# What Percent of Hives Are Feral vs Kept



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

There is no way of counting the feral's.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

When you consider the disparity between those collecting ferals who find them everywhere, and the "experts" who claim the are no ferals, I think it is safe to say that no one really knows. Tom Seeley who has been tracking the feral bees in Arnot forest for several decades now (since at least the 70s) says the density has remained basically the same and has put a density number on that (which I don't have handy right now). My guess is there are far more feral bees than domestic.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Gee, I would have guessed just the opposite. But, I guess there are a lot of places where people don't look which may have bees. So, maybe Michael is right.

Michael, wasn't it something like X feral colonies per 10 acres, or 100 acres? Let me see if I can get Tom to answer.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I don't clearly remember either the number nor the terms. I'm pretty sure it wasn't furlongs per fortnight or in hides or ferrels,  but it was something like colonies per sq mi or something like that.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

Apx 60% are kept hives, and 96 % of all statistics are made up on the spot


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Not if read on the internet Harley? Harley, har, har.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Obviously, bee population varies with geographic regions. It seems to me that in deep east Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas my friends are always talking about bee swarms. There's a beekeeper in South Louisiana that catches 30 swarms a year and resells them. I can't remember his name, but he was once a member of this forum.

On the other hand, arid West and South Texas are both short on water and blooms. I'm sure the feral bee population is low in such areas.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Looks like .5 feral colonies per km squared in rural forested area and 2.3 feral colonies in urban area buildings, across NY State, Vischer and Seeley 1982, Morse et al 1990.


----------



## Wolfer (Jul 15, 2012)

In 13 years of living here I've seen two swarms. There was two bee trees that I knew of but one died out this year.

I don't believe there are many ferrels near me.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I am only a bit over an hours drive from the start of the northern boreal forests. As far as I know there are no ferals around me.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

some info on feral bees that have been studied recently:

http://comp.uark.edu/~aszalan/Site/Apis/Honey_bee_mitotype_map.html

http://comp.uark.edu/~aszalan/szalanski.pdf


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Acebird said:


> There is no way of counting the feral's.


Sort of presumptive, wouldn't you say? No way? Good thing other people don't stop at that point. The following claims that feral populations are "quite low" -- this is in Australia where conditions for bees to live in the wild are excellent. There are no varroa, by the way. 



> In agricultural settings, we need to know if the density of feral bee colonies is sufficient to provide adequate pollination. In conservation areas, we would like to know if the density of feral colonies is sufficient to be of concern.
> 
> Directly counting the number of honey bee colonies in the environment over broad scales is not often feasible because colonies are cryptic and difficult to locate (Oldroyd et al. 1997). Here, we implement a new indirect method of estimating colony density based on microsatellite analysis of workers.
> 
> ...


SOURCE
Arundel, J., Oxley, P. R., Faiz, A., Crawford, J., Winter, S., & Oldroyd, B. P. (2014). Remarkable uniformity in the densities of feral honey bee Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies in South Eastern Australia. Austral Entomology.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> Looks like .5 feral colonies per km squared in rural forested area and 2.3 feral colonies in urban area buildings, across NY State, Vischer and Seeley 1982, Morse et al 1990.


Mark and I have a table published in the Canadian Entomologist. Unfortunately it lists density per square kilometer but its good for comparison. As Mark says, the density was almost five times as high in a small city than in the rural forest. 

There are 2.5 square km in a square mile, so you can multiply the figures to get colonies per square mile. 2.3 x 2.5 = 5.75 or almost six colonies per square mile in an urban area in 1991. 

Other figures are

Russia forests, .41 per km2, or one per square mile. 

Arizona desert, up to 13 per square mile. Similar concentration in Brazil. Both African bees.

Mexico, as high as 22 per square mile, but again: African bees. 

Santa Cruz Island, off the coast of California had a very low density: less than one per square mile. European bees, perhaps very old introduction.

PLB


----------



## beeware10 (Jul 25, 2010)

the number of feral colonies in an area would be directly related to the number of managed bees in the same area.


----------



## FollowtheHoney (Mar 31, 2014)

Wouldn't it be regional? I don't remember ther the number but feral winter survival in northern areas is extremely low, based on something I read in "The Hive and the Honeybee". This was published In 1992 but I don't think it has gotten easier to survive since then. I also wonder how you would define feral. A hive that survived through the winter is good enough for me.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

FollowtheHoney said:


> I also wonder how you would define feral.


feral honeybees: "a colony of honeybees not found in man made beekeeping equipment, a colony of honeybees not managed or maintained by humans"

So, in areas conducive to the survival of feral colonies of bees one may find 5 or 6 colonies of feral bees per square mile. How many managed colonies of bees per square mile are there across the US? I bet Peter or Graham can find that information for us, so we can make the comparison, the ratio # of ferals/# of managed or # of managed/# of ferals. Are there more feral colonies of honeybees in the US than there are managed? Or vice versa?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> feral honeybees: "a colony of honeybees not found in man made beekeeping equipment, a colony of honeybees not managed or maintained by humans"


If the colony is not managed by humans than it will surely swarm, casting off what would you say 3-5 swarms? That changes the numbers by 300-500 percent. Then you can add there are parts of the state and country that are not that accessible. I should have said there is no way to get an accurate count of feral colonies. It is always changing. There is even a margin of error for counting managed colonies but it is much less.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

That's where statistical analysis comes in to give us the best estimate possible. It's an estimation. It will always be flawed. What isn't? Perfection is unreal. That doesn't mean we can't try to come up w/ useful information. Not that you said that at all.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

The density of commercial colonies varies considerably, depending on the quality of the forage. Ben Oldroyd, who has studied this extensively in Australia, writes:



> Typically, in forest areas owned by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Bee Site Licences are is- sued at 3.2-km intervals. If we assume 130 colonies are typically sited at each apiary (B.P. Oldroyd, personal observations), then the density of commercial colonies is expected to be around 40 colonies/km2.


Using the conversion factor, that's 100 colonies per square mile for commercial colonies in a good beekeeping area.

The Central Valley of California is 22,500 square miles. In spring there are about 1 million hives there. That's a density of 45 colonies per square mile. Feral populations never reach these numbers, not even in Africa or Brazil where the density is highest.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> How many managed colonies of bees per square mile are there across the US? 

Obviously, this is difficult to say for sure. The Census Bureau says in 2009 the US "managed colony count" was 2.46 million hives. However, they only count apiaries with 5 or more hives.

The 48 contiguous states in the US total 3.11 million square miles, so the average is about 1.26 managed hives per square mile. Clearly adding in an unknown number of hobbyist hives would increase that average somewhat.


FYI, there are 640 acres in a square mile.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

So, if I am doing my math correctly there are potentially approximately twice as many feral colonies in the environment as there are managed colonies. Is that about right. According to the figures provided in this Thread?


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Wolfer said:


> In 13 years of living here I've seen two swarms. There was two bee trees that I knew of but one died out this year.
> 
> I don't believe there are many ferrels near me.


You'd be surprised. While this doesn't really relate to density necessarily... I have caught four swarms this year, missed out on two others that moved on before I could get there. Also found two bee trees. Was contacted to do three or four cutouts as well (didn't do any). I hadn't seen a single swarm until this year and I've been living here for almost 30 years.

There are plenty of bees around you, unless you live in several square miles of zero trees, zero barns, and zero buildings.



Acebird said:


> If the colony is not managed by humans than it will surely swarm, casting off what would you say 3-5 swarms? That changes the numbers by 300-500 percent. Then you can add there are parts of the state and country that are not that accessible. I should have said there is no way to get an accurate count of feral colonies. It is always changing. There is even a margin of error for counting managed colonies but it is much less.


Yes, every swarm survives. Every baby deer becomes an adult, every duck lives to breeding age, and there is never any attrition.
It's always changing at some rate, yes. But it's not changing by 300-500%.

If nothing else in my first year of beekeeping... I've been convinced that there are enough bees around to 1) handily mate queens and 2) make increases by splits/swarms instead of buying packages/nucs. I purchased three packages in April/May. I have made exactly 0 splits from those packages and I now have eight colonies.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

depends on the local enviroment, the density of beekeepers in the area and even then who knows.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

>I'm sure this varies by region, 
Yes

>what percent of hives are feral and what percent of hives are kept?

In my area there are not that many beek. I have 40 traps out (last year caught 20 traps and 10 swarms), once in a while I catch big bees (5.4mm) one or two last year. Those areas I know the beek where they came from 
The rest of the bees I catch are small (natural) cell bees (4.9mm), I don't measure comb but I could if I wanted to take the time. 

That would be a good way to identify if bees from a swarms or traps were kept. Kept bees will make 5.1mm comb on foundationless when first hived. You may also tell by bee weight, have to ask MB I think he posted small cell bee weight once.

With that said you can't say that all small bees are feral, only make a guess based on the area, but you can say that all 5.4 bees were kept.


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

I catch about 15 swarms a year from calls and try hard to located the parent hive that the swarms have originated from. My guestimate is that in my area > 3/4's of the swarms I catch are from feral sources. (But that doesn't necessarily mean the feral out number the managed hives, because they don't swarm at the same rates.) If I had to make a guess I would say in our local area it's about 50/50 between managed and feral.

(Now FlowerPlanter if you go telling these folks from New York that our feral bees are small and that we can tell the difference between managed bees and feral just by their respective size here, they are going to presume we have Africanized bees here in Kansas and Missouri now! :lookout: )

Don


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)




----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

How do you measure the managed hive in Ca when you move them in and out? Mark are your hives counted twice? Are they New York bees or Carolina bees?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Who is counting? My hives are my hives where ever they are.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Here's something to ponder. We have established that there are likely more feral colonies than there are managed colonies by a factor of two to one in areas where bees are kept and bees can survive. We also have more managed colonies now then we had in this Country before CCD was named. So, how can there be "devastating decline in the domestic honeybee population" as stated by Biologist Laurance Packer? The two thoughts don't balance out. Do they?


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

"The bees are all going Extinct, right?" - I get asked that all the time. Or maybe, "Are the bees dead yet?", and sometimes, "What will we eat when the bees all die?" Most people seem to believe these things.

I wonder what the point is in propagating such falsehood?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> So, how can there be "devastating decline in the domestic honeybee population"


Because a 30% loss for a migratory beekeeper is considered devastating while a 30% loss of feral bees is of no consequence.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Here's something to ponder. We have established that there are likely more feral colonies than there are managed colonies by a factor of two to one in areas where bees are kept and bees can survive.


Well, no, I don't think that's right. I think we saw that in areas of European bees, there may be 2 or 3 ferals per square mile (NYS study, pre varroa) but at least 100 colonies per square mile in good honey producing regions (Oldroyd). Even in areas with African bees, that density is seldom seen, topping out at 22 colonies per mile2 in southern Mexico. 

Let's say 10 percent of those 100 managed hives swarmed. (That would be a high number for most beekeepers). Tom Seeley estimated that only 1/4 of the swarms would survive the first year, leaving us with 2.5 colonies, exactly the number they discovered when they canvased Oswego, NY for swarms pre varroa.

In areas where bees are kept commercially, kept hives vastly outnumber wild hives. So far as wild bees being able to pollinate crops, that's nonsense. Honey bees are by far the most reliable pollinators. Wild bee populations fluctuate from year to year and from season to season. They are very sensitive to environmental disturbance and pesticides. 

To have an abundance of wild bees near an orchard, for example, would require leaving a lot of ground untilled with brush and old wood lying around. Then, if you encourage wild bees to move close to the orchard, you end up killing them with pesticides. 

Here's a scenario I have thought of: let's force farmers to leave trash heaps for wild bees to nest in. Then find some obscure wild bee and put her on the endangered species list. Now the farmer can't touch the trash heap nor spray his crop. Radical environmentalists can have a party, pop open some organic beer and they'd be laughing.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

"a migratory beekeeper" 's losses are anecdotal, and in the overall scheme of things inconsequential, of no consequences too. That's my point. We can have both devastion w/in the whole scope of beekeeping and a better than before reality at the same time, can we?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

hpm08161947 said:


> I wonder what the point is in propagating such falsehood?


Economic benefits.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> Well, no, I don't think that's right. I think we saw that in areas of European bees, there may be 2 or 3 ferals per square mile (NYS study, pre varroa) but at least 100 colonies per square mile in good honey producing regions (Oldroyd). Even in areas with African bees, that density is seldom seen, topping out at 22 colonies per mile2 in southern Mexico.
> 
> Let's say 10 percent of those 100 managed hives swarmed. (That would be a high number for most beekeepers). Tom Seeley estimated that only 1/4 of the swarms would survive the first year, leaving us with 2.5 colonies, exactly the number they discovered when they canvased Oswego, NY for swarms pre varroa.
> 
> ...


So the numbers, the ratios, are wrong, but isn't the reality of the situation correct? That there are more managed colonies than before CCD and that ferals are probably maintaining their numbers well enough?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Because a 30% loss for a migratory beekeeper is considered devastating while a 30% loss of feral bees is of no consequence.


This is a myth, repeated over and over and over. Beekeepers have lost 30 to 50 percent of their hives for hundreds of years. If you lose 50% all you have to do is split the remaining hives in two and you are right back where you were. Last year I did five from one splits and they built up in about six weeks. I have helped beekeepers make ten from one splits on many occasions. 

The reason why the 30% figure comes up and is compared to the old 15% figure (we lose twice as many hives) is because of a change in practice. Fifty years ago beekeepers were mostly running for honey production. In the fall they culled about 15% because they knew these wouldn't overwinter. Then add 15% losses due to winter, and you see the spring count may be down 30% from the summer count after all, but it isn't counted that way.

Nowadays, since spring pollination is so important a source of income, beekeepers cull far few hives in fall, gambling on them to make it through if the winter is mild, so their statistical losses tend to appear higher. Speaking of statistics, the number of colonies in the US over 100 years actually has NOT DECLINED. A hundred years ago there were about 3 million and there still are. 

There was a peak during WW II due the demand for beeswax production. The government encouraged beekeepers to double the number of colonies to 6 million and the price of honey was high due to shortages of sugar. After the war, the price collapsed and beekeepers were letting the numbers fall. They lobbied hard for government subsidies to save a collapsing industry, claiming the nation's crops would not get pollinated. 

They claimed if the numbers went from 6 million to 5 or even 4 million, crop failures would occur. Well, we are down to 3 million and no crop failures ever occurred. In fact, the lower number of available hives has driven the price of pollination from about $15 twenty years ago to as high as $200 in almonds. But most people don't know about this stuff, don't know anything about history, or the mechanics of beekeeping.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> there are more managed colonies than before CCD and that ferals are probably maintaining their numbers well enough?


I think that is a correct statement, although I don't believe in CCD as a widespread phenomenon. Some guys may have had it, it was never identified as a distinct disease. Over the years there have been many bee die offs. Some were explained, some weren't. See "Disappearing Disease." It was called that because the bees disappeared but the name stuck because it seemed like whenever folks looked closely at it, the disease disappeared. Sort of like CCD. It's still around in the news media. Whenever I hear the term I regard it as a red flag that whomever is using it _doesn't know what they are talking about_. (Apologies to everyone out there that still uses it, but there you have it)


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> "The bees are all going Extinct, right?" - I get asked that all the time. Or maybe, "Are the bees dead yet?", and sometimes, "What will we eat when the bees all die?" Most people seem to believe these things. I wonder what the point is in propagating such falsehood?


I'll tell you: a lot of organizations have picked up on this because if they say "save the bees, send money" people send them money. Organizations like GreenPeace, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth. Do you think any of the money goes to helping bees? I don't. I think it goes to salaries, advertising campaigns and other pet projects.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> I'll tell you: a lot of organizations have picked up on this because if they say "save the bees, send money" people send them money. Organizations like GreenPeace, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth. Do you think any of the money goes to helping bees? I don't. I think it goes to salaries, advertising campaigns and other pet projects.


Ahhhhh, were it only them. One also needs to look within as well. Losses=Presidential Task Forces=Federal Funding


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter/Jim:

You're talking like a couple of pesticide apologists. As for your own views on the Friends of the Earth campaign, and the Presidential Task Force, I couldn't disagree more. They're necessary to pollinator conservation in the U.S. .

My own views on %ages of feral versus managed Honeybee colonies is that it's on the increase, but we just don't have reliable figures as of yet. So, I think it's safe to say that feral population numbers are recovering, but we don't have enough information about the strains of Honeybees involved.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> This is a myth, repeated over and over and over. Beekeepers have lost 30 to 50 percent of their hives for hundreds of years. If you lose 50% all you have to do is split the remaining hives in two and you are right back where you were. Last year I did five from one splits and they built up in about six weeks. I have helped beekeepers make ten from one splits on many occasions.
> 
> The reason why the 30% figure comes up and is compared to the old 15% figure (we lose twice as many hives) is because of a change in practice. Fifty years ago beekeepers were mostly running for honey production. In the fall they culled about 15% because they knew these wouldn't overwinter. Then add 15% losses due to winter, and you see the spring count may be down 30% from the summer count after all, but it isn't counted that way.
> 
> ...


Ostriches are happy birds, I heard.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WLC said:


> Peter/Jim: You're talking like a couple of pesticide apologists.


I would like to think that name calling would be beneath you, but I guess I would be wrong about that.

Bottom line from my point of view is that things are hardly ever as bad as anyone thinks they are, especially as much as what someone selling a book wants you to think how bad things are or are going to be. Fear motivates people to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Such as buy books by someone who may not know as much as they should before writing a book.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Mark, if they want to editorialize, there's another thread on the topic.

I still don't think that anyone anywhere has a handle on the topic of this thread.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

There are alot of ferals here but who cares to study that? It would be to much money to get a rough estimate on the numbers of feral colonies. I think in some areas they are doing fine but there are hundreds if not thousands of conditions that can effect the local population of ferals. 

Nobody for sure knows. What might be booming here could be dying out 3 counties over.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The only numbers I've seen, and I don't know how reliable they are or how recent, show a steady decline in feral bees, but it's the same decline as all wildlife. Loss of habitat, use of pesticides, use of herbacides, new diseases affect deer, quail, pheasants and prairie chickens, and also bees... but as yet all of those creatures are still surviving and sometimes thriving in spite of things.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> There are alot of ferals here but who cares to study that? It would be to much money to get a rough estimate on the numbers of feral colonies. I


Actually, a lot of good people are working on it. Debbie Delaney, Steve Sheppard, Roxane Magnus, Tom Seeley, to name a few. 

SEE:

Delaney, D. A. (2008). Genetic characterization of US honey bee populations (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University).

Magnus, R. M., Tripodi, A. D., & Szalanski, A. L. (2014). Mitochondrial DNA Diversity of Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) from Unmanaged Colonies and Swarms in the United States. Biochemical genetics, 52(5-6), 245-257.

etc

As I mentioned earlier, one way of determining the number of feral colonies is by looking at the genetic diversity of the colonies. In areas where there are a lot of ferals, the drone population will be more diverse than in areas where there are mostly commercial. Through genetic tests, you can tell whether a given colony was mated with homogenous (very similar) stock or heterogenous (very diverse). Additionally, the presence of alleles (genes) of rare types such as A. m. m., indicate less homogeneity.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> but as yet all of those creatures are still surviving and sometimes thriving in spite of things.


Right. Ironically, wild creatures often fare better in the suburbs than in the wild. Our area is overrun by deer; we have foxes, racoons, wild turkeys, possums, all trotting about the neighborhood. Some of the sprawling cities of the Southwest are home to thousands of "feral bees." These are mostly African bees, though.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

here is a snip from Roxane's work, which shows not only that people are looking at this but they are thinking about the potential benefit that could be gained by incorporating feral breeding stock into beekeeper's colonies.



> Through DNA sequence analysis of a mtDNA marker, we have identified distinct
> lineages in unmanaged colonies of honey bees in the United States that do not occur
> in managed colonies. This provides evidence that these lineages are not recent
> descendants from managed honey bee populations, and that they have been
> ...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I think that you're addressing a different question than that of the thread topic.

For instance, we both have BeeWeavers, and we both have 'hybrid swarm' (feral) genetics.

I don't think that we know the current density of feral colonies in Texas.

However, do know more about their genetics because of the investigators you've cited.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I think that you're addressing a different question than that of the thread topic


No. I quoted Ben Oldroyd's methodology:



> Directly counting the number of honey bee colonies in the environment over broad scales is not often feasible because colonies are cryptic and difficult to locate (Oldroyd et al. 1997). Here, we implement a new indirect method of estimating colony density based on microsatellite analysis of workers.


One way to determine the number of feral vs domestic is by the method above. Using the genetic breakdown to infer the population that is producing that particular genetic makeum. It is an indirect method but most of science these days is based upon indirect measurements


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I'll take you one further. Most USDA Statistics come from self reporting based on whatever the person being asked wants to tell the questioner. I tell the person asking the questions that I am going to lie to them right from the get go, because I don't know. I don't keep the records that they want answers on. Am I the only one?


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

The USDA also sends out a multi page form to categorize the your fields of agriculture. It is a long, and difficult form, if they pull their stats from that form there is plenty of room for error. It looks like a form for large corporate farms, the ones that have a full time bookkeeper and comptroller. It is way too complicated for us of the "great unwashed to fill out correctly." Let's just say, I fill it out.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Yes, well, I used to but not any more. I have changed from thinking that government can be an instrument for good (which it can, of course) to one who has seen government lackies screw up everything they touch. Not to mention the whole government eavesdropping on everybody's conversations. Whatever they are asking, they probably already know. It's just that they are so paranoid they won't share information even among themselves.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

to the op, i think the answer is like most regarding bees and beekeeping, and that is 'it depends'.

in my area there are likely many times more feral colonies than mangaged colonies.

i base that conclusion on the fact that almost all of the bee operations around here are relatively small, i.e. very few over 20 colonies, and two thirds of the landscape in this county is wooded.

this is likely similar for many of the surrounding counties in most of the surrounding states.

as was pointed out, it's a difficult proposition to locate and quantify feral colonies, but it's reasonable to assume that they will be more concentrated in areas where the habitat allows them to be.

i find it interesting that delaney and magnus have found a significant proportion of 'm' and 'o' matriarchal lines among the feral survivors they have studied. of course these have been highly hybridized over the years with all of the commercially produce lines that we have introduced.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I'm not sure how politics is getting into how surveys are run...

But, there is a national field survey underway.

The only reliable way to answer the OP's question is to run a large scale field survey.

They can ascertain it's reliability with statistical analysis.

These surveys don't happen too often, and I haven't heard of one that can specifically answer the feral/managed Honeybee population in the U.S. .

However, after everything that has been said on this thread, it is precisely the type of question that the presidential task force can find the answers for should it choose to do so.

A national Honeybee field survey needs to be done by a 'national' body or task force.

Get it fellas?

You need big brother.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

WLC said:


> However, after everything that has been said on this thread, it is precisely the type of question that the presidential task force can find the answers for should it choose to do so.


:thumbsup:

i've sent out a 'suggestion' or two in that regard. if we do indeed have bees that have developed natural resistance to mites ect., seems like that would be the best place to look for survivor stock.

my understanding is that where that has been tried in the past, the bees haven't performed well when introduced into managed apiaries. with so many variables at play, that doesn't surprise me. what does surprise me is the reaching of the conclusion that it doesn't work, and no attempt to try to understand why not.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Anyone who thinks the presidential task force is anything more than another way for some cronies to filter tax dollars from the few tax payers that are left footing the bill is silly.

There won't be any benefit to anyone except those getting paid a salary by them. I can't wait for the "Bees Created or Saved" report so we all know how successful and helpful another "task force" has been.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

jwcarlson said:


> Anyone who thinks the presidential task force is anything more than another way for some cronies to filter tax dollars from the few tax payers that are left footing the bill is silly.


perhaps. i'm willing to withhold judgement until we see what the outcome is. some of the key players are objective enough that we just might learn something. silly is as silly does.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> i've sent out a 'suggestion' or two in that regard. if we do indeed have bees that have developed natural resistance to mites ect., seems like that would be the best place to look for survivor stock.
> 
> my understanding is that where that has been tried in the past, the bees haven't performed well when introduced into managed apiaries. with so many variables at play, that doesn't surprise me. what does surprise me is the reaching of the conclusion that it doesn't work, and no attempt to try to understand why not.


If the money that will be spent on the task force were spent paying beekeepers a modest amount for every live hive on January first each year there would be a lot less Winter kill reported.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> perhaps. i'm willing to withhold judgement until we see what the outcome is. some of the key players are objective enough that we just might learn something. silly is as silly does.


Key Players? Who are they? I guess I have been sleeping again.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

jwcarlson said:


> I can't wait for the "Bees Created or Saved" report so we all know how successful and helpful another "task force" has been.


That's right. In fact this was already done in 2005-06. The report was written, nobody read it, nothing was gained. Now we have to do the same thing all over again. 



> This report is a product of the cooperation and contributions of many
> people. The members of the committee thank all of the speakers who attended
> its first committee meeting on July 6, 2005, the workshop on October
> 18–19, 2005, and the third committee meeting on January 14, 2006 and
> ...


http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11761


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

cool resource pete, many thanks.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

This is why we need a comprehensive national survey...

"Despite rising concern over these observations in the United States, highlighted in a recent National Academy of Sciences report, a national assessment of the geographic scope and possible causal factors of bumble bee decline is lacking."

From:

"Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees".


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> This is why we need a comprehensive national survey... a national assessment of the geographic scope and possible causal factors of bumble bee decline is lacking."


Right. Just like we need a "a national assessment of the geographic scope and possible causal factors of the rise in nitwits in the US and Canada." Some important facts leading to the plummeting of the collective IQ may be missed. But it won't be valid unless billions of dollars are spent and a one thousand page report is generated.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

That's not why we need a national managed/native pollinator survey.

It needs to be designed so that it contains actionable data.

In short, we need to know where resources need to be applied.

Peter:

I really don't need to hear about your own personal politics. If you don't like the government, it isn't OUR problem.

I, for one, do want to know about the current status of managed/feral Honeybees in the U.S., with actionable data included.

We're flying blind as things stand.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

WLC said:


> I'm not sure how politics is getting into how surveys are run...


I wouldn't question how surveys are run I would question how the results are reported.

Some of you already hit on the bottom line. The question "what percentage of hive are feral vs. kept" is not important unless you have an agenda. What difference does it make? Supposing there was an Obama task force counting flies. It is tough to count insedts.m Rather than waste resources on counting feral hives why not answer the question how many kept hives can be supported in the US ( or any other country)? Second question: How many kept hive are needed in the US (or any other country)?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WLC said:


> This is why we need a comprehensive national survey...


Not to throw this whole Thread into the never never land of Tailgater, but, seriously? While thousands of Guatemalan children are flooding across our Southern Border you have hopes of a comprehensive national survey getting approval? Medical marijuana has only just been approved by Gov. Cuomo and won't be available as a prescription for 18 months so I know you aren't smoking dope. It must be something else.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WLC said:


> I, for one, do want to know about the current status of managed/feral Honeybees in the U.S., with actionable data included.


To what end? For what purpose?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

As for the refugees...

""Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

>you have hopes of a comprehensive national survey getting approval<

It gets ordered. Every government department is involved.

The POTUS put the entire might of the U.S. government behind this task force.

Getting actionable information on managed and feral Honeybees would go a long way towards fulfilling the task force's mission.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> I wouldn't question how surveys are run I would question how the results are reported.
> 
> how many kept hives can be supported in the US ( or any other country)? Second question: How many kept hive are needed in the US (or any other country)?


Not how they are reported, but how they are used. Flawed inacurate surveys are used by politicians to set up and maintain barely useful programs for the benefit of their constituents, based on ill reported surveys and date taken out of context w/ conclusions drawn from who knows where by people who have no real idea what it is that they are proposing or why or what the results will be.

How many hives can be supported in the US? How many are needed? These are both questions best answered by the market place, not by some study. As long as there are farmers/growers that feel a need for managed honeybee pollination and as long as there are people who want domestically produced honey and everyone involved is willing to pay what it takes the number of hives necessary will be maintained. What that exact number is, maybe Peter Borst has some data on.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Mark:

You mean you didn't get the memo?

Here it is...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b

It's in there.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Nope, never saw that before. Thanks. Guess I have some studying to do.

If Congress has anything to say about this it'll never fly. "subject to the availability of appropriations." Meaning that the OMB is the determinating factor, right?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

And, if there is no money for any of it?

Then all of our problems will soon be over.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> These are both questions best answered by the market place, not by some study.


You entice investors into the marketplace by answering these questions. Beekeeping is a skill set, capital funds the activity. I am sure you hate to be compared to an engineer but in the market place your are one. The bean counter decided where to put the money and the engineer makes it happen. We are not that different.

If you are a small mom and pop organization you could survive as just a bean counter or just a beekeeper. In order to make an impact you need both.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

My point is that those who need and will benefit from the information either have it already or have enough to base decisions on and will act accordingly. Government studies won't matter a hoot to folks who decide to double their colony count and take advantage of almond pollination money and blueberry pollination money, etc., etc.

I have a friend who just keeps getting bigger and bigger and is buying properties and diversifying his outfit in all sorts of directions because he can and because he sees the market for what he can do and provide and be successful at doing. Hopefully not running himself into the ground. But if he does, at least he will have been doing what he loves and does well.

So studies and task forces be . Other things money can be better spent on. Like setting aside land for forage. Getting access to public land for placing apiaries. Encouraging States and Local Governments to stop mowing roadsides where bee forage plants grow.

How many of you tell The Nature Conservancy to lay off our Honey Plants? Japanese Knotweed, bamboo, purple loostrife and others? Clover is an invasive. Came from England and Europe. Get off the lawn.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

IMHO, knowing more about the status of both managed and feral Honeybees is beneficial because, simply put, Honeybee genetics need to be improved.

Don't forget, I've seen first hand what it means not to have the right kind of queen genetics.

If you think of feral genetics as a resource, then you'll understand why we need to know a lot more about feral Honeybee populations in the U.S. .

Fellas, we can't even come up with a straight answer for the % feral vs managed thread topic.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> IMHO, knowing more about the status of both managed and feral Honeybees is beneficial because, simply put, Honeybee genetics need to be improved./QUOTE]
> 
> I don't really think you have any idea what you are talking about. People have been trying to "improve" the honey bee for over one hundred years now. Everyone had a different idea what that meant and none of them really achieved their goals. Even those that actually "improved" bees, like the AFB resistant strains, never got them adopted. Too expensive to make and too expensive to maintain.
> 
> ...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter:

I've mentioned this before, we're both using BeeWeavers for similar reasons.

However, I like the way they utilize the Hybrid Swarm of Texas to produce their mated queens.

I understand the model they're using, and you absolutely need to have a handle on the density of the local feral population to make it work.

So, kindly dispense with the, PPBB, deflection. 

Get a handle on the local feral population, and we stand a much better chance at improving Honeybee genetics.

It's about getting just the right 'blend'.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WLC,
Which would you put your money on succeeding a really good beekeeper w/ poor genetic stock queens or really good genetic stock queens w/ a poor beekeeper?

If we can control the things which we as beekeepers can control our chances at succeeding will be ample to the task. The only thing anyone can really control is themselves. And some times not even that. So, the way I see it. The road to success as a beekeeper is to become the best beekeeper you can and do the best w/ what you have at hand and don't sweat the genetic stock too much. Find a queen w/ characteristics you like and a source you have faith in and do the work. Work your bees. That's the answer. Not task forces. Not statistics on feral vs managed. Such discussions are simply entertainment. They have no real impact on anyone's ability to be successful at beekeeping except keeping them from having their hands in hives rather than on a key board. :doh:


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Let's cut to the chase. Beekeepers are a small voting block, and don't spend significant money lobbying congress. Congress could care less about our plight.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Amazingly, I do have some very good genetics, in some very resistant cultivars.

I don't just have bees Mark. Ever think of that?

I don't use pesticides. So, I really do understand the value of good genetics.

We need good data on our feral Honeybees so that we can use them just as the Weavers have. It's a good model.

Just like VSH resistance depends on the right % of VSH genetics, the same applies when open mating queens with feral drones.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I understand the model they're using, and you absolutely need to have a handle on the density of the local feral population to make it work.


What if they had an extremely wet spring and the feral population exploded, creating a population of African drones that vastly outnumbered the European ones. What if the highly defensive behavior is passed on chiefly by drones. What if the queens they produced were producing highly Africanized bees. What if you bought bees from them and they expressed all of the characteristics of pure African bees. Began stinging everything within 1 km. What would you do then? From their website:



> BeeWeaver offers a replacement policy for queens that produce mean bees (stinging without provocation, smoke does not calm them, stinging in high numbers).


Have you ever tried to requeen a colony that "stings without provocation, smoke does not calm them, stings in high numbers"? Imagine a hive where half the bees are completely furious, stinging with a vengeance, smoke is useless. The air is filled with the scent of bee venom, the bees are running all over the combs like the Boston marathon, you have to find the queen. Then, even if you did, what do you suppose the colony will do to a foreign queen, when they are in that state?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> The road to success as a beekeeper is to become the best beekeeper you can and do the best w/ what you have at hand and don't sweat the genetic stock too much. Find a queen w/ characteristics you like and a source you have faith in and do the work. Work your bees. That's the answer.


This is it, folks. Mark is telling it exactly how it is. We have worked with bees for decades, in all conditions, in all weather. Many of the posters on Bee Source have simply no idea what it is like to rope down a truckload of hives, drive through the night praying you don't have a breakdown, which not only is a nightmare come true but can eat up any profit you hoped to gain by taking the bees on the road in the first place. They don't know what it's like to work all season to produce a decent crop, only to find the price so low that you can't bear to sell it, but you don't know if the price is going to go up if you sit on it, -- or go lower still. 

I quit commercial beekeeping in 1990, having learned to keep bees but unable to support my family on the take home pay. We were netting about $40,000 and most of that was from the sale of pollen, not honey. I was living in San Diego; tracheal mites were here, varroa was coming, African bees were close. All of the ferals in San Diego now are African. Some people try to use them; most simply kill them whenever they find them. I could go on, but that's enough reality for now

Mark, God bless him, is the real thing. A hard working commercial beekeeper, the kind the organic beekeeping nitwits want to blame for the plight of the bees. He has stayed with it all these years, and knows more in his fingertips than all the internet trolls will ever know.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WLC said:


> I don't just have bees Mark. Ever think of that?


Me think of you having bees? No, I just took it for granted you did. Me too, I don't just have bees. Actually they have me. Ever think of that? Do you keep bees or do your bees keep you? Who depends on who in this relationship? Or is it symbiosis? Symbiotic? However you say that.

"We need good data ..." Okay, if you must. Just don't try to convince me that you will be able to come up w/ a silver bullet that will fix what problems people think they have. Show me, don't tell me.

My faith in the future of bees, beekeeping, and life in general is in those out there doing the work, the beekeepers who keep bees and are kept by bees. This is The New Golden Age of Beekeeping. If you don't think so or don't see it, that's says something about you whatever that is or may be.

I don't need saving. We don't need saving. The bees don't need saving. Things are working out just fine.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> What if they had an extremely wet spring and the feral population exploded, creating a population of African drones that vastly outnumbered the European ones. What if the highly defensive behavior is passed on chiefly by drones. What if the queens they produced were producing highly Africanized bees. What if you bought bees from them and they expressed all of the characteristics of pure African bees. Began stinging everything within 1 km. What would you do then? From their website:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever tried to requeen a colony that "stings without provocation, smoke does not calm them, stings in high numbers"? Imagine a hive where half the bees are completely furious, stinging with a vengeance, smoke is useless. The air is filled with the scent of bee venom, the bees are running all over the combs like the Boston marathon, you have to find the queen. Then, even if you did, what do you suppose the colony will do to a foreign queen, when they are in that state?


Get a really large heavy duty trash bag and slip it over the top and close it up tight around the bottom if you can. I know that seems mean and harsh, but that's what I might do.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Get a really large heavy duty trash bag and slip it over the top and close it up tight around the bottom if you can. I know that seems mean and harsh, but that's what I might do.


What I described is a true story. I blocked the entrances and used a pint of lacquer thinner. I work in a Veterinary College and have been taught that if you have to put down an animal, you are morally obligated to do it as quickly as possible.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I don't need saving. We don't need saving. The bees don't need saving. Things are working out just fine.


Dang it, Mark. You said it better than I ever could! I am sure glad you are the president of ESHPA. Maybe you can get the word out that we don't need the government to hold our hands. I understand Ag & Mkts is trying to sweet talk CU Entomology to help them get back in the business of telling people how to do bees, like we need that. Ag & Mkts has one thing in mind: justifying their own existence. I wrote to the commissioner myself and didn't even get a polite acknowledgement. (You know: thanks for writing, we appreciate you input, don't forget to vote)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

That makes sense. I probably wouldn't really do what I described either. I'd probably suit up and tape up and use heavy gloves and go inside and try to find the queen and pinch her head, in hopes of a newly raised queen calming things down. If that didn't work, resmethrin is still available, isn't it? Gasoline works quickly too if the hive is closed up tightly.

Enough of that kinda talk for me.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Enough of that kinda talk for me.


I know. But these folks with all their talk about "feral bees". They haven't had first hand experience with a full blown African hive. These babies have only one thing in their little minds. Kill anything that moves. I have a friend in Los Angeles who does bee removals, the bees are OK if the colonies are small. Like one box. As soon as they get to be normal strength they are mad *****es from hell. But they usually swarm as soon as they get that strong. That's one of their other characteristics, they swarm about ten times as much as normal hives.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> They haven't had first hand experience with a full blown African hive.


Not looking down my nose at anyone, not judging anyone, just stating facts, most people on beesource w/ the exception of old long standing beekeepers and the commercial beekeepers haven't had first hand and long term experience w/ many aspects of beekeeping. It isn't their fault, they just haven't been at it as long and as varied as others, such as yourself.

That is what I will always love about my journey w/ bees starting in NC and then Williamsburg in the 18th Century, OH w/ Dr. Tew and the International Beekeepers and everything and then 20 years of Apiary Inspection in NY and on and on. It's been a wonder filled trip and it continues to be so. We live in interesting times and it isn't a curse.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> starting in NC and then Williamsburg in the 18th Century


You were in Williamsburg in the 18th century? With the beard, you look that old... just joking. I know it was an historical village.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

lazy shooter said:


> Obviously, bee population varies with geographic regions.


I keep telling my bees, if they swarm off and leave my apiary, they WILL die... and do you think they listen!! LOL


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

Ian said:


> I keep telling my bees, if they swarm off and leave my apiary, they WILL die... and do you think they listen!! LOL


Haha.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

up here in Canada you know... cold and snow, not many wild hives survive here


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

There is an article in the August ABJ about bee removal. This caught my eye, because it shows that not all feral colonies have the "right stuff."



> "We tried to
> give as much comb back to the new hive as
> we possibly could. We really tried to keep
> the bees alive."
> ...


From the American Bee Journal, quoted for review purposes only.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Some of the feral bees may be directly from someone's apiary. At least two of my acquaintances have caught swarms with a marked queen.

Then there is a feral colony that has been under my neighbors well house for the past eight years. He tried to poison them a couple of times several years back, and when the poison didn't kill them he decided they weren't a problem to him. I am laid up with knee replacement surgery at this time, but I intend to try to catch a hive of these bees next spring.

These bees fit into the natural survivor group.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

interesting pete, and puzzling to me since it runs contrary to what we see in my area.

"We really tried to keep the bees alive." 

"The gentler Texas swarms they removed
and kept often didn't survive the first
year in the hive, even with the best care, including
feeding, requeening, and treatment
for pests"

my experience has been that the bees do best when allowed to do so on their own, i.e. nothing is introduced into the hive save a little vegetable oil in the beetle traps and the trace contaminants present in the foundation. perhaps the authors were trying too hard?

feral colonies that have been observed to survive a winter or two by definition have the 'right stuff'. hiving them and keeping the conditions as close as possible to the feral state may increase one's chance of having them survive in the apiary.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Not all feral colonies do survive. That is the point, only the strong survive. That is how they get stronger.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

How do you know that "only the strong survive"? Maybe the less strong got lucky. Only those that survive survive.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

...or perhaps (like Africans) the survivors have a high propensity to swarm. They may make for higher feral populations but perhaps not the ideal managed colony.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

jim lyon said:


> ...or perhaps (like Africans) the survivors have a high propensity to swarm. They may make for higher feral populations but perhaps not the ideal managed colony.


really good point jim. it could very well be that this and other traits make the survivor population less well suited for the demands and expectations of larger commercial operations.

walt wright was surprised to find my that my stock was the first he has encountered that didn't respond predictably to his swarm prevention techniques. this was the first year i had enough drawn comb and honey reserve to properly checkerboard according to his prescription. i observed partial success, reducing swarming from 100% of the colonies to just under 50%, but that is the subject for another thread.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Let's not forget the other side of the coin, domestic queen failure.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>But these folks with all their talk about "feral bees". They haven't had first hand experience with a full blown African hive. These babies have only one thing in their little minds. Kill anything that moves.

I've worked AHB in AZ, NM, the Virgin Islands and, thanks to some Texas bees, in NE. The ones in NE were the only ones that were unworkable.

>Have you ever tried to requeen a colony that "stings without provocation, smoke does not calm them, stings in high numbers"?

I have rqueened several.

> Imagine a hive where half the bees are completely furious, stinging with a vengeance, smoke is useless. The air is filled with the scent of bee venom, the bees are running all over the combs like the Boston marathon, you have to find the queen. 

Excellent description.

>Then, even if you did, what do you suppose the colony will do to a foreign queen, when they are in that state? 

If you break them down small enough they will accept her. If you don't, they won't. A push in cage is very helpful in such situations.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Maybe the less strong got lucky.


Lucky doesn't work well in nature for very long. Lucky only works when there is a human involved and if the human stops being involve then the luck changes.


----------



## challenger (May 27, 2009)

Acebird said:


> Lucky doesn't work well in nature for very long. Lucky only works when there is a human involved and if the human stops being involve then the luck changes.


Please reread your post. 
Luck=human involvement? 
No involvement = luck changes? 
If there is no luck without human involvement, per your wacky (IMO of course) yet luck changes when humans aren't involved then how can there be any luck to be changed without human involvement? 
Personally I don't feel there is such a thing as luck. I am guilty of using the word but it is semantics or I'm too uneducated/dim to think of another word. 
Regardless of my opinion I have to say that so many of your "prophetic" statements cause me to sit down, no matter where I am when I read them, just so I can see if there is enough time in the universe to figure out if they make any sense whatsoever. The one mentioned here is a classic. 
Thanks


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Not all feral colonies do survive. That is the point, only the strong survive. That is how they get stronger.



​I think you mean, "the fittest survive", and they "become more fit". After all the term is, "survival of the fittest".

And I first thought that fit hives would become "fitter", but for some strange reason, fitter has an entirely different meaning, so we must use "more fit" instead.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

challenger said:


> then how can there be any luck to be changed without human involvement?


Are you still sitting? Luck can be good or bad, positive or negative. Keep thinking...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> If you break them down small enough they will accept her. If you don't, they won't. A push in cage is very helpful in such situations.


Yeah, well, good for you. I have zero tolerance for a colony that ferocious. I don't want them or their nasty drones in my town. Good riddance, is what I say.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Mark:



> How do you know that "only the strong survive"? Maybe the less strong got lucky. Only those that survive survive.


Mark is absolutely correct. Fitness is a complex thing. Evolution is always co-evolution. You cannot take the organism out its context. There are millions of different ways to survive and few of them have to do with being "strong". 

Some creatures are lucky enough to find an unoccupied niche, or a technique for survival that others haven't found. It isn't all about being strong, or smart, or lucky. Any one of these can lead to survival; so can having a really bad taste or being fast, or living twelve feet under the ground. 

There are creatures that depend on others, organisms that help each other, parasites, symbionts, etc. None of these has outwitted death nor extinction. Anything that lives can get snuffed; anything that lives can go extinct. Some creatures have been here for millions of years but none of them since the beginning.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

If you're suggesting that the recovering feral Honeybee population in the U.S., the ones that survived the recent 'extinction' event, are all very defensive/aggressive, then you're making a case for doing a field survey of domestic/feral Honeybees.

Even if they are aggressive/defensive, they aren't necessarily AHB.

We need to take stock to make informed decisions.

Peter, did you actually read and understand the thesis papers from Delaney and her grad student?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I always took the statement "the survival of the fittest" to mean the survival of what fit, not fit as in physically strong or healthy, but that which best fit the environment it happened to be in at the time something happened that caused some organisms to live and others to die.

Maybe that isn't how Rev. Darwin meant the phrase. Maybe I should try and read his work. But, in the mean time, that's how I choose to think of how things have been and how things got the way they are.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Maybe that isn't how Rev. Darwin meant the phrase.


Yes, well the study of evolution has evolved quite a bit. Darwin himself would be surprised


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Fitness is a complex thing. Evolution is always co-evolution. You cannot take the organism out its context. There are millions of different ways to survive and few of them have to do with being "strong".


At the level of the population (i.e. intra-population evolution, where individuals compete with others of their own species) 'strength' has a great deal to do with reproductive success.

At the level of inter-species competion it is, as you say, a different story.

But our conversations here are almost entirely geared to intra-species competition and adapation - of the honeybee, here and now. That's what is allowing adaptation of the honeybee strains toward tolerance of varroa. 

'Strength' does a specialised meaning in discussions ofevolution and adaptation - it doesn't only mean raw muscular strength, it means _whatever it takes to do well in mating competitions_. That might might take in 'colony stregth' - larger colonies produce more drones, raising their chances of reproductive strength; it might mean keen eyesight and powers of scenting, and good flying skills. And it will usually include good resistance to infections. It refers in a broad manner to those attributes that allow some individuals to succeed in mating competitions, thus raising the the proportion of their genes in the next generation. 

Some individuals are born 'weak'. Purely as a result of a 'poor hand of cards' they don't have what it takes to reproduce successfully. They don't pass on their genes to the next generation.

Like many terms used in discussions of evolution and adaptation, 'strength' is partly specialised, partly analogous, and its actual intent is context-dependent.



peterloringborst said:


> Some creatures are lucky enough to find an unoccupied niche, or a technique for survival that others haven't found. It isn't all about being strong, or smart, or lucky. Any one of these can lead to survival; so can having a really bad taste or being fast, or living twelve feet under the ground.


Here you are talking about evolution on the longer scale. This is not especially relevant to conversations about the development of resistance to varroa (and other micro-predators) within existing populations in the here-and-now. Its useful understanding to have in the background, just not especially relevant to matters at hand.



peterloringborst said:


> There are creatures that depend on others, organisms that help each other, parasites, symbionts, etc. None of these has outwitted death nor extinction.


Without pollinators there'd be no flowers: without flowers there'd be no pollinators. Sure. 

You can say of each and every individual organism alive: _every single one of its parental antecedents survived and reproduced successfully. _

Think about that. Every single one was a winner in the great game of life. That goes back, in each and every case, for billions of years. Every single ancestor was among those who reproduced successfully in a unbroken chain linking back billions of years to the simplest life forms.

That allows the understanding: Most of those ancestors very likely won a mating competition in which _it was good at what it took to win_. Since (on the male side anyway) fighting is most often the competitive selector, physical strength was likely a feature. 



peterloringborst said:


> Anything that lives can get snuffed; anything that lives can go extinct. Some creatures have been here for millions of years but none of them since the beginning.


And so what? What bearing does that have on the topic of adaptation toward varroa resistance, or the features of natural selection within (wild/feral) bees?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> At the level of the population (i.e. intra-population evolution, where individuals compete with others of their own species) 'strength' has a great deal to do with reproductive success.


This is what "survival of the fittest" means to me. The good genes pass the not so good fall by the wayside.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Lucky doesn't work well in nature for very long. Lucky only works when there is a human involved and if the human stops being involve then the luck changes.


Actually nothing in nature lasts long. And Lucky is as likely to be the selection factor most beneficial in any given circumstance as any other. The traits that are the most beneficial under the current conditions may very well be the first to die in the next. This is why natural selection does not result in a progressive improvement of any particular traits. Nature requires a broad diverse mix of traits that then assures a remnant will usually survive any conditions. The broad diversity is then restored via open natural mating. This may happen quickly or may take years or even decades depending on the particular species.

Nature is geared to variety. Very few of those traits being suitable to the beekeeper or their desires. That is why breeding is considered more desirable than natural selection and breeding. Breeding chooses and very small but beneficial collection of traits and either attempts to increase their expression. decrease the expression of others or both. Natural selection never has and never will do anything even similar to breeding. Natural selection creates a situation for survival of a species. breeding is interested in maximizing benefits to the keeper.

There is actually no reason to think that natural selection favors genetic variation. Which means luck has just as much chance to be the favored variable as any other including genetic traits.

Lets say a hive has a minimal forage necessity. This would be the amount of forage any colony would need to gather in order to even be able to survive. LEft on tier own many many factors will effect weather a particular colony achieves this minimal necessity. Genetics being only a few in a long list of variables.

So lets say in a particular year yellow flowers are producing poor nectar wile white flowers are producing abundant nectar. for whatever reason the plants that produce yellow flowers are just not doing well. Only colony that favors foraging on yellow flowers will not be as successful and those that favor white will. This difference is not necessarily genetic and could actually be considered luck. The following year the situation could be and very likely would be reversed. In addition not all yellow forager colonies woudl die. some woudl survive by being better robbers than others. some may simply be more suited to survival on less forage.

Beekeepers on the other hand would have removed all low producing colonies. Resulting in the next year when the favorable conditions changed they have nothing left that can flourish under the changed conditions. In order to gain advantage from natural selection you would need to keep thousands of colonies and then accept that only a relative handful would flourish under any given conditions.

Breeding on the other hand ultimately seeks the bee that will flourish ideally under all conditions. realistically under the widest range of conditions. In actuality it requires a selection of traits that thrive under controlled conditions.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

In the case of bees or any insect that has a very high reproductive rate you can select the bees that suit you after they have naturally bread. You don't have to breed the bees by selecting the parents. You can just see the result of natural breeding and eliminate the ones that don't suit you.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Natural selection does not always produce results that benefit the organism, nor ensures long term survival.



> Some reasons why evolution often yields sub-optimal biological outcomes
> 
> (a) Natural selection is a non-sentient natural process, as uncaring and dispassionate as gravity.
> 
> ...


From
Educational Lessons from Evolutionary Properties of the Sexual Genome
John C. Avise


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

peterloringborst said:


> Natural selection does not always produce results that benefit the organism, nor ensures long term survival.


I don't know if you are just stating this or it is a response to my post. In my post I stated "natural breeding" not natural selection. The selection part is done by the beekeeper choosing which colonies he/she wants to keep.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Acebird said:


> In my post I stated "natural breeding" not natural selection.


Yeah, well, I don't think there is any such distinction. All breeding takes place within the framework of evolutionary principles. In that sense, everything we do is within the constraints of nature. You are establishing a false dichotomy. The natural/artificial distinction is a conceptual error, not borne out by empirical data. Show me the difference between natural and artificial on a molecular level, then we'll talk.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

In the SouthWest, they have differentiated AHB vs domestic stocks on a molecular level.

If you read the Darger thesis, you would have noted that Eastern domestic stocks and ferals appear to be one big hybrid population of what Darger refers to as American Honeybees.

It depends where you look to make your case.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Yeah, well, I don't think there is any such distinction. All breeding takes place within the framework of evolutionary principles.


Glad to see you're catching up Peter. Just a few months ago you were quite convinced there was no relation between natural selection and breeding methods.



peterloringborst said:


> In that sense, everything we do is within the constraints of nature.


Um, yeah! Is there anything at all that exists or is possible outside the constaints of nature?



peterloringborst said:


> The natural/artificial distinction is a conceptual error, not borne out by empirical data.


Its a linguistic distinction. 'Natural' mean 'outside the hand of man'; 'artificial means' by the hand of man'. Think 'art', 'artifice'. There's no conceptual error. Although to state it is 'not bourne out by empirical data' _is _however a conceptual error - a species of category mistake. 



peterloringborst said:


> Show me the difference between natural and artificial on a molecular level, then we'll talk.


I'll give you some bees that are natural 'survivors' and some bees artificially maintained through the use of treatments, and you can have them tested to find the molecular distinctions (which will be responsible for the proteins that supply mite-management behaviours).

Then I'll give you some of my naturally and artificially bred bees, and you can have those tested for the same molecular features. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> Natural selection never has and never will do anything even similar to breeding. Natural selection creates a situation for survival of a species. breeding is interested in maximizing benefits to the keeper.


Consider this Daniel, from a world renowned bee breeder:

"Queen breeding ranks as the most important activity in the efficient management of an apiary: by it, the apiarist [...] advances from being a Beekeeper to a being a Beebreeder."

"Breeding is by no means a human invention. Nature, which in millions of years
has bought forth this immense diversity of wonderfully adapted creatures, is the
greatest breeder. It is from her that the present day breeder learnt how it must
be done, excessive production and then ruthless selection, permitting only the
most suitable to survive and eliminating the inferior." 

Friedrich Ruttner,
Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee, pg 45



Daniel Y said:


> There is actually no reason to think that natural selection favors genetic variation.


Those populations with greater genetic variation are, all else being equal, better equipped to meet new challenges. For that reason natural selection has 'created' species that tend, on the whole, to maintain high levels of genetic variation.



Daniel Y said:


> Lets say a hive has a minimal forage necessity. This would be the amount of forage any colony would need to gather in order to even be able to survive. LEft on tier own many many factors will effect weather a particular colony achieves this minimal necessity. Genetics being only a few in a long list of variables.


You have to think about these things in terms of tendencies that play out over a period of time. Thus while individual events may be significant at any ime, the role of the underlying tendicies wins out in the long run - or on the scale of whole populations. A certain sort of camouflage won't work in every case, but if its better than the alternatives it will be adopted locally over time.

This idea is summed up in the idea 'all else being equal'. The posh term is 'ceteris patribus', and it lies close to the heart of all ('special') scientific thinking. Take a look at this - the contrast with _fundamental laws_ (always true) is made in the 3rd paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus



Daniel Y said:


> So lets say in a particular year yellow flowers are producing poor nectar wile white flowers are producing abundant nectar. for whatever reason the plants that produce yellow flowers are just not doing well. Only colony that favors foraging on yellow flowers will not be as successful and those that favor white will. This difference is not necessarily genetic and could actually be considered luck. The following year the situation could be and very likely would be reversed. In addition not all yellow forager colonies woudl die. some woudl survive by being better robbers than others. some may simply be more suited to survival on less forage.


Ceteris patribus, the difference would be genetic. Those individual colonies genetically predisposed to white flowers would do better that year, and the genes that supply that disposition would rise as a proportion in the population as a consequence. The longer the situation persists, the fewer yellow flower recognition genes would be present in the population. But it would take a long time for them to disappear altogether (unless it was a very small and isolated population) Honey bees are, like other species, very good at hanging on to alleles that while not useful today might well be essential later.



Daniel Y said:


> Beekeepers on the other hand would have removed all low producing colonies. Resulting in the next year when the favorable conditions changed they have nothing left that can flourish under the changed conditions.


If they were unwise/overkeen breeders they might have tried. But the they almost certainly wouldn't have succeeded. Your point is good; but don't take the position 'breeding is an all-or-nothing business'. A light touch, and care to maintain diversity to avoid exactly these sorts of drawbacks is perfectly possible. It all depend what your breeding aims are, and how good you are at achieving them (and a bit of luck too).



Daniel Y said:


> In order to gain advantage from natural selection you would need to keep thousands of colonies and then accept that only a relative handful would flourish under any given conditions.


Natural selection will tend to locate those genetics that flourish most strongly under local conditions - while maintaining less than optimal genetics at the same time. Averages won't be brilliant, but the population will be resiliant.

From those genetics a breeder can take the best features (self sufficiency, rude health and vigour, productivity) found in the best individuals, and raise strains that combine these features with other desirable traits. 



Daniel Y said:


> Breeding on the other hand ultimately seeks the bee that will flourish ideally under all conditions.


No. What breeding does depends entirely on what the breeder is aiming to do, given sufficient skill to do it. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> ...given sufficient skill to do it.


Exactly - some can do, others don't. Just like it is with beekeeping in general.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> 1. "Queen breeding ranks as the most important activity in the efficient management of an apiary:
> 
> 2. "Breeding is by no means a human invention.
> 
> ...


1. That is his opinion and he is welcome to it. I don't necessarily agree. but if pressed on the issue could he actually give evidence it is accurate? I tend to believe that in order to breed any animal you must first be capable of keeping it in exceptional health and condition.

2. sound like some sort of defense in anticipation of those that woudl accuse breeding of being something man is meddling in. Which he is.

3. So is it survival of the fittest or survival of those that meet the minimum? Or is it simply that many variables can be considered fittest? IN all I do not agree with the phrase survival of the "Fittest". I don't find it true in actual practice either. If it where true explain any organism that is subject to disease. seems they would have overcome that long ago. You would have the prey that could never be caught. Along that line there are simply far to many examples of where obvious adaptation would be beneficial but in fact are not utilized. lions that could graze when hunts are unsuccessful. 

Predators in fact tend to take the weak not the fittest for example. Catastrophe on the other hand takes all with little regard to any genetic advantages.

In most cases natural conditions kill while the offspring are young eliminating any chance to pass on genetics regardless of how suitable they are.

I agree that natural conditions are ruthless. this alone man will not tolerate. that is why we artificially rear animals that are of benefit to us. This alters the survival factors to the degree we end up with things similar to what we see in honeybees today. animals that are subject to many diseases and stresses they would not be otherwise.

I do not see the issue of how nature keeps bees. I see it about how to keep them artificially and do it well. I do not see nature has the answers to how to keep them artificially. Nature will keep them a nature keeps them. If that where adequate there woudl never have been interest in keeping them at all.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> 1. That is his opinion and he is welcome to it. I don't necessarily agree. but if pressed on the issue could he actually give evidence it is accurate? I tend to believe that in order to breed any animal you must first be capable of keeping it in exceptional health and condition.


He was a world leading phd, professor of biology and lifelong honey bee scientist. You shouldn't be arguing with his views on bee biology.

If you make increase from individuals who require help to be in first class condition, you will tend to make more individuals who require help to be in firest class condition... 



Daniel Y said:


> 2. sound like some sort of defense in anticipation of those that woudl accuse breeding of being something man is meddling in. Which he is.


Animal husbandry, farming, is by definition 'meddling' in the natural order. Without genetic husbandry we'd have no cows, sheep, pigs, wheat, barley, beans.... etc etc etc. Without good genetic husbandry we'd lose all those things...

I'm fine if you want to not meddle. But mollycoddling reduces the fitness of the local population going forward. In each generation, progressively.



Daniel Y said:


> 3. So is it survival of the fittest or survival of those that meet the minimum?


Neither and both.

It is: increase as a propotion of the population those genes (alleles) that supply greatest 'fitness' in the present environment. Together with reservation of the genes that might supply fitness in some future environment.

Those alleles that supply less fitness tend to be reduced by natural selection. 'Tend ' here means they _are_ reduced, on a ceteris patribus basis) 

(Fitness' may be defined in simple or more complex terms. The rate of conversion of available energy into more viable offspring is one of the better. Those 'strains' that 'win' the competion to inject their genes into the next generation in the greatest number are the 'fitter') 



Daniel Y said:


> Or is it simply that many variables can be considered fittest?


'Fitness' is a product of many variables. Sure. Its the sum of the totality of all that can vary within a population. Its very like a hand a of cards Daniel. Sometimes you are dealt a good one, sometimes a bad one. The hands stand as facts in the world. If you remove all the aces from the pack first you will tenmd to get worse hands. If you remove all the 2s and 3s you'll tend to get better hands. 



Daniel Y said:


> IN all I do not agree with the phrase survival of the "Fittest". I don't find it true in actual practice either. If it where true explain any organism that is subject to disease. seems they would have overcome that long ago. You would have the prey that could never be caught. Along that line there are simply far to many examples of where obvious adaptation would be beneficial but in fact are not utilized. lions that could graze when hunts are unsuccessful.


There is a continuous 'arms race' between prey and predator, each adapting to outdo the other. Think about that idea.

'Fitness' does have a specialised meaning within evolutionary biology. You have to understand the core concepts well (inherited traits, the effect of natural 'selection') before you can grasp what 'fitness' means. 



Daniel Y said:


> Predators in fact tend to take the weak not the fittest for example.


Yep. Natural selection in action. Don't forget micro-organisms and parasites are also predators. They too take out the weaker/less fit at higher rates than they take out the more fit.



Daniel Y said:


> Catastrophe on the other hand takes all with little regard to any genetic advantages.


It does to a large degree, but some survivors at the fringes of the catastrophy will be better able to thrive than others. The recovering populations will tend to be built from them. Natural selection is ever-present. Its a real fact Daniel. That's not something you can argue about.



Daniel Y said:


> In most cases natural conditions kill while the offspring are young eliminating any chance to pass on genetics regardless of how suitable they are.


Yes. The ability to pass through birth and infancy successfully are major tests of 'fitness.' You wouldn't want to pass into your stock the trait of high birth deaths would you? Then don't breed from stock that needed help to reach adulthood. 



Daniel Y said:


> I agree that natural conditions are ruthless. this alone man will not tolerate.


Sure. that's why we became farmers and husbandrymen, and (in the absence of either understanding of the causes of diseases or the means to treat them) learned the wisdom of keeping bloodlines strong!



Daniel Y said:


> that is why we artificially rear animals that are of benefit to us. This alters the survival factors to the degree we end up with things similar to what we see in honeybees today. animals that are subject to many diseases and stresses they would not be otherwise.


Poor genetic husbandry (or lack of genetic husbandry) will do that every time. 

A good husbandryman breeds weakness out ruthlessly. He understands that it is in the nature of a natural population to experience high death rates, and wishes to minimise them. So he copies nature's method, (make increase _only_ from the strongest) while also selecting other traits he desires. 



Daniel Y said:


> I do not see the issue of how nature keeps bees. I see it about how to keep them artificially and do it well.


That would be ok if we were talking about cattle, where your weak bloodlines affect only you. But bees mate openly. That means your weak (mollycoddled) bees mate with feral bees and other beekeepers bees, and reduce their fitness. And that is a bad thing. The acts of people who are doing just what you advocate affect me and others like me negatively. 



Daniel Y said:


> I do not see nature has the answers to how to keep them artificially. Nature will keep them a nature keeps them. If that where adequate there woudl never have been interest in keeping them at all.


The thing about natural selection and bee husbandry is this: understanding the former helps us do the latter better. Consider this: feral bees have adapted to manage varroa. The solution to the biggest problem to hit beekeepers for 50 years has been found by natural selection. Nature had the answer all along. Now husbandrymen can work with nature to maintain healthy and productive bees on an ongoing basis - no treatments, no monkey business.

Or you can continue to mollycoddle an openly mating animal, and thus continue to systematically weaken your local population, limping from one disease problem to the next, and dragging the rst of us along with you. 

We've all heard of natural selection Daniel. Only those of us who understand its simple but elegant mechanisms can properly grasp how that understanding enables us to be better husbandrymen. Spend some time with it, and your business will improve. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> ...mollycoddling reduces the fitness of the local population going forward...


Splitting and excessive swarming, harvesting honey and not feeding anything back, keeeping too many bees in one location, not treating against mites and such, that is no good husbandry either.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Originally Posted by mike bispham 
...mollycoddling reduces the fitness of the local population going forward...



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Splitting and excessive swarming, harvesting honey and not feeding anything back, keeeping too many bees in one location, not treating against mites and such, that is no good husbandry either.


The key question should always be: what effect will this action, or management scheme, have on future generations? 

That question must be asked in light of the understanding that to assist less fit individuals to reproduce is to go against the core principle of husbandry in its proper sense (the husbandry of genes down through the generations); and against the most fundamental health-giving mechanism of nature - that which assembled the bee in the first place and kept the species going for millions of years.

Everything you do, or plan to do, should be geared toward locating and enabling/assisting the fittest to reproduce, always, pushing the best genes into each new generation. Everything else falls into line beneath that essential objective.

If you don't you'll get the high failure rates experienced in nature. If you respond to that with treatments you'll get treatment-addiction plus high failure rates.

Those are just facts. You may not like them but that's what they are.

Proper (genetic) husbandry reduces failures to a minimum while maximising yield. Its what every other single branch of organic husbandry does as a matter of course. Sadly no one gives beekeepers this essential bit of information any more. They're probably all too busy selling them 'remedies'.

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Starving bees intentionally and calling it proper husbandry => weired. Accusing others of anti-husbandry and contiueing sickness at the same time => weired. What a cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment. You either go the natural route and do not harvest the honey. Or you harvest honey and make sure you give a fair compensation. That's the deal with husbandry, you give and take, take and give. Both sides win.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Traditional methods of breeding in agriculture, breeding the best to the best, have proven unsuccessful in bees. What would you suggest as an alternative? With the goal being the same as traditional breeding.

I know of no animal that is kept that is not given what is necessary to countermeasure the negatives of being kept. cattle may be put on pasture. but they are also fed. water is typically provided for them artificially. they are treated for diseases injuries and other ailments. they are managed to grow faster and produce more than they would naturally. Husbandry alone dictates that additional labor and care is taken to increase the productivity of the animal. Those animals exist for the benefit and profit of the farmer. Typically they are kept for no other reason than for profit. and the idea of maximizing that profit is never far behind.

Basically you can claim it is survival of the fittest because you can call just about any situation the fittest surviving. It is like calling someone insane and then pointing out that anything they do or anything they say is evidence of insanity. Basically you look at any individuals that survived and then think they must have been the fittest. I call it survival of those that did not die. There is no exceptional benefit in natural selection. Natural selection maintains a wide and variable genetic pool. Husbandry is not interested in any such thing. in fact the narrower and more predictable the animals is the more suited it is to husbandry. The reality of genetics complicates this. if they did not the most suitable animal for husbandry would be the clone.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I do not see the issue of how nature keeps bees. I see it about how to keep them artificially and do it well. I do not see nature has the answers to how to keep them artificially. Nature will keep them a nature keeps them. If that where adequate there woudl never have been interest in keeping them at all.


This is correct. In Africa there are an estimated 400 million colonies (FA0) most of which are either unmanaged or barely managed. These bees have characteristics that make them unsuitable for modern beekeeping. On the other hand, we have been raising bees for our use for hundreds of years, and it is clear what we need as beekeepers. To the extent that their behaviors can be changed, we will change them. But you can't turn a cactus into a lily.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

I agree with both Daniel's and Peter's posts. 



At least their main points.


peterloringborst said:


> But you can't turn a cactus into a lily.


While [possibly] _you _may not be able to, _*natural selection*_ can! 








Photo linked from here. More on *Easter Lilly Cactus*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinopsis


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> But you can't turn a cactus into a lily.


Just give them time......


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> While [possibly] you may not be able to, natural selection can!


I realize that's tongue in cheek, but nobody can do anything with breeding that is not within nature's potential. Nature's potential for recombination and new organisms may be infinite, but it is within definite bounds. But remember, we have no idea what those boundaries are. On the other hand, if you turn a cactus into a lily, it's not a cactus any more.

By the way, cactus flowers are gorgeous the way they are. I have a night blooming cereus and I think it is the tops for beauty and fragrance. The flower only lasts for a few hours, but wow! (not strictly speaking a cactus, I know, but closely related)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Starving bees intentionally and calling it proper husbandry => weired. Accusing others of anti-husbandry and contiueing sickness at the same time => weired. What a cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment.


Bernhard: in pretty much all animal (farming) husbandry all but a small percentage of males are castrated at birth. That stops them wasting energy and injuring each other fighting, and also, critically, terminates their individual bloodlines. Only the largest, strongest and liveliest, the healthiest seeming, are left equipped to reproduce.

All but a small percentage of females are sent to market just as soon as conditions dictate the best return. Most often breeding females are kept for several years, each year's offspring being the crop. All castrated males are killed for eating, again, just as soon as it suits the business.

That's how it works. That's how its always worked. As well as maximising returns to the farmer/yield from the land, this systematic routine ensures that each generation is made only with from the best of the last. The best genes - only - go forward.

If you try to do otherwise, then constantly evolving micro-organisms will soon start to reduce health and yield. 

Do you understand that much?

Is any of that inhumane? If so, what part/s? Why?

Are you unhappy to think of bees being kept in a similar manner?



BernhardHeuvel said:


> You either go the natural route and do not harvest the honey. Or you harvest honey and make sure you give a fair compensation. That's the deal with husbandry, you give and take, take and give. Both sides win.


Good bees store an excess of honey in an average year, and you can take some and leave some. If you take it early you can leave the later crop on for winter feed - and top up if you think its necessary. 

However: there are strong advantages in having bees that are well attuned to the local environment. So a process of attunement must be built into your system. Allowing those bees that do well organising their own winter stores to flourish at the expense of those that don't is one way. I don't want to lose bees. But I'm prepared to lose some to take out the weakest. Its a tricky one. last year I fed candy in the new year - I didn't want to lose any hives that had made it that far. But I did so in the knowledge that I was interefering with a natural process, and that I would probably pay some sort of price. 

I don't know yet quite how to mimic naturally selection in order to attune my bees well to the local conditions. So I'm trying to include an element of natural selection. If you have a batter plan I'll be glad to hear of it.

I'm quite happy to talk with you about bee ethics (though another thread might be more appropriate). Here's my present position: Bees aren't people, and they aren't sentient mammals. They are insects. They die in large numbers all the time - think of all that brood raised each spring and summer - where is it next February? A sense of proportion is required in beekeeping ethics, as in the rest of farming. 

For the sake of the health of the local population both in the mid and long term, some sort of mechanism that removes the weaker/less well adapted is needed. Failure to build and store (and defend) is rewarded in nature by termination of the individual, to the benefit of the future. 

Systematic feeding undermines that process, and weakens the population progressively. How do we avoid that?

The damage done by modern beekeeping practices to the feral/wild bee population, is in my view a far greater ethical problem than anything I do. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> Traditional methods of breeding in agriculture, breeding the best to the best, have proven unsuccessful in bees.


Tell that to my bees. Plenty of beekeepers are keeping bees successfully without recourse to treatments as a result of informed husbandry techniques.



Daniel Y said:


> What would you suggest as an alternative? With the goal being the same as traditional breeding.


Why would I want to suggest an alternative? There isn't one. And selective breeding works just fine.



Daniel Y said:


> I know of no animal that is kept that is not given what is necessary to countermeasure the negatives of being kept. cattle may be put on pasture. but they are also fed. water is typically provided for them artificially. they are treated for diseases injuries and other ailments. they are managed to grow faster and produce more than they would naturally. Husbandry alone dictates that additional labor and care is taken to increase the productivity of the animal. Those animals exist for the benefit and profit of the farmer. Typically they are kept for no other reason than for profit. and the idea of maximizing that profit is never far behind.


I agree with most of that. But see my post a moment ago to bernhard. Breeding is built into animal husbandry. Without that it would collapse within a generation or two.

Yes, sick animals are treated but they are not subsequently favoured as breeders. That privalige goes only to those who need the least care. 



Daniel Y said:


> Basically you can claim it is survival of the fittest because you can call just about any situation the fittest surviving.


Farming mimics the processes of natural selection. Instead of nature doing the selection (in various ways) the farmer does it. That's how it works. _That's what husbandry is_.

Anything else is keeping pets, or zoo animals. 




Daniel Y said:


> It is like calling someone insane and then pointing out that anything they do or anything they say is evidence of insanity. Basically you look at any individuals that survived and then think they must have been the fittest. I call it survival of those that did not die.


There are a range of mechanisms that bring the healthiest genes to the fore in any naturally selecting population. Male competitions for sexual favours for example ensures that more offspring come from stronger males than from weaker ones. You see? The lions/bulls/rams/giraffes fight - seriously fight - and the winner gets to be the dad. Think about it Daniel. What is happening there? What is the outcome? The fact that its happening in every generation, again and again?

That's just one mechanism of natural selection. Of course those prone to diseases tend to die - and tend to be weaker where they survive. Not many of them get to make contribute. 

Natural selection is a firm, fundamental reality. It isn't some sort of insanity. You just haven't thought it through. 



Daniel Y said:


> There is no exceptional benefit in natural selection. Natural selection maintains a wide and variable genetic pool. Husbandry is not interested in any such thing.
> 
> 
> > Husbandry can have all sorts of objectives. Natural selection tends to produce populations that are good at sustaining themselves. They have to have strong defences against predators - including micro-organisms. there's no-one there to help when things go wrong; and there was no-one their to help their pearents or grandparents either.
> ...


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> This is correct. In Africa there are an estimated 400 million colonies (FA0) most of which are either unmanaged or barely managed. These bees have characteristics that make them unsuitable for modern beekeeping. On the other hand, we have been raising bees for our use for hundreds of years, and it is clear what we need as beekeepers. To the extent that their behaviors can be changed, we will change them.


Wild/Feral (naturally selecting) bees will always adapt to their environments. Wherever predation is high aggressiveness is the population's response for example. Remove the predators and the aggressiveness will lower itself (as it is wasteful of energy)

This is what beekeepers have always done. Its called breeding. 

Where beekeepers have the upper hand (protecting from predators, multiplying from docile strains), the populations become more docile. Where the predators continue to exert a strong influnce (taking out the docile more often than the aggressive) the actions of beekeepers will be more limited in their effect. In Africa the wild bees in many places will outnumber the domestic, and will be subject to predation. So in many parts of Africa agression will be a feature - for as long as this situation lasts.

All honeybee races contain wide diversity, which allows populations to respond to the environment in a way that maximises productivity (of viable offspring from available energy resources) 

All can be adapted by beekeepers and turned quite rapidly into productive, workable, healthy populations. 

All that's needed is an appreciation of what is possible and how to go about it - and the numbers to achieve it. Good starting (or replacement) stock makes life a lot easier. And that's where ferals, especially local ones, can often make a great contribution.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Graham, can I just say, what a great pleasure it is not opening your posts!

I'm sorry if you're saying something constructive (and you often are), but experience has taught me that the disruptive effect of your tone makes them better left unopened.

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Uh, fellas...

Honeybees were one of the first insects where they applied an advanced RNAi technology platform.

They can potentially make changes that are currently unimaginable.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> Uh, fellas...
> 
> Honeybees were one of the first insects where they applied an advanced RNAi technology platform.
> 
> They can potentially make changes that are currently unimaginable.


What are you telling us here Will? Who is 'They' - the bees or the RNAi wallas? Did the bees make the application 

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

While you can't turn a cactus into a lily as far as I know.

I wouldn't say that the above applies to modifying Honeybees.

We're accustomed to thinking in terms of natural and artificial selection.

However, biotechnology is also a possible method/process.

I'm not actively advocating for it, but clearly, others are.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> Tell that to my bees. Plenty of beekeepers are keeping bees successfully without recourse to treatments as a result of informed husbandry techniques.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I want to suggest an alternative? There isn't one. And selective breeding works just fine.


You changed the subject from traditional breeding best to the best to make this argument. I am certain your bees are not a genetic exception. I am also certain you cannot possibly achieve anything remotely similar to traditional breeding methods with bees. One example. taking one male and breeding it to an entire herd of females. The male and the females all having been carefully selected for particular traits. none of which had to do with any sort of natural advantage.





mike bispham said:


> I agree with most of that. But see my post a moment ago to bernhard. Breeding is built into animal husbandry. Without that it would collapse within a generation or two.


We obviously have different ideas of what "Breeding" is. I do agree that the effects of breeding collapse quickly. In some cases breeding requires no additional generations at all. Look at the domestic pig when it escapes captivity. With that as an example of the effects on an animal from being kept at all. what could be the effects on the Honeybee that it is put in an artificial hive?



mike bispham said:


> Yes, sick animals are treated but they are not subsequently favoured as breeders. That privalige goes only to those who need the least care.


"Least care"??? For breeding stock? How much breeding have you actually ever done. How many breeding head of anything have you ever had the charge of? What do you understand about genetic expression and the care required to assure it is expressed at all. It is pretty difficult to accurately select an animal for breeding if everything you can see has been altered by lack of care and environmental conditions. In fact breeding stock receives the highest level of care. Both for genetic expression and general health of the animal.

Although breeders are managed for maximum health which requires exceptional care and effort. Selection is not necessarily so. In the 70's one of the things my father did on our farm was bred Yorkshire Terriers. at that time breeding was about size. everyone wanted Yorkies that where 3 lbs or smaller. As it turned out this was devastating to the health of the breed. Now by AKC standards a Yorkie must be at least 7 lbs. 



mike bispham said:


> Farming mimics the processes of natural selection. Instead of nature doing the selection (in various ways) the farmer does it. That's how it works. _That's what husbandry is_.


I am not even sure what to say to this one. 






mike bispham said:


> There are a range of mechanisms that bring the healthiest genes to the fore in any naturally selecting population. Male competitions for sexual favours for example ensures that more offspring come from stronger males than from weaker ones. You see? The lions/bulls/rams/giraffes fight - seriously fight - and the winner gets to be the dad. Think about it Daniel. What is happening there? What is the outcome? The fact that its happening in every generation, again and again?


I will ask you the same thing. What is happening here? I am pretty sure I understand what you think is happening here. But it is not. Typically the idea is that the strongest bull wins. Not so, not even close. At best only the strongest from a very few contenders wins. none of which have any guarantee of being a good mate. If all that is available is poor mates then only the strongest poor mate wins. Now in many cases not even the strongest poor mate would win. That is because the strongest engages in the most battles and has very little chance of winning them all. often the best mate is killed or ran off before it is able to pass on it's genes. But for the sake of arguments I will concede that point and lets say the strongest male does win. what are the odds in the reality of nature than any of his offspring will survive to reproduce? I find it common that those that promote survival of the fittest assume that those that survive and successfully mate must be the most fit. I reality it is mating of those most suitable to successfully mating. Very often the strongest and fittest die proving they where strong and fit. just not strong and fit enough. 



mike bispham said:


> That's just one mechanism of natural selection. Of course those prone to diseases tend to die - and tend to be weaker where they survive. Not many of them get to make contribute.


Although disease may at times sort those that have greater resistance to it from those that don't. This also does not work the way that it is typically assumed. Individuals that are exposed to a disease get sick. This is hardly a signification portion of the population in the first place. unless you are talking about plague conditions. the survival rate of any popularity to such diseases has far more to do with how lethal the disease is rather than resistance to it. that is why they measure it by how lethal a disease is and not by how resistant the animal is to it. If an animal is resistant they do not get sick. you can't measure what did not happen. You could say that some percentage of a population did not suffer form a given disease. but how do you know if they where ever actually exposed to it? How do you know that they in fact had the disease and never displayed any symptoms? How do you know that those animals that did not get ill simply had an immune system capable of overcoming it and that system is the result of environmental conditions that allowed them to have a healthier immune system. This is simply the fact that not all environments are suitable to all species. Environmental stability has nothing to do with selection. Fish don't live out of water. that has nothing to do with natural or any other kind of selection.



mike bispham said:


> Natural selection is a firm, fundamental reality. It isn't some sort of insanity. You just haven't thought it through.


I never said Natural Selection does not exist. What is in question is what in fact it accomplishes. I see those here think it produces stronger faster healthier individuals. which is not even close to true. It produces a wide range of individuals from the strongest to the weakest and it maintains that range always. This comment may be difficult to apply. But think about it. take any animal you care to and lets say it's population has an average adult weight of 7 lbs. Now how many individuals within that population woudl weigh 7 lbs? Most people woudl say most of them would. Most would agree that half or more weigh 7 lbs or close to it. The truth is very few if any individuals woudl weigh 7 lbs . half would be over 7 lbs and half would be under it. 

Now stay with me. Let's say there is the random but rare 12 lb individual. This largest of individuals represent your strongest and fittest. Out of the entire population of the species how often is the largest going to accour? How prevalent are they. it is unlikely they will be able to mate with every suitable partner in an entire area. many less large individuals will also successfully mate. At best they will mate with a fraction of a precent of the available mates. Even if they do successfully mate at a higher rate. that gives there offspring no advantage at survival. In fact their offspring may very well be at a disadvantage. so advantage at mating does not carry over to advantage of survival of prodigy. One example of this recently shared on this site was the bear in yellowstone that learned to hunt elk. this allowed the adult female to thrive. but also insured none of her offspring survived. Traits for successful mating have nothing to do with successful rearing of young or the tendency for a given blood line to pass on to future generations. 

All traits even the most exceptional and what woudl be considered the fittest are lethal under any number of random environmental conditions. In truth fittest does not really exist in nature. fittest for what? An ever changing environment that leaves any trait vulnerable at some point or another. in a battle large is better. in conditions of starvation not so much. A strong animal that fights many battles then starves due to the energy expended. It in fact happens. study the mating habits of the bull Elk. Often the strongest larges best fighter, dies defending his herd from all comers. in many cases never managing to mate at all. Having fought off contender after contender only to eventually loosing out to a far less suitable individual. The strongest are all beat to death attempting to. So much for that fittest idea. Nature favors the main stream. that is why the exceptional in either case are rare. The exception do not in fact survive.

It is the hum drum every day individual just getting by that is successful.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> [HIGHLIGHT]Wild/Feral (naturally selecting) bees will always adapt to their environments.[/HIGHLIGHT] Wherever predation is high aggressiveness is the population's response for example. Remove the predators and the aggressiveness will lower itself (as it is wasteful of energy)


Not true. 
Apparently Mike didn't learn much from the _extinct dinosaur_ situation that we went through with him a week ago or so. :lpf:

It should be apparent that _*extinct species*_ DID NOT adapt to their environment. Even extinct INSECTS fail to adapt. And guess what - there are extinct insects. 

The quote below is from a page on _extinct insects_ ... 


> One extinct species of insect, the Rocky Mountain locust _(Melanoplus spretus),_ was once so numerous that in the 1800s it was described as the single largest barrier to westward expansion in the U.S., Dunn says.
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0920_050920_extinct_insects_2.html


While folks a Beesource likely aren't weeping about an extinct locust species, it is clear evidence that Mike's assertion is wrong.

Insects, including bees, _*do not *_always adapt to their environments.

:gh:


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I don't know who is still reading this thread. Anyway, greater minds than mine have studied this issue deeply, to wit:



> Breeding for disease resistance has become a major goal in selection programmes of the honeybee. Often these efforts comprise international consortia, the utilization of genetically broad and diverse stock as a basis for selection. Repeatedly, there have been reports of disease resistance stock and they are marketed at a global scale.
> 
> In spite of the repeated successes of breeding, the breeding results are disappointingly unsustainable. Resistant stock comes as quickly as it disappears. This may not be surprising given the structure of the apicultural industry.
> 
> ...


Is breeding for disease resistance a sustainable concept in honeybees?, Robin Moritz
Institut für Biologie Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg Hoher Weg 4 06099 Halle/Saale, Germany

He highlights the fact that resistance must develop in a population, not a lineage. That conventional ideas about breeding do not apply to the honey bee due to the complexity of mating and genomics. 

People love to over simplify, because it makes their ideas easier to understand and to promote. Unfortunately, nobody has a handle on this problem, and those that claim they do may be deluded. 

By the way, thanks to those who have stayed with this conversation.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> By the way, thanks to those who have stayed with this conversation despite the ranting by the various know-nothings whose noise makes it difficult to talk & hear in the room.


This is my first post on this thread, after reading this it will be my last.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I find it common that those that promote survival of the fittest assume that those that survive and successfully mate must be the most fit. I reality it is mating of those most suitable to successfully mating.


This is a very important point and it accounts for much of the variety we see. Again, people try to simplify things so that they can understand them. But you have only understood the simplified version. Evolution is a complex mix of many factors, including recombination of traits, sexual attractiveness, niche selection, etc. etc. It's not one thing. 

Even breeding is complex, though it selects for a small set of traits. With genetic linkages, when one selects for something desirable one is often inadvertently selecting for other things, some of which are harmful (as described previously with the small dogs). Very few breeding programs are not plagued by the affects of inadvertent selection. 

Natural selection produces a huge range of individuals, millions of species. If there were one best organism, it would predominate. Such is not the case. If anything, nature prefers all sorts of different organisms, each surviving in their own different way. As we mentioned earlier, there a lots of ways to survive, which include being smarter, prettier, faster, lucky, bad tasting, parasitic, or simply by hiding in a filthy hole that nobody else wants.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Comment removed, no longer valid


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Now, for something completely different:



> Less attention has been paid to host–parasite systems where both host and parasite are closely related, sharing similar life history traits. This is known as social parasitism or brood parasitism and is found in both birds and social insects. Host bumblebees and their social parasites, cuckoo bumblebees share the same, but timeshifted annual life cycle, and corresponding environmental conditions.
> 
> Host bumblebee colonies are comprised of drones (males), workers and a single bumblebee queen who initiates nest foundation in early spring. During colony development, workers are produced exclusively and only at the end of the season are new sexuals (drones and queens) produced for the forthcoming season.
> 
> Cuckoo bumblebee females invade host nests in spring, killing the host queen and leaving host workers to take care of the cuckoo female’s brood. In contrast to the host, cuckoo females produce only male and queen offspring, lacking a worker caste. This kind of parasitism is assigned to queen-intolerant inquilines. Within this asymmetric, inter-specific arms race, cuckoo bumblebees may be specialist or generalist, being a mono- or multiple-host social parasite, depending on the host species range.


Erler, S., Lhomme, P., Rasmont, P., & Lattorff, H. M. G. (2014). Rapid evolution of antimicrobial peptide genes in an insect host–social parasite system. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 23, 129-137.

See also

http://www.coloss.org


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

Interesting thread. I've wondered what the numbers would be as well. I think it all boils down to habitat, and not just foraging habitat either. For example, timber management plays a much larger role than people give it credit for when it comes to feral bees. In my area, there was virtually no timber at all 50 years ago with the exception of hilltops where it was too steep to graze livestock. Virtually, every hillside was used for pasture. Fast forward today, and what do we have?.....farmers have aged and retired. Their children have moved off to the city, and the pasture land is now timber ranging between 50-100 yrs old. The old timers here remember bees being kept in people's' yards, but hardly any in the woods. Now, even after the mites, we are seeing bees everywhere it seems. My phone rings off the wall about feral bees. I honestly think this is due to the older timber, which is now large enough to contain cavities with the proper size suitable for bee colonies. 
So what if a strong colony throws off 3-5 swarms a year. If there's no where for the swarms to go, they'll simply die due to lack of cavities. Provide a lot of cavities in an area with good forage, and you'll have plenty of feral bees. 
Obviously, this doesn't answer the question, but I think natural shelter and food are the biggest dependent factors when it comes to feral bees. Some areas have it and some areas don't.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> People dive into ongoing conversations, read very little and launch into their scripted rants.


That's it...... sounds like that guy Peter over on the Paramont thread in the commercial section.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Keith Jarrett said:


> That's it...... sounds like that guy Peter over on the Paramont thread in the commercial section.


At least his face has gone from  to . Things are looking up!

By the way, I already apologized for what I said there, but I will apologize again to you Keith. I have the utmost respect for you and all the commercial beekeepers who keep the bee industry alive. I am on the fence here, having been both a commercial operator, a researcher, and now a small holder. The concerns of these are similar but different. Anyway, opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one, they are not very deep and they don't hold much water.


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

I have asked a few bee scientists here in Canada and the consensus has been that, thanks to disease, pests and pesticide effects, in our cold weather areas there are no true ferals left. One researcher felt that in the warmest weather areas of the country (BC's south coast, the Sarnia region of Ontario, and perhaps southern parts of the Maritimes) there may be some ferals, but many fewer than in years past, and likely not surviving as long as colonies used to.

I had one lady call me (we live on the south BC coast near the USA/Canada border) hoping the bees in her deck were a feral colony. But when we monitored them closely, they died out each winter and the space was repopulated by a spring swarm from a nearby honey operation.


----------



## Pops (Nov 29, 2013)

I just pulled a hive from a commercial building that was 8' in length and 5' wide. Been in the wall 9 yrs. There are feral hives out there


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> .. opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one, they are not very deep and they don't hold much water.


You speak for yourself. My beliefs on this topic are well researched and deeply held. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

TalonRedding said:


> Interesting thread. I've wondered what the numbers would be as well. I think it all boils down to habitat, and not just foraging habitat either. For example, timber management plays a much larger role than people give it credit for when it comes to feral bees.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> You changed the subject from traditional breeding best to the best to make this argument. I am certain your bees are not a genetic exception. I am also certain you cannot possibly achieve anything remotely similar to traditional breeding methods with bees. One example. taking one male and breeding it to an entire herd of females. The male and the females all having been carefully selected for particular traits. none of which had to do with any sort of natural advantage.


Try a counterexample: I take the queen from the weakest colony in my apiary, a young and well fed queen simply not passing on varroa management behaviours to her colony. I raise 100 new queens from her, and mate them in a nearby heavily treating apiary, and then use them requeen my entire apiary.

Given that I don't treat, is that a sensible thing to be doing? If not, why not?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> We obviously have different ideas of what "Breeding" is. I do agree that the effects of breeding collapse quickly. In some cases breeding requires no additional generations at all. Look at the domestic pig when it escapes captivity.


Most individuals die, if some (the strongest, where 'strongest means 'best fitted to the environment) survive and reproduce successfully, from these alone new generations will be subject to continuous natural selection, improving fitness. Pretty soon you have something that looks rather like wild pigs again. Its a feral population.



Daniel Y said:


> With that as an example of the effects on an animal from being kept at all. what could be the effects on the Honeybee that it is put in an artificial hive?


That it is put in a hive and that alone? Not much effect. If it had to find the hive you've been maintaining cavity-location capabilities, but as far as I know domesticated populations don't weaken in that respect. 



Daniel Y said:


> "Least care"??? For breeding stock?


Of course breeding stock is very valuable, and you want to maintain it. But given the choice of two otherwise identical strong males, will you select the one with a disposition to fevers or the other?



Daniel Y said:


> It is pretty difficult to accurately select an animal for breeding if everything you can see has been altered by lack of care and environmental conditions.


Never a truer word was spoken. Treating and mollycoddling masks innate strengths and weaknesses.



Daniel Y said:


> In fact breeding stock receives the highest level of care. Both for genetic expression and general health of the animal.


So you agree the benefits of selective parentage for mammals, but not with bees. Have I got that right?



Daniel Y said:


> Although breeders are managed for maximum health [...]


First step first: first they're selected for maximal - or near maximal - health. For vitality and productivity. 



Daniel Y said:


> ...which requires exceptional care and effort. Selection is not necessarily so.


This doesn't make grammatical sense.



Daniel Y said:


> In the 70's one of the things my father did on our farm was bred Yorkshire Terriers. at that time breeding was about size. everyone wanted Yorkies that where 3 lbs or smaller. As it turned out this was devastating to the health of the breed. Now by AKC standards a Yorkie must be at least 7 lbs.


What is your point here Daniel?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

[Mike] "Farming mimics the processes of natural selection. Instead of nature doing the selection (in various ways) the farmer does it. That's how it works. That's what husbandry is." 



Daniel Y said:


> I am not even sure what to say to this one.


Perhaps you should study the idea for a little while. This (again) might help you:

"Breeding is by no means a human invention. Nature, which in millions of years
has bought forth this immense diversity of wonderfully adapted creatures, is the
greatest breeder. It is from her that the present day breeder learnt how it must
be done, excessive production and then ruthless selection, permitting only the
most suitable to survive and eliminating the inferior." 
Friedrich Ruttner,
Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee, pg 45

[Mike] "The lions/bulls/rams/giraffes fight - seriously fight - and the winner gets to be the dad. Think about it Daniel. What is happening there? What is the outcome? The fact that its happening in every generation, again and again? "



Daniel Y said:


> I will ask you the same thing. What is happening here? I am pretty sure I understand what you think is happening here. But it is not. Typically the idea is that the strongest bull wins. Not so, not even close. At best only the strongest from a very few contenders wins. none of which have any guarantee of being a good mate. If all that is available is poor mates then only the strongest poor mate wins. Now in many cases not even the strongest poor mate would win. That is because the strongest engages in the most battles and has very little chance of winning them all.


What usually happens is that the best fighter - who is also most often the largest - wins, and then defends, a harem. The other males get chased off.

In most cases the strongest males get to father the next generation.

This it textbook stuff Daniel. Get yourself a textbook - read it and think it through.

There are of course complexities. But that underlying mechanism remains. In many species males are built to compete for for mating rights, and that mechanism confers an advantage over sub-populations that don't have it. Therefore it persists. 



Daniel Y said:


> ... often the best mate is killed or ran off before it is able to pass on it's genes.


Then it wasn't the best mate, ceteris patribus.



Daniel Y said:


> But for the sake of arguments I will concede that point and lets say the strongest male does win.


Its not for the sake of argument. Its because the argument wins.



Daniel Y said:


> what are the odds in the reality of nature than any of his offspring will survive to reproduce?


Better, ceteris patribus, than the odds of the offspring of the less strong. Take it to the extreme to see the point more clearly: what are the odds of the offspring of the weakest survining to reproduce, compared to the offspring of the strongest.

If you really believe there is no difference then why do you select and carefully maintain breeding stock?



Daniel Y said:


> I find it common that those that promote survival of the fittest assume that those that survive and successfully mate must be the most fit. I reality it is mating of those most suitable to successfully mating.


Its the same thing Daniel. 'Fitness' means 'best able to reproduce successfully'. 'Fitness is defined that way. 

You have to have the basic education in order to understand how the terms used function.



Daniel Y said:


> Very often the strongest and fittest die proving they where strong and fit. just not strong and fit enough.


They may have been the strongest, but they weren't the 'fittest'. 'Fittest' has a special meaning in evolutionary biology. 



Daniel Y said:


> Although disease may at times sort those that have greater resistance to it from those that don't.


Not 'at times' - in wild populations regularly. Populations are constantly 'winnowed' for those genes best ably to ensure successful reproduction.



Daniel Y said:


> This also does not work the way that it is typically assumed. Individuals that are exposed to a disease get sick. This is hardly a signification portion of the population in the first place. unless you are talking about plague conditions. the survival rate of any popularity to such diseases has far more to do with how lethal the disease is rather than resistance to it.


At times. But sub-lethal disease also weakens. It lowers the ability of an individual to thrive, and to compete with other individuals who have no symptoms. A drone with shingles is less likely, ceteris patribus, to mate with a queen than one of similar size and capabilities who isn't suffering the effects of shingles. (No I don't think bees suffer from shingles - I do know a beekeeper who does, and he's getting less honey this year as a direct result than his competitors!)



Daniel Y said:


> that is why they measure it by how lethal a disease is and not by how resistant the animal is to it.


What matters in farming is how much effect it has (or may have in the future) on yields.

Don't forget Daniel husbandry nowadays is deeply distorted by the availability of treatments. You can make the calculation: this bull has a disposition to x problem, which I'd really rather not pass down, but... the problem is easily fixed by a treatment, and that will likely remain so, he's in. 

You are are still selecting. You've just made an allowance. Sure, nature can't do that (actually it can - some beneficial relationships solve a disease propblem for one partner by rewarding the other). 

And that's the main, and undeniable, and important point. Traits, dispositions, including those relating to health and vitality and productivity (which are overlapping features) are heritable and inherited; and that's why natural selection does what it does, and why husbandry works. 



Daniel Y said:


> If an animal is resistant they do not get sick. you can't measure what did not happen. You could say that some percentage of a population did not suffer form a given disease. but how do you know if they where ever actually exposed to it? How do you know that they in fact had the disease and never displayed any symptoms? How do you know that those animals that did not get ill simply had an immune system capable of overcoming it and that system is the result of environmental conditions that allowed them to have a healthier immune system.


You make your best effort to calculate what is happening. You can alter the way you manage stock to help that process. Its sometimes hard, and sometimes impossible - but its very often very simple. 



Daniel Y said:


> I never said Natural Selection does not exist. What is in question is what in fact it accomplishes.


What it accomplishes is the creation of millions of diverse species over time, from a common ancestor. What it accomplishes is the best-possible routes to fitness on the basis that the less fit tend to lose out to the most fit. What it accomplishes is disease resistance through de-selection of the most vulnerable and promotion of the least vulnerable. Its beautiful stuff Daniel and you owe it to yourself to get a handle on it. 



Daniel Y said:


> I see those here think it produces stronger faster healthier individuals. which is not even close to true.


No, it is true. That's exactly what it does - where 'stronger' and 'faster' are traits that confer an advantage, and always!! where health is concerned because poor health never confers an advantage! 



Daniel Y said:


> It produces a wide range of individuals from the strongest to the weakest and it maintains that range always.


Yes it does. But it does so by ... selecting better and de-selecting worse.

If you remove that mechanism - start de-selecting better and selecting worse - then things go downhill fast.

Again: arms race. The predators are constantly evolving. If you stop matching evolution in the prey the advantage goes to the predators. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> This comment may be difficult to apply. But think about it. take any animal you care to and lets say it's population has an average adult weight of 7 lbs. Now how many individuals within that population woudl weigh 7 lbs? Most people woudl say most of them would. Most would agree that half or more weigh 7 lbs or close to it. The truth is very few if any individuals woudl weigh 7 lbs . half would be over 7 lbs and half would be under it.
> 
> Now stay with me. Let's say there is the random but rare 12 lb individual. This largest of individuals represent your strongest and fittest.


No. He may be the strongest, but unless he wins the mating copetition and has successful offspring, he isn't the 'fittest'.

There is a better point - that works in your favour: he may sire a population of large strong males that subsequently succumb to a particular disease. In which case it turns out that his weren't the fittest genes after all. 

In reality populations are sufficiently large and for genetic diversity to work in seeking the optimum ranges on average. 

Genetic narrowing (in breeding) can be a dangerous game. 

But its tempting. Try these overlarge bloodlines - they might well be profitable for a hwile - and if complications arise down the line, well, we'll be buying in fresh stock anyway... Farming is, yes, about trying to cheat, to better natural selection, to increase yields - and generally it succeeds wildly.

But it only succeeds, on a sustainable basis where the husbandryman know's what he's doing, or has someone to bail him out when his choices go wrong.



Daniel Y said:


> One example of this recently shared on this site was the bear in yellowstone that learned to hunt elk. this allowed the adult female to thrive. but also insured none of her offspring survived. Traits for successful mating have nothing to do with successful rearing of young or the tendency for a given blood line to pass on to future generations.


You've muddled your points here Daniel with the result that you're not making sense. I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not going to untangle it for you



Daniel Y said:


> All traits even the most exceptional and what woudl be considered the fittest are lethal under any number of random environmental conditions.


Ceteris paribus Daniel 'all else being equal' 'on average'.

When you got in a casino you know that on average, in the long run, the chances are very much that you'll lose. If it were any other way the csinos wouldn't make a profit - but they do, they make moke hand over first.

You can't predict the outcome of any particular hand, or pull, or throw.

But you can predict that you'll probably be poorer in the long run if you keep visiting casinos. 

Do you follow that? If you can, I can help you understand how a tendency in some individuals can be compounded by the effects of a small selective mechanism to produce predicatble results in the long run. If you can't then I don't think I can help.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> In truth fittest does not really exist in nature. fittest for what? An ever changing environment that leaves any trait vulnerable at some point or another. in a battle large is better. in conditions of starvation not so much. A strong animal that fights many battles then starves due to the energy expended. It in fact happens. study the mating habits of the bull Elk. Often the strongest larges best fighter, dies defending his herd from all comers. in many cases never managing to mate at all. Having fought off contender after contender only to eventually loosing out to a far less suitable individual. The strongest are all beat to death attempting to. So much for that fittest idea. Nature favors the main stream. that is why the exceptional in either case are rare. The exception do not in fact survive.
> 
> It is the hum drum every day individual just getting by that is successful.


But we don't want bees that are just getting by, and we don't want bees that have natural wastage rates... and so we breed them

And those of us who don't want to have to treat, with all the implications that has, recognise that feral populations can supply a helping hand - because with no help at all, among them are strong, independent thriving productive individuals who offer good breeding qualities.

And we recognise that in order to make best use of those qualities we have to find them, capture their (desirable) genes and then maintain them through our own selective propagation systems.

Can't you see how simple that is?

If we do we stand a good chance of getting good bees that don't need treating.

That's doing simple, basic genetic husbandry. Its what is done in every other field of husbandry.

Is that so hard to comprehend? 

Thanks for engaging Daniel. Some folks here run away from arguments and respond with abuse. You're made of sterner stuff. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Can't you see how simple that is? Mike (UK)


Actually some of us, especially me, must say "No, I can't see how simple any of this is."

Verbosity has gotten in the way. Huge intellectual densely packed Posts make any message to anyone beyond about 4 or 5 people in this Thread just so much fog, hard to see through and nobody knows what it is or what it means. Is it mist or haze or just a low hanging cloud. The thing about clouds is that they move out of the way and sunlight shine through again.

I am seeing a whole lot of fog and densely packed clouds, not much sunshine. Maybe y'all are accomplishing something talking to each other, but what is the benefit to the masses? Not that every Thread is for everyone. Just thought that perhaps you would like to know.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Where cavities are normally small (middle aged woodland for example) bees will swarm a lot as they run out of space. This faster than normal turnover will speed natural selection, allowing mite tolerant behaviours to emerge sooner.

All this is entirely predictable. Its laughable that so many self-regarding 'husbandrymen' here find it hard to understand the simple basics of evolutionary biology - or the idea that basics can be simple yet remain... basics. 
[/QUOTE]

You list three traits Two actual one assumed. The actual traits are more frequent swarming of smaller colonies, and as I read it lower survival rate (turnover) of small colonies. Neither of which woudl be considered beneficial behaviors for beekeepers. Neither of which would be tolerated much less encouraged in beekeeping.

The third is that you then say that these two intolerable traits will result in a beneficial one. Says Who?

I believe I have seen something of this abundance of swarming this past spring and what the actual results are. at least here. We have had two extremely mild winters in a row. followed by abundant swarming in the spring. The year before last it seemed we had to respond to swarm calls within a few hours or the bees would have moved on. Members of the local beekeeping association all speak of the abundance of swarms.

This year we got calls about swarms and many times the comment was made that the bees had been clustered for a number of days. TI is as if the bees cannot find places to go. This was coupled with the addition that many colonies where found in cavities that had never been colonized by bees before. one example was in a house owned by the current owner for over 50 years. 6 colonies taking up residence in cavities that have never been utilized before. Indicating to me that bees are searching harder and settling for less suitable locations.

My observations lead me to believe that abundant swarming leads to lower survival of swarms. which is not conducive to development of resistance to anything. High turn over would not either. I don't seem to follow how dead bees are developing anything but empty space for the next bees. Which leads me to to my final point.

If this development of resistance is so obvious and easy. Why is it not happening?

I agree with your basic claim that it can happen. I do not agree that it will simply by default happen. There are many many other possible outcomes. extinction of the honey bee being one of them. What makes you assume that the eventual evolutionary process will favor the bee? What makes you continue to be certain of that outcome when in the face of evidence so far says otherwise. One other point on this development of resistance thing. currently roughly 33.3% of all colonies are lost each year. 
Although your idea that heavy losses will cause the most suitable genes to be brought forward is correct. Assuming a remnant does in fact have resistance and survives. 33.3% losses are not nearly high enough. you are trying to apply a recipe that not all the ingredients are present. Think more along the lines of 99.99% losses. And you still have to remove the alteration to the process created by mans interference.

I don't see my disagreement with your claims as one of can it happen or not. but will it happen or not. Is it happening or not. 

Resistance to varroa for example. To me it is not all that beneficial to the colony. it is just trading one loss of bees for another. Removal of brood due to infestation does not prevent infestation it is just killing population by a different means.

In all it may be a solution to a degree. but hardly a good solution. It is like saying that the solution to disease and death is abortion. Far fewer people die of diseases and poor health when they die before even being born. I don't see how this is benefiting a healthier population of the living.

Now with Varroa resistance it is more like abortion of the already infected. This is true. It is till a bee lost to the population. Only the cause of death has changed. It also may reduce the rate of infestation. But isn't that counter productive? Don't the bees need to be infested in order to develop resistance? What happens when all the bees develop resistance. the mite has no chance and the selection pressure has been removed?

It has been well demonstrated time and time again that when selection pressure is removed. A species reverts to it's original state.

Combine two of my points above and it begins to develop a requirment for you idea to actualy work that you woudl have to.

1. accept loses at the rate of about 1 survival colony in 1000. Actual breeding programs indicate you woudl have to sustain this for about 20 years.

2. maintain adequate infestation of your colonies for the duration.

Otherwise it is like you are attempting to bake a cake with the ingredients for chili.


----------



## Mr.Beeman (May 19, 2012)

Can't really add to what has already been mentioned, but my hives 99% of them are feral and 1% "kept" from a package. I guess they are all "kept" now. lol But I can tell you this, my feral hives have surpassed my package hive many, many times over as far as production and rearing.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

This thread reminds me of the old saying: "I didn't want to know how to build a watch, I just wanted to know what time it was." 

I don't know enough about bio sciences to follow the various arguments, but I do grudgingly admire the time and effort that some of the posters have put forth to enlighten and educate others. To say the least I'm impressed with the diligence and persistence shown by some of the posters.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> My beliefs on this topic are well researched and deeply held.


Oh? :scratch:
Remember this gem? Here is how it got started ...


Daniel Y said:


> It is even possible that natural selection will cause the extinction of the honey bee.



And Mike responds ...


mike bispham said:


> That's plain nonsense Daniel, born of a poor understanding of natural selection. *Its so wrong I don't know what to say.



And then after seemingly endless posturing by Mike, this ...


mike bispham said:


> Of course natural selection can result in extinction.




"Well researched" indeed! :lpf:


:gh:


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

On the issue of the thread. how many colonies are feral in comparison to kept hives.

Over a year ago I had 4 colonies. that spring we captured 13 swarms and passed on the opportunity for 3 more. Of those 16 total swarms possibly 6 came from our kept colonies. 4 definitely where not. leaving a possible 10 colonies to our 6 coming from ferrel colonies. This makes a 3 to 5 ratio of kept colonies to Ferrel in this area.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Maybe I fired the first volley over their heads, but we may be getting into "Shoot the Messenger" territory. Don't ya think Graham? Besides, one of those two doesn't read what you Post. Apparently you are on his ignore list.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Beesource is a _forum_, Mark, not a two-party conversation. One of the great features of a _forum _is that the audience is wide and varied. It doesn't matter whether a person quoted chooses to _bury his head in the sand_ or not, the _rest _of the forum readers see my post.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I thought the thread was doing wonderfully until Rader did his commentary. Arguments, didn't see any ... I just saw discussions. Beesource at it's best.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Can't really add to what has already been mentioned, but my hives 99% of them are feral and 1% "kept" from a package. I guess they are all "kept" now. lol But I can tell you this, my feral hives have surpassed my package hive many, many times over as far as production and rearing.


Do you really have over 100 hives, and 99% of them are feral? What do you mean by feral? Feral normally means escaped from domestication. So genetically, they would be no different than the hives they came from. 

A feral population, on the other hand, could have a genetic difference from the domestic population if it had some sort of barrier to gene flow. Examples of barriers include: 1) geographic isolation, like an island population. or 2) behavioral isolation, such as different mating habits. 
SEE:

Strange, J. P., Garnery, L., & Sheppard, W. S. (2008). Morphological and molecular characterization of the Landes honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) ecotype for genetic conservation. Journal of insect conservation, 12(5), 527-537.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Beesource is a _forum_, Mark, not a two-party conversation. One of the great features of a _forum _is that the audience is wide and varied. It doesn't matter whether a person quoted chooses to _bury his head in the sand_ or not, the _rest _of the forum readers see my post.


I saw it Rader......

As far as Im concerned, open mated queens turning hives darker tells me there are ferals. Seems the Drones must be more attractive....... G


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

I think you are in Tennessee, Pops? The warmer winters might be the reason you still find ferals. I wonder how they managed to keep ahead of the Varroa mites, though.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> [Mike] "Where cavities are normally small (middle aged woodland for example) bees will swarm a lot as they run out of space. This faster than normal turnover will speed natural selection, allowing mite tolerant behaviours to emerge sooner."
> 
> You list three traits Two actual one assumed. The actual traits are more frequent swarming of smaller colonies, and as I read it lower survival rate (turnover) of small colonies.


You have assumed I'm stated the trait of more frequent swarming would be promoted. I've not said any such thing. Smaller cavities tend to promote more frequent swarming that larger ones. That's all.

I haven't said anything about the survival rate. More frequent swarms increases the population upon which natural selection can work. 

So none of what follows is either stated or implicit in what I've written.



Daniel Y said:


> Neither of which woudl be considered beneficial behaviors for beekeepers. Neither of which would be tolerated much less encouraged in beekeeping.





Daniel Y said:


> The third is that you then say that these two intolerable traits will result in a beneficial one. Says Who?


Says me. Since natural selection is a health-seeking mecvhanism, the more of it there is the faster health comes forward. 



Daniel Y said:


> I believe I have seen something of this abundance of swarming this past spring and what the actual results are. at least here. We have had two extremely mild winters in a row. followed by abundant swarming in the spring. The year before last it seemed we had to respond to swarm calls within a few hours or the bees would have moved on. Members of the local beekeeping association all speak of the abundance of swarms.
> 
> This year we got calls about swarms and many times the comment was made that the bees had been clustered for a number of days. TI is as if the bees cannot find places to go. This was coupled with the addition that many colonies where found in cavities that had never been colonized by bees before. one example was in a house owned by the current owner for over 50 years. 6 colonies taking up residence in cavities that have never been utilized before. Indicating to me that bees are searching harder and settling for less suitable locations.
> 
> My observations lead me to believe that abundant swarming leads to lower survival of swarms.


Increased competition, yes.




Daniel Y said:


> ...which is not conducive to development of resistance to anything. High turn over would not either. I don't seem to follow how dead bees are developing anything but empty space for the next bees.


I disagree. But its a minor point and not especially relevant to the discussion.



Daniel Y said:


> Which leads me to to my final point.
> 
> If this development of resistance is so obvious and easy. Why is it not happening?


It is happening. There are more and more reports from people who are able to keep bees without recourse to treatments. There are more and more reports of feral bees. 

Its isn't happening where treatments are removing the selective pressure.



Daniel Y said:


> I agree with your basic claim that it can happen. I do not agree that it will simply by default happen. There are many many other possible outcomes. extinction of the honey bee being one of them. What makes you assume that the eventual evolutionary process will favor the bee?


A) because it is happening on a widespread scale, and has been for the past 15 years or more. Documented and anecdotally

B) because I understand how it happens

C) because I personally keep bees that are largely rudely healthy (and not in the least disposed to swarming) without any sort of assistance

D because I've personally seen the recovery of feral bees - I know personally of long continuous nest, of localities where feral popualtions are high. My daughter has hosted a contininuos chimney colony for the past three years; my sister hosted a tree colony for 5 continuous years

E) because I understand how larger treating apiaries tend to undermine the health of surrounding feral, leading their owners convinced that there are no viable feral bees

F) because, given that the honeybee has undoubtedly thrown of millions of similar parasite attacks in its 20/60 million year history, its unreasonable to believe this one will do it much harm.

I'm sure I could think of more reasons



Daniel Y said:


> What makes you continue to be certain of that outcome when in the face of evidence so far says otherwise.


It doesn't. The only people who don't have self sufficient bees are those that keep the depence of treatments alive by failing to breed out vulnerable genes. sure that's most commercial beekeepers.



Daniel Y said:


> One other point on this development of resistance thing. currently roughly 33.3% of all colonies are lost each year.


In predominantly treating apiaries. My non-treating apiary lost about 12% last year. 



Daniel Y said:


> Although your idea that heavy losses will cause the most suitable genes to be brought forward is correct.


Its not my idea. It comes straight from basic evolutionary biology.



Daniel Y said:


> Assuming a remnant does in fact have resistance and survives. 33.3% losses are not nearly high enough. you are trying to apply a recipe that not all the ingredients are present. Think more along the lines of 99.99% losses. And you still have to remove the alteration to the process created by mans interference.


Why then am I not getting 99.99% losses? On what authority does that figure rest? Or did you just make it up?



Daniel Y said:


> Resistance to varroa for example. To me it is not all that beneficial to the colony. it is just trading one loss of bees for another. Removal of brood due to infestation does not prevent infestation it is just killing population by a different means.


A funny theory. Tell it to my bees.



Daniel Y said:


> In all it may be a solution to a degree. but hardly a good solution. It is like saying that the solution to disease and death is abortion. Far fewer people die of diseases and poor health when they die before even being born. I don't see how this is benefiting a healthier population of the living.


I can see you don't get it! I can't figure out why, what's mising. Perhaps its just an unwillingness to shift your position. Its all perfectly obvious to me.

Look Daniel: where others around me have bees that need to be treated regularly and still perish in large numbers, I have taken feral bees, bred from the best of them, and have rudely healthy and productive stocks with low winter losses. I don't treat, or mess with them in any other way. I just work along the same lines that natural selection took when it rasied varroa resisance and broad health in the ferals I collected.

I have, in your words, "a healthier population of the living." What's not to like? How is that a bad solution? 



Daniel Y said:


> Now with Varroa resistance it is more like abortion of the already infected. This is true. It is till a bee lost to the population. Only the cause of death has changed. It also may reduce the rate of infestation. But isn't that counter productive? Don't the bees need to be infested in order to develop resistance? What happens when all the bees develop resistance. the mite has no chance and the selection pressure has been removed?
> 
> It has been well demonstrated time and time again that when selection pressure is removed. A species reverts to it's original state.


It's so funny watching you wriggle around with these half-truths, forcing them into logic that suits your position!



Daniel Y said:


> Combine two of my points above and it begins to develop a requirment for you idea to actualy work that you woudl have to.
> 
> 1. accept loses at the rate of about 1 survival colony in 1000. Actual breeding programs indicate you woudl have to sustain this for about 20 years.
> 
> 2. maintain adequate infestation of your colonies for the duration.


Tell it to my bees Daniel. 

In your favour: the initial infection of varroa here did kill off a very large proportion of feral bees (though I doubt it was your invented 99.9%) The survivors have probably been regularly reinfected from apiary bees. So at least a measure of your conditions were met.

.... And..

Natural selection has done its work. The feral populations are recovering very well. They make perfectly good beekeepers bees. I can take them, improve them (you know how) and get on with beekeeping without having to think about varroa. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Acebird said:


> I thought the thread was doing wonderfully until Rader did his commentary. Arguments, didn't see any ... I just saw discussions. Beesource at it's best.


I couldn't resist: I opened one, and glanced, and saw lots of colours, and cartoon figures, exclamation marks, and capitals and underlining, and the word 'dinosours', and immediately thought: this looks just like my daughters classroom! (My daughter teaches at nursery level).


Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Do you really have over 100 hives, and 99% of them are feral? What do you mean by feral? Feral normally means escaped from domestication. So genetically, they would be no different than the hives they came from.


A largely separated population will have had the opportunity to adapt to micro-organisms and parasites that will have been deined their apiary cousins due to treatments - 'removing the selective pressure'. 

They may have (largely) the same genetic origins, but will have shuffled the alleles, bringing the most health-giving to the fore.



peterloringborst said:


> A feral population, on the other hand, could have a genetic difference from the domestic population if it had some sort of barrier to gene flow. Examples of barriers include: 1) geographic isolation, like an island population. or 2) behavioral isolation, such as different mating habits.
> SEE:
> 
> Strange, J. P., Garnery, L., & Sheppard, W. S. (2008). Morphological and molecular characterization of the Landes honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) ecotype for genetic conservation. Journal of insect conservation, 12(5), 527-537.


Different mating habits have been proposed to account for the fact of two seperate populations, the feral and the domesticated, living side by side in the US, studied by Dr. Deborah Delanay. As several people have pointed out for you in recent weeks. 

BTW, since you now seem to acknowledge the existence of feral populations, can we assume you accept too that:

a) such populations are controlling varroa themselves, and

b) that they have acquired the means to do so through the mechanism of natural selection for the fittest strains? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> I couldn't resist: I opened one, and glanced, and saw lots of colours, and cartoon figures, exclamation marks, and capitals and underlining, and the word 'dinosours'


Funny, there was NO underlining of text in my posts. And I'm pretty sure I spelled 'dinosours' correctly as _*dinosaurs*_. :lpf:


:gh:

... see Mark, that function you spoke of is just a _tease_ - he really can't resist reading those posts ...


This part is absolutely the best .... 


mike bispham said:


> It's so funny watching you wriggle around with these half-truths, forcing them into logic that suits your position!


For a great example see post #165. 

... the irony is delicious .... 

.


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

Gentlemen! Can we disagree politely? I regret I will have to use the unsubscribe option for this thread!


----------



## CajunBee (May 15, 2013)

I still want to know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop....:scratch:


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

CajunBee said:


> I still want to know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop....:scratch:


Three.....the owl figured that out a long time ago. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yzhB0gF5GTI


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Beesource is a _forum_, Mark, not a two-party conversation. One of the great features of a _forum _is that the audience is wide and varied. It doesn't matter whether a person quoted chooses to _bury his head in the sand_ or not, the _rest _of the forum readers see my post.


How many people who might like to understand what Bispham and Daniel Y are talking at each other about actually do? Or even can actually read a densely packed 54 line Post? I commend Daniel on breaking it up into paragraphs. Thank you.

Maybe I am in the wrong classroom. This being advanced callculus or theoretical physics or something string theory like where there are only 4 people in the world who understand what they think they understand.

I just feel left out I guess. I'm just a simple beekeeper who thought this Thread was about bees and how many were feral as opposed to kept. My mistake. I didn't see the detour sign.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Mark, of course threads wander from the original topic. I think that, in many cases, it is a good thing that _Barry _allows that flexibility. 

It is a rare thread that is strictly still on the initial subject after 50 posts, let alone 180 posts. You should probably be aware of that by now, and possibly have made off-[_subject line_] contributions to threads _yourself_. 

As far as individual posts being complicated and potentially difficult to understand, I don't see a practical solution to that issue. Sometimes I find that a thread or post in the Queen Breeding forum, for instance, is too esoteric to hold my interest, and I just quit reading it. You could possibly try that approach yourself. 


On a somewhat related issue, _Michael Bush_ has a great post (now a sticky at the top of the Beekeeping 101 forum) on how to write an effective post: :thumbsup:

Advice on how to post a topic on a forum to elicit useful responses


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> You have assumed I'm stated the trait of more frequent swarming would be promoted. I've not said any such thing. Smaller cavities tend to promote more frequent swarming that larger ones. That's all.
> 
> I haven't said anything about the survival rate. More frequent swarms increases the population upon which natural selection can work.
> 
> ...


Would you repeat that please? I'm not sure I understood what you meant.

That which works, endures. What no longer works, does not endure. Albert Einstein.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> Would you repeat that please? I'm not sure I understood what you meant.
> 
> That which works, endures. What no longer works, does not endure. Albert Einstein.


Mark, just tell him an Irishman won the British Open today. He will go to the pub.G


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Would you repeat that please? I'm not sure I understood what you meant.


The last paragraph summarises the main message: 

"Natural selection has done its work. The feral populations are recovering very well. They make perfectly good beekeepers bees. I can take them, improve them (you know how) and get on with beekeeping without having to think about varroa. 

(I know you're being sarcastic, but I take the view that the more often I say it the more in goes in someplace. Go on, give me another opportunity...)



sqkcrk said:


> That which works, endures. What no longer works, does not endure. Albert Einstein.


Natural selection for the fittest strains has produced the abundance of natural lifeforms on this planet.

Natural selection for the fittest strains constantly maintains health in every population. 

Husbandry - properly done - mimics the process. Failure to do so will inevitably lead to weakness and sickness, because: _living organisms can flourish only when selective propagation is occurin_g.

Natural selection, and selective husbandry, work. Beekeepers who understand that have a better chance of enduring. Albert.

This is something worth studying if you want to understand the nature of the global honeybee problem with varroa, or understand how it is ferals can thrive while treated apiary bees almost always perish when treatments are witheld. 

Perhaps you have no interest in these things. But this is a bee forum, and others clearly do. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

It just appears as though you and Daniel are the smartest kikds in the class and you've left the rest behind and that you are trying to pound something into each others heads w/ dense and lengthy Posts. I know, I don't have to look.

Thanks for the synopsis.


----------



## Mr.Beeman (May 19, 2012)

peterloringborst said:


> Do you really have over 100 hives, and 99% of them are feral? What do you mean by feral? Feral normally means escaped from domestication. So genetically, they would be no different than the hives they came from.
> 
> A feral population, on the other hand, could have a genetic difference from the domestic population if it had some sort of barrier to gene flow. Examples of barriers include: 1) geographic isolation, like an island population. or 2) behavioral isolation, such as different mating habits.
> SEE:
> ...


Out of the 10 hives I have in the bee yard, 9 are feral and 1 is a package. By feral I mean they came from structure removals. Most of which have been in the structure for years without any human intervention. More accurately, I should have stated 90% feral, 10% kept. 
I did have the pleasure to meet a wisconsin beekeeper who has 1000 hives and is going to retire when he gets to 3000. One of the friendliest commercial beekeepers I've ever met.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

"From feral stock", Mr. Beeman, not feral now. Feralness is a state of being.

3,000? Retire? Me too. :lpf: I she young? (not laughing at, but about)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

rogman said:


> I'm sure this varies by region, but are there any estimates of US hives, what percent of hives are feral and what percent of hives are kept? Thanks for your insights.


By definition, wouldn't the answer be Zero? Or is rogman asking something not clearly spelled out?


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

biggraham610 said:


> Mark, just tell him an Irishman won the British Open today. He will go to the pub.G


Well said


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

To many points in a single conversation.

Turn over is a common phrase to describe death rate.

A trait is not necessarily a genetic trait. Environment is the cause of far more traits then genetics. This si why in breeding and specifically genetic breeding removal or limiting environmental influence is critical.

99.9% is not an actual but I woudl have to look up. it is founded on actual successful breeding programs. I have not been able to locate the actual article on the specific program I have in mind. I can say it has to do with the genetic breeding of hackle chickens. The program has been progressively developing what would seem to be genetic mutation in the feathers of chickens for the purpose fly tying. The article I read years ago actually went into detail as to the exact process and numbers. I believe it may have been removed due to proprietary interests. It is nothing more than what is commonly known in breeding as selection pressure. and the effective numbers are fairly easy to look up. in short adequate selection pressure is measured in fractions of a percent.To have to argue that point in a discussion about genetics and breeding is about like having to argue that the sky is blue with someone that has never been outside.


You say natural selection is a health seeking mechanism. I disagree I say it is is survival seeking mechanism. I seldom see individuals in nature that consistently would be considered examples of good health. Not when compared to individuals under the care of husbandry.

As for reports of people keeping bees without care. I agree I have seen some of them. they are the exception at best and their report results are questionable at the least. I see far more frequently that reports of treatment free keepign results in near total losses. I have also heard those the promote treatment free admit that large losses must be tolerated in order to achieve success with treatment free. I do not see that success being achieved is reliable. In fact I see the failure to keep bees treatment free si then blamed on everything the keeper is not doing. it is all the other keepers that prevent their success. but very few hard core proponents will admit that maybe it does not work.

As for competition. animals are not in competition with the environment. Environment either sustains them or it does not. there is no situation of competition. There is also no situation of competition in lack of nest locations when previous population has filled it all. If bees in fact displaced one another I would see a condition of competition. it does not apply.

Just where do you see that bees are being kept where the natural population is not being effected by kept or even treated bees? I have heard of island that have been set up as breeding refuges I have not heard of any particular success resulting from them.

Not to mention that successful is a relative determination. it is subject to what you consider successful. 12% lose falls just short of my definition of success which is loses at or under 10%.

Sorry got to go. As I said to many topics for one conversation.




mike bispham said:


> You have assumed I'm stated the trait of more frequent swarming would be promoted. I've not said any such thing. Smaller cavities tend to promote more frequent swarming that larger ones. That's all.
> 
> I haven't said anything about the survival rate. More frequent swarms increases the population upon which natural selection can work.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr.Beeman (May 19, 2012)

sqkcrk said:


> "From feral stock", Mr. Beeman, not feral now. Feralness is a state of being.
> 
> 3,000? Retire? Me too. :lpf: I she young? (not laughing at, but about)


Ok.. point taken sqkcrk. But you get the jist. 
HE..... is about 55 or so. lol
He said he will let me know when he retires from his current job. He is sending me a round trip ticket to see his operation. lol


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Most of which have been in the structure for years without any human intervention.


We hear this all the time. These so-called immortal hives usually die out every year or two and the cavity is repopulated by a swarm. A swarm from one of Sqkcrk's hives.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> You say natural selection is a health seeking mechanism. I disagree I say it is is survival seeking mechanism.


Mark already said this weeks ago. Evolution is about survival of the survivors. 

There is not one reason for survival. Parasites, for example survive because they have found a good host. Viruses survive because they get somebody else's cells to do all the work.

An example of a very negative trait in honey bee is its tendency to rob out sick hives, spreading the disease. It would have been a lot better if evolution had provided them with an avoidance trait, avoid the sick and dying. 

But nothing in nature is perfect, it's all a product of luck & compromise. 

By the way, if you use the _ignore_ feature, you can continue to follow the discussion with the noise filtered out


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

D Semple said:


> Well said


Where is the Pub? I'll go w/ him and buy the first round. :thumbsup:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> We hear this all the time. These so-called immortal hives usually die out every year or two and the cavity is repopulated by a swarm. A swarm from one of Sqkcrk's hives.


Are my swarms feral when they swarm into a stack of my equipment? And I don't do anything w/ them?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> Mark already said this weeks ago. Evolution is about survival of the survivors.
> 
> There is not one reason for survival. Parasites, for example survive because they have found a good host. Viruses survive because they get somebody else's cells to do all the work.
> 
> ...


Lichens. Lichens survive. This was the topic, in part, of yesterdays sermon. Lichens are amazing. They survive all sorts of extreme climate and weather. Life lives. Life wants to live. What other reason does there need to be? As Jon said yesterday, the title of his sermon, "That which works, persists."

Actually, Peter, it's all perfect.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Actually, Peter, it's all perfect.


Did you see "The Last Samurai"? 

Katsumoto had searched his whole life for the perfect cherry blossom. As he lay dying, he looked up at a cherry tree in bloom and said:


> Perfect... They are all... perfect...


But as a survivor of the polio epidemic of 1955, I insist that life is never perfect. But I like it how it is.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I have a smaterring of Buddhist in me, Peter. Yes, I did see that movie. Several times. White man easily becomes a Master Samurii Swordsman and saves the day because the Japanese couldn't do so w/out him.

Oops. Sorry.


----------



## challenger (May 27, 2009)

CajunBee said:


> I still want to know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop....:scratch:


There you go. Opening another can of worms when this can is still exploding ling those springy snakes inside a tin can I used to give my teacher. Um...I mean, um....my friend, yea, that's it, my friend used to give the teacher.
So now we have to ask, is it a feral tootsie pop?
Here we go.

Can I ask ,can evolution really take place in the course of a few decades? Just wondering.
Can I ask, what is the average number of beekeeping years for the posters, posers and imposters in this thread? Just wondering?

OK break is over, everyone back on your heads.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> I have a smaterring of Buddhist in me, Peter. Yes, I did see that movie. Several times. White man easily becomes a Master Samurii Swordsman and saves the day because the Japanese couldn't do so w/out him.
> 
> Oops. Sorry.


No, you are right. The movie was beautiful, and the music, but the plot was stupid. That's Hollywood! By the way, the Buddha smattered me too. But not enough to be a vegetarian.


----------



## CajunBee (May 15, 2013)

Daniel Y said:


> A trait is not necessarily a genetic trait. Environment is the cause of far more traits then genetics. This si why in breeding and specifically genetic breeding removal or limiting environmental influence is critical.


Why remove the environment they are supposed to live in? Why, when beekeeping is so regional, that what applies in the North, doesn't necessarily apply in the South (and vice versa)?
Can you alter location without an alteration in genetic makeup? Please, I don't pretend to know the answers....far from it. But I don't understand how genetics can not be influenced by the environment, whether it be bees, bears, fish or humans.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> But not enough to be a vegetarian.


Vegetarians are good. Tasting.


----------



## challenger (May 27, 2009)

Mr.Beeman said:


> Ok.. point taken sqkcrk. But you get the jist.
> HE..... is about 55 or so. lol
> He said he will let me know when he retires from his current job. He is sending me a round trip ticket to see his operation. lol


May I ask how long you have been a beekeeper? Did you start prior to the problems with varroa? If no did you start with knowledge about varroa? If yes did you go into beekeeping intending to be a treatment free beekeeper? If yes what bees did you start your operation with?
How did you get the name, "Mr. Beeman"?
I'm not poking sticks I am really interested.
Thanks


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Vegetarians are good. Tasting.


Even when they are forced to eat meat.

I have a smattering of Buddha in me too. I was once fat. So is 85% of the country.


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> ... By the way, the Buddha smattered me too. But not enough to be a vegetarian.


 You're in luck, then. There are many schools of thought among Buddhists about eating meat, and throughout history and throughout the world today, those varied ideas still exist and a great many Buddhists eat meat. Buddha did set down some specific guidelines about eating meat and they were directed at his monks, not necessarily at the lay folk. 

The early monks wandered the countryside and relied on alms for their sustenance They were instructed "to eat like the bees," taking a bit from this flower, a bit from the next, etc. [Note the reference to bees......] If they were offered a dish containing meat, they were instructed to accept it. They could not, however, accept meat from an animal that was killed specifically for them as that would make them directly responsible for the death of a sentient being. 

I'm a vegetarian enough to suit me, but not Buddhist enough to call myself a Buddhist. But I'm still evolving. Maybe next lifetime.

Wayne , A vegetarian with good taste.

[Did you note the reference to bees?]


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> But I don't understand how genetics can not be influenced by the environment, whether it be bees, bears, fish or humans.


The genes are not influenced by the environment. You can't produce a breed of fat dogs by over-feeding them. The pups will be born with the normal genes. Selection works on traits that are already there or ones that appear via mutation. Dog breeding is a matter of selecting offspring that appear to have the characteristics you are looking for, say fatness. It's not a matter of changing the genes through the environment, that won't work (caveat: there are notable examples of epigenetic effects but these are not dramatic nor relevant to this example). 

Bees become acclimated to an environment not by the influence of environment on the genes, but by the change in population makeup over time. Over time, families that are better suited will proliferate and the less well suited will die out. It appears to our eyes that the bees are adapting but this is a matter of perspective. Most died because they couldn't adapt. Some survived through some trait, such as early build up, or thrift, and propagated that trait. Animals can't adapt because they can't know beforehand what traits would increase their survival, and they can't change their own traits. 

Humans, on the other hand, can predict their own needs and can change their techniques based upon real time feedback. That's called "learning." Intelligence and the ability to learn have evolved because they enable us to overcome our genetic limitations. This is the amazing thing about people: even though we are created by nature, and ultimately restrained by nature, our intelligence and creativity has enabled us to do far more than any other species. Say what you want about how people have harmed the earth, we have also built marvelous things with its resources.



> As we all know, Darwin stated that evolution results from survival of the fittest individual, the fittest having been determined by competition. There is much truth in this concept, but at the same time, emphasis on the individual is an unwarranted limitation. There is also competition between products of an individual, between populations, and between species, and all these competitions may lead to the selection of survivors.
> 
> Let me start by asking two questions. First, what is the definition of a population, and second, what are the characteristics of a population that may lead to its survival in a competition. A population is different from a collection of individuals. Evidence of this difference is the existence of the many means of communication. In humans, it is language; in birds, its existence may be indicated by flight patterns and in insects, by anthills or beehives. Populations are not merely groups of individuals. The fittest population is characterized by diversity of its members and by collaboration between them. The strong population will have leaders and followers. Human populations may have engineers, inventors, soldiers, and farmers, who all are not necessarily the fittest individuals.
> 
> ...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> There are many schools of thought among Buddhists


What school did the Buddha belong to? Whose precepts did he follow? None; no one's. That's how I see it: No Buddha; No not Buddha.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> A trait is not necessarily a genetic trait.


Oh yes it is. That's what 'trait' means in the contexts of discussions of husbandry or adaptation.



Daniel Y said:


> Environment is the cause of far more traits then genetics. This si why in breeding and specifically genetic breeding removal or limiting environmental influence is critical.


You're right about that part. You work to level the playing field so that those that flourish must be doing so as a result of their (innate, genetic) traits. Only then can you pick out the best effectively. An important part of husbandry is learning how to distingish genetic features ('Nature') from environmental features ('Nurture').



Daniel Y said:


> 99.9% is not an actual but I woudl have to look up. it is founded on actual successful breeding programs. I have not been able to locate the actual article on the specific program I have in mind.


I'd need a reference before I even thought about it, and then I'd need an explanation of why its entirely inconsistent with the hundereds of testimonies given here and on other bee forrums, with my own experience, and with the experience of the many professional breeders I've heard about. Its a figure absurdly out of whack with everything I've learned over the last 10 years.



Daniel Y said:


> I can say it has to do with the genetic breeding of hackle chickens.


Ahh! Its JW Chestnut's stuff! Forget it. It irrelevant, anecdotal, unscientific, commercially slanted nonsense written by someone trying to protect his business by making it sound difficult. 50 years ago. 



Daniel Y said:


> You say natural selection is a health seeking mechanism. I disagree I say it is is survival seeking mechanism.


Poor health and survival (and reproduction) correlate strongly. That should be obvious to anybody. You're trying to argue black is white here Daniel.



Daniel Y said:


> As for reports of people keeping bees without care. I agree I have seen some of them. they are the exception at best and their report results are questionable at the least. I see far more frequently that reports of treatment free keepign results in near total losses. I have also heard those the promote treatment free admit that large losses must be tolerated in order to achieve success with treatment free.


Things have moved along a lot Daniel. The issues are much better understood now. Yes you can fail at it. You can fail at anything. If you have a large commercial operation I can understand a reluctance try. If you try without having a good idea of how to go about it, you may well fail. 



Daniel Y said:


> As for competition. animals are not in competition with the environment. Environment either sustains them or it does not. there is no situation of competition.


Again you are showing your complete failure to understand even the basic principles of natural selection. No, animals are not in competition with their environment nobody ever said they were. They are in competition with _each other_.



Daniel Y said:


> There is also no situation of competition in lack of nest locations when previous population has filled it all.


Where nesting sites are a population limiting factor, then swarms will be competing for nesting sites. 



Daniel Y said:


> Just where do you see that bees are being kept where the natural population is not being effected by kept or even treated bees?


There are plenty of spaces in between beekeepers for ferals to live. They will be affected in inverse proportion to their distance from apiary bees (and the numbers of apiary drones). 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> We hear this all the time. These so-called immortal hives usually die out every year or two and the cavity is repopulated by a swarm.


You have evidence to support this 'usually' Peter? Yeah, cavities are often repopulated in late winter, just in time for people to see bees seamlessly in all except the coldest weather. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> There is not one reason for survival. Parasites, for example survive because they have found a good host. Viruses survive because they get somebody else's cells to do all the work.


'Exist' would be a better description.



peterloringborst said:


> An example of a very negative trait in honey bee is its tendency to rob out sick hives, spreading the disease. It would have been a lot better if evolution had provided them with an avoidance trait, avoid the sick and dying.


The extra energy is worth the risk of disease in the majority of cases. It must be, or evolution would have taken things the other way. There will almost certainly be times and place where that will occur, at leat temporarily.



peterloringborst said:


> But nothing in nature is perfect, it's all a product of luck & compromise.


Not quite. Trade-offs yes, with natural selection locating the ever-shifting optimum at any point in time. Luck, yes. But its the luck of the routlette wheel. Underneath the randomness of each spin there are underlying odds that force particular outcomes.



peterloringborst said:


> By the way, if you use the _ignore_ feature, you can continue to follow the discussion with the noise filtered out


You can also characterise the input of people with whom you disagree 'noise' in an attempt to achieve what you cannot achieve with reasoned argument. For someone who claims to be able to think scientifically its revealing. I could happily characterise it 'bottom feeding'. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Bees become acclimated to an environment not by the influence of environment on the genes, but by the change in population makeup over time. Over time, families that are better suited will proliferate and the less well suited will die out. It appears to our eyes that the bees are adapting but this is a matter of perspective. Most died because they couldn't adapt.


Sound as until you get to here Peter. You're learning.

'Adapt', 'adaptation' are terms used in a special way in our context. They apply only to populations. So while you're right, you're saying things in a technically incorrect way. 

A minor point but an important one.



peterloringborst said:


> Some survived through some trait, such as early build up, or thrift, and propagated that trait. Animals can't adapt because they can't know beforehand what traits would increase their survival, and they can't change their own traits.


Again. Stick to using 'adapt' either in its proper way, or in the common way - don't mix the different senses.

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> You have evidence to support this 'usually' Peter? Yeah, cavities are often repopulated in late winter, just in time for people to see bees seamlessly in all except the coldest weather.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Eyewitness testimony in Courts of Law do not stand up as credible the majority of the time, so I hear. So what makes anyone think that anecdotal eyewitness observation of what goes on in the Natural World is any better? Maybe the first bees seen coming and going from a known wall hive are robber bees, not residents, and then after a time a swarm moves in unwitnessed by the observer. Don't you think that is as likely what occurs as anything else? Knowing what we think we know about feral colonies.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> No, animals are not in competition with their environment nobody ever said they were. They are in competition with _each other_.
> Where nesting sites are a population limiting factor, then swarms will be competing for nesting sites.
> Mike (UK)


So animals of one species don't compete w/ animals of other species? Is that called something else? Coexistance? Interspecies competition? Help me here.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Have you noticed there are some people who seem to believe that whatever_ they think_ is true, or why else would they think it? And there are others that _want to find out._

This weekend I was discussing how I had read that _Apis laboriosa_ swarms could chill themselves below ambient temperature to conserve energy. And a physicist pointed out to me that this could not be true. It requires more energy to chill something than to leave it at ambient temperature, and animals can't do this anyway, he said.

I went back to the article, and realized I had misunderstood. They allow themselves to get very cold, but don't chill themselves. They can generate heat but not cold. I sent the article to him and admitted I had been wrong about it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I know I don't know as much as I think I know. Ya know? I think so anyway.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> Again you are showing your complete failure to understand even the basic principles of natural selection.


Apparently Mike didn't learn anything for the previous time he pulled this stunt! :no:

Speaking of "_complete failure to understand the basic __principles of natural selection_", here is a fine example. First off, a perfectly reasonable statement from _Daniel Y _...



Daniel Y said:


> It is even possible that natural selection will cause the extinction of the honey bee.



And Mike foolishly comes back with this _fine _bit of puffery ... 



mike bispham said:


> That's plain nonsense Daniel, born of a poor understanding of natural selection. *Its so wrong I don't know what to say.



And then after seemingly endless posturing by Mike, this ...



mike bispham said:


> Of course natural selection can result in extinction.


180 degree flip-flop! :ws:


:gh:
.... 'plain' nonsense ... :lpf:


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

CajunBee said:


> Why remove the environment they are supposed to live in? Why, when beekeeping is so regional, that what applies in the North, doesn't necessarily apply in the South (and vice versa)?
> Can you alter location without an alteration in genetic makeup? Please, I don't pretend to know the answers....far from it. But I don't understand how genetics can not be influenced by the environment, whether it be bees, bears, fish or humans.


The reduction of environmental influence when making selections is so that you are selecting for genetic traits not environmentally altered or suppressed traits. At one extreme environment can kill the individual. this would be an extreme case of environment altering the selection process. This leads into your second question .why beekeeping is different in one location to another. I suspect it is not the bee that changes it is the environment. indicating just how powerful that influence is. Btu I proposals that all bees at 70 degrees during a flow with similar population in their colonies and a reasonably similar queen will behave reasonably the same and will respond reasonably the same to changes. regardless of geographical location. I follow the advice nearly step by step as Micheal Palmer in VT to rear queens. It works. this begs to differ with the idea that beekeeping is different in different locations. I say locations are different and beekeeping skill varies.

Back to the environment reduction thing. It needs to be understood in it's context. Understand that eh basic traits have already been selected it is know that the basic tratis exist. Now we want to be able to detect subtle differences in that trait. deciding one individual may just be a fraction of a bit stronger in that trait than the next. This is known as the expression of the genes so an animal may have the gene you want. but you may not know it because the gene is not well expressed. Reducing or eliminating environment influence as well as providing abundant nutrition and comfort helps bring out the full expression of the genes. Working to make this then highly bred blood line suitable to environmental conditions comes later. See how it measures up under environmental conditions can be disappointing.

This is in no way a process for the casual participant. Think more along the line of a person willing to devote their entire life to the breeding of something.

If you think of this as one line on a scale. while the casual pick my best hive and make up some queen cells is another line on that same scale. Then yo will begin to see at what point on the scale will it require the average breeder be to actually see results.

I tend to see very few that are anywhere near where they need to be. There area few. and there realization of just how far up the scale they need to be has been hard won. It has required an unwavering demand for quality. Some have held up that standard and their reputations reflect it. Many have not and it leaves many beekeepers baffled as to why some queens are good and others are worthless.

I am sad to think that we lost one of the good ones a couple of years ago when they retired. Gratefully I see others that are prepared to start filling that void. I consider Micheal Palmer my semi and probably reluctant mentor when it comes to queen rearing. You can safely assume I consider him one of those that is pushing the bar higher. Micheal Bush s doing the same but with a different direction slightly. There are more but the list is not really very long.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> No, animals are not in competition with their environment nobody ever said they were. They are in competition with each other.


And what is the environment? Certainly it includes _other animals._ 

Stewart Brand wisely said: All evolution is co-evolution. Nothing exists in a vaccum, every species that lives is connected in some way with all the others, past and present. There is competition, cooperation, parasitism. Each of these three exist only in the eyes of the observer. We define these relationships. As Mark said, life wants to live. Some are more or less successful at it.


----------



## rogman (May 9, 2014)

Where did this thread get away from me?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

rogman said:


> Where did this thread get away from me?


i've been wondering if you were still lurking. 

thanks for starting the thread.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

rogman said:


> Where did this thread get away from me?


Completely away from you? Whenever Mike started posting with himself (or at least he seems to be posting a conversation with himself)... it's hard to nail down exactly what he's doing.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Maybe the first bees seen coming and going from a known wall hive are robber bees, not residents, and then after a time a swarm moves in unwitnessed by the observer. Don't you think that is as likely what occurs as anything else? Knowing what we think we know about feral colonies.


Yes, it is perfectly possible. The behaviour would be different - no bees, masses and masses of bees frantically robbing: no bees... swarm moving in/lots of bees again. But would you say its likely that year on year that happens, each time the swarm moving in unseen? 

Given my experience with many swarms and cut outs (they usually do well without any help) I don't have any difficulty believing that on many occassions they are just continuing though. I've watched my daughters chimney bees coming out of 2 successive winters, and while their too high to see closely - pollen going in for example, they seem to me to pretty much match the patterns exhibited by my hive bees. 

Maybe I'll look more closely next January - March. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> So animals of one species don't compete w/ animals of other species? Is that called something else? Coexistance? Interspecies competition? Help me here.


Yes, you're right. They do compete with other species. But that's something that generally pans out on a longer timescale, especially for specialists like honey bees. And our focus here was on intraspecies competition, which makes changes on very short timescales. Populations fine-tune to their environment (which, yes, includes other species) continuously, through natural selection favouring those strains best fitted at that time and place.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Have you noticed there are some people who seem to believe that whatever_ they think_ is true, or why else would they think it? And there are others that _want to find out._


Some of the time (but not all of the time) this thinking what they think to be true is well founded. People might be confidnt, as a reult of a good grounding, many years of study, many conversations upon the same topic with highly qualified specialists - that sort of thing. 

At other times of course that isn't what is happening.

Sometime it seems to me that people want to find things out, and find a useful way of going about it is to deny that the positions of others are right, or well founded, so they can see what sorts of reasons and defences come up. Its slightly dishonest, and rather irritating, but hey, if that's how you have to do it...



peterloringborst said:


> This weekend I was discussing how I had read that _Apis laboriosa_ swarms could chill themselves below ambient temperature to conserve energy. And a physicist pointed out to me that this could not be true. It requires more energy to chill something than to leave it at ambient temperature, and animals can't do this anyway, he said.
> 
> I went back to the article, and realized I had misunderstood. They allow themselves to get very cold, but don't chill themselves. They can generate heat but not cold. I sent the article to him and admitted I had been wrong about it.


It is very nice when people have the humility and good manners to admit they might have been wrong about something, and that somebody might have offered useful insights. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> This is in no way a process for the casual participant. Think more along the line of a person willing to devote their entire life to the breeding of something. If you think of this as one line on a scale. while the casual pick my best hive and make up some queen cells is another line on that same scale. Then yo will begin to see at what point on the scale will it require the average breeder be to actually see results.


We've had occasion before to acknowedge that the term 'breeding' covers a lot of ground, and things said about 'breeding' at one end of the scale are not necessarily true or relevant at the other. 

For me the systematic selection of the better to make increase for replacement purposes (and the removal of the weaker) is just basic 'husbandry', not any sort of specialised 'breeding'. The attempt to permanantly establish ('fix') particular genes (alleles) in a population (by excluding competing alleles) is something entirely different. (And, in the case of honey bees not something open to anyone lacking an island or unwilling to use solely artificial insemination) 

The sort of husbandry I'm talking about can be sufficiently effective to make dramatic changes - given sufficient numbers. Consider Manley, a commercial honey farmer with a lifetime's experience writing in the 1940s:

"In most farm stock stress is laid particularly on the male because he may
sire a large number of offspring, whereas the direct progeny of the
female are very limited in number. Now we breeders of hive-bees
have the great advantage over those who have to do with most
domestic animals in that from one desirable breeding queen we can
readily produce a virtually unlimited number of young queens.
Though in a state of nature a honey-bee queen would only produce
half a dozen or so daughter queens, and maybe a couple of thousand
drones, in the hands of a competent breeder she can be made to give
an almost unlimited number of both.

It is usually considered that too much in-breeding may lead to
deterioration in the stamina and fecundity of animals, though about
this there is some disagreement. When there is no trace of any bad or
degenerate strain in the stock, in-breeding does no harm, I think; but
unless one is quite sure that this is the case, it is probably better to
arrange, as far as possible, in our breeding apiaries, that the drones
flying there shall be produced by queens of the very highest
character, while the young queens with which they are expected to
mate shall be derived from breeder queens of a different strain, but
equally outstanding qualities. In this way, although it is impossible to
be certain that all matings will be as desired, yet it can be managed
that a very large proportion of our young queens will be the product
of the male and female parents from which we wish them to be
derived."

R.O.B. Manley, Honey Farming, page 62 of the pdf, 83 of the book
http://www.biobees.com/library/gener...gROBManley.pdf 

Given a local population that already has most to the traits you want (in the case of varroa resistance a self-sufficient thriving feral population for example), improving and maintaining he desired traits through selective increase is straightforward. If you have a clear idea of how to go about it. You're not going to produce another Buckfast bee, but a gentle, healthy, workable and productive bee in the majority of cases it quite attainable.

This is standard genetic husbadry, low key 'breeding' that can nevertheless makes a huge difference to the stock.

Poor, incompetent husbandry, the total neglect of breeding will generally lead rapidly to high losses that can be countered only with treatments - an 'addictive' scenario as the treating perpetuates the dependency. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jwcarlson said:


> Completely away from you? Whenever Mike started posting with himself (or at least he seems to be posting a conversation with himself)... it's hard to nail down exactly what he's doing.


He's trying to correct some persistent misapprehensions, and generally promote the idea that there are parallels and links between natural selection and effective husbandry, and expound the details. In the belief that understanding the former is beneficial to the practice of the latter.

Those people who disagree with him presumably take issue with either the premise or some details or both.

If you wanted to nail it down more you could always visit my website, url at the bottom of every post.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> If you wanted to nail it down more you could always visit my website, url at the bottom of every post.


But Mike, your website seems to be rife with _misinformation_.  You still haven't corrected this part, even after you earlier acknowledged on Beesource that this statement is wrong ...


> It can be seen that [HIGHLIGHT] modern beekeeping practice is the sole cause of the crisis affecting both wild and domestic bees. [/HIGHLIGHT] The solution lies in the hands of beekeepers and their regulators. Not only should stocks that need to be medicated in order to stay alive not be used for breeding, they should not either be allowed to send their sickly genes into the wild, where they undermine the process of natural selection that would otherwise allow feral bees recover their health.
> 
> http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/


Remember ... you pointed out in an earlier post that _forage and pesticides_ - not under the beekeeper's control - had a significant part is this issue!


:gh:

... sole cause - indeed ... :lpf:


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

Some of these posts are so lengthy that I'm not only becoming disinterested in the opinions of beekeeping but rather more interested in how some people prevent carpal tunnel......


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

rogman said:


> Where did this thread get away from me?


When did you have hold of it? 07-07-2014 7:05AM, that's when. If you want to keep control of a horse you got to ride it. You can't just jump off of it and expect it to stay in your pasture, not when you have no fences.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Yes, it is perfectly possible. The behaviour would be different - no bees, masses and masses of bees frantically robbing: no bees... swarm moving in/lots of bees again. But would you say its likely that year on year that happens, each time the swarm moving in unseen?
> 
> Mike (UK)


That's what happens at my house. And I consider myself an observant beekeeper even if swarms do happen. There is a hole in the wall of my house near my bedroom window and at eye level when walking past it. This has happened this year and in years past.

I notice no activity in early May, when I return from down South. No activity. Then some time later I do see activity. Seeing no pollen on bees legs I figure that they are checking the combs in the wall for robbing. But I see no robbing behavior. Then a week or so later, more activity and pollen on legs of bees.

But I didn't see a swarm move in. And I had seen a period of no activity, assumed the colony inside was dead. Other colonies were flying then.

So, seems plausible that a nonbeekeeper wouldn't notice or be a credible observer.


----------



## rogman (May 9, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> When did you have hold of it? 07-07-2014 7:05AM, that's when. If you want to keep control of a horse you got to ride it. You can't just jump off of it and expect it to stay in your pasture, not when you have no fences.


Thanks sqkcrk - your horse analagy was both very enlightening to the topic and spot-on. I have no more questions.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

My pleasure.


----------



## CajunBee (May 15, 2013)

Daniel Y said:


> The reduction of environmental influence when making selections is so that you are selecting for genetic traits not environmentally altered or suppressed traits. At one extreme environment can kill the individual. this would be an extreme case of environment altering the selection process. ............


Thanks Daniel. Understand now. Guess I tend to paint with a broad brush sometimes.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

No problem Cajun, To maybe make it a bit simpler Mike promotes allowing the environment to make all the selections. This results is selections as inconsistent and ever changing as the weather.

In truth for such a method to work and result in anything that is wanted by the beekeeper. You would first need to find an environment that tends to select for the things you want. Then that environment would have to remain consistent for an extended period of time as in years for progress to be made. Even then as soon as you remove the bees form that environment all progress would be lost. Plus I argue that any progress at all would be miniscule at best.

Very little progress would be made for a couple of reasons. 1 to many traits being selected for at once. you don't change the entire animal at once. You change on thing at a time. 2. to little selection pressure in the first place.

Look at it like a bowl of mixed candy. but you like only one certain type of candy. So you start picking out just the ones you like and putting them in your own bowl. But people keep coming around and refilling the bowl with the mix. So you keep picking out the ones you like. Eventually if you do not eat (kill) all of your favorites you get a whole bowl full of your favorites.

Now most think that if you could get the favorite bowl of candy to multiply it would make nothing but your favorite candies. And that is in large part what Mike claims. that is not true. it would make a mixed bowl of candy. just like every other bowl of candy is. this is because if you look up the ingredients of every different type of candy you find they are largely made up of the same things. sugar, syrup chocolate. They are just put together in different ratios and combinations. Reproduction tends to take all the individual candies mix them all back up and lets them sort out into individuals again. And so you get to continually pick out the favorites.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> but rather more interested in how some people prevent carpal tunnel


I use bee sting therapy


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> Now most think that if you could get the favorite bowl of candy to multiply it would make nothing but your favorite candies. And that is in large part what Mike claims. that is not true. it would make a mixed bowl of candy. just like every other bowl of candy is. this is because if you look up the ingredients of every different type of candy you find they are largely made up of the same things. sugar, syrup chocolate. They are just put together in different ratios and combinations. Reproduction tends to take all the individual candies mix them all back up and lets them sort out into individuals again. And so you get to continually pick out the favorites.


Except candies are made from receipes never changing. Animals have an infinite number of ingredients that are constantly changing where only the majority of the ingredients show themselves. With animals you can always select what you want. Not everyone is doing it so the impact on the whole species cannot be measured. What ever you get from breeding the selected bees will be watered down so fast it is unlikely the third generation will exhibit must of the original parents behavior.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Animals have an infinite number of ingredients that are constantly changing where only the majority of the ingredients show themselves. With animals you can always select what you want.


Actually aren't the "ingredients" quite finite and only a very few of those "ingredients" are slowly changing? Combinations of some genes may change/alter/mutate from time to time, but not an infinite number and constantly. Right?

"With animals you can always select what you want." You can try to select for certain specific traits, but along w/ the traits selected for one often also gets undesireable traits. Such as, when Dr. Walter Rothenbueller and friends bred a honeybee that could w/stand AFB the results were that it also did not produce much honey. Not really a good trade off. But good information.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> No problem Cajun, To maybe make it a bit simpler Mike promotes allowing the environment to make all the selections. This results is selections as inconsistent and ever changing as the weather.


Daniel,

You and I have just had a lengthy exchange in which I've made it abundantly clear that I advocate the beekeeper actively selecting - breeding, in the manner of a traditional husdandryman.

Why would you choose to misrepresent me so comprehensively. You've turned what I've advocated 180 degrees. 

Why tell lies about someone like that?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> In truth for such a method to work and result in anything that is wanted by the beekeeper. You would first need to find an environment that tends to select for the things you want. Then that environment would have to remain consistent for an extended period of time as in years for progress to be made. Even then as soon as you remove the bees form that environment all progress would be lost. Plus I argue that any progress at all would be miniscule at best.


You don't argue it: you simply claim it. 

The environment that selects for the thing you want is the environment that exists where you are. That's the environment you want your bees to thrive in - warts and all.

Then you select those that thrive most strongly in that environment - the best go-getters under the circumstances in which you want to keep them. You blend in the additional traits you want.

Its very straightforward. Its called 'husbandry'. Doing things any other way is called 'not doing husbandry'. 



Daniel Y said:


> Very little progress would be made for a couple of reasons. 1 to many traits being selected for at once. you don't change the entire animal at once. You change on thing at a time. 2. to little selection pressure in the first place.


You promote mostly the traits of vitality and productivity. You can (as Manley just pointed out to you) apply very intense selective pressure - more than most breeders. If you wish to - there are dangers in going too far too fast.



Daniel Y said:


> Look at it like a bowl of mixed candy. but you like only one certain type of candy. So you start picking out just the ones you like and putting them in your own bowl. But people keep coming around and refilling the bowl with the mix. So you keep picking out the ones you like. Eventually if you do not eat (kill) all of your favorites you get a whole bowl full of your favorites.


There's no need to eat any of your favourites. You just keep collecting them. There is no analogue to consuming the product. Its more like: you analyse them for incredients and recipe, then make a whole lot more. Then you choose the best of those and do it all over again. You do it _every time you make candies_.



Daniel Y said:


> Now most think that if you could get the favorite bowl of candy to multiply it would make nothing but your favorite candies. And that is in large part what Mike claims. that is not true. it would make a mixed bowl of candy. just like every other bowl of candy is. this is because if you look up the ingredients of every different type of candy you find they are largely made up of the same things. sugar, syrup chocolate. They are just put together in different ratios and combinations. Reproduction tends to take all the individual candies mix them all back up and lets them sort out into individuals again. And so you get to continually pick out the favorites.


Nope. Your favouite candies have particular special ingredients that make them different. As you say, most of them is the same, but key ingredients are not. Perhaps just the flavouring and the colouring. 

You really can't see it can you Daniel. Read this again, carefully, then tell us why Manley is wrong: 

""In most farm stock stress is laid particularly on the male because he may
sire a large number of offspring, whereas the direct progeny of the
female are very limited in number. Now we breeders of hive-bees
have the great advantage over those who have to do with most
domestic animals in that from one desirable breeding queen we can
readily produce a virtually unlimited number of young queens.
Though in a state of nature a honey-bee queen would only produce
half a dozen or so daughter queens, and maybe a couple of thousand
drones, in the hands of a competent breeder she can be made to give
an almost unlimited number of both.

[...] ... arrange, as far as possible, in our breeding apiaries, that the drones
flying there shall be produced by queens of the very highest
character, while the young queens with which they are expected to
mate shall be derived from breeder queens of a different strain, but
equally outstanding qualities. In this way, although it is impossible to
be certain that all matings will be as desired, yet it can be managed
that a very large proportion of our young queens will be the product
of the male and female parents from which we wish them to be
derived."

Bear in mind that this isn't a one-off exercise, and that the stock is subsequently allowed to decay back to the natural state. All propagation is under control in this manner.

We pick out the favourite candies, and use them to make more favourite candies. Then we do it all over again. And again, forever.

We always get our favourite candies.

Again: tell me why Manley is wrong.

Mike (UK)


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> Daniel,
> 
> You and I have just had a lengthy exchange in which I've made it abundantly clear that I advocate the beekeeper actively selecting - breeding, in the manner of a traditional husdandryman.
> 
> Mike (UK)


And if the bees need treatment, ie varroa, they are not selected.... RIght?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Mike posts comments like this ....



mike bispham said:


> That's plain nonsense Daniel, born of a poor understanding of natural selection. *Its so wrong I don't know what to say.


... and then wonders:s why his thoughts are not being _graciously _received. :lpf:


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Acebird said:


> What ever you get from breeding the selected bees will be watered down so fast it is unlikely the third generation will exhibit must of the original parents behavior.


As long as you you control the ingredients (input) you are controlling the product. 

The fact of open mating makes things more difficult. And yes, if you stop breeding your stock soon returns to the amibient recipe.

But you don't stop, rather the opposite: you select the ingredients you want repeatedly, each time getting a little closer to what you want, each time compounding the effect. And you take steps to maximise the input of only your ingredients, and minimise the input of unwanted ingredients. Husbandry is entirely about taking control of the selection process and keeping it.

If this didn't work, we wouldn't have any of our vegetable or domestic animal species. There wouldn't be any bees gentler than any other. 

I have to say: I'm astounded at the resistance that is being put up here to the simplest, and single most important fact of animal husbandry. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

hpm08161947 said:


> And if the bees need treatment, ie varroa, they are not selected.... RIght?


That's right. The next generation is made from bees that do not need treatments - for ie varroa.

It isn't quite that easy (though it is that easy where you have resistant ferals who've done the work for you) but yes that's the principle. 

Roughly speaking those bees that have what is needed to thrive despite varroa make more bees like themselves. (The traits are inherited)

Its the same principle for any other traits you choose, including broad good health and vitality, as signalled by good productivity.

Beekeepers, like other husbandrymen worldwide, tend to make increase from the best. You don't go using the genetics [altered for clarification] from your worst hives unless you're a complete idiot. 

Anyone trying to argue that is wrongheaded is either being mischievious, or has never received an education in the most basic principles of husbandry, or has some part of their logic circuits misfiring. Or any combination of those three.

Mike (UK)


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> Anyone trying to argue that is wrongheaded is either being mischievious, or has never received an education in the most basic principles of husbandry, or some part of their logic circuits misfiring. Or any combination of those three.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Is it "Wrongheaded" for a husbandryman to treat for parasites. If my flock of sheep has worms, should I not drench them.... or should I let them die and select from the emaciated survivors?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> Beekeepers, like other husbandrymen worldwide, tend to make increase from the best. You don't go splitting your worst hives unless [HIGHLIGHT]you're a complete idiot. [/HIGHLIGHT]


Careful tossing around the "_complete idiot_" term, Mike! 

From _Michael Palmer_, a successful beekeeper by almost any measure ...


Michael Palmer said:


> The whole point is to [HIGHLIGHT]use the weak colonies for making your nucs. [/HIGHLIGHT]All you need is a frame of brood and bees...maybe a frame and a half.



(click the blue arrow in the quote box to read Mr Palmer's original post/thread)


:gh:

... anyone else think that Mike's insults _backfire_? ...


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

One thing for sure, Mike Bispham, has lots of spare time, and he really likes to read his posts. Not that he bothers me, and I have to grudgingly admire his tenacity. I don't know enough about bio science to make a judgement on his intellectual abilities.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

hpm08161947 said:


> Is it "Wrongheaded" for a husbandryman to treat for parasites. If my flock of sheep has worms, should I not drench them.... or should I let them die and select from the emaciated survivors?


It would be wrongheaded of you to select rams and breeding ewes at random. It would be more wrongheaded of you to select the weakest for that purpose.

That's the comparison here.

If some of your ewes show natural resistance to parasites, while being equal in all other respects to others, it would be sensible to favour them as prospective mothers for that reason.

Mike (UK)


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Careful tossing around the "_complete idiot_" term, Mike!
> 
> From _Michael Palmer_, a successful beekeeper by almost any measure ...
> 
> "The whole point is to use the weak colonies for making your nucs. All you need is a frame of brood and bees...maybe a frame and a half. ":


Perhaps a minor point in this discussion, but his idea of using weak hives to make nucs is to use the resources of those hives, not the genetics. A mated queen from good stock gets introduced to the nuc. Using the genetics of the weak hive's queen would not be the best choice.

Wayne


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

I agree with you, Wayne, but that wasn't what Mike Bispham said. He used the term 'splits' and that is exactly what Michael Palmer is doing. Splits can take a variety of forms, but Mike B branded all splits from weak hives as "complete idiocy".


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I agree with you, Wayne, but that wasn't what Mike Bispham said. He used the term 'splits' and that is exactly what Michael Palmer is doing. Splits can take a variety of forms, but Mike B branded all splits from weak hives as "complete idiocy".


I could have made that clearer - I guess I'd assumed those here would be able to read my meaning easily. After all, to take it the other way would be in complete opposition to everything I've been saying, wouldn't it? But thanks for prompting Wayne to clarify nicely, even though you only did it to try to stir up trouble.

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Beekeepers, like other husbandrymen worldwide, tend to make increase from the best. You don't go using the genetics [altered for clarification] from your worst hives unless you're a complete idiot.
> 
> Anyone trying to argue that is wrongheaded is either being mischievious, or has never received an education in the most basic principles of husbandry, or has some part of their logic circuits misfiring. Or any combination of those three.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Or they are sly like a fox and split their weak/under productive colonies and grow queens from the most desirable colonies to propogate the genetic line one wants by using the line one doesn't want in its most useful way.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Or they are sly like a fox and split their weak/under productive colonies and grow queens from the most desirable colonies to propogate the genetic line one wants by using the line one doesn't want in its most useful way.


Quite. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Quite.
> 
> Mike (UK)


one of your best posts mike!


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> But thanks for prompting Wayne to clarify nicely, even though you only did it to try to stir up trouble.


Here's the point, Mike. I used _*your *_term of "complete idiot" to point out that you were wrong. Why is it that you used the term "_complete idiot_" in the first place? :s Were *you *trying to "_stir up trouble_"? :scratch:

Correct/proper/suitable beekeeping takes a _variety _of forms - based on local conditions, yet you seem think that your regular use of insults in posts somehow buttresses your point. :no:


It doesn't.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> one of your best posts mike!


Now that is just plain mean. Funny, but mean. 

Mike is valiantly fighting to get his points across, even if I find them hard to read. But, I have to give him credit for sticking to his guns as we say on this side of the Atlantic, even if I find myself having trouble following or even reading his Posts.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Beekeepers, like other husbandrymen worldwide, tend to make increase from the best. You don't go using the genetics [altered for clarification] from your worst hives unless you're a complete idiot.


That isn't what they are doing . They use properly raised queens to make the splits, only the bees and brood to form the hive comes from the duds. And why were they duds? Seldom is genetics involved, maybe they had an old queen or just didn't build up fast enough to be of any use as honey producers

The term genetics as used here, reveals a complete misunderstanding of the term. Bee breeding is not perfected, it does not resemble animal breeding in any way, and those who speak the most about it tend to be either 1) selling something, or 2) don't have a clue.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> Now that is just plain mean. Funny, but mean.


it was meant tongue in cheek mark, that's why the smiley. mike and i have had cordial back and forths, i hope he took it in the spirit intended, but if not, well, excuuuuuuuuse me!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

You are old enough to know about "Excuuuuuuuse me!"? I din't know that.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> You are old enough to know about "Excuuuuuuuse me!"? I din't know that.


----------



## challenger (May 27, 2009)

lazy shooter said:


> I don't know enough about bio science to make a judgement on his intellectual abilities.


How do you know until you try?
Give it a shot. Make a judgement.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> That isn't what they are doing They use properly raised queens to make the splits, only the bees and brood to form the hive comes from the duds.


Yes, we've established that now Peter. Well, we've established that they use selected parents - whether 'properly raised' covers it I'm not so sure. Just joking! 



peterloringborst said:


> And why were they duds? Seldom is genetics involved, maybe they had an old queen or just didn't build up fast enough to be of any use as honey producers


In that case it'll be fine if they're used as parents to make the next generation. Wait a minute! We've just agreed we weren't going to use duds for that purpose! What's going on here!

I know! Let's figure out _why_ they're duds! Are they old queens, that were good before they got old? Are they young queens that didn't mate well? Did they get torn up a bit by varroa at same stage? Once we've figured out what the cause of their dudness is, then we'll know whether they'll stand a good chance of making good parents! Isn't that right? 

Wait a minute! If genetics is seldom involved it must be that won't matter anyway! We can use the definite duds, yes? What's going on here!



peterloringborst said:


> The term genetics as used here, reveals a complete misunderstanding of the term. Bee breeding is not perfected, it does not resemble animal breeding in any way


Hahahah! You still want me to tell you more about it don't you Peter! Then you can go off and waffle more authoritatively, while maintaining the pretence that you never open my posts and have never learned anything worthwhile from me! 

"does not resemble animal breeding in any way"

I just wanted to see it again!

does not resemble animal breeding in any way

Oops pasted it again!



peterloringborst said:


> ... and those who speak the most about it tend to be either 1) selling something, or 2) don't have a clue.


That's my trick! If I offer to sell you a colony, can I have a clue?

Keep it up Peter! Laughter is the best medicine as they say, and I have a bit of a hangover! 

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> ...and I have a bit of a hangover!


Since when? Ah, now I understand your signature about continued sickness.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Hmm.

I'm in my second season with two colonies of BeeWeaver origins.

I'd say they've requeened themselves already.

What I've noticed is not only have they settled down, but I have yet to see any signs of DWV.

I did not do anything special except keep them treatment free. No grease patties, nothing.

However, this approach did not work with other stock.

IMHO, it's the genetics of the parental stock that makes all the difference.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> IMHO, it's the genetics of the parental stock that makes all the difference.


Ye gods: of course upbringing (nurture) makes a difference, but does anyone in this day and age seriously think genetics makes no difference? 

Apart that is from Peter, who thinks:

a) it does make a difference,

b) it doesn't make a difference.

But then Peter is, by his own frank admission, quite happy to hold two contradictory views simultaniously.

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

What's annoying for Peter is that we bought the same 'stock' from BeeWeaver at the same time.

Mine are still here. I don't think his made it though.

So, he can be forgiven for his position(s).

Opinions don't mean a thing. It's only the results that count, and greater minds than ours are still trying to sort things out.

In short, while I have two healthy colonies, I don't have any hard evidence for why.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

On the issue of selecting from the best. In 2013 we managed to get a swarm. the queen in that swarm produced the largest brood nest I have seen so far. I would have to look it up but I think she topped out at one point with nearly 20 frames of brood. This was not 20 frames with some brood in it. it was a percentage count that totaled up to be 20 full wall to wall frames. now my estimate of percentage of a frame may be off at times.

It was this queen we made our fist queen rearing attempts from. Due to other problems in getting queens mated we ended up with only two mated daughters from this queen. Both built up to 5 over 5 nucs and wintered that way.

Now comes some of the reality of breeding and genetics.

First was the mother queen in the spring of this year. she basically began to falter and fade as far as production. we still grafted larva from her. In all we now have about 8 daughters.

As for the two daughters from last summer. On built up from a 5 over 5 nuc to a 40 frame colony in the months of March and April. That colony is still doing and is doing well although the drought conditions prevented it from making any honey.

The other never did do well. evidently she did not get the right genes. Of the other 6 All are building up but none are so far showing any indication of the productivity of their mother. In the mean time the Mother has been lost to supercedure. That daughter is struggling to fill a deep and medium with bees.

In part this may be due to our climate this year. it may be due to a queen that is hard to pass on. it may be that that one queen simply had a particular set of genes. Without knowing exactly what genes I am breeding for and some way to determine I have them then any breeding is a random roll of the dice.

Had I been able to produce hundreds of daughters from this queen I may have had some chance of getting another queen reasonably like her.

As it is, climate, apiary size, personal skill and limited number of acceptable queens all play together to have simply lost nearly any traits of this queen. What has not so far been lost is her genes. they are still in those 8 daughters. But with each generation more and more of them are lost.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

this has been the case in my (limited) experience as well daniel. not all daughters from good queens turn out good, and daughters from queens that didn't do well sometimes do well. i can't blame anything on conditions here because i have had very good forage for all five seasons so far.

since drones contribute more to the genetic mix than does the mother queen, it's not surprising to see this variability. plus, there is the nourishment of the cell and the mating success (or lack of it) involved with each individual daughter queen. 

overall though i think i am seeing that the better colonies more often result from queens from better colonies and vice versa, but really until a new queen has proven herself you can't be sure.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Drone production from this gene source is my goal. that is why the 8 daughters are incredibly valuable at this time. i want them not to produce only more queens with those gueens but more importantly to produce drones that can then spread there genes to all my other queens.

An overly simplistic quick description. There are many other factors that make doing that complicated. I have said in the past I need an apiary that can support queen rearing. I have not achieved that yet. I am getting closer though. Just under three years left to get there.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> Drone production from this gene source is my goal. that is why the 8 daughters are incredibly valuable at this time. i want them not to produce only more queens with those gueens but more importantly to produce drones that can then spread there genes to all my other queens.


But this isn't 'breeding' and you selecting for these genes doesn't in any way mimic natural selection for the fittest strains?

And you're not 'husbanding' the desirable genes into the next generation?

Is that right? 

Or...

What on earth have you been going on about for the past week?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Mike, I do not consider what I am doing as breeding. I consider it rearing at best. I also never said selection does not work. I said natural selection does not result in desired traits. Natural selection results in traits nature chooses to select for and it is likely you are not going to like them. The difference is direct intentional and very specific control over what gets selected. Direct intentional and specific control over what gets paired together. Now in bees I agree that this pairing is difficult. nature is not going to make some exception to what works and what does not simply because we think it is hard to do.

Now if at best we can only increase the occurrence of genes we have selected. which is easier and which produces more individuals with the desired traits. Making queens and controlling the mating of that one queen. or making drones and having limited control over all mating.

Which spreads the occurrence of desired genes faster? Even then don't make the mistake of thinking only desirable genes are being spread. far from it.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i think history shows that with bees it is possible with selection to have influence over the expression of desirable traits.

selecting for mite resistance hasn't been around as long and may very well bring with it the expression of less desirable traits.

luckily for me, my supplier found feral colonies that he was able to observe surviving in trees when managed bees were being wiped out by mites left and right. he had the foresight to collect these bees and now has almost twenty years of propagating them off treatments.

his main criterion for selection over the years has been strong build up. he has probably also avoided selecting from any overly aggressive colonies.

i find these colonies capable of producing 150-180 lbs of harvestable honey and that's leaving them a super or two of honey for themselves. this is running a single deep with medium supers already drawn and when you are able to prevent them from swarming. production is about half that (two to three mediums) even when they do swarm. 

the propensity to swarm is strong with these bees, and likely part of their survival success. checkerboarding decreases my swarm rate from 100% to 50%. another trait that may be helping them with mites is that they typically take a brood break during our summer dearth. 

not feeding syrup keeps them in tune with the flows with their brooding up and down, and some of the clues they may be using for this could come from local adaptation to the pollens and nectars that come and go as our season progresses. i also believe the honey diet and the wide variety of pollens available here play an important role in boosting their natural immunity to the pathogens vectored by mites.

all this is pure speculation, and jmho. since i have feral survivors in the area my approach is to keep the conditions in my hives as close to the feral state as possible, select from my most successful hives and especically the ones i can keep from swarming, and depend on the feral drone contribution for survivor genes.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

squarepeg said:


> i think history shows that with bees it is possible with selection to have influence over the expression of desirable traits.


Unless you are speaking of artificial insemination the expressing of desirable traits are after the fact, certainly not predictable.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Acebird said:


> Unless you are speaking of artificial insemination the expressing of desirable traits are after the fact, certainly not predictable.


They are predictable, but only on the same sort of basis that it is predictable that casinos will turn a profit from the random outcomes of games within. The odds are there, and they are something real - and you can influence them. Casinos wouldn't exist unless they were able to predict their percentages. And they can do it to a fraction of a percent - when a table or machine starts returning marginally less than the predicted rate they start looking for what is going wrong. 

How much you can influence them depends on how skillful you are in choosing queenside genetics, and how much you can influnce drone genetrics. Obviously bigger apiaries are more capable in this respect. If you have desirable drone genetics in your area anyway (thriving ferals, and/or beekeepers whose genetics you're happy with) drone dominance is less important. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

duplicate


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> Mike, I do not consider what I am doing as breeding. I consider it rearing at best.


It looks like our difference have reduced largely one of the meanings of keyterms, and the question of whether ferals supply desirable traits.

I think it is necessary to the conversation to be able to talk easily about the idea of selecting from the stongest when making increase. Since this is what is done across the board in organic husbandry I see no reason not to use the terms used elsewhere. Its particularly necessary in beekeeping to distinguish between 'husbandry' that is focused on only the wellbeing of the individual, and 'husbandry' proper - that is, the focused on the desirable and undesirable traits that need to be carried forward or not in each generation. This is undoubtedly 'breeding'. 

Just because others breed on a large scale, 'farming' bees, doesn't take away the fact that small scale selective husbandry is also 'breeding'. I don't think most people would understand 'rearing' to carry that association - apart from anything else it is associated most strongly with post-birth activities.



Daniel Y said:


> I also never said selection does not work. I said natural selection does not result in desired traits. Natural selection results in traits nature chooses to select for and it is likely you are not going to like them.


Nature can raise bees that are healthy in the sense that they can thrive and be productive in the present environment without human help, and many people count that as an improvement over 'agricultural' bees. The trait of independent health and vitality is generally highly prized - particularly at a time when loss rates and health-maintenance cost are high.

This is the case in many places. Natural selection has raised resistance to varroa to the point where it is no more than a minor irritation. Yes, the skilled beekeeper can improve further. That's one of the ways farming raises yields and profits. But than can be be done fairly quickly with routine operations.



Daniel Y said:


> The difference is direct intentional and very specific control over what gets selected. Now in bees I agree that this pairing is difficult.


Certainly intentionality is missing in nature. That is no impediment to the discovery of those bees best suited to the present environment in natres own terms. Luckily those terms are not very distant to our own desirable criteria.



Daniel Y said:


> nature is not going to make some exception to what works and what does not simply because we think it is hard to do.


Hmmm Nature commonly makes exceptional individuals. Like poker hands, the outcomes of the random recombination process (coupled with other upward-pressing mechanisms like competitive mating) lie on a bell-curved range. Most are middling, a few useless and a few exceptional.



Daniel Y said:


> Now if at best we can only increase the occurrence of genes we have selected. which is easier and which produces more individuals with the desired traits. Making queens and controlling the mating of that one queen. or making drones and having limited control over all mating.
> 
> Which spreads the occurrence of desired genes faster?


Both. Making queens from only the best and raising drone numbers from only the best.

There are further ways to fine tune this process, that is: ways to gain more influence over the genetic make up of the next generation, and ways to discover which individuals will be most likely to have the most beneficial impact in the medium and longer term.



Daniel Y said:


> Even then don't make the mistake of thinking only desirable genes are being spread. far from it.


Given a suitable level of control (and it isn't anything extreme) you can indeed predict that in most cases the outcome will be as you desire. 

If you couldn't there'd be no point in doing anything, and we'd all work with bees no different from those found wild.

Mike (UK)


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

mike,

i believe you are on the right track. assuming you are in an area with habitat adequate to support unmanaged colonies in the nearby woods chances are good that you will see an increase in mite resistance with each winnowing season. it may take a few years to achieve consistent stock and even then you'll have some laggards, but those are great for making splits and mating nucs for the next generation of queens. you may want to consider avoiding syrup as part of your experiment, as it seems to be a common denominator among those successfully keeping bees off treatments, and recent studies suggest honey may augment natural immunity to viruses and other pathogens. best of luck to you with your efforts.

sorry if i missed it, but how did your bees fare over this past winter?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> mike,
> 
> i believe you are on the right track. you may want to consider avoiding syrup as part of your experiment, as it seems to be a common denominator among those successfully keeping bees off treatments, and recent studies suggest honey may augment natural immunity to viruses and other pathogens.


SP,

Thanks, it all seems to be going well. I have about 65 mated colonies at the moment, up from 28 that came through the winter (33 went in). Most therefore are young, about 50/50 splits and new swarms. The best (as you say, those that came through winter ready equipped with brood comb) have returned around 150 lb, but that would be taking close to all off. I suspect I will come close to doing that with some, where they have time to pick up late stores. But I'll note your thoughts about the benefits of proper stores.

That harvest should be read with the fact that all have built their own fresh comb from scratch this year. But also, I did help the process early with candy and stimulative syrup, they are in good spots for a wide range of forage, and the weather has been very kind on the whole. The main effort now is toward making a level playing field so they can be better evaluated next year and onward. At the moment I'm relying on just 4 colonies for queenside material - 3 in their 3rd summer with me, all good goers. 



squarepeg said:


> best of luck to you with your efforts.


And to you too, and to everyone trying to do better beekeeping.

Mike (UK)


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> What has not so far been lost is her genes. they are still in those 8 daughters. But with each generation more and more of them are lost.


We do not know what is the genetic basis for behavior. There may be, but no one has found specific genes that produce specific behaviors.

Genes cannot be lost. If a crucial gene is damaged due to mutation, recombination, etc. the organism seldom survives. So, how can a key gene be lost from a thriving population?

So, it is far more realistic to talk about traits, which we can observe, than genes which we can't. Can traits be reliably passed on by breeding bees? Certain negative ones can, like aggressiveness, but little progress has been made on other fronts.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> ....but little progress has been made on other fronts.


agreed peter, and after all these years with varroa it's a head scratcher isn't it?

i think jwc has made the best case here for open mating and polyandry getting in the way of propagating and maintaning traits.

jmho, but i believe that looking to feral survivors and stock being successfully kept off treatments might yield better progress than what commercial breeders have had so far.

unless of course those bees are just a figment of imagination, (just kidding).


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> We do not know what is the genetic basis for behavior. There may be, but no one has found specific genes that produce specific behaviors.


Ludicrous. The genetic basis for all sorts of behaviours are known. In the case of the honeybee and hygienic behaviours for example the molecular details have been known for some time. See Hygienic Behaviours and below here: 

http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/principles.html



peterloringborst said:


> Genes cannot be lost. If a crucial gene is damaged due to mutation, recombination, etc. the organism seldom survives. So, how can a key gene be lost from a thriving population?


Genes (and alleles) can be lost, but usually aren't. Instead they are lowered in the population when disadvantagous, but maintained at a sufficient level to return should they become advantagous again.

Of course crucial - i.e. life-critical genes can only be lost at extinction. Specific behaviour genes are often alleles, alternatives exist, so any one is not life critical. (But see above - they are presevred even when not required)



peterloringborst said:


> So,


So nothing - your premises are shot, you can't build on them.



peterloringborst said:


> ...it is far more realistic to talk about traits, which we can observe, than genes which we can't.


We can talk about traits, sure. 



peterloringborst said:


> Can traits be reliably passed on by breeding bees? Certain negative ones can, like aggressiveness, but little progress has been made on other fronts.


Again, see hygienic behaviour - and there are plenty of other examples where gene loci are known, and are assisting in bee breeding. Look up quantitative trait loci (QTL) linkage mapping - preferably for honey bees.

Try to avoid trying to disguises your guesses as authoritive statements Peter. You just look silly every time you're exposed. 

And try too to examine in your own mind the distinction between high-level 'breeding' and low level generation-t-generation systematic husbandry of desirable features (genetically-derived traits). It is the latter that probably matters more.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

peterloringborst said:


> We do not know what is the genetic basis for behavior. There may be, but no one has found specific genes that produce specific behaviors.
> 
> Genes cannot be lost. If a crucial gene is damaged due to mutation, recombination, etc. the organism seldom survives. So, how can a key gene be lost from a thriving population?
> 
> So, it is far more realistic to talk about traits, which we can observe, than genes which we can't. Can traits be reliably passed on by breeding bees? Certain negative ones can, like aggressiveness, but little progress has been made on other fronts.


1. explain the none genetic basis for Hygiene. It is my understanding that it is genetic and that work on breeding for it is being done with some degree of success. The results are typical for breeding.

2. Are you saying a gene is not lost in an overall population of the species. Explain where the genes are in the case of extinction. I realize you did say thriving population. there are a lot of conditions that a population can be in other than thriving. I would not consider the Honeybee a "Thriving" Population. Artificially maintained but not thriving even with that. Just did a cut out and repair of a feral very dead hive yesterday. Did another of a feral very alive and damaged one also. The live one was known about for maybe 3 months or so. I would not realistically have expected it to be there in a year. I will say I have some question of just how long should a normal colony live?

3. Okay this comment seems a bit strange. I don't know of a lot of breeding programs that literally look at genes. you know they are present by either the expression of them. such as longer legs. is evidence with certainty of the presence of long leg gene. What is not known is what is not expressed. You can also know what genes are present by linking genes. Which means if the animal expresses a trait for one gene you know another gene is present becasue that second gene is linked to the first. As itn he exampel of long legged gens above. there is in fact a short leg gene. and it is expressed by the animal having short legs of course. the short leg gene is also evidence of a fatal gene combination. The particular specimen will only live a few days at best. This situation is also connected with the lost genes thinking you say does not happen. It is considered to be a consequence of an inadequate gene pool. The species I am referring to was started here in the US from 32 unrelated pairs. The genetic diversity is considered severely poor. I do not recall with certainty but I believe they consider a starting population of about 150 unrelated pairs as barely adequate. Over 5000 would have assured a near complete genetic representation.

I was watching something the other night that gave a simple explanation of genetics and the founding of a population. There is an effect in the founding of an isolated population. It is actually called the founding effect. Suppose there are 27 genes in a given animal. This is actually a small number. Such as in humans there are some 30,000 or more. Now think of a bag of colored candy. Each gene is represented by a different color candy. now if you pour out some of the candy you most often will not get all 27 colors. Often you get more of one color than any other color. and some colors you get none of at all. On the other hand given a large enough bag if you pour out the entire bag you will get all 27 colors with near certainty. So the question is. how many candies must be pulled out of the bag to be certain that all 27 colors have been gotten? This also happens to be a way of having a particular trait accour more frequently.
Little progress being maid in breeding bees is one evidence that traditional methods of breeding in bees does not work. Traditional breeding methods have been proven to be effective. just not in the bee. Breeding of one colony with a particular trait with another colony with that particular trait. results quickly in colonies that die out. Creating something similar to fatal gene combinations.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> 1. explain the none genetic basis for Hygiene. It is my understanding that it is genetic and that work on breeding for it is being done with some degree of success. The results are typical for breeding.


I didn't say there was no genetic basis. I said: we don't understand it. 

What follows is an excerpt from an article I wrote for the American Bee Journal which should clarify what I am saying:



> Since the discovery of the genetic basis of breeding, great expectations have been placed on the future of bee breeding. Genetics has moved away from talking about genes. The term “gene” was coined long before anybody even knew what a gene was. When DNA was discovered, people were pretty sure they would find “genes” for everything. Some behaviors seem to have a genetic basis, but others are obviously learned. In the honey bee, behavior is presumably mostly genetic, because we haven’t seen any evidence of bees teaching each other anything, other than the location of food sources.
> 
> But instead of finding a gene for hygienic behavior, we have found regions called QTLs (qualitative trait locus) that seem to correlate to specific behaviors. You can think of this as a sort of genetic fingerprint. If one can take a DNA sample from a queen and determine what behaviors she will pass on to the colony she produces, you have a short cut to breeding. Instead of raising hundreds of colonies and picking out one or two to breed from, you could pre-select the breeders based on a simple DNA test.
> 
> ...


Source: "The Future of Bee Breeding" American Bee Journal, August 2012


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

peterloringborst said:


> I didn't say there was no genetic basis. I said: we don't understand it.


That I agree with. I find it is not understood to a shocking degree. To me it is almost like nobody is even looking at it. I have spoken with some entomologists and has some small amount of suspicions as to why. In a nut shell they have a career to think about. and associating themselves with honey bees is something of a death blow to a career. The one researcher I know that works on bees works on Bumble bees. She expressed a desire to get connected with the local beekeepers. in a year and a half she has yet to take any steps to do so.

I do see at least one possible reason. Beekeepers tend to argue for their own demise. Such as arguing for the tolerance of pesticide use. Who is going to devote themselves to a group of people determined to self destruct. Stand up and defend yourself. then maybe others will stand by your side. Just a general observation that seems apparent to me.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> To me it is almost like nobody is even looking at it.


This is simply not true. It's no wonder you think that, though. On the one hand you have folks that think breeding bees is the same as breeding pigeons, and on the other you have people telling you that for $500 they can give you a printout of everything genetic about you. 

Meanwhile, real science is being done. Labs all over the world are studying the fields of genomics and honey bee genomics. I already cited two references, I could provide dozens of others. For example, and this one lists about fifty co-authors



> Elsik, C. G., Worley, K. C., Bennett, A. K., Beye, M., Camara, F., Childers, C. P., ... & Muzny, D. M. (2014). Finding the missing honey bee genes: lessons learned from a genome upgrade. BMC genomics, 15(1), 86.


http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/15/86


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Deleted by author


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Look, I work in the field of reproductive genomics.


What are your qualifications Peter, and what is your job description?



peterloringborst said:


> If a person's idea of genetics is based on what they learned in grade school, they don't know enough even to be wrong.


Before I even went to school I knew 2 + 2 = 4. I know lots more math now, but last I knew that was still right. _That's because the fundamentals of arithmetic haven't changed._

The fundamental facts of biology haven't changes all that much either - though they have been much supplemented and somewhat modulated by subsequent discoveries. Sexual organisms remain derived from random combinations of genes held (though not necessarily expressed) by their parents. Traits are largely inherited (and where they are not they are not technically 'traits'.) 

A union of parents carrying 2 copies of a particular gene will (always) produce offspring carrying that particular gene. No alternative can be magicked out of thin air. If the gene is required for a particular behaviour, only offspring resulting from at least one parent carrying the gene can possibly supply it.

These are some of the fundamentals of reproduction. 

95% of what I learned in school is adequate for an understanding sufficient to do honey bee husbandry well enough to have 60 odd hives of completely untreated bees, largely thriving.

How many thriving untreated hives do you have Peter? Did you, like me, source and shape the genetics that enable them to thrive yourself?

The proof of the pudding is perhaps in the eating. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Here's a good place to start to learn about how our view of genetics has changed:



> Ideas about heredity and evolution are undergoing a revolutionary change. New findings in molecular biology challenge the gene-centered version of Darwinian theory according to which adaptation occurs only through natural selection of chance DNA variations. In _Evolution in Four Dimensions_, Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb argue that there is more to heredity than genes. They trace four "dimensions" in evolution -- four inheritance systems that play a role in evolution: genetic, epigenetic (or non-DNA cellular transmission of traits), behavioral, and symbolic (transmission through language and other forms of symbolic communication). These systems, they argue, can all provide variations on which natural selection can act. _Evolution in Four Dimensions_ offers a richer, more complex view of evolution than the gene-based, one-dimensional view held by many today.


http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Four-Dimensions-Epigenetic-Philosophical/dp/0262600692


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

> behavioral, and symbolic (transmission through language and other forms of symbolic communication).


Are they saying if you talk to you bees you can get them to change?:scratch:


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Of course.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Are they saying if you talk to you bees you can get them to change?


No. But they do say that the ability to communicate information can affect the survival of colonies. For example, in Tom Seeley's latest book he shows how honey bees select nest sites and decide among themselves which one to use. The optimization of this process would lead to enhanced survival, so that communication enhances natural selection for fitness. This is only one example


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

peterloringborst said:


> No. But they do say that the ability to communicate information can affect the survival of colonies.


The way I see it all the bees communicate in the same way it is the decision making that gives them the advantage not the communication.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> The way I see it all the bees communicate in the same way it is the decision making that gives them the advantage not the communication.


No need to separate these two. Like saying it's not how you say it but what you say. Effective communication requires both. You can't separate the words from the ideas behind them. Information has no value if it isn't communicated and/or used.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> But they do say that the ability to communicate information can affect the survival of colonies. For example, in Tom Seeley's latest book he shows how honey bees select nest sites and decide among themselves which one to use. The optimization of this process would lead to enhanced survival, so that communication enhances natural selection for fitness. This is only one example


And such a behaviour will be genetically derived. Bees don't teach their offspring, or the offspring of others, so there's no cultural ('symbolic' as your authors describe it) transmission. They can't pass on information to the next generation in any way other than through their genes.

And so the foundational level mechanism is the only one that can carry the load: those who are good at (collectively) deciding which sites are best will tend to thrive and reproduce at the expense of those that are poor at it. Their genes will be passed down in greater numbers. That is: natural selection for the fittest strains.

You've interpreted Jablonka and Lamb's statement in a way that shows you've conflated communication within a honeybee colony with communication across generations, or sideways from individual to individual (where and 'individual' is a reproductive unit). Bees don't do that. And your application of Jablonka and Lamb's statement to Seeley's observations is therefore fallacious. 

If you had undertaken any proper training in biology at all you wouldn't have made that mistake.

So again: What are your qualifications [...] and what is your job description? (my post http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...Hives-Are-Feral-vs-Kept&p=1144355#post1144355)

I'd like to know what the work 'work' actually means in your claim: "I work in the field of reproductive genomics." 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Dave Warren (May 14, 2012)

I'm just a once removed hillbilly from Kentucky, semi retired, bills are paid, have health I'm very successful in life! with that said, I'm ignorant with bee genetics, had several variations of breeds. This year my best breed is a feral swarm, with mutts, I just love them, good tempered, my best producers, I've pulled frames with queen cells and put them in splits, doing great, so my experience with genetics is mutts. Most of my best dogs were mutts too! same temperament as the bees, maybe there's something to mixing breeds!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> If you had undertaken any proper training in biology at all you wouldn't have made that mistake.
> 
> So again: What are your qualifications [...] and what is your job description? (my post http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...Hives-Are-Feral-vs-Kept&p=1144355#post1144355)
> 
> I'd like to know what the work 'work' actually means in your claim: "I work in the field of reproductive genomics."


Since it's a big deal, what are your own qualifications Mike?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

He's a bee punisher.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Mike has already posted his background. Its a long post, so I won't quote it all, but this seems to be the key part:



mike bispham said:


> Its long and complex Don, but I'll outline it so you'll have an idea of where I'm coming from. I first learned beekeeping from an ancient professional gardener and countryman, and a professional commercial beekeeper about 30 years ago.
> 
> As I did so I took careful note of how the things they did and talked about matched the theory of natural selection for the fittest strains that I 'd learned doing foundation biology at school.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Since the quote on the experience has come back into the conversation. I am gong to point out what is lacking in it in regard to bees specifically. I would sum up that post saying it is the typical traditional agricultural breed from the best understanding of genetics. How it got twisted to being considered natural selection I don't know but it is anything but.

Although the breed the best to the best method has proven to be successful it is also a method common becasue it also works for those that choose to remain ignorant. Sort of the same thing as saying knowing how to start a car and drive does not make you an auto mechanic. Most will drive their entire lives and never know anything about the mechanics of a vehicle.

These vary same bred the best to the best methods that work reliable for anyone that has any ability to do no more than recognize a better individual than another do not work for honey bees. Here is just one reason. In most animals sex is determined by two genes the X and the Y. Each parent contributes one gene. an XX makes a female an XY makes a male. Only males can pass on a Y chromosome as they are the only ones that carry them. Now that is about as bottle necked as you can get and still have genes involved. 4 genes in total and only one of the four is different.

Now in the honey bee sex determination is radically different. There are as many as 27 different gens that determine sex. Sex is determined differently as well. it is a matter of same or different. Any offspring that has two sex genes and those gens are different sex determining types. will be a female. any offspring with one gene or two genes that are the same will be male. Any egg with the same two sex genes will be destroyed at an early age of development as the gene combination is fatal.

Now if we think about the above sex determination in regard to a mating between a single male and a single female. the male only carries one out of the 27 possible sex genes. The Queen only carries two out of the possible 27.

Now in the case of mother son mating the male got his gene from the mother. so it is guaranteed that any fertilized eggs she produces will have matching sex genes. the only living brood she can produce in drones.

But lets look at it if it where brother sister mating. The queen gives the daughter queen one sex gene I will call A. Some unknown random father gave the daughter queen a different sex gene we will call B. Statistically the mother queen will also give that same A sex gene to half of all of her sons. So a situation of sister brother mating will statistically results in half of all matings resulting in same sex gene production. Daughter queen has AB genes half of her brothers she can mate with have A genes Other half have B genes.

Now honey bee mating is far more complex than that. but the same effect takes place in the situation of mating the best to the best. The individual being mated become to closely related to quickly. The need to maintain that entire 27 sex gene variation is critical. The problem is any effort to keep the variety in sex gens also means you keep the variety in every other gene as well. You can't just go in and separate the sex gene from all the other genes.

In typical breeding bees to best is is common to have a single male meted to all females. you cannot do this with bees. It would quickly result in a single sex gene in the entire population. This has been demonstrated.

The way I see it is it is a matter of how to apply the principles of breeding the best to the best on a communal sale. More like how to breed best apiary to best apiary rather than best individuals or colonies to best colonies.

For now I do not see much of the answers to beekeeping lies in breeding at all. but in husbandry. In other words how do we keep all bees well. Regardless of there genetic mix.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> I would sum up that post saying it is the typical traditional agricultural breed from the best understanding of genetics. How it got twisted to being considered natural selection I don't know but it is anything but.


Lets hear it again from two of the most respected writers on bee husbandry:

""Queen breeding ranks as the most important activity in the efficient management 
of an apiary: by it, the apiarist [...] advances from being a Beekeeper to a being a Beebreeder."

"Breeding is by no means a human invention. Nature, which in millions of years
has bought forth this immense diversity of wonderfully adapted creatures, is the
greatest breeder. It is from her that the present day breeder learnt how it must
be done, excessive production and then ruthless selection, permitting only the
most suitable to survive and eliminating the inferior." 

[Daniel, this refers to natural selection]

Friedrich Ruttner,
Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee, pg 45

==============
"In most farm stock stress is laid particularly on the male because he may sire a large number of offspring, whereas the direct progeny of the
female are very limited in number. Now we breeders of hive-bees
have the great advantage over those who have to do with most
domestic animals in that from one desirable breeding queen we can
readily produce a virtually unlimited number of young queens.
Though in a state of nature a honey-bee queen would only produce
half a dozen or so daughter queens, and maybe a couple of thousand
drones, in the hands of a competent breeder she can be made to give
an almost unlimited number of both.

It is usually considered that too much in-breeding may lead to
deterioration in the stamina and fecundity of animals, though about
this there is some disagreement. When there is no trace of any bad or
degenerate strain in the stock, in-breeding does no harm, I think; but
unless one is quite sure that this is the case, it is probably better to arrange, as far as possible, in our breeding apiaries, that the drones flying there shall be produced by queens of the very highest
character, while the young queens with which they are expected to
mate shall be derived from breeder queens of a different strain, but
equally outstanding qualities. In this way, although it is impossible to be certain that all matings will be as desired, yet it can be managed that a very large proportion of our young queens will be the product of the male and female parents from which we wish them to be
derived."

R.O.B. Manley, Honey Farming, page 62 of the pdf, 83 of the book
http://www.biobees.com/library/gener...gROBManley.pdf 



Daniel Y said:


> Although the breed the best to the best method has proven to be successful it is also a method common becasue it also works for those that choose to remain ignorant.


Ah - you agree - it works! But only if you choose to remain ignorant? How does that work? If you become clever it doesn't work any more? Why not?



Daniel Y said:


> These vary same bred the best to the best methods that work reliable for anyone that has any ability to do no more than recognize a better individual than another do not work for honey bees. Here is just one reason. In most animals sex is determined by two genes the X and the Y. Each parent contributes one gene. an XX makes a female an XY makes a male. [...]
> 
> In typical breeding bees to best is is common to have a single male meted to all females.


It is? Lets just read Manley again shall we?

"Now we breeders of hive-bees
have the great advantage over those who have to do with most
domestic animals in that from one desirable breeding queen we can
readily produce a virtually unlimited number of young queens."

Oops, that's the opposite of what you say! So much for all that stuff about X and Y chromosomes! Utterly irrelevant! Sounded good for a minute though!



Daniel Y said:


> you cannot do this with bees. It would quickly result in a single sex gene in the entire population. This has been demonstrated.


Quite possibly! Lucky then we don't want to!



Daniel Y said:


> The way I see it is it is a matter of how to apply the principles of breeding the best to the best on a communal sale. More like how to breed best apiary to best apiary rather than best individuals or colonies to best colonies.


You won't get a good apiary in the first place until you have an effective selection and propagation routine going. 



Daniel Y said:


> For now I do not see much of the answers to beekeeping lies in breeding at all. but in husbandry. In other words how do we keep all bees well. Regardless of there genetic mix.


That's a recipe for continued crisis. Mollycoddling, making increase indiscrimately, and treating and general meddling in health matters all weaken the stock. 

Anything that doesn't involve genetic husbandry isn't husbandry in any real sense. Nor is it farming. Its pet keeping.

Why this has to be said in 2014 is beyond me. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

The pioneer work on breeding bees was done by Ludwig Armbruster. It is the mentor Brother Adam followed. Here is his writing (computer translated, but readable)

https://translate.google.de/transla...is.org/biblio/books/armbr/LA1919/introde.html


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> You won't get a good apiary in the first place until you have an effective selection and propagation routine going.


"Breed the best to the best" Where in that quote does it say good?

Bees are hardly the only animal that large numbers can be produced. A lot of words to simply say bees are large producers of offspring. Hardly unique to just bees. Nearly everything you quoted is outdated and ancient opinions based upon what had been proven effective in other animals. an example of exactly what I had described. Why wouldn't someone think that what worked with other animals would not work with Bees? But as the same practices did not over time produce the same results. The reasons why where looked for. 

Where are the various breeds of bees that would have resulted from the use of these methods? Had they worked such breeds would exist. They produce breeds in every other animal they are used with. But not bees.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> "Breed the best to the best" Where in that quote does it say good?
> 
> Bees are hardly the only animal that large numbers can be produced. A lot of words to simply say bees are large producers of offspring. Hardly unique to just bees. Nearly everything you quoted is outdated and ancient opinions based upon what had been proven effective in other animals. an example of exactly what I had described. Why wouldn't someone think that what worked with other animals would not work with Bees? But as the same practices did not over time produce the same results. The reasons why where looked for.
> 
> Where are the various breeds of bees that would have resulted from the use of these methods? Had they worked such breeds would exist. They produce breeds in every other animal they are used with. But not bees.


Ugh. I give up. Daniel knows better than every bee breeder or apiarist who's ever taken his job half seriously, and the refutes testimony of some of the most respected bee breeders ever. Ruttner? An idiot. Brother Adam? Deluded. 

He does it with questions like:

"Breed the best to the best" Where in that quote does it say good?"

What can you say to that? Where do you start? Can you have any hope at all of making an impact on 'thinking' like that?

Keep it up Daniel. Good luck with your beekeeping.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, Mike, if you are choosing not to respond to Daniel's comments in the future, that likely will free up a good chunk of your time. Maybe you could use that time to correct those errors on your website? Here is one of them ...



> It can be seen that modern beekeeping practice is the sole cause of the crisis affecting both wild and domestic bees.
> 
> http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/




... need I remind you _again _about forage availability and landowner applied pesticide issues ... :s


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Mike, What would be the need to resort to insults? 
You are the one that says breeding the best to the best works. 

But then you calim "You won't get a good apiary in the first place until you have an effective selection and propagation routine going."

But don't you have to have the best to get an effective propagation and selection routine going? Or am I correct that best to best does not necessarily mean good?

Best does nto mean good. It may mean that in fact the best you have is extremely poor. Traditionally, regardless of how poor your best is. breeding the best to the best still works. your stock improves. Earlier you attempted to twist this point to claim I said it would stop working if the breeder did not remain ignorant. I never said it wood stop working at all. I said it has never worked with Honey Bees.

The truth is start with very poor stock to select from. breed the best of them to the best and you will actually see very dramatic results. It is when you gain exceptional stock and breed it to exceptional stock that further progress is difficult and that even minor judgment in selection can cost dearly. It is easy to improve on extremely poor. much more difficult to improve on exceptional.

But again you seem to have made an argument that says that you can obtain exceptional stock b breeding exceptional stock to exceptional stock. And without breeding in this manner it is not possible to get exceptional stock. My question is. Then where did you get the exceptional stock to start with? From just random natural pairings according to you. Are you to say that just random pairing in mating in the Honey bee is what produces the best bees? Now keep in mind my interpretation of best because it very much applies in my use of it here. So let me be blunt. You mean that those sickly little pathetic things you call best are produced by random chance? By simply letting whole communities of colonies mass fornicate? Isn't that what I was saying? breeding on a communal basis rather than individual colon to colony. Selection of apiaries rather than colonies. maintaining broader genetic variation. Etc. etc. etc.

I still want to know how you breed the best to the best if you cannot possibly get the best without already having the best.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> I still want to know how you breed the best to the best if you cannot possibly get the best without already having the best.


Keep at it Daniel. You'll work it out.

Mike (UK)


----------

