# Pesticide Talk



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Whats "biological" about "no treatment"???


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

I guess it is how you interpret the title
of the section. I have understood it to 
include beekeeping which would use thymol
and stuff like Certan, FGMO, etc.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

It doses't fit in with the discription at the front link.

Theres NO Yin or Yang in treating bees.









"Discussion of information and application concerning the keeping of bees and production of honey using biological methodology. We seek to understand how the bees operate biologically and then formulate management methods that cooperate, as much as possible, with the bees biology. The Yin Yang of Beekeeping."


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

I hear you....... If it upsets any one I 
have no problem eliminating discussion on
biologically based pesticides and natural
mite treatment.

All beekeeping has at least some level of
manipulation of bee's behavior beyond their
natural behavior. One could interpret the
use of boxes, frames, foundation, etc as
not being "biological". No me though.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

----->
One could interpret the
use of boxes, frames, foundation, etc as
not being "biological". 
----->

The definition is really not the issue here.

I wonder somtimes that if you have about pesticide, why wouldn't a person want to place it where those that have used pesticides are likley to be hanging out?


These three topics below:

Varroa Mites & Essential Oils 
Bt Aizawai (Certan/B401) 
Para-moth crystals for super storage 

Would probably get a better response in 'bee forum' 'Beekeeping 101' or 'disease and pests' where there is much more traffic and the topic better suited. This should be obvious.

[ August 23, 2006, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

It's a perception problem. What's in a name, anyways? A lot, apparently









Ideally, if this forum is for beekeeping without any treatments, it should have been called "Treatment-Free Beekeeping". The same problem arises from time to time on the Organic Beekeeper's mailing list- people sign up expecting (understandably) to find discussions about essential oils and powdered sugar only to find that their understanding of the term "organic" and the list owner's undestanding of that same term are quite different.

The premise of this forum may be spelled out in the description, but that description is pretty vague in my opinion. For example, what does "biological methodology" mean? What's a cooperative management method?


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Exactly George, you put it better. I 
myself to be a "biological" beekeep
because I use only natural methods
to control mites. Someone else may
not consider me that but...... to
each their own.

I agree with you as well Joe, perhaps
paramoth would be better put in Diesease
and Pests. But heck, most every sub
forum diverges wildly.

I am guilty of starting the Bt thread
and will argue until blue in the face
that it certainly falls under the 
Biological Beekeeping headline.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

I know my education is small, but I always thought anything organic was biological. Anything inorganic was not biological. I think if you used snake venom for killing mites, it would be biological. It is an organic compound. Anything made from living, or once living, matter, is biological.I have always been taught that any germ warfare was known as biological warfare. Is it not?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Exactly George, you put it better.

Well, this is a classic and common problem caused by the use of language that is vague, unclear, and imprecise. The bigger and more sophisticated the words are (or sound) when strung together, the worse it gets. Intentional or otherwise, it's obfuscation, plain and simple. Just say it already, and leave out the doublespeak!

"Treatment-Free Beekeeping" gets it done. What do Yin and Yang have to do with it? Were they beekeepers?


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Iddee, that's my thoughts.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Look!!! I'm blue in the face!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

----->
I am guilty of starting the Bt thread
and will argue until blue in the face
that it certainly falls under the 
Biological Beekeeping headline.
----->


No need to turn blue Sundance, I agree 100%! 

But the group description should be changed to say 

Biological Beekeeping - using biological pesticides to control bee diseases and pests.

I apologize, I was mistaken about this being a treatment free forum.

There ARE no "treatment free" discussion forums on Beesource!


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

There is no treatment free beekeeping. The moment you remove them from a treelimb and give them shelter, you are treating them.
The only question here is at what stages do you change the name of the treatments.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I think Iddee hit the nail on the head. The real question here is when you change the names of these things. I'm sure some of you will think I'm just playing devil's advocate again. I'd really like to know where you guys draw the line on chemical treatments that are "organic" and chemical treatments that are not.

Let me give an example: thymol gets mentioned a lot as an "organic" treatment, presumably because thymol is produced naturally. What about pyrethrin? Pyrethrin is an insecticide naturally produced by some plants. Would pyrethrin be an "organic" treatment?

Now, let's go a step further: as humans, we can create synthetic chemicals virtually identical to pyrethrin. We call them "pyrethroids." These chemicals are probably much more similar to a chemical that might naturally be found in beehives (pyrethrin) than FGMO is to any chemical that would naturally be found in a beehive. Where do you draw the line? (By the way, I realize you wouldn't want to spray hives with pyrethroids; I was simply using it as an example of how some of the synthetic chemicals aren't all that different from some natural chemicals.)

Last issue along the same line: why should we worry about putting Bt toxins in corn if we're not concerned about spraying our hives with Bt toxins? What's the difference?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<I apologize, I was mistaken about this being a treatment free forum.

There ARE no "treatment free" discussion forums on Beesource!>>

Sorry I haven't been on top of these discussions in this forum as maybe I should have been.
My intention for this forum is a place for those who's focus is away from treatments and towards methods that achieve sustainable hives using any and all other methods. I think the forum users should be able to set the bar for appropriate discussion. I don't mind discussion of drugs and chemicals IF it is done in a way that is focused on getting off them, not how do I use them. There is a fine line here that requires some grace on both sides. Perhaps some of the current discussion would be better in a different forum. Let's be sensitive to the other forum users and use discretion. I know this tension comes up in the FGMO forum. It's not taken kindly when negative comments are posted, but there again, both views have a place if done in a well meaning way.

Maybe there isn't a place on Beesource for 100 percent "treatment free" discussion, but I would like this forum to be as close as possible to that. It's really a mindset of how you approach beekeeping.

The last five years I've been keeping bees without putting anything into the hives. I do very little management and just took honey off the hives last week. I know there is another way to keep bees without going the chemical/drug treatment route.

Regards,
Barry


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Iddee,

Your mistaken Iddee, a treatment is a remedie for an illness, NOT a shelter.

Here is the defination of treatment:

"Administration or application of remedies to a patient or for a disease or injury; medicinal or surgical management; therapy.
The substance or remedy so applied."


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

My dictionary says,..."management; manipulation:
Good or bad behavior toward"
Maybe your dictionary isn't quite complete, or you just didn't transfer the whole definition.

PS..If you keep picking on me, I won't think your TREATMENT of me is very nice.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Maybe there isn't a place on Beesource for 100 percent "treatment free" discussion, but I would like this forum to be as close as possible to that.

I'll go along with that Barry and that was my understanding of the intent of the forum in the first place, in spite of my protestations about the "vague" description







It's a stretch even for me to think Biological Beekeeping includes discussions of chemical treatments.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--->
My dictionary says,..."management; manipulation:
Good or bad behavior toward"
Maybe your dictionary isn't quite complete, or you just didn't transfer the whole definition.
--->

Thats because I am not using the word in that context!

The treatments I am concerned about are the treatments that serve to prop up genetics, like routine feeding, disease and pest treatments etc. 

OR
"Administration or application of remedies to a patient or for a disease or injury; medicinal or surgical management; therapy.
The substance or remedy so applied."


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

> Maybe there isn't a place on Beesource for 100 percent "treatment free" discussion


If someone were to begin a specific thread where they made it clear they wanted to discuss a certain subject from a purely treatment-free viewpoint, I'm sure all posters would stick to the wishes of the post starter.

No one ever strays from the topic on this board you know.

Other than selecting for better queens and using small/natural cell, what other options are there for purely treatment-free bee management?


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is








you guy's are being silly
help us rookies figure out how to get off the chemical bandwagon
that's what "I" think this forum is about









Dave


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--->
I'd really like to know where you guys draw the line on chemical treatments that are "organic" and chemical treatments that are not.
--->

Organic and Biological drawing lines or definitions I dont care about because I have abandoned the terms in favor of the term Ecological Beekeeping. 

Speaking of treatments, I have been evolving my stance here for the past several months as there are some very important issues that have come to light from my observations of feral queens from remote areas, and my discovery that I can successfully duplicate what I am seeing in performance levels of these remote ferals in my own apiaries as a result of an intense breeding selection process I have adopted. 

This is all my opinion, its OK with me if anybody says its poppycock. I will keep doing what I am doing.

Ive been backing away from the chemical free argument. You will NEVER attain a totally contaminate free level of beekeeping! There will always be the old bingo bubba down the road spraying too much hair spray into the environment, or the guy spraying Ortho on the lawn down the road. And I also dont give a hoot about weather or not a treatment is naturally found in honey. This is NOT where my argument is anymore. These arguments will be lost every time because of the ambiguity. And except in the cases of hard pesticides and contamination, this is NOT where the REAL harm lies anyhow.

Most people IMO do not understand where the REAL danger is in treating your colonies.

Seeing the success I have had in improving my performance of my colonies. My concern nowadays is not so much contaminates, but focused against doing things that fight disease , pests OR artificially props up bad genetics in any form, chemical or NO. This propping up does the damage in several ways.

My new goal is to: 
LET NATURES SYSTEM OF GENETIC SELECTION PLAY A PART 

HERE IS WHAT I BELIEVE:

Other than what a beekeeper must do to shelter, manipulate to and perform normal beekeeping operations. A colony MUST be allowed without beekeeper intervention to find its own level of genetic representation in the breeding sphere, in accordance to the degree of its own God given natural fitness! 

With this in mind. 
Some treatments that I believe do the most damage are:

Drone comb removal, all treatments for the prevention or suppression of disease and pests, and routine supplements and feeding of honeybee colonies. These are the most damaging of the treatments because they serve to prop up colonies by either fighting pests and disease for the bees, or giving them an artificial advantage such as in the case of feeding would give them a level of performance above what would be found naturally in the fit feral population causing the colony to be misrepresented in the genetic sphere, and also in beekeeper colony evaluations. 

This propping up of the colony creates an artificial fitness advantage for the colony, and this misrepresentation of these genetics in the breeding sphere can negatively affect your breeding and the genetics of the surrounding feral population for years to come. Moreover, these things also negatively affect the beekeepers ability to properly assess a colony, affecting selection of breeder colonies (again causing a misrepresentation when unfit propped up colonies are wrongly chosen as breeder colonies). 

For those that know my strong stance against using chemicals in beehives, 
heres a shocker:

Although I prefer no chemicals in a colony, I see no harm in moderate use of mild bee repellants such as bee-quick or attractants such as swarm lures. This is because these things are not fighting disease or pests, and therefore not giving a colony an artificial fitness or causing the bigger harm of genetic misrepresentation in the breeding sphere.

[ August 24, 2006, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

>>Thats because I am not using the word in that context!<<

I must revert back to my prior post on this one.
>>The only question here is at what stages do you change the name of the treatments.<<

If I put my rabbit dog in my carrot patch, am I biologically treating my carrots? You cannot draw a line exactly where different people's thoughts on any subject will end. Any post in a biological or organic forum will be accepted as correct by some and rejected by others. If they aren't allowed to be posted, you will have a lopsided block of information. I think I prefer to allow everything and I can ignore what I wish to reject.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--You cannot draw a line exactly where different people's thoughts on any subject will end. 

True! Thats why you as a moderator or leader define it for them.

For example,
you could potentially could draw a line here: 

Other than what a beekeeper must do to shelter, manipulate to and perform normal beekeeping operations. A colony MUST be allowed (without beekeeper intervention for disease, pest prevention and routine supplemental feeding) to find its own level of genetic representation in the breeding sphere, in accordance to the degree of its own God given natural fitness!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

---->
help us rookies figure out how to get off the chemical bandwagon
that's what "I" think this forum is about 

Dave
---->

Dave, how are you a rookie with 1270 posts?
Besides, the quality of stuff you post reflects experience.
I dont see a rookie here.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

I think they call that bee-having, rather than bee-keeping.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

In order to help all NewBEEs, please allow me to ask this question:

"I am a new beekeeper. I have only 1 hive. I do not want to use ANY chemicals, especially Apistan







. My hive seem to be in trouble, my latest mite count was 45. What can I do? Please help."

How would you answer?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'd want some more information, first.

How was the count taken (sticky board, sugar roll, ether roll, etc.)?

How does this count compare to previous counts on the same hive?

Otherwise, that's a tough one. "I do not want to use ANY chemicals. . . ." Well, there go Apistan and CheckMite+, as well as oxalic acid and formic acid and sugar. All are chemicals.  

I suggest drone trapping, given what's implied in this question.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

As well as C12H22O11 (sugar)


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

If sugar, fgmo, and thymol are chemicals, I would advise him to order a new package for spring delivery.


----------



## notaclue (Jun 30, 2005)

I don't know if this is off the mark or not, but would smearing FGMO around the base of a hive to control ants entering the hive be considered a treatment?

Or is it "NO INTERFERRANCE" at all considered as treatment free? I'm not trying to be a wise guy but I do get asked this by kids and others who want to know what is considered natural or biological or organic beekeeping. 

David

[ August 26, 2006, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: notaclue ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>My new goal is to: “LET NATURES SYSTEM OF GENETIC SELECTION PLAY A PART” 

Joe, you're beginning to make sense









>Dave, how are you a rookie with 1270 posts?

I consider myself a rookie. While I could write a small book about what I know about beekeeping, I could write several large books about what I don't know about beekeeping. Perhaps it makes more sense to say that what I don't know about beekeeping would fill volumes


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>would smearing FGMO around the base of a hive to control ants entering the hive be considered a treatment?

Once upon a time I wouldn't have considered that a treatment, but I've been slowly coming around to being more in line with Joe's beekeeping philosophy. Ants are a nuisance-pest. Honey bees should be able to handle such pests without assistance. In the overall big-picture scheme of things assisting your bees in keeping ants out of their hives probably shouldn't upset the genetic apple cart much but is such intervention cumulative? How fine is the balance? Now there is a good question!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

DaveW,

I would sit down and think about all aspects of your operation.

Site selection.
Equipment options
management strategies
genetic/breed choices
natural mite reduction points
natural loss and your tolerance
culling the bad.
other????


If you need 10 hives for honey next spring, don't go into winter with ten hives. Go into winter with 15. Sounds easy huh? You pick the option....

Option #1. You need ten hives for honey or pollination next spring. You go into winter with ten, and lose(just for argument sake) 5 hives. This means you are part of the early spring crowd all demanding queens for splits or packages. Queens means splits usually before the flow resulting in lost honey potential. Nucs and packages means a much greater cost.

Option #2. You go into winter with 15 hives. You lose 5(I know the percentages are different, so sue me), anyhow the point is to come out of winter with some anticipated loss. But having what you need for honey or pollination. This allows you to split and increase your hives after the honey flow or later in the summer when demand is less and the quality of queens is better than the over-produced early stuff that everyone is begging for.

I spend far less for queens than most others spend in time, labor and chemicals treating thier bees. I think beekeepers could easily lower the winter kill rate by doing some every simple things in place of treatments. I know many that treat their bees and lose far more higher percentage than me.

My cost for replacing winter kill goes directly into new queens that easily pay for themselves. Better winter survivability, more honey, and less swarming all are benefits of new or first year queens.

I know some beekeepers that order the same bees every year from the same producers. Losing 50% every year is just what they expect. Order packages, treat with expensive treatments, lose 50% and start the cycle all over again.

Too many people want no chemicals in the hives, do not want ANY winter kill, and don't want to buy new queens to replace the old ones, and want everything else to border on perfection. Were dealing with insects, many times northern climates, and natural bee lose that will happen sometimes regardless of what a beekeeper does. I take what the bees give me and tailor my management based on whats best for time, labor and money.

[ August 26, 2006, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: BjornBee ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Or is it "NO INTERFERRANCE" at all considered as treatment free?

IMO, 
Other than what a beekeeper must do to shelter, manipulate and encourage maximum colony growth and perform the necessary beekeeping operations. 

The only thing that is a treatment are things that a beekeeper does for a colony that the colony should be doing for themselves in the area of survival fitness traits, such as fighting disease, pests and nutritional foraging. In other words, giving a colony an artificial advantage that is not representative of there own God given ability to survive in a given environment.


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

> The only thing that is a treatment are things that a beekeeper does for a colony that the colony should be doing for themselves in the area of survival fitness traits ...


I suppose one could interpret that to include raising queens in which case buying genetics from other sources would/could be "treatment".

I don't really care which things are called treatment. I'm going to do certain things for my bees that I've decided that they need. I draw the line at some point that I've decided is too much "treatment". The location of that line is moving toward less treatment, but I don't expect to become a "radical" anytime soon. 

Note: "radical" as used here is to be interpreted in the context of lighthearted jest.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hillside,

The only thing radical is how you are interpreting what a treatment is.









No, actually that would not be a treatment because you are not doing something "that the colony should be doing for themselves in the area of survival fitness traits"

You are transplanting genetics from another environment, which in this case over a short time would find there own level of fitness as it relates to their new environment in which they are now living in.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I don't know if this is off the mark or not, but would smearing FGMO around the base of a hive to control ants entering the hive be considered a treatment?

-->

Great question!!!!

First, let me close all the loopholes. 

These arent really loopholes but fundamentals that every beekeeper should be doing. It is necessary to state these things because you cannot substitute propping up bad genetics for the lack of dong these important beekeeping essentials. These beekeeping essentials are a prerequisite to any such hypothetical proposed. 

IMO, Providing a beekeeper is performing the Fundamental Beekeeping Requirements: 

1. To provide adequate habitat. 

This includes shelter nearby water and nutritional foraging.

2. To perform needed beekeeping tasks. 

This includes field operational tasks, hive maintenance and hive manipulations necessary to maximize colony growth, health and productivity 

3. To promote genetic fitness in the breeding environment.

This includes culling of the unfit colonies and propagating from the fit colonies. All colonies in a enviornment MUST be allowed without treatments for disease and pests or supplemental feeding to find its own level of genetic representation in the breeding sphere, in accordance to the degree of its own God given natural fitness! 

What you are stating would be considered a treatment, but maybe not among the most harmful treatments because here ants are annoyance and generally not a threat to a fit colony. But protecting colonies from ants with treatments is in a way propping up a colony by doing things that might influence an artificial fitness advantage. 

But IF you were to adhere to the Fundamental Beekeeping Requirements of genetic fitness (3) which would necessitate that you cull unfit colonies that have an inability to protect themselves (keeping ants out of the broodnest area) in spite of performing the (1) needed hive manipulations to help a colony protect itself (such as reducing the entrance etc), there would be no need to use this treatment. 

George said it best that "Ants are a nuisance-pest. Honey bees should be able to handle such pests without assistance."

If ants are restricted to the areas outside of the nest, this is acceptable. Its ok if there are a few ants on the inner cover or bottom board because the bees are doing their job keeping the ants out of the nest area. Colonies that can't keep ants out of the nest after the beekeeper reduces the entrance or strenghtens them, should be combined.

[ August 26, 2006, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

>My new goal is to: LET NATURES SYSTEM OF GENETIC SELECTION PLAY A PART 

Joe, you're beginning to make sense 
--->

You are an expert in hiding an insult in a compliment. LOL









I mean, Ive known you a few years and only now am I beginning to make sense?









My theories on the pitiful state that exists in honeybee genetics keeps proving itself the more I look. I cant get into it all right now, but to be very basic here. I inspected a friends apiary across the ridge and even though he has bought queens from some of the most reputable breeders, his bees are in what I would call a troubled state. When I inspected, I could not find evidence of any disease, pest or beekeeper mismanagement. Some queens seemed to be performing ok but an increase in productivity and broodnest fecundity was not being realized. Which IMO, leaves only one thing it could be, troubled genetics. I was seeing the same thing in my bees before I started an intense selection and colony improvement program. 


Now in my operation I have done things in a totally different fashion. To be very brief, I have done things that encourage the selection of traits that enhance genetic variability of that from that of fittest genetics. Now the difference in over all performance stands out in comparison.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

-->
In order to help all NewBEEs, please allow me to ask this question:

"I am a new beekeeper. I have only 1 hive. I do not want to use ANY chemicals, especially Apistan . My hive seem to be in trouble, my latest mite count was 45. What can I do? Please help."

How would you answer?
--->

Based on what I know now,,,

I would recommend to make selective grading decisions on queen performance and colony productivity while ignoring the counts. 

Now, should DFV develop, or large scale dwindling of population and other symptoms that clearly indicate stress. This should be noted in the over all comparative grade.

In grading colonies based on colony overall comparative performance. If this colony is in your bottom percentile, then you MUST eliminate it.

If it is in your top percentile, then you must keep it or find better stock and eliminate some colonies from the bottom percentile. 

This is 20/20 CIP (20/20 Colony Improvement Program)
Choose from among your top 20% performers to breed from, and cull from among your bottom 20% performers.

--Please help."

Please help does pull at the heart strings a bit, but some of the best help that can be provided is not always what one wishes to hear.

IF you treat, your simply carrying over your problems till next season.

[ August 26, 2006, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

>>"I am a new beekeeper. I have only 1 hive<<

Is this one hive in the top 20%, for the breeding program, or the bottom 20% for culling?

Joe, I think you're paddling a sunken ship!


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> You are an expert in hiding an insult in a compliment. LOL

Why Thank You Joe









Actually, there was no lurking insult. You may have been making sense all along to other people, but it was going over my head. I am beginning to understand and appreciate what you've been saying all along


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

>>"I am a new beekeeper. I have only 1 hive<<

Is this one hive in the top 20%, for the breeding program, or the bottom 20% for culling?
Joe, I think you're paddling a sunken ship!
---->

I anticipated this question, so I was sure to cover it in my earlier reply.









I do state that If it is in your top percentile, then you must keep it,,,) 

You MUST grade colonies based on colony overall comparative performance. You start the system by establishing what the attributes are in your best performing colony (or colonies) and grade the others by comparison. 

The ship still floats!!!!









The new bee having one hive would automatically make this hive the best performer and if I may, the top 20% and they must keep it or acquire better performing stock.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Actually, there was no lurking insult. 

I know! LOL, just having fun with ya!

--You may have been making sense all along to other people, but it was going over my head.

Well, I have rapidly evolving theories based on the improvements I have been seeing in such a short time. It is essential that a person develop theories to explain what they are seeing in there bees in order to prove, disprove, then if proven duplicate and perfect what they are doing correctly.

I have things that are working for me and I try and explain them as best I can with theories. I enjoy posting them on lists to hear others opinions, BUT being that the theories are generally not of the mainstream beekeeping mind set, I tend to get clobbered allot, which is OK with me as it prompts me to think out the theories even further.

I have some theories I may be posting soon on Organicbeekeepers and Feralbeeproject. I get clobbered if I post them on this mainstream forum.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Well, I have rapidly evolving theories based on the improvements I have been seeing in such a short time.

Well keep up the good work









>I get clobbered if I post them on this mainstream forum.

Aw Joe, we love you here. This is the most tolerant, open minded, and forward-thinking group of beekeepers ever! Look! They put up with me!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'll second George's comments here. We love you here, Joe. We may not always agree, but open discussions of these ideas are valuable.

Honestly, talking about deciding which colonies are "fit" and which are "unfit," especially coming from a guy who has been insisting that we should let nature select the genes best suited for our local conditions, makes my hair stand on end. As long as the bees are reproducing, they are fit, from an evolutionary perspective. The most "fit" bees may be the ones that cast the most swarms, or may be the colonies that produce almost nothing but drones. What we're really talking about here, I think, is culling colonies that don't meet our human expectations. A colony that produces huge numbers of workers and oodles of honey but few queens and drones is actually less fit than a colony that produces very few workers and just enough honey to raise some bees but raises many drones and several queens. As a beekeeper, though, which one do you keep? The more fit one, or the less fit one?

Now, as far as grading colonies, how do you balance some of these decisions? For example, I have some colonies that produce huge amounts of honey, but their ability to survive winters here is pretty poor. Some make it, but most colonies die out over the winters. Conversely, I have some colonies that produce far less honey, but overwinter with great success. Which should be my "top" hives, and which my "bottom" hives? Why?


----------



## balhanapi (Aug 22, 2006)

I have been reading your posts Mr Waggle for quite sometime now,and myself being a strong believer in natural selection (dont even consider that i live close by in pittsburgh







) i would love to see you and your feral bees someday.. Perhaps if you have time you can teach me how to stuff..
Keep up the good work..

[ August 28, 2006, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: balhanapi ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

The basic problem here is simple.
Too many pinheads, not enough angels.

'nuff said!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

----As long as the bees are reproducing, they are fit, from an evolutionary perspective. 

True but,,,,
No, no, no, no, noooooooooooooooooooooo,,, the level of fitness is paramount! 


----The most "fit" bees may be the ones that cast the most swarms, or may be the colonies that produce almost nothing but drones.

No, no, no, no, noooooooooooooooooooooo 


I have been working on a paper titled Honeybee Optimal Fitness Theory. This paper in part, attempts to explain why much of the domestic honeybee genetics found in the USA are in a miserable state of existence. I would love some day to pose a few hypotheticals to you about honeybee fitness, and how you might think they would play out in different environmental and genetic situations. 

---- I have some colonies that produce far less honey, but overwinter with great success. Which should be my "top" hives, and which my "bottom" hives? Why? 

So you are proposing that a beekeeper make selective decisions based on the single attribute of wintering ability?

There are some areas that are priority, but basically, always make decisions based on over all performance. Now if your bees are lacking in a specific area like wintering ability. This indicates you need special attention made to improving the trait. Give extra credit to those that come thru winter the healthiest in order to boost selection of that trait.

[ August 28, 2006, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Balhanapi,
Call me Joe. Send me an email with your phone number and I will give you a call sometime, and talk bees, answer questions and maybe make plans for a visit.
[email protected]

This is what I enjoy most is helping other beeks in the area. Im currently helping several beekeepers in the area, and I can always find time to help one more. 

Best Wishes,


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"True but,,,,
No, no, no, no, noooooooooooooooooooooo,,, the level of fitness is paramount!" -Pcolar

"Fitness," defined by evolutionary biologists, is the ability of organisms to pass genes into future generations. Honey bees that produce lots of workers and lots of honey but no queens and no drones are not fit. Honey bees that produce fewer successful queens and fewer successful drones are less fit than honey bees that produce lots of successful drones, even if those bees that produce so many drones produce no successful queens. "Fitness" is all about the ability to pass genes -- either through drones or through queens -- into future generations.

Among honey bees, letting nature take its course, the most fit colonies will swarm and swarm and swarm, or else produce many, many drones.

I think what you're really talking about is "resistance," not "fitness." You're attempting find bees that are resistant to Varroa by using strong selection. While being able to resist Varroa figures into fitness (obviously, the bees that succumb to Varroa don't pass any genes into future generations), resistance to Varroa is not the same as fitness.

"No, no, no, no, noooooooooooooooooooooo" -Pcolar [second response]

Please explain why you disagree with the idea that the bees that leave the most successful, reproductive bees are no more fit than bees that leave far fewer reproductive bees.

"I have been working on a paper titled Honeybee Optimal Fitness Theory. This paper in part, attempts to explain why much of the domestic honeybee genetics found in the USA are in a miserable state of existence. I would love some day to pose a few hypotheticals to you about honeybee fitness, and how you might think they would play out in different environmental and genetic situations." -Pcolar

Interesting. I would appreciate reading it. I'm not sure how "optimal fitness" would work. From an evolutionary biology perspective, "optimal fitness" means leaving as many successfully-reproductive offspring as possible. For honey bees, that means casting as many swarms and spreading as many drones as possible. While that may be great for the bees, that's not so ideal for most beekeepers.

I still think you're looking most at productivity and resistance to mites and/or diseases, rather than fitness.

"So you are proposing that a beekeeper make selective decisions based on the single attribute of wintering ability?" -Pcolar

Not necessarily. I attempt to contrast two traits: ability to survive winters with ability to produce large amounts of honey. Hypothetically, let's say that a beekeeper has the two groups of bees that I suggested in the first place. One group of bees produces very little honey, but overwinters well. The other group produces copious amounts of honey, but these bees are unlikely to survive the winters. Which outranks the other?

You keep saying that beekeepers should make decisions based on "over all performance." What, exactly, is "over all performance?" How do you measure "performance?" Is survival more important than honey yield, or vice versa?

Like I asked before, do you, Joe, measure performance quantitatively or qualitatively? What traits, specifically, do you figure into "performance?"


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Honey bees that produce fewer successful queens and fewer successful drones are less fit than honey bees that produce lots of successful drones, even if those bees that produce so many drones produce no successful queens. -(Keick)

This is not necessarily true!

Remember now that queens mate more than once.

Lets say your colony produces lots of successful drones. And a feral colony produces less drones but happens to be fitter (healthier) but still manage only a marginal less successful rate with the same queens. According to the research, even though your drones may out-compete the fewer numbered healthier feral drones with successful copulations with the same queens. The sperm from the drones of the healthier colonies would out-compete the sperm of your less healthy colonies in post-mating competition.

Furthermore, according to Moritz, the quality of the semen can be highly important. Even if a high amount of sperm is transferred into the sperm theca by your less healthy colonies, this does not necessarily imply that many offspring workers are sired. 

In research by:
KRAUS, NEUMANN, SCHARPENBERG, VAN PRAAGH, MORITZ

They found colony health was most important in producing fit drones. The research showed that drones of fit colonies seem to have produced males which not only out-competed males from other colonies in mating, but also were more successful in post-mating competition.
The fit colonies produced drones with a higher reproductive success than those of the other, less successful colonies.

--Among honey bees, letting nature take its course, the most fit colonies will swarm and swarm and swarm, or else produce many, many drones. -(Keick)

Fitness is not just swarming, producing drones and queens!!!
There is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more to it that enables these colonies to out compete in producing fit queens and drones!

This is what my selection techniques are all about, increasing fitness. 

* What about queen performance affecting fitness?

There is a significant relationship between many fecundity characteristics and most colony measures of fitness during the growth phase of colonies
(Tarpy & Page)

* What about enhancing fitness by implementing techniques that may promote better mating?

Increased genetic diversity has a direct influence on task diversity, disease resistance and other factors determining colony fitness (Oster and Wilson), 

* What about how better breeding and selection practices to promote traits that will help the bees thrive in changing climatic conditions which intern influences fitness? 

Genetic diversity and provides a buffer against fluctuations in the environment, influencing fitness (Crozier and Page). 

* What about my assessment techniques during the 18 weeks of colony growth stage needed to identify these colonies that Ive been talking about for some time now?

Colonies with a high level of polyandry will have a substantial fitness advantage because of differences in growth rate during colony development (Cole & Wiernasz). 

* What about the very high emphasis I place on brood viability?

There are significant correlations of brood viability to winter survival, influencing fitness (Tarpy & Page). 

* What about fecundity factors affecting fitness?

Worker population is an important indicator of colony fitness and is arguably the best variable to distinguish non-linear effects of brood viability (Tarpy & Page). 

* What about honey storage and winter survival affecting fitness?
Not to mention the many traits associated with enhanced foraging? 

Worker population effects a colonies fitness because a larger colony is able to collect more nectar and store more honey during the active foraging season, thereby increasing the food reserves that are necessary for it to survive the winter (Seeley).

* What about the high emphasis I place on locally adapted stock, ferals and whole bee breeding? 

Local adaptation with migration between locales, and fluctuating selection in which there are trade-offs among traits related to fitness (Stamps 2003).


--I think what you're really talking about is "resistance," not "fitness." You're attempting find bees that are resistant to Varroa by using strong selection. -(Keick)

Varroa resistance IS correlated to fitness!
Everythings about fitness!

In a study by:
Pedro Duay1,2, David De Jong2 and Wolf Engels1

In conclusion, varroosis is assumed to affect the mating behavior of drone honey bees because of its strong negative influence on male fitness.

Some drones did not fly at all, especially individuals that had been infested by Varroa destructor mites as pupae. The fraction of non-flying drones was significantly higher in males previously infested by one mite or two mites than in unparasitized males. 

The mean total duration of the active flights performed by the previously uninfested drones (6 min, 48 s), was significantly greater than in those infested by two mites (2 min, 16 s).

The mean number of spermatozoa in the control drones was 7,540,441; this was significantly higher than in the groups of parasitized drones.


We conclude that most of the drones parasitized by Varroa mites during pupal infestation will unlikely be able to reach a DCA. Similar conclusions were also reached by Pechhacker (1998) and Sylvester et al.

Even if a drone has reached a DCA, it must be capable of chasing the queen in a high-speed flight, in order to have a chance to copulate with her (Gries and Koeniger, 1996). Our data suggest that few of the mite-parasitized drones would be able to do so.

In conclusion, varroosis is assumed to affect the mating behavior of drone honey bees because of its strong negative influence on male fitness.


--While being able to resist Varroa figures into fitness (obviously, the bees that succumb to Varroa don't pass any genes into future generations), resistance to Varroa is not the same as fitness.-(Keick)

They NEED NOT succumb to varroa according to the study by:
Pedro Duay1,2, David De Jong2 and Wolf Engels1

They only need be infected by 1 or 2 mites for fitness to be affected drastically.

The fraction of non-flying drones was significantly higher in males previously infested by one mite or two mites than in unparasitized males.

[ August 30, 2006, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--You keep saying that beekeepers should make decisions based on "over all performance." What, exactly, is "over all performance?" (KEICK)

Overall performance is a balance between the assessment of traits necessary to accommodate both nature's aim to preserve and propagate a species in given conditions and the beekeepers aim to propagate traits of economic value.

--Like I asked before, do you, Joe, measure performance quantitatively or qualitatively? (KEICK)

Actually both. IT would certainly be as important to look at qualitative performance as well as quantitative performance. After all, thats why I call it overall performance . 

--What traits, specifically, do you figure into "performance?" (KEICK)

Thats a ridiculous question.

--How do you measure "performance?" Is survival more important than honey yield, or vice versa? (KEICK)

Its a balance between the two. 
If you are experiencing poor survival, this in the overall performance would surly indicate that you are lacking in the fundamental traits necessary for survival. And therefore a balance does not exist between traits of survival and traits of economic value. So you must apply a greater selective pressure towards these traits to bring them back into balance.

Remember, as we say "La plus belle fille du monde ne peut donner que ce qu'elle a!" 
So if a colony is lacking in essential traits, then the queen must go. It is important to promote a balance between survival and economic traits in order to accommodate both the bees needs, and the beekeepers needs.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Joe, Joe, Joe. . .

First, my screen name is "Kieck," not "Keick."  

I don't think what I've been trying to tell you is getting through. "Fitness" has a definition. The way I read your statements, you're not using the standard definition. I recommend you use a different term to describe the qualities that you're looking at.

"Fitness" is the ability of organisms to pass genes into future generations. It's not how well adapted to their environment the organisms are (although organisms that are better adapted to their environment may be more likely to pass genes into future generations than organisms that are less adapted). It's not just the ability to produce offspring. For example, a queen bee that produces many, many workers has produced many offspring, but if she produces no drones or queens, her fitness is zero. "Fitness" is very, very difficult to measure quantitatively, because passing those genes into future generations must take into account more than just the single, following generation.

Let me repeat, "fitness" is the ability of organisms to pass genes into future generations.

Now, keeping that in mind:

"Lets say your colony produces lots of successful drones. And a feral colony produces less drones but happens to be fitter (healthier) but still manage only a marginal less successful rate with the same queens. According to the research, even though your drones may out-compete the fewer numbered healthier feral drones with successful copulations with the same queens. The sperm from the drones of the healthier colonies would out-compete the sperm of your less healthy colonies in post-mating competition." -Pcolar

"Success," from the standpoint of fitness, is passing genes into future generations. Not just copulating, but passing the genes into future generations. (I see now that I was not clear earlier about specifying exactly what "successful" meant in this case.) Therefore, "success" is, in a way, a measure of "fitness."

"Fitness is not just swarming, producing drones and queens!!!
There is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more to it that enables these colonies to out compete in producing fit queens and drones!" -Pcolar

What else is there? Again, fitness is the ability to pass genes into future generations. Producing honey isn't a measure of fitness. Gentle disposition isn't a measure of fitness. Hygenic behavior isn't a measure of fitness. Tolerance of Varroa isn't a measure of fitness. All of those can contribute to the fitness of bees by helping them survive long enough to pass genes into future generations, but fitness is only measured by the amount of genes passed into future generations. The more successful (in terms of passing genes into future generations) swarms and drones a colony produces, the more fit that colony is.

What you're really talking about is adaptation and competition and selection. If your selection techniques are all about increasing fitness, you're really trying to make your colonies produce as many reproductives (drones and queens, which cause swarming) as possible. Otherwise, you're really trying to select colonies that show traits you desire and are adapted to the local environment (ecology and climatology).

"Varroa resistance IS correlated to fitness!
Everythings about fitness!" -Pcolar

"Correlated" is a good choice of words. Statistically, you could likely show a strong correlation between the two. Obviously, bees that cannot resist or tolerate mites will die out, and their fitness would probably go to zero. However, if they reproduce (by leaving successful drones, for instance) before the mites kill them, they may still be as "fit" as a colony that resists or tolerates mites. Again, "fitness" is the ability of organisms to pass genes into future generations.

By the way, I used both resistance and tolerance with reason. That's why I asked you earlier about mite counts. "Resistance" suggests that bees are able to reduce numbers of mites or fight them off. "Tolerance" suggests that the bees can survive despite the mites being present. Looking at the history of plant breeding, trying to develop "resistant" strains leads to a huge evolutionary arms race, but trying to develop "tolerant" strains often leads to much longer-lasting, effective strains.

"Actually both. IT would certainly be as important to look at qualitative performance as well as quantitative performance. After all, thats why I call it overall performance ." -Pcolar

OK, you measure performance both qualitatively and quantitatively? What I'd like to know, specifically, is how you're measuring that performance. What traits do you consider? (I know that you claim that's a ridiculous question, but unless other people know what you're considering in "performance," they can't reach informed opinions on whether or not your system is effective.)

For instance, honey production could be a quantitative measurement, and winter survival could be quantitative (0 for died, 1 for survived, or something like that) or qualitative ("good" versus "fair" or "poor," or something like that). Resistance or tolerance to Varroa could be quantitative (counting mites), but you already said you don't count mites, so I have to assume you're using a qualitative measurement ("resist/tolerate Varroa" versus "died/dwindled/etc."). Drone success could be measured quantitatively (DNA testing, measuring proportions of genes from specific matrilines, etc.), but, unless you don't have any other work to do, I'm assuming you don't have the time for that; therefore, if you measure drone success, I'd guess it's qualitative. "Brood viability" could also be measured quantitatively (counting eggs laid, comparing to larvae hatching from those eggs, and comparing larvae to bees that pupated), or qualitatively ("shotgun brood pattern" versus "solid brood pattern"). What I wanted to know before, and I'd still like to know, is what traits you consider in your evaluations of "performance," how you weight those traits, and how you measure each of those traits (qualitatively or quantitatively).

P. S. Throwing an author's name and a date or number isn't the same as providing citations.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Again, fitness is the ability to pass genes into future generations. (Kieck)

In a nut shell, I am selecting for traits that are correlated to increasing fitness.

Regardless of definition, this is what I am having success in doing, and much research supports my success.

Thanks for your time,









Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"In a nut shell, I am selecting for traits that are correlated to increasing fitness.

Regardless of definition, this is what I am having success in doing, and much research supports my success." -Pcolar

I appreciate your comments, Joe, and I wish you the best of luck with your efforts. What I've been objecting to is the idea that you're trying to select the "fittest" bees. Along the same lines, how do you know that the traits you're attempting to select for are correlated with fitness? What's the strength of those correlations?

Honestly, I don't generally select for traits that are strongly correlated with fitness. In fact, I select AGAINST some of the traits that you say you're selecting for. Let me give a couple examples.

I select against hives that show a great propensity to cast swarms. If they want to swarm at the drop of a hat, I requeen. Not a good idea if I want the fittest bees, but beekeeping, to me, involves managing bees. Once they're off living in a wall or tree somewhere, I'm no longer "keeping" them.

You've mentioned selecting colonies that "out compete" other colonies. A few years ago, I had two established hives in a yard. I did a cut-out, and added a third hive to that yard. Those bees from the cut-out probably hadn't been on their own very long, and they didn't seem very special in any other way, but, boy, did they "out compete" those other bees! They ended up robbing out both of the other hives in that yard. Obviously, the bees from that cut-out could out compete their neighbors. I got a lot of honey off that one hive. . . and nothing off the two hives that were robbed out and ended up dying. In the long run, I would have gotten more honey from those two hives than I did from that one robbing-prone hive. Needless to say, I requeened them pretty fast (if I had known about your program at that time, Joe, I would have sent that queen to you  ). 

In short, I think you're actually selecting for traits that you find desireable (or selecting against traits that you don't like, depending on how you wish to look at it). That's good. To some extent, we all do that. Based on the number of hives I run, the selections I make won't change the gene pool around here significantly; I'm not a big-time operator, especially compared to the guys in this region that run 40,000 or 50,000 or 80,000 hives.

I'd still like to know how you evaluate the specific traits that you use to judge performance, and how you weight those traits. Any chance you'll share some of that?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I appreciate your comments, Joe, and I wish you the best of luck with your efforts
-(Kieck)

Same here, Keick, you are blessed with much patience and ability to debate without getting all mad and pissed off which is a rarity on these lists and it is appreciated. 

--What I've been objecting to is the idea that you're trying to select the "fittest" bees. 
-(Kieck)

That is the attempt, thru selecting of certain traits that are known or thought to be correlated to increased fitness with a balance of traits of economic value.

--Along the same lines, how do you know that the traits you're attempting to select for are correlated with fitness? What's the strength of those correlations?-(Kieck)

I know that they are correlated to fitness from statements made by researchers studying fitness in honeybees. The strength of the correlation would be difficult to determine, but if a scientist correlates lest say brood viability to increased fitness, then this is important because brood viability is already a highly preferred trait selected by beekeepers. So it basically reinforces the extreme importance of selecting these specific traits. I want the bees I breed to influence the breeding sphere, so I can fix some of these traits in the surrounding feral population, so correlated fitness traits are important to me.

--I select against hives that show a great propensity to cast swarms. If they want to swarm at the drop of a hat, I requeen. -(Kieck)

I get your point. But throwing many swarms does not necessarily indicate fitness if they dont survive to reproduce, it is however an economic loss for the beekeeper. Its the prime swarm that has the best chance to survive, and the rest have a dismal chance at survival. I do however believe it is a natural tendency for colonies to what to throw one prime swarm per year and I like to see them to want to do this, this is what healthy colonies do and also where I get my best queens reared BUT I want bees that also respond to swarm prevention if I should choose to suppress this tendency. 


--They ended up robbing out both of the other hives in that yard. Obviously, the bees from that cut-out could out compete their neighbors.,,,
,,,Needless to say, I requeened them pretty fast (if I had known about your program at that time, Joe, I would have sent that queen to you ). -(Kieck)

Thanks Kieck, but I would not take the queen, Im after locally adapted stock.

I am of the belief that if a hive is being robbed, it is the fault of the hive being robbed for lacking in the ability to defend itself. This is the colony that should be requeend or strengthen, NOT the one doing to robbing. What happened was a forager identified a rich source of nectar and they collect it, thats what they are suppose to do.

I have thousands of bees near the door over the past several weeks because I am extracting, and the kids are getting scared to run thru the bees all the time. A few nuc sized colonies that were weak were being robbed also. I decided to move my entire apiary to an out yard so my kids could relax and play again.

Guess what?,,, Got home from work the next day, and the same number, if not more bees were still there. I beelined and got a few bearings, and the total was about 4 maybe 5 beelines going off to feral colonies in the woodlands. This is the competition here, the ferals here are fierce competition. But in spite of this, I have never had a colony robbed out that didnt deserve it. 

--I'd still like to know how you evaluate the specific traits that you use to judge performance, and how you weight those traits. Any chance you'll share some of that?-(Kieck) 

I assess for many of the traits most beeks should be assessing for using the normal techniques. But Ive been weighing them against what I have seen in some remote woodland ferals and how they have performed for me. My best performers become my standard.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Same here, Keick, you are blessed with much patience and ability to debate without getting all mad and pissed off which is a rarity on these lists and it is appreciated." -Pcolar

I don't know about that, Joe! I think I'm lacking in patience. Still, as far as debating, I enjoy a good debate. I've always believed that if I get mad about something on a forum like this, the person that I've been debating is likely to simply leave. That would end the debate.

The reason that I get into some of these debates is that I don't always agree with others' ideas. Since I don't agree with their ideas, I'm sure they don't agree with my ideas. It's still worthwhile, to me, to read what others are thinking and try to gain some insight into how they view some of these issues.

"I am of the belief that if a hive is being robbed, it is the fault of the hive being robbed for lacking in the ability to defend itself. This is the colony that should be requeend or strengthen, NOT the one doing to robbing. What happened was a forager identified a rich source of nectar and they collect it, thats what they are suppose to do." -Pcolar

See? This is what I was talking about in my comments about debates. I hadn't looked at it like this. The colonies that were robbed out maybe should have been better able to defend themselves. The had managed to defend themselves, though, against each and against bees from hives in other yards very close by. For whatever reason, the bees in that new hive were just too much.

I would still handle the situation the same way (despite understanding your point). Here in South Dakota, beekeepers have to apply through the state for apiary locations. Like Ian mentioned on another thread, finding good locations for yards is becoming more and more difficult in some of the agricultural areas, and that's compounded by the process to establish an apiary in this state. When I get through all of that, I want to keep multiple hives in each yard, rather than just a single, super-competitive colony.

But that's just me. I enjoy having many hives. I'd rather not have just three or four (or a number equal to however many yards I have established at that time).

I suppose the argument could be made that two or more of these super-competitive colonies could coexist side-by-side. Maybe they could. I don't know. Based on the behavior I saw from those bees, I suspect the workers would end up in a huge "bee war," and both (or all) of the colonies would wind up dying.

In contrast to the situation I described before, I have one colony right now that grossly out-produces its neighbors and shows no signs of robbing behavior. They could be robbing other hives, but all of the other hives in the yard have produced just as much on average as the hives that I have in other yards. This colony seems to contain superior foragers, in my estimation -- but it doesn't necessarily impart greater fitness to them.  

Let me explain: around here, I like to leave about 100 pounds of honey on each hive for the winter. The bees might not need all of that, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Anyway, let's say that the bees need about 90 pounds of honey to get throught the winter and start rearing brood the following spring. Anything beyond that is simply surplus. Whether the bees have 100 pounds of honey going into the winter, or 400 pounds of honey going into the winter, their survival only depends on about 90 pounds of that. The extra honey is simply extra.

Beyond all that, if I take the extra honey off, the bees no longer have it anyway, so it imparts nothing to them. In a sense, though, their productivity will increase the fitness of these particular bees if I can do anything about it. I will raise as many queens from this one hive as possible, and spread those genes into as many other of my hives as possible in the hopes of increasing my honey production.  

OK, so onto the traits that you use in assessing performance and how you weight those traits in your evaluations. I'll give you an example of what I was hoping to hear from you.

In "assessing" (I use quotations, because I don't do any formal evaluations of my colonies) my colonies, I consider some of the traits that I imagine most beekeepers consider: ability to survive winters, honey production, tolerance/resistance to parasites, disposition, just to name some of the important ones to me. But these categories aren't equal in my "assessments." Winter survival outranks just about everything else. I'll accept bees that don't produce quite as much honey, or bees that require a little extra management to keep mites populations down, or bees that are a bit surly, just as long as they survive the winters. I keep bees as a hobby -- I don't wish to purchase new bees every year, and I don't send my bees south for the winter. I want bees that survive winters well, and, of course, the ones that don't aren't around to serve as breeding stock, anyway  . Winter survival, the way I measure it per colony, is qualitative -- they either survive, or they don't.

Honey production ranks second on my list. I enjoy eating the honey that my bees make, and friends and family always seem to appreciate getting honey from my bees. Honey production is a quantitative measurement in my "assessments." I weigh the honey produced by each hive, and can compare numerical data among hives.

Tolerance/resistance to parasites ranks a little lower on my list. I'm willing to devote a fair amount of time and energy to helping them deal with Varroa, for example, by trapping mites and breaking brood cycles and even, if necessary as "rescue treatments," applying synthetic chemicals. I know, I know, I'm "propping them up." Rarely, though, do I have to resort to the rescue treatments (which is on topic with the subject of this thread again). I haven't used Apistan or CheckMite+ in the last four years. I haven't used oxalic acid or formic acid or powdered sugar treatments during that time either (although I have done sugar rolls to check mite populations). I don't currently use small cell or natural cell in my hives (although I am planning to do controlled comparisons between small cell and commercial-sized cell next year). And, while they're thoroughly "mutts," my bees are largely descended from commercial stock, not ferals.

But I might use synthetic chemicals again if I felt it necessary as rescue treatments, so I don't consider myself to be completely away from using pesticides, and I definitely don't consider my bees "100% treatment free" (the topic of another thread) because I consider drone-brood trapping and breaking brood cycles and such to be just as much "treatments" as applying synthetic chemicals are "treatments."


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--The reason that I get into some of these debates is that I don't always agree with others' ideas. Since I don't agree with their ideas, I'm sure they don't agree with my ideas. It's still worthwhile, to me, to read what others are thinking and try to gain some insight into how they view some of these issues. --(Kieck)

Exactly! Good debate makes one back up ones answers that support ones stance, and this is where the benefit lies in learning other lines of thinking, and or refining ones own. 

--I suppose the argument could be made that two or more of these super-competitive colonies could coexist side-by-side. Maybe they could. I don't know. Based on the behavior I saw from those bees, I suspect the workers would end up in a huge "bee war," and both (or all) of the colonies would wind up dying.--(Kieck)

Now that youve encouraged a debate.









Could super competitive colonies exist side by side?

Your concerned about robbing, but according to my understanding of nectar foraging, there are prerequisites that must occur for foraging or robbing to take place in mass. 

Lets look at the study:

Distributive Control Models for Honeybee Decision Making During Foraging
http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/courses/en507/papers_1997/vos.html 


The measure of profitability is a function of many factors including nectar sweetness, nectar abundance, nectar accessibility, and distance from the hive [Seeley, 1991, Stabentheiner, 1996]. As hypothesized by Seeley, the honeybee itself must asses this quality and use it to determine whether to abandon a source, or recruit others. Seeley's hypothesis points to three possibilities. First, each forager could visit each source and compare it to the previously visited sources. This would require a forager to visit each source which seems impractical considering the distances between sources has been found to cover areas up to 100 km2. Second, each forager could rely on comparisons of nectar quality made by the food storer bees inside the hive which taste each nectar as it is delivered to the hive. According to this hypothesis, the taste of a foragers nectar would be a testament to its goodness and would be communicated through increased or decreased antennaeation [Seeley, 1991]. 


In my understanding of the above, in order for a frenzy or bee war to begin between super competitive colonies, As hypothesized by Seeley, the honeybee itself must asses this quality and use it to determine whether to abandon a source, or recruit others. This would require that a scout <<<first get past the guards and into the colony and gather stores,>>> then go back and communicate to the other bees in the colony the presence of forage. 

So one could conclude that the controlling factor in robbing is the ability of a colony to adequately protect itself against other highly competitive colonies. And to a lesser degree the pressures exhibited on lesser competitive colonies from that of the highly tuned foraging abilities of other competing colonies. 

I kind of reminisce back to the time someone on this list gave advice to control robbing by destroying the competitive feral colonies that are dong the robbing. Well, then you would have to destroy the yellow jackets, and then the ants and so on,,,,. 
In the end, the colonies would still be in the state of inability to protect themselves. 

--In contrast to the situation I described before, I have one colony right now that grossly out-produces its neighbors and shows no signs of robbing behavior. They could be robbing other hives, but all of the other hives in the yard have produced just as much on average as the hives that I have in other yards. This colony seems to contain superior foragers, in my estimation -- but it doesn't necessarily impart greater fitness to them. -(Kieck)

True, but in the event of a drought, the foraging ability of the superior foragers might contribute to the colonies ability to collect more stores to survive winter and survive the winter to reproduce. This would have an influence on fitness.

[ September 02, 2006, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--OK, so onto the traits that you use in assessing performance and how you weight those traits in your evaluations. I'll give you an example of what I was hoping to hear from you. -(Kieck)

Im basically doing it from the seat of my pants, because my selection program is based much on what I believe I must do to restore competitiveness and self sufficiency in my bees and also to attempt to influence the surrounding feral breeding population to be better suited for the environment and the traits I believe my bees might be lacking. I dont have any formal grading system, but I am focusing on traits that I believe my bees are lacking. Lacking, is determined by comparing what I see in woodland ferals and in my out performing colonies. I cannot assess for traits that are not prevalent in the ferals because I believe that by looking at what is succeeding in the acclimatized ferals and my out performers, I can better determine what traits my bees are lacking for this environment. Right now I am in a building up period of traits needed for survival with a balance of traits of economic value, but trying to focus on the most obvious differences between them. 

--In "assessing" (I use quotations, because I don't do any formal evaluations of my colonies) my colonies, I consider some of the traits that I imagine most beekeepers consider: ability to survive winters, honey production, tolerance/resistance to parasites, disposition, just to name some of the important ones to me. But these categories aren't equal in my "assessments." -(Kieck)

Absolutely! 
Im stressing what my bees are lacking in comparison to the healthiest looking woodland ferals and my out performing ferals.

High priority traits are listed below. These are my current priorities based on traits I believe need restored to maximum level before I can move on. Much of it is patterned from Brother Adams writings. You will notice some management characteristics are missing. This is not to say I am not selecting for them, but they are not of major priority at this time. 

(this trait is not lacking in my bees, but is placed first because it is a prerequisite to exceptional performance.)
Resistance to Disease- The ability to suppress disease without the use of pesticides, chemicals, antibiotics or essential oils. Also linked to cleanliness. The tendency to hang from comb is correlated with hygienic behavior. If a colony shows any signs of chalkbrood, dysentery, European or American foulbrood it should be eliminated as a breeder queen, and colonies showing a lack of resistance to disease should be eliminated. This ZERO tolerance level is necessary to eliminate any susceptible genes from the population as quickly as possible. Colonies that exceed above the rest of the pac in this particular area must be noted as Outstanding for the trait. 

Hygienic Behavior 

Developing as fast as others- Are eggs, larva capped brood and bee population increasing at a rate comparable to other colonies? A comparison of colonies during the 18 weeks of colony initiation and growth phase is very telling, a failure to thrive during colony growth is often an indicator of other underlying problems. Colonies that exceed above the rest of the pac in this particular area must be noted as Outstanding. 

Solidness of Brood Pattern- (Brood Viability). Denotes out-breeding associated with open mating (Brother Adam). Increased genetic diversity has a direct influence on task diversity, disease resistance and other factors determining colony fitness (Oster and Wilson), and provides a buffer against fluctuations in the environment (Crozier and Page). Multiple mating promotes colony fitness by lowering the probability that the queen will produce a high proportion of unviable diploid males within her brood (Tarpy & Page). Colonies with a high level of polyandry will have a substantial fitness advantage because of differences in growth rate during colony development (Cole & Wiernasz). There are significant correlations of brood viability to winter survival (Tarpy & Page). A colonys phenotype is a reflection of the tasks performed by its workers and a significant concave relationship exists between brood viability and worker population (Tarpy & Page). Look for solid flat brood pattern, absence of empty cells. Queens that exceed above the rest of the pac in this particular area must be noted as Outstanding. 

Largeness of Brood Pattern- Denotes out-breeding associated with open mating. Look for large wall-to-wall solid brood patterns during flows of nectar and pollen. Queens that exceed above the rest of the pac in this particular area must be noted as Outstanding. 

Pre-flow Build-ups- Colonies that turn their 1st brood cycle earlier than others, anticipating spring arrival and honey flows. A comparison of colonies during pre flow buildups is very telling. Poor buildup is often an indicator of other underlying problems. Colonies that exceed above the rest of the pac in this particular area must be noted as Outstanding for the trait. 

Worker Population, Cluster Size- Denotes out-breeding associated with open mating. A colonys phenotype is a reflection of the tasks performed by its workers and a significant concave relationship exists between brood viability and worker population . Therefore, worker population is an important indicator of colony fitness and is arguably the best variable to distinguish non-linear effects of brood viability (Tarpy & Page). Worker population effects a colonies fitness because a larger colony is able to collect more nectar and store more honey during the active foraging season, thereby increasing the food reserves that are necessary for it to survive the winter (Seeley). There are several references pertaining to estimating worker population; A frame completely covered with bees contains 2000 individuals (Burgett and Burikam, 1985). We counted the number of frames with bees and multiplied by 1900 bees per frame (Kauffeld 1975). 2000 bees per two-sided frame completely covered with bees (Guzmán-Novoa and Page, 1994). An estimate of population size is made by counting the number of frames covered with bees. A comparison of colonies for early spring buildup is very telling. Poor buildup is often an indicator of other underlying problems. Queens that exceed above the rest of the pac in this particular area must be noted as Outstanding. 

Arrangement of Honey Stores- A tendency to place stores away from the brood nest at the beginning of the season together with the tendency to place stores close to the brood at the end of the main flow. Storing away from the brood encourages comb building and also foraging while at the same time acting as a brake on the urge to swarm

Spring Development- The ability of a colony to build up in early spring spontaneously, on its own initiative without feeding or other stimuli. Equally spontaneous must be the ability to maintain a correspondingly high degree of breeding until the end of the summer which guarantees a maximum colony strength of young bees for wintering and spring build-up. A comparison of colonies for early spring buildup is very telling. Poor buildup is often an indicator of other underlying problems. Colonies that exceed above the rest of the pac in this particular area must be noted as Outstanding for the trait. 

Honey Gathering (amount of stored honey)- The ability of a colony of drawing-out and filling-up supers above the broodnest in a uniform manner, relative to other desired characteristics. Strongly linked to Fecundity and comb building. In swarms during the first half of the year this trait will be exhibited by a nice crown of honey stores surrounding the broodnest. During the second half of the year the colony the trait should be graded on the overall honey stores present by estimating or weighing the colony. Comparisons of Honey Gathering are made of individual colonies in the same apiary. 

Comb Building- Encourages industry, strongly linked to honey gathering and fecundity. Look for colonies build comb with speed and perfection, also early and late season comb building. Any lack of zeal for comb building nearly always leads to a series of unprofitable activities. A highly developed zest for building exercises an indirect influence on the honey yield, since a bee which lacks this zest for comb building is more inclined to swarm. Comparisons of comb building are made of individual colonies in the same apiary. Colonies that exceed above the rest of the pac in this particular area must be noted as Outstanding for the trait.

[ September 02, 2006, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Interesting stuff on robbing, Joe. I appreciate the information; I really hadn't looked at it from the perspective that weak colonies deserve to be robbed out before this thread. I still don't think I'd want super-competitive colonies that could threaten the existence of my other colonies, but your viewpoint provokes a great deal of thought.

Most of my yards do not contain the maximum number allowed by the state yet. They will eventually hopefully, but they don't now. How do you start new colonies in the presence of such super-competitive colonies? Do you only split all the super-competitive colonies at the same time, so all are equal strength? How do you prevent one or more from become much stronger than one or more of the others, through drifting or more rapid growth, or for other reasons? Or do you just let it happen?

And, is robbing really a sign of a weak colony that deserves to be reduced or eliminated anyway? Or is it behavioral? In my experience, Italians seem much more likely to rob hives than Carniolans do. Does that mean that Carniolans are less competitive? Or does it mean that Italians are more likely to try to rob than to expend the same amounts of energy visiting flowers?

Again, in my experience, Italians are more likely to rob hives than bees from "feral" stock. I realize that's not a hard, fast rule, but it generally applies. Does that mean that the Italians I can buy commericially are more competitive than most bees I could find living on their own?

I really don't know. If I run across a colony that wants to rob out every nearby hive, I might try moving it to a location by itself and splitting it to see if two super-competitive colonies can coexist. Granted, nothing about that example would be statistically significant, but the example might provide some insight into what might happen in other instances.

Thanks for posting the list of traits you use predominantly in assessing your bees! To me, that list provides more insight into your goals for selecting bees than all of the statements of yours that I've read in the past. Some of those traits are "multicollinear," if you attempt to apply a multiple regression analysis. For example, "solidness of brood pattern" and "largeness of brood pattern" are related to "worker population, cluster size." The first two, to large extent, are measures of the same "thing" as the third. Same thing with "pre-flow build-up" and "spring development"; both, if not measurements of exactly the same trait, are strongly related to one another. In other words, the traits are not all independent.

But that doesn't mean that they're not worthwhile measures. It just means that you might actually be taking multiple, different measures of the same type of trait.

Out of curiosity, though, how do you determine that your bees are actually resistant to the diseases, rather than simply not coming into contact with the diseases? For example, my bees have no sign of either American foulbrood or European foulbrood, but I highly doubt my bees have been exposed to the organisms that cause those diseases. Does absence of diseases mean that bees are resistant to the diseases?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

-- How do you start new colonies in the presence of such super-competitive colonies?
--(Kieck)

Hi Kieck,

I dont understand. Ive really never had much a problem with robbing. I know that robbing can be a problem for some areas, but Ive never had major problems with robbing. But when I do see robbing, I usually determine that it was caused by my mistake or neglect, or sometimes colony troubles that caused the robbing. The only time I may have a problem starting up colonies is during the dry August. 

--Do you only split all the super-competitive colonies at the same time, so all are equal strength? How do you prevent one or more from become much stronger than one or more of the others, through drifting or more rapid growth, or for other reasons? Or do you just let it happen?--(Kieck)

I like to do my increases in the spring. When a colony becomes populated, I can set the queen off onto foundation or comb and give her the workforce. This results in rapid drawing out of the foundation and continuation right into the supers. For some reason, these splits give me the best early surplus. I just let the colonies grow as they may, I have nucs and singles sitting right along production colonies. They just dont rob, except when they detect a weakness and can gain entry.

Speaking of robbing, I am rather fascinated by how open air colonies can protect themselves from robbing. I continue to find feral colonies thriving in open dog boxes and play houses, exposed to predators of all kinds. This ability to survive winter and predators without any type of significant protection has led me to design a cement bottom board that will have an open air bottom. The bees will fly right up into the comb without the aid of a landing board. Its in construction stage and will be used next year on my colonies. 

Look at this feral in this link with an impenetrable shell of honeybees. There is nothing to gain entry as there is no entrance, it will be an interesting experiment. I think a shell of bees on the bottom instead of a bottom board might be a good defense against hive beetle, because where would they hide or gain entry? 

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/FeralBeeProject/02885fce.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/FeralBeeProject/02570501.jpg

--And, is robbing really a sign of a weak colony that deserves to be reduced or eliminated anyway? Or is it behavioral? In my experience, Italians seem much more likely to rob hives than Carniolans do. Does that mean that Carniolans are less competitive? Or does it mean that Italians are more likely to try to rob than to expend the same amounts of energy visiting flowers?--(Kieck)

I think the robbing in Italians is due to another characteristic all together as opposed to a trait that gives them the propensity to rob.

With Carniloans brood rearing is highly dependant on pollen and nectar flow and the Carniloans that I had tended to slow or stop brood rearing during the dearth. The effect of less brood rearing caused the broodnest to be filled with stores causing a reduced demand for foraging. No demand, equals no robbing.

With Itialian bees, they brood throughout the dearth, and less availability of nectar in the broodnest causes a great demand for nectar. So my guess it that it is actually a demand for nectar casing the robbing as opposed to a robbing trait. I would suspect the demand for nectar as the cause because I see dont see robbing during flows. 

--Again, in my experience, Italians are more likely to rob hives than bees from "feral" stock. I realize that's not a hard, fast rule, but it generally applies. Does that mean that the Italians I can buy commericially are more competitive than most bees I could find living on their own??--(Kieck)

IMO, its a high demand for nectar caused by broodrearing at a time of nectar dearth.

--Thanks for posting the list of traits you use predominantly in assessing your bees! To me, that list provides more insight into your goals for selecting bees than all of the statements of yours that I've read in the past. --(Kieck)

Well, these traits I select for may change as I see fit. Im just following the success of what I see in the ferals that are outperforming and the associated traits.

--Some of those traits are "multicollinear," if you attempt to apply a multiple regression analysis. For example, "solidness of brood pattern" and "largeness of brood pattern" are related to "worker population, cluster size." --(Kieck)

True, there are many things that affect brood pattern size. However, I have seen large and small brood patterns in colonies that were relatively equal in worker population and cluster size. I might interpret a large brood pattern as suggestive of a prolific laying queen that is capable of what I call broodnest push back, where the prolific laying of a queen has a push back effect on incoming stores, creating a large brood pattern with a nice crown of honey way out at the corners. A small pattern might indicate a queen with the inability to push back on incoming stores and I may make note of this. 


--,,,Same thing with "pre-flow build-up" and "spring development"; both, if not measurements of exactly the same trait, are strongly related to one another. In other words, the traits are not all independent.--(Kieck)

Agree. There may be a difference as in the spring bees are rapidly using stored pollen and winter stores for brood rearing, where in late buildup the incoming pollen and nectar is fueling most of the brood rearing, but I am considering combining these two items as one. 


--Out of curiosity, though, how do you determine that your bees are actually resistant to the diseases, rather than simply not coming into contact with the diseases? For example, my bees have no sign of either American foulbrood or European foulbrood, but I highly doubt my bees have been exposed to the organisms that cause those diseases. Does absence of diseases mean that bees are resistant to the diseases?.--(Kieck)


Good point. Well in the mid west for example, AFB rates are very low, this is mostly due to beekeeping practices required for that environment which contributes to less contact with spores. Here in PA, AFB rates are very high, and this is due to the high contact caused by the style of beekeeping found here. IMO, if you want AFB resistant bees, it might actually be better to get your queens from an area of high incidence of foulbrood, because this is where the resistance would likely be found. 

I might inspect during high stress times such as early spring, dearth, looking for signs of disease which tend to pop up then. You might see 2 or 3 cells of sac brood, whereas other times you will not see this disease showing, so disease can be better identified and noted during stress times.


----------

