# Surviver Stock: the new bee race



## adamf

wayacoyote said:


> We haven't treated (whatever that means) in 10 years.


Yes, beekeepers, bees and queens come and go. Terms and names come and go.
Internet posters come and go. Bee-l, sci.agricultrue.beekeeping and www.beesource.com will come and go.

We have not used ANY chemicals, additives, or treatment to manage our bees since 1999. 
In 1998 we used Apistan strips in one hive. Does that make "we haven't treated in 10 years" any clearer for you? 

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## JBJ

*the new black*

Waya poses a good question. In my humble opinion survivor stock refers to bees that can survive and thrive without Varroa treatments, and/or with virus and other pathogen exposure. For us it is more of a strategy than a strain; propagate from heavily selected or culled/exposed bees. For every catastrophic collapse of an operation I have seen, there always seems to be a percent or two that seem to thrive despite it all. Breed back from the survivors so to speak. Apply this and other performance based selection over time and you will eventually end up with a pretty good bee. It could be a mutt or it could be a purebred, but the mothers we graft from definitely will have a proven track record in the survivor department.

gotta run... beekeepers meeting tonight, more later.


----------



## tecumseh

can you breed fron non survivor stock?


----------



## Michael Bush

>can you breed fron non survivor stock?

That depends on what you want them to be able to survive...


----------



## adamf

Funny, three "Survivor Stock" breeders are posting on a survivor stock
thread.

As JBJ said, in breeding, if one selects (picks) breeders that are alive
and doing well, one is more likely to end up with offspring that will also
remain alive. A good breeder will also factor into their selection, other
valuable traits that make good bees.

Bee breeders have bred (and still do) bees to be completely yellow, bred
bees to have very long tounges, even bred bees to uncap and remove all
their pupal brood.

"Survivor stock" means that the breeder is using bees that are healthy
without any treatment or human interaction: either by not treating them, or
by using feral bees from remote locations. IPM may be used by some to maintain
their "survivor stock".

Several real-world examples exsist where this occurred naturally; 
bees were imported to isolated locations and all but a few colonies died out; 
the survivors bounced back to repopulate the area: survivior stock!

*How can a potential queen buyer (like wayacoyote for example) know if a
"survivor stock" queen is any different from any other queen?*

*1.* He can ask the queen breeder producing survivior stock, how they select their breeders.
Do they test their queens/workers? Tests may include hygienic behavior and mite counts, 
as well as yield, temperament, degree of frugality, the list goes on and on...

*2. *How they mate their queens. Are the queens open mated (crossed to any
drones that fly) or mated in an area where some effort has been made to
saturate with desirable drones. Is isolated mating or instrumental
insemination used in the breeding program?

*3.* What foundation stock did the breeder use? What is the survivor stock
based on?

*4. *What stock maintenance does the breeder perform? Is the breeder bringing
in new blood, and if so, from where and how often?

Breeding bees requires time and effort. Making very nice queen cells from a
very nice breeder queen and mating the virgins is but part of *improving
stock--a goal any bee breeder hopes to achieve.*

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Flyer Jim

*over there head?*



tecumseh said:


> can you breed fron non survivor stock?


good one tecumseh


----------



## bluegrass

I think that suriver stock is a term that is generally used to refer to bees that are decendent of ferals that survived on their own in a tree or wall and then were brought back into domestication. They are survivor stock because they were able to live on thier own and survive mites, shb, wax moths, and whatever else without treatment or intervention from man.

Basically some bees swarm and go feral and die off shortly after; others survive and their decendants are survival stock.

IMO most (all) US bees are mutts or grade bees. They have the characteristics of Italians, Russians, etc, but they are not pure breeds no matter what breeder they came from.


----------



## srd

*survivor stock*

I'm new to this group and plan to start with two hives this spring.
These bees will be collected from the wall of father-in-laws home and the space under the bed in his travel trailor that been parked for several years in his back yard. These bees have been around in these two locations for at least 4 years that I know of.
My dad and I kept pollination hive quite a few years back and now that he's passed away I'm trying to get back some of the fun we had together.
Wouldn't wild hives such as these be considered survivors?
I want to use the top bar hives that i've built this winter.
Sid


----------



## Michael Bush

>Wouldn't wild hives such as these be considered survivors?

For my definition, that would depend how long they have survived. But that's a good start.


----------



## JBJ

http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/publ/tolerant2.html

I have seen some more recent literature, I will see if I can track it down. Virus and other diseases can come into play, however survivor stock is not an entirely new idea. More people than ever seem to be jumping on the band wagon which should be a good thing. The importance of queen good rearing techniques are as important as genetics. Well reared queens from marginal stock will usually outperform poorly reared queens from excellent stock.


----------



## wayacoyote

Tecumseh > can you breed fron non survivor stock?

Michael > that would depend how long they have survived.

John Jacob > More people than ever seem to be jumping on the band wagon 

Very good points. I too wonder if this isn't just the latest "band wagon." John points out that this isn't new. (reinsert Tecumseh's question here.) 

John continued with > Well reared queens from marginal stock will usually outperform poorly reared queens from excellent stock.

Which brings me to another concern I mentioned in the "Change of Days" thread. The common advice is to requeen every year or two. How can we identify "surviver stock" that way? It seems like the queen's greatest threat to survival is the beekeeper who's more interested in issues of production over durability. I've read quotes that queens could stay viable for as much as 6 years. Sure, pests and diseases of the day threaten that, but I can't imagine pinching queens' heads every 12 months and replacing them, Especially from their own lineage, will serve to maintain, much less improve, a stock. 

Looking at a colony as a Super Organism, the organism is reincarnated into a new entity everytime the queen is replaced by supercedure, swarming, or the beekeeper. So by what measure is the surviver trait identified? (insert Michael's comment here.)


----------



## Michael Bush

>The common advice is to requeen every year or two. How can we identify "surviver stock" that way? 

Exactly.


----------



## dragonfly

My survivor stock is my only hive that has survived, and that is the one that had been "untended" for at least 5 years prior to my obtaining it. What race is it? Who knows?


----------



## JBJ

*Make the production queens from proven durable stock*

Waya, the stress of commercial pollination, early brooding, and modern beekeeping in general tends to wear queens out faster. We keep our breeder queens for as long as they will hold up, usually 2 or three years, but most of our pollination hives all go into winter with prime young daughters from our best long lived breeders that managed to cope well without acaricides. We just seem to have better bees in Feb this way. 

Selecting survivor stock and thorough requeening are not mutually exclusive. One can separate out what one believes to be the best bees in their operation and run them separately in a selection group to see how well they cope and how long lived they are. Once the bees are identified that meet your criteria they can be propagated to do your thorough annual requeening with.


----------



## tecumseh

jbj writes:
but most of our pollination hives all go into winter with prime young daughters from our best long lived breeders that managed to cope well without acaricides. We just seem to have better bees in Feb this way. 

tecumseh:
different problem... same solution? it would seem to me John that the advice of 30 years ago in regards to keeping young queens in the box to maximizing crop (honey, pollination or whatever) and minimizing problems (such as swarming and loss of production) is equally as viable idea today as it was then.


----------



## Michael Palmer

JBJ;381580 More people than ever seem to be jumping on the band wagon which should be a good thing.[/QUOTE said:


> Breeding from survivors is as old as agriculture. Farmers have always raised the next generation from the best of the last. It doesn't matter if we're talking about corn, peas, cattle or bees. It's just GBA...good basic agriculture.


----------



## deknow

Michael Palmer said:


> Breeding from survivors is as old as agriculture. Farmers have always raised the next generation from the best of the last. It doesn't matter if we're talking about corn, peas, cattle or bees. It's just GBA...good basic agriculture.


...i think many (if not most) that use the term "survivor stock" are specifically talking about survivors that did so without the use of treatments. if we use "treatment x" every year, then we are selecting for bees that do well with "treatment x". this only makes sense (in the context of survivor stock) if one is planning to always use "treatment x".

deknow


----------



## JBJ

... or always not use treatment x. 

Breeding from survivor stock is as old as agriculture and often the only alternative in the wake of a disaster. With bees however, I know a lot of folks who grow queens for their operation and really just settle for "fresh" instead of selecting from some stock that has been challenged and overcame. Some beeks are so thorough they stamp out nearly every mite in their operation every year so the bees never really have to develop vigorous coping mechanisms.


----------



## Kieck

One danger with many beekeepers jumping on this bandwagon might be "stronger mites."

As long as selective pressure is low, the mites may not be successful on these "survivor stocks." But if selective pressure increases, the mites may adapt or evolve or overcome whatever resistance mechanisms are in play fairly quickly. Examples of similar sorts of things abound.

Think of it like this: the mites _might_ be able to survive on bees from "survivor stock," but their survival is improved (that is, they leave more offspring, or more of them are present) on "non-survivor stock" (if such a thing is possible). Take away those easy targets, and the mites are presented with the scenario suggested for "survivor stock": adapt, or die.

And experience with pests suggests that the mites are likely to adapt.


----------



## Michael Palmer

deknow said:


> ...i think many (if not most) that use the term "survivor stock" are specifically talking about survivors that did so without the use of treatments.


Yeah, of course. But it's not just about treatment vs non-treatment. I was just trying to make a point that selection has been going on forever. Whether it's for mite resistance, or drought tolerance, or early bloom. Or weight gain, or beauty, or...there's a reason why the cattle in Florida don't look like the cattle in Vermont.

If the bee you have survives varroa with no treatments, but doesn't make surplus honey,
what do you have anyway?


----------



## JBJ

Michael P, why would one propagate survivor stock that does not make surplus honey?

Kieck, what about host/parasite equilibrium? Varroa is still relatively new to Apis mellifera, however on with its original host(A. cerana) original both species have had a long time to adapt to each other and seem to coexist just fine in a balance.


----------



## Michael Palmer

JBJ said:


> Michael P, why would one propagate survivor stock that does not make surplus honey?


Because the breeder is looking at only one trait. For instance...the VSH bee. The first to be release weren't very good. They were so VSH that the queens were superceded quickly. You had to add emerging brood to the colony. 

And the supposedly mite tolerant stock that is offered by one breeder. In my area, they break down with severe chalk. They buildup just so far, and sit there the rest of the summer. So, yes they are, to some degree mite tolerant, but they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. This stock is being advertised as mite tolerant. Selected and propogated. Worthless bees...in my area.

The breeder has to look at the whole ball of wax, and not just one trait.


----------



## Bizzybee

I guess it's all in how you deliver the punch line MP. Could be that they don't live long enough to have mites. But they would still be mite resistant huh? 

Seems pretty simple to me, I haven't used any kind of treatments in quite a long time now. I select queens to make new stock from that build quick and have the highest production. If they aren't surviving, they wouldn't be doing the latter very well, would they?

I think sometimes there's just a little to much micro-management.


----------



## tecumseh

michael palmer writes:
The breeder has to look at the whole ball of wax, and not just one trait.

tecumseh:
in one of od frank's old bee magazines I read a similar though by your neighbor mr mraz (how do you say that name properly?) but in regards to the defensve/aggressive nature of bees. he spoke of a man who reared such a docile bunch of bees that the 'queen breeder'??? who developed them would take them to bee convention and kick and toss the hive about without any reaction from the bees what so ever. the limitation (at least according to charles mraz) was that the same bees would also not raise a honey crop and without constant feeding and attention would very quickly die.

mother nature does have a way of weeding out extremes.


----------



## Bizzybee

Just how it looks tec. We have Charles (Chuck) Mraz working here in my office. Not the same of course!  M-raz


----------



## Michael Palmer

tecumseh said:


> in one of od frank's old bee magazines I read a similar though by your neighbor mr mraz (how do you say that name properly?) but in regards to the defensve/aggressive nature of bees. he spoke of a man who reared such a docile bunch of bees that the 'queen breeder'??? who developed them would take them to bee convention and kick and toss the hive about without any reaction from the bees what so ever. the limitation (at least according to charles mraz) was that the same bees would also not raise a honey crop and without constant feeding and attention would very quickly die.
> 
> mother nature does have a way of weeding out extremes.


Mraz...pronounce it like you read it...razzle dazzle...Mraz

I was fortunate to have known Charlie. I remembet the story he told about those yellow bees. So yellow that you could see through their skin...so said He.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Bizzybee said:


> We have Charles (Chuck) Mraz working here in my office.


Huh. Not a common name. Now I know of 3. Charlie who started Champlain Valley Apiaries in the 30s, his grandson Chaz Mraz, who now runs the operation, and Chuck in GA.

Think about this...

Charlie worked for a beekeeper in Vermont who worked for a beekeeper who kept bees during the Civil War. Some of the original apiaries are still in operation today. They still propogate their bees and queens in the same way as from the beginning...walk away splits.


----------



## JBJ

MP, I agree that single trait selection is risky, and I will go a step further and say that it is often impossible because frequently many traits are linked. For an example look at what happened in fox mills when they originally selected for docility only to make them easier to farm. Within relatively few generations the foxes soon acquired splotchy coat patterns, floppy ears, wagging tails, and domestic dog like barks. So yes there can sometimes be be a risk in single trait selection. 

Be careful what you wish for you just may get it, and then some. 

I feel this is one of the reasons genetic diversity is very important. The VSH trait you mentioned is actually a group of traits that can be selected for in any line of bees as opposed to being a specific breed. I think this may be part of the reason for Dr Spivac's new approach with hygienic behavior; instead of developing a strain (Minnesota Hyg) she and her collaborators are now looking for and developing hyg behavior in many different lines of bees.

It is likely that many different traits and genes govern most complex behaviors. There is also many means to and end. Look at all they ways different ways a hive could have mite tolerance: VSH, group grooming (as in A cerana), shorter pupation cycle (as in AHB), inhibited might fecundity through biochemical mechanisms, and there may be others. There also may be interesting combinations of these traits that give very productive manageable bees.

As the old saying goes there is more than one way to skin a cat, and in the end its all the same to the cat.


----------



## deknow

Michael Palmer said:


> If the bee you have survives varroa with no treatments, but doesn't make surplus honey,
> what do you have anyway?


imho, at the very least, you have a sustainable population of bees to work with (assuming that one is also not feeding). seems to me that building up production in a sustainable population is easier than building a sustainable population from good honey producers. i can elaborate on this, but it gets a bit twisty...too late tonight, gotta go to bed.

deknow


----------



## tecumseh

still don't think I've got it???

is it someting approximating mars? we have several chec communities about and their names all leave me scratching my head.


----------



## tecumseh

michael palmer writes:
Charlie worked for a beekeeper in Vermont who worked for a beekeeper who kept bees during the Civil War.

tecumseh:
here we call 'that' historical event 'the war or northern aggression'.


----------



## wfarler

*selection*

"If your parents did not have children, chances are you will not either"


I recall a study a few years back where the researchers collected queens from 25 different breeders. Their hives were deliberately infected with Nosema (I believe but I could be wrong - could have been tracheal mites). The colonies that showed highest levels of infection were put into a 'low resistence group' and those with the lowest levels of infection were put into a 'high resistence group'. The first generation the differences were not that great but after 3 or 4 generations of crossing within their own resistance group the resistance difference between the two groups went from ~30% to over 60% meaning the high resistant group was 60% more resistant than the low resistant group.

Selective breeding just accelerates the process over wild stock. I also find a lot of wild stock is my neighbors (or mine) spring swarms. Finding a multi-year hive in a tree is a find - especially if they are not 'hot'.


----------



## wayacoyote

*Are we getting any closer?*

Bluegrass made some good points, but I don't think the term "surviver stock" IS being limited to captured ferals who've survived on their own. 

I think BizzyBee expresses what a lot of beekeepers are doing who use the term. And since this has been a consistent method for generations (of beekeepers), why a new catchy term? (I propose... Marketing.)

Wfarler mentions who rewarding it is to find a multi-year wild hive. I agree. I suspect it is rarer than most realize or admit. As I mentioned earlier, a colony can be viewed as a "super organism", the soul of which would be the queen. Once the queen is replaced (supercedure, swarm, die, removed by keeper) the hive takes on a whole new ratio of genes and, thus, becomes a new "super organism". Imagine that I, with my good looks, great personality, intelligence and charm, get infected by some alien virus that rewrites my DNA completely. I wouldn't be me. I'd be someone else. (I've always said I have enough time trying to be myself than to try to be like everyone else.) So how would you KNOW that you had a multi-year colony without a marked queen? 

So, when did "Surviver Stock" enter the vernacular? (Perhaps some beekeeper liked the show Surviver Man?) And what does it (the term) mean for the future of beekeeping?


----------



## JBJ

We have been using the term in our ads for may years, never seen Survivor Man, and you are right there is marketing involved. Why would I not want to advertise that we are producing our daughter queens from lineages that have survived and thrived with mites and without acaracide in a commercial environment? We also used marked queens, sometimes clipped and marked. 

At the very least it is good to buy queens that are not, as Jennifer Barry puts in her recent article on "Pesticides, Bees, and Wax"; "sick little skinny queens [referring to affects of acaricide residues on developing queens] mating with inept drones [referring to the affects of acaricides on drones] which will be superseded by bees born on unhealthy chemically laced wax..." [brackets mine].

The queens we select as breeders have been given the opportunity survive without a beekeeper intervening with acaricide and have done so while maintaining other economically valuable traits. Will all their daughters be just like there mother? Not yet, but over time through continuous selection pressure more and more are; we have been working at it 10 years. Isolated mating yards and II can help here.

I can could count on one hand the operations that I know of that have been promoting and marketing some sort of mite tolerant or survivor stock for many years (in no particular order): Kirk Webster, Old Sol, Weaver, Olympic Wilderness, and Purvis. In the last several years there have been many more beginning to do the same. In my opinion these are operations that have withheld treatments to make it possible to identify hardier more tolerant stocks. I don't want to speak for any of them, I am just sharing my opinion. It would be nice to have some of these other producers chime in here. On a side note Kirk Webster's queens have been doing well for us here in Oregon.


----------



## little55

Sounds to me like we are not breeding a mite or disease tolerant stock but human tolerant stock. That is really what we are after isn't it bees that can survive under human manipulation or stress which makes bees more vulnerable. I took a hive out of an old house that had been there for over 20 years clearly survival stock but after 3 supers of honey they were gone. Dead. I really don't have an opinion either way but just giving a different perspective.


----------



## HVH

> can you breed fron non survivor stock?


Pretty funny:thumbsup:


----------



## comb

good point little55


----------



## HVH

It seems to me that the term survival has very little meaning without knowing what exactly they survived against. I would love to see an experiment where all these (from multiple suppliers) survivor colonies could be placed in one yard and challenged with known doses of pests. All colonies would need to be normalized. A minimum of three of each colony (per pest) would be needed for data analysis.


----------



## JBJ

This would be great. It could also help our industry make faster advances in stock selection. The viral component could be a bit of a challenge, however we are getting closer in the technology for that recently also.

I think Zia Queens bees may have gotten some funding for a similar type of project. I know we have sent them queens and several other breeders so I know some comparisons have been made. Many are still working with our stock years later. I feel stock selection is done best as a collaborative project and exchange genetic material with operations with similar goals regularly.


----------



## HVH

JBJ said:


> This would be great. It could also help our industry make faster advances in stock selection. The viral component could be a bit of a challenge, however we are getting closer in the technology for that recently also.
> 
> I think Zia Queens bees may have gotten some funding for a similar type of project. I know we have sent them queens and several other breeders so I know some comparisons have been made. Many are still working with our stock years later. I feel stock selection is done best as a collaborative project and exchange genetic material with operations with similar goals regularly.


I am glad to know that there are people approaching these questions scientifically. 
I find it a bit frustrating that nobody has figured out how to grow honeybee cells in vitro. You can plate cells harvested from eggs and they will stay viable in Grace's media but they are not proliferative. In order to do any serious virology, cell culture is needed.


----------



## ME Beekeeper

*Survivor Queens*

Interesting topic. I'm playing catch-up here but have read through the entire thread. It's interesting to hear the variations of what seems to be called survivor bees. And as already said, can you breed from non survivors? So what you all seem in agreement with, apparently survivors are non medicated or mite resistant. Yes, these are excellent traits for all, :applause: but I think the geographic's have to be added into the discussion. In the north country, this still doesn't touch on the long, prolonged spells of cold. Some bees have traits that allow them to take that cleansing flight in colder weather then others or wait an extra couple weeks. Some are more resistant to nosema then others. Others don't require the same amount of honey stores. Yet they can be gentle, productive, and survivors. Would this be the Northern New England bee? A new breed? I know it's the bee we're looking for in this neck of the woods. A survivor? I think the geographic's have to be considered into the discussion.


----------



## HVH

ME Beekeeper said:


> Interesting topic. I'm playing catch-up here but have read through the entire thread. It's interesting to hear the variations of what seems to be called survivor bees. And as already said, can you breed from non survivors? So what you all seem in agreement with, apparently survivors are non medicated or mite resistant. Yes, these are excellent traits for all, :applause: but I think the geographic's have to be added into the discussion. In the north country, this still doesn't touch on the long, prolonged spells of cold. Some bees have traits that allow them to take that cleansing flight in colder weather then others or wait an extra couple weeks. Some are more resistant to nosema then others. Others don't require the same amount of honey stores. Yet they can be gentle, productive, and survivors. Would this be the Northern New England bee? A new breed? I know it's the bee we're looking for in this neck of the woods. A survivor? I think the geographic's have to be considered into the discussion.


I remember several years back when people started to claim that they had mite resistant stock. I would always ask people in discussions if there were only one type of varroa. 
Geography, type of pest challenge, type of equipment, amount and kind of stores, number of bees, age of bees, etc., all have to be considered. If these variables can't be controlled then the idea of survivor becomes meaningless IMHO.


----------



## Allen Dick

I remember, back in the seventies, in Edmonton, Bill Wilson explaining regression to the mean, using the example strains of bees bred for AFB resistance as an example. We were all puzzled. It ran counter to what seems intuitive, but trees cannot gow to the sky. 

Regression is a problem, particularly in closed populations, and all populations are closed to some extent. Some more than others. That many are breeding, independently, from survivors (I know, it is an expression. You cannot breed from non-survivers ) is encouraging. 

We don't know what it is that makes evolution jump the tracks and go off in a new direction every so often. We only know that it happens. In this case, we have to make sure we are there to catch the ball, that the new successes propagate.

_(I also remember, years later, in Saskatoon in February, crossing a cold windy street as Bill explained that we were going to have coumophos as an additional bulwark against varroa when the future looked very bleak. I had no clue what coumophos was at the time. He said it would help us hang on until better ways were found. I don't think either of us had any idea what an addiction it would become)._


----------



## adamf

allend said:


> I That many are breeding, independently, from survivors (I know, it is an expression. You cannot breed from non-survivers ) is encouraging.
> 
> We don't know what it is that makes evolution jump the tracks and go off in a new direction every so often. We only know that it happens. In this case, we have to make sure we are there to catch the ball, that the new successes propagate.


The "breeding from non-survivor" occurs, if you think about it--selecting bees to 
breed from while masking their potential, is breeding from non-survivors. 

Take production Almond-Pollination queens and run them in ME, VT, Alberta or MN, over-Winter them there and have them produce honey the following year, without using any medication, or pesticide treatments: you'll have a few survivor bees to select from. Please call me too becasue I'd like to collect some eggs and drones from these guys. 

Just as allend says, the combinations are out there! You have to find them. 

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Kieck

> I remember, back in the seventies, in Edmonton, Bill Wilson explaining regression to the mean, using the example strains of bees bred for AFB resistance as an example. We were all puzzled. It ran counter to what seems intuitive, but trees cannot gow to the sky. -allend


Just to avoid still more confusion over this term, "regression to the mean" is a statistical term, and it relates to probabilities. Do not assume that "regression to the mean" means that organisms will not deviate from a current average. Such realities would mean 1) that evolution or adaption is not possible, and 2) would necessarily preclude any possibility that a line or race or whatever of bees could develop that would demonstrate any resistance to _Varroa_ mites at all. Of course, it would also exclude the possibility that _Varroa_ could have adapted to living on a novel host, such as _Apis mellifera_ and we all know that that assumption has clearly been violated.

What regression to the mean really states is that, in sampling, if one individual sampled/measured/tested is at a distance away from the mean of the group or population, the next individual sampled/measured/tested is more likely to be closer to the mean than was the first individual, rather than farther from the mean than was the first individual.


----------



## Allen Dick

Well, that was the term Bill used and he drew two lines, one for the resistant line and one for the susceptible line bred from the same foundation stock, as I understood it. 

Initially, in early selection, the lines diverged, one going up and the other down. But as successive generations passed, the lines began to flatten, or converge again. Not to say they crossed, but the improvements that were easy early on became less or ended, possibly due to exhaustion of genetic possibilities.

What I got out of that was that opportunities for progress are limited in small closed populations. The larger the population, the greater the potential for continued progress and fortunate accidents.

If those freaks can be found and bred to other freaks which are not too closely related, there is less potential for dead ends.

We can consider the probability of a punctuated equilibrium event here as well. I should assume the odds would increase with some relationship to the total number of separate small populations that can be monitored and brought together when indicated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

As I see it.


----------



## slickbrightspear

allend 
would the lines also converge because your normal is becoming more resistant as well making the gains you got early harder to produce


----------



## Allen Dick

That is a good question. I gather that this particular illustration showed how it is easy to identify and separate the exceptional traits in a closed population initially, but that over time you run out of genetics.

Hopefully someone more informed than I will comment. I have to admit that it took me a while to get my mind around the concept.


----------



## Kieck

The lines and illustration may have been an illustration of what he was trying to model, but it really doesn't fit with the standard term "regression to the mean."

In most models, exactly the opposite tends to be true of what was suggested in that presentation. Small, closed populations tend to diverge from the ancestral types more quickly than do large, open populations. Islands are prime locations to look for evolutionarily-divergent forms specifically for that reason.

Other issues become a problem when breeding bees in a very small, closed population. I wouldn't expect an equilibrium to become established close to the ancestral form unless the selective pressure on that closed population would be very, very similar to the selective pressure on the ancestral population.


----------



## Allen Dick

You are right of course and I am only reporting what I understood from the discussion, and I did query the matter.

What you say is supported in the idea of punctuated equilibrium.

Maybe things are different if people are doing the selection. I really don't know.


----------



## Kieck

That's interesting stuff, allend, and I certainly appreciate you posting it. I'll have to do some digging now to see if I can figure out more of what he had in mind. I suspect that it has to do with reduced viability of bees from strong inbreeding in closed systems.

It may also relate to the expected range of resistance in a population. The larger the population, the more likely that individuals extremely different from the mean might be present. Doesn't mean that such individuals couldn't exist in a small population, just that the odds are lower than the probability of such individuals existing in larger populations. Maybe that's what he had in mind?


----------



## Allen Dick

Yes. I really don't know, but it does remind me of the law of diminishing returns. 

The punctuated equilibrium concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium is fascinating, but I really have not taken the time to really think all this through.

Hopefully, though this will stimulate discussion. For example, howcum varroa managed to extinguish the bees on Santa Cruz, yet the feral populations in Loiusiana are back up to around normal?


----------



## doc25

Wow quite a discussion! I'll add my 2 cents (even if it's only worth 1). Survivor stock is a meaningless term. Kind of like adding sports or muscle in front of the word car. It is what you make of it. 

Genetic diversity = good, this can be achieved by not stopping swarming. Everyone wants to get a swarm but not let one get away.

Survivor gene, survive what? Disease, cold, pests, beekeepers?

Imo a hive that is "survival stock" is one that will survive in your yard, that will requeen itself when necessary, continuing to survive with the local assets and produce a surplus of honey. As stated elsewhere if you requeen every year you will change out the genetics of your hive (every year) with quite possibly inferior genetics than your hive will produce on its' own.

If you need to buy a queen, buy one and see if it will become your survival stock.


----------



## Allen Dick

> In most models, exactly the opposite tends to be true of what was suggested in that presentation. Small, closed populations tend to diverge from the ancestral types more quickly than do large, open populations. Islands are prime locations to look for evolutionarily-divergent forms specifically for that reason.


Small closed populations may tend to either diverge or die out under selection pressure where larger populations, possibly with subpopulations may continue without tending so much to go either way.

That may have been the case on Santa Cruz, where the limited populations had already been depleted somewhat previous to the arrival of varroa. They had to go one way or the other. 

In Louisiana, specific populations could be both isolated and also in contact with new genes at the same time, providing replenishment wherever the genes or colony count ran thin. Interfaces between differing populations of honey bees is fascinating, since much less admixture occurs than one might suppose, but there is always some.

In a sense we have a similar sort of situation with differing groups of geographically isolated breeders raisinging fairly small populations from survivor stock, but exchanging queens periodically.


----------



## sierrabees

How to breed from Survivor Stock. Try breeding from stock that didn't survive.


----------



## Show-me

This whole survivor stock discussion has been near and dear to my heart. I restarted tending bee's because a swarm found my old equipment and took up residence. Since then, two years, I have ten hives from this one swarm and lost some swarms, at least two, last year.

They seem to build up very quickly even with my amateur interventions. My plan this year is to do active swarm control and make splits in late June early July using a Queen Castle. I have two very rural heavy timber location selected using Goggle Earth. These areas are being selected because of heavy timber, CRP, plentiful road and field margins, and plentiful, close water supplies.

I have not treated or had to. I use SBB and have not harvested honey even tho I could have. I use the surplus to supplement weaker hives that one had a late season swarm and two nuc's that I split to late in the year.

If nothing more is will be fun and a great learning experience.

Just the ramblings of a guy who can't wait til spring hits.


----------



## Allen Dick

sierrabees said:


> How to breed from Survivor Stock. Try breeding from stock that didn't survive.


I think we have worn that joke out. Everyone who wants to knows what the term means, I think.


----------



## Allen Dick

Actually, I would find it very useful to see a listing -- names, locations, contact info, comments, etc. -- of those who are providing queens from survivor stock in the U.S. and Canada.

I just attended an IPM workshop, and there was a lot of talk about control methods, from the most drastic to the most benign, but little information about where or how commercials and others who by necessity or choice purchase their queens can obtain stock that either does not need treatment, or seldom needs assistance in dealing with varroa, tracheal, AFB, or chalbrood, etc, and also (hopefully) has proven characteristics that are required in commercial use.

Is there such a listing? If not could one be assembled here and now?


----------



## little55

On the subject of genetic diversity who is to say that virgin queens do not have a mechanism to select the most suitable genes. When we select the drone mother and saturate the area with drones that we think are genetically superior we may be forcing our queens to pick from inferior genetics as far as survivability is concerned. As in the case on the island.


----------



## HVH

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that someone has bees that have 'survived' for 5 years without any drugs. Since the life cycle of varroa is 10 days wouldn't it make more sense that varroa evolved from more virulent to less virulent due to the fact that parasites are more 'fit' when they don't kill their host, versus the bee evolving? In the discussion about bees and varroa why does everyone focus on the bees changing over time and not the mite? Of course both could change with time, but clearly a 10 day life cycle facilitates change much faster than a 21/25 day cycle.


----------



## JBJ

This parasite-host equilibrium is an interesting concept and always at work. Mites can evolve and adapt pretty quick, however if you are making a living with your bees chances are you will at some point end up sitting next to some hives in some orchard and be swapping mites, thus mixing the more virulent and less virulent strains.

Doc your point about survivor stock being a meaningless term is a legitimate concern and those are all questions one should ask there supplier if that is what they are advertising. For me in reference to our queens, it has strong and significant meaning. Have you ever tried any "survivor stock" queens? 

With the honeybee genome now sequenced we should be able to identify specific genes associated with better mite tolerance and disease resistance. This will eventually lead to very specific definitions.


----------



## HVH

JBJ said:


> This parasite-host equilibrium is an interesting concept and always at work. Mites can evolve and adapt pretty quick, however if you are making a living with your bees chances are you will at some point end up sitting next to some hives in some orchard and be swapping mites, thus mixing the more virulent and less virulent strains.


That is a good point and I don't doubt that some bees handle mites better than others, my concern is that our discussion is overly simplistic.



> With the honeybee genome now sequenced we should be able to identify specific genes associated with better mite tolerance and disease resistance. This will eventually lead to very specific definitions.


I wouldn't count on a clear genetic picture unfolding any time soon. We are still trying to get a grip on our own genome where money flows like a river.


----------



## Kieck

> In the discussion about bees and varroa why does everyone focus on the bees changing over time and not the mite? -HVH


I think the point leading up to this question is valuable and needs to be considered in this sort of discussion, and I think this question deserves some attention.

What if, rather than trying to "breed a resistant bee," we tried to "breed a less virulent mite?" Like HVH correctly suggested, parasites (not parasitoids) are usually better served by evolving to live with their hosts, rather than killing their hosts.

Thought-provoking line of reasoning, and well worth considering as we think about "survivor stock." Which stock is the survivor: the stock of bees, or the stock of mites, or both?


----------



## slickbrightspear

on dan purvis site he alludes to breeding better mites and it says a letter is forthcoming but there has not been one published yet. my opinion is in the long run both the bees will get more resistant and the mites will become less virulent


----------



## BoBn

Kieck said:


> One danger with many beekeepers jumping on this bandwagon might be "stronger mites."
> 
> As long as selective pressure is low, the mites may not be successful on these "survivor stocks." But if selective pressure increases, the mites may adapt or evolve or overcome whatever resistance mechanisms are in play fairly quickly. Examples of similar sorts of things abound.
> 
> Think of it like this: the mites _might_ be able to survive on bees from "survivor stock," but their survival is improved (that is, they leave more offspring, or more of them are present) on "non-survivor stock" (if such a thing is possible). Take away those easy targets, and the mites are presented with the scenario suggested for "survivor stock": adapt, or die.
> 
> And experience with pests suggests that the mites are likely to adapt.


We have already selected for survival mites that are resistant to pesticides. 
Other mite control methods also will put selection pressure on mite populations such as harvesting drone brood, essential oils, powdered sugar , etc. Parasites cannot survive without a host population. Long term survival of the mite population would be dependent on eventually maintaining a balance of mutual survival.


----------



## Allen Dick

> We have already selected for survival mites that are resistant to pesticides.


Consider this: by selecting for multiple-chemical-resistant mites, we are selecting for less fit (weaker) mites, assuming that chemical resistances have a 'cost', which they must, since varroa populations quite quickly revert to non-resitant in the absence of the chemicals.

If true, and it is, then those beekeepers not using chemicals, when exposed to those chemical-resistant mites, are reaping the benefit of these more benign mites diluting the robust mites they are hosting!


----------



## doc25

allend said:


> , since varroa populations quite quickly revert to non-resitant in the absence of the chemicals.


How quickly do they revert to non-resistant? Does this give an advantage to someone who occasionally treats?


----------



## Allen Dick

> How quickly do they revert to non-resistant?


It varies, of course, and I have not been really paying attention, but I have heard as little as five years for fluvalinate to become reasonably effective again.

I'm no expert. Maybe someone has hard numbers.



> Does this give an advantage to someone who occasionally treats?


Good question. There are several schools of thought, and I think the answer may also vary with region and with mangement practices. 

Some say nuke every mite. Others say monitor and only treat if the loads get to where they threaten to be economically more damaging and expensive than treating (treating -- contrary to what some seem to think -- is damaging and has significant economic costs beyond the purchase price and cost of application). 

Those whom treat occasionally are far less likely to encounter resistance unless it came 'over the fence', since they are not selecting hard for resistance.


----------

