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:
allen dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
allen dick <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:09:19 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (110 lines)
>>>Before that it was basically a black box.
>> Was that necessarily a bad thing?
> To me, knowledge is always better than ignorance...

But, does it make ignorance necessarily *bad*? Too much of the wrong kind of 
knowledge can be confusing.  How much do we need to know?

Many excellent, successful beekeepers manage huge numbers of hives (black, 
or should I say, white boxes) without necessarily knowing more than a little 
of what is happening inside them.

Clearly, "If we are asking the wrong question, the answer does not matter", 
and I think that may apply to much of our 'progress'.  We are asking the 
wrong questions and being satisfied with the answers.  (I won't start here 
on how badly most of the studies I read have been run, often starting with 
the wrong questions).

>> 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.

> 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.

So it seems we are saying the same thing, and agree on the problem, but have 
a slightly differing perspective.

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

Sorry if I was not clear.  I wasn't concluding that at all.  I was trying to 
say that if the local bees are so persistent that they need to be hunted 
down and eradicated, that there must be some redeeming quality there, 
especially since so many of our pampered bees die off periodically for no 
apparent reason.

> 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.

True and that would eventually lead to better adapted bees, except that the 
bees are often moved, and also new stock (queens, cells) is purchased on the 
whim of the moment.

Moreover these ad hoc additions typically come from a very narrow genetic 
background (one mother) and drones from a yard full of hives that have been 
selected because they love to build queen cells.

> In the past beekeepers selected for productivity or temperament. Now vigor 
> and disease resistance should be foremost.

All these chracteristics can be found in selected hives in a large enough 
population.  All the more reason to avoid breeding from small, closed 
populations.

> A further disincentive to using wild hives is that these are a source of 
> African genes.

Face it.  We are going to have to tame AHB.  Sooner or later.  Better 
sooner.  Maybe some have and would speak up if the hysteria about AHB were 
to subside.

> 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.

Even if that approach has failed over and over?  Seems like a technician's 
guaranteed employment plan to me.

> 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.

Those are not the only choices.  Besides it is not either/or.  And, I can't 
believe all those skep keepers were as ignorant as suggested.  Some were, 
and some beekeepers remain ignorant today, but there were very smart and 
observant people as long as we had recorded history, and before, I would 
assume.

> 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.

We are a product of our times, and we think the way we are taught, but there 
are other equally good--or superior--options if we look.

allen 

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2