THE REGRESSION FORUM

[derbeemeister]

FINSKY:
The question is not varroa. Question is on the whole back to nature. No thanks. IT MEANS REGRESSION OF BEEKEEPER.

It would be honest to tell new hobby beekeepers that wax strips and small cells and swarming crossbreeded bee stocks is ART OF REGRESSED BEEKEEPING.

But I am tired to give comments all the to same stupid things. You should give new name to this forum: REGRESSION FORUM.

ME:
A very good start, FInsky. There is a strong current throughout the 20th and now the 21st century that supposes that IF we went back to the OLD WAYS, all our problems would miraculously evaporate. Hello! There is no going back, only going forawrd. The problems we have now, they didn't have!

Be that as it may, there is a lot to be learnt from techniques invented a hundred or more years ago. Langstroth was the first to describe the "nucleus" system of beekeeping. In fact, his advances on queen selection and nucleus formation are worth at least as much as his perfection of the moveable frame hive.

This nucleus system was taken up and modified by queen breeders the world over. But it was taken to new level of usefulness by Brother Adam, where he raised queens during the summer and over-wintered them in order to have young TESTED queens in the spring, instead of requeening with newly mated queens which may or may not be any good.

THEN, Kirk Webster, utilizing ideas from his teacher Charles Mraz and Brother Adam too, moved the nucleus system to a further new level where he builds within his apiaries healthy colonies that build up successfully without chemical treatments. Of course, he is buying and further selectin mite resistant stock.

This is just the roughest sketch of what I think the KEY is to the beekeeping of the future, where we will not have to depend on chemicals to keep the hives alive. I am not anti-chemicals per se, but I am cognizant of the disasterous results of chemical dependency whether it be with our livestock or our own selves.

Herve Abeille
Cambridge, MA  USA


 :idea:

[derbeemeister]

Langstroth observed 150 years ago that bees could be continually be removed from healthy colonies without harm, much as a healthy person can give many quarts of blood over time with no ill effect.

Langstroth on making nucs:

These small colonies I shall call nuclei, and the system of forming stocks from them, my nucleus system; and before I describe this system more particularly, I shall show other ways in which the nuclei can be formed. If the Apiarian chooses, he can take a frame containing bees just ready to mature, and eggs and young worms, all of the worker kind, together with the old bees which cluster on it, and shut them up in the manner previously described ; even if he has no sealed queen to give them. If all things are favorable, they will set about raising a queen in a few hours. If the Apiarian has sealed queens on hand, they ought, by all means, to be given to the nuclei, in order to save all the time possible.

I come now to the very turning point of the whole nucleus system.

If some of the full combs are removed, and empty ones substituted in their place, she will speedily fill them, laying at the rate of two or three thousand a day ! When my strong stocks are from time to time deprived of one or two combs, if honey can easily be procured, the bees proceed at once to replace them, and the queen commences laying in the new combs as soon as the cells are fairly started. If the combs are not removed too fast, and care is taken not to deprive the stock of so much brood that the bees cannot keep up a vigorous population, a queen in a hive so managed, will lay her eggs in cells to be nurtured by the bees, instead of being eaten up ; and thus, in the course of the season, she may become the mother of three or four times as many bees, as are reared in a hive under other circumstances. By careful management, brood enough may, in this way, be taken from a single hive, to build up a large number of nuclei.

If the Apiarian attempts to multiply his stocks [too] rapidly ... I will ensure him ample cause to repent at leisure of his folly. If however, the attempt at very rapid multiplication is made only by those who are favorably situated, and who have skill in the management of bees, a very large gain may be made in the number of stocks, and they may all be strong and flourishing.

# Langstroth on the hive and the honey-bee: a bee keeper's manual.
# Langstroth, L.L. 1810-1895.
# Hopkins, Bridgman, Northampton : 1853.

 :idea:

[Finsky]

Yes, Langstroth hives are everywhere.

During my beekeping 43 years  the biggest thing is that colonies are 3 times bigger than in good old days.  It means that breeders have selected stocks whitch do not swarm. Back to nature and natural habits means smaller hives and much swarming. Also bees natural habit to defend it's hive returns to genes when you nurse bees with natural way. These are basic features when bee returns to nature.

During my beekeeping years average yields have rised 3-4 fold. I thought over, why? - But it is the size of bee colony!

50 years ago we have hives where it was impossible to put selected queens. It was better keep  native stock, what ever it means.

I took into use terrarium heaters 3 years ago to warm upp hives at spring. Many beekeepers  think in my country  that it is against nature. Sure it is, like all hives and whole beekeeping.
http://www.reptilica.de/shop/product_info.php/cPath/22_25_38/products_id/35/lang/english/index.htm?repSID=db8f498ea81a57ddf9ca4847b6c06ee7
.
.

[Jack Parr]

is at work.  No mystery here.

Me thinks that the attraction to " the good ole days " is a longing by mostly " old, and growing older "  people for a time of less complication in their lives. Young people don't have "good ole days" to concern themselves with.
So I would say that youth is wasted on the young???  :)

But of course the good ole days were lived when they, the now older folks " were young " and full of energy. I'm one of em.

It is intersting to note that the fear of " chemicals " which have provided people with longer and healthier lives, as promised,  are, in fact,  giving them longer, and, healthier lives to the point that old folks are becoming somewhat of a burden on society. Well, at least in the American society, unfortunately, that is very much the case.

I have the thought in my mind that nature, through evolution,  will eventually provide the apis melifera with the necessary natural defenses to cope with new health problems as they arise. But nature takes time and people are impaitent and curious. They want to intercede and help, or go against,  nature. Sometimes that works and sometimes not.

The important question is, are the bees ability to overcome whatever ails them due to human intervention or natural processes? Since scientist are experimenting and nature is working alongside who will prevail? How will we know?

It is curious that where I live there was a decimation of feral and in  fact most of the kept bees in 1997, or, there abouts due to mites.. That is what I recall being told by a local, long time beek, currently deceased. Last year 2005, I lost track of all the opportunities I had to capture feral bee colonies scattered in my community and, I had seven on my property. I also know that there no beeks nearby. So...

I hope i'm making some sense here versus adding to the confusion??? :lol:

[Finsky]

Most of people think that they can avoid chemicals. Some think that they can avoid computers. They do not know that home is full of computing technics, which "radiate" bad or send something what ever nongood.

We had instruction that naturally produced honey is not aloud to put on areas where farmers use artificial fertilizers. When authorities  thinked over, in Finland we have no such pastures. We use fertilizers in every place where we have honey flowers and hives. A lot of people think that fertilizers are poisons.

************

I has been interesting to me to read about feral bees aroung the globe.

In Tasmania it is said that feral bees are stock of German black. They are evil, very defensive and swarming. I suppose that there are guite few big tree holes so colonies must devide themselves all the time.

Some claim that "real" German black did not swarmed and it was nice and easy to handle. I do not know   where this myth com from.

In Australia feral bees are fefensive and swarming. And so on.

Many beekepers think that defensive and swarming  bees are adnormal,  somehow against good beekeeper. Many think that bees love the beekeeper and bees know him.  Beekeepers have  their fantasies and let them have.

One of the most interesting  is the basics features of races. It is diccicult to take them away. Carniolans have tendency to swarm. Why it has retained it's feature despite of long selection.

Where come from nice young girls and where come from nasty old women?  Not from same place, I suppose Now I wait the second banning warning from empasionated membes. :(
.

[derbeemeister]

We had instruction that naturally produced honey is not aloud to put on areas where farmers use artificial fertilizers.

ME:

SAme in US. WHen I was asking about producing organic honey the so-called authorities told me that it was impossible to produce organic honey in my area because of conventional farming. I pointed out the only farming going on in my area is corn, and bees don't visit corn plants. Not only that but our main honny plants are mostly wild: black locust, raspberry, basswood (linden), japanese knotweed, goldenrod, etc. Nothing doing, they said. You have to be 10 miles or something from the nearest farm. I thought organic beekeeping was about beekeeping techniques! Well, they didn't even want to talk about that. SO what is the incentive to NOT use chemicals, when they condemn your honey anyway for things you have no control over???



Where come from nice young girls and where come from nasty old women?  Not from same place, I suppose Now I wait the second banning warning from empasionated members. :(

ME:
Hah! Well, at least we'll see if anyone is listening, huh?

Herve

[randydrivesabus]

did the authorities mention anything about your neighbors' gardens and the chemicals they might use on them?

[ian michael davison]

Hi all
Finsky,Derbeemeister: At last a great deal of common sense and practical beekeeping advice. We have about 50 nucs that are over wintered each year and these hives are invaluable each spring. Most are overwintered in a bee shed that is not heated but the extra protection is well worth while.
 I would certainly agree that we should all be producing a few extra nucs to help us at the start of each season and help off set winter losses.
We see about one hundred new beekeepers each year and you have to start them off with good sound practical advice that's based on experience and best practice. The whole idea is to send them off with a good basic knowledge and simple techniques that they can progress from.
Should experienced beekeepers then decide to experiment and try different methods or theories they have the basic knowledge to get themselves out the crap when it all goes wrong. As for small cells for beginners ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Regards Ian

[derbeemeister]

 The whole idea is to send them off with a good basic knowledge and simple techniques that they can progress from.

Right. I am afraid the majority of people starting out in bees are hoping to buy them, set them up, and let them take care of themselves. Maybe that was possible once, though I doubt it. I have seen hives in favored situations like Point Loma, CA, USA where you could have a hive or two and do nothing but take off two or three hundred pounds of honey a year. Hardly ever swarmed if they kept them supered up. Of course, these let alone beekeepers used to get foulbrood with regularity and infect the neighborhood. Now they get mites and just lose the bees. How many times have I heard someone say "the bees left"?

No, it won't do to not learn the basics and I suggest "making increase" is the most important technique one should learn, aside from taking supers off and extracting! Again, I have seen this botched so many times it makes me sad to think upon it: forlorn frames of brood sitting in a nuc box with not even enough bees to cover the brood, let alone keep it alive. And they'll "let the bees" raise a queen. What sort of queen do you think will come of such a disaster? If that's how you are going to do it, better off to buy one from someone else.

Anyway, continuing on the theme of "Regressed Beekeeping", I want to reiterate that there is a lot to be learned from old books, because much or most of it was worked out through many hard years of doing the wrong thing. In fact, my pet peeve is books that gloss over the difficulties in trying to make beekeeping sound easy and trouble-free. Let me tell anyone starting out: things WILL go wrong. Someone should write a book on that subject. Or did they? Isn't there one called "Bad Beekeeping"? I don't have that, but I could write it.

Herve

 

[Michael Bush]

IMO, you folks have a lot of strange ideas.

You apparently believe that if bees are kept in a natural system where they are strong and healthy without your interference that they are, therefore, unproductive.  I have no idea where you would get such an idea.  You apparently believe that if you keep them in the “conventional” methods that require chemicals to keep them alive that they will be more productive and that to set up a natural system would be a huge step backwards  and that an unsustainable system (or perhaps more accurately a chemically sustained system) is more “scientific” than a sustainable (or self sustaining) one.

Frankly it’s all beyond my comprehension.  But we obviously have major philosophical differences.

I’ve kept bees since 1974.  In 1974 and 1975 I used terramycin because I had read all the books and believed they would die of AFB if I didn’t.  I finally just couldn’t do it anymore and have never used it since.  I’ve also never had AFB.  From 1975 until 2000 I did not use any chemicals whatsoever.  I’ve never used fumidil.   One year I used a grease patty because I didn’t know what killed my bees and was trying to figure it out.  One year I used some essential oils because I was desperate and hadn’t found a solution to the Varroa.  Two years I used Apistan, again because I didn’t have a natural solution.  One year I experimented with FGMO fog and Oxalic Acid evaporation while I was regressing the bees.  And since I have stopped using anything, again.  I’m not against doing what you have to do, but it’s beyond me that you apparently don’t believe that organisms need a natural balance and not a system that is held up by artificial means.

I do find it interesting that all the people who are so adamantly against small cell are, without exception, people who have never tried it.  I have yet to meet anyone who had given it a serious try on even a few hives who is opposed to it.

Why do you think small cell would be such a bad plan for a beginner?  If you buy wax and wire it or buy the wired foundation from Dadant (which is now available) then it’s just standard beekeeping practices.  Between swarm prevention methods and rotating comb (which many do for AFB prophylaxis) you’ll get regressed anyway with little addition effort or complexity.
 
I have ALWAYS recommended monitoring Varroa mites.  Apistan can fail.  Checkmite can fail.  To use them (or any method) blindly on faith without measuring the results is foolishness.  Every beginner needs to learn this.  Whether they are doing small cell, or conventional treatments, does not change this and THIS is the single most likely point of failure currently in beekeeping and the most tricky thing to learn that is really necessary for the health and survival of the hive.

[Ruben]

MB as a rookie this year I have taken in hundreds of hours of info on everything and have looked at all opinions from a neutral stand point. After all of the research I have done in getting ready for this venture I decided to go with small cell simply because I could not find anyone who had actually done it that had anything bad to say about it, but everyone that has something negetive to say about it always says that going small cell is going backwards. It's like if you were in Nebraska and wanted to go to California and got on the interstate, then 100 miles down the road realized you were going eastbound I guess you would just have to come on to Virginia cause you darn sure can't go back :lol:    

No seriously I have gone into yahoo and tried to find negative aspects of small cell from anyone who had actually done it and could not find any therefore I am going to try it and see what happens.

Being new to this it seems like just talking about it is like stirring up a bee hive. I am planning on attending my first local beekeepers meeting next week but I don't think I am going to tell anyone I am trying small cell because I'm afraid I'll have to fight them in the parking lot :)

[Finsky]

... hives are invaluable each spring. ...

I just took this sentence. I have told many times that I have nursed bees over 40 years. 3 winters ago I lost 60% of my hives. I suppose that I took all my knowledge into use and I got more honey with those 40% bees. Under pressure of necessity I renewed my whole spring nursing system. And after that my average honey yield jumped 80%.

None of these "tricks" were natural. In this procedure the main point is HEALTHY BEES! I have got my best knowledge here from internet. They are new knowledge produced by universities and professionals.

As derbeemeister says there are basic knowledge witch will not change because it is right. Many new beekeepers invent those old fact as new. One guy found "long hive". It is years old trick which we abandoned in Finland 40 years ago.

I tell my up-80%-tricks only to show that there is none natural tricks but idea is to GET HEALTHY BEES

After cleansing flight:

* check hives. Clean bottoms. Put electric heater on every bottom.  (beginning of March)
* If nosema had made colony weak, restrict the space with medium wall.
* Start to feed hives with pollen-yeast-soya protein when snow has gone and bees get drinking water. (beginning of April)

* Do not try too much with small colonies or nosema weakened colonies. It will not succeed. They will easily get chalkbrood. If it is nosema, bees are not able to feed larvae.

* Take good care of best hives. Warm and heat them. When big hives get emerging brood enough give new emerging bees to small colonies. (May)
* When weak colonies get new healthy nursing bees it will develop normally.
* Give more emerging bees so that hive is one box full of bees. So it continues itself.
* Electric heating helps to the point that whole frame is warm and all bees emerge. In natural condition frame will catch cold and plenty of brood is not able to emerge. In April we often have -5C at night.

* When you take care best hives, they grow and tend to swarm. Prevent swarming. Give extra brood to small colonies. (Maarec) (Middle of June)
* When honey flow start, I put together my hives so hives have 6 box bees and balanced measure nursing bees, brood, foraging bees.
* With these tricks I have got average 160 lbs. ( 80 kg) yields in July when they have been 3-4 frame colonies in the end of April.

* My main yield comes during one month from canola and from fireweed. Best foraging period lasts usually 2 weeks.  At the end of July honey yield is over.

* It takes 2 months to get smallest hives to normal foraging hives.

AND more. My all deeps are insulated plastic hives.
tried to catch some special honey but it cannot be ordered.

Here is one small colony, too small to over winter in natural conditions. It stays in hive from October to March. Terrarium heater included

[mick]

Where come from nice young girls and where come from nasty old women? Not from same place, I suppose  Now I wait the second banning warning from empasionated membes

Man you crack me up!

[Finsky]

from a neutral stand point. ... but everyone that has something negetive to say about it always says that going small cell is going backwards. :)

That is man's life! Up stream goes the course of salmons'   race !
(...but my sister said:" But not even salmon swims all the time. Take  a pause :P )"

[derbeemeister]

IMO, you folks have a lot of strange ideas. ... that to set up a natural system would be a huge step backwards  and that an unsustainable system (or perhaps more accurately a chemically sustained system) is more “scientific” than a sustainable (or self sustaining) one. Frankly it’s all beyond my comprehension.

Michael, Do you know what the "straw man" argument is? Where you state an untenable position and then knock it down, to prove I am wrong? I never said nor implied what you are describing.

> I do find it interesting that all the people who are so adamantly against small cell are, without exception, people who have never tried it.  

You don't know if I tried it. Did I ever say I didn't try it?

> Why do you think small cell would be such a bad plan for a beginner?  

Because it goes against everything I know about bees. I don't see anything natural about cramming bees into smaller sizes. I have experimented with small cell foundation and the bees tried to rework it into bigger cells, just what I expected.

Further, the plan is based on unproveable  arguments (bees used to be smaller than they are now) and is promoted vigorously by people who hold a whole gamut of derranged notions, like there are indigenous honey bees in the southwest USA and mites have "been here all the time" but nobody noticed them.

There are three positions regarding science. You can follow the scientific method, -- you can ignore science and its accomplishments, or -- you can be anti-science. The chief proponents of small cell beekeeping are vehemently anti-science. In this day and age anyone who is anti-science is   simply blind to the fact that their very existence depends on the great effort and success of other people.

Without science, we would be having this discussion by word of mouth; you wouldn't even get this message for half a year.

Herve

[Finsky]

I sign all derbeemeister's opinions. When I started at the age of 15 I noticed that when I met 20 beekeepers they had 20 very different methods and they all were right.

Then I decided that I may try all those foold tricks what peoples have got in their heads. I decided that I measure my skills with amount of honey.  I have a lot other interesting hobbies in my life.

My value adding red line is: Do not do works which does not bring honey into hive.  And I have still enough to do.

[Jerrymac]

Because it goes against everything I know about bees. I don't see anything natural about cramming bees into smaller sizes. I have experimented with small cell foundation and the bees tried to rework it into bigger cells, just what I expected.

Let me guess, you took your regular sized bees and placed them on small cell foundation. When these large bees made large cells (because of the size of the bees) you decided the small cell was not the right size for bees? And you just quit. Am I right?

I  have gotten all my bees from walls of buildings. All of the comb in the brood nest of these colonies were 4.9 and smaller. I wonder why they didn't build it bigger? If bigger is natural then they should have don't you think?  

You said, "Because it goes against everything I know about bees."
I have to wonder then just what is it you do know about bees. This (2005) was my first year messing with bees nad I learned very early that the natural size cell for bees is around 4.9. Not because I read it somewhere but because it is what I have seen from the bees that have taken care of themselves with out man's help.

And this year I already have five "wild" colonies to go gather up. Amazing how they survive so long without the help of man.

OH darn. I live in Texas, so I suppose you will blaim it all on the Africanized bees. Just wasted my time typing all of this.

[Finsky]

It is same to me what size is my combs if bees bring me honey.  They are just now 5,3 I suppose. But I am certain that comb size does not bring honey, not a bit.  These are marginal questions in beekeping like color of hives, color of bees, bottom boards, ceilings, type of extractor or model of hat.  You may waste your life with unessential issues like with straightening teeth of stamps. But if it has meaning  to you, do it!

Some use drone foundations in supers. That was new to me.

[Michael Bush]

>You don't know if I tried it. Did I ever say I didn't try it?

I have yet to hear anyone who says they gave it a serious try for a year or two to get them regressed and yet the hive succumbed to Varroa.  Do I know you didn't try it?   I have not heard you nor any other detractors say they've tried it.  Certainly not for any length of time.


>Because it goes against everything I know about bees. I don't see anything natural about cramming bees into smaller sizes.

Which is why I tried natural cells first to see what they would do.  It didn't make any sense to me either until I watched them build it on their own.

> I have experimented with small cell foundation and the bees tried to rework it into bigger cells, just what I expected.

Just what I would tell you to expect also.  They will rework it and try to build something between 5.1mm and 5.2mm with some patches even bigger.  Why wasn't that what you expected?  It takes two or three "generations" of comb and bees to get to natural size.  If you do that gently by swapping out the comb it's easily done in three years and can probably be done in two if you are willing to stress out the bees more, or, if you want to wax coat some PermaComb you can put a package on it and do it in one fell swoop.

>Further, the plan is based on unproveable arguments (bees used to be smaller than they are now)

It's easy enough to LET them get smaller and doesn't take all that long and, in my mind that was pretty good evidence they used to be smaller since they naturally go back to that on their own.

> and is promoted vigorously by people who hold a whole gamut of derranged notions, like there are indigenous honey bees in the southwest USA and mites have "been here all the time" but nobody noticed them.

Isaac Newton believed in God.  Many people who don't believe in God still use Newtonian physics to solve problems.  All those other concepts are simply irrelevant to whether or not small cell works.  This is just another use of misdirection.  It is not logical to say that because I think one thing someone believes is wrong therefore everything else they believe is wrong.  Particularly when the one thing can be studied and evidence gathered and the others are just theories about that past, are not provable (and not disprovable) and are PRESENTED as merely theories.

>There are three positions regarding science. You can follow the scientific method, -- you can ignore science and its accomplishments, or -- you can be anti-science.

Or you can use the scientific method and you can view “studies” with a jaded eye because they are often either statistically irrelevant because of the size and duration of the experiment or slanted by the nature of the experiment.  If you’re going to be scientific you should do your own experiments under real conditions to see if they are indeed repeatable under your conditions.  When I was young (back in the 60’s) my mother gave me zinc and vitamin C for colds.  The “scientific” community insisted there was no evidence that would help a cold.  The people who regarded “science” as the authority on the subject, of course did not use these for a cold.  NOW, of course they have both been proven to shorten the severity and duration of a cold.  For that 30 years that it had not been proven, I got relief for my cold while those awaiting “Science” to prove it, did not.  Just because it has not been proven true, does not mean it is not true.  It means “we” don’t know yet.

Someone questioning someone else’s “proof” of their hypothesis, who is following the scientific method, would follow the protocol as established by those who have done it and only after following that several times and being unable to repeat the results, would say that the hypothesis is wrong and that the original “proof” is flawed.  I do not find the “scientific” types willing to do any true science on their own.  They seem to prefer to take results from studies out of the context of the study and assume that on a large scale in real life over the long term this same result will occur without any experimentation on their own.  Or, take a short term study, small scale study, that according to the original hypothesis would be predicted to fail and claim that refutes the original hypotheses.

> The chief proponents of small cell beekeeping are vehemently anti-science.

I would totally disagree.  It may be true that people seeking a natural system tend to distrust science.  The chief proponents may tend to not trust what the scientific community has given us so far, and if you were paying attention you would not either.  I do miss the days when DDT was harmless to people and we were going to eradicate flies and mosquitoes and you could do lots of X-Rays of pregnant mothers and it would do no harm.  I've seen many things come and go that were "safe" and then they weren't and they continue to come and go very regularly.

>In this day and age anyone who is anti-science is simply blind to the fact that their very existence depends on the great effort and success of other people.

I'm frankly trying to figure out how to respond to such an absurd statement.  Humans have been here an awfully long time without any of what we think of as "science".  Although they have been using the scientific method for longer than most seem to think.
Because humans are prone to errors in their logic, most every culture has a story to illustrate the foolishness of “Post hoc ergo proctor hoc”.  This would indicate that logic is not a new concept.

>Without science, we would be having this discussion by word of mouth; you wouldn't even get this message for half a year.

And we'd have a lot more time to think it over.  :)

[Finsky]

Measure from 5,3 to 4,9  is  -7,5% decrease.

Still I wonder one thing. Small cell is small when compared with normal bee. When bee is -10% smaller, then cell is  normal for smaller bee.

How this -7,5%  reveals all secrets of beekeeping?  How it is possible?
Is it so simple?

 It means with human if you 180 cm long  minus 7,5% means 166 cm.  It is lenght of normal woman. So what happened? - I suppose nothing.

My 3 boys are 10 cm taller than me. It is 6%. What does it mean? Boys have got better food.  Rubbish food as we use to say. And we have demonstrations against McDonalds and Coca Cola because they sell rubbish food?  Huge nonsence!

In all animals we have variations in size. I cannot understand how -7,5% is so mighty ????
.