# "Survivor bees"



## victory1504

Sometimes I see some "romantic" notions (unrealistic) about "survivor bees". I'm unclear about the difference between "survivor bees" and feral or wild bees. Survivability is certainly a trait that we can breed for, just like honey production, or color, or gentleness, or not being "runny", or non-swarming, or disease and mite resistance, etc.

We all know that when we breed IN a certain quality we are necessarily breeding OUT other qualities that we (hopefully) care less about. There is no free lunch. There must always be a "sacrifice".

"Mother nature" has her own brand of survivor bees (feral bees). If these are so superior and "highly prized", why do I hear so many complaining about losing our polinators ?

It seems to me that the hobbyist (say less than 10 hives) has virtually NO control over HALF the genes in every queen he raises. Larger beeks have more, of course. Breeding for any quality is necessarily difficult because it happens randomly in the clouds.

The optimum solution is "closed-mated" (artificially inseminated) queens @ $150. a pop. NOT FEASIBLE for most of us. A more feasible solution is "open-mated" queens from a source that has a reputation and an ability to "flood the zone" with desirable drones ( queen breeders ).

When we breed for "survivor bees" WHAT OTHER QUALITIES ARE WE GIVING UP ? ? ?


----------



## sqkcrk

Good question Raymond. Others, more knowledgable than I will give you an answer.

In my opinion, terms like "survivor" and notions that feral bees are superior, or mayu be superior, to what are in hives of bee breeders, or at least my hives, are signs of the times. People are trying despretly to find solutions to todays problems of pests and diseases which vex the beekeeping community at all levels.

So, I see what is going on in lauding the supposed survivability of feral colonies as grasping at straws in hopes that there actually is a branch in there somewhere which will lead to something that will support andf sustain us. It's natural for people to do this. It is happening all over the place in these economically trying times.

That's my take. Ted, rrussell and others have the real answer to your question.


----------



## deknow

First of all, virtually no one is buying II queens to head up their colonies. These $150 queens are designed to graft from, not to simply requeen a hive.

Secondly, in an ideal world, we would be able to predict what the "best stock" is to breed from. Since we don't, and since beekeepers are likely to pick the wrong traits to select for (low propolis production, very high HYG behavior, etc), we have to realize that we can't see very well into the future.

The past, however, we can see clearly. If the goal is to breed for traits that allow bees to survive without medications and without artificial feeding (at least, that is my goal), then finding bees that are already surviving without medications and artificial feeding seems like a good approach. These traits (whatever they may be) are likely dependant on one another....amplifying just one or two that have proven successful in combination with many others may not lead to survivability.

Unless you are in an area with lots of feral bees, you probably can't do this kind of selection with 2 or 10 colonies.

Gotta run....

deknow


----------



## Rick 1456

I'm on that "Freight Train" as well. At least trying to be. I'm on board with Deknows' logic. I captured a swarm of unknown origin last year and one this year. I made one split from last years and three nucs from swarm queens. Parent colony, 1st daughter, are doing great. Jury is out on the nucs. No treatments. Were/are they "Feral" stock? Only speculation and wishful thinking. I had genetics in college and learned I don't know much about genetics. Might be able to predict cross eyed fruit flies. I've looked at traits for queen selection and what other traits they may or may not be linked to. I've come to the conclusion for myself, it is a job best left to it's own means. 
Survivor bees, are the bees that make it in my bee yard. For splits and nucs, I select from colonies that I can say, "That's a darn nice hive." I keep my yard genes as diversified as I can and see what Mother Natures gives me to work with. 
One more winter and spring with these first few hives, and I might think I have something. For me, simple is best.


----------



## johnblagg

well my idea of "survivor bees' are the feral bees that did manage to adapt to the new problems that came along ....the ones that did not survive are in fact dead now just like russian bees became mite resistant all on their own in Russia so in time will the feral bee populations that continue to make it on thier own and reproduce sucessfully....those are survivor bees.
Bees kept and managed by beekeepers are often surviving for just that reason, even if it is not chemical and is just Ipm it does have a major impact,using drone brood and beetle traps are types of treatments just not chemical...if it would not occur naturaly to a hive in a tree then it is like it or not a form of treatment ...call it management if you want doing something to kill the pests and reduce their numbers.LOL we are all looking for that biological control that we can apply to do this well we have it its called the beekeeper.


----------



## Rick 1456

I guess what I think I'm doing, is setting the stage to allow it to occur in my yard.


----------



## Acebird

Insects mass produce and as a result can change to their environment quicker than say an animal. I think the success of the honeybee is not dependant on what WE can do as much as it is what WE must stop doing that reduces their chances of survival. There is no doubt in my mind that the reduction in honeybees is related to something that WE are doing. I don't know exactly what that is. I only have suspicions. If the bees were left on their own they would survive.


----------



## ArkansasBK

I totally agree with Acebird on this. We feed when bees normaly wouldn't be foraging. We do this for our own benefit with the mindset that we are helping the bees. The same goes for medicating. Who feeds the feral bees during a dearth? Who medicates them when we think they need it? We are creating our own problems with bees just as we do with anything else we try to improve. 

Sure, the internet has it's advantages, but just look at how many more problems we have now because of it. Bees are no different.


----------



## hpm08161947

ArkansasBK said:


> I totally agree with Acebird on this. We feed when bees normaly wouldn't be foraging. We do this for our own benefit with the mindset that we are helping the bees. The same goes for medicating. Who feeds the feral bees during a dearth? Who medicates them when we think they need it? .


Well, no one robs the feral bees honey either... if we did not we would not have to feed during a dearth. As far as medicating a feral bee... well I have seen so few in recent years that perhaps someone should have.


----------



## ArkansasBK

hpm08161947 said:


> Well, no one robs the feral bees honey either..


I disagree with this. There are still parts of the world that depend on feral honey for their sweetner, candy, etc. Ever watch the Discovery channel? There are still oldtimers who cut beetrees for the honey right here in the U.S.


----------



## hpm08161947

Yea.. you are correct. And when they rob them that is pretty much the end of the hive.


----------



## Acebird

Good thing the bees don't know how to use the Internet because they could look up what to do when those funny looking white suits come around. Maybe in Africa they have their own form of Internet and have already figured it out!


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> Insects mass produce and as a result can change to their environment quicker than say an animal.
> 
> If the bees were left on their own they would survive.


First of all, insects are animals. A colony may reproduce more than once a year, but usually, just like most other animals, colonies only reproduce once each year. So, I don't see evidence of quicker adaptation to their environment. Besides, pests aren't environmental. They exist in the same environment as the bees.

"If the bees were left alone..." We tried that back in 1984 and 1986 and they didn't survive. That's why we have been doing what wer can to try to get them to survive.

If you believe that they will survive if left alone, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and show us the results.


----------



## victory1504

hpm08161947 said:


> Well, no one robs the feral bees honey either... if we did not we would not have to feed during a dearth. As far as medicating a feral bee... well I have seen so few in recent years that perhaps someone should have.


I don't understand. If "survivor bees" and "minimal management" and "just let mother nature do her thing" is the answer, WHY ARE WE NOT OVER-RUN with feral bees ? ? ? Why have not all the "polinator" beekeepers been put out of business ?


----------



## Acebird

Yep you are right. It has been a long time since I sat in a biology class. Insects are animals. However an insect that can reproduce itself 60,000 times in a year has a much greater chance of change than one producing one or two offspring in 9 months. Bacteria or viruses reproduce by the millions and billions so they are even better at it.



> If you believe that they will survive if left alone, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and show us the results.


I have no control what the human race does that affects bees so how would I do such an experiment?



> We tried that back in 1984 and 1986 and they didn't survive.


 Who the heck is we and what is it that you didn't do?


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> However an insect that can reproduce itself 60,000 times in a year has a much greater chance of change than one producing one or two offspring in 9 months. Bacteria or viruses reproduce by the millions and billions so they are even better at it.


Remember, these are social insects. Only the queen is fertile. So you have to think about it a little differently. Naturally.... the colony will only reproduce once or twice a year. None of her offspring (under normal circumstances) are fertile. This makes their evolutionary adaptability a good bit slower than say bacteria.


----------



## Rick 1456

IMHO, there are some other animals that have fallen due to man and his ,,,,,,,,mistakes. Many/most are due to "imported" creatures that the existing gene pool had no way to deal with in the short term. Many are due to mans manipulation of the environment and resulting loss of habitat. Blue birds, grouse, wood ducks, and the list goes on. 
What did we do to assist these creatures we screwed? We started Blue Bird programs. We had wood duck nesting boxes placed all over the areas they inhabited. On and On. What is the problem with assisting the "wild bee" population, because man screwed it with a foreign predator, to get it on it's feet /up and running? Don't misunderstand. Not using treatments. Setting the stage, improving sustainable outcomes? 
I'm sure I'm missing a whole bunch of points, but my drift is there. Just my thoughts.


----------



## ArkansasBK

hpm08161947 said:


> Yea.. you are correct. And when they rob them that is pretty much the end of the hive.


Not hardly. They take great pains NOT to destroy them. They depend on them year after year. 

However, in this country, you are probably correct.


----------



## Acebird

Yes only the queen is fertile but practically every egg can become fertile and that is a heck of a survival characteristic. Is it not the hive that determines if the queen is acceptable? It appears to me that bees have a good bit of intelligence or instinct to react to what happens. If something isn't working they initiate a change. What other insect does that?


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> Yep you are right. It has been a long time since I sat in a biology class. Insects are animals. However an insect that can reproduce itself 60,000 times in a year has a much greater chance of change than one producing one or two offspring in 9 months. Bacteria or viruses reproduce by the millions and billions so they are even better at it.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no control what the human race does that affects bees so how would I do such an experiment?
> 
> Who the heck is we and what is it that you didn't do?


Do you know anything about the History of Beekeeping since tracheal and varroa mites were first found in this country?

We are people who have been keeping bees since before tracheal and varroa came along. What happened when they first showed up was that there wasn't anything anyone could do, nothing to treat with, so colonies died b ecause of the mites.

You need to understand that just because a queen bee can produce 10s of thousands of bees in a year that doesn't mean that there is any adaptation going on in that set anymore than in what a cow or dog does in a year.

You seem to be saying that you think that if people just let their bees do what bees do than all would be hunky dory, if people would leave their bees alone. Or did I misundedrstand you?

What do you treat your bees w/? What did the guy who you bought your bees from treat them with? Did you ask? Did he say?


----------



## snapper1d

I dont treat my bees and have not treated in well over 10 years.I think you would have to call them "survivor bees"


----------



## ArkansasBK

snapper1d said:


> I dont treat my bees and have not treated in well over 10 years.I think you would have to call them "survivor bees"


I would certainly think so!! Congrats.


----------



## Sarge

One major problem facing feral bees is the same one facing so many other species, loss of habitat. Specificaly nesting sites and forage areas.
For most city dwellers, current AND former, a nest of bees is something to be killed. I've heard that in Florida all ferals found are to be killed to prevent possible AFB colonies. Even around Indiana where I live, and with the DNR activly trying to encourage ferals be left alone, most feral colonies get a dose of bug bomb.
You have to see the miles upon miles of tree rows that are being bulldozed for ethanol production. The dozens of empty buildings being torn down in every city. The intensive spray programs to control West Nile and other diseases, to see just how hard it is getting on the feral bee.
It isn't the parasites and diseases that are having the biggest impact, it is us.
Personally I have never bought a bee. Never even thought about it. As a Wildlife Managment Operator I have given away hundreds of swarms and cut out feral colonies to beeks in the area before I started keeping myself. While I do feed new colonies for a period to get them started, and that is about as close to a "treatment" that they ever get. So in my own limited experience bees can, and do, get along quite well without us poking around in their lives, and hives, all the time.


----------



## snapper1d

"One major problem facing feral bees is the same one facing so many other species, loss of habitat." You gt that right!!! Here in south Arkansas are a lot timber lands.In the last few years the timber companies have cut almost every tree that has a hollow in it.They have almost cut all the hardwood.Bees have to hunt real hard to find a hollow tree around here.The clear cuts do provide some good bee pasture for several years till the pines shade out the vines,berries and under growth.


----------



## CharlieN

ArkansasBK said:


> There are still oldtimers who cut beetrees for the honey right here in the U.S.


Took my baby brother out once with a cross-cut to cut a tree at a neighbor's house. Got a #10 washtub full of comb outta that thing - made up two hives out of it... good times.. good times... been a long time since I seen a bee tree around here. Hope to change that....


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

There are too many variables into what makes a "survivor" colony. Might be the distance between the cluster and the bottom of the cavity that they are nesting in might be too great for the mites to climb back up to the cluster when they get knocked off. Might be the local bee forage in the area might have plant species that the bees work that might have natural essential oils in the nectar. Could be the placement of the colony in the form of the sun and shade factor. Could be the propolis they were using was a factor. The truth is that when you move most survivor colonies out of the area they were surviving in, they soon perish. TK


----------



## ArkansasBK

I live next to the Nat. Forest and know where 3 bee trees are right now. I do a lot more than deer hunt in them thar woods! Forest service says they will give permission to cut them. I choose to let them be, and have told no one where they are, not even the forest people. But if they bring in a timber crew I'll be there before the cutting starts.


----------



## D Semple

Ferals are thriving in our local area. I'm in the middle of my 10th removal this year, caught 12 swarms so far, only 3 of which I think originated directly from other beekeepers. Passed on 6 other swarm calls. Seeing lots of little tiny bees.

Don


----------



## Mac_in_Mass

Hi All,

D. Semple, not doubting you or anything, but how do you tell if a swarm is from someone local, or a feral swarm? 

I had my hive swarm a month ago, and the swarm hung in a nearby tree for a day or so, and then went away. About 5 days later, another swarm (seemed smaller than the first) showed up in another tree, happily, much lower down, where we could (rather comically) take it down and put in my buddy's hive (his bees didn't make it over last winter). Could these have been my swarm coming back, full of remorse?...

I had a nuc box with some foundations and lemon grass oil out in the yard for a few days after the 1st swarm left, hoping to catch my swarm. Could this have attracted the next swarm, days after it was removed?

As far as ferals go, I reckon they've either survived at least one winter, or are very fecund, which is a good trait, either way.

Mac


----------



## jeff123fish

Mac_in_Mass said:


> Hi All,
> 
> 
> I had my hive swarm a month ago, and the swarm hung in a nearby tree for a day or so, and then went away. About 5 days later, another swarm (seemed smaller than the first) showed up in another tree, happily, much lower down, where we could (rather comically) take it down and put in my buddy's hive (his bees didn't make it over last winter). Could these have been my swarm coming back, full of remorse?...
> 
> 
> Mac


 This was most likely a secondary swarm, hives can throw multiple swarms sometimes often the after swarms are virgin queens (but not always)


----------



## Roland

I believe I have experienced the bee that D Semple speaks of. It is smaller, all black, and very hygienic personally. It can winter in smaller units, and expand very fast once warm weather arrives. 
Unfortunately, it too was lost to CCD.

Crazy Roland


----------



## D Semple

Mac, two ways.

As soon as I get the swarm caught I go looking for the colony it originated from. Most of the time I find it within a hundred yards. Second If I can't locate where the colony originated from I guess by size, our local ferals are about 1/3 smaller than raised bees. 5 of the swarms I've caught were from bee trees that I was watching.

Pictures: http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/DSemple/Bees 2011/


----------



## frostygoat

Yes of course it is difficult to control your genetics. By conserving survivors we are absolutely not affecting evolution of the bees as some seem to suggest here. We are simply doing our best to propagate those bees that do the best given all factors of management and environment. For us smaller guys its a crapshoot every time a survivor virgin queen takes her nuptial flight. The best stock can go rotten by the luck of the drone.


----------



## Omie

I know of 4 feral colonies of honeybees within 5 miles of my house. They seem to be doing just fine. One has since relocated somewhere else on their own. Another one of them is in the roof soffit at the top of a 4 story old brick dept store building _right in the middle of busy Main Street_ in my town. Only the building owner and a few building workers and me know about it. It's a thriving colony that's been there for at least four years, perhaps longer. I was asked to come look them over....and I convinced the building owner to just leave them bee, especially since it would have cost a fortune to eliminate them, they are very high up.


----------



## valleyman

snapper1d said:


> I dont treat my bees and have not treated in well over 10 years.I think you would have to call them "survivor bees"


Are you not introducing any new genetics? If so how are you selecting for survivors? If not what are you doing to prevent inbreeding after 10 years?


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> You seem to be saying that you think that if people just let their bees do what bees do than all would be hunky dory, if people would leave their bees alone. Or did I misundedrstand you?
> 
> What do you treat your bees w/? What did the guy who you bought your bees from treat them with? Did you ask? Did he say?


I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. I am saying it is a result of what the human race has done to the world that bee colonies are crumbling. It is an argument like global warming. There are those that know it exists and those that think it exists and those that don't want to admit it exists. Eventually the earth will equalize the damage done. The question is will the human race be ready for it?

This thread got very active since your posts so I don't need to copy what others have said since your comment to me.

I buy bees from someone that treats. You know that and I know that but I don't treat. I don't know enough or I am not confident enough to raise my own stock so I will continue to buy if my non treating kills off my bees.

Mites magically appeared and started killing off colonies. Is that right? If treating bees is the answer then why aren't they gone? Because chemically treating insects will never eradicate a pests because they can change and become resistant to the treatments. Bees probably could too but that won't solve anything either. Will it?

Chemically treating crops does not win in the long run, GMO will not win in the long run either because it is dependant on a chemical treatment. What is wrong with a few imperfect vegetables if the only choice is to add poisons to our food and our environment?

All I can do is what I do. I have very little power or money to stop those that have it.


----------



## Acebird

valleyman said:


> Are you not introducing any new genetics? If so how are you selecting for survivors? If not what are you doing to prevent inbreeding after 10 years?


How do you force inbreeding? Is it like raising rabbits?


----------



## valleyman

Acebird said:


> How do you force inbreeding? Is it like raising rabbits?


After 10 years there would be no need for any type of forcing it. Unless a neighbor is introducing new genetics, or an influx of feral bees to the area it would be occuring naturally.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

our local ferals are about 1/3 smaller than raised bees. 

I would be interested to see any substantiation of this claim. I am highly sceptical.


----------



## Acebird

valleyman said:


> After 10 years there would be no need for any type of forcing it. Unless a neighbor is introducing new genetics, or an influx of feral bees to the area it would be occuring naturally.


If what you say is true then inbreeding might be the answer. If I could sustain my apiary for 10 years I wouldn't be in a hurry to change what I was doing or not doing.


----------



## Rick 1456

The "Ferals" I have lucked into seem to be "smaller" than "normal" bees. A local beek looked at some of our bees. First thing he said was, "Those are small bees." I don't know. He has been doin bees for forty years. I haven't. Is there something to that. One can speculate. The last/only swarm I got this year, I noticed something. Yeah, looked a little smaller, ok, but they ALL look the same. No darker ones, none than had different stripping patterns ect. In my bee yard that is kinda unusual. Did I check every bee in the hive, no. But I observe for long periods of time. All I'm offering this up as is interesting. The queen is large, and crimson. They came from an area that has trees that were big, when George Washington was living at Mount Vernon. Just interesting.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

Speculation at best. These kind of comments usually contain a reference to something old and venerable, like a church or forest or trees that existed during G. Washingtons time. The fact is you have nothing to offer other than your imagination.

A crimson queen, now that is something but we will never see a photo of it just as we will never see any empirical evidence of these "small" bees.


----------



## WLC

Small, blackish bees fits the description of Apis mellifera mellifera Linnaeus.


----------



## deknow

Tom,

What specifically are you looking for evidence of? Bees on natural comb that are smaller than bees on 5.4? Something else?


What evidence would you accept? Measuring the size of bees is difficult at best...the abdomen grows and shrinks with food and foraging. Is natural comb that is smaller than 5.4 enough? Smaller than 5.2?

deknow


----------



## Tom G. Laury

No, it does not. A.m.m. is a large bee.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

Deknow, it is difficult but not impossible to measure bees, been done many times by researchers. They can be weighed. But these anecdotal references just kill me. None of these people have measured or even attempted to measure them, yet post these baseless comments. Next thing they will claim that small bees small cell are an answer to mite infestations.


----------



## WLC

Tom:

Brand, in 'The Honeybee in New Spain and Mexico' describes how european bees tended to go wild in Mexico and degenerated into a race kept by indo-mestizo in a colmena.

He's very specific in calling them smallish, black bees, A.m.m. Linnaeus.

Now if you want to argue with a former dept. chair at the University of Texas...


----------



## Tom G. Laury

WLC, that is a different bee, one that was already in the Americas. Stingless small colonies that do not produce much honey. They are known as colmenas, different from abejas.


----------



## WLC

No Tom.

I do know what stingless bees are. He says that they came from the 'Holland, German or Black race'.

An 'abeja de colmena' refers to bees in an artificial nest, and an 'abeja de palo' is a swarm or colony in a tree hollow. (Brand)


----------



## NasalSponge

The last two years here have been fantastic for swarm calls so either there are a lot of new beekeepers in the area or the ferals are rebounding either way I think it is good.


----------



## Rick 1456

Gee Tom, it was not my intention to offend you when it comes to this topic. I offered observation only.. The reference to old forest was brought about previous ref. to loss of habitat. This area has not been lost. Lots of big trees with hollows that bees could in habit. Basically, the same as when George was in the area. Ref. to George was meant mostly as a locator. Google Earth to see where I got the swarm. Along the shores of the Potomac River. I made no claims. Hopeful, maybe. Because I made this ref., am I correct in you believe I think these bees might be the same as the ones that are descendants from that era? If so, you did that all that on your own. Why can't you just say, " That has not been my observation ref. small bees."? Hey Rick, do you think that those bees are from the founding fathers era? 
I'm not offended. We all have subjects that we are passionate about. It just seems to me you "jumped" at an opportunity in a way you might reconsider in the future on this forum. Just MHO.


----------



## Oldbee

> _"One major problem facing feral bees is the same one facing so many other species, loss of habitat. Specificaly nesting sites and forage areas._

_>_ _"Here in south Arkansas are a lot timber lands.In the last few years the timber companies have cut almost every tree that has a hollow in it.They have almost cut all the hardwood.Bees have to hunt real hard to find a hollow tree around here."_

There may be some truth to that. How far reaching is it, across many different species?

> Decline of the Red-headed Woodpecker: > Up to a 75% decline in some parts of the country and Canada.

_"Several factors have been suggested for the more recent declines of Red-headed Woodpeckers, including: the loss of snags used for nest and roost sites due to deadwood removal in urban areas and fire-wood cutting, clear-cutting, fire suppression and agricultural intensification in rural areas, collision with motor vehicles, pesticide and chemical exposure and possible interference competition with other cavity nesters such as European Starlings._

_Habitat loss and fragmentation is one of, if not the, major factor leading to species declines and endangerment worldwide. Globally, 83% of the land’s surface has been influenced by human activity." >http://www.redheadedwoodpecker.ca/threaths.php _

The Red-headed Woodpecker excavates nesting sites in old Oak trees on the margins of forests near open areas that may provide ideal foraging and natural homes for honey bees.


----------



## Fullwood

frostygoat said:


> By conserving survivors we are absolutely not affecting evolution of the bees as some seem to suggest here.


This is incorrect. When nature does it, it's called natural selection or sexual selection. When man does it, it's called artificial selection. Every vegetable we eat, or domestic animal we eat or use is because of man's artificial selection. When we have a hand in furthering a desirable quality, whether it's a color, or defense, or survivability, it is an effect on their evolution. I believe man can do positive things for bees, but I believe the most cost or time efficient means are used instead of what may be good (long term) for the entire species. Man has a very, very large role in the bees' evolution at this point in time. Honeybees in their current form have survived for probably 70 million years. I can't imagine that this is the first time in millions of years that Honeybees have encountered dangerous diseases and pests. As a species that is depending on bees, we need to figure out; Are we're going to make these animals dependent on treatment by man to survive by forcing them to forego any defensive changes they might make and depend on medication, or by genetics, breed animals that are going to be naturally resistant to their threats? Evolution has no set time-frame. Each species will change according to their environment, and it can happen very, very quickly in some species. Within a handful of generations, some species can make remarkable changes. (See John Endler's Guppies) As Darwin said: "It's not the strongest species that survives, but the one most adaptable to change."

I think that these backyard guys that are building these treatment free colonies, letting nature "cull" the weakest, and propagating the survivors is a big step in the right direction. They are their own geneticists. If he is able to develop a strain that survives in his region with very little management, then maybe it's worth a smaller honey crop or a slightly more aggressive bee? Then again, there is no rule that says you can't have a good honey crop and more resistant bees.

In my opinion, take the more expensive, time consuming path to correct what we very well my have had a hand in creating, and let the honey and vegetable prices increase to reflect the shortages.


----------



## Rick 1456

Fullwood,
Hoorah and thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## WLC

"I think that these backyard guys that are building these treatment free colonies, letting nature "cull" the weakest, and propagating the survivors is a big step in the right direction. They are their own geneticists."

I would be cautious about calling it a step in the right direction.

First of all, they're losing alot of desireable traits in the process.

Secondly, they're very likely propagating transgenic elements that confer resistance to pathogens, like viruses (Maori, 2007). This can occur while their stated philosophy is one of avoiding pesticides but they are oblivious to the fact that they may be breeding transgenic strains of bees.

I don't think that backyard beekeepers should be their own geneticists. I would leave that to the pros. Is it so hard to order a resistant queen?


----------



## hpm08161947

Fullwood said:


> When man does it, it's called artificial selection.


So what characteristics are these backyard swarm capturers selecting for? Sounds more like a random selection to me... which would make old timers statement pretty valid.


----------



## Fullwood

They're apparently hoping to introduce a gene that has allowed this supposedly feral hive to survive and thrive without man's intervention (up until that point.) Sure, it's a crap shoot. 

And every time you propagate a colony that is resistant and thriving, you are essentially a backyard geneticist. Humans have been doing it since the beginning of (our) time, and it doesn't always take a lab to do it. I'm not saying scientists shouldn't be looking for a way to further increase resistances, or create a better bee (I'm no hippy) I also don't think it's a bad thing to use a modified bee in our hives. I also don't think it's a bad thing that Farmer Jim has 40 colonies of bees that are thriving without much management in his area because he chose to let one colony die, and another colony that was clearly able to adapt and change, reproduce and make new colonies.


----------



## deknow

Tom G. Laury said:


> Deknow, it is difficult but not impossible to measure bees, been done many times by researchers. They can be weighed.


...of course it's been done, and of course you can weigh bees....usually the abdomen is removed, but I'm not convinced that the same bee (even without an abdomen) weighs the same every hour of its adult lifetime.

Measuring works.....but you are essentially telling people that their own powers of observation are fooling them...that even though they _think_ they are seeing smaller bees, in fact they are not. Taking accurate measurements of individual honey bees is not trivial, and if it is done by a number of inexperienced beekeepers (or even expereinced beekeepers), the results will probably vary.

Now, cells can be measured, they can be photographed with rulers or calipers in the shot, and are unambiguous.

So, again, will you accept comb measurements as evidence? If not, what do you require?




> But these anecdotal references just kill me. None of these people have measured or even attempted to measure them, yet post these baseless comments. Next thing they will claim that small bees small cell are an answer to mite infestations.


I have measured. I have had several beekeepers notice how small our bees are. I've noticed how large other bees seem.

It's pretty well established (even among the researchers) that without foundation, the bees will make worker cells about 5.1 or 5.2. I've discussed this with several researchers, and there is a consensus. Now, when asked what happens if those bees are shaken down to draw comb fresh, the researchers I've spoken with haven't carried the experement that far, don't know the answer, and don't want to know.

We had our state field day yesterday. In a presentation on swarm prevention, a beekeeper of 6 or so years was talking about a cutout he did recently...he couldn't believe how small the bees were compared to the ones in his hive.

deknow


----------



## deknow

...I'd also like to offer these thoughts on how "natural selection" and "artificial selection" are similar, especially in a boom or bust population. This shows a mechanism for rather quick adaptation on a population level, akin to a traditional hybrid breeding model.
============
From: Peter L Borst <[log in to unmask]>
>Nature follows no such plan in breeding of bees, adaptive traits are formed by the interbreedin of large populations without admixture from other regions.

That is certainly part of the equation, but not the whole thing.

I think it was Allen that wrote earlier today about insect populations being very "boom and bust"..and this is another piece to the puzzle.

These large populations undoubtedly have periods of "bust"...let's say a poor season followed by a tough winter. Some large percentage of the population is now dead.....I'd think of numbers like 90-99% die off (in a class we ran yesterday, one of the students was describing such a situation....35 hives with zero stores in late fall, and 5 with good winter stores....without feeding the 35, survival was not possible).

So _something_ is different between the survivors and the dead hives...chance, genetic traits (frugal wintering, disease resistance, prolific robbing, etc), age of colony, etc. In most cases, it's probably some of all of the above....but even if it's not in the forefront in all cases, genetics are always a factor.

These survivors are few (and they may already be closely related enough to share some of the desirable traits) and far between. Perhaps there is a scattering of populations in ones, twos, and threes across the habitat that once hosted the larger population.

These "clumps" of colonies are now ripe for inbreeding.

"but inbreeding is bad"

Inbreeding is a tool. Inbreeding allows the breeder (or "nature" in my example) to fix traits within a population.

_if_ there are genetic traits involved in why some of the survivors in these "clumps" survived, you've now got a process in motion whereby these traits (which were not terribly common in the larger population before the die off), are "fixed" into these smaller populations.

These smaller populations will get bigger, and will also suffer from diploid drone production and others of the downsides of inbreeding.

But...

When these smaller populations grow (or move) enough to run into one another and breed, instant "hybrid vigor" in any transitional zone.

Eventually, we are back to "boom"...until it's time for another "bust".

Please accept that I'm using an idealized (and simplified) scenario for illustration...things are much more complex than this.

Keeping how nature handles populations, inbreeding and outbreeding in mind is important if one wants to improve stock. This is decidedly _not_ buying a queen from here, a queen from there, and a few more for good measure and mixing them together.

Now, there is no reason that a breeder can't replicate this process fairly closely. The hard part is figuring out what traits are important, and what colonies to breed from.

deknow


----------



## beeG

D Semple said:


> Ferals are thriving in our local area. I'm in the middle of my 10th removal this year, caught 12 swarms so far, only 3 of which I think originated directly from other beekeepers. Passed on 6 other swarm calls. Seeing lots of little tiny bees.
> 
> Don


little tiny bees? Is that what you found feral? I saw some tiny bees trying to rob my hive. But my brawny bees beat them up.


----------



## hpm08161947

Around here... every time someone shows me the feral bees they captured. They look like the must have had an "Italian Accent" somewhere in the background.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

As I stated earlier in the thread, there are too many variables that goes into the making of a "survivor bee". Alot of those variables are enviromental not genetic. TK


----------



## beeG

Fullwood said:


> I think that these backyard guys that are building these treatment free colonies, letting nature "cull" the weakest, and propagating the survivors is a big step in the right direction. They are their own geneticists. If he is able to develop a strain that survives in his region with very little management, then maybe it's worth a smaller honey crop or a slightly more aggressive bee? Then again, there is no rule that says you can't have a good honey crop and more resistant bees.
> 
> .


I am sorry from what I am reading. I do not see this as anything but a pipe dream. these BYB are still being forced to buy new queens, and new packages. If (as was mentioned a few post ago) a BYB had hives going for 10 years without purchasing new stock. Then I would be impressed. But as long as these no treatment people are regenerating new stock yearly. They are more of a hindrance then a solution. 

Bees we keep today were introduced to this country as domestics. Already human damaged as I am seeing some of your express.
I do not feel I am the problem. Nor the entire human race. I am sure there are a few culprits who may have made some serious mistakes by introducing new disease to America. But they were not mind welded to the rest of the population. Humans are the masters of this planet, and humans are not the only creatures to cause death and destruction. 
Actually I was watching my bees yesterday after I did my split, and found a poor nurse bee walking around lost. So I put her on my finger to put in the other hive, and this bee comes flying out, grabs her in a death grip. To be deposited in the grave yard of the living dead. Bees moaning in pain as they die lonely painful deaths, void of any pain killer, or comfort. True nature is not some warm fuzzy happy world of perfection. Without humans I guarantee this planet would become much more violent. and many species would die. The weather alone causes more destruction then any group of bad humans at that.. The Carolina keet went extinct not because of the hunting. But a nasty cold snap the nearly destroyed Florida's orange production. 


I do believe the commercial bee keepers are doing all they can. Those doing instrumental insemination are doing all they can to discover the genetics that will resolve many of the issues. Universities are also doing studies. One can play a crap shoot and wish for a winning bet. But the only way to accomplish this goal would be through controlled breeding. A geneticist can also force a bottle neck and breed out certain traits.

But. I am sorry I strongly disagree with the human hating approach with the kumbia utopia dream which is impossible on this planet. Mother nature is not pretty it works on scales. Tip one side offset the other. Trying to force a perfect balance is impossible. You force all the bees to go natural and take that chance? The tip back on the other side I predict will not be so pretty.


----------



## beeG

Darwin proved enviroment will effect genetics.. love that blood sucking finch. Arent the bees part of the enviroment regardless of thier night bunks?


----------



## CharlieN

snapper1d said:


> I dont treat my bees and have not treated in well over 10 years.I think you would have to call them "survivor bees"


I would. I do. 

On another thread - http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?256278-When-to-replace-the-queen-Fall-or-Spring/page2 - I mentioned mites killed probably 80% of what my uncle and I had. They were all untreated bees then (my uncle was very adamant about that), and what we (until he died) built back from those survivors have remained untreated to this day. 

As I said in the other thread, they are small cell foundationless bees. I don't much care whether people think it's luck, small cell, no treatment or whatever as long as the bees are surviving and the bees are and have been hanging in there and as long as they do, I'll keep doing it the way I am now. Maybe it does have to do with environment - the bees I have are certainly adapted to this area, it's all they've ever known - with the exception of a couple hives of Russians and they seem to be adapting pretty quickly.

I'll bet it's Arkansas, that's what it is :lookout:


----------



## Acebird

beeG said:


> You force all the bees to go natural and take that chance?


LOL how do you force something to go natural? It is the other way around. You force something to go unnatural.


----------



## D Semple

Tom G. Laury said:


> our local ferals are about 1/3 smaller than raised bees.
> 
> I would be interested to see any substantiation of this claim. I am highly sceptical.


Alright, so they appear smaller to my naked eye and the brood comb they are drawing out on fouundationless frames generally measures in the 4.7mm - 5.00mm range. I'll quit saying they are about 1/3 smaller, it is a quess on my visual observation. 



hpm08161947 said:


> Around here... every time someone shows me the feral bees they captured. They look like the must have had an "Italian Accent" somewhere in the background.


I agree, mine definitely look to have a lot of Italian and Carniolan heritage.



Ted Kretschmann said:


> As I stated earlier in the thread, there are too many variables that goes into the making of a "survivor bee". Alot of those variables are enviromental not genetic. TK


I'm a sideliner not depending on bees for my lively hood, I don't care why or how the bees I'm catching survive on their own, just so they do. 

Don


----------



## snapper1d

beeG said:


> I am sorry from what I am reading. I do not see this as anything but a pipe dream. these BYB are still being forced to buy new queens, and new packages. If (as was mentioned a few post ago) a BYB had hives going for 10 years without purchasing new stock. Then I would be impressed. But as long as these no treatment people are regenerating new stock yearly. They are more of a hindrance then a solution.
> 
> My stock I have had for well over 15 years.I have purchaced some sunkist queens from Russell that I am interested in trying.They will be in a different yard from my survivor stock and are not intended for mix breeding.I have heard so much about them that I wanted to try them out.I dont think they use any kind of treatments on then either.


----------



## snapper1d

CharlieN said:


> As I said in the other thread, they are small cell foundationless bees. I don't much care whether people think it's luck, small cell, no treatment or whatever as long as the bees are surviving and the bees are and have been hanging in there and as long as they do, I'll keep doing it the way I am now. Maybe it does have to do with environment - the bees I have are certainly adapted to this area, it's all they've ever known - with the exception of a couple hives of Russians and they seem to be adapting pretty quickly.
> 
> I'll bet it's Arkansas, that's what it is :lookout:


I am thinking the same as you CharlieN.It must be Arkansas. Arkansas The Natural State


----------



## beeG

snapper1d said:


> beeG said:
> 
> 
> 
> My stock I have had for well over 15 years.I have purchaced some sunkist queens from Russell that I am interested in trying.They will be in a different yard from my survivor stock and are not intended for mix breeding.I have heard so much about them that I wanted to try them out.I dont think they use any kind of treatments on then either.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you cell queens from your stock? Now your stock sounds interesting
Click to expand...


----------



## snapper1d

Yes and I open mate them so they get genetics from other drones in my area.I have a swarm I captured this year that didnt come from my bees that are doing just as well as mine are.The inspector came by last week and inspected.In one location from all hives we found only 2 mites in drone larvae.She caught 1 SHB trying to get into the hive and got him on the landing board.We found zero SHB inside the hives.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Seems like you guys will not touch the enviromental factors. Read the earlier statement in the thread. What, you all scared that this old beekeeper might know something that you have not thought of???? Genetics is only part of why some colonies survive with out intervention. TK


----------



## snapper1d

Well TK you are one of the experts on bees but if someone has no problems in a couple locations that really doesnt mean that the same bees wont survive somewhere else.I think some of these survivors should be tried in different places to see how they will hold up.If they do then that would be terrific wouldnt you think!!! I know Russell trades queens with others from different parts of the country to see how they hold up.


----------



## sqkcrk

Holding up is only one trait that beekeepers should be interested in. Most of my cols hold up. I only had a 15% loss last year. If they only held up, but didn't produce much of a crop, that wouldn't be good for production. I would rather have a bee that held up twice as poorly, but produced a crop of honey twice as well. I think that would work out economically better for production oriented beekeepers.

How long does a colony of bees have to stay alive to be considered "survivor" stock. I must have hives whose colonies have "survived" for more than two years, having had 15% loss this past year and around 30% the previous year. And, who knows, maybe some of the 100 that didn't die when I went from 732 down to 100 may have had colonies that have been alive since then.


----------



## Rick 1456

Let's see, do I want to stir the pot, or beat the dead horse.:scratch: Bet I can do both. 
I drew a line in the sand and said, "No more chemicals to save my bees!" It is not the answer long term. I am a hobby beek but I can not afford nor do I want to buy bees and queens every year to sustain my passion for working with these creatures that fascinate me. I'm not waiting for the researchers, the university's, or a breeder down south,(no disrespect meant) to come up with a sustainable queen for my area. Ain't gonna happen. They ain't found a cure for all cancers and they won't find a cure for what ails the bees world. Now, let's throw the business end of it in. Sorry, I'm scenical at this point. I have bought queens from various, and reputable dealers to get stock that I thought would satisfy my hobbyist needs. They are production queens, and ALL this year were superceded. Business satisfying a market. Honestly, I have no problem with that. So, to the naysayers that scoff, and call us back yard gynecologists, I mean geneticists:no: we are because we have been driven to be. The odds of me and my "Crap shoot" approach, my wishful thinking, grasping at straws, no proof, imagination, pictures, are better than what is available to ME, than on the market. I would venture to say, that if i got a queen from a beek that has sustained his hives for ten years w/o treatment, brought it to my yard, it would not perform on the same levels as where she came from. 
This is just one of the things that keeps me interested in this hobby. Trying new things. If it were "cook book", it might not be so but I can't imagine that.


----------



## valleyman

Rick,
I agree with most of what you said. I'm sure most of what I'm going to say has been said in this long winded thread. But here goes, Anyone that has the same genetics for 10 years has to be inbreeding and trouble is just aroung the corner. Or has done turned the corner and is just unrecognized. If they are bringing in other genetics they have been very lucky to not have piled on some of the problems that is in the rest of the world. I'm not saying that one can't be treatment free for 10 years, but I am saying that to do it with feral bees is a stretch because those ferals probably haven't been exposed to much of todays problems. When you bring in the new genetics some of your hives are going to have problems. For those that haven't brought in problems are just lucky. As far as Queens and being a crap shoot and all that, I have had more than my share of problems with poorly mated queens and just bad genetics ( my pure Russians for instance). But what I do disagree with you on is that there are good breeders that are testing their stock before marketing instead of as some are doing their testing on the market. We do need to figure out who the goods one are and patronize them. Instead I'm afraid we patronize those that have the cheapest price, and that just don't work!!


----------



## snapper1d

I have had my stock for over 10 years.My queens are open bred so I can not say where the drones come from but my bees have been consistent for all these years with fighting mites and diseases.The guys at the Baton Rouge ARS are the one who bred mine up back when the tracheal mites were bad and the varroa started.I think there was 27 people who sent queens in to that program.I dont remember the year that was but the sent me back queens and I have not treated for mites since.If I am just lucky then thats what it is but I am very happy with mine.I had a bunch of locations down here and all the bees worked all the same but now that I am older and retired I have slowed down.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

I agree with you snapper, that colonies that live more than four years with out human intervention should be tested. You are right there were around thirty people that sent in survivor stock to Baton Rouge. R.Russell and myself included. But there are the environmental factors to consider. Somebody noticed that greater the distance between the detritus layer and the living area in a natural colony the longer it survived Varroa mites. Thus the concept of screened bottoms came into play. Somebody notice bees in areas with high populations of mint plants survived ,the concept of essential oils was born....Somebody noticed that bees in full sun had less mites and beetles do to the higher temps in the colony....the shade and sun factor came into play....Hives that really goop their colonies up with propolis from certain trees in an area surivive better also. Snapper what we have found is most,NOT all, survivor colonies when moved out of a certain geographic area do not survive long. Because there was something there growing or some environmental factor that was helping the colony survive. When they are moved the crutch is gone. They perish within a season or two. You may have several of the above factors in play in your area, along with the genetics. If so you are truly fortunate, as most beeks do not have such luck. TED


----------



## Barry

Ted Kretschmann said:


> When they are moved the crutch is gone. They perish within a season or two.


So don't move them!


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

I agree, Barry, but to truly know if the colony is resistant and fit to bred stock off of them in a commercial setting, move them you must do. TED


----------



## CharlieN

Ted Kretschmann said:


> I agree, Barry, but to truly know if the colony is resistant and fit to bred stock off of them in a commercial setting, move them you must do. TED


I agree with that Ted. How far a distance and how long a period of time do you think would be considered enough to test the resistance? The bees my uncle and I had have always been approximately within a 100 mile radius of the Missouri / Arkansas line of NW Arkansas.


----------



## Acebird

Barry said:


> So don't move them!


:thumbsup::thumbsup:

I love your post Ted because you as a commercial beek are making a strong argument that the environment is a key factor in the destruction of bee colonies. Your are also pointing in the direction of wild foraging areas as opposed to monoculture, another human destructive force.
So now the equation looks like if feral bees had their feral land back they would survive just fine. This in my mind is organic bee keeping. The more people working in this direction the better for the bees.


----------



## snapper1d

I can believe in the environment playing into the equation but if that is the case the beek next to you shouldnt have his colonies destroyed by mites while you have none.So I think if you have some that have survived for several years they should be checked out good to see why.


----------



## Acebird

snapper1d said:


> they should be checked out good to see why.


I would like to have this phrase "checked out" explained further. The term has been used before and I would like to know what it means or how it is done. I can't envision giving 50,000 bees a physical so it has to mean something else.
Thanks


----------



## snapper1d

What I am meaning by checked out is to be moved from where they are to a different environment to see if that plays into the factors.


----------



## deknow

...I think this all speaks for how quickly bees _can_ adapt to their environment. Of course, they've got to be given a chance to do so, and if the "environment" is one in which the beekeeper assures there is a constant flow (from forage or feeding), or will be treated every time it suffers a setback, then that is the environment to which they are adapting. Hmmmm...bees that require feeding and treatments...I wonder if we can breed for those traits?

It's also worth noting that not all commercial beekeepers are migratory, and not all commercial bees need to be treated.

deknow


----------



## snapper1d

"how quickly bees _can_ adapt to their environment" Right there is probably the most important thing to look for in resistant bees!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Acebird

snapper1d said:


> What I am meaning by checked out is to be moved from where they are to a different environment to see if that plays into the factors.


The test would be difficult to accomplish because you really have to move them all out and replace them with an apiary that isn't doing so well at that location. I can't imagine someone that has good success in a location giving it up to prove a point. They might be concerned that the good location is now tainted.


----------



## snapper1d

Why would you want to move them all?You could move a couple to a location that someone has that is doing poorly with mites and see if the resistant bees will keep on doing well.If they do you have learned that they will do OK there.If they load up with mites just like the poor ones are then you can say it is an environment problem.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Three things that make a good colony of bees-environment, genetics, and the skill level of the beekeeper. It was once said years ago that a sorry beekeeper could make a good living in good honey production area-(environment) and an excellent beekeeper would go broke in poor foraging area--(common sense). So it boils down to location, location, location, just like in any other enterprise. It does not matter if the bees are treated-like most of mine, or untreated -like most of snappers, the above statements are basically LAW not hypothesis. Thus must always be in the back of the beekeepers mind when managing his or her bees. TED


----------



## snapper1d

That is a very true statement!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Acebird

That's is what I like to hear Ted.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> It's also worth noting that not all commercial beekeepers are migratory, and not all commercial bees need to be treated.
> 
> deknow


And not all Migratory Beekeepers are Commercial either.


----------



## Rick 1456

If you treat your bees, what difference does it make who what when where why and how? I don't have the experience level and I must be missing something. Duh me? If you treat, you remove/compromise the need for the genetics/adaptivity, if they exist, for any parasite your treatments cover/target. What am I missing/ misunderstanding?


----------



## sqkcrk

I think you understand perfectly well. Ted K. can add what is missing.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> And not all Migratory Beekeepers are Commercial either.


When ever you use the term "all" the statement only needs to have one exception. How many people truck bees around if they are not commercial and why would they do it?


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> How many people truck bees around if they are not commercial and why would they do it?


It is not uncommon for noncommercials to move their hives into the mountains for the sourwood flow. Just spoke to a guy with 12 hives he had taken to Mt. Mitchell.


----------



## sqkcrk

Well, a neighbor of yours, a beekeeper from New Hartford, takes his bees to SC. Helps to keep them alive and so he can make splits earlier than if left in NY. I also know a guy who used to haul a truck load of bees to VA to raise queens for splits he would make in NY. I don't know how many others do that. Your State Apiculturalist might have an idea.

Should I have written "some" instead of "not all"?


----------



## Acebird

Well in both cases, 12 hives, a truck load of bees making splits, it sounds like commercial. Maybe small scale but still not too many people are going to consume, what you get from 12 hives just for themselves. They got to be selling something.


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> They got to be selling something.


 I doubt I know many beekeepers who don't sell a few jars... if that constitutes commercial, then there are alot of commercial beekeepers. 

So what you are saying is that people who only produce enough honey for themselves do not migrate. Bet I could find one of those.


----------



## BoBn

snapper1d said:


> "how quickly bees _can_ adapt to their environment" Right there is probably the most important thing to look for in resistant bees!!!!!!!!!!!


Small colonies that swarm several times a year.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> They got to be selling something.


Forgot to mention TBH Enthusiast Sam Comfort who hauled TBHs to FL for the winter.

Ace, there are Commercial Beekeepers and beekeepers who dable in commerce. Two different animals. Aanother discussion. By the commonly held definition, someone w/ 72 cols supplementing their income is not considered Commercial. Let's not argue about it here.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

We treat to give an entire population of honeybees that makes up a commercial beekeeping operation time over years to genetically catch up with the problem. We do not use the harsh chems now that we used, say 20 years ago. While we do loose bees every year, the core genetics remains alive and viable. Genetics is only one tool in the secret of maintaining healthy beehives. Sorry, I abhore people that will not intervene and save their colonies of bees when there is a problem. Randy Oliveriz stated it best in this months ABJ, he calls them "Taliban Beekeepers". Letting them die is not beekeeping. That colony that you let die, might have had the extreme hoarding gene and would have produced with a little treatment, gobs and gobs of honey. That colony you let die, might not have been resistant to mites but might have been totally resistant to AFB, EFB or some other malady. You nor I will ever benefit from those bees, because you let those genetics die with the colony you improperly sentenced to death. That is why we treat, because there are other characteristics in bees that need to be preserved, not just mite resistance. TED


----------



## Roland

Well said Ted. 

If they chose not to treat, by closely monitoring mite levels before the apocalypse, they can act preemptively and requeen with genetics from a more resistant hive, and not lose the hive, only the queen. 

Are all of you sure that you are breeding better bees, and not just inbreeding weaker mites? If you have a better bee, it will withstand an environment with a different mite. If not, your Utopian isolated bee might be in a precarious position if it's isolation is compromised. That is why they are moved to finalize the test.

Crazy Roland, non migratory commercial


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Well added statement, Roland!! TED


----------



## deknow

Ted Kretschmann said:


> We treat to give an entire population of honeybees that makes up a commercial beekeeping operation time over years to genetically catch up with the problem.


...I understand the concept, but it fails to make sense. I'm trying to think of a parallel concept in the breeding/improvement of other animals/plants. ...use of pesticides on a crop (or flock) in breeding individuals of a breeding program in order that they will eventually become resistant and not require the pesticide? Without culling the susceptible individuals?



> While we do loose bees every year, the core genetics remains alive and viable.


...viable in a a treated environment. I don't think I'd define viability as "able to persist only with the use of treatments".



> Sorry, I abhore people that will not intervene and save their colonies of bees when there is a problem. Randy Oliveriz stated it best in this months ABJ, he calls them "Taliban Beekeepers".


Actually, Randy called people that require others to keep bees the way they see fit the "beekeeping taliban"....something that likely applies to those that "abhor" how others keep bees more than to those that simply explain how they keep bees and why.
...but I would never use such terms.....it is belittling to the hundreds of thousands that have actually suffered at the hands of the real Taliban....and to the soldiers (American and otherwise) who have risked (and sacrificed) their lives and bodies fighting an actual Taliban.

Randy uses this term to describe some that "require" others to keep bees "naturally". I've got no use for beekeepers (natural, commercial, or otherwise) that think everyone should do things the way they do...but his article made it seem like this attitude only comes from the "natural" camp. Of course I know differently first hand...I knew it when Jim Fischer (who had not read our book) tried to get our publisher (threatened litigation) to pull our book and bring in his team of "experts" to rewrite it to meet his point of view.....and I knew it when Peter Borst (who also had not read our book) posted a 1 star review on Amazon...deleted the review (in order to delete the comments that had been made on his review), and then posted _another_ 1 star review (again, having not read the book he is panning). In the end, we had enormous support from our readers and the publisher told Jim to go pound sand, and Amazon found Peter's actions to be "Abuse", and the reviews were removed. These are 2 specific examples of the kind of thing Randy was talking about in his article....but I won't use the term "Taliban" (or "Nazi" for that matter), and I will identify them as individuals rather than as some ambiguous mob.




> Letting them die is not beekeeping. That colony that you let die, might have had the extreme hoarding gene and would have produced with a little treatment, gobs and gobs of honey. That colony you let die, might not have been resistant to mites but might have been totally resistant to AFB, EFB or some other malady. You nor I will ever benefit from those bees, because you let those genetics die with the colony you improperly sentenced to death. That is why we treat, because there are other characteristics in bees that need to be preserved, not just mite resistance. TED


First, I'd ask that if you haven't done so , that you watch the very short video of Randy Quinn talking about the damage he feels he has personally done to the gene pool in is role as a breeder.
http://thecompleteidiotsguidetobeekeeping.com/index.php/lecture-archives/2008/randy-quinn
Secondly, this kind of "hard selection" is exactly what has worked for honeybees for the last 70 million years or so. Genetic bottlenecks are important for adaptation..preventing them does not simply preserve the gene pool, it prevents adaptation...but it feeds our desire to "preserve", to "collect" and creates the illusion that we are conserving something. This is not how nature works, and although a purely natural system is not beekeeping, it is the only model that has a long term track record, and we must look to it for inspiration and information.

deknow


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Genetic bottlenecks are dangerous and can contribute to the extinction of the species due to the lack of genetic diversity from inbreeding. I work in a method called beekeeping not beehaving. It is a form of animal husbandtry that you would have us throw into the trash can. And as for your book....it is a good place for beginners to read and learn from getting the first information in beekeeping, but like any literature, should not be taken as gospel for experience of years of beekeeping is the auctual best teacher. Personally Deknow, I still like Dadant and Sons "First lessons in Beekeeping"> TED


----------



## Acebird

There is always an exception but you are not going to base a theory on an exception.

About a few jars ... If someone is consuming one hives worth and selling the other eleven, to me he is commercial. His/her goal is to sell. On the other hand if someone has three hives, consumes one, gives another one to relatives and friends and sells one, to me they are not commercial. I am sure others may use different criteria for commercial and non-commercial.


----------



## valleyman

Let me show my ignorance, because I have no where near the intellect to argue with most on this thread. So forgive my ignorance. It so happens that both of you have valid points. Ted, I completely agree that one should save a hive that has in the past been a good producer, managable, and all the attributes that would make them worth giving a chance to adapt to todays world of beekeeping. At what point do you let them live on their own is my question? I have not treated, but I would treat using formic acid or hopguard if I saw a hive was in trouble. However, how long I would continue to help the affected hive is what I need to figure out. Yes the bees have survived for millions of years with our treating them, but that was before Tracheal mites, Varrora Destructor, Small hive beetles, Afb, Efb, Chalkbrood, all types of pesticides, and other problems they now face. I'm not ignorant enough to think that they haven't survived other problems in the past without human intervention, but I seriously doubt that nature or mankind has thrown as much at them as has been over the last couple of decades. Natures way is let the strongest survive and the weak perish, but most of this is not nature it is man made or spread maladys. I understand that genetics are lost each time a Apiary perishes and the gene pool needs to be protected. Maybe man himself has created some of these weaker genetics by breeding for production only. So maybe some of them just aren't worth saving.
And yes I too took offense at Randy Olivers use of Taliban. Very bad choice!


----------



## snapper1d

You all have good points! I dont treat because I dont have to and not because I am wanting to go all natural and go for resistance only.I just have not had any problems in years.I have only lost one colony in years and it was during the winter when I was not around them to see what was happening.If I have a hive that does get into trouble I will treat it!!!!!!!!! After the tracheal mite invasion when I lost everything except two hives to them I dont like loosing any!!! If I start having mites or other problems I will requeen from a colony that has the best queen I have got.Mine are open mated so there is other genes coming in from drones from around the area.The way I feel about treating is if you need it do it and if you dont need it dont.If you dont need it and you do treat you could have your bees getting lazy about fighting them.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

The real work of bee breeding is being done in the field and in the laboratory, not in some ones back yard or on the internet. 

Still waiting to see a honey bee that is one third smaller than normal or a crimson queen. O r any evidence that small bee small cell restricts Varroa.


----------



## Rick 1456

Tom,
My apologies. I did not realize till just now, I meant to write Cinnamon Queen. Nothing special there. When I get colors and spices and Cs and Ms together, well, my bad. Just wanted to clear that up. I mean this jokingly, one less thing for you wait for


----------



## hilreal

"Secondly, this kind of "hard selection" is exactly what has worked for honeybees for the last 70 million years or so. Genetic bottlenecks are important for adaptation..preventing them does not simply preserve the gene pool, it prevents adaptation...but it feeds our desire to "preserve", to "collect" and creates the illusion that we are conserving something. This is not how nature works, and although a purely natural system is not beekeeping, it is the only model that has a long term track record, and we must look to it for inspiration and information."

Hum....let's ask the dinosaurs what they think about "hard selection"!


----------



## beeG

I may be new to bees. But, I am not new to raising animals commercially. The biggest issue I see. Is when you allow an unregulated business perform unrestricted business along side the regulated businesses, in the same venture. As long as everyone gets along, Of course there are no problems. But, as soon as there is bickering from the unregulated source, trying to force further regulations on the regulated source. And projecting all the woes onto that source through emotional hypothesis. You have a serious issue that will implode the entire industry. 

This is happening all over the world with most of your ventures that allow hobby and commercial to market in the same manner unrestrictive. I was hoping the bees would be different. Due to the high need of a healthy bee industry. But I see the same here as the other failing commercial agriculture industries fighting for their lives . and I find it frightening.

A small group of people would have never been capable of building the great pyramids. 

I also do not agree with "the human race is destroying the planet".. ooo global warming.. bad humans need to be stopped. Commercial is bad greedy and is destroying the planet . Lets stop them. 

Humans and the Animals we keep are living longer, and happier lives then they ever did in American history. Yes there are blimps on the way. When I was younger many migratory birds were going extinct. Now many of those species are now flourishing. One my favorites the Bald Eagle which I enjoy watching a nest every year. Within a few miles of my home. The saving of these species was not by singing kumbya. But be real research by real scientist. Using facts not emotional hypothesis. 
Our waterways were suffering. Now they have improved. Air quality is improving. Man as a whole are not the demons of this earth. I get very upset with this hippy mind set. Which does carry a belief privately that 2/3'ds of the planets earth human inhabitants need to die off to save it.. I feel those people need to be institutionalized. Or just have patience when us baby boomers die off. There will be more room. But you better pray it goes slowly. Because the prices will start to plummet as the great economic machine dies down with the baby boomers. Supply and demand folks.

I am open to all the forms of breeding.( as long as it does not negatively influence others by disease and so on) I feel the more strains the better. I just feel if a beek is doing something dangerous it needs to be properly insolated. I am against forcing a universal breeding program. That is unless it becomes nessasary through real scientific study. Again not through emotional hypothesis. 

Hobby people need to settle down. Because all it takes is a stroke of the pen to regulate all, or put tough enough regulations on hobby breeders to make it unfeasible, and all those genetics will go out the window, and this planet will be left with what. Politicians are ignorant. They listen to the loudest big mouths with the most finically influenced friends. I sure hope this new generation which has been so strongly influenced by socialistic reasoning. Will just hurry up and gain needed wisdom.. Before it is too late and sets back American agriculture and businesses to the dark ages. And over seas.


----------



## grozzie2

hpm08161947 said:


> So what you are saying is that people who only produce enough honey for themselves do not migrate. Bet I could find one of those.


That would be me. 

First year with hives, started out with 3. We thought they were weak, having started from packages in april, but, bees thought otherwise. We now have 6 hives, after spending all day sunday catching swarms coming out of our own hives. We got to watch one of them from start to finish, was fascinating. We saw them coming out of the hive, and, later in the day, we watched them moving into the box we set up to try catch that swarm.

Our local club has a bee-yard in the mountains, prime fireweed territory. For all the hobby members of the club, who dont have enough hives to warrant setting up a yard, it's a place we can take the bees to catch the fireweed flow, after blackberries are done here in the low ground. I dont think the freshly caught swarms will be able to build up enough stores for the winter without going to the fireweed, so, we will move them all up into the mountains when the blackberries are done, and bring them back down here when the fireweed is done.

Around here, it's a common practise for folks with a small number of hives. The 3 weeks of exposure to the fireweed is the difference between a hive that has 'just enough' for the winter, and one that has some surplus. The community effort of a club yard makes it practical for the small time folks. Quite a few club members with only 2 or 3 hives, consume all the honey they produce, and migrate the hives from the low land here in town, up to the high fireweed for the late flow.

And, to get back to the original topic, I do find the subject of 'survivors' fascinating. We do have a friend that has a hive in the soffets of the house. There have been bees coming and going from that opening for the last 20 years. It is a topic of some debate, are they a survivor hive, or, is it a spot that gets found regularily by swarms ? Nobody has ever paid attention to find out, but, we are going to start this winter. I will climb the ladder mid winter, and see if there is a surviving colony in there. Our friend thinks it is great having bees up there, so, there is no desire or even possibility of taking them out. Watching them on the flowers in the area, they look no different than our commercially purchased packages.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> Ace, there are Commercial Beekeepers and beekeepers who dable in commerce. Two different animals. Aanother discussion. By the commonly held definition, someone w/ 72 cols supplementing their income is not considered Commercial. Let's not argue about it here.


It sounds like you are...
and obviously we don't agree and I don't think I am alone.


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay. I concede the issue. Anyone who has a hive of bees and sells hive products is a Commercial Beekeeper.


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> Okay. I concede the issue. Anyone who has a hive of bees and sells hive products is a Commercial Beekeeper.


Don't concede yet... let's go ask WLC and BYRON.... think they are looking for a new thread.


----------



## WLC

I don't sell anything from my hives. I won't eat anything from them either.
They're demos. Guess I'm just a bee-haver.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

WLC, in the dueling circle as proposed on the other thread. Can I be your second, just in case Byron shoots and accidently hits you. As a southern boy, I am a pretty good shot. God, the thread that went around the world in 80 hours. LOL...Survivor Bees, Bees that survive without intervention from man for four years or more. Survivorability is influenced by many factors, just not genetics alone. TK


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I don't sell anything from my hives. I won't eat anything from them either.
> They're demos. Guess I'm just a bee-haver.


Or maybe you are the guy making all those swarms now found in The City?


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

ACE, to be considered a commericial beekeeper, the old def. is 300 colonies or more. Any new def. it would have to be is the operation economically self substaining?? and turning a profit.. Hobby beeks are called hobby beeks for a reason. Profit motive is not the reason for keeping the stinging little Apian devils. TED


----------



## WLC

Heh, heh.
Fortunately, the VSH Italians are building up nice and slow. That's exactly what I wanted.


----------



## sqkcrk

W/out a basic understanding and experience w/ an industry one will often misunderstand the commonly held meanings of terms.


----------



## ArkansasBK

sqkcrk said:


> W/out a basic understanding and experience w/ an industry one will often misunderstand the commonly held meanings of terms.


Mr. Webster has the commonly held meanings of terms, not necessarily the same meaning as some industry has coined for their own use, which could vary considerably between industries. Therefore we all should use Mr. Webster's meaning for clarity.


----------



## valleyman

ArkansasBK said:


> Mr. Webster has the commonly held meanings of terms, Therefore we all should use Mr. Webster's meaning for clarity.[/QUOTE
> 
> The only way I could agree with this is if I knew for sure that Mr. Webster was a beekeeper, or is it bee keeper.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

If it's all you've got, a title is very important.


----------



## Roland

I am going to be rude and to the point, my apologies.....

Mites are a walk in the park. Easy to control without chemicals. All it takes is "Germanic" style beekeeping. What is the big deal?

So you have a few hives that survived in an isolated environment. Prove to me you have not bred a weaker mite. Study the mite life cycle. See how the are very susceptible to inbreeding. Now correlate that with how it is easier for an individual to keep just a few hives alive, and much more difficult for a commercial operation to keep 40 hives alive at a location.

I do believe that people like StevenG are making genetic progress against mites by purchasing the proper stock. He seems to be developing a bee that is more robust against mites.

ALL of this is survival talk is horse hockey when it comes to CCD. NOTHING survives CCD. All of this "natural" solutions is horse hockey for CCD. I personally did not treat for mites, and saw CCD wipe out all my personal hives. I predicted to Solomon Parker that there would be no unisolated treatment free hobbyist beekeepers in 10-15 years, due to the large capitol investment needed to purchase decontamination equipment.That is where I earned the "Crazy" moniker.

Attack at will.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Roland you are correct in your thinking. What the people that spout that they have "survivor" stock do not realize is that there are two types of Varroa in this country representing two different infestation events. The Japanese type and the Russian type. The Japanese haplotype is not as devestating as the other. And they are incompatable with each other. As you and I have both stated there are just too many factors in determining survivor stock with out moving the so called survivor colonies out of their comfort zone. TED


----------



## valleyman

Ted is what you and Crazy saying something like I posted somewhere in the nonsense in this thread and that is that there are breeders that are developing and proving genetics to be resistant to many things. These bees are being exposed to the problems, results are documented and studied and after maybe 10 years they introduce them to the world. That is what I see as the answer to the maladys of todays beekeper, not someone that has 10 hive that may be isolated from most of the problems. I envy those people that are lucky enough to have these survivor bees, and make no mistake they are survivors in their own area. But I think we all know what would happen if they sold queens across the country and advertised them as survivors.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

I'll chime in with a few of my own pet peeves.

It's been said that bees are domesticated in this thread. I disagree. Bees are not domesticated. They simply live by their instincts. Man has figured out how to use their instincts to make them useful. Turn them back out in the wild and they immediately can survive without our intervention. We do not fully control their breeding like I do my cattle. My cattle would probably would not make it without my help. They also do not resemble the first cattle that man started domesticating. Bees still resemble their wild ancestors.

Seems like we haven't got agreement as to what survivor bees are. To me survivor bees are just that. They survive where my previous bees died despite my attempts to save them with medications, chemicals and physical intervention. All of my hives derived from purchased bees have died out. All of my current hives are either captured feral swarms or descended from the same and they have survived without treatments of any kind. Some have died out for many reasons but nothing compared to the way my purchased bees fell prey to every pest or disease.

CCD? Do we even know exactly what CCD is? Is it a new disease or a combination of other pests and/or diseases? How can we say what bees can or cannot survive a syndrome that we cannot even define yet. Many of the dead outs blamed on CCD probably were caused by other common diseases, most notably nosema.

It really doesn't matter whether someone believes that their bees are smaller, blacker, can survive or can be moved. It matters that they are able to keep their bees and that their bees can thrive. The notion that only professionals can "breed" bees is rather snobbish. Not even a century ago farmers and gardners saved seeds from their fastest growing, best tasting and best looking products and continued strains that we now call heirlooms or open pollinated. Sure it was anecdotal and prone to some problems but so is the professional lab and test field. Most of the problems associated with row cropping has to do with the fact that row crop farmers are dependent on agribusiness for seed, treatments to keep their crops alive and weed free and on the banks for loans for afford it all. I don't believe that beekeeping will ever go that route. There are too many of us with different goals and we're a very diverse group of people. Just look at the different people on this discussion. My old favorite conversation starter was Andy Nachbaur on the bee line. Fortunately their are some like him here today and that's good to me. There's no reason why a backyard beekeeper can't raise his own bees and queens and develop a good strain of bees just like our ancestors created heirloom varieties of row crops. Dell and Apple computer were started at peoples homes. Don't tell me a backyard beekeeper cannot accomplish something great.

If you want to continue to purchase your bees and queens, go ahead. If you want to trap feral bees and make a go of it, go ahead. I think we all want to be beekeepers and we all will have different ways of going about it. I've learned a bunch from people on this site and it's made it possible for me to keep keeping bees. I'm off the treadmill of buying bees and queens, buying treatments and medications, and then watching them die anyway. If you think it's stupid, go ahead. All I know is that my bees are making it and it's enjoyable for me again. 

In case you're wondering, my bees are smaller than the bees I used to purchase and raise on foundation. They are also mongrels, some with hints of yellow and others gray to black, in some cases from the same queen. They tend to swarm some but that doesn't bother me. Bees were made to swarm and I have swarm traps all around my place. I've found that that works better for me than fighting their instinct to swarm. In fact fighting their instinct never seems to work out for me. I've found that working with their instincts is much more productive. I've made some queens with splits. Not sure what they mated with but probably drones from my own hives that have built much drone comb in their natural comb. It might not be scientific but it works for me. And one other very important feature about my bees is that they are survivors...


----------



## sqkcrk

Terms w/in an Industry may have different and specific meaning not found in or totally compatible w/ Websters Dictionary. It's a consensus thing w/in the beekeeping community.

And those of us who understand what a Commercial Beekeeper is and what the term implies have alot more than just a Title. All trees are trees, but there is a big difference between a Sequoia and a Holly.


----------



## snapper1d

Some mention that it is the environment that is keeping bees alive in certain areas.It has been said it is because of the essential oils in certain flowers in those areas.If that is true then why did most of the bees die out when both varroas and tracheal mites move in on us.Would not those essential oils in those flowers of kept the mites from even getting a foot hold here?The flowers didnt just up and decide "Hey I think I will start making essential oils so my bee friends wont get mites on them".I know essential oils will either kill or run mites from a hive but you have to look at the PPM (parts per million) of oils in a flower and the PPM you are putting on your cardboard strips.You are looking at 10,20 or maybe a 100 PPM in your flower as compared to billions of PPM on your cardboard strips.To compare this look at it like this.A drop of chlorine bleach in a barrel of water as to a gallon of chlorine bleach in a barrel of water.As far as the two varroa,Jacobsoni and Destructor the survivors are keeping both of them out so what is the difference?Survivors are survivors!!!!!!


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> there is a big difference between a Sequoia and a Holly.


Yeah, you are right there ... so too is there a difference between Green Giant and a ten acre farm (you can taste it), so too between a commercial bee operation and a back yard beekeeper (you can taste it).
As a note I have learned that Mark is right on the term "commercial". It seems that there are three classes of bee keepers, hobbyist, side liner, and commercial. although side liners are involved in commerce the term "commercial" is given to those that have no other occupation. I will keep this in mind on future posts.


----------



## Acebird

snapper1d said:


> Some mention that it is the environment that is keeping bees alive in certain areas.It has been said it is because of the essential oils in certain flowers in those areas.If that is true then why did most of the bees die out when both varroas and tracheal mites move in on us.Would not those essential oils in those flowers of kept the mites from even getting a foot hold here?The flowers didnt just up and decide "Hey I think I will start making essential oils so my bee friends wont get mites on them".


If you have a pristine garden of Edan and you all of a sudden surround it with the fires of hell some of the pristine garden will get burned. We as a human race continue to produce more and more fires of hell which results in less and less of the garden of Edan. We can't continue to ruin the environment and hope there is a chemical cure to save the bees. There is also no such thing as breeding a resistant bee that can withstand the long term effects of environmental destruction.
We have to stop and put back what once was. Then the bees will be safe.


----------



## snapper1d

You are talking about two different things there.The quote is talking about pest and you are talking about destruction of the environment!!!


----------



## Tom G. Laury

Well why let reality get in the way of opinions?


----------



## deknow

Ted Kretschmann said:


> Genetic bottlenecks are dangerous and can contribute to the extinction of the species due to the lack of genetic diversity from inbreeding.


...virtually anything can contribute to the extinction of a species....life implies death, speciation implies extinction.

but genetic bottlenecks are a cornerstone of evolution. in a bottleneck, genetic drift increases. you do get inbreeding, but you get the same outcome that happens when human run breeding programs inbreed....you fix traits in the population. To say that genetic bottlenecks are dangerous is true...but a populatioun will barely adapt (if at all) without them. We are talking about survivor bees here...we are talking about attempts to let or help the bees adapt. You don't adapt nothing by propping everything up.


> I work in a method called beekeeping not beehaving. It is a form of animal husbandtry that you would have us throw into the trash can.


...I don't believe I ever told you what to do. If the fact that I have a different approach than the one you practice bothers you, I apologize.

I do ask again, in what other species do we expect a breeding program to "adapt" to a specific pest over time while the entire (breeding and nonbreeding) population is treated for the same specific pest? I can't think of one offhand...in fact, this is opposite of every example I can think of.



> And as for your book....it is a good place for beginners to read and learn from getting the first information in beekeeping, but like any literature, should not be taken as gospel for experience of years of beekeeping is the auctual best teacher


.

ummm, ok. I don't think I ever claimed that our book (or any beekeeping book for that matter) was any kind of replacement for experience. I do think that there is a lot we cover in ways that aren't covered in other books, and much of this is helpful for even the moderately experienced beekeeper.



> Personally Deknow, I still like Dadant and Sons "First lessons in Beekeeping"> TED


I do too...at least the copies I have (the most recent being about 1945). Does this book replace years of experience? If not, why make that comment about our book and not books in general?

deknow


----------



## deknow

Tom G. Laury said:


> The real work of bee breeding is being done in the field and in the laboratory, not in some ones back yard or on the internet.


...I can't think of a lab that I would want queens from...I don't think any progress in bee breeding is happening in the lab at all...at least not progress towards any goal that I am interested in.


> Still waiting to see a honey bee that is one third smaller than normal or a crimson queen. O r any evidence that small bee small cell restricts Varroa.


...and I've asked you twice now what evidence I can provide to you that you will accept wrt smaller bees. I am happy to do my best to provide evidence for you, but I won't waste my time if you can't tell me at the outset what evidence you would consider acceptable.

deknow


----------



## hilreal

Nearly all of my current hives are from swarms / cutouts i.e. survivors from areas with little or no beekeeping. 13/14 made it through last winter when our bee club averaged 50%+ loss. I don't notice any size difference but I have noticed they are not near as gentle as the bee breeder developed queens. Being a plant breeder by training/vocation I understand their frustrations. Genotype X Environment interaction is a killer to genetic gain. However, understanding genetics, those that think they can make genetic gain dealing with 10-20 families are fooling themselves.


----------



## deknow

...I'm curious if you are using foundation in these colonies....that would prevent them from being smaller.

deknow


----------



## hpm08161947

hilreal said:


> However, understanding genetics, those that think they can make genetic gain dealing with 10-20 families are fooling themselves.


Yes... they could make some progress.... but it would take some time... like 1000 years.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

hilreal said:


> However, understanding genetics, those that think they can make genetic gain dealing with 10-20 families are fooling themselves.


Nonsense. This statement negates inbreeding and line breeding which are the cornerstones of developing new "breeds". In fact many of the breakthroughs that have happened throughout mankinds development of plants and animals have come from single individual sports which were used as the basis of an entire new line. My uncle developed an entire dairy heard in the Netherlands based on a single cow named Tuttle. When he sold off his herd, dairy farmers came from all over Europe to purchase his cattle.


----------



## hpm08161947

beyondthesidewalks said:


> Nonsense. This statement negates inbreeding and line breeding which are the cornerstones of developing new "breeds".


Nearly every quality wine grape that I am familiar with seems to have been discovered as a "sport". Sorta like getting struck by lightning. Indeed it does happen but the odds are long. We just can't all be successful breeders, if we wish to try it helps to know the odds.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

hpm08161947 said:


> Sorta like getting struck by lightning. Indeed it does happen but the odds are long.


But you can speed that lightning up by going ahead and putting your crop, whether it be flora or fauna, right in the middle of the debilatating vector. Then if there are any survivors line and inbreed off of those survivors and expose their progeny to the vector again. If there are survivors, line and inbreed off of these and you may have a strain that resists or is capable of existing with the vector. Sounds a little like what we're doing with our bees. Hmmm... Or are we just fooling ourselves like some would suggest?


----------



## hpm08161947

beyondthesidewalks said:


> Or are we just fooling ourselves like some would suggest?


I don't know. I just suspect that it takes a larger more organized effort to accomplish anything in this life time. But I will defend your right to give it try... and hope for your success. Recently I have noted that the Olivarez family has taken 700 hives and 4000 queen nucs to their retirement home in an effort to develop resistant queens. Probably takes at least that size to get anything accomplished.


----------



## snapper1d

The ARS station in Baton Rouge only took 40 - 50 queens to do their research and to develop resistant bees so why should it take 700 hives and 4000 nucs for Olivarez?


----------



## hpm08161947

snapper1d said:


> and to develop resistant bees so why should it take 700 hives and 4000 nucs for Olivarez?


Did these 40-50 queens not produce another generation or two of many other queens? I really do not know, perhaps we should ask the Olivarezes. I see they have recently signed on Beesource.


----------



## snapper1d

Yes the produced queens and I got back the same amount of queens from them that I sent in.I used those queens only.I raised queens from them and have not had mite problems since.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Deknow, since you are in the "know". Pray, please tell me, as I already know the answer: How many matriarchial queen lineages did we have before varroa hit????? And how many do we have now??? If propping up lineages will not benifit beekeeping in the long run. I would say your misguided approach of letting lineages die just for the sake of developing resistance alone is not benifiting the industry either. Somewhere there is a happy medium between the two camps of beekeepers. Finding it is not going to be easy. Deknow, I teach beekeepers Newbies, experience ones, and people that want to go commercial, the IPM approach to beekeeping. That is Intergrated Pest Manangement. Deknow I work and see around 160 colonies a day and all the variables contained with in. You might work 160 colonies in a year. If I were a beekeeper and wanted advice. I would choose the man in the "know" ,the one with years of experience working bees. You must really hate commercial beeks. Funny we are the ones that supply bees to most of the industry. Funny we are the ones that helped develop the resistant strains of bees by donations of those bees to better scientific research. Yet, you and others that tote "I have survivor bees" want to ram that up the commercial kester thinking we are the cause of all the beekeeping problems in the USA. WRONG! TED


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> so too between a commercial bee operation and a back yard beekeeper (you can taste it).
> 
> I will keep this in mind on future posts.


I'm glad you have learned that there are differences and they have meaning.

I'd like to see your point proven in a blind taste test. Not that it really matters much. I know my honey is the best, people tell me all the time. Whether it is better than yours or any other back yard beekeepers' would, perhaps, depend on whether there is a label on it or not. I might think.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> We have to stop and put back what once was. Then the bees will be safe.


That may be someones long term goal, but you and I will never live to see it. So, in the mean time we have to do the best we can w/ what we have. We must use all the tools and brains that we have to maintain ourselves, as individuals and as a Society.

You have alot of faith. I don't know if then the bees "will be safe" or not. Varroa and other maladies will still be around. Or is that part of what you mean when you say "put back what once was"? Make the world of apis mellifera free of varroa destructor and jacobsonii? Good luck.


----------



## Rick 1456

Let me say, I have learned so much from this thread, regardless of the bantering. Actually, that is good. What thrills me the most, is there are others out there that see things the way I do, approach things similar to the way I do, philosophy is similar, goals are similar and believe an individual just might do better on his/her own. I've never had the good fortune to have a mentor. I had some college apiary courses, but that was in 1972/3. Things are different now in so many ways. I only recently got back into bees. Bees are bees though biologically speaking. The other thing this thread has done, is boost my confidence. In trying to play catch up, I tend to listen to those that have numerous posts, in the thought that their experience level suggests their approach, differing from mine, means I'm on the wrong path, my ideas are flawed and destined to fail. To those that chimed in and bolstered my thoughts whether on purpose or not, thanks. 
I/ and others/ may not get a Secretariat, maybe not a Smarty Jones, but you can not fail if you do not try something.
I'm enjoying my hobby.


----------



## sqkcrk

Keep it up Rick.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Deknow, you asked me a question about where else in the world do you see using preventive methodology, Propping a population up to bring a whole population forward untill the population catches up with a disease problem. I will tell you where---You,me and everybody else that post on this forum--MANKIND....I need not say any more. TED


----------



## deknow

Ted Kretschmann said:


> If propping up lineages will not benifit beekeeping in the long run. I would say your misguided approach of letting lineages die just for the sake of developing resistance alone is not benifiting the industry either. Somewhere there is a happy medium between the two camps of beekeepers.


Ted, I've spent some time trying to discuss why I do what I do. I'm not stupid...I'm capable of having an intelligent discussion. As far as I can tell, instead of actually engaging a discussion (which should lead to a greater understanding for both of us, as well as to those reading), you've told me you "abhore" my practices. You've called me a member of "beekeeping taliban", and a "bee haver". Not a word about how natural selection actually works in a population, not a word about the parallels between inbreeding because of environmental conditions (where a large part of the population has perished) and inbreeding as it is practiced intentionally in order to fix traits. Not a word about the short (very short) video I posted of Randy Quinn talking about his role in the Midnight and Starline breeding programs, and where he feels they did damage via their selection process.
In return, I've tried to have a reasonable discussion.....not insulted you, not told you what to do. I guess I'm barking up the wrong tree.


> Deknow, I teach beekeepers Newbies, experience ones, and people that want to go commercial, the IPM approach to beekeeping. That is Intergrated Pest Manangement.


Ah yes...IPM. A term designed to make the consumer think that things are being done "naturally", when in fact, IPM tells you nothing about what treatments are used in the production of the honey and the keeping of the bees. Everything is on the table in an IPM program. A farmer we work with was kicked out of the state IPM program because he wouldn't use as much of a specific pesticide as the person in charge of the program prescribed.
http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/ipm.htm#control


> Once monitoring, identification, and action thresholds indicate that pest control is required, and preventive methods are no longer effective or available, IPM programs then evaluate the proper control method both for effectiveness and risk. Effective, less risky pest controls are chosen first, including highly targeted chemicals, such as pheromones to disrupt pest mating, or mechanical control, such as trapping or weeding. If further monitoring, identifications and action thresholds indicate that less risky controls are not working, then additional pest control methods would be employed, such as targeted spraying of pesticides. Broadcast spraying of non-specific pesticides is a last resort.





> Deknow I work and see around 160 colonies a day and all the variables contained with in. You might work 160 colonies in a year.


I've got to start drinking....I see a peeing contest over the horizon....let me know if we are going for distance or accuracy (good thing it's not winter, my handwriting is terrible).


> If I were a beekeeper and wanted advice. I would choose the man in the "know" ,the one with years of experience working bees.


...If I wanted advice on how to run an operation like yours, I would definitely ask your advice...and I would recommend the same to anyone asking me. There are all kinds of operations and all kinds of ways to keep bees. There are all kinds of new beekeepers who are not looking to replicate your operation. Personally, we went to visit Dee for the first time because _that_ was closer to how we wanted to keep bees than what we were learning in bee school or from other beekeepers in the area.


> You must really hate commercial beeks. Funny we are the ones that supply bees to most of the industry. Funny we are the ones that helped develop the resistant strains of bees by donations of those bees to better scientific research.


I count some commercial beekeepers among my best friends...I've been attacked here on beesource precisely for giving commercial beekeepers credit for almost everything (above the researchers and above what SARE grants allow amateurs to do) ....and your putting such words into my mouth speaks much more about you and your nature than it does about me...mostly because it's not true and it's based only on what you are telling yourself inside your own head.

Last night we were asked to give a brief talk before a screening of "Queen of the Sun" at a small organic farm. I've seen the film before, and the bulk of the talk I gave before the screening was about how the beekeepers in the film were beautiful, but that they are not the beekeepers that are feeding the nation. ...that 99% of the bees are run by 1% of the beekeepers, and that they are part of the monocrop system by which we grow the bulk of food in this country. Specifically, that the beekeepers in the film didn't really offer anything to the system by which most of us eat, and that the migratory commercial beekeepers shouldn't be judged too harshly...they have large expenses in order to move bees around, and they are just trying to do their job like the rest of us.


> Yet, you and others that tote "I have survivor bees" want to ram that up the commercial kester thinking we are the cause of all the beekeeping problems in the USA. WRONG! TED


If you think I've said something out of line, please quote me. You've simply setup a straw man, claiming that I said something I didn't, and then arguing about it.

There is a lot wrong with beekeeping...much of it is also wrong with the rest of agriculture. In our area, we have a big problem whereby a large number of nucs have been sold from a large commercial beekeeper...these nucs are sick with AFB, EFB, chalk, etc. Dealers who handled them ended up burning a large number of them (AFB), and one dealer I spoke to (from last year) kept six himself...none made it until the fall. _some_ of the problems are caused by _some_ commercial beekeepers. _some_ very bad information is given to new beekeepers, _some_ of this comes from "treatment free beekeepers", or "natural beekeepers"...but there are all kinds of bad advice offered by all kinds of beekeepers. Unless you want to take responsibility for what _all_ commercial beekeepers do/say, and take responsibility for what _all_ "IPM" beekeepers do and say, then there is no reason for you to hold me responsible for what some "treatment free" beekeepers or those with "survivor stock" say/do.

deknow


----------



## hilreal

hpm08161947 said:


> Yes... they could make some progress.... but it would take some time... like 1000 years.


 No time isn't the main issue. You can only make progress when you have genetic variation. If 1 in a 1000 have the genetic trait combination you are looking for (and I expect the number for traits we need is much higher), what is the probability of finding it with 20 queens?


----------



## hilreal

deknow said:


> ...I'm curious if you are using foundation in these colonies....that would prevent them from being smaller.
> 
> deknow


 A mixture of foundation and foundationless but when I took them from several year old cutouts (I didn't measure) but visualy they didn't appear to be smaller.


----------



## hilreal

beyondthesidewalks said:


> Nonsense. This statement negates inbreeding and line breeding which are the cornerstones of developing new "breeds". In fact many of the breakthroughs that have happened throughout mankinds development of plants and animals have come from single individual sports which were used as the basis of an entire new line. My uncle developed an entire dairy heard in the Netherlands based on a single cow named Tuttle. When he sold off his herd, dairy farmers came from all over Europe to purchase his cattle.


Your are correct, single advantageous progeny do occur, however their frequency in the population is very low. How many cows did you uncle (and all of his neighbors) look at before he found Tuttle? Did Tuttle not come from a line that was previously highly selected? To my knowledge no backyard beekeepers are doing inbreeding or line development. To do either requires a closed mating system or AI. I look at thousands of new corn hybrids every year from highly selected, inbred germplasm and I am ecstatic if I find one hybrid every 5-10 years good enough to go commercial. And I control both the male and the female side of the progeny.


----------



## Roland

Under a White flag of truce...

Deknow - do you have a bee for sale that you believe is better than what you can purchase commercially?

Crazy Roland


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

hilreal said:


> How many cows did you uncle (and all of his neighbors) look at before he found Tuttle? Did Tuttle not come from a line that was previously highly selected?


My uncle bred Tuttle from cows that he owned and bull semen that he kept for decades. He had a fantastic eye for cattle and breeding them. He bred Friesan Holstein cattle which have essentially been highly selected for centuries. The same could be said about bees.



hilreal said:


> To my knowledge no backyard beekeepers are doing inbreeding or line development. To do either requires a closed mating system or AI.


I have visited yards of commercial bee breeders and they didn't use closed mating systems or AI either. There may be some who do. The commercial bee producers I have visited were doing what a backyard beekeeper could do, flood their locale with their own drones and mate the queens in that locale. No reason why an amatuer couldn't do the same. You don't have the closed mating system but you have stacked the deck in your favor. Using that approach you could use drones to inbreed or line breed in different mating yards.

No matter what you want to label bees that have survived all the ailments we have caused, it only stands to reason that if some bees have been able to overcome the problems and exist, maybe even thrive, it would be wise to attempt to propogate them and hope for success. Otherwise, we could just keep buying bees and watching them die despite our best efforts to purchase treatments for them. I'll take the former.

I don't understand why there's such an argument over all of this. If commercial beekeepers want to keep purchasing commercially bred bees and queens why can't they? If backyard beekeepers want to try to raise bees derived from feral stock why can't they? Do they have to be mutually exclusive and not coexist? Does one have to pose a threat to the other? Even within the ranks of the commercial operations there are those who aim their operation at honey production, those who strive for packaged bee and/or queen production and those who pollinate. Some even mix 2 or more in their operation. Many backyard beekeepers also have different aims in their bees. Does one approach have to be a threat to the other?


----------



## snapper1d

Well said!!!


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

hilreal said:


> You can only make progress when you have genetic variation. If 1 in a 1000 have the genetic trait combination you are looking for (and I expect the number for traits we need is much higher), what is the probability of finding it with 20 queens?


When you consider that each queen has mated several drones, you have much genetic diversity in a single hive. How many thousands of feral hives are out there in the US alone? We have some serious genetic diversity. Now we need to find that sport. We're not going to unless we start hiving feral swarms and trying them out.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

Roland said:


> do you have a bee for sale that you believe is better than what you can purchase commercially?


Michael Bush has sold his feral derived queens in the past. Might try him out. No white flag of truce necessary IMO.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Deknow, In the ABJ Randy should have used the word, "extremist" instead of Taliban. TK


----------



## sqkcrk

beyondthesidewalks said:


> No matter what you want to label bees that have survived all the ailments we have caused, ...


Huh? Which ailments are those and how did we do that? 

Were a backyard beekeeper able to flood their area w/ drone colonies sufficient to effectively control what their queens mate w/, I would contend that they were alot more than backyard beekeepers.

Is backyard beekeeper a new classification of beekeeper? Maybe we could supplant "Hobby Beekeeper" w/ "Backyard Beekeeper". Hmmm. Just a thought. They pass thru every now and then.


----------



## sqkcrk

beyondthesidewalks said:


> unless we start hiving feral swarms and trying them out.


I don't see much point in that unless you have them identified by DNA testing to make sure that they aren't just escapees from your own hives. One could waste alot of time and effort testing swarms from their own colonies or similar enuf colonies.


----------



## WLC

DNA testing gets expensive sqkcrk. Frankly, DNA barcoding isn't always statistically meaningful when testing within a species. Also, DNA fingerprinting of Honeybees doesn't really exist as of yet (although I'm working on it).

In short, you'd have a difficult time proving that you do indeed have 'feral' honey bees (if they actually do still exist).


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Most so-called ferals are somebodys bees that did a "prison break" and swarmed to new surrounding. Most do not survive two seasons and that was before the mites arrived in the USA. The ones that do-well there is more than just genetics in play. Snapper questioned the idea that ESO's were present in plants. Snapper, years ago the USDA checked into a story they had heard about a beekeeper who's neighbors all lost their bees but he did not in his particular operating area. The reason--HORSEMINT....His area was awash in the plant growing by the thousands of acres. From that discovery back in the late 1980's, the concept of essential oils was born for mite treatments. I remember when some of the first work was being done in Western Maryland using ESO's. So yes, environment and what the bees are feeding on has a play in colony survival. Many honeys are very high in ESO, some like Basswood honey have their particular kick that we all like from them. TED


----------



## Acebird

Ted Kretschmann said:


> I will tell you where---You,me and everybody else that post on this forum--MANKIND....I need not say any more. TED


I will say something... In the case of mankind usually only the sick INDIVIDUALS are treated to prop them up. In the case of a bee hive the whole population is treated because it is impossible to just treat the sick individuals. Now if your wife gets cancer for instance, do you think treating your whole family with radiation and chemo would be a good preventive methodology when one of the side affects of both treatments is cancer? To make matters worse the whole house structure of the bee hive has massive residuals embedded in the hive itself. Imagine your house being contaminated with radioactive material and extremely toxic chemicals like chemo. Your wife's life might be prolonged but eventually no one in the family would survive their normal lifespan. Get the picture?

If I were a healthy bee and my house was continually bombarded with foreign substances I would surely be looking to leave everything and bug out. What does that sound like, CCD? Hard to explain isn't it?


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> (if they actually do still exist).


Something which I have been arguing w/ people about for years. Simply because, we know where they came into this country from originally. From managed colonies.

What about the testing to determine % Africanized. Is that real expensive? I don't anything about the testing, other than it exists. Could something similar be done w/ European Honeybees?


----------



## snapper1d

Then ted explain why some beeks in an area next to each other with the same environment and one looses all his bees to mites and the other doesnt have a mite problem and the bees are feeding on the same plants!!!


----------



## sqkcrk

It wasn't their time. It could be as simple as that. I had what now appears to have been CCD the year before it was "identified". Why? I don't know.

This year, my losses were less than they have been for 5 years. Whereas, another NY beekeeper who also transports his hives to SC had an over than 50% loss for the first time. And he has been keeping bees longer than I have.

So, who knows. Maybe my "CCD" was because I got the other mite for the first time?


----------



## D Semple

Acebird said:


> I will say something... In the case of mankind usually only the sick INDIVIDUALS are treated to prop them up. In the case of a bee hive the whole population is treated because it is impossible to just treat the sick individuals. Now if your wife gets cancer for instance, do you think treating your whole family with radiation and chemo would be a good preventive methodology when one of the side affects of both treatments is cancer? To make matters worse the whole house structure of the bee hive has massive residuals embedded in the hive itself. Imagine your house being contaminated with radioactive material and extremely toxic chemicals like chemo. Your wife's life might be prolonged but eventually no one in the family would survive their normal lifespan. Get the picture?
> 
> *If I were a healthy bee and my house was continually bombarded with foreign substances I would surely be looking to leave everything and bug out. What does that sound like, CCD? Hard to explain isn't it?*


What a crass and ignorant statement. 

Don


----------



## deknow

Ted Kretschmann said:


> Deknow, In the ABJ Randy should have used the word, "extremist" instead of Taliban.


...this is a rather absurd statement coming from you....


> Randy Oliveriz stated it best in this months ABJ, he calls them "Taliban Beekeepers".


You liked his choice of words just fine...you even said he stated it "best".

I'll also say that it's a near universal experience for those that come to our conference....they joined their local bee club, did not want to treat, wanted to keep TBH's, etc. The never went back to their local club...they got zero support, zero acceptance. Even those that have been successful over a longer term don't go back. These organizations teach one way, and there is a lot of resistance to bucking the system. I expect this way of beekeeping is "enforced" in more clubs, to more beekeepers, than any "natural" approach.

deknow

deknow


----------



## Acebird

Sometimes the simplest explanations are the hardest to comprehend because it is not what we want to hear or what we want others to hear.

Throwing insults is a form of ignorance in a public discussion.


----------



## D Semple

WLC said:


> DNA testing gets expensive sqkcrk. Frankly, DNA barcoding isn't always statistically meaningful when testing within a species. Also, DNA fingerprinting of Honeybees doesn't really exist as of yet (although I'm working on it).
> 
> In short, you'd have a difficult time proving that you do indeed have 'feral' honey bees (if they actually do still exist).


By definition how many generations does it take for a colony to be called feral?

I've caught 22 new colonies so far this year and kept the 16 that I think are feral, selling the others. I'm useing cell size as the criterion figuring if their average brood cell size is 4.9mm or below they have at the very least been escapies for several years. Of the 16, 7 are from cutouts, 9 are from swarms. Of the 9 swarms, 4 I know originated from tree colonies, and 3 from colonies living in homes.


----------



## WLC

Perhaps a measurable trait like cell size would be a far more useful way of characterizing colonies as being feral when compared to trying to do it by DNA testing.

It might help if you could also come up with some other measurable traits as well.

However, I think making the determination that a colony is 'feral' would be a tough sell.

I don't think that anyone can come up with a definitive answer, but it doesn't mean that you should stop trying.


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> I will say something... In the case of mankind usually only the sick INDIVIDUALS are treated to prop them up. In the case of a bee hive the whole population is treated because it is impossible to just treat the sick individuals.


I think you have to keep in mind that we are talking about "Socialized Insects". They live in colonies, and as strange as it may seem are more like an "Individual" than anything else.


----------



## D Semple

Acebird said:


> Sometimes the simplest explanations are the hardest to comprehend because it is not what we want to hear or what we want others to hear.
> 
> Throwing insults is a form of ignorance in a public discussion.


My ignorance insulted one person, your ignorance insulted 100's.


----------



## CharlieN

sqkcrk said:


> Is backyard beekeeper a new classification of beekeeper? Maybe we could supplant "Hobby Beekeeper" w/ "Backyard Beekeeper". Hmmm. Just a thought. They pass thru every now and then.


But what about those that keep hives in the front yard? Wouldn't they feel discriminated against? :lookout: 

Charlie


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

sqkcrk said:


> Huh? Which ailments are those and how did we do that?


I thought it was universally understood that varroa were brought to the US by humans. I'm not sure where tracheal mites originated but they were imported in bees by humans. I believe my biggest local problem is pesticide used by the state in the TBWEP (Texas Boll Weavel Elimination Program). Try telling the state that they're violating the law by spraying pesticide while bees are foraging and see how far that gets you. Just a few examples.



sqkcrk said:


> Is backyard beekeeper a new classification of beekeeper? Maybe we could supplant "Hobby Beekeeper" w/ "Backyard Beekeeper". Hmmm. Just a thought. They pass thru every now and then.


I think that the backyard beekeeper was used earlier in this thread to denigrate efforts of hobby beekeepers as compared to labs and government test fields. I just continued to use it because it was used before me. Feel free to insert hobbyist where I used backyard. To me they are the same. Semantics...

And while we're at it, let's examine just what feral means. Definition: 1. (esp. of an animal) In a wild state, esp. after escape from captivity or domestication: "a feral cat".
2. Resembling a wild animal. 

Any bees that have escaped any apiary are feral. Simple as that. Now when we capture a swarm or do a cutout that has thrived where others have primarily died out, no matter how long it has been been there, no matter how it got there and no matter where it came from, it is feral. Technically, every hive that is not in a beekeepers apiary is feral because mankind brought European bees to the new world. Once they escape, they're feral. Once we capture them they are no longer feral but I guess you could claim they came from feral sources. This same logic would hold true for horses, pigs and cattle, all brought to the new world by Europeans.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

Could someone that has it please PM me the text of Randy Oliveriz' article in ABJ talking about taliban beekeepers? Or point me to where I can find it on the web? I'd like to understand the context of his use of that "taliban" buzzword.


----------



## snapper1d

That was Randy Oliver.Managing Varroa-Conclusion - Chemical-free Beekeeping but I dont have a link to it.


----------



## snapper1d

Strike that out I was looking at the table of contents wrong.


----------



## Acebird

D Semple said:


> My ignorance insulted one person, your ignorance insulted 100's.


I never intended to insult anyone. I said what I think is causing many health issues in the world not just bees. You cannot chemically control the outcome of nature in the long run.


----------



## Acebird

hpm08161947 said:


> I think you have to keep in mind that we are talking about "Socialized Insects". They live in colonies, and as strange as it may seem are more like an "Individual" than anything else.


I disagree completely. We live in colonies and we are social. You may want to treat the bees as one because you have no other choice but they are far from one.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

Acebird said:


> We live in colonies and we are social.


That was something like reverse anthropomorphism.

But we can live without the colony. Bees cannot multiply out of the hive. Many people are hermits or antisocial and live outside of society. I live very rural and there are many days when the only people I see are my family outside of work. Our society is something we tend to crave and really don't need. Bees must have it for propogation of the species.


----------



## Acebird

I think of the hive as a family. They are all related. A single human can survive on his or her own but the human race cannot.


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> I think of the hive as a family. They are all related. A single human can survive on his or her own but the human race cannot.


Yes.. I agree, but consider that when even 1 particular bee is removed (The Queen), unless the colony is able to replace her, the colony dies. All this is a result of the chemical control that the queen exerts of the colony. Also consider the strong caste system in the colony. Lest I forget, essentially all the genetics of the colony is stored in 1 individual... the queen.


----------



## D Semple

Acebird said:


> I never intended to insult anyone. I said what I think is causing many health issues in the world not just bees. You cannot chemically control the outcome of nature in the long run.





Acebird said:


> Get the picture?
> 
> If I were a healthy bee and my house was continually bombarded with foreign substances I would surely be looking to leave everything and bug out. What does that sound like, CCD? Hard to explain isn't it?


We don't have a handle on CCD yet, but we do know it doesn't descriminate between treated bees and untreated bees, even Dee Lusby lost close to several hundred hives from it a couple of years ago. 

You and I are both beginners how about we wait 10 years or so, make a few bucks off of bees, and actually prove ourselves to be beekeepers before we open our piehole and criticize others who are just trying to make a living. 

Don Semple
Overland Park, KS


----------



## Rick 1456

I'll bet most all on this thread remember the Drive in movies. If you are too young, ask about this. (They are all gone around here anyway) There was a break in the main feature while the projectionist changed reels. It was called "Intermission" There was some corny cartoon on but the jingle I still remember. Actually, it has been on some TV commercial. It simply says, "Let's all go to the snack bar, Let's all go to the snack bar, let's all go to snack bar, and get a drink or two.":applause:
Go pottie, get an adult beverage of your choice, sit back and I am going to stir the pot, beat the dead horse, and just have some fun. If you do not have a sense of humor, STOP READING NOW
My adult beverage, Bourbon Bird, that's Wild Turkey to you non aficionados. Stand by, I will be on topic here shortly. If I were a real man, I would drink it neat, but I mix mine with caffeine free Pepsi. Woops, lost the respect of the heavies. 
Some new definitions are warranted here. 

Beek: This is a person that KEEPS bees. Derived from Beekeeper
Bave: This is a person that HAS bees Pronounced: BAA, like the sheep V like,ah no animal I know, just enunciate V. Derived from Beehaver. For a French slurr, put an ey,,Ba vey
Backyard Bee keeper: You must be a BEEK to qualify, AND, your Bees must be in your back yard as defined by your local county ordinances. If you are a BEEK, and you hives are in your front yard, you are in violation and the Bee Yard Police will visit you. I don't have to define Bee Yard Police do I?
Back yard BAVE: All you do is have bees and it matters not where you have them
Here's the fun stuff:

Drone Spectrum Augmenter: You do not breed queens! You only provide dating services for any, OMG, virgin queens that seek those services. It is random and anonymous. All walks of life are available. After that they are on their own.
Bee Gynecologist, :no: I mean geneticist: Similar to the Drone Spectrum Augmenter, it differs in that this is a "Re feral Service" to the dating service. Some times cloak and dagger. Did you see Feral in Re feral service. Has to mean something!
Commercial Beekeeper: Can not be a commercial behaver, These are the guys/gals that collect TV Commercials that use Bees in the Commercial. It is a strange bunch, but hey, whatever blows you hair back!
Migratory Beekeeper: Again, you can not be a Migratory Behaver, or Bave.
I'm still working on that one. 
Enjoy!


----------



## hpm08161947

Rick 1456 said:


> My adult beverage, Bourbon Bird, that's Wild Turkey to you non aficionados. Stand by, I will be on topic here shortly. If I were a real man, I would drink it neat, but I mix mine with caffeine free Pepsi. Woops, lost the respect of the heavies.
> :


Rick, I think it may be about time for you to put the cap back on that Bourbon Bird. On second thought it is the weekend of the 4th, so go for it!


----------



## CharlieN

:lpf:


----------



## Rick 1456

Thanks, It's all good! 
I didn't do the bird till I finished that, dissertation. Humph,,,,might say something


----------



## snapper1d

Rick has done let the bird out of the bottle!!!!! Have fun Rick!!! The weekend and the 4th are upon us!!!!


----------



## Rick 1456

Gobble Gobble Gobble1204i2n 1234567890-=[poikujhytrfedsaZxcvbnm,l;p0o9876tyrdcv


----------



## Acebird

> We don't have a handle on CCD yet, but we do know it doesn't descriminate between treated bees and untreated bees, even Dee Lusby lost close to several hundred hives from it a couple of years ago.


Publication: Organic Gardening vol. 55:5 Page 72

"Poisoned Pollen"
They mention CCD, New research from the USDA Bee research Laboratory and Pennsylvania State University. Toxic pesticide, imidacloprid, weakens bees and makes them more susceptible to the parasitic fungus Nosema, even when the pesticide is present at extremely low levels.
---
"It is commonly used for insect control on food crops and lawns, for flea control on pets and indoors to kill household pests."
---
"This new class of pesticide can be expressed in the nectar and the pollen."

How smart do you have to be to figure out that pesticides used to kill insects would not be good for bees (another insect)? How smart do you have to be to conclude that a constant increase in pesticide usage will end up biting us in the butt?

You could wait for the research to comfirm it but I don't need to. It is not hard to figure out.


----------



## Rick 1456

Well, guess the intermission is over


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> Publication: Organic Gardening vol. 55:5 Page 72
> 
> "Poisoned Pollen"


Pretty sure that the research into the causes of CCD have gone further than this. I can not remember it exactly but seem to remember the interaction of some viruses possibly with some bacteria. I can not say everyone accepted these results, but it did not look to be completely rejected. Which is saying alot for the scientific community.


----------



## Roland

D Semple wrote:

We don't have a handle on CCD yet, but we do know it doesn't descriminate between treated bees and untreated bees, even Dee Lusby lost close to several hundred hives from it a couple of years ago.

I have seen first hand CCD destroy my hives in a month that had never had miticides or antibiotics used on them. The solution? Buy all new equipment and new bees. Night and day difference, with the same possibly polluted pollen. 

From memory, there was an experiment done off the coast of Denmark with numerous colonies. I believe they started with around 20, and after 3-4 years leveled off at about 3-4 surviving every year. Although I do not agree with their conclusion, I concluded that there is a critical mass/density above which the mites have the upper hand. When you drop below this critaical mass/density, the hive survive. 3-4 hives sounds like a typical backyard/hobbiest situation
, which is the group that claims to have the most success not treating. 

My point has been that the typical commercial situation is way above this threshold of mass/density, and the same bees that survive in a backyard situation may not survive in a commercial environment. My thinking is supported by the findings of Peter loring Borst, in that when a successful isolated feral hive is moved into a commercial setting it fails as rapid as any other bee, when not treated for mites. That is why I asked DeKnow if he had a bee that survived in a commercial setting(high density) without treatment.

Beyond the sidewalks. is what I have stated logical, and resolve some of your issues?

Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk

beyondthesidewalks said:


> I thought it was universally understood that varroa were brought to the US by humans. I'm not sure where tracheal mites originated but they were imported in bees by humans.


Everything not indigenous was brought by Humans. What seemed to be implied was these pests and ailments were intentionally brought here, including all of the diseases common to Honeybees. Who brought AFB to America? Or EFB? Or Nosema?

What was also impliued weas that there was a time , which we could go back to some how, in which these ailments didn't exist. How would we do that?

Feral honeybees are simply nonmanaged colonies which originated from swarms. Which means, I guess, that I have some feral bees which have taken up residence in a stack of my supers across the road from my house. Soon they won't be feral, because I will manage them.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> We live in colonies and we are social.


Which colony do you live in?


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> You could wait for the research to comfirm it but I don't need to. It is not hard to figure out.


Then you are smarter than Mary Anne Frasier, Dennis van Englesdorp and hundreds of other scientists who can pinpoint the cause of CCD. Nor can they pinpoint the combination of things such as Varroa and Nosema and imidiclorprid necassary to cause CCD.

I guess we can all go home, Acebird has it figured out.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

CCD, a viral, fungus concoction that can kill vibrant colony of bees with in a couple of weeks. While we can not treat the virus, because it is a virus. We darn sure can knock out the fungus. The virus alone will not kill the bees. The fungus alone will not kill the bees. But the two together if the bees just being bees pick them both up, infect and infest the colony at the same time-fast death. Please everyone, treatment free and treatment beekeepers go and read the B weaver web site page. I used to be a Weaver employee twenty five years ago in Hawaii. I have all the respect in the world for my old employer. It is from his site that what information I have written down above is from. Yes, this is a treatment free beek talking about treating for the fungus. Break glass and treat if you have to in emergency!! TED


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Ace, every time a pandemic breaks out in the human population. What does the WHO and the CDC do??? They come up with a solution, inoculation, preventative and then the cure. They just do not treat the sick but blanket treat everyone that is willing to effect a cure for the general population as a whole. Bees are no different. I would not want to have you do triage on me or my family. TED


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

My generation was inoculated against smallpox, dipthera, mumps, rubella, measles, polio. Because of this, there is now a new younger generation of people that has not been inoculated and survives "treatment free". Though some of the old bugs are starting to come back. Hmm. you can read between the lines where the train of thought is going. TK


----------



## deknow

Roland said:


> D Semple wrote:
> We don't have a handle on CCD yet, but we do know it doesn't descriminate between treated bees and untreated bees, even Dee Lusby lost close to several hundred hives from it a couple of years ago.


Please allow me to elaborate on this, as it is an interesting case.

Dee has about 30 yards in probably a 100-150 mile radius (this is just thinking of the drives to all the yards...just an estimate).

One area, in the Colorado's, she keeps about 300 colonies. These colonies are within flying distance of some other commercial beekeepers, many of which are migratory, and go party in the almonds.

In the fall/winter of 2007-8, she lost about 200 of these colonies...she described the bees dragging out pollen and honey (something she had never seen before). Dr. Loper from the Tucson Bee Lab (retired, but still involved) came and took samples, sent to Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk for analysis.

After a very long wait, the results came back with many of the hives with nosema c. As far as I know, there was never a final "official" report, but I did receive a copy of the original Excel file (from Dee) as sent from Dr. Bromenshenk's lab. Some basic information in the file (like the year of the samples) was incorrect. Doubtless it was merely a clerical error....but it makes one wonder, was it the wrong date for the right sample, or the right date for the wrong sample?

In any case, the report implicated nosema c. in these deaths...but no yard was completely wiped out.

Ramona and I saw some of this in the early spring 2008 when we were out for the first Oracle conference...and soon later in April to see Dee's operation up close, and to get married (we got Dee an online ordination, and she performed the ceremony in a beautiful canyon near one of her yards).

We first saw yards that were not affected, and got a feel for her bees, learning how she makes up deadouts (walk away splits). Then, we went into the affected area, and early/mid april, split the 100 survivors into 300, getting bees into all the equipment. No fumigation, no irradiation, no banana peels, no laying frames in the sun....just made up the deadouts.

We've been back every year since. Winter losses are well below 10%, and the yards produce honey by the barrel. No feeding (some equalizing), no treatments, nothing.

I asked over on Bee-l at the time, what the expected outcome of doing this was...the answer I got was about 18 months to total collapse, and no one disagreed.

Was it nosema? Was it nosema and irridovirus? Apparently, the samples were in a freezer that failed, and the samples have been destroyed.

Another hypothesis (of Dee's), is as this was after several years of drought, perhaps the bees went down old mine shafts for water, and picked up arsenic and such.

I dunno....but those bees are thriving. We were out there this spring along with a film crew from Backyard Beekeepers in California...I've also got footage from spring 2008 of making the splits. Here's a still:








The situation was energizing, not depressing. The bees that were left looked great, and there was so much strength to harness into the splits. It is reassuring to have seen this over a few years, and seen such a good outcome.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Acebird said:


> Publication: Organic Gardening vol. 55:5 Page 72
> "Poisoned Pollen"


...I'm not sure what that article says, but it's worth reading what Jeff Pettis has said in a documentary. Note that the study is now 2 years old? .....it has not been published, and he said no to Randy Oliver's request to read the study. It might just not be a good study. In any case, it talks of the effect of "undetectable levels" causing this effect.
http://beeuntoothers.com/JPInterview.pdf


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> I guess we can all go home, Acebird has it figured out.





> Dennis Van Engelsdorp speaks
> (Sr. Extension Associate, Entomology, Penn State University)
> “We’re finding that virus levels are much higher in CCD bees; but since we are not finding a consistent virus or a consistent pathogen, that implies that something else is happening underneath it, something is breaking down their immune system, or somehow challenging them so that they are more susceptible to disease.”
> ---
> Industrial agriculture requires billions of bees but bees cannot live in the environments that industrial agriculture produces.
> What choice is there and WHO will make the choice?
> For the moment the answer is simple: “Disposable Bees”
> But Science and Industry are already working together, looking ahead to a world without bees.


"Disposable Bees" Quite the solution. At some point it will turn to disposable humans.

Although it is common sense, acebird didn't figure it out on his own. But he is not so blind to look the other way when the obvious is staring him in the face.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

sqkcrk said:


> Everything not indigenous was brought by Humans. What seemed to be implied was these pests and ailments were intentionally brought here, including all of the diseases common to Honeybees. Who brought AFB to America? Or EFB? Or Nosema?


I agree. I didn't imply that anyone brought anything here (to the US) intentionally. I'm sure the more modern maladies were brought here by mankind. I'm not sure where the more classic diseases orgininated. My most common human caused problem is pesticide which is over used, over sprayed, much too frequently with no concern for foraging bees. 



sqkcrk said:


> What was also impliued weas that there was a time , which we could go back to some how, in which these ailments didn't exist. How would we do that?


You certianly read more into my words than is intended. I have said nothing about going back in time when things were better. Instead I'm more concerned with the present and future. The way I see it, we have to find a way to raise bees in spite of the problems we're experiencing. The only way I see that going on in the future is to breed bees that are resistant, somehow, to the challenges they are having. The only way I see that happening is by finding bees that are survivng in spite of the challenges and breeding them. It's not an unreasonable approach. It's been going on in nature since the beginning of life on earth. I don't see why we cannot use this approach to better our beekeeping efforts and I also don't understand why so many are so cynical about it and act like it is so threatening to them.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

Ted Kretschmann said:


> My generation was inoculated against smallpox, dipthera, mumps, rubella, measles, polio. Because of this, there is now a new younger generation of people that has not been inoculated and survives "treatment free". Though some of the old bugs are starting to come back. Hmm. you can read between the lines where the train of thought is going. TK


I enrolled my children in public school after homeschooling them all of their lives so far. Upon enrollment I think we were required to show proof of innoculation to all the diseases you have listed other than smallpox. If I'm not mistaken, smallpox has all but been eliminated in the world except for a few remote cases in Africa. There have been a few cases of polio in the US, all linked to the innoculation strangely enough. Many of those diseases are making comebacks in the US. My son was in the hospital for a prolonged period, eventually needing heart surgery, and the doctors in that medical facility told me that they had cases in the ICU where my son lived,of rubella, measles and whooping cough. All of those cases were in children of illiegal immigrants from south of the border. (While my personal conviction is that all illegal immigrants need to go home and attempt to return the proper and legal way, I don't have any intention of having any further discourse on that subject in this thread. I merely presented a fact. If my personal conviction offends you and you must understand why I have that conviction feel free to PM me about it. Isn't it great and refreshing to be able to have personal convictions?)


----------



## beeG

The subject survival bee is very interesting. This is something I am very interested in.. I love genetics. But without controlled breeding. You will never have true accomplishment of your goals unless you have hundreds of years of time to reach your goal. You would need dominate genetics in order to make it something of extreme worth in your lifetime. Unless you are going to II breed everything you have.. There are no other ways beside II for any real to control breeding. Those creating the races now look to all be from many generations of beekeepers. Who travel the world bringing in genetics from other parts of the world. 

My first bees I have.. It is very obvious the queen is producing prodigy of mixed races. 


I thought of this idea of controlled breeding . That I recently discovered is far form new. Tent breeding. But it appears it has been tried and has failed. Even in larger greenhouses.

I personally do not see why it failed. Maybe because I have never seen a queen bee breed. 

I think it is great people are experimenting quietly on their own trying to recreate races that are resistant like the Russian bee and others which developed resistance to mites and disease over time in the areas they were developed. But I do not feel that is the only way. Nor should people doing that type of breeding attacking those who do II and real research. What I am discovering, breeding bees is a whole lot different the breeding anything else. There is more of a crap shoot present that is not under the control of the breeder regardless if they think they have hives insolated out in no-mans land or not. All it takes is a great wind a hobby breeder a few miles away. And the pure breeding will be lost. To me this is an exciting puzzle. One I am just getting a glimpse of.


----------



## deknow

beeG said:


> There are no other ways beside II for any real to control breeding.


...that is simply not true.
Kirk Webster uses an area in the mountains where bees don't survive the winter (very little forage). Mating nucs and drone colonies are fed, and there are not other bees around.
We have access to an island...over a mile off shore, with very little chance that drones will be flying from the mainland.

More commonly, drone saturation is used. Remember that most beekeepers do everything they can to limit the number of drones produced from their colonies. By supplying abundant drones from known sources, reliable crosses can usually be made.

One of the issues that I have with II is that presumably some drones are faster fliers, better at spotting the queen, better at mating than others. When II is practiced, there is no selection of drones for these traits....and the drone fathers are not selected for their ability to actually mate on the wing. For research purposes it is very useful. It might have some use in some breeding programs, but it is hardly the only way to control mating, and it has serious drawbacks.

With all that said, everything about the the mating strategies of the honeybee is designed to promote diversity of genes in the hive. I don't believe that having "total control" is compatible with the needs of the bee. It is arrogant to think that diversity within the colony can be improved upon by the "proper uniformity".

deknow


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

Just look at the way a queenless hive goes to laying workers so that the hive can at least provide their genes to the pool before their demise. There's much to the bees breeding that makes them different, amazing and challenging. My bees tend to build as much drone comb as they want and I probably have more drones than most would like. By doing this, even if there are other genes out there, my drones should be dominating the local mating areas.


----------



## beeG

deknow;680295 It is arrogant to think that diversity within the colony can be improved upon by the "proper uniformity".
deknow[/QUOTE said:


> That is not arrogant thinking. This is how all domestic animals were created. You cannot lock in traits without some plan of breeding. Even if one breeds bees caught directly from the wild.. There is some domesticated breeding going on. Those which survive domestication have been selected either purposely of accidentally.
> 
> A breeder can do both which of cource would require more then one line at a time.


----------



## deknow

First of all, "domestic bees" would probably be able to take care of themselves about as well as production dairy cattle, or domestic turkeys....not well.

Secondly, diversity within the colony is part and parcel of what the superorganism _is_. So much is in place to make sure that the queen doesn't mate with just one drone, or drones from one colony. I agree that in general controlled crossings are helpful...but no other organism that humans breed is like the honeybee in that no other organism that we breed has multiple fathers in nature (and lets be clear, the "animal" is the superorganism, not the queen).

deknow


----------



## beeG

Well actually dogs can produce pups in the same litter. From more then one father.. I do agree bees are unique. But breeding the perfect survivor bee.. Something that is going to carry this perfect disease free traits to pass on through many generations, and crosses . Which again I feel will have to be a dominate trait. Unless you make all the population recessive to the traits which will cause great loss in genetic diversity. Will either happen by freak accident.. or by science. and I wage my bets on the science.  Again dogs are a great example of people trying to bottleneck lines into perfection. Which has caused a lot of genetic messes for today's dog lover. You may fix one trait.. But you add 10 more negatives. It is just a tool. It has never proved a solution. Unless it is done by nature itself which puts the entire species in a 50/50 chance of coming out the winner, and not becoming extinct. I do not think we want to take the chance of extinct bees. With the manner in which bees breed. Again having that type of controlled breeding outside of II I just don't see so feasible.. with exception of your island project which needs to be away from hurricane paths. I think this is a valuable thread, and one that needs even deeper discussions .


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Beyond the sidewalks, No offense taken. We have a broken immigration policy in this nation. Yes, the train of thought was the old bugs are coming back, thus "treatment free" in the human population is not working. So why are we so arrogant to think it is going to work in the honeybee population in general?? I know, Deknow is going to have a dairy cow with this statement. TK


----------



## Apiator

valleyman said:


> I envy those people that are lucky enough to have these survivor bees, and make no mistake they are survivors in their own area. But I think we all know what would happen if they sold queens across the country and advertised them as survivors.


I'm sure you're right, but what's wrong with the concept?

I'm new to bees, but I do know a thing or two about plant and livestock breeding, the old-fashioned way. Breeding IS local. Whether you're selecting a tomato, a wheat, a cow, or a chicken, the farmer is looking for something that performs in his climate, and resists the diseases and pests in his local area. Sometimes the traits vary in as little as a few miles.

As an example, I have an heirloom tomato I've grown for years. It does very well in my garden, with my watering frequency, and my soil profile. I've seen zero disease problems, and no pest problems. However, I've sold seedlings to friends across town, with different soil, and they just don't perform.

It seems to me rather pointless to try and breed one bee to survive everywhere, for all climates, environments, diseases. Correction, not only pointless... it's impossible. We can't do it with vegetables, grains, cows, or anything else.


----------



## Apiator

Roland said:


> So you have a few hives that survived in an isolated environment. Prove to me you have not bred a weaker mite.



Could we say, by the same token, that treating results in breeding stronger mites?

And what good does that do?


I would be shocked if treating varroa did not result in resistant varroa. It's happened to every pest, insect or weed, that agriculture has tried to chemically treat since the dawn of the "Green Revolution." 

Mosquitoes have developed resistance to DDT in a matter of months. That's such old news, in fact, that it was covered in Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Midwest farmers know that weeds are developing resistance to Roundup, thus negating the perceived benefit of "Roundup Ready" crops in a very short time. 

It's a treadmill. Stronger pests need stronger chemicals, which in turn breed yet stronger pests. This has happened so often and so quickly and so dramatically that I'm surprised we're even still having the discussion about it.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

As a bee breeder and former package producer I can state you are correct in your thinking. Bee that are acclimated to the area you are in are the best for you. BUT you have to have something to start with in the beginning. You can not go and purchase a queenbee from a hollow tree. Thus you should only generally replace stock within your operation at a rate of 10 percent a year. You should scatter those genetics through out your operation evenly. Thus you have a bee that not only acclimates to the area you are in but also does not become genetically bottlenecked and inbred. And one other thought, purchase queens from different sources every year thus mixing the genetics up.TED


----------



## Apiator

deknow said:


> ...I understand the concept, but it fails to make sense. I'm trying to think of a parallel concept in the breeding/improvement of other animals/plants. ...use of pesticides on a crop (or flock) in breeding individuals of a breeding program in order that they will eventually become resistant and not require the pesticide? Without culling the susceptible individuals?



That was the thought that occurred to me. It's laughable.

As an example, we could use the humble potato -- the Russet Burbank most commercially grown. It's been sprayed with fungicides to treat blight since it was developed. Decades later, still not a trace of resistance to blight. Stop the spraying, and the Russet Burbank will go extinct.

Now we look at Peru, where they grow thousands upon thousands of varieties of potato, and don't use chemicals. They don't rely on seed companies, but select the old way -- keep and replant the survivors.

TK's parallel argument about human vaccination just proves the point. There were no vaccinations for all but the last century of human existence, yet here we are. Yes, we used to lose more people to disease, but it unquestionably bred a stronger, more resistant human than we are today. Vaccines are merely a luxury that allows us to coddle the weak. And of course, we all know that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics faster than we can make new antibiotics.

The obvious parallel we can draw, whether we're talking about plants, animals, humans, or bees... is that the old way -- natural culling of the weak -- kills more, but has a much longer track record. And it still happens, regardless of human intervention.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

The answer is yes to breeding resistant varroa mites. That is why an IPM approach should be used in the treatment for mites. By using different chemicals on a yearly rotational basis, the mites are kept off balance. Thus the mites are not able to develop resistance to a particular chem. We use thymol one year, apistan the next, formic pads the next. The only one we do not use any more is the organophosphate-Comophause. Too hard on the queens. IPM chem rotation is part of a broader management style. Yes, we have VSH genetics. We place beeyards in sunny locations. Yes we have some screen pallets. And we have very low mite counts-something all beeks need to know. TED


----------



## deknow

I find it hard to believe that we (well, some) are equating human life and bee life.

As a society (and generally as individuals as well), we treasure human individuals...and will sacrifice quite a bit to prolong a life, or to provide comfort. If we were to talk about "how to breed a better human", we would be discussing eugenics....a rather taboo subject, one that can't really go anywhere if we are to continue to value the freedom of the individuals. Our most treasured companions (dogs, cats, birds, etc) get similar treatment in our society. This has nothing to do with "preserving genetic diversity", it is about human love, attachment, and compassion.

In breeding livestock (including bees), we are not so attached to the individual, it is the direction and result of the breeding program that we have our eyes on. We don't mourn an unsuccessful strain of corn that dies without procreating no matter how many individual dead corn plants we see in the field (unless this represents a financial loss).

The prize cow that was referenced earlier in this thread was treasured...but how about the hundreds of cattle from the same operation that didn't rate such special attention....no regrets about sending them to the slaughter house. This cow is prized for the potential of its offspring, not because we (in our society) revere cows as individuals.

What would you pay for medical treatment for your parent or child if it were necessary? You'd mortgage your house, and put your business on the line...make whatever sacrifice you can. Would you do the same for a colony of bees? (of course not...bees are not people). You can replace a hive of bees...just make a split. You can also replace a child....if you can't have one yourself, there are plenty available for adoption. ...yet, we value that individual child, and we sacrifice almost anything to preserve that individual life.

You pinch a sterile queen. You would not execute a sterile child.

WRT the vaccines you refer to, as has been pointed out, without vaccines these diseases come back. No progress has been made on any kind of gene pool level improvement (in fact, any resistance is diluted rather than amplified by vaccination). You end up with a situation like the beekeeper who uses antibiotics all the time....the bees are really "healthy"....until you take the antibiotics away. I'm not advocating that humans be "treatment free"....I understand that people are not bees. Apparently not everyone has figured this out.

WRT "the perfect survivor bee", there is no such thing and there never will be. Pests, parasites and predators are constantly evolving...this is what drives sexual reproduction...the need to always be adapting to adapting threats.

To say that "dogs have been bred towards perfection" shows a serious lack of understanding. Dogs are bred with rather arbitrary traits designed to satisfy human fancy and whim. When we are talking about survivor stock (of bees or anything else), we are talking about practical traits that translate into survival and successful reproduction. Note that street dogs all over the world look roughly similar...this is what a well adapted (for living among humans, but not under the direct care of them) dog is.

There is no "survivor trait". Mite levels are not a survivor trait. Hygienic behavior is not a survivor trait. Bright yellow color is not a survivor trait. Reduced propolis production is not a survivor trait. See the research from Seeley, Mattila, and others....diversity of drone fathers improves the colony in every way over a low number of drone fathers. The solution is a process that supports the bees ability to adapt, not a silver bullet.

You can bet anyway you want, it's your nickle. The USDA has been trying to breed varroa resistant bees for 20+ years. I'm not aware that they've had any success keeping bees without treatments even in a laboratory setting.

deknow

deknow


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Apitor, would you be here if you were not vaccinated against disease??? Maybe you are genetically weak and we should just let you go into the afterlife???? The answer is of course not because human life is precious. Honeybees are a precious organism also. One that should not be allowed to die just because someone was too cheap to spend a lousy two dollars for a soft chem pack of thymol to intervene for mite control. You know where the concept that you call laughable came from--USDA. The concept came from one of the great disease specialist of his time...H. Shimanuki. As for culling the weak, that happens anyway with the fifteen percent winter/over the summer losses. It all boils down to how many hives of bees do you run, what are willing to risk, is this a major part of your income and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars do you have tied up in your investment of beekeeping. TED


----------



## deknow

...it's also worth nothing that it is human nature to try to "fix" and "improve" things. If the mindset of the breeder is that in order to prevent large losses, we must treat, then it is rather obvious that they will never become "treatment free"...in a good year, the small problems seem big enough to need our intervention, and there will always be something to "fix". No one in such a situation is likely to stumble upon survivor stock, they can't recognize it if they see it. I don't think such gains can be made without sacrifice, and those unwilling to make the sacrifices will continue to treat, and will continue to need to treat.

deknow


----------



## Apiator

Ted Kretschmann said:


> Somebody notice bees in areas with high populations of mint plants survived ,the concept of essential oils was born....


Now this I like, Ted. 

It fits right in with the forum section on gardening/planting for bees. 

So why not just plant the mint near your bee yards? I seem to recall you posting about guerrilla planting to help bees. Why not extend the concept to planting medicine for bees, not just food? If thyme oil is good medicine for bees, wouldn't thyme plants be better?

I've let weeds grow around the verges of my garden for the express purpose of attracting bees and predatory insects. Now it's thick with them. Ever leaf turned over shows up a spider or ladybug or praying mantis or parasitic wasp. I'm fairly well certain bees cannot be the only exception to how natural systems work.

Have you ever run across Joel Salatin, Polyface Farm? He plants the medicinal weeds in his cow pastures. The cows know what they need, and when. Read up on him sometime if you haven't. 

All of that naturally points an accusatory finger at monocultured industrial agriculture systems. I live on the edge of the Denver metropolis, where one might think is a biological wasteland. But if I drive east into farm country, I drive past mile after endless mile of wheat and corn. No trees. No wild birds. No bugs. There's more biological diversity in my own backyard than in three counties of farmland.

We're not giving the creatures what they need with the way this country farms now.

Anyway, that's a ramble. I'm not criticizing you, your methods, your knowledge. I can't. I'm just looking at the big picture, and looking for a way to make it all work without doing more damage.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

I may not see eye to eye with Deknow on a lot of things but Deknow, thank you and have a good fourth of July . Will post next week. TED


----------



## Apiator

Ted Kretschmann said:


> Apitor, would you be here if you were not vaccinated against disease???


Maybe, maybe not. If I were somehow the pinnacle of human evolution, it might be important that I survive. But I'm just one of several billion. And really, if I were the pinnacle, I wouldn't need them anyway, would I?




Ted Kretschmann said:


> The answer is of course not because human life is precious.


That's a matter of opinion. Ask your leaders who think nothing of dropping bombs in foreign countries how precious human life is. Life is cheap. Look at the Third World slums, the overcrowding, the desperation, and tell me how precious human life is. 

It's of course a feeling generally reserved to our own families. That feeling comes from survival instinct -- or else we'd not care whether our offspring lived.




Ted Kretschmann said:


> You know where the concept that you call laughable came from--USDA. The concept came from one of the great disease specialist of his time...H. Shimanuki.


The USDA is laughable. Want to talk about the Farm Bill? USDA is not interested in sustainable agriculture, and they'll never be so long as they're firmly in the pockets of a few large corporations. Heck, I asked a local extension agent about biological controls for bindweed, and was recommended Roundup.




Ted Kretschmann said:


> is this a major part of your income and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars do you have tied up in your investment of beekeeping. TED


No, it's not. I'm just starting, and referencing your prior post, happy to build up with local bees from cutouts and splits. I understand you had a large business built up before varroa, and had to do something. You did what you had to. 

I don't have a large investment to protect, so I do have the luxury of going about it the way I want to.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> "Disposable Bees" Quite the solution. At some point it will turn to disposable humans.


The only choice one has, if they want to keep bees, is to replace them when they die. In the mean time, doing something, as opposed to doing nothing, to keep them alive is simply a matter of being cost effective or not. It's economic. It's business.

Were it economical for me to let my cols die and only replace the dead ones from those that didn't die, that I would do. But it isn't economical. I want to keep bees and feed myself and my family doing so.

You have other goals and other means of income production. I don't see what you have to say as something gained by experience and knowledge. Just by someone who reads books and has had a limited amount of experience and knowledge, but thinks they have the answers.

Someone suggested that you get some time in the saddle. You may find that in 10 or 20 years your song has changed. Who knows.


----------



## sqkcrk

beyondthesidewalks said:


> I agree. I didn't imply that anyone brought anything here (to the US) intentionally. I'm sure the more modern maladies were brought here by mankind.


I'll have to go back and look, but I thought it was the Acebird who I originally asked about "ailments and maladies".


----------



## Acebird

Apiator said:


> The USDA is laughable. Want to talk about the Farm Bill? USDA is not interested in sustainable agriculture, and they'll never be so long as they're firmly in the pockets of a few large corporations. Heck, I asked a local extension agent about biological controls for bindweed, and was recommended Roundup.


When all the soil is waisted in the US they will just go elsewhere in the world and do the same thing. There never would be an issue for growing enough food to support the world but now that some bird brain got the idea of growing plants for fuel it won't take long for all of the US to be turned into a barren waist land. I would guess if you are younger than forty you will see this happen in your lifetime. I might even see it in mine.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> You may find that in 10 or 20 years your song has changed. Who knows.


LOL, there is a chance your song could change too in that amount of time.


----------



## WPG

Acebird said:


> There never would be an issue for growing enough food to support the world but now that some bird brain got the idea of growing plants for fuel it won't take long for all of the US to be turned into a barren waist land.


If only you would _really_ do some research.

Those 'birdbrains' figured out that if you feed 10lbs of corn to cattle you got 1lb of weight gain and 9lbs of manure.
The kernal is mostly starch with a little protein, and the protein adsorbtion is interfered with by the excessive starch.

By converting the starches to sugar, making ethanol, and thereby concentrating the proteins in the DDGs(_dried distillers grains_) you end up with a more efficient food for livestock.
Better weight gain and less manure to dispose of.

Biodiesel from soybeans: same thing-more effecient.

The oil in the bean always had to be extracted to make the beanmeal edible for the animals, it was a waste/by product.
Now it isn't.

Quit believing the drivel from the multi-national oil companies that don't want any competition and don't care if the USA is paying too much for energy.

*Every* price increase is caused by increased energy costs if you really _think_ about it.

More later, if need be.


----------



## Roland

DeKnow said:
I don't think such gains can be made without sacrifice, and those unwilling to make the sacrifices will continue to treat, and will continue to need to treat.

There is a middle ground, reduce treatments to a level that increases losses, but holds them to a recoverable level.

Would the person that lived near all the monoculture be will to pay twice as much for corn and wheat so that the farmer can also plant other crops that are not as profitable?

Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk

Thru all these 24 pages and 236 Posts, what have we learned? Where is the common ground by which we all may go on together? Or are we only interested in charting our own courses, leaving brother and sister beekeepers behind?

I believe there is room for those who Treat and Breed and those who don't Treat and Breed. There is alot that I don't know about Honeybee Genetics and Bee Breeding. About how to keep bees alive. About how to keep them alive w/out chemical controls.

Others, in both Camps do. Or claim to. I respect the knowledge and experience of those who have both. My problem is that I have little respect for those who have neither or very little of either. I recognize that it is my problem and I need to change my perspective to become more respectful and tolerant of those who are earlier on their journey w/ beekeeping. To have compassion for all, expert and novice.

I hope we can seek and see some common ground. We stand strongly together or fall apart as individuals. Each of us has a role to play.


----------



## Acebird

WPG said:


> If only you would _really_ do some research.
> 
> Those 'birdbrains' figured out that if you feed 10lbs of corn to cattle you got 1lb of weight gain and 9lbs of manure.
> The kernal is mostly starch with a little protein, and the protein adsorbtion is interfered with by the excessive starch.


Exactly right cattle wasn't meant to eat corn.



> By converting the starches to sugar, making ethanol, and thereby concentrating the proteins in the DDGs(_dried distillers grains_) you end up with a more efficient food for livestock.
> Better weight gain and less manure to dispose of.


The most efficient food for cattle is grass. You don't do anything, just let them eat it. They would be healthier and we would be healthier. Oh I forgot, the bees would also be healthier. See how it is related?


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> Exactly right cattle wasn't meant to eat corn.


Over the past few years there has been an incredible increase in corn acreage in this area. This is not a corn growing area. Our dry season occurs almost simultaneously with the pollination/fertilization of the corn. What this means is that perhaps 1 season out of 5 a corn crop actually gets made. So it would seem that farmers would be losing money... right? Naw... turns out there are big federal incentives to plant corn... then it gets compounded by crop insurance. So for the most part, even though nothing gets produced (other than a disked in green crop for the soil), producers cash in. At least cash is better than they would be growing traditional crops. And yes.... corn is a better hog feed than cattle feed. I could go on further with tales of "Fake Crops" that are required by the fed in order to obtain migrant workers.. but suspect that would be more of a tailgater thread.


----------



## beeG

Acebird said:


> Exactly right cattle wasn't meant to eat corn.
> 
> 
> 
> The most efficient food for cattle is grass. You don't do anything, just let them eat it. They would be healthier and we would be healthier. Oh I forgot, the bees would also be healthier. See how it is related?


All this Disinformation . It is financially unfeasible. For a cattle rancher to grow out beef cattle on a corn diet. All beef are raised on grass. They are finished in feed lots with grain. Marbled meat is the outcome of feed lot feeding. City people and those disconnected to real farming. Seem to soak up these urban legions. I am not too found of having our oil supplied by countries that hate us.. I will be even less happy if they need to supply our food too. And not because our top soil is depleted. That will never happen the 1930's will not be repeated. Especially as fertile as this country is. I suggest you try reading the other side. this is a nice place to start

http://www.facebook.com/animalagalliance?ref=ts#!/meatmythcrushers


I agree with the post that there is room for both types of breeding. And that they should get along. I can write a book on what happens to an industry where polarized breeding practices tear it to piece. As for newbees .. do not discount new people. They have new points of view. There will be gems located in all the repeated questions.


----------



## Roland

Good philosophy SQKCRK. 

Let's watch this thing. Who will be selling the "Treatment free Queens" in 10 years? Who's bees are adapting the fastest? What conditions promoted the fastest change? Time will tell.

I wonder if everything being advocated is from personal experience, or is it someone telling someone else how to run their life. It is hard for me to respect those that are suggesting something they themselves have not done, but just think that is the way it should be done.

Crazy Roland


----------



## deknow

everything i've been talking about is exactly what I am doing.

deknow


----------



## snapper1d

Resistance to mites.Is that not what the Russian bees are doing?Everything I have seen is what they are saying and some on here that have bought Russians are saying it also.


----------



## valleyman

For those of you that are not in any way associated with farming (other than bees), you need to do some serious research on some the subjects that you have been given facts on. They are not facts, not even close to the real world of facts. I have farmed all my life and those of you that are taking things and blowing them out proportion aren't doing any service to the others that are reading and believing them. Instead of trying to worry people about a proven safe herbicide, or the way cattle is fed and why, that you obviously don't have a clue about except what you want to believe, why don't you worry about systemic pesticides that may be poisoning humans as well as bees.


----------



## deknow

valleyman said:


> ....why don't you worry about systemic pesticides that may be poisoning humans as well as bees.


I do.
http://www.wbjournal.com/news49349.html
It isn't every day you get cells raised in your backyard on the cover of a business publication 

deknow


----------



## beeG

Ok I have been studying the manner in which bees breed a bit more and it is very interesting and adds more questions.

How many times can a hive be split without bringing in a new queen? Being that a drone is fatherless. And only carries genetic material from the residing queen? If you have an apiary that was derived off of one queen. The inbred coefficency is going to reach danger levels a lot faster then inbreeding other animals.. due to a fourth less in genetic material. 

What is the genetic load on bees?
Depending on feral bees that may or may not exist. Or supply drones when you need them is just too risky.. 

Those raising survivor bees off of limited genetic material. Meaning queens. Who on this thread has done this? and for how long before you achieved reduced fertility? Or were you careful to start off with enough queen genetics.What did you select for in obtaining your starter queens? How do you know unless your II that the drones from the correct queen are doing the job? Drones like any male animal are not going to say, hey we are siblings I am going to pass, and wait for the next virgin? 

The queens being Diploid and the drones being haploid. Anyone familiar with the freak Diploid drones, and who and what would be the outcome of a triploid queen? Also II has been around since 1940's There are going to be very very few beekeepers remembering how it was pre- II . I would like to hear stories on these super natural bees and their production and the issues they had before II breeding? Has anyone in these times tried tent breeding?


----------



## sqkcrk

beeG said:


> I am not too found of having our oil supplied by countries that hate us.. I will be even less happy if they need to supply our food too.
> 
> As for newbees .. do not discount new people. They have new points of view. There will be gems located in all the repeated questions.


At least 15% of our food is grown in another country and it will be 45% before you know it.

As for newbee... I do not discount those who ask challenging questions and pose what ifs. It's just those that come off as authorities. Kinda like those who make statements about something you appear to know something about. Infinitly more so than I.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> I do.
> http://www.wbjournal.com/news49349.html
> It isn't every day you get cells raised in your backyard on the cover of a business publication
> 
> deknow


What about the Emeral Ash Bore Beetle, Dean? Are you on the same page w/ Peter Borst on this one? Peter seems to be highly concerned about the effects on native pollinators as well as managed bee hives, of thje chemical controls on EABB.


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> What about the Emeral Ash Bore Beetle, Dean?


I don't know much about the eabb, I looked at it briefly when Peter emailed me about it...it is a different pesticide I believe, and I'm not up on the info.

With the ALB, however, they are injecting trees prophylacticly...any found infested are cut down. The cut down quite a few the first winter after discovering them (we had a rather big ice storm to help things along). They spotted litterally thousands of adult beetles the first year, and a grand total of 28 the second....before any treatments had started. They had tree climbers on staff, they had billboards on busses, they had pens and bumper stickers, tv ads, radio ads, etc....and only 28 adult beetles just from removing the trees they would have removed anyways, even with the treatments.

The beetles have been here for years (undiscovered), and have undoubtely spread to all parts of new england through firewood and the like.

deknow


----------



## valleyman

Deknow, 
What about clothianidin, the new improved big brother of imidacloprid. Remember it even kills the pest that eat on the plant or its product. For instance if the corn ear worm eats on the juicy kernal of the ear of corn it is dead. When is the poison supposed to leave the product? Magicly before we consume it. Or at least we hope so.


----------



## WLC

Unfortunately, neonics are the only practical way to fight off invasive pests like ALB and EAB. You need a systemic pesticide that isn't harmful to humans.

The other choices aren't as effective/practical, or worse, you have to cut down and destroy a whole bunch of trees.

There's no silver lining here.


----------



## sqkcrk

On the off chance of loosing face w/ some folks, I have, for years, questioned the economics of Governments trying to control pests like ALB and EAB. All ther millions of dollars wasted trying to control something which they only slow down.

Once an invasive species gets a toe hold in an environment, what's to stop it? Shoot. Look at all the efforts to keep purple loostrife out of lowlands and wetlands and waterways, when it has been here for morfe than a century. Invasive? When does an imported species come off of the invasive species list? And, why aren't some on the list? Because they are ecomonically beneficial?


----------



## Rick 1456

Mark,
They are pulling 9LB Snakeheads out of the Potomac River. OMG No one can guess on that invasive one. BTW. Caught that "Feral Swarm" at Fort Washington Marina. Went by B and Js'. Thought of you.
Got to hook up one day.


----------



## sqkcrk

You bet. Maybe I'll stop in Accokeek onm y way North this fall. I owe my Sister a visit.

Are those snakeheads good eating? Maybe we should have left the Pot-o-mack a polluted mess like it was when I was growing up and the snakeheads would be the least of worrys. heh,heh.

I recall seeing lots of carp stranded in pools at Greatwater Falls, north of the city, in MD. nIsn't that what it is called? Been gone too long.


----------



## WLC

Purple loosestrife can be controlled using biological control agents (beetles!).

As far as neonics and invasive beetles go, there is no 'plan B'.

Sorry.


----------



## Acebird

valleyman said:


> Deknow,
> When is the poison supposed to leave the product? Magicly before we consume it. Or at least we hope so.


Pretty much never. You are what you eat. The question is do you believe it is not going to hurt you?


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Unfortunately, neonics are the only practical way to fight off invasive pests like ALB and EAB.


I don't know much about EAB, but there is nothing practical about how they are using imidacloprid.

ALB is slow moving. All infested trees are destroyed. They have a staff of inspectors and tree climbers inspecting tree by tree over 98 square miles. Any infested tree is destroyed.

As I said, just by doing the tree removals...no treatments, they went from thousands of adult beetles found to 28 the following year (with more manpower looking for them). No matter how you treat the statistics, you have to realize that they are still sending around people to spot beetles (from the ground or climbing the trees)...they might as well just remove diseased trees (over 26.000 to date) instead of injecting over60,000 trees as well (which they have already done).

deknow


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> At least 15% of our food is grown in another country and it will be 45% before you know it.


Yeah but it still has names like Green Giant and Dole on them. Don't you feel good about that?


----------



## WLC

Dean:

With the budget cuts that have impacted the manpower available to those agencies involved, it's quickly becoming 'plan A'.

I wish that there was a better alternative available. I feel your pain.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> Yeah but it still has names like Green Giant and Dole on them. Don't you feel good about that?


I feel fine. If you don't like it, buy something else. Personally I don't buy much food that says Dole or Green Giant, but it's not because of their company practices. I doin't eat much canned food or fresh pineapples. If I did, it would be a Dole. Don't they have almost a monopoly on pineapple?


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> With the budget cuts that have impacted the manpower available to those agencies involved, it's quickly becoming 'plan A'.


...I'm not sure what you are saying here. ...they are already treating the trees prophylacticly....and no one to my knowledge has suggested simply treating infested trees.

The point is that from any kind of population model, "thousands" of adult beetles found one year, and after removing some trees, "28" were found the next (with increased manpower and publicity)....that this was a situation as under control as it's ever likely to be even with the treatments.

APHIS claims that treatments are effective for at least a year, which means leaves with effective doses of imidacloprid "enrich" the soil. All of the data they based this regimen on is sunflowers and corn....nothing resembling a tree. APHIS claims that the dose shouldn't effect pollinators....which would be reassuring if they actually knew what the exposure is from naturally foraging pollinators (which they don't), or if there wasn't data that "undetectable levels" of imidacloprid can increase nosema infections 4X (at least on caged bees). They are funding a study run by Jeff Pettis, but the test and control colonies are fed HFCS and given pollen patties (which diminishes their consumption of early maple pollen...which is under study).

If they are going to do intensive monitoring anyways (which they are), I don't see any reason for this....I estimate they will inject 100-200,000 trees by the time they are done...and then they can start on one of the other infestations.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Dean:

In other parts of the world, where they have similar problems, they often spray the entire area with neonics. They don't bother to inject. I can see that happening here in the near future.


----------



## Rick 1456

Mark,
My sources tell me, if they had not already been called Snake heads, they would have been named YUM YUM Fish. Apparently they are good. Will try soon and let you know. I think they are starting to have Snake Head Tournaments along with Bass Tournaments. Don't think ESPN will jump on board though Sorry,,,off topic.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> I feel fine. If you don't like it, buy something else. Personally I don't buy much food that says Dole or Green Giant, but it's not because of their company practices. I doin't eat much canned food or fresh pineapples. If I did, it would be a Dole. Don't they have almost a monopoly on pineapple?


Dole produces a whole lot more than pineapples and I would say most is not in a can.
http://www.dole.com/AboutDole/tabid/1255/Default.aspx#
They are pretty much world wide and wag the tail of congress.


----------



## sqkcrk

Oh well then. What are we to do?

I don't know why people are so negative about life. Are things really so bad? Things seem pretty good to me, for the most part.


----------



## Apiator

Roland said:


> Would the person that lived near all the monoculture be will to pay twice as much for corn and wheat so that the farmer can also plant other crops that are not as profitable?
> 
> Crazy Roland



I assume you're talking to me, so my answer is "yes." For several reasons. First, I don't consume corn or anything that has corn in it, because most of the corn supply is genetically modified. I avoid it like the plague. I eat minuscule amounts of wheat, because my metabolism just doesn't like starch.

Nevertheless, there is one fact that remains. Americans pay less for food, as a percentage of their income, than ANY country on the planet. And what do we get for having the world's cheapest food?

Garbage. Obesity. Diabetes. Name it. What most people in this country think of as "food" -- in a box, bag, or through a window -- is poison.

Anyway, to cut right at the point, I am willing to pay more for proper food. In fact, I already do. I buy local, free range, organic, all those fancy labels, primarily because I figure it will save me on doctors later.

I work for proper food, too. I have a large backyard garden that consumes a fair amount of my energy, just so I can have clean, chemical free veggies.

I guess I'm saying... I put my money where my mouth is.


----------



## Apiator

valleyman said:


> For those of you that are not in any way associated with farming (other than bees), you need to do some serious research on some the subjects that you have been given facts on. They are not facts, not even close to the real world of facts. I have farmed all my life and those of you that are taking things and blowing them out proportion aren't doing any service to the others that are reading and believing them. Instead of trying to worry people about a proven safe herbicide, or the way cattle is fed and why, that you obviously don't have a clue about except what you want to believe, why don't you worry about systemic pesticides that may be poisoning humans as well as bees.



"Proven safe herbicide?"

Why don't you head out to your barn, and chug down a quart of your "proven safe" herbicide?

I thought not. Why? Because you bloody know as well as I do that it's POISON.

And just for your edification, I do, in fact, work on a real farm... part time... that produces beef, dairy, chicken, pork, eggs. All 100% organic, nothing but grass for the cows, no hormones, and zero chemicals in the crop fields.

You know what bothers me? You guys who spray & pray and think yours is the only way. You lack imagination. I see a 600 acre farm in the eastern CO desert that makes a living for two families and 4 more employees, without a single chemical. 

Want to come see it? Come show me how it doesn't work. Come show me why we need your "safe" herbicides.


----------



## valleyman

Apiator said:


> "Proven safe herbicide?"
> 
> Why don't you head out to your barn, and chug down a quart of your "proven safe" herbicide?
> 
> I thought not. Why? Because you bloody know as well as I do that it's POISON. Come show me why we need your "safe" herbicides.


Any one that would chug down any kind of chemical would be about as smart as you are to think that the farmers of today can produce enought food for the world to eat without chemicals. As for me I limit my use of chemicals as much as possible. But from experience you can Roundup a parcel of land and come right back and reseed it without *ANY *chemical residue. I know from experience that you can spray canadian thistle, ****leburr, and any other broadleaf with 2-4-d to keep them out of your pasture. I know from experience that you can spray brushy fencerows or fields with ironweed sumac bushes, sasafrass, and many other non hardwood bushes or small trees with crossbow. *ALL *of the chemicals that I have use are listed above and I know that there are other stronger chemicals that are being used that do leave residue. But what most farmers use in my area are safe and leave no residue. I also try to raise or buy locally much of what we consume as fresh vegetables, and can do so because of the local Amish community. I also agree that the world would be SAFER place with out the use of chemicals. But it ain't going to happen. If you think that organic or natural farming could feed the world then you may as well chug your gallon or starve to death.


----------



## Apiator

valleyman said:


> But from experience you can Roundup a parcel of land and come right back and reseed it without *ANY *chemical residue.


No, you can't. You have been lied to.

Monsanto used to advertise that Roundup left no residue. But then they got sued by the French government, and forced to withdraw their claim... because it most certainly DOES leave residue. Look it up.

You now have a choice. Learn the truth, or don't.




valleyman said:


> I also agree that the world would be SAFER place with out the use of chemicals. But it ain't going to happen. If you think that organic or natural farming could feed the world then you may as well chug your gallon or starve to death.


Impressive concession, but meaningless.

Organic farming does, in point of fact, feed the majority of the world. You know, those parts of it too poor to buy poison and GE seeds.

What we produce here is called surplus. Fact is, the planet's agriculture produces one and a half times as much food as is necessary to feed everyone on earth. It just doesn't trickle down, for political and economic reasons.

Did you read my last post? About how many people are making a full time living from one little organic farm? How about you? How many mouths can YOU feed with YOUR income? Or are you, like so many others on the chemical treadmill, just barely keeping your head above water?

I'll sign off with one important statistic. The most productive farms in the world, in terms of pounds of food per acre, are 4 acres or less. The next most productive category are farms of 17 acres or less.

It's not all about big tractors and fancy implements and petrochemicals and liquid death. It's about intensive management. And I'll just bet you, if you couldn't drive down to your local co-op and buy herbicides, you'd find a different way to manage your land, wouldn't you?

Food... for thought.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

liquid death ?
who let the dogs out!


----------



## Acebird

valleyman said:


> Any one that would chug down any kind of chemical would be about as smart as you are to think that the farmers of today can produce enought food for the world to eat without chemicals. ...
> If you think that organic or natural farming could feed the world then you may as well chug your gallon or starve to death.


It is a proven fact that the use of chemicals only increases the yield 10-15% and the government subsidies to over produce are much larger. So much so that we can grow crops for fuel. This song about not being able to feed the world sound like a union meeting ra-ra before going out to the fields to work. Do you really believe that nonsense? Are you that brain washed?


----------



## Tom G. Laury

Ace, you are a shining example of how ignorance breeds fear.


----------



## snapper1d

Acebird said:


> It is a proven fact that the use of chemicals only increases the yield 10-15% and the government subsidies to over produce are much larger. So much so that we can grow crops for fuel. This song about not being able to feed the world sound like a union meeting ra-ra before going out to the fields to work. Do you really believe that nonsense? Are you that brain washed?


10% - 15%!!!! Acebird I can see you have never farmed anything!!! I have farmed all my life and I can tell you those figures are extremely way off.You take a new field and you get a ph of 4.5 way low on P and K and you plant corn you will be lucky if you get any of it over 2 foot tall and even lucky to get one ear from a 100 acre field!!! Lime it and bring the ph up to 6.5 with chem fertilizer you bring P and K up to par and you will get tons and tons of corn on 6 foot stalks!!!!


----------



## Barry

"Paying more for proper food" is _*not*_ "Survivor bees" topic. Let's get this train back on track.


----------



## Barry

It would be good to go back and read the first ten posts again. Especially the first one. The crop chemical issue has been brought up and beaten. Enough. Let's expand on some of the earlier posts.


----------



## WLC

Just a few general points on the discussion:


You generally don't know what pests/pathogens the survivor stock are resistant to, and you don't know which genes are responsible.
You can very likely approximate the same kind of resistance by using existing resistant stock, like VSH, BWeaver, etc. .
Instrumental insemination is ideal for mixing gametes from existing resistant stocks to create blends for desired characteristics.
You can lose too many desired characteristics/traits by relying on survivor bees.


----------



## valleyman

WLC
I think this is about what I said several post ago. You don't know what the feral survivors have survived from so they may not survive in another Apiary. Let the breeders subject them to most of the problems and see what survives. Then I want them, knowing they are not perfect, just better. I will remain chemical free until I have to do something differient. Oops found 3 SHB hiding on 3 supers off of 2 hives. Guess I'm done being chemical free.


----------



## beeG

Isn't the African bee the ultimate survivor bee? Mite resistant, disease resistant, hardy, aggressive breeders. I have even read on the thread about Africans. That a swarm will light up under an existing hive. Send in workers to kill the queen. And take over the hive. That I feel is the ultimate survivor bee. But I don't want any. 

Aren't they super aggressive 
poor honey producers
and high swarmers?

I am sure in areas that have African bees. Virgin queens can easily mate with Africans. 
Is this desirable? Especially when an aggressive swarming bunch can wipe out an entire genetic program by taking over bee yards?
I also read buckfast have a bit of African influence. That sometimes a superceded queen can cause a hot hive. 
So if certain races with African breeding , are allowed to inbreed enough.. They can easily pull a lot of that African genetic makeup . To become close enough to be Africans , minus a very small percentage. After so many generations. 

Genetics are nothing more then a recipe for the design of the particular being that is born. In bees the male is just a vehicle for the female that produced him. 

Does anyone know if a drone produced by a laying worker is any less then a drone produced by a queen? 

I will copy and paste a hybrid program for bees. Which is completly different from some of ideas I have read here of a hybrid random program. One that is scientifically proven.

Hybrid breeding
When inbred lines or races of bees are crossed, the hybrid progeny often are superior to either parent
for one or many traits. This phenomenon is called hybrid vigor or heterosis. Hybrid bees have more
heterozygosity in their genome than do inbred or line-bred bees. This heterozygosity is thought to be
the basis for hybrid vigor.
Hybrid-breeding programs in bees are considerably more complicated than line-breeding programs. At
the very least, three inbred lines must be combined so that both queens and their worker daughters are
hybrids. An inbred queen mated to inbred drones will produce hybrid workers. However, the egg-laying
qualities of the inbred queen probably would be inadequate. Therefore, there is a need to mate hybrid
queens to inbred drones so that both queens and workers in production colonies are hybrids.
Four-line hybrids also are possible and commercially available. Such a hybrid may involve lines 1, 2, 3,
and 4 and could be combined in the following way: An inbred queen of line 3 artificially mated to
drones of line 4 is used as a grafting queen to produce hybrid (3x4) queens. These are allowed to mate
naturally and are used to produce drones. Queens of line 1 are then mated to drones of line 2 and hybrid
virgin queens (1 X 2) are reared from the mating. Production queens are produced from a cross of
virgin queens (1 / 2) mated to the drone progeny from the 3 X 4 queens. Colonies produced by this
cross will be headed by two-way hybrid queens, which will be uniform in appearance, whereas the
worker bees will be four-way hybrids and variable in appearance, unless the color markings of the
parent lines are very similar.
Comparative tests of hybrids have shown their superiority. Increased productivity of 34 to 50 percent
over the average of line-bred strains has been reported. Segregation and random mating in the
generations following hybridization are likely to result in queens that are no better than the average
supersedure queen. Hybrids are an end product, and to make best use of them it is necessary to requeen
every year.
Breeding and Genetics of Honey Bees
By: John R. Harbo and Thomas E. Rinderer1
(From Beekeeping in the United States)


----------



## snapper1d

If you only find 3 shb you are doing good.I caught a swarm a while back and brought them home to see how they will do.They do OK with mites but shb are rampant with them.They do seem to be removing the larvae but the other survivor hives I have keep beetles out so I will pinch her and replace with one of my survivor queens and watch them before I move that hive out with my others.


----------



## snapper1d

Those are some interesting questions there beeG!!!


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

beeG said:


> How many times can a hive be split without bringing in a new queen? Being that a drone is fatherless. And only carries genetic material from the residing queen? If you have an apiary that was derived off of one queen. The inbred coefficency is going to reach danger levels a lot faster then inbreeding other animals.. due to a fourth less in genetic material.
> 
> What is the genetic load on bees?
> Depending on feral bees that may or may not exist. Or supply drones when you need them is just too risky..
> 
> Those raising survivor bees off of limited genetic material. Meaning queens. Who on this thread has done this? and for how long before you achieved reduced fertility? Or were you careful to start off with enough queen genetics.What did you select for in obtaining your starter queens? How do you know unless your II that the drones from the correct queen are doing the job? Drones like any male animal are not going to say, hey we are siblings I am going to pass, and wait for the next virgin?


I don't know what others are doing but I'm sure that some of my queens are breeding with my drones or feral drones around me. I'm constantly bringing in new stock from swarm traps and cutouts so the drone pool is constantly changing. The only common denominator is they are from local sources that haven't been managed.

Earlier in this thread horsemint was brought up as a possible source of resistance to some of the maladies that are killing our bees. Horsemint is normally my main flow in the month of June with my pastures showing blankets of white and purple hues. This year, with extreme drought, horsemint didn't do well at all. Most of it didn't even bloom. If that is the source of my bees survival they are expereincling a deficit this year. We'll see how they do. I would imagine that if they were resistant because of horsemint they'll all die out this year.


----------



## Scrapfe

If either survivor or feral genes were the bee all to end all in animal husbandry agriculture, then all the dairy farmers in Vermont and every beef rancher in Texas would be clambering for some of that there bovine survivor blood from the Hindu areas of India, but (so far) they "ain't." Must bee a reason?


----------



## sqkcrk

beeG said:


> I am sure in areas that have African bees.


The only areas that have African bees is Africa. And I am pretty surte we can't import any of them here. If you mean AfricanIZED Honeybee, let's get on the same page terminology wise.


----------



## snapper1d

I do not buy into the essential oils in the flowers keeping certain hives alive.One reason is that if those oils are the reason for survivor bees then we would of never had the die offs to start with!!! It has been said before that honey is loaded with essential oils also.So if that is true the mites couldnt of gotten started also.


----------



## Acebird

beeG said:


> Hybrids are an end product, and to make best use of them it is necessary to requeen every year.
> Breeding and Genetics of Honey Bees
> By: John R. Harbo and Thomas E. Rinderer1
> (From Beekeeping in the United States)


Why? Is the genetics of the queen going to change on the second and third year?


----------



## Tom G. Laury

Bee breeding is three things:

1. Data collection

2. Data collection

3. Data collection

Data collection is how one establishes credibility.


----------



## sqkcrk

beyondthesidewalks said:


> Earlier in this thread horsemint was brought up as a possible source of resistance to some of the maladies that are killing our bees. Horsemint is normally my main flow in the month of June with my pastures showing blankets of white and purple hues.


Depending on plants to control varroa doesn't work.

When I was still in school in Ohio, I went to OSU Main Campus to meet Dr. Eva Crane and Dr. Walter Rothenbuler. This was 1985. Tracheal mite had just gotten started a year or so earlier. A woman w/ a cpl of hives was claiming that the mint around her hives was keeping her tracheal mite problem at bay. Next time I saw her, all her hives were dead. So much for natural plant control.


----------



## Rick 1456

removed


----------



## beeG

sqkcrk said:


> The only areas that have African bees is Africa. And I am pretty surte we can't import any of them here. If you mean AfricanIZED Honeybee, let's get on the same page terminology wise.


yes that was what I meant


----------



## sqkcrk

Thought so. Just wanted to be sure we all knew and that no newbee got the idea we had African Bees too, along w/ AHBs.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

beyondthesidewalks said:


> I don't know what others are doing but I'm sure that some of my queens are breeding with my drones or feral drones around me. I'm constantly bringing in new stock from swarm traps and cutouts so the drone pool is constantly changing. The only common denominator is they are from local sources that haven't been managed.


I dont want to be argumentative but how would you know if they had been managed or not? even a swarm in a tree could have come from a managed hive.
Also wondering if you isolate those swarms from your breeders so you can evaluate them, you wouldn't want to be bringing in substandard genes which is just as likely as bringing in those traits you want in your bees


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

frazzledfozzle said:


> I dont want to be argumentative


Then don't be.



frazzledfozzle said:


> how would you know if they had been managed or not? even a swarm in a tree could have come from a managed hive.


A swarm in a tree *IS* feral. Now it could have come from a managed source and perhaps many of my swarms that I'm catching are from my hives and hives from another beekeeper that used to keep bees in my area for a year or two. All of his hives died out and he gave up. I haven't had any hives from purchased bees for a few years now. One advantage to living very rural is that everyone knows everyone else and their business. It's also a disadvantage.

Most of my hives that I raised from purchased bees came from a breeder in Alabama who had a very productive line that also tended to be very hot. It's very possible that those bees have had a large impact on the local gene pool. When I moved to Colorado in 1998 I sold off all but two of my hives. Those hives were so hot that nobody wanted them. I kept them because they produced twice as much honey as the rest of my hives and with judicious use of smoke they were manageable. When I returned from Colorado those hives were deadouts but may have produced a few swarms during that time. I left them there to see if they would survive while I lived in Colorado. My guess is they died from mites or pesticide.



frazzledfozzle said:


> Also wondering if you isolate those swarms from your breeders so you can evaluate them, you wouldn't want to be bringing in substandard genes which is just as likely as bringing in those traits you want in your bees


I don't isolate. All of the new bees that come to my place are from feral sources. I want to bring those genes into the pool. Those that die off because they cannot make it, I want to die off. My goal is to have bees that survive. Anyone who has experience with breeding anything and trying to produce a productive line knows that you must have a ruthless hand in culling. Too many cattle producers don't get that and therefore stick with a substandard animal out of loyalty. That animal continues to add substandard genes to the pool and in the case of cattle, he has short dumpy looking animals. I see it all of the time. My previously mentioned uncle was a world class dairy cattle breeder and I learned to cull from him. My family has been raising dairy cattle in the northern part of the Netherlands since before recorded history and maybe our gene pool knows what it is doing. (Before you hit post that was intended to be humorous not factual.)

On the earlier topic of Indian cattle...Ignorance! Brangus, Braford, Bramousin, Charbrah and the list goes on. Brahman cattle tend to be wild but also innately immune to several maladies that give European cattle problems. There are whole new breeds of cattle based on Brahman cattle crosses. I have used a Brangus bull in my herd to get some of that immunity in my Angus/Hereford cross black baldies. Indian cattle don't lead the life of luxury that you may be led to believe. They actually roam the streets and roads of India looking to make an existance from nothing. They are normally malnourished and don't look very good.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

sqkcrk said:


> Depending on plants to control varroa doesn't work.


I tend to agree. If there was anything to it all of my bees are dying off this year. They aren't, anecdotal but true, so I guess that was my point.


----------



## sqkcrk

Anecdotal some times means, cause unknown.


----------



## snapper1d

beyondthesidewalks said:


> I don't isolate. All of the new bees that come to my place are from feral sources. I want to bring those genes into the pool. Those that die off because they cannot make it, I want to die off. My goal is to have bees that survive.


I dont let any of mine die off.I will isloate any swarms I catch.I bring those to my house to watch and check and see how they work and how they take care of the mites.If they dont do to my satisfaction I will requeen with one of mine that works and takes care of mites like I want them to.


----------



## deknow

beeG said:


> Isn't the African bee the ultimate survivor bee?....


BeeG, it was only a few days ago that you were adamant about how bees should be bred...without even understanding the basic mechanisms at work. Being on the other side of that does not make for a rewarding (or productive) discussion. Now you have all the "facts" on AHB and hybrid breeding in bees?

Of course, all this about hybrids...its doable, and has been done. The inbred lines are generally so weak as to need constant feeding and supplemental capped brood...these are not healthy bees. The "hybrid vigor" is another way of saying "lack of being totally inbred".

I don't want to talk down to you, but you realize that the hybrid program you quote precludes using the "product" (the hybrid queen) to further a breeding program? That queens must be purchased from a breeder that is maintaining 3 or more inbred lines (and the healthy bees to support them) that require constant attention every year?

The Starline and Midnight lines were, I believe this kind of hybrid...I'm not sure who does anything like this today (I don't know what the migratory guys use, but I can't think of anyone advertising this kind of hybrid currently). Of course I've already posted a link to a talk by a beekeeper who did much of the field work for these lines, talking about why he thinks it was flawed.

deknow


----------



## beeG

deknow said:


> BeeG, it was only a few days ago that you were adamant about how bees should be bred...without even understanding the basic mechanisms at work. Being on the other side of that does not make for a rewarding (or productive) discussion. Now you have all the "facts" on AHB and hybrid breeding in bees?
> 
> 
> deknow


Actually no I was not.. I do not have a preference at this point. I just feel all the bickering is non productive. And indirectly blaming it on the commercial I feel is wrong. I feel there is room for both as long as it does not endanger others. I have no real preference now I am in the study mode. I am familiar with genetics. I never was adamant at all on how bees should be bred. Just how bee keepers should treat each other. 

As for the article I quoted from. It was just another form of breeding .One with more predictable results. I know about selective breeding. I am not ignorant to it. But some on here seem to have the its my way or the highway approach, And I was not defiantly one of them. I just don't like all the bickering and finger pointing and quoting of conspiracy theories.


----------



## valleyman

beeG,
I have been reading some of your posts. obviously you have been doing lots of reading. Since you are new to this forum I would like to extend some friendy advice to you. First off welcome. Let me say next that I have a very lot to learn. I started out reading, and soon found conflicting ideas and publictions. Some time later I found Beesource, again I found conflicting ideas. At least on this forum you can use common sense and take sometimes several differient answers and find the right one that works best for you. From what I'm seeing from your post you are coming here with your knowledge from reading and taking it and running with it. If you keep on being assertive with some of your misinformation the older wiser beekeepers on here will quit trying to help you. the only answers you will get will be from those that know less than you. Then to get back on topic you will not have any survivor bees and won't have to worry about AHB. I have learned it is much easier to learn from asking questions than to make statements that I can't prove. I wish you nothing but good luck, and I hope this helps.


----------



## beeG

I do believe you have me confused with another poster.. can you please quote this misinformation I am passing on?


----------



## deknow

beeG said:


> .. can you please quote this misinformation I am passing on?


http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?257065-quot-Survivor-bees-quot&p=680305#post680305

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?257065-quot-Survivor-bees-quot&p=680289#post680289

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?257065-quot-Survivor-bees-quot&p=678922#post678922

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?257065-quot-Survivor-bees-quot&p=677774#post677774

I've not told anyone what to do. I have offered my own analysis in my own words about why I'm doing what I'm doing...it is carefully considered.

Did you read:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...bees-quot&p=677718&highlight=vigor#post677718 in this thread? Notice how similar it is to the hybrid program you describe...except that it is using stock that survives instead of propped up overly inbred stock...and, as demonstrated over some number of millions of years, produces an offspring that also performs well _and_ is good breeding stock.

Again, I'm not trying to talk down to you, but I've tried to do anything _but_ bicker here..I've tried to explain why I'm doing what I'm doing.

deknow


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

There are two main schools of thought here. On one hand you have the classic breeder, amatuer or professional, who selects his best products and line breeds to get a get line of stock that reproduce reliably. There is no F1, F2 F3, etc. crossing going on. Anyone could obtain this line and reliably reproduce it with subtle changes. This line would constantly evolve with additions and subtractions from the gene pool, managed by the breeder. This method was used (and not used) for millenia.

About 70 years ago, just after WWII, a new school started wherein people with graduate degrees would find lines, document EVERYTHING and cross them to achieve hybrids that had certain advantages, some because of hybrid vigor, some because of beneficial traits of their lines. These practices are relatively new and have a place at the table. There are advantages for commercial enterprises that want a source of reliable stock without having to maintain a line themselves. There are also those noncommercial individuals that can purchase stock and enjoy the benefits of the reliabilty of the stock without having to spend much time paying attention to breeding. The major drawback to this method is that new stock must be purchased because hybrid stock will not reproduce reliably.

Notice that I didn't refer specifically to bees. This logic holds true for many different types of livestock, flora and fauna. An example of where the former was not used wisely is in classic breeds of sheep. Sheep have been domesticated for millenia. Shepherds would live with sheep in the field and assist any ewe that was having problems lambing. This has been repeated for millenia and now we have breeds of sheep that cannot lamb without human intervention. The opposite of this approach would be to cull every ewe that has problems lambing until you have a line that doesn't have lambing problems. This is exactly what I'm attempting to do with my bees with some success. I have no intention of going commercial and selling a line of bees. My only purpose is to keep bees like I did when I first started. The only way I see this happening is to continue to select good stock and reproduce it. I have no qualms with anyone who doesn't like the approach and believe that the opposite approach has a place at the table. I just feel that my approach has a seat there also. It's supported by history and results.

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## beeG

deknow said:


> http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?257065-quot-Survivor-bees-quot&p=680305#post680305
> deknow


basic genetics and breeding of anything plant or animal.. 



deknow said:


> [url]http://www.beesource.com/foru...5-quot-Survivor-bees-quot&p=680289#post680289
> deknow


another opion without attacking any paticular type of breeding. 



deknow said:


> [url]http://www.beesource.com/foru...5-quot-Survivor-bees-quot&p=678922#post678922
> deknow


again my opion from first hand commerical experince in another venture.. misinformation? Wish it were.. we live in some very difficult times.



deknow said:


> [url]http://www.beesource.com/foru...5-quot-Survivor-bees-quot&p=677774#post677774
> deknow


ok a bit strong but believe me I held back this thread has gotten a bit heated.. Newbe or not. I am not going to back my gorund. My entire adult life has been ag influcenced and animal related. I am not in my 20's, and I am business owner. So I am no wimp. So very sorry for harming your feelings in any way. I do wish this debate would get off of feelings and get on with some facts. 


deknow said:


> I've not told anyone what to do. ...bees-quot&p=677718&highlight=vigor#post677718 in this thread? Notice how similar it is to the hybrid program you describe...except that it is using stock that survives instead of propped up overly inbred stock...and, as demonstrated over some number of millions of years, produces an offspring that also performs well _and_ is good breeding stock.
> deknow


 Actually it is not like what I posted. The article I copy and pasted from was controlled breeding. What you described is not controlled and leaves room for chance. And I am not saying chance is bad..Ever study the genetics of the cheetah ? Or other bottle necked species that did not come out the other side in a positive way..( last two senetences are just showing you the flip side so dont get all upset and think I am attacking your reasoning) Controlled breeding can be easily culled and segregated in tiny groups that would not effect the whole. I have no problems with your hypothesis. Nor your desire to try them. I am not telling you what to do, never did. My post were not pointed at you personally, until this one. Maybe you need to reread all of the post. and lets hope this thread gets on track and off the politics so information can be shared.

Oh yeah no asnwers about my tent breeding idea?


deknow said:


> Again, I'm not trying to talk down...ure you would have sent me a private message.


----------



## Acebird

valleyman said:


> beeG,
> If you keep on being assertive with some of your misinformation the older wiser beekeepers on here will quit trying to help you.


Totally untrue. Absolute nonsense. There is nothing that will energize an older wiser beek than mis information. They feel it is their responsibility to correct you or your post. The fastest way to learn is to be assertive.


----------



## WLC

Dean:

Besides the difficulties in even defining 'survivor' and 'feral' bees, there's an important piece of information that's missing that we have both discussed before.

There's non-classical genetics involved as well.

It's that kind of evidence that validates the survivor/feral hypotheses for producing resistant stock, even though it's by a molecular genetics mechanism, retrotransposition.

I think that you should play the retrotransposon card more often during a debate. You can pretty much anticipate the response to that.


----------



## sqkcrk

beyondthesidewalks said:


> About 70 years ago, just after WWII,
> 
> Can't we all just get along?


I don't mean to be a stickler for accuracy, but either you don't know math or you don't know history. WWII did not end in 1941. It was 1945.

Which does taint the rest of the Post, for me.


----------



## valleyman

Acebird said:


> Totally untrue. Absolute nonsense. There is nothing that will energize an older wiser beek than mis information. They feel it is their responsibility to correct you or your post. The fastest way to learn is to be assertive.


I'm not putting myself in the catagory of an older wiser beekeeper, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a know it all that isn't here to learn but to argue. There are too many sincere people here that truly want help. I'm one of them!!! Good luck!


----------



## Roland

Well said Valleyman. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

Time will sort this whole thing out. If in ten years, all the commercial people are buying queens from the backyarders, we will know what side of the bread the butter is on.

But what would I know, I'm just a crazy neophyte, or not?

Crazy Roland


----------



## HarryVanderpool

Have you heard about the work of Dr. Debbie Delaney?
She is part of of a research project that is mapping and testing the DNA of bee trees.
I spoke with her last year and she said that she is noticing a growing number of bee trees that seem to be doing better than in past years.
Here are a couple of short blurbs about her and her work:

http://www.savethehives.com/fbp/Research.html

http://www.savethehives.com/fbp/


----------



## valleyman

It would be interesting to me to know if some of those survivor ferals might have some Russian influence. They sure do swarm so there have to be some in the wild. Yes, they are survivors but hard to keep. I'm done with them.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Thus the thread brings us to the rumor of the USDA wanting to release small Russian swarms into the wild to boost the genetics of whatever bees that might be out there with so call Russian trash can bee resistant genetics. What a greek tragedy that will be. The same thinking was done with the ARS-Y1 bees. Yugoslavian Carniolians that were resistant to the tracheal mites....Have as many US breeders breed the ARS-Y1 genetics into the general population of honeybees. Well, the bees were tracheal mite resistant but were slow to build up, thus were only good for crossing into other lineages for the resistance. I suspect Valleyman you will find a lot of the so called ferals will have genetic markers for VSH/SMR, Russian and ARS-Y1 in them. I do not think that there is a hive of bees in a tree somewhere that is genetically true to what I had 39 years ago as a boy. TED


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

sqkcrk said:


> I don't mean to be a stickler for accuracy, but either you don't know math or you don't know history. WWII did not end in 1941. It was 1945.
> 
> Which does taint the rest of the Post, for me.


so then you are being a stickler and closing your mind in the process...petty


----------



## deknow

Acebird said:


> There is nothing that will energize an older wiser beek than mis information. They feel it is their responsibility to correct you or your post. The fastest way to learn is to be assertive.


I can assure you that I am much more helpful and offer a lot more time and attention to people that are trying to educate themselves to the best of their ability. The approach you advocate above is akin to crying constantly to get attention from mommy....you might get the "correction" you are looking for, but it's annoying to everyone involved, and all you learn is to spout more misinformation in order to get more attention.

deknow


----------



## deknow

> There's non-classical genetics involved as well.


Yes, there are other factors as well...but of course bees (as well as other organisms) have been bred with success....epigenetics and retrotransposition are certainly part of the equation, but virtually all of the successful breeding programs performed by humankind, and all of the natural mating that has occurred since sex was invented, have occurred without paying much attention to these factors....yet the results are predictable enough (at least on gross traits) that we can pretty much count on them....the vast majority of the time.



> I think that you should play the retrotransposon card more often during a debate. You can pretty much anticipate the response to that.


Well, I'm not here for a debate...I know how to debate, but I'm not arguing in order to demonstrate my "debating skills" (which is what "debate" is)....I'm discussing my (current) approach to breeding bees in the context of "survivor bees" (someone else's topic).

In any case, I actually have kept bees with minimal intervention, losing up to 90% over a winter. I actually have grafted from those survivors and put the daughters in hives with minimal intervention (some not even looked at for almost a year after making up hives and placing cells). I actually have placed 25 cells/virgins from this stock in new nucs over the last few days (1/2 are the second generation this year), and another 50 virgins went to other beekeepers in the area over the last few days. All virgins are mated in an unrelated yard. I'm not talking about a theory about how someone else should do something.

deknow


----------



## Scrapfe

*Re: "Survivor bees" or milk and honey*

Since a given queen bee seldom lives more than two years, survivability may or may not be one of those traits found in a feral hive or swarm, because swarms will readily re-colonize previously occupied cavities. Besides survivability as it is being discussed here is a trait that is much to ill defined and broad to have meaning, what are they surviving? I am perfectly aware of the concept of introducing a dominant characteristic into cattle or into honeybees that may be lacking or recessive in the present population. That is why breeds of cattle like beef master were introduced into the Southeast United States, to get more heat or Sun tolerance but not JUST heat or Sun tolerance. The same is true of traits like forage utilization or feed conversion, butterfat content, or ease of caving. This is why the Italian bee quickly replaced the German or black bee. The Italians were just more docile and productive though both German and Italian bees did, and still do sting and both still produce honey just as sweet. However, the Italians produced more of this honey and the Germans produced more stings. If you value honey over stings the choice is clear.

Sometimes other breeds of cattle are used only for the effect their genes have on the current generation and this first out cross is not continued. Using a beef bull on a herd of dairy cows to produce cattle for the feedlot is one example. Besides with sex selected AI seamen available, it is almost a fools errand for a small to medium sized dairy farmer to engage in an on farm breed improvement program. The small producer’s likely hood of producing many outstanding replacement heifers is almost nil unless he uses sex sorted AI seamen from a dairy sire with multiple tested daughters. The same is true with beekeeping unless the beekeeper can work hundreds if not thousands of hives, all pretty much located in one area. Then again how many beekeepers even weigh each hive every month little less weigh every super or frame of honey, notes the day it was completely capped, and uses this data to choose the queens they graft from? Now tell me again what your survivor bees are surviving from? It is mites, then what kind of mites? Ants, IPV, CCD, SHB, AFB, EFB, and the list goes on and on.

I discovered a long time ago that the biggest problem with small to medium breeding programs is the small number of outstanding individuals (both female and male) that the small or medium sized breeder has available to breed the next generation from. Outstanding individuals almost never produce off spring better than themselves, you are lucky if they produce young better than the breed median or average, that must be your goal. In my estimation this makes cattle breeds like Jerseys, Angus, Gurneys, Herefords, Holsteins, etc all the more remarkable since they came about from selective breeding by many farmers on a large number of small farms over a long period of time. All these breeds however came from a relatively isolated geographic area into which feral or survivor stock could not wonder haphazardly or easily be introduced. (Well my ancestors, the Highland Scotsmen did introduce a lot of other peoples’ cattle onto their lands if the legends I’ve heard are true.)  

As for bees, 99.9 + % of all queen bees are bred off premises. The lucky (?) drones are chosen by the virgin queen and not by the bees‘ keeper. This is all out of sight and out of control of the beekeeper. Only the gods know if the lucky drones are beekeeper approved. If this were not the case AHB would never have made it out of South America. In fact African bees would never have been tried because beekeepers could by themselves breed a better bee without resorting to African genes.

Since feral survivor bees are by definition prone to swarm, there goes one domestic trait humans value. Gentleness is also a trait that may or may not be present in a specific feral swarm or hive. So is hygienic behavior. Ditto that for honey production, and a quick Spring build up as well. The same is true of any number of good traits that have been introduced by human hands into our so called domestic bees. Now we are on the verge of returning millenniums of genetic improvement back into Mother Nature’s hands. The point is that when you breed from or to captured “survivor” bees you are starting from ground level and must reinvent the wagon wheel without the benefit of first seeing a horse. If you value survivor bees, breed only from the bees that survive in your hives and in your aperies and without your help, then they are the real thing. After long thought it seems more and more to me like the concept of captured bees possessing a whole collection of superior genes is right off the cow clogged streets of Calcutter. Wait a minute, it is! Good luck to you all.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> There is nothing that will energize an older wiser beek than mis information. They feel it is their responsibility to correct you or your post. The fastest way to learn is to be assertive.


So that's the rerason you Post what you do w/ the air of Authority? You don't actually mean what you Post and know it? Maybe we should all just ignore your Posts from now on?


----------



## sqkcrk

beyondthesidewalks said:


> ...petty


That may be so. I tend not to read really long Posts anyway. But, if you don't appreciate the six year difference, then what else are you glossing over or fudging?


----------



## WLC

Dean:


> In any case, I actually have kept bees with minimal intervention, losing up to 90% over a winter. I actually have grafted from those survivors and put the daughters in hives with minimal intervention (some not even looked at for almost a year after making up hives and placing cells).


Some might say that the 'Bond" method is very much at the center of the discussion: under what circumstances does the 'Bond' method make sense. That 90% loss rate (I've heard it at 95%) is at the heart of the issue.



> I actually have placed 25 cells/virgins from this stock in new nucs over the last few days (1/2 are the second generation this year), and another 50 virgins went to other beekeepers in the area over the last few days. All virgins are mated in an unrelated yard. I'm not talking about a theory about how someone else should do something.


Now we are at the heart of the Genetics. We're accustomed to VSH stock requiring Instrumental Insemination so that homozygous offspring (pairs of the genes involved in the VSH trait, one in each pair from the queen stock and one from drone stock) are produced.

From your description of how you produce resistant stock, your virgin queens are sent out to mate with drones in unrelated yards. One could argue that it's the hygienic trait that's being selected for if two 'survivor' yards are involved.

However, I'm of the opinion that it's far more likely that the survivor stock offspring produced by the mating of survivor virgin queens, and drones from the new yards are heterozygous for the 'survivor' trait.

There's one type of resistance mechanism that I'm aware of that requires only one copy of a gene to produce resistance to disease (like viruses), and that's resistance due to RNA interference. It only requires one fragment of DNA to be transcribed.

The caveat with RNAi based resistance is this, it doesn't require that the resistance fragment is in the germ line! It can be somatic. So, it can also occur by a mechanism that's more like inoculation than breeding.

The same can be said of microbial based resistance that can occur with S. marcescens in A. cerana.

We can test for VSH, however, we just can't say for sure if another mechanism is involved when survivor stock are produced by the method that you've described.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Dean, this is what you are advocating for new beekeepers, a 90% yearly loss. For what purpose but to discourage would be beekeepers from ever getting into beekeeping? If I was a new beek and lost my bees using your methods, I would give up.........OR try something different. You have the nerve to criticize my methods-IPM where we do NOT have a 90% loss but instead have healthy productive colonies??? Hey, the proof is in the honey drum, can you say that. I suggest you modify your methods and enjoy having live bees for a change with out the expense of buying or restocking all the time. You yourself in earlier post have said that there is no such thing as a survivor bee. So maybe it is time to quit looking for the "holy grail" by trying to breed what does not exist.TED


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

I have to go to work now, I have lots of live bees to keep. TK


----------



## Acebird

Ted Kretschmann said:


> I do not think that there is a hive of bees in a tree somewhere that is genetically true to what I had 39 years ago as a boy. TED


So ... would you be genetically true to your family's genes if you went back 400 years?


----------



## snapper1d

Ted Kretschmann said:


> Dean, this is what you are advocating for new beekeepers, a 90% yearly loss. For what purpose but to discourage would be beekeepers from ever getting into beekeeping? If I was a new beek and lost my bees using your methods, I would give up.........OR try something different. You have the nerve to criticize my methods-IPM where we do NOT have a 90% loss but instead have healthy productive colonies??? Hey, the proof is in the honey drum, can you say that. I suggest you modify your methods and enjoy having live bees for a change with out the expense of buying or restocking all the time. You yourself in earlier post have said that there is no such thing as a survivor bee. So maybe it is time to quit looking for the "holy grail" by trying to breed what does not exist.TED


I really do not think the man is getting a 90% loss on bees while trying to produce survivor bees.I really think that when he is seeing a colony that is having problems and would die with out intervention that he is probably requeening with a queen that is a survivor to keep from loosing that colony.That is what I do if I ever have one that starts to go down hill but the down hill are very far and in between now days.


----------



## Acebird

deknow said:


> I can assure you that I am much more helpful and offer a lot more time and attention to people that are trying to educate themselves to the best of their ability. The approach you advocate above is akin to crying constantly to get attention from mommy....you might get the "correction" you are looking for, but it's annoying to everyone involved, and all you learn is to spout more misinformation in order to get more attention.
> 
> deknow


It wasn't long ago you swore you would not comment on my post and here again you did, as a psychologist attempting to expose what I think. I see many people in this thread twisting your thoughts also. How do you like it?
I don't spout misinformation on purpose and some of it is not misinformation any more than someone else's comments having two sides. As long as you are playing the psychologist why do I need attention? Are your thoughts and ideas misinformation because someone else thinks the opposite of you?

The fastest way to learn anything is to be assertive and not be afraid of making mistakes. A newbee that is submissive does what? Pick straws on which one of the scholars are correct? You know how long that road takes? I don't have enough years left.
Over three hundred posts ago this tread started as "Survivor bees" and now it has grown into and encyclopedia on what "survivor bees" means and how to raise cattle.

Michael Bush has answered my post on several occasions, has corrected me more than once and has never insulted me. I know where the real scholar is.


----------



## valleyman

Scrapfe,
You are right on with your post 314.

Dean,
I admire those that have the stubborness to not give up, because it is people like you that may actually find genetics that work without being a large breeder. But many like you that may not have the knowledge of bee genetics that you have are just fluttering in the wind, and you may well be yourself. That is why I have to agree with Ted. I need to leave it to the big boys.

WLC,
While I appreciate your intellect and your knowledge, and I feel I could learn much from you. I, as well as many others on here wish you would put it in simpler terms. Sometimes I don't know whether I am dazzled by brilliance or baffled by bs.

Mark, 
Get Em. I'm done with thread. I won't be back. Too much arguing without getting anywhere. See you'll on another thread.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks

sqkcrk said:


> That may be so. I tend not to read really long Posts anyway. But, if you don't appreciate the six year difference, then what else are you glossing over or fudging?


Didn't fudge or gloss over anything. 2011 - 1945 is a 4 year difference not a six year difference so you've done it yourself. The pot calls the kettle black. I have a tendency to round time off in even decades when referring to historical events more than 50 year ago. I'm sorry that you cannot get past that.

I think that this thread has been reduced to a few who want to try and learn what they can and others who don't have much to offer but heckle the former. As for me, all I know is that since I've adopted this approach, I'm able to keep bees inexpensively, with increases instead of losses and most importantly to me, enjoyably. There are others who have wisely, I guess, not posted on this thread knowing that it would be reduced to this but who have also enjoyed some of the same success. This is my last post on this thread because I don't think we're getting anywhere. If you would like to discuss any of this with me feel free to PM. No matter where you stand on this thread, may your bees fly and be fruitfull.


----------



## beeG

HarryVanderpool said:


> Have you heard about the work of Dr. Debbie Delaney?
> She is part of of a research project that is mapping and testing the DNA of bee trees.
> I spoke with her last year and she said that she is noticing a growing number of bee trees that seem to be doing better than in past years.
> Here are a couple of short blurbs about her and her work:
> 
> http://www.savethehives.com/fbp/Research.html
> 
> http://www.savethehives.com/fbp/


 Thank you moderator for those links. I now see that my interest in survivor bees was premature. I see the scientist have the situation under control. And that my further posting on this thread. Is non productive. Being that until it is proven who, what ,and why the feral population is. That it is not a venture based on any exacts. And is not a venture for a newbee of any kind... The bee issues in Puerto Rico should be a prime example of what happens when large races are hybridized into one group. As a newbee I have learned so far. That in this bee industry the larger older companies seem to be more of what I am looking for. Which will work better with my goals of keeping bees. Until I learn more. I will be staying away from the experimental new crowd when buying stock for my apiary. I really appreciate this forum and I will be paying more attention to the threads that are about certain races produced by proven producers. I no longer have the desire to try the feral survivor type combos of any kind.


----------



## WLC

Valleyman:

All that I'm saying is that working with survivor bees might not be a matter of breeding as many understand it. 

It could be that bacteria or molecular parasites are the source of resistance from Dean's description of the process that he's using. That's not breeding or classical genetics.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Snapper, I sure hope you are right about Dean not actually loosing 90% of his bees using his methodology for beekeeping. If he is, then a whole lot of bright eyed and bushy tailed new beekeepers have been boondoogled and led down a dead end trail to a cliff. Time honored methods of beekeeping work, backed by years of effort. I hope new beekeepers will weigh the evidence and make an educated choice on how to keep their bees productive and alive. In the end that is all that really matters. TED


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Something for Ace to get a chuckle out of.....400 years ago, alot of my ancestors were running around the hills of north Georgia and the Mountains of North Carolina. They were wondering why your ancestors, Ace, and the other half of my family tree, were bring them lousy glass beads in trade for their beaver pelts and deer skins. TED


----------



## snapper1d

Ted Kretschmann said:


> Snapper, I sure hope you are right about Dean not actually loosing 90% of his bees using his methodology for beekeeping. If he is, then a whole lot of bright eyed and bushy tailed new beekeepers have been boondoogled and led down a dead end trail to a cliff. Time honored methods of beekeeping work, backed by years of effort. I hope new beekeepers will weigh the evidence and make an educated choice on how to keep their bees productive and alive. In the end that is all that really matters. TED


That right Ted,I think I have survivors and I chose my best every year for next years queens.If you have trouble with one requeen and save all your bees and if there is a problem dont be afraid to treat if needed.I believe in survivors but I am not an advocate of letting any die and I feel if a person wants to treat go ahead and do it.I dont need to with the bees I have but like I said if I have the need to I will treat.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

I have all the respect in the world for you, Snapper, because you will do what it takes to keep them flying and alive. Even if that includes treating in emergency. That is a true beekeeper. TED


----------

