# Ferals & Domestics - Take II



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

This is called Ferals & Domestics Take II because in the interest of keeping posts 
from getting so ridiculously long and so time consuming, you can select 2 questions from the letter you are responding to, and ignore the rest. 
So please keep to the point and don’t babble too much, and keep questions to 
2 or less. Your cooperation is appreciated, but not expected. 



BjornBee said:


> What you do Joe, is quote a study base on diversity of bee lines in comparison of ferals, and what commercial breeders are using today. But what does that say beyond the sad fact that most commercial lines are from a select few lines?


The study clearly shows that the commercial population is more homogeneous than the feral population, and the data suggest that the potential to select for desirable traits may be enhanced by including feral colonies in the screening effort.



BjornBee said:


> What were ferals up till just recent? Lines of bees that were from commercial or beekeepers hives. There are no original feral bee lines. Just those that left hives.


The data does not support your assumption!

In the study, 136 breeder queens all had mtDNA haplotypes associated with A. m. carnica and A. m. ligustica,
this accounted for 433,900 (97%) of the total queens sold. 

This is significantly different than the feral population of the southern United States, where 36.7% of 692 feral colonies had the A. m. mellifera / iberica haplotype (Schiff et al. 1994).

Bejornbee answer this:
In light of the above facts.
If you say there are NO original feral bee lines left, 
and the ferals now are from “those that left hives“...

Then why is the A. m. mellifera / iberica haplotype present
in 36.7% of the ferals, when A.m.m. has not been bred by 
breeders for over 100 years?

If your assumption is to be correct, the ferals should have
haplotypes associated with A. m. carnica and A. m. ligustica,
but the research DID NOT find that.

According to the study:
“The lack of A. m. mellifera haplotypes in the commercial population is indicative of restricted gene flow between feral and commercial populations.”

This means ferals remain significantly different from commercial lines, and that A.m.m. ferals were existing separate from domestic lines with minimal gene flow between domestics and ferals for at least 100 years.

And this study was done in the bee producing south, not in Westmoreland county where there is an impressive 1 domestic colony per 4 square miles according to BjornBees own statistics. Which is likely competing with 7 feral colonies per mile, according to Roger Morse statistics from a feral honeybee census in nearby New York.

Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## Sarge (Jun 26, 2006)

One third plus of ferals in the South have, or had at the time, a DNA that links to a strain not bred commercially in over 100 years. Hmmmmmm. It would appear that that strain may have the survivor characteristics we are looking for.
I wonder why they were dropped from production? And can we bring them back.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Joe,
My stats are not my own. They are pulled from state statistics, from the year 2006. the stats were not implying or debating domestic to feral populations. My comments were from the standpoint that you mention your ferals are from areas away from managed hives. My stats simply imply that with the number of beekeepers and apiaries in Pennsylvania, that very few placed could so easily be considered virgin feral territory, with no pressures from managed hives. I don't see how that has anything to do with the point I was making.

Please reference the study by Roger Morse if you have it handy. What year was this study done?

I've been listening to feral this and feral that for years now. So where is this strain? Who's breeding it? How many studies have been done measuring them against the other lines out there? Seems everyone has a special bee they pulled from the depths of some virgin woods, or has collected the next golden bee line, but I see little proof of it. You would think by now that we would have something more than vague comments, and a little more then something still being so elusive.

I see hype in ferals for years. But its the same every year. Yes, I believe some have collected ferals and have good stock. but my discussions with many, are that at the end of the day, and for all the many years of hype over ferals, its a bunch of nothing better then what a lot of breeders have anyways.

Tell me. Who has feral lines? Where can I get them? And why are they not making in roads with any more than a few people beating the same drums on beesource every now and then?

Come on. If they were so special, I would hope that more progress would be seen over the past years than what we have seen thus far. 

BTW, I see you didn't answer my pointed questions when you drags SOME of my comments over here to a new thread...hmmmm.

Restricted gene flow in commercial lines should bot be equated with stats made on ferals. Research showed ferals having a greater mix and commercial lines not. Alot could be said about that.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Sarge said:


> One third plus of ferals in the South have, or had at the time, a DNA that links to a strain not bred commercially in over 100 years. Hmmmmmm. It would appear that that strain may have the survivor characteristics we are looking for.
> I wonder why they were dropped from production? And can we bring them back.


A. m. mellifera would be the black bee or “german bee” brought here in 1622,
and popular until it was gradually replaced by the Italian bee brought to America
about 1860 and fazed out the black bee by the early 1900's. 
A.m. iberica would have probably been introduced to Florida and Mexico in the
1500 or 1600’s by the Spaniards, and gone feral. 
That the ferals have managed to remain relatively separate genetically from all the domestic lines produced does not support the assumption
that these are “recent escapes” from domestic colonies. 

Joe


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Ferals*

Relatively pure A. M. M. does exist in some areas.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

BjornBee said:


> Joe,
> My comments were from the standpoint that you mention your ferals are from areas away from managed hives. My stats simply imply that with the number of beekeepers and apiaries in Pennsylvania, that very few placed could so easily be considered virgin feral territory, with no pressures from managed hives. I don't see how that has anything to do with the point I was making.


Oh, it has allot to do with it. 
The study shows “The lack of A. m. mellifera haplotypes in the commercial population is indicative of restricted gene flow between feral and commercial populations.” You do not need "virgin feral" territory. Do you have virgin Russian bee territory for your breeding?

The study supports my observations that there are populations of ferals existing in woodlands that need not be totally isolated, and yet they remain significantly different due to restricted gene flow between populations, the study proves this. The number of domestic colonies in my area is so insignificant that it is a non issue.



BjornBee said:


> BTW, I see you didn't answer my pointed questions when you drags SOME of my comments over here to a new thread...hmmmm.


I think that it is much more interesting to the readers of the list that letters aren’t the size of a novel.
I am forced to cut your letter down to the two comments I choose to respond to according to the rules of my thread. I can’t stand long drawn out letters, they are exhausting. 

Best Wishes
Joe


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

And for how many years have beekeepers been going out collecting every swarm they could? And how many beekeepers have this complete feral line that seems impervious to mixing with other lines? And who has them, who has had them tested and verified, and who is willing to put them up against the next bee over?

Or is this something that will take another 10 years, and progress about as far as it has the past 10?

Hope this helps Joe. Right to the point. Now quit telling me how exhausted you are, and use some of that energy answering questions.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

BjornBee said:


> And for how many years have beekeepers been going out collecting every swarm they could? And how many beekeepers have this complete feral line that seems impervious to mixing with other lines? And who has them, who has had them tested and verified, and who is willing to put them up against the next bee over?


The Beekeepers that I know in my area, mostly from the association that I belonged to in the past
would collect ferals, but would still replace queens with bees from the south, and practice regular sometimes yearly queen replacement with domestic queens. Ferals would also be propped up with treatments along with the domestics, making it difficult to assess a colony on its true performance. Basically, negating any benefits that would be gained by collecting ferals, and promoting the selection of stock that does best from being coddled and pampered. 

I doubt also that these beekeepers have assessment yards for new feral stock as I do. I weed out approximately 40 to 50% of the ferals caught. So there is some assessment that needs taken place and the beekeepers you mention “collecting every swarm they could” probably did themselves a disaster by not assessing the stock, IMO poor management. 



BjornBee said:


> Hope this helps Joe. Right to the point. Now quit telling me how exhausted you are, and use some of that energy answering questions.


Sure does!
I love ya man!
I appreciate the consideration for the rules of the ‘take II’ thread..

Joe


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I'll get back to ya in a few more years and see if this goes any further, or if its just the same discussion that was played out with not much results last year, the year prior, the year before that, the year prior to the year prior.......


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

BjornBee said:


> I'll get back to ya in a few more years and see if this goes any further, or if its just the same discussion that was played out with not much results last year, the year prior, the year before that, the year prior to the year prior.......


I’m not sure what you are getting at, I’ve implemented the means to bring this discussion further by providing evidence supporting my claims, that proves ferals are “significantly different from the commercial population.” 

The only thing preventing the discussion from going further is your apparent lack of supporting evidence supporting your argument. 

Well, see ya in 2009!  

Best Wishes
Joe


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Ferals*

I would agree from years of working with both types that ferals are significantly different from the commericial population in a lot of respects, the brood nest organization and their ability to respond to rapidly changing conditions among others, it seems to me that the ferals have a closer relationship with the environment. They are truer to their NATURE..


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Joe,
And they are the same supporting claims that I have heard for years now. So, some study suggests a difference in commercial lines that are faulty only in being very limited in gene diversity. So?

We as a community have been talking about ferals now for years. At some point in time, it's "Show me the money" time. 

Its time to quit dragging up the same anecdotal evidence of this or that, and somehow never really getting over the hump so to speak about a better line of bees. My point being, beekeepers have been collecting ferals for years, we've been talking about ferals for years, and yet...where are they? Where is this great so-called line of ferals that everyone seems to hype year after year? I've asked, "who's breeding them?", who selling them, and a host of other questions. And yet, if I ask who has the best bees, I don't here anyone mention someone or another, because of some line of old world bees that are separate from anything else out there.

You would think that for the years of collecting ferals, there would be more proof, more testing, more evidence, of something more than discussions such as these that pop up every so often.

But, except for a few beekeeper who "think" they have some thing special because of their breeding efforts, after collecting ferals, (ferals never actually tested), there seems little supporting evidence that these ferals are a separate line that somehow seemed to keep from mixing. "Feral", "feral survivors" and a host of other terms sound nice, but have no supporting evidence or testing. And bees that have been selected from non-feral stock that go through the same selection, have shown to be just as good.
Tell me one breeder that has verifiable, tested, ferals of some line of bees that has proven themselves better than anything else we have? After the same discussion year after year, don't be surprised if someone eventually asks for more than whats been seen or shown thus far.

Seems questions never really get answered do they? But some point in time, people will get to a point that after so many years, where is the bees that are being hyped?

So its just continues in some big circle, and continues from year to year......


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MVB,
Before we get too far into your second comment, lets ask about your first. Where are these "pure" A.M.M. bees? And who has them? Who's breeding from them right now? Have they been tested and certified, or are these comments just based on discussions from the boys down at the local club?

Please do a little more than make vague comments that pure A.M.M. are "out there" somewhere.


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Ferals*

The ferals I am referring to are in the wild where they have been for years, they are not being bred by beekeepers but by the best beekeeper, nature, and they are not neccessarily pure A. M. M. although I do no of some areas where they appear so. I am extremely familiar with them in most of their aspects having been around them since about 1966 and having used them in my breeding for over 20 years, the bees I have however are not pure A. M. M., they are a combination of Italian, Banat Carniolan and A. M. M., possibly some Buckfast also. However the bees I have do show a lot of characteristics of the A. M. M. with the extremely white cappings with air under them, occasionally propolizing the hives but mainly shutting down the entrances with propolis, and chewing the wood of the hives occasionally to enlarge or create more entrances. I have found that they winter better, are more frugal, survive the spring initial buildup better because they do not fit the accepted patterns of organization of the brood nest in the early spring. An example of this is that the commercial bees have a well defined broodnest with the accepted organization of brood, pollen, honey and in the spring the commercial bees when confronted with a cold snap will die more often when they can not reach their honey. The more feral types will have open cells within the broodnest in the early spring containing both pollen and honey and can continue feeding the brood and will have food within the cluster to eat. Also the ferals will most often leave the most of their honey stores alone and raise at least the initial brood only off what they are bringing in.


----------



## Sarge (Jun 26, 2006)

Would someone post the study cited on the feral bees? I would like to contact the folks at state college about any studies in northern states. I've read what I could find on this site and am wondering about studies post Varroa die off if any>


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> 136 breeder queens all had mtDNA haplotypes associated with 
> A. m. carnica and A. m. ligustica, this accounted for 433,900 
> (97%) of the total queens sold.

433,900 Queens? 
Say what?

There is *no way* that so few queens could be the "total" queens
sold or produced in the US in 1994. 

Just look at the USDA count of tota hives in the US, in the NASS reports, here:

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1191

1994 (see the 1995 report for 1994 data) 
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Hone//1990s/1995/Hone-02-00-1995.txt

It says:
"There were 2.77 million colonies producing honey in 1994..."

But this USDA survey does not count beekeepers with fewer than five 
colonies, which adds about another 100,000 - 150,000 colonies, for
a grand total of 2.8 million or so total US colonies.

If 433,900 queens were installed in a total population of 2.8 million 
managed hives, they missed quite a few queens. It is laughable to think 
that only one of every six hives was requeened in any one year.

So, we are done showing that the claim itself is the "babble" that
Joe demanded everyone avoid. But let's continue, so as to 
illustrate how many other ways we can verify that we are looking
at something defective.

> This is significantly different than the feral population of the 
> southern United States, where 36.7% of 692 feral colonies had the 
> A. m. mellifera / iberica haplotype (Schiff et al. 1994).

This might sound convincing until you realize several things:

a) First, that 434K is about 1/6th of 2.8 million, as pointed
out above, which invalidates any claim one might base on
such a small fraction of the total colonies that might
swarm in any one year.

b) That a small number of breeder queens in the hands of
the larger queen producers are the ancestors of a
disproportionately large percentage of the managed 
colonies, thus skewing the genetics of possible swarms.
Queen CELLS are sold much more often than mated queens
to larger operations, which explains why the study could
only account for 433,900 queens being sold.

c) That many larger operations have internalized their
queen rearing, and don't buy queens at all. Yet
another reason why the "queens sold" don't add up.

d) That one reason why the A.m.m genetics have been
bred out of commercial queen-rearing is that they
swarmed at the drop of a hat. It stands to reason
that feral colonies would be disproportionately
representative of the lines of bees that are more
prone to swarming.

e) That while it may seem romantic to think of some sort
of "heirloom bees" surviving out there in the wild,
and somehow being "naturally resistant" to some set
of problems that have plagued managed bees, this would
require some sort of habitat to exist. Sadly, much of
what you might view as "wild" has been cut over more 
than once over the past 100 years, and except for 
some very very limited areas of designated wilderness,
there are very few trees that are both large enough
and rotted out in the "correct" way to house a colony
and enough stores to overwinter. (This is why so many
swarms end up setting up shop in structures - there
simply aren't many good real estate options for bees
any more.

So, what does the cited study "prove"? It proves that one must be
careful when looking at data, and one must examine narrow-focus
data only in the broader context of "common knowledge".
Some published work is absolutely wrong. 

It also illustrates a problem unique to online discussion
groups, were a specific paper is seized upon as "proof"
of some point being argued by someone who lacks the 
experience to add the proper context. Careful reading 
of the paper and careful thought about what the data 
actually implies in light of the factual context I like
to call "reality" nearly always reveals a less 
extraordinary explanation.

In general, online discussion participants use science 
the way a drunken man uses lampposts — for support
rather than illumination.


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*A. M. M.*

I read an article several months ago in the ABJ which may shed some more light on this subject, they were referring to areas where the AHB had moved into and they remarked that the bees in these areas which had the A. M. M. genetics had survived relatively unchanged and the others had all been supplanted by the AHB genetics.


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*A.m.m.*

Next point, having known quite a few of the older southern breeders and their parents I know that the majority of them were breeding bees of the type which they knew would sell well, mostly yellow Italians, one of the largest problems they had was to sell relatively pure Italians, this being because just a few wild colonies in ther breeding areas could really have an effect on the bees which they were selling, it seemed the wild colonies had a much better chance with the virgins than did the Italian Drones even when vastly outnumbered statistically by Drone producing Colonies. Also a neccessary point to be made I believe is that all the Ferals never did die out in quite a few areas, the survived the Trachael Mites and the Varroa also.


----------



## Little John_NC (Nov 20, 2005)

*A.m.m*

mountainvalleybee
I agree with you . Im from the low lands of South Georgia Okefenokee Swamp. I had 10 hives in the swamp ,Swarms I had caught. Black bees with brownish gray hairs. They were hard to keep.
Swarmed often an mean as they come. When you open the hive it looked like a cloud around the hive. They would run all over the combs clump up on the edge of the frame and fall off. Looking for the queen was almost imposible. I requeened with Italian queens,that helped but when the Italians raise another queen of there own they would mate with A.m.m drones and the Italians. This cross breed would be just as mean. We requeened hives every 2 years. These feral bees are still in the area along the swamps and up the coast to St. Catherines Island.
All the old timer down there call them German bees or blacks bees and a few other names I cant say here :LOL
When I read your post it struck me funny ....you know there aint no large queen rearing operation in that area of Ga. All of them are pretty much in the Middle Ga area.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Jim Fischer said:


> >
> 433,900 Queens?
> Say what?


Jim, 

That’s what they say.

this research comes from 

NATHAN M. SCHIFF AND WALTER S. SHEPPARD(1)
Bee Research Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research.

You go ahead and call them up and give them heck.

Joe


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*A.m.m.*

An awful lot of research has always been done in the easiest manner, based on the wrong premises, and not based on actual experience with nature. These bees had to be requeened by shaking the bees through an excluder to find the queen often and then you had to let them build cells and destroy them before they would accept a queen. They had a great tendency to mate only with their on type of bee and would not cross readily with Italians, crosses in the other direction however were too easy to obtain, even when you did not want them. And yes, most of the breeders tried to locate their queen yards as far away from areas which had these bees as possible.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

BjornBee said:


> Tell me one breeder that has verifiable, tested, ferals of some line of bees that has proven themselves better than anything else we have?


Hum, strange how you previously state that ferals are nothing more than recent escapes,
then you turn around and say that these escapes are un proven, junk and so forth.
Aren’t your bees proven? 

Joe


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> That’s what they say.
> this research comes from 
> NATHAN M. SCHIFF AND WALTER S. SHEPPARD(1)
> Bee Research Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research.
>
> Take that issue up with them.

No dodging or weaving, stand and deliver. You cited the paper, 
and I asked you to explain your trotting out of that paper in light 
of the facts I presented that many would consider "common knowledge". 

After all, the annual USDA honey reports are published in both 
beekeeper magazines, and are also available online. The massive
difference between 400-some odd thousand queens and nearly 
3 million colonies is simply too stark to ignore.

The paper they wrote is available here on BeeSource, so it appears
that multiple people have read the paper, yet none noticed that it 
was utterly defective in the basic assumptions presented.

How could so many people be so far off in something so basic
like "roughly how many hives are kept in the US"?

Maybe the problem is similar to this one:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071206-youtube-users-prefer-lousy-science-over-the-real-deal.html

Anyway, let's take that paper down, as it is clearly misleading,
and will not shed any light on the issue at hand.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Jim Fischer said:


> >
> The paper they wrote is available here on BeeSource, so it appears
> that multiple people have read the paper, yet none noticed that it
> was utterly defective in the basic assumptions presented.


Good lord, thats just terrible.

But, I don’t see that ARS has retracted the study.

Go through it again and check for crossed ‘T’s and dotted ‘I’s
maybe that will help.

Joe


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Somehow, I get the feeling that you are not going to explain
how the claims made as to possible feral populations are 
affected by the basic contradiction between an obscure 
paper and the regular yearly counts of hives done by the USDA.

Somehow, I also get the impression that you are not going
to address any of the other points brought up by me and
others.

As we have complied with your amusing "rules", this seems
unresponsive in the extreme. We all want to arrive at the
truth, so we have to consider facts, and I submit that
the USDA Honey report is considered "fact" by everyone,
and tends to _UNDERestimate _hive counts in the view of
many.

All are certainly entitled to their own interpretations, but
everyone isn't entitled to make up their own "facts".


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Jim Fischer said:


> >
> If 433,900 queens were installed in a total population of 2.8 million
> managed hives, they missed quite a few queens. It is laughable to think
> that only one of every six hives was requeened in any one year.


This has been an interesting discussion to follow. I have a few questions in reference to the above statement. The percentage of requeened hives does seem quite low when comparing it only to the "total" number of managed hives. And I think we are talking strictly about "commercially" bred queens, right?

But, do we know how many of the total hives retained their queen for a second year?

What percentage of the total do their own queen breeding in house?

How many of the total hives swarmed and produced new queens without outside commercial replacement by the beekeeper?

** Also, what percentage of the total hives were commercial "packages" replacing the prior years dead outs? Are these queens included in the 434,000?

I don't know, these numbers may be insignificant. But is there an data or reports available to determine exactly how high or low that it may be? It may be laughable.. maybe not.


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*A.M.M. and Feralized and True Ferals*

I believe a distinction needs to be made between True Ferals and what I would call Feralized Bees, Feralized being recent escapees, mixed escapees, and their Progeny. True Ferals would exist even further out in the Environs and be the ones the others were mixing with. And even though some would not agree the True Ferals which have never to a great extent been modified by mankind since their introduction to this Continent do still exist in remote areas and areas which have never been overpopulated by commercial bees. Part of this is due to location, and part is due to their methods of survival. The genes contained in the man modified bees, (commercials), would not be conducive to survival in the True Ferals in most cases and would not mix into their populations and survive.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Mike asked some reasonable questions:

> ...how many of the total hives retained their queen for a second year?

Well, if we look at the data, 1/6 of the hives known to exist were
requeened by the queens said to have been the total number of
queens sold. That's gotta be low, because at that rate, each
hive would be requeened _*once only every six years*_. 

No one has ever said that the queen business was cyclical, so
they are selling about the same number every year. Note that
we do not discuss queens for new hives, as the number of hives
has gone down overall every year by a few percent, so, on
average, there really aren't any "new" hives. 

> What percentage of the total do their own queen breeding in house?

The bigger the beekeeper, the more common this is. Vertical integration
is a good way to keep costs down, and to assure oneself a supply
of queens of consistent quality. Now, could these private breeding
programs be exactly where all that A.m.m. genetics comes from? 
Of course! Large beekeepers are exactly the sort of folks to keep
something like Am.m. alive, merely because the professional queen
breeders want to eliminate the traits they carry. Why? These
guys are "contrary" by nature, and they are looking for any "edge"
they can get. They "bet" on all sorts of counter-intuitive stuff
all the time, and some of these bets pay off, which only encourages
them to be even more wacky.

> How many of the total hives swarmed and produced new queens 
> without outside commercial replacement by the beekeeper?

Well, if a colony swarmed, any captured swarm would be counted
as a "new hive", but this is going to be a rare event, one that is
not going to make a significant difference in the overall numbers. 

But regardless of the explanation, the parentage of a mere 400K 
queens sold is no basis for declaring that feral swarms are presenting
any sort of "mystery", when the basic count of managed colonies
was nearly 3 million. In this case, the queens not documented as
to parentage outnumber the queens examined by a 6 to 1 factor,
and the radial wacky genetics of lone-wolf, large-scale DIY queen
breeders, each producing tens of thousands of queens each at
minimum, are not only likely, but absolutely certain to skew the
results toward the "lunatic fringes" of bee hybridization.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Ok, Mike, If your going to rationalize the numbers in one direction, let do it both ways.

Lets look at Pennsylvania as example.

95% of beekeepers would fall into the level not even looked at within the numbers. 95% have less than 10 hives in Pennsylvania.

Numbers of between 10 an 50% have been used in realizing how many beekeepers do not even register their hives. They are not counted, except perhaps in the numbers of queens they order from queen producers who counted their orders.

EVERY major beekeeper I ever inspected NEVER had all his hives counted or listed on the records. If it even approached 50% I would be amazed. Nobody with many yards or hundreds/thousands of hives have them all listed. Its funny how how they throw around huge numbers in telling what they have in casual conversations, but then the numbers listed on the records is way lower. Of course, its a "Don't ask, don't tell policy" for the most part. 

And I don't care how the numbers were obtained, some don't answer with the right numbers for a host of reasons. Whether its the inspector, the tax man, the "big brother", or whatever else, many hives are not counted. Thats a fact. 

Getting the queen numbers from producers may be one thing. Whether they are correct, I don't know. But the number of hives in the states is low, that I'll guarantee! 
I think the overall hive count is WAY low.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> True Ferals which have never to a great extent been modified by 
> mankind since their introduction to this Continent do still exist in 
> remote areas 

Which "remote areas" might this be? Where, exactly? 

I've been bee-lining longer than just about anyone still breathing, 
and I'm pretty darn good at it, so if you really think that there are 
unique genetics of value out there, let's go get 'em!

Now, here's the deal - if they do turn out to be unique genetics,
something not readily available to the Labs and breeders, and 
not something that these labs and breeders have worked to
eliminate from managed colonies, I'll pay our expenses. It they 
turn out to be nothing but more of what we already have, you'll 
pay our expenses. I'm ready to start anytime after the Holidays. 
Get your game shoes on.

> and areas which have never been overpopulated by commercial bees.

I can't think of where this might be, as everywhere I go, I keep
running into beekeepers and beehives. 

> The genes contained in the man modified bees, (commercials), would 
> not be conducive to survival in the True Ferals in most cases 

What specific traits would be "good" for a bee bred by someone like
Sue Cobey, but somehow "not conducive" to survival in the wild?
Does a hive in a box have different needs from a hive in a tree?
Does location really matter, now that bees are kept everywhere
except Antarctica, from Equators to nearly the Arctic and Antarctic
Circles? 

> and would not mix into their populations and survive.

Why not, specifically? Could we have a specific example?
These are statements that, if backed with examples, would
be very interesting.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Jim Fischer said:


> > 136 breeder queens all had mtDNA haplotypes associated with
> > A. m. carnica and A. m. ligustica, this accounted for 433,900
> > (97%) of the total queens sold.
> 
> ...


Now Jim,

You need to restrain yourself from using trickery 
and deceit in order to discredit scientific 
studies that happen not to suit yourself.

IF you read the study:

They are clearly saying that:

The 136 breeder queens tested from 
the ‘22 apiaries’ all had mtDNA haplotypes 
associated with A. m. carnica and A. m. ligustica, 

This accounted for 433,900 OR (97%) 
of the total 
<<<queens sold from these 22 apiaries>>>

Now I credit you for being more attuned to detail than
you appear to be with your submission of your
rather disingenuous reply, to which I have a
small portion of it quoted above.



Jim Fischer said:


> >
> So, what does the cited study "prove"? It proves that one must be
> careful when looking at data, and one must examine narrow-focus
> data only in the broader context of "common knowledge".
> Some published work is absolutely wrong.




Perhaps, it proves that you must be
careful when looking at data, and you must examine narrow-focus
data only in the broader context of "common knowledge".


In any event, thats very good advice you give.
Perhaps you should try adhering to it. 

Now, I created the ‘take II’ rules,
to force people to be a bit more careful
in selecting their 2 best arguments,
by forcing them to trash the junk. 

Had you followed the rules, I would
hoped that you would have presented 
your best argument rather than attempting
to use this sort of deceit to discredit the 
study 

Unless of course this was your 
best argument.  


Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Sarge said:


> Would someone post the study cited on the feral bees?


I would love to read it also. Could someone provide a link? Thanks!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Mike Gillmore said:


> I would love to read it also. Could someone provide a link? Thanks!



Here it is:
Genetic Analysis of Commercial Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from the Southeastern United States
http://www.beesource.com/pov/ahb/jee1995.htm


SPECULATIONS ON SURVIVOR HONEY BEE FERAL POPULATIONS IN FLORIDA, USA.
http://www.beesource.com/news/article/floridaferalsurvivor.htm

Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

opps duplicate post.

Well since I'm here:

“You can keep a bee away from you by the use 
of tobacco-smoke, but a bee is always in such a 
confounded hurry that he gets in his work before 
you can light your cigar.” (quote from 1879)

Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I am accused of "decit", yet the reasoning upon which the 
accusation is based is faulty in the extreme.

Let's assume that 400,000 or so queens were produced by
22 apiraries. Where did they go? They were shipped ELSEWHERE.

They would have little or no possible impact on the local population of
feral colonies, as a queen breeder would be one of the last operations to
have colonies swarming. Funny how you expect everyone to think
that all the local beekeepers bought their queens from the local 
suppliers, and none bought queens from elsewhere. That's simply
impossible - some number of beekeepers in GA are sure to either
raise their own queens, or buy queens from other states.

So, even though Joe is playing verbal contortionist in an attempt to
make the study seem like it proves anything of value to his theory
of "survivor ferals", all one must do is realize that queens come from
all over, and that the mystery he wants to present is not a mystery at all.

> Now, I created the ‘take II’ rules, to force people to be a bit more 
> careful

As luck would have it, you don't make any rules around here, and
you overtly BREAK THE RULES that do exist when you accuse others
of "_trickery and deceit_". So, retract your name-calling at once, and edit
your post to be more civil.

Nice try though. I understand how hard it must be to come up with 
an idea, and then scour the published literature looking for scraps
that at least seem like they might support the idea. What most of
us do is look at the evidence first, and base the conclusions and
theories on the actual evidence, rather than the other way around,
which requires much less in the way of verbal gymnastics.


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Feral Bees*

This discussion has taken a turn which reminds me of a discussion I had with a Noted Honeybee Entomologist I had several years ago, at the time honeybees in certain areas were swarming in what was thought to be an unusual degree, I like the guy and respect him quite a bit so no names. He was asking various commercials and others at our state bee meeting why this was happening, I listened to the answers and thought about the subject because I already knew the answer. None of the answers he was recieving were anywhere near accurate so I waited till everyone else had left and asked him if he really wanted to know why. He looked at me with an amused expression and asked if I really knew what the answer was. So I asked him if it was not true that bees had been dying out in the woods and peoples colonies for the last several years and he said yes but what has that got to do with it, I asked him , have you ever heard the expresson that Nature Abhores a Vacuum, he sat there and just looked at me but he could not disagree, then I went home and discussed this happening with several friends, about two months later he wrote an article which appeared in the ABJ with that same statement I had made to him about bees swarming in the article, this was brought to my attention by one of the people with whom I had previously discussed the conservation I had with the Entomologist. Of course it involved more than just that, the bees were also swarming to a great degree because they were able to crowd their brood nests earlier than normal due to the lack of competition and availability of forage.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Jim,
I selected 2 of your statements to respond to
per thread rules. 



Jim Fischer said:


> Let's assume that 400,000 or so queens were produced by
> 22 apiraries. Where did they go? They were shipped ELSEWHERE.
> .


Who cares where they went!
It has no bearing on the study.

Will you next have us believe these queens took the tens of millions
of drones with them? 



Jim Fischer said:


> They would have little or no possible impact on the local population of
> feral colonies, as a queen breeder would be one of the last operations to
> have colonies swarming. .


Your bluffing aren't you? 

Don’t be silly Jim.
You want us now to believe bees only reproduce by swarming? 
OK, Lets make your assumption work,,,

You need to assume the main selective force at the colonial level to be only on the female side.

You need to assume that there is NO selective force at the colony level from drones.

You need to assume that the millions of drones produce by drone
colonies are not somehow not leaving the yard to compete for feral queens

You need to assume that the breeders do not sell queens to local beekeepers,
and that these local beekeeper colonies do not swarm or produce drones.

You see,
FAR too many assumptions to make that silly theory work. 

The article ‘How to win a queen’, perhaps might suggest why
ferals remain significantly different than the commercial populations.

Commercial drones are simply losing out to feral drones when 
it comes to competition for a feral queen. In the world of real competition,
because the ferals remain significantly different from the commercial population, 
this suggest to me that feral drones are simply out competing the 
commercial drones for feral queens. 

Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

mountainvalleybee said:


> This discussion has taken a turn which reminds me of a discussion I had with a Noted Honeybee Entomologist I had several years ago, at the time honeybees in certain areas were swarming in what was thought to be an unusual degree,
> ,,,,
> ,,,have you ever heard the expression that Nature Abhores a Vacuum,



Hello MVB,

This is a wonderful point you make!

I often thought this vacuum while trying to understand the feral recovery 
here in my area.

The excessive swarming may be due to many things.
Genetics that fill the void quicker would have the advantage. 
So first off, you need healthy colonies to throw swarms.

As a general rule, colonies that are healthy will throw prime swarms.
For a feral colony to have this ability to throw prime swarms, 
it would make a necessity that theses bees have traits that are
effective against varroa and disease, because there is no beekeeper
there to coddle them. This also necessitates that the queen bee is 
well mated, colony healthy and strong. This is why many ferals do so well 
for beekeepers; many of them have what it takes.

Ferals in my area are recovering strong, but I am seeing a tendency
for them to be highly competitive in testing other colonies for 
weakness. When I think of how this trait might have surfaced 
in the ferals. It appears that with many colonies succumbing to
varroa in the fall, any colony that is highly competitive and 
can identify these failing colonies first, will gain the advantage 
from the stores acquired. 

Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## Sarge (Jun 26, 2006)

Hmmmm. Ok then. The study written in 1994 and published in 1995, it appears, indicates that in the South Eastern U.S. roughly 1 in 3 feral colonies are decendants of Apis Mellifera Mellifera a strain not imported to any real degree since 1859.
From this it would suggest that the AMM bees were the closest to a "Natural" Honeybee for North America. The presence of the strain in some degree after over 150 years in the wild has to count for something.
The study seems to take place after the big influx of Varroa and Trachea mites. From all accounts the mite die off took roughly 75% of the feral bees. It then comes to mind that those that died off did not have the AMM roots. If the mites had effected all bees equally, then the feral gene pool would be more tilted toward the more recent bee strains as the AMM would have been reduced even furthur as a percentage of the whole.
Interesting.
Again does anyone know if this kind of testing has been done in the more northern states?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Joe, it would not matter if an infinite number of drones of any type
you choose were to be "in the area", as the marker tracked in the
study you quote was mtDNA, which is carried by the FEMALE.

It seems clear from the massive change between your initial claims
and your current claims that you really had no idea what
the study meant, and now it seems clear that you also 
don't understand what mtDNA is, either.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

What's really sad is to read your babbling about feral colonies, and to
compare it with Steve Shepard's summary of what he will present next
Tuesday at the Entomological Society of America Meeting. His summary 
overview is as follows:

"_Based on our collection of commercial honey bee stocks representing 
most CA and the southern US producers in 1994-1995 and a recollection 
in 2004-2005 from existing producers – there was a 25% loss of the alleles
that were present in 1994-5. we measured msat variation – but as they
are randomly distributed in the genome – you can think of it as a proxy for
sex allele diversity. Thus - although we found 128 alleles in 10 msat loci 
in the 1994-5 population – only 92 of these were still remaining after a
decade. this loss would have been truly staggering – except some new
alleles came into the commercial breeding population. the origin of these
new alleles - for some we can trace the origin to africanized honey bees,
for some we can trace to Russians or illegal importations._"

So, while you are fantasying about feral bees that somehow mysteriously
*NEVER MATES WITH THE QUEEN PRODUCER'S STOCK*, real work is being
done on the same issue that shows we need to import some genetics
pronto, as there is a shrinking diversity in US bees.

What is needed may be a letter-writing campaign to convince APHIS to
allow the importation of semen from Europe that ironically would likely
include some A.m.m. genetics, as our genetic base here in the USA is
getting so limited, it is putting the genetic diversity of our breeding stock 
at risk.

Everyone would LOVE to have your fantasy feral survivors, but if
they existed, they would show up in the genetic surveys being
doing by skilled pros like Steve Sheppard, who really really really
want to find more diversity than they are finding.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

*Vermont Local Honey for Sale, Produced in PA *



Jim Fischer said:


> Joe, it would not matter if an infinite number of drones of any type
> you choose were to be "in the area", as the marker tracked in the
> study you quote was mtDNA, which is carried by the FEMALE.
> 
> ...


Humm, massive change?
My claims are the same.
“Ferals are significantly different from the commercial population”

Jim, Your argument is ridiculous as it assumes the 8 states in the
south is comprised ONLY of breeders, which it is NOT.
Thousands of colonies exist from hobby and commercial 
beekeepers that are swarming off quite often. 

In any event,,,
I can see you have little room to talk from your silly quote mentioned below.



Jim Fischer said:


> > 136 breeder queens all had mtDNA haplotypes associated with
> > A. m. carnica and A. m. ligustica, this accounted for 433,900
> > (97%) of the total queens sold.
> 
> ...


It was very brave of you to put yourself up like that as an example
of how foolish one looks when the eagerness to disagree allows
ones ego lead their response, and in the process, fail to be considerate 
enough to read the information provided and actually think it over first. 



Jim Fischer said:


> Let's assume that 400,000 or so queens were produced by
> 22 apiraries. Where did they go? They were shipped ELSEWHERE.
> 
> They would have little or no possible impact on the local population of
> ...


If you had taken the time to read the study, you would see that samples
were taken from <<< eight states >>>

Please do tell us how you would you have us believe that queen 
breeders are going around to all the colonies in these 8 states to 
control swarming?,,, in this 8 southeren state “local population”. 
Well, your making that point, lets hear it? 

If you consider 8 states a “local population of feral colonies,”
Then I got some wonderful honey local to Vermont produced 
right here in the Vermont locality of Western PA I could sell you. 

Joe


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Homogeneous Bees*

From knowing several of the Bee Breeders in the south, I know that years ago they used to trade out Bloodlines and buy Breeders from other Bee Breeders in order to get knew blood but this actually led to part of the problem because they eventually were only swapping out the same blood with a few exceptions, do not know but the same thing probably happened out west in California...


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Well Joe, I can listen to you, and your ability to compress the most 
words into the smallest idea of any one we know, or I can listen to
people like Steve Shepard, who have done actual work on the issue, 
and would have loved to find _ANY CLUE_ pointing to a wider diversity 
in the genetic base of Apis mellifera in the USA.

Now, I know that you love nature, in spite of what it did to you.
You want nature to be able to provide "an answer". 
But wanting something won't make it happen.

So, you had better go get those bees, rather than spending all your
time bending over backwards to insult me, and doing even more
contortionist work, as getting some of those rare bees that have
survived in the "wild", far from man's hand will likely make you the
most famous beekeeper since Langstroth.

So get going, you have an entire industry to save, and don't have
time to sit on your rear and type.

And what is it you say after being insulting that is supposed to make 
you seem like a nice guy? Oh yeah - "_Best Wishes_".


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> “Ferals are significantly different from the commercial population”

No, they are different from a tiny fraction of the commercial bees 
that are sold in a specific area of Georgia, nothing more.

I explained at length where the genetics you wanted to position
as "mysterious" came from, and continue to come from.

But you don't seem to want "a discussion" as much as you want
an argument. You only want "a discussion" with others who 
agree with your basic faulty premise, and thus the entire fantasy
of X-Files bees. Bees that somehow, in space of a mere 20 years,
became the most pest-resistant bees ever seen, and did so all
by themselves, using nothing but genetics and traits that are already 
well-understood. This theory is simply laughable.

Thats why you are afraid to even talk to anyone else unless you
first impose "rules" for the conversation, as you did in your first
post on this thread.


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Nature Bee*

How can you be contacted offline...Alan


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*A.m.m.*

Interested in finding someone who can do an Independent Genetic Analysis...


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Some interesting points here seem to be getting lost:

First, the _Apis mellifera mellifera_ mitocondrial-DNA haplotypes did appear in the commercial breeding programs, just not as frequently as in the "feral" samples (3 to 4%, as compared to 36 to 37%). In other words, the same genes are present, just in different proportions when taking the populations collectively. Individual queens have one haplotype.

So, the "genes" aren't missing from the commercial breeding stock. They're simply present in lower proportions of the population.

Then, as Jim Fischer already stated, please note that the markers being used are simply mitochondrial DNA. Not phenotypes, not complete genotypes, just mDNA. Nothing in these studies indicates you can distinguish bees with an "_A. mellifera mellifera_ mDNA haplotype" from bees with an "_A. m. carnica_ mDNA haplotype" by examining the bees morphologically.

To give a human example: Let's just say that an "Irish" mitochondrial DNA haplotype is different than a "Scottish" haplotype, and distinctions can be made between the two through DNA analysis. If one person's matrilineal (all-female line of grandmothers) great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandmother was "Irish," and all other relatives were "Scottish," that person's mDNA would indicate an "Irish" haplotype, despite the person being 4095/4096 "Scottish." Is the person "Irish," or "Scottish?" (Keep in mind that this discussion is centered around the same process with honey bees.)

Finally, I see a contradiction in the arguments here. The argument is made that "feral" bees somehow remain separate and distinct from "managed" bees because the gene pools are distinctly different and "feral" drones are likely to leave more offspring in the "feral" populations than "managed" drones. However, these "feral" drones would also be more likely to mate with "managed" queens, too, meaning that those genes would necessarily be moving into "managed" bee populations (except not in mDNA, since mDNA is inherited only from the mother). So, it seems to me, either any "desirable" genes from "feral" colonies are already likely passing into our "managed" populations, or genes from "managed" colonies are constantly diluting any of those "desirable" genes in the "feral" populations.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

[edit by mod]



Jim Fischer said:


> >
> No, they are different from a tiny fraction of the commercial bees
> that are sold in a specific area of Georgia, nothing more.


Thats another statement that appears to be a fabrication!

Taken from the study:

“Samples of workers from 185 colonies belonging to 22 
queen producing apiaries from the southeastern United States” 

"39 colonies in Texas."

You now want us to believe, Texas is a specific area of Georgia? 

[edit by mod]

Best Wishes
Joe


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Kieck said:


> Finally, I see a contradiction in the arguments here. The argument is made that "feral" bees somehow remain separate and distinct from "managed" bees…


Agree, and the study has found that ferals were 
infact significantly different than the “commercial population“. 
What is remarkable, is that the feral population 
maintained this difference for over 100 years,
in spite of the massive propagation of commercial stock.



Kieck said:


> …because the gene pools are distinctly different and "feral" drones are likely to leave more offspring in the "feral" populations than "managed" drones.


That has been my point all along.
And it supports my long standing belief that pockets 
of ferals can and do remain significantly
different than commercial lines in many regions.
And that you DO NOT need complete isolation to 
achieve this. All that is perhaps needed is a reasonable 
degree of remoteness. Many areas in PA have the 
reasonable degree of remoteness to achieve this 
genetic separation.

Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Come on Joe.

On the first thread concerning this discussion, you stated that your ferals were collected in areas away from managed hives.

Then on this thread, after I presented information showing numbers of beekeepers in your county, and even offered to crunch numbers in any county you say you collect ferals, you then suggest that ferals have for hundreds of years been able to maintain genetic diversity with no mixing of genes, even suggesting they can do it in areas of managed hives due to other reasons.

When someone has a problem with a poorly presented study, you say "Go back to the one who did the study!". Although its you who constantly brings this one study up to somehow support your claims.

Now after kieck's comments, its back to "Many areas in PA have the 
reasonable degree of remoteness to achieve this 
genetic separation.". What a joke.

I have asked many questions. Others have asked questions. No answers. Just the same spin, with no verifiable testing, no proof, and no facts. I'm not even sure why you are still responding to these posts. Your talking in circles and nothing is getting answers.

I'll give mountainvalleybee at least a shred of credit. After his many statements of so-called "facts", he is at least asking who can do some independent testing. I would of liked him to seek this information and verification prior to his statements, but at least he's on the right path.

Joe, you mention JF responding since 2001. Thats my point. I've heard the same wishy washy weakly supported comments on these ferals bees now for many years. But seems its the same spin year after year. nothing ever comes out of it. No answers, no testing, and nothing else. Just vague opinion.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Jim has offered that anyone willing to put their dollars on the line to have their claims tested, that he is willing to do the travel. I'd love to make that trip also if I would not be stepping on anyone's toes.

I'll further the effort. I will make a commitment right here, to contribute $50 dollars to any verifiable testing that can be done in a controlled manner. I'll let others decide the testing method or under what controls, etc. I'm not up on what would need to be done, etc.


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*A.m.m.*

I do not need the credit, I come from an area where their never has been any significant commercialization, in fact my brother and I were the largest commercials which ever existed in our area, and the bees always have the habit whenever an event occurs of reverting back to the A.M.M. type bee, you can even establish many Italian type bees in the area and after a very few seasons they will for the most part all be back to the A.M.M. norm which suggest to me that their is quite a few of the A.M.M. type bee in the local environment otherwise the norm would become some type Italian or cross but this does not occur. And yes they are SIGNIFICANTLY different than the commercial type bees, now if all you look at is the mDNA then you can present quite a few different arguments, however I do know where several pockets of the A.M.M. types are which seem true to the norm of pure A.M.M.. One other thing I also know this is not the only area, selection pressure has always leaned toward the A.M.M. type norm and very few commercial types will last long, it has always taken an extensive breeding program to keep even a large population of bees close to what anyone would consider a commercial norm. I realize that quite a few people would rely only on genetic testing however I have enough experience with this situation to have no doubt that I am correct. If you were to look at the complete story offered by both Matrilineal and Patrilineal DNA then anyone would see the truth....


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

Keick says....."remain separate and distinct from "managed" bees because the gene pools are distinctly different and "feral" drones are likely to leave more offspring in the "feral" populations than "managed" drones. However,"



naturebee said:


> That has been my point all along.
> And it supports my long standing belief that pockets
> of ferals can and do remain significantly
> different than commercial lines in many regions.
> ...


Joe... I think you missed the HOWEVER word after you quoted Keick's comment. 

Bjorn and Jim Fischer.... Don't you guys understand? YOU JUST GOTTA HAVE FAITH!!!!!!!!!! You are gonna ruin it for Joe and the special feral crowd if you keep using logic.

The whole concept of feral is intriguing, certainly. Especially when designated with special qualities. Just the mere definition of feral has been debated here on beesource. The result was a wide range of differing criteria that are used to define a colony / swarm as feral. Yet, we couldn't all agree on what even defines a colony as feral.

I'd LOVE to see "feral" colonies that are distinctly pest resistant, disease resistant, of different diverse genetics (not ahb), etc...that could really help the commercial stock. Unless you have a remote, isolated, location it seems to be mere fantasy. One that we all wish existed based on provable fact. WHAT? FACT?

I dare say that anyone here that has 20-30 or more hives can show you colonies that are distictly different in defensive behavior, mite resistance, comb building, flying at cooler temps, spring build-up, propolis gathering, etc... the list goes on....

Lets test your bees Joe... let's see what you got in them thar special things!


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Good topic, but far too much personal attacking going on. The editor's pencils are sharpened and ready!

- Barry


----------



## Troy (Feb 9, 2006)

I'm not trying to fan the flames here, but.....

Did anyone look for those missing alleles in Joe's neighborhood?

You cite a study that says we lost 128-92=16 alleles in a decade. Maybe they still exist in other areas of the country and in the name of genetic diversity we should expand this study area.

I certainly would be in favor of spending time and money finding these missing alleles within our borders before I'd be in favor of bringing in genetic material from Europe or elsewhere.

P.S. I'm also a fan of beelining and would love to go bee hunting with you Jim.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

mountainvalleybee said:


> .... however I do know where several pockets of the A.M.M. types are which seem true to the norm of pure A.M.M.. ....



Sounds like we've got a match. JF says he'll fund the trip, MVB says he's confident that he knows where several pockets are located. Just seems like its just a matter of going out and collecting the samples and getting them analyzed. Please take video!


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*From the Article in the December 2007 Issue about CCD*

This article was written by Dr. GARD W. OTIS. in ABJ.

Page 1034: Acccording to Dr. Otis in the last few paragraphs of his article he mentions as fact that Wild Colonies are resurfacing in various parts of the U. S. and that they seem to be relatively unaffected by Varroa Mites, it seems if this is true that we users of Feral Type Bees may have been correct all along. The only Question is, if these Wild Colonies are resurfacing, where are they resurfacing from, existing small populations, or maybe from the few of us that have been selling and or maintaining these type bees to and in these areas.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Maybe more importantly first, what suppressed or reduced those "feral-type" bees in the first place? If they weren't as prominent in the recent past, the types that were more prominent must have had other evolutionary advantages to suppress the "feral-type" bees, right?


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

mountainvalleybee said:


> This article was written by Dr. GARD W. OTIS. in ABJ.
> 
> Page 1034: Acccording to Dr. Otis in the last few paragraphs of his article he mentions as fact that Wild Colonies are resurfacing in various parts of the U. S. and that they seem to be relatively unaffected by Varroa Mites, it seems if this is true that we users of Feral Type Bees may have been correct all along. The only Question is, if these Wild Colonies are resurfacing, where are they resurfacing from, existing small populations, or maybe from the few of us that have been selling and or maintaining these type bees to and in these areas.


MVB... I don't think anyone would question that there are bees that are, and others that will become tolerant to varroa given no treatments. These are survivor bees whether they are in trees or whether they are in brood boxes. As we know, there are people with managed bee populations that are seeing these traits being expressed and colonies thriving. I hardly think its a feral only trait. 

I find it difficult to believe that the feral genetics can remain so dominant that no outside influences (managed populations) have an impact such as dilution on the population of these "special ferals". 

MVB... maybe I missed it in this every lengthening thread... have you had your bees or these bees you claim as A.M.M. tested? Or... are you simply making your statements based on observed behaviors/traits?


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

*Centuries of Beekeeping and Ferals*

I have a few observations and a few questions:
First, I live in the Northern Catskills of New York State at the Northeastern edge of the Catskill State Park. 
The elevation within a 3 mile radius of my home yard varies between 300 - 3,984 feet.
To the northwest of my home yard is the Windham High Peak Wild Forest, to the west is the Blackhead Range and Colgate Lake Wild Forests, and to my southwest / south is the Kaaterskill Wild Forest. Information on these areas can be found with an internet search. These lands are classified Forever Wild Lands / Wild Forests. 
To the north, east and south east is rural, with homes, old fields and forested lands. Greene County is 658 sq miles with a population of about 50,000. Most of this population is located in the river Towns of Catskill, Athens, Coxsackie, and New Baltimore. 
The land I live on was actually orchards during the first half of the 1900's and then farmed / dairy till the '80's. 
My neighbor who got me into beekeeping, kept bees for most of his life. There were also hives kept for over 100 years on the farm.
When I started bees 12 years ago, there were a few Beekeepers in Round Top with a total of maybe 20 hives. These hives were located from a mile to 5 miles away from my home yard. There are currently no other beekeepers within 4 miles of my home yard.
There is no commercial beekeeping or pollination operations within 5 miles or more from my home yard.
As far as an isolated pocket in the east, this would be one of them. 
I am listed with the County Ag, Catskill Mtn Beekeepers, Local PD, and County Dispatcher for swarm calls.
Since, the last keeper stopped bees, I don't see more than a swarm or two a year, and I can not rule out my hives as the source.
I do not see evidence of feral colonies in the area, nor do I see feral swarms. I am not saying there are NO feral colonies, but they are not thriving nor expanding and throwing swarms.

If Feral AMM are the solution, is this what has been seen in Europe? They have AMM and must have feral colonies from centuries of Beekeeping. Did they have the same problems and loses as we did?
I also have another question, there are parts of this country that have had beekeeping for several centuries. These "colonies" have been throwing swarms for several centuries. 
If "ferals" revert to some "special" cell size and this cell size provides resistance to VM and or TM, why did so many of these feral colonies perish when these pests came through? And no they were not all newly "swarmed" kept colonies.

Thank you,


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

mountainvalleybee said:


> The only Question is, if these Wild Colonies are resurfacing, where are they resurfacing from, existing small populations, or maybe from the few of us that have been selling and or maintaining these type bees to and in these areas.


Or maybe from beekeepers hives? Data, we need data . . . 

Keith


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I still want to know what made the "other" bees superior before the "resurgence." Obviously, if these "feral type" bees are "resurfacing," they must have been evolutionary less fit than the others, say, ten years ago.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Kieck said:


> I still want to know what made the "other" bees superior before the "resurgence." Obviously, if these "feral type" bees are "resurfacing," they must have been evolutionary less fit than the others, say, ten years ago.


Yes, I would say that adapting to varroa and tracheal mites 
has taken a great toll on ferals as well as commercial bees.

I don’t know who said they were superior.
But, I would say perhaps some of the ferals are 
likely survivors from lines going back to the 
95-96 crash. Superior No, survivors with 
interesting traits worth looking at? ,,,yes.

(Keick)-- "feral type" bees are "resurfacing," 

A “resurfacing” is perhaps a ambiguous term.

That a recovery is noticed some 10 years later, 
by no means indicates that there was no recovery 
in progress for the past 10 years. 

Some estimate that less than 10 or even 5% of all 
feral swarms cast per year are seen by humans 
and reported. That it took this long for ferals 
to reach numbers needed to see a “resurfacing”,
by no means suggests that they didn’t actually
resurface several years earlier, and only noticed
having reached substantial numbers now.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Barry said:


> Good topic, but far too much personal attacking going on. The editor's pencils are sharpened and ready!
> 
> - Barry



But does your pencil have an eraser.  

Looks like the national guard was called up. 

I request that the moderator do some serious 
editing for the pervious "off topic" remarks
from the guard.

Joe


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Dan Williamson said:


> debated here on beesource. The result was a wide range of differing criteria that are used to define a colony / swarm as feral. Yet, we couldn't all agree on what even defines a colony as feral.


We do not all need to agree,
because this issue was decided 
French scientist back in 1872.

in the book, Insect world
By Louis Guillaume Figuier
Published 1872

Louis Guillaume Figuier 
describes the precise moment bees 
"return to their wild state".

Page 337

“…In a quarter of an hour everything
becomes quiet, and the bees cease
to hover about the cluster more than
round an ordinary hive. Now is the
moment to take possession of the swarm
in a hive prepared beforehand to receive
it. If delayed too long, the troop flies
off and establishes itself in some natural
cavity, as the hollow of a tree, etc.
The bees then return to their wild state….”


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Yes, I would say that adapting to varroa and tracheal mites
> has taken a great toll on ferals as well as commercial bees.
> 
> I don’t know who said they were superior.
> ...


I'm not sure that my earlier comments were clear. I'll try to explain what I believe is at least implied in some of the statements made on this thread, then go from there.

The number of "feral" colonies was higher before the introduction of _Varroa_ than shortly after the mites became a problem. "Pre-_Varroa_," if you will, the "feral" colonies were a mix of colonies ranging from descendants of several generations of unmanaged bees to recent swarms from managed colonies. 

The implication I seem to read in your comments, naturebee, and in the comments made by mountainvalleybee, is that "pre-_Varroa_," the proportion of the "feral" colonies similar in genotype and phenotype to managed colonies was much greater than it is now. Now, the colonies of bees resembling, at least, _Apis mellifera mellifera_ phenotypes predominate.

To me, that suggests that something about these bees increases their evolutionary fitness at this time. *But*, since _A. m. mellifera_ and bees with similar phenotypes were imported and managed prior to the introduction of _A. m. liguistica_ and _A. m. carnica_, at some point the predominant phenotype in the "feral" population must have shifted from _A. m. mellifera_ to _A. m. liguistica/carnica_ for the earlier-introduced phenotype to be "resurfacing."

To me, then, this means that the _A. m. liguistica/carnica_ must have had an advantage in evolutionary fitness over _A. m. mellifera_ prior to the introduction of _Varroa_. Otherwise, _A. m. mellifera_-type phenotypes should have been predominant all along.

So, what was the advantage of _A. m. liguistica_ or _A. m. carnica_ that let their phenotypes spread through the "feral" population?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Kieck said:


> I'm not sure that my earlier comments were clear. I'll try to explain what I believe is at least implied in some of the statements made on this thread, then go from there.


Thanks for explaining!



Kieck said:


> The number of "feral" colonies was higher before the introduction of Varroa than shortly after the mites became a problem. "Pre-Varroa," if you will, the "feral" colonies were a mix of colonies ranging from descendants of several generations of unmanaged bees to recent swarms from managed colonies. .


Yes, I agree! But I would tend to extend the estimate range 
for descendants to as far back as 1621, when bees 
were first introduced to America. 
(Eva Crane, World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting,) 



Kieck said:


> The implication I seem to read in your comments, naturebee, and in the comments made by mountainvalleybee, is that "pre-Varroa," the proportion of the "feral" colonies similar in genotype and phenotype to managed colonies was much greater than it is now. Now, the colonies of bees resembling, at least, Apis mellifera mellifera phenotypes predominate..


I don’t know where I stated that.
Perhaps prior to the mid 1900’s they may 
have been more similar.

The study being Received for publication in 
August 1994, was likely undertaken in the 
year or two prior to that, which would make
the study in my estimation, post varroa, crashes
which occurred around 1995? in many areas?



Kieck said:


> To me, then, this means that the _A. m. liguistica/carnica_ must have had an advantage in evolutionary fitness over _A. m. mellifera_ prior to the introduction of _Varroa_. Otherwise, _A. m. mellifera_-type phenotypes should have been predominant all along.
> 
> So, what was the advantage of _A. m. liguistica_ or _A. m. carnica_ that let their phenotypes spread through the "feral" population?


That’s a good question, perhaps the advantage was artificial.
Although accounts from bee hunters report populations of 
A. m. mellifera into the 1950’s, they have not been bred by 
breeders since the end of the 1800’s From then on, breeders 
would be applying selective pressure by eliminating any stock 
that does not have characteristics of the commercial strains 
either A. m. liguistica OR A. m. carnica. For those not selecting 
for these characteristics would perhaps unwittingly eliminate any 
A. m. mellifera genetics from their colonies because of the highly 
aggressive nature of A. m. mellifera when crossed with some strains. 
There are many accounts of A. m. mellifera stinging teems of horses to 
death during the late 1800’s. 

Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> breeders would be applying selective pressure by eliminating 
> any stock that does not have characteristics of the commercial 
> strains either A. m. liguistica OR A. m. carnica. 

And how might this impact the mtDNA that was the entire basis
of the study atop which you attempt to balance your argument?
(And didn't we cover this before?)

> For those not selecting for these characteristics would perhaps
> unwittingly eliminate any A. m. mellifera genetics from their colonies
> because of the highly aggressive nature of A. m. mellifera when crossed
> with some strains. 

So you want to speculate your way into 200-year old lines of bees
that remained feral, and escaped detection?

> There are many accounts of A. m. mellifera stinging teems of horses 
> to death during the late 1800’s.

Which is yet another reason why it is so difficult to accept as 
credible the sort of speculation that these lines of bees escaped
detection for so long, moreso given that there just aren't any
"wild" places any more. The defensive traits would be noticed,
wouldn't they?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Yes, I agree! But I would tend to extend the estimate range
> for descendants to as far back as 1621, when bees
> were first introduced to America. -naturebee


Possibly, but highly unlikely, in my opinion. Read up on "demographic stochasticity" and "environmental stochasticity" and "genetic stochasticity," and see if you agree. "Google" searches should pull up material to explain all three, if you don't already understand these concepts.

But, let's use the case, just for a moment of a matriline of honey bees originating in 1621 in the United States. Up until the, say, late 1800s, we could expect that line to remain relatively pure (if not absolutely) _Apis mellifera mellifera_

Now, we throw in _A. m. liguistica_ and _A. m. carnica_. Since populations densities were likely low of either/both for a while after introduction, let's just suppose that these genes were unlikely to spread significantly into the "feral" population until the late 1950s, after the advent of migratory beekeeping. And, let's just suppose that "feral" drones are still more likely to mate with any virgin queen than drones from managed colonies (although this may be a moot point).

Now, since all queens face some risk of "extinction" (or death), let's just suppose that the rate of extinction of "feral" queens is somewhat similar to the rate of extinction of managed queens, say, 10 percent per year (probably conservative).

And, let's just suppose that we have a 50 percent replacement rate of "feral" swarms with "managed" swarms (swarms that issue from "feral" or managed colonies).

So, to pick a year to start, in 1960, let's suppose that 100 percent of the "feral" colonies are descendants of _A. m. mellifera_ matrilines.

In 1961, we could expect 95 percent of "feral" colonies to still be the same mtDNA haplotypes.

In 1962, we could expect 91 percent. 1963 = 86 percent. 1964 = 82 percent. 1965 = 78 percent. 1966 = 75 percent. And so on.

Unless some selective pressures are in play, other than what are assumed in this model.

What we set in the assumptions, though, and still haven't accounted in this model, is the mating rates of drones.

Assuming a three-to-one success ratio for "feral" versus "managed" drones, by 1961 about 25 percent of the "feral" colonies would have half of their genes from "managed" genotypes. By 1962, more than 30 percent would have at least half their genes from managed genotypes, and so on.

So, we still come back to the original point, if a honey bee is 1 / 2,097,152 (twenty generations, starting with one race and mating to nothing but other races) _A. m. mellifera_, its mitochondrial DNA would likely still have an _A. m. mellifera_ haplotype, but is it genetically much different than a bee of the same heritage other than the mitochondrial haplotype?



> That’s a good question, perhaps the advantage was artificial.
> Although accounts from bee hunters report populations of
> A. m. mellifera into the 1950’s, they have not been bred by
> breeders since the end of the 1800’s From then on, breeders
> ...


I don't see how "artificial selection" would figure into this, unless beekeepers were deliberately seeking out "feral" colonies and selectively destroying only those with _A. m. mellifera_ mitochondrial haplotypes. Are you suggesting that the predominant phenotype of "feral" bees has been similar to _A. m. mellifera_ right along, and the apparent "resurfacing" is just an illusion? Why wouldn't the "bee hunters" of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s have reported still finding these differences?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Kieck said:


> Ae you suggesting that the predominant phenotype of "feral" bees has been similar to _A. m. mellifera_ right along, and the apparent "resurfacing" is just an illusion? Why wouldn't the "bee hunters" of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s have reported still finding these differences?


No, you mentioned about ferals “resurfacing”. I was questioning 
the use of the term resurfacing, as ferals likely declined from
varroa, and not ’disappeared’. Then NO resurfacing could have 
occurred as they were not eliminated from the ’surface’

Accordind to the article below, there are remnants of subspecies brought into the U.S. during early settlement
found in feral honeybees. Early settelment with honeybees, I understand go as far back as 1621.
Much earlier that the 200-year old lines of bees speculated not to exist by some.

Genetic Diversity of Honey Bee Populations in the U.S.
http://www.msstate.edu/Entomology/newsletters/beenews0507.htm

"Changes in haplotype frequency have been observed. The re-analysis of the feral collection reveals some haplotypes representative of the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera, and further supports that the feral population acted as a genetic reservoir that contained remnants of subspecies brought into the U.S. during early settlement."


----------



## Sarge (Jun 26, 2006)

Does anyone know a grad student looking for a project? I've written the state colleges and others around here, as well as the NHB. The NHB would be interested in anyone wanting to make another such study of bees DNA in the northern states,and no college was aware of any such study underway.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

This is like the same broken record we play every year and it always ends in the same place, right where we started. This isn't like finding big foot. The Beeks with Ferals either have these bees or they don't. There either really are bee stocks that have descended since 1621, in the wild, and have some valuable survivor traiits, or there isn't. Jim, and Bjorn have made an offer to confirm or deny a question we all have. Are the "Ferals" as described, the survivor bees, there or not. It's not about proving anyone right or wrong to me, it's about finding out if there could me more than just hollow talk about better bee stock. It really comes down to money talks, and well, we all know what walks. The questions I have don't center around the theoretical possiblitily of the existance of bee lines dating back to 1621. I realize this may oversimplify the issues but I think you get my point. My questions are as follows:

1) Do survivor bees exist and if so in any quantitiy and manner that would be beneficial to the industry outside of isolated breeding such as Joe and MB have been doing for years.

2) Are there truly any advantage to breeding these lines into commerically available stock over the selected breeding of quality commercial stock.

3) And how come if someone (Jim and Bjorn in this case) get to the point of offering to scientifically validate a claim and settle the matter at their own expense they are not taken up on it. Joe?

I know in my county I share bee space with at least 600 hives. I know if Alan Trembly's bees sneeze my bees reach for a tissue! I know my queens are mating with Fudges queens and any swarms, ferals and new fad bees ordered by Matlack, Spencer or Lant . I have a hard time picturing the Void, at least on the east coast, where "kept bees" don't live and swarm. I can't see the place where feral bees breed isolated.

Gotta go build some frames and clean out the clarifyer, I don't expect any different from what we've seen other years, seems we've spent enough time on this.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Joel said:


> The questions I have don't center around the theoretical possiblitily of the existance of bee lines dating back to 1621. .


I agree, 
however, the theory you mention is proven: 

"Changes in haplotype frequency have been observed. The re-analysis of the feral collection reveals some haplotypes representative of the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera, and further supports that the feral population acted as a genetic reservoir that contained remnants of subspecies brought into the U.S. during early settlement."



Joel said:


> 1) Do survivor bees exist and if so in any quantitiy and manner that would be beneficial to the industry outside of isolated breeding such as Joe and MB have been doing for years..


Joel, I will tell you that I have been collecting ferals with intensity after the 95-96 crashes.
But it is a work in progress with many failures, with most promising results 
to the degree that satisfies me occurring since about 2004. I am not isolated, but I am in an
area semi remote to other beekeepers. Things are finally looking wonderful as breeding 
results have improved remarkably in the past 2 years thanks to a tremendous resurgence of 
ferals noticed in my immediate area. 



Joel said:


> 2) Are there truly any advantage to breeding these lines into commerically available stock over the selected breeding of quality commercial stock...


Purvis brothers would say yes, as they do integrate ferals, and have had great success, according to Bobs article. 

Also, the study did say that they are a genetic resource for Genetic variation that should be utilized because commercial populations too homogeneous.



Joel said:


> 3) And how come if someone (Jim and Bjorn in this case) get to the point of offering to scientifically validate a claim and settle the matter at their own expense they are not taken up on it. Joe?...


What’s taking them so long then?



Joel said:


> I know in my county I share bee space with at least 600 hives. I know if Alan Trembly's bees sneeze my bees reach for a tissue! ….I can't see the place where feral bees breed isolated.


This is probably the main reason causing such vast disagreement on the issue. Someone said 
“all beekeeping is local”. Well, that includes ferals!!!!
Someone that keeps bees in a commercially dominate region can not imagine in their wildest dreams what those areas having ferals in abundance are seeing. I’ve had beekeepers in the plain states tell me there are NO ferals. Well, they are 
certainly NOT speaking for my area, and Jim and Bjorn can’t speak of mine or anyone else’s experiences. They can only speak from theirs which I might suspect is very limited experience with ferals.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Jim and Bjorn can’t speak of mine or anyone else’s experiences. 

But it isn't just Jim and Bjorn that are asking pointed questions.
This entire thread consists mostly of very basic questions that call
into doubt the starting assumptions behind your very unique
views about "ferals".

> They can only speak from theirs

And each can also cite the collective consensus formed by
research that we have come across. We can all also cite
basic concepts in biology that directly impact many of the
statements made, and by "impact", I mean "seems to contradict
with authority".

> They can only speak from theirs which I might suspect is very 
> limited experience with ferals. 

Setting aside the many factual issues brought up by nearly everyone
contributing to this thread for a moment, I guess I need to explain
to Joe where I'm coming from. I don't talk about myself much, as
I try to keep my own anecdotes out of discussions about bees.
There is so much in the way of objective facts to draw upon in the
well-known literature. (There's also a fine line between confessin'
and braggin'. Don't wanna ever be braggin'.)

I've been bee-lining for over 20 years now. I was bee-lining before I was
beekeeping. I've worked the Everglades National Park with a skiff, the
rural areas around Greensboro NC, the massive Jefferson and George
Washington National Forests in VA, and WV and quite a bit of the area
around the path of the Blue Ridge mountains from Virgina south to Georgia.

My Dad makes and sells the bee-lining boxes I designed, the only
bee-lining boxes offered for sale in the 21st Century.

I've given workshops in the art/craft/science of locating hives quickly, 
and I even held a competition at EAS 2004 in PA at Seven Springs resort,
only to be rained out every darn day.

So, unless you've found and sampled hundreds of feral colonies, worn out
thousands of dollars in shoe leather, gone through 3 generations of GPS
gear, and spent decades doing it, you are the one with the experience 
that I would call "limited" in regard to what you persist in calling
"ferals", and most everyone else persists in calling "swarms".

And if you want a "feral survivor" colony for you collection e-mail me, 
and I'll invite you to assist with a removal I'm doing from a building that
dates back to the 1920s. Its a very large colony, large enough that
we wanted to want for early spring, so as to not scare the building's
tennants. The colony has somehow survived for at least several
years, so I guess you could speculate that it has been there since 
the building was first built.

But you'll need to bring all your extensive experience, as the colony
is between the 5th and 6th floor, 60 feet up, so we will be using
a painter's scaffold suspended by ropes, we will have to work with 
a mason, who will be installing a steel header, and we will be working 
on a historical structure, so there are some very silly rules to follow.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

"Joel, I will tell you that I have been collecting ferals with intensity after the 95-96 crashes."

I know Joe, I've been reading your's and MB's posts for interest for years. I am well aware of your efforts. I've started threads trying to tie down a better descreiption of what to look for. I don't have time any more to chase bees but I could set up swarm traps and work on breeding if I knew what how to judge a feral, espcially in my area. I can pretty quickly pick out most commercial races but of course after awhile they all start to melt into one hive.

I've seen one swarm in 10 years I truly thought might be ferals. They fit that "small, dark german bee" description I keep hearing about. The guy who called us showed us the tree they swarmed from and was emphatic the hive had been ongoing there for at least 5 years.

Next year,( July) my family has decided on dumping the security blanket and bees are it. I can't keep letting Bruce get ahead of me on this issue!  I know you're not far from here, perhaps I could spend a day afield with you and get a better idea of what you are doing some day in August 2007? 

I firmly believe as the pressures increase on queen producers to produce more queens the quality and availability on much of the market will drop. I'd like to not be dependant on that part of the equation to eat!

"What’s taking them so long then?"


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Jim Fischer said:


> I've been bee-lining for over 20 years now. I was bee-lining before I was
> beekeeping. I've worked the Everglades National Park with a skiff, the
> rural areas around Greensboro NC, the massive Jefferson and George
> Washington National Forests in VA, and WV and quite a bit of the area
> around the path of the Blue Ridge mountains from Virgina south to Georgia.


That's quite impressive. I'm familiar with some of the areas you mentioned in VA and W Va. I've hiked in some of those Forests, it's some fairly rugged and remote terrain. 

Since those areas are really not an ideal choice for practice, I assume that the purpose of your bee-lining in the mountain regions was an attempt to locate remote ferals. Based on your comments on this thread, I guess you came up empty handed. 

I'm curious, if you don't mind sharing, what you did find.


----------



## Sarge (Jun 26, 2006)

I remove unwanted bees regularly. I have for some 30 years. I have posted on this site and others about how some bees look very different from others. 
When I open a cutout or pick up a swarm I can see the diference between a swarm from a kept or domestic hive and from our local ferals. The domestics are clearly lighter in color and bigger bodied bees. The few beeks in this area have Italians. And I know of none within several miles with more than 30 hives.
I haven't been that interested in their backrounds before. But I'm wondering now about the issues.
If the NHB will kick in some coin and we have people wanting to do the leg work somebody take charge.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> ...it's some fairly rugged and remote terrain. 
> I assume that the purpose of your bee-lining in the mountain regions was 
> an attempt to locate remote ferals. 

Well, I lived there until very recently.
Bee-Lining is how I stretch my legs, and something I do for fun.

> Based on your comments on this thread, I guess you came up empy handed.

Not at all, I found LOTS of colonies in them thar hills.

What I didn't find, even in areas so remote that the trail maps are
best described as "optimistic", such as the Shining Rock Wilderness
(down near Ashville NC near milepost 410 on the BRP) was anything
that could not be explained by asking around to see who put hives
near the area, or by lining other bees back to an apiary of hives.

I remember in one of the prior go-arounds on this issue of "feral survivors"
that Tom Seeley's work in Cornell's Aront Forest was trotted out as an
example of the same sort of long-term "feral survivors". The 5 beekeepers
who kept hives within swarming range of the forest were later admitted
to exist, but the misinformed misperception remained, I'm sure.

The problem here is that few people now keeping bees were keeping
bees prior to the arrival of tracheal and varroa mites, and fewer still
were paying any attention to feral swarms. But the woods were thick
with them back then. Brushy Mountain sold a video in the 1980s called
"_Free Bees For You_", which covered both various methods of lining and
hiving bees one could find in the woods, and it explained that a beekeeper
could populate his entire apiary with swarms removed from trees.

If you read old beekeeping books, it was common for people to start
beekeeping by "catching a swarm". One of the reasons that there is
so much misinformation about bee-lining is that, up to the mid- 1980s,
nearly any method would appear to "work", in that one could "find"
a hive by throwing rocks in random directions, and following those that
make satisfying "thunk" sounds when they landed.

Now, when the tracheal and varroa mites invaded North America, both
feral and managed colonies were hit hard, and it is only recently that
anyone has noticed any "recovery" in "feral populations". This has 
coincided with the widespread distribution of lines of bees that have
been deliberately crossbred to be more resistant to varroa, as many
lines have been highly resistant (dare I say "immune"?) to tracheal mites.
I consider this to be more than mere coincidence.

There is also the AHB issue. Yes, AHB colonies swarm multiple times
per season. Yes, AHB are less bothered by varroa. Yes, they have
pretty much taken over the entire southern tier of states from California
to Florida, and everything in between. But let's not mistake these bees
for bees we want to take home and put in a box in the backyard.

Now, by "recovery", I mean that persistent searching paid off in the
finding of SOME colonies. We are nowhere near the population levels
that existed prior to the invasion of the invasive exotic mites.

Sure, I could be completely wrong in all of the above, but its not just
me saying stuff like this. This is the general consensus. Anything that
wants to contradict the consensus we like to call "fact" has a very
substantial burden of proof.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


----------



## Sarge (Jun 26, 2006)

Not to stir up trouble, but using phrases like "everyone knows", and general consensus" is a debating trick to give the impression of holding the "High Ground" of informed opinion.
Unless some footnote leads to a clear and consise study that backs up the position it is meaningless. Anyone can claim that "everyone knows" something. That the position is being discussed at all is proof in its self that the statement isn't true.
In 8 pages of discussion I have seen references to papers and studies that show one side. But nothing that I have read supports the position that all ferals are recent swarms from domestic hives. And that seems to be the issue. 
Have ferals strains survived with a lineage that can be traced back to the first hives imported, or even to the AMM hives imported in the early 1850's? The few studies seem to say yes. 
Could this AMM trace be a result of recent swarms, within the last 20 years the Varoa era, from domestic hives? The evidence of genetics in domestic hives suggests no. The AMM is too weak in domestics to explain the level in the tested ferals.
Logic suggests that the strain has "survived" in the wild.
That seems clear to me and " everyone knows" how hard I am to convince.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{I have for some 30 years. I have posted on this site and others about how some bees look very different from others.}

Pretty Impresive experiance Sarge, Perhaps you would be willing to share some more with us.

Is there any particular habitat that seemed more common to find them (Hollow trees/ old buildings, Height off the ground) that stood out over the years where you would have had given you a higher expectation upon arrival of finding feral bees.

Did you find many in loose swarms (homeless)

You mention size of the bee. What about the size of the cluster? Any consistent notable differences.

Bee space, comb building, tempermeant, propolization?

Any other traits before capture or in captivitiy that stood out?


----------

