Talk:Buckfast bee

message: Hello, I was at the Abbey today and the head beekeeper told me they do not do anything to maintain the line developed by Brother Adam and while it is likely some of their bees still have some of the genes from the Buckfast line, they are now mutts and no one there considers them to be Buckfast bees in the sense of the race of bees.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.202.182 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Still bred today

message: The Buckfast hybrid bee was a bee developed by "Brother Adam", (born Karl Kehrle) in 1898 in Germany, who was in charge of beekeeping at Buckfast Abbey.
I tried to clean up the grammar a bit but wasn't sure what the first sentence meant- was Brother Adam born in 1898 or did he develop the Buckfast bee in this year? 
Cheers quercus robur
:Judging by the Buckfast Abbey page and what i know, he was born 1898, so I will change it Mujinga 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1898

message: 1. "Brother Adam was inspired about the survival of the Italian × black bee crosses."
This is not a proper sentence in the English language.
2. Both date and place of birth of Brother Adam are not consistent. Compare introduction and box. The information needs to be fixed.
3. What is "cwt"? It should be explained of there should be a link behind it. I assume it stants for centum weight (cwt) or hundredweight (100 pounds (US) or 112 pounds (Imperial).
ICE77 (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments and question 

message: Under the "External links" section there is a Link to the "Bee Improvement and Bee Breeders' Association", to the best of my knowledge this has little, if anything, to do with Buckfast bees, and the organization is not referenced in the main article, thereofore I think it should be deleted.Is123Biblio (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under the heading "Heritage" it states "The Buckfast contains heritage from mainly ... A. m. mellifera (English)..." BUT in 1968 Br. Adam had published an article in Bee World, https://doi.org/10.1080/0005772X.1968.11097180 called "Isle of Wight or Acarine Disease" in which he states on page 14 "...aware of the good qualities of the native British bee... I tried to get hold of it again - if it still existed. About 1942 Mr. J. Tinsley... thought he had discovered a few colonies... but further tests showed that this was not so. In the summer of 1945 I secured some queens from a secluded place in the extreme west of Ireland, which were claimed to be pure natives. This strain proved to be like the old native British bee in its susceptability to acarine; we raised a batch of queens but, although they were mated with drones of our own strain, the first-cross as well as the original stock succumbed to acarine" (NB: Br. Adam considered acarine to be the Isle of Wight Disease) From this paragraph you can see that he clearly failed in his sincere efforts to incorporate the DNA of the old British and old Irish AMM's into his breeding program, even the CROSSES he made from the imported Irish queens died of acarine, he equates the Irish AMM's to the old British AMM's meaning that their DNA too died out. 
THEREFORE I think that the reference to "A. m. mellifera (English)" should be deleted. Is123Biblio (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heritage 

message: Throughout this wiki page Brother Adam is refered to by his original name of Karl Kehrle, but yet in all other writings about him as a beekeeper and monk he is refered to as Brother Adams, he took this name / title whenever he became a monk, and to the best of my knowledge did not use his original name thereafter, therefore I think that "Karl Kehrle" should be changed to Br. Adam except for a small note at the beginning of the article; to further support this, even the "The Karl Kehrle Foundation" (one of the External links in the article) even refers to him as Br. Adam on it's pages.Is123Biblio (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Kehrle or Br. Adam 

message: First, the stated weakness of "Low amount of brood during winter" is now considered to be a strength NOT a weakness since the arrival of Varroa, therefore this should be deleted at worst and added as a Strength at best! In fact it is my undersatnding that the Buckfast bee has a brood break during the winter, helping to kill the varroa in the hive. 
Second, the stated weakness of "Possibility of second-generation defensiveness if not requeened (may be from Africanized genes introduced)", should be removed because there is no evidence for Africanized genes in the Buckfast lines and DNA analysis has not detected any. Also "second-generation defensiveness" would only likely occur if the virgin queens mated with drones with aggressive genes, as the Buckfast is known and bred for it's non-agressiveness, it is very unlikley to have been a pure Buckfast drones, therefore this statement is misguided and also misleading.Is123Biblio (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics - Weaknesses 

message: Having the scientific name "Species: A. mellifera - hybrid" is misleading, my understanding is that it should just be ""Species: A. mellifera" it is in the "Sub-specie" that things get a bit confusing. We cannot use the word "hybrid" as that can also be applied to eg: Midnite Bees or other hybrids; I would suggest that we use ""Species: A. mellifera buckfast", any thoughts, otherwise we are going to have problems whenever other bee breeds and hybrids are added to Wiki? Is123Biblio (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific classification