> since splits made with transferred comb run a far greater risk of transfer of pests and diseases. Thats the way the bees do it.
Sure, making splits with brood is risky, but in my view the risks far outweigh the benefits. The old way of making increase is to raise a whole bunch of queens from worker larvae that the breeder selects and place the queens in with completely unrelated bees. Whereas, the Charlie Mraz way is to create one new colony from one of the best colonies, allow the bees to select the larvae to use, and the colony which is productive for whatever reason (genetic, behavioral, microbial, etc) is made into two.
Of course, this isn't how bees do it. They don't carry brood and bee bread with them! But what if they could? Ants do this, they take microbial cultures with them when they found new colonies. ANyway, I have no proof that it is important, it just seems intuitively correct. On the other hand, the whole bee breeding enterprise which basically tries to "clone" bees by raising thousands or tens of thousands of queens of the same line, seems utterly flawed to me.
One thing that is clear is this: commercial beekeeping relies on mass production methods, which may compromise honey bee health in many ways. Small time beekeepers are at liberty to develop different methods of solving the same problems, such as how to increase hives and how to propagate the best colonies. Unfortunately, nobody I know is looking into the issues I have raised: whether or not the current methods of propagation are really the best. Researchers are looking at genetic diversity and hive microorganisms from a research point of view, but who is trying to determine the practical application of it? (if any)
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
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
