# Natural/Domestic/Feral Beekeeping



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Hello Dee -

I've been thinking about your questions since you posted them. I thought if I waited long enough you would answer them but such is not the case.









No two people will probably agree on a definition of "natural" beekeeping. If you look up the word, natural, we get several meanings:

1. Present in or produced by nature.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature.
4.a. Not acquired; inherent. b. Having a particular character by nature. c. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised.

As it relates to beekeeping, I find #4c to be most relative. Just where should we draw the line between natural and domestic beekeeping?

I can tell you that with some of my hives I've quit using all chemicals and drugs. I also do not favor the practice of taking so much honey from a hive that the feeding back of sugar is required for the bees to survive till the next honey flow. This has never made much sense to me. Others will say taking the honey is more valuable and sugar is cheaper but I say one should learn moderation and not try to squeeze every ounce of honey out of a hive. Let the bees have honey for feed, not sugar syrup.

Some will say keeping bees in a standard hive that uses frames with foundation is not natural. I believe this is an extreme viewpoint and without merit.

I favor different classifications for honey and management so that those who go the extra mile to insure a product is as natural as possible can receive a higher return for their efforts. I don't think the general public has a clue to the variables that can affect the finished product they buy, called honey.

Sorry, I think I'm rambling. It's getting late. Just some ideas I throw out for discussion.

Regards,

-Barry


----------



## Dan Hendricks (Oct 17, 2000)

Hi, Barry. "Let the bees have honey for feed, not sugar syrup." Bees do not feed on sugar syrup. They feed on honey, some of which is made from nectar, some of which is made from sugar syrup. I doubt that they know the difference, or care.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Hendricks:
*Hi, Barry. "Let the bees have honey for feed, not sugar syrup." Bees do not feed on sugar syrup. They feed on honey, some of which is made from nectar, some of which is made from sugar syrup. I doubt that they know the difference, or care.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Dan -

Perhaps I'm guilty of generalizing too much. In general, I do believe you are right that bees feed on honey and I failed to make that clear in my post. The point I was making was not so much this issue but questioning the act of supplemental feeding as a matter of routine.

You do raise an intriguing issue though when you say, "I doubt that they know the difference, or care." Is it so off base to think that there really is a substantial difference between a syrup made with simple sugar, and nectar, which is not a simple sugar? Surely there is a difference and surely the bees know it. Can you expand some more on your thought about this?

Is it ever possible that bees will take sugar syrup or nectar into a hive and will use this substance without first converting it to honey?

Regards,

Barry


----------



## Johnsewell (Jun 11, 2000)

I fear this is a discussion which will keep us going through the winter. Natural is a subjective term, in fact these days natural is redefined daily. Personally I'm against chemicals in management. Partly because they cannot be made by me, mostly because they're an expensive unsustainable use of world resources. Quite aside from the potential hazards to our bodies. White refined sugar is a chemical. I am told by excellent beekeepers and scientists that it makes excellent bee food, and believe bees are found on sugar cane when it is cut (yet all literature I've read warns against feeding bees any sugar other than refined.) There's no easy answer for me, because overall I wish to care for my bees, whilst extracting a living from their efforts for myself. Letting a colony burn instead of treating with antibiotics is a bridge I don't look forward to crossing. Meantime I'll try every rational method of non-chemical management I can find.

John


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

In an article published in October 1995 in the Journal of Economic Entomology by N.M. Schiff and W.S. Sheppard titled "Genetic Analysis of commercial Honey Bees from the Southeastern United States, we have learned "The lack of A.m. mellifera haplotypes in the commercial population is indicative of restricted gene flow between feral and commmercial populations."

Also stated in the paper is "Significant genetic differences between commercial and feral populations suggest that the feral populations may represent a novel source of genetic variation for breeding programs."

Since most beekeepers believe that feral and domestic bees are interchangeable, especially those ketching swarms, how can the bees breeders use be so different? Also what impact is this having on our so-called domestic colonies?

Again the question must be asked - What is true feral and what is now considered true domestic and where do the two come together?

A bigger question is which is best to survive todays's problems of mites and secondary diseases?

Comments!!!! Discussion..How can this scientific paper be true and is it the same in the UK and Europe since the same practices are often in place?

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Paul B (Mar 22, 2000)

Well, I'm only a hobbyist beekeeper, but, I would like to add my 2 cents worth. Here's a question that I thought of while reading all the postings in this topic... Wouldn't the difference between "feral" and "domestic" simply be the fact that feral colonies are living on their own (perhaps a swarm cast in the spring) in an uninterrupted setting, while domestic bees would be colonies living in hives which are maintained by a beekeeper? I personally picture the definition of "domesticated" in the rest of the animal kingdom.

As far as this question goes:

A bigger question is which is best to survive todays's problems of mites and secondary diseases?

I think that the "feral" colonies would be the only ones to compete with genetically engineered bees. While science has been making huge leaps in developing honeybees which will be more resistant to mites and diseases, the feral bees would also have to be resistant or develop resistance to these problems or nature would selectively diminish their numbers (i.e. "survival of the fittest"). Domestic bees would be able to survive while the beekeeper takes the time to care for them. Without the beekeeper, I see the numbers and sizes of domestic colonies tapering off unless they can also adapt to their environment, both good and bad.

Well, that's my 2 cents for now,
Good Luck,
Paul


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

Well, Paul B. on 10-24-00, 6:58pm has certainly posted some interesting and very good comments.

Paul writes: "Wouldn't the difference between "feral" and "domestic" simply be the fact that feral colonies are living on their own (perhaps a swarm cast in the spring) in an uninterrupted setting, while domestic bees would be colonies living in hives which are maintained by a beekeeper? 


This is an excellent assumption, but as many beekeepers know, swarms ensue from many domestic honeybee colonies living under man's control. 

Are they then more like the feral bees in the wild or more like the other domestic honeybee colonies living under man's control?


Paul also excellentlly added:

"A bigger question is which is best to survive todays's problems of mites and secondary diseases?"

Boy, one could sure talk on this. Domestic colonies kept by man since the turn of this century have certainly progressed worse as far as secondary diseases and mites are concerned. 

Yet, in the wild with true feral is this actually the case? It is said that apis cerana lives in peaceful co-existance with mites as pertains to varroa and probably has done so for millions of years. Also, several diseases of bees are known to only exist within domesticed colonies and not true feral.Why? It would seem feral bees would definitely have the edge for survival!

Paul then writes...

"I think that the "feral" colonies would be the only ones to compete with genetically engineered bees."


I myself think a question should be asked here: namely,- Why would genetically engineered bees be any different and better then bees now bred for by our government, that seem lacking to many, for many attributes necessary for survival and production that denote successful beekeeping operations in a health conscious world? 

Paul then writes..

"While science has been making huge leaps in developing honeybees which will be more resistant to mites and diseases, the feral bees would also have to be resistant or develop resistance to these problems or nature would selectively diminish their numbers (i.e. "survival of the fittest"). Domestic bees would be able to survive while the beekeeper takes the time to care for them. Without the beekeeper, I see the numbers and sizes of domestic colonies tapering off unless they can also adapt to their environment, both good and bad."

Here Paul starts to break out the differences between true feral and domestic, so to many there must be differences. He says domestic bees would only be able to survive while the beekeeper takes the time to care for them. 

Further that without beekeeper help he can see colony numbers and size,which I assume to be volume here, decreasing unless the bees themselves can adapt, meaning to true feral. 

Then when Paul first write above that feral colonies are colonies living on their own while domestic colonies are colonies living in hives maintained by man, THERE REALLY IS A DISTINCT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES and even Paul can see that hives maintained by man to survive are different and must adapt for survival in our world today.

But again, what are the differences and how did they get that way? How do we put the bees back together for survival or are they doomed to seperate lives now in todays world?

Just what is feral and what is domestic? 

Paul has given us a good start. Domestic bees it seems today, can no longer live on their own in a real world. And yet feral bees must survive so we have bees to draw from as beekeepers as a clean renewable resource.

But what are the differences and how do we use them for our bees survival? How do we get our domestic bees to adapt so they can survive?

Questions....questions....NEED MORE IMPUT..Let's think guys...


Comments please..........


Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Paul B (Mar 22, 2000)

Hi again, if you don't mind, I'd like to add another comment or two and ask another question in order to further add to this great discussion. First, I asked if the difference between feral and domestic colonies is the interaction of humans. Dee posted a comment that helped open my eyes... it is: "This is an excellent assumption, but as many beekeepers know, swarms ensue from many domestic honeybee colonies living under man's control. 
Are they then more like the feral bees in the wild or more like the other domestic honeybee colonies living under man's control?" This is a great question. I think about the 2 bunnies that my daughters own. They are truly domesticated, being born and raised in complete captivity. These animals still have many "natural instincts" which guide their actions, but, more importantly, they have become so dependent upon humans to care for them that they would have a slim chance of survival if allowed to roam free. While I don't think that this is the case for honeybees, I do think that human added medications and custom built hive boxes probably does have an effect on how domestic bees survive. Fortunately, the nature of beekeeping still requires that the bees have enough autonomy that they can keep their instincts intact enough for them to survive on their own after swarming. I wonder if there isn't a small change that occurs to the swarm over time which would allows them to convert from the less resistive domestic hive to the more resistive feral hive.

Can anyone help me understand this better??

If I remember correctly, I read a book which explained that the Native American Indians were curious about the "White man's" flys, which explains to me that all our current feral colonies were in fact somebodies domestic hive at one time. Apparently, they made the conversion.

Dee also made this excellent observation: "I myself think a question should be asked here: namely,- Why would genetically engineered bees be any different and better then bees now bred for by our government, that seem lacking to many, for many attributes necessary for survival and production that denote successful beekeeping operations in a health conscious world?"

Here is a question that I need to understand better... I have been told that many of the breeds of bees that we buy on the market today have been bred to be more gentle to work while still retaining their aggressive productivity. So, aren't we already quite a distance down the road of breeding/genetic engineering to raise hybrids, AND aren't all the current domestic and recently turned feral colonies also derived from these hybrids??

Please advise...

This is a great discussion, so everybody, join in!!!

See Ya,
Paul


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Okay, a couple more questions.

Dee, you write:
"This is an excellent assumption, but as many beekeepers know, swarms ensue from many domestic honeybee colonies living under man's control. 

Are they then more like the feral bees in the wild or more like the other domestic honeybee colonies living under man's control?"

Just how many "real" feral bee hives are there in the U.S.? I have to think it is a very, very small number. Since feral means:

1.a. Existing in a wild or untamed state. b. Having returned to an untamed state from domestication.

I feel a hive of bees would have to have been on their own for quite a few years before they could be called feral. I would assume the majority of hives that are found outside a domestic beehive are bees that originated from one. One has to take into account that the queen is more than likely one that a breeder raised and how many generations would it take for the genes to balance back, with natural mating, to a "natural/feral" bee?

So I think "they" are more like domestic honeybees because most of them are. The word feral gets misused a lot and I think people think just because a bunch of bees are somewhere other than a beekeepers hive, they are in their "natural" state and they are "wild" bees. It seems this understanding first has to be addressed before one can discuss much further.

-Barry


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

Hi to Paul B. and others reading this discussion.....

This is in reply to Paul's comments posted on 10-25-2000 12:10AM

Paul had asked if the difference between feral and domestic colonies is the interaction of humans, meaning: Are they then more like the feral bees in the wild or more like the other domestic honeybee colonies living under man's control?

While Paul didn't think that this was the case for honeybees, he did think that human added medications and custom built hive boxes probably does have an effect on how domestic bees survive and wondered further, if there isn't a small change that occures to the swarm over time, which would allow them to convert from the less resistive dometice hive, to the more resistive feral hive.

Paul B. then wanted to know if anyone could help him understand this better?


REPLY TO PAUL B.

Yes indeed Paul, the difference between feral and doemestic colonies is the interaction of man. While in many areas of our world today feral bees in the wild are still unchanged, these areas are diminishing, because of civilization and encroachment by man.

Truly domesticated honeybees,like the bunnies you mentioned, your daughters own, cannot survive any longer in the wild after having been born and raised in complete captivity by man. 

This is a sad, sad state to be in with our honeybees under man's control. It has even been documented, this great difference now that has occurred, by Doctors Nathan M. Schiff and Walter S. Sheppard in a paper published in October 1995 in the Journal of Economic Entomology, Titled "Genetic Analysis of Commercial Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from the Southeastern United States. 

In this paper it was suggested by them, that significant genetic differences now found between commercial and feral populations of honeybees, suggest that the feral populations may NOW represent a novel source of genetic variation for breeding programs.

How Sad to think that our domesticated honeybees have gotten so man controlled with insemination and inbreeding, not naturally happening in Nature, that we now need Nature's help with fresh supplies of genetic material to help solve today's problems.

Yet, Paul, if bees were brought here to the Americas by man, then todays domesticated bees and feral bees should still all be the same for breeding back and forth. Sad they are no longer.

But this is not the whole problem either, this overused insemination and inbreeding of our domesticated honeybees.....

Something else far worse has happened to our industry worldwide. In the search for a much better productive honeybee (along with better plants and all farm animals) we have opened Pandora's Box of parasitic mites and diseases by enlarging the size of our honeybees, making their bodies over 20-30% larger. This was done to let larger wings with which to fly and longer tongues with which to suck nectar from plants for better pollenation and honey yields.

But all it has done is make our bees slower and less competitive in today's world, and then we even compounded the problem by inbreeding and artificial insemination, over using the practices so much, that finally our domestic commercial honeybee populations have now seperated themselves from from true feral. Sad


If you want to read about some of this sizing history you can do so at http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby and read through chapters 4-7 thereabouts.

Now to actually see this in your bees, especially if you have caught swarms and/or purchased bees that have been interacting also with swarm infusions, light up a smoker and get something to sit on, and then go through your bees and look at them closely.

Differences to look for basically to begin with are SIZE....

Many colonies you will find today are a combination of feral and domestic honeybees. They are also a combination of yellow coloured and black colour, or colour mixtures of both.

You will also see in your colonies, if you look closely, that you will have some small worker bees and some large worker bees and even worker bees inbetween in several sizes, besides this colour variation. This is not normal in Nature for true feral honeybees.

Look closely at your honeybees as to physical characteristics as to colour and sizing variation and then tell me what you have found and we will discuss further.

Paul, you have very good comments, so I know you will have very good perception in looking at your bees also, in trying to find answers to your questions.

I look forward to hearing from you again and I hope I am being of some help to your understanding. 

Please let me know if I am not and I will try other words to try to get my thoughts across to you...

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Juandefuca (Mar 16, 2000)

To all of you !
A heck of a lot of ground was covered and may be another 5 cents brings up some more thoughts.
According to history ( As far as one can depend on hearsay)Bees have been handled by man in one container or another since 5000 years.
I do not profess to be any smarter than those folks at that time and since they apparently had the benefit of honey, they must have been at least as knowledgable as we today, bare of the nittygrit of viral infection causes.
Bees which absconded or swarmed build another hive in any location they see fit to house themselves.
They are then NOT under the care of the beekeeper and the law of the fittest survive comes into effect, regardles of whether "man bred" or not.
The "European Honey bee" was alledgedly introduced by invading hordes of populace of Europe into this continent.
With it came the notion of propagation under all circumstances resulting into the food and space crisis of today and therefore the endavour to foster the research and development of altering genetics of so called "natural" selection and it's possible ,not thought of, consequences.
Obviously we are getting here into not only a philosophical debate but also a econmic/ political one.
The feature of agricultural managements and applications of maximum yields, the pollinator is forced to abide by demand to make a living, thus using anything available to maintain his or her flock. There is no way to alter that now. Unless we turn the clock back and stop propagating the species as it is done . ( Politically very incorrect !!!!)
Some of you favour what one thinks as the "natural" way of genetic development and the other the man dominated thought of "management".
Personally I am strictly opposed to anything smelling of medicines.( And feeding Sugarsyrup under all circumstances as a routine) 
The bottomline here is one of economics and one is forced to compromise , like it or not.
The discussion is the difference of "Feral" versus "Domesticated".
One could also use the term "Manipulated " . Since we have been "Breeding " to what we think as desirable , it appears that the original and imported bee ( Which by the way was already 
"Domesticated"; remember the 5000 years)is nonexistent. Of course in modern times we became much smarter and added more domestication and genetic undesirable traits.
I doubt whether we can now identify whether or not this or that swarm living in trees and the like is "Feral " or one of "Ours".
At least not the Beekeeper such as I. 
BUT There are some in the wilderness which did survive AND maintained their viability.
If I am not mistaken has DR Sheppard identified one as such.And- traces of this line I have within my colonies thanks to the man trying to keep this line going. 
We are always on the lookout to find more "Feral" colonies to augment the genetics. 
Barry has well observed . There is a multitude of different colorations and sizes in ONE colony even if the dominance is "black" or "Yellow".Drifting alone accounts for differences in one colony .The random drone pool adds to this 
uncontrolled dillemma.
I lost at least 2 very large swarms this year due to NOT requeening when it was the time. I wonder where they went and what happend to them now. Will they survive ? I hope so . And I also hope their offspring will come back ( Fat chance of wishful thinking).
Even if it hurts: I submit to the law of nature: Survival of the fittest. But still I try to help them out because I love those critters.
Happy beeing
JDF


----------



## Robert Brenchley (Apr 23, 2000)

Hi All.

I'm responding to Dee's comments about multicoloured bees. I started beekeeping this year. with a nuc which were described as 'local mongrels'; I was really surprised to find bees of different colours hatching out; a few are indeed smaller. Other coloies I have seen have been similar, and it is clear that if you don't make a conscious effort to maintain a particular race or strain of bee, this is what you get. This points to serious instability here in the genepool.

This is clearly a thoroughly unnatural situation, and hence the bees here in the UK can no longer be described as 'natural', even if they are living in a wild state. I assume feral bees to be rare or nonexistent around Birmingham, where I live, as my observation has been that bees are only found in the vicinity of beekeepers; for instance, there are almost none a quarter of a mile from my own hive.

This goes back to the importation of Italian queens, which began on a serious scale in the last half of the 19th Century; this importation accelerated after the arrival of tracheal mite around 1920, when the native British black bee (A. m. mellifera) was wrongly assumed to be extremely susceptible. So most of our bees are hybrids. The conditions here are obviously different in significant respects to those of Northern Italy; the climate is colder and wetter, and the result has been selection pressure in the direction of native characteristics. Add the continued importation of queens, and you see the reason for this unstable genepool. 

One positive development; in 1920, our bees were highly susceptible to TM, and possibly half the colonies here died (reports that 95% had died were grossly exaggerated. Contrary to reports, Italians were hit as hard or harder than native bees) TM is not normally a serious disease these days, and before the arrival of varroa, perhaps 75% of the colonies here were feral. In the absence of any deliberate programme for breeding resistant bees, they have acquired resistance NATURALLY. I have no information on the time this took. 

From what information I have available, the original bee used in the US was a black bee similar to the German heath bee. Most people these days, I understand, use Italians. Our northern bees will fly to mate in significantly worse weather than Italians, which is, I believe, one of the factors leading to a tendency for bees to 'drift' towards a black type over here. If you have a difference between your domestic and your feral bees, is it because mating flights occur under slightly different circumstances, or because of the sort of selection pressures I have outlined. Is the difference consistent across the whole of the US? What was the climate in the area where the research was done? I feel there are so many different things going on that a great deal more research on bee genetics and ecology will be needed. Meanwhile, if bees can develop resistance to TM on their own, why not varroa?

Regards,

Robert Brenchley

[email protected]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Dee -

You wrote:

"Many colonies you will find today are a combination of feral and domestic honeybees. They are also a combination of yellow coloured and black colour, or colour mixtures of both.

You will also see in your colonies, if you look closely, that you will have some small worker bees and some large worker bees and even worker bees inbetween in several sizes, besides this colour variation. This is not normal in Nature for true feral honeybees."

I still need to get this issue clarified. Are you using the term "feral" to mean any bee that is not living in a beekeepers hive? I honestly doubt there are any colonies that survive on their own in the wild for more than 1 or 2 years around here. I'm sure there are places in the world where wild bees still exist on their own year after year but surely this is not the norm? If this is the case, what kind of influence are my bees really getting? Aren't the getting the influence from my neighbors bees or the swarm of bees that left one of my hives last year? Can we expect a swarm to make it on their own with varroa around.

I know this will bring up the issue of bee size too. It also takes several generations for the bees to size down when left on their own. First the bees have to be able to live that long (several years) and with varroa, I imagine the percentage of survivors drop way down.

Comments? or should I even ask ... :> )

-Barry


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

This reply is in regard to Barry's post of 10-25-2000 at 01:13AM

Again some very interesting statements and questions have been posed for discussion for all reading to ponder and reply about. 

Barry writes concerning swarms ensuing from the many domestic honeybee colonies living under man's control and asks:

"Are they then more like the feral bees in the wild or more like the other domestic honeybees colonies living under man's control?" Barry further writes: "Just how many "real" feral bee hives are there in the U.S? I have to think it is a very, very small number." 

Reply:

This is a leading question and I am sure depending upon the region of the United States a beekeepers lives in various answers. It is also a leading question because the swarms ensuing out of domestic colonies would vary by the race/strain of bees kept by the beekeeper, which could be different from the local area population of true feral honeybees. Added further, is the fact that depending upon the comb foundation size used by the beekeeper in his supers, the bees can be dramatically different, by being artificially larger than that found in Nature. 

So to answer Barry's question, I would have to say that swarms ensuing out of domestic colonies in today's world, probably are more like the other domestic honeybee colonies living under man's control; and due to outmating, unless the beekeeper is purchasing mated queens of a homogenious uniform size from a bee breeder using artificial insemination, the bees would contain a mixture of sizes within the various subcastes within the colonies, ranging from true feral sizing to the largest domestic size relative to oversized foundation usage the bees were placed upon. 

This situation would then dictate size reduction necessary for the swarming honeybees in question to obtain eventual true feral sizing parameters in an outmating scenario.

Now just how many "real" feral bee hives are there in the U.S.? I would say depending upon the area it could range from very high to only a few to maybe non-existant. I say this because in densely built areas, swarms might be few for real feral bees; and in areas where beekeepers keep thousands of domesticated colonies, thus enforcing a strong breeding pressure for domestic only.

Now on the other hand in very rural areas and in our mountainous states, I would imagine it would be safe to say there are still considerable numbers of true feral swarms. This could also be true for swarms living in trees in our wet coastal plains throughout our Gulf Port Southern States.

Barry then later wrote another statement that got me to thinking, which too, is under varing opinions. Barry wrote: "I would assume the majority of hives that are found outside a domestic beehive are bees that originated from one."

Reply:

I myself would agree here, honeybees being social insects and I believe like seems to be with like, especially in the apiaries we ourselve keep. However, on page 865 of the November 2000 issue of the American Bee Journal, Mr Jerry Hayes writes a reply that states  For biological, inbreeding reasons most swarms try to get as far away from the parent colony as possible. Consequently, there is differing opinion on this!

Perhaps some other beekeepers reading this discussion can tell us their perspective of the above thoughts here!

Comments anyone, as the discussion continues.


Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

On 10-28-2000 at 09:59 PM Juandefuca joined the debate here after seeing that a heck of a lot of ground was covered and wanted to add another 5 cents to bring up some more thoughts.

Well expanded the debate he certainly has now: 

Juandefuca wrote: 

The "European Honey Bee" was allegedly introduced by invading hordes of populace of Europe into this continent.

with it came the notion of propagation under all circumstances resulting into the food and space crisis of today and therefore the endavour to foster the research and development of altering genetics of so called "natural" selection and it's possible, not thought of, consequences.

There is no way to alter that now. Unless we turn the clock back and stop propagating the species as it is done. (Politically very incorrect!!!)

The bottomline here is one of economics and one is forced to compromise, like it or not.

Reply:

No I do not think one is forced to compromise for in the end with today's mounting problems, all will eventually end up having to do what works or have dead bees, whether cost effective or not. Survival will dictate in the end.

Juandefuca then goes on to expand the debate even further on a subject that has been debated for years by writing:

The discussion is the difference of "Feral" versus "Domesticated". One could also use the term "Manipulated". Since we have been "breeding" to what we think as desirable, it appears that the original and imported bee (which by the way was already "Domesticated"...


Juandefuca then further writes: 

I doubt whether we can now identify whether or not this or that swarm living in trees and the like is "feral" or one of "Ours".

Reply:

Now here we have finally opened the door to discussion of not only retrogressing our honeybees back to a natural true feral bee relative to the local area, of the region they are living in, but also now broadened the discussion as to whether or not the imported bee should be considered the orginal bee of the American continents.

Since some older beekeepers still believe that there are still remnants of true NATIVE bees to be found on the American Continents, I myself being one, I now submit the following for adding to the discussion on Natural/Feral/Domestic Beekeeping and what the relationships are one to the other.

EXCERPT FROM THE HISTORY OF MEXICO by Abbe D. Francesco Saverio Clavigero (1731-1787)

Translated from original Italian in 1806 by Chas Cullen, Esq.

Excerpt from Book 1, of Valume 1.

There are at least six different kinds of bees. The first is the same as the common bee of Europe, with which it agrees, not only in size, shape and color, but also in its disposition and manners, and in the qualities of its honey and wax.

The second species, which differs from the first only in having no sting, is the bee of Yucatan and Chiapa, which makes the fine, clear honey of ESTABENTUN, of an aromatic flavor, superior to that of all other kinds of honey with which we are acquainted.The honey is taken from them six times a year, that is once in every other month; but the best is that which is got in November, being made from a white flower like Jessamine, which blooms in September, called in that country ESTABENTUN,from which the honey has derived its name. The honey of Estabentun is in high estimation with the English and French, who touch at the ports of Yucatan; and I have known the French of Guarico to buy it sometimes for the purpose of sending it as a present to the king.

The third species resembles in its form, the winged ants, but is smaller than the common bee, and without a sting. This insect, which is peculiar to warm and temperate climates, forms nests, in size and shape resembling sugar loaves, and even sometimes greatly exceeding these in size, which are suspended from rocks, or from trees, and particularly from the oak. The populousness of these hives is much greater than those of the common bee. The nymphs of this bee, which are eatable, are white and round, like a pearl. The honey is of a greyish color, but of a fine flavor.

The fourth species is a yellow bee, smaller than the common one, but like it, furnished with a sting. Its honey is not equal to those already mentioned.

The fifth is a small bee furnished with a sting, which constructs hives of an orbicular form, in subterranean cavities; and the honey is sour and somewhat bitter.

The TLALPIPPROLLI, which is the sixth species, is black and yellow, of the size of the common bee, but has no sting.

WASP

The XICOTLI or Xicote, is a thick black wasp, with a yellow belly, which makes a very sweet honey, in holes made by it in walls. It is provided with a strong sting, which gives a very painful wound.The Cuicalmiahautl has likewise a sting, but whether it makes honey or not, we do not know.


FURTHER REPLY:

Now with the above except written by the Abbe we know that there were yellow and black bees here in the Americas like the imported domesticated ones brought over here by early settlers.

Now please note! All early scientific writings we follow for the beginning of our sciences were begun by the church and these were very learned men. They also kept very accurate records and I believe that if there were previous records of bees being brought over, they would be so written, but there are none, because the yellow and black bees were already here, just like the common bees of Europe then presently in use.

Further, early exploration ships had aboard church scientists to document and verify what was found in the new world, so again, I believe it is correct to say, if they were here previously, then the Abbe would have written that into the text, as to prior entry and stated when so, which was not indicated here.

Therefore, now thrown into this discussion is besides, What is feral? What is domestic? What is natural? NOW, do we need to consider parameters of native and non-native categories as well. 

I think we now do!!!


Thank you Juandefuca for your excellent reply.

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

This post is in reply to Robert Brenchley's post of 10-29-2000 10:35AM

Robert wrote and asked the following:

"If you have a difference between your domestic and your feral bees, is it because of the sort of selection pressures I have outlined? Is the difference consistent across the whole of the US? What was the climate in the area where the research was done? Meanwhile, if bees develop resistance to TM on their own, why not varroa?"

Reply:

Well Robert, the differences between our domestic and feral bees that were shown in tests published in the Journal of Economic Entomology I would say were due to neither of your suggested causes.

Yes also, the difference is consistent across the whole of our United States from the West Coast of California to our East Coast of the Virginias.

The climates involved had a whole spectrum of range from damp coastal plains to desert areas, to high mountain locations.

Concerning your last question Robert. It has been found that bees that have developed trachael mite resistance quickly lose such resistance once chemical treatments for varroa are started, necessitating having to go through the whole process again. 

Unfortunately, this time with the mites being triggered into their full reproductive capability for both trachael and varroa mites, and the problem compounded by larger foundation upsizings through the 1980s and 1990s, the problems of mites are much more difficult to handle.Consequently today, beekeepers are finding it difficult to get bees to develop resistance naturally for both mites. 

Now Robert, I feel I have answered your questions, but probably not the way you were hoping. 

If you want to discuss further on the subject, please come back and let's go deeper to help you find the information you seek. Just tell me which direction you wish to go so we can discuss and maybe others can help also.

Sincerely

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

Barry, this is in reply to your post of 10-29-2000 09:40 PM

You wrote: I still need to get this issue clarified. Are you using the term "feral" to mean any bee that is not living in a beekeepers hive?

Reply:

Yes. Technically under USA law, any beehive not in beekeeper maintained equipment with removeable frames is considered feral. Relate it to other farm/ranch livestock. On the open plains on state and federal lands the livestock is in a feral natural mode, but once in a corral they are considered under man's control and in a domesticated situation. Now here too, there is a point of confusion. How big do you consider the corral can be and still be considered under man's control. 

Barry, then writes:

I'm sure there are places in the world where wild bees still exist on their own year after year, but surely this is not the norm?

Actually, I would say it is. It is only in industrial/developed areas where it is not. Ours is a big world.

Barry further writes:

What kind of influence are my bees really getting? Aren't they getting the influence from my neighbors bees or the swarm of bees that left one of my hives last year? 

Reply:

This depends.Swarms can travel up to 15 or more miles before settling down, depending upon what influences cause them to swarm, which can be many. However, for mating purposes, there is a distinct radius that has to be kept within, just like there is for foraging purposes. Also density of the given number of hives whether feral or domestic in a given area comes into play. Technically, since nature always outbreeds to ensure evolution goes forward you probably don't have the influence you think you have when it comes to mating.

Barry also writes:

Can we expect a swarm to make it on their own with varroa around?

Reply:

Depends. Some swarms will have problems and some won't. I would say it depends upon their point of acclimitization within their localized area as to whether or not they will make it with Varroa around.

Barry lastly states and asks:

I know this will bring up the issue of bee size too. It also takes several generations for the bees to size down when left on their own. First the bees have to be able to live that long (several years) and with varroa, I imagine the percentage of survivors drop way down. Comments? or should I even ask...:> )

Reply:

Again, the outcome here depends upon the external influences at play. Many areas in the world will have no problems and yet many will, and are indeed having problems. 

The areas seeming to have the most problems are where man's encroachment has dominated, with accompanying practices of feral bee genocide,and artificial breeding/comb enlargements trying to change what should naturallly be in a given area.

Further comments to any of the above or new ones needing reply? There is still much to go over and discuss. 

Anyone else with ideas to add to what has already been said either here or previously?

Sincerely

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Paul B (Mar 22, 2000)

First of all, THANKS to all who have added questions and comments in this discussion. It has been a great discussion tool AND has helped my education of beekeeping immensely.

Now, I'd like to add a question based on a reply that Dee wrote to Barry. In the post of 11-07-00, Dee quoted Barry and replied as follows:

Barry further writes:

What kind of influence are my bees really getting? Aren't they getting the influence from my neighbors bees or the swarm of bees that left one of my hives last year? 

Reply:

This depends.Swarms can travel up to 15 or more miles before settling down, depending upon what influences cause them to swarm, which can be many. However, for mating purposes, there is a distinct radius that has to be kept within, just like there is for foraging purposes. Also density of the given number of hives whether feral or domestic in a given area comes into play. Technically, since nature always outbreeds to ensure evolution goes forward you probably don't have the influence you think you have when it comes to mating.

Now for my question... Wouldn't Barry be correct in questioning the effect that neighbors/his hives would have on feral colonies as drones from several colonies will compete to mate with virgin queens in the spring? As these new feral colonies expand and split naturally, wouldn't breeding with local drones provide a mix of bee strains which would explain the reason why everyones colonies have dark and light, small and large bees? As you suggested, I did in fact notice that my colonies have dark and light, small and large bees within. As far as effects of local domestic bees goes... If a colony travels 15 miles away to settle, how far will drones travel in order to mate?

Thanks for the education,
Paul


----------



## Juandefuca (Mar 16, 2000)

Wow , I have not been around for a few days and a lot of excellent thoughts are presented. 
First I might mention that Dee has again educated, at least me, that there are indeed NATIVE american continent's bees which Produce Honey !!!
I was never aware of it because there appears to be hardly any mention of it in the common literature or debates.
There are of course a multitude of other pollinating insects which either look like miniature bees of different colors as well as a variety of wasps to assure the pollination of flora in the americas . Whether they are able to sting I have not tried to provoke them.
I have no quarrel with the subject of gross influences committed by us as far as genetics are concerned. Neither do I find fault with Barry's standpoint of this maniacle sugar syrup attitude at all costs.
As far as this debate goes as it applies to the preference : I found that bees not necessarily "LIKE" sugar syrup but certainly go for it when you present them with chunks of pressed comb as I done yesterday.
I draw the line in removal of honey when it comes down to their "House" and supply, AND if there is enough stores in them to warrant the removal of Supers.
But I like to bring another item to the attention . This info is of second hand nature and alledgedly derives from the academic researchers. 
Tracheal mites : A 60% ( Don't hold me to that number,it could be 40, I forgot) infestation is not fatal .
Varroa: "Our" bees are able to carry 2 mites without grave results.
That means : If a colony has , let's say, 50 000 workers , that gives 100 000 mites in the hive on the bees.
Going past this number per bee is fatal. 
Now, I could quote my findings now, but it is better to hold off until I have more detailed facts. 
I suspect that by my anecdotal experience there is hope that these figures above seem true.
In respect to so called "Feral" colonies that might just be the reason they survived amidst the onslaught of mites in conjunction with a genetic trait of good housekeeping and hygenic behaviour on themself.
I have mentioned it before ( Not here I believe) that also I try to spot mites on bees , I only saw ONE on a bee outside the hive , Very few in drone brood.
Yet with the application of chemical warfare Thousands dropped off. 
On the other side of the coin I have reports from reliable sources the incidence of visually detecting mites up the ying yang on bees and crippling effects in combination with it. These colonies perished.
As far as the genetic variety ( Color diffences) is concerned which we observe within our colonies is as far as I can figure the fault by the inherent natural behavior of the male specimen.
And then there is the incidence of the mite leaving the "sinking ship" When AFB is within the colony.
Furthermore has the reduction of cell size an additional role to play . 
Ok that'es enough for now,
JDF
Ps : For those people from the united kingdom:
Back in the 50 ties or early 60 I read a book from an English author which attributed the demise of the native bee to the management of skeps which eventually wiped the colonies off the isle. Then, they had to import the "Italian" to start all over again. He also had something to convey as it pertains to the African bee.True ????.


----------



## Don (Nov 9, 2000)

Just to add a couple pennies to the pot and get my feet wet in the thread...

To start with definitions of the terms in question:

Domestic: kept by people. One can talk about varying degrees of domestication ranging from merely providing a home similar to preferred in the wild and not influencing behavior, to the other extreme of influencing nearly all aspects of behavior. You can also differentiate between domestic by virtue of keeping practices versus an actual change in the genetic behavior and form of the species (domestic ferrets are closer to native varieties than domestic dogs). Maybe it would be better to combine the definitions: domestication is the degree of adaptation (and dependency?) of a species to management by humans, or management practices that require or induce adaptation.

Natural, then, I take to be essentially the opposite: similarity in keeping practices or animal characteristics to wild-type, as they exist without the intervention of man. With regards to beekeeping practices, this would be departure from the maximal intervention in the bees' lives, to the extreme of claiming ownership and "keeping" bees that build their own colonies where and how they want and you just appreciate them buzzing around and pollinating your fruits and vegetables.

Feral refers to animals that returned to (completely) natural practices from a domesticated state. I, too, feel that a colony needs to be surviving on its own for a couple generations before stray bees originating from a domestic hive could be considered feral.

Native bees are only an issue in Europe, as the native bees in the Americas are non-Apis mellifera. I'm guessing that the high levels of imported bees are going to reduce truly native strains. However, it might be appropriate to refer to "wild-type": bees with characteristics minimally influenced by humans.


Where we're running into trouble these days is the extent to which we've domesticated the bees -- we take away their adaptation to the environment by devising various means and practices enabling the unfit to survive. This fosters their dependence on us and decreases their ability to cope on their own. The more domesticated we make the bees, the more costly becomes the task of allowing the bees to face their challenges without our help once we fail to provide adequate control of those challenges -- this is essentially what we do when we withdraw aracide or antimicrobial treatments and rebuild from the decimated survivors. The more dependent on people they've become, the higher proportion will succumb to find a few that haven't lost what it takes to get by.

There are some things that we can do to ease the reversal of domestication (in these areas). One is to not unleash the full selective pressure at once. With resistance of microbes to antibiotics, using high doses of antibiotics for an adequate time doesn't foster resistance - it kills the microbes. The conditions that foster resistance are non-lethal levels and durations of the antibiotics such that degrees of resistance are rewarded with degrees of flourishing. What this translates to in beekeeping, is that once we clue in that humans ultimately aren't going to be able to control the mite problems, we need to do just enough to allow more resistant bees to survive better than less resistant ones. If we pull out all our supports at once, we run the risk of lethal doses of mites with insufficient surviving bees to rebuild from. As we apply this selective pressure to subsequent generations, the levels of resistance in the general population becomes higher and better able to withstand pressures from less-restrained challenges, until we reach the point that we can withdraw all support and have an adequate survival rate from which to breed resistant survivors. The key is we have to be willing to accept some losses, and even encourage it. As long as we're trying to minimize losses, we're doing our best to foster domestication rather than resilience.

Fortunately, bees are less domesticated than some other animals. Humans have largely taken advantage of existing traits rather than shaping traits, at least until the last few centuries. Apart from the recent dependence on our aracides, bees would do well on their own, thus the supply of feral hives prior to the mite problems. Once we become willing to allow the bees to adapt rather than encouraging dependence, the bees should be successful in adapting to these challenges with time.


Ok, that's enough rambling on that. In reply to the issue about genetic differences between feral versus hived colonies: Unfortunately I haven't read the article but that conclusion doesn't surprise me. In many apiaries, the bees may come from some particular breeder(s). If there are truly feral bees in the area, they probably do not come from those suppliers and if there is a substantial interbreeding feral presence, they may have homogenized their traits somewhat except for the influx of escaped hive swarms. Wild colonies, since they don't have artificial feedings and aren't in uniform hives, will probably have different build-up and swarming/breeding schedules from domestic hives, thus helping to decrease intermingling. Thus, I don't find it surprising to find significant genetic differences between feral and hived bees, without invoking substantial genetic drift.

Feel free to ask for clarification if any of my ideas aren't clear. Additional specific responses as the muse hits me.

Don


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

Now Im going to jump in and muddy the water with a few general opinions that may or may not be relevant!
1.There has always been a belief among some that North America had a native honeybee.Maybe DNA testing could prove it once and for all.
2.Local Pit River Indians told me they have always had honey at their feasts(I couldnt determine how far back is 'always')
3.Honey producers often go 'way out' into the most isolated back country chasing wildflower nectar flows.Ive seen many swarms issue from these isolated bee yards,even the best keepers lose swarms.
4.Before varroa,wild colonies existed in many hollow trees in this heavily timbered area.I do not now have any knowledge that such colonies exist that are not recent swarms from kept hives.I do have faith that such colonies do exist and will carry the survival genes that will ensure honeybees survival.Meanwhile it seems that we are keeping our bees alive(and perpetuating the non-survival genes)by chemical means just to meet pollenation contracts and have a crop to sell.Hey,we gotta survive too!But its getting harder and harder to balance the various treatments,and in the long run they may do us in.So we have all got to get better at looking for survivors.One way or another it will happen.


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

This is in reply to Paul B's post of 8 Nov 2000, at 09:11 AM

Paul B wrote:

Now for my question...Wouldn't Barry be correct in questioning the effect that neighbors/his hives would have on feral colonies as drones from several colones will compete to mate with virgin queens in the spring?

Reply:

I don't think that the effect that Barry's/neighbors hives would have on feral colonies is as great as you would think. In fact, I believe that the drones from feral colonies in the area would have a greater effect upon Barry's and his neighbors colones, then drones from their colonies effecting the feral bees in the area.

Paul B then next wrote:

As these new feral colones expand and split naturally, wouldn't breeding with local drones provide a mix of bee strains which would explain the reason why everyones colonies have dark and light, small and large bees?

Reply:

Aaah, now we get into a different chain of thought. Now it's not Barry's/neighbors hives actually effecting local feral bees with their drones, but swarms ensuing from same, effecting change. This is a different
scenario and yes it would.

Now we are talking about virgin queens going forth to be mated with drones in the local area, of which the feral side would have the breeding advantage, by right of retrogression off of enlarged artificial combs, in varing stages of downsizing, that could account for the size variances talked about.

Paul B also wrote:

If a colony travels 15 miles away to settle, how far will drones travel in order to mate?

Reply:

Since most mating flights by drones take anywhere from 25 to 60 minutes and are dependent upon drone congregation areas being near, most drones only travel about 3 kilometers from home, but 5-8 kilometers is not too unheard of, and there have even been reports (reference the Varroa Handbook by Mobus and Connor) of drones and virgin queens being shown to fly over 15 km to accomplish a mating. 

I myself would imagine that size would be a factor here, relative to flight speed and time available to mate, with bigger bodies flying less distance and at less speed; and smaller, lighter more trim bodies flying faster and greater distances to accomplish the act of mating.

I hope I have answered your questions. If not please let me know why not and I will try to explain further.

Sincerely,

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

This post is in reply to a post by Juandefuca 8 Nov 2000 at 10:53 PM

Juandefuca wrote:

But I like to bring another item to the attention... This infor is of second hand nature and allegedly derives from the academic researchers.

Trachael mites: A 60% (Don't hold me to that number, it could be 40, I forgot)infestaton is not fatal.

Varroa: "Our" bees are able to carry 2 mites without grave results. That means: If a colony has, let's say, 50,000 workers, that gives 100,000 mites in the hive on the bees.
Going past this number per bee is fatal.

Reply: I am going to interject some information here now, Juandefuca, for you and others.

In the second edition of "Honey Bee Pathology" by Bailey and Ball, concerning Acarapis Woodi (trachael mites) it is written: "When colonies are severely infested, most of their adult bees will die slightly earlier than usual, and this many not be sufficiently counterbalanced by the production of new bees. Thus, severely infested colonies dwindle more than usual; and colonies with more than about 30% of their individuals infested are more likely to die in spring than the rest.

In Biology, Detection and Control of Varroa Jacobsoni: A Parasitic Mite on Honey Bees, by Dietz and Hermann, it is written: Honey bees being parasitized by the Varroa mite suffer in two ways. They are "robbed" of their hemolymph, and the puncture made by the mite's chelicerae represents an entrance point for secondary microbial "invaders."

With an infestation of less than 6 mites, honey bees usually succeed in reaching maturity. The developing mites, therefore, also reach maturity. Higher infestations may result in the death of the bee.

Now Juandefuca, here is something to watch: It is said that the longevity of female mites during the brood-rearing periods is perhaps similar to those of adult bees, roughly 4-8 weeks.Shabanov et al(1978) reported that female mites that have hatched during the summer period live 2-3 months. During the fall, or broodless period, females may live for 5 to 8 months. The life span of mites during the winter is 6-8 months(Needham, 1988). Females overwinter on adult bees, periodically feeding through the soft intersegmental membranes of the first two gastral segments.

Under experimental situations, and in the absence of adult bees and brood, mites are unable to live for more than 5 days. In comb with sealed brood kept at rooom temperature (20 degrees C), mites were able to live up to 30 days.

Now, Juandefuca for European bees, it has been observed that colonies in temperate zones seriously suffer from infestation. Without treatment, there may be a 10-15% mortality during the first year, a 20-30% mortality the second year, and the third or fourth year may show a colony mortality rate of 100%.From the outset of an infestation to the death of a colony, a period of 3-5 yars is necessary.

IMHO, I believe the above is dependent upon cell size, most being, between 5.4mm and 5.6/7mm for brood combs.

Now take these bees and retrogress the cell size back down towards more natural sizing, and I have found out by personal experience that bees will live on 5.0-5.1 brood comb size,with drugs being necessary to control secondary diseases, but the bees only make a living surviving, but giving no surplus. 

Now take these bees and retrogress the brood cell size down again towards 4.9mm, within the natural size range for feral honeybees (4.6mm - 5.0), and secondary diseases practically stop; and the bees not only make a living, but also start giving a surplus for profitability.

Juandefuca wrote towards the end of his post: Furthermore, has the reduction of cell size an additional role to play?

Reply:

Yes. Cell size reduction initiates a whole series of events that better the life of our honeybees.

More comments...ideas...posts for discussion, Anyone?

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

To loggermike. 

Reference your post of 13 Nov 2000 09:19 PM

Sounds good to me. Keep going and believing like you are. 

By the way I posted on 3Nov2000 12:43 AM my thoughts on Native bees too.

We not only have to get better at looking for survivors, we have to learn how to keep them also.

Got more comments loggermike?????

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

Hi Dee,Just read your essays for the first time and have to admit they sure make one think!So Im going to have to digest that info for a while.I have been very skeptical of the idea of using smaller cell foundation,but now I see the logic behind it.
Then I re -read Andy Nachbauers SAD BEES(which I can relate to).We beekeepers are all in the same boat as to our troubles and really need to listen to new ideas that have potential rather than taking pot shots at each other.So we are going to take a good hard look at the size of the natural comb around here ,especially in any feral hives we can find.Then we should have a better idea about what size our bees should be.


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

This post is in reply to Don's post of 11-9-2000, 11:47 PM

Don writes:

Native bees are only an issue in Europe, as the native bees in the Americas
are non-Apis mellifera.

Reply: 

This has never be qualitatively proven in scientific writings and archival evidence in fact points to the opposite assumption from many sources.

Don further writes:

One is to not unleash the full selective pressure at once.
With resistance of microbes to antibiotics, using high doses of antibiotics
for an adequate time doesn't foster resistance - it kills the microbes. The
conditions that foster resistance are non-lethal levels and durations of the
antibiotics such that degrees of resistance are rewarded with degrees of
flourishing. What this translates to in beekeeping, is that once we clue in
that humans ultimately aren't going to be able to control the mite problems,
we need to do just enough to allow more resistant bees to survive better
than less resistant ones. If we pull out all our supports at once, we run
the risk of lethal doses of mites with insufficient surviving bees to
rebuild from. As we apply this selective pressure to subsequent generations,
the levels of resistance in the general population becomes higher and better
able to withstand pressures from less-restrained challenges, until we reach
the point that we can withdraw all support and have an adequate survival
rate from which to breed resistant survivors. The key is we have to be
willing to accept some losses, and even encourage it. 

Reply:

One cannot put enough treatment chemicals into a colony to kill parasitic mites outright like in human medicine, without wholesale slaughter of colonies so treated, which forces sublethal dosages to kill as many mites as possible while still leaving honeybees in theory unharmed. Unfortunately, residues accumulate in the beeswax and more so in the propolis, that over a period of 3-5 years becomes itself, a lethal dosage in its own right akin to physical treatments, as many beekeepers do not practice comb recycling to keep residues down to below lethal residue killing levels. 

Once the bees are weakened by chemical interaction, true, you cannot pull out the chemical supports of routine physical treatments, because the mites would breed uncontrollably against the already weaken honeybees still subject to residue chemicals in the wax and propolis, which by now would really have no effect on the mites, even with the routine higher treatments taken away.

We are in a situation that more resistant bees cannot survive relative to less resistant ones, because when the combs release residues after 3-5 years of residue buildup, the mites can already survive the higher treatment dosages and have responded faster to evolutionary changes, their breeding cycles being so much faster through the generations in mating i.e. days vs 1-2 years for queens. For the bees to be populous enough to fight off the mites at this point would be hard because they are still reacting to the chemicals now contained in the wax and propolis while the mites have adjusted to it. Therefore to help the bees would then take a comb replacement to alleviate the stress of the chemical residues still effecting the bees. 

But, would it still solve the problem at hand? Namely the uncontrolled reproduction of the varroa mites in the broodcombs and breathing tubes of the bees themselves.If we supply selective pressure to help the bees overcome the problem, should not we practice cause and effect and try to eliminate the cause brought on by man's artificial change of the bees environment bringing on the mite problems in the first place? Should not a century of cause and effect be looked at in the increasing of today's bee problems? Once found should not the artificial causes be eliminated and reversed if we have the way and the means to do so? Is not cause and effect practiced in medicine and then cause eliminated to cure the patient effecting cure?

Comments??

Don then wrote:

I don't find it surprising to find significant genetic
differences between feral and hived bees, without invoking substantial
genetic drift.

Reply:

Any ideas as to how the so-called imported apis mellifera bees became so different from their feral counterparts? Again what is natural? What is feral? and what is domestic? How does natural and feral relate to possible Native? 

If bees truly revert as you say in one to two years to more feral rather than natural why do we want to keep them so domestically different? Have we now so domesticated today's bees that they cannot survive without man's help in the wild and yet now with man's help we are killing them faster than the wild could ever hope to do so?

Comments??

Very best regards

Dee


----------



## bobby field (May 15, 2000)

I really don't see what all the stink is about. feral,domestic,wild, Who cares. If my bees make it through the winter and don't die from mites and make honey in the summer, then I don't really care wether they are feral,domestic or whatever. As far as feeding them sugar syrup or using apistan I will do what ever it take to keep them going. If someone thinks they can keep bees today without these aids then more power to them. I recently contacted a person who was trying to raise queens and package bees in the cold north and his theory was that they would be more acclimized to this climate and do better than bees from the deep south. I have done both and it makes no difference, they all do the same, some make it and some don't. Just some of my own thoughts. Bobby


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

Hi,


Feral, domestic, or wild? All bees that a beekeeper owns are domestic. As soon as bees are placed in man's care they are now domestic no matter what the source. To be a beekeeper man must interact with bees to harvest a crop or the keeper part of beekeeping isn't true. I think the issue is what man's interaction with bees that have knocked them out of whack with their natural tendencies. You mentioned sugar syrup. When is the last time your bees mixed up a batch or pollen supplement for that matter. They don't. Bees eat honey(nector) and pollen which keeps them healthy. Sugar syrup isn't natural for them however they will eat it. Would I feed sugar syrup, Yes, if no honey was available or it meant the death of my bees. Apistan will not last forever. Why not try Dee's way of doing things? Look at the Lusby's bees they live everyone elses are being chewed up and spit out! I for one cannot argue with results. As for differences between bees from the north or the south how long do you think it takes for bees to acclimatize to your area? I think if you look there will be subtle differences in their vigor. These are my thoughts. Clayton.


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

This is written in reply to Bobby Field's post of 12-11-2000, 07:10 PM

Dear Bobby,

I see you care greatly for your bees, or you would not be trying so hard to keep them alive. I can also see from what you have written that it has been a very troubling experience that you have been going through.

I sincerely hope that I may help put you onto the right path to take for your bees, but unfortunately I cannot do so unless you yourself want to make the effort to try.

You must try first to understand the problem and then you must make up your mind to rectify the cause and effect circumstances, that are taking a heavy toll upon your bees.

I know it can be very frustrating. Life is hard at times, but I can see behind the words you write and in fact, you seem to care very much, or you would not have taken the step in writing here.

I'm going to ask you to do a few things to start your thought processes, so you can begin to rationalize what has happened, and what needs to be done. 

First I need you to read through the Natural/Feral/Domestic postings here.

Second I need you to read through the SAGA posted on another part of this website beginning at
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm 

You will need to read through at least the history given and retrogression and decontamination parts.

Also there is much historical documentation posted in support of the SAGA along with chemical treadmill information.

Bobby, I know this is a lot to ask you to do, to read so much, but you cannot understand a problem, if you do not know how it got that way in life, and you need to understand, so you can be talked thru, how to resize your bees back onto a natural system, to make beekeeping enjoyable again for you, as it really should be.

Please read and then get back with me and I will do all I can to help you on the proper path for healthy bees, without the use of chemicals and drugs, so your hive products will be healthy for you and your family, the way they were meant to be.

I look forward to hearing again from you.

Please take care of yourself and your bees.

Sincerely,

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

Hi Clayton

This is in reply to your post 12-11-2000 08:05 PM that you were writing while I was writing mine.

Thank you so very much for your kind words of understanding to Bobby.

You are so right that the issue is "What is man's interactions with bees over the course of this past century, that have knocked them out of wack with their natural tendencies.

You are so right to understand that diet is an important part of the problem. Equally so is relatively to the environment in the field and the matings (breeding) they go thru.

How unfortunate it is we as an industry have so artificialized our bees that they are truly domestic for survival in the realworld.

We have artificially sized them up to be out of tune with the plants they need to forage forage for food.

We have artificially sized them up so they no longer breed true and now feral and domestic bees can no longer breed back and forth in many areas.

We put them in a white box, and move them around to pollinate chemically treated hives and them we dump more chemicals upon them.

And yet, Clayton like you said, bees moved around adapt so quickly if left alone. But will and can man do that? Experience so far says no I'am afraid.

We must learn to correct that and the rest written above here.

Thanks again for your comments. Please make more.

I would also like to tell you and others reading here, that there is a new discussion group via email that biologically minded beekeepers are joining to help each other out, and talk back and forth amongst ourselves, rather than fight with others that do not seem inclined to want to make the necessary changes for their bees and a health life style.

Please reference:
http://BiologicalBeekeeping.listbot.com 

I think you will find this a very forward thinking group of beekeepers wanting to do
right by their bees without the use of chemicals and drugs, and willing to help each other out.

Very Best Regards,

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

Thanks Dee. You mentioned that feral and domestic bees cannot breed true. What do you mean by this? That they cannot breed at all? Please clear this up for me. Also I never thought about the large size bees being out of sink with flowers. Good point. At the present 95% of my hives are on 5.2 cell size. Planning to convert 10 hives to 4.9 this spring. Will qeens reared on smaller cell size breed with my drones raised on 5.2 cell size? Depending on your answer what should be done since I raise many of my own queens. When converting cell size what percent of ones colonies should they expect to lose to varroa? I must produce honey, too so I have to make up my initial loses. I think another point to keep in mind is that in order to keep bees man must interact with their bees so no matter what size the bee they will still be domestic. But this doesn't that man hasn't altered the honeybees size over the last century. Comments. Ineed more info on the actual management of smaller sized bees as it pertains to mites. Thanks.


----------



## Robert Brenchley (Apr 23, 2000)

I'm replying rather tardily to Juandefuca's query about the 'disappearance' of the native British bee due to tracheal mite. I'm happy to report that its death was somewhat exaggerated. what happened was that someone did some research in the southeast, where the disease (probably due to viruses vectored by TM) was worst, and then extrapolated across the country. 

In fact, bees apparently identical or nearly so to the old British black bee are still to be found in many highland areas, and there is a significant group of beekeepers over here dedicated to breeding these bees.

The imported Italian bee, being Southern European, tends to do well in the lowland areas, while the British bee, which flies in worse weather, does better in the north and in the hills. Most people have hybrids, but after a bad experience with a bad-tempered hive, I'm planning to requeen with native stock next year.

Coming back to the issue of genetic differences between domestic and feral bees, does anyone have any idea what mechanism could be preventing interbreeding between the two populations? Could it be something as simple as the American beekeeping culture, which appears to favour bought queens, or is it something else?

Regards,

Robert Brenchley

[email protected]


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

This is in reply to Robert Brenchley's post of 12-13-2000 at 07:19 PM

Robert wrote:

Coming back to the issue of genetic differences between domestic and feral bees, does anyone have any idea what mechanism could be preventing interbreeding between the two populations? Could it be something as simple as the American beekeeping culture, which appears to favour bought queens, or is it something else?

Reply:

It's a little of American beekeeping culture, which apprears to favour bought queens, many of which are inbred and inseminated with poor resulting brood patterns these days as part of the problem.

It's a little of Chemical problems of toxins put into a colony and then having consequences detrimental to queen and drone proper matings.

It's a large part usage of the wrong size brood combs for rearing of worker bees, that set the stage for mating of queens and drones out of tune by size with naturally occuring races/strains of honeybees, so much so, that they no longer interact together in many areas. Example: Big fat domestically bred drones cannnot catch smaller faster queens that are trim and fit, for they (drones) aerodynamically fly much slower to accomplish the acts required in mating.

While smaller, trim drones will have first access to slower flying queens of domestic origin, please note, that with the high usage of aerial chemical sprayings of crops and in forests, plus todays eridication efforts of feral bees where they supposedly don't belong (some would say genocide), these numbers (trim feral drones) have been reduced in some areas to below minimual levels for proper mating of any type of honeybee queen, be it domestic or feral.

I think one could say we are becoming a society of designed land usage, for plants and animals, that includes insects. There are those plants and animals designed by man, and those plants and animals designed by nature. 

Further, as man keeps redesigning what he wants, things seem to get progressively worse for interaction between the two, and bees of course are well within this scenario. 

All one has to do to verify, is read back thru the last 100 years of man kept beekeeping history.

Comments anyone!!!

Dee


----------



## bobby field (May 15, 2000)

Mr. Lusby, I have been reading the post but I have some problems with the statments you and others make. For instance, in your answer to Paul's post of10-24-00 you state, Also,several diseases of bees are known to only exist within domesticated colonies and not true feral. Why? It would seem feral bees would definitely have the edge for survival. My question is, How do you know how many feral or wild bee colonies have died of the same diseases that our domestic bees have. I don't know what part of the country you live in but where I live there are no feral or wild bees left to make a comparision. I was shocked and amazed this past summer, while doing some yard word to spot a honey bee on a dandilion so I stoped what I was doing and watched. I counted no less than six bees working the flowers in my yard. I was excited.Bees in my yard again, after so many years without them. Well I found out later by asking around the neighbor hood that there was a beekeeper who had bees about a mile from my house. This is what got me interested in keeping bees again after so many years of not having them. I looked the man up and ending up purchasing two hives from him and walla, I started keeping bees again. Have been reading and studying ever since. I was asked to remove a hive from a building not far from my home that was slated to be razed by fire this spring and the owner didn't want the bees to be destroyed with it. I could see that as I opened the wall that this had been the home to several hives. on the very top were fresh combs and lower older ones. At the bottom were combs that turned to powder when touched and at the very bottom was a pile of bee remains about four inches deep. I think these bees probable died from mites and new bees moved in several times over the years. I use to find bee trees and swarms every summer a few years ago then it was like they all disappeared. I think it would be safe to say that mites and diseases have all but wipe out our wild or feral, if you please, bee population. I therefore am gratful for any reasearch being done to develope a resistant bee. Please don't misunderstand me, I find no fault with you or anyone else that are trying to develop a means for our bees to survive. I think I have an open mind and am willing to learn as long as that learning is based on scientific proof. What I was refering to in my last post was the fact it seemed to me that there was ongoing argument as to what was domestic and what wasn't and to me that seems irrevolent. Bobby


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

Hi Clayton :> ) This response is in reply to your post of 12-12-2000 at 07:17 PM

Clayton, you wrote:

You mentioned that feral and domestic bees cannot breed true.What do you mean by this? That they cannot breed at all? 

Reply: 

No, Clayton, I do not mean that they cannot breed at all. However, when you look at the bees you currently keep, you will notice a mixture of large and small subcaste worker bees of different sizes and different colours. Each colour variation you will notice is somewhat size related.

Since you live in New York, a more northern latitude, you should notice that the smaller, subcastes are with more darker brownish/black varying coloration, while the larger subcastes are with more lighter coloration towards light brownish, orangish/yellow. Please let me know how this compares to your bees.

Clayton, you wrote:

Also I never thought about the large size bees being out of sink with flowers. Good point. 

Reply:

Yes Clayton, several times I have told beekeepers over the years that if man should ever seek to change honeybees so that they no longer relate to Nature's and God's law, they would likely intervene in such a way as to preserve the necessary balance originally created. For there is some reason to believe that in the plan of Nature, the honeybee was not only created by adaptation to conform to the necessity of its mission as a pollinating agent, but that the plants and their bloom may have been also fashioned and adapted over time to conform to the convience of the bee also in one large masterful plan.

There is a barrier we seem to have crossed as an industry worldwide that we now need to retreat from, that seems to have been deliberately placed there by God and Nature to prevent any wide deviation of the honeybee in size and action from what was originally designed/adapted for; this being accomplished by limiting the size of the bee to that of the cell in which it is developed, as set down in the true feral bee, beyond which it cannot be altered too far in size either upwards or downwards, without being forced back by natural evolution.

Diseases and parasitic mites are now forcing our industry back from it's path of making overly artificially enlarged honeybees, to now make us again conform and come into balance with native regional floras to keep our bees alive. 

Clayton, you then wrote:

At the present 95% of my hives are on 5.2 cellsize. Planning to convert 10 hives to 4.9 this spring. Will qeens reared on smaller cell size breed with my drones raised on 5.2 cell size? 

Reply:

Depending upon how many smaller truer feral are in your area you will have a mixture breeding your queens, as the queen needs to mate an average of 10-17 times. So, some will be from the bigger size you talk about and some will be from smaller truer feral drones in your area in more locally acclimitized feral colonies.

Clayton, then continues,

Depending on your answer what should be done since I raise many of my own queens. 

Reply:

Continue doing what you are doing. You are doing fine. As you progress smaller so will your queens relative to cell size used. Just don't pick overly large queens to introduce. Pick from the small to average size to help speed things up within the line you have choosen to use.

Again Clayton:

When converting cell size what percent of ones colonies should they expect to
lose to varroa? 

Reply:

Many have lost none, yet many have lost upwards of halves. It depends upon the work you are willing to put into doing it. But I will tell you, you will have a higher success rate coming off of 5.2mm to 4.9mm, rather than coming off of 5.4mm or bigger combs, as the worker bees themselves can only retrogress so far each downsizing. 

For more information, suggest you read through the various postings under Making Cell Calls for more information on retrogressing smaller.

Clayton again:

I think another point to keep in mind, is that in order to keep bees man must interact with their bees, so no matter what size the bee, they will still be domestic. 

Reply:

Yes!! and this is what most people seem to forget. Man has kept a relationship with bees for centuries and yet only in this past one have we tried to redesign them to our will, instead of leaving them in a harmonious state with the various plants they need to pollenate. But then too when we hybridized the plants first bigger, and that probably helped to lead to animals, to go along with the scenario started. All we are now doing is coming full circle back to where we started, but unfortunately at a great cost for many, not only our own industry.

Thanks so much for writing Clayton. I look forward to your continuing comments. I hope I have been of some help to you or maybe someone else reading this.

Very best regards:

Dee


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

Hi Bobby, this is in reply to your post of 12-14-2000 at 10:30 PM

While I will be writing another post to your reply, right now I would like to reply to the very end of your current post only in which you wrote:

What I was refering to in my last post was the fact it seemed to me that there was ongoing argument as to what was domestic and what wasn't and to me that seems irrevolent. 

Reply:

Bobby, not to sound disrespectful to you, but this is the subject matter of this thread you are posting here to!

However, from what you are writing about, perhaps you should visit the heading "Making Cell Calls" and read through the various threads started there, or perhaps start one of your own so that we may communicate better.

I'll review the above and possibly may therefore move it to another topic already started or simply reply to it here.

Very best regards to you!

Dee


----------



## Johnsewell (Jun 11, 2000)

> Originally posted by Dee A. Lusby:
> Man has kept a relationship with bees for centuries and yet only in this past one have we tried to redesign them to our will, ...... I hope I have been of some help to you or maybe someone else reading this.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Robert Brenchley (Apr 23, 2000)

Johnsewell asks about bee races. In biological terms, these are subspecies; that is, identifiably distinct populations, which have consistent physical characteristics (ie stable genetically determined differences) which don't add up to enough to justify ptting them in separate species. 

Obviously this is a bt wooly; one expert's species sometimes turns out to be another's subspecies. The old idea that species couldn't interbreed was too simple; there is no hard and fast boundary. So, for instance, Apis mellifera ligustica, the Italian bee, originates with a Mediterranean population, adapted for conditions there. A. m. mellifera, the British bee, is obviously adapted for British conditions, so it forms smaller colonies, cuts down egglaying when there's no flow on, and will fly in worse conditions. The two hybridise freely, but left to themselves, darker bees will come to predominate in time, over much of the country. Ligustica probably produces more honey when mamaged by beekeepers, in favourable summers, but mellifera is better adapted for conditions here. Hope that helps. 

I haven't been in Reading for many years, but if I'm passing I'd love to see your bees. You can contact me by Email if you want.

Regards,

Robert Brenchley

[email protected]


----------



## Don (Nov 9, 2000)

What Robert said.









Here's a link that mentions some of the differences (largely behavioral) between some of the more familiar races and hybrids: http://www.cybertours.com/~midnitebee/html/race_strain.html 

On the scientific side of telling the strains apart, you look at the ratio of lengths of 2 specific wing veins (how they came up with such a measure I've no idea), coloration, widths of bands, and I'm sure a whole host of other stuff.

Hope this sheds a small bit more light on the issue.

-Don


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

Hi Dee,

In one of your post somewhere(cannot remember) you mentioned the characteristics of pre-enlarged bees. Could you tell us these characteristics as they differ from todays honeybees? Please include race, strain, hybrid, ect. Could you site refferences that mention these characteristics. Also were there any differences between domestic bees and feral bees before they were sized up by the industry? Need more information so I can select my carniolans for queen rearing. What methods do you use to rear queens? Thanks.

Clayton


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

This is in reply to Clayton's post of 12-21-2000 at 07:24 PM during which he wrote:

In one of your post somewhere(cannot remember) you mentioned the characteristics of pre-enlarged bees. Could you tell us these characteristics as they differ from todays honeybees? Please include race, strain, hybrid, ect. Could you site refferences that mention these characteristics. Also were there any differences between domestic bees and feral bees before they were sized up by the industry? Need more information so I can select my carniolans for queen rearing. What methods do you use to rear queens? Thanks.

Reply:

Clayton a long time ago in the early 1980s I went back into the archives of the various journals and copied characteristics then quoted for the various bee races main to the US, namely: Italian, carnolian, caucasian, etc.

You mentioned working with carnolian, but to differeniate you would probably need for all three, however since this would tend to start to get us into bee breeding and queens, etc, and you seem interested. 

Lets change categories to queen production and I will break it out for you race by race from what I have in the files from 1888 - 1951 on characteristics to look for.

Then if you want we can go into various old traditional ways from the archives of breeding as pertains to field management.

I'll start getting the old books out and start a new thread in Queen & Bee Breeding just for you.

See you there and look forward to your comments.

Very Best Regards

Dee 

[This message has been edited by Dee A. Lusby (edited December 23, 2000).]


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

This is in reply to Bobby Field's post of 12-14-2000 at 10:30 PM

Bobby wrote:

"you state, Also, several diseases of bees are known to only exist within domesticated colonies and not true feral. Why?

Reply:

In Nature, bees that are true feral are in a balanced harmonious state of being, that is not the case with today's artificially enlarged domesticated honeybees, that no longer match natural flora for food and therefore, optium health.

Bobby also wrote:

How do you know how many feral or wild bee colonies have died of the same diseases that our domestic bees have?

Reply:

Technically you don't know actual numbers. I don't think anyone actually does. However, two world class scientists named L. Bailey & B.V. Ball, in their book Honey Bee Pathology, after numerous disections of honeybees for causes of death have written about their causes of death from fungal,viral, and bacterial, mite infections, etc and the relationships between feral and domestic honeybees.

Bobby further writes:

I don't know what part of the country you live in but where I live there are no feral or wild bees left to make a comparision....
I think it would be safe to say that mites and diseases have all but wiped out our wild or feral, if you please, bee population.

Reply:

Bobby, I have never known any area to be truly devoid of honeybees completely. All beekeepers asking me the same when asked to solicit swarms from fire departments for free pickup and Recreational Parks, etc have always come back saying they were give plenty of swarms to pick up.

You yourself also wrote within this same post: "I was aked to remove a hive from a building not far from my home that was slated to be razed by fire this spring and the owner didn't want the bees to be destroyed with it. I could see that as I opened the wall that this had been the home to several hives."

More dialogue? comments for me to ponder?

Very best regards to you.

Dee


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

This topic has been quiet for some time, and it predates me on this board, but I have some questions and observations.

I am very curious about Dee's quote of the research that the feral population is different genetically than the domestic population. I have observed that the feral bees I have dealt with vary from a typical Italian, to a grayish looking Italian mostly. Lately, though, I've been seeing little black feral bees around my place.

I wasn't sure they were Apis Melliforia until I found some that had drifted into one of my observation hives. This allowed me to observe them quite closely for long periods of time. I learned that when the light catches them right, they have some reddish black bands on their abdomen. I have seen Caucasian and Italian bees before, but nothing like this. Is there anyone who has had close observation of the black European bees? I am inclined to think they are native bees for the reasons already shown by Dee, plus one more. Traditional Lakota (Sioux) stories have honeybees in them.

I will set some bait hives and hope I can catch a swarm of them.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

I have a small comment. Before you get too romantic about feral bees. In the 1940s I had 5-6 hives of bees ....all taken from feral swarms. Now that I know what modern bees are like I realize what miserable little b----es they were. I had to wear most of the clothes that I owned, thick gloves/veil and a lot of courage to work them. More that once I skedaddled through the swamp to get away. And there was always one that got inside the veil.
When I re-started beekeeping last year I thought,"anyone could do this." I have a suspicion that in breeding for a gentler bee, we lost some of the natural resistance inherent in the species.

Dickm


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Bees can't get any meaner than mine got last summer and they were Buckfasts. They would start attacking you 20 yards from the hive and would continue to hunt you down and sting you hours later hundreds of yards from the hive. When you opened the hive, they poured out and the smell of bananas was in the air.

I have taken feral bees out of trees and they got about that mad by the time I was done, but it took them a lot longer to get that mad.


----------



## mark williams (Jan 19, 2003)

Michael: how old were your buckfast queens? reason I asked I've been told 2yr's & older they can get mean.I don't know I've never had any, I ordered 6 to be here in april.But i've got them traded for some used super's.because I'm going to have all cordovan's this year, thank's Mark


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Cordovans eh? Where did you get them. Can you expect the offspring to ahve the color mutation as well, or just the queen??

Keith


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Michael: how old were your buckfast queens? reason I asked I've been told 2yr's & older they can get mean.I don't know I've never had any, I ordered 6 to be here in april.

These were only a year and six months or so. I had a bunch of swarms, so they were new queens raised after the swarm. I've had Buckfasts off and on for decades and had very good luck. Gentle, productive. I often get 200 pounds of honey from one hive.

But these turned vicious on me.


----------



## mark williams (Jan 19, 2003)

Keith:I get my Cordovan's from Mccary out of Ms. (601-648-2747).yes the off spring's h as got the gold color like the queen.


----------



## briancady413 (Dec 8, 2003)

Re: Six types of bees / EXCERPT FROM THE HISTORY OF MEXICO by Abbe D. Francesco Saverio Clavigero 

At least some and maybe all of these are not Apis, and thus could not cross with honeybees. Melipona (sp?) is a genus of stingless Central American bee; not an Apis genus 'honeybee', yet used by natives for honey.

It might be that there was or is a pre-european-contact Apis in this hemisphere, which might cross with hive bees, but I haven't seen any evidence of that, unless the genetic divergence between feral and in-hive Apis is that evidence.

On finding a visibly varying variety of types of workers in one hive; why worry?
These are the offspring of many drones; Couldnn't a queen may have 'consciously' selected drones for variety, so as to have the diversity of worker types just observed?

Brian Cady


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

From an earlier posting:
Don writes:
Native bees are only an issue in Europe, as the native bees in the Americas
are non-Apis mellifera.

Dee replies: 
This has never be qualitatively proven in scientific writings...

Unless you can time travel back 512 years, and have a look around, there can be no "qualitatively proven" way to prove this generally accepted fact. [That is, generally accepted by most scientist and historians]

And Dee writes further:
...and archival evidence in fact points to the opposite assumption from many sources.

I don't believe this to be true. What other "sources" can you show that supports this 'opposite assumption'? 

The one source sighted [EXCERPT FROM THE HISTORY OF MEXICO] was written some 200 hundred years AFTER the most probable time period where the Spanish first introduced Apis into the new world. (1750 - 1530 = 220 years, more than enough time for Apis to "escape"/swarm into the wild and flourish and be considered "native" by the author of that writing).


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>At least some and maybe all of these are not Apis, and thus could not cross with honeybees. Melipona (sp?) is a genus of stingless Central American bee; not an Apis genus 'honeybee', yet used by natives for honey.

Certaily some are not Apis Mellifera.

>It might be that there was or is a pre-european-contact Apis in this hemisphere, which might cross with hive bees, but I haven't seen any evidence of that, unless the genetic divergence between feral and in-hive Apis is that evidence.

But the evidence that the feral bees are NOT related to the hive bees (from my other references) adds to the intrigue. Thelytoky in a strain of bees here adds to that intrigue also.

>>Dee replies: This has never be qualitatively proven in scientific writings...

>Unless you can time travel back 512 years, and have a look around, there can be no "qualitatively proven" way to prove this generally accepted fact. [That is, generally accepted by most scientist and historians]

By the same token "Unless you can time travel back 512 years, and have a look around, there can be no "qualitatively proven way to " DISprove this generally accepted fact. The point is that there is SOME evidence that this assumption is just that -- an assumption.

>>And Dee writes further: ...and archival evidence in fact points to the opposite assumption from many sources.

>I don't believe this to be true. What other "sources" can you show that supports this 'opposite assumption'? 

You'd have to ask her if she has other sources. In very old copies of ABC & XYZ of Bee culture there were references to native bees also. No one is claiming to be able to prove that there were native bees, only that some evidence exists and that it has always been assumed, certainly not proven nor, as far as I know, even investigated.

>The one source sighted [EXCERPT FROM THE HISTORY OF MEXICO] was written some 200 hundred years AFTER the most probable time period where the Spanish first introduced Apis into the new world. (1750 - 1530 = 220 years, more than enough time for Apis to "escape"/swarm into the wild and flourish and be considered "native" by the author of that writing). 

Possibly.

No one is asking you to believe this is a fact, but it might be worth considering the possibility.

If there is ever anytway to prove anything in this matter, it will probably be from genetics testing. But bees with characterisics that are not common in European bees is evidence of genetics not common in European bees.

There is no more proof that there were not native bees than proof that there were. Both are assumptions based on observations of lay people at the time in question. To accept either assumption as fact is unscientific.


----------



## Hillbillynursery (Nov 13, 2003)

Some of the English colonist said that there were bees here when they landed. It is one of the reason that historian believe the vikings came here first and brought their bees. There is something else that confuses historians. They found nicotine in the mummies in the pyramids. Nicotine come from one and only one plant species and they are all in north and south america and is best known as tobaco. These mummies go back 3000 or more years. The Egyptains may have brought there bees with them. I am sorry I did not spend the time looking these things up to give you sites. I got these tidbits from watching PBS specials.


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

> ...only that some evidence exists
and 
> But bees with characterisics that are not common in European bees is evidence of genetics not common in European bees...


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

> ...only that some evidence exists
and 
> But bees with characterisics that are not common in European bees is evidence of genetics not common in European bees...

Michael, where are you getting this? That's what I'm asking for - the article that you put a link to earlier (in some other posting) only showed old line mtDNA to Apis m. m. (which is traceable directly to Europe). There was no mention of some unknown (or uniquely new world) DNA found.

> Thelytoky in a strain of bees here...
Again, if you're referring to the LUS bee study, thelytoky wasn't proven (nor was it a conclusion of that study). I feel quite sure that in the middle of, say, France, there is occasionally a queenless hive that manages to requeen itself in some unexplainable way (certainly without any influence of the cape bee). That is to say, having one very isolated example of a hive requeening itself, doesn't prove that a strain of thelytoky geneitics exists.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Michael, where are you getting this? That's what I'm asking for - the article that you put a link to earlier (in some other posting) only showed old line mtDNA to Apis m. m. (which is traceable directly to Europe). There was no mention of some unknown (or uniquely new world) DNA found.

Nor was there any searching for other DNA. My point is that often other subsepcies are reluctant to cross and the feral bees in the Southwest are reluctant to cross with commercial EHB.

>Again, if you're referring to the LUS bee study, thelytoky wasn't proven (nor was it a conclusion of that study). I feel quite sure that in the middle of, say, France, there is occasionally a queenless hive that manages to requeen itself in some unexplainable way (certainly without any influence of the cape bee). That is to say, having one very isolated example of a hive requeening itself, doesn't prove that a strain of thelytoky geneitics exists.

It is true that the occasional Thelytoky in European bees has been observed. It is, however EXTREMELY rare. In this study, the 55.6% of the queenless LUS nucs were rasing workers. 0% of the EHBs were. Also of 18 nucs there were 9 emerged queens from the queenless colonies of the LUS bees. There were 0 queens from the EHBs. This is not an insignificant difference. I would say it's indicative of quite different genetics. I also don't see how you can say that Thelytoky was not proven when it took place in half of the queenless LUS colonies that were studied and none of the EHB colonies in the study.

"Of the 18 colonies of LUS tested for thelytoky, 55.6% reared worker brood from the eggs of laying workers, and 50% reared queens."

"Queenless CP (panmictic array of commercial bee lines maintained as a closed population (CP)) colonies reared only drones, although queen cells were constructed and eggs from laying workers were placed inside them. The eggs did not hatch, and often were gone the next day. Similarly, cd colonies produced only drones from laying worker eggs, although some colonies reared larvae in queen cells. These queen cells were larger and longer than those produced by LUS or commonly seen in colonies rearing queens from a mated queen's brood. During colony inspections the cd workers were observed crawling over the capped queen cells just as the LUS bees did in their colonies. However, within 3-5 days in the cd colonies the queen cells were torn down by the workers."

I don't see why you think this study did not observe Thelytoky nor a difference in LUS and EHB.


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

> ...feral bees in the Southwest are reluctant to cross with commercial EHB.

So even if the above statement is true (which I seriously question), you think this serves as some kind of "evidence" that this strain of Apis was here prior to European colonization of the American continent?
-- 
So now I understand the argument being made by you (and possibly, Lusby too): LUS is such a unique strain of bees; that they were apparently here before Europeans arrived. You're alluding to the POSSIBILITY the LUS Apis are not European in origin, is that right? If that's the case you're trying to make, why not just come out and say it?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>> ...feral bees in the Southwest are reluctant to cross with commercial EHB.
>So even if the above statement is true (which I seriously question)

That was part of what the study I quoted concluded. I'm not sure why you seriously question it?

> you think this serves as some kind of "evidence" that this strain of Apis was here prior to European colonization of the American continent?

I think it is suspicious that they don't readily crossbreed and I think it's evidence that they may be a different subspecies. It's the same through nature. Whitetails will crossbreed with Mule deer, but they are more likely to breed with mule deer. Horses can cross (and result in sterile offspring) with donkeys but are more inclined to stay with horses. This seems to be true in lots of species.

>So now I understand the argument being made by you (and possibly, Lusby too): LUS is such a unique strain of bees; that they were apparently here before Europeans arrived. 

I'm not saying "apparently". I'm saying "possibly".

>You're alluding to the POSSIBILITY the LUS Apis are not European in origin, is that right?

Yes.

>If that's the case you're trying to make, why not just come out and say it?

I thought I had.


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

Michael, 
Please, you and Dee, give me a break...


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

Well I have no opinion here as I simply don't know. Here is the last info I had. Close to 2 years ago Dee had her bees sent out to europe for analisis (sp??? I can't spell today for some reason). The last info she got back was that the bees match no known bees, but were similar to caucasians. I think I will check with her and see if she's heard anything new.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I do not have a opinion per se, I'm just saying it's the most likely explanation.

I do know that when I was a child they said there was no scientific evidence that the city of Troy existed and there was never any such place nor was there a Trojan war. Since then, of course, they have found it.

When I was a child they said there was no way the Vikings had come to American before Columbus (who by the way never made it here). As more evidence piled up they finally had to reasses that stand. Now it is generally accepted as fact that the Vikings not only came, but settled here.

The point is, just becuase enough evidence had not been gathered to prove something true, does not make it false, it merely makes it unproven.

I think there is enough evidence of native bees in North American, to deserve further study.

Possible explanations for LUS bees:

1) As, mentioned, Native Bees with some different characteristics than European bees.

2) Since some thelytoky has been noted in Eurpean stock, selection from Eurpoean stock (by either beekeepers or nature) that has favored thelytoky for survival is a possibility. Or perhaps lack of selection by beekeepers that suppresses thelytoky. (these two are proposed as possibilities in the study by Ericson.)

3) Sometime in the past some Cape Bees were brought to the North American Continent and cross bred with the feral European bees over hundreds of years and developed into something that had not been anywhere before.

These all have some possibilities. My thinking is that both 2 and 3 would take longer than the time from the first Europeans bringing bees. But it's hard to say. People have been trying to croosbreed Cape bees and and not succeeded in coming up with a useful expression of thelytoky in them. For this to happen purely by accident over a few hundred years would take a lot of lucky accidents.


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

Michael said: "3) Sometime in the past some Cape Bees were brought to the North American Continent and cross bred with the feral European bees over hundreds of years and developed into something that had not been anywhere before."

I first want to say that I appreciate your taking the time to answer txbeeguy's questions, Michael. I find this line of discussion fascinating. I don't believe or disbelieve any of this, but it does provide interesting conversation. I wish Dee would come back and jump into this topic again - I enjoy reading her posts too!

My question to you Michael is this: txbeeguy points out that it is generally accepted as fact that there were no apis m. here prior to the European settlers. Does this apply to both American continents? Is there any information about South America? Is it not possible that some form of apis m. existed in South America? Could the cape bee have been brought to that continent long ago and evolved the thelytoky trait as it moved up the isthmus to what Dee is observing in her bees today? Or is there evidence that indicates this did not happen?

Just curious about what is and isn't known about South America; it seems to me that much of what is generally accepted as fact applies to N. America and ignores the possibility of S. American apis m. moving up the isthmus. 


------------------
Rob Koss


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I first want to say that I appreciate your taking the time to answer txbeeguy's questions, Michael. I find this line of discussion fascinating. I don't believe or disbelieve any of this, but it does provide interesting conversation. I wish Dee would come back and jump into this topic again - I enjoy reading her posts too!

That is really my point. I don't intend to or expect to convince anyone that there were Native American bees. I don't know if *I* believe there were. But the possibility is an interesting prospect.

>My question to you Michael is this: txbeeguy points out that it is generally accepted as fact that there were no apis m. here prior to the European settlers.

It is generally accepted, but I haven't understood why it is generally accepted with no real evidence one way or the other.

>Does this apply to both American continents? Is there any information about South America? Is it not possible that some form of apis m. existed in South America?

I would have to plead ignorance on South America. I haven't really studied the bees there, but as far as I know it's also assumed there weren't any there.

>Could the cape bee have been brought to that continent long ago and evolved the thelytoky trait as it moved up the isthmus to what Dee is observing in her bees today? Or is there evidence that indicates this did not happen?

A lot of things could have happened. The assumption that Columbus was the first person from the Eastern hemishere to make it to the Western hemishere has already been disproved. A lot of theories exist on who might have made it to the west. We know that the Phonecians made it around the horn of Africa and there is no reason to believe they didn't make it to the new world. Also, the Irish have had stories of sailors going west to land for centuries before Columbus, but we don't know if they did or did not. It is possible the Phonecians brought bees here and possible some of those came from Africa, but of course it would all be speculation.

>Just curious about what is and isn't known about South America; it seems to me that much of what is generally accepted as fact applies to N. America and ignores the possibility of S. American apis m. moving up the isthmus. 

Afraid I don't know enough about any native S. American bees and their characteristics.

TXBeeguy has also brought up the possibility that the Vikings brought bees over and that is also an possible explanation for some of the sightings of "native" bees by early settlers and even for other breeds than the typical "German" bee being here. There really wasn't anywhere in the world the Vikings didn't go.


----------



## Hillbillynursery (Nov 13, 2003)

Just a small corection, I was the one that brought up the vikings and Egyptions.


----------



## Curry (Sep 22, 2003)

Hillbilly- I saw the same special you did about the Egyptians trading with the pre-Mayans. My understanding was that it was Cocaine that was found in mummy bodies (not nicotine). Just from memory, but your premise is right... only South America could have been the source of cocaine, so there is belief that the pre-Mayans had established trading routes with the Egyptians. (If you know anything about ocean currents it is very feasible). It would make since that they would have obtained honeybees if not already in the Americas. That doesn't mean they didn't die out in the following 4000 years (due to mites, etc.).


----------



## Hillbillynursery (Nov 13, 2003)

There was a list of substances found. Cocaine thou in small quaninties is found in other plants and is reactive so it is hard to trace in pure form. When they look for Coke in the human body they look for a molecule that contains coke. But the way mummies were made leaves the idea that they probly did use coke since they would have to have used to much other plant material to get that much coke into the body. Another reason they thought it more practical for the coke was that nicotine was also pressent. And it come from a narrower plant family that is all in the Americas. Choacolate, coffee, and cocaine plants are in the same family of plants. Only one of these contains enough coke in its leaves to get you high by chewing the raw leaves. I do not remember what the name of the plant native to Africa that is in the same family but there are some in the wetter areas. But to get that type of concentration that they found in the mummies it would take an extreme amount of folage and thought unlikely. Do you remember the ship they showed that was in one of the pyrimids. They never thought a ship that size existed that early. If memory serves me right it was a 40 footer.


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

OK I checked with Dee. Apparently the info has still not been released yet, or they simply don't know. I guess there were samples of bees from the amazon basin in south america sent at the same time to test to see if they were africanized. The results of those bees can back a year ago and they were all EHB's.


----------



## briancady413 (Dec 8, 2003)

Could not a fossil pre-contact Apis mellifera discover prove prior presense?
I guess today genetic analysis would be more likely affordable.

Brian Cady


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I beleive I've heard of fossils of honey bees on North America but the assumption is that they were extinct when the Europeans got here.


----------

