BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:03:23 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
Peter:
> Before that it was basically a black box.

Allen:
> Was that necessarily a bad thing?  

Peter:
To me, knowledge is always better than ignorance. Knowledge can be
misapplied and lead to negative consequences, but the consequences of
ignorance are worse. Think about medicine, for example. Before antibiotics
and vaccinations people died from minor infections. Sure, modern medicine
makes people less resistant to disease, but who wants to have ten kids just
to get one or two good ones (like they did even 100 years ago).

Allen:
> Another reason is that the products of the breeding programs prove less
fit than the local bees, and that the characteristics are not sufficiently
fixed to endure. 

Peter:
The reason that the bees are "less fit" has to do with what they are being
selected for. It is not the fault of bee breeding itself. Let's not throw
the baby out with the bath water. The same thing is true in all animal
husbandry. If you breed only for productivity or appearance, you can lose
vitality. 

* * *

Peter:
> steps would have to be taken to eradicate the mongrelized local stock. 

Allen:
> I think that 'eradication' would be a mistake, and rather that their good
points and adaptation should be used in any such program. 

Yeah, well, I disagree on this. I think the idea that the "bees in the
woods" are somehow better adapted, is nonsense. They are just escaped swarms
anyway so they are no different than any old neglected bees. A lot of these
neglected hives have vigorous stock, but that's because if they didn’t they
would have perished. It is not logical to conclude that therefore neglected
stock is more vigorous on the whole. 

If somebody wants more vigorous stock, they can simply let the weak ones
perish. That's what a lot of large scale operators do anyway. They don't
have time to fuss with the duds so they just let them die out. In the past
beekeepers selected for productivity or temperament. Now vigor and disease
resistance should be foremost.

A further disincentive to using wild hives is that these are a source of
African genes. I think there are plenty of good lines to choose from and if
these bees are not good enough to do the job, then we need to try harder.
But no good will ever come from going back to the days when beekeeping was
basically just catching swarms and robbing them, with no idea what was going
on inside of the hive. 

I learned a long time ago that there isn't enough time to do all the things
that you would like to do with your bees so you have to concentrate on the
things that matter most. Re-queening from good stock is one the best things
you can do for your bees, and I sure wouldn’t want to try to do that in a
hive with without frames.

pb

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---

ATOM RSS1 RSS2