# I think we're barking up the wrong tree,



## peterloringborst

Keith Delaplane on queen rearing:



> Recently, he's been exploring commercial honeybee breeding practices and has uncovered evidence that he hopes will take bee breeding in an entirely new direction. Breeders have been trying with limited success to select specific traits such as honey production or resistance to the Varroa mite - suspect No. 1 in colony collapse disorder. But that's the opposite way to go with bee colonies, which are what scientists call a "superorganism," Delaplane explained.
> 
> The hive's honey is like fat, a stored-up food supply; the bees' group decision-making is like the brain; and beeswax is like the liver of a single animal. The unit of natural selection with bees is the hive, not the individual, and hives strive for genetic diversity, he said. When Delaplane experimented by introducing more genetic diversity into hives instead of trying to narrow it, he found that everything improved - resistance, honey production and general hive health.
> 
> "I think we're barking up the wrong tree," he said. "You can't do it like other animals. The colony resists genetic narrowing."


from: 
"Bee researcher inducted into British order"
http://www.greenwichtime.com/


----------



## squarepeg

interesting pete. how would you describe the 'right tree' that we average beekeepers should be barking up instead?


----------



## adamf

peterloringborst said:


> Keith Delaplane on queen rearing:
> from:
> "Bee researcher inducted into British order"
> http://www.greenwichtime.com/



Hi Peter,
Is bee-l slow? :lookout:

Thanks for some of Keith Delaplane's Wise thinking. 
Selecting within regional breeding populations would be good, although there are so few real "regional breeding populations".

Adam
vpqueenbees.com


----------



## peterloringborst

Well, now, this is the beginning of a long conversation we could have. Folks seem eager to get short answers, but never mind that. I was just looking for a reference to Keith's recent honor in being "inducted" when I stumbled upon his suggestion that we are "barking up the wrong tree" regarding bee breeding. I have been thinking this myself for a very long time. However, I don't have the resources to really ascertain whether or not this has a practical application. 

Now, for centuries honey bees have been selected for one trait or another, often at the expense of other traits. This phenomenon is well known in convention breeding. Nature, on the other hand, rarely selects for one particular trait. In fact, surviving organisms usually exhibit flexibility as well as vigor. These are presumably based upon multiple genetic contributions, rather than being a single trait based on a small stretch of the genome.

Going the other way, it may be that flexibility and vigor is a combination of traits, many which are latent and only become active under certain circumstances. That would be like a mechanic who has thousands of tools, most of which he doesn't use on a regular basis, but which he can pull out for a specific job. This would enable him to be able to work on any task, where someone with less resources might be stumped.

What this means for bee breeding is anybody's guess. But there examples. Large populations of feral bees, like those in Brazil or Africa, have diverse gene pools, the exact opposite of inbreeding. Closer to home, Danny Weaver claims that his bees are a mixture of all the various lineages (M, C, A, and O).


----------



## peterloringborst

> Is bee-l slow?


Hah! Seems to be stuck on neonics and the precautionary principle. Decide to throw caution to the wind ...


----------



## squarepeg

i haven't the experience, time, nor desire to perform testing of specific traits for use in breeder queen and/or drone selection. my back up plan is to select from the colonies in my apiary that show vigor, productivity, and survive winter. this was accomplished by splitting the strongest in the first years, and then with grafting from the best last year. the results are palpable, and i would assume that this how it has been done from the beginning so no news here.

but i guess the point of your original post has more to do with commercial queen rearing and the bottlenecking that is occurring there. perhaps the 'tree' is that more beekeepers should be selecting from their best instead of relying on commercially available queens?


----------



## peterloringborst

> but i guess the point of your original post has more to do with commercial queen rearing and the bottlenecking that is occurring there.


No, I am not thinking about this and not that. I am thinking about all of it. The goals of beekeepers are similar whether large or small. We all tend to want consistent dependable results. And traditionally, the thinking was that by selecting bees with specific traits, those traits could be propagated. And it is true for some traits, like color or rapid buildup. But we are at the very beginning of understanding the genetic basis for complex traits. 

Even in monogamous organisms, the genetic bases of behavioral traits have not been identified. And then when you add the multiple mating of honey bees PLUS the fact that the colony contains thousands of individuals forming a "super-organism" it's plain that an oversimplified plan may not yield the proposed results. But as I said, we are at the beginning of a long conversation we could have, depending on the stamina of the participants. 

P


----------



## beekuk

This may fit in on this thread.

http://news.yorku.ca/2012/10/15/gen...on-of-bee-behaviour-york-university-research/


----------



## JSL

Peter,

I have suggested the same concept for a while now and actually use it in my breeding program. It is easier for beekeepers/researchers to focus on a single trait for selection efforts, but too much other material is lost in the process. One queen has little value, but rather it is the population of queens in a breeding program that contain the value and the tools of adaptability over time.

Joe


----------



## peterloringborst

> This may fit in on this thread.


Exactly. I have been impressed by the work of Brock Harpur and Amro Zayed. They and others are leading the way for a much broader understanding of breeding, evolution, and genomics. They write 



> the evolution of eusociality may select for high rates of recombination, which increase genotypic diversity in workers leading to increased colony fitness. Our study also suggests that higher recombination rates increase the evolutionary rate of genes associated with worker behavior, which may fa- cilitate the evolution of worker specialization


This is exactly what I was saying. Important traits for survival include adaptability AND a high degree of specialization, which bee colonies exhibit. Imagine having a team that included individuals that were really good at one particular thing, and being able to bring them into play when needed. This would could be better than a team which had members all of which were OK at a most things, but not great at anything in particular. It depends, of course, on what the challenges are and what are the burdens of keeping a bunch specialists at hand. For some situations one may be better than the other. There again, we know that the population of a hive vastly increase in the summer. Maybe they have a large diverse workforce in summer and trim down to a specific subset in winter.

P


----------



## squarepeg

peterloringborst said:


> But as I said, we are at the beginning of a long conversation we could have, depending on the stamina of the participants.


understood p. i am eager to learn more about this and would be interested to follow said conversation, but i'm afraid my contribution would mostly take the form of asking questions.

it's a fascinating topic and germane to all here, i hope you'll take the time to develop it.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I have suggested the same concept for a while now and actually use it in my breeding program.


The problem is this: what is the effective population size for this to work. Breeders try to narrow and intensify traits. Nature has both isolated and wide based populations. Evolution goes on in both these types of populations but the results tend to be different. Obviously, prolonged isolation leads to populations with distinctions from other populations. Whereas, the larger the breeding population the more heterogenous they are likely to be. Heterogeneity seems to be what evolution tends toward, when unrestricted. Humans tend to try to fit things into a conceptual mold.

P


----------



## JSL

peterloringborst said:


> Breeders try to narrow and intensify traits.


 Some breeders take this concept too far and reduce any benefit of their efforts. A little of good thing is fine, but too much is detrimental. I wish I knew what the working population size should be. However, the larger the population size, the better. A larger population provides greater selection material and stability. Along with the concept of fitting things into a specific mold, we as humans often argue we are making things "better", but better can be very shortsighted.

Joe


----------



## peterloringborst

> we as humans often argue we are making things "better", but better can be very shortsighted]


Exactly. We try to get things our way. Be careful what you wish for, is what I learned from watching the Twilight Zone as a kid. But I think the beekeeping world has matured past the point of trying to "make" a better bee, to the realization that the best bee is the one that doesn't need to be propped up by beekeepers. On the other hand, there are a lot of different reasons why people are interested in bees. Some want to make a living selling their honey, others want to enjoy hives in their yard. Others are interested in honey bee conservation, especially in regions where honey bees are native. Many of these different interests are in conflict with each other, as I have been learning. People who just want the bees to stay alive may not object to using chemicals to control pests. People who just want to live an organic lifestyle may not object to bees that don't produce very much honey. Conservationists may not care about honey at all, and are seeking a way to populate the woods with bees that can fend for themselves. Etc


----------



## JSL

Perhaps the spectrum of acceptable and desirable ecotypes may not be as broad as we assume. Some middle of the road ecotype may work nicely to fill a good number of niches. Then again, I think this is the very characteristic of a population. Some of the colonies will excel some of the time, while most will simply survive or die.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Some of the colonies will excel some of the time, while most will simply survive or die.


Yeah. When I had hundreds of colonies, I had no problem with the idea that some did really well, some didn't and some died. Now that I only have a few hives, I want them all to be winners. I guess the lesson is to keep more than you want and then when a few tank, you don't sweat it.

PLB


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

"One queen has little value, but rather it is the population of queens in a breeding program that contain the value and the tools of adaptability over time" JSL.
Except for those that are aggressive I have difficulty eliminating any queen that has successfully led a colony through winter from contributing to the next generation. 
I look at myself. I am not a physically impressive specimen, but I do good work. 
I would rather have frugal, conservative bees that survive, and pool frames of brood into production colonies before a honey flow.


----------



## squarepeg

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> Except for those that are aggressive I have difficulty eliminating any queen that has successfully led a colony through winter from contributing to the next generation.
> I look at myself. I am not a physically impressive specimen, but I do good work.
> I would rather have frugal, conservative bees that survive, and pool frames of brood into production colonies before a honey flow.


i find myself in a similar situation adrian. i have a few colonies that have made it through a couple of winters now off treatments. they are distinguished from the rest in that they are slower to build up, quicker to swarm and afterswarm, and haven't produced much honey for me. the dilemma is that i don't know what if any survivor/resistance traits they may be contributing to the gene pool, and i'm not sure eliminating them from the mix is a good idea or not.


----------



## JWChesnut

The eusocial ants (and others) have genetic castes and specializations. Apis does not. The evolutionary approximation is to maintain highly diverse half-sisters as morphologically identical workers. The hive with the greatest fitness will have broad mixture of genetics -- so no single narrow specialization or hypertrophied trait will cause the super-organism to founder. The instructive example would be VSH -- where the over-expression of the trait consumes so much of the brood that the colony does not prosper in comparison to some intermediate expression.

It is widely reported that Apis m. has very high rates of recombination -- yet the species is a single interbreeding, cosmopolitan taxon. 

I have worked professionally on a number of rare plants called paleo-endemics as they apparently have become fixed on a single shrinking niche, yet are unable to broaden or adapt to surrounding habitat. These plants typically have high polymorphism and often doubled or tripled chromosome numbers. Polymorphism is just like hybrid vigor -- it is a strategy to improve phenotype by adding alleles. Obligate polymorphism for more than one or two loci becomes a mathematical trap to the organism. If 1/4 (the mendelian ratio) of the offspring express the needed combination, the plant must produce 4 x the gametes for the same reproductive effort. If there are 2 loci -- the mendelian ratios multiply == 1/4 x 1/4 = 1/16 of the ovules are genetically conditions. Modern PCR allows us to observe that many polymorphisms are needed to produce viable ovules, and the mathematics of this are such that the plants must produce hundreds of thousands to millions of aborted embryo's before a single viable ovule develops.

Honeybees have avoided this trap while incorporating the fitness conferred by highly recombinant genotypes. They do this with polyandry and single locus sex incompatibility-- creating an super-organism of out-crossed half-sisters.

Unless a management system emphasizes the creation of out-crossed, loosely-related, highly diverse offspring -- the system is running counter to the evolutionary imperative selected by the bees. Almost uniquely, bees have "picked" a breeding strategy that ensures a genotype from Finland can inter-breed with a genotype from Cape Town -- and is most fit when this half-breed is present in the nest simultaneously with a genotype from the Caucasus x Iberia. 

Beekeepers will talk of their "mutts" as if the American Kennel Club disapproves of their insects. This is nonsense -- overbred bees are an evolutionary anamoly -- if their were island species created by narrow populations and selective drift, they have lost out in the hard judge of evolutionary time - they do not exist anymore. Their are morphological variants created for vanity (Cordoban) -- but the heart of the honeybee success is in the cosmopolitan out-crossing swarm.

Part of this normalizing impulse is due to the nature of co-evolution with plant nectar. Insects can choose to specialize, and a plant-pollinator dyad is born that becomes specialized (tongue length, flight season, nectar composition). Specialization brings the risk of extinction. Honeybees do not specialize (the out-crossing won't let them), this resistance to change means the plant in the pollination dyad must conform to the honey bee. Bees are forcing plants to adapt to them (long blooming season, adequate nectar, common floral design) by adopting a breeding system that will not specialize and "chase" a particular flower.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Insects can choose to specialize...


I was with you up to this point. Although I realize it's convenient to use this syntax, organisms don't "choose" what they become. The became what they are as result of genetic variation and the action of natural selection upon that variation. The ones that didn't vary, died out. It appears that insects and flowers have adapted to each other but the fact is this is a product of evolution, which is blind. Beyond that, tight co-adaptation is the exception rather than the rule. I like to think of the network of plants and pollinators as a vast web. No player in the web is indispensable. An example is that when California was settled by Europeans, there were millions of acres of plants that were perfect for honeybees, especially the sages.These evolved together with wild solitary bees, no eusocial bees were required (although bumble bees were part of the mix).


----------



## peterloringborst

> he eusocial ants (and others) have genetic castes and specializations. Apis does not.


This also surprised me a bit. A recent (2014) paper states:



> Although ant species exist for which complete genetic caste determination has been described, these seem to be the exception rather than the rule


From: The role of chromatin and epigenetics in the polyphenisms of ant castes. Briefings in Functional Genomics. Advance Access published January 24, 2014


----------



## Oldtimer

Very interesting conversation.

Back to broad or narrow gene pool & selection for specific traits, nature, at various times, does both.

Brother Adam, it could also be argued, did both. He selected bees from all over the world and brought them together. But also, he selected very specifically for certain traits and with a good deal of success.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Brother Adam, it could also be argued, did both.


 Exactly. He was interested in getting the best of all or any. The nativists hold him in very low regard on this account, claiming that he nearly destroyed the English black bee. Of course, that bee came from the European mainland and it could be argued that the cause of the Isle of Wight disease was the inbreeding of the English bee for centuries. Brother Adam claimed that by importing bees, the acarine mite was beaten back to insignificance. The Buckfast strain, in turn, was imported by Weavers to Texas and formed one component of their hybrids. As I said earlier, there are a lot of different schools of beekeeping. Some want a gentle bee, some a hardy bee, some a purebred bee. These goals may be incompatible.

PLB


----------



## Oldtimer

Useful insights Peter, thanks.

"Nativists". Never heard the term before but it fits & has a great ring to it I like it.


----------



## JWChesnut

peterloringborst said:


> An example is that when California was settled by Europeans, there were millions of acres of plants that were perfect for honeybees, especially the sages.


The California Chaparral sages (S. apiana and mellifera) are actually speciated by specialized pollinator preference-- a fundamental paper by Vern and Alma Grant established this observation. This image is clipped from their paper -- 

Cite - You must read this paper -- absolutely fundamental on pollinator-plant dyads
Mechanical Isolation of Salvia apiana and Salvia mellifera (Labiatae)
Author(s): Karen A. Grant and Verne Grant Source: Evolution, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Jun., 1964), pp. 196-212Published by: Society for the Study of Evolution
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2406392


----------



## mbc

peterloringborst said:


> The nativists hold him in very low regard on this account, claiming that he nearly destroyed the English black bee.
> PLB


Lol. As a "nativist" I will vouch for many of us "nativists" disagreeing with his methodology and disregard for our indigenous bee, but I can assure you he was, and is, held in very high regard as a thoughtful and talented bee enthusiast.
Inbreeding can only be held to blame for the Isle of Wight disease in the same way as it could for the susceptibility of native Americans to smallpox when Europeans arrived across the pond.


----------



## beemandan

Welcome to Beesource mbc.


----------



## WLC

Here in the U.S. we have both a western and eastern population of commercially available Honeybees.

Some recent studies have shown that the eastern population are just one big hybridized 'American' Honeybee population.

And, they're not all that resistant, although some will say that their resistannce has improved over the years.

My question would be, "Where exactly does Dr. Delaplane think that this putative 'genetic diversity' is coming from?"

I won't disagree that a well mated queen will produce a stronger colony. But, 'genetic diversity'?

I'm not sure that that's what's really happening. I think it's just a matter of well mated queens. The 'diversity' and everything else would then follow.


----------



## JWChesnut

The "Thrice out of Africa" paper should be reviewed in the context of this discussion.

The paper demonstrates that in the process of "Africanization" a significant fraction of diverse genetics are retained in a characteristic and stable proportion. Additionally, the "Iberian-German" sourced genetics become more frequent.
Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium presumes that this neutral fraction has selective advantage. The hybrid swarm is selected over an isolate.

Cite: 
Charles W. Whitfield, et al.
Thrice Out of Africa: Ancient and
Recent Expansions of the Honey Bee,
Apis mellifera
Science 314, 642 (2006);


----------



## peterloringborst

> The California Chaparral sages (S. apiana and mellifera) are actually speciated by specialized pollinator preference


 Of course, but this is the central mistake that people make when they see such perfect matches: that there is some sort of intentionality. These miraculous adaptations are the result of evolution, which is non-directional. Further, pollinators and flowers come in myriad forms. But to isolate one well-matched pair and draw conclusions from it would be like this: I see a MacDonalds in every town and crowds of people eating there. Is this an example of some sort of perfect food distribution system, or just an exception to the way that food is generally distributed and consumed? 

I looked into co-evolution quite a bit with the eye toward writing an article about it. I realized over time that the perfectly matched plant/pollinator pairs are the exception rather than the rule. Generalists, like the honey bee tend to be far more widespread and much less prone to extinction. A plant that relies on a particular pollinator, or vice versa is living in a very precarious niche, for if one loses the other, they both go. Whereas plants that attract multiple pollinators, like say: a sunflower, have a better chance to survive long term. Just the same way a pollinator that can visit a wide range of plants does.

PLB


----------



## JWChesnut

Peter,
"Generalists, like the honey bee tend to be ..... much less prone to extinction."
That is EXACTLY the point I am trying to impress. Honeybees have great fitness because they are generalists par excellence. The have substituted social organization and social "intelligence" for  instinctual specificity. My further expansion of this principal is that honeybees have avoided the typical insect specialization through a series of (rare-in-insects) mating systems. The imperatives of this evolutionarily selected system run counter to the dam-sire-studbook model of trait selection.

Bees have very strong genetic barriers to resist "the siren song" of specialization. Insects speciate at the drop of a hat, becoming evolutionarily fragile in the process. Honeybees have not specialized. The mechanism of single locus incompatibility ensures outcrossing, polyandry ensures high levels of variability, social communication ensures that multiple and diverse resources can be acquired without instinctual hard-wiring. 

Because bees resist specialization, old-world flowers competing for pollination have no evolutionary incentive to adopt specialized designs. The old-world flowers have highest fitness when they are "generic" in design. They compete against other plants by offering surplus of nectar (to the limits of this resource constraint). Social communication means these resources can be acquired by the hive-mind. Old-world flowers have simple nectars with a "generic" sugar mixture -- new world and Australian flowers often have higher complex carbohydrates in their nectar.

Compare (at the other extreme) solitary orchid bees finding the pollinaria of a single species of orchid across hundreds of acres of forest by targeting the faint analogs of the bee's own mating pheromone evolved into the flower fragrance. The flowers are bee mimics, and the pollinaria is the larvae resource.

As an aside, let me add that the endless discussions of human hive design on message boards miss the salient point of bees. The assumption is that unlocking the knowledge what is preferred and best for bees is required. However, bees don't "care" -- the super-organism adapts, and modifies its nest and behavior to fit conditions. Some solitary bees have very specific habitat preferences (soil of an exact texture and chemical composition, or pith of a particular species of plant on 2nd year stems), bees nest in old tires happily. Taking the upper-lower entrance conundrum as an example--- the super-organism just shifts its allocation of guard and ventilation duties to match. It is the extreme behavioral flexibility of the honeybees that is the genius of this evolutionary design.

Popular treatment of Orchid bees : https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...ic-alarm-pheromones-of-bees-to-attract-wasps/


----------



## JWChesnut

peterloringborst said:


> Of course, but this is the central mistake that people make when they see such perfect matches: that there is some sort of intentionality.


*Sigh*, read the Grants' paper please. The isolation is mechanical -- (Salvia's have a trigger mechanism that makes tongue length vs. weight of insect absolutely defined). This trigger is also present in old-world salvia -- and has been presented as the incentive for cell-size expansion--- to lengthen the tongue so the "enlarged bee" could better work the mountain Salvia vs. the better adapted (heavier) bumblebee.

No one is implying "intentionality" to plants -- I think we all can be certain without citing a source they do not possess higher consciousness. 

Some of us, not just PLB, have worked in evolutionary biology for decades --- schooling us that we should avoid a bit of colloquial sloppiness in the agency of evolution in Forum postings really just short circuits discussion. 

Discussions requires one to listen to what another is saying, not just think of ways to score points.

Illustration of a bee on an old-world Salvia (cite: Ann Bot-2007-Reith-393-400.pdf )


----------



## peterloringborst

> Social communication means these resources can be acquired by the hive-mind. Old-world flowers have simple nectars with a "generic" sugar mixture -- new world and Australian flowers often have higher complex carbohydrates in their nectar.


The use of the term "hive mind" is tenuous. Again, we like to think of it as a mind, but it can just as easily be characterized as a system of responses, like a machine. To elevate the hive system to equivalence with mental processes, is a bit of a leap. Mental processes involve the ability to project, that is, to imagine. The foraging bees are simply reporters, and they recruit followers. 

This distinction between old and new world flowers, where did you get that idea? Are you saying that there is some difference based entirely upon the presence or absence of honey bees? Honey bees are a member of the pollinator community, they never occur by themselves. There are always other pollinators, and there is always a variety of plant choices (except in an agricultural monocrop situation, but that is fairly uncommon worldwide



> Discussions requires one to listen to what another is saying, not just think of ways to score points.


 I am sorry if that was the impression I gave, I thought we were just having a conversation. My comments were not intended to be taken personally. I don't know you and harbor no ill toward you. I apologize for whatever I said that bothered you.


----------



## JWChesnut

Yes, old world and new world plants have markedly different nectar characteristics. A guild of new world plants are hummingbird pollinated, and these are typically high sucrose, low fragrance, lower sugar concentration (20% brix). Flower design is highly different, enforcing the distinction. This is not to say that many old world plants are also equally specialized (viz. the alpine salvia with its weight -tongue length constraint referenced above).

A series of economically important examples are instructive:
Squash -- pollen clumps together (for flying beetle pollination), nectar sugar reward insufficient for bees -- Colonies working new-world cucurbits fields often decline
Avocado -- 9-13% perseitol (indigestible to bees), 90% sucrose. Bees forage off-orchard unless forced to concentrate on trees.
Eucalyptus -- Pollen is often lacking bee-balanced amino acids leading to serious nutritional issue requiring pollen supplementation, and nectar has higher carbohydrates in 10-15% concentration (fine for flying foxes, but indigestible to bees).

Intriguing popular account of fossil and extinct old-world hummingbirds, leaving a stranded legacy of flowers. http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2004/05/ancient-hummingbirds-were-european


----------



## peterloringborst

> Yes, old world and new world plants have markedly different nectar characteristics.


 But are you suggesting that is a result of the presence or lack of Apis m? Of course there are differences, and amazing similarities between Old and New World species. Salvia is a case in point, it is one of many genus that are present in both continents, irrespective of the presence or absence of others. We should acknowledge however the discovery of fossilized apis in the US, which is a clue that these continents were probably not separate at all at one point. But give enough time, species diverge, as we know.


----------



## Dominic

JWChesnut said:


> The "Thrice out of Africa" paper should be reviewed in the context of this discussion.
> 
> The paper demonstrates that in the process of "Africanization" a significant fraction of diverse genetics are retained in a characteristic and stable proportion. Additionally, the "Iberian-German" sourced genetics become more frequent.
> Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium presumes that this neutral fraction has selective advantage. The hybrid swarm is selected over an isolate.
> 
> Cite:
> Charles W. Whitfield, et al.
> Thrice Out of Africa: Ancient and
> Recent Expansions of the Honey Bee,
> Apis mellifera
> Science 314, 642 (2006);


Caucasians seem to pretty much disappear in 1997.


----------



## peterloringborst

> The "Thrice out of Africa" paper should be reviewed in the context of this discussion.


Not everybody has access to that. By the way, you didn't caption that illustration. At a glance we have no idea what it is attempting to show.

PLB


----------



## WLC

"The hybrid swarm is selected over an isolate."

As far as genetic diversity goes, we're working with hybrids anyways.

So, there might not be too many options to increase genetic diversity besides increasing the number of drones a queen mates with.

IMHO.

There has been some speculation on the existence of reproductively isolated populations of Honeybees (Delaney). But, more work needs to be done.


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> There has been some speculation on the existence of reproductively isolated populations of Honeybees (Delaney). But, more work needs to be done.


Not clear where you are headed with this. Jamie Strange homed in on reproductive isolation in a population of native French bees. Reproductive isolation, for those who don't know, is where a species mates in a particular restrictive way. Like bar hopping. If you pick mates by bar hopping, you are likely to mate with a bar hopper, and not someone who doesn't goes to bars, but only dates guys she meets at church. 

If African bees, for example, have particular restrictive mating habits, they will tend not to become diluted through exposure to non Africans. Further, in the crosses that do occur, it is expected that some combinations may tend to become dominant over time. Etc

PLB


----------



## WLC

Peter, we know that Carni and Italian drones fly at different heights from studies for example. Also, some studies have shown that AHB drones fly earlier in the season than EHB.

My point being, if most of our stocks are hopelessly hybridized, where exactly do we get this putative genetic diversity if not from some reproductively isolated stocks/ferals?

As I've said, it's more likely that well mated queens make for better colonies than some unidentified source of diversity. They're already hybrids.


----------



## peterloringborst

> My point being, if most of our stocks are hopelessly hybridized, where exactly do we get this putative genetic diversity if not from some reproductively isolated stocks/ferals?


I don't even get the expression "hopelessly hybridized". What do you mean by that? Anyway, diversity also comes from recombination, which is high in honeybee. Are you suggesting that the population of honeybees in USA lacks diversity and the only way to remedy that is to bring in stock from Europe? Because this is simply not supported by the literature which suggest a highly variable and diverse population. Which is certainly large enough to not be in a genetic bottleneck in any case.

PLB


----------



## peterloringborst

The term hybrid is very often misused



> Hybrids are formed by cross-fertilization between differ-ent strains, races or species of plants or animals. Joseph Koelreuter (1733–1806) recorded that some tobacco hybrids exceeded their parents in growth vigour. A century later, in 1876, Charles Darwin systematically characterized growth patterns in more than 60 plant species and concluded that “the crossed plants when fully grown were plainly taller and more vigorous than the self-fertilised ones.” It is now well known that hybrid plants, such as maize, or hybrid animals, such as some dogs, grow more vigorously and adaptively than their parents
> 
> Chen, Z. J. (2013). Genomic and epigenetic insights into the molecular bases of heterosis. Nature Reviews Genetics.


----------



## WLC

By 'hopelessly hybridized' I mean that even with all the 'diversity', we still don't have resistant bees.

You can get hybrid vigor by crossing different strains. But, if all you have are hybrids to begin with, the point is moot.

As for what the literature is saying...

I haven't seen one single allele identified that has anything to do with Honeybee productivity or resistance. Just markers. 

What diversity are we describing, mitochondrial haplotypes? That's not going to do the trick either.

Frankly, I am addressing Delaplane's main point.

In plain English, the only thing that he can be referring to is how many drones a queen mates with.

I am using the term 'hybrid' correctly. I don't think that I actually had 'Italian' Honeybees either. 

Maybe I should call them 'mutts'?

The rest is too hypothetical. No evidence.


----------



## peterloringborst

> You can get hybrid vigor by crossing different strains. But, if all you have are hybrids to begin with, the point is moot.


I see, you are proposing that hybrid vigor might be exploited to produce a more vigorous bee. This route was tried, of course. They began with hybridized bees of course, as there were no pure bred bees in the USA by the 1940s. What they did was to inbreed stocks to create sufficient divergence that when the divergent lines were crossed, hybrid vigor would be expressed. 

This was based upon success breeding corn lines. The goal was to produce bees that built up rapidly and had large populations, ultimately to bee great honey producers. According to some, the project was a success. But it was complicated, difficult, and the bees lost the hybrid effect in a short while. 

It is widely known that queens sold these days get superseded in less than one year on average so any trait that depended on having a F1 hybrid cross queen in the hive would require annual requeening, which most beekeepers do not do. They would also be expensive. Queens are already at $25-30. You have to produce a lot of honey to make that investment back. 

Back in the 1980s, I raised queen bees for sale. I never requeened colonies. I figured if they replaced the queen successfully then I didn't need to worry about it. I only used queens for making new colonies, splits. 

On the other hand, I worked for a queen breeder who requeened every single colony in April with new queens he had raised. But this was to get the high egg laying rate of a new queen, which translated into pounds of bees for sale. 

I think the goal for most of us is to have bees that don't require heavy inputs, heavy maintenance costs. That means they would have to have the right stuff and be able to pass it on to the next generation. This is central this whole thread. 

The black bee was brought here by the Europeans in the 1600s. It was replaced by the Italian in the 1800s. In the 20th century most of the Americas was converted to African bees, and they are infiltrating the bees of the US as we speak. What happens next?

PLB


----------



## mbc

peterloringborst said:


> It is widely known that queens sold these days get superseded in less than one year on average


This is spectacularly different to what is expected of a queens lifespan in the UK. Why do people still buy them, or would any queen supercede this early on average under your typical conditions?

It could have something to do with the hibridised nature of the bees. Willie Robson in his book, Reflections on Beekeeping, has a passage on why he thinks imported queens often repeatedly supercede in his native Northumbria, which goes along the lines of the 'tenuous "hive mind"' (surely Seeley's work validates the hive mind concept?)attempting to assimilate with the background bee population by repeated outcrossing to give themselves the best chance of long term survival in the harsh conditions.
Perhaps your colonies with short lived queens are just confused and wish to send out virgins to catch some successful genes from the possibly fictitious stable population of drones in the area.


----------



## WLC

The average queen lasts 6 months here in the U.S. .

You're effectively renting queens for about $5 a month.


----------



## peterloringborst

> The average queen lasts 6 months here in the U.S. .


Good grief, WLC. You are just pulling this stuff out of a hat now.

PLB


----------



## peterloringborst

> It could have something to do with the hibridised nature of the bees. Willie Robson in his book, Reflections on Beekeeping, has a passage on why he thinks imported queens often repeatedly supercede in his native Northumbria, which goes along the lines of the 'tenuous "hive mind"' (surely Seeley's work validates the hive mind concept?)


Why queens are superseded the first year is a major mystery. A lot of people would like to be there when this one is figured out. It is not at all clear if supersedure is initiated by the bees in response to their dissatisfaction with the queen --or-- it is initiated by the queen herself in response to her own perception that she needs to raise a daughter and step aside. This of course is what is always done in bumble bees: the queen only lives one summer, dedicates herself to raising daughters for the next season.

As far as the hive mind is concerned, again I question whether the collection of a set of behaviors, no matter how amazing, can be called "a mind". We don't really know what a mind is in ourselves, so it is not wise to ascribe it to other species, especially insects. Now, it may be that our own minds are mechanical assemblages of electrical impulses and routine responses. But we have the sense that there is something there (our selves). You could call that sense of self "the mind", and we cannot really know if other mammals have it, let alone insects colonies.


----------



## WLC

No Peter.

I'm serious. Delaney got the 6 month figure from so and so, etc. .

They average only 6 months.

Don't shoot the messenger now.


----------



## Oldtimer

So and so etc?


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> So and so etc?


That means look up Delaney's work on queens for the citation.


----------



## Oldtimer

Wouldn't a bit less vaguery in your posts be more helpful?

If there is something you want to show him, find it and show it to him, to demand he does your work is rude.

Also if you could write your posts a bit more clearly, 1/2 of them are to muddled to be understood.


----------



## JSL

peterloringborst said:


> I think the goal for most of us is to have bees that don't require heavy inputs, heavy maintenance costs. That means they would have to have the right stuff and be able to pass it on to the next generation. This is central this whole thread.


Often times exceptional queens do not make the best "breeder" queens as their offspring do not exhibit similar characteristics. Developing lines using progeny testing seems to be the best approach, but is slow and cumbersome.

One of the proposed methods of the Page and Laidlaw closed population model was to use mixed semen to inseminate the queens. When I first read this, it immediately appealed to me. By using mixed semen, variation is theoretically reduced on the male side and variation in performance and production could more easily be attributed to the queen side. An additional benefit that I see is that queens serve as a living genetic reservoir.


----------



## WLC

OT:

I could always email PLB if necessary. But, he's pretty good at chasing down a paper.


----------



## squarepeg

can hybridization be measured?


----------



## WLC

squarepeg said:


> can hybridization be measured?


Yes, they use markers like SSRs. However, no one has really been able to identify alleles that indicate productivity, resistance, etc. .

So, we don't know which alleles for which traits are out there.

It's been 8 years since the Honeybee Genome Consortium published it's first build by the way.


----------



## squarepeg

would it be possible to express hybridization as a quantity? like the number of different lines and the corresponding percentages?


----------



## WLC

squarepeg:

Remember some of those papers we've discussed on ferals?


----------



## squarepeg

sure. but the pie charts are revealing the distribution in the meta population. it would nice if they took it further to the colony level and were able to express the relative hybridization of a given colony. that metric might be useful if it correlates strongly with other colony parameters.


----------



## WLC

They look like rectangular tables with two colors in different proportions filling in the height. STRUCTURE bar plots.

That's how hybridization data for nuclear markers is commonly represented.

Unfortunately, they aren't actual alleles.


----------



## squarepeg

that's right. your talking about the grad student's thesis. i was thinking about the mitochondrial data showing that a fair proportion of ferals were of the m line. i'll have to look back at the other paper, but as i recall they were looking at introgression of ahb genetics in the south. does that get into the level of hybridization as it relates to ferals? has anyone quantified the 'hybrid swarm'?


----------



## WLC

STRUCTURE barplots are pretty common. I'd much rather look at one of them than look at a data table.

They're used to compare markers/alleles in populations.


----------



## squarepeg

i seemed to have lost my link to the study with the structure barplots. do you still have it wlc?


----------



## WLC

squarepeg said:


> i seemed to have lost my link to the study with the structure barplots. do you still have it wlc?


http://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/12667/Katherine_Darger_thesis.pdf?sequence=1


----------



## squarepeg

many thanks. i'll check it out tomorrow.


----------



## mbc

Some times I think the vastness of North America makes you lot think in expanded ways which is generally good, but may lead to missing the wood for the trees on some occasions.
Much European work points towards partial isolation over millenia leading to locally adapted phenotypes with significant advantages, both in unassisted long term survival and in (unhibridised) mating success.
Genetic differentiation and hybridization in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) in Switzerland. Gabriele Soland-Reckeweg 
"Besides the impact of breeding management on the reduction of hybrid proportions, a natural hybridization barrier due to a reduced fitness of male hybrids seems to be involved. "

@beemandan, thank you for the welcoming post.


----------



## peterloringborst

I started this thread with the idea of comparing the various breeding schemes and their apparent failure to produce vigorous bees, further compared to bees in the wild which survive without human intervention. As an example, here is work done in Africa:



> The loss of Apis mellifera L. colonies in recent years has, in many regions of the world, been alarmingly high. No single cause has been identified for these losses, but the interactions between several factors (mostly pathogens and parasites) have been held responsible. Work in the Americas on honeybees originating mainly from South Africa indicates that Africanised honeybees are less affected by the interplay of pathogens and parasites. However, little is known about the health status of South African honeybees (A. m. scutellata and A. m. capensis) in relation to pathogens and parasites. We therefore compared the seasonal prevalence of honeybee pathogens (viruses, bacteria, fungi) and parasites (mites, bee lice, wax moth, small hive beetles, A. m. capensis social parasites) between sedentary and migratory A. m. scutellata apiaries situated in the Gauteng region of South Africa. No significant differences were found in the prevalence of pathogens and parasites between sedentary and migratory apiaries. Three (Black queen cell virus, Varroa destructor virus 1 and Israeli acute paralysis virus) of the eight viruses screened were detected, a remarkable difference compared to European honeybees. Even though no bacterial pathogens were detected, Nosema apis and Chalkbrood were confirmed. All of the honeybee parasites were found in the majority of the apiaries with the most common parasite being the Varroa mite. In spite of hosting few pathogens, yet most parasites, A. m. scutellata colonies appeared to be healthy.





> Africanized honeybees, that are genetically very similar to their African ancestors, are infected with DWV, but have not experienced large colony losses. This suggests that there might also be a genetic component that provides African and Africanized honeybees with a greater level of tolerance to pathogens and parasites, e.g. higher absconding rates, faster colony development rates, smaller colonies.


Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. Volume 114, Issue 1, September 2013, Pages 45–52


----------



## squarepeg

peterloringborst said:


> I started this thread with the idea of comparing the various breeding schemes and their apparent failure to produce vigorous bees, as compared to bees in the wild which survive without human intervention.


what are your thoughts peter as to how we apply these findings to better our breeding schemes?


----------



## peterloringborst

> what are your thoughts peter as to how we apply these findings to better our breeding schemes?


Yeah. Well, the weekend is over, I can't work on this too much right now, but I promise to continue with this thread as time permits. Thanks for participating

Pete


----------



## peterloringborst

People have pointed to feral bees as a potential source of mite resistance. It depends on what you mean by "feral bees". So-called feral bees can be simply escaped colonies from commercial hives. In which case, no different. Or they can be distinct populations, such as the African bees in the Southwest USA. A large population of ferals has a far greater chance of evolving defense mechanisms, than a small isolated population. As we all know, the bees on the island off California did not evolve varroa resistance and all died. These were natural colonies living on their own natural comb. Meanwhile, feral bees on the mainland in California retain the natural vigor of their ancestors from Africa. 

Regarding those bees:



> The wild population functions as a reservoir from which beekeepers refill their stocks. No colony losses in this study were directly attributed to Varroa mite presence or their associated pathogens. These results are in contrast to other studies around the world where Varroa mites played a significant or central role in colony losses. Even though some apiaries in this study were occasionally infested with multiple pathogens and parasites, no obvious signs of disease were observed; thereby suggesting that the savannah honeybee population studied is resistant to these assaults.


----------



## squarepeg

peterloringborst said:


> People have pointed to feral bees as a potential source of mite resistance. It depends on what you mean by "feral bees". So-called feral bees can be simply escaped colonies from commercial hives. In which case, no different. Or they can be distinct populations, such as the African bees in the Southwest USA.



i believe the ferals here are a hybridization of the a.m.m. mitochondrial line that delaney found with contributions from the swarms of all of the various and sundry commercial stock that folks have brought in over the years. my guess is that they are as genetically diverse as they can get. my stock comes from bees that were confirmed feral and harvested from trees 17 years ago. this stock has been thriving off treatments ever since. i wish there was a way to analyze them to see what the genetic contributions are to their hybribization. in the mean time i'll just call them 'supermutts'.


----------



## WLC

Let me park these links for convenience:

http://honeybeeinsemination.com/uploads/RedHoneyBeeHealthChap04.pdf

http://www.honey.com/images/uploads/research-projects/HuangTarpyCorona.pdf

I was trying to hunt down a reference and came across the first link which is relevant to the topic.

All I could locate for now on the 6 month average lifespan of queens was the second link, although I've seen it cited elsewhere. Can't recall exactly where.


----------



## JWChesnut

PLB writes: "A large population of ferals has a far greater chance of evolving defense mechanisms, than a small isolated population."

I think this is a serious misconception ---speciation typically occurs on the isolated edges of a population. Island biogenisis has been demonstrated again and again. There is simply too much inertia to move a species genetics within the massive interbreeding core -- clades branch when isolation narrows the population. Bees especially have remarkable defenses against sub-speciation within interbreeding populations (for the evolutionary reasons I have cited in previous posts in this long thread) --- single locus sex incompatibility, multiple mating polyandry, and half-sister kinship.

I have written before about taking ferals out of the Ventana wilderness-- 160,000 acres of non-commercial, roadless, and prime bee habitat. These have no resistance (and compare to Fusion Powers Gulf Coast barrier island, or M. Bush's corn-and-soy "desert" ). The non-resistant wilderness bees are non-resistant because they are sourced in a single interbreeding population of 20,000 colonies (my estimate at ~~1 per 10 acres). 

That feral resevoir means the genotypes are mixed and remixed, diluting any favorable combination into the vast "normative" American type. The bees are likely highly diverse individually -- well mated with every combination. Unlike VSH or some other narrowed lineage, but consequently unable to express a fragile and delicately inbred trait.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> http://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/12667/Katherine_Darger_thesis.pdf?sequence=1


i plodded through it again, but i just don't have the background to appreciate what is has to offer. 

it was interesting to learn that the bees collected from the southeastern us were pretty well hybridized.

"furthermore, the unmanaged, managed, and Africanized bees from
Florida/Alabama/Georgia shared enough alleles to be
considered one population."

supermutts?


----------



## WLC

squarepeg, 

What have I been saying all along? Don't forget that those southern 'mean bees' can't be called Africanized according to the thesis.


----------



## squarepeg

i got that part, that's mostly what the paper was looking at. i'm just curious as to what the genetic make up of my bees are, and how that compares to other bees. i'm thinking they are m line with the full complement of everything else mixed in, but it would be nice to know.


----------



## Dominic

Speaking of genetic diversity, how does one go about to do a mDNA analysis? How much would it cost to equip oneself to do so? Are there labs one can send samples to to have it done? How much would that cost?


----------



## WLC

Dominic said:


> Speaking of genetic diversity, how does one go about to do a mDNA analysis? How much would it cost to equip oneself to do so? Are there labs one can send samples to to have it done? How much would that cost?


It's not too onerous. It just takes the right skill sets, equipment/setup, and accounts.

It might seem to be be cool to know the mitotype of your bees until they come up the most common one there is.


----------



## JWChesnut

Dominic said:


> Speaking of genetic diversity, how does one go about to do a mDNA analysis?


Mitochondrial DNA doesn't have much to do with genetic diversity except indirectly. It is maternally inherited, extra-nuclear, and non-recombinant.* (aside -- a 1994 paper describes partial mDNA inheritance from fathers in honeybees-- it still remains, extra-nuclear and non-sexual.)

Every single unfertilized ovule in the queens reproductive tract has a unique jumbled recombination of one half of the queens pair of chromosomes. That queen could be a cross-breed of A.m.m and any other race. Her progeny, including the lucky fertilized egg that becomes a daughter queen will share only some random assortment of 1/4 of the A.m.m. genes, but 100% of the A.m.m mtDNA. The daughter queen is a quarter-blood, but has the pure tiny mtDNA ring that provides the essential template to power her mitochondria.

The daughter's daughter will have 1/4 x 1/4 = 1/16 of the A.m.m. genetic alleles, but still be represented as "pure" A.m.m mDNA. As a marker for phenotype -- mtDNA does not in any form account for the dilution to insignificance of a racial type in just a few generations.

mDNA provides a marker of division of lineages (as it has somatic mutations with frequency). It contribute to studies of colonization of racial types, as in a non-mobile world the mutation arises only once, and must move to the point of detection. It would be useful as a proxy of inbreeding (if every queen in an apiary came with the exact same of the myriad of minor types of mDNA -- you would know that colonies were likely grafted off a single lineage. A diverse set of even minor variants of mDNA would assure you that multiple queen lineages were present. 

I don't think the letter-level divisions (M, O, C, A ) carry much meaning in the American landscape -- as the foundress queen could be, and likely is, 100 generations in the past, and the "pure" racial phenotype could be present at a concentration of (1 / 4)^100 (a terrifyingly small fraction). Any one of a set of queens sharing a single mDNA 'badge' could be as unrelated as John Lenon, Muhamed Ali, and Miley Cyrus.

Cite: Meusel MS, Moritz RF (1993). "Transfer of paternal mitochondrial DNA during fertilization of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) eggs". Curr. Genet. 24 (6): 539–43.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks JWC great explanation.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Yeah. When I had hundreds of colonies, I had no problem with the idea that some did really well, some didn't and some died. Now that I only have a few hives, I want them all to be winners. I guess the lesson is to keep more than you want and then when a few tank, you don't sweat it.


The temptation to have all colonies perform at optimum rates has lead, inexorably, to what I call the veterinary model of beekeeping. That is, as well a buying in highly productive stock - as many other kinds of husbandry do - you also apply medication as needed - and even prophilactically.

While this works to raise yields in a closed breeding system, in an open breeding system its a - predictable - disaster. The necessary selection of the healthiest to make the next generation has not just been abandoned - its been made all but impossible.

I think a worthwhile questions here is: to what extent do we think that altering this state of affairs is part of the solution? What is achievable; what is do-able?

Competitive economics (capitalism) will always advantage the most profitable system. If that's raising 1-year racing queens and dosing them throughout their lives, what, if anything can we do?

That, as I see it, is the driver of the current problems. Can you see your solution being adopted by the big commercials for whom the bottom line is the main - or sole - consideration? Can they use that and remain competitive?

Must beekeeping remain driven by the economic needs of the commercial beekeepers? Is there another way? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## squarepeg

understood jwc. if the genetic make up of individual bees is so scrambled that maternal heritage of the line is no more than a vestige in the mdna then it probably doesn't make any difference.

but doesn't the observation made by delaney that most of the confirmed ferals studied up and down the appalachians (post varroa) were of m line descent imply that enough of the sub-specie characteristics bled through and resulted in a measurable evolutionary advantage?

i agree that recombination, open mating, and polyandry confound our best efforts to affect change with our breeding programs. i believe this is the point that you have been making all along, and perhaps what peter was probing in his original post.

does this mean that we should be less concerned about the make up of breeder queens regarding specific traits and more concerned about the total genetic package including the drone contribution? i suppose that's what i am doing (pretty much by default) when splitting and grafting from the colonies that do the best overall. it appears to be working so far as the quality across the yard is improving year to year.


----------



## WLC

What Delaplane and others are saying is that well mated queens produce healthier colonies.

We really can't do much else since our stocks are so thoroughly hybridized.

The flip side to that is that as many as 80% of our queens are 'poorly' mated. Not enough drones/sperm.

The real issue, IMHO, is that the average queen longevity has dropped to the 6 month mark.

Not enough breeder queens, and too many colonies to queen/re-queen seems to have led to that.

It has become 'rent-a-queen'.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> The real issue, IMHO, is that the average queen longevity has dropped to the 6 month mark.


not seeing that here, must be more of an issue with commercially produced queens. 

the large production colonies i kept from swarming last year superceded their queens during swarm season so they appear to be replacing them naturally after one year.

other than a spurt of queen failure over the winter of 2012, (33% of 18 colonies), i haven't noticed any problems in particular regarding longevity with these queens.

let's not forget that tim ives is reporting that his queens live an average of five years.


----------



## Michael Palmer

WLC said:


> The real issue, IMHO, is that the average queen longevity has dropped to the 6 month mark.


I'm not seeing that either SP. Most of mine last at least 2 years with plenty 3 and some 4.


----------



## peterloringborst

> PLB writes: "A large population of ferals has a far greater chance of evolving defense mechanisms, than a small isolated population."
> 
> I think this is a serious misconception ---speciation typically occurs on the isolated edges of a population.


I wasn't talking about speciation. I was talking about resistance.


----------



## Dominic

JWChesnut said:


> Mitochondrial DNA doesn't have much to do with genetic diversity except indirectly. It is maternally inherited, extra-nuclear, and non-recombinant.* (aside -- a 1994 paper describes partial mDNA inheritance from fathers in honeybees-- it still remains, extra-nuclear and non-sexual.)
> 
> Every single unfertilized ovule in the queens reproductive tract has a unique jumbled recombination of one half of the queens pair of chromosomes. That queen could be a cross-breed of A.m.m and any other race. Her progeny, including the lucky fertilized egg that becomes a daughter queen will share only some random assortment of 1/4 of the A.m.m. genes, but 100% of the A.m.m mtDNA. The daughter queen is a quarter-blood, but has the pure tiny mtDNA ring that provides the essential template to power her mitochondria.
> 
> The daughter's daughter will have 1/4 x 1/4 = 1/16 of the A.m.m. genetic alleles, but still be represented as "pure" A.m.m mDNA. As a marker for phenotype -- mtDNA does not in any form account for the dilution to insignificance of a racial type in just a few generations.
> 
> mDNA provides a marker of division of lineages (as it has somatic mutations with frequency). It contribute to studies of colonization of racial types, as in a non-mobile world the mutation arises only once, and must move to the point of detection. It would be useful as a proxy of inbreeding (if every queen in an apiary came with the exact same of the myriad of minor types of mDNA -- you would know that colonies were likely grafted off a single lineage. A diverse set of even minor variants of mDNA would assure you that multiple queen lineages were present.
> 
> I don't think the letter-level divisions (M, O, C, A ) carry much meaning in the American landscape -- as the foundress queen could be, and likely is, 100 generations in the past, and the "pure" racial phenotype could be present at a concentration of (1 / 4)^100 (a terrifyingly small fraction). Any one of a set of queens sharing a single mDNA 'badge' could be as unrelated as John Lenon, Muhamed Ali, and Miley Cyrus.
> 
> Cite: Meusel MS, Moritz RF (1993). "Transfer of paternal mitochondrial DNA during fertilization of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) eggs". Curr. Genet. 24 (6): 539–43.


Yes indeed. I just thought it might be nice to have one's lines actually match with their mDNA (carni lines with carni mDNA, italian lines with italian mDNA, caucasian lines with caucasian mDNA). Makes it more authentic. Sure, in the end, it doesn't really change much. And indeed (and I've said as much on another thread were this came up), mDNA is a poor indicator of genetic diversity, but with the import of old world germplasm by the WSU, one could start a breeding program that would return a line's genetics to statistically high levels of racial purity. Thus my interest to know how much it might cost to do this or to have it done.


----------



## squarepeg

awesome michael. i wonder if queens that have a shorter brooding season (in climates with longer winters) tend to last longer because they don't run out of sperm as fast?

mine are brooding from late january to early october, with a short break in august.

it make sense that queens that don't get adequately mated would fail sooner. sounds like your bees are getting the job done.


----------



## peterloringborst

Sorry for the long post, but this quote from Mike Allsopp says it better than I can



> Notwithstanding the characteristics of African honeybee races that pre-adapt them to varroa tolerance, the lack of breeding and artificial selection in African honeybees is certain to be a critical factor in varroa mites not becoming a major problem in South Africa as it has almost throughout the world. Varroa tolerance requires constant selection pressure to maintain the tolerance, the selection pressure provided by free-mating and unmanaged colony survival. In contrast, a very large proportion of the commercial beekeeping industry in the USA depends on the purchase of commercially-produced queens with limited genetic variability, which are often poorly mated and infected with various pests and diseases (Camazine et al 1998).
> 
> A similar situation exists in commercial beekeeping operations around the world. To compound it, beekeepers are forever introducing bees from across the globe in an effort to deal with local pests and diseases. All in all, the commercial bee population is generally not genetically diverse and not locally adapted. This is in complete contrast to the African honeybee population which is almost totally unselected, and probably as genetically diverse now as it was a thousand years ago. Bailey (1999) and Allsopp (1999) have argued that selective breeding for “quality” by and for beekeepers has decreased the resistance in honeybee populations to a wide range of pathogens. Highly intensive selection has decreased genetic variability and selected against critical “bee tolerance” factors such as swarming and defensiveness (Bailey 1999).
> 
> A more sensible approach would be to: (a) Manage naturally occurring regional strains of honeybee, rather than importing strains from elsewhere. This is particularly important in Europe and Africa where Apis mellifera is indigenous and less so where it is an exotic species. (b) Practise “primitive” beekeeping as is the case in Africa by allowing natural selection processes to determine which are the most significant characteristics for selection and not the beekeepers or bee scientists, at least to some extent. It is also best to use an un-manipulated wild population, and for this population to be as large as possible.
> 
> Other researchers (e.g. Danka et al 1997; Rinderer et al 2001) have argued that there would be no natural resistance to varroa, and that all unmanaged colonies would be eliminated with only especially bred commercial stock being able to survive. Chemical or biotechnical treatment of colonies (Van Dung et al 1997; Goodwin & Van Eaton 2001), and the breeding of selected stock to develop resistance (Rinderer et al 2001), are held as the only way to maintain colonies faced with the varroa mite. There have also been suggestions that this resistance needs to be maintained through controlled mating and/or gene based selection made possible by the Honeybee Genome project (Evans 2005), much as happens in many varieties of livestock and plant crops.
> 
> The existence of naturally occurring varroa tolerant honeybee populations around the world makes a mockery of these claims, and I would argue that this methodology, albeit seductive, would be ineffective, as has been the case with bee breeding in general. Captive breeding programmes and especially gene selection programmes can never adequately keep up with the changing environment, certainly not to the extent that a “live-and-let-die” approach can. Allowing natural selection to determine who the winners are, will always be the most sensible strategy. This may not sit well with generations of bee-masters and bee scientists, but the dominance of unmanaged bees takes some explaining away. The success of A.m.scutellata in the Americas and the failure of bee diseases in Africa, are two examples that support this approach.


ANALYSIS OF VARROA DESTRUCTOR INFESTATION OF SOUTHERN AFRICAN HONEYBEE POPULATIONS
Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Faculty of Natural & Agricultural Science
University of Pretoria, Pretoria
MIKE ALLSOPP June 2006


----------



## JSL

Thanks Peter. I think much of modern animal selection can get away with the reduced fitness due to greater environmental control and isolation of herds/flocks. However, beekeeping walks the line of wild vs. domestication and it is far more difficult for beekeepers to control the environment and exposure to pests, diseases and nutrition.


----------



## beekuk

Michael Palmer said:


> I'm not seeing that either SP. Most of mine last at least 2 years with plenty 3 and some 4.


 Same here Michael, with the occasional one reaching five years.



squarepeg said:


> mine are brooding from late january to early october, with a short break in august.


Much the same here, and some are brooding all through the winter as pollen is available all year round, if flying conditions are suitable.


----------



## squarepeg

i have mentioned in earlier posts that the bees i have are predecessors of locally adapted unmanaged survivors cut out from trees. they have proven their ability to resist varroa and thrive as evidenced by their seventeen years of continuity off treatments. there has not been any scientific study of these bees regarding their genetics or resistant traits, but the success speaks for itself. i believe that what is described in peter's reference is taking place here.


----------



## peterloringborst

Regarding Mike Allsopp:

While I admire his conclusions, and point to this thesis often as a potential "new direction" it is easy to see the weakness in the argument. He is comparing conventional breeding to feral populations. But at the same time he is comparing European bees to African bees. So the difference could be entirely due to that factor. Which ruins his whole case. 

In fact, survival of colonies can be due to many factors, which the beekeeper may not be able to control. For example, I may succeed at treatment free in an area where all the beekeepers are effectively suppressing mites, so there isn't a heavy external pressure on my hives. Or, I may be located in an area where there aren't many other beekeepers so my colonies stabilize.

Conversely (and this is more common) I may attempt to go treatment free but hives all around me are crashing from heavy mite loads, and these are spilling into my hives in late summer. That has happened to me over and over again. The point being that it is easy to attribute cause and effect if you ignore other relevant factors.

PLB


----------



## JWChesnut

peterloringborst said:


> I wasn't talking about speciation. I was talking about resistance.


Breeding for resistance is just a special form of managed speciation.

Unless your model is hybrid broccoli (or Starline bees), where a F1 or F2 cross is made from highly isolated inbred parent lines.

Breeding for resistance implies "fixing" a novel set of alleles into a population at some threshold concentration. That is sub-speciation. An organism (like honeybees) that has a multi-million year evolutionary history of resisting genetic drift is not going "fix resistance" just because the bee-keeper wishes it would.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I'm not seeing that either SP. Most of mine last at least 2 years with plenty 3 and some 4. 

That's what I see.

As far as breeding for individual traits, I have said that was a bad idea all along. There are far too many things involved in the overall outcome to judge genetics by one or two traits. We need to look at the big picture of healthy, productive, gentle bees and stop looking at the details. The details will mislead you. You need to look at the whole colony, not individual traits that you think will contribute.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I wasn't talking about speciation. I was talking about resistance.
> 
> Breeding for resistance is just a special form of managed speciation.


I wasn't talking about breeding, either. Natural resistance formed by natural selection. I don't know why you bring speciation into this. Apis hasn't produced a new species in hundreds of thousands of years. Now, it might have if the African and European populations had remained isolated for a few more hundred thousand years. There is clear divergence between those two populations in terms of differential mating, behavior, size etc but they are capable of interbreeding, so most authorities refer to them as still the same species.


----------



## JWChesnut

For these putative "resistant" alleles to become frequent in the bee population, they must overcome the special and very strong bee mechanisms for normalization of the genome. 

Bees add genetic capacity by a unique trend toward hyper-vigorous polyandry -- so the hive becomes a "village" of many specialities. Eusocial Polyandry is very rare in nature (as it violates kinship selection)-- and bees have evolved this odd and counter-Darwinian mating system because it contributes to their long-term species stability.

We might want bees to breed resistance -- as it should manifestly improve local fitness. The bees take a much longer view -- they "assume" that the local, 'fitness-de-jour' is a long-term trap. Their insect competitors that "specialized" on some long-extinct flower are now all extinct as well. It was a eusocial experiment with many fathers and glacially inefficient specialization that means the honey bees didn't speciate quickly, and they are still extant.

The bees are in a "box" -- the system that prevents them from going off on the tangent of Salvia tongue-length extension to ridiculous hawk-moth proportions, also means that faced with a novel parasite are unable to "breed up" to the challenge.

Honeybees have faced some type of Varroa before -- Varroa and Honeybee met in the Afghanistan Hindu Kush and along the central Asian Oxus valley (heartland of the Apple) in the millenial past. I would like to know the ecology of those previous encounters. Did bee's simply retreat -- making a cordon sanitaire -- the reason bees never entered the sub-continent India, or did the encounter have other outcomes. 

I hypothesize that the Korean Varroa is a novel, and very recent, evolved form --- Hypervirulence in the largely clonal Varroa was selected for in historic times -- by the bees themselves! The bees (Cerana and Mellifera equally) are engaged in a "typhoid Mary" strategy to empty the competitive niche of other bees to expand in the highly restricted survival sites in Siberian cold.

Since Salvia keeps coming up in this discussion --- did you know California Salvia engage in "competitive allopathy" -- they literally poison the soil beneath their canopy. This means competition (including the progeny of the plant) cannot germinate -- it is not until a fire removes the plant that the very metabolically expensive chemical poisons (exuded by the roots) are denatured and a new crop of hyper competitors can grow. Bees are (hypothetically) engaged in a similar "laying waste" strategy by accomodating the Varroa.


----------



## Tim Ives

squarepeg said:


> let's not forget that tim ives is reporting that his queens live an average of five years.


I'm working with 8+year treatment free, SUGAR free and naturally raised Queens. 

I don't keep hives that need life support.

Tim Ives


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Sorry for the long post, but this quote from Mike Allsopp says it better than I can


Mike Allsop says 40% of it. He hints at the missing part, and its clearly embedded in his thinking, but he doesn't come out and say it.

Intensive breeding is only a small part of the problem. The rest - the big part - is frustration of the natural emergence of resistance due to systematic treatments.

Perhaps there's a need to be inoffensive. But we won't understand the problem unless we're clear about the major cause. The maintenance of, and creation of more, treatment-dependent bees is what perpetuates ... treatment dependent bees.

Ferals don't have that problem. That's why they're successful.

It also needs saying: the're no one-off cure other than the adoption of systematic propagation of resistant-only bees. The population has to be 'husbanded' - just the same as any other organic population.

Breeding fine resistant bees then not maintaining their qualities through selective propagation isn't the answer.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> Breeding for resistance implies "fixing" a novel set of alleles into a population at some threshold concentration.


No it doesn't. The term 'breeding' covers anything from just making offspring to line breeding, and all between.

What we need to be talking about is one of the in-betweens - the maintenance and improvement of resistance-imparting allelles in our own local breeding pools.

This is easily achievable through systematic selective propagation - mirroring the natural process. 

It must be ongoing - done in every generation. The concentration of allelles will be a function of this process, the natural process, and (negatively) the treating of local bees. Period.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Fusion_power

If a colony is a super population of half-half-sisters, then the breeding population of colonies taken as a whole is a super super population. From this perspective, it would be expected that the super population overlay would be extremely resistant to efforts to reduce the genetic base. This is precisely what occurs in honeybees. To emphasize one trait in this super population overlay implies an incredible amount of selection pressure applied to the entire super population of all colonies. This seems intuitively impossible, yet varroa mites represent just such an incredible amount of selection pressure. From this perspective, all the beekeepers who treat for varroa are simply slowing the process of adaptation by the super population of bees to the selection pressure exerted by varroa. There are some huge caveats such as that it is only possible to select for tolerance where tolerance actually exists.

The queens sold by queen breeders are just less diverse mutts where a few traits have been moved in one direction or another, kind of like pushing a balloon around in the air. When you stop pushing, the balloon begins to randomly drift where the air currents push it. It is feasible on a local basis to move the bee population in the direction of one or more traits. This can only be done when the local population is reproductively isolated from the super super population. Study this and you will see how Brother Adam exploited both the worldwide population genetics and yet moved individual traits in the direction of his choice. JSL comments about not knowing the size of an effective breeding population. I think it is "more is better" until you run into the limit of how large a population can be controlled and isolated from the super population overlay.

My bees are not purebred with the single exception that they survive and thrive where other bees died from varroa. From my perspective, I have just let the bees do what they were already in the process of doing with perhaps a bit of a push on my part.


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> If a colony is a super population of half-half-sisters, then the breeding population of colonies taken as a whole is a super super population.


I agree with everything else you've said, but I think your language is unnecessary. But it is essential to get a handle on the complex nature of bees natural breeding arrangements, to understand how much, how, and why, we can influence them.

A colony can be simply likened to a family. The 'local population' describes the bees from which parents are drawn. (The 'breeding pool' or deme') focuses the intent a bit more.

The natural situation shows us how bees work. In any locality new generations are drawn from the most fit individuals (queens and drones) - which come from (are defined that way by) the strength of their colonies. The best raise large/many swarms which tend to establish and thrive (due to size and sound parentage): the worst die: in-between the stronger the parents the greater the likelyhood of successful offspring.

In all this the terms 'best' and 'fittest' can be substituted. 'Fittest' in this context means ''well fitted to the (local) environment' and is loosely synonomous with ''well adapted'. Same with 'healthiest'. 

Drones bring in new blood from not very far away. Queens travel much less. So the input of new genetic material is extremely limited, and natural selection works with a limited range of genetic material. Large regional adaptations ('races') develop, and smaller subdivisions evolve 'sub races' according to local environments. 

At the level of the local breeding pools, there is adaptation to local environment. This local adaptation is the ultimate source of all the larger subracial and racial characteristics.

Like this - in racially singular, genetically narrow form, bees adapt to changes in their local environments - to climatic changes, new predators, new diseases - and flourish all over the world. 
*
What makes this happen is natural selection for the fittest strains. 

Period. 

That's the big trick, the magical source of all health in all living things*.

*Taking that away (and failing to substitute with a process as effective) will always, can only, result in sickness and deterioration*.

As Darrel and JW point out, the bees' complex mating arrangements make them resistant to efforts to force changes. And any such changes will only remain as long as the breeding pool is controlled - closed. And that is to all intents and purposes impossible with bees. 

This makes line breeding a futile effort except to provide one-shot queens - high-powered individuals that will perform well in specific circumstances, but are ill-equipped to compete in local environments. (Such bees are best regarded, in Randy Oliver's words, as 'domesticated'. They cannot supply genes adequate to the demands of natural competition with locally adapted bees, and their presence very effectively suppresses the development of resistance wherever they reach, according to the proportion of breeding material they supply)

*That doesn't mean we cannot alter bees at all*. Where beekeepers are sufficiently populous, and co-ordinate their efforts, it can make a striking difference. The obvious example is coordinated, systematic treatments, which widely maintain unadapted bloodlines. Beekeepers can also locally maintain traits like higher than normal levels of docility and productivity. 

These changes in local breeding pools are not bought about by tightly controlled selective breeding, but by systematically and continuously pressing the breeding pools in a particular direction. It is mirroring, more or less exactly, the process that occurs constantly in nature, where changes in the environment lead to adaptations. 

Where is is deliberate it is right to describe it as 'breeding'. Working to concentrate the genes coding for specific traits is 'breeding' - there isn't another term.

*Such adaptations remain only as long as the pressures that cause them remain*. 

This is true of all adaptations - that is all features of all living things!

That is the picture in which any discussion of breeding - on any scale - must occur. Raising resistance is possible - but must be recognised as something that remains only to the degree that, and for as long as, pressure is maintained. Feral bees do it as naturally as breathing: we can help, or, working together, we can wreck the development of resistance. That describes what we do now.

Specialised breeders can help by supplying genes coding for resistance behaviours. 

How this understanding can applied is a separate question. Will large scale commercial beekeepers be interested in acting as husbandrymen to their own populations - meaning raising their own queens, and influencing their own environments? Or will they prefer to carry on with existing arrangements? (Secondary questions: what is the overall effect of those arrangements on national bee health and food security in the longer term)

Will smaller beekeepers be able to counter widespread systematic treatments by making larger apiaries, clubbing together locally, and together offering effective pressure - on an ongoing basis - to counter the widespread systematic treating? 

Will ferals continure to adapt, offering more locally adapted resistant genes to the point where, for most rather than for just a few, the problem will fade away?

Will enough beekeepers ever gain a widespread understanding of these issues? Will such an understanding be sufficient to counter the narratives systematically re-told with every sale, every advertisement, for treatments, all the advice to treat systematically by official bodies?

Will the academics find ways of representing these facts in ways that will spead a proper understanding of the currrent causes of treatment-dependence?

What is important is to understand the realities of resistance growth and suppression (and the economic and commercial drivers), and to help others understand them. Only that way can we even think about making the changes that are needed to reduce treatments - that is: restore health to honeybees.

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan

Michael Bush said:


> >I'm not seeing that either SP. Most of mine last at least 2 years with plenty 3 and some 4.
> 
> That's what I see.


Same here. 2-3 years would be a typical age.


----------



## JWChesnut

Bispham,
((I'm working at a very remote location on a very interesting project of multiple rare species ecology, so will not make cites in this post, and may make errors of interpretation)).

An enormous literature exists on mathematically modeling selection modified by stochastic (unpredictable, random) events. Bee's intrinsic high resistance to selective drift will be amplified by the effect of perturbation. Natural selection in this milieu for a complex trait involving 6-17 loci (as per Spivak) is not going to transpire in your lifetime. Viz: American Chestnut resistance to blight, Dutch Elm resistance to DE Beetle, and a host of other un-modified by evil commercial keepers selection events.

Selection occurs in the context of competing optimizations. What the beekeepers think represents greater fitness is only an imperfect conception of the cross-winds presented by nature. 

I hypothesize that some level of parasite actual increases the likelihood of gene transfer. Bees are relatively unique as insects for the length of their lifespan -- compare to midges or mayflies. As a super-population, all available competitive space will be occupied to the limit of the carrying capacity. An element that empties this occupied landscape, raises the likelihood that a new gamete will have room to reproduce. Because genes have only tenuous kinship with an established hive (due to Polyandry), the selfish gene could care less if it killing is half-half-sisters.

Apis cerana is presented as having a stable relationship with Varroa. However, in Japan where V. is supposedly less virulent, A. cerana swarms more than six times a year (as per ethologies of Japanes beekeeping). A colony swarming at that rate is prima facie indication that the population is experiencing high levels of colony death. Colony death may represent gene selected promotion for the reason of niche occupancy.

It is highly likely, given this hypothesis, that landscapes with high levels of feral bees will have Varroa with higher virulence and killing power. It is more likely that commercially husbanded hives (with highly restrictive selection for only the healthiest hives to graft from) will have much, much better expressed "resistant" traits.

To paraphrase your tagline Anti-husbandry: Feral Cripples + Unsophisticated understanding === Lots of disappointed hobbyists with dead-outs


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> Bee's intrinsic high resistance to selective drift will be amplified by the effect of perturbation. Natural selection in this milieu for a complex trait involving 6-17 loci (as per Spivak) is not going to transpire in your lifetime.


So, according to your understanding, there are no resistant ferals, and no resistant bred bees? 

Not even where 'resistant' means 'slightly more resistant than the least resistant'.

That appears to be what you are telling us.



JWChesnut said:


> Viz: American Chestnut resistance to blight, Dutch Elm resistance to DE Beetle, and a host of other un-modified by evil commercial keepers selection events.


You might be interested to know that Elms reproduce by suckering. Only. There is no sexual mechanism for recombining genes. That is the source of their difficulties with Dutch Elm Disease.

As to Chestnut, I think there is a rather striking reproductive period mismatch. We might also be talking about lack of genetic diversity? Is it an imported species?

We might also be takling about something very common in nature. A blight, a sweeping infection that wipes out most of a particualr species. The species most often recovers naturally as the resistant survivors repopulate a .... now resistant species. The recovery can be extremely rapid - one governing factor being the time from birth to reproductive maturity - generational turnover. Another is fecundity. 



JWChesnut said:


> Selection occurs in the context of competing optimizations. What the beekeepers think represents greater fitness is only an imperfect conception of the cross-winds presented by nature.


Selection occurs... and the result is greater fitness... It seems to me you are arguing my case now???

Natural selection raises the proportion of genes supplying greater fitness in the popultation. It lowers the proportion of genes supplying lack of fitness. Yep. 

Good husbandry does exactly the same things. It mirrors nature's essential process.



JWChesnut said:


> I hypothesize...


Thanks for letting us know you do actually realize that these are your own hypotheses. But you really must take into account the essential facts of nature, and of husbandry. Selection, natural or human makes a (vast) difference. It is as possible in bees as it is in any other organism. Docility, productivity, reluctance to swarm, runniness, all these and more have been manipulated by beekeepers, both singly and in concert, for a long time. Resistance to varroa is no different. These are facts. No amount of mathematical modelling can make them go away! *If your hypotheses make assumptions inconsistent with these facts, they have no value whatsoever!*



JWChesnut said:


> Apis cerana is presented as having a stable relationship with Varroa. However, in Japan where V. is supposedly less virulent, A. cerana swarms more than six times a year (as per ethologies of Japanes beekeeping).
> 
> References please. And, compare European bees: In natural circumstance how often do our bees swarm?
> 
> 
> 
> JWChesnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> A colony swarming at that rate is prima facie indication that the population is experiencing high levels of colony death.
> 
> 
> 
> So theorises you. A vital colony in a small box is optimising its rate of reproducing by doing just that. *Optimising reproductive rate is the main objective of all orgainic species!*
> 
> What were the average cavity sizes in your (to be cited) studies?
> 
> 
> 
> JWChesnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colony death may represent gene selected promotion for the reason of niche occupancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just how does a death represent a 'gene selected promotion'
> 
> 
> 
> JWChesnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is highly likely, given this hypothesis...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's quite enough of JW's hyptheses, each built on the last, for one day.
> 
> Mike (UK)
Click to expand...


----------



## peterloringborst

I don't think that breeding bees resembles the evolutionary process of natural selection at all. Nature has no particular criteria, some creatures live and some don't depending on a variety of traits and circumstances. There is no one way it always happens



> Based on our mitochondrial DNA data, the genetic diversity of
> unmanaged honey bees in the United States differs significantly from that of queen
> breeder populations (p\0.00001). The detection of genetically distinct maternal
> lineages of unmanaged honey bees suggests that these haplotypes may have existed
> outside the managed honey bee population for a long period.


from
Magnus, R. M., Tripodi, A. D., & Szalanski, A. L. (2014). Mitochondrial DNA Diversity of Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) from Unmanaged Colonies and Swarms in the United States. Biochemical genetics, 1-13.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Historical records suggest that the first introduced hives were ‘German black bees’, the subspecies A. m. mellifera (Sheppard 1989). Since then, however, a number of other subspecies have been introduced, including the ‘Italian’ bees, A. m. ligustica and A. m. carnica (Sheppard 1989), and the infamous African ‘killer’ bee (A. m. scutellata), which was accidentally released in Brazil in 1956 (Sheppard & Smith 2000; Schneider et al. 2004). Interestingly, the introduction and spread of Africanized honeybees (A. m. scutellata) has affected some parts of the genome more than others – alleles descended from A. m. mellifera have been retained at far higher rates than alleles descended from A. m. ligustica or A. m. carnica.


From:
Suarez, A. V., & Tsutsui, N. D. (2008). The evolutionary consequences of biological invasions. Molecular Ecology, 17(1), 351-360.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I don't think that breeding bees resembles the evolutionary process of natural selection at all. Nature has no particular criteria, some creatures live and some don't depending on a variety of traits and circumstances. There is no one way it always happens


That's an extraordinary view for a husbandryman. What *always, always* happens is that, as a firm average, those individuals best fitted (healthiest within) their environment contribute significantly more genetic material to the next generation.

Always. 

Don't take my word for it:

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

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

If you stop, or otherwise fail to mimic, that process, the result is always, always, degradation of health. 

There are easily understood reasons for that. But ideally Peter, you should find your own resources and catch up on the basic relationship between natural selection and breeding. 

Perhaps you'll find direction in the fact that part of what helped Darwin arrive at the theory of Natural Selection for the Fittest Strains (as an explanation of the origin of species) was conversations with pigeon breeders. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

"Breeding is by no means a human invention. Nature, which in *millions of years* has bought forth this immense diversity of wonderfully adapted creatures"

It's the millions of years part that is sometimes overlooked. Some beekeepers are talking like they can make huge strides in a generation or two. And that's why we still have mites. There is also another belief that we will always have varroa with us. But this is based on experience over a few years. My own belief is that with time, we will eradicate varroa, long as we are not eradicated first.

Quote "But ideally Peter, you should find your own resources and catch up on the basic relationship between natural selection and breeding". Did you ever read that book I recommended Mike?


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> "Breeding is by no means a human invention. Nature, which in *millions of years* has bought forth this immense diversity of wonderfully adapted creatures"
> 
> It's the millions of years part that is sometimes overlooked. Some beekeepers are talking like they can make huge strides in a generation or two. And that's why we still have mites.


It seems to me that ferals seem to make good progress in 10 or 15 years. (That's a distillation of reports gained over the last 4 or 5 years.) A good beekeeper - in ideal circumstances - should be able to do much better. For those with access to feral and/or bred resistant stock the groundbreaking work has been done. 

Don't forget Ruttner was talking about the evolution of species! We don't need any evolution in that sense - we just need to have the proportion of mite-management alleles raised in our populations. That's achieved by the same core mechanism - natural selection for the fittest strains (or adequate husbandry). But it doesn't require the rare mutations that contribute to speciation. 

We just need to copy nature's day-to-day process - make (much) more from (only) the very best. Winnow the weak ruthlessly. That way the unwanted alleles are progressivley reduced to an appropriate proportion.

Its called... husbandry...

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Still reading my posts mike LOL



mike bispham said:


> As to Chestnut, I think there is a rather striking reproductive period mismatch. We might also be talking about lack of genetic diversity? Is it an imported species?Mike (UK)


This statement is revealing of the chasm in your understanding and the problem with speaking in generalities while being ignorant of specifics.

Google the American Chestnut, learn, and then come back & see if you want to theorise about your "reproductive period mismatch".


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Still reading my posts mike


If you want me to continue to read and reply to your posts on this thread, rewrite politely. One chance.


----------



## Oldtimer

Of all people, you mention the word "politely". Ironic huh. 

Pots and kettles? 

Straightened out your chestnut facts yet? I'd be interested to read your revised comments after you have learned something of the subject. As you portray yourself as educated you can hardly leave your comments in post #104 there for all to see, can you.

Reading Jonathans selected reference could also help with how widely you missed the mark on making any relevant comment. But how would you know what is relevant when you don't read and have no idea of the topic.

Kinda like your web site. Written before you had more than am passing whisper of work with actual bees, yet in the claimed 5 years since have not changed anything. Why? Haven't learned anything?


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> No, I am not thinking about this and not that. I am thinking about all of it. The goals of beekeepers are similar whether large or small. We all tend to want consistent dependable results. And traditionally, the thinking was that by selecting bees with specific traits, those traits could be propagated. And it is true for some traits, like color or rapid buildup. But we are at the very beginning of understanding the genetic basis for complex traits.
> 
> Even in monogamous organisms, the genetic bases of behavioral traits have not been identified. And then when you add the multiple mating of honey bees PLUS the fact that the colony contains thousands of individuals forming a "super-organism" it's plain that an oversimplified plan may not yield the proposed results. But as I said, we are at the beginning of a long conversation we could have, depending on the stamina of the participants.


Circling back: a number of apparently successful treatment-free practioners have emphasised the following two points:

First; selecting (from among untreated, and unmanipulated hives) for the quality of productivity over a reasonable timespan - say three years - wraps up all the possible contributory factors in one go. You've found the ideal combination of mite resistance, general disease resistance, suitability to local climate and forage, and energy-gathering capacity in a single measure. As a general principle this seems to me to speak to your ideas Peter.

Secondly (and related) John Kefuss emphasises the point: you don't have to know _why_ it works to know _that_ it works. (He uses as an example an aeroplane)

An observation on these two ideas: together they represent a management system very close indeed to that at the heart of what its fair to call 'traditional husbandry'. In earlier times, when the nature of diseases were poorly understood and treatments unobtainable, health in stock was maximised by propagating only from the strongest, largest (and yes, most desirably featured) individuals. 

The principle mirrors natural selection for the fittest strains very closely by ruthlessly removing the weaker from the breeding pool *always*, and using *only* the very strongest few males as sires.

I've bolted that reminder on the bottom of my double point because... its something that should always be uppermost in any breeder's mind. And if and when it is, the complications of selection tend to fall away as its realised that .. stand-alone strength (and productivity) are two traits that you must not compromise. And that if you work from that principle, the rest falls into place - and you can adopt a Kefuss-like approach: I don't know what the mechanics are and I don't care. It works. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Keith Delaplane on queen rearing:
> 
> "The hive's honey is like fat, a stored-up food supply; the bees' group decision-making is like the brain; and beeswax is like the liver of a single animal. "


From that first observation, I've found it very interesting and enlightening to examine the perspective that:

"Energy is the fundamental object under contention in natural selection"[1]



peterloringborst said:


> The unit of natural selection with bees is the hive, not the individual,


Looking at that a different way, you might regard the colony as the 'individual', seeing the comb and workers as parts of the queen's body. 

I'm not sure 'hives' strive for genetic diversity. That is just the way the bee has evolved. But there is a point in there.



peterloringborst said:


> ...and hives strive for genetic diversity, he said. When Delaplane experimented by introducing more genetic diversity into hives instead of trying to narrow it, he found that everything improved - resistance, honey production and general hive health.
> 
> "I think we're barking up the wrong tree," he said. "You can't do it like other animals. The colony resists genetic narrowing."


There seems to be a tension between the idea that genetic diversity is a good thing on the one hand, and that traits are easier to fix, and more reliably expressed, in genetically narrow populations on the other. 

The second is an argument that is probably mostly made by bee breeders trying to stabilise traits - clearly a desirable thing - for them.

However, as their sold queens will mate with a wide genetic range for the next generation, the issue becomes, at that point, at least partly moot. 

If we are looking to promote home-raising of queens (as opposed to central breeding - widely thought to be a positive as it tends to maintain genetic diversity and locally acclimatised populations) we have to acknowledge that home-breeders will want to try to stabilise their populations, and will tend to narrow diversity locally. 

Mike (UK)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann#Energetics_of_evolution


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Not if you use Mel Disselkoen's MDA splitter method. The more I think about it, the more I try in this direction, the more I like it. Especially if you think about this:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...cuity-lowers-disease-within-honeybee-colonies

Queens that have been reared in a strong hive with plenty of bees and plenty of food and only few queen cells, that received a lot of attention of a lot of bees, should be better nourished, warmed and so. Better nourished means stronger, fitter and healthier. 

Which means she can fly out for mating several times, fly for a longer time and distance, thus does meet and mate with more drones. More drones, more genetics in that hive. The better the housekeeping tasks are done by the hive, the better the microbial community...and so on. 

From my experiments I see, that a queen that has been cared for as a larvae in a full hive, with very few queen cells, been warmed by bees in a full hive during the capped cell stage and is born into a full hive, is a much stronger and better queen than with all other methods (including natural swarms cells). You do not notice differences during the first months or so, maybe the appearance of the queen, but sure you see the difference next season. Much more brood, stronger colonies. 

So to me it seems one has to review modern queenrearing methods rather than the breeding. I think the MDA method may be a good thing. Using production hives as rearing and mating hives. The downside is the decrease of bee population within the hive because of the broodless period. What I am currently trying is to solve this by using a two queen hive. Two queens produce a larger bee population per hive, so the broodless period does not have a significant effect on productivity.


----------



## jonathan

BernhardHeuvel said:


> From my experiments I see, that a queen that has been cared for as a larvae in a full hive, with very few queen cells, been warmed by bees in a full hive during the capped cell stage and is born into a full hive, is a much stronger and better queen than with all other methods


What experiments are you referring to and how have you made a valid comparison with say queens which mate from small mating nucs.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

To my own fiddling I do refer. Just intuitive try (and error). I have simply tried a wide range of methods. 

This are my mini mating nucs. The mini mating nucs are very commonly used in Germany. You simply put a cup of bees into those nucs and a ripe queen cell. Just topbars.



























































































If I compare the queens to those born in full hives, next year, the full hive queens always perform much better. Although the queens, produced in mini mating nucs, do look ok and are well shaped and do lay well. But they do not perform as well.


----------



## jonathan

> If I compare the queens to those born in full hives, next year, the full hive queens always perform much better. Although the queens, produced in mini mating nucs, do look ok and are well shaped and do lay well. But they do not perform as well.


I rear a lot of queens in apideas for myself and also a queen rearing group I run and to be honest I have not noticed any difference between mating from a full colony and mating from an apidea. Some colonies do better than others and it is hard to say why but I don't see a direct correlation to where the queen mated from. I will keep looking in case I have missed something. Last August a queen of mine which mated from an Apidea was superseded in her 4th season so some of them seem to mate well from the smaller nucs.
There are sometimes problems with queens if they are removed too early from Apideas. There is a report from Australia, by Rhodes and Denney which states that queens should ideally be at least 35 days old before they are removed from apideas, ie they have probably been laying for about 3 weeks already.


----------



## mbc

Wouldnt it be wonderful if honey bees already had the capacity in their genome to make slight adaptations to their typical behaviour over a short (handful of generations) period of time to optimise their survival chances when environmental pressure changes for whatever reason, and these changes could appear to be fixed, but would then quickly revert to mean or typical behaviour when the pressure changes back?
Anecdotaly this appears to occur in areas where honey bees have been indigenous for a very long time, but its very difficult to pin this down with short studies of too small sample sizes of these infinitely variable super organisms, or studies skewed by populating them with an artificially high stocking density, or studies spoiled by those **** beekeepers and their husbandry practices getting in the way.


----------



## rhaldridge

BernhardHeuvel said:


> If I compare the queens to those born in full hives, next year, the full hive queens always perform much better. Although the queens, produced in mini mating nucs, do look ok and are well shaped and do lay well. But they do not perform as well.


Bernhard, have you read the old Jay Smith's old book "Better Queens?" I'm beginning to think that the quality of queens is much more important than lots of folks think.


----------



## squarepeg

rhaldridge said:


> Bernhard, have you read the old Jay Smith's old book "Better Queens?" I'm beginning to think that the quality of queens is much more important than lots of folks think.


top of the list of what ya gotta have.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I'm beginning to think that the quality of queens is much more important than lots of folks think.


Now we are getting back to the original thread, which is about quality and the problems associated with conventional breeding. But I would take it one step further, the colony is a living representation of the queen and her qualities (good or bad). The scientific term is "extended phenotype." Whether the queen survives long term and propagates her genes depends on whether the colony can survive long term. And that long term survival depends on the queen. 

So, what is a quality queen? Is this something we have any influence over? How do you evaluate the queen? What are the good qualities and bad qualities you will be looking for? Are you absolutely certain that by taking an egg from the queen you like, you will be able to raise another queen from it that is like her, considering that egg, that queen, has an entirely different set of parents than she did? 

What traits are directly passed from mother to daughter, and which traits are a product of colony dynamics produced by the interaction of multiple sub-families in the hive (that is, different bees have different fathers). There is some evidence that having a diversity of sub-families is beneficial to colony health, hence why queens mate multiple times: to bring in a diversity of traits. Like building a dream team by recruiting a lot of different players, and producing a synergy. How could this be passed on to the next generation at all???


----------



## squarepeg

my years of experience are too few and my sample size is too small, but.......

so far the winnowing the weak colonies along with splitting and grafting from the strong has increased the overall quality and performance in my small apiary.

but with so many variables at play from the amount and quality of royal jelly to the number and diversity of drones at mating it's obvious that the value of each individual queen can only be determined once she (and her colony) has be proven.

for me this extends beyond a good initial brood pattern, and goes on into build up, production, resistance, and overwintering.

like with many things, mass production is usually achieved with some compromise on quality control.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Now we are getting back to the original thread, which is about quality and the problems associated with conventional breeding. But I would take it one step further, the colony is a living representation of the queen and her qualities (good or bad). The scientific term is "extended phenotype." Whether the queen survives long term and propagates her genes depends on whether the colony can survive long term. And that long term survival depends on the queen.


So, what is a quality queen? 

Its a queen that makes a good colony! 



peterloringborst said:


> Is this something we have any influence over?


Of course!



peterloringborst said:


> How do you evaluate the queen?


You evaluate the colony she makes, taking into account variables that might skew your evaluation. (Chiefly you do that by having lots of colonies and treating them all in the same way. A level playing field)



peterloringborst said:


> What are the good qualities and bad qualities you will be looking for?


That's your first question set. 

Obviously productivity is one desirable. 

Health will feed into productivity, but you have to ask whether you want that to be stand-alone health or help-along health. That question opens a very big can of worms. In my view it has to be opened, because without doing so you risk a spiralling help/need/help/need situation. That is: dependence on treatments _as a result_ of feeding treatment-dependent genes back into the reproductive cycle. The nightmare scenario that we have.... 

Docility, calmness... the rest are optional. Prettyness... for example even comb, or low levels of propolising - may well result in unexpected and unwanted side effects.



peterloringborst said:


> Are you absolutely certain that by taking an egg from the queen you like, you will be able to raise another queen from it that is like her, considering that egg, that queen, has an entirely different set of parents than she did?


No. But there are a number of ways to get around that. First: all breeding is a numbers game - a game of chance. All you can do is load the odds in your favour. But you can load them heavily. That's one of the core skills of breeding. 

Making offspring queens only from your evaluated 'best' is the main tool. But you can also raise drone populations in dedicated (evaluated 'best') hives. You can raise 'good' drone numbers further by raising hive numbers. And you can keep mating away from large numbers of highly objectionable hives and their drones.

You should ideally evaluate each breeder queen _by reference to her success in passing on her desirable traits_. Those that make good offspring reliably are what you want, and should be preserved for a long breeding life.



peterloringborst said:


> What traits are directly passed from mother to daughter...


There is a (fixed) likelihood of any trait being passed on. That is a function of whether she carries the requisite genes in only the expressed set or in both expressed and unexpressed sets. (2:3 and 3:3 respectively, given that drone also carries the genes). This probability applies to all matings (and therefore sub-families) independently.



peterloringborst said:


> ... and which traits are a product of colony dynamics produced by the interaction of multiple sub-families in the hive (that is, different bees have different fathers).


I'm not sure you'd want to label these 'traits' - though the temptation is there. Overall performance - yes requires something of a balance of traits among a range of subfamilies.



peterloringborst said:


> There is some evidence that having a diversity of sub-families is beneficial to colony health, hence why queens mate multiple times: to bring in a diversity of traits. Like building a dream team by recruiting a lot of different players, and producing a synergy. How could this be passed on to the next generation at all???


A complex question perhaps. Maybe the best response is to say: we don't really know, but obviously it is passed on otherwise things couldn't have evolved that way! It succeeds, better than any other arrangement.

In the main the answer is to be found in the 2 sets of genes carried by queens. If a copy of a particular trait is held in both sets, there is 2:3 chance of it being passed on in any egg ferilized by a drone not carring it, and a certain chance of it being passed on in any egg fertilized by a drone carrying it. I make that: on average a 5:6 probability of any particular trait being passed on if the queen has 2 copies; a 1:2 chance if she has one, given 50% of mated drones also carrying it. 

Like I say, its a numbers game. You can stack the odds in your favour, but never be certain of success. 

As you say, there is evidence that good mating (lots of drones) is related to success. So aiming to mate in promising circumstances (for that) is obviously a good plan. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

How many queens have you raised Mike?


----------



## jonathan

If you graft from a queen heading a really good colony with the traits you want there are still a huge number of variables outside your control.
First, if your mother queen mated with 15+ drones your grafts will produce 15+ families of half sister virgin queens. Some will have what you are looking for and some likely wont.
If these are open mated the variation in the next generation will be immense when you factor in the drones these half sisters encounter.
Some will mate close to the apiary and others will mate in more distant drone congregation areas. They are unlikely to all fly and mate in the same drone congregation area and each mating site will have its unique mix of genetics.
My interest is in rearing Amm queens but even when I load the mating area with Amm drone producing colonies I still see huge variation.
Two virgin queens which are grafted from the same mother, emerge on the same day and subsequently fly and mate on the same day can produce markedly different colonies. 
As a simple example, look at abdomen colour.
The queen heading one colony might produce all dark progeny whereas the another can produce more than 50% workers with yellow banding on the abdomen. I never see yellow virgin queens from the grafts I take.
Abdomen colour is a polygenic trait but yellow is dominant over black so this would suggest that the yellow colouration is coming from the drone side.
(International Symposium on bee biology, MOSCOW, USSR, August 1976, THE HEREDITY OF COLOUR PATTERNS IN THE HONEYBEE
Jerzy Woyke)
Imagine this for all the other traits which are not as obvious.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> If you graft from a queen heading a really good colony with the traits you want there are still a huge number of variables outside your control.


Its just like gambling. When a ball is rolled onto a roulette wheel where it lands is _utterly out of the control_ of both the player and the house. It will land at one of the slots _at random_.

_However_; the house has fixed the odds. _As a result_ it knows that _in the long run the wheel will return a profit_. And it knows the same is true for all the other games.

All bookmaking, all betting, runs out this way. 

Breeding is the same set up. Its a 'numbers game'

Perhaps if you've never learned about structured probability at school this part of the picture may be hard to grasp. But once you understand chance and probabilty, you can see that you can very firmly place the odds of getting what you want in your favour - just like the bookmaker can - easily past the point where the result is _as fixed as concrete_. You won't get what you want every time. But - if you plan well, and have more than a vague idea of what you are doing - you'll influence the outcome sufficiently well in each generation. And that will press things steadily the way you want them.



jonathan said:


> First, if your mother queen mated with 15+ drones your grafts will produce 15+ families of half sister virgin queens. Some will have what you are looking for and some likely wont.


Some almost certainly won't! But that's fine. They'll get winnowed out next time - you'll recognise them as weaker and won't make increase from them.. You may decide to requeen. 



jonathan said:


> If these are open mated the variation in the next generation will be immense when you factor in the drones these half sisters encounter.


Sure. But in each generation your making new queen only from the best, and the drones around have improved because you've improved them. So although the cards are being dealt afresh, you can expect (on average) an improvement.



jonathan said:


> Some will mate close to the apiary and others will mate in more distant drone congregation areas. They are unlikely to all fly and mate in the same drone congregation area and each mating site will have its unique mix of genetics.


Yep. But you, the bookmaker, are selecting the queens each time, and raisng the quality and quanitity of the drones all the time. You're keeping mating away from from the places where drones having exactly the wrong sorts of genes are concentrated. All these things load the cards in your favour.

I do wish you'd actually study natural selection for a while Jonathon. This stuff becomes second nature once you properly grasp the nature of the mechanism. 

A useful approach; ask: what else would I do?

Take queens from my worst colonies?

Take grafts from colonies at random?

The obvious answer to both is no. And from there the next logical step is to seek to maximise gains by taking every step you can identify the 'best' and ensure that their alleles are present in at least the same and preferably larger proportions in the next generation.

What breeders have always done - and this includes all bee breeders - is what I've described about. To do otherwise is to be destined for failure. Every time.

That's just how the maths pans out. And you can't argue with maths.



jonathan said:


> My interest is in rearing Amm queens but even when I load the mating area with Amm drone producing colonies I still see huge variation.


What do you mean by 'load? Be specific.



jonathan said:


> Two virgin queens which are grafted from the same mother, emerge on the same day and subsequently fly and mate on the same day can produce markedly different colonies. As a simple example, look at abdomen colour. The queen heading one colony might produce all dark progeny whereas the another can produce more than 50% workers with yellow banding on the abdomen.


That sounds very like a straightfoward mendelian observation. What's the problem? Use it - if 100 black bees is your aim. 

It isn't mine. A hive full of bees all having the various mite-management traits is far too many! Productivity will suffer. I'm not trying to 'fix' genes as you are with your black colouration. I'm just ensuring that more bees inherit alleles coding for mite-managing behaviours than don't. A 5% gain in every generation will be just dandy. In practice - given a proper plan - we can achieve far better than that.

This is just everyday bee breeding Jonathan. Its how beekeepers for donkeys years have kept productivity high, made gentle and calm strains. You need a reasonable number of hives, and then its just straightforward. And not doing it is madness. You can't defy Nature. If you don't select for health then very soon she'll be doing it for you.



jonathan said:


> Imagine this for all the other traits which are not as obvious.


All the traits you want are present in your best bees. You don't have to think about it any more than that. _Your best bees represent your best chance of getting more good bees_. Take care of them and use them.

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan

Same old same old. You have completely missed the point of this thread and you are quite naive about how genetics and inheritance works. (best to best LOL) Your explanations are at schoolboy level I am afraid, and while some of what you say is true in general terms it is really is far more complicated than that, which is the point PLB is trying to get across in this thread as far as I can see.

For example re abdomen colour


> That sounds very like a straightfoward mendelian observation. What's the problem?


from the woyke paper:



> Inheritance of colour patterns in the honeybee is governed by 3 major allelic genes
> having their expression modified by 6-7 polygenes with alternative alleles for light
> and dark.





> What do you mean by 'load? Be specific.


Loading for drones means having a dozen or more colonies at the mating site headed by queens from pure race Amm queens which have drone comb inserted as early in the year as possible. These colonies would have at least 5-6 thousand drones per colony by June. I have boxes and boxes of drawn drone comb which I keep especially for the breeding programme

Mike I actually do this stuff. All you post is pie in the sky and you have not done any of this yet as far as I can see but you seem to think you are qualified to lecture people about genetics even though you have not even studied this at University level
Stop spouting and see what you can pick up from others with a bit of real world experience.
I graft a few hundred queens per season but there are people here who do this by the thousand.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfelt - you don't know what you don't know.


----------



## peterloringborst

> You have completely missed the point of this thread ... it is really is far more complicated than that, which is the point PLB is trying to get across in this thread as far as I can see.


Quite. The title of the thread states clearly that I think the old ideas of breeding have been misguided, and I state early on that I don't believe the breeding of animals is just another form of natural selection. Human beings select their plants and animals for specific characters that they desire whereas the honey bee seems to do completely the opposite. 

Sexual selection is one way that species choose a mate. They select them on the basis of attraction, so that a particularly healthy, attractive individual will mate with another whose traits are also attractive. Now, appearance is merely a surrogate for health, but it works well enough that sexual recombination is widespread. 

Honey bees do not choose mates on the basis of specific characteristics, it boils down to a race to the finish. The fastest drones get the prize, which may also be a surrogate for health on the part of the drone, but it does not appear that they are highly selective, nor does it appear that queens reject drones, so the whole process is pretty chancy. To overcome this, the queen mates with many drones, and thereby gets a wide range of traits, rather than placing her bets on one mate, like so many species do. In other species the opposite approach is take where the male has multiple female mates in order to increase the chances of a beneficial cross producing healthy successful offspring. 

Not all species use this approach: for example, varroa females raise sons and daughters which breed, allowing no chance for outside genetic material to infiltrate the lineage. Further, other insects can produce offspring without mating at all, essentially cloning themselves. Many of these organisms, however, are parasitic, depending entirely on the vigor of their hosts for their own long term survival.

One of the things that characterizes the honey bee is variability. The beekeeper constantly works against this, trying to homogenize the colonies, in order to make them uniform in there behavior, their productivity, their resistance to disease. Whereas, nature has produced in the honey bee a species that is extremely adaptive. Like humans, they can live in almost any region, and can survive for many months on stored food supplies. 

They are also variable in their response to the environment. No two colonies responds in the exact same way which means they have the ability to choose. Species that can choose can optimize their choices, but the ability to choose opens up the possibility of failure. Making the wrong choice is always an option. For example, when a swarm picks a cavity they do their best to evaluate its potential as a long term residence. Colonies that pick unsuitable nest sites risk death during winter or drought.

Quite obviously from this discussion is that there are many routes to long term survival, evolution does not favor one or the other. Humans and honey bees have intelligence, the ability to choose, complex mating systems, etc and this has enabled them to colonize many parts of the planet. Parasites on the other hand have very few of these characters, and yet parasitism is a viable plan for long term survival if you parasitize the right host. 

So, essentially in breeding we generally create organisms that depend on us for survival. We create parasites. At this juncture we need to think about whether we want honey bees that are parasites, honey bees that can survive in the wild, or both, and ponder if these are even compatible.

PLB


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> You have completely missed the point of this thread..


The point of the thread as I read it was to have a discussion.



jonathan said:


> ... and you are quite naive about how genetics and inheritance works. (best to best LOL) Your explanations are at schoolboy level I am afraid, and while some of what you say is true in general terms [...]


This from the man who very recently stated that where rates of diversity were similar, all bees were similarly equipped to deal with varroa! See http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...sistance-raising-system&p=1082648#post1082648 and on as far as #99

I pointed out that was equivalent to believing that all caucasians could run equally fast! We didn't get either a retraction or an explanation as to how you made such a mess.



jonathan said:


> ...it is really is far more complicated than that, which is the point PLB is trying to get across in this thread as far as I can see.


There's nothing complicated about understanding that most qualities are inherited, and that therefore if you propagate from good quality parents you'll maximise your chances of getting good quality offspring. It is simple but real.

Yes, you can go deeper, and that may be useful. Cerainly things get very complicated.

But no matter how complicated they get, _the above always remains true_. Heritable traits are heritable traits. What you can't do is ignore that. 



jonathan said:


> Loading for drones means having a dozen or more colonies at the mating site headed by queens from pure race Amm queens which have drone comb inserted as early in the year as possible. These colonies would have at least 5-6 thousand drones per colony by June. I have boxes and boxes of drawn drone comb which I keep especially for the breeding programme


I'm impressed. But I'll say it again: what you are trying to do is not what I'm trying to do. I'm raising desirable alleles, generation on generation, by making increase as much as possible from bees that have the qualities I want. I'm not expecting to fix those qualities in my population. I am expecting that - as happens for many others - continuous pressure toward resistance will have the desired effect. 

This is basic population husbandry Jonathoan, not line breeding. Its the same as breeding toward docility... Its easy. Stop trying to make it seem hard or complicated - or impossible.



jonathan said:


> you have not done any of this yet....


Its early days I agree, but so far so good.



jonathan said:


> ...as far as I can see but you seem to think you are qualified to lecture people about genetics even though you have not even studied this at University level


I'm not trying to lecture anyone. I'm trying to understand why it is your understanding and mine are so very far apart when I'm fairly sure mine is sound - at least as far as it matters. As I outlined recently I've spoken to many very well qualified people about this. There is no disagreement: sound breeding is utterly necessary. Treatments will absolutely undermine progress. (As you know I'm speaking about resistance to varroa here - and as far as I can tell that's the topic of the thread).)



jonathan said:


> Stop spouting and see what you can pick up from others with a bit of real world experience.


Real world experience in the area of raising mite resistance behaviours? I'm all ears. 



jonathan said:


> I graft a few hundred queens per season but there are people here who do this by the thousand.


Again, if the topic is raising resistance I'm listening.

However: for those who have raised thousands of queens without raising resistance, I'll take lessons about raising resistance with a pinch of salt.

Fair enough?

How much progress toward raising resistance have you made?

Mike (UK)


----------



## peterloringborst

> There's nothing complicated about understanding that most qualities are inherited, and that therefore if you propagate from good quality parents you'll maximise your chances of getting good quality offspring. But no matter how complicated they get, the above always remains true.


First off, no self respecting scientist would ever say anything "always remains true". Science shows us that our understanding of anything is provisional. _This is what we know now._ With new information, we will drop the old explanation like a hot rock. Furthermore, it is not true that _most qualities are inherited, _ many apparent qualities are the direct result of environmental conditions, chance, luck, etc. which are often passed on to the offspring but are not strictly speaking genetically inherited. There is nothing simple about the separation of what is environmental, what is developmental and what is strictly genomic. 

PLB


----------



## rhaldridge

Well, okay, but my comment on the quality of queens was not about genetics. Let's say you have two genetically identical queens. (Yes, I know-- impossible without instrumental insemination, but this is a thought experiment.) One was raised in a perfect environment and received the best of everything; food, care, etc. One was raised in a less hospitable situation, did not get well fed, etc. The first was allowed to start laying and continue without interruption in her destination hive, the other was allowed to lay her first eggs and was then banked for a while before being given a hive.

How do we think the vigor of the resulting colonies will compare?

I think this issue of queen quality might be a tree that doesn't get its fair share of barking.


----------



## squarepeg

jonathan said:


> If you graft from a queen heading a really good colony with the traits you want there are still a huge number of variables outside your control.


a most important consideration and one that i feel isn't factored in for the most part.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

peterloringborst said:


> Not all species use this approach: for example, varroa females raise sons and mate with them, allowing no chance for outside genetic material to infiltrate the lineage.


Could you expand on this please?

My understanding is that male mites mate with their _sisters_, not their mothers. That was based on information at this USDA page:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/services/docs.htm?docid=2744&page=14



> Step 16: The oldest mite progeny reach adulthood.
> 
> The son and first daughter will reach adulthood during the 17-18th days of the bee's metamorphosis. After molting from the deutonymph stage, the young adult mites are white. Their bodies begin to darken over the next few hours to days. Female mites will become as brown as their mothers, but adult males remain a light tan color.
> 
> The adult son and adult daughter mites will mate several times. The female mite stores 40-70 spermatozoa within her spermatheca, and she will use them later in life to fertilize eggs that she lays in a brood cell. Mating occurs near or on the pile of mite feces. Some scientists believe that the mite feces contains chemicals that attracts both sexes to the spot for feeding and mating. These mites do not have eyes and may depend on touch or smell to find each other.
> 
> http://www.ars.usda.gov/services/docs.htm?docid=2744&page=14


Am I misunderstanding the situation?


----------



## mbc

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Could you expand on this please?
> 
> My understanding is that male mites mate with their _sisters_, not their mothers. That was based on information at this USDA page:
> http://www.ars.usda.gov/services/docs.htm?docid=2744&page=14
> 
> 
> 
> Am I misunderstanding the situation?


Mun, each cell can have more than one foundress mite in it too.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Am I misunderstanding the situation?


No, you are right. I fixed it, by the way. It's OK to make mistakes!

Pete


----------



## SRatcliff

rhaldridge said:


> Well, okay, but my comment on the quality of queens was not about genetics. Let's say you have two genetically identical queens. (Yes, I know-- impossible without instrumental insemination, but this is a thought experiment.) One was raised in a perfect environment and received the best of everything; food, care, etc. One was raised in a less hospitable situation, did not get well fed, etc. The first was allowed to start laying and continue without interruption in her destination hive, the other was allowed to lay her first eggs and was then banked for a while before being given a hive.
> 
> How do we think the vigor of the resulting colonies will compare?
> 
> I think this issue of queen quality might be a tree that doesn't get its fair share of barking.



It would be my guess that how well queens are raised correlates to the quality of the whole hive. The better raised queen will be stronger and faster and will be able to fly further and mate with more drones for diversity(which is the point the OP is making).


----------



## SRatcliff

And what about drones? Are the best raised drones the ones the ones that get the fastest queens? If that's true(I don't know if it is), are the drones raised better because the hive is productive and thriving and has good genetics?


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> First off, no self respecting scientist would ever say anything "always remains true".


'Cars _always_ need a source of energy to go uphill'

'People will _always_ drown if held underwater (without breathing equipment) for 2 hours.'

'Water will _always_ run downhill'

'A suspended stone will _always_ fall to the ground if the means of suspension is removed.'

'A supertanker will _always_ need time and space to stop'

You can make up an infinite number of these examples of things that _always remain true_.

And every scientist - 'self respecting' or not will agree that to be the case. To think otherwise would be madness.

Lets make things a bit clearer:

'Every action [_always_] has an opposite and equal reaction' (mechanics)

*One of the core things science does is identify those things that appear to be always true.*

We call them the 'Laws of Nature' _because _they are always true.

Anyone with a basic understanding of science knows this. Its foundational.

The Laws of Nature are like 'building blocks', with which you reason. Theories, hypotheses, all scientific thinking are structures built, employing the 'laws' (again) of logic, with these 'blocks of knowing'.

Slop thinking of yourself as a scientist Peter, and start thinking of yourself as a student of science. Working in a lab for a few years hasn't qualified, or equipped you, to think scientifically. If it had I wouldn't have to explain this stuff for you.



peterloringborst said:


> Science shows us that our understanding of anything is provisional. _This is what we know now._ With new information, we will drop the old explanation like a hot rock.


Yes, philosophically, but no, not 'anything.' The provisional nature of understanding is deeply dependent on the thing in question.

The core tenets of science are altered only very occassionally. We've lived with Classical (Newtonian) mechanics for 400 years, and, while some things have been learned that show it to be incomplete, we still use it as the basis of calculations for incredibly detailed and accurate work.

We - you and I - are not going to alter the Laws of Nature revealed by science. There is no point in us regarding them as provisional.

What we can do is recognise them for what they are, accept they represent the best (and quite possibly in some cases are perfectly true) descriptions of what is real, and _use them in our reasoning about the world_.

That's what scientists do. That's one of their foundational activities. 

We can use, for a simple example, the Law of Universal Gravitation to reason that, should we remove sufficient support from an object, it will always fall. No ifs, no buts, no maybe 'gravity will be suspended this time'. It will fall. There's nothing provisional about it. 

It doesn't matter whether we can see it or not: it will fall anyhow, and we know that because we know that the Law of Gravition is ... Universal. It applies, always, in all time, and in all places.

When matters are complex, and we're struggling to understand the concealed mechanics, we are in the realm of theorising, then scientific explanations are provisional - as you say. _*But we don't suspend the accepted underlying fundamentals of classical mechanics while we're doing that*_. 

We don't suspend the Law of Universal Gravitation, or the Third Law of Thermodynamics, or anything else currently accepted by the sciences _that specialise in those things_ as worthy of the status of 'core understanding', of the description 'Law'.

*Natural Selection for the Fittest Strains is a Law of Nature*. _Its not a theory, its a scientific fact_.

Furthermore, with a little learning, it can be seen - apprehended - by anyone. It isn't difficult to comprehend Natural Selection directly, and to appreciate thereby how elegant it is, how beautiful, and how powerful an explanation. 

Challenging it isn't something we can rationally do. We have to accept it, and come to understand it sufficiently well that we can use it as a 'building block' in our reasoning about living things.

Keep working on it Peter. You'll be glad you did.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Furthermore, it is not true that _most qualities are inherited, _ many apparent qualities are the direct result of environmental conditions, chance, luck, etc. which are often passed on to the offspring but are not strictly speaking genetically inherited. There is nothing simple about the separation of what is environmental, what is developmental and what is strictly genomic. PLB


Those qualities with genetic causes can only be provided by the genes. 

Genes don't magically spring into being. They can only be supplied by parents.

Just like colouration, the various 'hygienic' behaviours are genetic. They will only be present as and when the correct genes are present. Only the right parents can provide them.

Yes, some qualities in living things stem from other causes - things that have happened later than fertilization of the egg, where genetic arrangements are fixed.

What you are talking about here Peter is an application of the 'Nature vs Nurture' issue.

Those things fixed genetically fall in the 'Nature' camp. Those qualities supplied by post fertilization conditions and events fall in the 'Nurture' camp.

Yes, there are perfectly good questions to be asked about the contributions both sides make. And yes, it confuses understanding - and presents many challenges to husbandrymen.

The idea is often expressed in breeding circles as the problem of '_Well bred or well fed?_'.

Be careful: just because it is the case that same qualities thought to have been genetic in origin turn out to be caused by 'nurturing' factors doesn't mean you can throw all genetic factors out of the window! Some qualities come directly from inherited genes. That's a fact.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

SRatcliff said:


> It would be my guess that how well queens are raised correlates to the quality of the whole hive. The better raised queen will be stronger and faster and will be able to fly further and mate with more drones for diversity(which is the point the OP is making).





SRatcliff said:


> And what about drones? Are the best raised drones the ones the ones that get the fastest queens? If that's true(I don't know if it is), are the drones raised better because the hive is productive and thriving and has good genetics?


Stuart,

Yes. Both Nature (genetics) and Nurture make a contribution. And 'strength begets strength'. 

I want to say 'obviously'! Isn't it obvious? Do we need to list and describe the ways that happens, and how the combined effect acts on the future of the population?

Or rather, is there a benefit to working through these things? Yes, I'd say there would be. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mbc

mike bispham said:


> Genes don't magically spring into being. They can only be supplied by parents.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fact.
> 
> Mike


I'd have thought that "magically spring into being" is quite a good description of how brand new mutations come about.


----------



## mike bispham

mbc said:


> I'd have thought that "magically spring into being" is quite a good description of how brand new mutations come about.


You got me!

But do you know how often that happens?

Do you know how often it happens in a useful way?

Its incredibly rare. For that reason it can probably be discounted for the purpose of a discussion like this, where what happens in every single reproductive cycle has a massive impact every single time. The inherited genes provide the blueprint the organism is built from. You need a blueprint supplying instructions for the building blocks that will make the appropriate structure, for right here, right now, as often as possible. And you can mazimise your chances of getting that by selecting parents that have those same building blocks.

Abandoning that in the hope of a mutation that just happens to supply the right change would be daft as well as futile.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> Its incredibly rare.
> 
> Mike (UK)


No it isn't, check it out.


----------



## peterloringborst

The idea that genetic material is only acquired by sexual union is false



> DNA versions of non-retro RNA viruses is
> incorporated into the genome of their hosts.
> 
> a segment of IAPV is also incorporated into some of its bee hosts,
> and bees harbouring the viral segment are resistant to subsequent
> IAPV infection. We also reported that the exchange
> of genetic information between virus and host is reciprocal,
> and segments of a host gene were found embedded in
> a viral defective-interfering (DI)-like RNA (Maori et al.,
> 2007). The presence of subviral RNAs due to recombination
> has been well documented.
> 
> Therefore, RNA recombination may engender
> divergence in host genes, and the evolution of both virus
> and host may be interrelated and linked to the very same
> eliciting process.


Maori, E., Lavi, S., Mozes-Koch, R., Gantman, Y., Peretz, Y., Edelbaum, O., ... & Sela, I. (2007). Isolation and characterization of Israeli acute paralysis virus, a dicistrovirus affecting honeybees in Israel: evidence for diversity due to intra-and inter-species recombination. Journal of General Virology, 88(12), 3428-3438.




> the genomes
> of social hymenopterans share two peculiar attributes: high recombination
> and low but heterogeneous GC content. For example,
> the genome of the honey bee, Apis mellifera, represents a mosaic
> of GC-poor and GC-rich regions with rates of recombination an
> order of magnitude higher than in humans.
> 
> In addition to its effects on GC-content evolution, recombination
> is also known to causally affect both the level of genetic
> diversity and divergence
> 
> Using population genetic and molecular
> evolution analyses, we examined whether GC content is
> also associated with nucleotide diversity and divergence across
> the honey bee genome, as would be expected if recombination
> concurrently affects GC content and the pace of molecular
> evolution.
> 
> It is evident from the above direct observations that genes associated
> with worker behavior and worker division of labor are located
> in regions of the honey bee genome that experience the highest
> rates of recombination and molecular evolution—ripe conditions
> for the evolution of novel traits


Beye, M., Gattermeier, I., Hasselmann, M., Gempe, T., Schioett, M., Baines, J. F., ... & Page, R. E. (2006). Exceptionally high levels of recombination across the honey bee genome. Genome research, 16(11), 1339-1344.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Not all species use this approach: for example, varroa females raise sons and daughters which breed, allowing no chance for outside genetic material to infiltrate the lineage. 

There is a chance. If more than one Varroa enter a cell the daughters may mate with the son of a Foundress other than their mother. Not all matings are between siblings...


----------



## mbc

Michael Bush said:


> >Not all species use this approach: for example, varroa females raise sons and daughters which breed, allowing no chance for outside genetic material to infiltrate the lineage.
> 
> There is a chance. If more than one Varroa enter a cell the daughters may mate with the son of a Foundress other than their mother. Not all matings are between siblings...


"each cell can have more than one foundress mite in it too." post #136


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> The idea that genetic material is only acquired by sexual union is false


Ok. But the same arguments are in force as toward mutations:

"For reasons of rarity it can probably be discounted for the purpose of a discussion like this, where _*what happens in every single reproductive cycle has a massive impact every single time.*_ "

The inherited genes provide the blueprint the organism is built from. You need a blueprint supplying instructions for the building blocks and overal design that will make the appropriate structure, for right here, right now, as often as possible. _And you can maximise your chances of getting that by selecting parents that have those same building blocks_.

Abandoning that in the hope of a [recombination] event that just happens to supply the right change would be daft as well as futile.

Bear in mind that any beneficial changes, through mutation and/or recombination, _will need to be passed on in order to be available_ to the next and future generations.

If they show up as good independent vigour and productivity, then natural selection will forward them.

We must do the same. _And we're back to traditional husbandry_.... 

Mike (UK)"


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> 'Water will _always_ run downhill'
> 
> ...
> 
> *One of the core things science does is identify those things that appear to be always true.*
> 
> We call them the 'Laws of Nature' _because _they are always true.
> 
> Anyone with a basic understanding of science knows this. Its foundational.



Gee, Mike, do you mean to tell me that you have never seen a drop of dew (water) just static on a leaf that is angled downhill? :scratch: Like this? :s









Have you ever heard of of the _scientific _concept of surface tension? 

My bees forage on static water droplets on _sloping _leaves of my leaf lettuce quite frequently this time of year. Perhaps you should get out and watch what is going on around you more often. This isn't my photo, but is a good illustration of the _*scientific principle*_ involved:









(photo of _flying insect_ and _dew _linked from here.)
Note the WATER static on the down sloping leaf, and the WATER static on the critter!  :lpf:



> You can make up an infinite number of these examples of things that _always remain true.
> _


I guess this is one example you might have to cross off the list! 


:gh:

Keep working on it Mike. You'll be glad you did.


.


----------



## peterloringborst

> If more than one Varroa enter a cell


this is a very minor point in the discussion of genetic diversity. mites and other parasites are not genetically diverse, and are stuck in a trap which depends on their host. if they kill the host and can't find another, they die. 

of course, the relevancy is if honey bee becomes dependent on humans, it would be essentially a parasite, and none of us thinks that is good idea.

P


----------



## peterloringborst

> *One of the core things science does is identify those things that appear to be always true. *


OK, that's it. You have highjacked this thread. Bold type and italics doesn't make the point any stronger, by the way. Your proclamations sink or sail on their own merit. 



> photo of bee and dew linked from here


That is not a bee.



> And we're back to traditional husbandry....


Well, you sure are.


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> Genes don't magically spring into being. They can only be supplied by parents.


A significant chunk of the human genome came from viruses



> Scientists have identified 100,000 pieces of retrovirus DNA in our genes, making up eight percent of the human genome. That’s a huge portion of our DNA when you consider that protein coding genes make up just over one percent of the genome.


http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...irus-hid-in-our-genome-for-six-million-years/

This is the same old problem. A guy who understands genetics, sort of, at the level of Mendel's pea experiments takes it upon himself to lecture geneticists and other professionals who do genetics as a day job.
His misconceptions and errors have been constantly pointed out and corrected on bee forums worldwide since he first started posting about his 'thesis' about 6 years ago. Boy is he making slow progress.
When he tires of a forum, or more often a forum tires of him, he just moves elsewhere and starts again.
It is all a great conspiracy of course.
Mike. If you are genuine about learning about genetics what you need is a formal taught course starting at beginner level and working up to University level as the stuff you post is naive off the scale and tends to wreck every thread. Schoolboy level stuff. You are not making progress with this area of study. Wiki is not enough.

The other thing I would recommend is that you spend some time in the beginner section of the forum asking questions about bees and beekeeping as you are a pretty new beekeeper and seem to have a lot of basic beekeeping skills yet to acquire. 

(Holds breath and waits for 2000 word reply which anyone else could put into 50)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> A significant chunk of the human genome came from viruses


Over the course of a couple of billions of years of evolution!

What we are talking about is what is handed on in every generation. The overwhelming majority of coding material comes from parents, who got it from their parents, who got it from their parents....

We're talking about husbandry, not the evolution of species.



jonathan said:


> A guy who understands genetics, sort of, at the level of Mendel's pea experiments takes it upon himself to lecture geneticists and other professionals who do genetics as a day job.


Are you a geneticist Jonathan? What are your formal qualifications?

Is Peter a geneticist? What are his formal qualifications?

These are serious questions. Tell me. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> this is a very minor point in the discussion of genetic diversity. mites and other parasites are not genetically diverse, and are stuck in a trap which depends on their host.


They seem to have sufficient diversity to rapidly evolve resistance to the various treatments.

It would be a very good idea for you - and Jonathon - to look up 'evolutionary arms race'.



peterloringborst said:


> of course, the relevancy is if honey bee becomes dependent on humans, it would be essentially a parasite, and none of us thinks that is good idea.


That's nonsense. It would be a domesticated animal. That's all. 

I agree its an appalling idea. We're about 3/4 of the way there though in some places.

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> Are you a geneticist Jonathan? What are your formal qualifications?


I never claimed to be but I did a couple of years of genetics as part of my degree.
I find your posts hopelessly naive so heaven knows what they read like to a geneticist.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> OK, that's it. You have highjacked this thread.


Accusing someone of 'hijacking' a thread when you can't think of ways to respond to very sound points made against you is as old as the list. Its just another form of tiresome ad hominem.



peterloringborst said:


> Bold type and italics doesn't make the point any stronger, by the way.


It makes it clearer for people who are obviously struggling to make the right sorts of connections. That'll be you Peter.



peterloringborst said:


> That is not a bee.


Eh?????

You said you wanted a discussion, a long discussion might be in order, and that nothing was out of bounds. 

I've contributed what I feel are useful (essential I'd say) areas to include. You are clearly poorly informed in those areas - and if you want to understand the causes of poor bee health - your stated objective - then you need to do some catching up. I'm trying to help you do that. 

Try me. Take up my advice - call it a challenge if you like - about reading up on 'evolutionary arms race' and then we'll talk about how understanding that feature of evolutionary biology can help us become better husbandrymen. 

Don't get rude with me. You did that once before and what happened?

Mike (UK)


----------



## peterloringborst

> That is not a bee.
> Eh?????


It's a fly



> Don't get rude with me. You did that once before and what happened?


I left the discussion, same as now. Bye


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> I never claimed to be but I did a couple of years of genetics as part of my degree.


What degree is that Jonathan? Did you cover natural selection? Or population husbandry?

Again, serious questions.



jonathan said:


> I find your posts hopelessly naive so heaven knows what they read like to a geneticist.


Here's a suggestion. Send a link to my website to a qualified evolutionary biologist, or a lecturer in animal husbandry. Have them evalute it, and share the result with us. It'll need to be a real person with a real name that I can check, but you can share that with me privately, and I'll promise it will remain confidential, and that I will never contact the person.

As I've told you before, when I was writing the thesis on the causes of CCD I sought oversight from a qualified person. I can't tell you his name, but his formal qualifications are as follows: 

Honorary Professor of Cell and Molecular Biology PhD MBBCh MRCPath

This is the first commnunication I received after sending the first draft, in full:

Hi Mike,

I have now read the first article, and I am returning it to you with my
comments. With luck they should clearly show up on your computer. If
they do not, you will have to compare my draft with your original.

Basically, your article is excellent and I have suggested very few
changes. I have proposed a few stylistic changes and a very few
scientific amplifications of your text. Your science is all quite
correct as far as I know. Of course, I know literally nothing about bees
and bee-keeping. I have in this trusted your opinions.

I hope my comments are of some use to you.

This article should most certainly be published, because of course it
raises some quite general questions. For example, it raises precisely
one of the most pressing and correct concerns in relation of GM crops.
It also deals with the other most essential problem with GM crops, which
is that GM as practised currently, makes the husbandry totally dependent
on the manufacturers of pesticides and on the industrial providers of
animal and plant strains, while at the same time limited the use of
evolutionary selection as you have described.

I will read the second article just as soon as I can find some time.

With very best wishes.

(Name)

This is some of the text, including the changes he suggested. You can compare it with my website:

Multi-level Mechanisms
The mechanism of natural selection for the survival of the fittest works at a number of levels. In ordinary conditions, small variations in their genetic code, their DNA mean that some individuals in the population are better suited to the pressures of a particular environment, and so tend to thrive at the expense of other less well-suited individuals in the population. Given a reasonable range of genetic variation, any animal can adapt to a wide range of environmental changes. When such changes are small, the composition of any populationwill constantly alter so that those individuals better fitted to the current environment will become much more frequent in the population. The competitive dance of host and pathogen is slow.

Speed of change
In more extreme conditions the same mechanism operates, but much more rapidly. The higher the pressure, the faster is the adaptation. The mechanism for rapid change is the fast elimination of strains. Least suited to the new severe environment When, for example, a new fatal disease destroys a large percentage of a population, only those individuals that are resistant to the disease will survive, and the new immune population must rebuild from a smaller population base. This is not a dance, it is an all-out war with high casualty rates on both sides. Once won, given good conditions, recovery of the host can be surprisingly fast. For example, starting from 1000 resistant colonies, a species able to double its population every year will recover at the rate shown in the right-hand column in the table below. It will repopulate to the limits of its environment. (Table missing)


Primary Problem 1: Denial of Natural Selection
Alternative history
As a consequence of a combination of factors, bee diseases have now reached a level of potency that is fatal to a high proportion of bee-strains. In ordinary circumstances this would not have occurred. Those individuals unable to cope with the new disease would have died, but some resistant individuals would have survived. These resistant members of the population would have gradually become more numerous until they became a clear majority of the population. Predators that killed their prey too quickly would also have disappeared from the population of predators. Also, cross-breeding amongst the bees would have ensured the spread of the genes conferring resistance to the disease. Finally, a new unstable equilibrium would be achieved between the predator or disease and the bees. 

So now you know what at least one geneticist would make of it. I'll be very interested to have the critique of other geneticists, as well as qualified people in the fields I've suggested.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> It's a fly


I don't know what that was about



peterloringborst said:


> I left the discussion, same as now. Bye


That's a shame. Good luck Peter. Thanks for trying, and I hope we've given you food for thought in your quest for understanding. 

Mike


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

>That is not a bee. 

>>Eh?????




mike bispham said:


> I don't know what that was about
> 
> Mike


Allow me to assist you Mike. :lpf:

Peter was referring to the photo which includes a _flying insect_ in post #150. 


:gh:


----------



## mbc

peterloringborst said:


> this is a very minor point in the discussion of genetic diversity. mites and other parasites are not genetically diverse, and are stuck in a trap which depends on their host. if they kill the host and can't find another, they die.
> 
> of course, the relevancy is if honey bee becomes dependent on humans, it would be essentially a parasite, and none of us thinks that is good idea.
> 
> P


Varroa has already recently successfully jumped hosts and is displaying enough diversity to easily gain resistance to man made chemicals used against it, and that last sentence is back to front as bees will be just fine once humans are gone.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Now we are getting back to the original thread, which is about quality and the problems associated with conventional breeding.


Peter, you said it best in your extract of Mike Allsopp's paper:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...rking-up-the-wrong-tree&p=1081560#post1081560

"Captive breeding programmes and especially gene selection programmes can never adequately keep up with the changing environment, certainly not to the extent that a “live-and-let-die” approach can. Allowing natural selection to determine who the winners are, will always be the most sensible strategy. This may not sit well with generations of bee-masters and bee scientists, but the dominance of unmanaged bees takes some explaining away. The success of A.m.scutellata in the Americas and the failure of bee diseases in Africa, are two examples that support this approach."

In light of recent fallings out I feel in my defence I should point out: Allsopp's 'Live and let die' is nothing more and nothing less than natural selection for the fittest strains in action.

And that is the basis of traditional husbandry methods.

It seems to me that this entails taking breeding away from commercial queen breeders, and teaching beekeepers how to do it properly. That's the only way to fix the problem. Centralised breeding will always tend to narrow diversity. It will put the wrong bees in the wrong places, and that will further narrow local diversity. Mass production of mite-vulnerable bees, together with systematic treating perpetuates the problem. These are now the outstanding root causes of colony failure.

Talk of technical details of genes and mutations and viruses and on and on sounds great - but it isn't needed or useful. What is needed is a return to the proper methods of husbandry. Until and unless we get that nothing will change.

Mike Allsopp understands the primacy of that fact. As he says: This will "not sit well with generations of bee-masters and bee scientists".

The changes we all want to see will require a conversation about changing the root system, not the detail. Your desire for talk about "about quality and the problems associated with conventional breeding" must be rooted here.

You can't have it both ways. You can't be enthusiastic about Alsopp's diagnosis, then reject the notion that we must allow, follow, encourage, mirror natural selection. 

That is a standing contradiction. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> It seems to me that this entails taking breeding away from commercial queen breeders, and teaching beekeepers how to do it properly.
> 
> Mike (UK)


LOL smell the coffee. 

Just a quick question before you teach the world how to breed queens, how many have you raised Mike?


----------



## Michael Palmer

Oldtimer said:


> Just a quick question before you teach the world how to breed queens, how many have you raised Mike?


Here, here.


----------



## peterloringborst

I have been asked to stay in this discussion, so I have reconsidered and will persevere. My chief point is that it does not matter what one believes, science is never about belief. Religion is about belief, often without foundation. Science is provisional, this is what we know now. The word know in this context refers to knowledge, not certainty. Knowledge is a tool which can be sharp or dull. We sharpen it until it no longer can keep a cutting edge, then discard it and get a new tool. Back to the tree we are barking up



> All in all, the commercial bee population is generally not genetically diverse and not locally adapted. This is in complete contrast to the African honeybee population which is almost totally unselected, and probably as genetically diverse now as it was a thousand years ago. Bailey (1999) and Allsopp (1999) have argued that selective breeding for "quality" by and for beekeepers has decreased the resistance in honeybee populations to a wide range of pathogens. Highly intensive selection has decreased genetic variability and selected against critical "bee tolerance" factors such as swarming and defensiveness (Bailey 1999).
> 
> A more sensible approach would be to: (a) Manage naturally occurring regional strains of honeybee, rather than importing strains from elsewhere. This is particularly important in Europe and Africa where Apis mellifera is indigenous and less so where it is an exotic species. (b) Practise "primitive" beekeeping as is the case in Africa by allowing natural selection processes to determine which are the most significant characteristics for selection and not the beekeepers or bee scientists, at least to some extent. It is also best to use an un-manipulated wild population, and for this population to be as large as possible. --M. Allsopp


The key point in my mind is the very last line. Currently the gene pool of European commercial stock is vastly larger than that of unselected feral stock in most regions.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Varroa has already recently successfully jumped hosts and is displaying enough diversity to easily gain resistance to man made chemicals used against it, and that last sentence is back to front as bees will be just fine once humans are gone.


The fact that varroa is a parasite and cannot live for more than a few days outside of its host is proof enough it lacks diversity and adaptability. The fact that there are not large populations of feral European honey bees in its native Europe is proof that it is endangered in the wild. 

The Asian and African bees, on the other hand, cope with varroa to the extent that they do not require human care and exist in very large numbers in the wild. There are an estimated 300 million wild colonies in Africa and 200 million in the Americas (these are Africanized bees). 

We have no idea what the world will be like in the future so comments like "bees will be just fine once humans are gone" have no real meaning. A catastrophe so grave as to wipe out the human race would likely annihilate bees as well. Bees are very sensitive to environmental degradation. 

Currently there is no evidence of thriving populations of European bees where there are varroa mites. As we have repeatedly pointed out, varroa was used to exterminate honey bees on an island off the coast of California. By the way, the parasites died too, parasites _do_ kill their hosts.


----------



## peterloringborst

> natural selection for the fittest strains in action. And that is the basis of traditional husbandry methods.


Mike Allsopp rejects breeding as a way of obtaining a healthy population. The question is not whether it works but how to implement it in the real world context. The term "traditional husbandry" which you are so fond of, is simply confusing the issue. Breeding is NOT the same as natural selection, that is his key point.

This is the conundrum of any attempt to preserve wild nature: the preserve will be assaulted by invasives. Do you combat the invasives or let them run their course? Invasive species are a force of nature, therefore to intervene would be contradictory, would be "husbandry". But if the invasives (varroa) kill the organism that we are trying to re-wild, what then?

By the way, I don't claim to have any answers, and it doesn't bother me one bit if my comments are contradictory. I am involve in a process of finding out, not laying down some sort of dogma. Belief is antithetical to scientific inquiry.



> I have seldom seen one of these young men, once he is well
> caught up, in a condition of genuine intellectual puzzlement. And
> I have never seen any passionate curiosity about a great problem,
> the sort of curiosity that compels the mind to travel anywhere
> and by any means, to re-make itself if necessary, in order to _find out._
> 
> C. WRIGHT MILLS (1959)


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> The fact that varroa is a parasite and cannot live for more than a few days outside of its host is proof enough it lacks diversity and adaptability.


Good to have you back Peter.

The varroa mite is a specialist. There are millions and millions of species just like it. That's not proof of lack of diversity and inability to evolve. The fact that it evolves resistance to the various preparations shows adaptability. 



peterloringborst said:


> Currently there is no evidence of thriving populations of European bees where there are varroa mites.


First, you shouldn't expect too many on the grounds that they've just been hard hit by mite epidemic, and secondly, systematic treating in the agricultural sector has the effect of delaying if not altogether suppressing adaptation. (Which of those two it is is entirely dependent on numbers and distance).

Third, there are no studies that I know of that have been made of that specific question. Its fine saying there is no evidence, but when no studies have been made it puts things in perspective. 

There is however a great deal of anecdotal evedence that things here in the UK are immeasurably better than they where when varroa first hit. Resistance has risen. Where hives were defenceless and overrun in their 1st year, it is commonplace now to hear of longstanding feral colonies. I have 4 hives entering their 4th year with no treatment at all and thriving, with the same story in younger ones. I have some that struggle to build - but very few actually peter out.



peterloringborst said:


> As we have repeatedly pointed out, varroa was used to exterminate honey bees on an island off the coast of California. By the way, the parasites died too, parasites _do_ kill their hosts.


In the early days, and with isolated unexposed populations, that is to be expected. Left alone parasites and hosts co-evolve. In many places in the US and in Europe that has happened. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Michael, apologies, but you can't spell. Does that make you a worse beekeeper? Does it mean you can't contribute something to the discussion?

Criticise the arguments, not the man.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

What about addressing some real beekeeping rather than theories about things you have never done, I think that was the point but you missed it.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Mike Allsopp rejects breeding as a way of obtaining a healthy population. The question is not whether it works but how to implement it in the real world context.


Quite. We have to continue to propagate, and we want to do so in a way that raises strong and productive queens that will supply sound genes to the next and future generations. Our aim - yours and mine as I understand - is to have ways of getting queens that meet those ends.

That end is best served by preserving diversity. And that rules out central propagation and distribution. It also rules out not dealing with the varroa treatment-addiction problem, because systematic treating also degrades local diversity.

The aim is well severed by allowing a feral population to develop, adapted locally and with vigour and broad resistance due to natural selection.

Mike Allsopp rejects centralised breeding - breeding as done now. For those reasons. He sees use of locally adapted and resistant feral bees as key - because that is where the health is found. He acknowledges that that health is due to natural selection.



peterloringborst said:


> The term "traditional husbandry" which you are so fond of, is simply confusing the issue. Breeding is NOT the same as natural selection, that is his key point.


I get your point. But you are confusing (or perhaps I'm not making sufficiently clear) the idea that there is... high intensity high-volume 'centralised' 'breeding' and there is ... low intensity, low volume local breeding... and the effects of these two things are different. The first is (to varying degrees) highly corrosive of diversity, the second preserves local strains. 

The first is highly artificial, the second closely mirrors nature.

These are the grounds upon which Marla Spivak recommends beekeepers raise their own resistant strains, rather than relying upon central breeding systems. She sets out to teach traditional husbandry - of a specialised kind, sure. But that's what it is. 

'Traditional husbandry' is what farmers have done to maximise their yields and safeguard their futures since - well since farming began. 'Husbandry' in its full sense means not merely 'taking care of animals' but 'taking care of the bloodlines down through the generations. Propagation that is routinely, systematically, selective for the best outcome is at the heart of all stock keeping - and all vegetative husbandry for that matter. It maintains health and optimises yield, in large part by minimising losses. 



peterloringborst said:


> This is the conundrum of any attempt to preserve wild nature: the preserve will be assaulted by invasives.


Preserving nature must, as much as possible, allow nature to take its course. I learned as a young man from an ancient countryman the adage: 'Never help a wild animal'.

Whatever ails it must be allowed to take its course. To do otherwise is to risk passing on a flaw that will reappear in future generations.

I saw the same thing in a documentary about the Galapagos Islands, by the naturalist David Attenborough. (You know why he was there...) He told a story about a tortoise that was just to adventurous for its own good. One day it got caught out in the heat of the sun. The naturalists knew better than to help. The tortoise dies there and then, and the propensity to be too adventurous in that place at that time was terminated.



peterloringborst said:


> Do you combat the invasives or let them run their course? Invasive species are a force of nature, therefore to intervene would be contradictory, would be "husbandry".


Wild bees can look after themselves, as Allsopp points up. Husbandry can achieve the same thing by copying nature's processes. Or it can hinder nature's processes. As high-intensity centralized breeding does, hugely.



peterloringborst said:


> But if the invasives (varroa) kill the organism that we are trying to re-wild, what then?


They haven't, and they aren't. Bee populations toady are only vulnerable to varroa where men have denied them the opportunity to adapt.



peterloringborst said:


> By the way, I don't claim to have any answers, and it doesn't bother me one bit if my comments are contradictory.


As a rational person you must be aware that reality is consistent. Where there are apparent contradictions there is an opportunity to discover where your reasoning about reality is going wrong. 



peterloringborst said:


> I am involve in a process of finding out, not laying down some sort of dogma. Belief is antithetical to scientific inquiry.


Not at all. We all have beliefs - even if they are only that no beliefs are better than others. I work hard to ensure my beliefs coincide well with reality. That can be called, broadly, a scientific approach. 

You must surely admit Peter that there is an interesting intersection between the problems of breeding and the facts of natural selection. That's what Ruttner meant when he said 'nature is the great teacher'. Do you reeally think there is no room for exploration of these things in a conversation about how to make new healthy bees? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I have seldom seen one of these young men, once he is well
> caught up, in a condition of genuine intellectual puzzlement. And
> I have never seen any passionate curiosity about a great problem,
> the sort of curiosity that compels the mind to travel anywhere
> and by any means, to re-make itself if necessary, in order to find out.
> 
> C. WRIGHT MILLS (1959)


Your author is speaking of young men who come from a less than well developed cultural and intellectual background. What is it you are trying to say?

Perhaps you wish to share your own cultural and intellectual background?


----------



## peterloringborst

> As a rational person you must be aware that reality is consistent. Where there are apparent contradictions there is an opportunity to discover where your reasoning about reality is going wrong.


I would respectfully submit that you and I do not and will never agree on anything. By the way, Einstein refused to change his mind as needed to accommodate new ideas. "I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." "_spukhafte Fernwirkung_" etc.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> "I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." "_spukhafte Fernwirkung_" etc.


"Belief is antithetical to scientific inquiry." - PB


----------



## peterloringborst

> "I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." "spukhafte Fernwirkung" etc.
> 
> "Belief is antithetical to scientific inquiry."


I meant to contrast these from each other. Einstein was wrong to cling to belief, and were he alive I am pretty sure he would say so.



> Many scientists are like Einstein, in that they have a deep emotional attachment to determinism. Unlike Einstein, they have accepted the reduction in our ability to predict, that quantum theory brought about. But that is far enough. I feel these scientists have not learnt the lesson of history. The universe does not behave according to our pre-conceived ideas. It continues to surprise us. One can calculate probabilities, but one can not make any definite predictions. The future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state. — Hawking


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I meant to contrast these from each other. Einstein was wrong to cling to belief, and were he alive I am pretty sure he would say so.


Then he would have shifted to a new belief... 

It seems to me that you believe you shouldn't have beliefs...

We all have beliefs. We all rate them according to what we think is their likelyhood of being true - that is, durable. I believe I have two legs, and that belief is about as strong as they get. I believe two and two makes four, and that's a strong one too. I believe the entire universe somehow all fell together spontaniously, out of nothing. But I'm not nearly so sure about that one. There are lots in the middle.

I believe its a good plan to work with the understanding that core scientific facts represent as good as makes no difference realities, and that my challenging them is very unlikely to be fruitful. But I do understand these are my beliefs.

Or rather, I arrange my language in that way. 'Knowledge' for me is 'very strong belief'. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mbc

peterloringborst said:


> We have no idea what the world will be like in the future so comments like "bees will be just fine once humans are gone" have no real meaning. A catastrophe so grave as to wipe out the human race would likely annihilate bees as well. Bees are very sensitive to environmental degradation.
> 
> Currently there is no evidence of thriving populations of European bees where there are varroa mites.


" the relevancy is if honey bee becomes dependent on humans, it would be essentially a parasite" 
Given the context of your conjecture I think my comment about bees being fine once we're out of the picture has some footing, they have already endured through what many scientists call mass extinction events.
I had understood the Primorsky bees are thriving and AM, and it also seems large sections of the French beekeeping community are treatment free and their bees are thriving, so the idea that European honey bees are, or will be totally dependent on humans is purely the preserve of those hellbent on preserving a weird anti bee, pro treatment myth.
I had thought that it was generally accepted that bees can survive without treatment, just not quite so productively.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I had understood the Primorsky bees are thriving and AM, and it also seems large sections of the French beekeeping community are treatment free and their bees are thriving, so the idea that European honey bees are, or will be totally dependent on humans is purely the preserve of those hellbent on preserving a weird anti bee, pro treatment myth.


The Russians are known for their liberal use of chemicals, Chinese too. I have heard there are small pockets of treatment free beekeepers everywhere, but this may be thanks to the fact that those around them are controlling mites. Do you have any actual documentation that any of these beekeepers have bees that will survive without treatment _IF_ taken out of their local situation? Because the phenomenon could easily be a local one, and not related to the bees genetic makeup, at all. 



> those hellbent on preserving a weird anti bee, pro treatment myth.


This kind of comment does not further the discussion. Nobody I know is "hellbent on preserving a weird anti bee, pro treatment myth."


----------



## mbc

peterloringborst said:


> . I have heard there are small pockets of treatment free beekeepers everywhere, but this may be thanks to the fact that those around them are controlling mites. Do you have any actual documentation that any of these beekeepers have bees that will survive without treatment _IF_ taken out of their local situation? Because the phenomenon could easily be a local one, and not related to the bees genetic makeup, at all.
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of comment does not further the discussion. Nobody I know is "hellbent on preserving a weird anti bee, pro treatment myth."


Actual documentation, well err, no, but it seems that there are plenty of feral bees and beekeepers who house them in their hives with no varroa deaths, all anecdotal I'm afraid, though I'm sure someone with a better grasp of French could find something on tinternet.
Yeah, apologies for the "weird anti bee, pro treatment" bit, but I'm struggling to see what you're getting at with the bees being so helpless, it clearly isnt so, feral populations are recovering in many places and discrediting them by saying they wont survive if they are parachuted into different areas with different pressures kind of misses the point about how bees evolve/adapt to cope IMHO


----------



## Michael Bush

> I have heard there are small pockets of treatment free beekeepers everywhere, but this may be thanks to the fact that those around them are controlling mites.

A very interesting conclusion. Exactly the opposite of mine. I'm trying to keep bees that can resist mites and that is complicated by the fact that those around me keep bringing in bees that have to be treated to survive...


----------



## peterloringborst

> discrediting them by saying they wont survive if they are parachuted into different areas with different pressures kind of misses the point about how bees evolve/adapt to cope IMHO


Have you followed this conversation from the beginning? The theory is that European bees could develop resistance to mites. African and Asian bees already have it. There are documented examples of bees being completely wiped out by varroa (Wenner, California) and bees able to control mites (De Jong, Brazil; Allsopp, Africa). 

There are also documented examples where feral bees when brought in proximity to commercial bees, perish from mites (Seeley; personal observation). There are no examples that I know of documented mite resistance that holds up long term that doesn't involve either isolation, African bees, or both. 

Plenty of people claim mite resistant bees but offer no proof other than "I still have bees." Most of these bees do not perform as advertised when moved into other locations, which makes the notion that they are resistant completely questionable.

This is a serious matter. For the purposes of maintaining actual pure Apis mellifera mellifera, or Apis mellifera carnica, for example, you don't want a hybrid that has African bees in it. For commercial beekeepers, a hybrid is OK, they are not attempting to conserve European bees but just make a living. For people like me who want resistant bees that don't require treatment, it is a serious matter, as well.


----------



## peterloringborst

> A very interesting conclusion. Exactly the opposite of mine. I'm trying to keep bees that can resist mites and that is complicated by the fact that those around me keep bringing in bees that have to be treated to survive...


Absolutely valid point. But I thought small cells prevents mite disease, regardless of the bee stock. Why would stock matter if small cell controls mites?


----------



## Michael Bush

I have always said that stock matters. It matters for tracheal mite resistance. It matters for AFB resistance. It matters for chalkbrood resistance. It matters for EFB resistance. It matters for Nosema resistance. It matters for overwintering capability. And I'm sure it makes a difference in virus resistance which makes a difference in surviving Varroa. I just never saw genetics tip the scale so that there were any survivors from Varroa to breed from when they were on large cell.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I just never saw genetics tip the scale so that there were any survivors from Varroa to breed from when they were on large cell.


So, European bees can't evolve sufficient resistance left on their own? What if I let them build their own comb?

Speaking of cell size



> average measurements of 10 linear cells
> of Africanized bees in the neotropics are
> 4.8 and 4.9 cm (range = 4.6-5.0 cm;
> Barbosa da Silva and Newton, 1967;
> Cosenza and Batista, 1973; Rinderer ett
> al., 1986a). Colonies with ’intermediate’
> behavioral characteristics also tend to
> have intermediate cell sizes (between 4.9
> and 5.2 cm), although the correspondence
> is not consistent


See
Spivak (1989) Honey production by Africanized and European honey bees in Costa Rica


----------



## mbc

peterloringborst said:


> Have you followed this conversation from the beginning? The theory is that European bees could develop resistance to mites. African and Asian bees already have it. There are documented examples of bees being completely wiped out by varroa (Wenner, California) and bees able to control mites (De Jong, Brazil; Allsopp, Africa).
> 
> There are also documented examples where feral bees when brought in proximity to commercial bees, perish from mites (Seeley; personal observation). There are no examples that I know of documented mite resistance that holds up long term that doesn't involve either isolation, African bees, or both.
> 
> Plenty of people claim mite resistant bees but offer no proof other than "I still have bees." Most of these bees do not perform as advertised when moved into other locations, which makes the notion that they are resistant completely questionable.
> 
> This is a serious matter. For the purposes of maintaining actual pure Apis mellifera mellifera, or Apis mellifera carnica, for example, you don't want a hybrid that has African bees in it. For commercial beekeepers, a hybrid is OK, they are not attempting to conserve European bees but just make a living. For people like me who want resistant bees that don't require treatment, it is a serious matter, as well.


There is never going to be a bomb proof bee, but there are already plenty of examples of AM bees which are "resistant" to the mites and virus' in their area, perhaps the missing ingredient in most situations is stability. Stability so the bees have a chance to adapt or die, and stability so the most aggressive mites also die without constantly being replaced by new strains. If there's any creature which should teach us to look at the whole picture its honey bees, by which I specifically mean European honey bees as I have no experience of Apis cerana or African bees, although our bees also came from Africa if you look back far enough according to some, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtm8URk-V9A&feature=youtu.be


----------



## jonathan

peterloringborst said:


> This is a serious matter. For the purposes of maintaining actual pure Apis mellifera mellifera, or Apis mellifera carnica, for example, you don't want a hybrid that has African bees in it.


If you are a breeder of A mellifera mellifera you don't even want Carnica or Ligustica in the stock!
We have started a project collecting Amm samples in Ireland for future DNA testing and each sample is linked to a mite count taken from 300 bees from the brood nest of the same colony taken between 15 August and 15 September every year.

http://nihbs.org/wp-content/uploads...Varroa-resistance-in-Ireland-Instructions.pdf

Is there much published data linking specific genes with specific behaviours such as biting, grooming, uncapping cells, or removing pupae?
From what I have read from Marla Spivak or Harbo and Harris, most of these behaviours are polygenic.

High-Resolution Linkage Analyses to Identify Genes That Influence Varroa Sensitive Hygiene Behavior in Honey Bees 

Jennifer M. Tsuruda, Jeffrey W. Harris, Lanie Bourgeois, Robert G. Danka, Greg J. Hunt 

Surely there is mileage in identifying these genes linked to VSH and other mite tolerant behaviour and making sure that any breeder queens used carry a reasonable number of them.
Is this approach likely to run into difficulties due to the polyandry of the honeybee?


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> There are also documented examples where feral bees when brought in proximity to commercial bees, perish from mites (Seeley; personal observation).


Undoubtedly. But this example doesn't mean that happens everywhere, always. 

Problem: you are casting things in black and white terms, and are missing the reality: there are shades in between. 

It isn't the case that colonies are 'resistant' or 'not resistant'. The reality is that some are more and some less resistant than others, on a spectrum of resistance that goes all the way from one end to the other.

That's important. Resistance rises incrementally; natural populations fail almost completely, splutter, gain a foothold, find strength, build on that strength, become strong, throw off the problem completely. 

In individual colonies the position is dependent on multiple factors: having the rights sorts of behaviours, in useful proportions, being relatively unexposed to apiary-raised mites, availability of forage, range of forage. 

The picture is complex. But that doesn't mean we can understand nothing about it. One of the critical things we can understand is that the right sorts of behaviours are provided by particular genes, and that having parents that have those genes is the only way to get them. Period. 



peterloringborst said:


> There are no examples that I know of documented mite resistance that holds up long term that doesn't involve either isolation, African bees, or both.


Perhaps you don't want to find it. Perhaps your definition of 'long term' is outside any present studies. I agree studies of ferals are in short supply - quite why that is is an interesting question. 



peterloringborst said:


> Plenty of people claim mite resistant bees but offer no proof other than "I still have bees." Most of these bees do not perform as advertised when moved into other locations, which makes the notion that they are resistant completely questionable.


Again with the black-and-white. I'm pretty sure I can find plenty of places to put any bee that's ever lived and it won't survive without help! Some places are just too toxic. That's an issue for the management systems, not for propagators of bees.



peterloringborst said:


> This is a serious matter. For the purposes of maintaining actual pure Apis mellifera mellifera, or Apis mellifera carnica, for example, you don't want a hybrid that has African bees in it.


How did we jump to that? What's the agenda now? Exterminating ferals because they might have a bit of African in them?



peterloringborst said:


> For commercial beekeepers, a hybrid is OK, they are not attempting to conserve European bees but just make a living.
> 
> 
> 
> Your bees are hybrids and you better get used to that because you won't change it. Have you seen Dr. Delaney's work on identification of US ferals?
> 
> 
> 
> peterloringborst said:
> 
> 
> 
> For people like me who want resistant bees that don't require treatment, it is a serious matter, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> So now the discussion is about keeping African genes out? That's supposed to help with resistance raising? How exactly?
> 
> If you want resistant bees, source a range that already have some resistance and husband them to maintain and improve it. Join the resistance raising movement. Look for patches of ferals, buy in a few bred resistant; mate in places that are likely to contain resistant drones, keep as far as you can away from treated bees. Learn the arts of traditional (population) husbandry. At least give it a good go before you tell us its all nonsense.
> 
> Mike (UK)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> So, European bees can't evolve sufficient resistance left on their own? What if I let them build their own comb?





Michael Bush said:


> I just never saw genetics tip the scale so that there were any survivors from Varroa to breed from when they were on large cell.


My locally sourced part feral stocks do quite well enough on freecell for me to quadruple numbers in a year without even grafting. Some of them have been great goers. 

This is in a locality dense with fruit-pollinating agricultural bees, but bordering a fairly extensive roughish thinly populated countryside area without fruit. Ferals seem to me to be clustered - mostly in small towns and large villages. Lots of chimney bees. But perhaps they're just the ones that get reported, so I get to them. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Surely there is mileage in identifying these genes linked to VSH and other mite tolerant behaviour and making sure that any breeder queens used carry a reasonable number of them.


Jonathan,

This is exactly what has been going on at Sussex University and elsewhere for the last few years. A good many gene loci coding for specific mite-management behaviours are known, and queens can be tested at the molecular level (if you are in the academic system).



peterloringborst said:


> Is this approach likely to run into difficulties due to the polyandry of the honeybee?


That and the vageries of open mating makes things harder Peter, sure. But you play the numbers game... you load the dice. Read Manley's Honey Farming to see how its done. 

I mentioned to Jonathan a difference between what he is doing and we are doing, and I've thought since that its a point worth expanding:

Jonathan wants to raise a specific race of bee, and his method involves trying to 'fix' the genes in his breeding pool. And this is what academic and commercial breeders of varroa resistant bees try to do to. They want reliabilty, not probability. They want to be able to sell queens that are definately, not probably, carrying two copies of the necessary genes. 

But effective resistance doesn't require the full suit of mite-management behaviours in every sub-family, nor does it require that all sub-families have some at all. It just needs a sufficient level. And _a combination that works_.

To have all sub-families exhibiting, for example, VSH would be too much. The colony would be unfit for that reason.

So what we have to do is locate the sorts of arrangements, the proportions, that work well for us. Natural selection does just that. And we have to copy her methods to even match her. We want more than that, and so we go a little further, we do a sort of accelerated natural selection, to remove some of nature's waste from our systems. 

That's plain old fashioned population husbandry. Stock-keeping in the manner always used before centralised breeding became available. 

Wrapping that up: we're trying to achieve different things - and ours is much easier than for example Jonathan's. That makes it decidedly doable. And that's why we see so many reports of people successfully doing it! 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Michael Bush

Marla Spivak and Eric Erickson in "Do measurements of worker cell size reliably distinguish Africanized from European honey bees (Apis mellifera L.)?" -- American Bee Journal v. April 1992, p. 252-255 says:

"...a continuous range of behaviors and cell size measurements was noted between colonies considered "strongly European" and "strongly Africanized". " 

"Due to the high degree of variation within and among feral and managed populations of Africanized bees, it is emphasized that the most effective solution to the Africanized "problem", in areas where Africanized bees have established permanent populations, is to consistently select for the most gentle and productive colonies among the existing honey bee population" 
http://orton.catie.ac.cr/cgi-bin/wx...ost&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion=mfn=010125

Identification and relative success of Africanized and European honey bees in Costa Rica. Spivak, M

http://orton.catie.ac.cr/cgi-bin/wx...ost&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion=mfn=018195

Do measurements of worker cell size reliably distinguish Africanized from European honey bees (Apis mellifera L.)?. Spivak, M; Erickson, E.H., Jr.


----------



## peterloringborst

> There are no examples that I know of documented mite resistance that holds up long term that doesn't involve either isolation, African bees, or both.
> 
> Mike Bispham: Perhaps you don't want to find it.


This kind of comment is completely unproductive. I started this thread to explore this topic, so the suggestion that I _don't want to find it _ is utterly ridiculous. My sole interest in joining internet discussions is to gather information that is unavailable elsewhere. You have picked apart my writing and taunted me, to what end I have no idea. 

I didn't come here to spew dogma or promote some sort of crackpot theory like a lot of folks do. I spend far more time combing the research than anyone I know. Having access to the world's scientific journals as I do, allows me to read everything published on these topics including PhD theses as they are published, etc.

I know that varroa resistance develops in certain populations, and I know how it happens. What I am suggesting is that it is very rare in European honey bees, that is precisely why breeding programs have been developed to produce it rather than to find it. That's what breeding is all about, producing results rather than waiting for them. 

The problem is that human assisted stock development does NOT work the same way as natural selection. A naturally produced viable population will differ in significant ways than an artificially produced one. This is central to Mike Allsopp and Dave de Jong's statements. The problem is that they are both working with African bees, which may invalidate their hypothesis. 

Currently, there are several very small populations of varroa resistant European bees that have been observed by Barbara Locke of Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. I wrote to her in 2012 and asked her if the traits could be exported from the populations (as opposed to being tethered to the location) and she said "they were working on that."

If there is anybody in the wide world who has success with varroa resistant bees, let them step forward and show the results. And this doesn't mean story telling. It means 3-5 years of records showing how many colonies survived, how long they survived, what interventions took place, etc.

How many times have you heard someone say "the bees have been living in that tree for 20 years, etc." ? This is an example of what I am not talking about. That tree may have bees now, and it may have had bees 20 years ago but that isn't the same colony, which lived for 20 years unassisted. 

By the way, if anyone has such mite resistant stock, I want to try it. But not on the basis of unsupported claims. Such experiments are very expensive. For example, I set up six colonies using mite resistant stock last year, and 5 died over winter. The sixth superseded the queen, so I have to start all over again. Each year of failure puts me one year behind the 5 year projected goal

Mike Bispham, you still haven't told the group how many queens you have raised and what the results were. We are still waiting


----------



## peterloringborst

"...a continuous range of behaviors and cell size measurements was noted between colonies considered "strongly European" and "strongly Africanized". " 

Michael Bush, you absolutely missed the entire point of that paper. African bees in Africa show consistent cell size. European bees in Europe show consistent cell size. 

What they were showing that African/European hybrids in the Americas do not and the cell size cannot be used to distinguish among hybrids. This is very old news, more than twenty years ago.

In fact, new research shows that several sophisticated tests are unable to distinguish hybrids, so essentially what we have now in the US is a mixed population, with hybrids that cannot be identified as belonging to one race or another. Katherine Darger in her Master's Thesis says it better



> The lack of definitiveness in the three diagnostic tools leads us to the conclusion that
> sensitivity of genetic markers may not be the most useful factor in determining
> desirable stock for managing honey bees. Perhaps the best way to evaluate a hive is
> by phenotypic traits, such as aggressive tendencies, and other undesirable traits such
> as swarming and absconding, and not by genotypic traits. Containing a blend of
> markers denotes a level of Africanization but perhaps negative behavior should be the
> first line of diagnosis. Excessive stinging and swarming indicates a need for further
> tools to be used, but even without the negative diagnoses these traits should be
> discouraged.


DETERMINING LOW LEVELS OF AFRICANIZATION
IN UNMANAGED HONEY BEE COLONIES
USING THREE DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES
by Katherine Darger Spring 2013


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> This kind of comment is completely unproductive. I started this thread to explore this topic, so the suggestion that I _don't want to find it _ is utterly ridiculous. My sole interest in joining internet discussions is to gather information that is unavailable elsewhere. You have picked apart my writing and taunted me, to what end I have no idea.


Because that how to do constructive critical dialogue. Its how you sort out well thought-through material from poorly thought-through material. It how you move closer to a good understanding of what is real.

You are very hot on science. Don't you undertand that the entire scientific enterprise is a vast machine built around constructive criticism? Lots of the time scientists spend all day trying systematically trying to prove some other scientists are wrong.

Don't be offended by people wanting to argue with you. Respond to their arguments. Doing so will help both of you improve your understanding. I shouldn't have to tell you this. If you feel I've taunted you I'm sorry, and I'll try to avoid giving that impression in the future.



peterloringborst said:


> I didn't come here to spew dogma or promote some sort of crackpot theory like a lot of folks do.


The insinuation is that I do. (You see, that sort of thing make me want to taunt you ...) 

Not all all. I point toward some simple realities, and apply them to the problem at hand. 



peterloringborst said:


> I know that varroa resistance develops in certain populations, and I know how it happens. What I am suggesting is that it is very rare in European honey bees, that is precisely why breeding programs have been developed to produce it rather than to find it.


And I've tried to help you refine that understanding. It isn't nearly as rare as you think. Look up - as I've suggested - Dr. Deborah Delaney. You could start here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mziimuh0iRc

She's made a proper study of US feral populations. Speak with Joe Waggle. And listen to those here who tell you they are doing it. Ask them how. Interrogate them. Try not to carry on insinuating they're liars.

I've pointed out that 'resistance' isn't an on-off thing, and that is is on the rise - and that there is plenty of evidence for that even if the lieterature is lagging.

I've tried to help you understand that one of the key factors holding the development of resistance back is systematic treatments. 



peterloringborst said:


> That's what breeding is all about, producing results rather than waiting for them.


Sure. And we can take from nature some of the progress she has made, and work with that. And if we do that widely enough, the problem will resolve itself.

I'm trying to help you see that one solution may lie not in ever-closer studies of the minute causes of illnesses and the nature of resistance mechanisms, but in a better appreciation of a core mechanism that truly makes a difference. That is: maximising sound local propagation and minimising the corrosive effects on resistance of treating by the methods of traditional husbandry. Or the bond method, or the soft bond method, or any of the other variants that are all based on the same basic idea. Stop making new bees from bees that don't have the qualities you want, and start making them from bees that do.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I'm trying to show you that there is a way of conceiving the problem that doesn't require high tech, high science, centralised solutions, but lies instead in changing the way beekeepers do beekeeping such that the features that we want in bees are systematically placed there by appropriate propagation.



peterloringborst said:


> The problem is that human assisted stock development does NOT work the same way as natural selection.


]

It uses the same key mechanism - inherited traits. In both cases features are enhances and removed by altering the proportion of parents carrying them successfully having offsping that also carry them. Or don't.



peterloringborst said:


> A naturally produced viable population will differ in significant ways than an artificially produced one.


That depends entirely on the approach taken by the breeder - and so you can't generalise in that way. A breeder can do pretty much nothing and watch natural selection do its work (if he has scope - most do not). He can do a little tweak here and there and help natural selection along. He can do more, and make things happen quicker. He can do the wrong thing things and make things go wrong.

You can't generalise. But you can say: some approaches to husbandry are helpful to the goal of raising resistance, and some are not. Some are deeply damaging. And you can explain why in each case.

You can say: as and where there are resistant naturally selected populations, we can take advantage by using them in our breeding programs. 



peterloringborst said:


> If there is anybody in the wide world who has success with varroa resistant bees, let them step forward and show the results. And this doesn't mean story telling. It means 3-5 years of records showing how many colonies survived, how long they survived, what interventions took place, etc.


I can only hope they'll step up. They are here. 



peterloringborst said:


> How many times have you heard someone say "the bees have been living in that tree for 20 years, etc." ? This is an example of what I am not talking about. That tree may have bees now, and it may have had bees 20 years ago but that isn't the same colony, which lived for 20 years unassisted.


Of course. But you cannot go from that understanding to the position: there are no viable feral populations. That isn't sound reasoning. 



peterloringborst said:


> By the way, if anyone has such mite resistant stock, I want to try it. But not on the basis of unsupported claims. Such experiments are very expensive. For example, I set up six colonies using mite resistant stock last year, and 5 died over winter. The sixth superseded the queen, so I have to start all over again. Each year of failure puts me one year behind the 5 year projected goal


Be patient and work harder at getting the right stock; then work hard at developing resistance by sound husbandry. 



peterloringborst said:


> Mike Bispham, you still haven't told the group how many queens you have raised and what the results were. We are still waiting


Then I'll keep you waiting no more. I raised about 40 last year by grafting. My first year doing it. About half of them found a home and mated successfully. About half of those have come through the winter fighting fit - so far.

Of those that failed; in all cases it was my fault for raising them too late in the year, and doing too little to protect them from robbing.

Mike (UK)


----------



## peterloringborst

Dear Mr. Bush

For you to quote Marla Spivak in support of your conjecturing is utterly comical. She has come out strongly against the misguided notion that cell size controls varroa, has developed actual varroa resistant stock but is honest enough to acknowledge that it may need help with mite control measures to survive. She points out that so-called mite resistance in southern states is bound to be due to introgression of African genes. If you are going to quote her 1992 work on bees in Costa Rica, maybe you should look at her current work. Real scientists' body of work changes over time, becomes more informed. 



> The standardization of performance testing is a necessary prerequisite for successful breeding. The results will indicate differences between individual colonies that can be utilized for improvement, but these data alone are insufficient. The environment varies greatly between and within apiaries and test stations, and the traits measured are strongly affected by these environmental effects. Only the hereditary disposition is significant in breeding, as only the hereditary disposition (genes) of the animals influence the quality of the offspring. The environmental conditions under which the colonies live unfortunately mask or influence their hereditary properties (breeding value). A breeding programme therefore requires a breeding value or selection index in order to choose which queens to reproduce, according to the aims of the breeding programme.


Standard methods for rearing and selection of Apis mellifera queens 
Journal of Apicultural Research 52(1): (2013) © IBRA 2013

There are ten authors on this paper, including Dr. Spivak, which speaks to the collaborative nature of today's scientific research. The solitary voice among many is seldom the definitive one (including mine, Barry). The voice that speaks collectively carries with it the force of consensus, which is the acid test. What works for many is more likely to work for one rather than the opposite: what works for one may not work anyone else.

By the way, if anyone is still paying attention, I have presented both sides of this argument: Spivak et al fully support controlled breeding as the way to get better bees, whereas De Jong, et al fully support natural selection as the only way. Evolution, of course, sides with natural selection, and that may mean that the entire population of US bees may absorb African genes. This process is well under way, that cat is out of the bag.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> "The standardization of performance testing is a necessary prerequisite for successful breeding. The results will indicate differences between individual colonies that can be utilized for improvement, but these data alone are insufficient. The environment varies greatly between and within apiaries and test stations, and the traits measured are strongly affected by these environmental effects. Only the hereditary disposition is significant in breeding, as only the hereditary disposition (genes) of the animals influence the quality of the offspring. The environmental conditions under which the colonies live unfortunately mask or influence their hereditary properties (breeding value). A breeding programme therefore requires a breeding value or selection index in order to choose which queens to reproduce, according to the aims of the breeding programme."
> Standard methods for rearing and selection of Apis mellifera queens
> Journal of Apicultural Research 52(1): (2013) © IBRA 2013


'Nature vs Nurture'; The problem of 'Well bred or Well Fed.'

As I outlined a couple of days ago. 



peterloringborst said:


> Spivak et al fully support controlled breeding as the way to get better bees, whereas De Jong, et al fully support natural selection as the only way."


I'm not sure you've characterized the situation well. 

Has Marla Spivak said anywhere 'don't use naturally derived resistant bees as part of your program'?

Do De-Jong et al suggest that all bees should be kept and raised entirely in a natural state?

Is it not the case that both approaches contribute toward the production of bees that are not dependent on medications, and that both parties are happy to acknowledge that? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Michael Bush

>For you to quote Marla Spivak in support of your conjecturing is utterly comical.

My post was nothing more or less than a quote from Marla Spivak's research. Perhaps you could point out the "conjecture" in that post. Yes, I am aware of Marla's beliefs on the subject of cell size. I don't follow why it is "utterly comical" to quote a well respected researcher. Perhaps you could explain why you find it comical? I find it comical that you can have such obviously strong beliefs and yet say things like:

"Belief is antithetical to scientific inquiry." - Peter Borst

I find "What we need to discover is often effectively blocked by what we know already."--Paul Mace


----------



## AstroBee

Michael Bush said:


> I just never saw genetics tip the scale so that there were any survivors from Varroa to breed from when they were on large cell.


At risk of entering this endless debate, I must comment. I'll simply say, knowing I'm not going to alter the path of this discussion, that I* have *seen genetics dramatically tip the scale on survival *and* productivity in my operation. Is this a sole influence? Who knows, but it *appears* to me to have been the biggest change made resulting in improvements.


----------



## peterloringborst

> My post was nothing more or less than a quote from Marla Spivak's research. Perhaps you could point out the "conjecture" in that post.


Fair enough, the conjecture was implicit, not spelled out. What was your purpose on posting that data, then?


----------



## peterloringborst

> At risk of entering this endless debate


If the debate appears endless it is because the problem is not yet solved.



> Although V. destructor is not the sole cause of colony losses
> experienced worldwide in recent years, a consensus emerges that it
> represents the key factor (Neumann and Carreck, 2010). Removing
> V. destructor from the complex equation of honey bee health would
> reduce the pressure on the honey bee’s extensive natural defence
> mechanisms (Evans and Spivak, 2010) against the many
> environmental health challenges. Using sustainable methods to
> control or even eradicate this parasite will re-establish wild and feral
> pollinator populations, ease the plight of beekeepers, promote
> economically important pollination-dependant agriculture and benefit
> natural ecosystems
> 
> At present, selection of tolerant bees is performed blindly
> (using lineages showing naturally lower parasite infestation) or based
> on secondary mechanisms of tolerance such as hygienic behaviour
> (Büchler et al., 2010; Rinderer et al., 2010). Honey bee lines that
> have been selected for hygienic behaviour suffer from a general lack
> of acceptance in the beekeeping community (Carreck, 2011;
> Delaplane, 2011) and _do not currently represent a sustainable
> solution._


Journal of Apicultural Research 51(1): 125-132 (2012)


----------



## AstroBee

peterloringborst said:


> If the debate appears endless it is because the problem is not yet solved.


Yes, I fully realize that. No offense to anyone involved in the current discussion. I'll have to read the study you referenced, but not sure that folks at the UDSA, John Harbo, Adam from VP queens in MD and others would agree that "At present, selection of tolerant bees is performed blindly..." 

Thanks


----------



## peterloringborst

> not sure that folks at the UDSA, John Harbo, ... and others would agree


Of course. In fact they issued a strongly worded rebuttal:



> the authors state that we are “not close to any such sustainable solutions”. We disagree with this negative characterization of the status of honey bees with genetically based mite resistance.
> 
> We agree with Dietemann et al. (2012) that the effectiveness of IPM programmes (presumably including genetically resistant bees) for varroa control, depends on the dedication and proficiency of individual beekeepers. Our experience is that small-scale beekeepers are further ahead than large-scale beekeepers in acceptance of resistant bees.
> 
> Honey bee strains that are resistant to varroa are a valuable re- source that beekeepers are using successfully. Although these bees have not completely solved the problem, we are in fact moving toward the ideal of sustainable varroa control



Robert G Danka, Thomas E Rinderer, Marla Spivak and John Kefuss (2013) Journal of Apicultural Research 52(2): 69-71


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> If the debate appears endless it is because the problem is not yet solved.
> 
> Honey bee lines that have been selected for hygienic behaviour suffer from a general lack
> of acceptance in the beekeeping community (Carreck, 2011;
> Delaplane, 2011) and do not currently represent a sustainable
> solution.


That's why we're talking... about what might be a sustainable solution. The people reporting success keeping bees without treatments are entirely those who use home breeding (traditional husbandry) as their primary tool. 

Tell me I'm wrong.

This is what Marla Spivak recommends as the way forward. Randy Oliver. Norman Carreck (who you cite) and his associate Prof Ratneiks the same. 

And still you don't want to discuss it?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> The people reporting success keeping bees without treatments are entirely those who use[HIGHLIGHT] home breeding (traditional husbandry) [/HIGHLIGHT]as their primary tool.
> 
> Tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> Mike (UK)



OK, you are wrong! 


_WLC _buys his queens from Beeweaver and has many times stated here that his is a treatment free apiary.


Post #39 is one of those instances ...
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ing&p=1084318&highlight=beeweaver#post1084318


:gh:


----------



## peterloringborst

Now that the dust has settled, I would like to point out that nobody has offered any evidence that bees can survive without mite treatments and that mite resistant populations can develop on their own -- other than "just so stories". The fact is, published evidence exists, and is easily obtainable. In fact, two years ago Barbara Locke published a PhD thesis on this very topic. It is a model of how to go about documenting mite resistance in unmanaged bees. She studied them, kept track of their progress over several years and compared them to conventional "control colonies." I am _not_ saying such populations do not exist in the US and elsewhere. I am saying that nobody has seriously tracked them and produced a body of evidence, like Dr. Locke's thesis. She is still working on the project, hoping to develop a line of bees based on them. However, it still remains to be seen if these traits can be retained if the lineages are moved into other regions. 



> Two unique sub-populations of European honey bees (on Gotland, Sweden and in
> Avignon, France) have adapted to survive for extended periods (over ten years) without
> the use of mite control treatments. This has been achieved through a natural selection
> process with unmanaged mite infestation levels enforcing a strong selection pressure.
> This thesis reveals that the adaptation acquired by these honey bee populations mainly
> involve reducing the reproductive success of the parasite, that the different populations
> may have evolved different strategies to do so, and that this mite-resistant trait is
> genetically inherited. In addition, results of this thesis demonstrate that chemical mite
> control treatments used by beekeepers to inhibit the mite population growth within a
> colony can actually worsen bee health by temporarily increasing the bee’s susceptibility
> to virus infection.
> 
> The results of this thesis highlight the impact that apicultural practices otherwise
> have on host-parasite interactions and the development of disease in this system.
> Possible solutions to the threat of Varroa are discussed such as the potential to breed
> for mite-resistant honey bees, which may offer a sustainable long-term solution, and the
> need for better general beekeeping techniques that reduce the use of chemical
> treatments and inhibit the spread of disease.


Host-Parasite Adaptations and Interactions Between Honey Bees, Varroa Mites and Viruses
Barbara Locke, Faculty Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Ecology, Uppsala


----------



## Oldtimer

Very interesting Peter, good to see this happening in Europe, and away from Africanised bees.


----------



## heaflaw

Here's my take on it: Treatment free works in some localities and for some beekeepers. It's partly the genetics of the bees and partly the genetics of the mites. When bees that can survive without treatments by whatever mechanism, are moved to other areas, they exchange genetics with bees that cannot survive without treatments therefore losing their ability to survive.

They also come into contact with more virulent mites. In the nontreatment world, the more virulent mites kill their hosts and die along with the host. So only the less virulent mites survive. When mites are treated a small percentage always lives including the most virulent ones which can then overcome the treatment free hives that were moved into that area. 

I think that's taking the whole debate down to the most basic level.

I came to this thinking by reading Seeley' Arnot Forest, talking with Dave Tarpy and from reading of experiences here on Beesource.

It's probably easy to tell that though I respect science a great deal, I have no science background at all. So, I apologize if terminology is not the best.

Would love to hear comments from PLB, both Mike B's, Oldtimer and others.


----------



## Tim Ives

peterloringborst said:


> I would like to point out that nobody has offered any evidence that bees can survive without mite treatments and that mite resistant populations can develop on their own -- other than "just so stories".


How much "Evidence" do you want? The reason no ones says anything that are do so, is because we are greatly out numbered by those who say it cannot be done. Which I really don't see what the big deal is about Varrao Mites. I must be missing something... Maybe its all the Neonics around me, keeping the mites in check??


----------



## Juhani Lunden

peterloringborst said:


> Now that the dust has settled, I would like to point out that nobody has offered any evidence that bees can survive without mite treatments and that mite resistant populations can develop *on their own *-- other than "just so stories".


So when I have with breeding created varroa resistant bees it doesn´t count, because you claim they don´t come on their own?
Like Tim Ives I would like to know how much evidence you need, how many queens? Scientific proof is the thing I need and miss. In Finland there are no possibilities for serious beekeeping resarch (no money), I have been looking some Institutes in Europe, but they study only pure races. Now I have one friend coming from NZ, working for MAF, maybe they get interested.


----------



## mbc

mike bispham said:


> Problem: you are casting things in black and white terms, and are missing the reality: there are shades in between.
> 
> It isn't the case that colonies are 'resistant' or 'not resistant'. The reality is that some are more and some less resistant than others, on a spectrum of resistance that goes all the way from one end to the other.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Stick a bell curve graph over this spectrum and you have a graphical demonstration of where we stand at present and where we want to push that bell curve to make beekeeping easier in the future.
IMHO the obsession with documented papers showing 'this or that' misses the point that the real experts who know whats going on are mostly too busy with their noses in hives to publish much.
Perhaps this thread should have been titled "leading us up the garden path" rather than "barking up the wrong tree" given PLB's revelation that he was aware of the Gotland paper all along, still, thanks for the "nativists" term which brought me out from lurking


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I would like to point out that nobody has offered any evidence that bees can survive without mite treatments and that mite resistant populations can develop on their own -- other than "just so stories".


Peter,

This is one of a number of published papers that, along with video reports, and hundreds of longstanding reports from beekeepers, make clear that what should be expected [1] is happening. European bees are adapting to varroa.

As expected, this is occuring in natural populations - that is: away from treating apiaries. [2] 



peterloringborst said:


> I am _not_ saying such populations do not exist in the US and elsewhere. I am saying that nobody has seriously tracked them and produced a body of evidence, like Dr. Locke's thesis.


As I've pointed out to you you should look up Dr. Deborah Delaney's work in the US.

Its fair to say the academic community has been slow in this respect. Its probably fair to say that researching natural adaptation is not where the money lies - and universities are not the impartial research bodies they used to be.



peterloringborst said:


> She is still working on the project, hoping to develop a line of bees based on them.


As is Dr. Delaney and a great many non-academic beekeepers. And a great many are reporting success. Some use high-tech high intesity methods. Some just use traditional husbandry methods. 



peterloringborst said:


> However, it still remains to be seen if these traits can be retained if the lineages are moved into other regions.


The best way by far - by miles - is to have many many 'lines' of locally adapted bees under the care of proficient husbandrymen, everywere. That way all local diversity is maintained, and problems due to poorly acclimatised bees and to imported diseases are minimised. Marla Spivak has been saying this for a long while, and her's isn't a lonely voice. 

You seem to be looking for a one-off, final solution in a 'line' of bred bees. It isn't like that. Husbandry is a constant, everlasting experiment. Some things don't work, then start working; some things work then don't. But usually (given freedom from novel predators) things can go along smoothly IF you take care to propagate properly, to 'husband' the most promising genes down through the generations. You monitor, and take action according to what you find. Back to the start: repeat; keep repeating. And those actual genes do, actually do, come through to the next generation; and they do just what they did in the last.

You seem to be building your view of the broad position only from the published literature. That could be a mistake. If you made a meta-study of the literature you'd probably find that papers dealing with the minutiae of bee diseases, with the efficacy of the various treatments, of analysis of apiary field data and so on outnumber surveys of feral populations and close examinations of successful tf beekeepers by something like 200 to 1. (I know of none of the latter. Zero) 

Its very easy to get the idea that that proportion somehow supplies an indication of the nature of the problem, and a direction toward solutions. 

It doesn't. 

It might supply an indication of something else - something to do with the way applied science is done, about funding, about specialisation and career building perhaps... but it doesn't tell you much about what is happening off the radar, in forests, small towns and rough country, and in modest yards all over. 

Resistance to varroa is building, and in places has already reached the stage where populations are shrugging it off. We won't get rid of mites, but they can be reduced to a minor nuisance. 

Traditional vigour-seeking selective husbandry is a model that mirrors what is happening in nature, and works, just as well, and for the same reasons. Resistance traits are heritable: you can increase them in your population. You can't buck Nature. You can imitate her. Ask Barbara Locke. Marla Spivak. Debora Delaney. Seriously. Ask them.

Mike (UK)

[1] Solid, but basic, bio-evolutionary understanding predicts this.
[2] Ditto


----------



## mike bispham

mbc said:


> Stick a bell curve graph over this spectrum and you have a graphical demonstration of where we stand at present and where we want to push that bell curve to make beekeeping easier in the future.


Now that would be a useful study. Seek out the data, create the bell curve, and identify the sorts of things that move it left and right. Now give it to beekeepers - and the regulators who advise them.

Can you see a Bayer funded university project doing that?

Can you see the 'stakeholders' going along with that?



mbc said:


> IMHO the obsession with documented papers showing 'this or that' misses the point that the real experts who know whats going on are mostly too busy with their noses in hives to publish much.


And lack the qualifications, access to the literature, the know-how and last but not least, the funding to do it. 



mbc said:


> Perhaps this thread should have been titled "leading us up the garden path" rather than "barking up the wrong tree" given PLB's revelation that he was aware of the Gotland paper all along


I think we should be grateful to Peter for giving us the opportunity to develop our understanding of the larger picture in many ways.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Some good posts. 

I don't think Peter was saying there was no evidence, I think he was saying none had been presented. Because he then went on to say it's easy to find and in fact quoted some. Or that's how I took his post anyway.



Juhani Lunden said:


> Now I have one friend coming from NZ, working for MAF, maybe they get interested.


Who is it Juhani?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Oldtimer said:


> Who is it Juhani?


I´ll send you a private message.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I don't think Peter was saying there was no evidence, I think he was saying none had been presented. Because he then went on to say it's easy to find and in fact quoted some. Or that's how I took his post anyway.


Right. Six years ago I wrote an article for the American Bee Journal called "Keeping bees without chemicals". I gave a talk on the subject that year to the Empire State Honey Producers Association. 

I no longer offer to give that talk for the simple reason that none of the techniques that I wrote about worked for me in my area. The bees always got mites, sickened and died. 

For me to go out and preach treatment free knowing that it wouldn't work, would be hypocrisy. I only promote what I know will work. MAQs work. I am trying to test BeeWeaver stock but they died over winter.

The point with the above quote is that these folks have been claiming treatment free for decades, but they offer no numbers, no documentation. We don't know how often the hives collapse (for whatever reason). We don't know if they produce any honey. We don't know if they are simply delusional. 

This is how science works: you produce the data, you explain it, you are subjected to the intense scrutiny of your peers, you are expected to prove it. If you can't prove your claim, you are history. 

Whereas, in these online forums there are endless "just so" stories, hypotheses, comic relief, and wagonloads of fertilizer. People don't seem to realize the difference between talk and action. If you have something, show it or shut up.

PLB


----------



## Juhani Lunden

peterloringborst said:


> The point with the above quote is that these folks have been claiming treatment free for decades, but they offer no numbers, no documentation. We don't know how often the hives collapse (for whatever reason). We don't know if they produce any honey. We don't know if they are simply delusional.
> 
> This is how science works: you produce the data, you explain it, you are subjected to the intense scrutiny of your peers, you are expected to prove it. If you can't prove your claim, you are history.
> 
> Whereas, in these online forums there are endless "just so" stories, hypotheses, comic relief, and wagonloads of fertilizer. People don't seem to realize the difference between talk and action. If you have something, show it or shut up.
> 
> PLB


Well at least I have tried. It is not an easy thing you are asking. What you just said sounds to like this: "Hi you, create a varroa resistant bee and by the way I want it all on paper and made according scientific manners!"

If you read my www.saunalahti.fi/lunden/varroakertomus.htm there is a start. I can give you every years honeycrops, some of them are on that paper. I can give you more numers, hives, infestation levels, nucs made, again some of them are on that paper.

All my used breeding stock is, and has been for long, in Internet.
Year 2013 is here http://perso.fundp.ac.be/~jvandyck/homage/elver/pedgr/ped_JL_2013.html

I can give you some statements from other breeders, one from Paul Jungels in Luxembourg (2000km away) is here ("this colony does not need any varroa treatment"):
http://perso.fundp.ac.be/~jvandyck/homage/elver/pedgr/ped_PJ_2011.html

I have one minor test results from MTT The Finnsih Agricultural Research center, they got 10 queens 2009.

You are wellcome to make sugar roll tests any time. I usually make them only from all possible breeders (2 years and older queens), to save time. Time is needed to do other work, because this is very expensive hobby.


----------



## mbc

peterloringborst said:


> This kind of comment does not further the discussion.





peterloringborst said:


> This kind of comment is completely unproductive. I started this thread to explore this topic,





peterloringborst said:


> People don't seem to realize the difference between talk and action. If you have something, show it or shut up.
> PLB


Whats good for the goose is good for the gander 



peterloringborst said:


> This is how science works: you produce the data, you explain it, you are subjected to the intense scrutiny of your peers, you are expected to prove it. If you can't prove your claim, you are history.
> 
> Whereas, in these online forums there are endless "just so" stories, hypotheses, comic relief, and wagonloads of fertilizer
> PLB


Science works like this but not beekeeping. Definitive answers get lost in a sea of infinite variables and so we resort to listening to anecdotes, or"just so" stories from peoples own experiences on the ground, and the world is all the richer for it. 
Back to the "hive mind" and self awareness, bee colonies are certainly aware of the other bee colonies within their range - given that this is true, and that the colonies in a given area form an interconnected population, would it be true that any experiments which first equalise colonies and relocate them have more built in background noise than the variables this model is trying to avoid?
I certainly dont think science and beekeeping are an easy mix at our current crude levels of understanding, and to dismiss the thoughts of others because they dont come with a list of references or letters after their name is to risk throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## Tim Ives

Give me the multi-millions thrown at the so called research each year. I'll show you how to make more bees exponentially and not piles of papers.


----------



## peterloringborst

> o dismiss the thoughts of others because they dont come with a list of references or letters after their name is to risk throwing the baby out with the bath water.


I am not dismissing anything. It has nothing to do with references or credentials. I am pointing out that after 20 years, none of the so-called treatment free folks can produced documentation of what they have done. I hate to say it but it appears to be simple laziness.

PLB


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I no longer offer to give that talk for the simple reason that none of the techniques that I wrote about worked for me in my area. The bees always got mites, sickened and died.


Would you like to tell us exactly what you did Peter? It would be useful to know what didn't work. 



peterloringborst said:


> The point with the above quote is that these folks have been claiming treatment free for decades, but they offer no numbers, no documentation. We don't know how often the hives collapse (for whatever reason). We don't know if they produce any honey. We don't know if they are simply delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> It would take a lot of work to assemble that data, and to keep it up to date. Oftentimes here people tell us about what they've achieved. But you have to do a lot of work just to put that together. And you wouldn't have much in the way of independent verification. You can always assume they are dishonest or delusional.
> 
> I think there would be a research problem as well. The researcher wouldn't know that people weren't cheating, or record keeping clumsily.
> 
> The best thing to do is talk with people who are claiming success and ask them what they did. At the same time make a study of basic bioevolutionary understanding and basic traditional husbandry methods. You'll find more and more links between these things, and a picture of what works and why will begin to emerge.
> 
> With that make a proper plan to resume your own experiments.
> 
> 
> 
> peterloringborst said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how science works: you produce the data, you explain it, you are subjected to the intense scrutiny of your peers, you are expected to prove it. If you can't prove your claim, you are history.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that's why the academic system has failed to evaluate the progress made by non-academic beekeepers. Or track the progress made by natural populations in any depth.
> 
> Its pretty clear that modern peer review is not the best way to approach the realities here. At least, not alone - certainly it can help.
> 
> 'Science' is not only about peer reviewed publishing however. Plenty of small 's' science gets done in yards and offices and homes. You can work carefully and logically, and in a well informed manner, or by intuition and guesswork. The former is a lot more scientific than the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> peterloringborst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas, in these online forums there are endless "just so" stories, hypotheses, comic relief, and wagonloads of fertilizer. People don't seem to realize the difference between talk and action. If you have something, show it or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would I do that? I have been keeping bees without any treatments or manipulations for 4 years. I can show you photographs, and relate memories, but I began record keeping only last year, and I'd have to change my system to be able to make historical records (most work is done on a spreadsheet where the new records over write the old).
> 
> Characterising often honest and generous testimony uniformly as 'endless "just so" stories, hypotheses, comic relief, and wagonloads of fertilizer' is insulting and inaccurate. Sure you have to sort the good from the bad. But you have to do that with peer-reviewed work too.
> 
> Mike (UK)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I am not dismissing anything.


That has to be the most inaccurate thing I've ever seen on this forum. You've dismissed almost everything anyone has suggested on this thread - and others. I've never had my suggestions dismissed with such haughty vehemence.

Inaccuracy is a terrible thing Peter. It leads directly away from truth, or science. Start to think about the accuracy of what you want to say before you write. Or read it back before you send. 



peterloringborst said:


> It has nothing to do with references or credentials. I am pointing out that after 20 years, none of the so-called treatment free folks can produced documentation of what they have done. It has nothing to do with references or credentials. I hate to say it but it appears to be simple laziness.


Its probably mostly because there are more urgent things to do in their lives. And its unnecessary to the task at hand. 

It seems to me Peter that you are flailing about in an attempt to get help to learn how to keep bees without treatments successfully. Instead of repeatedly insulting those who are doing it, you could try asking for help and advice. You could read their book and websites. 

Give up the peer reviewed work for this purpose. It really isn't helpful. Ask the people who do it. On the appropriate forum would be best.

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk

Seems to me that people in this Thread are trying to convince others about something they feel strongly about. When one's mind is made up and is emotionally invested no amount of talk will accomplish anything. Have the dogs lost the scent and are no longer barking up the wrong tree, but barking at other dogs in the pack?


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> Right. Six years ago I wrote an article for the American Bee Journal called "Keeping bees without chemicals". I gave a talk on the subject that year to the Empire State Honey Producers Association.
> 
> I no longer offer to give that talk for the simple reason that none of the techniques that I wrote about worked for me in my area. The bees always got mites, sickened and died.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> This is how science works: you produce the data, you explain it, you are subjected to the intense scrutiny of your peers, you are expected to prove it. If you can't prove your claim, you are history.


Yet according to what you wrote, you explained it first (wrote your article), produced the data (tried it yourself and failed), but haven't been very subjected to intense scrutiny.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Yet according to what you wrote, you explained it first (wrote your article), produced the data (tried it yourself and failed), but haven't been very subjected to intense scrutiny.


There is ample data available to prove that untreated colonies die. I don't need to add to that body of work! Besides, what you say is wrong. I stepped forward, made some statements and invited all comers to criticize them. I even presented many sides of the argument myself. I have reached no conclusion

But seriously, do you honestly think I am suggesting that different rules apply to what I say? How dishonest would that be? I started this thread, not to brag about anything but to bust the subject wide open and discuss it.That is what people do who are really interested in a subject. If I stepped on anybody's toes in the process, well _excuse me!_

PLB


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

peterloringborst said:


> There is ample data available to prove that untreated colonies die.


Lets postulate for the moment that the statement above is true.



This is the part - from the same paragraph - that puzzles me.


peterloringborst said:


> I have reached no conclusion


:scratch:


----------



## Tim Ives

Treatment free beekeeping is easy. You want a new challenge? Try Sugar free beekeeping. If hives are on constant life support, doesn't really matter if you are treatment free or not. Healthy naturally raised Queens/hives simplifies a lot of problems.


----------



## CtyAcres

You got that right Tim!!!!!


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> There is ample data available to prove that untreated colonies die.


All untreated colonies Peter? You just showed us a peer reviewed paper that shows some colonies lived....? Inaccuracy won't help you make your case.

What you need to do now is respond to that very fair criticism of your statement. It isn't all colonies is it? Its _some_. Acknowledge... you are not having a discussion until and unless that is happening.

Of course some die. We know why, and we know how to reduce their numbers - dramatically. Without resorting to treatments or manipulations. The interesting thing is, why to some die and not others? *How do we get more of the latter and fewer of the former?



peterloringborst said:


> Besides, what you say is wrong. I stepped forward, made some statements and invited all comers to criticize them.


Which they did, and offered statements of their own, which is an invitation for you to offer constructive criticism them in turn, leading to a better understanding between us.

You haven't answered those criticisms. You have instead, without giving reasons, insulted and ridiculed them.

You're not playing the game.



peterloringborst said:


> I started this thread, not to brag about anything but to bust the subject wide open and discuss it.


Join in the discussion then. 



peterloringborst said:


> If I stepped on anybody's toes in the process, well _excuse me!_


Insult and ridicule, little attempt at structured replies, ignoring points made against your position .... yes, that qualifies as treading on toes!

You haven't told us yet how you went about keeping bees treatment free. Suppose we start with that?

Mike (UK)


----------



## rhaldridge

peterloringborst said:


> There is ample data available to prove that untreated colonies die.


Well, to be fair, there is even more data available to prove that treated colonies die.

I don't mean to be contentious or insulting, but have the beekeepers who have tried to keep bees without treatment and failed ever considered the possibility that those who have succeeded have different skills and abilities? There must surely be large variations in skill, knowledge and just general instinct among beekeepers. Maybe it isn't that the successful ones are better beekeepers. Maybe it's just that their skills and instincts are better suited to keeping bees without treatment. I know that we all like to think we take a wholly scientific approach to the vocation, but I think there is at least a possibility that beekeeping is also something of an art. Might this help to explain the sometimes widely-differing results obtained by folks in the same area and of similar experience and knowledge?


----------



## peterloringborst

> There is ample data available to prove that untreated colonies die.
> 
> Lets postulate for the moment that the statement above is true.
> 
> This is the part - from the same paragraph - that puzzles me.
> 
> I have reached no conclusion


When I see stuff like this I ask myself, has this guy been following the thread? Or is he deliberately misunderstanding? Of course it's true that there is ample data showing untreated colonies die. It's in every text book, every beekeeping course. I have hundreds of photos of dead and dying colonies that were killed by varroa disease, taken when I worked as a bee inspector for NYS. I have no photos of any colonies that lived for more than three years, without treatment. If you are saying untreated bees can survive for up to three years, then fine. We agree. 

When I say I have reached no conclusions, it's because there is also data showing that African bees in Africa, and Africanized bees all over the Americas, don't succumb to varroa. There are also a few examples of isolated populations of European bees surviving. But there is not evidence that these bees are able to survive in other areas, which means that the effect could be environmental. This is not a popularity contest, it is an inquiry as to what evidence is out there. Evidence speaks for itself.

Is this hard for people to grasp? That there is a difference between blind faith and modern science?

PLB


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> There is ample data available to prove that untreated colonies die.


There is also ample data to prove that all _*treated *_colonies die!

Everything dies! Even Beekeepers - whether _treated_ or not. The only question is _when_.


When I see stuff like this I ask myself, has this guy been following the thread? Or is he deliberately misunderstanding? :scratch: :s







My point in my earlier post #225 was that if the data "proves" that untreated colonies die but you have reached "no conclusion", what the heck is going on there? Aren't those two statements incompatible with each other?

If you don't want to explain that inconsistency, that is your choice. 

But if you respond to my comment by suggesting that I somehow haven't been paying attention, or am being deliberately obtuse, well, it quite easy to turn that kind of comment back on you.

.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

peterloringborst said:


> There are also a few examples of isolated populations of European bees surviving. But there is not evidence that these bees are able to survive in other areas, which means that the effect could be environmental.


My queens from Finland were found to be varroa resistant 2000 km south in Luxembourg. Their resistance was documented by one of the most respected breeders in Europe. Despite this you are not interested to have my queens for a test? 

Ok, fair enough.


----------



## rhaldridge

peterloringborst said:


> I have hundreds of photos of dead and dying colonies that were killed by varroa disease, taken when I worked as a bee inspector for NYS. I have no photos of any colonies that lived for more than three years, without treatment.
> 
> PLB


How many pictures did you take of *treated* colonies that were thriving after three years? Do you see the problem with this "evidence?"


----------



## Tim Ives

Ha... Have plenty of pictures that put treated hives to shame. Mathematically impossible to get treated hives to perform the same as my Untreated and sugarfree hives....

A hive can only survive 3 years??? Where does this stuff come from? 

Honey bees do a finite number of tasks. Beekeepers do a infinite number, according to what they think the bees should be doing. The better one understands the finite tasks bees do the more infinite your beekeeping shall become... 
Tim Ives


----------



## peterloringborst

Hi all

I have tried to have a discussion on the aspects of varroa control and natural selection. By now it has digressed to cheap shots at me. Maybe the thread should have its name changed to cheap shots at Pete. Anyway, if anyone got anything out of this so-called discussion, lucky you. I have heard nothing new, which was my intention in starting the thread. Nothing but the same old unsupported claims. Whatever, good luck y'all. Signing off.

PLB


----------



## sqkcrk

Unrealistic expectations I would say.


----------



## SRatcliff

Tim Ives said:


> Treatment free beekeeping is easy. You want a new challenge? Try Sugar free beekeeping. If hives are on constant life support, doesn't really matter if you are treatment free or not. Healthy naturally raised Queens/hives simplifies a lot of problems.


Even healthy hives with good genetics can starve after a bad season, how is that their fault? Anyway, back to the subject at hand...


----------



## Juhani Lunden

peterloringborst said:


> Nothing but the same old *unsupported* claims. Whatever, good luck y'all. Signing off.


If the beekeeper is not a scientist, and has not got the education, money, time and equipments needed to scientific work, the only possibility to prove his clims is to send queens to other beekeepers. PLB is not satisfied even with that, documented support from an other beekeeper.

http://perso.fundp.ac.be/~jvandyck/homage/elver/pedgr/ped_PJ_2011.html

This Pedigree chart is a bit difficult to read if unfamiliar with them. Pedigree is a list of bees used to make offspring that year, first are listed the queens, drones are in in the end, marked which drones are used to which queens. Bee breeder, who has done the evaluation is marked in parentheses after the hive number, mine is JL. Somewhere in the middle, Primorski breeder 150(PJ). Evaluation was made by Paul Jungels 150(PJ), because I sent him 2009 a young queen, just started to lay eggs. Then with small letters "img" , which is "imported mature queen" from JL. Then starts the history of this queen, 09 is the birth year, "hauk" meaning the mating station (my station Haukkamaa) and the drones used are after that (139) Drones were of course evaluated by me, that is why they are marked 139(JL). And so on. In the very end "This colony does not need any varroa treatment." Statement made by maybe the most respected bee breeder in the whole Europe. And a rival to me.

He has been spreading this queens offspring to other beekeepers, which is also documented in the Pedigree charts. And he has been systematicly inseminating this queens offspring with the best varroa resistant material of his own.

How on earth can I get a supported claim (the opposite to unsupported) in some other way when the scientist is not interested to make a study?
He did not even answer with one word to my posts.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I have tried to have a discussion on the aspects of varroa control and natural selection.


You did? I raised the issue of natural selection a number of times, and you told me on each occasion there were no similarities between breeding and natural selection, and therefore the topic was not useful.

It was you who repeatedly tried to shut down any discussion of a connection between varroa control and natural selection! Talk about re-writing of history. 

Still, at least you know now that there is a topic there worthy of consideration. Run with it Peter. Build your understanding of the similarities between what successful (if largely undocumented) tf beekeepers do and what nature does. Recognise the true nature and value of the several thousand year old methods of traditional husbandry. Next time you try tf you might have more success yourself.

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC

Peter:

Objectively, all the evidence for TF beekeeping is anecdotal with the exception of AHB.

But, we know where to look for resistant stocks to test.

Wasn't Delaplane's original point that well mated queens were a better route to healthier colonies?

Not really a TF or small cell argument.


----------



## Lauri

Juhani Lunden said:


> http://perso.fundp.ac.be/~jvandyck/homage/elver/pedgr/ped_PJ_2011.html


I like that  Thanks. I like to keep track of who's who and details.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

The really big question is how are we ever able to distribute varroa resistant material, bred by the pioners, to all beekeepers. We need a plan.

It is a matter of 10 years to make varroa resistant bees. I suspect it may be done from whatsoever bees. The main component is a stubborn beekeeper, who is not afraid of big losses. It is absolutely ridiculous to say it cannot be done with EHB. The problem in Cenral Europe and all other places tightly populated with bees, is the mite pressure from outside, from neglected beehives.

Josef Koller, pioner with Primorski bees, from Germany has come up with one idea to solve this problem: Distribution is started from numerous bee yards, taken care by enthusiasts. Seems to me that they are mostly young and beginners. They want a change. The yards we begin with are maybe in some little more remote places. One nuc is made from all surviving hives. Each hive makes its own queen. The queens mate on that place. System is made easy, because we have to consider the average skills of beekeepers. Most are not familiar with grafting and mating hives. Plus we ensure the biggest possible variation in the population. When this first yard has become full, another yards are created in circles around it. Doing so we little by little create a varroa resistant drone zone. Other beekeepers bees around this circle will be getting along with mites a bit easier as the varroa resistant drone zone gets bigger. 

As I said it is just one proposal, but actually one that Josef has been using for a longer time.


----------



## mbc

peterloringborst said:


> Hi all
> Whatever, good luck y'all. Signing off.
> PLB


Second flounce in one little thread. Lol.

Perhaps the truth is that the most virulent and damaging period of the relationship between varroa and Apis melifera is passing quite naturally, and those who deal in absolutes and require cast iron proof are just grasping at straws in perplexity at whats going on. Time will tell, and I for one am putting my money on feral populations bouncing back and beekeepers not needing to treat to keep their bees alive all over the place at roughly the same time, much the same as varroa gained resistance to fluvalinate in many places all at once, parallel or synchronised evolution in action.
Watch this space.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

mbc said:


> Perhaps the truth is that the most virulent and damaging period of the relationship between varroa and Apis melifera is passing quite naturally, .


I don´t know exactly what do you mean by that, but I just heard, from a local beekeeping advisor, that it has become a normal procedure in Finland to do oxalic acid droppings in spring too. 

So far a combination of August treatments (with thymol or formic acid) and one late oxalic acid dropping has been efficient enough treatment combination. Now it seems, that beekeeprs have to do extra treatment in spring too. This phenomen, that more and more treatments are needed, has happend in Central Europe, if I have understood correctly. I think it is a sign that virusproblems are incresing, maybe partly because there are more and more bee imports every year. 

Maybe you in US are lucky to have wild bees and feral stock as a reservoir, although it seems, reading these conversations, that partly they are just runaway swarms. Maybe in some more remote areas they are real feral survivors. We don´t have them in Finland. Winter is so often so hard, that most of the swarms die, if not the first winter, but quite soon anyway.


----------



## Michael Bush

>There is ample data available to prove that untreated colonies die. 

My dad is a pretty fair shade tree mechanic (among his many skills). He decided to rebuild the diesel engine in his VW Rabbit. So he carefully marked every part a he disassembled it and carefully put them all back exactly the same when he reassembled it. When he got done it ran, but not very well. After consulting with some mechanic friends, he discovered that he needed to have the timing set and, not wanting to spend the money for the equipment and figure out how to use it, he made an appointment with the local mechanic shop. On the appointed day he drove the Rabbit down to the shop and parked out front. He went in and told the man behind that counter that he had the Rabbit that needed the timing set out front. The man said he would send a tow truck out to get it. My dad said, no need for the tow truck, it's out front. The man looked at the appointment again and said, if you rebuild a diesel engine it won't run until you set the timing, so we will have to go tow it in. My dad again repeated that the car was out front and, while it did not run well, it did run and he had driven it there. The man insisted on sending a tow truck and insisted that it was impossible to drive it there. Finally my dad asked the man if he would please follow him. He lead him to the front window, pointed at the car and said, could you please set the timing on that Rabbit--right there?

I sometimes feel like my dad did that day...

The bees are right there and they are still alive after a more than a decade of no treatment... and I am far from the only one--there are thousands of us doing it, so how can people keep insisting that it is impossible?


----------



## WLC

Juhani:

"The really big question is how are we ever able to distribute varroa resistant material, bred by the pioners, to all beekeepers. We need a plan."

BeeWeaver has already crossed that bridge in 2001 here in the U.S. .

They've open bred their own Italian/Buckfast stocks (they had three queen lines that they've recently combined into one), with the 'Hybrid Swarm' in Texas.

They now sell breeder queens, queens, packages, nucs, and hives. They claim to sell resistant, chemical free Honeybees.

IMHO, they've crossed over the 'edge' of queen breeding. Buckfast/AHB genetics and all.

As someone who likes the concept of pedigrees, I'd say that they've crossed a line. But, since our own domestic stocks are essentially hybrids, and I do want resistant Honeybees, they fill my immediate needs.

Of course, I could have gone the VSH route, but replacing queens yearly, rather than as needed, isn't one of my goals.

Is that what you meant Juhani?

How do you like their plan?


----------



## CtyAcres

Post#244 - You got that right Michael!! 4yrs, TF, and the bees ARE still alive.


----------



## mbc

Juhani Lunden said:


> , but I just heard, from a local beekeeping advisor, that it has become a normal procedure in Finland to do oxalic acid droppings in spring too.
> .


There is, of course, a huge difference between bees surviving and pulling through unaided and bees which are managed to reach their top potential in productivity.


----------



## WLC

Mike:

"The bees are right there and they are still alive after a more than a decade of no treatment... and I am far from the only one--there are thousands of us doing it, so how can people keep insisting that it is impossible?"

That's a subjective anecdote.

Objectively, it's very difficult to prove any of it.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> 
> That's a subjective anecdote.
> 
> Objectively, it's very difficult to prove any of it.


WLC:

And is _*your *_Beeweaver bee experience documented as something more than a "subjective anecdote"? :scratch: Where are the peer reviewed studies of your 'treatment free' apiary? :s


Maybe you are just making it all up ...


:gh:


----------



## WLC

Rader Sidetrack said:


> WLC: And is _*your *_Beeweaver bee experience documented as something more than a "subjective anecdote"? :scratch: Where are the peer reviewed studies of your 'treatment free' apiary? :s Maybe you are just making it all up ...


Rader, you got it backwards.

Maybe BeeWeaver made it up. 

That's the whole point of getting them from a chemical free, resistant queen breeder.

So far, they're inconsistent performers. That's the consensus, and I've already seen some of that (only two colonies established out of 5 queens).

My contribution to the effort is that I described their behaviors, and I was up front about it.

Funny thing is, I haven't heard of bees for sale from some of the others claiming success. They're still mere anecdotes.

PS- the early queen does appear to be well mated with diverse morphotypes present. That's an observation.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> So far, they're inconsistent performers. That's the consensus, and I've already seen some of that (only two colonies established out of 5 queens).


With all due respect I would suggest that is less to do with the queens you bought and more to do with the beekeeper.



WLC said:


> Funny thing is, I haven't heard of bees for sale from some of the others claiming success. They're still mere anecdotes.


Yes, that is the Funny thing. Despite reading of all the successful TF beekeepers and how they claim to be breeding and selling queens, one does not have to read Beesource long to find new beekeepers starting up, complaining that they are unable to get any treatment free bees, despite having contacted people that claim to sell them but never get a reply.


----------



## WLC

"With all due respect I would suggest that is less to do with the queens you bought and more to do with the beekeeper."

Nope. Two were duds. One was an 'absconder'.

OT:

If you want to be objective about TF bees, they need to be available to others for evaluation.

The evaluations have gone both ways with BeeWeavers for example. That's from beekeepers of all experience levels including PLB, a former NYS bee Apiary Inspector. 7 of 8 of his BeeWeavers went down. He described one as 'unmanageable'.

Both of my colonies made it through the winter, yet PLB and I installed at the same time.

Same stock, different results.


----------



## Oldtimer

OK, well in the absence of seeing these hives and what was done, myself, I will have to defer to your opinion.

But let me ask. Duds? What does that mean? They arrived dead, or what? And absconder? What does that mean? After a successful install she absconded?

Just curious, not like I'll ever be owning some Beeweavers. But the comments on them from others are overwhelmingly positive, other than just one thing, temperament. However it is also obvious, based on what people report on these bees, that there is still a very wide genetic diversity in their stock and range of bee types. I just hadn't seen an undue number of people having problems introducing the queens.


----------



## WLC

OT:

BeeWeaver has excellent customer service when it comes to queen replacements. Bar none.

However, I've noted one queen that couldn't attract any workers. One, clearly wasn't 'clipped' as ordered.

Besides that, I think that most folks will also notice some 'behavior' issues.

IMHO, it reflects the current state of the art of chemical free beekeeping.

It's still risky.

My bees are alive, healthy, and actively foraging, but I can't help but wonder, "What's next?"


----------



## rhaldridge

WLC said:


> Besides that, I think that most folks will also notice some 'behavior' issues.
> "


I'm dubious. Beeweaver will replace any queen that the beekeeper feels is too hot. If most folks were having issues, they would soon be out of business.


----------



## WLC

rhaldridge said:


> I'm dubious. Beeweaver will replace any queen that the beekeeper feels is too hot. If most folks were having issues, they would soon be out of business.


Currently, I wouldn't call either colony 'hot'.

I would characterize their behavior as hybrid.

Look, Delaplane's whole point is that the way to get healthier colonies is to get well mated queens. I think that BeeWeaver's open mating protocol is doing that with varying degrees of success.

No man controls the hybrid swarm. That's the downside.


----------



## Barry

I tried Beeweaver queens about 12 years ago. Queens were initially accepted and then about two to three weeks later found them dead on the ground in front of the hive. Pretty little dot on their back.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Rader, you got it backwards.


I don't think I have anything backwards. :no:

You were challenging Michael Bush's assertion that his bees were still alive ...


> The bees are right there and they are still alive after a more than a decade of no treatment...


I was asking what "objective" evidence there is that _you _have _live _bees. All we have is your claims. That amounts to the same "subjective anecdote" that you were disdaining.

:lpf:

... what is good for the goose is good for the gander ...


----------



## WLC

Rader:

Objectively, we're reporting different experiences from the same breeder.

More than one beekeeper has evaluated them.

If we could do the same with other TF stocks, that would be helpful.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC:

You are mixed up. Michael Bush has said repeatedly that he doesn't have any Beeweaver bees. His untreated bees are not Beeweaver bees. Your personal [claimed] experience with Beeweaver stock, or even other apiaries experience with Beeweaver is not related to Mr Bush's bees.


Are you now withdrawing your "subjective anecdote" comment?


----------



## WLC

Did Mike ever claim to have well mated hybrids? That's Delaplane's conclusion for healthier colonies.

Does anyone here have Mike's breeder queens, queens, packages, nucs, or hives?

We can only objectively evaluate certain commercial stocks.

Rader, it has to be replicable by others for it to be objectively corroborated.

If third parties can't do an evaluation, it's a subjective anecdote.


----------



## heaflaw

peterloringborst said:


> Hi all
> 
> Anyway, if anyone got anything out of this so-called discussion, lucky you. I have heard nothing new, which was my intention in starting the thread. Nothing but the same old unsupported claims. Whatever, good luck y'all. Signing off.
> 
> PLB


Pete, if you are still lurking around here, how do we support our claims? What documentation or peer review or whatever do we need to prove it? We want to meet this challenge.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> If third parties can't do an evaluation, it's a subjective anecdote.


So unless you can refer us to third parties that have evaluated _your _apiary, your claims are just 'a subjective anecdote'.

Glad we have cleared that up. :lpf:


----------



## WLC

Rader Sidetrack said:


> So unless you can refer us to third parties that have evaluated _your _apiary, your claims are just 'a subjective anecdote'. Glad we have cleared that up. :lpf:


No, not my apiary. 

It's an evaluation of resistant TF stocks vis a vis Delaplane's conclusion.

The BeeWeaver model fits that conclusion. They're also available.

I'm still evaluating my BeeWeavers.


----------



## beeman2009

I have to agree with WLC. All those live, treatment free bees flying in & out of my hives with supers nearly full of capped honey don't mean a thing. And since they mean nothing, I can't prove a thing. WOW, I'll be glad when those guys who insist on treating find the answers we're not looking for.
:scratch:


----------



## WLC

beeman2009 said:


> I have to agree with WLC. All those live, treatment free bees flying in & out of my hives with supers nearly full of capped honey don't mean a thing. And since they mean nothing, I can't prove a thing. WOW, I'll be glad when those guys who insist on treating find the answers we're not looking for.
> :scratch:


Which breeder provided your queens beeman2009? 

I know, it was 'mother nature'. 

Here's the thing, we can't evaluate them unless you're selling queens, etc. .

Also, we know that Daniel Weaver combined his three breeder queen lines and open mates his queens with his yards and the hybrid swarm.

Can you say that?

Once again, it's about well mated queens.

Just don't make them 'too' well mated.


----------



## beeman2009

No disrespect intended to you WLC because you obviously have given this much thought. But I have to say that the great minds that existed before Columbus' day gave much thought to the fact that the earth was flat. All that thought didn't make it so, did it? Now honestly, why do you or anyone else for that matter, want to tell people who are happy with the success they are having that they are doing it WRONG! Keep your bees the way you see fit and let others do the same! As to my queen breeder, it's me. I am always looking for genetics I want in my bees and bringing them in either through new queens or the drone side. Like I said, no offense, but really some of you guys should back off and focus on your bees, not someone else's that you just buy. Breed your own stock, and if you do that already, that's good. At any rate, I wish you well.


----------



## WLC

Errr...

Beeman, I'm in Manhattan. What bees? For all I know, my bees are the only ones to have survived locally.

Besides, I know that my nearest beekeeping neighbor didn't get resistant replacement bees. But, they don't treat them just the same.


----------



## crofter

A person may have been objective to the best of his ability and sufficiently so to satisfy observers had they been there, however in the absence of wide scrutiny, the observation will still carry the suspicion of subjective influence. That is as it is. Objectivity and subjectivity are hard to tease apart.

There is a case in law that originated the saying "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done".

In many instances before acceptance as "incontrovertible" fact, people insist on compound, double blind trials, even the presence of hostile witness before they are satisfied there is no trickery behind a concept.

Occasionally we are punished by our skepticism, but overall it pays dividends.

Frank


----------



## WLC

crofter:

Legally, all you would have to do is swear to an affidavit.

But, these kinds of stocks, whether they're TF or from well mated queens, need to be evaluated by multiple beekeepers in different environments.

I got bees from Texas because I have a serious heat issue. It gets 'Tarzan' hot on that roof. Actually, it's Texas hot.

Guess what, they were productive last season, and they survived a tough winter. Now, I'll see if they can perform the way I want them to.

Texas bees doing well in New York City! That's can't be right! At least that what some folks would have you believe.

That's my evaluation to date.

Like Juhani was saying, we need to get these resistant stocks out to beekeepers, and see how they do.

As for the affidavits... eh.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

crofter said:


> In many instances before acceptance as "incontrovertible" fact, people insist on compound, double blind trials, even the presence of hostile witness before they are satisfied there is no trickery behind a concept.
> 
> Occasionally we are punished by our skepticism, but overall it pays dividends.


Yes, I agree and this "blind trial" was the point of PLB too, I think. 

It is however a diffrent thing with animals. A machine either works or not, with animals it is trickier (multiple genes+ environment+).

I sent 20 queens to Italy. Next year they contacted me again. I asked how did my last year queens do? Their answer was, that out of 20 queens, 17 queens were in hives next spring. And out of them, if i remember it correctly, only 3 were showing promising results in varroa resistance. But because it was more than with another breeders queens (who also claims his queens are varroa resistant), they ordered 60 queens despite I had increased my price from 80 to 120 euros. 

It is impossible to breed a 100% varroa resistant bees in 10 years, not to all environments. I did not execpt my queens to do even that qood in Italy. 

Everything is relative. The main news for me as a breeder was that they did better than the other breeders queens (from France).

P.S. They promised a report of these 60 in near future.


----------



## Oldtimer

120 Euros for a queen! 

Juhani, I think I move to Finland, get some of your queens, a few dozen hives & some nucs & I retire LOL.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> If you want to be objective about TF bees, they need to be available to others for evaluation.


If you want to provide scientifically acceptable data then you have to be a scientist. And you'll spend so much time observing, data gathering and documenting that that will be your main occupation.

That's why there is so little proper data about tf beekeeping. Scientists won't take a beekeeper's word for what they've done and what the outcome was. Ever. That would be unscientific.

Attempting to be objective is a good thing; scientific objectivity is something else.

Data about feral bees is something scientists could do more to study. But anything beekeepers say about feral bees is, in scientific terms, anecdotal. By definition.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> The really big question is how are we ever able to distribute varroa resistant material, bred by the pioners, to all beekeepers. We need a plan.


I don't think that's a way forward - at least not on its own. Several things have to happen at once - and this is likely to occur slowly.

First there must be an increasing recognition that tf is possible for beekeepers. It'll come in two flavours, with crossover: 

a) with supplied resistant bees; 

b) with home-raised resistant bees.

Second there must be broad recognition of the main factor that locks beekeepers into treating: that is: treating. 

If you want to move from a) to b) you need to get away from, or overpower, treated drones. That's a reality.

That's part of a general...

Three: there must be a broad improvement in levels of education about population husbandry. There is a limited tradition of genetic husbandry in beekeeping, and the model has been thoroughly swamped by books and teaching that ignores it.

What we need is a better class of beekeeper - one that cares about the future of bees, and is willing to work to understand the nature of the problem and to learn how to keep them properly. Beekeepers who take their art seriously.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> It's still risky.
> 
> My bees are alive, healthy, and actively foraging, but I can't help but wonder, "What's next?"


I think that's what you have to live with with your 'bought-in' model.

You can't get the sorts of qualities you want until and unless you have an effective breeding capability. That's just animal husbandry. Maybe if there were lots of breeders to choose from, especially more local ones, you'd get better results. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Legally, all you would have to do is swear to an affidavit.


WLC, we're not talking about legalities, we're talking about the rules of scientific investigation. 



WLC said:


> But, these kinds of stocks, whether they're TF or from well mated queens, need to be evaluated by multiple beekeepers in different environments.


As you suggest the further you get from the climate and environment where the bees were raised (with the help of a local 'hybrid swarm' - I do wish people would put more effort into thinking of good descriptive labels) the less likely it is that the bees will flourish.

So an effort to raise a superbee capable of flourishing anywhere is doomed from the start. 

(We need multiple local breeders, and the more the better. Some of the pioneers are aware of this need and selflessly aid others to replicate their own efforts.)

The best that could happen is that reports of successes and failures could be corrollated and analysed to produce data suggestive of where they're likely to flourish.

That's a huge effort, and can only practically be done by the seller. Which puts us straight into conflict of interest country - never mind anecdote.

So I can't see a route to scientifically acceptable data that way.



WLC said:


> Like Juhani was saying, we need to get these resistant stocks out to beekeepers, and see how they do.


What we'll get is a whole bunch of reports, none of which can be trusted. With multiple good reasons. You don't have a route to reliable data that way.

The scientists are the gatekeepers to reliable data. They have to have access to data they feel is trustworthy. That means: a) properly gathered data from a natural population; b) ditto from a population under their direct control; c) their own surveys of beekeeper reports (which is 'social science' - a lesser species). 

Other than suggesting possible interesting areas of study there isn't much you and I can do to generate the sort of data Peter demands.

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Oldtimer said:


> 120 Euros for a queen!


Not so unusual for a breeder queen. Prices are as follows: unmated queen: 5 Euros. Open mated queen: 15 Euros. Both without any pedigree. Open mated queen, F1-F2 daughter from a breeding queen: 20-30 Euros. Breeder queen, mated on an isolated island with selected drones: 50 Euros. Artificially inseminated queens, also daughters from a breeder queen: 75 Euros. (Pool insemination, means a huge number of selected drones' semen is combined and stirred in a ****tail, then used for insemination.) Good breeder queens range from 100-200 Euros, depending on the breeder and quality. Just numbers of thumb. You won't get rich, though.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh that changes everything those prices are actually pretty cheap.

Better stay in NZ LOL.


----------



## Michael Bush

>You are mixed up. Michael Bush has said repeatedly that he doesn't have any Beeweaver bees. His untreated bees are not Beeweaver bees. Your personal [claimed] experience with Beeweaver stock, or even other apiaries experience with Beeweaver is not related to Mr Bush's bees.

Thank you. That is correct. I do not.


----------



## Oldtimer

You did try some at one time though Mike?


----------



## WLC

I did look up the accessions for ferals taken from Nebraska in the Magnus study, the one where Mike contributed some colonies. 
They came up C2, C11, C12. They appear to be Italians, and Carnis, but they were unverified in Genebank.

So, we can't say much else.

Anyone who keeps BeeWeavers for 30 years, and then gets a hot hive that swarms (Ah, those AHB genes.), may have contributed some genetics to the local ferals.

To say positively, "No!", isn't reasonable.


----------



## Michael Bush

I had Weaver Buckfast bees (first Weaver and later BWeaver) from 1974 until 2001 (28 years). Although many of those years I was raising my own queens from them for many generations so I'm sure they were watered down with local genes. I had them in many locations. Mitchell, NE; Omaha, NE; Laramie, WY; Brighton, CO; Bellevue, NE; Greenwood, NE. After Varroa showed up all of them died from Varroa on at least three or four occasions (two of those occasions in other locations than Greenwood). None of them survived to breed from. I only had them in the Greenwood location (and only had four hives of them) for 2 years starting in August of 1999 and ending in August of 2001 and they only swarmed once (although all four swarmed) and that was in a very bad drought. I have no reason to think they would have survived. Mine would not have survived if I wasn't feeding them and the swarms had no stores, no comb and nothing blooming. This may be a useful survival tactic in the tropics as maybe a few miles away something in blooming. It's not a good survival tactic in Nebraska when the entire mid west is in a drought. As far as contributing any genes to the feral gene pool, some of the drones could have mated with the local ferals, but it was the local ferals that were surviving and the Buckfasts that were dying. I see no reason to assume they had anything to contribute to the survival of the ferals who were already surviving. The BWeaver Buckfasts I had showed no AHB characteristics until 2001. I could not have contributed any genetics of any kind to the feral bee population near Greenwood until 1999 (when I moved there) at the earliest and at that time it was just one hive and it was not doing that well in the fall of 1999. To imply that I have been contributing AHB genes to the local feral population in Greenwood for 30 years and the idea, if it happened, that it would have helped the survival of the feral population of bees in Greenwood, is an interesting fantasy with no basis in reality.


----------



## Lauri

Michael Bush said:


> To imply that I have been contributing AHB genes to the local feral population in Greenwood for 30 years and the idea, if it happened, that it would have helped the survival of the feral population of bees in Greenwood, is an interesting fantasy with no basis in reality.


I believe it was called the 'Typhoid Mary' Project. Details are highly classified, along with Keith Jarretts protein recipe


----------



## WLC

Clearly, Mike purchased the 'Droneless' BeeWeaver Honeybees.

That's why he's so sure that none of their genetics spread to the local ferals.

Fantastic!

More to the point, he provided bees to a study, and if they were verifiable, they would be nothing special: ligustica or carnica.

I don't see any evidence for Black Bees. They must have died out the same time as the 'Weavers'.

You can't have it both ways and every way.

Gene flow is a fact of life.


----------



## D Semple

Michael he is just pulling your chain, nothing more than trolling.

That's why I hate internet anonymity, no way he would behave the same if his name were on his post, coward. 


Don


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> You can't have it both ways and every way.


And yet you claim that your drones are distributing their genes around Manhattan ...


WLC said:


> So, right now, I'm the local source of TF genetics.


While at the same time claiming it is impossible for you to raise queens in Manhattan ...


WLC said:


> Errr...
> 
> Beeman, I'm in Manhattan. What bees? For all I know, my bees are the only ones to have survived locally.
> 
> Besides, I know that my nearest beekeeping neighbor didn't get resistant replacement bees. But, they don't treat them just the same.



How can both scenarios be true? :scratch: :s


It seems to be difficult for you to keep all these stories straight! :lpf:


----------



## WLC

Juhani's point was that queen breeders need to get their resistant stocks out to beekeepers for evaluation.

Delaplane's point was that well mated queens produce healthier colonies and is a more productive approach than looking for resistant stocks.

BeeWeaver is not only selling resistant stocks that we can evaluate, but they're also producing unusual hybrids. They might also fit Delaplane's 'well mated' conclusion.

We can evaluate queens/Honeybees obtained from queen breeders.

Mike's bees don't qualify for evaluation to date.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Juhani's point was that queen breeders need to get their resistant stocks out to beekeepers for evaluation.


Do they? Who will evaluate them apart from the buyers? Who will believe the buyer's testimonies in this world of scientific-only data?



WLC said:


> Delaplane's point was that well mated queens produce healthier colonies and is a more productive approach than looking for resistant stocks.


Somehow I doubt that an unresistant queen well mated to a whole bunch of unresistant drones is going to make resistant offspring hives. I don't doubt good mating helps to make healthy colonies, but it isn't going to be the whole story. 

Its likely I guess that wide mating is likely to pick up a few useful sub-families (depending which drones they come across), and that will make a lot of difference. But inheriting resistance-giving genes will remain critical.

Perhaps that's part of Keith Delaplane's thinking. 



WLC said:


> We can evaluate queens/Honeybees obtained from queen breeders.


Sure we can. But those evaluations won't be anything more than anecdote to a scientist. Or to Peter.

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC

"Sure we can. But those evaluations won't be anything more than anecdote to a scientist. Or to Peter."

Peter, myself, and others have given our informal evaluations. So, we can at least begin to ask relevant questions.

While you may not recognize why my own observations can be important to asking testable research questions, a lab doing linkage mapping would. Remember QTLs?


----------



## Michael Bush

Maybe you should READ my posts... it becomes more and more obvious that you seldom do. I said:

>>As far as contributing any genes to the feral gene pool, some of the drones could have mated with the local ferals, but it was the local ferals that were surviving and the Buckfasts that were dying.

and you responded:

>Clearly, Mike purchased the 'Droneless' BeeWeaver Honeybees. That's why he's so sure that none of their genetics spread to the local ferals.


----------



## WLC

So, now you admit that your ferals could have picked up some Texas genetics.

Regardless, I'm more interested in the Delaplane/BeeWeaver connection.

I'm interested in how a well known queen breeder fits in.

I am evaluating their bees you know.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Regardless, I'm more interested in the Delaplane/BeeWeaver connection. I'm interested in how a well known queen breeder fits in.
> 
> I am evaluating their bees you know.


And the result of your 'evaluation' will be _nothing more _than a "*subjective anecdote*". 



How do I know that? Because you said so ... :lpf:


WLC said:


> If third parties can't do an evaluation, it's a subjective anecdote.



:gh:


----------



## Michael Bush

>So, now you admit that your ferals could have picked up some Texas genetics.

What do you mean "now"?
First you didn't read Post #283--obvious by your response to it.
Now you didn't read Post #291--obvious by your response to it.


----------



## Oldtimer

It is not impossible the old Weaver genetics are out there.

Let's go with the premise that when weaver drones were flying in the area, the were also, as claimed, wild feral survivor bees in the area. A young wild survivor virgin flies out and mates. With say, 13 local drones, and 1 weaver.

Is that level of weaver related bees in the virgins progeny going to ensure the death of the colony she heads? In fact what happened was a few genes got added to the local population. Going forward, if any of those genetics turn out to be useful in some way they might be retained and even refined (good from bad) in the population.

Did that actually happen though? Who knows, it's all just theory. Possible, but unproven.


----------



## WLC

Mike:

My reading comprehension is excellent. Getting you to admit to the possibility of having AHB genetics took some doing.
Now we know why you do walk away splits and use small cell like Dee does.

OT:

No, up to 30 years worth of introduced genetics. It's not a long shot.

Pardon me if I concentrate on discussing bees from an actual chemical free queen breeder.

This is just a side show.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh well pardon me WLC. 

I didn't think discussing how mating can pan out could only be discussed by a chemical free beekeeper. 

However if that is the case, and you not being a chemical free beekeeper with your essential oils, grease patties, milk, and whatever else you pour into your hives, why are you discussing it? 

You are no more chemical free, than I am.

Also, Please show me what I said that was wrong.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> Oh well pardon me WLC. I didn't think discussing how mating can pan out could only be discussed by a chemical free beekeeper. That being the case, and you not being a chemical free beekeeper, why are you discussing it? Also, Please show me what I said that was wrong.


What makes you think Mike is chemical free? 

Check which forum you're on. 

OT: 

You can't avoid certain genetics with certain stocks once you introduce them. There's no way back.

It's not as big a stigma as some seem to think it is though.


----------



## Oldtimer

The queen breeding forum. So found it a little odd that you appeared to have a problem with what I said on the basis you only want to discuss from a treatment free perspective.

The more odd even, as you yourself are not treatment free.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> The queen breeding forum. So found it a little odd that you appeared to have a problem with what I said on the basis you only want to discuss from a treatment free perspective. The more odd even, as you yourself are not treatment free.


Is that all you've got? I just put an itty bitty peppermint grease patty on, and I'm no longer chemical free? Nonsense.

Mike Bush dips his hive bodies in 'homemade' essential oils. That's what happens when you cook natural beeswax and natural rosin together over a propane burner. Esters.

I'm not discussing from a TF perspective only.

Far from it.

I'm interested in the genetics studies that have been done on both commercial and 'unmanaged' stocks in the U.S. .

For instance, I was disappointed to see that the C2, C11, and C12 (unverified) haplotypes of NE ferals are just Italians and Carnies.

So, I don't see where the hybrid vigor is coming from there.


----------



## Oldtimer

All of that is a red herring. 

All I did was express surprise that you dismissed what I said in post #295 on the basis I do not fit whatever your view is, of a treatment free beekeeper. (Which seems to be some is OK just not too much, or something).

Since we are in the Queen & Bee Breeding forum not the TF forum, I failed to see your logic. Plus you have been unable to point to anything I said in the post that was incorrect.

However, EOD you may have your opinions no matter how strange they are, it matters not, no worries, you may have the last word.


----------



## WLC

If you want TF philosophy, you'll find it you know where.

If you were interested in the Delaplane conclusion, lead on.


----------



## Oldtimer

Delaplane conclusion? I was talking about Weaver genetics.

TF philosophy? Too many boringly repetitive thousands word posts with 50 word ideas on it have kinda overdosed me on it for now LOL. I've actually found myself skipping through them or not reading them at all they are mostly the same old.


----------



## WLC

"Delaplane conclusion? I was talking about Weaver genetics."

BeeWeaver uses Italian/Buckfast queens (3 combined breeder queen stocks) open mated with the hybrid swarm.

Two resistant stocks used to make hybrids.

It's Delaplane's conclusion combined with his dismissal of resistant stock as 'too narrow'.

If you don't appreciate it, I certainly do.

It's 'the irony of the queen breeder'.


----------



## Oldtimer

:thumbsup:


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Oldtimer said:


> :thumbsup:


The best proof that a breeder has varroa resistant bees is that someone who got his queens claims to have them too. Old fact.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

peterloringborst said:


> Plenty of people claim mite resistant bees but offer no proof other than "I still have bees." Most of these bees do not perform as advertised when moved into other locations, which makes the notion that they are resistant completely questionable.


I found the evaluation report of my 2009 queens from MTT (https://portal.mtt.fi/portal/page/portal/mtt_en).

The experiment was done by senior researcher Seppo Korpela, and the bees were in hives of Ari Lehtinen. I originally sended them 10 queens, but some accidents and overwintering troubles made that only 4 queens could be evaluated. The mite levels are very low compared what I usually have, but it is because the hives in which these queens were put were normally treated 2008 and before that. 

Change in mite infestation from October to July
hive 1: 1,4 -> 0
hive 2: 0,6 -> 1,1
hive 3: 1,6 -> 0,2
hive 4: 1,1 -> 0,7 g mites /10g of bees


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> While you may not recognize why my own observations can be important to asking testable research questions, a lab doing linkage mapping would. Remember QTLs?


I agree we can help formuate testable questions. I don't know QTLs?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> If you were interested in the Delaplane conclusion, lead on.


There was no 'conclusion' from Delaplane. All there was was a rather muddled account of his present thinking written by a journalist, and a single quote:

"I think we're barking up the wrong tree," he said. "You can't do it like other animals. The colony resists genetic narrowing."

Let's assume for now that those two sentence did sit together.

Now lets put things in a natural setting. Because that's where bees evolved.

In the natural setting, all colonies are of the same race, and the same local 'bloodline'. (That term is nothing more than a rough way to express a key fact about a very complex arrangement. They are all kin to varying degrees.)

They're not like migrating birds, or mammals; they exist and reproduce in what are relatively closed populations. And they've evolved to flourish within that context.

That is presumably why nature has arranged things as they are.

None of that supplies an indication that mixing and matching different races is a good plan. With that said, it is I think usually the case that outside blood is often helpful to health - as long as it doesn't come saddled with new pathogens or parasites. 

And as far as I know a good bit of mixing - a melting pot scenario - is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm just putting these ideas out there. It seems to me that they might be relevant to the discussion.

But the core thing is: good multiple mating has been correlated with good hive health and performance. I'm not sure we should assume that is also true of natural populations in natural settings, but it seems to be true of the tested populations. (Does anyone have access to the primary studies?)

I'm not sure where its relevant to me. I'm not a large scale queen breeder. In general terms I think large scale queen rearing is a bad thing.

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Who is to decide what is good or bad, Mike? You really should avoid jugdeing about things - at least in discussions. Let it bee! 

You do allow to let things happen in your apiary, at least you say so. Why don't you do the same with people? Let them be. The world is not as easy as dark and light, as good and bad, right and wrong...most conflicts in the world happen just because one thinks to know the right thing. If you want conflicts over and over again, as you had in the past in several forums, continue to judge about things. On the other hand you could simply let evolution work for itself and let things be. The truth is working it's way to the surface for sure one day, so all you got to do is to wait and let it happen. The faster you run, the faster you are back at the point you started from. 

Think about it.


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Who is to decide what is good or bad, Mike? You really should avoid jugdeing about things - at least in discussions.


Bernhard,

Driving at twice the speed limit past schools is bad. Are you going to argue with that? Of course not. So don't generalise. We all judge all the time.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> The truth is working it's way to the surface for sure one day, so all you got to do is to wait and let it happen.


That's your belief. In the meantime species are becoming extinct at an accelerating rate, the planet is at real risk of a runaway greenhouse effect, the oceans are emptying of life.... 

If nobody ever takes a view on the causes of such things that's the sort of truth that will work its way to the surface.

People have an effect in the world - and that includes on bees. We're allowed to talk about that. Its discussion of real issues, not judgement of the people involved.

You're welcome to you own philosophy, and you should note that you feel free to judge others for theirs. 

Ther'e an enduring problem with honeybee health. We're here to talk about its causes, in a thread in which it has been specifically stated that nothing is off topic. 

Its my view that the system of bee raising - which is made of people doing things - is dysfunctional. We need to talk about changing it. I'm not sure that amounts to judging people.

For your contemplation:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

mike bispham said:


> We need to talk about changing it.
> ...
> "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."


So the conclusion is, not to talk about change but actually DO it. There is more than enough talk but little is done. 'Fair words plant no cabbages" (Bill Mollison)


----------



## mbc

mike bispham said:


> Its my view that the system of bee raising - which is made of people doing things - is dysfunctional. We need to talk about changing it.


Thats a very generalised view, the more enlightened operations, even in backwards Britain, only take a single graft, or perhaps two, from each breeder queen, and take the view that heavy culling at the back end of the bell curve puts the majority of the rest of the stock into the 'possible breeders' category, without too much narrowing of the genetic material. I see this as roughly in line with what I understood Delaplane to be getting at.


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> So the conclusion is, not to talk about change but actually DO it. There is more than enough talk but little is done. 'Fair words plant no cabbages" (Bill Mollison)


I am doing it Bernhard! But there's only so much change one person can effect in their own apiary! That's why we talk online!

Mike (UK)



mbc said:


> Thats a very generalised view...


Not at all. Its specific: it addresses the specific topic of making changes on a systematic level. 



mbc said:


> , the more enlightened operations, even in backwards Britain, only take a single graft, or perhaps two, from each breeder queen, ...


How do you define 'breeder queen'? What proportion of queens in your outfit are to be so defined? Unless we know these things your statement is empty.



mbc said:


> ..and take the view that heavy culling at the back end of the bell curve puts the majority of the rest of the stock into the 'possible breeders' category, without too much narrowing of the genetic material.


Yes, but its as wide as its long... I try to allow my hives the freedom to build big if they want to and to make lots of drones if they want to. That allows the prosperous (and, admittedly, the drone-making minded) the opportunity to express their health in the next generations.

There are several ways of approaching the selection process, and we have to try to figure out what will work best in our circumstances. As far as wide mating is concerned, its a given for me. All mating is open, I'll concentrate my mating at times when my hives are making lots of drones, and I'll assume the the commercial over the hill and the ferals to the south will contribute too. 

My approach is wide collection of what I hope are often enough sound genes, with mild concentration due to my requeening and grafting. 



mbc said:


> I see this as roughly in line with what I understood Delaplane to be getting at.


Yes. I think he's saying: hey big breeders, look at the success of small traditional husbandry types who follow nature's way! 

There's nothing worse than millions of sister queens, all narrowly mated, all treatment dependent.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Michael Bush

>My reading comprehension is excellent. Getting you to admit to the possibility of having AHB genetics took some doing.

This proves once again you did not read the posts. You are constantly pretending you coerced me into admitting things that I have said for years and have specifically said to you for several years. Either your reading comprehension is atrocious or your short term memory is non-existent.

>No, up to 30 years worth of introduced genetics. It's not a long shot.

The most creative math I've ever seen! You mean 2 years worth of introducing failing genetics to successful genetics of which none of those genetics was involved. There is no 30 years anywhere in this scenario.

1) I did not have Buckfasts for 30 years
2) Weaver did not stop treating their bees for 30 years
3) Weaver did NOT have AHB for 30 years
3) I did not live where I sorted out the Varroa issues for 30 years
4) Neither the local ferals (maybe we can assume they were there for the 30 years before I got there?) nor the Buckfasts (who were only there 2 years) were involved in solving the Varroa problem. Marked commercial Carni and Italian queens that were bred and mated in California and Georgia were my stock at that point in time. There was not one gene involved that came from the local area or from Texas by any means that I can see unless the California breeder bought some Buckfasts from Weaver... perhaps you should write them and ask.

Where does the 30 years come in? Your scenario would involve me living in the same place for 30 years, keeping Weaver bees that they had not been treating for 30 years, that had AHB stock in them for 30 years and some kind of 30 year breeding scenario where those were mixed and survivors selected. The problem is that NONE of those things are true--all of that is only your fantasy and has no basis in reality.

>This is just a side show. 

No, it is a completely specious basis for your theory.


----------



## Barry

At this point, it's clear that WLC believes all of the US has influence from Weaver genetics. They've been spread far and wide and all beekeeping successes can be linked to them!

this is a strong contender for the most memorable of 2014, "It's Weaver genetics!" - WLC


----------



## WLC

Mike:

You've said that you've had BeeWeavers for 30 years, Want to change it to 28 years? Fine.

As for you being TF, you're dipping your woodenware in gallons and gallons of homemade essentials oils.
That's what you make (esters) when you heat natural beeswax and rosin over a propane burner in a steel tank.

This isn't the TF forum though. 

Juhani, a queen breeder, summed it up by saying, "The best proof that a breeder has varroa resistant bees is that someone who got his queens claims to have them too. Old fact."

I can test BeeWeavers as a resistant stock.

I can't test non-existent queens.


----------



## WLC

Barry said:


> At this point, it's clear that WLC believes all of the US has influence from Weaver genetics. They've been spread far and wide and all beekeeping successes can be linked to them!
> 
> this is a strong contender for the most memorable of 2014, "It's Weaver genetics!" - WLC


That's not clear at all. Certainly not said by me.

I'm relating Delaplane's conclusion to BeeWeaver, and why it does or doesn't apply.


----------



## Michael Bush

>You've said that you've had BeeWeavers for 30 years, Want to change it to 28 years? Fine.

I've always said 28 years, but it still doesn't matter if it was 60 years. It is still irrelevant. I had them in places hundreds of miles from where I was when Varroa became a problem and none of the genetics were involved. I had them in Greenwood for 2. And that is still irrelevant as none of the genes were involved.

> As for you being TF, you're dipping your woodenware in gallons and gallons of homemade essentials oils.
That's what you make (esters) when you heat natural beeswax and rosin over a propane burner in a steel tank.

Can you say "red herring"?


----------



## WLC

Mike, 

I'm not going to grant that 'Gene Flow' ceases to exist in your bee yards.

I also won't grant that your stocks are 'resistant' if your hive bodies have been impregnated with essential oils.

Finally, if third parties can't evaluate your queens, no one will grant them as being 'resistant' on a queen breeding forum.

Kindly stop interjecting.

Maybe, just maybe, I might get to a comparison of the 75% VSH to the BeeWeaver model.


----------



## Barry

You've backed yourself into a corner, WLC. We all know you have Weaver bees now. If you fail to keep your bee numbers increasing without treating, we'll bring you back to this thread.


----------



## WLC

Barry said:


> You've backed yourself into a corner, WLC. We all know you have Weaver bees now. If you fail to keep your bee numbers increasing without treating, we'll bring you back to this thread.


I'm evaluating the BeeWeavers I've purchased. I'm not 'cornered'. 

I'll certainly let you know how they do.

As for your conditions...

pointless, as usual.


----------



## Barry

I know, you can always claim you're the only one with bees in NYC which makes it a genetic bottleneck. And those temperatures on the roof, whew! Kids don't have school today?


----------



## WLC

Barry said:


> I know, you can always claim you're the only one with bees in NYC which makes it a genetic bottleneck. And those temperatures on the roof, whew! Kids don't have school today?


I bought queens from a chemical free queen breeder who has resistant stock. Which means I can always get the same genetics with a few mouse clicks and a few taps on a keyboard. 

As a bonus, there's a lot of information available about both their genetics, and the genetics of their ferals. 

Yes, I've got a heat problem. Fortunately, those Texas bees survived the winter AND they can handle the heat.

My bees, my needs. My evaluation.

Shouldn't you be out giving clients estimates, or doing a remodeling job? What gives?


----------



## Barry

No. You forget, this IS one of my jobs. You pay me to do it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Michael Bush

>I'm not going to grant that 'Gene Flow' ceases to exist in your bee yards.

I have never said that gene flow ceases to exist. I'm saying it is irrelevant because the Varroa issue was resolved with mated queens from out of state with no gene flow involved. Of course there is "gene flow" now as I raise queens.

>I also won't grant that your stocks are 'resistant' if your hive bodies have been impregnated with essential oils.

I haven't ever asked you to "grant" me anything. And you are using pine boxes that contain those exact same essential oils already impregnated in the wood by the living tree. I guess everyone with pine boxes is treating with alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, carene, camphene, dipentene, and terpinolene so that pretty much eliminates the concept of treatment free...

>Finally, if third parties can't evaluate your queens, no one will grant them as being 'resistant' on a queen breeding forum.

And I never asked them to.

>Kindly stop interjecting.

Kindly stop making absurd claims about me contributing AHB to my local genetics for 30 years and creating your imaginary history of my beekeeping to suit your theories.


----------



## oldiron56

My bees, my needs. My evaluation. .................................. I`m glad you don`t live near my apiary, we don`t want your AHB drones mateing with our queens. I got a call from a doctor asking if I could come take his bees away, they were stinging his dog ( went into shock) his son and wife. Guess where he bought them, B weaver. Dan Weaver said his bees are a blend of 4 strains AMM, AML, AMcaucas and thats right AMS . Keepin AHB down south is a weather related issue, artificially acclimating them to our lattatude is something we should be aware of , and not a good idea IMHO, TF or not. Pete,,,N3SKI


----------



## WLC

oldiron56:

So far, aggressive and overly defensive behavior hasn't been an issue.

However, I accept that I need to be vigilant and prepared to act. They're hybrids.

I already own a full bee suit. I do use gloves. 

I have taken the additional steps of buying high ankle work boots and duct tape.

Let me be clear: if they get out of hand, they get put down.

That being said, there are a lot of folks turning to feral stocks for resistant bees.

They can have similar behavioral issues as well.

No Pete, I don't take anything for granted. If they can't be managed safely, I'll probably go back to VSH stock.


----------



## Oldtimer

Wow, Barry has another job also! No idea where he gets the time.


----------



## WLC

That's the problem OT.

He keeps trying to get out, but those pesky spammers/hackers keep pulling him back in.

Now if someone could come up with another queen breeder stock that fits the Delaplane conclusion, maybe we could expand out a bit.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

I expect that just dealing with Beesource's own King of Deleted Posts keeps _Barry _busy!


----------



## WLC

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I expect that just dealing with Beesource's own King of Deleted Posts keeps _Barry _busy!


Tut, tut.

Don't forget that I snagged the 1 millionth post as well. 

Rader, it's kinda like Pavlov's experiment. I just ring the bell every once in a while.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

And the quality of that 1 millionth post rivals that of many of your other posts.  Congratulations!


----------



## Juhani Lunden

WLC said:


> Now if someone could come up with another queen breeder stock that fits the Delaplane conclusion, maybe we could expand out a bit.


PLB quote "When Delaplane experimented by introducing more genetic diversity into hives instead of trying to narrow it, he found that everything improved - resistance, honey production and general hive health."

My stock is a mixture of: 
- Finnish italian (which in turn is a mix of Italian and black bee)
- Buckfast
- Primorski
- Elgon
and as a spice in a soup, one queen from Colombia (born 1995, so it is about 9 generations ago, 0,1% of the genes?)


----------



## WLC

Thanks for getting back on topic Juhani.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Oldtimer said:


> Very interesting conversation.
> 
> Back to broad or narrow gene pool & selection for specific traits, nature, at various times, does both.
> 
> Brother Adam, it could also be argued, did both. He selected bees from all over the world and brought them together. But also, he selected very specifically for certain traits and with a good deal of success.


I once met Harald Singer in Austria. He is the son of one of the most famous Carnica breeder. Singer Carnica is a very well known and respected trade mark in Europe.

Harald said, that what it comes to varroa resistance, he made a quess, that buckfast breeders will win the race for resistance. More variation in buckfast compared to carnica is such a huge advantage.


----------



## beekuk

Juhani Lunden said:


> More variation in buckfast compared to carnica is such a huge advantage.


Similar effects as in post eight.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I am doing it Bernhard!


Really? You are doing it, or, you are hoping to one day start doing it.

All I have read thus far is about existing bees that you have collected. Twenty nine it would seem.

I have not been able to ascertain if you have raised any queens, or if you have, how many.

As you also claim they are all "rudely healthy", and there has been no mention of mites affecting any of them, will be interesting to see what selection criterion you use and how the progeny turn out. If you decide that this year ( year 5, I am told ) will be the year that you breed some queens.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

beekuk said:


> Similar effects as in post eight.


Yes, I have read the summary of that study before, but I think is not quite what I meant. Shuffling of the card deck, very fast recombination, is going to help, but to certain limit. You are not likely to get a good "hand" if half of the deck is missing. I´m little worried for instance about the black bee preservation programs. In Sweden they have this kind of thing going, too. It is important work, but I hope they would not put too hard limits what they call a good "pure enough" breeder. I hope they use as many breeder as possible, even some which are outside thier race definition limits. Myself around 8% of all hives have been used for breeding each year.


----------



## jonathan

Juhani Lunden said:


> I´m little worried for instance about the black bee preservation programs. In Sweden they have this kind of thing going, too.


Juhani. Why worry? There should be enough genetic variation within any pure race species for mite tolerance to emerge.
Has that not been documented by Marla Spivak and others?
The alternative is losing all the different subspecies to be replaced by some sort of conglomerate hybrid bee.
That may be fine for commercial beekeepers in the US where all the honey bees have been introduced and there is no native subspecies to protect, but it would be ecological vandalism elsewhere where there are distinct subspecies in particular geographic areas.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

jonathan said:


> Juhani. Why worry? There should be enough genetic variation within any pure race species for mite tolerance to emerge.
> .


As I wrote, I think what you are doing is importatant, and just because I think it is important, I worry. 
I only worry/hope your race definitions are advisable, reasonable. Of course race definitions must be used. If discodial index is going the wrong way(plus or minus, don´t remember), alarm bells must ring, but in the end it is very hard to know, where to put the line, so that no valuable genes go extinct.


----------



## jonathan

The wing morphometry is yesterday's news. If you read that paper by Robin Moritz it becomes quite clear that using morphometry as a selection tool for subspecies purity produces false positives as you are selecting primarily for wing vein pattern as opposed to the entire Amm genetics.
After a few generations all the bees have a perfect wing pattern irrespective of the underlying genetics.
There are still a lot of bee breeders using morphometry but I now think it is pretty much a waste of time. I used to use it a lot myself.

Amm and other subspecies have a number of genetic markers which are unique to each subspecies so introgression of foreign material can be determined by checking the microsatellite markers.

Getting back on topic, it would be good to identify some of the genes associated with mite tolerant behaviour and I would be much more interested in that approach in order to improve the level of mite tolerance in the subspecies.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

jonathan said:


> The wing morphometry is yesterday's news.


Ok, as you see, I really know nothing about pure race breeding. How do you ensure that genes are not lost unnecessarily because of race definitions? Or have you never had the situation, that "well here is a splendid queen, but because it is not 100% pure, I´ll have to discard it."


----------



## jonathan

Juhani
You can have a situation where you have a great colony due to heterosis, hybrid vigour, but the trait expressed in an F1 cross will not carry forward.
If you read the Jensen and Pederson paper from 2005 which looked at Amm populations you will see that there is a huge amount of variation within a given population. Issues surrounding loss of variation are only likely to occur with island populations where there are a small number of colonies.
The big problem for pure race breeding is avoiding hybrids with the other sub species as bees have a very promiscuous mating system. PLB who started the thread drew attention to this.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

jonathan said:


> Juhani
> You can have a situation where you have a great colony due to heterosis, hybrid vigour, but the trait expressed in an F1 cross will not carry forward.


I too have been in wild goose chase for pure Amm in the forests and fields of Finland and driven with car all over the country. What we found were all mixed up.

But I don´t think you understood my question (I understood that you do work with breeding of pure Amm): Do you get situations in your breeding work, I have heard that in Sweden they do, where the queen is, according to your microsatellite markers not 100% pure, but it is instead 95% pure or 90% pure. What do you do in these situations, when the queen in all other aspects is very good. Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

jonathan said:


> If you read the Jensen and Pederson paper from 2005 which looked at Amm populations ...


Quote from that paper:
"The number of alleles at the 11 loci varied across populations,
from one (locus A28 in East Midlands) to 16 (locus
B124 in Withby)(Table 4). The average number of alleles
in the A. m. mellifera populations varied between 3.9
(Hammerdal) and 6.6 (Whitby), but the reference population
of A. m. ligusitca had a higher level of polymorphism
with 6.9 alleles per locus on average (Table 5)."

Has there been a loss of alleles in the Hammerdal population because of the race definitions have been in use? Or is it just naturally more narrow? The Hammerdal population was found to be the most pure one, so to me the breeding work, dicarding not so pure queens, may be the reason why it has the lowest number of alleles in those 11 loci.


----------



## jonathan

Juhani Lunden said:


> But I don´t think you understood my question (I understood that you do work with breeding of pure Amm): Do you get situations in your breeding work, I have heard that in Sweden they do, where the queen is, according to your microsatellite markers not 100% pure, but it is instead 95% pure or 90% pure. What do you do in these situations, when the queen in all other aspects is very good.


That is a good question and the ordinary bee breeder does not have access to genetic testing to check this.
The chances are that there has been some historic introgression of genetic material from other subspecies due to imports.
You could see varying degrees of introgression in that Jensen and Pederson paper.
In any case, with any subspecies there will be an area at the fringes of its range where you get some introgression of genetic material from the subspecies in the neighbouring geographic area.
It is not worth getting too hung up about it but it is better to breed from the purest examples possible.
In a situation like this morphometry can be of use as a bee which superficially looks ok, ie dark, will sometimes be seen to be a clear hybrid when you look at the wings.
What I usually say is that wing morphometry cannot prove that a bee *is *Amm due to the artifact described by Moritz in his paper, but it can demonstrate that it *could not be* Amm due to a big difference in the expected measurements. (cubital index and discoidal shift)
We have some areas in Ireland where the Amm stock is considered to be very pure but where I live in the North of Ireland the stock is completely mixed up.
If you start with a pure race queen and requeen a lot of colonies with her daughters they will all produce pure race drones irrespective of the drones they have mated with. The following season you need to graft from unrelated queens. I try and bring in one or two from another breeding group which uses II to maintain pure lines.
Even if I start with a pure race queen, her daughters are likely to mate with a number of hybrid drones but these colones will be fine as drone producers.
The safest approach is to bring in queens from an area where there are no other subspecies and they are likely to be pure race.
You can use II but that is not really suitable for volume production of queens.
Longer term we are setting up a network of breeding groups so the background population of drones should get better over time.
Keeping different subspecies in the same area makes life very complicated for a bee breeder.
We have 3 groups established in my area and there are another 5 or 6 starting up this summer.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Getting back on topic, it would be good to identify some of the genes associated with mite tolerant behaviour and I would be much more interested in that approach in order to improve the level of mite tolerance in the subspecies.


Do you mean a high-tech approach of identifying gene loci, or low-tech methods like frozen brood assays Jonathan? Or any way at all of sorting more from less resistant?

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan

> Do you mean a high-tech approach of identifying gene loci..


Hi tech via the NUIG University programme.

There was a well defined proposal submitted last October but the funding fell through.
I saw a draft of the proposal at the time.
Part of the funding would have been used for a couple of PhD students who would have got a thesis out of the work.
Hopefully we can get this moving forward at some point. At the moment we are taking samples and storing them.
Most of the current bee research funding seems to be related to neonicotinoid pesticides.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

jonathan said:


> Hi tech via the NUIG University programme.
> 
> There was a well defined proposal submitted last October but the funding fell through.


If you ever get funding I´m happy to provide test bees.

In one German discussion forum somebody said that Martin Luther University in Halle has done studies with bees from Ingemar Fries Gotland project. They have found interesting sites (QTLs) in three different cromosomes. The writer is quoting Swedish Beekeeping Magazine Bitidningen 3/13:

"Hallo,
in der Märzausgabe der Bienenzeitschrift "Bitidningen" berichtet I. Fries, der Leiter des Gotlandprojektes was seit 2008 an Forschungsarbeit durchgeführt wurde.
Ich versuche eine kurze Zusammenfassung zu geben.
2008 wurde das ursprüngliche Projekt abgeschlossen. Man konnte die Frage,ob sich in unserem Klima eine Anpassung zwischen Biene und Milbe entwickeln kann, die die Biene ohne Behandlung überleben lässt, mit einem klaren Ja beantworten. Nun stellte man neue Fragen.
Wer hat sich angepasst, die Biene oder die Milbe? Antwort: Die Biene hat sich angepasst.
Welche Eigenschaften lassen die Bienen aus dem Projekt überleben? Die Projektbienen zeigten kein besseres Ausräumverhalten als Kontrollvölker, auch verletzten sie die Milben nicht mehr als die Kontrollvölker. Es konnte auch kein Unterschied in der Anziehungskraft der Brut auf die Milben festgestellt werden. Der Zuwachs der Milbenpopulation in den Projektvölkern war aber wesentlich geringer als in den Kontrollvölkern. Die Projektvölker waren auch kleiner und erzeugten weniger Brut. Der wichtigste Unterschied war aber, dass das Reproduktionsvermögen der Milben bei den Projektvölkern deutlich reduziert war. Folgendes war mehr ausgeprägt bei den Projektvölkern: Milbenweibchen legen keine Eier oder legen die Eier zu spät,sie produzieren kein Männchen oder die Nachkommen sterben in der Zelle ab.
Die Martin Luther Universität in Halle bekam Material, um genetische Untersuchungen durchzuführen. Man konnte im Genom "QTL"s auf drei Kromosomen identifizieren, die in einem Zuchtprogramm zur Auswahl hilfreich sein könnten. Hier bedarf es noch weiterer Forschung.
2009 und 2010 hat man die Bienenpopulation in der Nähe von Avignon in Frankreich untersucht. In diesen Völkern ist die Milbenreprodution mit 30% geringer als in Kontrollvölkern. In dieser Population war es vor allem ein erhöhter Anteil von infertielen Milbenweibchen, was die Milbenzunahme bremste. Dies deutet darauf hin ,dass andere genetische Eigenschaften als bei den Gotlandbienen entwickelt wurden.
Untersuchungen deuten stark darauf hin dass die genetischen Eigenschaften dominant vererbt werden.
Die Projektvölker sind nicht aggressiv, sie haben aber andere Eigenschaften, die sie für die Imkerei nicht so interessant erscheinen lassen: sie sind klein und bringen fast keinen Honigertrag. Man versucht nun durch Einkreuzung die Biene weiterhin varroatolerant zu halten, sie aber f¨r die Imkerei interessant werden zu lassen. Diese Arbeit wurde jetzt begonnen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Hans


----------



## mbc

jonathan said:


> The alternative is losing all the different subspecies to be replaced by some sort of conglomerate hybrid bee.
> That may be fine for commercial beekeepers in the US where all the honey bees have been introduced and there is no native subspecies to protect, but it would be ecological vandalism elsewhere where there are distinct subspecies in particular geographic areas.


Spot on Jon ! 
Diversity requires preserving subspecies and ecotypes rather than chucking everything into the mixing pot and hoping a magic new combination will save us.
Homogeneity has to be actively countered by thoughtful beekeepers or else our legacy to future beekeeping is impoverished.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Hi tech via the NUIG University programme.


These extracts demonstrate current techniques in use, which I'm sure you are familiar with. 

Part of the reason I don't make the effort to catch up with this stuff is the limitations imposed by publishers. I could pay £128 for membership of IBRA (with journals) but I'd still be locked out of most reviewed work. 

As I understand it the Sussex University team are adding to this sort of approach by recommending proteome testing of virgin queens to locate those carrying the identified markers in both the expressed and unexpressed gene sets. 

Its my belief that while these tools will make lots of things easier and quicker, traditional husbandry can achieve much the same effect. And that it will be needed regardless - technically raised alelles will still have to be preserved, as will the genetic diversity available locally, and that will mean traditional selection - with all that entails for treating. 

This applies to both pure race and hybrid populations.

Mike (UK)


Correlation of proteome-wide changes with social immunity behaviors provides
insight into resistance to the parasitic mite, Varroa destructor, in the honey bee
(Apis mellifera)
Genome Biology 2012, 13:R81 doi:10.1186/gb-2012-13-9-r81
Robert Parker et al.

Abstract 
Background 
Disease is a major factor driving the evolution of many organisms. In honey
bees, selection for social behavioral responses is the primary adaptive
process facilitating disease resistance. One such process, hygienic behavior,
enables bees to resist multiple diseases, including the damaging parasitic
mite Varroa destructor. The genetic elements and biochemical factors that
drive the expression of these adaptations are currently unknown. Proteomics
provides a tool to identify proteins that control behavioral processes, and
these proteins can be used as biomarkers to aid identification of disease
tolerant colonies.


Results 
We sampled a large cohort of commercial queen lineages, recording overall
mite infestation, hygiene, and the specific hygienic response to V. destructor.
We performed proteome-wide correlation analyses in larval integument and
adult antennae, identifying several proteins highly predictive of behavior and
reduced hive infestation. In the larva, response to wounding was identified as
a key adaptive process leading to reduced infestation, and chitin biosynthesis
and immune responses appear to represent important disease resistant
adaptations. The speed of hygienic behavior may be underpinned by changes
in the antenna proteome, and chemosensory and neurological processes
could also provide specificity for detection of V. destructor in antennae.

Conclusions 
Our results provide, for the first time, some insight into how complex
behavioural adaptations manifest in the proteome of honey bees. The most
important biochemical correlations provide clues as to the underlying
molecular mechanisms of social and innate immunity of honey bees. Such
changes are indicative of potential divergence in processes controlling the
hive-worker maturation

Background
Social insects such as the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) derive great benefit
from living in tight-knit groups that enable greater efficiencies in brood care,
foraging and defense against predation. However, the high population
densities and relatedness of individuals leave colonies susceptible to
emerging infectious diseases [1]. Varroa destructor, an ectoparasitic mite of
the honey bee [2] causes varroasis, which is a leading contributor to ongoing
colony losses in commercial apiculture worldwide [3]. V. destructor feeds on
the hemolymph of larval and adult bees, inflicting nutritional stress and immune 
suppression, as well as acting as a major vector for viral pathogen
transmission [4].

In solitary insects, cellular or humoral-based defenses provide the only known
system for immunity, but A. mellifera’s genome reveals that while honey bees
contain these systems for immunity, the number of immunity genes is lower
than that of solitary insects such as flies, moths and mosquitoes [5]. As an
apparent compensation for this, social insects have evolved collective
systems of behavior that provide defenses against disease and parasitism.
Two related behaviors, hygienic behavior (HB) and Varroa sensitive hygiene
(VSH), are highly variable among A. mellifera colonies and are seen as
important traits in the development of disease and mite-resistant stock. HB is
a well-documented protective behavior that involves nurse-aged worker bees
uncapping brood cells and removing parasitized or diseased pupae [6]. VSH
is less well-understood but it encompasses a suite of behaviors that ultimately
suppress mite reproduction by uncapping and/or removing mite-infested
pupae from sealed brood resulting in a high proportion of non-reproductive
mites in the brood that remains [7, 8]. HB and VSH can be quantified using
field assays and are heritable so, while both are now used in the selective
breeding of Varroa-resistant bees [9, 10], the genetic and biochemical
mechanisms that drive them are poorly resolved.

To date, most selective breeding in commercial apiculture focuses on traits
such as honey production, color, gentleness, winter survival or other
economic parameters. When combined with continual dilution of the gene pool
through importation of susceptible stock, these selections limit host adaptation
to pathogens. In order to improve disease and mite tolerance, field assays for
HB and VSH must be incorporated into the stock selection process [11, 12];
however, these assays are resource intensive, lack sensitivity and may
require closed breeding [13], limiting their suitability for widespread
application. To support the creation of novel assays, a molecular-level
mechanistic understanding of resistance traits is seen as a promising avenue
to support commercial breeding and disease prevention through markerassisted
selection (MAS) [14]. To date, low-resolution microsatellite-based
quantitative trait loci (QTL) for HB have been reported [15], as have some of
the biochemical consequences to the host of infection by V. destructor and
associated viruses [16, 17]. Transcriptome changes in A. mellifera and in
Varroa’s natural host A. cerana also pinpoint subtle changes in transcript
expression for components responsible for neuronal rewiring, olfaction,
metabolism and aspects of social behavior that may be critical components
driving mechanisms of Varroa tolerance [18, 19].

All the molecular investigations of HB and VSH have used well-controlled
colonies or individual bees without examining the natural variation and
distribution of both the traits and their molecular components. Thus, here we
tested the hypothesis that inter-colony variation in disease resistance
parameters is reflected by changes in the expression of specific proteins.
Sampling from a large cohort of colonies, we measured the relative
abundance of approximately 1,200 proteins from two bee tissues involved in
interactions with the pathogens and correlated these with estimates for active
bee behavioral phenotypes for HB and VSH, as well as host-pathogen
available information, proteins and biochemical processes most likely to be
responsible for the observed disease resistance traits were identified.

[...]
Correlation of protein expression and behavior {2nd Level Heading}
While most of the parameters discussed above are known to have a genetic
basis, all must ultimately manifest as the result of changes in protein
expression and/or activity. To explore potential mechanisms underpinning
natural variation in Varroa tolerance across these colonies, we examined the
protein expression profiles of two tissues that play a critical role in the bee-
Varroa interaction: antennae of brood-nest workers (that is, mostly nurse
bees) and the integument from fifth instar worker larvae. Antennae were used
because they are adult bees’ primary sensory organs and many of the
behaviors evaluated here involve bees being able to sense the presence of
either the pathogen itself or a damaged/diseased nest-mate. Integument was
chosen because it is the initial physical barrier to Varroa when they feed on
larvae and as such the innate processes found here may be critical
components in the response of hygienic adults and provide direct innate
mechanisms of tolerance. It is possible that changes in the composition of
larval proteins or the metabolites produced by these proteins during infection
may trigger HB or VSH in adult nurses.

Several proteins are highly significant predictors of resistance to Varroa
mite infestation {2nd Level Heading}
To adjust significance levels to account for the multiple-testing hypothesis,
proteins were filtered using Q <.2 cut-off; for HB one antennal protein and five
larval proteins survived this additional filter (Tables 1, 2). In the antennae, the
hypothetical protein ‘LOC552009’ of unknown function correlated with HB at
48 hours (Q = 0.09) for both ‘uncapped’ and ‘removed’ behaviors. Sequence
analysis revealed that LOC552009 contains a conserved domain similar to the
mammalian protein lipid transport protein Apolipoprotein O (ApoO) [21] .

[...]
Neuronal proteins underpin hygienic behavior and VSH in antennae {2nd
Level Heading}
The proteins discussed above that survive correction for multiple hypothesis
testing should be excellent predictors of HB, perhaps even usable in markerassisted
selective breeding. To find so many highly significant proteins in a
completely out-bred population is remarkable but the requirements that they
must pass mean that it may be too restrictive a dataset to understand fully
some of the molecular mechanisms underlying the relevant behaviors. To this
end, we expanded the analysis to discover processes with mechanistic
relevance for HB and VSH. Those proteins with a significant correlation (P
<.05) to one or more behavioral traits were explored using ontological
classifications provided by the honey bee refseq entry in the National Center
for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) or the flybase homolog. The most
significant of these enrichments (P <.05, Table 3) largely tracked with the
altered distributions for estimates of HB, suggesting some of the molecular
mechanisms that may regulate this behavior. The set of proteins highly
correlated with rapid HB (>95% removed by 24 hours) was particularly
enriched for proteins involved in ‘sensory development’. At 24 hours, both
uncapping and removal traits correlated with the up-regulation of the secretory
proteins windbeutel, amphiphysin (Amph) and [RefSeq:CG6259] which
encodes the homolog to human CHMP5 protein. Proteins down regulated in
rapid hygienic bees were ankyrin 2, laminin A, Zasp (Z band alternatively
spliced PDZ-motif protein) and fasciclin 1 (Fas1) all involved in ‘cell adhesion’.
Proteins correlating with both elements of HB at 48 hours (>95%
open/cleaned 48h ours) were enriched in the ontology ‘mitochondrial inner
membrane’. This ontology was also identified for the rapid uncapping behavior
and corresponds to reduction in primary metabolic pathways.
VSH and HB correlated strongly with some of the same proteins, even though
there was no apparent interdependence between VSH and HB (Figure 5).
Proteins that correlated with VSH and HB included Fas1, which was
negatively correlated with rapid HB and VSH, while Amph and helicase 25E
(Hel25E) levels were significant positive predictors of both VSH and rapid HB
(Figure 5). In addition, several unique proteins with roles in synaptic function
correlated only with VSH. VSH was negatively correlated with expression of
the mushroom body protein (Mub), soluble NSF attachment protein (SNAP)
and gammaCOP. Mub is involved in temperature preference in Drosophila,
[22] while SNAP is a key pre-synaptic protein mediating synaptic vesicle
fusion and gammaCOP is involved in vesicle trafficking at synapses and other
vesicle sorting pathways [23]. The protein with greatest change in expression
with respect to VSH measurements was [RefSeq:LOC412768], a poorly
annotated member of the take-out/juvenile hormone binding protein
(To/JHBP) superfamily involved in chemoreception.

[...]
Discussion
We have described here the discovery of several proteins whose expression
levels may impact honey bee resistance to infestation by the Varroa mite.
Natural diversity in these behaviors was a prerequisite to this study and we
observed that the levels of each behavior in any given colony were not
random. As expected, there was a strong negative correlation between mite
infestation levels and HB. At the expression level, several proteins were highly
significant predictors of HB and mite infestation dynamics. Highlighted within
these proteins were the putative ApoO homolog and a putative Tg.
Apolipoproteins are called apolipophorins in insects, and they have diverse
roles in lipid solubilization and the transport of small hydrophobic ligands [27-
29]. In innate immunity the apolipophorin ApoLp-III stimulates antimicrobial
activity in the hemolymph, acting as a pattern recognition system for LPS and
lipoteichoic acid (LTA) [29]. Lastly, the strong correlation of Tg with both NDs
and an increase in the ratio of phoretic mites to brood mites suggests that Tg
activity could provide a measure of resistance to Varroa reproduction.
V. destructor is an ecto-parasite feeding communally and repeatedly on
hemolymph of the honey bee through a bite wound in the cuticle [30-32]. In
insects’ innate immunity the cuticle provides the first line of defense; once
breeched, innate defense systems of the haemocoel cavity are orchestrated
by hemocytes, the fat body and hemocoel [33]. Normal wounds heal as
hemocytes and plasmatocytes exocytose the clotting factors hemolectin and
Eig71Ee [34]. These molecules and other plasma-based factors such as
fondue are cross-linked by Tgs in a Ca2+ dependent mechanism to form a
primary clot. However, V. destructor transmits bio-active compounds that
prevent healing and allow continued feeding to occur at the same wound [35].
In the tick arthropod-mammalian ecto-parasitic systems, 18 known bio-active
suppressants target innate antiseptic defenses, including several immune
cells types, inflammatory and coagulatory cascades [36]. In honeybees, the
effect V. destructor elicits on the immune system is uncertain. Yang and Cox-
Foster [37] demonstrated that Varroa parasitism increases the susceptibility of
adult bees to bacterial infection, but no major immunosuppressive effects
were revealed by transcriptomic studies on specific immune genes or in global
analyses [38, 39] . More recently a study has reveled that salivary secretions
from the Varroa mite are able to damage hemocyte aggregation in the tomato
moth, (Lacanobia oleracea) [38] but no known factors of either pathogen or
host are identified. We report here that elevated expression of a putative key
clotting factor (Tg) is found in the larva of Varroa resistant bee colonies.
These data indicate that honey bees have adapted to Varroa, increasing the
clotting capacity of hemolymph in order to limit mite reproduction.
While the experiments described here were clearly of sufficient power to
permit the discovery of some correlations between protein expression and
behavioral traits, the variability within such out-bred populations is very high.
This is likely a significant limitation in fully defining the molecular mechanism
of something as complex as a behavior. Practical limitations in the number of
colonies that could be sampled and the depth to which the proteome could be
measured across multiple samples were inherent problems here, as with any
proteomics study. Even so, an exploratory approach was seen as an
important step in generating new hypotheses in a currently poorly understood
area of biology.

Conclusions 
Our analysis of tissue proteomes from a large cohort of commercial honey
bee colonies provides new clues to the evolution of biochemical components
facilitating adaptation to disease. The control of behavior potentially
represents the most complex paradigm in all living creatures so its study in
natural, outbred systems is fraught with many difficulties, explaining the lack
of coherent mechanisms describing these processes. Honey bees live in
eusocial colonies and provide a scalable system for the study of
developmental social biology and the divisions of labor it defines. Our results
represent indications of molecular mechanisms underlying innate and social
immunity behaviors in honey bees and build upon previous work
demonstrating adaption involving neural remodeling and odorant recognition.
A focused investigation of the processes identified here will provide an
explanation of how host-pathogen interactions drive selection to generate
disease tolerant colonies.


Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Nikolay Stoynov for technical assistance in LC/MS
analysis, Julian Yiu and Tram Nguyen for help with sample collection, as well
as members of our respective groups for advice and fruitful discussions. This
work was supported by funding from Genome Canada, Genome British
Columbia, the British Columbia Honey Producers Association through the
Boone-Hodgson-Wilkinson Trust Fund, the Canadian Honey Council and
Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists through the Canadian Bee
Research Fund, the British Columbia Blueberry Council and the British
Columbia Cranberry Marketing Association. Mass spectrometry infrastructure
used in this project was supported by the Canada Foundation for Innovation,
the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund and the British Columbia
Proteomics Network (BCPN). LJF is the Canada Research Chair in
Quantitative Proteomics.


----------



## jonathan

Mike
You can join ibra for £36. It is only the papers published relatively recently which you have to pay the full fee for.
I joined last year and have access to 30+ years worth of Journal of Apicultural research.
You can read the papers online or download what you want as a PDF.
It is well worth it and you get 4 Bee World magazines as well.
Some of the recent papers are open access.
Some of your old friends from this thread have had articles published in Bee World recently.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Mike
> You can join ibra for £36. It is only the papers published relatively recently which you have to pay the full fee for.


Jonathan,

There's a 2 year moving wall as I understand it. So you're always going to be two years behind... And even then, most of the references that support the work will be in journals you'll have no access to. 

I agree its probably money well spent. There are a lot of calls on my £36 though.... 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Here are the IBRA Membership details:


> *Membership
> *£36.00 Institutional and Personal Membership (See below for what's included)
> £10.00 Student Membership (Click here for conditions)
> 
> As a member you will receive:
> Bee World (4 issues - March, June, September and December, hard copy and online)
> 
> Online access to back issues of Bee World and Buzz Extra*****
> Online access to volumes of Journal of Apicultural Research over 2 years old*
> Discounted 10% off all IBRA publications**
> Discounted rates at IBRA conferences
> Receive promotions from the IBRA Bookshop
> Access to member’s area of the IBRA web site
> Attendance and voting rights at IBRA’s AGM
> 
> *To take out a membership, click **here*.[HR][/HR]
> http://www.ibra.org.uk/categories/Join-IBRA


The fine print of the asterisked items can be found at the link.


----------



## mike bispham

mbc said:


> Diversity requires preserving subspecies and ecotypes rather than chucking everything into the mixing pot and hoping a magic new combination will save us.
> Homogeneity has to be actively countered by thoughtful beekeepers or else our legacy to future beekeeping is impoverished.


Hmmm. While in sympathy with your sentiments I'm not sure homogeneity is the right term to describe the mass of hybrid material and the emergent viable local strains - which would, if left alone, become the new natives. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

I'd be interested to know where this author went with this promising start.

"Guest Editorial: Endemic or epidemic? Sense & nonsense in bee hygiene

Author(s)	
Leonard A F Heath

Abstract	
The first animal disease proved to be caused by a micro-organism was an insect disease - muscardine of silkworms. Agostino Bassi showed this to be due to the fungus we now call Metarrhizium anisopliae in 1836 - some years before Robert Koch showed anthrax in humans was due to infection with the bacterium Bacillus anthracis. Bassi also showed that muscardine was contagious and controllable, thus anticipating the ideas of Jakob Henle and Louis Pasteur in the middle of the nineteenth century, when they separately developed aspects of what came to be called 'the germ theory of disease'. Before this period, disease had been thought to be due to Acts of God, phases of the moon, or miasmas from rivers and marshes; indicating a passive acceptance of disease almost unimaginable today. With the work of Robert Koch on a whole range of human diseases however, the turn of the century saw opinion swing around until all diseases were thought to be due to 'germs', and the search was started for magic bullets - chemicals that would kill the pathogens but not their hosts. In addition, the ancient Hebrew idea of isolation (then for 40 days hence 'quarantine') was resurrected and developed to help to control the spread of epidemic disease. Unfortunately, this is where ideas about disease in most of the beekeeping world seem to have remained - based on quarantine and chemotherapy to combat epidemics"

http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/Endemic-or-epidemic-Sense-nonsense-in-bee-hygiene

I'm going to argue with him straight away. 

Disease wasn't thought "to be due to Acts of God, phases of the moon, or miasmas from rivers and marshes; indicating a passive acceptance of disease almost unimaginable today." 

Husbandrymen knew well that resistance and vulnerability to standing diseases could be inherited. That didn't help a lot with the initial effects of new pathogens of course, but making increase from the best of the survivors was automatic. 

Perhaps this idea is picked up in the piece.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Keeping different subspecies in the same area makes life very complicated for a bee breeder.


Jonathan,

Do you think it would be more precise to say 'for a line breeder' or something of that sort.

The way you are using the term 'breeder' here seems to exclude those of us who are using traditional selection methods to concentrate alelles in order to raise resistance in hybrid populations. What are we doing if not 'breeding'?

Mike


----------



## mbc

mike bispham said:


> Hmmm. While in sympathy with your sentiments I'm not sure homogeneity is the right term to describe the mass of hybrid material and the emergent viable local strains - which would, if left alone, become the new natives.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I agree it is a totally inappropriate term to describe "emergent viable local strains", it was used to describe quite the opposite, Jonathan's "conglomerate hybrid bee".
If left alone (a hypothetical brain exercise), your "mass of hybrid material" would settle down and indeed become the new natives,I think in somewhere like Britain they would revert almost wholly to native, with only a smattering of beneficial genes from the hybrids incorporated into the surviving bees.


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> Jonathan,
> Do you think it would be more precise to say 'for a line breeder' or something of that sort.


Working with a native race in the face of threats from other invasive subspecies which hybridise is normally know as conservation rather than line breeding.


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> I'd be interested to know where this author went with this promising start.
> 
> "Guest Editorial: Endemic or epidemic? Sense & nonsense in bee hygiene
> 
> Author(s)
> Leonard A F Heath


It's only a 3 page editorial.



> Chemotherapy needs to be seen as a temporary measure. In the short term we need our fumagillin, synthetic pyrethroids and the rest, to keep the maximum number of colonies productive. However, chemotherapy slows the natural evolution from epidemic to endemic by maintaining susceptible host stock in the breeding pop- ulation. It should therefore be seen as nothing more than a holding operation, and be accompanied by selection for disease resistance in all queen breeding oper- ations. This will assist host evolution towards tolerance. Assisting pathogen evo- lution towards benignity is impracticable, but chemotherapy should not make things worse. A highly virulent pathogen meeting a susceptible host will still die with it. Either a virulent or a benign strain meeting a host treated with prophylactic chemicals should also be destroyed. The balance of the population will still shift towards benignity but more slowly than if chemotherapy were not used.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> It's only a 3 page editorial.


While I think the author is working along the right lines, its a bit of a muddle in places. Who is this chap?



jonathan said:


> " It ('chemotherapy') should therefore be seen as nothing more than a holding operation, and be accompanied by selection for disease resistance in all queen breeding operations. This will assist host evolution towards tolerance. "


Does the author make any sort of distinction between commercial breeding operations and everyday making increase?



jonathan said:


> "Assisting pathogen evolution towards benignity is impracticable, but chemotherapy should not make things worse. A highly virulent pathogen meeting a susceptible host will still die with it. Either a virulent or a benign strain meeting a host treated with prophylactic chemicals should also be destroyed. The balance of the population will still shift towards benignity but more slowly than if chemotherapy were not used."


I'd say that assisting bees to raise levels of mite-management alelles probably includes the evolution of more benign strains - automatically. 

I'm not sure that last claim is sustainable - especially where treatments are systematic - and that means most commercial operations. There is no pressure favouring development of benign strains. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Working with a native race in the face of threats from other invasive subspecies which hybridise is normally know as conservation rather than line breeding.


I'm really just trying to get you to admit Jonathan that traditional husbandry is also 'breeding', and any implication to the contrary is wrong.

What you (and 'maybe-line-breeding' specialist resistant strain breeders like Beeweavers) try to do, and what we (traditional husbandrymen/'bond' beekeepers) try to do, are different versions of the same activity, with, mostly, overlapping goals. 

Is that fair? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

mbc said:


> I agree it is a totally inappropriate term to describe "emergent viable local strains", it was used to describe quite the opposite, Jonathan's "conglomerate hybrid bee".


I'm not sure it describes that either. In fact I'm not sure just what 'conglomerate hybrid bee' actually describes. Maybe 'homogeneous' works in the sense: 'they're all the same in being not-native black bees'.



mbc said:


> If left alone (a hypothetical brain exercise), your "mass of hybrid material" would settle down and indeed become the new natives,I think in somewhere like Britain they would revert almost wholly to native, with only a smattering of beneficial genes from the hybrids incorporated into the surviving bees.


I think here they would retain a lot of the imported genes, mostly because the present climate has moved toward the Mediterranean, away from the ice age/Northern climate that seems to suit the darker bees. And because a lot of the foreign genes would be every bit as functional as the native one. New blood is generally a good thing. (That isn't meant to be an argument for importing yet more foreign bees to the uk btw)

What we've learned about the honeybee arrangements is that she strives to get as much new blood as possible, presumably in part to overcome the diversity-restricting limitations of her range. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> What you (and 'maybe-line-breeding' specialist resistant strain breeders like Beeweavers) try to do, and what we (traditional husbandrymen/'bond' beekeepers) try to do, are different versions of the same activity, with, mostly, overlapping goals.


I am not line breeding although I can see the use for that under certain circumstances.
What I am doing is breeding bees within race. That is not line breeding unless you actively separate out your bee populations into different lines.


----------



## mbc

mike bispham said:


> I'm not sure it describes that either. In fact I'm not sure just what 'conglomerate hybrid bee' actually describes. Maybe 'homogeneous' works in the sense: 'they're all the same in being not-native black bees'.
> 
> 
> 
> I think here they would retain a lot of the imported genes, mostly because the present climate has moved toward the Mediterranean, away from the ice age/Northern climate that seems to suit the darker bees. And because a lot of the foreign genes would be every bit as functional as the native one. New blood is generally a good thing. (That isn't meant to be an argument for importing yet more foreign bees to the uk btw)
> 
> What we've learned about the honeybee arrangements is that she strives to get as much new blood as possible, presumably in part to overcome the diversity-restricting limitations of her range.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Given enough time post human interference I'm sure even the Canterbry Mediterranean climate (lol.) would favour Amm.
What you have learned and what I have learned about the honeybees sex life seem to be different, or at least, lead to different conclusions.
Although there are obvious mechanisms, such as virgin queens flying away from her parent colony and being polygamous, which counter inbreeding, I believe there are also mechanisms in place which encourage and foster the creation and continuation of subspecies, the compelling evidence is the very existence of the separate races or subspecies, and their continuing existence in relatively pure form despite multiple generations of "the grass is greener" beekeepers moving significant amounts of other bees through their ranges. 
Are there any studies comparing which drones are likely to be more successful with which queens in a mixed race drone area? I suspect, that as usual with biological systems, a bell curve would accurately describe the results, with the meat of the bell being represented by mostly in race matings with some mixing, near total purity at one extreme and near total mixing at the other.


----------



## jonathan

That recent study from Poland seemed to show that Amm virgin queens mate with mostly Amm drones in an area where there was a mixed Amm and Carnica population. This could be due to flight times, pheromone differences or who knows what other evolutionary mechanism.

Must dig that one out again if I can find it.


----------



## Rolande

jonathan said:


> That recent study from Poland seemed to show that Amm virgin queens mate with mostly Amm drones in an area where there was a mixed Amm and Carnica population. This could be due to flight times, pheromone differences or who knows what other evolutionary mechanism.
> 
> Must dig that one out again if I can find it.


This one?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-013-0212-y



> "Northern Poland is inhabited by native Apis mellifera mellifera (AMM) and the non-native A. m. carnica (AMC) which was introduced by beekeepers. However, hybrids between the two subspecies of honey bee are relatively rare. The lower than expected proportion of hybrids is hypothesised to be related to reproductive isolation between AMM and AMC. To verify this hypothesis, we allowed the AMM and AMC queens to be naturally inseminated in an area inhabited by both AMM and AMC drones. Genotype of the queens and their sexual partners were derived based on random samples of their worker offspring. Assignment of parental genotypes to the two subspecies was performed with a Bayesian clustering method. In colonies headed by AMM queens, workers were fathered mainly by AMM drones. On the other hand, in colonies headed by AMC queens workers were fathered by drones of both subspecies. The partial reproductive isolation reported here between AMM and AMC may facilitate conservation of the declining population of AMM."


----------



## mike bispham

mbc said:


> Given enough time post human interference I'm sure even the Canterbry Mediterranean climate (lol.) would favour Amm.


I'm not so sure. I can't see all (or most of) the imported genes being selected away. Some would remain as popular, or more popular (given climate changes).

So the new race, and or sub-races, would incorporate outside genes, and thus couldn't be described as 'pure Amm'. 



mbc said:


> What you have learned and what I have learned about the honeybees sex life seem to be different, or at least, lead to different conclusions.
> Although there are obvious mechanisms, such as virgin queens flying away from her parent colony and being polygamous, which counter inbreeding, I believe there are also mechanisms in place which encourage and foster the creation and continuation of subspecies, the compelling evidence is the very existence of the separate races or subspecies, and their continuing existence in relatively pure form despite multiple generations of "the grass is greener" beekeepers moving significant amounts of other bees through their ranges.


Yes. Natural geographic barriers (oceans, mountain ranges, and large lakes) for barriers; regional geography and climatic distinctions lead to local sub-races. Local environmental conditions lead to further sub-sub-races - strains. 

The larger natural geographic barriers seem to make the largest differences, leading to the uniformity we call 'race'. But there are, where race populations meet, 'between-race' bees.



mbc said:


> Are there any studies comparing which drones are likely to be more successful with which queens in a mixed race drone area? I suspect, that as usual with biological systems, a bell curve would accurately describe the results, with the meat of the bell being represented by mostly in race matings with some mixing, near total purity at one extreme and near total mixing at the other.


Whether such features have evolved due to an advantage supplied by way of restricting new blood, or simply as a result of enhancing local efficiency is another matter. In the case of the two US populations (feral and agricultural) it seems likely the former.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> "The partial reproductive isolation reported here between AMM and AMC may facilitate conservation of the declining population of AMM.""


On the other hand it might be offering protection against treatment-dependent agricultural bees - and be a recent adaptation on account of that advantage supplied. The natives might be much worse off without partial reproductive isolation....

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> I am not line breeding although I can see the use for that under certain circumstances.
> What I am doing is breeding bees within race. That is not line breeding unless you actively separate out your bee populations into different lines.


Jonathan,

That makes sense. 

You still haven't told us: does what we traditional husbandrymen do to concentrate desirable genes (in the knowledge that we can't, and wouldn't want to 'fix' them) constitute 'breeding'?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mbc

Rolande said:


> This one?
> 
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-013-0212-y


Thanks. 
Was there another one from Sweden?
Or Switzerland?


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> Jonathan,
> 
> That makes sense.
> 
> You still haven't told us: does what we traditional husbandrymen do to concentrate desirable genes (in the knowledge that we can't, and wouldn't want to 'fix' them) constitute 'breeding'?
> 
> Mike (UK)


It will do when you start!
As far as I can see you are at the stage of collecting swarms and cut outs as opposed to breeding.

There is a distinction to be made between bee breeding and queen rearing.
Most of what I do is basic queen rearing from native stock.
Most observers reckon that you need a minimum of about 150 colonies to start bee breeding and bee improvement.
Once we have a network of queen rearing groups set up where people work with native stock we will have enough to select from.
At the moment it makes more sense to get a few queens from good quality pure stock and requeen as many colonies as possible with their daughter queens.
The requeened colonies will then be producing native drones.


----------



## Rolande

mbc said:


> Thanks.
> Was there another one from Sweden?
> Or Switzerland?


Not sure about Sweden/Switzerland but Jonathon gave a link (on another forum) to research into the (French) Landes ecotype which I think suggested something similar.

edit: this one from research carried out in Austria looks at the idea too.

"Assortative mating in a mixed population of European Honeybees, Apis mellifera ligustica and Apis mellifera carnica"


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> It will do when you start!
> As far as I can see you are at the stage of collecting swarms and cut outs as opposed to breeding.


Jonathan,

Thank you for conceding: traditional husbandry is a valid form of breeding.

I've been making new colonies from my strongest for the past 3 years. Last year that was concentrated on 5 outstanding hives from a total of 8 that had survived the winter, from a total of (from memory) about 40 that had gone into winter. About half those were that year's (1012) swarms, the rest overwintered hives or my own made colonies.

Over the last four years nature has winnowed some 30-40 colonies at a guess. 

This winter I didn't lose any to varroa (I lost half a dozen in the autumn to combining, robbing, poor mating, a few more in the winter fell to my own errors). 

Most of my overwintered 28 are building well right now. That's a much brighter picture than the one that greeted me last spring, which was in turn better than the one the year before. 

Its early days,, but I call that breeding, with every indication of a good outcome right now. In my view its a good looking picture largely because I've been fortunate enough to get my hands on some good resistant feral colonies. They corroborate on the whole - well attested ferals tend to do better than unknown swarms; known agricultural bees don't last long.

And I've been making best from best, and allowing nature to take those that couldn't make it alone.



jonathan said:


> There is a distinction to be made between bee breeding and queen rearing.
> Most of what I do is basic queen rearing from native stock.


If you exercise any choice of parent material then you are breeding - as well as queen rearing.



jonathan said:


> Most observers reckon that you need a minimum of about 150 colonies to start bee breeding and bee improvement.


Who are these observers? What are their qualifications? What sort of 'breeding' does this figure apply to? Who surveyed them, where is the survey published? Or is this a figure plucked out of the air, maybe by someone with an air of authority, copied and circulated until it has become a proper fact(oid)?



jonathan said:


> Once we have a network of queen rearing groups set up where people work with native stock we will have enough to select from.
> 
> At the moment it makes more sense to get a few queens from good quality pure stock and requeen as many colonies as possible with their daughter queens.


You are selecting - your parent stock. From them you'll raise the next generation of parent stock. Its all selective breeding. 

Or do you raise new queens from all stock equally, regardless of any indications of performance?

If that's the case, I'll agree that its probably best called 'unselective queen raising (within race)' 

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> Who are these observers? What are their qualifications? What sort of 'breeding' does this figure apply to? Who surveyed them, where is the survey published? Or is this a figure plucked out of the air, maybe by someone with an air of authority, copied and circulated until it has become a proper fact(oid)?


I presume you are reasonably familiar with the problems related to CSD locus and diploid drones.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> I presume you are reasonably familiar with the problems related to CSD locus and diploid drones.


Jonathan,

Are you saying these 'observers' are familiar with these things? And that one needs to be to regarded as any sort of bee 'breeder'? 

If I read (and understood) this paper would I be better equipped to do what I want to do? Why? What difference would it make?

http://zayedlab.apps01.yorku.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/zayed-2009-apidologie.pdf

Mike (UK)


----------



## mbc

jonathan said:


> I presume you are reasonably familiar with the problems related to CSD locus and diploid drones.


Mun, I struggled manfully for years to decipher John Atkinson's ramblings on this before reading a simpler version and it all falling in to place 

It turns out its far less important in practice, certainly in an open mating system, than he made out.


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> Jonathan,
> 
> If I read (and understood) this paper would I be better equipped to do what I want to do? Why? What difference would it make?
> 
> http://zayedlab.apps01.yorku.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/zayed-2009-apidologie.pdf
> 
> Mike (UK)


I remember posting you the link to that Zayed paper on the old bbka forum about 5 years ago. Glad to see you are starting to assimilate it!


----------



## josethayil

AMM drones are supposed to fly much faster and be more aggressive during mating flights than AMC drones. This might explain why AMM has a mating advantage over other subspecies.


----------



## Oldtimer

I suspect you are right Jose, like the old toothpaste advertisement said, they do get in. However some years back when I was only breeding carniolans, jet black other than the hair bands, they too, would gradually revert to mean, ie, become tigers. But I think my current Italians are more easily subverted.



jonathan said:


> Most observers reckon that you need a minimum of about 150 colonies to start bee breeding and bee improvement


Interesting you say that, it's me, almost exactly. Just counted up for my govt hive declaration, I am taking exactly 152 hives into winter (we are going into winter here), there are another 66 still to be sold should go this week, and an uncounted as yet number of nucs.

Even with this number of hives I find it extremely difficult / impossible to maintain purity of my breed, selecting for traits I want is bearing results although if I do not continually select, the bees keep reverting to the mean, of all bees, not just mine.

Personally, I think 600 hives is a better number to take a stab at maintaining purity, but even then a skilled hand is needed if there are different bees in the area.


----------



## jonathan

If the neighbouring beekeepers are keeping different stock it is going to be complicated unless you have a vast number of colonies and can swamp the area with drones. or use II.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I've been making new colonies from my strongest for the past 3 years. Last year that was concentrated on 5 outstanding hives from a total of 8 that had survived the winter, from a total of (from memory) about 40 that had gone into winter. About half those were that year's (1012) swarms, the rest overwintered hives or my own made colonies.
> 
> Over the last four years nature has winnowed some 30-40 colonies at a guess.


Does not tally with this



mike bispham said:


> So 6 that I've had for 3 years. Of these, 2 were offspring from a swarm I'd hived the year previously.
> 
> The other 24 (I hope) are last years splits or swarms.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Which does not tally with other statements you have made.

Mike if you have records it would be great if you could consult them when answering specifics. So far on Beesource all the answers you have given re your hive and breeding numbers have been hopelessly contradictory. There are other figures you have given also I have not bothered to hunt them all down.

If memory is not what it used to be, consulting records before answering these types of questions is just a basic courtesy to the person asking.

For me, I would be interested in your breeding program, I have little interest in your statements about what "us husbandrymen" do, when in fact trying to put all the contradictory data together that you give tends to lend itself to the idea you are not actually doing it. I've asked if you have raised any queens and the question has gone unanswered. But even if you did say you had raised x number, I would be inclined to view that as reliable as the other figures you give.


----------



## mbc

Oldtimer said:


> , the bees keep reverting to the mean, of all bees, not just mine.


Has varroa not wiped out those black bush tigers?


----------



## Oldtimer

Black Bush Tigers LOL that's a good one! 

We've had 3 breeds here, the AMM's that were the first to arrive although there are a few different versions of just exactly which bees arrived and when. Later, Italians, and then very recently, carniolans. Some illegal importations of other bees were rumoured but seems their genetics have been absorbed / swamped.

There are at least 2 different versions of how the first and subsequent bees got here, but in any event, when I started beekeeping there was only AMM of (believed) old English extraction that were wiped out over there by tracheal mites later, and Italian. Everything would slowly revert to AMM cos they had a mating advantage, so all feral bees except recent domestic escapees were AMM or mostly so. Kept bees were Italian or mostly so, except where the beekeeper had given up regular requeening and instead resigned himself to wearing a full kit and working in a swarm of enraged bees.

Then varroa came and changed everything. It took around 12 years for then to get from one end of the country to the other, and as they went, all wild hives and any kept AMM hives disappeared in a wave as they went. Varroa would arrive in an area, and within a year or so the beekeepers would be reporting no more AMM's.

Which is why my position on Beesource used to be that AMM's have no varroa resistance. I have since been enlightened, that some AMM's, notably from France, and Portugal, actually have developed resistance to varroa. My own observations were based on different AMM's. (So there is the proof, an old dog can learn new tricks LOL).

Around the same time as varroa arrived, carniolan semen was imported and a breeding program began, so as AMM's disappeared and carniolans started to appear, we then had what seemed the very strange experience of approaching a dark hive, and instead of the expected mass attack of thousands of super angry bees, you could work them just like Italians. I still remember my first experiences with this and how amazing it seemed at the time.

However I am certain that AMM genetics live on in our bees, very occasionally they will all come together in a hive to such an extent I can recognise the bees. I believe that if varroa were somehow magically removed, AMM bees would gradually reconstitute themselves and appear again in our bee population.

So as to reverting to the mean. In pre varroa, Italian vs AMM days, there was no mean, bees left to themselves just went more & more AMM till they pretty much were AMM. Now, with AMM's gone and carniolan in the mix, there does not seem a mating advantage one way or the other. Several years ago I raised pure carniolans, jet black and some are pictured in some of my early posts. But they would revert to the mean, or " tigers", if you like. Now I'm just breeding Italians, which also revert to the mean if I allow, ie, they get darker.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> I remember posting you the link to that Zayed paper on the old bbka forum about 5 years ago. Glad to see you are starting to assimilate it!


Jonathan, 

Apart from admitting that traditional husbandry amounts to breeding, you're struggling to answer a single one of the questions I put to you. Doesn't that ring some alarm bells?

If the contents of this paper are so important surely you can summarise them and state their relation to traditional husbandry practices?

Perhaps they relate only to you chaps trying to 'fix' genes in your population?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> If the neighbouring beekeepers are keeping different stock it is going to be complicated unless you have a vast number of colonies and can swamp the area with drones. or use II.


Jonathan, 

If you are trying to 'fix' genes, by exterminating all competing alelles, yes, I'm sure things can get difficult. You will need a large number of colonies, and they will continually pick up the wrong alelles from neighbouring bees, and you'll need to continually combat that with a rigourous selection process involving close attention to cues as to ancestry. 

If however you are only trying to _raise the proportion of colonies carrying resistant alelles_ its pretty straightforward. Have enough colonies to make a difference and make the alelles common in your own apiary by propagating only from those that exhibit them, and encouraging transmission on the drone side. 

If the local population is on your side so (very) much the better.

This is not complicated Jonathan. You don't have to read any technical papers. You just have to get promising stock, build it to sufficient numbers, and be careful to identify those carrying the genes you want, and make increase only from those. 

Again: _we're not trying to do what you are trying to do. If by accident we succeeded in doing that we'd have useless colonies_. 

We only want _a sufficient number of patrilines_ exhibiting the mite-managing behaviours. 

Try to get your head round this.

Argue with me about it. That'll help.

With just a few dozen hives we have the capability to load the odds of getting offspring carrying the right qualities massively in our favour. We simply choose those that thrive, best, without help, and promote their winning genes in our populations. 

I think this is so simple you can't conceive of it being effective. You're thinking the answer to the problem of varroa resistance must be hard. It isn't - at least not if you can start from scratch with bees that are already resistant to a good degree. 

This is routine traditional husbandry, of the sort that is used, routinely, and without fail, in every other form of organic husbandry. Husbandry incorporates systematic selective propagation - that is breeding.

Its something that _must_ be done - or health will inevitably slide. I'm sure you know the reason for that.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> I remember posting you the link to that Zayed paper on the old bbka forum about 5 years ago.


I remember about the same time asking you whether wing pattern morphometry achieved anything more than more bees with the same wing pattern. You were very grumpy about that question. Now....



jonathan said:


> The wing morphometry is yesterday's news. If you read that paper by Robin Moritz it becomes quite clear that using morphometry as a selection tool for subspecies purity produces false positives as you are selecting primarily for wing vein pattern as opposed to the entire Amm genetics.
> After a few generations all the bees have a perfect wing pattern irrespective of the underlying genetics.
> There are still a lot of bee breeders using morphometry but I now think it is pretty much a waste of time. I used to use it a lot myself.


At some time in the interval I pointed out to you that: "After a few generations all the bees [will] have a perfect wing pattern irrespective of the underlying genetics."

You didn't respond to that as I recall.

Fancy me working all that stuff out before you, without having been trained in the sciency arts of bee breeding by people flogging AI gear and training courses!

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan

Who is 'we'?
I thought you were working on your own with about 25 colonies.

If it is' not complicated' with a small number of colonies why do you frequently rail about 'poisoned drones' 'medicated drones' 'treatment dependent drones' in the background population.

This thread was started by PLB quoting Keith Delaplane who pointed out that in spite of our efforts it is very difficult to breed for what you want due to the polyandrous nature of honey bee mating.
The honey bee has evolved a mating system which tends to produce a very genetically diverse colony - which tends to thwart our best efforts to select for particular traits.
You have a simple notion of 'concentrating' the genes you want in your local gene pool but in practice that is not a simple task.
You will find that out for yourself when you start to select for what you want. So far you are still at the theory stage.
Drones can travel for many miles and congregation areas contain drones from dozens of colonies, sometimes hundreds of colonies.
Unless you are flooding your area with your own drones your efforts are likely to be a drop in the ocean.

If you breed from a small closed or isolated population you quickly run into problems with diploid drones due to loss of sex alleles within your closed population. The Zayed paper or papers by Beye et al will give you some background on this.
In practice this only happens with island populations or populations in very remote areas - but the alternative with drones arriving from many miles away means that you have limited influence on the composition of your local gene pool through husbandry or whatever you like to call it.
from my point of view, that is why working together with as many local beekeepers as possible is critical.
If you are working on your own you are on a hiding to nothing.
You really do have to (a) swamp the area with your preferred drones or (b) get an isolated mating station to mate your queens or (c) do II with your selected virgin daughter queens and drones.

Oldtimer reckons you need 600+ colonies in an ideal world.

I have pretty much given up arguing with you at any other level other than your 'husbandry' and 'best to best' and simple mendelian inheritance as you don't have the background to understand more advanced concepts and by your own admission you think that type of deeper understanding of genetics is not necessary for what you are doing as being a husbandryman is enough. 
If simple works for you,that's fine by me.


Just to clear this up.
I don't understand at all why you keep stating that I am trying to 'fix' genes.
You are misunderstanding something.
You appear to have your own idiosyncratic idea of what 'fix' means which may not be what others understand by the term.

What breeding within subspecies means is that you try and prevent introgression of genetic material from other subspecies.
ie, in my case I don't want to introduce genetics from Ligustica, Carnica or Buckfast.
This has nothing to do with fixing genes in the sense the term is used by plant or animal breeders.
Keeping a wide genetic base is very important and the Jensen paper I have mentioned a couple of times points out that there is a great deal of natural variation within a given Amm population.


----------



## WLC

Jonathan:

Conservationists do have quite a task to perform when it comes to preserving subspecies. It's as if you're trying to selectively narrow genetic diversity while coming up with enough genetic diversity for that subspecies at the same time.

Queen breeders have the related task of preserving their breeder queen lines.

However, at the level of production queens, that's where you want a lot of diversity, at least that's how I interpret Delaplane's conclusion.

So, when I buy mated queens, while I do want to know their pedigree as much as possible (breeder queen line), I'm even more interested in the diversity of the drones they've mated with.

I need well hybridized, mated queens. So do most other beekeepers.

Delaplane was more interested in that aspect of beekeeping, IMHO.


----------



## jonathan

WLC said:


> I need well hybridized, mated queens. So do most other beekeepers.




Maybe in the US where you have no native subspecies, but it is different in Europe where bee breeders usually try and breed within the subspecies. breeders want well mated queens but not well hybridised queens.
I have seen Keith Delaplane's presentation and the graphs he put up showed increased vigour in line with increasing numbers of drones. In his work the queens were inseminated with semen from up to 60 drones.
Your decisions can be taken on purely commercial grounds as opposed to conservation grounds.
In Germany Carnica is now the dominant subspecies and there is an entire system in place to ensure that stock is kept pure. (Cue the Moritz morphometry paper which demonstrated that wing morphometry alone cannot guarantee this !)
The exception would be the creation of the Buckfast bee from a number of subspecies - but I think now that Buckfast is well established as a commercial bee the Buckfast breeders usually try and keep Buckfast queens crossed with Buckfast drones.
I know very little about Buckfast but I believe the stock breeds true if properly managed same as a subspecies crossed within race.
If you imagine back to the days before humans were moving bees from one area to another all the crosses would have been within subspecies except at the overlap areas where two subspecies share the same territory.

Europe has Amm, Carnica, Ligustica and the Iberian bee which is closely related to Amm.

PS. and don't forget that Ruttner clearly demonstrated the correlation between hybridisation and increased aggression. He also noted the correlation between hybridisation and increased honey production. He looked at the crosses and reciprocal crosses between the various European subspecies. (Chapter edited by Ruttner, 'Races of Bee' in Dadant, the Hive and the Honey Bee.)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Who is 'we'?
> I thought you were working on your own with about 25 colonies.


Jonathan,

'We' is anyone and everyone working at raising and/or maintaining resistance in their apiaries. There isn't another way to do it. (There is buying in bred-resistant queens, but without selective breeding thereafter you're not 'working at raising... ')



jonathan said:


> If it is' not complicated' with a small number of colonies why do you frequently rail about 'poisoned drones' 'medicated drones' 'treatment dependent drones' in the background population.


'Railing' I don't know: I point out the critical factors. Getting as far away from treatment dependent drones as you can will make life a whole lot easier than being right between two large commercial operations. Not rocket science, but very helpful to have uppermost in your mind when planning.



jonathan said:


> This thread was started by PLB quoting Keith Delaplane who pointed out that in spite of our efforts it is very difficult to breed for what you want due to the polyandrous nature of honey bee mating.


If.... if... you are breeding with the aim of _completely excluding_ competing alelles. More about that below. First:

The context was raising resistance to varroa. The main thrust of what Delapane is reported to have said is: it is time for a fresh look at breeding, for those who try to adopt a narrow approach. People like me don't try to adopt a narrow approach. That puts our solution in line _as a candidate to solve Delaplane's problem_.

(He also said old bee breeders wouldn't like his message; and that's panning out true enough.)

PLB stated clearly that he envisaged a long conversation, and that nothing was off limits.

I'm smack on topic.



jonathan said:


> The honey bee has evolved a mating system which tends to produce a very genetically diverse colony - which tends to thwart our best efforts to select for particular traits.


Ordinary commercial beekeepers have always used traditional husbandry methods (making best from best) to raise those traits they want in their bees. Systematically. Docility, productivity, stillness on the combs... these traits are raised and kept high by: making increase from only those colonies exhibiting them; maintaining large drone colonies carrying the same traits.

Mite resistance behaviours are similarly heritable, and similarly controllable.

A beekeeper holding 20 or 30 colonies fairly close, well away from any other large outfits, even with a surrounding feral population can, at a guess, count on maybe half matings from his own drones. Given that he is supplying all the queen side material (and that means 2/3rds of the genes) that is ample to swing the proportion of desirable alelles found in his offspring as high as he needs them. 



jonathan said:


> You have a simple notion of 'concentrating' the genes you want in your local gene pool but in practice that is not a simple task.


Oh yes it is. Once you know how to go about it. 



jonathan said:


> If you breed from a small closed or isolated population you quickly run into problems with diploid drones due to loss of sex alleles within your closed population. The Zayed paper or papers by Beye et al will give you some background on this.


If I were breeding from a small closed or isolated population I'd feel the need to look that up.

Since I'm not, and you've always known that to be the case, its kind of a red herring isn't it?



jonathan said:


> In practice this only happens with island populations or populations in very remote areas


Quite.



jonathan said:


> - but the alternative with drones arriving from many miles away means that you have limited influence on the composition of your local gene pool through husbandry or whatever you like to call it.


Limited yes. But ample. Sure drones travel. But the influence of hives diminishes rapidly with distance.

We've been here before Jonathon. Do you really think ordinary mid-sized beekeepers have never been able to influence the docility or productivity or calmness of their bees? Have they all been kidding themselves?

(A) Get stuck into that question. That's the one that reveals the weakness in your reasoning. Get back to me.



jonathan said:


> ...from my point of view, that is why working together with as many local beekeepers as possible is critical. If you are working on your own you are on a hiding to nothing.
> You really do have to (a) swamp the area with your preferred drones or (b) get an isolated mating station to mate your queens or (c) do II with your selected virgin daughter queens and drones.


I think you are not understanding the fact that what is required by me, we, us, is _limited_ influence. Not control - influence. And that is easily attainable with 20-30 hives. 



jonathan said:


> Just to clear this up.
> I don't understand at all why you keep stating that I am trying to 'fix' genes.
> You are misunderstanding something.
> You appear to have your own idiosyncratic idea of what 'fix' means which may not be what others understand by the term.
> 
> What breeding within subspecies means is that you try and prevent introgression of genetic material from other subspecies.


Sure. Bear in mind I'm not trying to do that. You are. That's one of the reasons we're on different pages. 

I have no problem with hybrid influence. I just want maybe every 7th worker to be capable of detecting mites in capped cells and uncapping, and maybe every 10th worker to be primed to haul out the larvae, and so on. By using genetic material from queens known to supply those kinds of proportions - or better - and by influencing the drone space, I can aim to make offspring colonies with maybe a 75% chance of having those same qualities. And that's all I want. As time goes by I'll raise that 80%, then 90% - and probably that's as as good as I can expect to get.



jonathan said:


> ie, in my case I don't want to introduce genetics from Ligustica, Carnica or Buckfast.


Sure. Your case. Not mine. Doesn't apply to me. I'm just trying to raise desirable traits in the time honoured way.



jonathan said:


> This has nothing to do with fixing genes in the sense the term is used by plant or animal breeders.


'Fixing' genes in a lineage, as I understand it, means removing all competing alelles in the line. In that way, offspring cannot help but display the trait in all cases - there cannot be any exceptions or 'throwbacks' - as long as breeding is strictly limited to that line - or to another bloodline similarly expunged of competing alelles. 

This is, obviously, only possible where breeding can be 100% controlled, where the population is 'isolated'. That is easy for all animal breeding. You just use fences, or castrate the males before they reach sexual maturity to _isolate the breeding stock._ For wind-pollinated crops - and wing mating bees - you need an island to exclude the genes suppling the unwanted competing alelles.

That is something you are trying to do. 

It isn't something I'm trying to do. 

In fact I need alelles coding for  no  uncapping behaviours. 



jonathan said:


> Keeping a wide genetic base is very important and the Jensen paper I have mentioned a couple of times points out that there is a great deal of natural variation within a given Amm population.


Yep.. And I can draw on a vast range, including locally adapted ferals, and get nice multiple, genetically wide-ranging matings. 

You much much less so. Any single mating you get is likely to bring in what are for you unwanted alelles. Unless you can find an isolated island, or a large exclusively native population to work in, or persuade every one on your island (Ireland) to join in... which would certainly entail new laws prohibiting the keeping of bees other than pure native, and an impossible level of enforcement, and a ridiculously expensive effort to eliminate all ferals....

you are, in my view, on a hiding to nothing.

But that's an argument for a different thread. Good luck.

I'm going to carry on raising the levels of resistance-providing genes to a level my bees show me is ideal, and carry on keeping nice treatment free bees. And carry on putting that time-honoured method forward as a proper, viable solution to the varroa problem, in the spirit of PLB's call for broad discussion of the issues, focussed by the reported Delaplane area of interest.

Bear in mind that calling for as many beekeepers to do just this, in order to best preserve genetic diversity held by locally adapted strains is a key part of Marla Spivak's resistance raising program. The Sussex University team similar. I'm in good company here. 

Mike (UK)

PS Please do return to (A)


----------



## jonathan

Loads of assumptions there without supporting evidence.
Par for the course.

You need to do stuff, record results and then come back and tell us.
This is still all theory as you are just at the stage of having collected swarms and cut outs.
If you read Juhani's blog you are where he was about 10 years ago.

Have you seen evidence of uncapping and removal of larvae in any of your colonies?
Have you checked beebase to get an idea of the number of apiaries within 10 miles of your colonies?
Have you mapped all the feral colonies in the area? How many do you know of?



> A beekeeper holding 20 or 30 colonies fairly close, well away from any other large outfits, even with a surrounding feral population can, at a guess, count on maybe half matings from his own drones. Given that he is supplying all the queen side material (and that means 2/3rds of the genes) that is ample to swing the proportion of desirable alelles found in his offspring as high as he needs them.


at a guess indeed! No evidence provided.



> Limited yes. But ample. Sure drones travel. But the influence of hives diminishes rapidly with distance.


Anything within 10 miles of your apiary will be providing significant numbers of drones.
You may also have overlooked that the evolutionary significance of drone congregation areas at some distance is to minimise a queen mating with closely related drones and maximise her contact with unrelated drones.

Bottom line is you need far more colonies or you need to be working with a group of beekeepers with similar aims.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Loads of assumptions there without supporting evidence.


This is what everyone who is seriously trying (and those who have succeeded) does. 

And the bottom line is: if you don't take this sort of approach then there's nothing you can do. You're defeated before you start. 

No successful husbandryman in the history of farming has ever done anything else. And husbandry undertaken along these lines has given us the massive uplift in yields that farming supplies over hunting. 

This is so basic its unbelievable that anyone is still arguing with it.

If you're unfamiliar with the foundational nature of selective propagation (and its mirror in natural selection) then I can understand your skepticism. You're not able to follow the reasoning. You should read up a little.

And you should engage in constructive discourse. I've urged you to address a particular question. You haven't responded. Until you do we can see there is an uncomfortable hole in your reasoning. I set up question (A) specifically to show you why your position is logically unsustainable. Its sitting there, silently, undermining everything you say. 

Sidestepping that question shows us that you are willing to evade rational argument to support a pre-established belief. That's not just unscientific, its unreasonable to the point of being irrational.

Trying to 'win' the argument by putting down the man is 'ad hominem'. That isn't a good thing. Its the equivalent of 'ya, boo, well your mum smells'. 

_Engage with the arguments Jonathan_. 



jonathan said:


> You need to do stuff, record results and then come back and tell us.


How long would you like? 



jonathan said:


> This is still all theory as you are just at the stage of having collected swarms and cut outs.


That isn't the case as I've outlined. Don't you read my replies to you?



jonathan said:


> If you read Juhani's blog you are where he was about 10 years ago.


10 years ago things were much harder. 



jonathan said:


> Have you seen evidence of uncapping and removal of larvae in any of your colonies?


No. I haven't looked that hard. I don't know what is working for them. All I know is that so far about half have been 'winnowed', and most of the remainder are flourishing. This is the Kefuss approach. It doesn't matter _how_ it works. It just matters _that_ it works.



jonathan said:


> Have you checked beebase to get an idea of the number of apiaries within 10 miles of your colonies?


Yes, but that's very approximate, and I've modified my understanding of the position a lot through personal knowledge.



jonathan said:


> Have you mapped all the feral colonies in the area? How many do you know of?


No real idea. It would be incredibly hard to arrive at any sort of significantly accurate figure. I wouldn't try.

I know I've picked up swarms and cut-outs that are very well attested as long lived. And some of them are still with me 3 years on, and have performed very well. 



jonathan said:


> Anything within 10 miles of your apiary will be providing significant numbers of drones.


No. If you look at the Sussex data you'll see influence falls off sharply with distance. I can make a difference by keeping hives with vastly higher drone proportions than those held by most surrounding hives (though not any flourishing ferals), as most beekeepers work at keeping drone numbers down. 

And drones supply only 1/3rd of the genetic material. That gives me direct control over 2/3rds. That is ample for the level of influence I need.



jonathan said:


> You may also have overlooked that the evolutionary significance of drone congregation areas at some distance is to minimise a queen mating with closely related drones and maximise her contact with unrelated drones.


That's not a problem for me. I can offer my virgins drones from 30 unrelated hives (already). And I don't mind in the least if they take 80% of their sperm from non-resistant bees. 



jonathan said:


> Bottom line is you need far more colonies or you need to be working with a group of beekeepers with similar aims.


The truth is thats a guess, and it can't be substantiated by data. Nor does it hold up as a valid statement; for this reason. The number of hives you need depends on other critical factors. Foremost: The population numbers surrounding, and the qualities of those surrounding colonies.

If you are surrounded by large numbers of treatment-dependent bees, you'll have an uphill struggle.

If you have nothing but self-suffient ferals around it'll be like falling off a log.

And everything in between.

So statements of the sort you are making here are a nonsense. 

Mike (UK)

PS Don't forget question (A)


----------



## Rolande

> All I know is that so far about half have been 'winnowed', and most of the remainder are flourishing. *This is the Kefuss approach.* It doesn't matter _how_ it works. It just matters _that_ it works.


Before taking this approach Kefuss was already both a trained scientist and a very experienced bee breeder. I don't claim to know whether that helped his chances of success or not but I'd hazard a guess that it did.

It's fine winnowing out the ones which aren't going to make it otherwise, but equally, you really need to know what to do with the survivors. This is something that a lot of people who promote the 'Kefuss' method seem to ignore.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> And you should engage in constructive discourse. I've urged you to address a particular question. You haven't responded. Until you do we can see there is an uncomfortable hole in your reasoning.


I know the feeling Mike, I have urged you to address a particular question. You haven't responded. Interested to know if you have done any breeding, rather than just collecting. Have asked several times if you have raised any queens and if so how many.

The response has been total silence on the matter.

If you are to question other people and demand they answer, shouldn't you lead the way by example? Cos at this stage, you are not.

Peoples theories carry more weight, if they have tried them.


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> and drones supply only 1/3rd of the genetic material. That gives me direct control over 2/3rds. That is ample for the level of influence i need.


lol


----------



## Oldtimer

Only sense I can make of Mikes statement is he is confused over mitochondrial DNA.

IE, 1 part nucleic DNA from male, 1 part nucleic DNA from female, and, mitochondrial DNA. Would sound logical to someone who works in the kind of framework through which Mike see the world?

Doubt any proper geneticist would subscribe to a practical effect much different to 1/2 each though, which is the normal understanding.


----------



## jonathan

Maybe the ferals in Kent are triploid!


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Maybe its time to rethink passing up on that IBRA membership, Mike. 

Here again is that link to join ...
http://www.ibra.org.uk/categories/Join-IBRA


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> Before taking this approach Kefuss was already both a trained scientist and a very experienced bee breeder. I don't claim to know whether that helped his chances of success or not but I'd hazard a guess that it did.


I'm sure it did! (He took his doctorate under Ruttner.)

That's one of the strongest reasons I have for talking his advice: following his method, believing that by doing so I stand a good chance of succeeding (because that's what he - and my other top sources -teach). I also follow his standpoint on the intricacies of the biology: I don't need to know. 

I need to know how to husband genes in the time tested way. I need to know how to apply that to the awkward insect at hand.

That's all. 



Rolande said:


> It's fine winnowing out the ones which aren't going to make it otherwise, but equally, you really need to know what to do with the survivors. This is something that a lot of people who promote the 'Kefuss' method seem to ignore.


You multiply them, carefully assay them, promote the best: repeat! Takes a little thought to get to good ways of doing that, but it isn't hard.

And you also take the view: _what is my alternative here_?

1) Do I make increase at random?

2) Do I make increase from the weakest?

3) Do I make increase from my best?

Do you do what every other husbandryman in every field of husbandry does, and has done since farming began, or do you do the opposite?

What do you do Roland? 1), 2) or 3)?

Jonathan? 1), 2) or 3)?

Other?

Please give your reasons. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Maybe the ferals in Kent are triploid!


Fair cop, not clever. 

I still get plenty of control. Consider one of the most respected writers from the period before the veterinary model of 'husbandry' was adapted:

"In most farm stock stress is laid particularly on the male because he may
sire a large number of offspring, whereas the direct progeny of the
female are very limited in number. Now we breeders of hive-bees
have the great advantage over those who have to do with most
domestic animals in that from one desirable breeding queen we can
readily produce a virtually unlimited number of young queens.
Though in a state of nature a honey-bee queen would only produce
half a dozen or so daughter queens, and maybe a couple of thousand
drones, in the hands of a competent breeder she can be made to give
an almost unlimited number of both.

It is usually considered that too much in-breeding may lead to
deterioration in the stamina and fecundity of animals, though about
this there is some disagreement. When there is no trace of any bad or
degenerate strain in the stock, in-breeding does no harm, I think; but
unless one is quite sure that this is the case, it is probably better to
arrange, as far as possible, in our breeding apiaries, that the drones
flying there shall be produced by queens of the very highest
character, while the young queens with which they are expected to
mate shall be derived from breeder queens of a different strain, but
equally outstanding qualities. In this way, although it is impossible to
be certain that all matings will be as desired, yet it can be managed
that a very large proportion of our young queens will be the product
of the male and female parents from which we wish them to be
derived."

R.O.B. Manley, Honey Farming, page 62 of the pdf, 83 of the book
http://www.biobees.com/library/gene...ping_books_articles/HoneyFarmingROBManley.pdf

Manley, note, didn't know about multple matings - or of course a whole warehouse of other biology. He didn't need to. He knew how husbandry is done, and how to apply it to bees. And that's all he needed to know.

Mike (UK)

PS how are you getting along with that Question (A) Jonathan? Post 392 about halfway down. http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...rking-up-the-wrong-tree&p=1093363#post1093363


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> I know the feeling Mike, I have urged you to address a particular question. You haven't responded. Interested to know if you have done any breeding, rather than just collecting. Have asked several times if you have raised any queens and if so how many.


Alistair, 

As you know I don't open your posts right now. If you want to ask questions, keep the lines of communications open by being civilised. Always.

I have responded to both these questions before - on this thread and other that you've attended. I've outlined my history, and given the number of queens raised by grafting as about 40. Maybe twice as many have been raised by notching cells, walk-away splits, nucs made from queen cells etc. 

Please don't expect any more replies until after 17th May as outlined. 

And then bear in mind: asking the same question over and over as if it hasn't been answered will always count as uncivilised behaviour. Its just being mischievious and disruptive. Its dishonest. In my book these things are beyond contempt.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rolande

Mike, I'm busy enough through the next six weeks (and I'm probably away during the last week of June too) but if you wish to come down to see us at some point in June, July or August on a mutually acceptable day, have a look around our mating apiary, see what we're doing, take some photos (I know that you don't have a camera at the moment but I can lend you one, I'll download the photos and send the file to an email address of your choosing -you can watch me do that so that there's never any question that I may have edited out anything), visit some production colonies and have a field cooked meal you're welcome to do so. I'll then come over to your place the following week so that you can show me how you do things.


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> Mike, I'm busy enough through the next six weeks (and I'm probably away during the last week of June too) but if you wish to come down to see us at some point in June, July or August on a mutually acceptable day, have a look around our mating apiary, see what we're doing, take some photos (I know that you don't have a camera at the moment but I can lend you one, I'll download the photos and send the file to an email address of your choosing -you can watch me do that so that there's never any question that I may have edited out anything) visit some production colonies and have a field cooked meal you're welcome to do so. I'll then come over to your place the following week so that you can show me how you do things.


That's a lovely invitation Roland, thank you. Sadly my old banger won't carry me that far, and I'm too skint to make the trip anyway - but you are very welcome to visit me anytime. I'll show you round and we can yak about the ins and outs of it all. I'll even throw in a bottle or two of my prize winning cider (another Kent 1st just last week, going into the Nationals next week!) and send you away with a young traditional apple apple tree of your choosing to remember me by!

What about that 1, 2, 3 Roland? Are you going with 2? 

All the best,

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rolande

mike bispham said:


> Manley, note, didn't know about multple matings - or of course a whole lot of other biology. He didn't need to. *He knew how husbandry is done, and how to apply it to bees. And that's all he needed to know.*


I've long been a 'fan' of Manley's writings but before making such definitive statements I reckon that we all need to know a lot more about what was going on in his apiaries -John Rawson in his book 'The World of a Bee Farmer' reprinted an interesting letter from Manley, written in the early 60's, which paints far from a rosy picture of his bee business at that time, a situation that appears not to have been replicated in the harvests secured from the apiaries ran by Brother Adam. So, I wonder how much better he'd have done if he'd known more than


> all he needed to know


?


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> I've long been a 'fan' of Manley's writings but before making such definitive statements I reckon that we all need to know a lot more about what was going on in his apiaries -John Rawson in his book 'The World of a Bee Farmer' reprinted an interesting letter from Manley, written in the early 60's, which paints far from a rosy picture of his bee business at that time, a situation that appears not to have been replicated in the harvests secured from the apiaries ran by Brother Adam. So, I wonder how much better he'd have done if he'd known more than ?


All organic businesses have good and bad periods - always have had, still do. I wouldn't read too much into that.

I certainly wouldn't abandon the fundamentals of husbandry just because Manley hit a rough patch while someone else has an easier time of it! I've no doubt whatsoever that Bro Adam had his good and bad years too. 

You can always know more. The trick is to start with the fundamentals...

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rolande

mike bispham said:


> Sadly my old banger won't carry me that far, and I'm too skint to make the trip anyway - but you are very welcome to visit me anytime. I'll show you round and we can yak about the ins and outs of it all. I'll even throw in a bottle or two of my prize winning cider (another Kent 1st just last week, going into the Nationals next week!) and send you away with a young traditional apple apple tree of your choosing to remember me by!


I also have some on/off transport issues at present but will, if we can agree on a day, hitch over to you -as Norman Rice wrote in his book 'Queensland', we should never let the lack of proper kit get in the way of a good idea 

I'll have to pass on the cider, being tea-total, but it sounds good and I would once have enjoyed a glass. edit: Good Luck with it in the Nationals.


----------



## Rolande

mike bispham said:


> You can always know more. The trick is to start with the fundamentals...


Did that back in the seventies at the knees of my grandparents, uncles and aunt. You?


----------



## Rolande

mike bispham said:


> 1) Do I make increase at random?
> 
> 2) Do I make increase from the weakest?
> 
> 3) Do I make increase from my best?
> 
> 
> Please give your reasons.


We use the weakest of the otherwise healthy ones to power the increase from what we deem to be the best. But what's the 'best'? It got to change through necessity according to overall numbers but in our case it's rearing queens from the top 50% of all of our colonies, reassessed each year. Now, how do you do it Mike?


----------



## jonathan

Re. your question 'A'
You can of course select for the traits you want through active management.
When you stop actively managing your bees they will revert to the mean of the background population very quickly.
25 colonies is not enough to change that especially when they may well be no different from the background population in your neighbourhood anyway.
You need to be working with the other beekeepers in your area.
Try and convince people not to import queens and stir up the gene pool.
After a number of generations the population will start to stabilise.
Bear in mind that some traits are simple to select for based on simple Mendelian dominant recessive inheritance.
Others are not.


----------



## mbc

We probably all know beekeepers who have their own 'strain', developed after years of selection, and I think even after the beekeeper has passed on, the background population of bees in the area have a legacy of keeping similar traits to the 'strain' for many years, certainly this was the case pre varroa.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> As you know I don't open your posts right now. If you want to ask questions, keep the lines of communications open by being civilised. Always.
> 
> I have responded to both these questions before - on this thread and other that you've attended. I've outlined my history, and given the number of queens raised by grafting as about 40. Maybe twice as many have been raised by notching cells, walk-away splits, nucs made from queen cells etc.


Thanks Mike, and I am fully aware you always read my posts. Specially since you just quoted my last one. 

I was not really asking the same question about how many queens you have raised, more seeking clarification as your previous answer was ambiguous. You have mentioned raising 40 queens, but it was not clear if you really meant you grafted 40 cells but only ended up with 2 queens, or if you meant you got 40 cells or virgins, or if you meant you ended up with 40 mated queens. Apart from the ambiguous reply, the maths didn't quite work out if you were inferring you raised 40 queens, when you claim to have 27 hives. 

40 seems like a nice round number. The kind of number someone might pluck from the air.

I was really just curious as at the time I asked, you were dispensing so much advice about how to raise queens. As someone who has raised a few myself I was just wondering what practical experience level I should attach to your advice, I always favour real experience over theory.

Another one of your interesting theories, being that your queens pass 2/3rds of their genetics to their offspring, and only 1/3 of the drones genetics to their offspring, was another new thing I have learned. Could you expand on this please?

And do answer, or you cannot argue that anyone should answer you. Hiding behind your nanny stool is rather weak.


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> Did that back in the seventies at the knees of my grandparents, uncles and aunt. You?


Eighties with the help of an ancient countryman (and 3rd generation gardener/beekeeper dog/ferret/you-name-it maker/agricultural labourer), a late middle age commercial beekeeper, Biology lessons 15 or more years earlier from a school that actually had a farm and kept bees - our Biology teacher, a farmer ran it (his name, unbelievably, was Percy), and a fair bit of deeper priming from Richard Dawkins and others - The Selfish Gene was making a lot of waves at that time.

We'll keep in touch on the visit - I'll look forward to it.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> We use the weakest of the otherwise healthy ones to power the increase from what we deem to be the best. But what's the 'best'? It got to change through necessity according to overall numbers but in our case it's rearing queens from the top 50% of all of our colonies, reassessed each year. Now, how do you do it Mike?


I'm not quite clear on your method there Roland - could you have another go?

I'm working at giving all equal opportunity to flourish, and then taking the oldest and biggest/most productive. This year that will be from 3 having their 3rd summer with me, and another 2 I collected last year with very good provenance. I'll make a scattering from others. Most will mate in may main yard, but some will mate in at a couple of my outstands where I have strong hives and prospects are good for ferals.

At this time I only have three candidates for requeening. The rest seem to be doing well - but I'm expecting differences to show up as time goes by.

That's an outline of the evaluation method. There is a bit more fine tuning. 

The main thing is: no treatments, no manipulations, no accidental manipulations. I want by bees showing their colours properly, on a level playing field. 

If you can suggest any improvements to that I'll be grateful.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Re. your question 'A'
> You can of course select for the traits you want through active management.


Thank you. That includes the heritable traits that convey resistance to varroa, yes?



jonathan said:


> When you stop actively managing your bees they will revert to the mean of the background population very quickly.


If you stop selecting - managing the population characteristics - yes. And if you manage the individuals with medications they quickly lose pretty much all resistance to whatever it was you are medicating against.



jonathan said:


> 25 colonies is not enough to change that especially when they may well be no different from the background population in your neighbourhood anyway.


Assumption times assumption, both ignoring the facts I've already given you. My top bees have already thrived through two seasons without any help. Several come from well attested long lived feral colonies. Most of the rest are more than half their progeny. They're not agricultural bees. 

As I outlined for you yesterday, the number of colonies required is dependent on local circumstances. I have a good idea of my local circumstances, and I know my level of influence. Its good enough. 

I don't know why you have to be so obsessively downbeat about my efforts. Is it just because I've pointed out flaws in your own plans?



jonathan said:


> You need to be working with the other beekeepers in your area.


It would be helpful, but it won't be necessary where I am. I'm aiming to go to 100 coloines this year. I could go further. Adding in drone raising will give me considerable paternal clout - and I have full control on the maternal side. And I don't need to achieve anything more than a gradual raising of the best alelles in the population. I'll be passing my resistance out to local ferals and local beekeepers. 



jonathan said:


> After a number of generations the population will start to stabilise.


That'll happen. 



jonathan said:


> Bear in mind that some traits are simple to select for based on simple Mendelian dominant recessive inheritance. Others are not.


I know. But remember, I don't need to know the details. I just need to push the winners through firmly and persistantly..

It sounds like I might have actually convinced you that I'm not wasting my time Jonathan?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rolande

mike bispham said:


> mike bispham said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite clear on your method there Roland - could you have another go?
> 
> 
> 
> Not the first time that I've been told that I talk nonsense, but perhaps the nicest way
> 
> 
> 
> mike bispham said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm working at giving all equal opportunity to flourish, and then taking the oldest and biggest/most productive. This year that will be from 3 having their 3rd summer with me, and another 2 I collected last year with very good provenance. I'll make a scattering from others. Most will mate in may main yard, but some will mate in at a couple of my outstands where I have strong hives and prospects are good for ferals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that as you're planning to raise queens from 5 out of +/- 30 colonies. We'd be aiming to raise queens from the 'top' half of those 30 (based on various traits which we like), so 15 or so mothers. All mated in mini nucs for initial observation; then the first (from each queen) that we like the look of are used to requeen the 'bottom' half of the original +/-30 colonies. Once we've done that we get on with making increase by splitting the less productive healthy colonies into nucs and requeening. Just our way of doing things which won't suit a lot of people, we've all got different goals. We don't make too much effort with the drones as we're working with a mixed race bee in an area where people often buy in new stock (which changes with fashion). This last _may_ change in the future after we ourselves purchase some new stock later this summer -but we'll need to see how they actually perform before getting too tied in.
Click to expand...


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> I read that as you're planning to raise queens from 5 out of +/- 30 colonies.


Mostly - more than half say. But I'll take a good scattering from all the other promising stock. I have a rough evolving scorecard system - but for now I'm doing it in my head - looking to the good elders first.



Rolande said:


> We'd be aiming to raise queens from the 'top' half of those 30 (based on various traits which we like), so 15 or so mothers.


So far so good...



Rolande said:


> All mated in mini nucs for initial observation; then the first (from each queen) that we like the look of are used to requeen the 'bottom' half of the original +/-30 colonies.


Of 15 sets of grafts, the mateds that you like the look of (15 - one from each of the original selection) used to requeen the lower 15. Got it. 

I think my system might be a bit less picky at the early stages, and geared more to giving all an equal shot, with emphasis and time (2 - 3 years) taken to evaluate well. Then maybe I'll concentrate a bit more. I also want to be able to see actual honey production, so I'm keeping all hives under evaluation as working hives - no pinching comb or brood for nucs because that would upset the comparisons. Comb, brood and bees for nucs come from dedicated long hives (a la Manley).

I'm currently waiting for my drone numbers to come up, and making comb and bees to use in nucs. When I'm ready I'll go quite hard at queen raising and mating, then setting up near identical nucs. And taking calls about bumble bees.... & 2 good swarms so far - one from a church literally surrounded by rape, beans and freshwater marsh with rough and mixed woodland within 1/4 mile... good country if the chems don't get them. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Most observers reckon that you need a minimum of about 150 colonies to start bee breeding and bee improvement.


Jonathan,

That's an improvement on Oldtimer's 600; this is from notes from a talk given to Irish beekeepers by Prof Ratneiks of Sussex University - I don't know when but judging from the rest of the notes within the last 18 months or so. Did you not go?:

"Colony can be hygienic if only 1
or 2 patrilines are hygienic."

"What Do Irish Beekeepers Need to Do?
• 20 colonies
• Some training in methods for detecting hygienic colonies
• Linked in to queen rearing
• Testing colonies and stock maintenance
• Do Nothing: May happen naturally
• Colony can be hygienic even if only 20% worker bees are
• Past selection for resistance actually selected for hygiene
• Brown line (Iowa USA)
• Suppressed Mite Reproduction/Varroa Sensitive Hygiene"

"When a queen carrying hygienic genes mates, it is likely that 1 or 2 of
the males she mates with will also carry hygienic genes, so resulting in a
colony that is hygienic even though not all the workers are hygienic."

Hygienic Behaviour
School of Life Sciences
University of Sussex
Francis L. W. Ratnieks"

It isn't explicit but it looks to me like the top specialist in the UK reckons: 

"20 colonies".

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan

I heard him speak at Greenmount conference a couple of years ago.
He was also at a bee disease symposium near Dublin around the same time but I was out of the country.
Put up a link to the notes. 
You can't infer much from those notes without having the context.
20 colonies per apiary, 20 colonies altogether?

Found this collection showing his slide presentation.
He used quite a few of these at the presentation I saw.

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=hygieneworkshop2011-handout.pdf&site=60

Among other things he is grafting from known hygienic queens, and using DNA work to eliminate the virgins without the trait.



> Intracolony Selection
> Behavioural Dominance
> Not all bees in a hygienic colony are hygienic
> 1.
> Obtain hygienic colonies
> Find our which “patrilines
> ” are hygienic
> observation hive: observe workers
> genetic markers (DNA microsatellites)
> 2.
> Rear queens from hygienic colony
> DNA test on virgin queens
> Keep only queens of hygienic
> patrilines
> Allow to mate or inseminate.


He also mentions that beekeeper involvement is essential. I presume he means more than just one beekeeper as that would be rather stating the obvious.
Also bear in mind that he is talking about hygienic behaviour as opposed to VSH.

Does not sound very much like your approach.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Put up a link to the notes.


That's a bit abrupt Jonathan?

I don't know of a link. They were sent to me in a private communication and are not in the public domain as far as I know. 



jonathan said:


> You can't infer much from those notes without having the context.


These slides tell you lots, and you can infer lots more. But you must be careful not to over extend your inferences. 



jonathan said:


> 20 colonies per apiary, 20 colonies altogether?


There is no indication of multiple apiaries. There is indication of what beekeepers can do. Of course it will help to work together locally, and no doubt he'll be teaching that, as Marla Spivak does.



jonathan said:


> Found this collection showing his slide presentation.
> He used quite a few of these at the presentation I saw.


Looks like the slide collection I have which came with the notes.



jonathan said:


> Among other things he is grafting from known hygienic queens, and using DNA work to eliminate the virgins without the trait.


Yes. Much quicker than waiting for desirable traits to show. However, the long way does have the advantage of bringing up the whole range of desirable traits, in the sorts of proportions that work best at that time and place. 

I think Ratnieks approach is suited to treatment-dependent apiaries, which are in a hole that is hard to get out of. The basic traditional method might be better for those of us not needing to maintain continuous production, and with the patience to wait for real-world results. Ours will be well rounded, rather than narrowly equipped bees.



jonathan said:


> He also mentions that beekeeper involvement is essential. I presume he means more than just one beekeeper as that would be rather stating the obvious.


We'd also need to understand the context of that statement more widely. Essential for what? A long term solution? Probably that's what he means; and with that will be the understanding that what beekeepers are needed _for _is the continuous assay and selection needed to maintain resistance. I.e. traditional husbandry...



jonathan said:


> Does not sound very much like your approach.


The commonality is: the solution to varroa is selective propagation. That is fundamental to both. Its fundamental to all husbandry. He's working on methods to help beekeepers out of a hole. I'm working on methods to improve my already resistant stock. But its all breeding. Its always essential. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> That's a bit abrupt Jonathan?
> 
> I don't know of a link. They were sent to me in a private communication and are not in the public domain as far as I know.


Sorry, I thought they were on a site somewhere.
May or not be an accurate account then.
The stuff from the Sussex website is probably a better starting place.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> The stuff from the Sussex website is probably a better starting place.


Some extracts (from your link):

'Hygienic Behaviour Training Workshop'

'Goals: To extend knowledge to beekeepers and others.'

The Sussex Plan for Honey
Bee Health & Well Being

Breeding Hygienic Honey Bees

Frozen (Nitrogen) brood assays

[Hygienic Behaviour]
• Discovered c. 1930s in USA in connection to AFB research
chewing out of contaminated comb to remove scales
removal of cell cappings; removal of dead brood (“Brown” line)
• Found in honey bees wherever it has been looked for
• Always quite rare, c.10% colonies are hygienic
• Heritable (meaning it can be bred for)
• Environmental effects (nectar flow etc., affect performance)
• Behavioural dominance (20% hygienic workers make colony hygienic)
• Can prevent brood diseases (AFB, Chalkbrood)
• Can slow down growth of Varroa population in a hygienic colony
• Hygienic colonies yielded same or more honey as non-hygienic
• Testing: with diseased brood; cyanide-killed brood; freeze-killed brood
• Liquid nitrogen: can be used to freeze-kill brood in 5 mins in the apiary

Intracolony Selection
Behavioural Dominance
Not all bees in a hygienic colony are hygienic

[Method]
1. Obtain hygienic colonies
Find our which “patrilines” are hygienic
observation hive: observe workers
genetic markers (DNA microsatellites)

2.Rear queens from hygienic colony
DNA test on virgin queens
Keep only queens of hygienic patrilines
Allow to mate or inseminate

----------------------------------------

This business of intracolony selection looks very interesting, but until dna testing is readily availlable and cheap I don't think it has any use for us. I think its the only thing that is actually new - the rest is a rehash of American work as far as I can see.

The way I see it, it isn't a complete solution. But its a start, a selection component that can be used as part of a larger assay system, helpful where apiaries are treatment dependent (and wishing to raise resistance). 

Its also useful to breeders wanting to raise hygienic queens for sale.

I think its worth noting that for any particular trait (like hygiene) we need to distinguish between different levels of trait-carrying.

For a 'top-level breeder queen' ideally we'd want both copies of dna to hold the trait, and for all matings to be with trait-carrying drones. That would supply a 100% probability that all offspring would have it, and would therefore make similar 'top-level breeder queens' - assuming, again, all matings are sound.

But those queens couldn't head colonies. They'd have far too many hygienic offspring. So the next step down would be a queen carrying two copies of the alelle in the queen, again, and open mating supplying a better balance of the hygienic trait. 

This queen would be capable of heading her own colony, and would offer a very reasonable probability of hygienic offspring colonies in even the worst of mating conditions. By she might be too hygenic in the best of mating conditions.

The last step is a queen carrying a single copy of the required alelle mated by a range of drones, of whom a reasonable number also carry the hygienic allele. That would be the ideal scenario.

Does this accord, even roughly, with commercial breeder's methods? Are any here?

But this is only one desirable trait. We need a range of traits, attuned to the present environment, and the only way we are going to know which queens have them is through real-life tests. That is: which thrive, on an ongoing basis, on their internal resources? 

This brings me back to the idea that bee breeding is much more about real life right-now evolutionary factors than biology. You have to husband, skillfully, and in the case of the open mated bee you have to husband - to the degree you can - your own local population. That means when things are against you (treated colonies) pushing harder than when things are with you (absence of treated hives and thriving ferals). 

In the same way, and for those reasons, knowing how to husband genes down through the generations is a more fundamental skill than biological knowledge. Its essential, where biological knowledge isn't.

These high tech breeding efforts can offer a new tool to help treatment dependent beekeepers over the bump of converting to treatment free. But they are all going to have to take up breeding as a permanant part of management themselves if they want locally self-sufficient bees. I'm sure a lot don't.

The alternative, centrally bred resistant bees is a great improvement on the present situation, but the objection that it degrades local genetic diversity is a real concern. As a temporary measure it has a role, but in the long term what we need are local resistant bees. That means 'population husbandry'. Or 'husbandry' as it used to be called.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> Does this accord, even roughly, with commercial breeder's methods? Are any here?




Do you mean someone like .... _Oldtimer_? :s



Are you now _asking _for his evaluation of your scheme? :scratch: :lpf:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> As a temporary measure it has a role, but in the long term what we need are local resistant bees.



In order to better understand your comment, I viewed the link in your signature - the one where you detail the problem and how to fix it. This part has me wondering ...



> It can be seen that modern beekeeping practice is the sole cause of the crisis affecting both wild and domestic bees. The solution lies in the hands of beekeepers and their regulators. Not only should stocks that need to be medicated in order to stay alive not be used for breeding, [HIGHLIGHT]they should not either be allowed to send their sickly genes into the wild, [/HIGHLIGHT]where they undermine the process of natural selection that would otherwise allow feral bees recover their health.
> 
> http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/



What mechanism should be employed to prevent drones from the 'medicated' colonies from flying to Drone Congregation Areas? :scratch:


----------



## sqkcrk

If modern beekeeping is the sole cause, should we simply stop keeping bees in a modern way? Since apparently the cause of the problem has been identified. Isn't the solution just as simple? Stop keeping bees and the problem will sort itself out. Mike Bispham first.

If husbandry is the problem, stop husbanding.


----------



## peterloringborst

> It can be seen that modern beekeeping practice is the sole cause of the crisis affecting both wild and domestic bees.


This is a perfect example of someone looking at a very complex problem and suggesting that there is a simple explanation. It can only be seen this way if one ignores 99.44% of the facts and focuses only on the content of one's own imagination. Write a fairy tale, you will have better luck at that.


----------



## Dominic

Rader Sidetrack said:


> In order to better understand your comment, I viewed the link in your signature - the one where you detail the problem and how to fix it. This part has me wondering ...
> 
> What mechanism should be employed to prevent drones from the 'medicated' colonies from flying to Drone Congregation Areas? :scratch:


I won't comment on the rest, but using green drone frames as varroa traps can have an impact on how much mature drones a colony produces.


----------



## mbc

peterloringborst said:


> This is a perfect example of someone looking at a very complex problem and suggesting that there is a simple explanation. It can only be seen this way if one ignores 99.44% of the facts and focuses only on the content of one's own imagination. Write a fairy tale, you will have better luck at that.


While not offering a viable solution, there is no denying the statement you quoted is true to a point, though to call modern beekeeping practice the *sole* cause does miss the odd bit of change of land use, vectors for pathogen spread other than beekeeping and some other factors that change the environment.
The solution has to be a bee that will survive whatever the current environment is, warts and all, including the practices of modern beekeepers and agronomists.


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> What mechanism should be employed to prevent drones from the 'medicated' colonies from flying to Drone Congregation Areas? [/COLOR]:scratch:


Any and all mechanisms would be helpful. Not treating would be a start. Minimising drone populations would be useful. 

If you want treatment dependent bees, promote treatment dependent drone populations. If you don't, work backwards from there.


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> If modern beekeeping is the sole cause, should we simply stop keeping bees in a modern way?


That would work, yes.



sqkcrk said:


> Since apparently the cause of the problem has been identified. Isn't the solution just as simple? Stop keeping bees and the problem will sort itself out.


Its never going to happen, so we'll have to think of other things. 



sqkcrk said:


> Mike Bispham first.


I don't treat. I don't maintain treatment-dependent bees. I'm not part of the problem of treatment-dependency. 



sqkcrk said:


> If husbandry is the problem, stop husbanding.


Poor, 'veterinary based' 'husbandry' is the probem. Learn to do husbandry properly offers the beginning of a solution. 

Have you really managed to miss that message altogether Mark?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> This is a perfect example of someone looking at a very complex problem and suggesting that there is a simple explanation.


This is a perfect example of someone imagining the problem is complex. It isn't. Good husbandrymen can see that.



peterloringborst said:


> It can only be seen this way if one ignores 99.44% of the facts....


The trick is to separate the fundamentals from the subsequent. Yes, there are plenty of biological facts. But in our case the evolutionary/husbandry understanding is prior. And simple.

Priority of cause is perhaps a bit unfamiliar. Lets have an example:

Imagine a man and his wife driving. They go through a large puddle, and a couple of miles later the car stops and won't start. The man diagnoses an electrical fault and explains the details of ignition coils and high tension leads to his wife. She begins to offer a thought, but is cut short with further details of high tension electricity, and its application here, initiating combustion within the cylinders. Again she tries to say something, but the man again interrupts and begins to explain the 4-stroke cycle and the need for a power stroke, how energy is converted to motion through the crankshaft and transmitted to the wheels. 

He knows how cars work, and he knows she doesn't. Try it once more she says. As soon as the ignition is switched on she points wordlessly to the fuel guage, which of course registers empty.

The knowledge that the car needs fuel to go, and that it has run out, _was all that was needed all the time_. No-one needed to know anything about ignition coils or high tension leads, or the combustion stroke, or any of the rest of it. 

But the man needed to protect his self-image as someone who knows how cars work, and could therefore diagnose the fault.

That's about where we are here. The fundamental here - equivalent to 'cars need fuel to go' - is that to get bees that don't need treating, _you must make them out of bees that don't need treating_. 

Thats all. Its not complicated. Lots of people are doing it. There are many different approaches, but that is the fundamental.

The negative is also true, and fundamental. _If you make bees from bees that need treating, you will get more bees that need treating_. 

I'm sorry if that means you been wasting lots of time poring over every last detail of the biological facts, keeping up with all the latest papers. I'm sorry that all that biological knowledge has turned out to be unwanted. But there it is. 

The fundamental in play here is that: if you don't husband your bees genes well you will need to keep treating them. That's what Prof Ratneiks, Marla Spivak and all the rest are telling us. That's fundamental husbandry, based firmly in empirical experience and bio-evolutionary understanding. 

_If your 99.44% of the facts are irrelevant Peter, then they can safely be ignored. _ 

Evaluate, assay, propagate only from the best at whatever trait it is you want. You may not succeed, but if you don't try that route then you most certainly won't get anywhere.

That can't be taken away, no matter how deep you go in biology. Because .. it is a fundamental. Fundamentals can't be undone. 

There is, you are right, a very real complexity overlying those facts. But nothing in that complexity undoes any of the above. It always remains true.

That complexity is: how do we change beekeeping approaches, given that there appears to be a fiscal cost - and not inconsiderable risk - to trying to move toward treatment-free approaches? How do we overcome the competitive disadvantages that lie that way? 

That is a complex problem, and its one that the researchers are aware of, and their work is geared in good part to addressing that.

Pretending the bio-evolutionary facts are other than they are doesn't help those very real problems.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Do you mean someone like .... _Oldtimer_?
> 
> 
> Are you now _asking _for his evaluation of your scheme?


I doubt he would want my evaluation, it would be real world experience, and would conflict with the theoretical dogma on his site, written 5 years ago before he had bees.

The writings on this site have since been held up as the gold standard, ultimate unchanging truth, and even after keeping some real bees and reading stuff written by experienced beekeepers he has learned nothing further. I guess it's impossible for someone who knows everything, to be able to learn something new.

It is this attitude that has caused such anachronisms as a man who has spent 5 years lecturing the rest of the world how to breed bees, to take 5 years to get to a point where he is going to attempt to raise some himself. 50 per month I've been told, my view, won't happen. I've lumped that in with the rest of the theory and pipe dreams, if I see it I'll believe it.

The guy will not answer questions from me, they are too hard for him, see next post for example.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I can make a difference by keeping hives with vastly higher drone proportions than those held by most surrounding hives (though not any flourishing ferals), as most beekeepers work at keeping drone numbers down.
> 
> And drones supply only 1/3rd of the genetic material. That gives me direct control over 2/3rds. That is ample for the level of influence I need.


Mike your statement is wrong. (Again).

I am not familiar with bees in Kent. But for other bees, the drones contribute more than 1/3rd of the genetic material, nucleic genetic material is 1/2 each for practical purposes, check it out.

I have previously asked you to expand on your statement, but thus far, silence. You have been unable to explain.

Care to give it a try?

Just, of late you have been lecturing to us on genetics. If you could understand some of the absolute basics, it could lend more credence to the rest of your lectures. Here, you have one of the most simple of the genetic concepts, totally wrong. I am not inspired with confidence in much else you have to say on the subject.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Not only should stocks that need to be medicated in order to stay alive not be used for breeding, they should not either be allowed to send their sickly genes into the wild ...

In response to my question about somehow stopping drones from medicated hives going off to local DCAs, you responded ...



mike bispham said:


> Any and all mechanisms would be helpful. [HIGHLIGHT]Not treating would be a start.[/HIGHLIGHT] Minimising drone populations would be useful.


But Mike, you yourself have promoted _treating _bees! For instance, this thread:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...e-raising-system&highlight=treating+treatment
that _you started_ is all about treating non-resistant bees in your apiary, although in that thread you would immediately requeen, allegedly so the replacement breeding queen is not contaminated by the treatment.


However, the drones that the previous queen laid and the "UN-RESISTANT" colony raised have all been off visiting local DCAs and spreading their genes! That is, genes from your colonies that were NOT resistant (otherwise you wouldn't have treated them) are being spread around via local DCAs. 

So on your website you are railing against other beekeepers spreading around genes from medicated hives, and yet here at Beesource you are promoting the very action that you are complaining about. :scratch: 


Maybe this all needs a little more planning on your part? :s

.


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> But Mike, you yourself have promoted _treating _bees! For instance, this thread:
> http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...e-raising-system&highlight=treating+treatment
> that _you started_ is all about treating non-resistant bees in your apiary, although in that thread you would immediately requeen, allegedly so the replacement breeding queen is not contaminated by the treatment.


You've got that bit wrong Graham. I would consider treating a heavily infested hive to protect the incoming queen.



Rader Sidetrack said:


> However, the drones that the previous queen laid and the "UN-RESISTANT" colony raised have all been off visiting local DCAs and spreading their genes! That is, genes from your colonies that were NOT resistant (otherwise you wouldn't have treated them) are being spread around via local DCAs.


That's right. That's a bad thing. I should consider capturing and destroying any such drones.



Rader Sidetrack said:


> So on your website you are railing against other beekeepers spreading around genes from medicated hives, and yet here at Beesource you are promoting the very action that you are complaining about.


No I'm not. As soon as I spot that hives are vulnerable to varroa I'm getting rid of them, not supporting them. I'm not quite sure what I could do to avoid that - let me know if you have any ideas?



Rader Sidetrack said:


> Maybe this all needs a little more planning on your part?


Always. Thanks for helping.

Mike (UK)


----------



## peterloringborst

> to call modern beekeeping practice the sole cause does miss the odd bit of change of land use, vectors for pathogen spread other than beekeeping and some other factors that change the environment.


I submit that to call anything the sole cause of anything else misses the entire point which is that everything is interconnected. But beside that, the cry that the modern world is the cause of all our ailments and the only solution is to return to some idyllic state is not only false, but not even possible. So why hold up the impossible as a solution to anything?

Continuing, there is no such thing as the "modern world". This is the world we have and the world we have made. The solution(s) to problems lie in the future, in a different direction from the past. There is no possibility of returning to any past worlds, to argue about that is pointless and a waste of time.

The only way forward is to try to understand the entire complexity of the problem, and begin to work out practical solutions. Theories, if they are worth anything, must come from the assemblage of observable facts, not the other way round. To form a theory and then to try to shoehorn facts into it, is ignorant and deceitful.

The fact is, none of us is keeping bees in isolation. This is a global world and quarantines don't work for long. Nobody even knows how Nosema ceranae got to be everywhere, it happened before we realized it and now it's a done deal. In fact, the name implies that Apis cerana was the primary host, which may not even be true.

Viruses recombine, and the distinction between one and another is only evident through A) host specificity and B) molecular structure. Many viruses have been found to Not be host specific, so then we are left with B. 

This method resorts to identifying species and subspecies based on a few dozen base pairs in their DNA, which may or may not have any function at all, other than its use to use as a method of identification. For example, what is the function of fingerprints? And yet they are sufficiently unique to use for identity. But unique identity does not therefore confer function.

But I digress. Essentially, if one has a theory, it should be based on actual observations, and then borne out by experimentation. This experimentation ideally would be done by someone else, in order to confirm the objectivity of the results. 

For example, the theory is that removing drone brood can curtail mite buildup, because mites preferentially colonize drone brood. This is based on observation. I participated in a long term study where we showed that in fact removing the drone brood reduced the build up of mites. 

However, when I attempted to replicate the results with my own bees, the hives ended up with fatal numbers of drones by September. It appears that the real problem is not mite buildup at all but the bees bringing in mites from other colonies. SO, reality trumps theory every time.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Just, of late you have been lecturing to us on genetics. If you could understand some of the absolute basics, it could lend more credence to the rest of your lectures.


People have been saying this over and over. I suggest looking into the subject of the genetic basis of behavior. This is an exploding field with more questions than answers.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I submit that to call anything the sole cause of anything else misses the entire point which is that everything is interconnected.

Hear! Hear!


----------



## mike bispham

Michael Bush said:


> >I submit that to call anything the sole cause of anything else misses the entire point which is that everything is interconnected.
> 
> Hear! Hear!


So if your fuel guage shows empty, and your car won't go Michael, and you assume the position: 'its very likely my car won't go because it has no gas' you're doing something wrong?

That's what you're saying.

You are saying that in this situation a person should be thinking 'it might be the lack of gas, but maybe there's a little in the bottom of the talk, and the ignition system has broken'. And thinking simultaniously about dozens of other possibly cause of the no-go problem.

That's what this position amounts to.

I'm not denying there are other contributory factors. But breeding properly - husbanding the genes soundly - is a _necessary_ step.

I'm using that term 'necessary' in a specific way - a way that means -it has to be done or things will go wrong. It is _necessary_ that a car has fuel in order for it to go. You can't get around that.

It is equally _necessary _that bees possess a functional set of genes in order to function.

And its true to say such genes can only come from other bees that possess them.

Follow the logic. The world is a logical place.

Yes, its also necessary that bees are free from poisoning, that they have adequate forage.

But none of that takes away the _necessity_ to make them from bees that are equipped to perform as you want them to perform.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> People have been saying this over and over. I suggest looking into the subject of the genetic basis of behavior. This is an exploding field with more questions than answers.


That's exactly what breeding is. Its recognition that traits are heritable (through the mechanism of genes) and that parentage is the chief indicator of offspring capabilities - including behaviours.

Did I really just have to say that??

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I submit that to call anything the sole cause of anything else misses the entire point which is that everything is interconnected.


See what I just wrote to Michael Bush.

The trick with complex systems is to find the hidden rules that operate within the complexity.



peterloringborst said:


> But beside that, the cry that the modern world is the cause of all our ailments and the only solution is to return to some idyllic state is not only false, but not even possible. So why hold up the impossible as a solution to anything?


Because when the modern approach is unsustainable, you have no other choice. Because looking at methods that are sustainable supplies insights that will help temper the destructive effects. Because not everybody is a large commercial beekeeper forced to compete in a downward spiral. Because there are problems inhereing in the centralised breeding model that have no possible resultion. 

Because understanding how to do husbandry well is a valuable thing in its own right. 

I could think of more.



peterloringborst said:


> Continuing, there is no such thing as the "modern world". This is the world we have and the world we have made. The solution(s) to problems lie in the future, in a different direction from the past. There is no possibility of returning to any past worlds, to argue about that is pointless and a waste of time.


You may not have noticed Peter, but we are having to dramatically curtail many practices on the basis of their destructiveness, their evironmental unsustainability. If we don't there won't be a world left to keep bees in. 



peterloringborst said:


> The only way forward is to try to understand the entire complexity of the problem, and begin to work out practical solutions. Theories, if they are worth anything, must come from the assemblage of observable facts, not the other way round.


I don't know what makes you think I advocate 'theories'. That traits are inherited is a fact. That stock is, everywhere, raised on the principle 'make best from best' is a fact. That these practises mirror almost exactly the processes of natural selection for the fittest strains is a fact.

That this is the best way to keep stock is a fact. To ask for empirical demonstration is ludicrous - its empirically demonstrated in everything you eat.



peterloringborst said:


> To form a theory and then to try to shoehorn facts into it, is ignorant and deceitful.


I agree. I challenge you to show me where and how I've done any such thing - as that's the clear implication.



peterloringborst said:


> The fact is, none of us is keeping bees in isolation. [...] Viruses recombine, and the distinction between one and another is only evident through A) host specificity and B) molecular structure. Many viruses have been found to Not be host specific, so then we are left with B.


I've no problem with these statements. I'd question the value of this understanding to the problem of making healthy bees. 



peterloringborst said:


> This method resorts to identifying species and subspecies based on a few dozen base pairs in their DNA, which may or may not have any function at all, other than its use to use as a method of identification. For example, what is the function of fingerprints? And yet they are sufficiently unique to use for identity. But unique identity does not therefore confer function.


Quite. You are reinforcing my point about what knowledge is relevant.



peterloringborst said:


> Essentially, if one has a theory, it should be based on actual observations, and then borne out by experimentation. This experimentation ideally would be done by someone else, in order to confirm the objectivity of the results.


I agree. But as I've said above, to call the value of sound stock husbandry through control of parents (routine selective propagation) into question is absurd. To describe it as a 'theory' equally so.



peterloringborst said:


> For example, the theory is that removing drone brood can curtail mite buildup, because mites preferentially colonize drone brood. This is based on observation. I participated in a long term study where we showed that in fact removing the drone brood reduced the build up of mites.
> 
> However, when I attempted to replicate the results with my own bees, the hives ended up with fatal numbers of drones by September. It appears that the real problem is not mite buildup at all but the bees bringing in mites from other colonies. SO, reality trumps theory every time.


Yours was a single (informal) study, and you were unable to control the multiple alternative factors that might have made a difference. If the theory you were testing stated 'bees can _always_ be made to thrive by controlling varroa through removal of drone comb' then yes you've demonstrated a counterexample. But that was a pretty ambitious theory! No scientist would ever dream of testing it. 

It also appears that you failed to remove the drone brood?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> That's exactly what breeding is. Its recognition that traits are heritable (through the mechanism of genes) and that parentage is the chief indicator of offspring capabilities - including behaviours.
> 
> Did I really just have to say that??


No.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Like my neighbour's dog: doesn't stop barking all day and night.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Its recognition that traits are heritable (through the mechanism of genes) and that parentage is the chief indicator of offspring capabilities - including behaviours.


It is statements like this that demonstrate that you don't have any understanding of the problems that modern geneticists are working on, and especially people doing research into the genetic basis of behavior in the honey bee. In short, you simply do not know what you are talking about. For example:



> Social behavior encompasses a diversity of interactions between members of the same species, including courtship, aggression, aggregation and migration. Genetically accessible model organisms, such as Drosophila, C. elegans and mice, have been used to study the molecular basis of social behaviors such as courtship and aggression. _The molecular, neuronal and physiological mechanisms by which such social structures are established are poorly understood._
> 
> Gene expression profiling in social insect brains has revealed that differences in behavior among workers from the same colony are associated with widespread (_several 1000_) gene expression differences. Most of this work has been conducted in honeybees, where microarrays have been used to identify genes differentially expressed between nurses and foragers, and between inbred honeybees lines that differ in their aggressiveness.
> 
> Finally, our ability to explain and manipulate social behavior will only be as good as our ability to observe and measure it. High-resolution, quantitative analysis of behavior in social insect colonies will be necessary, and this requires the recognition of distinct individuals.
> 
> *The molecular basis of social behavior: models, methods and advances
> *Adria C LeBoeuf, Richard Benton and Laurent Keller
> Center for Integrative Genomics; Department of Ecology and Evolution
> Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland


Of course, if you have deep insights that will straighten these folks out, you are welcome to write to them.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> It is statements like this that demonstrate that you don't have any understanding of the problems that modern geneticists are working on, and especially people doing research into the genetic basis of behavior in the honey bee. In short, you simply do not know what you are talking about.


Peter there are zillions of things modern geneticists are working on. I don't need to know about any of them. I just need to know how to keep bees! I need to know what works and what doesn't. As to the whys, well you can go as deep as you can go (limited by access to literature and ability to follow it). But it's only worth investing time in things that will help me with my objective - to keep bees healthy without recourse to treatments or manipulations. The same is true for a great many beekeepers.

That was the objective you outlined at the beginning of this thread. 

Its seems that what you want is for nobody to understand how to keep their own bees healthy, and to be dependent on highly technical breeding outfits, 'central breeding'. And people like you who can (!) explain everything for them.

This seems to me to be a sort of priesthood - take away a perfectly good thing people have already got, and make them dependent on a class of specialists who will be paid to help them live with the resulting problems. To that end you are trying to 'blind us with science'. 

Or perhaps you really believe this nonsense. No beekeeper can do anything to fix his problems without an army of academics beavering away 24 hours a day to find a magic bullet solution.

I still don't know what exactly it is you find difficult about the concept that making healthy bees is far more likely to succeed when healthy parents are used than when unhealthy parents are used. That getting the traits you want in bees is farm more likely to happen if the parent bees have them.

Could you just enlighten me on that one simple point? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Like my neighbour's dog: doesn't stop barking all day and night.


Ad Hominem: (Wiki's) Class 1: Abusive:

"Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Civilized people find this sort of thing repugnant.


----------



## Oldtimer

What really happened was you made a statement that was a total waste of space, and then asked if you really had to post it.

Since you asked I supplied the answer, which was, no.

Bernhardt concurred and added the barking dog analogy. Which was fair comparison because a barking dog says pretty much the same thing every time it starts barking too.


----------



## peterloringborst

To intelligently discuss the genetic basis of behavior in bees, you have to read up on the current understanding



> Gottlieb argued that complex phenotypic traits, including behaviors, are
> not predetermined. Instead, they are creations of “reciprocal influences within and
> between levels of an organism’s developmental manifold (genetic activity, neural
> activity, behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural influences of the external
> environment) and the ubiquity of gene–environment interaction.”
> 
> In other words,
> genes depend on input from the phenotype and influence behavior in _a probabilistic
> rather than deterministic manner_. The gene and its current transcriptional state are
> only part of a complex picture that involves both present and previous states of the
> genotype/phenotype interactions.
> 
> Elucidating the Path from Genotype to Behavior in Honey Bees: Insights from Epigenomics
> Ryszard Maleszka, Research School of Biology , The Australian National University


----------



## Oldtimer

There has been some interesting human research done on that in Britain, on 600 sets of twins who where fostered at birth and raised in different families.

Since Mike is from those parts I'm surprised he has never heard of this well known study.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> "Finally, our ability to explain and manipulate social behavior will only be as good as our ability to observe and measure it. High-resolution, quantitative analysis of behavior in social insect colonies will be necessary, and this requires the recognition of distinct individuals."
> The molecular basis of social behavior: models, methods and advances
> Adria C LeBoeuf, Richard Benton and Laurent Keller
> Center for Integrative Genomics; Department of Ecology and Evolution
> Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland


Its is the long established norm in academic publishing to outline further areas of research, as informed by the contents of the paper. The rationale is the the people making the study are in a good position to indicate to the academic community rewarding areas of interest. 

It is usual as well to point to any factors might indicate a measure of urgency. An excellent example is the rubbish claim seen in far too many recent papers on the topic of bee health: that we're dependent on bees for 60% of our food [ref]. Brilliant for getting funding from agriculture departments. Utter tripe.

Both practices often help with future funding propects. The former especially will always be there. You shouldn't take them too seriously. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> To intelligently discuss the genetic basis of behavior in bees, you have to read up on the current understanding


Or you can say: the genes I want are emphatically more likely to come from bees made from bees that already have them, than from bees that don't. I don't need to know any more than that.

Can I return your attention to the question I asked you at the bottom of my post #446?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> Its is the long established norm in academic publishing to outline further areas of research, as informed by the contents of the paper. The rationale is the the people making the study are in a good position to indicate to the academic community rewarding areas of interest.
> 
> It is usual as well to point to any factors might indicate a measure of urgency. An excellent example is the rubbish claim seen in far too many recent papers on the topic of bee health: that we're dependent on bees for 60% of our food [ref]. Brilliant for getting funding from agriculture departments. Utter tripe.
> 
> Both practices often help with future funding propects. You shouldn't take them too seriously.


Like Peter said, since you have a better understanding than they do, contact them & share your insights.

I am sure these researchers will greatly benefit from your wisdom, and henceforward will be able to do their jobs properly instead of wasting public money.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> genes depend on input from the phenotype and influence behavior in a probabilistic rather than deterministic manner. The gene and its current transcriptional state are
> only part of a complex picture that involves both present and previous states of the
> genotype/phenotype interactions.


Epigenetics is a deeper account of the old Nature/Nurture issue. I pointed out early in the thread that we were in that territory.

The Nature side, the genetics is (at least) one half of the outcome (probably a gread deal more). You can't wish it away. If you don't have the genes coding for i.e. VSH in your parents, epigenitics isn't going to magic them up. These are soild objects: they can no more change than a golf ball can change into a radio.

And: _population husbandry subsumes both sides_. That is: whatever is working best - taking into account both Nature and Nurture - is carried forward through the simple mechanism of making best from (only) best.

Of course, the same is true of nurturing. If drafty hives work for the bees where you are, use drafty hives. Use a method alike to natural selection to determine the best methods of nurturing. But be aware of the consequences of developing bees reliant on you. 

Whatever nurturing the bees are doing themselves, in myriad ways, is stuff we can let them get on with. We don't need to know the detail. (And that comes from a bee scientist)

On the issue of probabalistic matters: 9/10ths of what occurs in husbandry is of a probablistic rather than deterministic nature. The character of meiosis dictates that. That's why we use analogies like 'a fresh throw of the dice', 'dealt a new hand.' And 'load the dice in our favour'. 

Nothing new there Peter.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> Nothing new there Peter.


Same old, from you too Mike.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> Follow the logic. The world is a logical place.
> 
> Yes, its also necessary that bees are free from poisoning, that they have adequate forage.


Bees need need suitable forage. Everyone agrees with that. 

But if it is true that "_the __world is a logical place_," Mike would _not _be claiming that beekeeping practice is the _*SOLE CAUSE*_ of the bee crisis. 


> It can be seen that modern [HIGHLIGHT]beekeeping practice is the sole cause[/HIGHLIGHT] of the crisis affecting both wild and domestic bees.
> 
> http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/


Availability of suitable forage for bees is not something that under the sole control of beekeepers. There are many different factors involved in forage that are not under the control of beekeepers.

In fact ...


> I submit that to call anything the sole cause of anything else misses the entire point which is [HIGHLIGHT]that everything is interconnected[/HIGHLIGHT].




:gh:

.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

> It can be seen that modern beekeeping practice is the sole cause of the crisis affecting both wild and domestic bees.


Yeah right - and modern beekeeping practice is also the sole cause for the massive dieouts of solitary bees and other pollinating insects like butterflies. There is a huge research project ongoing in Europe on butterflies, solitary bees and such. And there are species getting extinct at a very fast rate...sure it is varroa. Or the bad bad beekeeper.


PS: https://ncbnaturalis.nl/media/medialibrary/2013/08/2006_biesmeijer_pollinator_diversity.pdf


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Bees need need suitable forage. Everyone agrees with that.
> 
> But if it is true that "_the __world is a logical place_," Mike would _not _be claiming that beekeeping practice is the _*SOLE CAUSE*_ of the bee crisis.


Why is that Graham. What is your reasoning? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want some access to your thinking.



Rader Sidetrack said:


> Availability of suitable forage for bees is not something that under the sole control of beekeepers. There are many different factors involved in forage that are not under the control of beekeepers.


I agree. If you want to keep bees in the middle thousands of acres of wheat you're going to have a hard time of it. I'd have thought that was generally accepted as a given.



Rader Sidetrack said:


> In fact ...
> 
> "I submit that to call anything the sole cause of anything else misses the entire point which is that everything is interconnected"


Well, certainly its wider. Bees also need: air, somewhere suitable to nest, a source of water, freedom from poisoning, freedom from airplanes crashing on their hives, freedom from earthquakes... I could go on.

All these are givens. Given an otherwise suitable environment bees can flourish unless you take one of the essentials away. Among things like adequate forage is the freedom to adapt to an ever changing environment. Or a management routine that ensures that happens.

As to everything being connected to everything else... A bird landed on a branch in a tree outside my room this morning, then flew off, and no-one noticed. Can you tell me when that's going to affect you? 

Mike (UK)

PS If I was to speak about the distinction between _necessary_ and _sufficient_ causes (or conditions) would that mean anything to you?


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Yeah right - and modern beekeeping practice is also the sole cause for the massive dieouts of solitary bees and other pollinating insects like butterflies. There is a huge research project ongoing in Europe on butterflies, solitary bees and such. And there are species getting extinct at a very fast rate...sure it is varroa. Or the bad bad beekeeper.
> PS: https://ncbnaturalis.nl/media/medialibrary/2013/08/2006_biesmeijer_pollinator_diversity.pdf


I accept the first criticism. I could have written (5 years ago) more precisely, adding in pesticide poisoning.

I'm not sure I'd add in forage now. Its a given that food is a need. Its true too that its up to beekeepers to ensure their bees get adequate food. 

Your second criticism bringing in solitary bees is not justified. The context makes it clear that the discussion is of honeybees. The term 'wild' refers to native honeybees, where applicable, and ferals. That too is clear - from the same paragraph.

Yes, reduction in forage (as well as introduced parasites) have made life very difficult for wild/feral honeybees. But my point, as is clear, is that these populations cannot recover where beekeepers are maintaining mite-vulnerable stocks - _for the reasons I outline quite apart from any other_.

Context people. The piece is about the relationship between treating and failure to develop resistance. In honeybees.

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Hmm, so you think you can save the honeybees while other pollinators die out?! Don't you think, honeybees live within an environment? Without the right environment, no bees. As Bechamp/Pasteur stated: it's not the microbes, it is the medium they live in that counts. ("Béchamp avait raison, le microbe n'est rien, le terrain est tout.")

It is a strong hint that other livings things do struggle too. It points to environmental factors, not special diseases or parasites. The Bien is connected to it's environment. If the environment fails the living things in it will fail, too. Nowadays we see the fastest and biggest dieout of species since the mass dieout of the dinosaurs.

Ok, lets save just the honeybees. To do so, you cannot be picky about the methods. You have to be a pig to keep our beloved bugs alive and running. There are pesticides, there are no sanctuaries or retreats to hide or recover. In Germany only 1 % of the landscape is left to it's own (wilderness). Due to overpopulation by people. You have to keep the poison out of the hives and you need to care for forage. You need to keep them healthy and mostly free of parasites. Not easy.

In the long run you have to change the environment to save the bees. That is the whole truth. An old farmer once told me: Bernhard, all health and all illnesses come out of the soil. If the soil is wrecked a creature living on it cannot be healthy for long.

Read through: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/


----------



## Juhani Lunden

It is amazing how it happens in all these forums, that some idiots ruin the conversation. Most of the really interesting people can´t stand the poor level of knowledge, fights, shouting, arrogance, stupidity etc. They run away. But it is the price we have to pay for freedom of speach.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> Why is that Graham. What is your reasoning? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want some access to your thinking.


I don't know how much easier I can make it for you, Mike. My reasoning was posted right there in my post #456, and additionally you even quoted my explanation right there in your post #458. :lpf: You even _agreed _with my comment!  Let me remind you what you said ...


> I agree.


Here my is original comment _again _...


> Availability of suitable forage for bees is not something that under the sole control of beekeepers. There are many different factors involved in forage that are not under the control of beekeepers.



If forage suitability is not under beekeepers' control, then it is not possible that the _*SOLE CAUSE *_of bee issues is beekeepers' practices.


:gh:


----------



## sqkcrk

Graham, I don't know if you are barking up the wrong tree here or not, but I think you are hollering up a down spout.  Your tolerance level is amazing. Bless you.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

The _Smiley Union_ at Beesource has hired me as their '_PR person_'. (I do that in my spare time when I am not Ace's _PR person_.) As their designated representative, I feel an obligation to put under-employed smilies to work. 


:bus:banana:


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Hmm, so you think you can save the honeybees while other pollinators die out?! [...]In the long run you have to change the environment to save the bees. That is the whole truth. An old farmer once told me: Bernhard, all health and all illnesses come out of the soil. If the soil is wrecked a creature living on it cannot be healthy for long.


I wouldn't argue with all of this. But you have the wrong guy. Here's a photo of my wildflower meadow:









I make a lot of effort to protect and extend this superb example of chalk grassland. I also own and maintain some sssi ('site of special scientific interest' - protected) ancient woodland, and I likewise manage that to maximise biodiversity. I make an effort too with surrounding landowners. 

I've watched the gorgeously fecund Kentish landscape being dismantled piece by piece over the last 50 years and you won't find anyone angrier about it, or more determined to restore the essential parts. I was a paid up member of the Henry Doubleday Association (the forerunner of the present Soil Association) in the 1980's - my father before me. I sold my house and bought land instead so I could live on the job.

You have the wrong guy.

But we're talking about how to keep honeybees here, specifically how to breed varroa resistance in.

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Maybe got the wrong guy, but you certainly have the wrong 'sole cause' in your mind. I had the exact same idea as you have. This is why I tried barefoot wild beekeeping with fixed combs, swarming, wintering on honey and such. It turned out, that it doesn't make a significant difference when it comes to varroa. So now I am looking for other sole causes and I found some to be significant and that is the environment. If you live in a location with patches of wilderness in between, you may be successful. Otherwise your bees are influenced too badly by the environment. Learn to nourish the bees and how to decontaminate the hives and you are one step further. Good luck.


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Maybe got the wrong guy, but you certainly have the wrong 'sole cause' in your mind.


The car needs gas Bernhard. Whatever else might be wrong, it still needs gas.

Gas in this case is the genes that supply the capabilities to manage varroa. They come from mums and dads (sorry - my 3rd grandchild just arrived!), period. 

You have to find a way to make that happen, or you're all out of gas. 



BernhardHeuvel said:


> [...]If you live in a location with patches of wilderness in between, you may be successful.


I wouldn't try to keep bees anyplace else. They like a good diversity of forage within a reasonable range, all season. That's what I arrange for them.

Don't forget I have 30 odd thriving untreated hives here - most demanding more boxes right now. Thus far I'm already successful.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mbc

FWIW I think there is a lot of mileage in the idea that we can make greater strides forwards in any open mated breeding system by culling the queens which dont show desirable traits rather than just breeding from those that do show desirable traits. Its a no brainer really when considering the drones.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

mike bispham said:


> Gas in this case is the genes that supply the capabilities to manage varroa.


Is managing varroa the key problem? Does a colony die from varroa alone? What do you reckon? Did you observe a colony die from varroa alone and what did it look like?


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Is managing varroa the key problem? Does a colony die from varroa alone? What do you reckon? Did you observe a colony die from varroa alone and what did it look like?


Its not the key problem if there's critically insufficient forage, or critically high levels of pesticides.

Its not the key problem where there are adequate levels of resistance.

But yes, most places its the key problem. If you treat then hives do ok - that shows where the main problem lies.

And breeding towards its management is the topic of this thread. Its a given here.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mbc said:


> FWIW I think there is a lot of mileage in the idea that we can make greater strides forwards in any open mated breeding system by culling the queens which dont show desirable traits rather than just breeding from those that do show desirable traits.


Agree on that mbc. Most of my life my training has been to breed from the best, how to select them, etc. However now my opinion is we can breed better long term, by culling the worst and breeding from the rest.
So just how to go about that can be a whole subject in itself, but, not for this thread I guess.


----------



## peterloringborst

> And breeding towards its management is the topic of this thread. Its a given here.


That's funny. The topic, which I started with, was that bee breeding has failed to produce the benefits that its proponents have claimed for it._ I think we are barking up the wrong tree. _ 

What this means is that natural selection has already produced better bees than can be gotten through breeding programs. Most bee breeding programs are based on ideas gained from traditional breeding of livestock. _These principles do not apply to honey bees_

Each honey bee colony has a distinct "personality" and there is no evidence that this can be passed on through the selection of an egg from that colony and raising a queen from it. 

The behavior of a colony is the sum of many factors, including the various lineages present at that time which are the result of the queen mating with multiple drones, and when you raise a queen, _you have selected only one of those lineages._ The queen you raise may have none of the traits that made that colony what it was. 

I have written extensively in the America Bee Journal on the topic of bee breeding, and the history of bee breeding is one of great expectations and dismal performance. Bee breeders have successfully propagated existing stock, but have made few lasting improvements. Meanwhile, there are hardy resilient natural stocks of bees, from which to select. Problem is, many of these types are not very nice to work with.


----------



## Daniel Y

peterloringborst said:


> Each honey bee colony has a distinct "personality" and there is no evidence that this can be passed on through the selection of an egg from that colony and raising a queen from it.
> 
> The behavior of a colony is the sum of many factors, including the various lineages present at that time which are the result of the queen mating with multiple drones, and when you raise a queen, _you have selected only one of those lineages._ The queen you raise may have none of the traits that made that colony what it was.


First I consider the idea that none of the traits exist in a single egg to be reared as a queen a bit extreme. I do agree with the overall idea.

You have 20 fathers. so rear 20 queens one from each father. You then still have the entire genetic makeup and it characteristics of the colony.

What would be the number of queens required to have a high degree of assurance you got all 20 fathers?

I started my queen rearing with such an idea in mind. not a single hive with exceptional traits. but more of an apiary of them. There is not much about Honeybee that applies on an individual basis. So why bred them like it.

No single bee can survive without the colony. It might also be true that no single colony survives without the community of other colonies. We know inbreeding is extraordinarily devastating in the bee.


----------



## peterloringborst

> First I consider the idea that none of the traits exist in a single egg to be reared as a queen a bit extreme.


Hmm. Didn't say that. Said: "The queen you raise may have none of the traits that made that colony what it was." What I meant was if there is a distinctive trait that you want which is a composite of the qualities passed on by that combination of drones, that trait may not be present in the egg laid by the queen. For example, if you have a great team, is that team quality present in any of the players? Further, is it present in the siblings of any of the great players?


----------



## Oldtimer

Very good point Peter, I'm also of a mind that our breeding has achieved little, much as we think it has.

Now that I've been round for quite a few bee generations, I can think back to hives I knew more than 40 years ago with really lovely tempered, hard working bees, I wish I could have some of those now, we have not improved on them despite the best brains in our NZ industry trying to do so.

What has happened in my 40 years though is in this country, the really nasty strain of AMM we had has been as good as exterminated, but not by the hand of man, mites did it.

In the US great improvements have been made towards mite resistance, only in part through the hand of man though, everybody is talking about collecting ferals so I have to think despite the best of breeding man can do, nature may have done more. Of course a catastrophic event such as the introduction of varroa to apis melifera is probably a one in thousands of years event, bees have not always had to adapt that quick and possibly have survived in some areas for centuries unchanged.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> The topic, which I started with, was that bee breeding has failed to produce the benefits that its proponents have claimed for it._ I think we are barking up the wrong tree. _
> 
> What this means is that natural selection has already produced better bees than can be gotten through breeding programs. Most bee breeding programs are based on ideas gained from traditional breeding of livestock. _These principles do not apply to honey bees_


It seems that from a position of outright rejection you've come at least halfway around to my view Peter.

Traditional husbandry sets out from the start to mimic the mechanisms of natural selection. That's one of the reasons why its an improvement on modern narrow breeding. Like natural selection, what works is passed on. Its imprecise, but the dice can very effectively be loaded. 

The same principles apply to all bee breeding as to every other field of husbandry. For this reason: you can't magic the genes required to i.e. impart VSH out of thin air. They have to come from parents. 

One of the quickest ways to do that is stop propping up bees that don't have them - stop allowing them to inject their inadequate genes into the next generation. As that isn't always acceptable there are other approaches. But you _always_ have to get the genes that are working to come into the next generation, and _keep out_ the genes that aren't working as much as you can.

The traditional husbandry approach succeeds where narrow breeding often fails. Both are 'breeding', both are rooted in the same principle. But traditional bee farming keeps the breadth of genetic makeup in that your author complained was lacking.



peterloringborst said:


> Each honey bee colony has a distinct "personality" and there is no evidence that this can be passed on through the selection of an egg from that colony and raising a queen from it.


There is tons and tons of empirical evidence. Beekeepers have been breeding systematically toward things like docility and productivity for donkeys years. I don't know if there are any academic studies of this but if not its probably because no-one would ask such a question. Qualities are (in the main) heritable. That the foundation stone of the entire body of understanding of evolutionary biology.



peterloringborst said:


> The behavior of a colony is the sum of many factors, including the various lineages present at that time which are the result of the queen mating with multiple drones, and when you raise a queen, _you have selected only one of those lineages._ The queen you raise may have none of the traits that made that colony what it was.


Yes - which is why the Sussex Unit is working up intracolony testing. 

But the ordinary beekeeper (with a reasonable number of hives) can firmly and skillfully load the dice in his favour. You do what all other husbandrymen do: you evaluate the performance of likely candidate breeders in the light of their offspring. You find those that give the best outcome and use them. Press up the qualities you want in your local population. Keep mating well away from bees that have the last thing you want. Read your Ruttner.

I'd suggest too you read the extract from Manley I posted a week or so ago (better still read his whole section on queen raising) - with a special focus on the idea of loading the dice... Think about what a compound of loaded matings can achieve, as generation after generation you systematically load the dice firmly in your favour. That how casinos get to make all those billions of dollars. Fix the odds then compound the outcomes.



peterloringborst said:


> Meanwhile, there are hardy resilient natural stocks of bees, from which to select. Problem is, many of these types are not very nice to work with.


I agree - most informed proponents of non-treatment methods agree. Feral bees make the best starting stock, because natural selection has given them back what beekeepers took away. The objective is to maintain their resistance and vigour, and start building in any further qualities you want. I've found my ferals are just fine as they come though. They're not always the gentlest, but they're managable. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## peterloringborst

> Very good point Peter, I'm also of a mind that our breeding has achieved little, much as we think it has.


A few years ago I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the lack of advancement in bee breeding. I was trying to explain that while some selection has been done to increase certain behaviors, such a varroa sensitive hygiene, the process of selection is a narrowing and can have harmful side effects (inbreeding depression, lack of brood viability). He just blurted out: "they're freaks." The nail, hit on the head. A heavily selected line may have some unique trait you want but it isn't something that would appear in nature, which selects a composite of traits that leads to better survival long term.


----------



## Michael Bush

>A heavily selected line may have some unique trait you want but it isn't something that would appear in nature, which selects a composite of traits that leads to better survival long term. 

I think this is not only true in bees but any animal. The combination that makes for a healthy organism is very complex and we are usually fooling ourselves when we think we can isolate and define them all. We can, though, pick the ones that have that combination by looking at the big picture instead of the minutia.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I think this is not only true in bees but any animal.


Me too.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> A few years ago I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the lack of advancement in bee breeding. I was trying to explain that while some selection has been done to increase certain behaviors, such a varroa sensitive hygiene, the process of selection is a narrowing and can have harmful side effects (inbreeding depression, lack of brood viability). He just blurted out: "they're freaks." The nail, hit on the head. A heavily selected line may have some unique trait you want but it isn't something that would appear in nature, which selects a composite of traits that leads to better survival long term.


I think we're circling in on a something like a shared position. The biggest difference it seems to me is born of a failure to appreciate that there are different kinds, different intensities, of selective breeding. In past I've tried to open this out by talking in terms of 'narrow' and 'broad' breeding, of distinguishing between 'line breeding' which seeks to eliminate competing alelles and something less dramatic which seeks only to increase the proportion in the population holding the desired alelle. 

So to have this conversation one of the things we have to talk about is breeding aims, and something we might describe as breeding intensity.

Its the aim of the traditional husbandryman, or 'farmer' (in the fuller sense of someone who controls his own population development) to reproduce _that which is desirable_. In the most fundamental sense that means that which works. In that way he is pretty much at one with Nature - with the processes of natural selection - which also reproduces (in greatest number) that which works (best).

Reproducing that which works best is a an overarching aim and method that very neatly takes care of things like over-narrowing of diversity - as and when lack of diversity becomes problematic the individuals suffering are no longer the best - and are selected out. That's what I meant when I said recently that traditional husbandry _subsumes_ issues like loss of diversity. 

The same is true for other aspects of stock management. That which works best is reproduced. 

(But you have to take great care that stock management doesn't impact adversely on genetic husbandry. An oft used expression round here is 'never mollycoddle'. In the case of open mating bees this warning has to be taken extremely seriously.)

All this, at ground level, is an art as much as a science. Some people are much better at it than others. 

You are right to say that to select is to narrow - and in the case of the bee we might have underestimated the fragile balance that supplies optimum performance. But Nature finds optimum performance, and if we copy her we can approach it too. We too have to select what you call 'a composite of traits that leads to better survival long term'. 

Happily, in general terms, performance is one of the best rounded indicators. The best go-getters are the healthiest, and 'tend to' [1] _make the best go-getters_.

Natural selection also narrows. But it narrows to the optimum state, the best balance. That's what we are seeing in feral populations, and that is what we have to aim at emulating. (As well as taking advantage: our current best bet at treatment free bees is taking thriving ferals and then husbanding them to ensure continuation of vigour. We can't just take them, treat them agricultually, and expect their traits to persist down the generations).

To repeat a critical point: selection has to happen. Inheritance is a fact of Nature: making new bees from weak bees runs counter to Nature, and will always result in more weak bees - not in every case but as a firm average. Failing to make each new generation from the best of the last will always result in weakness, sickness, vulnerability. The genetic combinations that thrive in a particular environment are those best suited, on average, to thrive in the subsequent generation. Always. That Nature's big wonderful health mechanism. It essential, 'necessary' - and universal. All life, all organisms are subject to the same rule.

Don't forget too a large part of the reason for this is that the predators continually evolve to take better advantage of their prey. There is a continual 'arms race' between predator and predated conducted through the mechanism of constant refinement by evolutionary means. Unless the hosts are able to evolve, their (wrongly) 'fixed' defences will steadily fail. 

If we want strong bees we have to copy Nature, or have Nature do our (de)selecting for us. And yes, we have to be careful not to overdo it. Routine traditional husbandry is the time tested way of doing that. If we overdo it we will soon be shown our mistakes. As it happens, with the outmating and multi-paternal honeybee, its almost impossible to overdo it outside of an island scenario or an AI process.

To recap: there is 'breeding' and there is 'breeding'. That form we can identify as traditional husbandry is not harmfully narrowing in the way that 'intensive' breeding can be. It has its own built-in automatic safeguard against that happening. Those that are too narrow are no longer the best and are routinely deselected - as in nature.

Mike (UK)

[1] 'Tend to' there is meant in the scientific sense: there is a solid, though only probabalistic, advantage. The dice are loaded - though they are still dice.


----------



## peterloringborst

The question often comes up whether there exist distinct populations of feral bees alongside domestic beekeeping. Roxane Magnus has done a lot of work on this topic. She writes:



> Ten haplotypes (C1, C2, C11, C12, C27, C31, M2, M3, O1, and O500b) were observed from the 44 swarm samples. Four of these haplotypes (M2, M3, O1, and O500b) were found in the feral samples but were absent from a study of 14 queen breeders in the United States (Magnus et al. 2011). This gives further evidence that a number of the swarms were from feral honey bee colonies and not from managed colonies.
> 
> Previous studies have suggested that feral, unmanaged populations of honey bees have mtDNA distinct lineages from commercial colonies. For example, Chapman et al. (2008) observed that 30 feral honey bee colonies from Western Australia had only one (haplotype C1) of three COI–COII haplotypes shared with managed honey bee samples. They concluded that populations of Australian feral honey bees are self-sustaining and do not depend on swarms from managed colonies for their existence.
> 
> Although C is the most common lineage in the United States, Pinto et al. (2004) confirmed the presence of the M lineage in feral populations from Texas. Molecular detection of the A lineage in the United States was first done by Schiff and Sheppard (1993), and the O lineage was first detected in the United States by Magnus and Szalanski


----------



## peterloringborst

See

Mitochondrial DNA Diversity of Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) from Unmanaged Colonies and Swarms in the United States
Roxane M. Magnus • Amber D. Tripodi • Allen L. Szalanski


----------

