New renegade beekeeper Stirlingshire

[emmac79]

Probably none would survive. But if you dropped 1000 people in a (large) forest, perhaps 20 would, and they'd know how it's done. They'd teach their children, and in fifty years or so you might have a thriving community that can sustain itself indefinately.

Nature's way is: massive overproduction, followed by ruthless winnowing. That is what keeps populations healthy and attuned to their environment.

It is that process that the successful husbandryman imitates.

Now where did I put my tin hat...

Love it

 

[pargyle]

Probably none would survive. But if you dropped 1000 people in a (large) forest, perhaps 20 would, and they'd know how it's done. They'd teach their children, and in fifty years or so you might have a thriving community that can sustain itself indefinately.

Nature's way is: massive overproduction, followed by ruthless winnowing. That is what keeps populations healthy and attuned to their environment.

It is that process that the successful husbandryman imitates.

Now where did I put my tin hat...

But, if you also introduced a life threatening parasite to that population that had no natural defences to that particular parasite then there would be another level of nature's interference to the common good to contend with. Perhaps one in a thousand may be able to survive alongside that parasite and find a way to manage their existence ...

So - Sadly, your analogy does not totally hold water.

I think evolution in insects is much faster than those creatures who have long life cycles and I also believe that both some honeybees and varroa mites are evolving to accommodate symbiotic living ... But - we are not at that stage yet where it is genera within our kept bees or even where these traits are commonplace. In order to prevent the potential for massive colony deaths I think there are going to be colonies that require treatment fpr the forseeable future.

The key to successfully managing varroa is to test for the infestation levels regularly and monitor those colonies which appear to be more susceptible to the mite and treat those and the ones that have low levels of mite allow them to continue without treatment - and monitor.

Always bear in mind that there are many factors that affect varroa ... and my belief is that allowing natural levels of drones to be produced and insulating hives to allow high levels of humidity and colony temperatures are key factors. I think, also, that stressed bees are more susceptible to varroa so low levels of interference in the colonies is another important factor. Not let alone beekeeping - just keeping inspections light and quick.

 

[Wilco]

Probably none would survive. But if you dropped 1000 people in a (large) forest, perhaps 20 would, and they'd know how it's done. They'd teach their children, and in fifty years or so you might have a thriving community that can sustain itself indefinately.

Nature's way is: massive overproduction, followed by ruthless winnowing. That is what keeps populations healthy and attuned to their environment.

It is that process that the successful husbandryman imitates.

Now where did I put my tin hat...

Found the tin hat yet?

Massive overproduction and ruthless winnowing... Nice literary flair but not an accurate description of all of 'nature'. Some species take that approach, others do not- cattle, marine mammals, many other large ruminants and many besides. These invest significant amounts of energy/resources in small numbers of offspring and higher individual survival. The reproductive strategy varies. Blanlet generalisations are usually a bad idea.

 

[Ian123]

Found the tin hat yet?

Massive overproduction and ruthless winnowing... Nice literary flair but not an accurate description of all of 'nature'. Some species take that approach, others do not- cattle, marine mammals, many other large ruminants and many besides. These invest significant amounts of energy/resources in small numbers of offspring and higher individual survival. The reproductive strategy varies. Blanlet generalisations are usually a bad idea.

Oh come on don’t take him to literally…after all he thinks Kent is remote

 

[madasafish]

Probably none would survive. But if you dropped 1000 people in a (large) forest, perhaps 20 would, and they'd know how it's done. They'd teach their children, and in fifty years or so you might have a thriving community that can sustain itself indefinately.

Nature's way is: massive overproduction, followed by ruthless winnowing. That is what keeps populations healthy and attuned to their environment.

It is that process that the successful husbandryman imitates.

Now where did I put my tin hat...

If I was one of the the 1000, I would kill off my male competitors and winnow out (kill)the rest so I would have ONLY 15-25 year olds in my camp. Anyone over 40 would be a burden. (that's me eliminated!)

No need to pussy foot around it: delete all possible competitors for food asap.

 

[Wilco]

If I was one of the the 1000, I would kill off my male competitors and winnow out (kill)the rest so I would have ONLY 15-25 year olds in my camp. Anyone over 40 would be a burden. (that's me eliminated!)

No need to pussy foot around it: delete all possible competitors for food asap.

If you're going that far why not create some sort of pen and get them one at a time as a sustained source of food?

 

[Sutty]

If I was one of the the 1000, I would kill off my male competitors and winnow out (kill)the rest so I would have ONLY 15-25 year olds in my camp. Anyone over 40 would be a burden. (that's me eliminated!)

No need to pussy foot around it: delete all possible competitors for food asap.

Then you discover one of the older ones had some knowledge you need, lighting fires, building shelters, making water storage etc.....

 

[madasafish]

Then you discover one of the older ones had some knowledge you need, lighting fires, building shelters, making water storage etc.....

That's me!

 

[Frizzaldo]

Probably none would survive. But if you dropped 1000 people in a (large) forest, perhaps 20 would, and they'd know how it's done. They'd teach their children, and in fifty years or so you might have a thriving community that can sustain itself indefinately.

Nature's way is: massive overproduction, followed by ruthless winnowing. That is what keeps populations healthy and attuned to their environment.

It is that process that the successful husbandryman imitates.

Now where did I put my tin hat...

so for your general treatment free/natural evolution idea that you have been proposing in this and other threads to work are you admitting that you'll either need to buy a massive amount of land and evict all the current beekeepers or sign up 200+ beekeepers to your idea but in the knowledge that most of their hives will die to yield 20 hives that might have some resistance or have been lucky?
Surely this is admission that your "Beesnaturally" idea cannot work (unless you eradicate all current beekeepers)?

 

[Beesnaturally]

so for your general treatment free/natural evolution idea that you have been proposing in this and other threads to work are you admitting that you'll either need to buy a massive amount of land and evict all the current beekeepers or sign up 200+ beekeepers to your idea but in the knowledge that most of their hives will die to yield 20 hives that might have some resistance or have been lucky?

We would have to jiggle [1] those adjectives and numbers, but yes.

And no:

There are ways by which skilled husbandryman can achieve the same end without ANY losses.

Surely this is admission that your "Beesnaturally" idea cannot work (unless you eradicate all current beekeepers)?

Not in the slightest. It means that if you understand how nature works you can follow her methods to produce the end you want.

[1] When I say jiggle, you should know that is ironic understatement

 

[Beesnaturally]

Then you discover one of the older ones had some knowledge you need, lighting fires, building shelters, making water storage etc.....

Ooh, a metaphor! This is the long-discredited notion that all individuals must be kept alive just in case they hold some rare genetic combination that may be needed in the future.

 

[Beesnaturally]

But, if you also introduced a life threatening parasite to that population that had no natural defences to that particular parasite then there would be another level of nature's interference to the common good to contend with. Perhaps one in a thousand may be able to survive alongside that parasite and find a way to manage their existence.

Well, we can both pluck numbers out of the air. What is the average (unassisted) survival rate of:

a) bees entirely deviod of defences against varroa?

b) bees with fully developed resistance?

c) bees at any point in the spectrum between those two?

So - Sadly, your analogy does not totally hold water.

Your conclusion doesn't stand up, You need real figures for every point on the spectrum in order to make your case, and you need to specify which point you are on in every statement. One-size-fits-all thinking doesn't cut it. It just creates muddled thinking.

I think evolution in insects is much faster than those creatures who have long life cycles and I also believe that both some honeybees and varroa mites are evolving to accommodate symbiotic living ... But - we are not at that stage yet where it is genera within our kept bees or even where these traits are commonplace. In order to prevent the potential for massive colony deaths I think there are going to be colonies that require treatment fpr the forseeable future.

For the first part you are right - evolution is faster in rapidly reproducing species.

For your next you are assuming worst-case in all cases. That fact is: some are already deeply adapted, while some are entirely unadapted. (No prizes for guessing where you find each category.)

So your concludion holds most for the least adapted end of the spectrum, and least at the opposite end.

But not universally. Not all bees are equal in terms of adaptation to varroa at this point. Not by a long chalk.

The key to successfully managing varroa is to test for the infestation levels regularly and monitor those colonies which appear to be more susceptible to the mite and treat those and the ones that have low levels of mite allow them to continue without treatment - and monitor.

In breeders terms that is not a long way short of the worst possible way to go about things (that would be to make increase _only_ from the ones that need treating. I'm sure you can understand why that would not be a good plan...).

An infinitely better route available to you is to re-queen from those that don't need treating - or need least treatment.

Always bear in mind that there are many factors that affect varroa ... and my belief is that allowing natural levels of drones to be produced and insulating hives to allow high levels of humidity and colony temperatures are key factors. I think, also, that stressed bees are more susceptible to varroa so low levels of interference in the colonies is another important factor. Not let alone beekeeping - just keeping inspections light and quick.

Well, the art and science of locating and breeding in resistance is available for anyone who wants to try it. For those with just a few hives, local breeding groups are the way to go - unless you are fortunate enough to live where wild bees have done the work, and support you. In which case try to avoid undermining them by sending unadapted genes into their ranks.

As to pet theories - there are lots, and you can take your pick.. I still stick with starter strips in the brood nest, in case cell size is a factor.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Found the tin hat yet?

Massive overproduction and ruthless winnowing... Nice literary flair but not an accurate description of all of 'nature'. Some species take that approach, others do not- cattle, marine mammals, many other large ruminants and many besides. These invest significant amounts of energy/resources in small numbers of offspring and higher individual survival. The reproductive strategy varies. Blanlet generalisations are usually a bad idea.

I agree, on the whole it is the case that larger and more complex animals have a slower rate of reproduction. However, all species have evolved within the need to be capable of repopulating after a massive reduction in numbers - perhaps most often caused by a novel micro-organism. The safest way to ensure that is to have the capacity to over-reproduce quickly. We all know about 'r' numbers these days, the componding of generations, and the exponential curve. A doubling in each generation rapidly runs to a level where the environment won't support further growth.

So: what are the average reproduction rates of wild bees, and, on the assumption of a stable popultation, what winnowing rates do they supply?

 

[Nannysbees]

I'm so confused by this thread buy the tried and tested equipment, look after and just enjoy the bees!!!!

 

[pargyle]

Hang on a second ... you were the one who started making analogies with a hypothetical and unlikely scenario and then you complain when it is pointed out that your analogy does not hold water teferenced with an equally implausible scenario - you can't have your cake and eat it.

I know what you believe about your bees and your beekeeping and I understand the thinking you have behind it so I'm just going to leave it at that ... I'm not arguing the point or polluting this thread with any further posts that have digressed from the OP's original post,

My bees are treatment free ... you are pushing against an open door - why my bees remain healthy and generally low in varroa levels is open for conjecture - as a hobbyists with only a small number of hives there is little room for selective breeding so I have a mixture of bought in queens and home reared mongrels heading up my colonies so there is no constant to set against the variables I have identified. I have to assume, therefore, that the factors that affect varroa combine in some way that is favourable to my bees.

You may recall that I've brought in two colonies into my apiary that, last summer and autumn, were varroa bombs, they were well treated for mites in autumn and were treated as soon as they were installed alongside my untreated hives. They are clean now but it's early days ; it will be interesting as the season draws on to compare the varroa levels in these new colonies (they are intended, now, to fit in with my TF regime) with my existing TF colonies in the same hives and in the same location.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Hang on a second ... you were the one who started making analogies with a hypothetical and unlikely scenario and then you complain when it is pointed out that your analogy does not hold water teferenced with an equally implausible scenario - you can't have your cake and eat it.

Eh? I'm not sure what you are driving at here. Can you be specific?

What was my analogy?

I imagine 'terferenced' is 'referenced'?

What does it mean to say: 'your analogy does not hold water referenced with an equally implausible scenario'

What was my 'implausible scenario'?

 

[Erichalfbee]

Emma, if you can wade through the hijack to see my question how’s your research going?

 

[Beesnaturally]

Emma, if you can wade through the hijack to see my question how’s your research going?

You make a highly relevant point, folks ask you questions, you reply... and that's a hijack?

 

[thorn]

he thinks Kent is remote

It is, separated as it is from civilisation by a mighty river.

 

[emmac79]

Emma, if you can wade through the hijack to see my question how’s your research going?

Very well. Currently building an eco box for the skep housing. I also have another hive option that I'm exploring but I shan't divulge that one just yet.

I'm booked to attend Chris Park's skep beekeeping course in July in the positively balmy Swindon I've also decided to become a mead drinker after listening to his podcasts...