Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum
BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER => GENERAL BEEKEEPING - MAIN POSTING FORUM. => Topic started by: derbeemeister on February 10, 2006, 10:42:12 am
-
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:
-
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:
-
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
.
.
-
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:
-
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 :wink: Now I wait the second banning warning from empasionated membes. :(
.
-
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 :wink: Now I wait the second banning warning from empasionated members. :(
ME:
Hah! Well, at least we'll see if anyone is listening, huh?
Herve
-
did the authorities mention anything about your neighbors' gardens and the chemicals they might use on them?
-
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
-
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
:wink:
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
... 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
(http://bees.freesuperhost.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/mediumwall.jpg)
-
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!
-
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 )"
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
>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 hocâ€. 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. :)
-
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 ????
.
-
>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".
Michael, if you are trying to end this discussion, calling my statements absurd is a good way to do it. If you were to remove all the scientific advances from most people's lives, they would be living in tents and hunting wild turkeys for dinner.
There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but you would probably yearn for a gun (science there) and maybe a doctor if your wife is dying giving birth or if your kid's leg is rotting off due to an infection (more science).
What I MEAN is that almost every activity we engage in is dependent on a scientific discovery. As far as dismissing the doctrine because of who supports it, you are right. Just because Newton believed in God, we don't discount his great contributions.
But let me ask you: which would mean more to you. If I said my opinions are based on experience I gained from working with bees since 1974 (same year as you) or if I was instructed by space aliens?
Herve
-
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.
Well, I won't say that I have learned more in 30 years than you did in your first year, but I must point out that the size of bee cells and size of the bees themselves vary according to the different races, ranging from small in africa to large in northern europe. The larger bee may in fact be an adaptation to winter cold. the cell sizes are documented in Eva Crane's books. She has 70 or 80 years of bee experience, but hey -- that isn't much
Herve
-
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/table.htm
Here is a chart from Baudoux's studies on cell size and bees size.
When you look at the volume of the cell you can see that in three dimensions it's almost twice the volume when you go from 4.7mm to 5.9mm. If you go from 4.925mm to 5.555mm it’s a difference of 222 cubic mm to 301 cubic mm. That’s a ratio of about 2 to 3. That’s a pretty big jump.
As for comparing bees to humans, I will simply ignore that since it is totally irrelevant. Bees are not humans.
As far as bees being smaller in the past, it’s easy enough to find ABC XYZ of beekeeping books so lets look under “Cell Sizeâ€.
Here’s some quotes from them:
ABC & AXY of Bee Culture 38th Edition Copyright 1980 page 134
“If the average beekeeper were asked how many cells, worker and drone comb, there were to the inch, he would undoubtedly answer five and four, respectively. Indeed some text books on bees carry that ratio. Approximately it is correct, enough for the bees, particularly the queen. The dimensions must be exact or there is a protest. In 1876 when A.I. Root, the original author of this book, built his first roll comb foundation mill, he had the die faces cut for five worker cells to the inch. While the bees built beautiful combs from this foundation, and the queen laid in the cells, yet, if given a chance they appeared to prefer their own natural comb not built from comb foundation. Suspecting the reason, Mr. Root then began measuring up many pieces of natural comb when he discovered that the initial cells, five to the inch, from his first machine were slightly too small. The result of his measurements of natural comb showed slightly over 19 worker cells to four inches linear measurement, or 4.83 cells to one inch.
Roughly this same information is in the 1974 version of ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture on page 136; the 1945 version on page 125; the 1877 version, on page 147 says: “The best specimens of true worker-comb, generally contain 5 cells within the space of an inch, and therefore this measure has been adopted for the comb foundation.
This is followed in all but the 1877 version, by the way, with a section on “will larger cells develop a larger bee†and info on Baudoux.’s research.
So let’s do the math:
Five cells to an inch is five cells to 25.4mm which is ten cells to 50.8mm. This is 4mm smaller than standard foundation is now. 4.83 cells to an inch is 5.25mm which is 1.5mm smaller than standard foundation. Of course if you measure comb much you’ll find a lot of variance in cell size, which makes it very difficult to say exactly what size natural comb is. But I have measured (and photographed) 4.7mm comb from commercial Carniolans and I have photographs of comb from bees Pennsylvania that are 4.4mm. Typically there is a lot of variance with the core of the brood nest the smallest and the edges the largest. You can find a lot of comb from 4.8mm to 5.2mm with most of the 4.8mm in the center and the 4.9mm, 5.0mm and 5.1mm moving out from there and the 5.2mm at the very edges of the brood nest. There is also variation by how you space the frames, or variation on how THEY space the combs. 1 ½†(38mm) will result in larger cells than 1 3/8†(35mm) which will be larger than 1 ¼†(32mm). In naturally spaced comb the bees will sometimes crowd the combs down to 30mm in places with 32mm more common in just brood comb and 35mm more common where there is drone on the comb. So what is natural comb spacing? It is the same problem as saying what natural cell size is. It depends.
But there is no doubt if you let them do what they want, for a couple of comb turnovers, you can find out what the range of these is and what the norm is. The norm was (and is) NOT 5.4mm cells and it is NOT 35mm comb spacing.
-
>>>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".
>Michael, if you are trying to end this discussion, calling my statements absurd is a good way to do it. If you were to remove all the scientific advances from most people's lives, they would be living in tents and hunting wild turkeys for dinner.
I am not trying to end the discussion. You did not say we would be living in tents and hunting (which is also an absurd statement since people who would be considered pretty "unscientific" have been living in houses for many millennia), you said, "their very existence depends on" it. That's a pretty large leap from their very existence depending on it to them living in some primitive way.
>There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but you would probably yearn for a gun (science there) and maybe a doctor if your wife is dying giving birth or if your kid's leg is rotting off due to an infection (more science).
I have never had anything against science except for the blind belief that what comes to us that is supposedly science, is all true without questioning for ourselves.
>Just because Newton believed in God, we don't discount his great contributions.
>But let me ask you: which would mean more to you. If I said my opinions are based on experience I gained from working with bees since 1974 (same year as you) or if I was instructed by space aliens?
You are reaching for the absurd. Daring to ask what evidence there is that the honey bees were not here, is a reasonable question. Daring to ask how we know the mites weren't already here, since none of us even looked until the bees died from them, is a reasonable question. A reasonable person would know, even if they WERE instructed by space aliens, not to tell anyone that. So it's safe to assume they are not reasonable. :)
George Washington Carver came up with thousands of uses for the peanut. A lot of pretty amazing discoveries. He says Jesus told them to him. I wasn't there, so I don't know, but the fact is, whether you believe Jesus had anything to do with it or not, those things still work. The question isn't whether Jesus showed them to him or not, since you can't prove that, it's whether what Mr. Carver presented that you could do with a peanut works. And it does.
-
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/table.htm
That seems good table!
Bwrangler wrote:
http://bwrangler.atspace.com/bee/ssiz.htm
"I've measured bees from both large and small cell hives. My measurements indicate bee size changes with the season. And that cell size has very little, if any influence on the bees size."
******************
But those comb size calculations during 150 years? I cannot imagine how it effects to incoming honey yield.
My thesis is that bees, what ever they are, collect nectar from flowers what flowers have. Hives compete with each other but busy bees cannot ad the bee yard's total yield. I mean, I waste my time to find out the variation of good pastures.
You can get a lot of calculations but these not help got get more honey. So it is vain.
.
-
I have read that also Finsky, but from my understanding the size of the bee during seasons has nothing to do with the small cell idea, the idea from what i understand is that the bee hatches earlier in small cell and interupts up the varroa reproduction, I might not be right but thats what i understand. MB, have you used a OB hive and counted the days of hatching? now I still think the resistance in the bee itself is the key, even if small cell works, I still dont believe that every bee colony can survive but I still want to try a hive or two just to see for myself. Finsky, Thanks for the honey production questions you answered, I still want to pick your brain on honey production, I will have a few more questions for you but I need to get my question right.... :wink:
-
I would like to get finsky's OA drizzle method down because he stands behind this treatment.... I think hes got it down..
-
Bwrangler wrote:
http://bwrangler.atspace.com/bee/ssiz.htm
"I've measured bees from both large and small cell hives. My measurements indicate bee size changes with the season. And that cell size has very little, if any influence on the bees size."
I have read that also...I have also read from Bwrangler that the size of the bee changes during the season [gets larger as the season gets warmer]and that the bee also tends to manufacture larger cells during honey flows and that the bee will winter on small cell [begining in fall] which accounts for the healthier hives. Bwranglers 'musing' are that small cell foundation tends to allow for smaller bees, quicker times from egg to adult bee, healthier bees as the small cell tends to thwart the reproductive cycle of the verrola. And Bwrangler tends to advocsate a 'natural' cell, where the bees make thier own sized cell during the season.
I suspect that using small cell foundations provides better protection from the mite during 2 critical times during the year, spring and fall. and is probably an impediment during the summer during honey flows IOWs, small cell presents some advantages during spring and fall, and a different set of probleme than the larger cell doesnt have. And it presents some advantages during the honey flows and problems during rearing the brood with varrola...
-
what i understand is that the bee hatches earlier in small cell and interupts up the varroa reproduction,
So they say...
Yes, I have read it, but have not found any data from that from European bees. I have read that africanized bee emerges earlier. The worker from European queen + africanez drone emerges 1 day earlier.
Who can find data from shorter brood cycle for European bee than 21 days?
-
What they say ?
(This page under repair, January 18, 2006)
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=2744&page=13
Our project focused on finding varroa-resistance in honey bees from the U.S.
Initially, we found no bees that could survive varroa infestation without chemical control. Short field tests (Figure 1) were used to carefully measure growth of bee and mite populations in colonies that had genetically different queens. We defined resistance as the ability of a colony of bees to significantly limit growth of mite populations below the average colony. In any group of colonies, there is considerable variation in the rate of growth of mite populations. We hoped that small genetic differences between colonies of bees mediated differences in growth of mite populations.
Continue ..... " We now have varroa-resistant stocks of bees inbred for the SMR trait, and these colonies greatly limit mite growth. The U.S. queen rearing industry is geared toward the production of naturally mated queens, which makes the production of commercial inbred resistant queens very unlikely (unless queens are mated in an isolated area such as an island). However, queen producers can readily produce hybrid queens. We found mite growth to be intermediate between resistant bees and susceptible bees when resistant queens are free-mated with susceptible drones (Figure 6). Although colonies with hybrid queens (resistant x control) had intermediate populations of mites, they had half the mites found in the susceptible controls. Hence, even hybrid queens should provide beekeepers a tangible level of resistance. "
.
.
-
So they say...
Yes, I have read it, but have not found any data from that from European bees. I have read that africanized bee emerges earlier. The worker from European queen + africanez drone emerges 1 day earlier.
Me to. I have read that AHB crossed with EHB, when they tried to raised these crossed queens that the queen with the stronger african traits hatched a day earlier and killed the other queens, that is why when they put 1000's of EHB hives in southern Mexico to inter breed with AFB and try to stop the invasion, it didnt work, all they got was africanized bee's.
Who can find data from shorter brood cycle for European bee than 21 days?
I would like to see this also, MB this goes back to the question, have you seen your bee's hatch in 19 days? I know on the internet its your word vs others, is there away if they do hatch earlier on small cell you can prove this with some proof that others can see, I dont know how to do this but it would help with these discussions about small cell.
-
Value of this ?
(This page under repair, January 18, 2006)
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=2744&page=13
Our project focused on finding varroa-resistance in honey bees from the U.S.
Initially, we found no bees that could survive varroa infestation without chemical control. Short field tests (Figure 1) were used to carefully measure growth of bee and mite populations in colonies that had genetically different queens. We defined resistance as the ability of a colony of bees to significantly limit growth of mite populations below the average colony. In any group of colonies, there is considerable variation in the rate of growth of mite populations. We hoped that small genetic differences between colonies of bees mediated differences in growth of mite populations.
thats interesting Finsky, we have people that say they haven't treated hive's for years, I know myself that my father has 4 hives that are going on 9 years and 1 going on 12 years with no treatment of anykind, the hive going on 12 years old I got from his friend that his father-n-law died 11 years before and the hive has set behind his house that time and always had bee's in it, it didnt even have frames in it just 4 support bars going across the hive body, dont know if he is in a isolated area or what but I know he uses no kind of treatment at all and his bee's are on standard foundation. he lives in Denham Springs, Louisiania.
-
thats interesting Finsky, we have people that say they haven't treated hive's for years.
I believe that there are those. I know one hive 5 km fom my beehives. It have lived 8 years continuously in that building. But when those bees have tested, they do not indicate enough mite resistancy.
But I understand that the level of varroa in profitable beekeeping is so low that natural protection cannot compete with chemical cure.
Germans say that they have found from Carniolans as effective mite killers like Russian bee.
But the level...
-
>Who can find data from shorter brood cycle for European bee than 21 days?
I’ve timed mine in the observation hive on several occasions with different races on 4.95mm cells (4.85mm inside diameter). In eight days they are capped and in 19 they emerge. These were commercial Carniolans and Italians.
But I’m not the only one. Other’s on Beesource have tried it and have arrived at the same numbers.
And I’m not the first one. Huber timed it back in 1791. If you think about how many days have elapsed on the first day (0) and how many have elapsed on the 20th day (19) you’ll see the same results:
"The worm of workers passes three days in the egg, five in the vermicular state, and then the bees close up its cell with a wax covering. The worm now begins spinning its cocoon, in which operation thirty-six hours are consumed. In three days, it changes to a nymph, and passes six days in this form. It is only on the twentieth day of its existence, counting from the moment the egg is laid, that it attains the fly state."
François Huber (1750-1831) 4 September 1791.
>I would like to see this also, MB this goes back to the question, have you seen your bee's hatch in 19 days?
I have timed it multiple times with multiple races, in 4.95mm cells in an observation hive kept at 70 F (by the thermostat in my house).
>I know on the internet its your word vs others, is there away if they do hatch earlier on small cell you can prove this with some proof that others can see, I dont know how to do this but it would help with these discussions about small cell.
It is an easily reproducible experiment and the only difficult item to get is some small cell comb and that only takes a brief amount of time letting the bees draw their own comb. But if you buy some PermaComb from John Seets, heat it to 200 F in an oven, dip it in 212 F beeswax, shake off the excess wax and put it in an observation hive. Mark the cells as the queen lays in them with numbers or letters and note the time. At 7 ½ days or so start looking for cappings as often as you have time. At 18 days start looking for them to emerge. Note the time of each one getting capped and each one emerging.
-
>>>Daring to ask what evidence there is that the honey bees were not here, is a reasonable question. Daring to ask how we know the mites weren't already here, since none of us even looked until the bees died from them, is a reasonable question.
The evidence that honey bees were not in the Americas is supported by the fact that the settlers performed such heroic acts as bringing them across the Atlantic in the 1500s and around the tip of South America to California in the 1800s. If there were bees in these areas already, they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble.
The evidence of varroa not being in the US prior to the late 1980s is that people like Roger Morse were traveling the globe visiting places where varroa were already a problem trying to get a handle on what they were doing to control them, BEFORE we had varroa in our bees. Our bees have been intensively studied for parasites since the discovery of the tracheal mite. The borders were closed to prevent the importation of any further pests like varroa (which would be pointless if we already had them. the borders are still closed because there are some more ugly pests we don't yet have)
Hundreds of thousands of eyes have been closely focused on the honey bee for the last two hundred years, and there is very little that escapes being noticed. In fact, people are studying the varroa mite to see if there are parasites of IT, that could be used to kill them off.
I won't stay here in this forum, if my comments are not welcome. Your continued use of the term *absurd* is annoying at best. I may think your comments are lacking in merit, but I encourage you to present them.
By the way, you never did supply one single study where small cell hives were compared to regular size cell hives in any systematic way to determine what the ACTUAL effect of the cell size would be.
Herve
:?:
-
By the way, you never did supply one single study where small cell hives were compared to regular size cell hives in any systematic way to determine what the ACTUAL effect of the cell size would be.
After thinking it over I have come to the conclusion that there has been these side by side studies. Most small cell beeks started out with large cell bees and lost the battle. They went small cell with same bees in the same location, the only thing I see having changed was the cell size.
-
The chief proponents of small cell beekeeping are vehemently anti-science.
That's a pretty broad statement. People are complex, and I suspect what you suggest may not be valid.
Right now, the only treatments approved in the US for varroa control (that I'm aware of) are Apistan and Check-Mite, with MiteGone formic acid pads coming on line. All fairly expensive treatments requiring special handling and subject to obsolescence due to increased resistance. So . . . why isn't oxalic acid treatment discussed more in the mainstream literature and promoted as an alternative? I understand it's used often in other parts of the world. Has there been a lack of scientific studies as to its effectiveness? I don't think so. Perhaps the answer to this question lies in a different question: who benefits financially from the promotion of current treatments?
For the same reason, I'm leery of Monsanto GM crops. Who benefits by locking in the market for Roundup? And what happens when weeds eventually develop resistance to Roundup? (I do believe in Darwinian evolution). Do we want to place all the fruits of our "green revolution" in one corporate basket?
I know, I know -- GM crops have been studied and tested and show no detrimental effects to human. But that's just what the studies tested for. What about unintended side effects? As it so happens, Monsanto has inserted a "tag" gene into its GM crops that has no effect on Roundup resistance, but serves to identify the crop as "Roundup Ready." But this "tag" gene also has the effect of increasing resistance to tetracycline. Now, horizontal cross-species transfer of genetic material has been demonstrated between GM crops and bacteria. And ten years ago, several million acres of GM crops were planted in Canada, north-central USA and Argentina. So isn't it curious that the first reported cases of tetracycline-resistant American Foul Brood were reported in two geographically isolated places simultaneously in 1996 -- Wisconsin/Minnesota and Argentina? Correlation isn't necessarily proof, I know. But who will fund the research to test the proposition that trans-species transfer of teracycline resistance from GM crops to AFB bacteria has made AFB antibiotic-resistant? Who would benefit financially?
Back to the subject of this thread. :shock: I can see many reasons to hope there is a way to control varroa other than by the "approved" methods. I'll be trying "natural cell" this year, too, but only as a side effect of my real motivation. I'm a cheap farmer. If I can build serviceable boxes and frames at 1/4 the price of buying and shipping, it's a no-brainer for me. (And a not-unpleasant way to spend a Saturday.) And rather than using full foundation, I plan to use starter strips, at least for the brood boxes. I suspect that without a pre-formed guide, the bees will probably build many different sizes of comb, to suit their needs, including small cells. If I feel so inclined, I may measure it and see what the range of sizes are. And if I see a reduction in varroa mites, that's a happy occurance. But I'll still be treating with oxalic. Because I also hate the price of buying and shipping spring packages!
-- Kris
-
>The evidence that honey bees were not in the Americas is supported by the fact that the settlers performed such heroic acts as bringing them across the Atlantic in the 1500s and around the tip of South America to California in the 1800s. If there were bees in these areas already, they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble.
That is still an assumption. I'm not saying it's not a reasonable assumption. But it's an assumption all the same.
>The evidence of varroa not being in the US prior to the late 1980s is that people like Roger Morse were traveling the globe visiting places where varroa were already a problem trying to get a handle on what they were doing to control them, BEFORE we had varroa in our bees.
And I would say that's reasonable evidence to refute a reasonable question.
>I won't stay here in this forum, if my comments are not welcome. Your continued use of the term *absurd* is annoying at best. I may think your comments are lacking in merit, but I encourage you to present them.
>>>>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".
>>Michael, if you are trying to end this discussion, calling my statements absurd is a good way to do it. If you were to remove all the scientific advances from most people's lives, they would be living in tents and hunting wild turkeys for dinner.
>I am not trying to end the discussion. You did not say we would be living in tents and hunting (which is also an absurd statement since people who would be considered pretty "unscientific" have been living in houses for many millennia), you said, "their very existence depends on" it. That's a pretty large leap from their very existence depending on it to them living in some primitive way.
How can I describe the statement that "their very existence depends on" science in any other way when humans DO exist in many places without these “scientific†advances and obviously have for many millennia? Or the statement that without science we would all be living in tents? Like people couldn't figure out how to build houses until some scientist showed them? I am sorry I cannot think of a more polite term to describe the logic or probability of those statements.
>By the way, you never did supply one single study where small cell hives were compared to regular size cell hives in any systematic way to determine what the ACTUAL effect of the cell size would be.
For reasons unknown to me none of the “scientists†seem to show any interest in investigating the possibility. I've compared capping and emergence times myself. I've had hives of both types myself. I suppose without a study all of that is just my imagination. I've challenged anyone willing to try to duplicate them and those who have tried have succeeded. And, oddly enough, those who have not tried are still demanding a quote from a study.
>After thinking it over I have come to the conclusion that there has been these side by side studies. Most small cell beeks started out with large cell bees and lost the battle. They went small cell with same bees in the same location, the only thing I see having changed was the cell size.
http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm
Here's one on cell size and it's influence on Varroa infestation of the brood cells. I'm sure those who wish to discount it will do so because it was done on AHB. But the fact remains that with the race constant and all other things constant it was a test on the difference in the amount of mites infesting brood cells based on cell size.
From that document:
"DISCUSSION
Varroa mite infestations in Africanized honey bee brood are clearly affected by comb cell width. When compared in the same colony, the largest brood cells, those in Carniolan combs (mean of about 5.3 mm inside width) were about 38% more infested than the Italian comb brood cells (mean of about 5.15 mm), which in turn were about 13% more infested than the self-built Africanized combs (mean of about 4.8 mm)."
This makes a difference of 51% from the 4.8 to the 5.3mm cells. Our typical foundation here in the US is 5.45mm. They were measuring the inside of the cells, not counting the cell wall so that would make our foundation 5.35mm by that measurement. The cell wall is about 0.1mm ( http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/7_24_99/bob2.htm ) so that 4.8mm size in their experiment is about a 4.9mm cell by the "across ten cells" method of measuring. My "natural" comb seems to run about 4.6mm to 4.9mm in the center of the brood nest with 4.85mm being the most common.
Large cells mean one day longer postcapping times compared to small cell. One day longer postcapping time means those mites reproduce more. http://www.csl.gov.uk/prodserv/cons/bee/varroa/ModellingBiologicalApproaches.pdf
"Shortening the post-capping time
Shortening the post-capping time reduces the number of offspring
that can be produced and the time for the last offspring to
successfully mate prior to emergence. Post-capping periods for
worker European bees have been reported to vary from 268 to 290
hrs (Harris and Harbo 2000) and the model is based on a post-capping
period of 288 hrs for workers and 336 hrs for drone brood.
Worker Africanized bees usually have a post-capping period 20
hrs shorter than European bees (Rosenkranz 1999). However,
among European bees there is significant variation in the average
duration of the capped period and this is a heritable characteristic
(Harris and Harbo 2000), but it can be affected by climatic conditions.
European Apis mellifera carnica bees had a worker postcapping
time only 8 hrs longer than Africanized bees at the same
tropical site (Rosenkranz 1999).
The model predicts that, in order to bring about a 25% reduction
in mite population growth (excluding the possible effects of
reduced mating success and fertility of daughter mites) the postcapping
period for worker brood needs to be reduced by 7% (20
hrs) for worker brood, by 9% (30 hrs) for drone brood and by 7%
(20hrs worker, 24hrs drone) for both. This results in a post-capping
time close to the minimum reported for worker brood, but
drone brood has greater phenotypic variation (de Jong 1997) suggesting
that it may be possible to breed bees that produce drone
brood with a shorter post-capping period. Buchler and Drescher
(1990) reported that 25% of the variation in mite populations in
their colonies could be accounted for by variations in the post-capping
period, which fits in well with the results of our model.
However, in a survey of European bees an average 8.7% reduction
of mite infestation rate was calculated for each 1hour reduction in
the capping time (de Jong 1997). This is a much larger effect than
our model predicts, suggesting other factors are confounding the
comparison in European bees."
This would indicate that a post-capping period that is 20 hours shorter would make the 25% difference that they think is critical to surviving mite infestations.
and also:
"Altering the invasion rate of brood cells by the mite
The model suggests that the invasion rate of worker cells would
need to be decreased by 96% to reduce the mite population growth
rate by 25% (Table 1). Such a large reduction is necessary because
mites which do not enter worker cells are available to invade drone
cells. Since mite reproduction is greater in drone cells, only a proportion
of these "displaced" mites need to enter drone cells to balance
the loss of population growth. The attractiveness of the brood
to varroa mites may be affected by a number of factors which may
interact, including the size of the cell and the strength of the
pheromone signal."
And on the effect of cell size and invasion rate and pre capping times:
"The size and shape of the brood cells
The diameter of the worker cell appears to affect the invasion of
varroa mites. In the absence of drone brood, the varroa infestation
rate has been reported to be 16-50% lower in the small Africanized
worker cells than in the larger European (Italian) worker cells
(Guzman-Novoa et al. 1999, Rosenkranz 1999). This in part may
have been due to a higher visitation rate by nurse bees as the
European larvae were larger and heavier, and to the longer periods
spent capping the larger cells which would increase the time period
over which a mite can invade the cell (Message and Goncalves
1995)."
The Harbo study mentioned above correlates capping and post capping times to genetics and climate, but there are studies correlating it to cell size. (see the one at the top) I have observed a one day shorter capping time (8 days) with small cell bees.
Also the model above assumes a 288 hour post capping time (12 days). I have not observed any longer than a 11 day post capping time on my small cell workers. I have not tried to measure the capping and post capping times on small cell drones, but plan to do so in the spring.
I also hope to measure the times down to the hour instead of the day. But they were 24 hours shorter in both cases but possibly a few hours shorter than that, because I was not constantly watching them so I have a window of possibly 7 or 8 hours shorter.
A few other studies.
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/tektran99.htm
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/abjdec1997.htm
http://www.beesource.com/pov/usda/stress.htm
-
And while we are talking about scientific studies.
I love scientific studies. I have read many of them on many subjects from cover to cover. There is much to be learned by them. I often disagree with the conclusions drawn by the researchers though.
"Post hoc ergo proctor hoc" (After this therefore because of this) is the primary error in logic and is a trap fallen into by humans and animals alike. The big temptation of this error is that "Post hoc ergo proctor hoc" is a good basis for a theory. The error isn't using it for a theory it's using it as proof.
Let's examine the error of this, first. Every morning at my house, the roosters crow. Every morning after the roosters crow, the sun comes up. Does this mean that the roosters cause the sun to come up? Because we can't see any mechanism to connect them other than the sequence of events, most of us would assume that the roosters are not the cause.
Every culture I know of has folk tales and or jokes to make fun of this error. One in our culture is "pull my finger". Because you pull the finger and immediately afterwards something happens, your brain makes a connection and for a second you fall prey to this error. Then after a second or two you brain catches up with it’s processing and the absurdity of that connection hits you and you laugh. The Africans often tell the “roosters causing the sun to come up†story and the Lakota tell it as the horses whinnying. Foolish anthropologists often record these stories as if the people telling them believe this connection, but my experience with primitive cultures is that they tell these stories to teach the error of that way of thinking. Of course they watch to see if the anthropologists believe the foolish conclusion and after watching them diligently write it down without so much as a comment, or a chuckle the natives shake their heads at the foolishness.
I have done things while driving that were immediately followed by some noise. My first conclusion is that I caused the noise and I’m wondering what it is I’ve caused. After trying a couple of more times and the noise does not follow it, I find out it was one of my children making the noise. It was mere coincidence that they happened simultaneously.
Any “statistical proof†really constitutes no proof. As I collect a larger and larger sample it becomes more and more likely that what I’m seeing statistically is an actual connection and not a coincidence, but it never constitutes analytical proof. Unless I have a mechanism and can prove that mechanism is the cause, by some means other than simple statistics, then I only have an increasing likelihood.
I can prove this to anyone who understands basic probability. What are the odds that if I flip this quarter it will land on heads? 50/50. So I flip it and it comes up heads. What are the odds if I flip this quarter again that it will come up heads again? 50/50 same as before. So I flip it and it comes up heads. I personally have flipped a quarter 27 times in a row and got heads every time. Does this prove that the odds are not 50/50? No it proves my sample was too small to be statistically valid. How many times to I have to flip it before my results are an absolute fact? No matter how many times I do it, I only get closer and closer to the actual answer. It is not a matter of absolute proof but a matter of accumulating large enough sample. The larger the sample the closer I get to the answer, but it’s like the old math problem of going half way and half the remaining way and half of that and so on. When will I get to the end? Never. I can only get closer and closer.
This was just trying to prove that flipping a quarter has odds of 50/50. The life cycle of any organism is infinitely more complex than flipping a quarter and affected by more things than we can know. If I do a certain thing and get a certain result how many times will it take to prove absolutely that what I did contributed to that result? If I have a very large sample and I have a very large success rate compared to a very large control group with a very small success rate, it is very likely that my theory is correct. The smaller the sample, the smaller the difference in success rate and the more other variables that could contribute to success or failure, or even worse, the more skewed those variables are in favour of either group, the less valid my results are.
This is all assuming a lack of prejudice on the part of the researcher. As one of my teachers (he was a carpenter with a lot of wisdom, not a professor) once said, “everyone thinks their idea is better because they thought of itâ€. This seems intuitively obvious, but it is important. I have a natural prejudice to my ideas because they fit my way of thinking. If they didn’t, I wouldn’t have thought of them! This is why in the scientific community it is important to be able to reproduce the results. Reproducibility is a good test, especially if someone else is doing the second or third study than did the first. I may eliminate some of the prejudice and also it may change some of the other unmeasured and unaccounted for variables.
The second problem with research is the motivation for doing it. The motivation for doing research is almost (but not always) personal gain. A few actual altruistic people have a love of some fellow creature, or some fellow humans and is actually involved because they want to reduce suffering or solve someone’s problems. Unfortunately these people are not well funded and their research is usually not well received.
Most research is funded by and prejudiced by some entity that has an agenda to prove their solution and that solution has to be something they can market and sell, preferable with a patent of copyright or some other protection to provide them with a monopoly. There is no profit in, and therefore no money for, research into simple common solutions to problems.
I’m sure some will disagree with me, but I think some entities, such as the USDA, have their own agenda that has been revealed by observing them over time. The big agenda of any government agency is to get more money, more power and try to appear that they are serving the purpose they were put there for. In the case of the USDA, it’s obvious they have favored chemicals over natural solutions. They favor anything that appears to help the economy of agribusiness. This doesn’t mean just the small farmer/beekeeper etc. but the whole of agribusiness. They seem to like to see money changing hands because it helps the economy.
Just because research was done on a subject and the researchers came to some conclusion, does not make that conclusion the truth.
Now, while we are talking about facts, let’s talk about one of the reasons some people do not like science and prefer their own opinions. I covered one above, which is that we always like our own ideas because they fit our way of thinking, but the other is that people are fond of saying that something has not been proven scientifically as if that means it is NOT true because it has NOT been proven. Anything we have not proven is simply something that has not been proven. Because I have not proven it true does not make it false.
In 1847 Dr. Ignaz Philipp Semmelwis instituted the practice of hand washing before delivering babies. He came to this conclusion simply by the statistical evidence that mothers and babies who were attended by doctors who washed had less mortality than ones attended by doctors who did not wash. This was "Post hoc ergo proctor hoc" . The doctors washed and less babies died. This is not scientific proof and therefore his colleagues did not consider it scientific proof. Why? Because he could not provide a mechanism to explain it nor an experiment to prove that mechanism. Because he was a proponent of something he would not prove absolutely, he was driven out of the medical community as a quack. This is an example of something that had not been proven scientifically.
In the 1850’s when Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch created the science of microbiology and the “germ theory†of disease Dr Semmelwis’s theory finally was proven scientifically. Now there was a mechanism and they were able to create experiments to prove that mechanism. My point is, that it was true before they proved it and it was true after they proved it. The truth did not change because they proved it. There was, previous to this proof, evidence that would lead to the practice of hand washing, but not proof.
We live our lives and make decisions all the time based on our view of the world. This view is not truth, but it is based on our experience and our learning. Sometimes something comes along to change that view and we accept it because the evidence is strong enough. To ignore evidence that fits the pattern of what we see around us because it has not been proven is foolish. To ignorantly hang on to things that are proven to not be true is equally foolish. But just because the majority believe something to be proven does not mean has been. Just because the majority of people believe something is true does not make it true.
In conclusion, I would say, read research with a grain of salt. Look at their methods. Think about the contributing issues that they have overlooked. Pay attention to anything that would skew the population they are studying or the population of the control group. Look into whether or not the study has been duplicated and were the results similar or contrary. What was the size of the population? What was the difference in success? If there is only a small difference it may not be statistically important. Even if there is a large difference, was it duplicated at that large a difference? Also what might be the prejudices of the people doing the research?
-
Back to base: Regression of beekeeping,
On Brittish forum it was just a question
"Iwas wondering if anyone can help me. Last year I visited an apiary that was close to oilseed rape. The owner of the hives explained that he uses something called a "New Bee Box" as a super. When the box is full he simply removes all the combs (there are no frames) and melts the lot to seperate the wax from the honey. .... ."
I answered:
* You should know that one kilo wax needs 8 kg honey from bees.
* One box Langstroth frames has 2 kilo wax and to produce that wax again bees consume 15-16 kg honey .
* From rape or canola hive may get 60-100 kg honey. It means 3-4 box filled frames and you loose in this business half from yield. Bees need 50-60 kg honey to build all 3-4 box combs again. Every year.
What a waste!
This system is the oldest system to get honey. Nothing new in this.
-
> How can I describe the statement that "their very existence depends on" science in any other way when humans DO exist in many places without these “scientific†advances and obviously have for many millennia?
Because much of what they depend on IS science, science being the accumulation of accurate information about the environment and the ability to apply it. Not simply book learning. Science was used by the Mesopotamians and so on.
Even primitive hunters are using "science" to create the best weapons, to thoroughly know their prey, to perfect their techiniques in killing and preserving the food.
As far as surviving without science, I never said nor meant that nobody would survive without it, but the majority of people leaving in developed countries depend on it for survival. They wouldn't last very long if placed in a situation where they had to use their own wits to survive. And remember what happened to the native americans when the whites came. Most died of small pox.
* * *
You still haven't shown any study where small cell hives were compared to large cell hives to see which survive better. Even if the mites reproduce somewhat less in small cells, these colonies could still succumb to mite collapse.
If you were seriously ill and you were offered the choice of a treatment that had been through extensive clinical trials with documented results -- or a new untested treatment, -- which would you want to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on?
Given such a choice, I wouldn't take a folk remedy even if it were free. Is that being conservative, or skeptical? All I am asking for is proof in the scientific sense; it isn't my fault if you can't find any and bring it here.
* * *
Recently I pondered how feral bees were able to survive in the wilds longer than hived bees, and I thought it could have to do with their swarming, which creates a break in the brood rearing cycle. So I searched and found a study where hives were set up in two groups in one location. One group was managed the regular way, the others were not supered and allowed to swarm.
The first year, the swarmers had much fewer mites in the fall. The second year, the mite levels were about the same in both groups.
That is the sort of study I am talking about, one that actually demonstrates the effect of the proposed treatment.
* * *
Finally, I started this thread to talk about techniques OTHER than small cells. I have already read all the stuff at Bee Source, I read most of it 5 years ago. If it works, fine. I am interested in management techniques that people can use on regular hives without special equipment; ones that eveyone can try.
Herve Abeille
-
I started this thread to talk about techniques OTHER than small cells.
I have wondered the variations to use exluder. I use it very seldom and in foraging hives at all. However professional use it. It fastens nursing operations, I suppose.
But there are many techniques:
1) just put it between brood and honey
2) put it when foraging season is almost end
3) prevent swarming by lifting brood above excluder
4) force queen to lay eggs in one box lowest or uppermost
5) force queen lay in two box
and what else succesive....
Have you seen somewhere that several methods have presented .
-
I have wondered the variations to use excluder. I use it very seldom and in foraging hives at all. However professional use it. It fastens nursing operations, I suppose.
ME:
I regard the queen excluder as a personal preference. They have good and bad points. They keep the line between the brood nest clear and this can be a good thing.
When you take the honey supers off, it is very handy to know that there is no brood and no queen wandering around in there, especially if you blow the bees out or use bee escapes.
Sometimes, especially in a poor honey flow, or with a weak colony, they will prevent the bees expansion upward.
Hives can be managed without them, of course. Maybe you will get more honey and more brood this way. If you fume the bees down, or brush them off, you don't have to worry so much about the queen being up.
Moving brood above the excluder is a good plan to alleviate crowding in the brood area. BUT! be sure to check back in a week to make sure they don't raise a queen up there!
Better still, use the brood to make nucs. If you are making splits on a regular basis, you are not understanding the basic principle of beekeeping as taught by Langstroth, Brother Adam and so on.
Herve Abeille
-
Does this prove that the odds are not 50/50? No it proves my sample was too small to be statistically valid.
ME:
It also proves that if you depend on chance or "luck" you can never know what the outcome will be. That's why the coin toss is used, you have no way of knowing the outcome.
Personally, when I set up a new hive, I want the outcome to be better than 50/50 that it will survive, so I look for methods that have been shown to work in the majority of cases.
Now here is an interesting article that will further separate us, no doubt:
! EXCERPTED !
from:
Beyond ABC and 123: The Inhandig Tribal School in Malaybalay City
By H. Marcos C. Mordeno / MindaNews / 12 February 2006
MALAYBALAY CITY -- Want to learn weather forecasting without the aid of satellites, or wildlife hunting and healing with the use of herbs and prayers alone? Then come to the Inhandig Tribal School, a largely self-help school where the subjects taught revolve around the traditions and practices of the Bukidnon, one of the seven tribes in Bukidnon province.
The lessons also include reading, writing, and sanitation. But for the most part the students – children as well as grown-ups – get to learn about who they are and where they came from, an approach that seeks to promote ethnic pride and identity.
* * *
Apart from or as an extension of her being a shaman, Bae Inatlawan is also a healer, an expert in the indigenous ways of curing illnesses with herbs and prayers. Years of practice and experience have honed her ability to know which plants can cure certain diseases. But she says she never extracts the medicinal parts of these plants without first offering a prayer.
This is the beauty of Bukidnon culture. Nothing happens without a ritual or prayer; the people are in constant communion with Magbabaya (Supreme Being) and the spirits that influence the conduct of their earthly affairs.
“I have never taken any medicine from a pharmacy,†declares the diminutive female chieftain, as if to emphasize the excellent curative properties of forest flora and the prayers that accompany each healing ritual.
It can thus be said that in this obscure spot on earth faith and science converge.
* * *
In addition to its recreational activities, the school, through Datu Matun-an Federico Docenos, trains the students in the ways of the tribe when its members were still leading a hunter-gatherer existence -- wildlife hunting and trapping, honeybee collection and fishing. These activities are collectively called panlagutum, i. e., they are only done whenever food is scarce or when the farmers are still waiting for their crops to be harvested.
Panlagutum exemplifies the need to learn the past as a weapon of survival. And there could be no better way for the Bukidnon tribe to learn its past than through the tribal school and the unique lessons of life that it teaches.
ME:
While I admire Bae Inatlawan, and her FAITH, I could never brag that I have never been to a pharmacy. I currently have two conditions that could lead to my premature death and both of them are being treated by expensive pharmaceuticals. Why do I use these chemicals?
Because the odds are if I don't I will die from one or the other of these conditions. If I wanted to prove my FAITH in nature, or God, or herbs, I could forego such treatments. However, I have children and I feel obligated to stay alive at least until they can support themselves without me.
So for me, SCIENCE and PROOF trumps FAITH. For someone else it may be the reverse. But it is a big world and there is room for more than one point of view.
Herve Abeille
-
if you blow the bees out or use bee escapes.
OK, one reason
Sometimes, especially in a poor honey flow, or with a weak colony, they will prevent the bees expansion upward.
So they do but brood frames are easy to drop down. Our busy season is very short, 2 months. I use 3 deeps for brood and queens use to stay there.
Moving brood above the excluder is a good plan to alleviate crowding in the brood area. BUT! be sure to check back in a week to make sure they don't raise a queen up there!
I have had difficulties with swarming and I aimed to try that trick. But those extra queens do not fit to my plans.
Better still, use the brood to make nucs. If you are making splits on a regular basis.
To make nucs means to raise queens very early. I do not split hives. It destroyes yield. I try to make towers. To keep stong hives as moderate seems to be good and it means that I must raise queens as early as possible. I have just learned from MAAREC sites that best hives swarm first :P
http://bees.freesuperhost.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/valmis3.jpg
.
-
To make nucs means to raise queens very early. I do not split hives. It destroyes yield. I try to make towers. To keep stong hives as moderate seems to be good and it means that I must raise queens as early as possible. I have just learned from MAAREC sites that best hives swarm first :P
ME:
Pardon my saying so, but you haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying, Finsky. I know the messages have been fast and furious, and some overly L O N G.
But to recapitulate, Langstroth pointed out that one can pull brood out of hive at regular intervals WITHOUT hurting the colony. It's just like giving blood (like I said). It won't be missed if it's done right.
Not only that, but pulling brood in spring inhibits the swarming impulse, and you can certainly raise queens then ... The bees are doing it! It's called artificial swarming by some; or making increase by others.
Like I said already, you can pull brood and make strong nucs (4-5 frames) and let them raise their own queen. Maybe not the best plan, but a good one. If the queens are no good, replace them later.
-
Langstroth pointed out that one can pull brood out of hive at regular intervals WITHOUT hurting the colony. .
One interval is enough here.
At the end of May wintered bees have died and new have emerged. After that hive is going to enlarge. From this point after 2 weeks begings blooming pause (10.6.) and it starts swarming season. Blooming starts again 28.6. and continues one month.
It is very narrow time to do something: about 2-3 weeks. Then starts main flow.
-
This topic was pretty well flogged on BEE-L five or six years ago. I got this stuff there:
Eva Crane wrote:
"Where colonies of both Africanized and European bees are present, it is very important to be able to distinguish between them. A simple and rapid method ... is to make three measurements across the parallel sides of 10 cells of natural worker comb; results (Rinderer, 1986) predict that an average of 49 mm [cell size 4.9 mm] or less indicates comb built by Africanized honey bees, and of 52 mm [cell size 5.2 mm] or more, by European bees. Identification is not possible if the distance is 50 to 51 but Africanization might be suspected."
Marla Spivak spent much time in Costa Rica observing the onset of Africanization. She measured the cell size of the European bees before, during and after the arrival. She refers to data collected by researchers as early as 1973 indicating European bees in the tropics built cells ranging from 5.0 to 5.4 mm. These bees, being kept in box hives for centuries, can hardly said to be affected by manufactured comb foundation.
Africanized bee cells were found to be in the range of 4.6 to 5.0 mm, throughout South America. (In Africa, scutellata ranges from 4.7 to 4.9.) According to Spivak, European bees in Costa Rica in 1984 built comb with cells measuring 5.3 mm. When African bees entered the area the numbers immediately fell to 5.0 mm. Later, the range for African bees was shown to be 4.7 to 5.1.
Spivak refers to one apiary that she studied in the mountains. There were 9 hives, which the owners filled with swarms. These hives were plain boxes filled with natural comb. The AVERAGE cell size in each and every hive was 5.3 mm. The first arriving hybrid African swarms built comb around 5.0 mm and subsequent swarms (less hybridized) ranged from 4.7 to 5.0. This phenomenon was observed throughout South and Central American and is fully documented in the book she edited.
She emphasizes that while cell size is a clear indication of Africanization, these bees do not necessarily exhibit the fierce behavior normally associated with this bee type. Even bees with cells as small as 4.7 mm were not always extremely defensive.
* * *
TABLE FROM
BEES AND BEEKEEPING
By Eva Crane, OBE, Dsc (former director of IBRA)
Published By Heinmann Newnes, 1990
ISBN 0 434 90271 3
All Dimensions in mm,
D/W is the ratio of Drone cell size to Worker cell size,
ESW is Excluder Slot Width
Species, Comb Spacing, Cell Size, D/W, ESW
A. mellifera,
European 35a 5.1-5.5 1.3 4.13-4.5
USA --- 5.3b 1.23b ---
A.m.cypria --- --- --- 3.8
A.m.syriaca --- 4.9 --- ---
___________________________________________________
A. mellifera,
African
A.m.unicolor --- 5.0 --- ---
A.m scutellata 32 4.7-4.9 --- 4.4c
A.m. lamarkii 32 4.6 1.33 ---
unspecified
"tropical" 32 4.77-4.94 1.38 ---
in Zimbabwe 32 4.8 --- ---
in Angola,
Tanzania 30-32 4.8 --- 4.35
A.m. capensis 31.8 4.86 --- ---
A.m.litorea 28-30 4.62 1.3 ---
A.m. jemenitica --- 4.75 1.31 ---
A.m.monticola --- 5.0 --- ---
Africanized --- 4.5-5.0 --- ---
__________________________________________________
A.cerana
Japan 30 4.7-4.8 1.13 ---
Nepal 30 --- --- 3.5
India:
Kashmir 35 4.9 1.08 4.0-4.2
d, India:
High Himalayas 30 4.9 --- 4.0
Sub Himalayas 31 4.7 --- 3.75
Central 32 4.5 --- 3.50
South 32 4.3 --- ---
Bangladesh 27-31 --- --- ---
Burma 31 --- --- ---
Java 28 --- 1.17 ---
Philippines 30 3.6-4.0 --- 3.70
___________________________________________________
A. florea
Iran --- 2.9 1.59 ---
Java --- --- 1.55 ---
Oman --- --- 1.50 3.5
Notes
a, 32mm to 38mm is actually used.
b, in USA (Taber & Owens, 1970).
c, this is the gap in square mesh coffee wire, 0.58mm diameter wire on 5mm
pitch.
d, Indian Standards Institution (1976).
-
This small cell seems to be endless debate. Just when it has finished it starts from it's very beginning.
Next generation of beekepers may analyse." In old good days real bees had bigger cell size than nowadays ..."
Thanks for debating next generation have good series of numbers. Tens of researcher will spend their life in wildernes and measure bees and combs.
2005:
"We collected bees at 54 sites in a 5,350-km2 study area in the Sonoran Desert of southwestern Arizona. We used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis of individual worker honeybees (10 per site) to assess genetics of colonies within the study area. Among collected bees, 86.9% possessed African mtDNA. Western European, eastern European, and Egyptian (A. m. lamarckii) mtDNA was present in 5.6%, 4.1%, and 3.4% of collected bees, respectively. "
http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0038-4909&volume=050&issue=03&page=0307
2005:
"Scoring mitochondrial DNA type (mitotypes), we found representatives of A. mellifera scutellata, eastern European, western
European, and A. mellifera lamarckii races in pine forest landscapes of east Texas. "
http://kelab.tamu.edu/coulson/Pdf_pub/Coulson_05.pdf
.
.
-
She emphasizes that while cell size is a clear indication of Africanization, these bees do not necessarily exhibit the fierce behavior normally associated with this bee type. Even bees with cells as small as 4.7 mm were not always extremely defensive.
So what does this mean exactly? That all this hype about how bad and ugly Africanized bees are is just that..... A lot of hype??? So one could have the african blood line and have docile bees?
Also means all these bees I collected are african decent yet not agressive. SO!!! Why would anyone want to wipe them out?
-
This small cell seems to be endless debate. Just when it has finished it starts from it's very beginning.
I know, Finsky. I started this forum to talk about something else, but they followed after us. Evidently they only read stuff from Bee Source. There are other sources. Example:
From: Ahlert Schmidt
Subject: Natural comb cell size
February 17, 2002, 6:25:35 AM
I would like to comment on bee cell size again. In Germany there has been beekeeping on natural combs for over five hundred years using skeps and there are still some apiaries using that technique. So there are bees that never have seen foundations for hundreds of generations. The cell size of combs constructed by these bees is still between 5.3 and 5.4 mm (805 cells per square decimeter) comming close to 5.37 mm which is the average of cell size for normal combs in Germany.
See for instance F. Gerstung: Der Bien und seine Zucht. 7. Auflage 1924; or: Zander and Weiss: Handbuch der Bienenkunde Volulme 4; Verlag Eugen Ulmer 1964 (first Edition 1921).
-
>And remember what happened to the native americans when the whites came. Most died of small pox.
Actually just as many died from Influenza and Measles and Rubella, Cholera, Typhoid and Diphtheria and all the other diseases that had killed millions of Europeans in the middle ages so that only those with the genetic ability to survive them were still alive. Jenner may have come up with a Smallpox vaccine back in 1796, but most Europeans had reached the point genetically where they could survive it. The American Indians had not. There were no "scientific" solutions for the rest of these diseases, just inherited ability to survive them on the part of the Europeans and a total lack of that ability on the part of the American Indians. It wasn’t a lack of science that killed them, but a lack of inherent resistance to those diseases.
>You still haven't shown any study where small cell hives were compared to large cell hives to see which survive better.
I know of no study that has done this. I have done my own experiment. I regressed all my hives and quite treating them.
> Even if the mites reproduce somewhat less in small cells, these colonies could still succumb to mite collapse.
But they did not. I have many hives here with no treatment and they are not succumbing to mite collapse. They are, in fact, inspected every spring by the Nebraska Department of Agriculture and the inspector has found not mites in them for the last two years. Not that there aren’t mites by fall, but in the spring when he is inspecting he can’t find any.
>If you were seriously ill and you were offered the choice of a treatment that had been through extensive clinical trials with documented results -- or a new untested treatment, -- which would you want to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on?
I’d go for the one I’m already using that is already working.
>Given such a choice, I wouldn't take a folk remedy even if it were free.
How foolish of you. Almost every pharmaceutical on the market used to be a folk remedy.
>Is that being conservative, or skeptical? All I am asking for is proof in the scientific sense; it isn't my fault if you can't find any and bring it here.
I have no need to bring any here. I’m perfectly happy keeping healthy bees without treatments and it’s not really my problem if you do not wish to do so.
>I am interested in management techniques that people can use on regular hives without special equipment; ones that eveyone can try.
You can use standard frames in standard boxes with just the simple substitution of a different size imprint on the foundation and you think that requires special equipment? You can tweak the equipment a bit to get better results, but it’s certainly not necessary.
>She refers to data collected by researchers as early as 1973 indicating European bees in the tropics built cells ranging from 5.0 to 5.4 mm. These bees, being kept in box hives for centuries, can hardly said to be affected by manufactured comb foundation.
5.0mm is quite a bit smaller than 5.4mm. The early beekeepers here in the US making similar measurements arrived at 50.8 and 5.25. Quite a bit smaller than 5.4mm.
>I know, Finsky. I started this forum to talk about something else, but they followed after us.
If you don’t want to talk about regression, then maybe you shouldn’t make the topic the “REGRESSION FORUM†and then talk about regression.
:)
-
derbeemeister - All I am asking for is proof in the scientific sense; it isn't my fault if you can't find any and bring it here.
Isn't the fact that MB is having success with these methods possibly make you curious to maybe even do your own experiment with one or two hives? If it did not work then you could alway go back to the way you are doing it now, sort of a reverse regression :lol: I personally am curious why I never see any posts from people on any of these sites that say " I went to small cell and it did nothing the small cell people said it would do so I went back to the larger cell. "
-
quote
isn't the fact that MB is having success with these methods possibly make you curious to maybe even do your own experiment with one or two hives? "
ME:
Look, it isn't my job to try out every new twist that comes up the pike. All I have been trying to do is present the opposing argument. Most beekeepers don't even bother, they don't think it's worth the effort to talk about this matter.
I have seen a lot of nutty beekeeping ideas in 30+ years , and some of them have a long shelf life.
Anyone heard of Aspinwall? He invented a follower board made of thin slats and placed these between every frame to PREVENT SWARMING. This was about a hundred years ago. It never caught on, but it reappeared in the seventies, made of plastic of course.
At Apimondia a guy was demonstrating a ROUND frame. The brood frames were all round, and they had an axle running through them hooked up to a motor so the frames could be constantly turning. It supposedly drove the varroa nuts.
Or the vinegar machine which blows hot acetic acid over the bees. I saw that used once and it cooked the bees. Probably killed the varroa too.
I am interested in promoting a different idea: the nucleus system combined with northern bred queens. I stand to make no money and gain no fame, since it isn't my idea at all.
Any time anyone wants to talk about that I am ready.
-
>I am interested in promoting a different idea: the nucleus system combined with northern bred queens.
I've been saying we need Northern bred queens for many years. I've also been trying to raise nucs in the North. What do you see this accomplishing, besides bees well adapted to the North and no AHB from the South? (which are certainly worth the effort)
-
Kirk Webster from Vermont, described the system in the ABJ in 1997. I am going back over the articles right now to pull out the salient points. Kirk put two small young colonies, separated by a division board feeder, into one hive body. These "double nucs" were stacked upon regular colonies or upon each other during the winter to keep them warmer.
Two young colonies were created this way with only little extra equipment necessary. Hive insulation, or in this case mutual warming of colonies stacked close together, is good for small colonies like these. He says full sized colonies in two hive bodies rather benefit from cold wintering in non-insulated hives, except in very cold areas.
In the following spring, the young spare colonies must be checked for food stores. If enough pollen and nectar (or syrup) is present, they expand rapidly. Soon they should either be united with a regular colony with a failing queen or be transferred into a full size hive to replace a colony that has been lost during the winter.
I have talked to him since that article was written and he now prefers single colonies in 1 story hives to the divided ones. The colony should be on at least 8 frames going into winter, and plugged with honey. A hundred years ago most hives were wintered in 1 story.
PS
I don't own any bees. I sold out a years ago because of the falling price of honey and the rising cost of living where I was, among other things. Since then I have worked for somebody else and am required to follow instructions on bee management. The outfit uses miticides and replaces the many dead hives with package bees every year. As a wage worker, I just do what I am paid to do. However, I see Kirk's plan as a way out for Northern Beekeepers, and I plan to summarize it in the next couple of days.
-
Since this is not really about regression at all, I have decided to start a new topic which I have named "Natural Beekeeping in the North"
You will find it under the heading of GENERAL BEEKEEPING - MAIN POSTING FORUM.
http://beemaster.com/beebbs/viewforum.php?f=2