# Environmental influences / genetics



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

Much to ponder.

First of all, I think there is no single "perfect" anything. The strongest of any species must be adaptable, and that requires variations within the species so that, hopefully, at least one of those variations will be able to survive the unknown challenge thrown at it and the species will survive to multiply and further mutate. Varroa is constantly adapting and changing, and a stagnant "superbee" species will eventually be doomed.

As for things like tornadoes, bears, and the stupid neighbor with a can of "Raid," this is where nature needs quantity. Some of the strongest will, by probability, succumb to unpredictable threats like this. With luck, these random occurrances will not wipe out ALL the individuals with a certain beneficial trait. 

Humans have been a detriment in this regard. Feral bees never congregate in such a manner that tremendous numbers could be decimated by a single tornado/bear/flood/wildfire/whatever. Bee yards and stacks of hives on trucks are not natural. Perhaps there is something to be learned here.


----------



## JSL (Sep 22, 2007)

Kieck:

I agree with you, there are environmental factors that cannot be influenced by genetics. 

The general equation is that: 
GENOTYPE + ENVIRONMENT = PHETOTYPE (50% + 50% = 100%)

This certainly has to be applied within reason. While genetics may only influence half of the total outcome, I would rather have the best genetics available for my environmental conditions. Keep in mind, my environmental conditions may be entirely different than yours.

Joe


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Kieck said:


> What I seem to see among some beekeepers right now is an overemphasis of "genetics" as cure-alls in beekeeping. Mite problems? "Genetics" will solve that. Harsh winter conditions? "Genetics" can overcome those. CCD? "Genetics" can overcome that. Lack of pollen or nectar? "Genetics" can withstand those dearths. T-mites? Small hive beetles? Wax moths? AFB? EFB? Nosema? Any and all -- "genetics."


Hello Kieck!

If I could start with what emphasis do we choose place on genetics?
From the above quote, am I correct in assuming that you are suggesting, a beekeeper would do just as good to pick a queen breeder at random for his stock?



Kieck said:


> No matter the "genetics," environmental effects can kill hives. Let's start with the extreme: let's say that we have a hypothetical bee that's resistant to all the problems listed above. That strain of bees can withstand -50F spells lasting three weeks, can survive the up-and-down temperature spells of early spring, is absolutely death on Varroa, is completely immune to t-mites, has no issue with any other diseases, seems to be a "perfect" bee. And let's say that we have a yard filled with these things. And a tornado rips through that yard. Or a bear. Are those "environmental influences?" And can "genetics" really be expected to withstand such conditions?.


A perfectly good question here concerning your above statements;
Do you really think that a tornado a good example of an environmental influence that you would expect genetics to resist? Or perhaps, do you think the suggestion being a bit absurd? Speaking in all honesty, I see these types of suggestions as an interjection of ‘absurd loopholes’ designed to promote highly unlikely scenarios for the purpose of defeating an opponent. Can we perhaps stick with scenarios that one is “likely to experience” in any given bee season? If you truly believe it is a reasonable ’environmental influence’ then I do not think we can proceed with the discussion, because I think it is absurd. 

Genetic ability to resist environmental influences works in strange ways. I now have very small clusters surviving winter that would in the past 15 years, succumb during winter. But now that varroa is not a problem, it appears wintering as improved remarkably. Now, resistance to varroa may seem to have nothing to do with a colonies ability to survive cold temperatures, but I do infact attribute the increase in wintering success solely to the reduction of varroa and associated stresses found <<within the population as a whole>> as well as at the <<colony level>>. I am of very strong opinion that the population as a whole affects what you are seeing at the colony level more than one might think, so as I am inspecting and looking at the health of a colony, I know that I am also looking at the health of the population.



Kieck said:


> Breeding or "genetics" is not a magic bullet. We won't eliminate our problems just by breeding or finding that "perfect" bee. It doesn't work that way. It hasn't with any other form of life on this planet, and it won't with bees. And this emphasis on genetics recently even seems to have equated "genetic diversity" with "the more, the better," in the minds of some beekeepers.


I agree, and my belief is that there is no such thing as a perfect bee. IMO, a colony needs not be perfect in its ability to eliminate varroa, disease, or any other environmental influence. All a colony needs to do is compete well against its competitors as well as the environmental forces that are working against it. 


Best Wishes,
Joe 
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles/
"You can keep a bee away from you by the use of tobacco-smoke, 
but a bee is always in such a confounded hurry that he gets 
in his work before you can light your cigar." 
(Albert Lea, Minnesota, 1879)


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> As for things like tornadoes, bears, and the stupid neighbor with a can of "Raid," this is where nature needs quantity. -Hobie


Or luck. If a hive of "superbees" gets destroyed by a bear, but a hive of bees that cannot survive _Varroa_ without chemical intervention is not, that hive that gets missed has greater evolutionary fitness provided that they survive long enough to reproduce.

But that's kind of the point. We can't simply be concerned with _how_ they survive, and nature doesn't worry about the "how," just that they do survive. Stochastic events happen, and those events can and will eliminate certain individuals without regard for genetics.

You could, for example, have a bee completely resistant to mites through genetics, but then small hive beetle destroys that line of bees. Or AFB. Or hot weather. Or something else. Trying to breed for every possibility is virtually impossible, and is certainly impractical.



> While genetics may only influence half of the total outcome, I would rather have the best genetics available for my environmental conditions. -JSL


Absolutely. I agree. I prefer to have the best adapted bees for my environmental conditions, too. But I think that management will affect bees just as much or more than genetics, as reflected by your equation, and I tend to see greater results from management changes than from genetic changes. That may largely be because I don't invest in breeder or select queens, the bees that I keep are surrounded and vastly outnumbered by other beekeepers' bees, and I do not use instrument insemination to keep purity. If I worked much harder on maintaining purity of breeding lines, I might see more effect from genetics.

I still maintain, though, that too much emphasis is being placed right now on "breeding our way out of trouble." Genetics will not solve our problems, in my opinion. Genetics may help, but I think the majority of work will have to be done through management.



> From the above quote, am I correct in assuming that you are suggesting, a beekeeper would do just as good to pick a queen breeder at random for his stock? -naturebee


That's not what I wrote, Joe. What I wrote was that beekeepers right now seem to overemphasizing the importance of genetics in overcoming any and all difficulties faced with keeping bees.

I do see some contradictions in popular opinions among beekeepers, though, that might relate to what you posted. On one hand, we have this belief that as long as the right breeding stock can be found/developed, any problems can be overcome. On the other, we have the belief that genetic diversity is lacking to the point of causing problems. If that diversity in genes is really so limited, then I believe your assumption should be correct -- a random queen would be as good as a select queen for breeding purposes. Limited diversity of genes means that all bees would pretty much share the same genes, which would mean that we would see no real differences in genetics, which would mean that any given queen would be the same as any other queen.

But I don't believe that diversity in honey bees in North America is all that lacking, either.



> Do you really think that a tornado a good example of an environmental influence that you would expect genetics to resist? -naturebee


No. I don't believe genetics would be able to resist such forces.

Yet some of what has been suggested in threads here on BeeSource verge on the same. Bees in the southern U. S. being bred for "wintering in harsh winter conditions?" What "harsh conditions" would bees down in the south face? Below 0F temperatures in some of those states? Less common weather conditions there than tornadoes in many places, I think.



> Can we perhaps stick with scenarios that one is “likely to experience” in any given bee season? -naturebee


Not for me, but for many beekeepers, I think bears are scenarios that are "likely to be experienced in any given bee season." And some behavioral patterns in bees suggest that bees have evolved some defense mechanisms to try to cope with attacks by bears. That evolutionary change suggests that attacks by bears must be common enough that such changes would benefit bees.



> I agree, and my belief is that there is no such thing as a perfect bee. -naturebee


OK. So why do you think we keep reading things on BeeSource threads that say things like [paraphrasing here], "Just switch to 'feral'/hygienic/Russian/fill-in-the-name-of-some-sort-with-some-specific-genes bees, and their genetics will eliminate your mite problems"; "Beekeepers who have two or three or ten hives can create and perpetuate novel breeding lines designed to handle [fill in the blank with the name of whatever problem you might have]"; and similar suggestions?


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

Kieck, my point about "quantity" was that if a hive of "superbees" gets destroyed by a bear, there needs to be three or four more hives of superbees somewhere else to live on.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Oh, I got that, Hobie, and you're right.

What I was attempting to point out is that "luck" may confer just as great an advantage as genes.


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

That is true, Kieck. I tend to think that random occurrences of devastation are less frequent than occurrences that favor certain genetics, but when I think about it, I have no basis for that.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I think your idea is generally correct, Hobie. I think random occurences of devastation are less frequent than occurences that could result in natural selection of certain genotypes.

But luck may be involved in other aspects than survival of natural disasters.

For example, two yards are established in different areas. One has the "superbees" in it. The other has "average" or "below average" bees in it. The area with the poorer bees happens to have better bloom. The area with the "superbees" suffers a local effect that severely limits floral resources for a year. Which comes out ahead? Why? (Rhetorical questions.)

Such effects are pretty common, and you could argue, I suppose, that bees could evolve to survive such dearths. But I doubt that those bees would be as evolutionarily successful as those bees with poorer genetics, and I doubt that those bees would seem as desireable to a beekeeper as the bees with the poorer genetics and better location.

As simplistic as it might seem, bees may face more of that sort of thing than we recognize. All things being equal, "superior genetics" (for whatever traits we choose) will be just that: superior.

But in the real world, conditions are very rarely all equal.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Can we perhaps stick with scenarios that one is “likely to experience” in any given bee season? -naturebee 

Drought
Excessive rain
Unusually cool summer temperatures
Unusual winter weather patterns (warm or cold)
Large Late season, High Ash, Low nutritional value honey flows (ie. aster here in NY)
High sustained winds
Pesticide mortaltity
Predators (skunks/bears/mice)

Do we need more?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Kieck said:


> Or luck. If a hive of "superbees" gets destroyed by a bear, .?


Hi Keick,

I know that I am taking you a bit out of context as to the above, 
but for sake of discussion. 
How do you measure luck?
If you can identify a colonies response to a bear attack, that would rule out luck as playing a role. I have salvaged a bee tree, and a gum, as well as a whisky barrel that were destroyed by bear. And in all cases, I did manage to locate the queen, which upon being disturbed, moved with workers accompanying to the recesses of the bee tree and escaped. This flight to safety saved the colony and was not luck, but a clear strategy of survival. And if the bear kills the queen, it is not bad luck, but a failure of that strategy to succeed in that particular case. 



Kieck said:


> But that's kind of the point. We can't simply be concerned with _how_ they survive, and nature doesn't worry about the "how," just that they do survive. Stochastic events happen, and those events can and will eliminate certain individuals without regard for genetics..


Agree, and that’s why I put the rock on my hive to provide at least some protecting from the random breeze.  But remember that the random event eliminating certain individuals, does not necessarily eliminate all the other individuals that were influenced by them with regard to genetics. So I personally am not concerned with the occasional random event, or losing an occasional individual colony. Because IMO the breeding sphere as a whole is where the wealth is contained, and in my area, most of the wealth is in the ferals and are found outside my control. 

There is an argument for “how they survive is extremely important“. In past years, nature didn’t care about resistance to varroa in Hawaiian honeybees. But now that varroa has been introduced, it sure as heck will care now! You are right, nature doesn’t care about how they survive, but my point is, is it sustainable?,,, meaning here, are treatments etc. sustainable for the long run? 



Kieck said:


> You could, for example, have a bee completely resistant to mites through genetics, but then small hive beetle destroys that line of bees. Or AFB. Or hot weather. Or something else. Trying to breed for every possibility is virtually impossible, and is certainly impractical.


Perhaps. But it is known that SHB attack weaker colonies. I would argue the fact that I would expect a “bee completely resistant to mites through genetics” to out perform, be less prone to the stresses associated with mites, and therefore be more able to defend itself from SHB. Same with AFB which tends to infect stressed colonies over the healthy. This is my strong belief that traits do are not single minded in what benefits they promote. 



Kieck said:


> I still maintain, though, that too much emphasis is being placed right now on "breeding our way out of trouble." Genetics will not solve our problems, in my opinion. Genetics may help, but I think the majority of work will have to be done through management..


I agree!
What I meant by “breeding your way out of trouble“, is that is a part of a good management strategy.
Maybe I was naive to expected that good management would be logically assumed by all beekeepers to be the key to successful beekeeping in general, and therefore not in need of mention specifically. Breeding is a ’part of good management’. But you can’t do one without the other.



Kieck said:


> OK. So why do you think we keep reading things on BeeSource threads that say things like [paraphrasing here], "Just switch to 'feral'/hygienic/Russian/fill-in-the-name-of-some-sort-with-some-specific-genes bees, and their genetics will eliminate your mite problems"; "Beekeepers who have two or three or ten hives can create and perpetuate novel breeding lines designed to handle [fill in the blank with the name of whatever problem you might have]"; and similar suggestions?


A very good comment, and it is root of many problems!

Hypothetically, I might for instance say that switching 'feral'/hygienic/Russian/ <<<<might help>>>>, 
but I would not say that it would eliminate your problems.

A beekeeper once said “all beekeeping is local”.
Although mites are in my hives, the colonies are not stressed by them. I credit this fact to the local population as a whole, and the resistance found within this population. Will my bees do good else ware? I have come to a conclusion from my own experiences, not necessarily. 

Joe


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

naturebee said:


> Hi Keick,
> 
> I
> 
> ...


This is an interesting observation and I think a point we should further discuss. I don't have much in answer theroies just questions. We started seeing this in our 3rd year in our own breeding from survivor hives and I have seen a few others post stating this observation. Mites present but not distressing the hives. If the mites carry the same diseases, attack brood and damage bees what's happening that is different?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> This flight to safety saved the colony and was not luck, but a clear strategy of survival. -naturebee


Not so sure about that one. How do you _know_ that it was a deliberate strategy, and not just chance?

For the purposes of this discussion, I'll equate "luck" with "chance."



> There is an argument for “how they survive is extremely important“. -naturebee


The argument can be made, but the argument you made in your post was "do they survive," not "how they survive." Evolution/nature does not care whether some bees survive because they groom off mites, or whether they have some repugnancy in their hemolymph that deters mites, or whether they are just too slippery and shiny for mites to cling to them. That's the "how." And in the most simplistic terms, we care about survival/extinction, not the mechanism of how.



> . . . but my point is, is it sustainable?,,, meaning here, are treatments etc. sustainable for the long run? -naturebee


The discussion here is the importance or significance of genetics in dealing with environmental influences. How does sustainability figure in?



> I credit this fact to the local population as a whole, and the resistance found within this population. -naturebee


Could it be that you are simply dealing with less virulent mites, or mites that have better adapted as parasites of _Apis mellifera_?



> This is my strong belief that traits do are not single minded in what benefits they promote. -naturebee


I see the link in terms of stresses leading to other problems.

But from an evolutionary standpoint, many traits do seem to be pretty specific to certain selective pressures. For example, the trait that might allow one type of bee to overwinter in smaller clusters is unlikely to confer an advantage to that bee to deal with robbing. Or attack by mammalian predator. Or extremely hot weather.

But I easily understand how hives that are not weakened by mites would be better able to deal with small hive beetle or AFB or some other problems.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Joel said:


> Mites present but not distressing the hives. If the mites carry the same diseases, attack brood and damage bees what's happening that is different?


Hello Joel,

I may be not popular in my views here, and that’s ok with me. But I am of a strong belief that in the case of honeybees, a <<sustainable disease resistance and parasite fighting abilities>> lie in two places, 1. at the colony level, and 2. at the population level. IMO, you can’t have one without the other, but at the same time, the more important of the two are disease resistance and parasite fighting abilities at the population level. So one can purchase all the resistant bees they can, but it wont be sustainable until the population as a whole obtains a sufficient level of resistance to the particular maladies involved which are creating the stresses at the colony level. 

Seeley did a study concerning the feral bees in the Arnot forest that became infamous on discussion lists throughout the USA. Seeley placed a domestic colony of bees up in a tree with the population of ferals in that forest, in an attempt to study why the ferals were surviving with varroa. Seeley found that the domestic hive (no doubt already having some resistance to varroa through commercial bee breeding) took on a very similar, nearly identical low mite count to that found in the forest population of ferals. And same as you are observing, the colony was not being stressed by the mites. 

What conclusion did Seeley come up with? 

IMO, he came up with a rather ridiculous conclusion: 
He claimed that the ferals in the forest where surviving because the varroa there were “non virulent“. And thus set off the first shot fired in what became known as ‘The GREAT virulent / non virulent mite debate’ which spread amongst discussion lists like the hysteria of the fabled CCD. And then, many beekeepers blamed the unfairness of the ferals which were said to cheating in the game of life by living with non virulent mites, while the domestic beekeepers had to contend with the more nasty, severely lethal and merciless virulent mites which were devastating their bees. 

I came to a bit different conclusion:
The population of bees, having an equally important role in suppressing varroa, were responsible for the maintaining of low levels of varroa found in the test colony, as well as other colonies found throughout the this population of bees. 

Joel, you make a key point about not stressing the hives, because that is key!,,, stress is key! Bees already have virus fighting capabilities, they can handle low levels of virus, parasites and a host of other diseases. Just because virus or any other disease are detected, doesn’t mean they are being stressed by it,. And I hate when I hear scientists say that virus was found in CCD colonies, because it means nothing, only <<<levels of virus>>> mean something, and when levels can be determined, then it will mean something. 

Disease naturally spreads within every population, resistance within the population determines what these levels these disease will spread. Sick bees, get disoriented and drift away from the parent colony and much of the time, into other colonies. When the population fails to do its job in the suppression of disease, levels of disease rise, and resistant colonies can be overwhelmed thru contaminated drifting bees to the point they can no longer suppress a disease at this higher level of influx. 

I would suspect that in your area, the population as a whole, including your colonies have reached a sufficient level of resistance, and therefore overwhelming levels of disease are not drifting into your colonies, and the bees able to suppress the disease at the colony level, and stresses reduced, will subsequently thrive. And from judging by your experience and expertise in breeding bees, your efforts may have contributed greatly to this stabilization of the population, so therefore, the subpopulation of ferals are your bees and a part of your making. 

Best Wishes,
Joe 
Feralbeeproject.com


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Kieck said:


> The discussion here is the importance or significance of genetics in dealing with environmental influences. How does sustainability figure in?


IMO, if there is not sufficient of traits in a population to deal with the particular environmental influences such as disease, this is not sustainable. The insufficiency of the population to deal with these things will effect the entire population, by way of higher prevalence of disease by drifting, and bring down even the most fit colony that happens to be amongst the population. So there is a great significance to sustainability as far as honey bees are concerned. 



Kieck said:


> Could it be that you are simply dealing with less virulent mites, or mites that have better adapted as parasites of _Apis mellifera_??


I don’t buy the non virulent mite theory, its pretty much a foolish theory, as these non virulent mites should be distributed throughout the USA by now amongst ferals as well as domestic colonies. How do you propose that non virulent mites distinguish between domestic and feral bees? Those that promote this theory need to produce a reason how non virulent mites manage select a feral colony to infest over a domestic colony. 

Best Wishes,
Joe

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles/
Wednesday, December 30, 1857 Monroe, Wisconsin 
“A Western editor expressed his delight at having 
nearly been called `honey' by the gal he loves, 
because she saluted him as `Old Bees wax' 
at their last meeting.”


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> . . . 1. at the colony level, and 2. at the population level. -naturebee


These two could be perceived as the same thing. "Population" typically refers to a group with at least some boundaries to it. Boundaries may be physical, or geographic, or behavioral, or seasonal, etcetera. But something at least limits some of the chances for interaction (and especially limits interbreeding) to define the group, and individuals in that group compose the "population."

So, the "health of a population" may be very, very difficult to pin down, or it may be very simple. If one hive stands alone, far, far away from any other hives, the population is the colony. On the other hand, almost all of the hives here in South Dakota end up in almonds together, along with many hives from all across the country. In this case, the "population" refers to most of the honey bees across the United States.

"Sustainable" is another of those nasty, nearly-impossible-to-define terms.



> So one can purchase all the resistant bees they can, but it wont be sustainable until the population as a whole obtains a sufficient level of resistance to the particular maladies involved which are creating the stresses at the colony level. -naturebee


The theory sounds good, theoretically. Can you provide an example of a situation where such an approach (large-scale population, as opposed to at an individual level) has been successful?



> The insufficiency of the population to deal with these things will effect the entire population, by way of higher prevalence of disease by drifting, and bring down even the most fit colony that happens to be amongst the population. -naturebee


I respectfully disagree. This concept seems to fly in the face of differential survival from selective pressures due to adaptations and variation.



> Seeley found that the domestic hive (no doubt already having some resistance to varroa through commercial bee breeding) took on a very similar, nearly identical low mite count to that found in the forest population of ferals. -naturebee


OK, but this contradicts much of your position. If a single, unselected hive of bees just "happens to have" some resistance to mites, that suggests that the population on the continent already has the genetics to deal with the mites. If that were the case, why are we still dealing with mites? As you point out (but modified), "these resistant bees should be distributed throughout the USA by now amongst ferals as well as domestic colonies."

Oh, and by the way, you've got the methodology of the Seeley paper somewhat turned around. And the first possible conclusion suggested by Seeley in the paper is that "feral" bees may adopt grooming or hygienic traits to limit mite populations, rather than hosting avirulent mites.

Also pertinent to this discussion, if you haven't read the paper or didn't catch it if you did read the paper -- a black bear destroyed a pair of the colonies in Seeley's study, one of the hives established from "Arnot Forest" stock, and one from New World Carniolan stock.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Kieck said:


> So, the "health of a population" may be very, very difficult to pin down, or it may be very simple. If one hive stands alone, far, far away from any other hives, the population is the colony. On the other hand, almost all of the hives here in South Dakota end up in almonds together, along with many hives from all across the country. In this case, the "population" refers to most of the honey bees across the United States..


I agree defining these things are difficult as well as key to the discussion, so I will choose to focus to this topic.
IMO, this is a reason why there are many failures in beekeeping, -because few beekeepers understand the interaction of colony vs. population, and just how close they are tied together. Strange,,,, on one hand, this fact is recognized by beekeepers when they recommend to “move resistant colonies to an isolated beeyard to escape mite pressures“, and yet, it is ignored on almost all other levels.

If I may say, your ‘quibbling’ about the defining of ‘population’ and ‘colony level’, is understood by me as nit picking, because what you have stated is essentially what I was saying. Yes, the population can be a region containing many honeybee colonies OR as little as a single honeybee colony. In each case, there is a ‘colony level’ (the single colony) and a ‘population’ (comprised of the total number of single colonies in that area, which YES, can be one colony). When a hives are moved into an area, they become part of that population, moved out, they are no longer a part of that population.

WE need to keep the facts we choose to present within the realm of realness, therefore I might propose that your suggestion that a population refers to ‘most honeybees across the united states’ as ‘not accurate‘. I don’t know of any beekeepers in my area that move their hives to almonds. Even the movement of colonies from South Dakota to California is not a representation of the entire population of bees in South Dakota, BUT it perhaps represents only the regions that those bees the apiary are originated from. A beekeeper from one end of SD might have a totally different management style, selective pressures, as well as genetics, and do not have one iota of influence on each other, so how are they part of the same population? 



Kieck said:


> The theory sounds good, theoretically. Can you provide an example of a situation where such an approach (large-scale population, as opposed to at an individual level) has been successful?


Yes, I will provide a reverse example.
Maybe the name Thomas Rinderer rings a bell. If not, Rinderer lead the team that secured Russian bee stock from Far East Russia, and was charged with evaluating and developing a stock for use in the USA. This approach. which you ask for example, was successful in Rinderers operation. 

Wanting to secure information about Russian bees; -and not from the salesmen breeders, but instead from a bee scientist, I exchanged several correspondence directly with Dr. Rinderer to discuss that attributes of these Russian bees before I made the decision weather or not to import some stock. Rinderer told me in no uncertain terms ’in the Russian colonies in his research facility, over several years, the mite levels in these colonies stayed very low, and he had not needed to treat, and he assured me that he did not foresee the need for me to treat the stock for mites‘. Within three years of me having the stock, most colonies were succumbing to varroa, having very high levels of varroa, and OR non performing as a result of the severe stress. A decision was made then to destroy all Russian lines and work towards developing a resistant stock from the local ferals, and thus formed the feralbeeproject.com 

But strangely enough, the ferals in my immediate area were very distressed by varroa and for all practical purposes, nearly non existent in my immediate area. But because I cover a several county area in bee removal for a pest company, I saw that ferals were rebounding very strong in ’prime bee habitat areas’; -with very massive nest structure and huge bee family population which indicated to me they were coping very well with the stresses from varroa and other diseases, and thus the basis for my ’sustainable bee population’ hypothesis. 



Kieck said:


> OK, but this contradicts much of your position. If a single, unselected hive of bees just "happens to have" some resistance to mites, that suggests that the population on the continent already has the genetics to deal with the mites.


NO, it does not contradict.

I know that you are understanding and comprehending what I am saying for you have great intellectual abilities and I write in simple form, so please do not purposely misrepresent what I say.

What I said was:
“no doubt already having some resistance to varroa”

“Some resistance” to varroa means just that, ‘some resistance’, and by no means suggests there is “sufficient resistance” OR sustainable resistance. There is a difference!



Kieck said:


> If that were the case, why are we still dealing with mites? As you point out (but modified), "these resistant bees should be distributed throughout the USA by now amongst ferals as well as domestic colonies."


IMO, Resistant bees are not being distributed very well into domestic bee yards because the management style commercial operations and bee breeders often promote bees that are dependant on treatments for mite resistance. When a resistant colony does show up in a commercial bee yard, they often go unidentified as such, because the management style complicates the beekeepers ability do distinguish weather resistance is due to traits or treatments. 



Kieck said:


> Oh, and by the way, you've got the methodology of the Seeley paper somewhat turned around. And the first possible conclusion suggested by Seeley in the paper is that "feral" bees may adopt grooming or hygienic traits to limit mite populations, rather than hosting avirulent mites.."


Do you know what the above means?
It means, Seeley is suggesting that a population of ferals may have traits that are separate, and not found in neighboring domestic colonies where Seeley obtained the domestic bees from for his experiment. Thought you said populations cannot be separate like that within such a small range?,,, This is in support of my ’sustainable population’ hypothesis. And why would Seeley say that unless he thought is was possible? 

As you are well aware, the money men of the beekeeping community latched onto the avirulent mite theory and spread that propaganda, while applying a debunk status to the idea that Seeley suggested a <<<“population of ferals”>>> may have developed resistant traits separate from that of nearby domestic beekeeping. Perhaps to protect the BIG EGOS, and their assertions that commercial bee breeding and scientists are the saviors of the honeybees and ferals are mutts. 

So to sum up, Seeley saying, “feral" bees may adopt grooming or hygienic traits”, is in support of my sustainable population theory (that bees in a micro population, can develop an order of traits unique to that population)



Kieck said:


> Also pertinent to this discussion, if you haven't read the paper or didn't catch it if you did read the paper -- a black bear destroyed a pair of the colonies in Seeley's study, one of the hives established from "Arnot Forest" stock, and one from New World Carniolan stock.


Why were the ferals inside of trees not harmed by the bear? was this due to the ’luck’ that you promote? or were there measured reasons? 

Joe
et apes condunt examina cavis corticibus, que alveo vitiosse ilicis. -Virgil
“the bees conceal their swarms in hollow barks, and in the cavity of a rotten oak.”
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles/


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

ok lets try this again, lost the previous post

I believe that enviromental factors play more than a 50% in the health of a hive. If you have a "super bee", great, the only thing this super bee has created is a higher threshold of resistance to disease.
The only way to ride out enviromental factors to keep the threshold of resistance up is through nutrition through out the year. I think nutrition is the key.
For example, please bear with me, having a hard time putting it to words:

Take a hive, lets say that resistance to the effects of varroa is 3% and nosema is 1,000,000 spores in a bee. Lets also say that pathogens exist in a hive in controlled amounts. The hive is keeping things undercontrol.
Now add in an enviromental factor or two. You can pick from

Drought,
Rain excessive
brutal winters
dirth
Unusually cool summer temperatures
Unusual winter weather patterns (warm or cold)
Large Late season, High Ash, Low nutritional value honey flows (ie. aster here in NY)
High sustained winds
Pesticide mortaltity
Predators (skunks/bears/mice

Now your resistance to the pathogens and mites have dropped. Instead of 3% varroa it might be 1% and instead of 1,000,000 spores of nosema, it is now 500 000. But the levels in the hive did not drop. They are still at 3 and 1,000,000. Now the hive is out of balance, not able to keep up to the disease and the other pathogens and now they increase causing hive failure. 

Clear as mud?
In a super bee, the thresholds will be higher, but the thresholds can still decrease causing the same problem. Ultimately I think our key is nutrition and reducing the stresses we can place on a hive so the things we can not control do not reduce the resistance thresholds below a point which the hive can not handle.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Honeyshack, I agree 100 percent!
During my experiential days (I’m not talking about the 70’s I mean my beekeeping experiential days),  I had hives that I used Styrofoam for top insulation without upper vent. This created a great stress on the colonies from added moisture which sickened the bees and brood. A highly respected expert visited my apiary in the spring and stated he was confused as to why the mite counts were so low because they were clearly not hygienic bees due to some sac brood and wax moth found in brood. This, in spite of the fact that the bees tested nearly 100 percent hygenic in the months prior. When I removed the stryofoam and added an upper vent, the stress was relieved and the bees regained their hygenic abilities and cleaned out the mess. 

Joe


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

Then we need to find ways that fit both the hobbiest and the commercial beeks way without pinching the pocket book. Remembering that one size does not fit all.
And maybe one of those sizes could be rather than babying hives that can not do it with proper nutrition and beeks choice of treatments, maybe the, the weak hives need to be culled and the frames need to not go into other hives accidentally increasing the pathogens in the hive.
i do not have the answer, I know what protocols i would follow in the event of disease, but what ever we decide has to be ecomonically viable.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> If I may say, your ‘quibbling’ about the defining of ‘population’ and ‘colony level’, is understood by me as nit picking, because what you have stated is essentially what I was saying. -naturebee


Sorry, Joe, I'm not trying to quibble or nit pick. From your more recent post, I see that you have an understanding of a "population" from an ecological perspective. That's important, and absolutely vital to this discussion.



> Strange,,,, on one hand, this fact is recognized by beekeepers when they recommend to “move resistant colonies to an isolated beeyard to escape mite pressures“, and yet, it is ignored on almost all other levels. -naturebee


Exactly. And this sort of comment is a wonderful argument _against_ genetics. Think about it for a minute: we have a "super bee," a bee that shows resistance to "whatever," but when those bees are actually exposed to "whatever," that "resistance" disappears? 

Clearly, that resistance cannot be genetic, or, if it is, that resistance is overcome almost immediately (meaning that the genetic resistance has failed).

Can you imagine if a farmer purchased Roundup Ready crops, but was told, "Don't actually expose them to Roundup -- they have to be kept away from Roundup to keep them alive?" That is what is effectively being said about the genetics in "resistant" bees.

All of which suggests to me that genetics play far less into any observed resistance than do other aspects of management.



> WE need to keep the facts we choose to present within the realm of realness, therefore I might propose that your suggestion that a population refers to ‘most honeybees across the united states’ as ‘not accurate‘. -naturebee


Typically, "populations" refer to groups that interbreed. Not that are capable of interbreeeding, or groups that could theoretically interbreed, but groups that actually interbreed. With shipments of queens across the country, beekeepers effectively increase the size of that group -- that is, genes get shared among the "group" just by having queens that mated in California getting mailed to New York. Or some bees from South Dakota going to Florida where they interbreed with some bees from Maine, and other bees from South Dakota going to California where they interbreed with bees from Utah, and still other bees from South Dakota going to Texas where they interbreed with bees from Texas. Bring those three groups of bees back to South Dakota, and you've now linked what might otherwise have been gradients among honey bees from Maine and Florida and Utah and California and Texas and everywhere in between. 

From a genetic standpoint, places where bees remain in isolation from the rest of the population in North America are pretty scarce. I'm not saying you can't have such places, or that you might not have such a place, but realistically, such places are few and far between, I think.

So, for most beekeepers, when you talk about the "population," you're talking about the vast majority of managed honey bees in the United States. Trying to discern traits or "health" at that population level is difficult and requires a great deal of extrapolation. Maybe too much extrapolation to be meaningful.

But all of that gets us off topic from the "genetics/environmental effects."



> Rinderer told me in no uncertain terms ’in the Russian colonies in his research facility, over several years, the mite levels in these colonies stayed very low, and he had not needed to treat, and he assured me that he did not foresee the need for me to treat the stock for mites‘. -naturebee


First, that comment surprises me, especially considering everything published by Rinderer and collaborators in the primary literature. All of their publications that I've read state something along the lines of, "Russian bees show promise as another tool in combination with managment techniques to help control _Varroa_ mites." They seem to have been very, very reluctant to ever state that Russian honey bees would withstand mites just on their genetic resistance or tolerance.

Secondly, how does responding with a small-scale example (subpopulation) show that management for a large-scale example (full population) has worked? What I'm really looking for is a case where a breeder chose to deal with a large group (ideally, the whole population), rather than with a smaller subgroup.



> . . . thus the basis for my ’sustainable bee population’ hypothesis. -naturebee


I detest the word "sustainable." What does it mean? What does it really say? In agriculture, "sustainable" is usually used to connote "better practices," practices that can be used over a longer time period without as great a risk of damage or peril. But what does that even really mean? "Sustainable" has become a buzz word, jargon, one of those terms that gets used without real understanding.

To use a negative example, killing off bees in hives for the winter to take all of the honey (such practices have been claimed by some beekeepers) seems to be not "sustainable" to me. Yet, if those beekeepers can continue to practice such methods, such practices must have an element of sustainability. If they didn't, those beekeepers wouldn't be able to continue to do such things.

Is attempting to "breed resistance" sustainable? All evidence from every other organism in a breeding program suggests that resistance is overcome very quickly, and cannot be maintained as resistance in that form for very long. So is that "sustainable?"

Pinning down "sustainable" and what is and is not "sustainable" becomes almost impossible.



> Resistant bees are not being distributed very well into domestic bee yards because the management style commercial operations and bee breeders often promote bees that are dependant on treatments for mite resistance. -naturebee


But to say, then, that Seeley just "got lucky" and managed by some slim chance to obtain nothing but resistant bees from a breeding program when most of the managed bees are not really resistant (bear in mind that he used more than one hive for this experiment) violates Occam's razor.



> Why were the ferals inside of trees not harmed by the bear? -naturebee


We don't know that they weren't. You're assuming that all unmanaged colonies avoided predation by bears. I doubt it.



> was this due to the ’luck’ that you promote? -naturebee


Luck. Chance. Stochasticity. Fortune. Fate. Whatever you wish to term, some of these events seem to occur without regard to other factors. Bears don't assess the relative mite resistance of bees before knocking apart hives. Ice storms don't only fall on hives that failed to collect adequate amounts of pollen. Dearths don't only impact hives that suffer from foulbrood.

Hives weakened by other factors may be more likely to fail from some events than hives that are otherwise healthy, but a hive than withstands one form of selective pressure may not be able to withstand a different form.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hello Kieck,

First, I’d like to start with a definition by Phillips:

“The environmental factor may be inside or outside the hive, or even inside or outside the individual bee. For example, pathogenic micro- organisms or irritating foods are inside but not part of the animal and are therefore environmental factors.” (Phillips 1918) 

So mites ARE an environmental factor.



Kieck said:


> Exactly. And this sort of comment is a wonderful argument against genetics. Think about it for a minute: we have a "super bee," a bee that shows resistance to "whatever," but when those bees are actually exposed to "whatever," that "resistance" disappears? Clearly, that resistance cannot be genetic, or, if it is, that resistance is overcome almost immediately (meaning that the genetic resistance has failed).


If I may repeat part of what you said:
“…but when those bees are actually exposed to "whatever," that "resistance" disappears?” -Kieck

Disappears? The resistance did not disappear. BUT, lets look at what DID disappear.
I’m assuming that when you say “actually exposed” you are meaning when a resistant colony is <<<<moved to a new location and placed in an apiary >>>> where they are exposed to what ever, the resistance disappears.

The only thing that I see that disappeared was the environment the bees were located in, and had developed resistance to cope with the pressures located in ‘that place’ before they were moved to ‘another place’ NOT of their adaptation and with different mite pressures as well. So what really disappeared was the environment, being replaced with a new set of enviornmential factors, and not the resistance, and this is a key point. 

Conversely, when Seeley moved domestic colonies into an environment where the feral population had developed a resistance to the environmental pressures unique to that place, the domestic colonies seemed to have gained a resistance to mites similar to that found in the feral population. 

Both instances have less to do with resistance at the colony level, and everything to do with adaptation of the population to the environmental factors found in a particular location. 

Colonies are not dealing with mites, they are dealing with the bigger picture, -‘environmental factors’, which mites are only a part of. When a colony is moved much distance, the environmental factors change also. 

When I was trying to recover from the varroa crashes of 95-96, I knew that I would not succeed until the ferals developed in population as well as sufficient resistance. What I have been doing since that time, was bringing in bee trees and letting them swarm off year after year. They may have succumbed after a year or two in the wild, but not before their drones spread genetics amongst the local population some of their resistant qualities. Now ferals doing fine the past few years, and resistance improved in my bees as well. 

Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Disappears? The resistance did not disappear. BUT, lets look at what DID disappear.
> I’m assuming that when you say “actually exposed” you are meaning when a resistant colony is <<<<moved to a new location and placed in an apiary >>>> where they are exposed to what ever, the resistance disappears. -naturebee


Maybe I was too nice in the way I worded it. Here, in essence, is what I've read on several threads here on Beesource.

Someone has some bees that they are claiming are "mite resistant." Located where those bees are, they show very little or no evidence of mites in the hives. So the beekeeper(s) claim that the bees must be "mite resistant" since few/no mites are present.

Someone else wishes to see just how resistant those bees are. They start with some stock of the "resistant bees" and put those hives among bees that have high mite populations. The "resistant bees" become host to just as many mites as the "susceptible bees."

The second person reports that those "resistant bees" were host to mites just as much as "susceptible bees." The first person responds along the lines of, "You can't mix the two types in one yard, or the resistance won't work!"

Effectively, the "resistance" is not genetic, then, to my way of thinking, and is most likely more a reflection of the situation where the bees were located ("avirulent" mites? better foraging conditions? something else around that cuts down mite reproduction? something as of yet unknown?) than any other single factor, including genetics.

I used the phrase "resistance disappears." I should probably have more correctly stated that "no genetic resistance ever existed in those bees."



> Conversely, when Seeley moved domestic colonies into an environment where the feral population had developed a resistance to the environmental pressures unique to that place, the domestic colonies seemed to have gained a resistance to mites similar to that found in the feral population. -naturebee


That would be "environmental effects," then, and not "genetics," would it not?

Some of the details in the Seeley study are getting distorted in this thread at this point. Seeley did not move bees into Arnot Forest; he moved bees from Arnot Forest stock out of the forest. He found no real difference in mite populations between New World Carniolan stock and "Arnot Forest" stock when both were exposed to mites.



> Both instances have less to do with resistance at the colony level, and everything to do with adaptation of the population to the environmental factors found in a particular location. -naturebee


To me, this suggests "environmental effects" rather than "genetics" in dealing with survival.

Oh, and going through the paper again: Seeley states in the paper than of the eight colonies found in Arnot Forest in 2002, two died in the winter of 2002-2003 ("cause of deaths is unknown"), and one died in October 2003 when winds toppled the tree containing the colony. 



> When a colony is moved much distance, the environmental factors change also. -naturebee


Right. Sometimes, even over short distances, environmental factors change significantly.

But the point here, I think, is that genetics do not change because of a move. Crops that are RoundUp Ready, for example, in Pennsylvania may not be adapted to the climate in South Dakota, but they will still be RoundUp Ready if they get planted in South Dakota. Similarly, bees that might be genetically "mite resistant" in one environment should still be "mite resistant" in another location. If resistance fails to be expressed simply because of a move, I question the genetic component of that "resistance."


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Kieck said:


> I used the phrase "resistance disappears." I should probably have more correctly stated that "no genetic resistance ever existed in those bees."
> 
> That would be "environmental effects," then, and not "genetics," would it not?


I will again submit the quote by Phillips, because its relevance is key to this discussion.

“The environmental factor may be inside or outside the hive, or even inside or outside the individual bee. For example, pathogenic micro- organisms or irritating foods are inside but not part of the animal and are therefore environmental factors.” (Phillips 1918) 

The answer to your statement; 
<<<that would be “environmental effects," then, and not "genetics," >>>
Is no.
Because genetics in part determines the level of the this environmental factor known as mite pressure. 

It is very clear that Phillips defines environmental factors as anything “not part of the bee”, and ‘mites are therefore an environmental factor’. Thus, any resistance mechanism, or lack of resistance mechanism, weather it be at the colony level, or at the population level, which impacts the fecundity of varroa in that particular environment, is a perfect example of genetics directly influencing an environmental factor of mite pressure on other colonies.

If you have one area with a population of resistant bees that keep varroa pressures drifting to other colonies at minimal levels (think arnot ferals here), and another area with a population of less resistant bees that can cause a very high influx of mites drifting to other colonies causing them great stress (think commercial pollinators here). This would be an example of genetics having a direct environmental influence on other colonies. This environmental factor can cause other colonies to fail, and not because of any fault of their own deficiency, but because of the fault of the other colonies in that particular environment. It is my position that the ’the degree of resistance found at the population level, together with the degree of resistance found at the colony level (think genetics), determines the level of this environmental factor’ known as mite pressure. 

Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I see now what you're saying, Joe (naturebee), and that makes sense to me. I am coming at it from a little different angle: I was contrasting "genetics" versus "environmental effects" as a factor contributing to survival or lack thereof.

For example, while mites can also be considered an "environmental effect," is a low mite population in a colony indicative of genetic mechanisms, or environmental factors? Is genetic tolerance or resistance the explanation for the low mite population in that colony? Or did other environmental effects limit the mite population? Which would be more significant?

Same goes for other factors, such as winter survival. Did the colony have a genetic component responsible for winter survival, or did the colony live in a habitat (or even microhabitat) where environmental effects aided that colony over the winter? Which would be more significant?

In my opinion, genetics are important, but the "solution," if you will, to many of these survival problems may better lie in improving the habitat within and around bee hives.


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

This has been an interesting discussion, although highly technical and not easy to follow, at least for me. I am trying to determine what the best management practices for my hives are and there is so much conflicting information it is hard to determine.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

gingerbee said:


> This has been an interesting discussion, although highly technical and not easy to follow, at least for me. I am trying to determine what the best management practices for my hives are and there is so much conflicting information it is hard to determine.


Hi Ginger,
If you need to ask a question, feel free.

Yes, there are allot of management styles and conflicting information out there and I can see how this can be confusing to someone trying to find the information they need. 

Joe


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

Kieck said:


> In my opinion, genetics are important, but the "solution," if you will, to many of these survival problems may better lie in improving the habitat within and around bee hives.


After reading your posts, for management purposes, it would seem that genetics and habitat need to be considered when developing a management plan for apiaries, applied to the area in which one lives. If I follow what you are saying, as you are defining it, habitat would mean the environment outside/inside the hive. Outside environment may include excessive rain, dearth, unusually cool summer temperatures, unusual winter weather patterns (warm or cold), low nutritional value honey flows, high sustained winds, pesticide use, and presence of skunks/mice. The habitat within would include possible disease, varroa, tracheal mites, small hive beetles, etc. 

Managing the outside environment could include things like watering, planting for your bees; discontinue use of chemical pesticides if you are using them on crops, etc. Improving the habitat within might also mean things such as treating for disease, determining when to requeen, what kind of queen to buy, etc.

Managing the inside environment, for me, is the more difficult. I don't want to lose hives by not treating for pests and diseases, but I don't want to use chemicals in my hives either, due to buildup in the comb and I believe, perhaps weakening whatever natural resistance the bees might have (bad management also?) So the question becomes for me- do I use 'natural' treatments, essential oils, grease patties, powdered sugar and the like? Do they really help? Or is it best not to treat and have (does it really develop) survivor stock? 

Is it healthy for the bees to feed early in the spring for brood building or best let them build brood as they would do naturally? What about swarming? Heavily manage for that, manage some for it or let the bees do their own thing and contribute to the population, diversity of feral bees. Then there's genetics as it applies to queen choice. How does one choose the right queen for the right area and do the queens offered actually have the traits they are said to have?

These are some of the questions regarding management I have. I don't want to take this thread too much off topic so maybe it's best to start another one in this regard, or pm me if you like. Thanks for inviting me into the conversation.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> After reading your posts, for management purposes, it would seem that genetics and habitat need to be considered when developing a management plan for apiaries, applied to the area in which one lives. -gingerbee


Yes. I tend to put it in a little different order (management and/or habitat, then genetics), but both should be considered.

I've tried quite a few different "races" or types or lines of bees. "Italians" and Russians and Minnesota Hygienics and VSH/SMR and Carniolans and general "mutt bees." I see as much difference within many of the races/types/lines as among them. What that says to me is 1) despite the names, most honey bees in North America are interbreeding and are effectively "mutts" (that is to say, "pure races" or "pure strains" are difficult to find), and, 2) genetics therefore play less of a role in survival for bees that I've had than do environmental effects or conditions.

I lump "management techniques" into "environmental effects" or "habitat." Most of "management" is modifying the bees' environment at some level.



> Managing the outside environment. . . . -gingerbee


For me, management of an exterior environment (outside the hive) is largely hive placement. I try to find locations that I deem suitable for hives. Put hives in the middle of nothing by brome grass, and those hives are likely to perform miserably. Locations with diversity of floral sources is important to me. I try to scout locations long before I put bees there. And I mentally ask myself things like, "What is blooming in this location after dandelions are done? What blooms after sweetclover here? Is enough goldenrod growing around here to provide a late nectar source for bees? Is a reliable source of water available?" and, maybe most importantly, "How much competition/interaction with other bees is likely in this location?"

I'm a firm believer that very few locations can support hundreds of hives in a restricted area. I think fewer strong hives are better than more weak hives.



> Managing the inside environment. . . . -gingerbee


This is the routine stuff for me. I don't move hives seasonally. So once a location is set, the bees tend to stay there. 

Managing the hives' interior environments means things as simple as how much honey to leave, how stores are distributed within the hives, if/when to employ techniques to control mite populations, disease management, brood manipulation, requeening, and so on.



> Is it healthy for the bees to feed early in the spring for brood building[?] -gingerbee


If you need them for some purpose, sure. I don't feed in the spring. I try not to feed at all. I think that if I've done my legwork in selecting a location, I don't need to feed. If I find a hive that needs feeding, chances are high that I don't want those bees anyway (and that gets back to the "genetics" aspect, I realize). The exception is if I've tried something unusual, and my management (mismanagement?) produces hives that are too light on stores to be likely to survive without my intervention.



> . . .or best let them build brood as they would do naturally? -gingerbee


That's what I do. But I'm not a commercial beekeeper. I don't make a living from pollination contracts and/or honey production.



> How does one choose the right queen for the right area and do the queens offered actually have the traits they are said to have? -gingerbee


Opinions differ on what races/lines/breeds are best for particular areas. This is part of why I disagree with some others on the "importance of genetics." I have "Italians" that overwinter well here. I have bees from Minnesota Hygienic stock that overwinter well here. I have "Carniolans" that overwinter well here. Different hives show different traits, but I tend to have to evaluate each on its own merits/demerits. An "Italian" hive that overwinters with a small cluster may have a smaller winter population than a "Carniolan" hive that overwinters with a large cluster. Certainly the individual genetics play a role here, but the conditions around that hive may play a huge role, too. If you want a huge population from spring feeding for pollination contracts, certain forms may be more desirable. If you don't want to feed over the winter, others may be more desirable.


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

gingerbee said:


> Is it healthy for the bees to feed early in the spring for brood building or best let them build brood as they would do naturally?


I ask this after reading this thread http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225986

If in early spring temps vary from warm to cold and you are feeding to increase brood production, would it not affect the bees in a cold snap if there were insufficent population to cover the brood nest? These studies and discussion seem to indicate that would affect the viability of bees learning and memory.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

gingerbee said:


> Is it healthy for the bees to feed early in the spring for brood building or best let them build brood as they would do naturally?
> 
> If in early spring temps vary from warm to cold and you are feeding to increase brood production, would it not affect the bees in a cold snap if there were insufficent population to cover the brood nest? These studies and discussion seem to indicate that would affect the viability of bees learning and memory.


For the promotion of, as well as the ability to identify and select from the best stock, am usually against any type of supplemental feeding that gives a colony an artificial advantage. The exceptions are, to keep a colony from starving, and supplemental feeding for brood rearing stimuli prior to the Locust and Tulip bloom, which it is essential to have a strong colony to maximize the early harvest of these two most excellent honeys. 

Although, cold snaps do occur in the spring, and these may cause the cluster to abandon brood, this usually is a rather rare event, and the benefits out weigh the risk.

I do tend to see allot of overly concern out there about over feeding in spring and clusters getting too large too early and worries about cold snaps, but I see it as something not to worry about, this from experience. Same with the memory thing, those are two things to forget, and one thing I remember how to do, is how to forget. 

But when a lengthy cold wet spring does occur, it will affect colonies whether they are fed or not, history shows cold wet springs can be devastating to honeybees in a region experiencing such conditions. 

I have a collection of these events in the Historical Honeybee Articles site:
Files > 13) Honeybee Mortality and Hardship 

Joe


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

Joe,

Our flow is early here- tulip poplar, and feeding the bees early is something I had to do because of low honey stores. I am trying not to treat, or if I have to treat, do it with 'organic' methods, having healthy bees that are genetically and developmentally strong is important. 

I appreciate your advice on not worrying about the variations in temp affecting the hives and am looking forward to discussing ways to manage the colony without treatments.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Kieck said:


> For example, while mites can also be considered an "environmental effect," is a low mite population in a colony indicative of genetic mechanisms, or environmental factors?


I believe it is both! And perhaps, also why it is so very difficult to determine the resistant qualities of a colony. The environmental stresses, the health of other colonies in the population, influx of mites disease etc, cause ‘stress’, which when compounded with other stresses are known to suppress the expression of some traits in healthy colonies, including those related to mite resistance. 

The theories on CCD are mostly centered around ‘acumination of stress factors‘, with the last stress being (according to Dennis Van,,,) the final straw ‘that causes colony collapse‘. So does one blame the last stress as “the cause”? or the half dozen or so contributing stresses as the cause?



Kieck said:


> Is genetic tolerance or resistance the explanation for the low mite population in that colony? Or did other environmental effects limit the mite population? Which would be more significant?


IMO, We need not look further back than the great varroa crashes of 95-96 here in the north east to see an example of the great pressures from the environmental factor of mites, caused by collapsing ferals and domestic colonies drifting to otherwise healthy and abundantly treated domestic colonies to cause great devastation, in spite of massive efforts by beekeepers to prevent such by treating with pesticides.

Then, after the feral collapse of 95-96, and the subsequent reduction of the environmental factor of mites from drifting colonies, domestic beekeepers for many years still experienced great losses from failure of resistance at the colony level. So this perhaps shows, both factors are of great significance.

But to choose the greater, I would select a recovery of the feral or local population of colonies with resistant qualities that has the greater significance to my success, also because of the essentials of the key ingredient in colony health by way of increased successful matings. 



Kieck said:


> Same goes for other factors, such as winter survival. Did the colony have a genetic component responsible for winter survival, or did the colony live in a habitat (or even microhabitat) where environmental effects aided that colony over the winter? Which would be more significant?


These are great questions! I will explain my philosophy on the key to wintering bees successfully.
Although, I believe strongly in genetic components that contribute to successful wintering, ie: northern beekeepers should buy winter hardy northern queens. I have found this not of the greatest significance in successful wintering. 

In my experience, a colony NEVER fails from a “single cause”. Like plane crashes, there will always be found several events contributing to the cause of the colony collapse, even varroa is not a cause, as there are always factors that contributed to the collapse, ie: lack of resistance, environmental factors, etc. 

Accumulating stresses and the ability of a colony to defend against stresses are of greater importance to wintering successfully. Reduce the accumulation of stresses to a manageable level by breeding essential traits and good management and this would be of great significance to successful wintering, ie: “bee heath is a greater predictor of the chances of surviving winter” 

More beekeepers should be using a Colony Condition Assessment and Survival Prediction Analysis (CCA/SPA)
to determine chances survivability, and to explain losses by way of ‘accumulating stresses’ and not so much blame single factors. Read the following: 

=====
Richard E. Rogers, 53 Blossom Dr, Wildwood Labs Inc, Kentville, NS, B4N 3Z1

When honey bee colonies die in large numbers the cause is often considered mysterious and this leads to various allegations and theories as to what caused the bee losses. Using a Colony Condition Assessment and Survival Prediction Analysis (CCA/SPA) approach it has been possible to define the status of bee health in individual colonies and to predict the chances of surviving winter. What has become clear from using CCA/SPA is that honey bees are suffering from what is being referred to as Multiple and Various Causative Agents Syndrome (MVCAS). This syndrome is caused by additive or synergistic combinations of more than one factor that affects bee health. The combinations may vary among hives, apiaries, regions and countries. The factors most frequently associated with MVCAS are parasitic mites, diseases (including viruses), management, and nutrition. It is possible, using CCA/SPA, to determine the specific various factors that are contributing to bee mortality. As well, the system has been found to be a good predictor of the chances of colony survival over winter. Assessing all of the factors that affect bee health at the correct time, and interpreting the results in relation to provisional thresholds and interactions, takes the mystery out of why honey bees are dying. 
=====

So perhaps, recording what stresses are present in the season prior to winter will give you a good idea as to the causes of failure. Notice, I said “causes of failure”.



Kieck said:


> In my opinion, genetics are important, but the "solution," if you will, to many of these survival problems may better lie in improving the habitat within and around bee hives.


Agree! Or take the bees to the habitat. 
I keep two apiaries in lowland farm areas for reduction of total risk exposure. Here in the ridge (which is 3 miles from this farmland) after the tree bloom, things are sparse as far as forage is concerned, and bees need to fly to lowlands or near streams to find forage. So while I continue to select here on the ridge for bees that forage greater distances and ability to locate minor sources of nectar (Seeley did a study on this aspect of woodland bees), this is not of great importance in the lowlands where forage is more abundant. 

Joe
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles/


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I think we're pretty much on the same page here, Joe.



> I believe it is both! And perhaps, also why it is so very difficult to determine the resistant qualities of a colony. -naturebee


I agree. This is part of the reason that claims that we can simply "breed our way out of problems" rub me the wrong way, and that claims that "small cell" (or whatever other single factor) can singly eliminate all problems.

Teasing out one from another is not easy.

But very poor resistance to mites or very poor disease tolerance or poor genetics for other traits can be propped up by exceptional habitat (management). The very best genetics cannot overcome very poor habitat (management) to survive.

Having said that, I want the "best genetics" I can get, too. I think we all do. But if the amount of resources devoted to finding or breeding the right genetics were devoted to improving management or habitat (even within hives), I suspect that we'd see far greater results.



> I have found this not of the greatest significance in successful wintering. -naturebee


Well stated! Beginners should read your explanation and bear it in mind.

"Caus*es*," rather than cause is significant here. Too often, we think in terms of trying to pinpoint a single cause of loss, rather than considering a number of causes acting in concert.


----------



## beegarden (Mar 3, 2009)

*definition of sustainability & some philosophical thoughts on beekeeping*

What an intense discussion - I wish I was following it as it went along instead of trying to read all 4 pages at once. 

Just a couple of things I would like to chime in on...

Sustainability - Kieck, you said you didn't like the word and weren't sure what it really meant.... recently a master beekeeper enlightened me about its definition:

Sustainability is: *Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations.*

He was saying if you try to define much more specifically than that, we come to differences of opinion, because it is really discussion of how to be sustainable vs. what is sustainable. And thus we have confusion or lack of clarity....or dilution in the meaning....

On beekeeping in general, I am wondering if we are needing to have a more holistic approach. We all seem to be too much focusing on one cure all, and we often seem in our diagnosis of problems be so focused on symptoms and their cure that we overlook the underlying reasons for illness - 

I see there is no one answer - as it was said in the beginning of this thread, genetics is not the end all be all answer -- it's much more complicated than that. Environment certainly is a big factor. A colony is so complex, and our human intervention has been so extensive.....

I would like to add something to the list of environmental factors that I don't believe genetics would serve as the end all be all cure... 
I wonder about the effect of GM crops on bees. Some of you may think it has no effect on humans; there is plenty of research to the contrary. I believe bees are equally sensitive to GM as human beings or animals. Instead of eliminating GM crops, I guess we need to GM humans, animals and insects?

I see the real question boil down to the continual struggle between what humans want from bees and what the bees' own desires, psychology, attitude, needs and agenda.

As long as great human intervention exists in bees natural behavior, natural setting, bees' instincts and bees' natural collaboration in colony building and survival, etc., bees will continue to be plagued and threatened by disease and weakness. To me that is the key - and reducing that intervention means viewing it all in a holistic manner.

Somebody also brought up local... local I think is another important aspect to the future of bees. Most of us get bees like we are buying them off a shelf in the grocery store. We get them from far off places. Far off places are not the answer - many of these far off places have their own threats and environmental factors - places like Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, and such are dealing with africanized bees. This threat keeps moving further north. 
I believe that if we truly wish to change the paradigm that we need to reinvent our beekeeping practices to focus on local. We need more beekeepers to offer nucs and queens locally for local markets. This would help local beekeepers keep healthier bees. Sure you can cross breed and all that locally, this is an important thing to do. 

Marika


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

beegarden said:


> I would like to add something to the list of environmental factors that I don't believe genetics would serve as the end all be all cure...
> I wonder about the effect of GM crops on bees.


Enjoyed your letter Marika!

Perhaps, the importance of genetics should be seen in its proper place. IMO, it should be seen as a part of the entire program, i.e. Genetics (breeding), nutrition (nutritional forage), habitat (environment), a deficit in any one of these areas might effect the colonies ability to function properly. The effects of GM crops on honeybees are perhaps not yet understood, but a colony of bees is not in deficit of the aforementioned, would be better able to withstand stresses, such as those that may be associated with GM 

I will be responding to Keick sometime soon with a vigorous attack. 
I was in basic agreement with him until he put “habitat (management).” together like that. 

Joe
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/FeralBeeProject/
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles/


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

I‘m busy with many projects right now, don’t know when I can post, but I will get back later to post my comments on Keicks “habitat (management).” comment. Still thinking over how I will reply. 

In the mean time, I saved this file a while back.
It is germane to the environmental influence topic. 
IMO, it suggests that it can be very difficult to assess a colony on its merits. 

Due to the degree of drifting that can occur, you may actually be looking at
another colony all together when you inspect a colony.

This is why I have often stated that when you look into a colony, you are 
also looking at a reflection of the characteristics of the population in that vicinity. 

http://www.actahort.org/books/288/288_12.htm

Joe
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/FeralBeeProject/
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles/


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Kieck, you said you didn't like the word and weren't sure what it really meant.... recently a master beekeeper enlightened me about its definition: -beegarden


I know the dictionary definition. The problem with "sustainable" as used in agriculture or food production is that every group claims the word as their own. Organic producers claim organic production is the only "sustainable" form of production. One of the big biotechnology corporations has taken to using "sustainable" in their advertisements. "Sustainable" is claimed by each and every side in whatever capacity they select. Because of that, it means very little.


----------

