# Breeding the good mite



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Jumping off from David LaFerney's how long does it take thread; A standard technigue to go treatment free would requeen failing hives with the daughters of hives that are succeeding. If you accept that part of successful TF requires an adapted mite as well as an adapted bee several possiblities open up. Rather than spreading just the queens genes then the mites genes should be spread as well. Should drone frames be taken from successful TF hives and used to innoculate failing hives? I will not comment on methods of removing the resident mites. Even if you go Bond, shouldn't the dying hive be doing the least contamination with viralent mites as possible?

If you can't find a local TF queen, is a TF drone frame available?

Buy a TF nuc? Do you consider the hitchhiking mites may be as valuable as the queen? 

Anyone have feedback on their efforts to breed a good mite?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Saltybee said:


> Jumping off from David LaFerney's how long does it take thread; A standard technigue to go treatment free would requeen failing hives with the daughters of hives that are succeeding. If you accept that part of successful TF requires an adapted mite as well as an adapted bee several possiblities open up. Rather than spreading just the queens genes then the mites genes should be spread as well.


I agree the mites should be considered as partners of a co-evolving pair. But I don't think its our business to help out - to do so will just breed bees that need us to help out. The bees must manage their own mites, and in my own understanding that's just what happens in uncapping behaviour. Bees leave less fecund females and their young alone - presumably because they can't detect them - while uncapping and killing more fecund females and their offspring. This is effectively breeding less fecund mites - mites that are unable to build large populations rapidly. 

Other behaviours and perhaps specialised chemical/hormonal defences also mess with the ability of mites to reproduce. 

We must remember - this is an ongoing 'arms race'. Anything we do to 'help' will simply make the bees more dependent on our help. That's the opposite of what is wanted.

Countryman's Rule #1: Never help a wild animal. Honeybees, because they mate openly, come under that rule. To help the individual is to sabatage the population. 

The best thing to do is increase the rapidity of turnover in the host population, giving more chances of effective genetic responses to come out; and to mimic the natural selection process to promote the best ones. Leave the rest to the bees. Meddling will be counterproductive.

(A possible noteworthy exception: John Kefus' approach of loading up hives with the worst mites he could find, to rapidly sort the strong mite-managers from the rest.)

Mike (UK)


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

My mite breeding efforts seem to be going great!


----------



## jdmidwest (Jul 9, 2012)

Anyone have a good recipe for ticks? We need more of them too.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> I agree the mites should be considered as partners of a co-evolving pair. But I don't think its our business to help out - to do so will just breed bees that need us to help out. The bees must manage their own mites, and in my own understanding that's just what happens in uncapping behaviour. Bees leave less fecund females and their young alone - presumably because they can't detect them - while uncapping and killing more fecund females and their offspring. This is effectively breeding less fecund mites - mites that are unable to build large populations rapidly.
> 
> Other behaviours and perhaps specialised chemical/hormonal defences also mess with the ability of mites to reproduce.
> 
> ...


I agree. Mating new queens with heavily infested dronehives is one of the secrets. Beekeepers should not help bees in any ways. Speeding up evolution is acceptable. 

Mites reproduction is relying in inbreeding (mating in the cell with own sons). There is much less evolution going on than with bees. Breeding mites is not efficient.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Juhani Lunden said:


> Mating new queens with heavily infested dronehives is one of the secrets.


I'm not sure I understand what you intend here Juhani - could you perhaps elaborate a bit?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you intend here Juhani - could you perhaps elaborate a bit?
> 
> Mike (UK)


Drones are haploid (only one set of chromosomes) and that´s why all weaker genes show immediately as poor performance. The strongest flyers are the best in generall fitness too. If queens are inseminated, this selection never takes place. When, however, one runs a mating yard and takes there heavily infested dronehives, natures selection takes place. Those drones, which attract mites most, never even hatch. Those drones, which are weakened by mites don´t fly fast enough to catch the queen. The beekeeper get lots of troubles with dronelayers in the years to come, but that can be helped by increasing the number of dronehives in the mating yard.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The generation time of mites is 5 days between single females and males with thousands of selections in each generation in every hive. 

The generation time of bees is 6 months to 3 years with a "randomization" scheme due to multiple fathers yielding a F1 that may bear little relation to the "selected" character of the hive.

In a co-evolution scenario, all the inertia belongs to the mite due to the generation time advantage. The assumption is that "Bond" selection will breed a hypo-virulent mite driven by bee colony survival. 

A mites primary mode of dispersal is the robbing of collapsed hives. This dispersal mechanism means that mites that successfully kill off hives are the founders of successor lineages. This impact counterweights and exceeds the drivers of the hypo-virulent trend in the current environment.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Oops, I posted in the wrong thread.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> The generation time of mites is 5 days between single females and males with thousands of selections in each generation in every hive.


When the female mite produces its male mates, the same genes go round and round, there is not much to select. The only evolution happens by mutations, most of them are harmful.

I remember reading a study of the low genetic variation of mites.
maybe this: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/11/602
or this: http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2000/02/m0206/m0206.html

In practice, my Bond testing has resulted in a situation where I have up to 5% infestation but no visible symtoms of viruses. In the beginning of my project, wingless bees were a serious problem.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

A beekeepers interference in the balance of an imported domesticated insect, with an imported parasite, in an artificial house, in an unnatural concentration, is bad. I keep forgetting that.

Bees have different traits, all mites are the same. Got it.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Saltybee said:


> A beekeepers interference in the balance of an imported domesticated insect, with an imported parasite, in an artificial house, in an unnatural concentration, is bad.



Virtually all of the _beekeepers _[forefathers] were imported also! :lookout:


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Saltybee said:


> A beekeepers interference in the balance of an imported domesticated insect, with an imported parasite, in an artificial house, in an unnatural concentration, is bad. I keep forgetting that.


Just bear in mind: populations adapt. In whatever ways you help, they will come to rely on you for that help. I don't know how many times that needs saying.



Saltybee said:


> Bees have different traits, all mites are the same. Got it.


Where did you get that from?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Juhani Lunden said:


> Drones are haploid (only one set of chromosomes) and that´s why all weaker genes show immediately as poor performance. The strongest flyers are the best in generall fitness too. If queens are inseminated, this selection never takes place.


I'm still not making sense of this. As I understand it: all drones from the same hive carry the same genes. Some will be stronger than others (as a result of better feeding, better temperature control) but actually it doesn't matter all that much which of them does the mating - they'll pass on an identical gene package, though a larger one may pass on a larger package I guess. 

I can't see mites choosing individual drone cells to inhabit (some being more attractive than others). There's little difference between them, and in any case, there would be no differential outcome - there's no selection mechanism for genetic outcome here. There would, in theory, be an outcome for the mites - better drone cell selection would give better reproductive outcomes... is that what your driving at? Is there any documented evidence of a mechanism of this sort?



Juhani Lunden said:


> When, however, one runs a mating yard and takes there heavily infested dronehives, natures selection takes place. Those drones, which attract mites most, never even hatch. Those drones, which are weakened by mites don´t fly fast enough to catch the queen.


I can't think of any circumstances in which I'd want to do that. I don't want any mite-vulnerable bloodlines in my apiary at all, and I'm certainly not going to start importing them - at least not with this rationale. 



Juhani Lunden said:


> The beekeeper get lots of troubles with dronelayers in the years to come, but that can be helped by increasing the number of dronehives in the mating yard


I think you should think this all through again, and next time you post make clear that this is your own speculation. I think its nonsense from beginning to end. But feel free to try to convince me otherwise. You might be onto something, and it doesn't hurt to explore ideas. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> Just bear in mind: populations adapt. In whatever ways you help, they will come to rely on you for that help. I don't know how many times that needs saying.
> Mike (UK)


Not sure if "rely on you" is exactly what happens. Now a population may rely on your influence to maintain a certain characteristic as dominant. Allow your influence to disappear for a generation (or a breeding cycle for a time or three) and you can see that influence go directly out the door. Adaptation does not generally happen that quickly even in fruit flies. 

Sometimes species can adapt quickly to outside influences and sometimes it is a long haul for that to occur. But if you want specific traits quickly line breeding is the way to go part way there. Or at least a closed breeding program (you know the drone source as well as queen) or have a island with no feral bees. I would be willing to bet that the Russians bees took a long time to develop the mite resistant characteristics they have. But I would also bet that if you treated Russians with chemicals to "help" control mites they would not lose those traits quickly. 

And while all drones from a queen may (or may not, I have not a clue) the same genetic package, I was just reading here this weekend that up to 60% or so of the drones in a hive can be from other hives. So there is another source of transferring in a different mite genome. While genetic diversity for mites might be low, the influence of one minor gene alteration can be major. Sickle cell is a prime example. Promotes short term adult survival in central Africa.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

marshmasterpat said:


> And while all drones from a queen may (or may not, I have not a clue) the same genetic package,


Absolutely Not. Queens (like any reproducing organism) produce haploid cells by meiosis. In Meiosis chromosomes pairs and their resident genes are thoroughly mixed, so on average each haploid (unfertilized) egg has 1/2 the grandmothers gene and 1/2 the grandfather's gene. The cells are first divided into 2 diploid daughter cells with crossed over (mixed chromosones). The daughter cells divide into 2 haploid cells (total of four from one queen cell). Each of the 4 haploid cells are different, they must be because their genetic source only had one copy of the blended chromosones that created the haploids.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> I'm still not making sense of this. As I understand it: all drones from the same hive carry the same genes. Some will be stronger than others (as a result of better feeding, better temperature control) but actually it doesn't matter all that much which of them does the mating - they'll pass on an identical gene package, though a larger one may pass on a larger package I guess.
> 
> I can't see mites choosing individual drone cells to inhabit (some being more attractive than others). There's little difference between them, and in any case, there would be no differential outcome - there's no selection mechanism for genetic outcome here. There would, in theory, be an outcome for the mites - better drone cell selection would give better reproductive outcomes... is that what your driving at? Is there any documented evidence of a mechanism of this sort?
> 
> ...


To start with, all drones are not equal. One single drone has sperm cells, which all are the same, but one hive has lots of genetically different drones. 
Learn the basics first, Mike.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> Absolutely Not. Queens (like any reproducing organism) produce haploid cells by meiosis. In Meiosis chromosomes pairs and their resident genes are thoroughly mixed, so on average each haploid (unfertilized) egg has 1/2 the grandmothers gene and 1/2 the grandfather's gene. The cells are first divided into 2 diploid daughter cells with crossed over (mixed chromosones). The daughter cells divide into 2 haploid cells (total of four from one queen cell). Each of the 4 haploid cells are different, they must be because their genetic source only had one copy of the blended chromosones that created the haploids.


Can you give us a source for that position JW? 

Mike


----------



## jfb58 (Sep 10, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> Can you give us a source for that position JW?
> 
> Mike


Start with Wikipedia.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> I think its nonsense from beginning to end.



Seems the _nonsense _might not be where you think it is ...

:gh:


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jfb58 said:


> Start with Wikipedia.


Yes, found it. I'd still like a more detailed source. Its a question I've asked several times, and always recieved the same reply: the drones are identical (even that's what 'drone' means'). 

Please note (esp. Radar, who seems to have given up all pretense of being 'an impartial archivist' now) I took care to write: "*As I understand it*: all drones from the same hive carry the same genes." 

I get it: it is the sperm of each drone that are identical.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Juhani Lunden said:


> To start with, all drones are not equal. One single drone has sperm cells, which all are the same, but one hive has lots of genetically different drones. Learn the basics first, Mike.


That's probably good advice; but I have to ask: which is more basic: evolutionary biology, or molecular/genetic biology? 

Darwin made the great discovery that natural selection is the causal mechanism underlying population change and species diversity. It holds perfectly well today. The breeders he spoke with knew very well how to maintain health and bring out desirable traits through selective parantage. Neither knew anything about genes. 

I think that as a beekeeper its more useful to understand natural selection/simple breeding principles, than it is to know all the details of genetic interactions. I think knowledge of natural selection is more basic. And I always tried to stay as close to basics as possible - because I believe this stuff is easily understandable to anyone who wants to take a look, and the same isn't so true of molecular biology. 

However: I'm here to learn; and I'm interested now to get to grip with how this understanding affects my way of thinking, and how it operates within your ideas Julian. Once I've had a little while to take a fresh look I'll be back for some more chat.

Meanwhile, thanks for opening up a new layer for me.

Mike (UK) 



.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> Please note (esp. Radar, who seems to have given up all pretense of being 'an impartial archivist' now) I took care to write: "*As I understand it*: all drones from the same hive carry the same genes."


I have no issue with you,(or anyone else) using the phrase "as I understand it". In fact, I also use that phrase.

But when you call other people's posts "_nonsense_", :no: that gets my dander up! 

As far as my being "impartial", wherever did you get that idea? :scratch: It certainly did not come from me, nor, as far as I can tell from _Barry_. I have opinions, just like everyone else posting on this board. I will continue to express my opinions as I see fit.

:gh:

(So there is no misunderstanding, there is a _title _under my member name, but it is _only _a title. I am _not _a moderator, I have no more authority, rights or responsibilities than any other Beesource member. I have never discussed with _Barry _anything regarding that title, other than our respective comments in this thread:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...me-pieces-interchangeable&p=903722#post903722 )


----------



## jfb58 (Sep 10, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> Yes, found it. I'd still like a more detailed source. Its a question I've asked several times, and always recieved the same reply: the drones are identical (even that's what 'drone' means').
> 
> Please note (esp. Radar, who seems to have given up all pretense of being 'an impartial archivist' now) I took care to write: "*As I understand it*: all drones from the same hive carry the same genes."
> 
> ...


You don't seem to really get it, as others, especially JWChestnut explained, there is tremendous genetic variability from a single queen. Honeybee queens have 16 pairs of chromosomes so there are thousands and thousands of genetically distinct drones possible, even in the same hive! The term 'drone' when applied to bees is not the same as in the 'Star Wars' sense.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

From post #8 reference 1; " At the phenotypic level, there is known variation among Varroa haplotype groups and species in their ability to successfully parasitize A. mellifera [16,17], as well as known variation in the resistance of honey bee strains [14,15,54,55]."

While I do not doupt that colapse is a primary mode of dispersal, I find it illogical that it is the sole dispersal mode. A mite line that does not kill, but survives for a longer time has the potential to distribute an equal # of genes at a slower rate through drift.

Isolation and reduced drift has to be a significant survival benefit for ferals. ( And aan inverse factor for commercials)

Question; How common is mite drift through adult drones?


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

A study in Italy showed mite invasion of 2 to 14 per day into a colony during summer, with a peak of 76 mites per day during the fall. I think the methods of invasion was due to drone drift, robber bees returning with mites, and bees from crashing colonies drifting to strong colonies.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

There seems to be a lot of skating around the issues here (wrt the OP).

Varroa reproduction is very different from bee reproduction...varroa populations tend to be inbred to the point of being almost monoclonal....very little genetic diversity within a local population of mites.

_If_ you have a situation where you have achieved some kind of "balance" between the bees and the mites, and _if_ you believe that the genetic traits of that population of mites is part of the reason, there is one "worst" thing you can do to that balance...

...which is to introduce a separate population of mites, as this will allow for selection/recombination (outmating)..which is how adaptations occur.

The goal is to have the bees adapt faster than the mites (even if it seems like it is "balance" we are after), not to help the mites adapt faster.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...let me add that we have brought a few "treatment free nucs" in a few years ago...in the middle of our home yard with haves that were not collapsing, these two nucs collapsed dramatically (the capped brood looked like someone had run 220 sandpaper over it from all the uncapping due to mites).

deknow


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

deknow said:


> There seems to be a lot of skating around the issues here (wrt the OP).
> 
> Varroa reproduction is very different from bee reproduction...varroa populations tend to be inbred to the point of being almost monoclonal....very little genetic diversity within a local population of mites.
> 
> ...


I agree completely. Beekeepers that are able to keep mite numbers low enough to be constantly inbreeding are bound to be raising mites with less and less virility. It stands to reason that drift and robbing events in more congested bee yards can bee a boon to varroa. I think It explains the challenges that larger operations have with mite collapse while some are able to keep smaller numbers of hives treatment free.


----------



## jfb58 (Sep 10, 2013)

deknow said:


> ...let me add that we have brought a few "treatment free nucs" in a few years ago...in the middle of our home yard with haves that were not collapsing, these two nucs collapsed dramatically (the capped brood looked like someone had run 220 sandpaper over it from all the uncapping due to mites).
> 
> deknow


Had the home yard been treated? Did you treat the added nucs? I'm not sure this would be evidence of interbreeding of the mites from the two populations, but it might mean that treatment, _by some mechanism_, leads to more virulent varroa.


----------



## jfb58 (Sep 10, 2013)

dbl post


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Nothing was treated. The observation doesn't necessarily indicate anything specific, except a common anecdotal experience where bees that are doing fine untreated collapse when moved. The outmating of mites has often been suggested by others as a possible mechanism.

deknow


----------



## jfb58 (Sep 10, 2013)

Thanks for the clarification, didn't mean to be difficult. My intuitive prejudice is to relate the varroa problem to microbial antibiotic resistance...


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

deknow, interesting, I'll have to think about that. Concept would be supported by breeding only from your own survivors. Catching swarms and buying packages would be similar to nucs.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> As far as my being "impartial", wherever did you get that idea? :scratch: It certainly did not come from me, nor, as far as I can tell from _Barry_. I have opinions, just like everyone else posting on this board. I will continue to express my opinions as I see fit.


Why have 'resident archivist' under your name unless you want to give the impression that's what you are? And I'm pretty sure I've seen you use that notion to claim impartiality, along the lines: 'I'm just an archivist' as you bring up something somebody said some other time that appears inconsistent with something they've just said.

There's nothing wrong with doing that - people should be consistent or held to account. And official or not, I've no problem with you playing the role of self-appointed (and self-policed) archivist. But as I've had occasion to point out before: archivists are scrupulously impartial. They don't take sides, and find only inconsistencies in one side of an argument - as you apprear to (try to) find inconsistencies in only the tf arguments. If you're going to pretend to be an archivist, do it properly Graham. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

deknow said:


> ...let me add that we have brought a few "treatment free nucs" in a few years ago...in the middle of our home yard with haves that were not collapsing, these two nucs collapsed dramatically (the capped brood looked like someone had run 220 sandpaper over it from all the uncapping due to mites).


What is your diagnosis of what happened Dean? The collapsing new hives were not able to withstand something about your own mites, which your own bees are able to stand? Yet they were strongly vsh - as evidenced by the uncapping; and had recieved a large dose of mites from robbers/visiting drones? And/or, their mites and yours had created a hybrid strain that was highly fecund, despite both original strains being of low fecundity?

It may well be that the two sets of bees had utilysed different mite-managment mechanisms - nothing to do with different mite strains - or that they had mite strains of different characteristics due to those different mite-management methods.

What ever the case, it seems the story is: sooner or later your bees may meet with mites from outside that will upset the balance - it might have been your own been that reacted badly. 

A strong argument against importation?

And a strong argument against Julian's recomendation that mite-vulnerable drones are bought in to bring about some sort of genetic reshuffling that will have a positive effect? (A rationale I still fail to grasp.)

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> And a strong argument against *Julian*'s recomendation that mite-vulnerable drones are bought in to bring about some sort of genetic reshuffling that will have a positive effect? (A rationale I still fail to grasp.)
> Mike (UK)


If you mean me(Juhani, not Julian), I just want to correct. You wrote about Kefuss loading his hives with mites. I agreed and continued: " Mating new queens with heavily infested dronehives is one of the secrets." I never wrote about mite-vulnerable drones. 

All my hives have up to 5% infestation. Even when they only have 1% (some have very few, I only check the breeders) that is much more than usually accepted. Thus my dronehives can be called heavily infested. But they are, of course, the best hives I have at the moment and usually they are about 5-6 boxes high in mid summer.

The secret is the difference between haploid and diploid animals. When a diploid animal (worker bee or queen) has a bad gene, there is always the possibility, that it is not seen in its appearance. In this circumstance the breeder can make a wrong selection/choice of a breeder. The bad gene is carried to next generation. But when a drone has a bad gene, he is immediately out of business, because he has not the other set of chromosomes, where there could be a good gene to dominate the bad one. Breeding work is making more progress and faster.

But remember: I have done Varroa resistance breeding only 12 years, all the time with one or two isolation apiaries 30 km in the wilderness for the queens to mate, I have exported my queens to only 8 countries in only two continents, I have only one leading European breeder saying that a breeder of mine "does not need any Varroa treatment", my Internet page is not the first one when searched by Google with "Varroa resistance" and so on. My opinions are only speculations. I´m seeking the truth, though.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Juhani Lunden said:


> If you mean me(Juhani, not Julian), I just want to correct. You wrote about Kefuss loading his hives with mites. I agreed and continued: " Mating new queens with heavily infested dronehives is one of the secrets." I never wrote about mite-vulnerable drones.


Thanks Juhani (sorry about the name mistake)

I'm still puzzled, and I'll try to make clear why in responses to your post:



Juhani Lunden said:


> All my hives have up to 5% infestation. Even when they only have 1% (some have very few, I only check the breeders) that is much more than usually accepted. Thus my dronehives can be called heavily infested. But they are, of course, the best hives I have at the moment and usually they are about 5-6 boxes high in mid summer.


Ok



Juhani Lunden said:


> The secret is the difference between haploid and diploid animals. When a diploid animal (worker bee or queen) has a bad gene, there is always the possibility, that it is not seen in its appearance. In this circumstance the breeder can make a wrong selection/choice of a breeder. The bad gene is carried to next generation.


Granted



Juhani Lunden said:


> But when a drone has a bad gene, he is immediately out of business, because he has not the other set of chromosomes, where there could be a good gene to dominate the bad one.


Yes, but, first, quibbles, and then I'll try to show why I can't agree with the reasoning you build on this.

For any loci/gene a drone will have one of the two his mother possessed. We'll assume she has at least one of any particular 'good' gene; though we'd hope she had two.

If the former there'll be a 50% chance that the drone will carry it (raised by the number of drone fathers that inseminated here - but we can ignore that for the sake of example - let's say no drone fathers carried the desired gene.)

So in our example our queen will produce 50% offspring carrying the desired gene. That may be enough to suppy the particular behaviour needed, and her colony may thrive. But 50% of her drones won't have it, and that is less than desirable.

Now it seems to me that your argument was that this situation is better than one where all drones carried the 'good' gene, because... somehow that helps with the mite side of co-evolution. You first said:



Juhani Lunden said:


> Mating new queens with heavily infested dronehives is one of the secrets.


and when I asked for clarification, you said:



Juhani Lunden said:


> Drones are haploid (only one set of chromosomes) and that´s why all weaker genes show immediately as poor performance. The strongest flyers are the best in generall fitness too. If queens are inseminated, this selection never takes place. When, however, one runs a mating yard and takes there heavily infested dronehives, natures selection takes place. Those drones, which attract mites most, never even hatch. Those drones, which are weakened by mites don´t fly fast enough to catch the queen. The beekeeper get lots of troubles with dronelayers in the years to come, but that can be helped by increasing the number of dronehives in the mating yard.


Lets take that a bit at a time. (I've taken out the bits about artificial insemination, because, as I understand you, they make a different point)



Juhani Lunden said:


> Drones are haploid (only one set of chromosomes) and that´s why all weaker genes show immediately as poor performance. The strongest flyers are the best in generall fitness too.


Yes, I follow that; although the drone might carry very desirable genes in a package that is otherwise weak. But ok... in general we want the good vitality in our drones (as well as specific mite-management alleles)



Juhani Lunden said:


> When, however, one runs a mating yard and takes there heavily infested dronehives, natures selection takes place.


First, and foremost; surely a heavily infested dronehive shows lack of mite-management genes. That's what we don't want. (I'm partly retracting this because you have said: these are [among] your best hives) 

I suppose deliberate dronehives might well be more infested in general terms than hives with a natural drone/worker balance, as varroa will thrive within the favoured environment of large cells. But we'd pick our drone colonies from our best mite-managers. (Again, as you've said) 



Juhani Lunden said:


> Those drones, which attract mites most, never even hatch. Breeding work is making more progress and faster.


Now you're talking about the environment within a single dronehive. And you are asserting that some drones for some reason attract mites, and that its a good thing to get rid of these. Well, that seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure that it'll stand up. 

First, is there any evidence at all that some drone larvre are more attractive to mites than others? 

Second, is there any evidence that that attraction correlates with a particular undesirable feather, like general weakness or lack of mite-management traits? (General weakness would be winnowed in the competitive mating flight anyway)

Lastly (on this point), I thought we were talking about the selection of mites - in order to breed the least harmful sort. That's what the topic is. But we're talking about the mites 'de-selecting' the drones. I think I got confused there, and that's when it seemed like nonsense - apologies.



Juhani Lunden said:


> Those drones, which are weakened by mites don´t fly fast enough to catch the queen.


I get that bit



Juhani Lunden said:


> The beekeeper get lots of troubles with dronelayers in the years to come, but that can be helped by increasing the number of dronehives in the mating yard.


This then is a drawback to the scheme? Why should this be so? And (granted for a moment that it is so), do the benefits outweigh this drawback?

To your point that you were agreeing with me about John Kefus loading hives with varroa: I think he did this simply to apply pressure that would sort the really good mite manages from the only so-so mite managers quickly. It would knock out the less capable, leaving only the most capable in short order. I don't think he was following any deeper sort of rational.



Juhani Lunden said:


> My opinions are only speculations. I´m seeking the truth, though.


Me too, and talking with you is helping, thank you.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> Why have 'resident *archivist*' under your name unless you want to give the impression that's what you are?


Mike, I'm surprised that I have to remind you that "Reading is Fundamental!" :lpf: 

The title doesn't say "archivist"! :no:
"Archivist" is essentially a _custodian _of data, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivist  inch: I have no more access to Beesource data than any other member, including you!


If you read my earlier comment, I said I didn't ask for a title, I didn't select the words, I merely consented to Barry's question.

I'm not a moderator, and have no intention of following any policies that *YOU *think are appropriate. PM your comments to _Barry _if you are unhappy with the way he runs Beesource. If you want to be a forum _administrator_, why don't you establish a forum at your own site? 

:ws:

:gh:


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Mike, I'm surprised that I have to remind you that "Reading is Fundamental!"


I didn't chase it down. I'm not interested in the history.



Rader Sidetrack said:


> The title doesn't say "archivist"!


Fair do's, clumsy reading on my part. It means the same thing in Americanese though doesn't it? (With apologies to all other Americans)



Rader Sidetrack said:


> If you read my earlier comment, I said I didn't ask for a title, I didn't select the words, I merely consented to Barry's question.


Again, not interesting. You have 'Resident Archiver' under your appellation. That creates an impression. 



Rader Sidetrack said:


> PM your comments to _Barry _if you are unhappy with the way he runs Beesource.


I'm not. I just want to take every opportunity to demonstrate the concealed partiality of those who repeatedly unsettle tf discussions at the tf forum. 



Rader Sidetrack said:


> If you want to be a forum _administrator_, why don't you establish a forum at your own site?


Not happening Radar Sidetrack. You'll have to learn to live with someone who's got you figured.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> You'll have to learn to live with someone who's got you figured.

Time will tell on that score! :lpf::lookout:


:gh:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> I just want to take every opportunity to demonstrate the concealed partiality of those who repeatedly unsettle tf discussions at the tf forum.


Note that this little tête-à-tête got started when Mike's response to a perfectly reasonable post by _Juhani Lunden_ was this:



mike bispham said:


> I think you should think this all through again, and next time you post make clear that this is your own speculation._* I think its nonsense from beginning to end. *_


Apparently Mike feels that him calling the post by _Juhani Lunden_ "*nonsense*" does not "unsettle" discussion!


:gh:


(click the blue arrow in the quote box to see the original post/thread)


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Radar, you can cut me up short anytime you feel I need it. I'll survive. Just keep up the helpful links.

I generally get more out of a conversation than a debate.

This post was started mostly to clarify my own thoughts in progress that it cannot be as simple as focusing on just the bee. If it headed off into a biology lesson so be it. This is beesource and I would expect nothing else.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

_Saltybee_, if you are referring to posts 11-12, I was attempting to add to the string of "imported" items in your post in what I _thought _was a humorous way. :lookout: There was no message beyond that, but I can see how my comment might be misinterpreted, or perhaps more likely, my sense of humor is somewhat _twisted, _to use a polite term.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Not at all! You have not offended me at all. Few people can. It is a waste of time. Not your sense of humor, usually it is mine that is the problem. I was not referring to any specific post at all. If you ever hooked my ego, you wouldn't be wondering if that is what I meant. 
Sometimes everybody has to disagree with a post. I was good with Mike's posts as well. Highjacked by neither of you.
My point, if you ask for or give opinons, expect a response. Do not sweat the result.
Very clumsily said by me. Still is. My apologies.


----------

