# Clarifying 'Treatment Free'



## Rusty Hills Farm (Mar 24, 2010)

Ain't this poor horse dead enough yet? You've been beating it soooo long that there can't be much of the carcass left.




Rusty


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

mike bispham said:


> Since most people don't already have bees that can do that, part of the goal of the forum must be to direct them toward getting bees that can do that. That will mean identifying the differences between those that can thrive alone and those that can't; and working through the ways to have the former and not the latter.


Great, have at it. Personally, I think you put too much weight in trying to attain/find/raise the "right" bee. The experience of Dennis Murrell and myself has been that of using bee stock from a variety of sources.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> Great, have at it.


Thanks Barry.



Barry said:


> Personally, I think you put too much weight in trying to attain/find/raise the "right" bee. The experience of Dennis Murrell and myself has been that of using bee stock from a variety of sources.


If you and Dennis Murrell tried to find the wrong bee, and deliberate did the wrong things with it, would you expect the same results?

Maybe we're talking about the same thing. Any race/line that has some resistance is fine by me, and the more resistance the better - there isn't so far to go. Given that, what matters is ensuring you don't backslide in each generation. That means some sort of assay in each generation followed by selection for propagation.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> Ain't this poor horse dead enough yet? You've been beating it soooo long that there can't be much of the carcass left.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Neigh! That was just waking it up!

M


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

mike bispham said:


> If you and Dennis Murrell tried to find the wrong bee, and deliberate did the wrong things with it, would you expect the same results?


Say what?


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 12, 2014)

mike bispham said:


> Neigh! That was just waking it up!
> 
> M


Trolling hard still.....


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Originally Posted by mike bispham 
"If you and Dennis Murrell tried to find the "wrong" bee, and deliberately did the wrong things with it, would you expect the same results?"



Barry said:


> Say what?


I'm trying to understand what you mean by "too much weight in trying to attain/find/raise the "right" bee."

" The experience of Dennis Murrell and myself has been that of using bee stock from a variety of sources."

What makes you think I'd disagree with using bee stock from a variety of sources?

I wouldn't want severely mite-crippled stock in my breeding pool though. Would you?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI (Sep 14, 2007)

Mike, have you considered that one of the adaptations that some "survivors" have incorporated is frequent swarming? Bees have adapted to Varroa by swarming, and benefit from the inherent broodbreak that swarming provides.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Mike's assumption is the bees with greater fitness will be bees with most suitability to being kept for human honey production.

Alternatively, consider whether varroa contributes fitness to a genotype of bees. I know this sounds absurd --but: Genes are transmitted without delay by drones which are capable of being created by 6 week old queens -- these particular "selfish" genes might find that high parasitism promoted their competitive advantage over genes that create long-lived colonies. The genes don't care if the colonies live for three years, only that they can expand and replicate -- and r-selection -- quick, rapid expansion with low-investment propagules -- such as drones -- is typical of very successful "weed" strategies.

Varroa has been challenged by hundreds of millions of feral hives across continents -- it persists a high levels because it is performing a critical evolutionary function. Mike is completely missing the logic of his own position.

Mike is equating what is convenient for a British pensioner (easy collection of surplus honey), with what is adaptive for a species. Colonies die all the time, it is the ones with the greatest reproduction that dominates a population. A gene that promotes the toxic death of its direct competition with have the greatest reproductive capacity.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I don't have time to go find your quotes, but you have placed heavy emphasis on feral bees as the answer and have had negative things to say about commercial breeders. I have used commercial stock in my hives. It hasn't been an issue with me at least. I haven't gone out of my way to spend a lot of time breeding a resistant bee. They do it themselves.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> Mike, have you considered that one of the adaptations that some "survivors" have incorporated is frequent swarming? Bees have adapted to Varroa by swarming, and benefit from the inherent broodbreak that swarming provides.


Yes I have Adam. But they can all go into the pond, and any that swarm too soon/too often/don't respond to my asking nicely not to swarm (by giving them room) won't get much weight.

I reckon that's the way to handle it. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> I don't have time to go find your quotes, but you have placed heavy emphasis on feral bees as the answer and have had negative things to say about commercial breeders.


Just a mo: are we talking about mite-resistant breeders (like Weavers) or commercials who are working toward resistance, or commercials who simply medicate systematically? 

You're right in thinking I am keen on ferals, esp. as here where there are no bred resistant bees to be had. As I'm sure you know I'm not the only one to adopt that approach.



Barry said:


> I have used commercial stock in my hives. It hasn't been an issue with me at least. I haven't gone out of my way to spend a lot of time breeding a resistant bee. They do it themselves.


Do you do anything else Barry? Do you not treat and select from most productive? (Selecting for resistance). Do you use small cell? Do you have a healthy local breeding pool (ferals, non treating/beekeepers)? Do you create artificial brood breaks - deliberately or accidentally?

Let us have some detail about your particular context, so we can try to understand why works for you might not work for others.

BTW I posted recently about Randy Olivier's take on tf and 'domesticated' bees. Did you see that? Any thoughts?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> Mike's assumption is the bees with greater fitness will be bees with most suitability to being kept for human honey production.


Your 'greater fitness' is I reckon commensurate with the sticky's 'letting them cope with disease on their own'.

That is: the topic of conversation here starts from the premise that it is possible to get, or make, or maintain, bees with 'greater fitness'.

Challenging that premise, while perhaps not off-topic, is a bit eccentric. We're here to talk about ways of raising 'fitter' bees. It is assumed that is possible.



JWChesnut said:


> I know this sounds absurd --


Yes. As I recently showed your 'hypothesis' leads directly to absurdities in the form of contradictions to well attested realities: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ee-adequate-to-the-task&p=1074828#post1074828

I notice you didn't contest any of that post.



JWChesnut said:


> Mike is equating what is convenient for a British pensioner (easy collection of surplus honey), with what is adaptive for a species.


I'm not theorising about such things. Its known that breeders can concentrate desirable traits, and that's what we're setting out to do. 



JWChesnut said:


> Colonies die all the time, it is the ones with the greatest reproduction that dominates a population.


Sure. But the dominant factor governing successful reproduction is efficiency at energy-gathering and conversion (to offspring). (Including successful storage/defence). "Energy is the fundamental object under contention in natural selection". See primer: Energetics of Evolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann#The_Boltzmann_equation

Both we and Nature want something very similar: bees that are good at their job (of passing on their genes): and part of the spec for both of us is: high productivity. So in selecting for self-sufficiency and high productivity we are doing just what nature does - which automatically fixes any problems below decks.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

mike bispham said:


> Just a mo: are we talking about mite-resistant breeders (like Weavers) or commercials who are working toward resistance, or commercials who simply medicate systematically?


No Weavers. My last purchase was from Johnny (Broke-T) 2-3 years ago. Swarms as well. Who knows which breeder those genetics came from?




> Do you do anything else Barry?


I paint the inside of my woodenware! 



> Do you not treat and select from most productive?


I'll bee splitting from my winter survivor and will buy a queen or two as well as let them raise their own.



> Do you use small cell?


Yes.



> Do you have a healthy local breeding pool (ferals, non treating/beekeepers)?


Not that I know of.



> Do you create artificial brood breaks - deliberately or accidentally?


No.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> I'll bee splitting from my winter survivor and will buy a queen or two as well as let them raise their own.


If you're splitting regularly you're creating artificial brood breaks. Do your hives last 3 or 4 years without any splitting?



Barry said:


> (Small Cell)
> Yes.


Some people swear by small cell, and it may very well be effective. But it isn't "letting them cope with disease on their own."

It seems to me you could be inadvertantly creating artificial brood breaks, your small cell is helping, hives maybe aren't lasting long. 

I wouldn't say this rates very high on the scale of "_letting them cope with disease on their own_." Nor, in itself, that its likely to lead toward that aim. 

Maybe I'm wrong about some of this. We're just talking. I'd be interested to know more about your situation, including what you rate as success and how far you feel you are achieving it.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI (Sep 14, 2007)

Mike, in one traditional form of husbandry the effect of parasites on crops or animals was reduced by rotating the crop or animal through a series of fields. That rotation had to start somewhere with one individual reasoning it out, or an individual noticing that it worked and deliberately perpetuating the system. I suspect when the process first started there was someone arguing against it, perhaps as being unnatural, against tradition, too complicated, or too much work.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

I'm sure that saying this will prove to be a pointless exercise, but in my view, suppressing swarming is taking from the bees a tactic that they have used to survive for millions of years. Of course, rather than letting one's bees fly away into the trees, one could get exactly the same effect by making a split-- same brood break, same effect on brood parasites as swarming. If you're going to try to breed resistance into your stock, to me it seems vastly more reasonable to work within the species' natural behavior than to try to subvert it by artificially avoiding all brood breaks. And that is exactly what you are doing when you provide your splits with mated, laying queens. (I'm not attacking this practice, I'm just saying that this is an inconsistency in Mike's philosophy that bothers me and prevents me from taking his anti-manipulation rhetoric seriously.)


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

mike bispham said:


> If you're splitting regularly you're creating artificial brood breaks. Do your hives last 3 or 4 years without any splitting?


I haven't been at one place long enough to get any kind of longterm data. Life keeps getting in the way. Some have lasted that long. 



> Some people swear by small cell, and it may very well be effective. But it isn't "letting them cope with disease on their own."


If you are anti managing bees, why even keep them? Why not just frolic through the forest and cut out wild feral comb when you have a honey fix? BeeKEEPING has always entailed manipulation. After all, we're going to steal some of their honey! But even here, I'm a minimalist. I stay out of my hives as much as possible. I tend to do less than more. Life is busy and that's how it works for me. Years ago I spent a lot of time working/testing/studying bees.



> I'd be interested to know more about your situation, including what you rate as success and how far you feel you are achieving it.


Right now I don't have a goal with bees. Between work and managing this forum/site, I'm fortunate to still have bees.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> If you are anti managing bees, why even keep them?


There are lots of different forms of 'managing'. Some contribute to a long term aim of raising resistance. Some don't. Some send it backwards. 

I like to understand which is which. It seems to me that to fulfil the stated aim of this forum we all have to do that. Figuring out how to is what the forum is for.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> Mike, in one traditional form of husbandry the effect of parasites on crops or animals was reduced by rotating the crop or animal through a series of fields. That rotation had to start somewhere with one individual reasoning it out, or an individual noticing that it worked and deliberately perpetuating the system. I suspect when the process first started there was someone arguing against it, perhaps as being unnatural, against tradition, too complicated, or too much work.


Adrian, 

I'm sure you're right about all these things. What bearing does any of it have on raising resistance?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

Barry said:


> Between work and managing this forum/site, I'm fortunate to still have bees.


:thumbsup: Three cheers for Barry! (Rah, rah, rah!) :applause:

Seriously!

I don't understand this dispute, because I don't see how it applies in what we actually DO do with the bees. I'm looking for practical applications. Mike, what do you DO with your bees?

It seems like there's lots of opinions, and opinions about opinions. The sticky just carves out some space for discussion. If it sets high standards, I think we can fudge it, in what we DO, but that doesn't make the standards irrelevant.



mike bispham said:


> The topic of conversation here starts from the premise _that it is possible to get, or make, or maintain, bees with 'greater fitness'_. ... We're here to talk about ways of raising 'fitter' bees. It is assumed that is possible.


I'm not sure about that premise. The bees themselves (their genetics?) are only one part of the equation. (I was interested, elsewhere, in the microbial part of the bee colony.) And it seems to me the beekeeper is another part of the system. And what we take from the hive, as well as possibly put into it, and other manipulations, too, beyond what the bees themselves would think to do (with their genetic programming). Then there are lots of uncontrolled factors, like weather, time available for beekeeping, the local environment, etc.

And pests and diseases come into the picture. One option is to try chemical treatments. Which seems simple, but they can mess up other, more 'natural' ways for the system to adapt. So for people who don't accept the "easy answers," there are some who say we can and should skip the chemical treatments. That doesn't mean do nothing, right?

Mike, you seem to be saying that if we focus single-mindedly on raising 'fitter' bees, other issues will fall by the wayside. Maybe I've don't understand. But if that's sort of right, can you explain the basic steps involved that take us in that direction? The practical question for me is — How? 

I've got three hives. I'm not up for chasing feral bees, if there are any around here. I'm in a Beek Guild that is talking now about improving the level of our stock, generally. So what are the practical steps we can consider?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

rhaldridge said:


> I'm sure that saying this will prove to be a pointless exercise, but in my view, suppressing swarming is taking from the bees a tactic that they have used to survive for millions of years.


Yes. And if I thought it was having a detrimental effect I'd adjust accordingly. But it seems to me that the main cause of swarming, most of the time, is too little space. When bees have nowhere to put honey they go into swarming mode. So simply giving them room isn't selecting for lower swarming rates. Its just working with their normal healthy system. 



rhaldridge said:


> Of course, rather than letting one's bees fly away into the trees, one could get exactly the same effect by making a split-- same brood break, same effect on brood parasites as swarming.


If you cramped them deliberatedly you'd achieve the same thing. 

The point is this: I want to select bees that are good at managing mites, and the only way I'm going to find out which ones fit the bill is to not cramp them and not artificially brood break them. 

Doing anything else will ruin the assay system.

If, worse, I systematically split in order to control varroa for them then I've removed the pressure that would tell me which are resistant, and, worse, I've maintained those that are not resistant. They are now free to multiply, spreading around exactly the genes I'm trying to replace in order to raise resistance. There is no difference (in terms of undermining resistance) between that and chemical treating.



rhaldridge said:


> If you're going to try to breed resistance into your stock, to me it seems vastly more reasonable to work within the species' natural behavior than to try to subvert it by artificially avoiding all brood breaks.


The 'species' natural behavior' takes place in a setting in which those that don't behave well are killed pronto. Those that behave best have their genes promoted. 

* That is the most important part*.

Take away natural selection, and fail to replace it with a system of human selection that is as effective at ensuring the fittest reproduce in the greatest number, and the result *can only be* declining health. 



rhaldridge said:


> And that is exactly what you are doing when you provide your splits with mated, laying queens. (I'm not attacking this practice, I'm just saying that this is an inconsistency in Mike's philosophy that bothers me and prevents me from taking his anti-manipulation rhetoric seriously.)


Its traditional husbandry of the sort that has been practiced for thousands of years, and which has given us all the domesticated species - vegetable as well as animal. It isn't 'Mike's philosophy', its traditional husbandry, and its necessary to avoid wasteful losses and human-hand addictive scenarios.

Its also necessary to fulful the aims of this forum: *"bees [that] cope with disease on their own*."

Yes, its 'unnatural'. Anything you do is unnatural, by definition. The important this is to do those things that Nature would be doing anyway, but quicker, and without the waste. (Nature is extraordinarily wasteful)

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Kofu said:


> Mike, you seem to be saying that if we focus single-mindedly on raising 'fitter' bees, other issues will fall by the wayside.


I'm going to come back to you on the other questions Kofu, but here: varroa is understood to be the number one bee problem. In the main if beekeepers don't treat for it (or manipulate to help out) their bees soon fail to perform well, and usually die. It isn't just the mite that is the problem, its the fact that it vectors all sorts of the pathogens.

So yes, raising resistance does mean that, in your words, "other issues will fall by the wayside". It is also the root subject matter of this forum ("bees [that] cope with disease on their own.")

Getting free of treatments - getting to the stage where 'bees can live without our help' therefore involves raising their inbuilt resistance to varroa. This is fairly straightforward in theory, often harder in practice - there are variables that make a lot of difference. 

There isn't another way to achieve that goal - or another way to move toward it. Selective propagation is everything - though whether its you the beekeeper doing it, or a bee breeder, or natural selection in a feral population doesn't really matter. A combination of those three is probably best.

But there is no other route. Everything else is just noise.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Mike, how about spending time talking about the experiences you are having right now with your bees and what you're learning from them. Perhaps taking a break from theory and spending time on actual beekeeping, we could all relate better.


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> Varroa is understood to be the number one bee problem. In the main if beekeepers don't treat for it (or manipulate to help out) their bees soon fail to perform well, and usually die. It isn't just the mite that is the problem, its the fact that it vectors all sorts of the pathogens.
> 
> So yes, raising resistance does mean that, in your words, "other issues will fall by the wayside". ... This is fairly straightforward in theory, often harder in practice - there are variables that make a lot of difference.


Can you list the variables? Not to hold you to them, but I'm curious what you had in mind when you wrote that last sentence.



> Selective propagation is everything - though whether its you the beekeeper doing it, or a bee breeder, or natural selection in a feral population doesn't really matter. A combination of those three is probably best.


A lot of what I've learned so far moves me in a different direction, in the sense that there isn't one hoop to jump through and then everything is fine.

Some examples:

Varroa came, chemical treatments worked for awhile, then they didn't. New chemicals worked, then they didn't.
Three packages of bees I got all superseded their Queens within weeks, so now I have 50% local genetics. If I choose the best among them (how?), I still lose 1/2 the genetics every new generation.
Most Queens (in the U.S.) are bred from a handful of mother-Queens. A lot of the local stock got wiped out during this past winter, and "everyone" is getting new packages from the South, again.
I'm not saying you have it wrong, but it seems like we're on a treadmill that we have to keep walking on. (And that's okay.) Lots of things moving and changing. Humans developed breeds of cattle, horses, and chickens over the centuries, even thousands of years, and I think with industrial agriculture we're losing a lot of the diversity within breeds. That model worked while the world was more stable, but I'm asking, is that a model that will get us to a place where we can finally rest?

I think we suffer by comparison with what seems like the Golden Age of beekeeping which we had, according to lore, for maybe 50-60 years in the last century. Mike, I have an idea of what "husbandry" is. (I looked it up.) Is that a quaint idea now, or is it an approach that can get us through the beekeeping troubles we're having nowadays?


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

Obviously, I didn't look very far, on the topic of "beekeeping husbandry."

I did not realize that in British Beekeeping, it's a *big thing*, with a General Certificate available to beekeepers who have three years of experience under their belt. And if that's not enough, you can get an Advanced Husbandry Certificate.

The documents that attach to those pages are pretty interesting too. I realize on the one hand that "husbandry" in that context covers the whole gamut, but then I wonder what slice of that approach do you mean when you use the word, Mike?


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

mike bispham said:


> Y
> Its also necessary to fulful the aims of this forum: *"bees [that] cope with disease on their own*."


If you try to take away one of their innate coping tactics, you're making trouble for yourself, and them.

We can talk about the long history of animal husbandry, but with bees,it wasn't so long ago that beekeepers had to destroy a colony to harvest honey. Swarminess was considered a virtue, because swarming was the way beekeepers made increase. You ignore that history when you attempt to prevent swarms, either natural or artificial.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

rhaldridge said:


> If you try to take away one of their innate coping tactics, you're making trouble for yourself, and them.


I'm not sure what it is you think I'm trying to take away from them Ray. (Apart from vulnerability to mites of course)



rhaldridge said:


> We can talk about the long history of animal husbandry, but with bees,it wasn't so long ago that beekeepers had to destroy a colony to harvest honey.
> 
> I don't know the history, but Manley talks about starting his life as a beekeepers by 'driving' bees from skeps, paying sixpence for the resulting 'swarms'.
> 
> ...


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> Mike, how about spending time talking about the experiences you are having right now with your bees and what you're learning from them. Perhaps taking a break from theory and spending time on actual beekeeping, we could all relate better.


Barry, I have 28 overwintered hives which I'm encouraging to build (early) so as to give myself plenty of bees to work with. I'm aiming to triple numbers this year, with 60 entering next winter as 6 frame nucs, some to be offered for sale next spring. 

I'm also making 4-8 hive outstands in what I consider to be worthwhile places. And developing three dedicated mating sites.

The outstands and home hives will be production colonies, which I'll evaluate for breeding stock. 

So I'm developing a breeding apiary aiming at producing varroa resistant bees for sale, with a touch of honey production on the side. The goal is that this supplies about a third of my living, taking about a third of my time. 

My experience right now is that almost all colonies overwintered through the wettest winter on record (and probably the windiest too) and I understand why the 5 that failed did so. All look good - lots of pollen coming in, only a very slight touch of dwv from a couple of colonies. The older and larger ones remain competitors. One that has always struggled still struggles. 

What am I learning? Small late colonies can come through mild wet winters on almost no stores; more comb and stores = faster building (of course); evaluation for selection purpose continues to be a puzzle but I think I've thought about it enough to be happy that I'll make the right sorts of choices. Thriving older hives will be the best evidence of resistance. 

I'm sure there's lots more, but that's the sort of stuff that occupies my mind just now.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Mike Bispham: "So yes, raising resistance does mean that, in your words, "other issues will fall by the wayside". ... This is fairly straightforward in theory, often harder in practice - there are variables that make a lot of difference."



Kofu said:


> Can you list the variables? Not to hold you to them, but I'm curious what you had in mind when you wrote that last sentence.


Hi Kofu,

A) Access to bees with the right genes

B) Proximity to bees with the wrong genes.

You can look at this from the perspective of 'initial genetics' and 'maintaining genetics'.

Initial Genetics Factor:

If you can get hold of resistant bees, and you can maintain their resistance, you're well placed

If you can't get hold of resistant bees, and have to raise your own its all much harder

Maintaining Genetics

If you are near resistant bees, and have good genes flowing in, its easier

If you are near systematically treated bees, then even if you can get hold of good 'uns, you will have to take strong steps to keep them that way. (My position)



Kofu said:


> A lot of what I've learned so far moves me in a different direction, in the sense that there isn't one hoop to jump through and then everything is fine.


If you sourced resistant bess, and you have resistant bees around you, that should be the case. Not everyone can/has. Many people (and most commercials) are starting with unresistant stock, and their air is full of unresistant drones (theirs). Grim.

The Big Thing you have bear in mind, the underpinning of traditional husbandry, and 'having *bees that can cope with disease themsleves*' is this:

Populations of living organisms respond to environmental pressures. One of the most important parts of the environment is the predators that are determinedly targeting your energy! There is a constant evolutionary 'arms race' between predator and prey; and *each must evolve to stay ahead of/stay with its partner*. 

*Stop that evolution in the host, and the predator starts winning.*

Natural selection for the fittest strains takes care of that in nature.

Human selection for the fittest strains does that in traditional husbandry

If neither are happening then the predator will advance. As sure as night follows day, as sure as animals need oxygen: populations have to undergo selection to stay ahead of their predators.

Many people find this too complicated to follow, or too abstract to rely upon. But it is a reality. All organic husbandry always has, and always will, relied on good '*population husbandry*'. You have to 'put only best to best' to maintain health. *Routinely, systematically. Or else.*

So while there may be more than one hoop to jump through, this one is certain, compulsory, in all circumstance, everywhere, always. 

Or, you can rely on treatments. Bear in mind that unlike other stock, bees mate openly - so the treatments will feed poor genes back into the breeding pool, making more poor bees. And the predators the treeatment target will develop - adapt, evolve - resistance to the treatments.



Kofu said:


> I'm not saying you have it wrong, but it seems like we're on a treadmill that we have to keep walking on. (And that's okay.) Lots of things moving and changing. Humans developed breeds of cattle, horses, and chickens over the centuries, even thousands of years, and I think with industrial agriculture we're losing a lot of the diversity within breeds. That model worked while the world was more stable, but I'm asking, is that a model that will get us to a place where we can finally rest?


No. There's no rest. Its an arms race. But it isn't hard: you simply make effective selective propagation a routine part of your beekeeping.



Kofu said:


> I think we suffer by comparison with what seems like the Golden Age of beekeeping which we had, according to lore, for maybe 50-60 years in the last century. Mike, I have an idea of what "husbandry" is. (I looked it up.) Is that a quaint idea now, or is it an approach that can get us through the beekeeping troubles we're having nowadays?


I'm hoping the above answers that question Kofu, but keep reading and keep asking!

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Kofu said:


> Obviously, I didn't look very far, on the topic of "beekeeping husbandry."
> 
> I did not realize that in British Beekeeping, it's a *big thing*, with a General Certificate available to beekeepers who have three years of experience under their belt. And if that's not enough, you can get an Advanced Husbandry Certificate.
> 
> The documents that attach to those pages are pretty interesting too. I realize on the one hand that "husbandry" in that context covers the whole gamut, but then I wonder what slice of that approach do you mean when you use the word, Mike?


Excellent question: I don't know, I haven't done the courses, and I don't know anyone that has. But I do know that UK beekeeping is reliant on treatments. FERA (the uk bee oversight body) does issue guidance about treating 'lightly' to locate those that have some resistance, and making increase from them, but is a small part of a big 'husbandry' course that is largely focusssed on recogning diseases and treating them. Its 'orthodox' modern beekeeping. 

As to 'husbandry': the uk beekeeper's model is the 'veterinary' approach used by all kinds of husbandry nowadays - but without the 'population husbadry' that underpins health everywhere else. 

While the 'veterinary approach' largely works with closed mating systems, with (opem mating) bees its a disaster - the treaments rapidly become addictions. 

Its that trap we're trying to get away from here, by having *'bees that can cope with disease on their own'*

I try to speak separately about 'individual husbandry' and 'population husbandry'. They are very different things. In 'traditional husbandry' the latter formed the foundation of animal health, and the former was used to help maintain income. 

In tradional husbandry all less healthy individuals are strictly kept out of the breeding pool. Sires are the very strongest individuals only - your prize bulls. 

This is not for fun: its necessary to remain competitive. The best breeder is the richest farmer. Its about both health and productivity - and recognises that the two are intimately linked.

Amateur beekeeping has never really gone in for strict breeding. It didn't need to - bees were kept healthy enough in the large feral/wild populations, and - well it was only a hobby. Lose the ferals, and the need changes hugely. Get the population addicted to human help and the ferals won't survive anywhere near treating beekeepers. Now its a very different picture. The populations are sick, and the sickness is perpetuated by beekeepers. We're trying to break the grip, the cycle, of treatment - more treatment-addicted bees, by raising bees that can cope with the predators on their own. That requires dumping the veterinary approach (what the UK beekeeper education industry calls 'husbandry') and applying the methods of traditional husbandry.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> "So yes, raising resistance does mean that, in your words, "other issues will fall by the wayside". ... This is fairly straightforward in theory, often harder in practice..."
> 
> Initial Genetics Factor:
> 
> ...


I've cut the answer down to the essentials, above. Thanks. So it looks like I'm doing as well as possible under the conditions. I'm expecting a package of resistant bees, but the other colonies are one generation removed from systematically treated. At least they survived the winter. But systematically treated bees are all around -- the genetics are, anyway, regardless of how they've been treated, or not, since they arrived. Many local beekeepers are getting commercial packages from Georgia (again) to replace the deadouts from this past winter.

We're _talking_ about raising more resistant stock, locally, but really we're just getting started and most of us are still going for what's easiest — commercial packages. The guy who hauls them up, by the truckload, is a nice guy, long-time beekeeper, well regarded, and I'll sound like a crank if I object too loudly. There's very little local production in place, so what's the use?

So to go back to one thing you said ...



> If you are near systematically treated bees, then even if you can get hold of good 'uns, you will have to take strong steps to keep them that way.


What *strong steps* can I take? Or is this really a "we" thing?


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> As to 'husbandry': the uk beekeeper's model is the 'veterinary' approach ... While the 'veterinary approach' largely works with closed mating systems, with (open mating) bees its a disaster - the treatments rapidly become addictions. ... I try to speak separately about 'individual husbandry' and 'population husbandry'. They are very different things. In 'traditional husbandry' the latter formed the foundation of animal health, and the former was used to help maintain income. ...
> 
> Amateur beekeeping has never really gone in for strict breeding. It didn't need to - bees were kept healthy enough in the large feral/wild populations, and - well it was only a hobby. Lose the ferals, and the need changes hugely. Get the population addicted to human help and the ferals won't survive anywhere near treating beekeepers. Now its a very different picture. The populations are sick, and the sickness is perpetuated by beekeepers. We're trying to break the grip, the cycle, of treatment - more treatment-addicted bees, by raising bees that can cope with the predators on their own. That requires dumping the veterinary approach (what the UK beekeeper education industry calls 'husbandry') and applying the methods of traditional husbandry.


Thank you. The distinctions are helpful. And it illustrates what we're up against.

For me, thinking of traditional husbandry, I imagine the Germanic tribes with their cattle, encroaching on the Roman Empire, and then centuries and centuries of local breeding. It doesn't seem like we've got that kind of time now. I realize we have "modern husbandry," developed in the 1700s, which accelerates the process. But that also has changed a lot in the last fifty years, to artificial means with a radical narrowing of the genetic pool for many commercialized species.

Techniques such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer are frequently used today, not only as methods to guarantee that females breed regularly but also to help improve herd genetics. This may be done by transplanting embryos from high-quality females into lower-quality surrogate mothers - freeing up the higher-quality mother to be reimpregnated. This practice vastly increases the number of offspring which may be produced by a small selection of the best quality parent animals. On the one hand, this improves the ability of the animals to convert feed to meat, milk, or fiber more efficiently, and improve the quality of the final product. On the other, it decreases genetic diversity, increasing the severity of disease outbreaks among other risks.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry#Breeding_techniques​
(Sound familiar?)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Kofu said:


> The guy who hauls them up, by the truckload, is a nice guy, long-time beekeeper, well regarded, and I'll sound like a crank if I object too loudly.


Maybe a diplomatic approach will keep everyone happy.



Kofu said:


> There's very little local production in place, so what's the use?


Production of bees? Why not? Because the ones you're using don't overwinter well? Maybe time to start changing that...



Kofu said:


> So to go back to one thing you said ...
> 
> What *strong steps* can I take? Or is this really a "we" thing?


I work alone and have space and resources to make a good stab at, if not dominating my airspace, having my representatives there. But the first 'strong step' maybe is a sound plan, underpinned by a good understanding of what makes a difference. From an earlier post of yours:



Kofu said:


> Three packages of bees I got all superseded their Queens within weeks, so now I have 50% local genetics. If I choose the best among them (how?), I still lose 1/2 the genetics every new generation.
> 
> Most Queens (in the U.S.) are bred from a handful of mother-Queens. A lot of the local stock got wiped out during this past winter, and "everyone" is getting new packages from the South, again.


Those 'local genetics' may well supply better overwintering qualities. And they may supply some resistance too. So you could be in with a shot.

I'd avoid bringing in any more bees with dubious qualties, try to bring some with known or suspected resistant qualities. And gear up for making increase. You want to make more bees than you need so that you can let them alone and see which ones are better without losing them all. From the better ones make more, and replace the queens in the worst. (We'll talk about evaluating - 'assaying' later) 

That's the basics - you have to get your head round your own logistics plan.

Yes, planning to work with others is a great idea. Be open about what you are setting out to do and others may be inspired to join in the effort. Then you can learn from each-other, swap good genetic material, make up each other's losses and so on.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Kofu said:


> For me, thinking of traditional husbandry, I imagine the Germanic tribes with their cattle, encroaching on the Roman Empire, and then centuries and centuries of local breeding. It doesn't seem like we've got that kind of time now.


There's an account of the benefits of selective breeding in the Old Testament (Aaron). The phrase 'put only best to best' comes from the European Middle ages. And the fact of the highly developed vegetables that we have from all over the world demonstrates that farmers have long understood that 'like makes like' - if you want the best crop, plant seed from the best of the last. So while there is an effect over time, the longstanding principle of 'put only best to best' is something that relates to everyday husbandry. Always make each new generation from the best of the old. 



Kofu said:


> I realize we have "modern husbandry," developed in the 1700s, which accelerates the process. But that also has changed a lot in the last fifty years, to artificial means with a radical narrowing of the genetic pool for many commercialized species.


As you say, deliberate breeding toward specific objectives is a newer development. But it doesn't mean the older routines can be abandoned. Sexual reproduction throws up a range of qualities; not all do as well or better than their parents. Nature's trick is to take the best and make the next generation in larger measure from them alone. That's what farmers have always copied. Try to go round that and the facts of Nature will bite you.

Yes, loss of genetic diversity can be a problem. But its one we can largely ignore, because bees mate so widely. Unless you really are dominated by that one flow of constant genetical uniform bees. But in any case you'll be wanting to bring in bred resistant strains, and source ferals, so you'll be improving the local diversity constantly - or at least till you're happy you have a good local strain.



Kofu said:


> Techniques such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer are frequently used today, not only as methods to guarantee that females breed regularly but also to help improve herd genetics. This may be done by transplanting embryos from high-quality females into lower-quality surrogate mothers - freeing up the higher-quality mother to be reimpregnated. This practice vastly increases the number of offspring which may be produced by a small selection of the best quality parent animals. On the one hand, this improves the ability of the animals to convert feed to meat, milk, or fiber more efficiently, and improve the quality of the final product. On the other, it decreases genetic diversity, increasing the severity of disease outbreaks among other risks.
> -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry#Breeding_techniques​
> (Sound familiar?)


Yep. Sensible in an *open mating* organism? Nope. Illegal? Should be.

Mike (UK)


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

> Swarminess was considered a virtue, because swarming was the way beekeepers made increase. You ignore that history when you attempt to prevent swarms, either natural or artificial.





mike bispham said:


> Maybe there should be some fact checking before we build on that assumption.
> 
> Mike (UK)


 Before the invention of movable frames, honey was most often harvested by destroying the colony. Where do you think beekeepers got their replacement bees?

Any way, you could check out what Eva Crane has to say about swarm beekeeping, and also what she says about driven bees. Driving bees was not a particularly reliable way of preserving a colony, because bees were reluctant to leave brood, and without movable frames, it was far more difficult to relocate brood combs. 

http://books.google.com/books?id=WV...epage&q=beekeeping history skep swarm&f=false


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Watch this Mike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7M1X0bWYyo


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

And this one killing the brood over sulfur pits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M788T26WIlY


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Maybe there should be some fact checking before we build on that assumption.
> 
> Mike (UK)


What assumption?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

rhaldridge said:


> Before the invention of movable frames, honey was most often harvested by destroying the colony. Where do you think beekeepers got their replacement bees?


From driven bees if they had any sense. And from feral swarms, and from people selling bees probably. 

I don't think your proposition is rooted in fact. Show me why I'm wrong. 



rhaldridge said:


> Any way, you could check out what Eva Crane has to say about swarm beekeeping, and also what she says about driven bees. Driving bees was not a particularly reliable way of preserving a colony, because bees were reluctant to leave brood, and without movable frames, it was far more difficult to relocate brood combs.


What Manley writes seems to me to disprove that. Skilled driving, as I understand it, achieves just that - the complete colony, queen and all marching out into a new skep, ready to start building again. Perhaps you leave a little comb in to help the get established.



rhaldridge said:


> http://books.google.com/books?id=WV...epage&q=beekeeping history skep swarm&f=false


Could you summarise the parts you think are relevant and supply page numbers or search strings?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

beekuk said:


> And this one killing the brood over sulfur pits.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M788T26WIlY


Can you summarise what's happening there for us Pete?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Watch this Mike
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7M1X0bWYyo


Can you summarise it, preferably providing times for key parts, and tell us what you think we should take from the reference? 

Just citing book and film names and urls without close references to page numbers means we have to wade through the entiure thing to find out what it is you want to show us. That's obviously not practical.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> Just citing book and film names and urls without close references to page numbers means we have to wade through the entiure thing to find out what it is you want to show us. That's obviously not practical.


Gee, Mike, if you have bothered to even click on the Google Book link that Ray provided, you would see that the link takes you directly to the page which Ray thought was relevant, and even highlights the appropriate terms for you.



That isn't a special feature that Ray dreamed up, its just the way Google Book links work AFAIK.


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

mike bispham said:


> Can you summarise what's happening there for us Pete?


I am sure you have already done that, Mike...they are harvesting the honey and killing the brood after shaking/bumping/driving out the bees, much like Manley described as druv bees, packages, to restock more skeps, and also sell on surplus bees to other beekeepers.


----------



## Rolande (Aug 23, 2010)

Mike, 



> .....consequently to get at their honey, the necessity for destroying the Bees follows,and the suffocating fumes of brimstone at length bring these worthies to the ground to the unwelcome pit in which they are buried, and are, alas, no more! a few minutes close the existence of thousands that had laboured for their ungrateful masters; and their once happy domicile becomes a scene of murder, of plunder, and of devastation, which is a disgrace to Bee-masters,


page 51, Humanity to honey bees, or, Practical directions for the management of honey bees upon an improved and humane plan, by which the lives of bees may be preserved, and abundance of honey of a superior quality may be obtained by Thomas Nutt

http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cac...2aa6682d2056f1/5707376.78.s.text.content.html

The old literature is full of references to killing bees, even Manley (who you're using as an example here) wrote, in 'Honey Farming' page 16.



> Every village had two or three skeppists, and most of them would let you have the bees that were to be 'taken up' rather than kill them.


remember, here we're talking about the early twentieth century and still, there's a remnant of the historical practice being followed.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Just citing book and film names and urls without close references to page numbers means we have to wade through the entiure thing to find out what it is you want to show us. That's obviously not practical.
> 
> Mike (UK)


It is practical. There are no pages it's a video. It takes 12 minutes. Watch it.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

beekuk said:


> ..they are harvesting the honey and killing the brood after shaking/bumping/driving out the bees, much like Manley described as druv bees, packages, to restock more skeps, and also sell on surplus bees to other beekeepers.


So the driven bees are saved, the brood is killed. At least in some cases.

Is the brood killed and preserved - so that it doesn't all go mouldly while awaiting further processing?

Can we go back to the beginning now, Ray and ask just what it is you are saying about bees and swarminess and raising resistance, and historical practices? 

Are beekeepers relying on feral swarms each spring to supply new bees, or overwintering them after harvesting, or a bit of both?

I'm imagining that skep beekeeping involves having (generally not large) skeps filled to capacity, which will provoke swarming every time. I'm not sure how that equates to Ray's assertion that 'swarminess is desirable' for skeppists, and was therefore bred in (is that what you were saying Ray?)

We talked a bit quite recently about what seems to be a lately evolved strategy in ferals involving summer brood breaks, simply by the queen shutting down. That would have a bearing on this topic too?

As I say, can you recap and restate your ideas Ray?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> the link takes you directly to the page which Ray thought was relevant, and even highlights the appropriate terms for you.
> [...] the way Google Book links work AFAIK.


Ah, well its all new to me. It didn't work like that when I looked at a link to Manley Roland had sent from another thread. I had to fetch my copy, find a search string and do a search to find it.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> I'm imagining that skep beekeeping involves having (generally not large) skeps filled to capacity, which will provoke swarming every time. I'm not sure how that equates to Ray's assertion that 'swarminess is desirable' for skeppists, and was therefore bred in (is that what you were saying Ray?)
> 
> Mike (UK)


Watching the link I provided will assist your understanding. You ask these questions, a link is provided to help explain it, but looking at it is "obviously not practical" for you? Others have watched it so you may as well catch up.


----------



## Rolande (Aug 23, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Ah, well its all new to me. It didn't work like that when I looked at a link to Manley Roland had sent from another thread. I had to fetch my copy, find a search string and do a search to find it.


That's because I was lazy and made no effort to link directly to any specific text as it was your reference which you thought important enough to mention, so your place to show exactly which bits you were referring to. I was just giving a heads-up as to where to find it on-line (although the link to the Honey Farming pdf is already here on beesource).


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Watching the link I provided will assist your understanding.


Ok, I've watched it. Its interesting. How does it bear on the business of raising bees that cope with disease on their own? 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

rhaldridge said:


> If you try to take away one of their innate coping tactics, you're making trouble for yourself, and them.


In general terms I'll agree with that. But I think the case for thinking that swarming is necessary for mite management is weak to non-existent.



rhaldridge said:


> We can talk about the long history of animal husbandry, but with bees,it wasn't so long ago that beekeepers had to destroy a colony to harvest honey.


I think we've seen that wasn't always so. The movie we've seen shows 1 in 3 colonies being kept and an effort made to find the queens in the harvested ones. That is to preserve the colony, to maintain numbers for next year.

I realize that is only one sort of practice but it makes sense to think it was ever thus. No farmer is going to destroy all his stock and have to start again next year from scratch. It just doens't make sense. 



rhaldridge said:


> Swarminess was considered a virtue, because swarming was the way beekeepers made increase.


No. Productivity is the key virtue. Farmers set out to maximise yield. And they keep stock in whatever manner makes that easist. Having skeps that are vacated every 5 minutes won't cut it. In the operation we've seen they don't need to make increase - they're keeping all the queens, and they'll have collected a number of swarms over the summer. And they'll know how to make increase anytime they want with a few shaken bees and a bit of comb.



rhaldridge said:


> You ignore that history when you attempt to prevent swarms, either natural or artificial.


Apart from your interpretation of history being dodgy, as I've said, giving bees room so they don't swarm often is selection-neutral Ray. I don't think you've made your case.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> No farmer is going to destroy all his stock and have to start again next year from scratch. It just doens't make sense.


I beg to differ. 

There are plenty of farmers that grow [corn for instance] that buy their seed, plant, grow, harvest and do not keep seed corn for next year. They just buy more seed next year. 

There are farmers in the US that specialize in 'finishing' cattle. They buy young animals, do not breed them, but grow them to finish weight and sent them off to the abattoir. Repeat.

A similar process regularly happens with chicken farms in the US. 

And then we have commercial beekeepers that do the same thing. There are those that don't over winter their bees [they are shaken out] and just buy more next spring. At least one of those beekeepers posts regularly on Beesource.

It makes _economic _sense. :lookout:


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Ok, I've watched it. Its interesting. How does it bear on the business of raising bees that cope with disease on their own?
> 
> Mike


Hmm you must have lost it. It was to help you through the rather strange comments you had made about "swarminess" (your word :scratch.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> There are plenty of farmers that grow [corn for instance] that buy their seed, plant, grow, harvest and do not keep seed corn for next year. They just buy more seed next year.


Yes, of course. 

Is there any evidence of historical skep practices where all the bees are killed, with earlier swarms replacing them - as Ray's account goes? That would (I'd have thought) been the only setting in which it became desirable to have swarmy bees.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> It was to help you through the rather strange comments you had made about "swarminess" (your word :scratch.


Which ones would those be? 

I'm still waiting to hear: *what bearing on the business of raising 'bees that can cope with disease themselves' does this have?*

(BTW Google gets nearly 40,000 results for 'swarminess'. I don't think I made it up, and if I did I'm not ashamed.)


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

rhaldridge said:


> Before the invention of movable frames, honey was most often harvested by destroying the colony. Where do you think beekeepers got their replacement bees?





mike bispham said:


> I realize that is only one sort of practice but it makes sense to think it was ever thus. No farmer is going to destroy all his stock and have to start again next year from scratch. It just doens't make sense.





Rader Sidetrack said:


> And then we have commercial beekeepers that do the same thing. There are those that don't over winter their bees [they are shaken out] and just buy more next spring. At least one of those beekeepers posts regularly on Beesource.
> 
> It makes economic sense.


This is a rather interesting progression in thought.

At one time, beekeepers did destroy their bees(crop) but then the movable frame came to be and no longer was it necessary to destroy the bees in order to harvest the honey. Now we have some who "destroy" the bees and start over with bees every year. It might make economic sense, as long as everything goes right. It seems a bit like placing all your eggs in one basket. If your supplier ends up having problems, you end up having problems.


----------



## Rolande (Aug 23, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Yes, of course.
> 
> Is there any evidence of historical skep practices where all the bees are killed, with earlier swarms replacing them - as Ray's account goes? That would (I'd have thought) been the only setting in which it became desirable to have swarmy bees.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I'm not sure that's what he claimed, maybe I'm reading his posts wrong, however the fact that he backed up his comments with the Eva Crane link suggests to me that he's actually done some research on this subject. 

Here's one statement from one of his earlier posts:



> We can talk about the long history of animal husbandry, but with bees,it wasn't so long ago that beekeepers had to destroy a colony to harvest honey. Swarminess was considered a virtue, because swarming was the way beekeepers made increase. You ignore that history when you attempt to prevent swarms, either natural or artificial.


No mention of all stocks being killed. 

You used the fact that Manley took to driving bees in his early years to support your claim that bees were driven, not killed, despite his own reference to skeppists killing bees that I quoted earlier.

As for the German videos where the bees are driven, sure, they're great to watch. I for one find them very interesting but lets not forget that they're relatively recent 1970's/80's(?) so may not be fully representative of older methods; just because they were using skeps doesn't mean that all technical development had stopped at some point in the past.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Barry said:


> This is a rather interesting progression in thought.
> At one time, beekeepers did destroy their bees(crop) but then the movable frame came to be and no longer was it necessary to destroy the bees in order to harvest the honey. Now we have some who "destroy" the bees and start over with bees every year. It might make economic sense, as long as everything goes right. It seems a bit like placing all your eggs in one basket. If your supplier ends up having problems, you end up having problems.


Before skeps, the ancients used ceramic tube hives. They could harvest honey from the back of the tube without having to disturb the broodnest area in the front of the tube.

I think that many TF beekeepers operating independently may face a 'supplier' problem if things go wrong because they have to go back to step one.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> I'm still waiting to hear: *what bearing on the business of raising 'bees that can cope with disease themselves' does this have?*


Why when that was not your question I responded to? My response was to your statements showing ignorance of the topic of the moment, being "swarminess". In particular the way it was used and encouraged in the past, your clearly displayed a lack of understanding.

So, I posted a video to help with that, but you 1. tried to argue your way out of watching it, and now 2. say it does not answer some totally different question to the one you raised at the time.

It is clear that you are simply arguing with all comers, just for the sake of it. You are also trying to create confusion and obtusification to avoid confronting or learning anything, plus keep a circuitous argument going for no good purpose.

While in some things you are correct if rather one eyed, I can see why support for your views, and for the idea you tried to float of yourself becoming a moderator, went down like a lead balloon, people just are not bothered with some of the methods, and tricks, used to try to manipulate public opinion, they are not working.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Maybe there should be some fact checking before we build on that assumption.
> 
> Mike (UK)


What assumption?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Rolande said:


> No mention of all stocks being killed.


Eh? What does this say (right above your quote):

"*We can talk about the long history of animal husbandry, but with bees,it wasn't so long ago that beekeepers had to destroy a colony to harvest honey*. "

What does "*destroy a colony* " mean if not kill the stock?

This is the part I find difficult to swallow - and all my remarks have been made in this context - historical circumstances of the sort Ray is talking about. It was in this context that I spoke about it not making sense to destroy the stocks. 

Because: at this time I would doubt replacements could be found next spring that would outperform overwintered stocks. That's the picture we saw in the German video, and yes its relatively modern, but the uncertainty and economic factors would be similar.



Rolande said:


> You used the fact that Manley took to driving bees in his early years to support your claim that bees were driven, not killed, despite his own reference to skeppists killing bees that I quoted


Yes, honey farming page 16: "Every village had two or three skeppists, and most of them would let you have the bees that were to be 'taken up' rather than kill them."

This doesn't say 'kill them all' It says 'some were to be killed'. Sure, every skep has to be cleared of bees ('drove') and the brood and emerging bees inside killed. It might often pay to kill some of the flying bees (that would depend on individual circumstances). 

But what I want to know - that is see historical evidence for, and have explained to me - is: does it pay to eliminate all, or most stocks in the autumn?

We have to bear in mind that cheap sugar wasn't available, and honey was too valuable to waste on bees. That works in your favour. 

But is it really the case that all colonies were destroyed and next year's crops became reliant on catching early feral swarms in the spring? Or were a selection of skeps overwintered and relied upon to produce swarms next spring? Did skeppists really not know how to make splits?

Just what is it you're asking me to believe? I don't think yet you're presented compelling evidence for destruction of all colonies, in all situations, and it doesn't make sense to me. 

That seems to be what you are saying. If you can back this up with evidence, if we can rebuild a picture of the year-round operation, in which all, or most are killed, then we will be in a position to ask how a greater or lesser proclivity toward swarming might be regarded. And we'd have to ask how widespread the methods you propose were.

This is Nutt's quote:
"51 Ancient as well as modern Bee-keepers have frequently adopted the plan of eking, that isplacing three or four rounds (called an eke) under their hives. This method of enlarging a hive does in many instances prevent swarming during the first season. Notwithstanding, from all that I can see in it, it tends only to put off the evil day, and to accumulate greater numbers for destruction the following year. This is certain, because on minute examination of the pavilion of nature, we see an increase of wealth, as well as an increase of numbers in the state; but there is no provision or contrivance in the conunon hive for dividing the produce of the labours of those numbers: eking will not do it, eking enlarges the hive, and that is all it does; consequently to get at their honey, the necessity for destroying the Bees folio ws,and the suffocating fumes of brimstone at length br|ng these worthies to the groundto the unwelcome pit in which they are buried, and are, alas, no more! a few minutes close the existence of thousands that had laboured for their ungrateful masters; and their once happy domicile becomes a scene of murder, of plunder, and of devastation, which is a disgrace to Bee-masters"

There is nothing here to suggest that queens are being lost. It makes sense to me to understand that in both this and Manley's text bee numbers are being reduced - to a state where the colony can be overwintered on minimal stores - on comb and honey built and gathered late in the year - ready to build again the next spring.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> At one time, beekeepers did destroy their bees(crop)


The honey is the crop Barry.



Barry said:


> but then the movable frame came to be and no longer was it necessary to destroy the bees in order to harvest the honey.


It was no longer necessary to destroy the *comb* to get at the honey. The *colony* could always be preserved by driving. Colonies could be reduced in size if that was thought desirable. And yes they could have been killed if that was thought desirable. The only circumstances I can think of where that *would* be desirable are:

a) too many colonies (as a result of swarm collecting) 

b) too late in the year for them to build new comb and store to overwinter

c) inadequate weathering for overwintering

d) a desire to take out weak performers for selective breeding purposes

I know the assumptions. What I'm trying to get to are the historical facts, and, in their absence, a good likely interpretation of the evidence, and an idea of the range of applicability of any conclusions we might reach.



Barry said:


> Now we have some who "destroy" the bees and start over with bees every year. It might make economic sense, as long as everything goes right. It seems a bit like placing all your eggs in one basket. If your supplier ends up having problems, you end up having problems.


And was always thus. Do we really think all pre-frame hive beekeepers threw caution to the wind, and risked having no bees and no crop next year?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> Before skeps, the ancients used ceramic tube hives. They could harvest honey from the back of the tube without having to disturb the broodnest area in the front of the tube.


Just now I can't think of a good reason why skeppists shouldn't do the same.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> It is clear that you are simply arguing with all comers, just for the sake of it.


When I was studying classics during my Ba I learned that the only proper way to approach history is by *interrogating the evidence*. That is: you find as many ways as you can to access *the evidence* (primary and secondary literature, archaeology, anything else you can think of) and then you try to rebuild the circumstances that contextualise what it is you want to learn about.

That's what I'm doing. 

One of the things you *don't* do is simply accept the common knowledge. 



Oldtimer said:


> You are also trying to create confusion and obtusification to avoid confronting or learning anything, plus keep a circuitous argument going for no good purpose.


Why do the words pot, kettle and black spring so very clearly to mind?

"obtusification" eh? (Google: 1190 results) And you accuse me of making words up? I got 40,000 backers!



Oldtimer said:


> [...] some of the methods, and tricks, used to try to manipulate public opinion.


Pot, black and kettle cubed! 

More interestingly: more and more Oldtimer seems to me to be a committee. Sometimes he's lucid, razorsharp even. Othertimes he can't compose a clear sentence. Will the real Oldtimer please stand up?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Mike:

Here's a link to an article describing one version of tube hives found at an archeological site in Israel: 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904114558.htm

40cm X 80cm clay/straw, unbaked tubes.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Why do the words pot, kettle and black spring so very clearly to mind?


No idea in this case maybe you judging others by yourself. 



mike bispham said:


> Oldtimer seems to me to be a committee.


LOL now I'm a committee. You keep trying to categorise me, same as you try to categorise your version of theory of evolution. 

But hey



mike bispham said:


> Maybe there should be some fact checking before we build on that assumption.
> 
> Mike (UK)


What assumption? Seems you are continually scared to answer cos the original statement was not thought through properly?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> Here's a link to an article describing one version of tube hives found at an archeological site in Israel:
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> But I think it should have its own thread. This one is about clarifying 'Treatment Free'.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Really? Most of it's been same as every Bispham thread. Off topic & confrontational.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> What assumption?


I think the sharper member/s of your committee will understand that we are exploring the matter with a view to discovering just what are, and are not, assumptions. Perhaps you could have that member explain it to the present member.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Off topic


t:

Hahaha!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Since I don't understand your assumption I am hardly in a position to explain it, am I. 

That's why I asking you to explain it.

But, just being given the run around by obtusification, one of your common avoidance techniques. What are you afraid of? You can't explain yourself?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Since I don't understand your assumption


See my reply post #71



Oldtimer said:


> What are you afraid of?


Being sucked into a nonsense dialogue with what appears to be a committee whose apparent reason for being is... 

"*trying to create confusion and obtusification*"

...in relation to the effort to find the best ways of: *how to keep bees by letting them cope with disease on their own.*.

That's what this forum is for.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Well no, that's just another tactic typical in a Bispham thread, avoidance of answering questions perceived as too hard. You do it a lot.

In this case I'm asking you to explain what assumption you referred to, but you seem unable. Don't worry. Same thing happens to lots of people who allow their mouth to run away with them.

But hey, if you do figure out what you were talking about please let's know.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

O.K. Mike, but here's one last link to an article with a nice photo of a stack of tube hives found at an archeological site:

http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Antiquity 2008.pdf


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

WLC, Mike has already dismissed the relevance of your tube hives in post 69

And when he flat refuses to even explain his own statements (admittedly cos he was shooting his mouth of and now realises he was wrong), you got no show with yours.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

OT:

He bought up the 'skep' issue. I just wanted to show that at least some of the ancients practiced a more sustainable form of beekeeping. In fact, I believe from what I've read that the clay/straw, tube beehives are still in use in some parts of the Mideast.

While current laws prohibit the practice here, I can see the appeal in using tube hives which can be made from readily available materials.

Clay, sand, straw, water, and Honeybees are the main requirements.

They still build with adobe in the SW.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

>Did skeppists really not know how to make splits?

Good grief.


----------



## Deepsouth (Feb 21, 2012)

It always seems that the treatment free forum always has the most conflict.
I read this entire subject and it seems everyone is putting mike down for trying to develop good resistant stock. Maybe he can and maybe he cant but is this not the whole purpose of the treatment free forum. 
Keep doing what your doing mike people will have to do it eventually.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

rhaldridge said:


> >Did skeppists really not know how to make splits?
> 
> Good grief.


Good grief what?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI (Sep 14, 2007)

I have watched all the Heathland Beekeeping videos on youtube, and I recall that the stocks are "thumped out" and used to restock skeps that are built up for next year to be overwintered. What I didn't put together at the time was that those bees also have a brood break forced on them by the 'thumping". 
So to rework my previous analogy (post #17): Under this system think of the bees as part of the crop being rotated through a series of fields (skeps). Each year the harvest is taken, the seed (bees) are gathered and put into a new field (skep), and the old field (skep) is left fallow (empty). Admittedy, this doesn't raise resistance - it was never meant to - but it does serve the bees by allowing them to break free of brood diseases and live on fresh comb.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> I have watched all the Heathland Beekeeping videos on youtube, and I recall that the stocks are "thumped out" and used to restock skeps that are built up for next year to be overwintered. What I didn't put together at the time was that those bees also have a brood break forced on them by the 'thumping".


Adrian,

In that operation new stocks come from prime swarms and casts made in early summer, and from little mating nucs made up from spare collected casts,a nd from culled queen cells. What with the drove bees, I doubt that business is ever short of stocks, and probably sells a great many (the bees would be another crop). 

In the much more usual village settings that dominated beekeeping till the 21st C., I would imagine a similar sort of maintenance of stock numbers. I still can't see a great deal of benefit in killing colonies, unless are there just too many at the end of the year, not enough having been sold, and/or a culling of older and/or weaker is desired.



Adrian Quiney WI said:


> So to rework my previous analogy (post #17): Under this system think of the bees as part of the crop being rotated through a series of fields (skeps). Each year the harvest is taken, the seed (bees) are gathered and put into a new field (skep), and the old field (skep) is left fallow (empty). Admittedy, this doesn't raise resistance - it was never meant to - but it does serve the bees by allowing them to break free of brood diseases and live on fresh comb.


The old fields still contain the 'plant' - a colony with a nice new queen. So there is no 'fallow' I agree its had a brood break, and that may have had some benefit. And that this was probably very like the more common village, secular estate and and abbey settings. 

Its worth noting that in all those settings prior to the industrail revolution, and in most well into the 20th C, a large wild native population was also present, which would tend to maintain and transfer naturally selected traits into all but the largets operations.

Its also worth noting that this operation is geared up to this way of working, and the size of its skeps might well be chosen in part to facilitate it. I'd think pretty much all skeps would swarm - certainly all the more vigourous - simply because that's what bees do when they run out of room. Larger skeps would tend to swarm less reliably - though all else being equal those that did would be the more vigorous and productive colonies - or perhaps those with a propensity to swarm.

It all very interesting, but I think we should be careful how much we analyse this model and extrapolate to a proposed norm. And we shouldn't simply assume no artificial selection of any kind is going on. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

mike bispham said:


> Good grief what?
> 
> Mike (UK)


If you were a skeppist, how would you make a split? And do you have any evidence whatever that skeppists did actually make splits? And if they did, how would they do so without a brood break?

I believe that I predicted that there would be no point to this "conversation" but to restate my attempt to communicate certain facts to you: bees have been swarming and using brood breaks to deal with parasite problems for millions of years. And despite your attempts to invoke historic support for your apparent view that brood breaks are antithetical to proper animal husbandry, it turns out that* swarms*, including the unavoidable brood break, have been the manner in which beekeepers have always made increase, prior to the invention of movable frames.

No doubt, you will resist these facts by your usual techniques, but I've grown bored. So, bye.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I'd still like my simple question answered, ie, what was the assumption he referred to? 

But I guess some folks would rather spend pages arguing and obtusificating, that answering a simple question.

And it is that attitude, why Bispham threads always go the way they do.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

rhaldridge said:


> If you were a skeppist, how would you make a split?


Ray, 

The same way I make them now but with a bit of hot wax or some sharp sticks to affix the brood comb.



rhaldridge said:


> And do you have any evidence whatever that skeppists did actually make splits?


Kind of. Fixing comb in what appear to be the sort of cylindrical (or square section) hives we've seen recently in ancient Egypt *for the purpose of making increase* is noted in The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting by Eva Crane, page 210 [1]. 

If I were in a village setting in say Europe, any time when skeps were still used, and found myself with a couple of strong colonies in April, where I usually had 12 or 15, I'd be tempted to make daughter colonies. 

In any year, I'd want my stock numbers up to maximise my harvest, and I'd do what I could. I'd be astonished if that didn't involve making daughter colones, and sometimes, deliberately raising and mating queens too. It maximises production, and takes out uncertainty - so it should be anticipated. 



rhaldridge said:


> And if they did, how would they do so without a brood break?


Take a bit of brood comb and... the usual. Leaving the queen behind means no break in the mother colony. The daughter colony of course gets a brood break (In this walk-away 'split' scenario).



rhaldridge said:


> bees have been swarming and using brood breaks to deal with parasite problems for millions of years.


I agree. Perhaps I've under-rated the point. Thank you. 



rhaldridge said:


> And despite your attempts to invoke historic support for your apparent view that brood breaks are antithetical to proper animal husbandry...


As you can see, I've provided quite a persuasive piece of evidence.

What I've always said was that systematic use of brood breaks seems to me to be no different to chemical treatment in its effect on the co-evolution of bees and mite. It seems to me to be less than a half-measure, something that will act as a brake on a fuller co-evolution, which would allow colonies to live and thrive without having to swarm every year. 



rhaldridge said:


> ...it turns out that* swarms*, including the unavoidable brood break, have been the manner in which beekeepers have always made increase, prior to the invention of movable frames.


I think its likely you're partly - probably mainly - right. But its clear that there is evidence that at various times other ways of making increase were known, and that there was a huge range of practices. We shouldn't try to impose uniformity on history.

Whether that's still a good thing in the very different modern context (of very few feral bees in which natural selection can remove the weaker efficiently and thoroughly) is another matter.

(separately) It seems likely to me that the uniformity of size of the skeps we've seen in the German documentary are not a natural feature. That practice would tend to select for bees that do well _in that size of cavity_. And at that scale you're automatically selecting for bees that do well under that general regime. Maybe those are not important points. Maybe they are.



rhaldridge said:


> No doubt, you will resist these facts


I'll continue to make an effort to separate fact from semi-fact and factoid Ray. That'll involve me being variously right, wrong and semi-wrong I expect. And the same of most other contributors. That's generally how constructive dialogue works. If you don't like being wrong and/or semi-wrong from time to time, its probably best to just watch. But that would be a shame, because this sort of thing is useful and you can contribute. 

Thanks for prompting me to learn stuff, and giving me food for thought. Good luck with your bees.

Mike (UK)

[1] Table 24.4A http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pliny on beekeeping&f=false

I've lightly scanned a bit deeper and found that a german writer in the 1500s was noting queen cages.

P 239 (North Western Europe) has talk about skeps being made small to encourage early swarming

P 240 looks like a good place to start reading about UK skep beekeeping in the Early Modern Period.


----------

