We're the bad guys - again!

[drumgerry]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/beekeeping/9790465/Why-natural-beekeeping-could-save-our-honey-making-friends.html

Yet again the "natural beekeeping" lot tell us everything would be perfect if only we were like them. :mad:

[Jon]

from 1985-2005 there was a 53 per cent decline in managed honeybee colony numbers.

And from 2005 to 2012 there has been a massive increase.
there are current statistics available so why stop the clock at 2005 unless it is a case of lies, damned lies...


Traditionalists might scoff at some of her methods, but the proof of Heidi’s work is in the bees themselves. Each hive houses a healthy colony. Of the 30 colonies that faced last winter every single one survived. Most beekeeping groups reported winter losses in the order of 30 per cent .

Well done if she got 30/30 through the winter but last year's UK winter losses were in the normal range in the teens not 30% as claimed.

The worst thing about the article is that there are beginners who will follow the
'Don’t use chemical treatments for disease and pest control (incl varroa mite). who will lose their bees as a consequence.

The other aspect I would take issue with is promoting swarming at will. Maybe she lives miles from human habitation but non beekeepers don't want bees taking up residence in the chimney.

The 'let them swarm' and 'don't treat the varroa' advice lines are probably the worst messages associated with natural beekeeping. The reality is that most untreated colonies will die.

I have plenty of time for the more sensible aspects of natural beekeeping but this is poor advice.

[madasafish]

Anyone who promotes a hive which is not weather tight and has to be kept under cover has their priorities wrong.

I speak as one whose TBHs have very good temperament and little varroa drop but I treat with thymol and try to control swarming.

[madasafish]

Anyone who promotes a hive which is not weather tight and has to be kept under cover has their priorities wrong.

I speak as one whose TBHs have very good temperament and little varroa drop but I treat with thymol and try to control swarming.

[drumgerry]

Someone needs to do an interview with you Jon or a combined interview with you and Randy Oliver. It seems the press only want to hear from the fringes of beekeeping and if the hives are painted in pretty colours so much the better.

[prakel]

I've no issue with people who truly know what they're doing going down the treatment free route but I can never get my head around these small scale guys (with insufficient colony numbers to offer a realistic point from which to select) who refuse to treat against a parasitic mite. Do they allow their dogs to carry thousands of fleas because they're 'still alive'? Do they refuse to kill lice in their their children's hair because they're 'still surviving' irrespective of their infestation? Yet bees are different. Do they actually understand why they believe that to be the case? I only ask because none of them seem to be able to explain why they don't treat against the one but think it's fine to kill other parasites.

[marion.orca]

I like the bit where it says " she regularly collects swarms and handles her bees in her everyday clothes without being stung " - so it's just the BBC presenters then that accompany her that get stung then ?

[Julian]

Having reference Tom Seeley’s work on preferred sites being between 2.5 to 6 metres of the ground the article ignores that the same research found cavity shape matters not a jot!

[Neils]

She is a class A loon though, and the one who stuck a TV presenter without any kit next to hive entrances with predictable results, that alone means I don't give much value to her opinion about beekeeping.

[drumgerry]

I tried to ask her a few questions on the beekeepingforum site. Apart from a fair dose of sarcasm and cheek I didn't get much of a coherent response. Why do I bother?! Sometimes I just can't stop myself rising to the large juicy fly floating down the burn!

[Dan]

Likewise ;)

[drumgerry]

Ahhh Dan I didn't realise you were here too mate! A much better class of clientele on this side of the interweb!

[madasafish]

Ahhh Dan I didn't realise you were here too mate! A much better class of clientele on this side of the interweb!

No it is NOT a better class of person.

I am here:-)

[drumgerry]

I really don't have a problem with exponents of the TBH Madasafish especially one such as yourself who can make them work and who talks about them and their bees in a reasonable and logical way. I don't think it's an especially easy way to keep bees so you have my respect if you've made a success of it.

[Jon]

There is no insurmountable problem with keeping bees in any kind of container assuming it is watertight and of big enough capacity.
The problem arrives in the form of baggage (madasafish this does not refer to you)

-don't use anything 'chemical' to treat for varroa. Non corporate potions are however quite acceptable.
-let them swarm at will
-other religions, I mean other ways of keeping bees, are bad
-don't open the box (sounds like a game show)
-sugar syrup is bad stuff
-sentimental touchy feely stuff (the bees really like me, I can practically work them naked)
-suspension of belief in science if it contradicts an existing dogma.
-massively over egging the risks associated with pesticides.
-I am personally saving the bees (even though they die every winter due to dogma re. the first point on the list)

and so on and so on.

The bits of 'natural' beekeeping I like involve
-letting them draw some of their own comb at the cell size they want
-using bees which are local to where you live
-taking a stance against the risks of imports

To be honest, bad beekeeping techniques and attitudes will be present to some extent in any form of beekeeping, hobby, commercial, top bar, whatever.

-clumsiness and bad handling
-lack of observational powers
-laziness
-denial
-reluctance to reevaluate your practice
-greed and selfishness

There is a false dichotomy created between commercial and non commercial. As far as I can see there are many 'natural' beekeepers trying to make a living from beekeeping through selling top bar hives, delivering courses, sun hives and other stuff. No harm in that at all but dividing beekeeping into commercial and non commercial seems a bit hypocritical to me.

[Easy beesy]

Trouble is she just keeps spouting the same old tosh - beekeepers take all the honey, 'mutilate' (clip) queens, have to wear 'armour', feed bees chemicals, etc etc.

If she would just listen (or ask!) she would understand that she is stuck in the past and its not like that. Pretty much all beekeepers (regardless of the hive type) feel that it's the bees that are important and their passion is for the craft not the product.
Christ, humans did lots of dumb things in the past and have moved on, why can't she!

[Neils]

Because she's selling an ideology as much as anything. She's not that different to Chandler in that they feel the need to "fix" problems as they see it rather than just put forward their way of keeping bees.

I have no objection to the Sun hive any more than I do the a top bar hive. Keep it quiet but I was actually quite taken with how she'd set her hives up on the countryfile segment it was just that as soon as she started to launch into what a bunch of barstewards we were that I wrote her off as a kook. There isn't a beekeeper I know that removes all the honey and feeds syrup instead any more than I don't know anyone who wouldn't dance round a cow horn at midnight if it meant we could stop having to put stuff like OA or Thymol into hives to manage varroa, but no. We're the "problem" with beekeeping.

There are numerous threads about foundation-less beekeeping for example, including on BKF, yet she's totally ignorant of that fact because it doesn't seem to fit well with her ideology so "lalalalalalalala, you're all a bunch of gits who keep bees in ways that would make the worst examples of beekeepers ashamed" (I can think of a few notable ones off the back of recent documentaries in US commercial circles around bee loss where I suspect a lot of this stuff comes from.)

[Jon]

(I can think of a few notable ones off the back of recent documentaries in US commercial circles around bee loss where I suspect a lot of this stuff comes from.)

Exactly, and the press and the general public take it as a given that we have CCD and 'the bees are dying' based on half a dozen documentaries which have looked at US beekeeping and its problems.

[Neils]

I recall the general reaction, pre SBAi to the state of some if the US commercial 'keepers frames and how the hives were handled in those documentaries and I can't help but feel that for a lot of the "natural" crowd that is indicative of how everyone with a box hive treats their bees.

[drumgerry]

The scary thing is she's now saying that her organisation (it galls me to even call it by its name) has been asked to join some DEFRA management committee on bee health of all things. I'll give them one thing - they're bloody good at PR.

[Jon]

I think DEFRA is obliged to give 'stakeholders' a voice in discussions.
The same thing happens in NI as we have one large beekeeping organization the UBKA and a smaller more recently formed group the INIB and the smaller one has equal representation at this type of meeting.
It can create friction especially over best practice with regard to management of bee health issues.

[Trog]

Did I see that she said 80% of stuff in a garden centre is designed to kill insects? She must have really odd garden centres round her way. Any I've been in, the percentage would be nearer 0.1%, unless she believes spades, forks, rakes, hoses, lawnmowers and the like are lethal. Oh, hang about, she uses a lawnmower? Why? A scythe is so much more environmentally friendly as, indeed, is a horse.

[Neils]

Remind me never to go to a garden centre in Sussex.

I'd be more inclined to rail against a certain brand of condiments round these parts that flog honey in garden centres packaged to look home produced but with honey from everywhere but the UK.

[prakel]

davidheaf
01/14/2013 04:13 PM

An excellent article! Thanks Heidi and Jean.

Someone on this blog claimed that beekeepers do not suppress swarming. They do and in two ways:
1. The fool's way, namely cutting out queen cells week after week. I've not actually met anyone who does it but I've heard it is still done.
2. The conventional way, namely making an artificial swarm or one or more splits.

Splits and artificial swarms involving the transfer of at least one comb of brood promotes horizontal pathogen transmission. Horizontal transmission selects for pathogen virulence. Natural swarming involves vertical transmission which selects against pathogen virulence. I'd say, if conditions allow let bees swarm and catch the swarms.

One of the responses to the article.

There's so much talk of allowing the bees to do what's natural; letting them swarm. Then the great and the good promote the practice of catching those swarms. Totally missing the point that they themselves are now creating an artificial break in the natural behaviour of the bees which will already be (at the least) in the process of whittling down the possible nest sites which the scouts have identified -to use their own phrase 'suppressing' the bees natural behaviour.

My point: Not even the evangelists can avoid interfering with the natural cycle -unless they only have colonies founded by swarms which chose to move into their hives...and, they never actually manipulate them in any manner at all. I wonder how many of these bee-huggers would be able to demonstrate the strength of their non interventionist beliefs by watching wasps totally decimate their colonies?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see nothing wrong with a more natural approach to beekeeping but there needs to be a balance -and as I suggested earlier, an understanding of what consequences our actions are going to have. The so called Bond/Live or Let Die approach to varroa is a good example of an idea which gets misunderstood. It's been shown to work by a few but without exception they've all been very experienced beekeepers; had lots of colonies to work with, and I believe, they've all suffered massive losses in the early years along with the financial punishment which accompanies such a gutsy approach. To imply that someone can start from beekeeping scratch and succeed without treating (especially in congested Britain) is disgraceful; damaging to the new beekeeper and any beekeeping neighbour.

[Jon]

The idea of a beginner with two of three hives going cold turkey re. varroa treatment is ridiculous yet that is what the more irresponsible proponents of 'natural' beekeeping suggest. I notice that Phil Chandler and a lot of the regulars on biobees.com have now moved away from their initial non treatment position several years ago which led to heavy or total losses. Fair play to them as a reluctance to ditch dogma in the face of clear evidence is not sensible.

In the Bond experiment study (http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/apido/abs/2006/05/m6039/m6039.html) by Ingemar Fries, which Prakel mentioned above, 150 colonies were left unattended on an island. Only 13 colonies were left after 6 years including 5 survivors from the original group.
You might end up with some varroa tolerant stock then if you start with a huge number of colonies and can take a 92% hit.

This thesis (http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/9036/1/locke_b_120912.pdf) looks at some of the Bond Stuff.


In 1999, an isolated honey bee population of 150 colonies was established on
the southern tip of Gotland. The colonies came from a variety of locations
around Sweden with different genetic backgrounds and were equally infested
with an average of 50 Varroa mites in each colony. These colonies were to be
part of a selection experiment to evaluate if the mites would eradicate an
isolated population of bee colonies under natural Nordic conditions. For this
purpose, the colonies were unmanaged, allowed to swarm freely and did not
receive any mite control treatments. The experiment was called the “Bond
Project, Live and Let Die” as some colonies would live and some would be let
to die. The bees in this project have thus become known as the ‘Bond Bees’. A
central hypothesis to the Bond Project was that beekeeping management
strategies inhibited the natural development of mite resistance in two main
ways:
33
1. Swarm prevention inhibits colony level vertical transmission pathways,
increasing the emphasis on horizontal transmission pathways, which
may result in the evolution of more virulent mites.
2. Mite population control treatments remove the selective pressure of
heavy mite infestation that would be required for natural selection to
shape host adaptations towards tolerance and resistance.
The Bond Bees have been continuously monitored for swarming, winter losses,
mite infestation rates in the fall, and bee population size in the spring since the
beginning of the project (Fries et al., 2003, 2006). Many of the bee colonies
swarmed in the first two years of this project, but by the third year the
increased mite infestation had weakened the colonies and the swarming rate
decreased significantly (Fries et al., 2003).
Within the first three years more than 80 % of the colonies in this project
died (from 150 to 21 by 2002) due to the rapid build up of mite infestations
rates well over the winter mortality threshold (Fries et al., 2003, 2006).
Nevertheless, more than ten years post mite introduction, a small number of
colonies still remain that have survived without mite control and have
established themselves as a hybrid sub-population (Paper I).
After the initial losses, the mite infestations rates in the fall decreased,
winter mortality decreased and the incidence of swarming increased again as
colonies were again strong enough to do so (Fries et al., 2006). Although
swarming reduced the mite infestation in the mother colonies of this
population, it was not enough to prevent the development of high mite levels in
the fall. Therefore, it was concluded that the ability to swarm probably does not
limit the mite population growth enough to fully explain the survival of the
Bond Bees (Fries et al., 2003).

[Geo224]

davidheaf
01/14/2013 04:13 PM

An excellent article! Thanks Heidi and Jean.

Someone on this blog claimed that beekeepers do not suppress swarming. They do and in two ways:
1. The fool's way, namely cutting out queen cells week after week. I've not actually met anyone who does it but I've heard it is still done.
2. The conventional way, namely making an artificial swarm or one or more splits.

Splits and artificial swarms involving the transfer of at least one comb of brood promotes horizontal pathogen transmission. Horizontal transmission selects for pathogen virulence. Natural swarming involves vertical transmission which selects against pathogen virulence. I'd say, if conditions allow let bees swarm and catch the swarms.

[QUOTE=prakel;15397]One of the responses to the article.

Can anyone translate into English please?:D

[prakel]

Jon, thanks for the link to Barbara Locke's paper, it's one which I hadn't seen before, should make enjoyable reading. My original reference was aimed at people such as:

John Kefuss [ http://www.survivorstockqueens.org/ scroll down this page for a pdf of an old ABJ article on him] a queen breeder of international repute who is also (and this is often overlooked) a scientist trained by Walter Rothenbuhler.

Danny Weaver http://www.beeweaver.com/

The numbers of colonies which these guys sacrificed are astounding -Weavers probably lost more colonies than any single British firm has ever owned. Yet people are foolish enough to believe they can start with one or two colonies and achieve the same results. Time to get real.

[Jon]

Prakel, I have only skimmed through that thesis but it looks interesting. The reference list at the end is a good resource.
I remember debating all this stuff with living legend Mike Bispham on the old bbka site about 4 years ago (before he even had bees) when he was telling all and sundry to just stop treating and just breed from survivors.
The beginners think that if you start with two untreated colonies, one will survive and you breed from that.
They are totally underestimating varroa and its vectored viruses.
If you start with 1000 colonies and have pockets deep enough to lose about 950 of them, that could be a viable strategy.

[madasafish]

Most of the proponents of natural beekeeping basically sell natural beekeeping as easy.

Based on a meagre three years experience:

It is not easy It requires an understanding of what your bees are doing based largely on external observation - as inspections are infrequent - if at all.

When you have kept and observed bees for a couple of years you have a chance of observing and understanding. Before them the average person has no chance.

Round here I am the only successful TBH user that I know of. The others who tried lost all their bees the first winter as the design as described - no bottom board - is too cold and damp for our windy wet conditions. I carried out back to back experiments with my first two hives in spring and summer and proved to my satisfaction the hive with a bottom board grew faster and stronger vs the one without.
Ditto insulation.

Mr Chandler has a PDF document on how to split colonies artificially.. Natural beekeeping. anyone?

Edit

I guess I am NOT a natural beekeeper.
I do not wear gloves but use a jacket and veil.
I don't clip queens but do try to artificially swarm and raise my own queens.
I don't use OA but do treat with thymol..

Forgive me Father for I have sinned...:-)

[Jon]

Forgive me Father for I have sinned...:-)

Yeah, me too and I clip my queens as well so I will probably burn in an even hotter part of beekeeper hell.

If bees can overwinter in those correx boxes of mine they should be able to overwinter in quite a variety of containers.
I don't have the privelege of Heidi's balmy Sussex climate either.
The only heat generated in Belfast is hot air from the flag protesters.
A lot of bee box solutions, to use the current jargon, are massively over engineered and surely that is not so natural.
There is a top bar hive advertised on the front page of biobees for £195.
That seems very expensive to me.
Those sun hives don't come cheap either.
I have just bought 10 national brood boxes in the Thorne sale for £170.
A 460 mm2 piece of correx with a hole in it makes an acceptable floor.
The same with battens around it makes a crownboard and another half hours work with a Stanley knife and gaffer tape will make a nice roof.
11 frames will set you back £6. The devil's foundation is an optional extra.

Good observation combined with good deduction is the key to good beekeeping.
I know people who open up colonies all the time over the summer but their bees swarm anyway as they don't know what they are looking at.
Folk like this might as well leave them alone as the inspection is futile.

You get considerably more sense re. 'natural' beekeeping on biobees as the advice is not usually predicated on that Rudolf Steiner mumbo jumbo which surrounds the sun hives.

[Black Comb]

Dr Frazier from Penn Stat Uni. is giving some interesting lectures at the BBKA convention which touch on some of these subjects.
Details on the web site.

[Mellifera Crofter]

... Splits and artificial swarms involving the transfer of at least one comb of brood promotes horizontal pathogen transmission. Horizontal transmission selects for pathogen virulence. Natural swarming involves vertical transmission which selects against pathogen virulence. ...

Can anyone translate into English please?:D

Yes, I was a bit mystified as well - so my visual image is:
Horizontal pathogen transmission in artificial swarms - so one box next to the other on a horizontal plane (don't think about splits by placing one box on top of another!). Pathogens move horizontally. With a swarm they fly up in the air - so vertically - and fly away from their problems - therefore 'virulant' (but probably wishful thinking). I'm probably wrong.

Kitta

[gavin]

No, something else. David is trying to be smart, and failing miserably. Vertical transmission in my book is a pest going mother to daughter. Horizontal means jumping from individual to individual. Think of family trees. In this case the individuals can be colonies.

There has been speculation, and I believe it to be wrong, that mites will evolve into a less virulent form and that vertical transmission encourages that. My view is that it is always in the mite's interest to be virulent. Any evolution towards a less damaging relationship will come from bees becoming more resistant.

Sent from my BlackBerry 8520 using Tapatalk

[Bumble]

Most ... sell [their way of] beekeeping as easy.

I recall working with a lady of an uncertain age, who had long wispy hair and wore floaty dresses - something that was unusual in that particular workplace. She was extremely well spoken and gave the impression of being remarkably erudite, so much so that she was intimidating. Nobody really questioned either her qualifications, her ability, or her slightly unusual, offbeat, ideas because she said they worked and offered her own proof.

It was assumed she was bona fide because of the way she behaved. Meetings almost always ran to her schedule, she would tolerate no interference, no challenges - she had to have her say, had to tell everybody else how it shoudl be done. She had her own agenda, which she ruthlessly followed and managed to talk herself up at every opportunity, whilst the rest of us just carried on doing things the way we always had - because it worked.

She didn't move up the ladder either high enough or quickly enough, so left and set herself up as a private expert, with long words gushingly advertising her expertise (and whacky ideas) as well as her previous experience. To begin with it all went well, money rolled in. But, a bit like the emperor's new clothes, the word got out and prospective customers were able to see through the carefully created mirage and found there was nothing there except a lot of big words and empty talk. Her business collapsed.

[Neils]

No, something else. David is trying to be smart, and failing miserably. Vertical transmission in my book is a pest going mother to daughter. Horizontal means jumping from individual to individual. Think of family trees. In this case the individuals can be colonies.

There has been speculation, and I believe it to be wrong, that mites will evolve into a less virulent form and that vertical transmission encourages that. My view is that it is always in the mite's interest to be virulent. Any evolution towards a less damaging relationship will come from bees becoming more resistant.

I've tended to lean towards the opposite opinion. A parasite that kills its host ultimately fails though equally I also think that over the past decade or so until the past few years and a move to IPM rather than silver bullet treatments that we've ultimately selected for more virulent varroa.

From a practical point of view though, how do you select less aggressive varroa opposed to more resistant bees? Ultimately I wonder if the two go hand in hand.

[gavin]

As far as David Heaf's comments go, the mother to daughter transmission (vertical) takes place with natural swarming just as much as with controlled artificial swarming. He's plain wrong. Horizontal transmission describes mites leaping from colony to colony, almost always on a bee. So Varroa has both, but the spread around from colony to colony is mostly horizontal.

As to whether avirulence (less prolific types) can arise in Varroa (rather than an equilibrium be reached when the host gets better at suppressing the parasite), I just don't see how there will be selection driving that to happen. The issue I have with that idea is that any less virulent mites arising within a colony (eg by mutation) will always be outcompeted by her more virulent sisters. The competition within a colony will always cause avirulent types to be suppressed, so the advantage to the mite of 'allowing' the colony to survive never gets the chance.

There is one way this might happen. If mites develop that are competitive with their sisters but somehow do less damage to the host then the host colony may survive longer and the mite therefore be 'more successful', enhancing its chances of surviving and spreading. That would be a mite that doesn't multiply and spread the viruses that cause colonies to die out.

So ... if beekeepers didn't treat (the idea is attributable to a whole range of people like Klaus Wallner, Albert Knight, John Dews, John Kefuss, and many many others rather than an argumentative simplistic and attention-seeking joiner from Essex!) then there is one thing that might happen (slowly): mites get better at not passing on viruses.

There is, of course, a means of testing this hypothesis. We now have a prediction, and there is a great big natural experiment out there. I know that there is appropriate expertise on the forum. So .... the mites on Apis cerana, are they better at suppressing A. cerana viruses than V. destructor is with A. mellifera? I could see a small theoretical paper in Apidologie on this .....

One complicating factor. It is probably to the mite's benefit to be more resistant to the viruses. That would mean that the mites would evolve in the direction of virus resistance anyway, even without a benefit tot he host colony. Maybe V. destructor just hasn't come to terms yet with the viruses it has encountered in Apis mellifera, whereas V. jacobsonii has had plenty of time to learn the tricks to be less affected by the viruses in Apis cerana.

Is anyone still with me? Should we shift this to Bee Health?

G.

[prakel]

Vertical transmission resulting in reduced reproduction of varroa.

Thomas Seeley looked at this phenomena in his study of bees in the Arnot Forest -for some reason IE isn't finding a link to it but I'm sure that it's still available online. One of his suggestions was that the mites had developed a reduced reproductive rate to cope with their lack of opportunity for horizontal transmission. Worth a read.

edit: bees from the Arnot Forest moved to an apiary with a corresponding number of New World Carniolan colonies showed no difference in mite loads to the Carniolans.

[gavin]

Yeah, I was avoiding mentioning that Tom Seeley suggested this as a possible mechanism for his findings of colony survival in Arnot Forest. Seeley is close to God status in my eyes, and I think that he's wrong as I just don't see how that can happen when colony to colony transfer is so high and there is no obvious way that avirulence can dominate within a single colony. That makes me nervous (contradicting Seeley). Here is the paper:

https://www.beesfordevelopment.org/uploads/seeley_apidologie_2007(38)19-29.pdf (https://www.beesfordevelopment.org/uploads/seeley_apidologie_2007%2838%2919-29.pdf)

I haven't read the Büchler and Milani papers that he cites, but my guess is that is bee resistance rather than mite avirulence.

[prakel]

Yeah, I was avoiding mentioning that Tom Seeley suggested this as a possible mechanism for his findings of colony survival in Arnot Forest. Seeley is close to God status in my eyes, and I think that he's wrong as I just don't see how that can happen when colony to colony transfer is so high and there is no obvious way that avirulence can dominate within a single colony. That makes me nervous (contradicting Seeley). Here is the paper:

https://www.beesfordevelopment.org/uploads/seeley_apidologie_2007(38)19-29.pdf (https://www.beesfordevelopment.org/uploads/seeley_apidologie_2007%2838%2919-29.pdf)

I haven't read the Büchler and Milani papers that he cites, but my guess is that is bee resistance rather than mite avirulence.

To be fair, he only offers the possibility (as you rightly point out) along with other possible mechanisms -hence the reason I highlighted my word 'One'!

[Mellifera Crofter]

No, something else. David is trying to be smart, and failing miserably. Vertical transmission in my book is a pest going mother to daughter. Horizontal means jumping from individual to individual. Think of family trees. In this case the individuals can be colonies.

...


As far as David Heaf's comments go, the mother to daughter transmission (vertical) takes place with natural swarming just as much as with controlled artificial swarming. He's plain wrong. Horizontal transmission describes mites leaping from colony to colony, almost always on a bee. So Varroa has both, but the spread around from colony to colony is mostly horizontal.
...
Is anyone still with me? Should we shift this to Bee Health?

G.

Thanks Gavin, I'm still with you and pleased that my mental image has been corrected.

Yes, perhaps it should be moved to Health. I'll be able to find it again easier when I study for Pests and Diseases that I plan to sit in March.

Kitta

[gavin]

To be fair, he only offers the possibility (as you rightly point out) along with other possible mechanisms -hence the reason I highlighted my word 'One'!

True, however he gave reaons why the other two possibilities discussed were less likely and seemed to favour this one.

[prakel]

Is anyone still with me? Should we shift this to Bee Health?

G.

Might be a good call. Amazing how two threads on different sites (but with plenty of cross over) starting from the same point can develop so differently.

[gavin]

They just wouldn't appreciate it over there.

:)

[prakel]

True, however he gave reaons why the other two possibilities discussed were less likely and seemed to favour this one.

Yes he did! It's an interesting piece never the less, but I believe the real issue is that even if the Arnot Forest mites have either

a, developed avirulence or
b, been self selected as a result of more virulent strains dying with their hosts

the fact remains that the model is never going to work in multi-colony apiaries because you've instantly lost the necessary isolation to limit horizontal transmission!

[Jon]

Just to complicate things again,

Gav's definition of vertical transmission usually refers to mother daughter transmission of a disease like hepatitis (in humans.)

With bees it usually refers to swarming.


Abstract – The degree to which a disease evolves to be virulent depends, in part, on whether the
pathogen is transmitted horizontally or vertically. Eusocial insect colonies present a special case
since the fitness of the pathogen depends not only on the ability to infect and spread between individuals
within a colony, but also on the ability to spread to new individuals in other colonies. In honey bees,
intercolony transmission of pathogens occurs horizontally (by drifting or robbing) and vertically
(through swarming). Vertical transmission is likely the most important route of pathogen infection of
new colonies. Theory predicts that this should generally select for benign host-parasite relationships.
Indeed, most honey bee diseases exhibit low virulence. The only major exception is American
foulbrood (AFB). In light of current ideas in evolutionary epidemiology, we discuss the implications
of horizontal and vertical pathogen transmission for virulence of AFB and other honey bee
diseases.

Implications of horizontal and vertical pathogen
transmission for honey bee epidemiology
Ingemar FRIESa*, Scott CAMAZINE

http://www.helsinki.fi/science/ants/NordForsk/2008_Uppsala/fries%26camazine.pdf

This paper
Invasion of Varroa destructor mites into mite-free honey bee colonies under the controlled conditions of a military training area looks at how how mites move horizontally between colonies in an isolated setting.

http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/Varroa-invasion

[chris]

Jon, if I have correctly understood it, the Fries ;Camazine paper says that host/parasite stability will most likely be achieved by vertical transmission via swarming. Greater virulence is the result of horizontal transmission which is itself encouraged by certain beekeeping practices.

My way of reading it, is that swarming is the key. I understand the various arguments against swarming, but it would appear that its suppression goes hand in hand with the necessity to treat for varroa .:confused:

[gavin]

Jon, if I have correctly understood it, the Fries ;Camazine paper says that host/parasite stability will most likely be achieved by vertical transmission via swarming. Greater virulence is the result of horizontal transmission which is itself encouraged by certain beekeeping practices.

Does anyone here agree with the authors that Varroa transmission is '+++' for vertical and just '+' for horizontal, whereas AFB is the other way round? Doesn't make sense to me, and just seems like a posteriori fitting to the data to support a hypothesis. Varroa spreads several miles (?) a year in the absence of beekeepers taking them further, depending on a reasonable spread of colonies.

I'd even question the classification of AFB as 'lethal' whereas Varroa is benign to lethal. There were plenty of observations of AFB-resistant stocks back in the time when it wasn't beekeeper or inspector-induced lethality.

[Jon]

It is very hard to get your head around this - in my case anyway.
vertical transmission should select for less virulent pathogens as a virulent pathogen will reduce colony strength to the extent that it would be less likely to swarm.
Horizontal transmission should select for more virulent pathogens as it is not critical to keep the original host alive as the pathogen can take up residence in a colony elsewhere.
Both vertical and horizontal transmission are going to be taking place at the same time in a given area and factors such as increased colony density or beekeeper practices such as making splits or nucs which are effectively horizontal transmission should shift the balance in favour of more virulent pathogens.
Increased colony density will also increase horizontal transmission through robbing or drifting.

With varroa, 80% of the mites are under cappings, 20% phoretic.
If a colony splits 50/50 to swarm, the swarm will have just 10% of the varroa load which in itself must be a significant boost.
The remainder of the colony with 90% of the mites has one or more queen cells and will be completely broodless by the time a new queen emerges, mates and starts to lay. It will be a further 8 days until the mites can get into the first cells being capped. Mites are much more vulnerable in the phoretic phase as they can fall off bees or be groomed off. Without brood, mite numbers cannot increase. (unless brought back to the colony through horizontal transmission via robbing or drifting)

I think there is some evidence that swarmy bees are more able to live with varroa but swarmy bees are no use to neither man nor beast.

AFB is a special case as it has a long lived spore which can infect a new colony decades after the original host colony has been killed so maybe it can afford to be more virulent.

[Mellifera Crofter]

As far as David Heaf's comments go, the mother to daughter transmission (vertical) takes place with natural swarming just as much as with controlled artificial swarming. He's plain wrong. Horizontal transmission describes mites leaping from colony to colony, almost always on a bee. So Varroa has both, but the spread around from colony to colony is mostly horizontal.

As to whether avirulence (less prolific types) can arise in Varroa (rather than an equilibrium be reached when the host gets better at suppressing the parasite), I just don't see how there will be selection driving that to happen. The issue I have with that idea is that any less virulent mites arising within a colony (eg by mutation) will always be outcompeted by her more virulent sisters. The competition within a colony will always cause avirulent types to be suppressed, so the advantage to the mite of 'allowing' the colony to survive never gets the chance.

... G.


It is very hard to get your head around this - in my case anyway.
vertical transmission should select for less virulent pathogens as a virulent pathogen will reduce colony strength to the extent that it would be less likely to swarm.
Horizontal transmission should select for more virulent pathogens as it is not critical to keep the original host alive as the pathogen can take up residence in a colony elsewhere.
...
With varroa, 80% of the mites are under cappings, 20% phoretic.
If a colony splits 50/50 to swarm, the swarm will have just 10% of the varroa load which in itself must be a significant boost.
The remainder of the colony with 90% of the mites has one or more queen cells and will be completely broodless by the time a new queen emerges, mates and starts to lay. It will be a further 8 days until the mites can get into the first cells being capped. Mites are much more vulnerable in the phoretic phase as they can fall off bees or be groomed off. Without brood, mite numbers cannot increase. (unless brought back to the colony through horizontal transmission via robbing or drifting)

...


Do I understand the two of you correctly? Gavin is talking about the idea of varroa nature changing as a result of colony efforts (and doesn't think it's possible), and Jon is talking about the effect of swarming on varroa presence - not varroa nature. You may have to correct me again, Gavin.

Kitta

[gavin]

Pretty much, Kitta. Jon started talking about (in his first three sentences) selection possibly changing Varroa then continued in the way you describe. He seems to accept that selection will shift Varroa genetics whereas I think that the dynamics within the hive will predominate and the theoretical shift due to whole colony behaviour simply not happen.

All good clean fun but I don't really know who is right.

[Jon]

I don't think I am disagreeing with Gavin.
In an ideal world Apis Mellifera would learn to coexist happily with the Varroa mite through co evolution in a similar way to Apis Ceranae and the mite.
At the moment the mite and its vectored viruses are usually lethal to Apis Mellifera.
I don't think anyone is clear about a mechanism to explain how the dynamic between bee and mite could change for the better.

[prakel]

In an ideal world Apis Mellifera would learn to coexist happily with the Varroa mite through co evolution.

I don't think anyone is clear about a mechanism to explain how the dynamic between bee and mite could change for the better.

The closest we have at present are the Primorski bees which the USDA have been trialling/studying

http://www.ars.usda.gov/services/docs.htm?docid=2744&pf=1&cg_id=0#Russian

Even these, after 150+ years of co-existence with the mite, are far from immune although they do have a far greater resistance than normally seen -based on several different mechanisms some of which are apparently still not fully catalogued.

Returning to the idea of horizontal transmission:


....it is clear that Russian colonies in apiaries that are stocked with only Russian colonies have a slower developement of mite populations than Russian colonies in apiaries that also have Italian colonies.

http://www.russianbreeder.org/index.html


Which demonstrates an influence of horizontal transmission acting on stocks which are otherwise showing greater than normal resistance.

[chris]

As far as David Heaf's comments go, the mother to daughter transmission (vertical) takes place with natural swarming just as much as with controlled artificial swarming. He's plain wrong.

Gavin, if David Heaf is working Warré hives, then an artificial swarm implies putting the bees into a box without comb, and so wouldn't it be the same as a natural swarm as far as varroa load is concerned?

Jon, in post no.25 in the Bond experiment, was there any monitoring of the swarms or was it only the mother colonies that were studied? If the latter, then the figures would appear to me to be meaningless.

[Mellifera Crofter]

Gavin, if David Heaf is working Warré hives, then an artificial swarm implies putting the bees into a box without comb ...

Without comb or without brood, Chris? I do my artificial swarms without brood frames, and I don't yet have Warré hives. I learned that from Andrew Abrahams - and he doesn't have Warré hives either. But yes, that should be vertical then ... Gavin?
Kitta

[drumgerry]

Interested to hear more of your brood-frame-less artificial swarm method Kitta - if you don't mind that is!

[chris]

Kitta, without comb implies without brood. The importance is the brood break.A method used over here by some Warré keepers is to sacrifice the brood, and the bees building new comb helps keep disease levels low.Like a swarm arriving in a new home.

[Mellifera Crofter]

Kitta, without comb implies without brood. ...

Sorry - yes Chris, of course - no brood! But not necessarily the other way round because I do add comb - preferably drawn comb. It's not my method, Drumgerry, it's one I've been using since I've been on a course for intermediate beekeeping on Colonsay with Andrew Abrahams last summer. AA thinks that a swarm of bees do not expect to find brood in their new home. He reckons that if they do find brood there, then their swarming instinct might not have been satisfied and that they are more likely to try and swarm again. They do need food, obviously. So far, I've been happy using that method.

Kitta

[drumgerry]

Hi Kitta

Thanks for that. I thought a standard AS was to put Q and flying bees into a box of frames + foundation or with some drawn comb and foundation. I thought the whole point was to separate Q from brood. It's what I've always done with a few variations and just what AA suggested to you in fact. I had thought you meant to AS them into a box without frames.

[madasafish]

I - as a TBHer - house swarms in TBHs with no comb. Period. If they want comb, they have to grow their own.

My mite levels last year - my third year - were very low - drops of under 100 for each hive with thymol treatment. I never have used OA..

Now this continues the trend I saw in 2011 with much reduced mite drops from my first year.

2012 was a funny year with lousy weather and my queens stopped laying at times - or reduced it greatly so it may not be indicative..


I am considering not treating some hives in 2013 and seeing what happens...

I don't make any claims about mite resistant bees..

[drumgerry]

I can see why that swarm control method would make sense to you madasafish as a TBH-er. I don't imagine you have top bars with drawn comb readily on hand? Or would I be mistaken in thinking that? And in the brood break you generate you'd hope to lose some of your varroa load I suspect. Best of luck if you go treatment-free with some of them!

[prakel]

I'm not really sure that the main benefit of swarming/artificial swarming has any relevance to resistance. The way I see it is that allowing unrestricted swarming is a bodget-and-run approach. All that's really happening is that the swarm is given an opportunity to out run the mites for a year or so -untill the new colony is fully established, and the parent colony is given a brood break. It's the basic premise of that iwf Rotation Beekeeping video. Nothing wrong with artificial swarming as a method of mite control of course but it's not the magic bullet some of the 'naturals' would have us all believe.

[gavin]

Gavin, if David Heaf is working Warré hives, then an artificial swarm implies putting the bees into a box without comb, and so wouldn't it be the same as a natural swarm as far as varroa load is concerned?

Possibly, but I think that we were discussing the evolution of mite avirulence rather than Varroa load and short-term survival of colonies. This 'vertical transmission' business just means direct transmission from one generation to the next without moving between less directly related individuals (or super-organisms if you wish). If you are a parasite and you almost always get transmitted that way, you'd best not kill your host.


I'm not really sure that the main benefit of swarming/artificial swarming has any relevance to resistance. The way I see it is that allowing unrestricted swarming is a bodget-and-run approach. All that's really happening is that the swarm is given an opportunity to out run the mites for a year or so -untill the new colony is fully established, and the parent colony is given a brood break. It's the basic premise of that iwf Rotation Beekeeping video. Nothing wrong with artificial swarming as a method of mite control of course but it's not the magic bullet some of the 'naturals' would have us all believe.

Agree.

[prakel]

Dr Frazier from Penn Stat Uni. is giving some interesting lectures at the BBKA convention which touch on some of these subjects.
Details on the web site.

There's also:


Ged Marshall

Friday 12 April 15.30 and Saturday 13 April 11.30 Teaching Block
Swarm control is extremely time consuming at a busy time of year. I have developed
a system whereby I do no swarm mangement during the busy part of the season
and catch more swarms than I lose. I am then able to concentrate on maximising my
honey crop and queen rearing.

[prakel]

Natural swarming involves vertical transmission which selects against pathogen virulence. I'd say, if conditions allow let bees swarm and catch the swarms.

Another thought which occurred to me earlier today is that IF it is possible for avirulent lines of varroa to develop they would probably be most likely to arise in colonies with exceptionally low swarming tendencies.

The brood break benefits of swarming would actually relieve pressure on the mites to develop avirulence.

[Mellifera Crofter]

... I thought a standard AS was to put Q and flying bees into a box of frames + foundation or with some drawn comb and foundation. I thought the whole point was to separate Q from brood. ...
Yes, but the usual instructions (Hooper, for example, and everything I've read so far) say that you should put the queen on the comb (brood comb) on which she was found in the centre of the new box and then fill with drawn comb. That's what I've been doing until AA told me otherwise.
Kitta
(We're getting very off-topic - sorry.)

[drumgerry]

Whoops I've been doing it wrong for years as I just put Q and flying bees into a box of foundation and drawn comb! However did I pass Basic beemaster?!

Right back to the scientists and their vertical/horizontal mullarkey

[Bridget]

e I've been on a course for intermediate beekeeping on Colonsay with Andrew Abrahams last summer. AA thinks that a swarm of bees do not expect to find brood in their new home.

Kitta




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bridget]

Sorry the quote above from Kitta just ran away from me.
Kitta how was the course on Colonsay? Useful? Would you recommend? I just love Colonsay so a good excuse to go back!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mellifera Crofter]

Whoops I've been doing it wrong for years ...

No, you instinctively did it just right. I would have liked to say that you must be a natural beekeeper, but that term is a bit loaded now.
Kitta

[Mellifera Crofter]

Sorry the quote above from Kitta just ran away from me.
Kitta how was the course on Colonsay? Useful? Would you recommend? I just love Colonsay so a good excuse to go back!

It was excellent. I really recommend Andrew's courses (http://www.colonsay.org.uk/oysters/beecourses.html). I went on the Intermediate course last year, but I hope to go again this year for the queen-rearing course. Andrew had to cancel last year's.
Kitta

[drumgerry]

I would have liked to say that you must be a natural beekeeper

Brilliant! Last week had a pointless discussion on beekeepingforum with Heidi Hermann on the very subject. I think the term "natural" is unfortunately much abused these days.

[madasafish]

"Natural" and "beekeeping" are - if you look at the words carefully - as synonymous as "politician" and "honest and truthful".

As for Heidi, she came onto the Beekeeping forum having denounced all beekeepers as wrong - and then was surprised at the frosty reception she received..


At present it would appear there is a movement against eco-bee warriors - who appear incapable of being missionaries except in the style of the Crusaders i.e "convert or die".

Win few converts that way.

I suspect some of them are very pleasant people in everyday life but I am afraid on forums come across as deranged with very large chips on their shoulders.

[Jon]

I am afraid on forums come across as deranged with very large chips on their shoulders.

Know what you mean. I think my green credentials are as good as anyone's but I cannot identify with these ranters at all.
One of the current chief shouters on BKF was previously banned for race related abuse on the old BBKA forum when a US poster had the audacity to claim that neonicotinoids were not the smoking gun to do with CCD.
Obviously he tells the world that he was banned for his views on pesticides but the reality is quite different. The posts were still there last time I looked.
That incident was one factor which made me wake up and do some of my own research rather than take for granted the cut and paste anti pesticide posts from the usual suspects.
As the anarchists used to say - question everything.

[prakel]

A short recording showcasing some of Adam Finkelstein's work on breeding VSH bees -without letting them run wild. Personal responsibility for stock, rather than turning a blind eye in the hope that doing nothing will get results....

EDIT:In the light of Gavins assistance (post number 75) I've removed my circuitous link; if you'd like to watch the video please see Gavins post, below.

[gavin]

If you use the filmstrip icon to insert the link to a video you get a screenshot like this:


http://youtu.be/fyGAYFxwnME

I must say that I found johnnyboy's comment on the video on YouTube most, erm, illuminating. The sort of comment you could easily come across on another bee forum. Embedding the video spares us these sorts of rants too.

[prakel]

If you use the filmstrip icon to insert the link to a video you get a screenshot like this:

I learn something every day! Much tidier solution. Thanks.

[prakel]

Another, for those with the stamina:

Daniel Weaver talking about their move to non-treatment. Part 1.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQhwc3Rt-g0&feature=share&list=PLDFE3E14155F82EEE

[prakel]

Daniel Weaver, treatment free, part 2.

This should be a reality check for some people (but it won't be); in their first treatment free year they lost 900 colonies out of the thousand they'd stopped treating, of the remaining 100, 50 were judged strong enough to breed from. Of those 50, 5 actually turned out to be survivors.


http://youtu.be/1cbCZOCyD-c

[gavin]

You're just showing off your new forum posting skills now!

[prakel]

Everyone loves to learn a new skill!

[prakel]

An interesting report by John Kefuss on the thinking behind his project and the 'World Varroa Challenge':


...To incite maximum participation by beekeepers and scientists, one cent (in euros) was paid for every varroa mite that was found dead or alive according to the maxim “Put your money where your mouth is”. A provisional budget of 100 cents was reserved to cover the costs of paying for all mites found.

http://www.apinews.com/es/noticias/item/12335-francia-una-competencia-para-obtener-varroas?tmpl=component&print=1

Once again, some notable success, built on the back of heavy losses and a very high level of experience based knowledge.

[Neils]

Well I went to a talk given by some "natural beekeepers" this evening. I did promise myself that I wouldn't get involved but in the end I couldn't just sit there. To be fair when they weren't talking guff about "conventional" beekeepers their talk was interesting, I don't agree with a lot of their assertions but what started out as a bit of a frosty back and forth did, in the end, turn into an interesting discussion. "That isn't true." to one of their statements probably wasn't going to be a good way to start. But from a start point of "Lots of chemicals, take all the honey and feed sugar, suppressing drones and cutting out queen cells" we managed to if not find a common ground then at least be civil to each other :D

I don't mind them wittering to each other on Biobees about what a bunch of so and sos we are but I object to being portrayed in that manner to a non beekeeping audience.

[Jimbo]

At our association meeting last week somebody brought a double page newspaper spread of the sun hive. There was a lot of interest and some new members were showing an interest in purchasing one. I did point out that the outer shell was made from a cow pat and that I thought it may not stand up too well to our cold west coast wet weather. I also said the clue was in the name of the hive which we don't get a lot of in our area.

[Mellifera Crofter]

... I suspect some of them are very pleasant people in everyday life but I am afraid on forums come across as deranged with very large chips on their shoulders.


Well I went to a talk given by some "natural beekeepers" this evening. ... To be fair when they weren't talking guff about "conventional" beekeepers their talk was interesting ...

Madasafish is right - they are nice people. Like Neil, I've been on a two-day course (in 2011) given by Phil and Heidi and really enjoyed it. I don't think they were 'anti' any other kind of beekeeping. I'd rather say they were pro bee-friendly beekeeping and that includes all sorts. The views they expressed are shared by many: take only surplus honey (yes - that's what most of us do anyway); no clipping (a lot of beekeepers don't clip); let them swarm (one of my favourite beekeepers in his 80s does that - but he is with his hives every day and can see what's going on); disturb as little as possible (we all try to do that); and so on. As far as I can remember Phil also talked about creating artificial swarms using a TBH and treating against varroa (I can't remember details about his views on varroa treatment). Most of these ideas were discussed by all - particularly the swarming issue. I think the only controversial part was when Heidi said her bees talk to her. Phil interpreted it as being aware of your bees' needs. I spoke to Phil privately about neonicotinoids, but I can't remember that either mentioned it as part of the course.

I liked them both. Nice level-headed people, but something goes amiss in print and interviews.

Kitta

[Neils]

Could be Kitta. I think there is more an element of seeing that something needs to be fixed in beekeeping so the perceived faults tend to get exaggerated. I don't think that this "them and us" attitude is helpful from either 'side' of the debate, but in keeping with the title if thread I was very much left feeling like we were the bad guys and what we do as Beekeepers was being horribly misrepresented to an audience of non Beekeepers.

There is actually a lot of common ground but it seems we're often more concerned with highlighting each other's perceived faults than concentrating on what we consider benefits of our management philosophies.

[Mellifera Crofter]

... I was very much left feeling like we were the bad guys and what we do as Beekeepers was being horribly misrepresented to an audience of non Beekeepers. ...

Yes, that's true, and very, very annoying.

[madasafish]

When you have different views of how to do things and a number of people on both sides have strongly held views, there is always going to be some conflict. When neither side has any leadership - like leadership in the political party sense where MPs are part of a Party but also hold independent views on items such as Gay marriage - the fringes, who tend to hold people with strongly held views, tend to dominate discussions.

Add in a very few individuals who are deeply unpleasant - judging by their public dissing of their opponents - and you have all the makings of a catfight.

[Johnthefarmer]

When you have different views of how to do things and a number of people on both sides have strongly held views, there is always going to be some conflict. When neither side has any leadership - like leadership in the political party sense where MPs are part of a Party but also hold independent views on items such as Gay marriage - the fringes, who tend to hold people with strongly held views, tend to dominate discussions.

Add in a very few individuals who are deeply unpleasant - judging by their public dissing of their opponents - and you have all the makings of a catfight.


Yes ,you're right, it has been very nice and civilised on here recently.

Almost too nice, and rather quiet.....or maybe that's just fine?

[Jon]

It is just fine!
Thing is John, some people cannot debate without losing control. Complete hotheads.

A couple of weeks ago on biobees forum I was debating with Phil Chandler the pros and cons of letting bees swarm freely when a couple of posters jumped in and accused me of being a troll, ie if you disagree you must be a troll, a shill or whatever. Phil Chandler was being perfectly civil, although we clearly hold different views, but the folk who jumped in aggressively just come across as being deranged. It is complete immaturity. I don't post on beekeeping forum but I read it every day and Doris went on there with exactly the same tactics as she used here and antagonised everyone in the same way with her talk of shills and conspiracies thrown at anyone who disagreed with her. She may well feel that she is right and the rest of the world is wrong but that is no excuse to behave badly.

Most people are sincere about the welfare of bees and beekeeping irrespective of whether they are 'natural' beekeepers of some other type of beekeeper. Personally, I see the natural vs conventional thing as a complete false dichotomy as you get PPB in both camps and/or stupid ideology from some people which leads to the unnecessary death of bee colonies. Not feeding syrup or not treating for varroa are two which spring to mind. The thing about conventional beekeepers 'taking all the honey' I have never met a beekeeper anywhere who did that. I have seen dozens of beginners who do the opposite and overfeed to the detriment of the colony.

This is a friendly forum with amiable well informed posters which makes it a pleasant place to hang out. There are top bar beekeepers and warre beekeepers here such as madasafish and Chris and noone has any problem at all with that. In fact it is an opportunity to look at a different way of doing things.
What rankles with some is that the ethos here is 'evidence based' so pet theories and pesticide rants will be challenged and the posters will be asked for evidence, which lest we forget is one of the tactics of a shill apparently.

[drumgerry]

For a while ( not a very long while admittedly!) I was posting on beekeepingforum and thought it might be possible to have an informed and reasonable discussion there. It became clear pretty quickly that so many people there are so entrenched that discussing things in a reasonable manner just wasn't/isn't possible. I've given up. Most of the interactions I've had on that forum have left a pretty foul aftertaste. I do try to keep reading it to see what the likes of Murray and Gavin have to say but even that's becoming less frequent. It amazes me that those guys hang around there the amount of dog's abuse they take sometimes.

I can honestly say that the atmosphere over here is like day compared to night. I think there are some strongly held opinions but thankfully we (generally) have not been infiltrated by the extremists some of whom think that blanketing every beekeeping forum known to man with their "opinions" will win the argument for them. I've come to the point that even if what they're saying is true I don't want to hear it any more. I immediately take a position in opposition to them.

For me it's about the bees and the beekeeping - first and last. For some it seems to be all about being a keyboard warrior. Thankfully not too many of those around SBAi and long may that continue!

[Jon]

And some of the worst offenders on beekeeping forum are not even beekeepers!
Some of the posts made there are embarrassing in their stupidity and could only be made by people with no practical knowledge of beekeeping.

[gavin]

Thanks guys. I just can't resist the chance to play with the likes of Borderbeeman who will now forever be thought of in terms of psychedelic Beatle lyrics (in my head anyway). Such a humourless fixed view is a wonder to behold.

Roll on the beekeeping season. We're nearly there. Was talking to an old timer tonight and his bees seem in fine fettle. Strong, even, like mine (oops, should never count chickens).

[EmsE]

.....I think there are some strongly held opinions but thankfully we (generally) have not been infiltrated by the extremists some of whom think that blanketing every beekeeping forum known to man with their "opinions" will win the argument for them. I've come to the point that even if what they're saying is true I don't want to hear it any more. I immediately take a position in opposition to them.

For me it's about the bees and the beekeeping - first and last. For some it seems to be all about being a keyboard warrior. Thankfully not too many of those around SBAi and long may that continue!

It is amazing that they don't see that

*the way they behave is turning people away from even wanting to find out more about their concerns.
* as soon as they mention someone is in the pocket of one of 'those' multinationals then they come across as conspiracy theorists
*you can't bully people along onto supporting your view, you need to talk (or type) nicely to them & take the time to politely answer their questions. They would get a lot further without leaving a trail of destruction behind them.

Like Drumgerry, I question how much of it is really about the bees and how much is more to do with their egos and the power trip they are seeking over others. After watching the threads on the Beekeeping Forum I was disgusted by the behaviour of quite a few members, some of which I know it is about the bees but they certainly don't come across that way.

I personally would enjoy a balanced discussion looking at the pesticide issue so that in my own mind I can come to my own views an know that I wouldn't get slagged off for them or for even asking a question.

Rant over- time for a cuppa :)

[madasafish]

I have virtually given up on biobees forum as it reminds me of the posts on forums after 9/11 when conspiracy theorists had a field day.

You must remember in all this that for some people , conspiracy theories rule their lives and they go from one to another as they become fashionable...

[Jon]

Yes I am only after reading that Bayer likely introduced the Asian Hornet to France (that one from a well known conspiracy theorist who lives on a Northerly Island off Scotland) which was met by the riposte that they likely brought varroa to the UK as well.
Heady stuff.
Distraction you see. No-one will notice the neonics with all the new pests abounding.
It is a pity, as there must be loads of regulars on biobees who find this stuff as risible as I do but you are on a hiding to nothing if you challenge it.
There should not be a connection between this sort of nonsense and the natural beekeeping movement as it brings it into total ridicule.

[Neils]

I personally would enjoy a balanced discussion looking at the pesticide issue so that in my own mind I can come to my own views an know that I wouldn't get slagged off for them or for even asking a question.

Rant over- time for a cuppa :)

We could try a moderated thread perhaps? I'd be prepared to sit out the discussion other than act as moderator.

The risk is still that it acts as a conspiracy theorist magnet but it seems silly that on our own forum we should feel intimidated off discussing something.

[Jon]

I don't think there is a problem with logical discussion on this forum apart from one or two zealots - and there are clearly degrees of harm to the environment caused by pesticides which need to be quantified as acceptable or unacceptable.
Calum posted a flow chart last year which summed up the problem.

if your mind is already made up and can never be changed no matter what new evidence appears than there is no discussion taking place.

1415

[EmsE]

Unfortunately it only takes 1 to spoil it for everyone, but you're both right that we should be able to discuss freely, however it would need to be closely moderated or be a pre moderated thread to ensure it isn't hijacked. There's no point entering a thread where you find others twisting what you say, telling you what you think bla bla bla- It justs puts your back up.

Did Callum get the post of the year for that?- it couldn't have been more apt.

Sent from my BlackBerry 8520 using Tapatalk

[Jon]

Did Callum get the post of the year for that?- it couldn't have been more apt.

It was a toss up between that one and the other one comparing the debate to playing chess with a pigeon!

There is a lot of stuff to debate:
-why the obsession with neonicotinoids as opposed to pyrethroids, carbamates and organo-phosphates, what will replace them?
-The difference in toxicity of neonicotinoids eg thiacloprid is about 1000 times less toxic to bees than thiamethoxam
-different risks associated with seed treatment, planter dust, soil injection or foliar sprays
-risks associated with different crops, soils and other field conditions.
-impartial review of the peer reviewed literature
-field realistic vs lab studies and the pitfalls of data collection and data interpretation

A lot of the people who want to ban neonicotinoids also want to ban all pesticides so they will just move on to the next target.
A more mature approach would be based around risk mitigation and looking at realistic economically viable alternatives which lead to a reduction in pesticide use.

[Bumble]

Yes I am only after reading that Bayer likely introduced the Asian Hornet to France (that one from a well known conspiracy theorist who lives on a Northerly Island off Scotland) which was met by the riposte that they likely brought varroa to the UK as well.

I suppose, in time, they'll also blame Bayer for Isle of Wight Disease?

It's very difficult to have a rational discussion with an irrational person who sees the same bête noire round every corner. The same people seem to want us to return to the dark ages, but haven't acknowledged the downsides of their arguments. Or, at least, haven't realaised that they would quite likely end up living in a hovel with not enough to eat, and with no internet.

[chris]

Or, at least, haven't realaised that they would quite likely end up living in a hovel with not enough to eat, .

Actually, after reading a little about the middle ages, with all its wars and dreaded plagues etc., I realized that the biggest killer was lack of, or very poor nutrition.

[madasafish]

I find it ironic that the people who post about Big Companies and their evils use the internet using computer chips made by one of the largest companies in the world (Intel) , and often by by Apple (the largest company in the world ) or software by Microsoft (ditto) and the Cloud is largely financed by Venture Capitalists..


If they had the courage of their convictions, we would never hear from them as bicycle powered computers don't exist...

[madasafish]

Actually, after reading a little about the middle ages, with all its wars and dreaded plagues etc., I realized that the biggest killer was lack of, or very poor nutrition.

Or spinal problems caused by lifting very large weights .. or bending bows or

no teeth due to dental decay...

[wee willy]

I find it ironic that the people who post about Big Companies and their evils use the internet using computer chips made by one of the largest companies in the world (Intel) , and often by by Apple (the largest company in the world ) or software by Microsoft (ditto) and the Cloud is largely financed by Venture Capitalists..


If they had the courage of their convictions, we would never hear from them as bicycle powered computers don't exist...

Except in Indian call centres !
VM


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gavin]

Ah, welcome WW! Just twigged where I'd seen that picture before.

[wee willy]

Been on here quite awhile but don't post often :)
Wee willy /G4WIL/Victor Meldrew :D
John W.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Alton]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/beekeeping/9790465/Why-natural-beekeeping-could-save-our-honey-making-friends.html

Yet again the "natural beekeeping" lot tell us everything would be perfect if only we were like them. :mad:

I can't understand what you are talking about.

moderator edit- to remove link

[drumgerry]

I can't understand what you are talking about.

That's a shame

[The Drone Ranger]

I saw Countryfile when that crazy woman with cowpat hives was on.
She convinced Julia Bradbury to stand under the hives unprotected
Needless to say the presenter was stung in the face just below the eye