Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:16:04 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>While he readily acknowledges that one cannot infer sweeping conclusions from his results, he does attempt to address some of the basic concerns of the average hobbiest/sideliner as regards survival, productivity, local adaptation, etc.
As far as I see he addresses the concerns by turning 180… what happened to the “small” hive theory he has been pushing the last few years? Single brood box, shallow super, small harvest and let them swarm?
Suddenly, the bees are now fine in triple deeps broods with 2 deep supers? Making 80# averages per overwintered hive “incidental” to their primary job of being brood factories for his experiments?
so much for his much for his small hive theory
> Dr. Seeley has endeavored to walk-out his own recommendations in his home yard.
I don’t see that… from the triple deep broods to the hive placed close together and in a straight line no less! This operation violates many of the “rules” for Darwinian beekeeping he has set.
It also worth noting he is in the middle of no were, in a location were feral out number managed hives and has exclusive access to vast areas to swarm trap. This is not the situation for most.
I found the replacement by swarm trap odd, so much for Darwinian beekeeping as a breeding program.
More and more I see two Seeley’s….. the scientist, and the author/pop (bee)culture icon.
this very much feels like the author
***********************************************
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
|
|
|