Evidence-based beekeeping

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The research I referred to has been posted with in some three or four hours of my comment. Thanks to the kind poster.

Surely if we can show that doing something is worthless and a waste of time and money it is a good thing?

PH
 
I passed a pleasant day in the company of a good friend of mine, who is a tutor in "conventional" beekeeping at a local agricultural college, and asked him to confirm one of these "myths", about skep beekeeping - most people believe that the only way the honey was collected was to kill all the bees using a sulphur pit, he confirmed that there were techniques (somewhat messy and crude ones, involving "beating" the skep) which didn't kill the bees, but there is still the widespread belief that they had to be killed.

How coloured were my recollections of chicken keeping? My recounting of encounters with MAFF and the NFU are 100% true, sadly the local flockmaster who oversaw our birds and thousands of others is no longer with us to confirm it - the contents of the "usual" laying mix in those days is 100% true - what's left to confirm? - only my claim that they were very healthy - during the time we had the farm we suffered the occasional wounds from birds attacking each other (usually the over-active preen gland area) - simple treatment, remove the bird for a while, and treat with Stockholm Tar - we found this messy and ineffective, and sprinkling the wound with garlic powder was very effective, and produced an armour-plated scab in a very short time - we never lost a bird through it. Apart from that we had remarkably healthy flocks, never had to resort to antibiotics, and had far lower bird losses than most "conventional" battery farms - that's the truth - take it or leave it!

I can confirm that "free range" poultry keeping has been practised on a small scale for decades before that, and can recollect the free-range hens kept on my father's nursery in the 50's - they were "dual purpose" chooks, chicken was a "treat" and commanded a good price, so near christmas there was a day when the "neck stretchers" arrived, and sat in a circle "necking" the cockerels, then plucking them into tea chests for sale for the Christmas market.

Sadly, during the 80's, "battery" production had most of the market, and MAFF and the NFU were very dismissive of free-range hen keeping at that period - we were "loony heretics" - and I remember the amazement from the feed reps when discussing the feed we wanted......

"We want a feed without any antibiotics, coccidiostats or synthetic colourants" - raised eyebrows, and comments like "they'll all die without the antibiotics" - we assured them that we did indeed not want them, and they'd shrug their shoulders (yes we know the battery producers had to add them to keep the poor creatures alive in the atrocious conditions, but this is free-range) - the rep would then produce a colour swatch (like the paint ones), ranging from pale yellow through to Dayglo bright lifeboat orange - "what colour d'you want the yolks?" - "how is that achieved?" - "Colourants sir" - "why can't we have it without?" - "the yolks will be 'orribly pale and noone will want the eggs sir" - "do you have a natural colourant" - "yessir, Canthaxanthin" (by this time I was getting wise), "is that "natural" as in from natural sources?" - "no sir, it's synthesised, but we're allowed to call it natural as it's a synthetic clone of a natural substance........."

"What's "DPM" on the list of ingredients of this feed?" - (somewhat shamefacedly and mumbling) - dried poultry manure sir"........at that time they used to dry the manure from battery houses and add a hefty proportion to chook food as it still contained a good amount of protein.... the antibiotics in the droppings and the feed dealt with the inevitable disease problems.... any rep who offered that was shown the door.... (that's the polite version!)
 
Lost me on this one.

Skeps were commonly drummed and those good at it, or who had the time were busy at this time of year doing just that. Presumably they had a good tolerance for stings too......

PH
 
I agree with ITLD if we are talking about a continual re-hash of previous arguments where evidence has been provided in the past. There are good search features on the forum.

Apart from statistically valid research, another source of valuable info is the experience of battle hardened beekeepers who have all found ways to combat various problems. Personally I'm more interested in the experiences of people with a lot of hives because IMO that smoothes out the anomalies & blips, making it more reliable. However, when lots of "little guys" manage to reach agreement based on their experience that is equally helpful. In some ways this kind of evidence (the experience kind rather than research) can be more useful as it is from people who have kept bees for many years rather than university students who know about methodolgy/sampling/modelling etc but much less about bee keeping.

Everyone is free to do what they like with their bees and believe what they like. When a question is asked a number of differing replies are received, some evidence may or may not be quoted, and the person who asked the question has to make up their own mind. I like the fact that I get to hear the arguments and track down the research, then make up my own mind - it makes me "own" my decision :)

I see it as my job to look at previous threads and work out which members know their stuff, or share similarities with me, and then I know who's "evidence" carries more weight for me.
 
"any nut-job can get published, or at least get an audience" - my experience would suggest that the internet's ability to give everyone their say has it's downsides, but many advantages over the "old ways" too - I was horrified to find that an informal straw poll in my local association about 3 years ago showed that probably 90% of them were completely unaware of the "pesticide fiasco", as the leading lights didn't deem it worthy of discussion, and were damned if they were going to allow debate (let alone a vote on the matter) - the openness on the net ensures that people can sample every shade of opinion going, and find what resonates with them, and any shenanigans like the above can be swiftly exposed
 
I passed a pleasant day in the company of a good friend of mine, who is a tutor in "conventional" beekeeping at a local agricultural college, and asked him to confirm one of these "myths", about skep beekeeping - most people believe that the only way the honey was collected was to kill all the bees using a sulphur pit, he confirmed that there were techniques (somewhat messy and crude ones, involving "beating" the skep) which didn't kill the bees, but there is still the widespread belief that they had to be killed.

Well, we had plenty old timers around in my early days, and more so with my father, who still remembered skep beekeeping.

Never EVER did we hear of sulphur pits etc

However, driving irons, for causing the bees to abandon their skep and unite with other ones to make strong clusters for winter, are a museum piece and collectors item that occasionally come up as antiques.

The skep beekeeper relied on swarming to fill the skeps up, and this form of uniting to harvest the honey and reduce numbers for winter. Only the driven ones had their honey taken, the rest were left with their crop as the winter stores for the bees that were left.

I have never encountered the version including killing by sulphur you raise. If the belief is widespread then it must be in other places, because its unheard of up here.
 
The sulphur pit is a common story Murray. Read of it times so it may well have been common place in places.

PH
 
I have to agree this sulphur pit makes no sense to me even back in the early years of beekeeping man would have been a bit more imaginative on collecting the honey and wax and would have known the benefits in saving the bees for the following season.
 
The sulphur pit is a common story Murray. Read of it times so it may well have been common place in places.

PH

OK, I stand corrected. Had never heard of it and when young met a lot of old timers, although by then they too would have been relying on stories from the generation before.

My direct contact line goes back only to a few old stagers when I was a kid, including an old aunt with 40 hives, to the pre IOW issues and to the old black bee, but not back to actual skep keepers. One guy, Alex thoms, from Coupar Angus still had the skep stuff in store from his fathers day, but Alex himself must have been in his 80s or 90s when I was a teenager, so heaven knows how far back it was that his father was active. Probably going back to pre WW1.
 
"God bless the internet, that champion of truth, reliability, and evidence" - quite amazing what sort of nutters there are putting their dangerous twaddle about - defending the indefensible, swearing black is white to help champion the cause of big businesses poisoning the environment for profits - I suspect I may even have spotted such things on this forum!
z1TzJL


On a more serious note, I think the vast majority of internet users do actually have the critical facilities necessary to smell a rat for themselves - I'm all for free speech, but there are some amongst us who would cheerfully remove that right from some of us - I couldn't think what their motivation might be....... could it be that they dislike their machinations being revealed for what they are?
v3WTST
 
.
I studied biology, genetics and georaphy in university 6 years.
What I was teched there was not to make own ideas or researches but to find and select information and knowledge where you can trust on. I was good in it in my work because with that I made my living even if I was not in biological works.

6 years teaching how to find and select knowledge....


Then the internet, how to find information from there where you can trust on...
The vast experience and basic knowledge on area helps to decide is that information true or is it too small piece of knowledge. The faults in writer's basic knowledge revieles that the writer actually does not understand much what he is writing.

I have found too that beekepers succeed very well even if they do not know much theory. They just do right things. Like I use to say, bees stand many kind of beekeepers.

What you can do in UK is to get better knowledge from hives' heat economy, insulation and ventilation. It is truly on zero level. Your beekeeping looses a huge amount of honey and sugar and problems are healed with high energy/food consumption.

Like in this summer our weathers have been chilly, but you have had worse.
However you play with hives which do not give much protection against wind and cold.

.
 
Last edited:
I think the vast majority of internet users do actually have the critical facilities

Sorry, but disagree. Or if they have they sadly don't use them.

Just look at the hype on adverts and see how few can actually sort out the 'fraudy' bits!

If it was a vast majority the scammers would have a much harder time! etc, etc, etc.

There are still easy pickings for all. Take Bayer as an example.
 
Last edited:
In the very early days of the net there was an audio clip.

Sultry girl says."Come to bed and ****me now!"

Alpha male says." Just a minute darling some one is wrong on the web!"

Which takes us neatly round to what is truth? I doubt agriscience and Bros would ever agree on that one.

Discuss.

PH
 
I think the vast majority of internet users do actually have the critical facilities

Sorry, but disagree. Or if they have they sadly don't use them.e.

my opinion is that vast majority can no use internet as information quel.

When I look these forum members, quitefew is able to find good informaton or is willingto readit. I know that because I have participated at least 5 years to varroa discussion.
Almost no one is able to find original researches from internet. Mostly they are defra letters.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top