# Interesting Read



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Clayton
What was your take of the point this interesting reading was trying to say?
Cheers
gww


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

good paper, thanks clay. 

i've only skimmed through it but will give it a more careful read later.

sibylle, i noticed that the second author is based in germany, are you aware of him/her?


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

squarepeg said:


> sibylle, i noticed that the second author is based in germany, are you aware of him/her?


Never heard of her but I will find out. 
Don´t know about the institute,but will search for informations. Celle is known.

Thanks for posting, Clay.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

The authors write articles for the magazine "bee world" and are scientists ( student) at the University.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Delphine_Panziera


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> The authors write articles for the magazine "bee world" and are scientists ( student) at the University


:lpf::lpf:
sorry..
they start the paper with the suggestion that we should stop selective breeding of livestock and expect modern agriculture to move forward to over come a problem that they feel could be controlled threw............. selective breeding!
They hold a master bee breeder (kefuss) up as an example of "natural selection" and ignore all his hard work on testing, selection, propagation, and re queening. There is a clear lack of under standing of bee breeding an genetic flow. 

All I see is a opinion paper with zero original research written by non stakeholders with a stated agenda ... 
take it for what it is worth, about nothing!


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

I can not understand why you react with so much contempt.
It summarizes the 2 methods that everyone knows exist and explain their impact and future prospects.
Look at the references, please before commenting.

By the way I got mail from Yves Le Conte, ( Avignon Group Kefuss), they do a research on tf beekeeping and a questionnaire for me to answer about my colonies.

I think this a very good approach to further results.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> I can not understand why you react with so much contempt.


and that is why the path you chose is very different then mine
The authors of the paper chose to believe that JK not treating his stock was the reason for his success as some sort of natural section mogo happened.
They ignore all the FBAs, mite washes, brood mite assays, and grafting and re queening the bulk of the stock with select genetics. 
they ignore the the selection of strong TF traits beyond what nature selects for over came mating with non slect drones in the pop 2 stock started with treated bees that were re queened. 

All I here from the bulk of TF camp is BOND! Kefuss ! When I suggest they actually follow the program John has outlined, Its all push back


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Artificial and natural selection can exist side by side, a selection, however, is never completed, as the article mentions.

If you have feral swarms around you and genetics has an impact on artificial selection, it's no different.
So it is practiced by many tf beekeepers who do not artificially inseminate.

So why not double track and practice both?

You know, in this tf practicing the breeders told us we can´t have an impact on resistance developing when we have only + - 100 hives together.
So what´s do do?
We don´t have the possibilities to do like Kefuss, but we might be inspired by other strategies and improve health of our stock otherwise.


----------



## Clayton Huestis (Jan 6, 2013)

> they start the paper with the suggestion that we should stop selective breeding of livestock and expect modern agriculture to move forward to over come a problem that they feel could be controlled threw............. selective breeding!


That's not how I took what was presented. I understood it that we are to allow bees to select for groups of traits that occur naturally (I like to think of it as clusters of traits) vs. Fixating on a single trait such as vsh, biting, or what have you. (yes the single trait is natural too.) I don't think they are saying not to use selective breeding at all. Either method can make progress. 



> All I here from the bulk of TF camp is BOND! Kefuss ! When I suggest they actually follow the program John has outlined, Its all push back


Personally, I don't recommend starting with bond. Usually equals too many dead bees. I would treat until I could identify traits that allow for survival. But at some point the treatments have to be pulled to see reality for what really lives. Can't be TF if you treat.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> I would treat until I could identify traits that allow for survival. But at some point the treatments have to be pulled to see reality for what really lives.


Agreed, soft bond is fine, as is an IPM program were the threshold is adjusted for colony survival, not max health for honey production.. 



> I don't think they are saying not to use selective breeding at all. Either method can make progress.


pehaps I am miss reading , from the 1st paragraph 
_beekeeping without queen breeding and without cultivation of breeds._ 
from the summery
_While the success score for selective breeding is still scant, natural selection has delivered a few described cases of resistance, all in relatively short time periods. _
The selective breeding programs of beekeepers such as Kefuss is were we have seen the success. The natural programs such as gotland have seen little success outside of an isolated location. 

They then then go on to suggest we need to be using "natural reproduction" and catching swarms and they take a long walk in the weeds on vertical vs horizontal transmission... 
From a wild point of view with dispersed colonlys they are indeed correct. But compared to the wild we keep bees in high density feedlot conditions. 
The mite is VERY adapted to horizontal transmission... thats how it spread around the world, that's how resistance to treatments spread.... its not like resistance poped up in every ones yard from them treating... it was one mite some were, we know this as the mutation and mechanisms are different in the UK, US, and mainland Europe and mites are more or less clonal. It then spread horizontally across its associated land mass 

There premise is based on this misconception
_too virulent parasites take the risk of killing their host too quickly, therefore eliminating chances of transmission and leading to their own extinction. _ 
They are missing that the killing of the host is a prime mode of transmission for mites and the viruses they are carrying. Again, out in the woods there is a chance other conlys don't find it and rob it out and that virulent strain dies with the hive. In beekeeping getting robbed out is almost ensured.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

msl


> _beekeeping without queen breeding and without cultivation of breeds.
> from the summery
> While the success score for selective breeding is still scant, natural selection has delivered a few described cases of resistance, all in relatively short time periods.
> The selective breeding programs of beekeepers such as Kefuss is were we have seen the success. The natural programs such as gotland have seen little success outside of an isolated location. _


The thing is that when you read this, it seems you are reading this means hands off but when I read it is seems to be saying, don't go for russians or italians but go for mutts. I don't know which of us are right but put in context with the whole artical, I do not read this as meaning no picking when looking at which hive to make increase from.
Cheers
gww


----------

