Hi All
I general I am against cross posting the same information to different lists
as it clogs up a good many inboxes with duplicates. I have had requests to
to do just this with this message that I put on the Irish list recently. I
apologise to those that may be inconvenienced by the duplication.
Irish Beekeeping discussion list - http://IrishBeekeeping.listbot.com
Hi Peter
A great deal of confusion exists on this subject...I think some list members
are even bored by it.
I have been looking into it personally for about six months...And I will lay
out for you the things that intrigue me.
1, Honey bees have existed pretty much unchanged for 30 million maybe even
50 million years, whatever it is it is a long time.
2, Varroa has existed much of that time, I do not know how long but it will
be millions of years rather than any shorter timescale.
3, Whatever damage Varroa was doing to the bees, during this time, it was
not catastrophic...Otherwise there would be no bees left after such a long
timescale.
4, At some date around 1900 Varroa started to become a "nuisance" to
Mellifera strains of bee. The spread is now almost worldwide, and, as it is
difficult to detect it could well be in those areas that consider themselves
"Varroa Free".
5, This spread of varroa is attributed to physical transfer of some
Mellifera colonies, somewhere near Russia (I forget the details but they
should be easy to find).
6, I think this scenario is unquestioningly accepted because it is
convenient and it fits the data...But I do not see any proof of it nor
anybody looking for any alternative, (That book of knowledge is now shut.)
7, Almost all writings up to 1900 that mention wax foundation are talking
about a cellsize of 4.9mm. They did not talk about it as such (it was the
norm). Cellsize only seems to be mentioned in increasing sizes and that
mainly in pursuit of a longer tongue.
8, The cellsize issue has been debated by most generations of beekeepers
since then but discussion has only been on increasing cellsize in an attempt
to increase the performance of the bee.
9, I consider it a possibility that these ever increasing cellsizes have
provided an ideal catalyst for the spread of pests and diseases of many
kinds, in a bee that is less adaped to normal life because it is handicapped
by bloated size.
10, There is resistance to testing this by running research, from both the
foundation manufacturing trade and the research institutes that rely on
funding and business from chemical companies. For obvious reasons the
manufacturer would have to spend on re-tooling and chemical companies are
not going to fund projects that will reduce the amount of product they can
sell.
11, There is inertia and hostility from existing researchers and research
institutes because a simple fix like this will put some of them out of
business. I have information on this that I will not publish. (You should
use the grapevine that Dee mentions to find out for yourself.)
My plea here is that somebody or some organisation should do some definitive
testing...Yes it will take money! BUT look at the possible benefits!
The Bees could do with a better quality of life.
Beekeepers could do with keeping bees that are gentler and more productive
and more easily managed.
The environment could do without the chemical run-off and the breakdown
products from treating bees.
Are these things too much to ask for?
Irish Beekeeping discussion list - http://IrishBeekeeping.listbot.com
Hi Peter
Further to my previous post...
Small or smaller cell sizes have not really been a topic widely discussed
before now. So there is no battery of referances that can be used on a fore
and against basis.
Unfortunately most beekeepers actually believe that "Bigger is Better" and
would be reluctant to accept a smaller bee even if it was more efficient and
gathered more honey.
Best Regards, Dave Cushman
G8MZY
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding
http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman
|
