PO Gustafsson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Hello Joe,
>It has never worked that way on this list. BEE-L is focused on
>science, not just exchanging theories. 

Hello PO,

I understand,  no exclusions made concerning theories then.  What I see is 
that it says “Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology”.   
This covers just about every topic concerning bees.  I really see no 
restriction to only “scientifically proven topics” mentioned anywhere.

A new theory will usually be
>challenged until proven right or wrong. 

Yes, and even “proven theories” can be challenged because they can 
occasionally be proven wrong, as is known to happen quite often in 
science.  So, ALL is open to challenge! 

>New ideas are always welcome, but people must realize that when they
>fail to prove their point, they should let go until they have proof to
>back up their theory. Continual repeating like a mantra will not make
>it true, 

I agree!
That’s why I decided to take my hypotheses on why survivor colonies often 
exhibit low brood viability, and some feral colonies exhibiting high brood 
viability OFF list.  Then I can share with those that enjoy progressive 
thinking and discussion of theories.  One thing is sure,  I NEVER want to 
become stagnate to new thinking.  I know that new ideas sometimes offend 
the scientific community here on the list, so I often direct them off 
list.  

>Now let's say we were to select for bees that were best adopted to
>survival without interference from man. Firstly they don't need to
>produce more honey that they can eat during winter. Much better use
>the energy on reproduction. 

Oh but there is tremendous selective pressure in the wild for feral bees 
to produce MORE honey than they can consume during winter.  Feral colonies 
that store more than they can consume during winter will have a distinct 
advantage when it comes to early brood rearing and drone production, and 
this can affect colony fitness.  Also, feral colonies that store more 
honey than they can use will have more stores needed to survive extreme  
winter conditions and supply energy needed for survival during dearth and 
rainey conditions.  << A colonies ability to survive affects colony 
fitness. (Ref. Seeley, Page, Tarpy) >>   

That will benefit in the long run.
>So we would have bees that swarmed a lot, and didn't give any surplus
>honey. That is natural bees to me, what evolution would revert to if
>we stopped selecting.

I am NOT proposing that we stop selecting.  I’m proposing that we be more 
careful to ad more balance in the selecting of  traits of survival 
(essential for the bee), with traits of economic value (essential for the 
beekeeper). 

Also, here in the north the first prime swarm has a higher chance at 
winter survival,  very few later swarms survive.  So obviously,  there 
isn’t a selective advantage for swarmy feral bees in the north.  The 
ferals I see here are very similar to domestic bees as they want to throw 
one prime swarm early, which is easily prevented and urge satisfied using 
swarm control measures.  

>
>In an answer to Bob you wrote:
>>Most beekeepers regress with their survivors.  Survivors tend to have low
>>brood viability.  So one needs to regress the first year, and then select
>>for queen fundamentals and at least 95% viability
>
>Lets see if I got this right: small cells force beekeepers to select
>for bees with less brood production. Is that what you say?

NO, you got it wrong.

>There is nothing said by the advocates here about the need for
>changing to a different breed of bees during the process. 

Where did I say you needed to change into a different breed?

I think it's
>fair to those to explain the downsides with the process, don't you
>also think so Joe?

I would be happy to explain the down sides!  I will say that most 
downsides occur when people think small cell is a “treatment”.  They place 
it in and expect be a 'cure all for bad breeding' or 'bad beekeeping' 
practices.  

>So will you please let us know how much honey you bees were producing
>before the varroa entered, and what average you are making now. If the
>other small cell advocates would also join with their results, it
>would give us a better idea of what to expect.

So as not to compare apples with oranges, I’ll state that the average 
honey yield here in Pennsylvania was 56 Lbs in 2004, and 54 Lbs in 2005.  
Pre varroa, I believe the average (guessing now) was somewhere near 60 to 
70 pounds tops per colony.  

The few years I kept bees before varroa, I averaged about 70 to 80 pounds 
per colony.  When on large cell and no treatments during the 90‘s, honey 
yield was non existent, or sporadic at best averaging at 40 pounds per 
colony.  

On the colonies I supered this year, average was 60 pounds, and top 
performers at 80 pounds.  But this year was according to reports from 
beekeepers in my area, a very poor year for honey surplus.  So, I think my 
average this season was pretty good.  This still does not reflect the full 
potential just yet, because I occasionally moved bees around and siphoned 
off brood from these colonies.

Best Wishes,         


Joe Waggle 
Ecologicalbeekeeping.com 
‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' 
Feral Bee Project:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FeralBeeProject/

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