back up? What claims have I made that you are questioning? Could you make specific quotes please? I have made no claims other than to state the facts that I know and pointing out the facts that I do not know.

>I have yards where varroa is not a problem.
Does this imply that I have "special" bees?

It is one possible explaination. I have three yards where it's not a problem spread over about 75 miles.

>Of course not - the yards are merely isolated.
But I could make all the claims you make about
your ferals about bees that happen to be in
these yards, as they require little if any
action in terms of diseases and pests, and
I have very good records to document my
experience. 

And what SPECIFIC claims have I made that you are disagreeing with? Please enumerate with exact quotes.

That they are feral? They were not in a domestic hive when I got them. So what are they?

That they are surviving? Well, they are alive, so that's a bit hard to argue with. That I believe they have survived for some time, I have repeatedly said is because of size. 3mm shorter bees are pretty noticablly different from recent escapees.

That they are genetically different? The only genetic claim I've made is that I have no idea where they originated but they have different behaviors than any domestics I have seen.

That they are surviving the mites? I have repeatedly stated they I only know they are doing that on small cell in my yards. I have no idea how they would do under other circumstances.

I have stated all of these things from the begining and have not made any other claims that I can remember. Which of these do you not think is true? What other claims than these are you saying I have made?

I have not had any complaints from any customers concerning my queens. Why do you have a problem with this?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Michael, are you wintering nucs outside?

Yes.

>What size equipment (frames, boxes, expanded foam?)

I have tried several things and I will be trying something different again this year.

>has this been reasonably successful?

No. So far it has not.

>I'm assuming you can't supplemental feed over the winter due to climate so is it a small cluster, small hive, less energy to heatm, less food or massive stores needed in a small space. 

I've tried several models.

The first year, I just put the nucs in 10 frame mediums over notched, doublescreened inner covers over strong hives. No feed, just full of stores. The inner cover hole would let the hot air into the nuc. A few of them survived and most died, apparently from the condensation.

The next year, I put some in the styrofoam medium beemax boxes. In other words a nuc in one ten frame box with insulation below and above. Again condensation seemed to be the hard part. Plus a lot of the hives seem to succumb on those really cold snaps (-28 last winter).

The other experiment that year was the apartment model with eight frame boxes. Again condensation seemed to be a problem with some of them having puddles of water in the bottom and mold growing on some of the frames. And again the really cold spells often seemed to be their demise.

http://www.bushfarms.com/images/ApartmentNucsWintering.JPG
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/ApartmentNucsWrappedInFoam.jpg

This year, I plan to put two rows of five frame nucs on a four by eight sheet of foam and plywood with an "alley" down the back. I made bottoms with a small vent in the back (about 3/4" by 1") and a small upper entrance (about 3/8" by 3/4") and a small vent (about 1" diameter) right in the top and a large screened hole in the cover for a mason jar feeder. On top of the touble row I will put a box made of one by eight and a plywood lid with syrofoam. Then I was going to wrap the sides in foam so it's all enclosed and put a small thermostatically controled space heater inside that will keep the feed liquid, moderate the really cold nights and hopefully drive out some of the moisture. I will put two of these end to end with a double row of eight frame nucs on the second one with similar ventilation. I modeled it off of the observation hives that seem to do well enough. But they observation hives can break cluster anytime, get to feed anytime and have good ventilation and some heat.

I also have three nucs on top of a box with a "light bulb" still air system on a thermostat.

I have no idea how well it will work. Every year I've gotten a few of the nucs through, but most don't seem to make it.

Details on the apartment model are on my web site.

From conversations with other beekeepers overwintering nucs (usually in slightly warmer climates) I've come to the conclusion that a minimal sized box with constant feed is better than a bigger box with more stores for a small cluster like a nuc. Some outside source of heat, and some controled ventilation, I hope will deal with the condensation issues. The heat source, I hope will also moderate the really cold nights and maybe even keep them able to take feed all winter.

How well it works remains to be seen.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

> Why do you have a problem with this?

Because it doesn't fit the scientific box that Jim is stuck in. That's just an understanding one must have when discussing topics with him. I'm not knocking science or Jim, just pointing out the bias Jim brings to the discussion.

Greetings all.

- Barry


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Acutally, Jim, I have already had this same discussion with you about feral queens, in a different thread on a different forum. It ran into three pages. What is the point of having it again? Apparently you're STILL trying to understand that discussion? I suggest you reread it, instead, and save me a lot of work.

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000195;p=1


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Michael, thanks for the info, I'll check on your website. I read and article recently about wintering nucs in an insulated, light excluding building (shed), in Minnesota, with a thermostatically controled. The writer exclaimed on the virtues. I don't understand how bees go for the 3 or 4 mos. they would need to be confined in my area (or yours) without cleansing flights. 

To add to Barry's comment on Jim, he does have a very scientific approach which some find course. (I do not, I find his very honest and direct, sometimes challanging approach a good thing). I, for one, have gained a great deal of insight from him on many issues and his influence on my degree of skeptism toward a more conservative approach to unproven techniques. That temperance is needed on this site to keep us from falling into the anecdotal abyss.


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

>>Some of the advertising is just plain fraudulent. Unwary beekeepers buy their bees, don't test or inspect for diseases, and are surprised when their hives dwindle and die.

Some advertising IS JUST PLAIN FRAUDULENT. However, alot of advertising IS JUST PLAIN OPINION. If the same Hummer dealership were to advertise as having the BEST SERVICE IN THE SOUTHEAST would that be fraudulent? Maybe they feel that it is the best. I argue that for one it is their opinion and two it is difficult at best to prove. Was there intent to commit fraud? Again difficult to prove.

The bottom line: BUYER BEWARE! The consumer over time will ultimately be the judge. 

>>If you want people's money, you had
better be able to back up your claims with
more than "nothing succeeds like success", 

The consumer will vote with their orders based on results. A happy customer will come back. An unhappy consumer will tell everyone they know.

I don't have MB's queens and have no interest in purchasing one. I heard opinion. Consumers have an obligation to do their homework.

I understand Jim's concern especially when it comes to newbies. They have an insufficient knowledge base from which to evaluate opinion from "fact". The discussion of small cell and smaller size bee might go right over some of their heads and what might jump out at them is the comments on handling mite loads. Maybe they now see.... SUPER BEE! (obviously I'm assuming the extreme). 

MB, due to his knowledge and many posts, has alot of people that hang onto his every word. Because of that maybe he has an added responsibility to choose his words carefully. That said..... I still heard opinion and observation. If we take the entire discussion(s) as a whole I think that is apparent.

I couldn't find where MB has ever claimed to KNOW them to be from a feral source only that he believes them to be citing what he has observed and believes their behaviors represent. 

Take it for what it's worth. Let them buy one if they wish and try it. If they are happy great! If not then they won't buy another and I'm sure we'll hear about it.

I'm still expecting to see a pay-per-view fight Fischer vs. Bush. Might be worth the $$  

Jim- while I at times disagree with your methods, I appreciate your scientific approach. If nothing else in that it makes one think alittle more deeply about the topics. Sort-of the the devil's advocate thing on some of the issues.









Hey! If we all thought alike we wouldn't need this forum would we?

Ding! Round 50? What are we up to now?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I'm still expecting to see a pay-per-view 
> fight Fischer vs. Bush

No way. I've met Mike, and he seems just as
peaceful as I am.

> the devil's advocate 

As I *AM* the actual devil, I am a pro se
litigant.









> Because it doesn't fit the scientific box that 
> Jim is stuck in. 

Now we are refuting science itself?
On the internet, a toy that simply would not exist
if not for this "science" you find so limiting?

> just pointing out the bias Jim brings to the 
> discussion.

So a complete LACK of bias is itself some sort
of bias? Wow, I need to go find an analyst
and put him on overtime to work that one out
for me.

[ October 06, 2005, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ]


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Barry,

Why is there a little notice proclaiming an edit now?? Just curious as to its intent or purpose.

As in below.. And below....

[ October 06, 2005, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Sundance ]


----------



## Gardenpro (Jan 28, 2005)

Biodynamic farming is actually an accepted way with strict regulatory standards, at least here in BC Canada.
It takes a minimum of 3 years to become "Certified Organic" and then a minimum of two more aditional full years to become "Certified Biodynamic". I don't have any knowledge on what is being done with bees here but I know when Organics came into the stores, people laughed. Well guess what... 9% of people purchase some organic products. Big business is now clambering to to take it's share. So as long as it is regulated I feel it is worthy of exploration for a business venture, and who knows we may all learn something from their methods. And if they aren't using ANY chemicals sounds like they'll be the ones to breed mite/disease resistant strains which will save us all down the road.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

That's a great wrap-up for this thread - thanks Gardenpro for the pragmatic Canadian common sense.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Wow - have a houseguest and can't get to the computer and look at all the interesting things I missed out on. Anyhoo, waht I was going to say in the space reserved by my "whoops":

They are using it for
the benefit of the brood. So have they actually
consumed protein? 

Yes they have. OK - it is a word thing, I suspect we all agree more than we disagree. The cow analogy is partially correct, much of what a cow eats will end up in the milk, but much goes into the cows own nitrogen usage. The difference is that bees more than a few days old use *none* of the nitrogen to repair their own tissues. They do consume it though, it is not the same substance when those same atoms leave in the form of secretions or poop (gut ballast as the bee scientists like to call it). They consume it and use it to made brood food  but it is consumed never-the-less.

The steak and knife analogy is somewhat lacking in this context. If you used the knife to break down the meat, digest it, change it at a molecular level and then deliver it to a kid, then it would fit. In this instance wadding up some pollen and honey to feed out would make the mandibles analogous to the knife. But because the material we are discussing is eaten, digested and then used to make mandibular secretions, it is consumed and metabolized.

Bees eat the pollen, break down the proteins to amino acids and re-form them in the glands. So while Jim is correct, technically they derive nothing from the nitrogen contained therein, and are expending some significant amount of calories to pull the whole thing off (thank god for nectar). They are, however, by common definition of the word, metabolizing the protein. 

From www.dictionary.com :
1. The chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life. In metabolism some substances are broken down to yield energy for vital processes while other substances, necessary for life, are synthesized.
2. The processing of a specific substance within the living body: water metabolism; iodine metabolism.

Metabolism is not merely the rendering of materials for energy. In adult bees all of the ATP (energy) generating metabolism is carbohydrate metabolism. But processing fats, proteins, CHOs, mineral and water are also metabolic processes, vene if they do not result in a net increase in available energy. In fact, many metabolic processes require energy inputs.

I agree with Jim 100% however that they are giving the vast majority of that nitrogen away, to the youngest brood and/or queen who converts it into . . . more brood.

We are all talking about the same thing. I was being a little literal but I get" what Jim meant - and probably so do most people.

There is an excellent text on Nourishment and Evolution in Insect Societies. Eds James H. Hunt and Christine Nalepa. Tough to find, but good to ahve if you are nito these things. Won't necessarily make you a better beekeeper, but you can learn all sorts of interesting trivia about bees, wasps, ants and termites and why they eat what they eat the way they eat it.

Oh-oh, I mentioned the "E" word . . . here we go again.

In short - the vast, vast majority of nitrogen (protein synthesis, and tissue construction) metabolism in a honeybee colony is with the brood. Mature, adult bees, other than the queen use very little of that nitrogen within their own tissues, but do metabolize it so as to process it into appropriate foodstuffs for the queen and young larvae. Adult bees get their energy from CHOs exclusively. A rose by any other name . . . 

Keith

PS: Is that red chowdah (shudder) or white?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> PS: Is that red chowdah (shudder) or white?

Red chowdah would not ever be called "chowdah",
as anyone who could pronounce "chowdah" properly
would know that it is ILLEGAL to put tomatoes
in clam chowdah in the state of Massachusetts.

Other places, it is not a criminal matter,
it is just in extremely poor taste.









...and BoSox gonna do it again this year.
Once my lifetime is not enough!


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

I am glad to hear you say that. I would hate to see you arrested next time you crossed the MA boarder.

BoSox? Tragically the white sox knocked them out of the race. One of my friends in Chicago was greeted with a barage of clean white sox when she went to work after the last game. It'd be funny if if it were not so very sad.

Keith


----------

