Breeding Groups

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
:sorry::sorry::sorry:
Sorry MBC Is your criticism aimed at me, B+,or Cheers, (which ever alias he is using this week)?
If it is me please be so kind as to PM me so I can moderate my tone. I have never tried to be bombastic or denigrate anyone on this forum but apologize if any of my comments can be misconstrued. I want to be able to read posts and learn from other's experience. I do not want to see other forum members 'trolled'. I experienced it myself once on the forum and would never knowingly inflict it on others,

No worries, my apologies if I didn't make it clear, only the second paragraph in my reply to your quoted post was aimed at yourself, the rest at B+ the OP
Rereading my post it's a bit negative, sorry again!, we are all on this forum because we like bees :)
 
B+ apologies if I've missed this in amongst the white noise but whose bees are you starting the breeding with? As the breeding progresses will you bring in genetic material from abroad/other groups? Open mating/II/both?

Thanks and best of luck.
 
B+ apologies if I've missed this in amongst the white noise but whose bees are you starting the breeding with? As the breeding progresses will you bring in genetic material from abroad/other groups? Open mating/II/both?

Thanks and best of luck.

Good questions maddydog..

Obviously, it's very early days and we will have to see who, if anyone, believes they have bees worth testing.
Several members have expressed an interest in my stock, so, if no other stock is put forward, we will procede with daughters of my tested queens. My intention is that everything we do should be based on evidence so nobody can point the finger later and say that I've simply pushed my stock on everyone else. That is not my intention.
Initially, there will be a need to ensure those who wish to test the stock understand what they are doing and why they are doing it. I have no wish to "step on the toes" of our training officer, who is well qualified and knows a lot about beekeeping, so I would hope we could work together on developing training material for use in future years. In the mean time, I expect, I'll have to do a lot of the training myself.
Again, I stress, a lot will depend on what stock other members want to test.

As far as my own work is concerned, there is an agreement that members of BeeBreed populate up to one-third of their test hives with queens produced by other breeders. I think this is a wonderful idea, because, it allows me to judge the performance of my own stock against that produced by other breeders. In the past, my test queens have come from both Germany and The Netherlands, although this may change if other people in the UK choose to participate in the programme. I hope they do. I will do everything I can to help. As I have said before: if one of us gets good results, we share and everyone benefits.
My stock is control mated (both island mated and instrumentally inseminated) and I believe this is the right way to go. I don't believe you can make any progress at all with open mating in an uncontrolled environment. However, you can only make informed breeding decisions if you have first completed the testing phase. That comes first.
I had good results with 55-2-70-2016 and intend to raise daughters from her this year. At the moment, I am looking into the best potential mates for her daughters. There is a kind of "What if" facility in BeeBreed that allows me to specify a queens number and the system will tell me what breeding values to expect from the progeny of all potential pairings. I had hoped to send them to Vlieland, but, it looks like they are already fully booked for 2018. I will get NL-line mated queens from Vlieland this summer, so, I could use that combination in two years time as long as the queen is still alive. You can see the report from BeeBreed in the attachment. Of course, I would only choose mating type 1 (Instrumental Insemination) or 2 (island mated) although, as a member of AGT, type 6 (tolerance mating) is also available to me.
 

Attachments

  • 55-2-70-2017 possibilities.odt
    247.6 KB
Last edited:
Fwiw I think any attempt to improve our bees and spread knowledge should be applauded, my issue is more with the bombastic style denigrating all others, which I'm sure will kill off any longer term cooperative project lead by such a character. I don't know the man personally but would like to offer heartfelt advice that he might get further toning down the attitude slightly and trying to be a little more inclusive. I'm under no illusion the advice will hit home but feel compelled to put finger to key as the number of pm's I've received on the subject suggest many lurkers on the forum are crying out for a counter to be made.

I'm sorry if you don't like to hear what I have to say mbc. However, this is not a BIBBA forum and you might expect to hear views contrary to your own.
If my style appears overly loud or forceful, it is because this is the way I have to be to be heard over the cacophony of BIBBA louts
 
What is ( tolerance mating)?

AGT (ArbeitsGemeinschaft Toleranzzucht) is the German varroa tolerance working group.
This explains what its all about (https://youtu.be/ZCcbj1Gv9UM?t=20m46s)
Although AGT members are part of BeeBreed, they focus on varroa tolerance so, some of the breeding values for other traits may suffer a little. I prefer to maintain progress across the whole portfolio of traits in parallel, incorporating varroa tolerance where possible , but never at the expense of docility or any of the other traits
 
Last edited:
So, as usual, you deflect instead of answering questions .
These questions wont go away. It just makes it clear to everyone that you're full of hot air or, as others have said, a faker.
I've had it with your trolling carp Icanhopit. Its time you realised that we're wise to your lies
My credibility isn't up for debate here, but yours is.

Your claim not to have treated for varroa since the mid 1990’s is incredible – particularly in the light of the high average honey yields posted.
 
I think to have any credibility you need to give better detail on actual losses, including those not commercially viable, out of total hive numbers. To achieve the averages you post you must be excluding losses or non viable colonies. The island mated carnica from Celle are far from varroa tolerant even compared to unselected Amm types.
 
I think to have any credibility you need to give better detail on actual losses, including those not commercially viable, out of total hive numbers. To achieve the averages you post you must be excluding losses or non viable colonies. The island mated carnica from Celle are far from varroa tolerant even compared to unselected Amm types.

Well, I'm not sure I like the tone of your first sentence. Perhaps I should remind you that this is a bee forum and not a court of law. I don't need or have to do anything.
However, since I have always tried to be open and honest about what I do, I will say the figures I have quoted are completely accurate. I have only ever quoted two figures for honey production: the mean for the test group and the production of my biggest test colony in that year. All colonies in the group were included. There were no losses (although there were in subsequent years). You have to be prepared to test them to destruction to find the very best which are worth breeding from.
It makes no sense to include nucs or colonies that don't have the same background/vintage (i.e. you can't compare a one year old queen with a two year old one) in those figures. The figures are those of a test group. That's what they are meant to be.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say in that last sentence. I agree that Celle queens aren't the best for varroa tolerance, but, are you suggesting Amm are?
 
Practical beekeeping requires colonies to stay alive as viable honey production units where possible. What would be credible would be a claim that your bees have reasonable/good average honey production with minimal treatment (LASI e.g).
You herald your record keeping so it would be more informative to know what percentage of stocks a non treating (carnica) beekeeper loses every year and an average production for all stocks. A test group with a high average production soon after establishment and a high mortality/unviability subsequently is worthless.
 
Practical beekeeping requires colonies to stay alive as viable honey production units where possible. What would be credible would be a claim that your bees have reasonable/good average honey production with minimal treatment (LASI e.g).
You herald your record keeping so it would be more informative to know what percentage of stocks a non treating (carnica) beekeeper loses every year and an average production for all stocks. A test group with a high average production soon after establishment and a high mortality/unviability subsequently is worthless.

Ok. Now I definitely don't like your tone. If you moderate it, you might just get an answer. Until then, you wont
Also, this seems to be a statement rather than a question
 
Last edited:
.
Losses have been before varroa. Why somebody has no losses and others have, let it be so.

.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top