Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:14:28 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="utf-8" |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
base64 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Peter Edwards <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> And yet, very large apiaries have been common in the past and bees seemed to thrive in them, depending on environment, etc.
>
> Define thrive! Did they require large inputs of food and medication?
I was thinking specifically about apiaries of 500 or more hives in rural New York State a hundred years ago. There was enough clover and buckwheat to support that many hives in one location. Not generally fed, nor was there any medication to give them. As roads and transportation improved, people began dispersing their hives.
But I am in support of Bailey’s contention that lowered density is healthier for bees. In fact, the large scale migration and feedlot style beekeeping seems like a dead end to me.
PLB
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|