Dee Lusby wrote:
>The following lecture/talk was just given by me at the 105th anniv
>convention of the Alabama State Beekeepers on 21 Sep 02. I am
>posting it here for much discussion and comment, as it relates
>highly to beekeeper induced stress within beehives and other
>problems.

I responded:
>You have claimed that small cells and nutrition would take care of
>our problems. Now you are championing flipping frames around. Are
>your bees sick and suffering so that you would go to the trouble of
>trying this completely novel and unproven technique to save them?
>Why are they suffering? Because of beekeeper caused stress?
>
>And if they are *not suffering* due to the results of your
>biological beekeeping program, then why would you need *still
>another* technique on top of all the others? If they were not
>suffering before you turned the combs around, then how can they now
>be better?

I am still waiting for an answer to this one. Ms. Lusby challenged us
to discuss her theory, so I think it is fair to point out its
weaknesses. Without going into the many claims, I will focus one one:
that misaligned combs contribute to premature supersedure. As I
mentioned, many people lament over excessive supersedure (though as
Dave pointed out, if the queens are junk -- then supersedure is
probably a good thing). The problem is: no data. No one I know has
marked queens and tracked the actual rate of supersedure. It's one of
those "it seems as if" sort of things. Lots of opinions; few facts.

In order to study supersedure, one would have to requeen all hives
with marked queens, or at least mark every queen early in the season.
Then these queens would have to be monitored during the season. This
would establish a baseline supersedure rate. Next, the
"anti-supersedure" study would be undertaken, -- say: change the
frame orientation. This would be done on half the hives. Half would
have to be managed in the regular way. Then, if the rate of
supersedure departed from the previous year in the test hives but not
in the control hives, you could say you were on to something.

One last comment: to refer to natural or unnatural beekeeping is to
move into the realm of philosophy. Some would say that any beekeeping
is unnatural. Either everything we do is natural, since it is based
on nature, -- or we left nature behind years ago, at what point who
can say? Bees lived for eons in caves and hollow trees, and mankind
spent millions of years camping out, without the benefit of gas or
electricity. Human activity now affects almost every corner of the
planet. (See Bill McKibben's "The End of Nature".)

Real "natural beekeeping" might be knocking wild honey combs down
with a stick, no buckets please.


--

Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>