Brother Adam & Buckfast.

[Hivemaker.]

Link to some BA history.

Let the bees tell you: Our beekeeping is certainly carried out intensively. In spite of this, my working methods are based on the simplest and most elementary principles and above all on the avoidance of any unnecessary disturbance of the colonies - they actually consist of loving care of the bees."

We always keep breeding queens in small colonies on about 4 Dadant combs. There are 2 reasons for this: the avoidance of the premature exhaustion of these valuable breeding creatures as well as the conservation of breeding material of great vitality. Experience has shown that this is only possible by a limitation of their laying activity. The breeding material of a queen who lives in a big colony and produces several thousand eggs a day apparently lacks the vitality of material from a queen whose laying activity has been limited to a few hundred eggs a day, a fact which is really not surprising but which to this day rarely receives any attention. The same is also true for a brood mother whose colony is quietly preparing for re-queening, which clearly indicates a reduction in vitality and very disadvantageous consequences to
later broods."

http://www.apiservices.com/articles/us/adam.htm

 

[alanf]

Interesting. I can see the reasoning of 'not exhausting' a breeding queen, if a steady supply of queens over several years is what you want. I can also see that anything that improves the conditions of a queen as larva or pupa might help their later performance. I can even see that the practicality of an isolated mating area might restrict production if the forage is limited.

But the idea that the 'breeding material' should 'lack vitality' in contrast with a productive hive seems odd. Closer to religious disapproval of over indulgence than what modern genetics would suggest. Surely the genetics of the nest generation are identical whether the queen has laid a dozen or a thousand eggs that day?

 

[drstitson]

eggs aren't frozen in time (although cell cycle wise they are) before fertilisation - they are living, respiring cells like any other that require nutrients for production and nurture within the reproductive tract. the environment they are exposed to pre fertilisation will affect outcome.

think free radicals etc building up and damaging DNA etc etc.

It is possible to have good or bad quality eggs independent of parental DNA - think IVF clinics.

try listening to the series "the first 1000 days" on R4 on BBC iplayer if possible - loads about how state of mother and father influences future of offspring for whole life.

i for one accept the logic of quality over quantity.

 

[RoofTops]

Sounds like a good PhD subject - comparing the eggs from different queens which have been kept in different sized hives. Seeing if there is any difference and if there is then work out why.

 

[Skyhook]

But the idea that the 'breeding material' should 'lack vitality' in contrast with a productive hive seems odd. Closer to religious disapproval of over indulgence than what modern genetics would suggest. Surely the genetics of the nest generation are identical whether the queen has laid a dozen or a thousand eggs that day?

If this is correct, I suspect we may be looking at epigenetics- the way that environment affects the extent to which genes can express themselves. A fairly recent field, fascinating, but disturbingly reminiscent of 'how the leopard got his spots'. For example, smoking or malnutrition can affect the developement potential of not only children but grandchildren, and possibly further down the line.

.

 

[jakethedog]

But the idea that the 'breeding material' should 'lack vitality' in contrast with a productive hive seems odd.

I'm not sure that the Adam quote is suggesting that breeder queens should lack vitality compared to queens heading honey production colonies, in fact it reads totally differently to me

Experience has shown that this is only possible by a limitation of their laying activity. The breeding material of a queen who lives in a big colony and produces several thousand eggs a day apparently lacks the vitality of material from a queen whose laying activity has been limited to a few hundred eggs a day, a fact which is really not surprising but which to this day rarely receives any attention.

DrS has already covered the reasoning.

 

[Poly Hive]

I understood that it was the norm to put a potential breeder queen into a smaller colony to restrict her laying to insure that she would last that bit longer and so the beekeeper would have access to her material for that bit longer.

Hardly new.

A rather curious way to start a thread Hivemaker, or am I being dense again?

PH

 

[Hivemaker.]

A rather curious way to start a thread Hivemaker, or am I being dense again?
PH

Not really,i put it up for people to read what is written in the link mainly,as i thought it is a very large article to post the lot...and the very small piece i posted was of interest, as is much more of whats in the link.

 

[Poly Hive]

I take it you are a BA fan then.

I find it very interesting indeed esp the 3d and 4th para. Ones that are often misquoted I suspect.

The classic error. England = UK.

PH

 

[DanBee]

Interesting link, thanks for posting.

Keeping breeder queens in smaller colonies also offsets the supersedure impulse... I assume Br. Adam was keeping them for a number of years in order to have access to the parentage and grand-parentage of good lines to allow subsequent development.

 

[mbc]

Interesting theory, but it rather ignores the easily observable fact, that in natural circumstances, queens resulting from supercedure ( which, according to this theory, would be from eggs which have less "vitality" ) are very often just as good, if not better than queens from swarm cells.

 

[Scutellator]

Have you ever heard of a doctor who advices his pregnant patients to not quit smoking during pregnancy? - "very often the babies are just as smart and healthy, if not better, than those with non-smoker parents"

Certainly you would want the best possible conditions for your bee breeding material as well. The extranuclear inheritance matters too.

 

[drstitson]

mbc - your point is fair enough in natural situation BUT has to take into account bees usually have one queen to rely on for their wellbeing ie to provide drones, enough workers, to get through 1+ winters and produce new queens at swarm time.

so their system is a compromise between prolifacy and frugality.

remember supercedure queens will have been produced with the luxury of as much food as they could need ie we're back to quality here again. emergency queens are worst case - feed just enough and get capped asap. swarm queens are still a gamble - mum leaves before offspring tested.

When talking about BA's methods we are talking about bee BREEDING ie artificial production and selection of what we think of are the best - NOT the natural survival set-up.

Yes any livestock breeder will chose established strains that best suit his/her needs BUT will still provide the best conditions for reproduction, molly coddle best breeding stock and most importantly SELECT suitable parents.

cattle etc may be able to produce calves every season BUT a good farmer may give cows time to recover - reproduction has a cost to mother. IT is the same for bees.

The other point with BA nuc method is that if you restrict laying you can keep your prized pampered EXPENSIVE danish breeder queens going for more seasons as they don't exhaust themselves and sperm reserve.

or perhaps we should all just strive to let bees get on with it - let nature and chance take it's course. perhaps you should jump ship to the Natural Beekeeping movement if not open to reasoned argument and advice from experts.

EDIT: Just noticed - passed 4k

 

[Monsieur Abeille]

EDIT: Just noticed - passed 4k

Isn't this thread about quality over quantity





(sorry doc, couldn't resist)

 

[OXFORDBEE]

From 1925 to 1930, Brother Adam tried out his new beehives on 3 outer stands, with half of the 40 colonies in Dadant hives, and the other 20 colonies in the English federation norm. The results were so convincing that in 1930 the entire apiary, which meanwhile had grown to 320 production colonies, was changed to the new norm. These same beehives are still in operation today, after 66 years!

Interesting paragraph ... Herrod-Hempsall (Beekeeping new and old described by pen and camera 1930) quotes:

The Rev. Bro. Adam wrote in the British Bee Journal, April 19th 1928, There is no doubt that far too much has been made of the American hive in England and we would not care to have any of these in our apiary.

Humm....

 

[RoofTops]

Buckfast Abbey have now got rid of all their Dadants I believe and now run just a small number of Langstroths for their courses. I guess Langstroths were what Bro Adam called "American hives". So they arrived at his apiary eventually.

 

[DanBee]

Oxfordbee - was it the Langstroth pattern that BA referred to as "the American"? Yes, I know where Dadant hails from, but... if his argument was about sufficient comb area on a single frame/box, then would the wide short Langstroth frame would be the opposite of this...?

Just spotted RT's reply, same thinking

 

[OXFORDBEE]

DanBee,

Here is the preceding paragraph, hopefully they will put this sentence into context.

We are told that commercial bee-keeping (sic) can only succeed when these large and simple (?) hives are used. In connection therewith the following declarations by three of England's foremost bee-keepers are significant. Mr A. W. Gale says: "After using three hundread, thirteen frame 'Commercial' hives (i.e., 4,000 frames) for eight years he has found that these big frames are simply not worth picking up, and the lot would be scrapped but for the expense." His final verdict being "Give me 'British Standard' size every time. Mr J. E. Swaffield states: "I may say that I am changing over to the Standard W.B.C. hive as fast as funds will allow, because I have discovered from experience that it is the best hive, not only for working with but the bees winter in it better than any other I have worked with, and the British Standard frame is quite large enough for honey production in this country." The Rev. Bro. Adam wrote in the British Bee Journal, April 19th 1928, There is no doubt that far too much has been made of the American hive in England and we would not care to have any of these in our apiary.


It appears both frame size and hive type appear to be implied, at least by Herrord-Hempsall. Anyone out there with copies of the BBJ for 1928 who can help out?

 

[alanf]

mbc - your point is fair enough in natural situation BUT has to take into account bees usually have one queen to rely on for their wellbeing ie to provide drones, enough workers, to get through 1+ winters and produce new queens at swarm time.

so their system is a compromise between prolifacy and frugality.

Which leads to the idea that the traits for high production and nurturing quality queens can be identified separately and selected for. It would involve maintaining two separate strains and grafting the 'production' queens for raising in the 'nursery' colonies. Any idea if has been tried?

 

[jakethedog]

Which leads to the idea that the traits for high production and nurturing quality queens can be identified separately and selected for. It would involve maintaining two separate strains and grafting the 'production' queens for raising in the 'nursery' colonies. Any idea if has been tried?

This sort of thing?

carniolan
"....They swarm excessively. This trait could be put to very good use by a queen producer. Since they swarm a lot they are more inclined to produce lots of queen cells. Using these bees for cell starters and finishers would make it easier to rear more cells..." Carl A. Jurica, Practical Queen Production in the North