# Hygenic queens for AFB



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

AFB queenlines were developed back when AFB was a major problem, and everyone had it. Now it's not as big of a problem, not everyone has it, so it's not as big a deal anymore.

Nope, todays fad is mites. Everyone breeds for mite resistance, and I suspect that AFB resistance proably goes hand in hand with selection for mite resistance. I don't know of a single queen breeder who is proclaiming their queens supieor AFB resistance.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Hygienic queens, as defined by the U of Minn and Steve Taber do have increased resistance to AFB, as do VSH (SMR) bees. This does not mean that requeening alone will solve a AFB woes. Probably the hygienic and disinfection characteristics of the beekeeper are more important than the bees. Boiling lye water or scraping & a 10% chlorox soak will sanitize equipment to a degree that AFB can be controlled. The tests for AFB resistance were based primarily on what percentage of hives died following a controlled infectious dose of AFB. To me, this means that simply stressing the bees or increasing the AFB dose will overwelm hygienic behavior. New Zealand has some excellent extension publications regarding the control of AFB and apiary hygiene.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hygenic bees will remove AFB infected brood, but this offers only limited protection 'after the fact' and the hygenic traits will not prevent the brood from becoming infected in the first place.

what is really needed for AFB resistance is for the bees to have a highly devloped proventriculus, capable of filtering out larvae spores in liquid food before it is fed to the larvae.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Joe,
>>>>what is really needed for AFB resistance is for the bees to have a highly devloped proventriculus, capable of filtering out larvae spores in liquid food before it is fed to the larvae.

Is that possible?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Although I do recomend that a colony that has AFB should have that genetic line eliminated. There should be consideration to where this stock is obtained.

For example the mid west has enviornmential conditions and beekeeping factors that limit the spread of AFB and therefore a low colony exposure rate to AFB spores likly exists there. Which probably explains why they have such a low rate of AFB disease. 

In PA the beekeeper proximity and envoirnmential conditions cause very high colony exposure rate to AFB spores and therefore more genetics exposed to the disease and more colonies would likly be found to be resistance to AFB in spite of the precieved high instance of AFB in Pennsylvania.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Is that possible?

Yes, I talked with Dennis vanEngelsdorp about this, and this is what he recomended this should be strived for in my breeding. The proventriculus he said is responsible for AFB resistance and not so much the hygenic traits.

I posted a paper not long ago on Bee-L about a facinating study that tested a colonies ability to filter out pollen from the nectar foraged. This same filtratioon by the proventriculus is responsible for removing pollen grains as well as AFB spores.

This begs the quesetion, 
Can the proventricululus be tested?

Well, in my post to bee-L I suggest that if a syrup that is dyed with a pigment of the same size as the AFB spores (pigment dyes do not desolve in liquid, but keep there size and shape) are fed to the bees. You should in theroy be able to see the difference in color of the nectar stored in colonies that have a higher developed honey stopper.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Here's the link to the study:

THE R-VALUES OF HONEY: POLLEN COEFFICIENTS
http://www.nhb.org/download/research/rvalue.pdf

This is the discussion on Bee-L


http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0606c&L=bee-l&T=0&1=BEE-L&9=A&I=-3&K=1&X=39C5B604C850708035&Y=naturebee%40yahoo.com&d=no+match%3Bmatch%3Bmatches&z=4&P=312


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Joe,

While the article is very interesting, it does not show that variations in the proventriculus are either necessary or sufficient to prevent AFB. Is there other information on this subject?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Aspera,

It does not show that the filtration procees by the proventriculus is sufficient to prevent AFB. But when you consider that the Proventriculus is responsible for filtering particles from nectar, and the AFB spore is a particle of about 0.6 microns wide by 1.3 microns long. It is not a far fetch to assume that the proventriculus action may be capable of filtering particles as small as the AFB spore. 

Dennis send me several studies on this, and I bugged him several times concering this subject with emails and phone calls and he has been very helpful. I have to go and dig them up, might not be till the weeked when I'll have time.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

it is my understanding that true hygenic behavior is a multiple gene trait. at one time it was believe to be on two genes. an abstract that I recently viewed (I did not read the full article) seems to suggest that a minimum of 7 genes are required for full expression. for those folks that have been exposed to the numbers involved in simple mendelian (recessive/dominant) genetics you will have some comprehension of just how complex the full expression of the hygenic behavior is likely to be....


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Tecumseh, I had the same impression that you did. Furthermore, the only way to really tell is to do the liquid N2 test and see. Yesterday I was talking with someone who bought some pricy breeder queens and compared them to the apiary as a whole...The top performers were not Minn Hygienics, but rather $15 production queens. Long story short...ask if your breeder knows how to use a tin can and $0.20 of liquid N2. Many Canadian breeders have made this standard practice.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

----->
the only way to really tell is to do the liquid N2 test and see.
----->

There is another way using pin prick that is just as effective. 

I know that the document I propose one should look at is in swedish, but the graphs on pages 3 and 4 clearly shows that the results from
pin test and freezing test correlate. The pin test WILL DO. And it's much faster, less labor intensive and makes possible to compute exact
numbers (comparable data).

Take a look at:

http://www.quicknet.se/home/q-119076/BONUS/HYG/stjalpa.pdf

frysdödat = killed by freezing
nåldödat = killed by a pin
tid(timmar) = time(hours)
tomma celler = empty cells


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The pin test is fine, but not a labor saver. You could easily perform the liquid nitrogen test in a matter of seconds. You basically just pour it on and let it evaporate. It is practically effortless if you have a means to get the nitrogen (which is cheaper than water, but hard for some people to obtain).


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The pin test is fine, but not a labor saver. You could easily perform the liquid nitrogen test in a matter of seconds. You basically just pour it on and let it evaporate. It is practically effortless if you have a means to get the nitrogen (which is cheaper than water, but hard for some people to obtain).


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

I think it would be a stretch to say that LN would be a time saver. Consider the protective clothing required including heavy gloves, boots and safety glasses that are necessary for safety reasons and travel to obtain LN, and purchase and travel expenses. Consider also that you may need to wear this extra gear on hot days while doing the test, and waiting as Marla Spivak recommends to make sure the brood frozen enough to be killed.

I do the 21 pin pokes in about 20 seconds, probably the time it would take someone to get their goggles on.









Also, consider the expense of LN verses stealing a pin out of the old ladies dresser drawer.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

aspera sezs:
The pin test is fine, but not a labor saver.

tecumseh replies:
what is there about the nature of man that requires him to cut every corner and short change his own like some form of strange madness? And all to save the price of a small bit of liquid nitrogen? Once protocol is established what is the benefit (beyond necessity) of altering this established pathway?

I was really wondering if anyone has ever tried nitrogen provide via a welding supply store for the hygenic test?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I would hardly think that most of the brilliant minds that improved, researched, and found many of the breakthroughs over the years within beekeeping, found that breaking "protocol" was somehow not worth it.

As to tecumseh's question "I was really wondering if anyone has ever tried nitrogen provide via a welding supply store for the hygenic test?"

My reply would be...I don't know. Why don't you check the "protocol"?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

----->
Once protocol is established what is the benefit (beyond necessity) of altering this established pathway?
----->

Actually, "protocol" was established first with the pin prick test. After that, the experts decided that the process wasnt complicated enough.









Its all based on keep it simple stupid protocol which supercedes all protocol which is of un-simplified nature.









[ August 20, 2006, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper (Jun 29, 2005)

pcolar
['Also, consider... ...stealing a pin out of the old ladies dresser drawer.']

Joe I didn't take you for the kind of man to steal from old ladies! hehehe


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The protocol before liquid nitrogen was cuttting out, freezing, and reinserting a chunk of comb. Like the pin, this also worked but was laborious. The advantage of freezing this way, was that it did not help the bees by allowing odors to drift out of a pin hole. All the methods work, are quantifiable, and seem to be rarely used by commercial queen breeders. I think the the N2 is very safe and inexpensive. Just don't do "tricks" with it, and don't insert hollow tubes into it. I feel the it is safer to work with than open flame, oxalic acid or couphamos. Gloves are usually unnecessary and cloth gloves should never be used.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

I watched a commercial queen breeder of minnesota hygenics here do the test two years ago with liquid nitrogen. after the facf I always generate a million question. I see a lot of AI cans on or about the Texas A&M campus, but where do they get the liquid nitrogen? Would welding type glove be sufficient?


----------



## keqwow (Jun 7, 2006)

Funny....we just did this yesterday. One guy with a single heavy glove...nothing else but a bee suit. N2 in a thermos and pouring it onto sections of comb.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The guy who filled my 25 L tank for the lab today wore a leather garden glove. Beekeepers gloves or welders gloves should be fine. Just don't use cloth (it holds the liquid in contact with your skin). At PSU, we fill our tanks at the chemistry dept for $.40 a liter. They have it delivered by a big truck and keep it in a purpose made tank under 9 psi. If I were to buy it in small amounts, I would try the local cattle breeder first. If you don't want the bother, I do think a thin needle works just fine. The issue of the pin hole is probably exagerated. I think that the big thing is just to consistently apply quantifiable selection criteria to both queens and drones.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Remember, when doing a LN test. If a colony fails to uncap and remove all the brood, this does not necessarily mean that the colony is not hygienic. 

Because such a large area of brood is killed, the removal rate can be affected by colony strength (division of labor). 

It is good to use a can of at least 4 inches high because the LN can boil over killing brood outside the test area.


----------



## keqwow (Jun 7, 2006)

soup can works well.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Just remember to sharpen the bottom edge, or to use a very thin can. You want a good seal.


----------



## latindrone (Jun 27, 2005)

yo, he observado, que si la reina pone huevos de hembras pequeños (dificiles de ver en el fondo de la celdilla) produce familias vigorosas,con poca cria salteada , Pero si el huevo (hembra) es mas grande facil de ver, la familia es debil , poco higienica y con cria salteada .¿ sera posible que otros apicultores puedan observar y comentar sus observaciones ?
small egg (female ) = strong family hygienic
big egg (female) = feeble family no hygienic
can you watch or study and comment?


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper (Jun 29, 2005)

*Reviving Topic - New Hygienic Information*

After a discussion with Marla Spivak last weekend, I have come to a conclusion (from her advice of course) that the pin-prick method of detecting hygienics is not as reliable as liquid nitrogen testing. She said that too often false positives are created. 

This is also true of over freezing of chunk essays. When frozen over 48 hours, they too will present false positives. 

It appears that the liquid nitrogen test is the most concise and effective method. It should be noted, that this test should be repeated 2 or 3 times. One effective result is not enough. 

She did have some impressive numbers showing that AFB was significantly diminished by the Hygienic characteristics. This was true of all brood diseases (like chalkbrood). 

-Jeff


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Another beekeeper in my area order a fairly large number of Minn Hygienics from a reputable AI breeder and the tested them with N2, only to find that they cleared fewer dead brood then his production queens. I was very curious about this, and asked the breeder how this could be when i went to place my order. He also stressed the importance of multiple testings. I'm geussing that population size, average age and a host of other factors make evaluation based on a single testing difficult. Also, enough genes may be involved that even F1 hygienic queens don't necessarily demonstrate the hygienic trait. The moral is, evaluating your own stock frequently, is very important. No matter how good your technique, it takes a lot of repititous work to constantly select for and evaluate hygienic traits, and even the best breeders can't assume that their bees have it based on a single 'snapshot' test.


----------

