# SMR Bees



## Sherpa1 (Dec 10, 2005)

My 14 year old son plans to start a hive this Spring. We have read about bees with SMR trait and would like to start with bees with this trait. Where could we purchase SMR package bees with SMR Queens for delivery in the Spring? 
In the online Glenn Apiary catalog, it shows a chart with the characteristics of several Queens - Mn Hyg, Carniolan, Russian, SMR, and Cordovan, with the SMR having a high resistance to Varroa mites. However, on the order form it lists under variety Mn Hyg, Carniolan, Russian, and Cardovan (no SMR Queen). My question then is, was the SMR listed on catolog chart an actual Queen variety that is available or was the chart just showing a characteristic (they had pictures of each type Queen). I appreciate any help.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

IMO, I think you'll be happier with the MN hygenics than the SMRs. I've had SMRs and they were prone to abscond and, runny (nervous on the comb) and not that productive.

SMRs are from bees bred from feral survivors by Dr. Harbo for varroa resistance. A great idea, but they need more good traits than just that.

They also need to be gentle and productive and calm.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Isn't the MN hygenics bred for AFB resistance as the primary selection when the line was first selected and processed? Unless you has a previous problem or are a commercial operation, AFB hengenic traits are not a high priority. Yes, they add that "some" v-mite resistance has been selected or seen, but this was not the primary concern in the selection process.

For the average beekeeper, I would think SMR would be higher on a scale of choice. Dealing with mites for me is the main concern. Not AFB. I eliminate AFB if found, and will not wait for bees to clean it up or allow it to persist any longer than the time it takes to burn a hive. 

Each kind of bees have pro's and con's. Although MB has had bad luck with SMR's, I like them. If you choose not to get SMR's however, I would think that there are other bees to consider instead of MN. Of all the lines out there, MN would not rank high on my list. 

As for packages, there are several that advertise on the Glenn website under "Package bee and naturally mated quenn suppliers. These are breeders that start with Glenn AI stock and go from there. Several advertise SMR bees and ship packages.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Isn't the MN hygenics bred for AFB resistance as the primary selection when the line was first selected and processed? Unless you has a previous problem or are a commercial operation, AFB hengenic traits are not a high priority. Yes, they add that "some" v-mite resistance has been selected or seen, but this was not the primary concern in the selection process.

Dr. Marla Spivak says hygenic behavior will help with mites as well as any brood disease. She is not really measuring the bees response to any particular brood problem, just any problem happening in a capped cell.

>Although MB has had bad luck with SMR's, I like them.

You are right. Someone else may have better luck than I did with SMRs and I only got some from Weaver and have not tried any other supplier. But that was my experience, and I think it would be a bit dissapointing to a newbee. Other's I've talked to had similar dissapointments.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

>"Dr. Marla Spivak says hygenic behavior will help with mites as well as any brood disease. She is not really measuring the bees response to any particular brood problem, just any problem happening in a capped cell."

Taken from the Glenn website and was published in ABJ in 1999. 
>"My goal in breeding the hygienic line of bees was to demonstrate to the beekeeping industry that this behavior is a mechanism of resistance to American foulbrood and chalkbrood, and is one mode of defense against Varroa mites. I wanted to demonstrate how to select for the behavior so that queen producers could breed for it from among their own stocks. I think I have accomplished these goals. The most effective and genetically sustainable way to propagate the hygienic trait in US bees is to have many queen producers selecting for it, and I think there are many out there that are now doing that. However, there is demand to have queens from the breeding program available now, so I have decided to have the Glenn's help make them more readily available to the industry.

The breeder queens from the Minnesota Hygienic line demonstrate good resistance to AFB and chalkbrood, and some resistance to Varroa. I am defining resistance as the ability to defend themselves against these diseases and mite better than unselected colonies. Naturally mated daughters of the breeder queens will still require treatments for Varroa, however at less frequent intervals. If left untreated, especially when mite invasion pressure is high (when many colonies are located in one location for pollination or in migratory beekeeping) even the most hygienic colonies eventually will collapse. Don't be fooled by the word resistance!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

That may well have been her basic goal in 1999. I'm refering to what she said at a queen rearing workshop in June of 2005. I did not get the impression that her main focus was AFB. She talked about AFB, chaulkbrood and Varroa mites as issues that hygenic traits in bees would help with.

>Don't be fooled by the word resistance! 

I totatlly agree.


----------



## cmq (Aug 12, 2003)

The key point that you folks are missing is that we are talking about a 14 year old kid who wants to start in beekeeping. The single largest drawback for recruitment of new beekeepers is fear. Seems to me that the most important trait to pursue would be gentleness. This trait can also be combined w/ some mite tolerance as well as showing good production. Other traits such as hygienic behavior, SMR etc can be introduced once the lad is "hooked". I would suggest a gentle Italian line or the New World Carnolian depending on which area of the state you are located in. Either way have your queen marked.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

BeeSur

I agree with you.

But thanks for this discussion. I am considering buying an II queen. ONe I have been seriously considering is the Minnesota SMR.

The Peabody article in the Dec. ABJ (reprint from USDA Ag. Research Mag.) gives credit to the SMR (Suppress Mite Reproduction) trait id to Harbo and Harris, but does credit Spivak and Ibrahim with the hygenic impulse identification. So it seems that the trait was identified as SMR first, before it was understood that it was based on "hygenic" impulses.

I would appreciate advice on best queen to buy to use as breeder queen in the north. 

I think the answer to the question asked is that Minnesota Hygenics would have SMR traits. Am I right?

[ December 11, 2005, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: BerkeyDavid ]


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB, I was not talking about a "general" discussion she had in 2005. I was talking about the selection process and her research in her words with regards to the MN hygenics.  

Who's missing what??? A discussion on SMR and MN hygenic queens and bees is failing who???

Yes, the SMR is a trait that can be bred into or from any race of bees. It is selection process. Dr. Spivak was doing something that breeders had done years earlier in my opinion, its just they did not see the understanding and perhaps didn't see the puzzle at hand with all the pieces in front of them. Charlie Mraz, and others, had selected for AFB resistance and other traits years earlier. I am in no way diminishing Dr. Spivak, as she has taken it to a new level and perhaps shed light onto a missing science that beekeepers need to take hold of. She was really trying to show that any breeder can and should select for hygenic traits and perpetuate better lines of bees. This was originally done for AFB and other deseases but the carry over benefits to v-mites is evident.

She actually started her MN hygenics from standard Italian stock. Imagine if she had russian or some other stock to start from.

As for the 14 year old boy. I for one know nothing more demoralizing to new beekeepers as dead hives. I have Russians and can attest that they are no harder to handle than any other bee. They are doing the correct thing in asking questions, considering options, hearing the debates, and then deciding the options they want to go with. Telling a new beekeeper to get the most docile line of bees may or may not be good. Thats for nobody to decide but them. I for one am glad that instead of like so many new beekeepers they are not simply ordering from the same old package providers that are doing nothing more than passing off mass produced crappy bees.
As for the comment on "fear", I never heard that as a consideration coming from the original comments. Maybe someone needs to consider thier own comments and how it may be "read".  Get him crapy bees and then change him over to something they obviously want now??? Not sure if thats the best path in my opinion.


----------



## Sherpa1 (Dec 10, 2005)

Thanks to all for the very helpful comments and I hope that the discussion will continue.
I have read many of the topics here and my son and I have read several of the Beekeeping books (Beekeeping for Dummies, First Lessons in Beekeeping, The Classroom). It seems to us that one of the big problems with beekeeping recently is the problems with bee pests (particularly tracheal and varroa mites) and diseases. I was also impressed with the tendency of the mites to become resistant to one or more of the chemical treatments. My thinking is this: "If there are certain varieties of bees that have been developed that have some inbreed resistance to the mites, why not start with one of these varieties?"
We plan to start with only 2 hives, so if the resistant bees and/or queen cost more, it is not a big concern for us.
If I had to rank the characteristics of the bees that we would like to start with it would be 1)resistance to pests especially pests that could easily kill the colony such as the mites 2)ease of handling the bees which would include gentleness, tendency not to swarm or behave in other odd ways, tendency not to produce excessive propolis and 3)my least concern would be the amount of honey produced. There may be other considerations that others could add.
I consider this primarily the beginning of an educational rather than a commercial adventure, that is, I don't expect a monetary return on our investment.
I would be helping my son with the hives and don't think that he would have any more fear of the bees than any other beginning beekeeper.
Given these circumstances, how would you rank the varieties of bees that would meet our needs. We live in the Sandhills region of NC. Thank you all for your insights.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

I was at the same workshop as Michael. I have got respect for Marla and her work but the final proof is always in the bee.

Darrel Rufer ( seller of Marla's line) is in Texas right now recovering from the huge varroa losses he had this year I have been told (Nebraska beekeeper wintering in Texas).

I perhaps should not be talking about my friend Darrel without talking to Darrel first but my source has ALWAYS been reliable before.

The truth in the Minnesota hygienic is not very varroa tolerant and neither is the NWC. Tested both!

You can not find a true varroa tolerant bee without added varroa pressure. The reason in my opinion why Harbo & Harris failed to find a survivor in their original survivor search and went on to discover the SMR trait.

Dr. Harbo explained to me in person the method of finding the SMR trait. Hard, back breaking tedious work. Reason I have bought two Glenn Apiairies instrumental inseminated SMR breeder queens! (red & yellow lines).

I did find a SMR breeder queen in one of my lines but much easier to simply order a queen to get the trait.

I really like both Marla's line and Sue's NWC line but I would not consider both varroa tolerant ( or able to survive varroa untreated)

The statment by BjornBee about what if Marla had started her research with a Russian or another line rings true with me.

From what I have been told both Marla & Sue are dedicated to finding the varroa tolerant bee within their stock and I don't doubt they will ( just not sure when). 

Getting a queen from a commercial beekeeper like myself to improve their stock would be too easy! Right?

Can you see both getting up at a national meeting and saying they owe their varroa tolerant success to a breeder queen they received from Bob Harrison, Dann Purvis, Charlie Harper or the Baton Rouge Bee lab? Not going to happen!

Actually I am most likely the only person above which will take a varroa tolerant queen from any source and test and use! The smartest dog I ever had was a mongrel and the most varroa tolerant bee I ever had is a mongrel bee!


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

You could always try splitting the difference. I think that WG bee farm sells SMR/hygenic queens derived from Glenn Apiary stock. Some of the Georgia production queens are also very gentle and excellent comb builders. Its alway nice to have really good comb builders when you start out.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

novice b states:
f I had to rank the characteristics of the bees that we would like to start with it would be 1)resistance to pests especially pests that could easily kill the colony such as the mites 2)ease of handling the bees which would include gentleness, tendency not to swarm or behave in other odd ways, tendency not to produce excessive propolis and 3)my least concern would be the amount of honey produced. There may be other considerations that others could add.

tecumseh replies:
most certainly I would like to inquire with mr harrison in regards to the statement of beliefs that follows...

I see that one of your (novice bee) concern is a hives tendency to produce excessive propolis. it is my feeling that this requirement and the requirement noted as #1 may in fact be contrary. it is my opinion (based on some current casual observation) the the capacity to propolise is in fact essential for the defense of the hives resourses. for some of us who kept bees 3 or 4 decades back, you only had to read a little to realize that queen rearing at that time was monopolized by the twin concepts that 'the itilian breed' was the 'only' breed for the then modern day beekeeper and that the big concern was finding a bee stain that produced a very minimum of propolis. even then some beekeepers thought that this mode of thinking was error prone.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Rob, congratulations on your effort and insight. I also get breeders from Glenn. Although I order from many outfits to test and use in my operation, pure breeder queens are ordered to test and add to the line. Over-wintered breeders from hives that have had no treatment are also selected.

There are others out there making the sacrifices to find good queens. In the past four years including this year I have let a good number go without treatment. This includes hives numbering 100, 185, 285 and 420 the past four years. 

This is the first year I have had NWC going through winter in any numbers worth mentioning. They were somewhat hard to introduce but they also were some of my best honey producers. I ordered them from strachans. I had good success with them but this was with a small number in years past.

In allowing such numbers to over-winter without treatment, you really do see patterns of some lines doing better than others. I have committed myself to russians, NWC, SMR lines and queens from breeders that are upfront and obviously trying to do whats best in selecting and improving their own stock. In the end I am sure my bees are some "mongrel" form or another. I just want alive ones come spring......


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

[ December 12, 2005, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: BjornBee ]


----------



## WG Bee Farm (Jan 29, 2005)

IMO
As Bob has mentioned, the Minn. Hyg. Italian as promoted,(by itself)are not very varroa tolerant.
Marla mentioned in the American Bee Journal, Jan.'99 "Minnesota Hygienic line demonstrate good resistance to AFB and chalkbrood, and some resistance to Varroa" and "naturally mated daughters of the breeder queens will still require treatments for Varroa, however at less frequent intervals". 

There is a opporunity to increase varroa tolerance by having SMR traits added to Hygienic queens. I have been purchasing my II Minn. Hyg. breeder queens from Glenn Ap. and having them inseminated with SMR drones for the last 3 years.
The open mated daughters show hygienic behavior and appear to have lower mite counts. This does not mean that they can survive without treatment.
I feel that they can reduce the number of treatments annually, and use softer methods. But you must do mite counts to determine the levels of mites that you are working with in the hives.

Everything I have read states that incorporating SMR into a line of bees can reduce the amount of honey collected by 10-20 %. I have not noticed this myself. But, if true, it seems to be a small trade off for increasing some survivablity into the bees.
The queens that I have produced from these queen mothers have shown good brood patterns and build up.
There is no silver bullet out there, yet; but IMO there are some very promising alternatives where we can get away from blanket, calendar treatments for varroa wheather the bees need it or not.
Frank Wyatt
WG Bee Farm
Eden, NC


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

I spent a couple days this year with Marla Spivak( queen rearing class in June) and Sue Cobey( Kansas Honey Producers meeting in Oct.).
Both said they are stepping up the effort to make their lines more varroa tolerant. From the converstations you quickly see they are very precise about their queen selection and move slowly and carefully.
Two completely different methods than mine and Dann Purvis ( American Bee Journal Jan. 2005 article I wrote). 
Our method (sounds similar to BjornBee) is to find the varroa tolerant bee and then fine tune the final bee. We take the "live and let die" method to the extreme by trying to kill off 50% of *test hives* a year with added varroa pressure. To my knowledge Dann Purvis & I are the only two using such extreme methods( added varroa pressure).
The difference between my method and Dann Purvis is I use inbred stock to isolate the trait and then outcross to bring back brood viability. 
I found that one reason small beekeepers were coming up with varroa tolerant bees is they were isolated, the non varroa tolerant hives were crashing from varroa and then they were raising queens by walk away splits letting the bees inbreed. Does not work all the time but I have seen yards small beekeepers have came up with which had very varroa tolerant bees. Those beekeepers are always willing to trade an old queen for a new queen! They are always wondering why I would want to trade an old queen for a young queen.

Example:
An older beekeeper ( I buy his specialty honey crop each year)did exactly as above but he thought *PMS was foulbrood* for the last 12 years. I was the first person to tell him what he was looking at ( he lives in a very remote area and I am the only beekeeper he sees and then only once a year to pick up his small crop at his location). Everytime he saw PMS from varroa he killed the bees and burned all his equipment! He kept raising queens by walkaway splits from the survivors. Because he had been a sideline and now a small sideline he had plenty of equipment to continue. Good thing I came along as he has a big pile of wood ash and about out of extra bee equipment.
When I checked his bees ( Yugo at the start) 3 years ago he had bees producing honey but inbred. Clean brood wax (but old)as he has not used chemicals (but he has used Terramycin *trying to rid himself of AFB which I do not believe he ever had*)
The old beekeeper is in his eighties and was too proud to ask for help from a young wipper snapper (my age compared to his) until 3 years ago. He kept telling me about all the AFB problems he was having and the burning he was doing. He kept saying the AFB was different than he has ever seen and did not respond to terramycin. I wonder how many beekeepers which say they are seeing AFB resistant to terra are really seeing PMS. I never thought you could get the two mistaken but the old beekeeper did.
Last spring we introduced new varroa tolerant genetics (queens into his drone source) and he reported a month ego he had double the honey of last year for me and no signs of PMS ( was foulbrood to him). 
Next trip I will check his brood patterns but sure his brood viability has returned. 
Busy week for me as I am heading south soon so will be hard to answer questions.
The above is a thought provoking post which all on the list can learn from .

Merry Christmas!


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

BOb, Bjorn or others:

what do you think of using a Smart Russian Queens (SMR x Russian) as a breeder queen? Offspring queens would be naturally mated with local survivors...

according to Glenn Apiary Web site

Smart Russian queens are SMR queens mated to Russian drones. Russian queens were recently imported and tested by the USDA ARS. They have been naturally selected for resistance to Varroa mites in Eastern Russia where they have had nearly a century exposure to varroa. They are similar in color to our Carniolan bees. 


thanks for comments.

[ December 12, 2005, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: BerkeyDavid ]


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Dave,
I am thinking of trying another SMR breeder queen from Glenn Apiairies. We installed about 150 open mated F1 daughters of the pure SMR in production hives when they were first released. We had brood viability problems. I then took a F1 daughter and raised F2 queens from her. We still had a brood viability issue with her open mated daughters. Dr. Harbo told me the problem came from the inbreeding to isolate the SMR trait.

A famous queen breeder and I had a discussion over the brood viability. His position was that what I was seeing was hygienic behavior and the shotgun pattern was from the behavior. I disagreed saying I had five SMR queens in observation hives and would have noted the behavior. He had purchased and used SMR breeder queens but had never had one in an observation hive. When finally agreed to disagree.

Either way a shotgun brood pattern will hold up the most prolific queen. 

I liked the constant almost zero varroa count of the SMR but both the F1 and F2 would not work for the commercial beekeeper due to the shotgun pattern. Hives with shotgun brood patterns simply can not produce the bees needed to make a maximum honey crop!

I have been asked to evaluate the now being released Glenn apiairies II SMR queens. I believe I might as I am looking for a new experiment requiring around 100 hives. 
I started four experiments last year which will last several years. 

I am not a big fan of the Russian/Russian bee after four years of testing four different lines. I am going to join the new Russian queen breeders assn. if they don't toss me out for trying to find the perfect hybrid. I have got plenty of the pure Russian/Russian so I can't see why they would deny me membership. 

I find it interesting that those selling the Russian bee never talk about the short comings. I see little winter clusters and the queen shuting down queen laying with every change of the weather as a real problem for the commercial beekeeper. I also see selling the Russian bee into almond pollination (if plenty of beekeepers were competing for the almond pollination rentals) as a problem. If the almond growers ever go to paying on number of frames of bees the Russian bees will bring the low dollar the first of february.
I have sent Russian bees into California almond pollination and did have a converstation with the grower about the small Russian cluster size. He was not happy but he took the hives anyway. He liked the hives we had brought the year before sent from Texas. Wy wouldn't he as those hives were a month ahead of Midwestern hives. 

Russian queen/ NWC drones is the best cross I have had so far with the Russian. A close second or about the same would be the Russian queen/ Purvis Brothers gold line drones.

We used Marla Spivak hygienic drones for the first SMR queen drone source and survivor drones for the F2. I talked about earlier.

Back when I had SMR queens in OB hives the trait was simply called SMR. Now its a form of hygienic behavior acording to Marla & Harbo. I would like to get a few SMR queens in a few OB hives and take another look.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

David, I would not hesitate to order a SMR queen. I have several coming from Glenn this spring. I will also open mate with northern over-wintered chemical free bees.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

David,

While I raise queens in a pretty crude manner, the most mite resistant queen I've encountered was a purebred SMR artificially inseminated with russsian drones (this is the reciprocal cross of what most breeders sell). This hive maintained NO detectable mites for most of its first season, even though the entire apairy had quite heavey mite loads, as did my nearest neighbor. Unfortunately she was not a very good honey producer, but I feel that the daughter queens will have the best of both lines.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Aspera, Bjorn, Bob, Frank and all:

Thanks for comments. Bjorn or Aspera i am wondering if either of you experienced shotgun brood pattern from SMR queen? I am thinking the shotgun pattern described by Bob could be from in-breeding instead of a sign of hygenic behaviour.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

I would also be interested in Aspera or other list members which have used SMR breeder queens thoughts on the shotgun pattern.

I use inbreeding quite a bit as does Dr. Harbo so I find it interesting Dr. Harbo has said he now believes the empty cells are the result of pulled pupa. 

I am a big fan of Dr. Harbo and only a beekeeper so will take those with better knowledge at their word on the subject or at least until I can get my OB hives full of SMR queens with entrances closed ( as before) and see if pulled *pupa/larva* are being ate or placed in piles. I saw neither being done the last time I had SMR queens in hives.
I do believe the queens were laying in all cells and the bees were eating the diploid eggs/brood (done in the cell and done quickly which I did notice) caused by inbreeding (as did Dr. Harbo /Harris and the bee lab at the time).

To Aspera I say simply that when half your eggs being laid are being ate you will never get a field force to make a big honey crop or at times even an average honey crop. 

I have used inbreeding on my best honey production lines several times to prove to myself the point. Now when out crossed to create a hybrid with another hybrid line you get hybrid vigor which produces an amazing honey producer (which was done with the Midnight and Starline Dadant bees.) 
In my opinion when Dr. Larry Conners left the project the people running the Midnight & starline project did not keep control of the hybrids so the resulting queens produced did not carry the hybrid vigor resulting in average performance and commercial beekeepers saw the lines as a waste of money instead of a sound investment.
When right the Midnight & Starline queens produced superior honey crops. Without the hybrid vigor they were about the same as other similar lines.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

david, 
I did not see shotgun patterns from SMR queens. 50 of my hives were used this past year for experiments with Penn State and the Pa Ag dept. Some of those hives have daughters from my russian/smr breeder queens. Those hives had been inspected by numerous inspectors including myself, and bee industry leaders, all summer long. Brood pattern, bee population, and queen viability were all very closely watched and recorded as experiments were conducted. Shotgun patterns were not seen.

Rob, you commented "never talk about the shortcomings"
I have talked to a few russian sellers and have always had questions answered honestly concerning those areas you point out. As a seller of russians myself, I can say that small winter cluster, queens shutting down, and the other comments have been mentioned many times just on this forum alone. I do not see some of those qualities you mention as shortcomings. Of course I am not typically discussing January pollination in California.

Unless you ask about those features, and someone has refused, than I can see that. But as I said, I have spoke to a few and they were more than willing to tell me what they knew. If your suggesting that breeders do not openly comment on shortcomings of russian in advertisements, thats self-explainable. Most advertisements promote the positives, and leave out the negative. Its called marketing.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

BjornBee,
I guess Rinderer in his articles still needs to present the Russian bee as he did the Yugo bee to keep interest up. He he. He did a wonderful job of marketing the Yugo bee.

Many times researchers are like receivers in football. They want to run with the football before they catch the ball! Bee-L would never run a post with the above kidding of researchers! Why I like Beesource! 

I can only speak about my experience with SMR II breeder queens (as released by the Baton Rouge Bee lab several years ago). Both the F1 & F2 were doing shotgun patterns with mine and every beekeeper I spoke with which got the SMR Glenn Apiaires II breeder queens first release.

Perhaps the situation has been corrected by now?

Certainly a cross with the Russian would bring back brood viability if inbreeding was the original problem.

How varroa tolerant are these new SMR crosses? I bet not as much as the originals which after a whole season had zero to a single varroa in natural fall. Those F1 & F2 carried the lowest varroa count of any bee I ever tested.

Which brings us back to the revelation of Marla that SMR is a form of hygienic behavior and the bees are pulling and eating the pupa leaving the holes ( Baton Rouge bee lab web site information).

No holes but yet varroa tolerant with the new release. Interesting! 

I guess I will have to revisit the SMR issue with this years SMR release and see for myself.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

NoviceBee:

I recommend finding some local beekeepers (maybe some of you reading this thread are from NC?) and talking to them about their success with different races of bees. One of more of them may even be able to provide you with bees well suited to the local conditions.

You might want to explore the use of small/natural cell sizes. Michael Bush offers a lot of good advice on that topic (a lot of that advice can be found on other threads).

No matter what you choose, your best bet to avoid losses from Varroa mites is regular monitoring through sticky boards or ether or powdered-sugar rolls. If mite numbers are increasing, be prepared to treat. Again beekeepers in your area will be able to offer the best advice on treatment options. If monitored and treated properly, bees from strains that lack genetic resistance mechanisms for mites can be just as successfull as bees that have the genes.

No matter what, be ready for some losses as you start out. Like any other endeavor, the learning curve is the steepest at the beginning. I know I lost hives when I started out to stupid mistakes as well as diseases and parasites. Don't give up because a few hives of bees die out on you.

Best of luck!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Rob,
>Which brings us back to the revelation of Marla that SMR is a form of hygienic behavior and the bees are pulling and eating the pupa leaving the holes ( Baton Rouge bee lab web site information).

>No holes but yet varroa tolerant with the new release. Interesting!

How many holes are you assuming should there be? You say none or one on a mite drop when you looked at smr queens, and then suggest that with a shotgun pattern, there is what?..hundreds or thousands of mites within the comb being cleaned out by the bees??? Where were they (you) getting these mites? Were you introducing them?

Are you suggesting that to have a varroa tolerant bee you must have holes in the brood pattern? What if you had no mites to begin with on a level to equate into shotgun patterns? I would suggest that a low mite level would be seen also in a good brood pattern void of shotgun patterns. Having no mite drop as you suggest, and having shotgun patterns, would raise questions as to where these mites are coming from within the cells. Certainly they would be on the bees to complete the cycle and continue on a timeline worth noting by research standards.

Varroa tolerant bees and no holes. Yes I can see it. Mite tolerant bees and shotgun patterns with no mite drop as you suggest???? I'll have to think about that.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

BjornBee 
We are clearly not on the same page. Not unusual but makes things hard to cover. I will try a bit tomorrow to answer some of your questions. Glenn Davis (Bell Hill Honey) will be here any minute for a discussion and I have got a Christmas get together tonight.

Do you understand about brood viability? Alleles and inbreeding?

About the new hygienic SMR information? 
if not go to the Baton Rouge Bee lab SMR page and review the new information Dr. Harbo Posted Oct. 5th. of this year.

I think then you will better understand what I have written & why.

News flash!
Dr. Harbo is retiring the last of this month. What a loss to beekeeping!

Many of my posts confuse people which is normal. The reason why they are long most of the time. We are all on here to learn. Right?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I'll wait......


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The shotgun pattern is related to the laying of diploid drones. This only occurs with highly inbred crosses (e.g. SMR queen mated to SMR drones), and is related to bee lines that only possess a few sex alleles. Open mated queens almost never have this problem. SMR queens inseminated with non-SMR drones should be OK, although their daughters might shoot some blanks (if they are backcrossed to SMR drones). I did notice that for the first few days, some cells had multiple eggs present. This may have been due to a laying worker. The problem went away on its own.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm really sorry to hear about Harbo's retirement. Hopefully he will continue to keep bees and be active in the beek community.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Aspera, I understand alleles and in-breeding. I am just curious as to the comment Rob made about finding it interesting about the possibility of a varroa tolerate bee and no shotgun pattern. He gives the indication that this can not happen or that he has never seen it before.
My point has to do with maintaining bees with natural controls, having varroa tolerant bees, and through a very low or no mite count, this translating into a hive with no shotgun pattern. At some point mites would be at a level that just common sense would indicate that not enough mites would be present to cause shotgun patterns. If he finds that concept interesting, than I await the concept that this is unachievable. Tying in alleles, in-breeding, and brood viability to answer and provide a concept against this will be very interesting.

[ December 14, 2005, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: BjornBee ]


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

BjornBee & Aspera,
cannibalism in honey bees:
I only asked about the inbreeding to make sure I did not need to cover the complex world of inbreeding. Aspera did a good job of explaining the diploid drones. The one point left out was the fact that as soon as the bees see the brood is diploid drone they EAT the eggs/larva.Thw way they know the eggs are diploid drone is unknown. All the books say so and I have observed the behavior myself in OB hives.
The next case of cannibalism the beekeeper might observe is in a starving hive. When not starving most dead late stage brood is simply discarded either out the entrance or flown out 20 feet and dropped. A weak hive you might find the dead simply on the bottom board. 
I set up experiments twice to see the amount of pressure needed to force the OB hives into cannibalism. In both cases the bees were in fact starving before they resorted to cannibalism. One case only a few bees were involved and in the other they all joined in or so it seemed.
In both cases when a frame of honey was placed in the observation hive the cannibalism stopped.
Other researchers on the list may have observed different and would be interesting to hear their observations but those are mine.
I have never seen a cannibalism experiment published or heard about done so I did two myself.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I had edited my previous comment and did not realize Rob had already posted. I have returned my last post to its original for as to keep the information flowing uninterrupted without back changes.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

BjornBee & Aspera,
The question we are looking at is why the shotgun pattern with the SMR bees which was consistant (at first) in every hive. It is true the SMR II breeder queens were only a method to transport the SMR trait genetics (still not completely understood)to the beekeepers apiairies. 
We put over a 100 hives headed by F1 queens and over 50 headed by F2 queens. All had shotgun brood patterns and produced little if any honey due to in my opinion the lack of bees.
The books will say inbreeding is always cured by the F1 outcross. I would say a reasonable statement but there are exceptions with severe inbreeding.
The problem with outcrossing with say the Russian is you lose varroa tolerance with each outcross. The closer to RUssian/Russian the most varroa tolerance . the farther away from Russian/ Russian a marked loss of varroa tolerance.( Bob Harrison 2002)


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

I have got to stop for about thirty minutes for business reasons but will continue shortly. Sorry.
Will take about three more posts to finnish. I want Aspera & BjornBee to fully understand the issue so they can explain to others that hygienic behavior and SMR are not the same and why the *holes* issue is important.
Talk later


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Saying that SMR and AFB resistance have some mechanistic similarites doesn't seem like such a stretch to me. They are similar, but not the same. 

Bob,

I'm geussing that your F1 shotgun pattern queens were open mated daughters of a SMR homozygote X SMR drones. Even if the F1 mated with a single drone from her own hive, it could cause the problem that you mention. This problem is exactly 1/2 as severe with SMR X Russian hybrids open mated to a small percentage of SMR drones. I do not worry about diluting the Russian genetics, but rather maintaining the SMR trait. I primarily wish to maintain Italian buildup and brood rearing characteristics. I have taken it on faith that the carnie or russian characteristics are always superior in the paternal cross. If given a choice of "purebred" race, it would be hard to surpass the Italian in my apiary. Its temperment, comb building, honey production and low inclination to swarming are very endearing to me.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Is it fair to say, then, that there are really two different genetic sources/ descriptors for Varroa suppression:

1. SMR 
2. Hygenic (Bob will explain how this differs from SMR in a subsequent post)

The value of the Russian, by contrast, is that the Russian trait is to be tolerant of high mite loads. So with the Russians, by contrast, you are not really suppressing mite load but simply tolerating it.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Aspera,
I certainly agree on the Italian line. Many of my crosses and failures have been trying to introduce varroa tolerance into the Italian bee.
I was never very successful but Dann Purvis was so why reinvent the wheel? I am only two years into testing his line but I like what I see so far.
The best varroa tolerant bees I have came up with are from the dark races.
I agree with the things you said with one exception which is what the original subject is about. 
The bee lab and Dr. Harbo has done an about face and is now saying those first SMR queens did not have a brood viability problem but the shotgun brood pattern was from the removal and cannibalism of pupae. I will give direct quotes from Dr. Harbo in the next post.
Dr. Harbo sent us all an information sheet explaining the brood viability issue (in 2002 I think) and also explained to me the inbred problem in converstation we had in person (2001 or 2002).
Every time I visit the Baton Rouge Bee Lab web site I print updates. All the information has been updated on 12-13-05. The original SMR report I quoted from on BEE-L has been changed again. Strange.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

David,
Correct!
I believe the Russian bee tolerates varroa by handling both varroa load and the PMS. I have seen some high varroa loads in untreated Russian bees but no brood PMS signs. I have seen some Russian outcrosses with bees with DWV but no signs of PMS. I suspect if I took the time to look I would find a very mild form of PMS in the Russian outcross. It is possible they clean up PMS brood fast and remove from the hive. Don't know as I have never looked closely.It is my opinion you lose varroa tolerance with each outcross of the Russian bee.
Which brings me to the real issue which is why SMR is so important to Aspera & myself. The SMR trait seems to be additive (Harbo 2005) and Rothenbuler's hygienic behavior was recessive( Harbo 2005).
In other words if you could fix the trait in a line of bees the trait should stay clear into F3 or F4. I am not saying you would not need to use a SMR breeder queen every few years to help keep the trait fixed if you were migratory and picking up outside genetics from almond or blueberry pollination when your hives were close to other hives. 10-20 % of queens can be lost in the movement into pollination from movement from Florida to Maine or Florida to California. If your hives were strong and eggs present then bringing in outside genetics is real. A beekeeper on permanant locations would be able to fix the SMR trait easier.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

BjornBee, Aspera & Dave,
First let me say I am a big fan of Dr. Harbo! I had a serious dispute with a close friend over the value of his work. We agreed to disagree in the end!

I need to look at the SMR II queens being released today because the shotgun brood pattern seems not to be a problem ( BjornBee & Aspera 2005). I believe those reading will trust me enough to believe me when I say it was at the start. I was going to have to take the 2001/2002 SMR queens and do a couple outcrosses *myself* to get a production bee and then run a couple years of test yards to make sure what I created was the bee I wanted to requeen more than a 100 test hives with.
The first reports on the new Russian bees looked good so I dropped the SMR project and started doing Russian testing. I am done with Russian testing now except for one Russian outcross.
Myself and Dann Purvis were able to do what the Baton Rouge Bee Lab was unable to do a decade ago which was trying to find a varroa tolerant bee from survivor queens. Dann & I both know why Harbo and the lab were unsuccessful back then. The unsuccessful attempt led Harbo & Harris to look closely at the problem which led to the current SMR & PMIB research. Actually worked out for the best as Dann & I were in a better position to find the varroa tolerant bee by adding varroa pressure and using large numbers of colonies than available to the bee lab. Keeping hives crashing from varroa at the bee lab would not have been popular with the other researchers.
You need those for adding varroa pressure!


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

BjornBee, Aspera & Dave,
BjornBee questions:
>How many holes are you assuming there should bee?

I still believe that those original SMR queens were inbreed to the highest degree through instrumental insemination ( II) by the master II expert Dr. Harbo.

I had five in OB hives and saw no signs described by Harbo in 2005 (which I will post soon).

To answer the above question the SMR II queens sent, F1 and f2 daugters all had what I would say was poor brood viability. None had a normal brood pattern which would to use Bjorn Bees words *few holes*.

>You say none or one on a mite drop and then suggest a shotgun pattern, there is what? hundreds or thousands of mites within the comb being cleaned out by the bees???

I follow the OB hive evidence:
Empty cells in a shotgun pattern, I installed infested brood comb in the hives 8 weeks before, and the 24 hour varroa drop was zero to one mite after 8 weeks.

Back then we were not sure what the cause for the lack of varroa was ( not sure we do today). The lab said the varroa were simply not reproducing in the SMR hives. mature females going in cells but not reproducing.The shotgun brood pattern was from inbreeding and the eating of diploid drone brood. 

Yes hundreds or more like thousands of varroa were cleaned out by the bees and due to the lack of reproduction the varroa load I introduced was reduced to almost zero BUT the shotgun pattern stayed which was what I was afraid it would do creating a hive which would never be of use to the commercial beekeeper.

All of the baton Bee labs release papers were in accordance with my own findings until 2005 when Marla Spivak said the SMR trait was simply a form of hygienic behavior. In the final post I will quote Dr. harbo's (permission given) comments from a email from Dr. Harbo to Allen Dick.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Dr. Harbo's reply:
"Bees with the SMR trait will remove cells of worker pupae (starting about when the eyes begin to turn pink and usually completed by the purple eyed stage)"

Bob Harrison's comments:
This is not what I saw in my OB hives back then. At the bee lab web site it says the bees ate these pupae. Again not what I observed. 
I did not see cannibalism of the pupa nor did I see the pupa stacked up to be carried out.
My observations:
I saw the SMR queens laying in every cell available and I saw the shotgun brood pattern. I did see a few bees eating eggs outside the cell but mostly I observed a worker with a head in a cell which the queen had layed an egg in . I then circled the cell with a mark on the glass of the OB hive. when the worker backed out of the cell I took a 16 power jewelers glass and observed the egg was gone.

I saw no pupa being removed or ate.

Dr. Harbo (2005)
"We were fooled into thinking that all the mites had become nonreproductive becauses we only found non reproducing mites" 

I can't explain the difference between the above & what I observed.
Dr. Harbo word for word 2005:
" Marla Spivak noticed that SMR bees were hygienic, and it seems that the entire mechanism of resistance of SMR bees is the disruption of reproductive mites via the removal of bee pupa by adult bees . Equally important is the fact that they do not disturb mites that produce no eggs. Bees with the SMR trait did remove freeze-killed brood very rapidly, but so did many of the bees that did not express the SMR trait."

Bob Harrison:
I do not believe the "entire mechanism of resistance of SMR bees is the disruption of reproductive mites via removal of pupa".

Many hives of SMR bees I tested failed hygienic behavior tests and kept dirty bottom boards.

Dr. Harbo points out the difference between SMR bee and hygienic bees :

" My opinion is that the SMR trait and hygienic behavior are not indentical , but they certainly have some commonality" I say this for three reasons;
1. people were not able to produce bees with high levels of varroa resistance by selecting only for the removal of freeze killed brood

Bingo! What I have been saying all along! Hope my friend which he and & I had the disagreement is reading!

2. I could not find a correlation between the SMR trait and the removal of freeze -killed brood

Bingo! My observations!

3. Rothenbuhler's hygienic behavior was recessive. The SMR trait seems to be additive.

Reason I am interested.

Now you all will be cursed like I am of laying awake at night wondering about SMR bees! What is really going on? Is Marla right?

"What we don't know is so vast it makes what we do know seem absurd" (Bob Harrison) 

Half a day shot but hope the postings will encourage a beekeeper or two to try and provide answers to the SMR question.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

There was quite a bit of discussion on Bee-L a few weeks back about SMR vs. HYG bees. Much of it focused on what Harbo said or did not say and what Spivak said or did not say, and if they said what they said they actually meant to say something else which the other person who is arguing against this point of view is taking out of context. 

Here are the last two sentences from the abstract of Abdullah Ibrahims and Marla Spivaks paper:

http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/apido/abs/2006/01/M6002/M6002.html

Our findings indicated that bees bred for SMR express hygienic behavior; adult bees selectively remove pupae infested with mites.

In addition, there is an effect of SMR pupae that reduces mite reproductive success that requires further investigation.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>In addition, there is an effect of SMR pupae that reduces mite reproductive success that requires further investigation. 

I wonder if it's an immune respose from the puapae. Maybe the pupae produce an antibody in response to the mites that affects the mites in some way.


----------



## Sherpa1 (Dec 10, 2005)

Gentlemen,
Thank you all for taking the time to respond to my initial question. I have read with interest all of the replies and you have motivated me to read further about SMR trait research.
First let me say that I have never kept a colony of bees, so if that in your opinion invalidates my comments please stop reading now and don't "flame" me. I have, however read many scientific articles in my field. Please respond to the following:
My understanding is that SMR refers to "suppression of mite reproduction" and that by definition bees who possess the "SMR trait" are by some method suppressing the normal or expected reproduction of the mite, that it, they are reducing the expected population of the mite. For now, lets just say that we don't know what is the method of suppression. Don't the Russian bees suppress mite reproduction as one of their methods of being "resistant" to the mites.
Where I become confused is use of the term "tolerant of high mite loads". What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that they are somehow resistant to the detrimental effects of the varroa mites (such as decreased resistance to viruses, decreased longivity, increased physical defects) and that this "tolerance" is independent of the effects of suppression of reproduction of the mites?
Harris and Harbo in "The SMR trait explained by hygienic behavior of Adult Bee" May 2005 ABJ "found 91% fewer pupae with reproductive mites in combs given to SMR colonies than in combs given to control colonies." Also " combs from SMR colonies had 58 % fewer pupae with mites that had nonviable offspring (i.e. female offspring that cannot become adults before the host bee emerges from the brood cell). There was no difference in the number of pupae with mites that did not lay eggs between the two types of recipients." They concluded "SMR bees selectively removed mites that produced offspring from capped brood cells." 
So, it appears to me that the SMR bees are somehow able to detect and remove mites that are producing offspring.
If I understand Mr. Harrison's point in his last post, selecting for removal of freeze dried brood does not equal selection of SMR trait. Makes sense to me. Freeze dried brood and living brood infected with productive mites are not the same. Perhaps the SMR bees are detecting a smell in the infected brood that is not present in freeze dried brood.
Again, thanks for your responses and for allowing a novice the opportunity to benefit from your years of experiences.

[ December 14, 2005, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: NoviceBee ]


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Here is the complete abstract. How can we read the entire article? Very interesting... MB I hope you are right. I especially like the finding that the trait is additive. 

Apidologie 37 (2006) 31-40 
DOI: 10.1051/apido:2005052

The relationship between hygienic behavior and suppression of mite reproduction as honey bee (Apis mellifera) mechanisms of resistance to Varroa destructor
Abdullah Ibrahim and Marla Spivak 

Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota 219 Hodson Hall, 1980 Folwell Av., St. Paul, MN 55108, USA

(Received 4 April 2005 - revised 3 June 2005 - accepted 22 June 2005 - published online 13 December 2005)

Abstract - We compared the mechanisms of resistance to Varroa destructor displayed by bees bred for Suppression of Mite Reproduction (SMR) and hygienic behavior (HYG). Mites from SMR and HYG source colonies were introduced into recently sealed SMR and HYG worker brood, and the infested pupae were placed either into recipient colonies or into an incubator. SMR colonies removed significantly more mite-infested pupae than the HYG colonies. The reproductive success (fertility and number of viable female offspring) of mites from both sources on pupae not removed by bees was significantly lower in SMR colonies. *Within the incubator, the reproductive success of mites was also lower on SMR worker pupae, and lowest when mites from SMR colonies were introduced on SMR brood.* Our findings indicated that bees bred for SMR express hygienic behavior; adult bees selectively remove pupae infested with mites. In addition, there is an effect of SMR pupae that reduces mite reproductive success that requires further investigation.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

"I wonder if it's an immune respose from the puapae. Maybe the pupae produce an antibody in response to the mites that affects the mites in some way." MB

Given all the recent evidence about the role of varroa in PMS, it would not surprise me at all if its an immune response from the pupae plays a big role. I suspect that a viral or baterial immume response might be more likely. I geuss that still wouldn't explain why the mites can't reproduce well on SMR pupae.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

NoviceBee,
I can hardly believe how well you understand the issue not having a beekeeping background!

"Tolerant of high mite loads" means the bees can tolerate mite loads which would crash other colonies. I have seen Russian crosses with a natural drop of 60-100 mites a day in fall with no PMS and doing great! Quick action is needed to save a non varroa tolerant hive with those kinds of varroa loads.
Those same Russian crosses will come out of winter with a decent varroa load ( 10-20 varroa fall). Not sure what has happened.
The NWC/Russian carries a 10-20 natural fall most of the time .


----------



## WG Bee Farm (Jan 29, 2005)

Question, Opinion
With the delicate balance that pheromones play in the cohesion of the hive. Does it not seem reasonable that reproducing mites located inside of capped brood could be changing the normal pheromone odor that the brood displays. Causing nurse bees from SMR hives to recongize a problem in the cell and stimulate them into a hygienic behavior.
Frank Wyatt
Eden, NC


----------



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

According to a paper by Harbo the adults play a significant role in SMR (That is not to say the larvae don't also have a role). See http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/64133000/PDFFiles/418-Harbo.pdf

I think SMR is still a topic we don't know a great deal about and I suspect there are several factors at play.

-Tim


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>My understanding is that SMR refers to "suppression of mite reproduction" and that by definition bees who possess the "SMR trait" are by some method suppressing the normal or expected reproduction of the mite, that it, they are reducing the expected population of the mite.

But more specifically the mature, mated female mite enters the cell and lays eggs but fails to produce viable offspring. This is a different trait from hygenic behavior where the bees chew out the mite infested brood or mite tolerance where the mites are at levels that normal hives crash but the tolerant hives don't.

>For now, lets just say that we don't know what is the method of suppression.

We don't. But we know where it occurs and it's not in the hygenics, although that is another trait that also helps reduce mites.

> Don't the Russian bees suppress mite reproduction as one of their methods of being "resistant" to the mites.

No. In my experience they just don't crash when they have a lot of mites. The mites still reproduce at the "normal" level (for "normal" oversized worker brood cells).

>Where I become confused is use of the term "tolerant of high mite loads". What exactly does that mean?

It means a hive of Italains with that mite load would get a virus and crash, but the Russians, with the same mite load, don't get sick. It's sort of like going to any 3rd world country and eating the food or drinking the water and you get sick but the locals don't. You just don't tolerate it.

>Does it mean that they are somehow resistant to the detrimental effects of the varroa mites (such as decreased resistance to viruses, decreased longivity, increased physical defects) and that this "tolerance" is independent of the effects of suppression of reproduction of the mites?

Correct.

>Harris and Harbo in "The SMR trait explained by hygienic behavior of Adult Bee" May 2005 ABJ "found 91% fewer pupae with reproductive mites in combs given to SMR colonies than in combs given to control colonies." Also " combs from SMR colonies had 58 % fewer pupae with mites that had nonviable offspring (i.e. female offspring that cannot become adults before the host bee emerges from the brood cell). There was no difference in the number of pupae with mites that did not lay eggs between the two types of recipients." They concluded "SMR bees selectively removed mites that produced offspring from capped brood cells." 

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion. Maybe they do. Maybe the mites just don't reproduce as well because of some other factor. Maybe SMR is a combination of more than one trait.

>So, it appears to me that the SMR bees are somehow able to detect and remove mites that are producing offspring.

Maybe.

>If I understand Mr. Harrison's point in his last post, selecting for removal of freeze dried brood does not equal selection of SMR trait.

I agree. But it's a good way to measure the hygenic traits of uncapping and removing (two different traits).

>Makes sense to me. Freeze dried brood and living brood infected with productive mites are not the same.

As you say, they are not the same.

> Perhaps the SMR bees are detecting a smell in the infected brood that is not present in freeze dried brood.

But interestingly enough the small cell people have been observing the increase of chewing out of infested puapae for the last 18 years or so by simply changing the worker brood cell size. Again, the exact mechanism is a mystery but there seems to be a lot more of that behavior in natural sized bees. Dennis has a lot of pictures of mites with bite marks on them from the small cell bees. Most of the "organic" beekeepers on natural sized cell observe a lot more chewing out of purple eyed pupae.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Frank,
your question,
You might be right. We are not sure what the trigger is but the trigger seems to be the mite reproduction for opening the cell. Cells with non reproducing varroa are left alone.
BUT
The first few years of varroa research done around the world said mellifera only pulled varroa infested brood on rare occasions. Many, many researchers looked at the issue and published papers.

Cerana does a similar removal but varroa mainly (95% and up)reproduces in the cerana drone brood and cerana leaves a small hole to observe through which mellifera does not.

Many papers have been published on the subject.

I must again say that the above is (as Frank says) without a doubt a form of hygienic behavior and NOT what I observed in my five observation hives four years ago. 

I was observing very closely. I am sure Harbo & Harris were to at the time. The amount of pupa needed to bee removed to make all those holes (as BjornBee says) would be a bunch. How could the rest of the world & the bee lab have missed the pulling of the pupa PLUS the cannibalism of both varroa mites & the pupa (what was posted at the Baton Rouge Bee Lab site in Oct.2005). The cannibalism is important because it would explain the missing varroa & pupa.
The Baton Rouge Bee Lab web pages on SMR have been updated four times I believe since the start of summer. Not sure what is going on.
I believe I have printed off at least two of the updates so will try to review later to see what part of the SMR information has been changed.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Thanks Michael for your post. I agree!


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Of all SMR crosses by the USDA, Russian bees maintained the lowest mite drops (3/day I think), which was sinificantly better than the nearest competitor. Purebred SMR was not tested. My conclusion is that either Russian bees already have the SMR trait, or that they have another mechanism of resistance. The SMR/hygenics can not match this performance. While Russians definitely tolerate mites, they also seem to resist infestation. Maybe they don't allow foreign drones in the hive?


----------



## WG Bee Farm (Jan 29, 2005)

According to my understanding of the Russian bee there could be 4 mechanisms at work.
1.)The bees are grooming mites from themselves and each other. 2.)there appears to be hygienic behavior in place. 3.)acceleration of brood developement and 4.) suppression of mite resistance (SMR).
I gathered this information from articles I have read. I have no pratical experiance since I do not have any Russian queens.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Aspera:


> While Russians definitely tolerate mites, they also seem to resist infestation.


Aspera: can you refer me to that article? I am trying to decide if I should buy a pure SMR breeder queen or one inseminated by a Russian drone.

Thanks!


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Here is interesting Russian research being done in Canada by BEEKEEPERS.

http://www.igs.net/~pilgrimventures/The_Russian_Bee_Project.htm


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Bob 
thanks for the site reference, if you dig into that site there is some very good and detailed info, it looks like they are taking a truly scientific and disciplined approach.

Test results, strategies and selection criteria


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Caveat: I have only brief experience with a limited number of open mated Russian queens from only one breeder. It's quite possible that pure Russian queens may have different characteristics and there may be different strains of the open mated Russians out there that I have no experience in.

But my experience is the same as Rob's (who has a lot of experience on this). The Russians did not appear to have any fewer mites than the other breeds (Buckfast, Carniolan, Italian). But they seemed to be hardy enough to survive more mites than would normally take out a hive. If the Russians originally had those other hygienic and SMR traits they must have gotten lost in some watered down version that I got.


----------



## Bob Russell (Sep 9, 2003)

Aspera
Dr.Harbo was an invited guest speaker to our New Zealand National Beekeepers conference in 2001 just one year after the varroa incursion here.Those of us on the deliminating survey team seen the effects and non effects in commercial and hobbiest hives to varroa over a considerable time.Simply as commercial beekeepers we want high honey production together with bees resistant to the varroa mite.Dr.Harbo passed his work onto our bee scientist in 2001 and work by our bee scientist's team has been ongoing since.Some of us are willing to share our findings from different approaches and exchange our queens.By request I published 3 short articles in the New Zealand Beekeeper Magazine from mid 2005 in regards to my own selection of bees resistant to varroa in my New Zealand hives.Some may find it interesting that in my own case I was able to select breeders from the most prolific repeatative honey production hives over two consecative years headed by the the same queen,then select for varroa resistance following the varroa incursion several years later.Viable brood pattern and bee numbers are paramont in this selecting.Bob Harrison has covered a number of very important factors in his posts here and I can asure those interested that this work has to be done in the hives that are varroa resistant.Interesting findings over the last 6 years lead me to revisit and research work done by two other researches.I take all findings by others seriously.Aspera, Alois Wallner of Randeg researched and published his findgs over 5 years study in the early 90's called "Varroaresistant" published in German and in that time studied over 1700 damaged mites in his varroa selection and breeding from his resistant hives.Alois has given me permission to reproduce his work and I do have the English translation.Last year I revisited the work of the Swiss Bee research in regards to real time reproduction of varroa under the capped cell.Peter Fluri went to great lengths to put there work onto DVD for my studies and has given me permission to put this DVD into our New Zealand National Beekeepers Technical Library.This original work is in German and French.

[ December 17, 2005, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Bob Russell ]


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

This is the site and information posted by the bee lab on Oct. 5th 2005. Not sure if still around as I could not relocate yesterday but found my printed off copy.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/oct05/hive1005.htm


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

BjornBee,
I am glad i found the working link. After you visit the last link I provided I believe all my post will make sense.

The site refers to bees eating the pupa & the varroa. Not what I saw (3-4 years ago) but what do I know.

Also you can clearly see the shotgun pattern which looks like a failing queen or an inbred queen.

Also you can easily understand why Aspera and I had a hard time getting honey production. A large part of the workforce are being removed from the workforce by the hygienic behavior. 

Does NOT happen with cerana (natural host of varroa) because the varroa infest the drone cells and varroa is somewhat controlled by not being able to reproduce during the period the bees are not raising drones.

Until the problem of a shotgun pattern is solved the usefulness of SMR bees to the commercial beekeeper will remain in question.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Here is the link.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=161315


They specifically state that pure ARS Russian colonies have resistance/fewer mites. This does dot exclud the possibility of tolerance as well.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I have held off commenting, and perhaps now some questions can be asked and answered.

What is the value of smr in the hive? Let me expand....

Rob has stated that with 100 F1 and 50 F2 queens, a shotgun pattern was seen in every(?) hive. Harbo, although now perhaps not for the same reasoning, suggested that cross breeding and open mating eliminated for the most part this result. I have not seen shotgun patterns with my smr line. And I also understand that the further away from the pure smr queen the more watered down the trait will be. With that said, ....

If the smr trait can be displayed on a level that produces shotgun patterns, I can assume one or more of the following....

1)The initial infestation is at such a level that the intial response in cleaning cells will give the shotgun appearance. This has been shown by tests of introducing infested comb.

2)The continual reinfestation is at a level that continual cleanup is needed on a level to produce a shotgun pattern. Can bees bring in that many mites to continue the shotgun appearance, and if so, is this a contaminated study or more true to actual field application?

3) The smr bees are missing enough reproducing mites allowing a continual reproduction cycle, at a level that mites can continue the cycle of the shotgun appearance.

4)The bees are cleaning out much more than just reproducing mites, given the shotgun pattern and yet the continual pattern with no end in sight. Virus infected, bacterial contamination. other???

5)Researchers have no clue. 

6) Other???

I originally ask at what point bees would have the mites at a level that shotgun patterns would not be seen. Rob's comment:
>No holes but yet varroa tolerant with the new release. Interesting!
indicating that although with 150 hives tested by him, he either does not think hives can be mite tolerant via smr traits and not have shotgun patterns, or he has never seen one himself.

I will also assume that Robs comment about unproductive hives on a level that honey production was not seen must of occurred with hives given enough time to lower mite level to a point that the hive should of been somewhat healthy. But apparently this never happened. The shotgun pattern continued with no positive end resulting. Although Rob indicated low or no mite drop, the continueing shotgun pattern, and bees only maintained at a level for hive continuation, and no honey production, indicates that something is missing.

Is smr bees doing more than removing reproducing mites? Is it perhaps on a scale not yet realized? What if smr bees removed not only reproducing mite cells, but viral infected lavae/pupae, cells with bacteria issues, and other cells. Could it be concieved that with a level of lavae/pupae removed, that hives with smr traits could not(ever) be productive? Tests have confirmed that even in healthy colonies, viruses not displayed are there. These same colonies may also be mite load tolerant and very productive. What would be the impact of introducing smr traits, given the fact that others have seen a continual shotgun pattern to the extent that the hives are unproductive?

I will suggest that if more is in play that we know, and that is probably true, smr traits would have to be isolated down to individual selection. (Ie. removing reproductive mites but leaving other cells with obvious problems.) Or would we almost have to have bees with no bacterial or viral issues before the smr trait of removing reproducing mites be helpful? Is that possible?, selecting for individual removal triggers that possible could not happen or make the bees useless, due to the maintaining of the line and the associated issues and problems.

Just on the surface, I question a trait that removes enough bees to give shotgun pattern, and yet leaves the hives unproductive. Whether its odor, screaming pupae, or anything else, that triggers removal, I'll let better heads prevail and hopefully answer those questions. It just seems to me that just removing reproductive mites is not adding up.

Given the fact that enough IPM is out there and with other lines showing promise, what is the value of the smr? Rob's comment of one or none in a drop count, (which I believe many beekeepers would be happy with), and yet a continual shotgun pattern and an unproductive hive makes me wonder about the usefullness of smr at this time. That or alot more is to the story and the dots are just not connected. If they were so good at removing reproducing mites, would you not eventually see this shotgun pattern dissappear? 

Although I have used smr in my apiaries, I do not see shotgun patterns. I also question the level of smr trait with the queens daughters and continued lines. It should be noted that I use russian/smr and not pure smr breeder queens. Is the trait still there? Is it being utilized, but perhaps on a lower scale not seen by classic shotgun patterns? 

Is the smr trait so effective that we need to go in the other direction of it being watered down?


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

BjornBee,
I wished I had answers for your questions. I have got some hypothesis but those are based on my research of several years ago so are dated.
Some thoughts:
I believe I could have came up with a workable SMR bee from my original SMR II stock but as I said in the post I would have to do the work myself. With the F2 showing shotgun brood I could not use in a commercial production queen setting for obvious reasons.
The SMR/Russian cross seems to be a workable solution from the information posted. Easy for me to create. SMR II breeder queen/Russian drones.
Daughters raised and then open mated with Russian drones. *Should* produce good brood viability.
Glenn Apiairies offers both the SMR/SMR and the SMR hybrid queens. I used the red and the yellow line SMR/SMR queens. 
A current test of both lines would involve several queens. Asking might be easier as I am sure others reported back their results. I did not.
The problem with the above would be if you are a breeder which wants varroa tolerant bees but not Russian genetics. I guess you could order a SMR queen instrumentally inseminated to a carniolan or Italian line. Not what I would do but would perhaps lose the shotgun brood pattern with also the loss of some varroa tolerance.
I liked the SMR trait better when the bees were simply eating the diploid drone brood and something else was supposedly happening. Controlling varroa by hygienic behavior in late stage pupae is a serious waste of hive resources in my opinion.
I made the statement years ago that creating a hive which can survive varroa without being able to produce surplus honey or do pollination is a curosity rather than the savior of the commercial beekeeping industries varroa problems.
BjornBee I think now has an excellent understanding of the issue. 
To sum the varroa tolerant bee scenario up the varroa tolerant bees found by the "live & let die" method *using added varroa pressure* has produced the best varroa tolerant bee in the fastest period of time BUT the method does not provide us with *why* they tolerate varroa.
Researchers like Harbo, Harris & Spivak are working hard to explain the why and create the same bee Dann Purvis & I have got through research. I believe they will be succesful in the end but both SMR & hygienic behavior as varroa control still needs research.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Bjorn:

Are you assuming that the sole value of the SMR trait is hygenic? If so, look at the recent article cited above. They found that the mites themselves were less productive. They removed sealed brood infested by mites and found that the mites from SMR hives were less productive. So something other than hygenic behavior is in play here.

I am thinking and hoping that the shotgun patterns id'd by Bob are a result of earlier SMR genetics from inbreeding that have now been flushed out of the system, or at least reduced.

The main thing, I think, is for us beeks to get ahold of these SMR genetics and work with them in our hives like you and Bob are doing. I admit I am too sloppy to be a good scientist and report back in a way that would have scientific value. But even without reporting back, or reporting back anecdotally, if we get these SMR traits circulating in our hives, and if their daughters are bred to untreated survivors, it has to be for the better.

This is really exciting stuff and I thank everyone for their comments.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>They removed sealed brood infested by mites and found that the mites from SMR hives were less productive. So something other than hygenic behavior is in play here.

That's been my understanding and that's why I'm assuming that one possible explanation is the immune system of the bees producting something that is interfering with the reproduction of the mites.

>I am thinking and hoping that the shotgun patterns id'd by Bob are a result of earlier SMR genetics from inbreeding that have now been flushed out of the system, or at least reduced.

This was also my understanding, that the shotgun brood was merely because of the inbreeding, although seeing an empty cell now and then, could be hygenic behavior, that shouldn't be on a large scale. The small cell beekeepers who have observed chewing out of mites, still don't see large scale shotgun patterns.

I wonder if anyone bothered to measure the cell size drawn by the SMR's.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Michael,

I think you missed an important point from the hygenic evaluations. The number of non-reproducing mites was essentially the same for control and SMR colonites. What changed was the number of reproductive mites. In other words, the mite reduction was directly correlated with removal of reproductive mites. This doesn't mean there is no immune response. It does significantly reduce the probable impact.

Fusion


----------



## Jim Young (Aug 31, 2004)

An article "Cleaning House­ and Hive" published in the October 2005 issue of Agricultural Research Magazine demonstrates the hygienic behavior and resulting shotgun effect of SMR bees encountering varroa mites in capped brood.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/oct05/hive1005.htm

To demonstrate Varroa-sensitive hygiene by SMR bees, a highly infested brood comb was cut into halves, and each half was placed in a cage with 2,000 test bees for 24 hours. 

Control bees (non-SMR) placed on the brood comb removed only 12 pupae and uncapped only another 19 pupae (33 percent of uncapped cells were infested with Varroa mites). 

SMR bees placed on the brood comb removed 215 pupae and uncapped another 178 pupae (90 percent of uncapped cells were infested with Varroa mites). 

Perhaps, colonies infested with Varroa mites and exhibiting a shotgun brood pattern should be carefully evaluated before requeening the colony. Thus, the shotgun brood pattern may disappear once the Varroa mites are controlled in the hive.

Jim Young


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Fusion and Jim

I don't think anyone is denying the hygenic aspect of it. But there is apparently more to it that just the ability to detect and remove infested pupae, and I think we are just speculating on the mechanism.


----------



## Jerry J (Jan 12, 2004)

I also attended the Queen Breeding workshop in June of 05 with Mr. Bush and Mr. Harrison by Dr. Spivak. Having given this Queen Breeding a lot of thought I did a little digging for what I want. Lately I decided to contact Dr. Spivak about continued improvment in her line of bees. She has not stopped working with her line. The SMR trait is been added to the Minn. Hygenic. Queens were sent to Glenn Apiary this past fall. Wanting to set these traits in my hives I Called Glenn Apiary and ordered a queen for delivery the second week of April.
Now if I paid attention in class I will be able to replace the queens in my hives by breeding from this Queen. 
Jerry Kern


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What changed was the number of reproductive mites.

Yes, less of them.

>In other words, the mite reduction was directly correlated with removal of reproductive mites. 

That may be true, but that was not my understanding from what I've seen presented.

>Perhaps, colonies infested with Varroa mites and exhibiting a shotgun brood pattern should be carefully evaluated before requeening the colony. Thus, the shotgun brood pattern may disappear once the Varroa mites are controlled in the hive.

I agree. I think we should keep it in mind. This is a dangerous line to draw, though. We don't want to perpetuate queens that are not viable, but we do want to perpetuate queens that are hygenic. How do we know for sure which they are?


----------



## GaSteve (Apr 28, 2004)

>But there is apparently more to it that just the ability to detect and remove infested pupae, and I think we are just speculating on the mechanism.

I read somewhere that in addition to hygenics, bees with SMR traits have larva that spin their cocoons a bit earlier than other bees.

After the mite crawls into the brood cell and immerses itself in the brood food and extends its "snorkel", it apparently becomes dormant and actually looks quite dead. The first day or two after capping, the larva consumes all the brood food and the mite "wakes up" and attaches itself to the larva to feed -- all before the larva spins its cocoon.

If the mite "wakes up" too late, the larva spins its cocoon and traps the mite at the bottom of the cell where it dies. At least according to this article, this "early cocooning" is one of the traits that make SMR bees effective in suppressing mite reproduction.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Michael said:
" We don't want to perpetuate queens that are not viable, but we do want to perpetuate queen that are hygienic"

I think its fair to say hygienic bees can not control varroa as judged hygienic by the freeze brood test method.

My partner bought several Marla Spivak hygienic II breeder queens from Glenn Apiaries and said he raised around a thousand queens from those. They were hygienic for sure and the II breeder queens removed the amount of brood in 24 hours to be judged hygienic by Marla( we tested each). When checkmite failed to control varroa in his hives he lost 80% of his hygienic bees to varroa mites.

Marla's drones were the drone source for the SMR breeder queens we got from Glenn Apiaires. Poor brood viability. I used a survivor drone source for the F2 queens and still had poor brood viability.

If one accepts the lab's new version of whats happening with the SMR bees then varroa could easily keep numbers up and the bees would spend all their energy removing late stage pupae and uncapping cells looking for varroa. Which would account for the low honey production Aspera, myself and my partner saw.

I tested SMR/Marla Spivak crosses for three years and even sent many to California. The shotgun pattern stayed.

Marla bringing in SMR genetics and working out a varroa tolerant cross which does not carry the shotgun brood pattern would be great but if the shotgun brood pattern is a direct result of the pulling of late stage pupae and as Michael says we are selecting for bee with even a higher degree of SMR/hygienic behavior then will not the shotgun brood pattern remain. Perhaps selecting among the SMR/hygienic for bees which pull the varroa out of the pool of royal jelly in the bottom of a cell would be a better idea than waiting for late stage pupae? How about a race of bee which feeds on varroa for protein instead of pollen! (hey I can dream can't I).


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

To try the other way around. What if all these years we've bee breeding for "good brood patterns" and all along were breeding OUT hygenic behavior and causing the AFB outbreaks?

The problem is there is more than one reason for shotgun brood patterns. It would probably be best if we could tell the cause and not just the symptom.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Michael,

Many times I suspect we humans have been the cause of and not the cure for beekeeping problems.

I just finished a limited analysis of the available information about hygenic bees vs SMR bees. The bees with SMR characteristics must share at least one of the loci with the brood cleaning hygenic trait. Said another way, brood cleaning hygenic bees (BH) are based on two recessive genes one for uncapping and one for removing diseased larvae. Varroa hygenic SMR bees (VH) have at least two genes, one for uncapping infested larvae, and one for removing infested larvae. The limited data available indicates that at least 2 more genes must be involved in the VH bees. Maybe one for detecting infested larvae? I could only speculate what the fourth does. The basic problem is that these genes occur at very very low frequencies in a bee population. I'm not sure why but there will be a reason.

Fusion


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Well, since we've been breeding out any queens where there's spotty brood on the assumption that is awlays a bad thing and maybe sometimes there was a reason, that would explain the low frequency of hygenic behavior.


----------



## bourdeaubee (Dec 23, 2005)

I have seen many drones in front of my russian hive in mid summer and often wondered if the bees were not allowing them in.Even if I try to push them in the won't go.maybe its away to surpress mites?


----------

