Do you keep bees the "Darwinian" way?

[gmonag]

Sea lions?

 

[Earthboy]

Crack the box from floor lift back as if on hinge inspecting the bottom of frames for queen cells.

Mike does and recommends this way of checking for Q-cells. OOps. I just found this thread and started catching up. Sorry.

 

[Earthboy]

Where do we in the UK get these wild bees from?

South East of England, according to the article posted by Beebe yesterday (3/26/2021)

It took a great while for me to wade through this channel (thread). Some good posts are here. Given what happened to TF forum, I hope this one "survives," Darwinian or not.

 

[Boston Bees]

The interpretation of Seeley's work is fascinating I think. He is quoted so many times on forums, Facebook etc that quite a significant gulf has built up between what his excellent studies actually found, and what people think they found.

The common narrative is that Seeley found low mite levels, mite resistant bees and natural selection in an isolated area. The actual documents show almost completely the opposite - at best a great deal of uncertainty over what is going on.

For me, his studies show that bees can exist with varroa in the wild but only by keeping constantly "on the run" from it (via natural swarming), and living well apart from other colonies (he did a great study on the spread of varroa via robbing by nearby hives). Sadly these are factors that cannot both be copied in managed hives (the 1km distance for a start).

The academic studies are all there for free on the internet, and are definitely worth carefully reading if anyone hasn't already.

Always glad to be pointed to any I have missed though - it may be that I have missed an update of some kind!

 

[Sutty]

I came across this thread after reading his book recently, well worth reading rather than just getting snippets of it.

 

[elainemary]

The interpretation of Seeley's work is fascinating I think. He is quoted so many times on forums, Facebook etc that quite a significant gulf has built up between what his excellent studies actually found, and what people think they found.

The common narrative is that Seeley found low mite levels, mite resistant bees and natural selection in an isolated area. The actual documents show almost completely the opposite - at best a great deal of uncertainty over what is going on.

For me, his studies show that bees can exist with varroa in the wild but only by keeping constantly "on the run" from it (via natural swarming), and living well apart from other colonies (he did a great study on the spread of varroa via robbing by nearby hives). Sadly these are factors that cannot both be copied in managed hives (the 1km distance for a start).

The academic studies are all there for free on the internet, and are definitely worth carefully reading if anyone hasn't already.

Always glad to be pointed to any I have missed though - it may be that I have missed an update of some kind!

Hi, I attended a virtual spring conference with Cheshire BKA yesterday. One of their speakers was Norman Carreck his topic was ‘Breeding for Varroa tolerance’. He touched on the question whether there are wild colonies that survive varroa & covered the usual point that colonies that appear to survive, are often not the same colonies year in year out. He then talked about conclusions from various studies of wild colonies, including the Arnot bees. He quoted that their common characteristics are they are “feeble colonies, that have low brood production and live in small cavities and swarm frequently”. Also don’t survive when taken out their local area, so not varroa resistant

Went on to talk about Sussex university healthy bees work, including some of their setbacks and Steve Martin’s work. Covered known managed varroa resistant populations. Now believe resistance down to 7 gene loci, all of which need to be present in a colony through the different patrilines, which is why selection is so difficult in an open mating situation

Concluded with graphs showing local bees survive for longer without treatment than bees brought in from outside. VSH monitoring and selection being the best place to start, if interested in identifying / selecting for colonies more likely to be varroa tolerant (similar to the Bee listener thread currently running on the Forum).

Finished his presentation with his suspicion that long term we need to manage our expectations re smaller colonies with medium honey crops, vs prolific bees managed to maximise the honey crop, in order to make progress on varroa management

 

[Murox]

The interpretation of Seeley's work is fascinating I think. He is quoted so many times on forums, Facebook etc that quite a significant gulf has built up between what his excellent studies actually found, and what people think they found.

The common narrative is that Seeley found low mite levels, mite resistant bees and natural selection in an isolated area. The actual documents show almost completely the opposite - at best a great deal of uncertainty over what is going on.

For me, his studies show that bees can exist with varroa in the wild but only by keeping constantly "on the run" from it (via natural swarming), and living well apart from other colonies (he did a great study on the spread of varroa via robbing by nearby hives). Sadly these are factors that cannot both be copied in managed hives (the 1km distance for a start).

The academic studies are all there for free on the internet, and are definitely worth carefully reading if anyone hasn't already.

Always glad to be pointed to any I have missed though - it may be that I have missed an update of some kind!

I tend to agree with you. Doesn't Intensive Beekeeping (as with any form of intensive husbandry) create the sort of conditions that favour parasite growth and transmission that is drastically different to parasites' experience in wild populations?

 

[B+.]

Hi, I attended a virtual spring conference with Cheshire BKA yesterday. One of their speakers was Norman Carreck his topic was ‘Breeding for Varroa tolerance’. He touched on the question whether there are wild colonies that survive varroa & covered the usual point that colonies that appear to survive, are often not the same colonies year in year out. He then talked about conclusions from various studies of wild colonies, including the Arnot bees. He quoted that their common characteristics are they are “feeble colonies, that have low brood production and live in small cavities and swarm frequently”. Also don’t survive when taken out their local area, so not varroa resistant

Went on to talk about Sussex university healthy bees work, including some of their setbacks and Steve Martin’s work. Covered known managed varroa resistant populations. Now believe resistance down to 7 gene loci, all of which need to be present in a colony through the different patrilines, which is why selection is so difficult in an open mating situation

Concluded with graphs showing local bees survive for longer without treatment than bees brought in from outside. VSH monitoring and selection being the best place to start, if interested in identifying / selecting for colonies more likely to be varroa tolerant (similar to the Bee listener thread currently running on the Forum).

Finished his presentation with his suspicion that long term we need to manage our expectations re smaller colonies with medium honey crops, vs prolific bees managed to maximise the honey crop, in order to make progress on varroa management

I watched Prof Martins presentation to the WBKA conference on saturday. He talked about lots of things I already knew but failed to mention a lot of the work going on in Europe. I've noticed this a lot in English-speaking presenters - they ignore/are oblivious to work in other languages. I'm becoming much more aware of the personal bias being expressed by certain individuals.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Hi, I attended a virtual spring conference with Cheshire BKA yesterday. One of their speakers was Norman Carreck his topic was ‘Breeding for Varroa tolerance’. He touched on the question whether there are wild colonies that survive varroa & covered the usual point that colonies that appear to survive, are often not the same colonies year in year out. He then talked about conclusions from various studies of wild colonies, including the Arnot bees. He quoted that their common characteristics are they are “feeble colonies, that have low brood production and live in small cavities and swarm frequently”. Also don’t survive when taken out their local area, so not varroa resistant

Went on to talk about Sussex university healthy bees work, including some of their setbacks and Steve Martin’s work. Covered known managed varroa resistant populations. Now believe resistance down to 7 gene loci, all of which need to be present in a colony through the different patrilines, which is why selection is so difficult in an open mating situation

Concluded with graphs showing local bees survive for longer without treatment than bees brought in from outside. VSH monitoring and selection being the best place to start, if interested in identifying / selecting for colonies more likely to be varroa tolerant (similar to the Bee listener thread currently running on the Forum).

Finished his presentation with his suspicion that long term we need to manage our expectations re smaller colonies with medium honey crops, vs prolific bees managed to maximise the honey crop, in order to make progress on varroa management

One man's viewpoint
B+ has an important point
Steve Martin's conclusion is that there is a high probability that a major part of a colony's ability to live with varroa by removing it from brood cells is learned not inherited.
Who is right? Probably all of them

 

[B+.]

One man's viewpoint
B+ has an important point
Steve Martin's conclusion is that there is a high probability that a major part of a colony's ability to live with varroa by removing it from brood cells is learned not inherited.
Who is right? Probably all of them

I'd go further: when someone (like Norman Carreck) is recognised as a scientific advisor yet expresses views on their personal website in support of one particular view, that person is clearly not to be trusted as an impartial observer.

 

[gmonag]

A scientist does not have to be impartial. In fact the scientific process involves forming a opinion or theory, conducting experiments to prove that theory, drawing conlusions and then publishing. The paper is intended to attract/invite critical analysis and argument. Counter-theories are then formed and as the process continues, hopefully the truth emerges.
Many scientists are very protective of ther own theories and conclusions.

 

[B+.]

A scientist does not have to be impartial. In fact the scientific process involves forming a opinion or theory, conducting experiments to prove that theory, drawing conlusions and then publishing. The paper is intended to attract/invite critical analysis and argument. Counter-theories are then formed and as the process continues, hopefully the truth emerges.
Many scientists are very protective of ther own theories and conclusions.

It's interesting that you suggest that a researcher forms an opinion then conducts experiments to prove that theory. This leaves the process open to all sorts of bias. I would suggest that there is a difference between good science and that which is merely dependent on personal/cultural paradigms to initiate.

 

[gmonag]

It's interesting that you suggest that a researcher forms an opinion then conducts experiments to prove that theory. This leaves the process open to all sorts of bias. I would suggest that there is a difference between good science and that which is merely dependent on personal/cultural paradigms to initiate.

From your reference (Wikipedia):
"People are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear, and they often develop ideas or hypotheses about why things are the way they are."
How is that different from what I said?

 

[B+.]

From your reference (Wikipedia):
"People are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear, and they often develop ideas or hypotheses about why things are the way they are."
How is that different from what I said?

Well, I'd say that the sequence of events is different. I suggest that the opinion is formed after observing the evidence
" Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories " rather than coming to a problem with your mind already made up.

 

[gmonag]

I did not suggest their mind would be already made up.
Must a scientist be necessarily impartial though, especially having concluded that the original hypothesis (however it was first formed) is correct or disproven as appropriate? That must leave the researcher with an opinion.

 

[B+.]

I did not suggest their mind would be already made up.
Must a scientist be necessarily impartial though, especially having concluded that the original hypothesis (however it was first formed) is correct or disproven as appropriate? That must leave the researcher with an opinion.

I don't have a problem with mounting a robust defence of a studies findings but, given that Norman Carreck has already "nailed his colours to the mast" on his website, I'm saying that he has "opted out" of unbiased future work.

 

[Earthboy]

I'd go further: when someone (like Norman Carreck) is recognised as a scientific advisor yet expresses views on their personal website in support of one particular view, that person is clearly not to be trusted as an impartial observer.

Excellent comment. I am often disappointed by reading logical fallacy in name dropping: doctor this and doctor that, (Remember the movie?) an appeal to the authority, and not facts. Tom, no doubt is a great bee scientist; however, has anyone, scientist or otherwise, ever replicated his observation, in the south, in England, or in Europe--granted such replication is possible with myriad variables? How many times has he conducted this experiment? Just one. We then must stop doing any other experiments, for what he, the great doctor, has done ONCE is the gospel truth? All these are coming from some demanding tables, charts, and graphs???? Real education happens when we unlearn what we have thought we've learned as we grow up.

 

[user 20297]

It's interesting that you suggest that a researcher forms an opinion then conducts experiments to prove that theory. This leaves the process open to all sorts of bias. I would suggest that there is a difference between good science and that which is merely dependent on personal/cultural paradigms to initiate.

Tom Seeley seems to be constantly stimulated by a previous finding or observation about bees, to set up an experimental situation based on his surmises of what may have caused or effected that observation. Elimination by experimentation does require a certain amount of prior theorisation or postulation. I think that the best scientists may be the ones with the best imaginations.

 

[Mint Bee]

Anyone using Wiki to back up a position has already lost the argument

 

[B+.]

Anyone using Wiki to back up a position has already lost the argument

Sometimes, you have to use a simplistic method to convey a not-to-simple concept. I am talking about bias and the myriad of ways that people express it. If just one person looks into this further, I consider my time well spent.