In article <[log in to unmask]>, Stefan Stangaciu
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>* I do not believe that the losses through intensive "industrial" beekeeping
>are as you say "RARE"; many official general statistics showed, as I said,
>dangerous losses (over 50% in some industrial beekeeping countries);
 
Any commercial beekeeper running happily with that level of losses
cannot operate for long. Alledging that commercial beekeepers (why use
the emotive term 'industrial' when there is no such thing?), routinely
operate with 60% losses is nothing short of an outrageous slur on the
competence of beekeepers around the world. Amateurs and professionals
alike attempt to ensure the wellbeing of their colonies, and have
arrived at the best methods from decades of experience. Statistics are
of no use whatsoever here, as they are only as good as the questions
asked when gathering them and the agenda of the body compiling them.
Beekeepers know what is a good hive and what is not. In any case, why
ask me to produce statistics? You made the contentious claim, so the
burden of proof is on you.
 
>* I agree that the above losses are not connected ONLY to sugar feeding, but
>to several factors; however, sugar feeding may be the last bad "drop", among
>many others, don't you think so?
 
I could not disagree more. Feeding is not the 'last nail in the coffin'.
It is often a lifesaver and as I said before, properly administered I
have NEVER seen it harmful.
>
>* I believe that having more bees after sugar feeding means NOT necessarily
>that these bees are more resistant to various diseases; on the contrary...
>
>    Do you know ANY scientifical study which shows that sugar feeding has
>really improved the RESISTANCE towards varroa, tracheal mites, AFB a.s.o.?
You are confusing issues here and attributing a claim to me which I did
not make. True resistance is genetically derived, and it is obviously
nonsense to think that sugar feeding has any impact on this. I do state
quite definitely that well fed bees are far better placed to resist the
stresses of northern winters and the opportunist complaints that come
with them than colonies which are unfed. Feral colonies, unmanaged and
unfed, left with all their natural stores, will give a natural measure
of the value of your claims. A remarkably high proportion die out in
winter to be replenished by fresh swarms each year.
 
>* I'm almost 100% sure that a correct study done on two types of colonies
>(sugar fed and non-sugar fed) will show that the sugar - fed ones have lower
>resistance towards varroa and/or other diseases.
 
There should be absolutely no difference in this genetically determined
factor. However, those colonies with more young bees with better fat
deposits should be less vulnerable to the effects of varroa vectored
viruses. To me the argument thus slants in favour of the fed bees, but
has no effect on true resistance.
 
>    It's just an hypothesis which may be interesting to verify in practice
>by experts as you are.
As I said in a posting some time ago in an earlier exchange. I am NOT an
expert. I am NOT a scientist. I have NO beekeeping qualifications. I
just try to make a living at this game, based on my experience since age
8 together with my fathers lifetime of experience. Along with some
others on this list, I like to have the confidence that I can spot a
'lemon' when I see one.
>
>
>    Best wishes to all of you,
>
>Stefan.
>
>PS I enjoy very much our discussions, even if sometimes our spirits seems to
>go in "flames"...
 
No flames from here. I could direct you to some other groups where we
would BOTH be absolutely crucified for having this somewhat sterile
debate in the first place.
 
Now, have you read Allen Dicks new posting?
 
Murray
--
Murray McGregor