# What is your definition of "feral" and "feral Surviors"?



## hrogers (Dec 16, 2000)

Howdy Dan --

When we capture a swarm from other than our hives, we generally call them feral. After we 
house them and give them care and treatment they are referred to as "feral stock". All my 40 hives are captural ferals and now are feral stock. I have not bought bees or queens for years.

Doc


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

The term "feral" has become more of a misnomer
than a useful term.

A spring swarm from any hive headed by an unmarked
queen is a *"feral survivor colony"* once it
sets up shop in a nest site that has lots of comb
left by prior tenants, each swarm surviving in
that location for an unknown length of time.









If everyone marked their queens, the confusion
on this point might be reduced by several orders
of magnitude. Sadly, the same beekeepers who
are likely to have lots of swarms are the ones
who are unlikely to take the time to mark their
queens.

This is not to say that colonies cannot survive
in a "feral" (hiveless, beekeeperless) state for
more than a season. I still have that yard where
I've never seen varroa, and as long as I bring
only carefully inspected queens into that yard,
even removing attendant bees before going to the
yard, I expect that I will continue to find no
varroa. Clearly, a swarm from one of those
hives that sets up shop nearby is equally likely
to be varroa-free, and thereby have a decent
chance of surviving in a "feral" setting.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

There are those who insist that the bees have to have varying levels of "independence" from comb, to brood and so forth to be called feral.

www.dictionary.com:
1. Existing in a wild or untamed state.
2. Having returned to an untamed state from domestication.

Many animal management people use the second so as to differentiate between wild (i.e. never domesticated) and feral (i.e. domesticated/managed species that are now living on their own, i.e. cats, mustangs etc.) species in a given scenario

Technically speaking, all a colony has to do is swarm and leave to be feral. They are no longer under the control of the beekeeper and are therefore feral.

I think the term is misleading in the way it is slung around on the 'net with reference to bees as Jim suggests. Now there are a few people out there who have invested huge amounts of time and effort into managing previously "feral" bees and who feel that they are special. As many of these folks use different definitions of feral I wouldn't look for the term to be used uniformly in the near future. 


Are feral special? Some no doubt will be, many no doubt will not.


Keith


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper (Jun 29, 2005)

[...all a colony has to do is swarm and leave to be feral. ]

...and likewise once they are hived they are techincally "domesticated".

So really anyone selling "feral" queens should be picking them off the tree branches!


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper (Jun 29, 2005)

..and survivor queens is also a misnomer. 

anyone selling non-survivor queens? 
what sort of pattern does a non-survivor queen lay?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

When I saw the title of this thread, I was going to point out what others have already pointed out here.

1) Are bees ever really domesticated? Even though we try to manage colonies, I'd question whether they're really "domesticated." That could mean that either no "feral" colonies exist, or that all bees are "feral."

2) Even stock from unmanaged colonies, once put back into managed hives, are no longer "feral."

So, the terms get thrown around, and I think we have a general idea of the concepts behind the terms, but the terms themselves are pretty nebulous.

NW IN Beekeeper -- I don't have very many non-survivor queens, but I'd be happy to sell you some non-survivor workers.  They're not productive at all, though. Oh, and none of my non-survivor queens is laying, so I can't tell you what the pattern should look like.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

When I remove bees from known unmanaged sites, ie houses, trees, etc, they are feral.

After I have them back in hives they are mutts.


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

>> The term "feral" has become more of a misnomer
than a useful term.

>> I think the term is misleading in the way it is slung around on the 'net with reference to bees as Jim suggests. 

>> Are feral special? Some no doubt will be, many no doubt will not.

>>So, the terms get thrown around,...but the terms themselves are pretty nebulous.

I agree which is mostly the reason why I started this thread to see how others view the term "feral". Although to get to the heart of my discussion I should have said "What is your definition of FERAL SURVIVOR COLONIES".

I get the feeling from reading alot of these posts and personally talking with other newer beekeepers that many are associating some sort of "specialness" to the bees because they are feral. Maybe I'm reading into some of the comments but I just get the feeling they are elevating that colony to some sort of "special" status.

Just because someone finds a hive in a tree doesn't mean anything special. It could have swarmed from a nearby beekeeper or commercial outfit passing thru or pollinating nearby or a feral colony. What it does show is that maybe they are good at finding a nest site. 

Don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that there are feral colonies that have or are in the process of becoming mite tolerant on their own. 

>>and I think we have a general idea of the concepts behind the terms

YOU and other more experienced beekeepers may have a general idea. However, how many newer beekeepers understand the general idea of what a feral colony is? 

That was also one of the reasons why I brought up this topic. I have personally heard some beekeepers talking about their feral survivor colonies, and how they are going to try to stay with feral survivors. After discussions, I find out that they simply have hived a swarm(s) or had done cutouts and have no idea where the bees came from or how long they'd been there. They knew even less about the survivability potential of the colonies.

My point is that there seems to be alot of confusion on different topics due to the terms that get thrown around without any standard definitions.

[ July 05, 2006, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Dan Williamson ]


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

Dan:

I am a new beekeeper and I think I have picked up on the general idea of the concepts behind the terms. Read the reponse I posted to the following thread regarding the source of a feral swarm I recently captured and see if you agree:

Weed Eating

Without investigating where these bees came from and how long they had been there, I don't think I could speculate on any "survivor" qualities they might posses. As it stands, I think there may be some potential, only time will tell.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

Well, Dan, I think it may just be in the wording.

You may just be a sewage shoveler for the city, But I prefer to be a municipal sanitation engineer.







 

I call mine "hopefuls", not ferals, because they were caught as a swarm over 20 years ago, and have never been treated.


----------



## WG Bee Farm (Jan 29, 2005)

Iddee, So yours are "Hopeful Ferals".








All honey bees are wild insects that have never been domesticated. We "man" keep bees because we have learned certain management tech. that work.
Once they are out of the box, they become ferals.
Let me get this straight; the cutout I got that came from one of my own hives and went into the old shed behing my house, overwintered and I was able to pull this spring---- it is now a feral surviver. I think I got it now.   

I will be looking for you @ the NC State Meeting in High Point on 7-13 through 7-15
Frank

[ July 05, 2006, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: WG Bee Farm ]


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

We had a discussion similar to this on. 

www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=004439#000000

Colonies die every year for various reasons with mites only being one of them. 

Colonies die even after being treated with all of the approved and proven methods, as well as some of the new ones being tried.

If you are keeping bees, and the same colony / their descendants are surviving to see another season year after year, they are survivors. They are survivors, regardless of what you have to do to get them there. The only point of contention is what you claim that you have done to get them there.

[ July 05, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: MountainCamp ]


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

Frank, I'll be loaning the hives for the convention. Don will be choosing which ones Friday. I'll let you know if he chooses one of the hopefuls. If he does, you can check them out in High Point.

He will also be checking all my "hopeful" hives for mites Friday. I'll be posting what he finds then.


----------



## beaglady (Jun 15, 2004)

In my 'just barely experienced enough' stage, a feral bee is one that has successfully built an unmanaged colony, like in a tree or old shed wall. If it survives a winter without human intervention, it is a feral survivor. 

I recently caught a swarm that had come from a colony that lives in an unused pop-up camper. To my definition, this parent colony is a 'feral survivor' since it has successfully wintered without human intervention, and had the strength to swarm.


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

There are not only two terms to define "Feral" and "Survivor". There are all of the contributing conditions that have either lead to the hives demise or there continued success.

A hive that is isolated and not exposed to mites, can be a survivor colony. However, in the quest for a bee that can survive mites, it may be of little help.

A hive that thrives on the Gulf Coast and winters well there, may be of little good to many in the North for winter survivability.

Many hives in the north may make it a winter or even 2 with mites, and then fail due to mites. While the same hive may very well fail in the warmer south after only a year. They were survivors in the north, while failures in the south.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--A spring swarm from any hive headed by an unmarked queen is a "feral survivor colony" 

No, this is not a feral becuse it does not fit the defination:

Definition below approved by Keith (words have meaning) Benson on the feral beekeepers list

A feral animal is a non-native animal that has escaped from captivity and established a self-sustaining population independent of humans.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

There needs to be a distinction drawn between
what is feral and domestic as to when this change over
occurs. For instance a dog that escapes from its
owners care (sometimes with the chain dragging behind)
cannot determined to be feral. Look it up in Webster,
the definition that fits this the best is stray

In beekeeping, a swarm that wonders away from the
beekeeper does not fit the common definition of feral because
it has yet to establish itself in a sustaining
breeding population independent of humans. The term
that fits in this case by definition is stray.

A feral animal is a non-native animal that has escaped
from captivity and established a self-sustaining
population independent of humans.

A honeybee colony becomes feral after the bees become
independent of humans and the domestic queen has bees
replaced by a daughter queen. Until the queen
replacement occurs, they are nothing more than strays
according to the Webster definition of stray.

If you take the Webster definitions and apply them to honeybees, you have: 

(this definition approved by Keith Benson)








Stray Honeybees- A single generation of honeybees under a beekeepers control that have escaped swarmed or absconded, having yet to establish themselves in a self-sustaining breeding population. 

(this definition approved by Keith Benson)








Feral Honeybees- A colony of honeybees that have escaped from a beekeepers control and have established themselves in a self-sustaining breeding population independent of humans.

(this definition pending approval from Keith Benson)








Survivor Honeybees- A colony of honeybees that continues to survive in domestic beekeeping equipment without treatments for honeybee diseases and pests.

[ July 05, 2006, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper (Jun 29, 2005)

Dans point is: feral doesn't equal quality. 

sorry to contrary beaglady but....
A wintered hive doesn't equal good quality, and it doesn't even really mean survivor. 

By survivor I assume people mean survivor of mite parasites. 

How many of us have had a package or swarm that didn't need mite treatments the first year? (many of you will say they never needed treatments, but let me make my point.) The concept is that the mite life cycle was so interrupted the first year, there wasn't any mites to need a treatment (even if you do treatments). So a swarm in the wild may also not need any treatment, but this doesn't mean it is any more mite tolerant, or a survivor. It means the mites let it off easy the first year.
[beaglady you may not have experienced this so nothing malace was meant towards you.]

I joked about non-survivor queens, but I hope it made you think - aren't all live bees survivors to some extent or another? And think about what I'm saying about the mite life cycles, different hives have different 'degrees' of hardships or environmental conditions to survive. And it changes. 

Are there no survivors in "easy" years and gold stars next to those that make it through a drought or a tough winter? So who gets to set the bar as to what 'degree' of hardships my bee have to suffer and live to classify them as survivors? 

Me? You? The USDA? 
Are we going to have 100% Certified Feral Bees stamped on the packages? 
Come on.


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper (Jun 29, 2005)

I like Joe Waggle's post. 
Then again, only fools argue against a dictionary.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Thanks NW!

Feels good to have someone like one of my posts.









Now if I can only find an exit strategy so I can get the hell out of that Sumac thread theyve been kicking me around in for days.


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

Joe, are you sitting down. I will not disagree with the definitions that you listed.

I will just say that I have Non-"Survivor Honeybees" and that some of the colonies are celebrating their eight birthday.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

<<anyone selling non-survivor queens? 
what sort of pattern does a non-survivor queen lay? >>
!ZOMBIE BEES!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Thanks MountainCamp!
BTW, LOL, I'm always sitting down.









Hey, that is very good if you have survivors for 8 years! Very good indeed!


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper (Jun 29, 2005)

!ZOMBIE BEES! 

If they work nights, I might put them on third shift in my hives!

[ July 05, 2006, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: NW IN Beekeeper ]


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

it seems to me that the idea of "feral" bees is that since they haven't had the luxury of having a beekeeper assist them by using various treatments to remedy pests/diseases problems, they have been exposed to additional selective pressure (if they can't hack it they die) 
obviously we can try to simulate this in our bee yards but why not take advantge of it naturally??
of course how long they've survived is an interesting point but if they are surviving on their own they seem to have a desirable trait

Dave


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--obviously we can try to simulate this in our bee yards but why not take advantge of it naturally??

This is what I have been attempting to do. My basic strategy is to assess every feral I catch for one season. I bring in about 10 feral swarms per year and use the top 5 or so of these to requeen my worst colonies and eliminate the dud swarms. Then, I increase from my overall best production colonies.

I am targeting woodland ferals because this is where I am seeing colonies that have queens exhibiting the best over all characteristics. Just from collecting and keeping only the best ferals and weeding out my bad performers, I have been able to greatly improve the overall performance throughout all my colonies. I will spare you the details and simply say, I am very pleased with the improvements so far.

[ July 05, 2006, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

If you want to take the concept from other animals it's the difference between wild longhorn cattle and purebred Jersey milk cattle. The longhorn cattle were feral because they were surviving the wilds of Texas with no help from humans. Only the hardy and tough survived so they were quite self sufficient and strong. Jerseys, on the other hand are not at all self sufficient and strong. But they make nice milk cows. Now longhorns are only raised by people. There are no wild ones left. Did they loose that toughness? I don't know, but the cattlemen I've talked to don't think so.

To me, "feral" indicates that they have been living with out treatments or help from humans for a few generations. This is noticable in bees that are from feral swarms of feral swarms because of the size of the bees from the natural regression of a swarm of a swarm etc.

If they have survived that long on their own, that's a good start for some hardy stock.

"Survivor" may seem to be redundant, since they are alive, but it indicates, not that they are alive, but that they are alive without any aid from treatments.

I might call my bees "ferals" for short, to distinguish their genetics and characteristics from the Carnis and Italians I've had, but I describe them as "feral survivor stock". Because the stock they came from were feral bees that were surviving for some time, with no care, with no treatment and have now been surviving for some time under my care, with no treatment.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Did they loose that toughness? 

Well, as soon as honeybees escape from human control, selection of traits contributing to survival take precedent. Whereas, when the beekeeper is in control, selection for traits of economic value take precedent. Although with the advent of the mites, breeders to day are placing more emphasis on the traits of survival such as hygienic behavior etc.

--"Survivor" may seem to be redundant, since they are alive, but it indicates, not that they are alive, but that they are alive without any aid from treatments.

Well, in the context that the term is being used, most using the term survivor colonies tend to be referring to colonies found surviving in domestic beekeeping equipment within a beekeepers operation. 

Survivor and feral are two different terms and there are appropriate uses for them:

The quote Breed from survivor colonies would seem NOT to suggest that they intend you breed from ferals that were found in the hollow tree, but instead stock that originated from your own domestic honeybees. 

Whereas the quote breed from feral colonies would seem to suggest that they intend you breed from stock with originating from honeybees found in the wild as opposed to that originated from domestic stock..


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Hmmmm. . . so "feral" animals are animals that have escaped captivity? I can agree with the definition, but I'm not sure that it applies to honey bees. I don't keep my bees in captivity -- they're free to go where they want, when they want. Are they feral?

And what about beekeepers that don't give any assistance? The ones that install bees in hives and walk away, only returning to take some honey from time to time? Are their bees feral? Why or why not?

And now we throw another term into the mix: "woodland ferals." Just out of curiosity, what makes these bees different than any other "ferals?" I've never seen what I would consider "prairie ferals" or "grassland ferals." Honey bees naturally tend to live in wooden cavities. 

Along the same lines, if I cut out a hive from a building in a city, should I call them "urban survivor bees?"


----------



## beecron (Nov 7, 2004)

Jim Fischer says: "I still have that yard where
I've never seen varroa, and as long as I bring
only carefully inspected queens into that yard,
even removing attendant bees before going to the
yard, I expect that I will continue to find no
varroa."

Jim, 
Wouldn't keeping bees isolated from varroa such as this lead to an ultimate destruction of the entire yard someday? I am thinking along the lines of, say, people and disease resistance for example. If humans (or cultures) are kept isolated from certain diseases, eventually that disease will somehow be introduced to them with devastating results since their immune systems have never had exposure or been able to build resistance to it. Along the lines of that thinking, isn't it maybe better to work with stock that has had exposure to varroa and has shown it is able to resist or at least deal successfully with the varroa?


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"they're free to go where they want, when they want"

In reality you control the scenario such that they will not leave. DO you practice any swarm prevention?

Keith


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Sure, I practice swarm prevention, but I don't keep my bees caged. Think about it from the perspective of the individual bees: my bees leave their hives to go out and forage. I can't really control when or where they go. And, despite practicing swarm prevention, if the bees want to leave, they will (think "abscond").

So are the bees captive? Not really. Look at Michael's example of the cattle -- I think my bees fit more closely with the longhorns than with the Jerseys. I might "own" them, and I try to manage them, but I don't really keep them captive.


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper (Jun 29, 2005)

[I ... call my bees "ferals" ...to distinguish ... from the Carnis and Italians]-mBush

And you have to distinguish one pure strain from another.
That's just respectful for diversity of the animal. 

The problem is all "mutts" are not created equal. 
But I think this overcome and worsened by labels of hygienics and mite tolerant or resistant bees. 

The problem is Tom's idea of tolerant may not be John's idea of tolerant. But the concept that both Tom and John's bees having been tested for tolerance makes them superior to an "untested" tree swarm. 

Being able to label your bees as "tested" or "proven", much like the old days of queen rearing, would seem to end a lot of problems. The delima is still there isn't (and maybe can't be) a set guideline that says a two year old hive with 10-15% mite load is considered resistant. And I say maybe there can't be because the issues of supercedure and requeening introduce a new genetic line that destroys the "controled conditions" of genetics from which we are relying.

I can't say that after pounding this subject through my brain for a few days that I can suggest a honest and dependable method to evaluate and classify ferals that is fair and universal for purchasers of feral queens. I think the current system of buyer-beware and where the seller must convey the proper characteristics of his stocks has to prevail. We can only hope that if there are less-than-honest sellers that we are smart enough to evaluate our own bees and share our results with fellow beekeepers. Here within lies another problem, we are relying upon a broad spectrum of opinions, and some people are more easy-going than others. 

I think this brings to light another reason why a message board such of this is such an important tool when people actively and fairly contribute.


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

MB says--
To me, "feral" indicates that they have been living with out treatments or help from humans for a few generations.

hrogers says--
When we capture a swarm from other than our hives, we generally call them feral.

beaglady says--
a feral bee is one that has successfully built an unmanaged colony, like in a tree or old shed wall. If it survives a winter without human intervention, it is a feral survivor.. 

Pcolar
A honeybee colony becomes feral after the bees become independent of humans and the domestic queen has bees replaced by a daughter queen.

Just on this short thread we have differing definitions of "feral"

1) living apart from human intervention FOR A FEW GENERATIONS.

2) "CAPTURED SWARM FROM OTHER THAN OUR HIVES"

3) successfully built a an unmanaged colony in tree or wall

4) after the bees BECOME INDEPENDANT OF HUMANS and the DOMESTIC QUEEN HAS BEES REPLACED BY A DAUGHTER QUEEN 

So should there be a time line it has been independent of humans? Is it ONE generation? Is it a FEW generations? Is it just because it is in a wall or tree? Is it just because it is not from one of your own hives?

See my confusion?

The "survivor" aspect seems to have some generalized commonalities (ie no treatments), however here are some differences.

1) bealady- A WINTER (in wall or tree only?)
2) MB-surviving FOR SOME TIME UNDER MY CARE

3) MountainCamp--They are survivors, regardless of what you have to do to get them there.

Should it be "a winter"? Should it be for "some time"? And how long is "some time"? Should it be "regardless of what you have to do to get them there"?

The only thing that's not confusing is that it means different things to different people.


----------



## jaydee (Oct 12, 2004)

The feral bees that I have been trying for several years, have traits that I don't like. I want them to survive without treatment, I also want them to produce enough honey for me to harvest. My ferals wil swarm every time I get 14 or 15 frames of bees, even in late fall. They will go into wimter with 6 or 8 frames of bees and just enough honey to survive until spring.

This year I tried killing all swarm cells ever one to two weeks, bees got mean, I also made honey to harvest. i had to leave for three weeks and came home to my 2 feral colonies have swarmed. Down to 8 frames in one hive and 9 frames in other. One had 20 plus frames of bees when I left.

I have ordered feral queens to requeen to try and get away from this trait. I have learned that just surviving is not enough.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Sorry to hear about your experiences with less-than-desireable (for managed colonies, anyway) "feral" bees. Better luck in the future!

Just curious, though; if you've been trying them for several years, what makes them "feral" in your mind? Are all bees "feral?" What makes these different from any other bees in any other managed colonies?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Along the lines of "managed" bees, or trying to prevent swarming, I'll play devil's advocate.

I feed a flock of blue jays around my house. The feeding schedule means that they return to my feeder daily to pick up their food. In a way, I'm "managing" them, since they don't leave to look for food in other places. Are these blue jays "feral?" "Domesticated?" "Captive?" "Wild?"

Now, how do such terms really apply to honey bees. Sure, I manage my bees, but they're certainly not captive. I wouldn't say that they're "wild" or "domesticated," really, either. Does that make them "feral?"

Maybe "managed" versus "unmanaged" would be better terms to describe honey bee colonies.


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

>I feed a flock of blue jays around my house. The feeding schedule means that they return to my feeder daily to pick up their food. In a way, I'm "managing" them, since they don't leave to look for food in other places. Are these blue jays "feral?" "Domesticated?" "Captive?" "

Since blue jays are native wildlife you are simply feeding native wildlife.

One thing that seems to be forgotten here in regards to the honeybee is that honeybees are not native to this continent but were introduced as a domestically managed pollenator and honey producer. In strict terms any honeybees that are not being managed by humans and kept for our purposes (whatever those may be) would be considered feral. There is no such thing as a "wild" honeybee in the Americas.

Domestic animals to me are any animals that have been selectively bred by humans to enhance any desirable traits that we need to accomplish the purpose for which we want to keep the animals. If the animal is native, it would not be considered feral when it returns to its natural state. If the animal is non-native it is considered feral when it returns to its natural state (by natural state I mean it reproduces and performs its natural function with no human intervention whatsoever). 

That being said in the USDA papers I have read, they refer to the bees as "commercial" and "feral". This may more accurately describe the reality of the situation when you are referring to the source of the honeybee stock in question. Once a previously feral colony is captured and subject to human management, by strict definition, it ceases to be feral.

[ July 06, 2006, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ]


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

>If the animal is native, it would not be considered feral when it returns to its natural state..

This statement that I made in the previous post is not strictly true. It would depend on the degree of domestication of the animal. Many domestic animals have undergone so much selective breeding or even hybridization so as to be considerd feral if they escape and return to their natural state because they are now so different from the original indigenous populaton.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--And now we throw another term into the mix: "woodland ferals." Just out of curiosity, what makes these bees different than any other "ferals?"

Kieck,

There is a BIG difference! Same as in domestic queen breeding, all feral queens BY FAR are not created equal. IF you think all feral queens are the same, well Id be more than happy to sell you my dud queens from the ferals I reject instead of killing them.









Woodland ferals tend to be more isolated than ferals located in other areas. Prof. Adrian Wenner describes the potential that exists for varroa resistance due to heavy natural selection pressure in remote feral bee colonies. 

What makes woodland ferals special:

* Relative isolation 
* Heavy natural selection pressure
* Perfect bee habitat with an abundance of voids 
* An abundance of voids means more woodland feral colonies which means more feral drones which aids in the dominance of mating resulting in the diluting of poor genetics from outside areas. 

From assessing many ferals side by side, it is easy to see the different traits that are prominent in the woodland ferals as compared to ferals from lets say the open lands or near to domestic beekeeping. With drones flying rarely more than 3.5 miles, the genetics best suited for a particular area will have greater mating fitness over that not suited for the area. And the abundant voids found in woodlands makes it perfect habitat for honeybees. Genetic pockets of feral bees best suited for each micro environment will tend to dominate in each area. The problem is that the farmland open areas sometimes tend to be dominated by domestic beekeeping and genetics shipped from other areas which can have a negative impact on the adapted feral genetics in these areas.

To give you an idea of how NOT EQUAL ferals are. I tend to collect about 10 to 15 feral swarms each season for assessing, By the end of the beekeeping season, I will have eliminated around 50% of the ferals collected, and then by next spring, I may eliminate a couple more.

[ July 06, 2006, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

I call feral bee's any bee's I catch that isn't in a hive body, I will call them feral survivors after they live 3 years with no treatments  . even the removals I do I cant call them survivors even if the home owner tells me they have been there 5-10 years, I just want the bee's to prove it to me.....

[ July 06, 2006, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: TwT ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Just on this short thread we have differing definitions of "feral"
See my confusion?

Dan, why should you be confused? Define them as you want, everybody else does!









The only reason I have my own definitions for survivor, feral, stray, and categories such as farmland ferals or woodland ferals is basically for my own use in assessing and categorizing the ferals I catch into groups so as to distinguish by the name which general environment they originated or how influenced or NOT influenced to the domestic side they might be. Then, I can better compare to see what traits are pronounced in each group for better evaulation in my selection process. If others cant accept it, thats their problem, but this is what I decided was necessary for me to do in my feral project.


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

good post Pcolar, all my hives are feral (18) and I have done nothing to them (6 the rest I raised from them) and all I want is a hive that lives, I know queen failures and other thing happen but at the end I want the living kind now and when I get enough that survive I will go from there on honey production and such.... I just started spring of last year with bee's and I don't want to put chemicals or acids to my hives...... wish me luck!!!!!!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Good luck Ted.

Thats very good that you have 18 feral colonies, that takes time to accomplish. The key for me has been using ferals and regressing to small cell and no treatments. Also, I have made great improvements by not pampering my bees which helps me in identifying the best colonies. 

Also, dont be afraid to eliminate poor performers, get them out of the gene pool ASAP. Bottom performers must eliminated each year (I usually requeen them using my best assessed feral swarms for that season) and the top performers must get split. Also, poor brood viability queens requires immediate queen termination. Hygienic testing I found is important as an indicator because the top testing hygienic colonies will tend to be your best producers, this helps to identify the best colonies to split from. Non hygienics must be eliminated also, if this is kept up, you will see remarkable improvements in a few seasons. 

If you would like, I Would be happy to call you sometime to explain how I assess my feral swarms ect. Just drop me an email.


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

>>Dan, why should you be confused? Define them as you want, everybody else does! 

My confusion comes in when I read multiple threads and listen to various beekeepers discussing ferals and feral survivors. Those terms apparently mean different things to different people. I was simply hoping to get some sort of standard or consensus as to their meaning so I would have a point of reference when the subject came up. 

Frankly, I don't have an opinion as I don't have any colonies that I would consider feral. I have caught no swarms, done no cut-outs etc. I simply bought 2 nucs in 2004 and 1 nuc in 2005 and at last count had 30 colonies and 26 nucs all grown from those 3 purchased nucs. 

I guess its my lack of experience with any "ferals" or "feral survivors" that prompted my need for clarification. 

To me the bottom line is that we need bees that can be strong and not only survive but thrive. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether those bees come from "ferals", "feral survivors", or regular domesticated honey bees that have adapted to handle the pressures of mites and diseases. Just so long that it happens. 

I used to catch swarms with my Dad as a kid. I'll never forget the excitement that came with getting them and taking them back home. 

Whatever you call your bees, I hope that they make you lots o honey!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Those terms apparently mean different things to different people. I was simply hoping to get some sort of standard or consensus as to their meaning so I would have a point of reference when the subject came up. 

There are perfectly fine definitions for strays, ferals that do apply here to honeybees also, and how the term survivors is commonly used in beekeeping defines this term. 

But experience has proven that you will rarely get anyone to agree on anything on this list. 

--Whatever you call your bees, I hope that they make you lots o honey!


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Does anyone run bees that are not survivors? How much honey do those things make?

Keith


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I've just got to keep picking at this, kind of like a scab that's almost healed over.

"Since blue jays are native wildlife you are simply feeding native wildlife." -Gene Weitzel

Right, and I largely agree. But my point in the whole thing was that I might encourage my bees to return to their hives (much like I encourage the blue jays to return to my feeders), but I can't really stop them from leaving. If they wish to leave, they leave. I don't keep my bees in captivity, really.

So, let's look at a different type of creature: domestic cats. We all (hopefully) know that feral cats run all over the country. Now, if you capture a feral cat and keep it in your house, is it still a feral cat? What makes it any different than a cat that you've had in your house since it was born? Sure, the one that had been feral might have better hunting/survival skills if it gets turned loose again, but otherwise, what's the difference?

Keeping going with the same idea, you take two feral cats, bring them back into captivity, and raise a litter of kittens from them. What makes those kittens any different than kittens from a pair of cats that have never been out of a house? Are the kittens from the recaptured feral cats still "feral?" Why?

I think the term "stray" is important in all this. "Feral," as opposed to "stray," implies that the bees are surviving and probably reproducing on their own (without management).

"Woodland ferals tend to be more isolated than ferals located in other areas. Prof. Adrian Wenner describes the potential that exists for varroa resistance due to heavy natural selection pressure in remote feral bee colonies." -Pcolar

I suppose. Here's the rub, though. Go find me a "grassland feral" colony. Honey bees, by nature, are woodland creatures. I think what you're really considering is the isolation, rather than the habitat.

I surprized that Varroa pressure would be that great in strongly isolated colonies anyway. Conventional wisdom suggests that colonies that are very isolated wouldn't face the pressure from Varroa that colonies in more densely populated areas would face. In fact, the isolation from pressure by Varroa might mean that those "feral" colonies have never faced selective pressure. They might be surviving simply because they've never faced Varroa in great enough numbers to limit them.


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

>>I think the term "stray" is important in all this. "Feral," as opposed to "stray," implies that the bees are surviving and probably reproducing on their own (without management).

This is basically my same line of thought. Once you begin to manage them they are no longer feral. When I say management I'm not just talking about mite and disease treatments. I'm talking about manipulating brood chambers, requeening, adding supers, increasing ventilation, IPM techniques, etc...

In my opinion, to refer to such managed colonies as feral is only referring to where they came from not what they are now. This is of course assuming that their were actually ferals in the first place. Just picking up a swarm about which no known history exists IMHO doesn't qualify.

I guess a feral colony to me is one that has survived and thrived for 2-3 years in an unmanaged environment. Or call "feral" a swarm thrown from such a colony. Personally, I'd prefer a minimum of 3 years unmanaged to call it a "feral" survivor but I could deal with 2 (maybe).







There are colonies that can handle mite loads for one year and don't collapse until sometime in the second year. Make it to 3 years with decent mite pressure and maybe we have something. 

It gets complicated though because a 3 year "feral" colony in an isolated area will not have the same mite pressures as a "feral" colony with many other hives in the vicinity. 

To go along the same lines as MountainCamp, "feral" has local implications. If you could transplant a tree housing a "feral" colony from Georgia to Wisconsin it may or may not be able to survive the different climatic and other pressures.

I said earlier that I didn't really have an opinion. I've changed my mind!







I have been thinking about it and have decided that I am really of the opinion that "feral" and "feral survivor", in my mind and with MY definitions, are interchangeable terms.

[ July 12, 2006, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Dan Williamson ]


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

There are more areas than just woodland and grassland.

http://s81.photobucket.com/albums/j226/Iddee/4%20story%20removal/

If a stray is captured, is it still a stray?


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

Yes. It's a "captured stray"!  

Joking aside, as I mentioned in my last post, I think anytime we capture something and manipulate it in anyway (put in our boxes, give it frames etc....) then using the term "stray, feral, or feral survivor" simply refers to where it came from and not what it is now.

[ July 12, 2006, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Dan Williamson ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"There are more areas than just woodland and grassland." -Iddee

Very true. However, I still stand by my claim. Honey bees live naturally in wooded areas (woodlands). At least, Apis mellifera did naturally. Out in a real grassland, I've never seen an unmanaged honey bee colony. I doubt honey bees would live above the tree line in alpine areas.

I know you can find colonies in urban areas, too, but look at how similar urban areas are to woodlands from the perspective of a honey bee: tall objects, lots of cavities in which to build hives, etc. And humans tend to plant trees, even in urban areas. Where, in a prairie, would honey bees find places to build hives? Typically in trees along waterways. But the trees, again, make those areas "wooded."

I like Dan's ideas about "ferals" versus "strays." As far as talking about the origins of where the bees came from, though, does it really count after a while? I understand why queen breeders are making the distinctions, but what if I called my bees, "descendants of wild stock?" Technically, they are -- the wild stock was just put in managed hives many, many generations ago (as far as I know), but at some time their ancestors must have been "wild."


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

Truly at some level, especially for those marketing these types of products, it can come down to purely symantics.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

Well. Kieck, acording to that post, I guess we will have to quit calling them Italian, Russian, or German bees. After all, that is just where they came from. In the case of italian and German, hundreds of years ago. To call them ferals, once captured, like Dan said, they are "captured ferals". Their descendants are "from feral stock".

When they leave a managed hive and go to the woods, they are strays. Once they supercede or swarm, and all the bees in the colony were born in the wild, they are ferals.
Actual escapee= stray
descendants of strays=ferals


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I guess, maybe, Iddee. But, see, many of the forms you listed actually display morphological differences. That's where the third names in the scientific names come from. The first, Apis, is the genus. The second, mellifera, is the species. And the third is the subspecies, based on distinct differences. In other words, taxonomists can tell the differences among these bees based on morphological details. 

Italians are Apis mellifera ligustica.
Germans are Apis mellifera mellifera (the "nominate" subspecies).
Carniolans are Apis mellifera carnica.
Causcasians are Apis mellifera caucasica.
Africans are Apis mellifera scutellata.
And so on.

These aren't just "where" they came from. The differences are great enough that trained people can clearly distinguish among them.

So how about Buckfast bees? Well, they're hybrids of several subspecies, so they don't really fit into any single subspecies well.

But based on your definitions, Iddee, of strays and ferals, I could catch a swarm from one of my hives, put them into a managed hive, and sell them as "ferals."


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

"That's where the third names in the scientific names come from. The first, Apis, is the genus. The second, mellifera, is the species. And the third is the subspecies, based on distinct differences. In other words, taxonomists can tell the differences among these bees based on morphological details. 

Italians are Apis mellifera ligustica.
Germans are Apis mellifera mellifera (the "nominate" subspecies).
Carniolans are Apis mellifera carnica.
Causcasians are Apis mellifera caucasica.
Africans are Apis mellifera scutellata.
And so on."

If you check out the USDA's papers on genetic diversity of the introduced honey bee population in this country (both commercial and feral), you will realize that all the bees here are hybrids of all of these subspecies (even a small amount of scutellata has been in the mix for a long time before their introduction in Brazil). This IMO is why FABIS has been pretty unreliable in identifing AHB based on morphological differences, but thats another issue.

I still agree with the notion that "ferals" are bees that have been able to survive in a "wild like" state without human management for at the very least more than one season. Once they are captured and managed they are no longer "feral" but they could be labeled "previously feral". "Strays", fits swarms captured from unknown managed hives very well. Without being able to identify the source of a swarm, it would be difficult to classify it as "feral" ("strays" or "mutts" comes to mind here as well). Come to think of it, based on the USDA's findings "mutts" fits them all pretty well, so maybe "ferals" and "strays" are the best choices.

[ July 12, 2006, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ]


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

>>>>But based on your definitions, Iddee, of strays and ferals, I could catch a swarm from one of my hives, put them into a managed hive, and sell them as "ferals." [Wink]<<<<

No, but if one of your hives swarmed into a hollow tree in your yard and you caught a swarm, other than the first swarm, from that tree, you could claim that swarm as coming from ferals. Once you put them in a box, they begin producing domestic bees from feral stock.
Again, feral means non-native living more than 1 generation in the wild without human assistance.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Lol,

I think all of you are wrong. There is no such thing as a domestic bee. Think about it a minute. A cat can be domesticated, a dog can be domesticated, a cow, a horse, etc. But a bee could care less about living in the proximity of man.

From that viewpoint, there are only two kinds of bees. Managed bees and unmanaged bees. Managed bees are in hives and are tended by man for his own ends. Unmanaged bees have to fend for themselves as they have done for however many millions of years.

Fusion


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

Fusion

>There is no such thing as a domestic bee.

You should no better than to argue with the likes of us (see the Sumac thread).  

*Domestication is a phenomenon whereby a wild biological organism is habituated to survive in the company of, or by the labor of, human beings. Domesticated animals, plants, and other organisms are those whose collective behavior, life cycle, or physiology has been altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions under careful human control for multiple generations. Humans have brought these populations under their care for a wide range of reasons: for help with various types of work, to produce food or valuable commodities (such as wool, cotton, or silk), and to enjoy as pets or ornamental plants. *(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication )

All of the bees in this part of the world are all hybrids of several subspecies that occurred naturally on the other side of the planet. As a result of our "management" they are all domestic because their physiology no longer resembles the honey bee in its native wild state. "Ferals" are the ones that have escaped domestication and have managed to survive on their own:

*A feral animal or plant is one that has escaped from domestication and returned, partly or wholly, to its wild state. Rarely will the environment have evolved to accommodate the feral organism into its established ecology. Therefore, feral animals and plants often cause disruption or extinction to some indigenous species. Feral animals reduce the pristine quality of wilderness.* (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral )

[ July 12, 2006, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

----->
--It gets complicated though because a 3 year "feral" colony in an isolated area will not have the same mite pressures as a "feral" colony with many other hives in the vicinity.
----->


The terms isolated or remote when used in reference to feral honeybees, I assumed means ferals that were distant from beekeeper activity, and not necessarily that there be no or fewer hives in the vicinity. 


This is from an article by Adrian Weener: 

Feral colonies located remote from beekeeper activity could now have strains quite resistant to varroa mites and should be investigated (A. Wenner)

http://www.beesource.com/POV/wenner/varroaabstract.htm 

Not sure that the mite pressure from colonies in the vicinity would be that much different in isolated areas than in a non isolated area near to beekeeper activity. Looking at the feral census done by Seeley in 2002, a total of 8 feral colonies were located in a 6.5 square mile forested area of the Arnot forrest. This comes to over 1.2 feral colonies per square mile.


----------



## hrogers (Dec 16, 2000)

Howdy All --

Those of us who keep "ferals" do so with the hopes (some evidence) that they have some sort of resistance to mites. BUT I can assure you that if you are invaded by Beetles as I was, that
the ferals show no evidence of resistance. I have stopped selling any colonies to areas which do not have beetles. You will have them soon enough without my help!

Doc


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I've got to nit-pick just a bit, maybe play "devil's advocate," too.

". . . Domesticated animals, plants, and other organisms are those whose collective behavior, life cycle, or physiology has been altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions under careful human control for multiple generations. . . ." -[from Wikipedia]

"As a result of our "management" they are all domestic because their physiology no longer resembles the honey bee in its native wild state." -Gene Weitzel

What part of their physiology has changed? I'm really not seeing this one. This is why I mentioned before, and Fusion_power suggested the same thing, that bees really might never be domesticated. Is the physiology of domesticated bees really different than the physiology of wild bees? How so?

"The terms isolated or remote when used in reference to feral honeybees, I assumed means ferals that were distant from beekeeper activity, and not necessarily that there be no or fewer hives in the vicinity. 


This is from an article by Adrian Weener: 

Feral colonies located remote from beekeeper activity could now have strains quite resistant to varroa mites and should be investigated (A. Wenner)" -Pcolar

First, please note that Adrian Wenner uses terms I would expect from a scientist.

"Feral colonies located remote from beekeeper activity COULD not have strains. . . ." A. Wenner, emphasis Kieck's

"Could," not "would" not "will" nor even "should." The possibility is there, but it doesn't mean that such resistance exists.

I figured what was meant by "remote." I think "isolated" is a poor term for such a situation, unless combined with "from beekeeper activities."

What I was pointing out in all this, though, was the use of "woodland." I still stand by my previous claims: honey bees, in their very basic natural history, are woodland creatures.

But I wonder whether bees exposed to more mites -- maybe bees in or near managed colonies -- wouldn't develop resistance to Varroa faster than bees in remote locations. After all, the greater the selective pressure, the faster I would expect resistance to develop. Are Varroa more numerous in these "remote" locations? If not, why would resistance to Varroa develop more rapidly there than around managed hives?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Are Varroa more numerous in these "remote" locations? If not, why would resistance to Varroa develop more rapidly there than around managed hives?"

If there were less verroa in these "remote" areas, I would expect that resistance to verroa would not develop, and they would be more sustitiable to verroa rather than resistant. In order for resistance to build, there needs to be continual exposure to whatever organisum you are building resistance to, no exposure, no resistance.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I would expect, too, Peggjam, that bees in areas with fewer Varroa mites would be less likely to develop resistance. But the question remains: Are Varroa more numerous in "remote" locations?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Varroa spread wherever there is a continuous pattern of bees to transport them. This means a mite hitches a ride on a bee, gets off on a flower, waits for another bee to come along, and hitches another ride. This basic pattern is repeated innumerable times so long as the foraging range of colonies overlap. But if a colony is located in an area such that it has no forage overlap with any infested colony, then no infection can take place. Of course, human activity can impact this since humans transported varroa infested bees all over the U.S.

This means a colony would have to be very remote indeed to have no overlap with any infested colony given that varroa are in all colonies that I have inspected for the last 8 years. That includes lots of feral and lots of remotely located feral colonies.

Fusion


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"But the question remains: Are Varroa more numerous in "remote" locations?"

I like Fusion's post, and it stands to reason that that would indeed be the case. There could be cases where verroa are not as numorous if, as an example, a feral colonies forage area was only overlapped on some of it's area, in these cases verroa pressure would not be as great, and I would expect that lack of resistance would refect this. I doubt that any feral coloney could build any type of resistance to mites unless they were also pressured by mites, to the extent that resistance could be built up. So would you find feral colonies with mite resistance in "remote" locations that would provide any useful surviovar traits against mites? Unlikely.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

-----
What I was pointing out in all this, though, was the use of "woodland." I still stand by my previous claims: honey bees, in their very basic natural history, are woodland creatures.
------

I couldnt agree more.
My point is feral honeybees will select thru natural selection traits that benefit them in that environment.

Honeybees in the far north would thru natural selection will select for traits that can survive long cold winters.
Honeybees in the south would not need to select for traits that can survive long cold winters.

Honeybees in the woodlands would thru natural selection would select for the genetics that benefit them in a wooded environment where forage and conditions are much different than in the open lands. 

Brother Adam:
Nature's aim in breeding is limited exclusively to the preservation and dissemination of a species and her sole means of doing this is a ruthless selection. Whatever could not adapt itself to a given environment was without exception left to its doom.

[ July 13, 2006, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

------
"Are Varroa more numerous in these "remote" locations? If not, why would resistance to Varroa develop more rapidly there than around managed hives?"
------

Honeybees in remote locations would develop resistance more rapidly because there would be less chance of the queen mating with genetics that should have been eliminated by natural selection (that being domestic chemically treated propped up colonies). Poor genetics that should have died off were being allowed to continue to hinder the natural development of varroa resistance in areas too close to domestic beekeeping. See Bro Adam: 


Brother Adam:
Nature's aim in breeding is limited exclusively to the preservation and dissemination of a species and her sole means of doing this is a ruthless selection. Whatever could not adapt itself to a given environment was without exception left to its doom.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Honeybees in remote locations would develop resistance more rapidly because there would be less chance of the queen mating with genetics that should have been eliminated by natural selection (that being domestic chemically treated propped up colonies)."

Depends on your defination of "remote". If your defination of "remote" is where they do not have interlapping forage areas, your somewhat otimstic. In order for honeybees to build resistance to anything, they have to have pressure from that organisism. That would be like saying mites would develop resistance to Apistan, even IF, nobody ever used it, as in it was never marketed. 
In order for honeybees to develop any useable traits against mites they would have to actually have mites in order for natural selection to proceede, ie, survialval of the fittest. Yes, mating with drones from "propped up " hives would slow the process. But it is part of the overall process of trait development. So honeybees developing any useable traits in areas that are so remote as to not have mites, would in reality build no resistance at all.


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

OK,OK,OK,,,,,,, LET ME THROW A RENCH IN IT!!!!!
I have said and asked this a few times about breeds of bee's that most people buy, unless you get a AI or II queen the rest people buy from breeders are open mated, (I'll ask this question here and see what answers I get),,,, say I buy Italians from someone that open mated, then I open mate them and sale as Italians and a few that buys from me does the same thing,,,,, in the end we all have a bunch of mutts that act like Italians right???? I know about saturating drones in a area but when you open mate you will still have a wild drone or more in the bunch that mate your queens, so in a sense (to me) most people have feral or wild hives in there hives..... How many of you have open mated queens and called them what their mother was after open mating and how for up the line was open mated???? in the end they might act different but they all cousins  , where is the line drawn????????

[ July 13, 2006, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: TwT ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--peggjam 

It would probably safe bet to assume that there are no remote places in the continental USA that have not been exposed to mites. 

Its ok to have an overlapping of forage and mating areas. Because queens are polyandrous, complete isolation is not necessary. For example, for a colony to express for the trait hygienic behavior, as little as 7% of the worker bees must have the trait.

Speaking of Depends on your defination

Use what ever word you want to substitute for remote., but by saying remote colonies I mean colonies that are located not near to domestic beekeeping. By saying not near what I mean is far away. By saying far away I mean tending to be further away rather than closer. By saying closer I mean to be in the relative vicinity. By saying of vicinity, I mean relative to the locality that the domestic bees are located.









I hope this clears things up .


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

As long as we agree that they need to be pressured by mites to develop resistance to mites, I am in total agreement







.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"say I buy Italians from someone that open mated, then I open mate them and sale as Italians and a few that buys from me does the same thing,,,,, in the end we all have a bunch of mutts that act like Italians right????"

If the orginal queen used to produce the queen that you bought was a "pure" Italian, that was II with known Italian drones, then what you have bought is indeed a "pure" Italian, which is how most commercial queen breeders operate. Now, if you used these queens to produce queens to sell, you would have queens for sale that are 50% Italian queens, depending on the source of sperm used to fertilize that particular egg. If the area your queen breeder used for open mating is saturated with Italian drones chances are good that the queen you have for sale is pure, but there is also a chance, however remote, that it could have been fertilized with the oddball drone that did mate with the breeder queen you are using. Then it would depend on how you run your mating yards as to what the chances are of the offspring of the queen you sell will be.

[ July 13, 2006, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: peggjam ]


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Any unmanaged (feral) bees still alive today in an area hit by varroa would of necessity be resistant to some degree.

The unfortunate truth is that beekeepers who treat their bees for mites are holding back progress. The only way to consistently produce mite tolerant bees is to stop treating for mites and let the bees fend for themselves.

Beekeepers who treat for mites usually have large numbers of colonies compared to the unmanaged population. This means they are saturating the area with susceptible drones. The natural conclusion is that unmanaged bees collected as far as possible from managed (treated) colonies would be the most likely to show varroa tolerance.

Fusion


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

> If the original queen used to produce the queen that you bought was a "pure" Italian, that was II with known Italian drones, then what you have bought is indeed a "pure" Italian, which is how most commercial queen breeders operate. Now, if you used these queens to produce queens to sell, you would have queens for sale that are 50% Italian queens, depending on the source of sperm used to fertilize that particular egg. If the area your queen breeder used for open mating is saturated with Italian drones chances are good that the queen you have for sale is pure, but there is also a chance, however remote, that it could have been fertilized with the oddball drone that did mate with the breeder queen you are using. Then it would depend on how you run your mating yards as to what the chances are of the offspring of the queen you sell will be.


this is true but how do you know the breeder you are buying from has a queen like your talking about, not every big breeder has AI or II queens in every hive they breed from, a guy that has 1000 hives I know about buys 30 AI or II queens every few years but that's to keep his hives from inter breeding...... so what make that statement clear... I have seen it in a few place(not saying) but I know how they operate.... so it goes back to my question, how do you know what you get is what you bought,,, the only way is to see how the bee's act??????????

[ July 14, 2006, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: TwT ]


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

how many queen raiser have the same breed of bee anyway???

[ July 13, 2006, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: TwT ]


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"not every big breeder has AI or II queens in every hive they breed from,"

But I think most do have these queens, and that is what they graft from. Breeder queens are expensive, but pure. 

"a guy that has 1000 hives I know about buys 30 AI or II queens a year but that's to keep his hives from inter breeding"

For that kind of investment, it better be for more than just keeping his bees from interbreeding. Does he also sell queens? Granted most of the smaller guys don't buy II queens, and are selling mutt bees, but I prefer mutt bees anyway, I think the perform better, and last longer.

"how many queen raiser have the same breed of bee anyway???"

A better question is how many queen breeders get their queens from the same sourace, and where does the sourace get theirs?


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

>>For that kind of investment, it better be for more than just keeping his bees from interbreeding. Does he also sell queens? Granted most of the smaller guys don't buy II queens, and are selling mutt bees, but I prefer mutt bees anyway, I think the perform better, and last longer.<<

yup he sales queens, and told me his self that some of his feral bee's was better than what he was getting but had to raise them to sale that breed or breeds but most people want the name brand bee's not ferals....

[ July 14, 2006, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: TwT ]


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

I made a typo in the above post that should have said he buys those queens every few years(about 3) to keep his lines straight...... sorry!!!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

----->
The unfortunate truth is that beekeepers who treat their bees for mites are holding back progress. 
----->

Good point Fusion!
Not only that, but consider that the beekeeper must assess for this resistance. How is he or she going to select the resistant colonies from amongst all the treated colonies?


----------



## Justi (Apr 9, 2021)

NW IN Beekeeper said:


> ..and survivor queens is also a misnomer.
> 
> anyone selling non-survivor queens?
> what sort of pattern does a non-survivor queen lay?


To me if it can't survive without treatments from humans it's not a survivor line


----------

