# Why Treatment Free.



## Kamon A. Reynolds

I am talking on Treatment free beekeeping in the near future. I wondered if you all would give me your reasons why you have chosen treatment free beekeeping, techniques you like using to aid your bees against mites (non treatment), and things that you have or are learning on the way

MY reasons are 

1. I believe it's better on the bees and beekeeping (especially for the long term).
2. It's much cheaper.
3. My queen genetics are tougher due to no crutches. (aka treatments)

Thanks in advance!




P.S. This is not a debate on which way is better. So don't try to make it one.


----------



## Solomon Parker

When I first started, I did it because I didn't want to spend money (or be dependent upon) treatments.

Later on, I realized that ultimately, treatment free is the only tenable solution. Sure, beekeepers can limp along for decades feeding and treating, but the only way to really do anything of long term importance is to be totally treatment free and to keep bees with a method that keeps them from being dependent on you. If I died, my hives would go on living, probably slowly losing the traits like gentleness that I have bred for over time, but they'd go on.

It is much cheaper. The only things I spend money on these days are new frames and other equipment.

The treating beekeepers are going to disagree, but they'll all have to admit that when they quit treating, their bees die.


----------



## Fusion_power

1. I don't like pesticide residues in honey or beeswax.
2. Honeybees are uniquely susceptible to a host of maladies linked to the various pesticides and treatments.
3. It is expensive in terms of materials and beekeepers time to treat.
4. There are side benefits to being treatment free, including that hygienic bees control both diseases and mites.
5. There are no negative consequences to treatment free beekeeping, in spite of discussions to the contrary.
6. Honeybees that naturally control mites are healthier and easier to maintain.

I did not go treatment free without a lot of preparation. It started with determining the steps that would lead to success. In 2005, the only information available included using small cell and quite a bit about mite tolerant genetics. I knew enough of bee behavior to recognize that getting mite tolerant bees would be a short-lived solution given the number of beekeepers in the area with treated bees so I chose the following steps:
1. I already use 11 frames in the broodnest so I converted to small cell. In my opinion, small cell (4.9) has a minor effect on mite tolerance, but it works really well with my 11 frame broodnests.
2. I located stock that was uniquely mite tolerant. This included a swarm that happened to be highly mite tolerant and purchase of stock from Purvis. I raised queens from the mite tolerant swarm and crossed them to drones from the Purvis queens. These bees have been exceptionally mite tolerant and with a bit of selection produce decent honey crops.
3. I deliberately induced swarming in 2006 with the purpose of getting a huge number of feral colonies as a buffer between me and the treatment bandwagon beekeepers in the area. This step was very difficult emotionally, I wanted to catch those swarms, but in the long run, it gave me protection from poor genetics in the area. I catch a few swarms each year that come back out of the woods. The mite tolerance in this area is relatively high so that feral bees are thriving.


----------



## Stanisr

Having a BS in agriculture and working in agriculture my entire adult life, I can tell you the reason I keep bees treatment free is simply good animal husbandry. In any agriculture operation, the healthier the livestock the less reliant they are on chemical intervention. Ultimately, the best situation is when the livestock can be productive and healthy without any chemical treatment.


----------



## stan.vick

I agree with Solomon, I kept my bees treatment free (with the exception of BT comb treatment to salvage empty or stored comb) for five years until this year when I had to treat in order to sell some nucs. I still held back on half my hives and they remain treatment free ( at a separate location ) I lost 33 % of the treated hives and less than 10 % of the untreated hives. I know in some areas people have lost all their hives when they didn't treat and had to go treatments in order to keep bees, and I understand that, but it is in the end a dead end road.


----------



## RiodeLobo

I want to be self sufficient as much as possible. Treatment free beekeeping is the logical approach. If I could (or wanted to do the work) I would treat with medications that I could manufacture at home. So my reason is practical and pragmatic versus philosophical.


----------



## rhaldridge

My thinking is that treatment has unknown consequences to both the colony and commensal organisms whose role in colony health is not yet well understood. It seems to me fairly self-evident that there is a problem with the current conventions of bee husbandry. Some pretty good beekeepers have lost disastrous numbers of their hives. It seems at least plausible to me that this is the result of an accumulation of insults to colony health-- pests, disease, agricultural chemicals and other sources of toxins, poor forage, excessive feeding of sugar... and treatments. It's been demonstrated that bees can survive without treatments, so that is one insult you can take out of the equation.


----------



## TalonRedding

Because it is righteous! Lol
I don't know why I said that but oh well. Seriously, I know of bee trees that have contained bees for the last 20+ years. I look at that and say to myself that they have been thriving, yes thriving not just surviving, with no one taking care of them whatsoever. I don't think you can get any plainer than that. If those bees are surviving with no treatments (and disturbance too; I believe going through the bees too often produce similar effects as too much antibiotics) vs bees that have been "babied", then there is obviously a distinguishable difference in survivability between the two groups. I'm not exactly sure what the difference is whether it is the presence of treatment, the absence of treatment, genetic fitness, or surrounding habitat, etc. But, whatever it is, this is why I am starting out with those particular feral stock. Survival of the fittest always wins in the end. 
I may be a new beek, but I am a wildlife biologist with enough experience to know better. When we want to make a reintroduction of a species such as elk, deer, turkey, bears, wolves, or whatever, we do not pick individual animals from a petting zoo that have been fed artificial supplements and been vaccinated for diseases that are found in their natural surroundings. Rather, we find animals that are from a similar ecosystem or biome and use those individuals to repopulate areas where they once roamed. This has been carried out by wildlife agencies in all 50 states with unrivaled success with countless fish and wildlife species. Why would the same theory not work for honeybees or any other organism for that matter?


----------



## VitaminBee

I'm treatment free because it is the way God intended it. Ok, that is grandiose, but still. I'm treatment free because I care what goes into my mouth. Because I care about the Earth. Because I care about what we are doing to ourselves and about what is being done to us. It is a stance that I am able to take. I am seeking out strong genetics, recyclingy wax often because I cannot control beyond my fence, diving in toward foundationless to get away from plastics and contaminated wax.... And because I love purity. I drink plain ol' martinis and I prefer plain ol' creme brûlée. And I like my honey plain ol' ... sans the chemicals please.


----------



## Michael Bush

40 years ago it was because I wanted clean honey. Now it's because I've realized how important the microbes in the colony are to the colony's health.


----------



## Beregondo

1. I am not dependent on my hives for my livelihood. High losses are not economically devastating.
2. Bee health: introducing insecticidal mite treatments chemically attacks bees.
3. The first colony of bees I obtained had been several years in the wall of a house, unmanaged, and appeared to be thriving.
(I saw no purpose in wasting time or money treating them)
4. Product purity: toxins and drugs should not be stored with food, and treatment residues accumulate in the hive, particularly in beeswax.
5. Sustainability: Hives dependent on inputs (like treatments) that can't get them due to economic, political, or natural disaster can't be reated, and would fail at a time when hive resources would be most beneficial.



Sustainability:
No agriculture that requires purchased inputs can be sustained if acess to thsoe inputs (in this case, treatments) is interrupted.


----------



## Paul McCarty

I do not like to be dependent on the outside systems which indebt me to them. Otherwise my reasoning is the same as Kamon's.


----------



## Michael Bush

I find several things about the concept of treatments very intriguing.

First, 40 years ago any beekeeper who engaged in any discussion of pesticides would adamantly argue the "treadmill" aspect of pesticides. That killing a pest always made the problem worse in the long run. Of course they were talking to farmers about insecticides. Yet when the Varroa showed up they promptly put those same pesticides (which had in the meantime been outlawed) in their hives to kill mites.

Second, most of the treatments so adamantly defending as being necessary in the last decades have been and still are not only not recommended by any experts in the rest of the world, but are, indeed, illegal in the rest of the world. Only the organic acids are allowed in most countries. Antibiotics (terramycin, tylosin, fumidl etc.) are not only not recommended but illegal. Relabled insecticides (aka acaracides) are also illegal.

This concept of using antibiotics and insecticides in a bee hive is uniquely American. Maybe we sold the Chinese on it...

Here is a page with a lot more detail on why treating makes for less healthy bees:
www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm


----------



## Brandy

Michael, do you think it's more the way your handling your hives, ie.. cell size, foundationless, etc.. that is making the difference or the genetics of your stock?
I know you sold queens for some years, did those queens do as well in other hives without those steps vs. your own with those other conditions... I'm guessing somewhere your mentioning % of winter losses but I haven't seen it lately, only the 2013 hard winter for a number of reasons. Thanks in advance for any info,


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Thanks again everyone!

I agree that America has way to much chemicals in all Ag. I have notice time after time that those who are using treatments against EFB and chalkbrood have much more of it in the hive. I know they are trying to eradicate it but better to breed a resistant bee. I was scolded by one of the main state beekeepers when I said I have only seen 2 cases of EFB in my hives in the last 9 plus years. He said I was not paying attention enough. Sure I might have missed a small batch coming to the surface (that then the bees did away with) but I keep track of my colony and know very well what to look for.

Resistant stock, only feeding sugar when necessary and clean pure combs make all the difference. They have never been a problem to me.

For mites I split often for profit and to help my bees with brood breaks. I will be the first to tell you my bees are not immune to mites. That said, with the proper type of management and a good resistant stock. It works for me just fine. and my losses have never been more than 25% most of the times in the teens. I split to survive what I expect to lose. 

I never have known the "Golden Years" of beekeeping. I don't need to. This time period of beekeeping is enjoyable and profitable for me and I am enjoying year after year trying to breed a better bee. 

What methods do you use to assist your bees as a beekeeper to maintain strong low mite level counts going into winter.


----------



## Paul McCarty

I mostly split and use bees that appear to be mite hardy from my locale. I tried others but found them lacking. I do a few other things, like the old Mexican trick of smoking with creosote bush, but not sure it makes a difference. Also put a little spearmint and vinegar in the Winter feed when I feed them - TF still? Don't know or care really. 

I see mites every so often, but you have to look real hard. I did have a hive of regular Cordovan/Italians get them real bad this last season. Pretty sure they won't make the Winter as their numbers got really low, and I didn't combine them with anyone since their yard was pretty far out. Wasn't real happy with them anyway. No big loss.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Michael, do you think it's more the way your handling your hives, ie.. cell size, foundationless, etc.. that is making the difference or the genetics of your stock?

www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm‎

>I know you sold queens for some years, did those queens do as well in other hives without those steps vs. your own with those other conditions... I'm guessing somewhere your mentioning % of winter losses but I haven't seen it lately, only the 2013 hard winter for a number of reasons.

I think genetics matter a lot for winter survival, general healthy, productivity, gentleness etc. I never saw any survivors from Varroa to breed from until I went to small cell/natural cell and then I didn't have any Varroa problems.

>I was scolded by one of the main state beekeepers when I said I have only seen 2 cases of EFB in my hives in the last 9 plus years. He said I was not paying attention enough.

I know what you mean. I've seen EFB and AFB and Sacbrood in other people's hives. I've never seen any of those in my hives in 40 years and neither has the bee inspector. It's not that I don't know what they look like...

www.bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm


----------



## rhaldridge

Paul McCarty said:


> I mostly split and use bees that appear to be mite hardy from my locale. I tried others but found them lacking. I do a few other things, like the old Mexican trick of smoking with creosote bush, but not sure it makes a difference. Also put a little spearmint and vinegar in the Winter feed when I feed them - TF still? Don't know or care really.


Paul, how much would you say you feed, compared to more conventional beekeepers?


----------



## Paul McCarty

I did not feed that much this year. Basically 8 starter hives for the next season to make sure they had enough for winter. The rest are pretty much left with a box of honey for a food chamber. I have been requeening or combining the hives that did not produce a box of honey for food.

Maybe I will feed a little in Spring when it warms up, but it is usually a little cool for it and the first bloom-outs start way before then.

Last year I had to feed a lot more, because it was dry as a bone - might have been the year before, can't remember.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

My reaction, when I saw the first mite 1996, was pretty much that of Stanisr ( have got BS in agriculture too!). Healthy livestock is the key factor.

In the beginning
1. I just could not see any point of giving drugs all the time to keep the system going 
2. I was very sure that nature is not so unwise, that if I stop treating, all bees would die ( If they had died, I was ready to give up beekeeping) 
3. Bees were given time to adjust 
- changes happen slowly
- if treatments would have been stopped right away, possibly wrong hives would have survived 
- I gradually decreased treatment in the years 2001-2008, after that adjustment I went totally TF 

Now its becoming more like a passion and a lifetime mission. It seems so clear, that most of the troubles beekeepers have today are because bees are pampered too much. We are making bees weaker and mites stronger. Of course there are environmental stress factors (pesticides, other chemicals, mono culture in agriculture etc) too, but beekeepers are making the situation worse.

How many years will it take for beekeepers to understand, that the only way to get rid of varroa and virus problems is to stop treatments?

I realize, that it is impossible that all beekeepers would stop treatments at once. Therefore, after testing it myself, I have suggested that all beekeepers start programs in which treatments are gradually diminished to zero or near zero. Different strategies in different parts of the world. Example, a program that would work here in Finland: All beekeepers could change their treatments to be one time oxalic acid dropping 15ml (3% sugar solution) in late November. That would save most of the hives, but would eliminate the hives which are susceptible to mites. The amount of acid is then altered after some years experience.

www.saunalahti.fi/lunden/varroakertomus.htm


----------



## JWChesnut

Best reason to implement a treatment-free strategy on a single apiary is to have a personal side-by-side test ground of the various "systems". One can compare survival, yield and fecundity in nearly-controlled matches. 

This allows you to fully discount all the trash-talk by armchair experts who have not actually conducted any side-by-side trials.

Second best reason is to be able to avoid endless, tactless lectures by 20-something hipsters from big city beekeeping cults who harangue you with their miracle "systems" by giving a curt, "oh I'm already trying that".


----------



## WLC

I wanted something that was in line with sustainable/subsistence beekeeping.

I absolutely do not want to handle hazardous chemicals/pesticides to keep bees.

I wanted to have access to the pests, parasites, and pathogens affecting bees.

Finally, it seemed to me to be the only method of beekeeping that was worthwhile.

I really do like the idea of having resistant Honeybees as a goal of beekeeping.

If only it was as easy to do as it is to describe.


----------



## squarepeg

wlc, your previously held view was that treatment free colonies tend to be more 'clinical' and pose an increased threat to native pollinators, has your opinion changed?


----------



## rhaldridge

JWChesnut said:


> Best reason to implement a treatment-free strategy on a single apiary is to have a personal side-by-side test ground of the various "systems". One can compare survival, yield and fecundity in nearly-controlled matches.
> 
> This allows you to fully discount all the trash-talk by armchair experts who have not actually conducted any side-by-side trials.
> 
> Second best reason is to be able to avoid endless, tactless lectures by 20-something hipsters from big city beekeeping cults who harangue you with their miracle "systems" by giving a curt, "oh I'm already trying that".


That's true. As we all know, an important thing in any endeavor is to make sure that we can look down on others.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg said:


> wlc, your previously held view was that treatment free colonies tend to be more 'clinical' and pose an increased threat to native pollinators, has your opinion changed?


There's always the risk to native pollinators, like Bombus impatiens.

If your TF hives are showing signs of DWV, you need a plan.

I haven't seen anything like the signs of DWV in my BeeWeavers that I've seen with my other bees.

However, if they do start showing overt symptoms, I'll likely have to start splitting or using artificial brood breaks to deal with it.

Remember, we didn't know that DWV could replicate in the common eastern bumblebee before this past year.

It's a new wrinkle.

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ciated_Arthropods/file/5046351ed209ec8764.pdf


----------



## scorpionmain

rhaldridge said:


> That's true. As we all know, an important thing in any endeavor is to make sure that we can look down on others.


*Here, Here!!!*

:Oh wait, was that sarcasm?:
:scratch:


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> That's true. As we all know, an important thing in any endeavor is to make sure that we can look down on others.


Yes, I thought that post was _particularly_ cynical and pointless and had nothing to do with the question asked.


----------



## mike bispham

I don't treat and actively promote non-treatment for several reasons, some of which might be viewed as morally based. I think its wrong, and I think its wrong headed.

Its wrong because it tends to destroy the native population (here in the UK we have remnants of a native population) and that can never be right. Do I need to explain why? Its not right on its own terms - animal populations have an inherent right to continue to exist; nor is it fair on the wider ecology which is in some measure dependent on honeybees. Nor is it fair for future human generations, who will be deprived of the benefits of a healthy and vital ecology.

Much of that is I suppose rooted in the general belief that Creation isn't ours to rape, loot, and destroy as if we owned it. Anyone who doesn't get that bit won't see the application of that general position to honeybees.

Its wrongheaded because it simply perpetuates the problem. Since when has that been a good plan? 

To me marketing treatments is on a level with selling cigarettes to children in developing countries. Its legal but shameful doesn't begin to cover it. That is heavily ameliorated by ignorance. Many treatment purveyors think they're actually doing a good thing. 

There are arguments that say that commercial beekeepers have to treat or go to the wall. Maybe that's true. But I'm not sure its a defence. Fishermen say the same thing when their fishing grounds are nearing exhaustion. It isn't really their fault - but the situation is the sooner some go to wall the better for everybody.

The real problem is the failure of regulators to press toward something other than laissez-faire do-what-you-want agriculture - the market knows best. Its a recipe for a race to the bottom. 

So we have a bee health problem that is perpetuated by both systematic treatments - pushed heavily by the 'beekeeper support industry' - and unrestricted imports of queens that have had zero exposure to the disease environment, and we wonder why we have to endlessly throw chemicals at bees to make a living. Its because that way of working is screwed up. That way of thinking is destructive, and a one-way ticket to worse to come. We've ended up with something very close to the precise opposite of what husbandry has been since mankind first started farming.

I'm really just throwing out thoughts here. It would take a while to lay out a proper moral case against chemical beekeeping, but I think it could be done. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rolande

mike bispham said:


> Its wrong because it* tends to destroy the native population *(here in the UK we have remnants of a native population) and that can never be right.


Hi Mike, how so? 

Also (although slightly off your actual point) in the interests of balance it should, perhaps, be mentioned that by far the bulk of the 'native' population is maintained by beekeepers in managed beehives. Unless of course you know of a great reserve of wild amm in mainland Britain. For what it's worth I don't believe that such a population exists and doubt that anyone can present evidence to the contrary.


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> Hi Mike, how so?
> 
> Also (although slightly off your actual point) in the interests of balance it should, perhaps, be mentioned that by far the bulk of the 'native' population is maintained by beekeepers in managed beehives. Unless of course you know of a great reserve of wild amm in mainland Britain. For what it's worth I don't believe that such a population exists and doubt that anyone can present evidence to the contrary.


Yes, you're right to quibble Roland. Its my opinon that some genes from the native Amm remain in the wild/feral population - much as they do in the US. It is that feral population that is my focus. 

As to the how so: the maintenance of unresistant stocks tends to kill off nearby wild/feral populations as any resistance to varroa is replaced by vulnerability via artificially maintained drones. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rolande

mike bispham said:


> Yes, you're right to quibble Roland. Its my opinon that some genes from the native Amm remain in the wild/feral population - much as they do in the US. It is that feral population that is my focus.


Hardly quibbling Mike, just attempting to clarify what we're talking about. One thing for sure, mongrelized feral populations do not equal 'native' stock however we look at it so it's something of a redundant (but potentially polarizing) argument to suggest that treatments are destroying the native bee. 



mike bispham said:


> As to the how so: the maintenance of unresistant stocks tends to kill off nearby wild/feral populations as any resistance to varroa is replaced by vulnerability via artificially maintained drones.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I've read this argument many times so I suppose that it must be correct... maybe. 

I'd certainly be interested in reading a balanced review of the claim. However based on my own personal observation of feral colonies in the areas where I've lived and kept bees I'm dubious of any claims of long standing feral colonies (as distinct from nest sites) continuing to exist in the UK although I do accept that there is some research being carried out to try and establish an answer to this very question.

Of course, you may be referring to feral lines which have somehow managed to survive outside of re-capture for multiple generations rather than individual colonies but that's something for you to clarify...


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> One thing for sure, mongrelized feral populations do not equal 'native' stock however we look at it so it's something of a redundant (but potentially polarizing) argument to suggest that treatments are destroying the native bee.


Accepted. How should we describe the likelihood, or possibility, that genetic material from the native bee might remain in some UK bees?



Rolande said:


> However based on my own personal observation of feral colonies in the areas where I've lived and kept bees I'm dubious of any claims of long standing feral colonies (as distinct from nest sites) continuing to exist in the UK although I do accept that there is some research being carried out to try and establish an answer to this very question.


I suppose I work partly with the argument that since treating definately undermines adaptation, the best hope we have for well adapted bees must lie in feral survivors. And, it will pay to have a feral population, since that will represent a source of strong genetic material. Further, since most beekeepers I know are constantly buying queens from heaven knows where, any locally adapted strains are both valuable and the only likely source of native genetic material. For all those reasons I think they should be protected. 

I just don't think we have the right to undermine what might be an essential part of the local native ecology. And I think that treating and importing do that. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise - or think they have the right to mess with it. 

Thanks for the heads up to research on UK wild/feral bees (with or without fragments of native Amm) at Leeds University. It'll be interesting to see the results.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Thanks for the feedback from the UK guys. Very interesting. It is too bad that AMM bees are all but gone in the U.S. Probably some slight amount of genes in some feral mixes but not much I am afraid. 

Hearing you all tell of your feral bee situation it brings to my mind that no matter where we keep bees we have the ability to hurt or help the feral and "domestic" honeybee industry. It is shame that more bigger beekeepers won't work together on developing profitable treatment free bees. 

Also that beekeepers can't do that across nations. 

I understand not wanting to spread diseases and what not, but we have the ability to send drone semen and raise queens that will contain new diverse genes to help create a more genetically complex bee to address a complex problem. 

We have a few treatment free guys who run over 1000 hives and make good money. We all need more big guys to do the same and get the pharmacy out of our beehives so the bees, consumers, and the beekeepers all win again.


----------



## RiodeLobo

Kamon Reynolds said:


> It is too bad that AMM bees are all but gone in the U.S. Probably some slight amount of genes in some feral mixes but not much I am afraid.


That begs the question, when and why did it disappear? My understanding is that it was due to the arrival of mites in the population. I doubt that mite treatments had any effect in the population due to the lag time between introduction of the mites, use of treatments and the effects on the gene pool.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

I think it had more to do with it being out competed by Italian and other standard breeds. They kept getting bred by the drones until they just weren't AMM anymore. That dying out and other stressors.


----------



## Solomon Parker

From what I understand, they still exist in isolated pockets. I also understand that the primary reasons they fell from popularity was their inferiority to the current breeds on a number of levels.


----------



## Fusion_power

> I think it had more to do with it being out competed by Italian and other standard breeds. They kept getting bred by the drones until they just weren't AMM anymore. That dying out and other stressors.


They still exist but as a heterogenous mixed population. AMM genetics show up in my area, easy to tell by the stinging behavior, honey produced, and spring buildup. There are no standard breeds that can out-compete AMM in an adapted range. That includes most of the Eastern U.S. Varroa brought AMM down because there was very little to no tolerance. AMM readily cross with drones from managed colonies which dilutes the genetics, but if isolated from managed colonies, the AMM genetics re-assert because they are better adapted to the climate. We had this discussion a few years ago with a couple of beekeepers saying there was no way AMM is still in my area, then when I told one of them where I live, he had an epiphany moment and realized he had recently seen a feral AMM colony less than 15 miles from here. 

AMM in this area exhibit excessive swarming, a tendency to collect the blackest honey imaginable, extreme pollen collection with storing pollen in honey supers, and incredible spring buildup. I have had a single frame of AMM bees build up a March 20th split into a 2 story colony that produced 3 shallow supers of honey on the spring flow that ended 6 weeks later. No Italian or Carniolan I've ever seen could have done the same.


----------



## RiodeLobo

Fusion,
Do you know of any where that one could get some queens with the AMM genetics, I would love to try a couple out. 

Thanks,
Dan


----------



## Fusion_power

Rio, The negative traits of AMM are overwhelming. They swarm worse than Russians, sting almost as bad as Africans, and make really bad flavored honey. I really don't like the trait of storing random cells of pollen all through the honey supers.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

While that is true of feral AMM's proper breeding techniques over periods of time can change that producing a valuable bee.

The Europeans have proved that they can make AMM a very gentle and productive bee.


----------



## rhaldridge

Kamon Reynolds said:


> Thanks for the feedback from the UK guys. Very interesting. It is too bad that AMM bees are all but gone in the U.S. Probably some slight amount of genes in some feral mixes but not much I am afraid. .


I can't remember where I saw this, but it was a talk by an entomologist whose project involved studying feral colonies. Most of the colonies were the sort of mix you'd expect, but a few of them were AMM, fairly pure, according to her. Maybe Rader knows the video I'm talking about.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Kamon Reynolds said:


> While that is true of feral AMM's proper breeding techniques over periods of time can change that producing a valuable bee.
> 
> The Europeans have proved that they can make AMM a very gentle and productive bee.


We tried to find the traces of the old AMM bees in Finland back in the 90´s. We found many previously unknown beekeepers, many of whom had beautiful old type hives and black bees. These bees were then analyzed with the DAWIDO -method in (former) Czechoslovakia. The idea came from two black bee(AMM) specialists from Sweden, Ingvar Arvidsson and Ingvar Petterson. They have a club for the AMM race. DAWIDO -method is counting out the different races one bee has in it, and it does that from the wing veins.

The result: althoug the bees were black, they had about equal amounts of four races _Apis mellifera mellifera, Apis mellifera ligustica, Apis mellifera carnica_ and _Apis mellifera caucasica_. We thought that cleaning out the AMM part would be too big a task for us.

The original AMM living for instance in Lasö island in Sweden is very gentle. European Union has decided to make half of Lasö island a reserve, but unfortunately there is one beekeeper with italian bees on the other half...


----------



## Oldtimer

Juhani that would be a very typical result for pretty much all bees that are "claimed" to be AMM.

Except possibly, in a few areas of Australia although they are rare.

I have just dealt with one of my own hives that swarmed, then went really vicious, and in a way that reminded me of the AMM hybrids we used to have here. I think their genes are still around but have to by luck, all combine to get something resembling AMM. Although that is not necessarily a good thing.

BTW the AMM bees here in NZ were originally brought here from England, they were the vicious kind, and for a long time were the only bees here until Italians were imported. It is pretty likely you would have worked hybrids of some of these bees when you were here in 1986 / 1987, when there were still quite a few of them, do you recall any?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Oldtimer said:


> It is pretty likely you would have worked hybrids of some of these bees when you were here in 1986 / 1987, when there were still quite a few of them, do you recall any?


No, not really, as far as I remember all hives were fairly normal and uniform. Alan bought nearly all his italian queens. It was quite an experience for a 24 year old hobby beekeeper, when the post delivered 100 queens to the breakfast table and off we went (team of three) to find homes for them. 10 minutes per hive in average to change the queen. Same thing next morning.


----------



## mike bispham

Kamon Reynolds said:


> We have a few treatment free guys who run over 1000 hives and make good money. We all need more big guys to do the same and get the pharmacy out of our beehives so the bees, consumers, and the beekeepers all win again.


They won't all the while its more profitable to carry on as they do. Its a competitive game, and the bottom line is the driver. You'd have to be able to show it can be done as profitably. 

One way forward might be for tf beekeepers to trumpet their honey as 'chemical/treatment free', and demand a premium for a superior product. Of course the comms will fake it, but it will still get the story across, and offer an incentive. I'm thinking of making a 'Real Honey from Real Bees' label, and explaining why its 'real' on the back. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> Originally Posted by mike bispham
> 
> "As to the how so: the maintenance of unresistant stocks tends to kill off nearby wild/feral populations as any resistance to varroa is replaced by vulnerability via artificially maintained drones. "
> 
> I've read this argument many times so I suppose that it must be correct... maybe.


Do you seriously doubt it Rolande?


----------



## sqkcrk

Kamon Reynolds said:


> We have a few treatment free guys who run over 1000 hives and make good money. We all need more big guys to do the same and get the pharmacy out of our beehives so the bees, consumers, and the beekeepers all win again.


Who are you referring to Kamon?


----------



## charliesbees

Michael Bush. I totally respect the article and all articles that you share on your website....http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm . The Practical Beekeeper
Beekeeping Naturally....Thank you for the time and energy you have put into it. There is a lot, and I mean a lot of info out there. I appreciate all of them also, but as a new beek, studying hard this year and starting my adventure in the spring of 014 up here in the Lake Superior Region of Wisconsin, I lean very heavily on your expertise, and about 5 others.I two want to go naturally drawn comb and TF.I want to raise bees that are genetically adapted to this region and Lord willing, will. .Just wanted to put in my two cents.... 

Beregondo , I like the points you made, especially #3.


----------



## Rolande

mike bispham said:


> Do you seriously doubt it Rolande?


Mike, I see the problem as being one of how to prove that it's the drones from well maintained colonies which are weakening ferals to the point where they die; it could so easily become a convenient scapegoat for explaining away why a feral colony has died out irrespective of the truth. 

You (Mike) know that I've been trying to get my head around this stuff for quite a few years now but in all truthfulness I don't feel I'm much farther forwards than I was a few years ago, one thing I'll say though is that I no longer have any personal confidence in answers being locked up in a feral population, not in this area at any rate. I can remember far more dead-out ferals than I know of extant ones.


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> Mike, I see the problem as being one of how to prove that it's the drones from well maintained colonies...


Bit of a value judgement that I wouldn't share there Roland! I'm going to stick with 'treated colonies', which, as we all know, have little to no resistance to varroa as a result.



Rolande said:


> which are weakening ferals to the point where they die;...


Proof would require controlled studies, and as far as I know none have been done that actually monitor feral health near and away from treated apriaries. However, there are studies of bees that survive in isolation, and the authors clearly indicate that it is the fact of isoloation that has enabled them to do so.

I don't think a study of that sort would ever be proposed or funded, for this reason: it is fundamental to all life sciences that natural selection will take place in all natural populations, and the corollary is is a matter of simple logic: where natural selection is undermined, there will be consequences. In this case, the consequence is entirely predictable, and found: around treating apriaries use of treatments against varroa will suppress the rise of what would otherwise be very natural developing resistance - that is found in isolated populations.

There is no proof, because no proof is needed. 



Rolande said:


> ... it could so easily become a convenient scapegoat for explaining away why a feral colony has died out irrespective of the truth.


Feral colonies will die out for all sorts of reasons - that's perfectly natural. In many cases they will be offspring of apiary bees. In other cases they may have been planted in places that are not viable. They may simply be dinks - a poor deal of the genetic cards. 



Rolande said:


> You (Mike) know that I've been trying to get my head around this stuff for quite a few years now but in all truthfulness I don't feel I'm much farther forwards than I was a few years ago, one thing I'll say though is that I no longer have any personal confidence in answers being locked up in a feral population, not in this area at any rate. I can remember far more dead-out ferals than I know of extant ones.


Assuming a reasonable level of forage, if there is a high proportion of treated hives around, that would be my first candidate explanation. Its straightforward. 

I think it is helpful to focus on the way evolutionary understanding (co-evolutionary theory) directs all the scientific work concerning the relations between bees and mites. To help with that I've put below some extracts that show how the situation is cast in the literature, as well as demonstrate the present situation.

[Extracts begin]

Besides suppressing mite reproduction, both Varroa resistant European honey bee populations in this study also share the fact that they have been unmanaged, enabling natural selection (as opposed to artificial) to shape the evolution of their mite resistance. This is an important consideration since it highlights the impact that apicultural practices otherwise have on these host–parasite interactions (Fries and Camazine 2001), suggesting a human interference in coevolution between species.

This tri-layered complex host–parasite system between honey bees (a multilevel organism with high genetic recombination rates), the Varroa mite (with a fast generation time but low genetic variation), and the viruses (vectored by Varroa) that infect both the bee and the mite (de Miranda andGenersch 2010), challenges basic coevolutionary theories and has not been fully exploited by evolutionary biologists as a model for host–parasite interaction theories. Our hope is to stimulate interdisciplinary research between apicultural studies and evolutionary biology to provide new insight into parasitic interactions of this system. A deeper understanding of how honey bee colonies naturally coevolve with parasites, and understanding the mechanisms and traits behind such coevolution, is necessary for establishing new optimal and
long-term sustainable honey bee health management strategies in apiculture.

*Host adaptations reduce the reproductive success of Varroa destructor in two distinct European honey bee populations Barbara Locke1, Yves Le Conte2, Didier Crauser2 & Ingemar Fries1*

----------------

(From Table II indicating severity of effects of various pathogens): 

(Varroa): *** Only severe [effects] where the mite has been recently introduced or where effective mite control is employed.

In the case of Varroa, which is a worldwide menace to beekeeping, we believe apicultural practices are responsible for maintaining virulent forms of the pathogen. In areas where the parasite has been established
for several decades in honey bee populations, without being controlled by beekeepers, the parasite no longer is lethal to infested colonies. This is the case in South America both for Africanized bees and bees of European origin (Rosenkranz, 1999) as well as in North Africa (Ritter, 1990). 

Under the influence of apicultural management practices that promote opportunities for horizontal ransmission, a more virulent host-parasite relationship should be retained. With a long history of co-adaptation on its natural host (the Asian honey bee, Apis cerana), the Varroa mite is in fact a benign parasite, as expected for a pathogen that is primarily vertically transmitted. The European and Asian honey bees have very similar life histories and it seems likely that Varroa should develop a benign host parasite relation in European honey bees, if given the opportunity.

*Implications of horizontal and vertical pathogen transmission for honey bee epidemiology Ingemar FRIESa*, Scott CAMAZINEb*

-----------------------------

Currently, the apicultural industry depends heavily on chemical Varroa control treatments to keep managed colonies alive. These chemical controls can leave residues in hive products, have negative impacts on honey bee health, and remove selective pressures that would be required for host or parasite adaptations towards a stable host-parasite relationship (see section 3.4). Therefore, there is an urgent need for a sustainable solution to the threat of Varroa mites for the economic viability of apiculture and agriculture, as well as for honey bee health, conservation and for ecosystem services. 

Understanding the interactions and adaptations between honey bees and Varroa mites is an essential first step towards achieving a long-term sustainable solution. This thesis presents aspects of host-parasite adaptations and interactions by investigating unique honey bee populations that, through natural selection, have adapted to be able to survive Varroa mite infestation without beekeeping management or Varroa control (Papers I, II & III).

3.4 Control of Varroa
A major obstacle to the development of mite tolerance in the European honey bee is intensive beekeeping practices including mite control. Since the mite has been introduced to the western world, beekeepers use methods to remove the mite from colonies, therefore eliminating the selective pressure of mite infestation that would be required for adaptations towards parasite tolerance or resistance in the bees, or towards lower virulence in the mites (Fries & Camazine, 2001). Further, these mite control methods are often based on chemicals and can be problematic for several reasons:

4 Host-parasite interactions
Honey bee societies, the Varroa mites that infest them, and the honey bee viruses that are vectored by the mites, together form a complex system of hostparasite interactions. Coevolutionary theories in the study of host-parasite interactions indicate that antagonistic reciprocal selection pressures will lead to an “arms race” with a series of adaptations and counter-adaptations by the host and the parasite (Thompson, 1994). Such antagonistic interactions actually accelerate molecular evolution compared to selection pressures of environmental changes (Paterson et al., 2010). The evolutionary dynamics of host-parasite coevolution can lead to a relatively stable relationship between the host and parasite with fitness optimality for both by means of a natural selection process (Schmid-Hempel, 2011). However, this coevolutionary process has been hindered for the European honey bee host since apicultural practices remove the mite and consequently the selective pressures required for such a process.

Coevolution theory predicts that parasites will have an evolutionary advantage over their host due to their faster evolution through a shorter generation time (Hafner et al., 1994; Schmid-Hempel, 2011). However, in this particular study system, the Varroa mite is of clonal origin with low genetic variation (Solignac et al., 2005) and the honey bee has a 10-fold higher recombination rate than any other higher order eukaryote (Beye et al., 2006). These aspects provide the honey bee host with an evolutionary advantage in the arms race with Varroa, as the mite’s options for genetic adaptation are limited compared to those of the bee. For this reason, adaptations of resistance or tolerance due to coevolution are most often discussed in general literature from the host’s perspective (the honey bee), in contrast to adaptations of virulence by the parasitic mite.


The Varroa mite situation is far less documented in Africa compared to South America. Nevertheless, since the mite was first detected in South Africa in 1997, a stable host-parasite relationship has developed and these bees do not need mite control treatment (Allsopp et al., 1997). In tropical South America and in Africa, the wild and feral populations of honey bees comprise a much larger proportion of the overall honey bee
population than in temperate North America and Europe where the majority of bees are managed (Moritz et al., 2007). This means that most of the honey bee population in South America and Africa is subject to natural selection pressures towards adaptive resistant mechanisms to Varroa infestation. These naturally adapted traits can then be passed to managed colonies through natural mating events between the wild and managed bees and could be an explanation for the overall mite-tolerance seen in both South America and in Africa.

*Host-Parasite Adaptations and Interactions Between Honey Bees, Varroa Mites and Viruses
Barbara Locke *

[End of Extracts]

That's a bit of a scattergun selection - but do you see Roland how the co-evolutionary theory that accounts for resistance in isolated populations, but not in treated ones, is predicated on the breeding relations, and these, of course, are determined by proximity. _It is those colonies closest to the treated ones that _must_ feel the impact most sharply_. 

That is the scientific basis for the understanding that 'survivors' are most likely to be found in isolated areas, and least likely to be seen around treated apiaries. That it couldn't possibly be otherwise supplies the reason for no studies, and 'proof'. 

Mike (UK)

PS If you remain unconvinced I have an analogy up my sleeve... its a scenario involving a black rabbit farmer who has a fenced compound in an area of the arctic where only white rabbits survive wild....


----------



## jim lyon

mike bispham said:


> They won't all the while its more profitable to carry on as they do. Its a competitive game, and the bottom line is the driver. You'd have to be able to show it can be done as profitably.
> 
> One way forward might be for tf beekeepers to trumpet their honey as 'chemical/treatment free', and demand a premium for a superior product. Of course the comms will fake it, but it will still get the story across, and offer an incentive. I'm thinking of making a 'Real Honey from Real Bees' label, and explaining why its 'real' on the back.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Trumpet your honey all you want Mike but to suggest that any beekeeper who chooses to treat is selling a tainted product is just flat wrong and there is no basis in fact to support it. Sure, miticides can be abused and used off label but lets not characterize all commercial honey in such a manner. My honey and most all commercial honey sold is thoroughly tested by all reputable buyers concerned greatly about liability. Is yours? How many tf folks can say theirs is? There are lots of things bees can get into that you have no control over. If your choice to be treatment free is from the standpoint of developing stronger more resistant bees then I totally respect that but that is an entirely separate issue so lets not confuse the two.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

jim lyon said:


> Trumpet your honey all you want Mike but to suggest that any beekeeper who chooses to treat is selling a tainted product is just flat wrong and there is no basis in fact to support it.


In Finland we have a gentlemen agreement, that every beekeeper can promote his own products as much as he can, but he must not abuse other beekeepers products in any way. I think this works fine.


----------



## mike bispham

jim lyon said:


> Trumpet your honey all you want Mike but to suggest that any beekeeper who chooses to treat is selling a tainted product is just flat wrong and there is no basis in fact to support it.


Its your term Jim, not mine, but I'll offer: it is 'tainted' in my view by the fact that the way it is raised is damaging to the wild bee population. The public is also likely to form the view that it might contain chemical residues (and it might - not yours perhaps, but not everyone is as careful as you). Rightly or wrongly that can only help to create a divide between Tm. Real Honey Made By Real Bees and your product. And that's my aim.

I'm sorry Jim, its nothing personal. You could think of it simply as a measure of commercial competition. 



jim lyon said:


> Sure, miticides can be abused and used off label but lets not characterize all commercial honey in such a manner. My honey and most all commercial honey sold is thoroughly tested by all reputable buyers concerned greatly about liability. Is yours? How many tf folks can say theirs is? There are lots of things bees can get into that you have no control over.


I don't think there are any huge liability issues to worry about if you're not putting _anything_ in the hives. Another plus to tf.... 



jim lyon said:


> If your choice to be treatment free is from the standpoint of developing stronger more resistant bees then I totally respect that but that is an entirely separate issue so lets not confuse the two.


Its also from the standpoint of trying to reverse damaging ecological practices in the wider sense. I don't like industrial agriculture and its grubby and destructive habits. Any more than I like banks that are too big to fail, or the commercialisation of human values and decency. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the world I grew up in (post-war England) to what it has become. I'm gonna add that to my sales pitch too!

There are mixed-up strands here Jim, that I'm not inclined to try to unravel. I like wholesomeness, and to me that is about the means of production just as much as the product itself.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> In Finland we have a gentlemen agreement, that every beekeeper can promote his own products as much as he can, but he must not abuse other beekeepers products in any way. I think this works fine.


In my part of England we don't have that agreement. But I'm not intending to 'abuse' anyone. I'm just pointing out that my honey is tf honey, and therefore Real Honey Made By Real Bees, and explaining what I mean by that.

It means its much, much, more natural than ordinary honey, and that in making it I haven't harmed any wild bees. 

Those are two aspects are part of a joined-up philosophy of husbandry geared promoting to a kind of farming that deliberately minimises its impact on the natural ecology. More: it recognises a responsibility to farmers to protect the ecology for unborn generations. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

sqkcrk said:


> Who are you referring to Kamon?


Kent Williams and Dee Lusby ( though I know both aren't the biggest fishes in the commercial pool doesn't mean their business model would not work on a bigger scale.) 

Some will say it's cause Lusby has Africans and small cell doesn't work but common sense says that it can't hurt either. If varroa prefers the bigger cells of drones then the smaller the cells the less quickly varroa can a get a foot hold. (mites have more success reproducing multiple young in bigger cells.

Not a cure all. But part a management system that will work.

Kent Williams bees I really like. Helped me to be successful in my treatment free yards. Produce honey as good as any hive I know of in my state. No treatments needed.


----------



## jim lyon

Mike: Yes honey packers I deal with are very much concerned about purity and liability, they dont take my word for anything. They run their own tests on the honey before choosing to accept it. That "your honey is real" and that "comms will fake it" clearly implies not just that there is something better about your honey but that there is something wrong with the other honey. In your marketing you may focus all you wish on what you do but stay away from implying what others might be doing. The likelihood that my honey contains contains chemical residues is virtually the same as the likelihood that your honey contains chemical residues in that its out of my control where my bees might forage. Agreed, perhaps not everyone can say that but I am here to make it clear to everyone choosing not to treat that the danger of tainting the purity of your honey is only a criteria for those who choose to abuse and make off label applications.


----------



## mike bispham

jim lyon said:


> That "your honey is real" and that "comms will fake it" clearly implies not just that there is something better about your honey but that there is something wrong with the other honey.


That's right. There is something wrong - not (necessarily) with the product but with the means of production. This is no different to the 'organic'/ordinary food divide. Something about the production is different, such that a claim to superiority can be made, which, of its nature, is an implied criticism of the rest.




jim lyon said:


> In your marketing you may focus all you wish on what you do but stay away from implying what others might be doing.


With all due respect Jim I'll do as I see fit. 



jim lyon said:


> The likelihood that my honey contains contains chemical residues is virtually the same as the likelihood that your honey contains chemical residues in that its out of my control where my bees might forage.


I don't know why you keep going on about chemical taints. That isn't the basis of my claim, as I've explained. My Real Honey is better than your honey because its kinder to wild bees. And its a return to kinder and more wholesome ways of food production. What could be nicer! 

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk

Kamon Reynolds said:


> Kent Williams and Dee Lusby ( though I know both aren't the biggest fishes in the commercial pool doesn't mean their business model would not work on a bigger scale.)
> 
> Some will say it's cause Lusby has Africans and small cell doesn't work but common sense says that it can't hurt either. If varroa prefers the bigger cells of drones then the smaller the cells the less quickly varroa can a get a foot hold. (mites have more success reproducing multiple young in bigger cells.
> 
> Not a cure all. But part a management system that will work.
> 
> Kent Williams bees I really like. Helped me to be successful in my treatment free yards. Produce honey as good as any hive I know of in my state. No treatments needed.


I don't know Williams or anything about him, but Dee Lusby doesn't run 1,000. Maybe Williams does?

Why do you suppose that there aren't more than two?


----------



## Grant

I'm coming to this party kind of late. I'm a modified tf beekeeper, and using IPM and will treat if need be rather than simply consign a colony to a needless death. I'm making honey, not pedigrees, though much of my stock is local ferals, many of them testing positive for Amm. 

I raise open-mated queens from survivors of tf hives, but I'm willing to treat hives designated for production because I want the honey. I often use formic and I'm getting to like powdered sugar dusting. I check for mites using the alcohol wash, which in my opinion, is the most accurate.

I'm not convinced of the argument (and not trying to make it one, Kamon) that I'm polluting the neighborhood with inferior genetics. We have tons of ferals in southeast Missouri. And queens fly great distances, way beyond their own sons, to mate with different drones. This is one realm of beekeeping I cannot delude myself into thinking I have any control over.

I have some 100% tf yards and I'm tf because they are the remotest, hard to reach yards and I almost have to schedule their inspections. They do just fine despite my procrastination.

I also like the idea of tf from the perspective of epigentics, that environmental cues can turn genetic switches on or off in the bee. If one of these environmental cues is, say Apistan, and it is applied to kill mites, do we know if it turns off a gene in the bee which fights viruses? We don't, but we know there are synthetic chems that alter a queens reproductive capacity, a drone's sperm count (yeah, I'd like to try and sell that research paper to a academic committee). Randy Oliver is a champion of epigenetics.

It's also the sub-lethal side effects from synthetic chems that move me to be tf. But we also have to remember how polluted the environment has become. There's a ton of garbage in our air and water that the bees will pick up even though we beekeepers go tf.

Grant
Jackson, MO


----------



## Fusion_power

> But we also have to remember how polluted the environment has become. There's a ton of garbage in our air and water that the bees will pick up even though we beekeepers go tf.


1. Contamination from chemicals introduced into the hive via various treatments and feeds. Chloramphenicol in chinese honey anyone? Fluvalinate in beeswax?
2. Contamination from bacterial growth in honey, food poisoning can originate from improper handling.
3. Environmental toxins that bees encounter as they forage. This includes both man-made and natural toxins.

I make no brags of any sort about my honey. If someone asks, I tell them that I do not treat for mites and have not treated in 8 years. I sell every bit that I produce.

I hear what MB is saying about wanting to get back to what nature intended for honeybees. I also hear what JL says about doing the best he can to manage bees so that pure honey is produced. Both positions are pretty extreme given the world we live in. My position is to avoid putting anything into my colonies that I would be scared of eating myself. Reality as I see it is that commercial beekeepers could go cold turkey the same as I did. They don't because they have not figured out the steps that make it work.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Well it's challenging, risky, and there are always learning curves. Many think why put myself thru that adjustment period, it's already hard enough. 

Most big keepers are from pre-varroa or near that time period. I can't say that I blame the commercial beekeepers on just wanting to make a livelihood but why not keep the majority with treatment and have 10% or so pushing towards a chemical free operation. 

Big beekeepers are the best suited towards truly finding a fix on a large scale. Experience, quantity of bees, equipment, varied environments. These are the breaking grounds that are needed to test stocks and truly see what works and what needs done. 

Mark how many big guys have truly tried?


----------



## Rolande

Not too keen on point-for-point posts, but as this was directed at me I'll have a go at answering.



mike bispham said:


> Proof would require controlled studies, and as far as I know none have been done that actually monitor feral health near and away from treated apriaries. However, *there are studies of bees that survive in isolation, and the authors clearly indicate that it is the fact of isoloation that has enabled them to do so*.


In your environment, in the British Isles? I'm not too interested in what might be, if I go and live in a different environment, I need stuff that I can realistically make work, here and now.



mike bispham said:


> In this case, the consequence is *entirely predictable, and found*: around treating apriaries use of treatments against varroa will suppress the rise of what would otherwise be very natural developing resistance - that is found in isolated populations.


Same question again, where in _our_ environment has any evidence of 'natural developing resistance' been found, who verified that resistance? 



mike bispham said:


> There is no proof, because *no proof is needed*.


If I'm going to go down the treatment free road again and watch previously powerful, healthy colonies, perish (in my environment) then you bet, there does need to be some proof. Theory about how things should work because that's how it's happening elsewhere in the world is worthless to me personally. I've had a go, as we've discussed privately in the past, and got my fingers burnt.

I've no issue with the goal but I see no value in sacrificing countless colonies, and maybe many valuable traits to an ideal for the sake of feeling good about ourselves. I get no feel good pleasure from seeing a colony die when I know that it could have been saved.



mike bispham said:


> Feral colonies will die out for all sorts of reasons - that's perfectly natural. In *many cases *they will be offspring of apiary bees.


Surely you mean in all cases, unless we're back to the claim that wild honeybees exist anywhere in the British Isles.



mike bispham said:


> PS If you remain unconvinced I have an analogy up my sleeve...


No, honestly, please don't worry about that.


----------



## sqkcrk

None that I know of. Neither do I know of any who have started TF and grown into being a commercial beekeeper amongst commercial beekeepers. I know this can be snobbish. But it is what it is.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Well I think we can agree atleast it would be nice if someone would go commercial chemical free. It would be the best way and would leave beekeepers with more money at the end of the season. The only losers would be the treatment producers.

I know I am young and not experienced in commercial beekeeping. Quotes like yours is what continually drives me the route that I have chosen.


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> I don't know Williams or anything about him, but Dee Lusby doesn't run 1,000. Maybe Williams does?
> 
> Why do you suppose that there aren't more than two?


What about Kirk Webster? Isn't there a guy in Texas with a pretty big operation that's tf? There was a thread back when I first started here on BeeSources, something like "Are there any commercial treatment free beekeepers?" First answer: no:

A though that occurs to me is to wonder how many over 1000 hive operations there are that are *not* migratory. That might turn out to be a more reliable marker than whether or not they can not treat and get away with it.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> In my part of England we don't have that agreement. But I'm not intending to 'abuse' anyone. I'm just pointing out that my honey is tf honey, and therefore Real Honey Made By Real Bees, and explaining what I mean by that.
> 
> It means its much, much, more natural than ordinary honey, and that in making it I haven't harmed any wild bees.
> 
> Mike (UK)


So much of these threads is theory, not reality. In this case, what somebody would, in theory, do to their competitors etc when selling honey. In reality, Mike did you sell any honey?


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> Isn't there a guy in Texas with a pretty big operation that's tf?


The BWeavers claim to be. Surely a multithousand hive operation.


----------



## Oldtimer

Kamon Reynolds said:


> Well I think we can agree atleast it would be nice if someone would go commercial chemical free. It would be the best way and would leave beekeepers with more money at the end of the season. The only losers would be the treatment producers.


Again, nice to see some idealism, but it should also be tempered with reality. With the above types of statements a group mentality takes over and people convince each other that large beekeepers would be better off even financially, if they would only see the light and do what the experts here in the treatment free forum are telling them.

Business reality if there was more money for commercial beekeepers in being treatment free, they would be treatment free.

Beeweavers are an example. As they sell bees not honey, they can claim their bees are TF and thereby command a premium price in the hobby market. Largely though, their bees have not worked for commercial guys honey producers & pollinators.

It would be nice if some of these people who dispense advice to commercial beekeepers and make it all sound so simple, could try it.

Oh that's right, read last year about someone who did. Went through what must have been a soul destroying process of building his hives, and over a three year period battling increasing adversity till he lost all his bees, all his money, his house, and his possessions.

But, he didn't treat and I'll give him credit for incredible sticking power for that. But he's a broken man.


----------



## rhaldridge

beemandan said:


> The BWeavers claim to be. Surely a multithousand hive operation.


Well, yes, but don't they sell mostly bees? I was thinking of someone else. I'll do a search.


----------



## Grant

Fusion_power said:


> My position is to avoid putting anything into my colonies that I would be scared of eating myself.


There are stories, perhaps urban legends, that when DDT was first introduced as this wonder-working miracle pesticide, researchers and college professors were drinking DDT in public to profess its safety.

I wonder where they are now? I would love to verify the story/myth.

Still, I'm not serving shredded apistan or apivar strips as a garnish in my salad.

Grant
Jackson, MO


----------



## Vance G

One of the early proponents of DDT did indeed take a drink of DDT during his presentation. I doubt he had any worms and he lived to a ripe old age. When used as directed which it largely wasn't I think it was not a bad product. But people poured barrels of it in swamps to kill mosquitoes! Recently the poor folks in Africa started losing all their children again because it was totally banned. They were painting it on the roofs of their huts and it killed the night feeding mosquitoes vectoring the malaria. I guess they don't love their children like we love ours, so that is OK I suppose. Every coin has two sides.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Grant said:


> There are stories, perhaps urban legends, that when DDT was first introduced as this wonder-working miracle pesticide, researchers and college professors were drinking DDT in public to profess its safety.
> 
> I wonder where they are now?


Years ago, my local extension agent...he's now the head of the VT extension...and I were having a debate on the use of Roundup. To make his point about the safety of Roundup, he boasted that he would rather eat a spoonful of Roundup than a spoonful of salt. Oh my.


----------



## sqkcrk

Kamon Reynolds said:


> Well I think we can agree atleast it would be nice if someone would go commercial chemical free. It would be the best way and would leave beekeepers with more money at the end of the season. The only losers would be the treatment producers.
> 
> I know I am young and not experienced in commercial beekeeping. Quotes like yours is what continually drives me the route that I have chosen.


It would be nice if someone *could*, but I haven't seen it yet. I have been through it, sort of. One year w/out treatments sent my numbers from 732 down to 100 in 9 months.

That might not be a true trial. I tried overwintering some hives in the North one year too, which didn't go well. Fourty turned into four.

If anyone is going to be a treatment free commercial beekeeper they should start out that way and build up into it.


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> What about Kirk Webster? Isn't there a guy in Texas with a pretty big operation that's tf?


What about Kirk Webster? And if you can't recall a TF commercial guy in Texas, that says something.


----------



## Oldtimer

What are Kirks losses? And is his production known?


----------



## WLC

If many commercial operations re-queen every year, I don't see why they couldn't make the transition quickly and easily if TF/resistant queens are available.


----------



## Roland

Have we not been down this road before? Some one posted:


Reality as I see it is that commercial beekeepers could go cold turkey the same as I did. They don't because they have not figured out the steps that make it work.

Don't kid yourself, I could instruct any commercial beekeeper in one sentence how to 
successfully keep TF bees commercially:

"Strike ALL drone brood every 12-14 days"

It is WAY more expensive doing it that way, so they do not. Simple explanation.

Roland Diehnelt 5th gen Commercial beekeeper
Linden Apiary, est. 1852

500 hives, using NO miticides, shaken method for AFB


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> If many commercial operations re-queen every year, I don't see why they couldn't make the transition quickly and easily if TF/resistant queens are available.


They aren't. Not ones that will reliably stand up to the rigours imposed on most commercial bees, and resist mites, without treatment.

Commercial beekeepers are tight with their money, have to be. If all they had to do was stick a particular queen in then forget about treating, they would.


----------



## sqkcrk

Roland, is that really you? There's something different about your recent Posts which make me think a younger version of you is Posting.


----------



## rhaldridge

Okay, just a short list of commercial treatment free guys. I don't know if they all have a thousand hives, but they do make a living form bees.

Chris Baldwin is actually a treatment free migratory beekeeper from South Dakota who takes bees to the almonds. 1800 hives.
Kirk Webster in Vermont makes a living from TF bees.
Dee Lusby has 700 hives, which seems like a commercial number.

If you extend the territory, to other countries you get folks like John Kefuss, Eric Osterlund, and others.

If you consider those who sell bees to be eligible for commercial status, there's BeeWeaver, Purvis, and others.

There are many sideliner-sized operators who claim success.

Apparently it can be done.


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> Apparently it can be done.


Am I wrong to have the thought "Statistically insignificant"?

I'd love to see Chris Baldwin give a presentation of his management techniques at an ABF Meeting. That would be interesting.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> Chris Baldwin.


The others mentioned do not make an income that most people would find acceptable.

But Chris Baldwin is an interesting case. Maybe he is as good as he seems, I hope so. I have tried asking him questions but perhaps he is too busy to communicate.

If commercial TF beekeeping will one day be realistic, perhaps Chris is leading the way. I would love to know more.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Oldtimer said:


> What are Kirks losses? And is his production known?


Hard to say OT. It's been a few years since we've been in touch, but historically he has large losses every few years. Most years he has enough nucs to replace his losses, and that's the foundation of his TF apiary. His Russian hybrids are nothing soecial, as they too crash from varroa and often swarm uncontrollably. Can't speak to his recent production.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks Michael that would tally with my own research on him which was 40 % to 60% losses each year but that is old data.


----------



## sqkcrk

Hey Michael, got a question for you. If folks don't mind me going off topic a little. 
Do you buy queens? Thinking you might to keep genetic stock from getting too narrow.


----------



## Fusion_power

> Don't kid yourself, I could instruct any commercial beekeeper in one sentence how to
> successfully keep TF bees commercially:
> 
> "Strike ALL drone brood every 12-14 days"
> 
> It is WAY more expensive doing it that way, so they do not. Simple explanation.


If I had to cut out drone brood every 14 days, I would go stir crazy. Genetics is pretty much all it takes.


----------



## Michael Palmer

sqkcrk said:


> Hey Michael, got a question for you. If folks don't mind me going off topic a little.
> Do you buy queens? Thinking you might to keep genetic stock from getting too narrow.


Occasionally.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Well I think we are all wanting some concrete evidence. Give me a few years I will be the test. My plans are to go to 1000 colonies and keep them without treatments. Might take a few years but just keep tabs. Yes I am talking big. I am man enough to say I was wrong if I can't. We all will see.

But for the sake of the argument say I did succeed. Do you think the majority of people who don't know me personally would believe I succeeded. Probably not. Many of you probably would not. Commercials out in California and other states or countries with more hives will more than likely say no, he is pulling something, can't be. 

We will see.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

rhaldridge said:


> Okay, just a short list of commercial treatment free guys. John Kefuss, Eric Osterlund,


Erik Österlund is treating with Thymol, he told that in a discussion forum and has Internet pages of his treatment method

John Kefuss had huge losses recently and is himself a bit confused, what is happening. 



Kamon: Mark me as a friend. Send me private messages or e-mail, I´ll help you in every way. I used to be commercial, now 120 hives and getting the numbers up.


----------



## Oldtimer

Kamon Reynolds said:


> My plans are to go to 1000 colonies and keep them without treatments. Might take a few years but just keep tabs. Yes I am talking big. I am man enough to say I was wrong if I can't. We all will see.


Kamon it has been tried. There are even people here on Beesource who started exactly like you, wanted to build up to commercial and be treatment free. And years later they are still stuck on a dozen or two hives, with a honey crop of a few hundred lb's. If they had treated they may have succeeded.

Yes it's unpleasant to hear I know. But fact is, despite all the name dropping, there may not be one commercial treatment free beekeeper who is making a decent living. Anywhere.

I'm excluding people who supplement their income by talking about bees, writing books, running seminars, selling bees or hives etc.

And I'm not a narrow minded old bigot, well maybe I am, but I too have given treatment free beekeeping my best shot, I'm back treating again.

Go treatment free if it's a hobby. But if you want to make a living from it you need to do what it takes to make a living.

Having said all that, maybe one day someone will succeed, that is my hope, maybe even one day treatment free will be the norm. But for now, I see people get caught up in the hype, egged on by people who are not succeeding financially themselves, and end up with shattered dreams, and shattered bank account.

Sorry, but I could say what you want to hear, or I could tell it like it is.


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> Am I wrong to have the thought "Statistically insignificant"?


Well, I do think that's wrong, in a sense. New stuff is by its nature rare at first. Someone has to be the first, and the first person to embrace some new technology or some difficult-to-achieve practice may seem insignificant in terms of the great mass of those who have not yet succeeded in doing so. But that sole success is wildly significant in terms of the future.

AS an example, consider the doctor who first decided to wash his hands between attending women in childbirth. He was statistically insignificant compared to the great mass of doctors who saw no reason to wash their hands-- after all, their hands were just going to get bloody again. But that was a wildly significant moment in medical history, and very significant to the women who would have died of puerperal fever.


----------



## WLC

OT:

I think that there have been enough examples of TF beekeepers who have been successful at the few hundred hive level.

Having seen some resistant stock for myself, and having viewed videos and read the descriptions, I'd say that what's holding these resistant stocks from being used on a much larger scale is that they're not domesticated enough to do so.

Commercial beekeepers would find them to be unacceptable.

That being said, there are beekeepers south of the border who do use these kinds of bees regularly.


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> In your environment, in the British Isles? I'm not too interested in what might be, if I go and live in a different environment, I need stuff that I can realistically make work, here and now.


I'm confused. You location is given as portland, dorset, UK...? What's happening here?



Rolande said:


> Same question again, where in _our_ environment has any evidence of 'natural developing resistance' been found, who verified that resistance?


On another thread recently we were looking at a film made by a Dr. Deborah Delaney in the US, examining the dna of US feral 'survivor' colonies. She was finding that apiary bees and feral bees (in the US) had started to separate into distinct strains, kept apart by different breeding periods. Many of the feral bees were largely Amm genetically. Its here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDQNoQfW-9w

You could also do worse than look up Joe Waggle.



Rolande said:


> If I'm going to go down the treatment free road again and watch previously powerful, healthy colonies, perish (in my environment) then you bet, there does need to be some proof.


You do what you like. If I were you planning to do that I'd be just as cautious as you. 



Rolande said:


> Theory about how things should work because that's how it's happening elsewhere in the world is worthless to me personally. I've had a go, as we've discussed privately in the past, and got my fingers burnt.


You and many others. Would you care to describe what you did in case anyone can spot things that might help 



Rolande said:


> I've no issue with the goal but I see no value in sacrificing countless colonies, and maybe many valuable traits to an ideal for the sake of feeling good about ourselves. I get no feel good pleasure from seeing a colony die when I know that it could have been saved.


You make your choices. If you decide you want to try I'm sure you'll figure out a way without having to watch countless colonies perish.



Rolande said:


> (Concerning damage done to local feral wild bees by treating) No, honestly, please don't worry about that.


The question, the reason for the post to which you are responding, was clarification of the mechanisms by which local feral/wild bees are harmed by treating apiaries - which you had called into doubt. I went to quite a bit of trouble to explain that for you - you're welcome. And since the analogy might be found worthwhile by others I'll go ahead here.

Into the white arctic, and its ecology of white rabbit and predatory arctic fox comes Fred the black rabbit farmer. He builds a farm, surrounds it with rabbit wire, and pretty soon he's in business. Around him the white wild rabbits and the arctic foxes who feed on them carry on as they have for millions of years.

After a while his fencing starts to get shabby. Never mind thinks Fred, a few male white rabbits might get in and mate with my does, but I'll just cull them. That'll be cheaper than renewing the perimeter. And that's what happens. 

What also happens is that a few of Fred's black rabbits get out and mate with the local arctic rabbits. They produce black and white rabbits, who swiftly get eaten - because they lack effective camouflage. The local foxes get fat mopping up the local rabbits, then they perish for lack of food. 

Fred now no longer has to worry about at fence a all. He's happy - but only because he doesn't care about the wild animals.

In open mating settings husbandry acts have consequences. In the case of bees, drones from treatment-dependent hives mate with feral/wild queens, tend, of course, to render the offspring treatment-dependent. 

This might not be a happy thought for treating beekeepers - but it is a fact. You might adopt the pleasing posision that there are no feral bees to be so suppressed - but that is only the case where you and others like you are treating systematically. That too is fact. You can also adopt the soothing position that it it impossible to keep bees commercially without treatments. But others are doing it. So as far as I can see you don't actually have a happy position at all. Unless, like Fred, you don't care about the effects of your actions outside your own world.

I want to be happy with my beekeeping - and lots of others feel the same. That, to ground us back in the thread topic, is a large part of why tf for me.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> John Kefuss had huge losses recently and is himself a bit confused, what is happening.


Can you tell where you heard that Juhani?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Commercial beekeepers would find them to be unacceptable.


It seems to me that we are starting to define 'commercial beekeepers' in terms of those who choose to maximise gains without regard to impact outside their realms. I'm not sure all commercial beekeepers are like that. 

I suspect however that most of the larger ones are. They use methods of maximising profit by using bees as throwaway units of production. Those methods positively require all sorts of treatments - because the bees are too close, too roughly treated and so on. They will never go tf because their bottom line would suffer too much.

They're not really 'beekeepers' in any traditional sense. They're semi-industrial agricultural pollination and nectar-harvesting units. They appear to have no regard at all for the wider impact of their operations. They're very keen to convince everyone that there is no alternative, and that their work is critical to the survival of the human race, and anyway, as pure as the driven snow. 

Its all cobblers. They're mini-corporations saying what they think will best defend their ability to carry on. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden

mike bispham said:


> Can you tell where you heard that Juhani?
> 
> Mike (UK)


Ari Seppälä, beekeeping advisor for the Finnish Beekeepers Association (www.hunaja.net) was attending some meeting (I can ask Ari more precisely, if you wish) he had personally heard that from Kefuss, 50% losses. As I understood from the older, some part of the operation is now in the hands of Kefuss younger. They have queen and honey production, both in Europe and in South-America. Suppose you all know him well. I´ve met him one or two times in breeders meetings in Germany.


----------



## WLC

I'll agree that they're using an industrial scale model.

I'll also agree that there are other models of beekeeping that would fit in with the resistant stocks that are being described.

However, it's the commercial's that have driven how beekeeping has evolved here in the U.S. .

In my opinion, they've pushed the model too far past it's limits.


----------



## Rolande

Hold on there, this MISQUOTE



> Quote Originally Posted by Rolande View Post
> 
> (Concerning damage done to local feral wild bees by treating) No, honestly, please don't worry about that.


appears to have been copied from my post, that is infact NOT the case, unless you think that ADDING words is an acceptable way to present 'quotes'. Apologies for the Capitals but I'm not having this. Quote my post yes, but don't change it to validate your own presentation.

I actually wrote:




> Quote Posted by mike bispham:
> 
> _*PS If you remain unconvinced I have an analogy up my sleeve...
> 
> *_Quote Posted by Rolande in direct reply:
> 
> _*No, honestly, please don't worry about that.*_


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> Quote my post yes, but don't change it to validate your own presentation.


Misquote my foot: a distraction from the content of the reply more like. I put it in brackets to show what it was about. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> (I can ask Ari more precisely, if you wish)


Yes, please. I'd like all the (hard) information you can supply.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> I'll agree that they're using an industrial scale model.
> 
> In my opinion, they've pushed the model too far past it's limits.


Its exactly like pig farming or cattle raising. Look for the optimum way of making money within the regulations (or such as not to be caught by regulations) and do it. Hang the consequences as long as they won't impact on your business in the near future. Its very 'efficient' - at least in the short term. But very ugly in anything other than a tightly money-centred view. 

Its not particularly the individuals fault - its the (corrupt) system of regulation that is the cause. But I sure as anything wouldn't choose to participate.

Mike (UK)


----------



## beemandan

Michael Palmer said:


> Occasionally.


As long as we're talking genetic diversity...If I'm not mistaken, some of your queens ended up with a beekeeping neighbor of mine. I'm guessing that you might have gotten some of hers in exchange?


----------



## Rolande

mike bispham said:


> *I want to be happy with my beekeeping *- and lots of others feel the same. That, to ground us back in the thread topic, *is a large part of why tf for me.
> 
> *Mike (UK)


That I understand and appreciate. 

Unsubstantiated 'stuff' about the harm that drones from treated colonies are causing to a feral (escaped from hives) population in Britain is something else. 

All you really need to do to convince me is to show proof that we have, in Britain, a _self sustaining (multi generation),_ resistant, feral *population* in the first place, which appeared to be what you were implying (and which I myself, in our twenty years or so of varroa haven't seen any kind of conclusive proof of), hence my initial questions. So, Perhaps less long winded quotes from diverse papers and just straight talk from your own direct experience regarding this feral population which you keep referring to.


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bispham said:


> Its exactly like pig farming or cattle raising. Look for the optimum way of making money within the regulations (or such as not to be caught by regulations) and do it. Hang the consequences as long as they won't impact on your business in the near future. Its very 'efficient' - at least in the short term. But very ugly in anything other than a tightly money-centred view.
> 
> Its not particularly the individuals fault - its the (corrupt) system of regulation that is the cause. But I sure as anything wouldn't choose to participate.
> 
> Mike (UK)


What's the alternative? What should someone engaged in beekeeping at a level they can make a living at it do differently from what they are doing in the States today? Since you seem to be talking about commercial beekeeping.

I keep hearing this "failed model"/"pushed beyond the limits" argument. What does that mean? Is it beekeeping that has changed oh so much or is it modern agriculture which has changed what agriculture is today and beekeepers are working to fit in, to service the need and make a living?


----------



## WLC

Mike:

You need look no further than California almond pollination to understand every single aspect of the limits of the beekeeping model that commercials are using.

Now, compare that to a local, small scale, organic, honey producing operation.

It's a stunning comparison.


----------



## Rolande

mike bispham said:


> Misquote my foot: a distraction from the content of the reply more like. I put it in brackets to show what it was about.
> 
> Mike


It is a misquote, I often use brackets in my posts, the way I write, so there was no differentiation between what you added and what I may have written. It's also a misrepresentation of what I wrote as I was directly asking you not to bother (on my behalf) posting your analogy about black rabbits -nothing less, nothing more; having just waded through your previous post of varied-source quotes.


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> Unsubstantiated 'stuff' about the harm that drones from treated colonies are causing to a feral...


I've just substantiated it for you (again, you're welcome). You can take issue with that substantiation, or accept it. Ignoring it and carrying on like it isn't there won't impress anyone worth impressing.



Rolande said:


> ...(escaped from hives)...
> 
> 
> 
> Things are more complex than that. Is a 10th generation feral queen still 'escaped from hives'? How do you discount the likelihood that Amm genetics remain in the mongrel population? The distinction between feral and wild in European bees (in Europe) is tricky. But talk about 'thriving survivors' (regardless of origins or genetic heritage) is perfectly easy.
> 
> 
> 
> Rolande said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you really need to do to convince me is to show proof that we have, in Britain...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to decide where you live Roland, and stick to the one place.
> 
> 
> 
> Rolande said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... a _self sustaining (multi generation),_ resistant, feral *population* in the first place, which appeared to be what you were implying (and which I myself, in our twenty years or so of varroa haven't seen any kind of conclusive proof of), hence my initial questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you know I can't do that. That would need an ongoing long term close study, that hasn't been made (in this country, though if you decide to be in the US then it has been/is being made.)
> 
> 
> 
> Rolande said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Perhaps less long winded quotes from diverse papers and just straight talk from your own direct experience regarding this feral population which you keep referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you're welcome for the effort to supply you with pertinant scientific evidence that would, if you could engage with it, both answer many of your questions and help you make a better effort next time.
> 
> My own direct experience. I have several colonies orginating from well attested longstanding nests. Some are from chimneys, some from hollow trees, other from roof spaces. The oldest have been in my possession for two and a half years - this is their second winter with me.
> 
> These are among some 20 or so colonies collected in the last three years, from swarms and cut-outs (and sometimes swarms that I know have come from well attested 'survivor' colonies. I've always done the same thing: put them in a suitably sized hive and left them alone. If forage has been poor I've fed them as incomers, and I've sometimes fed too to encourage comb building and to stimulate in the spring.
> 
> Some of these colonies filled three (National) lifts last summer - despite having to build most of the lift comb - and in some cases despite my pinching several brood combs. This without any moving - but on probably fairly good rough forage. And it was a good summer weatherwise.
> 
> Not all my incomers have thrived. Some have spluttered and a few have petered out altogether.
> 
> It is, obviously, early days. However, the signs are good. I'm making sure I don't interfere with the hives such as to artificially advantage them in terms of varroa. They're coping with it, and mostly thriving, on their own. I put that down to naturally developed resistance.
> 
> Mike (UK)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> It is a misquote


Roland I've been doing this long enough to recognise when someone really wants to learn, and when they are just very eager to protect their own position. The ones who want to learn engage with the material. The others just find fault with the supplier/the way the material is supplied.

When you want to engage with bee-mite co-evolution and apiary/feral dynamics, you'll know where to begin.

Mike (UK, definately UK)


----------



## Villa le Bosquet

A wild bee colony is living with us under our roof since 25 years.No way to get to the combs,no treatment either.They are still alive,some years less some years more active.So why bother with chemicals. 4 years ago we installed our first hives (Warré et TBH),no treatment,minimum inside inspection (TBH only).Why bother,we believe nature knows best.Instead eating contaminated honey we are ready to accept some losses of our beloved hives.So far no problem.
Greetings from Normandy
Jan


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> What's the alternative? What should someone engaged in beekeeping at a level they can make a living at it do differently from what they are doing in the States today?


I've you haven't picked that up already I don't suppose further explanation is going to help. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> What also happens is that a few of Fred's black rabbits get out and mate with the local arctic rabbits. They produce black and white rabbits, who swiftly get eaten - because they lack effective camouflage. [HIGHLIGHT]The local foxes get fat mopping up the local rabbits, then they perish for lack of food. [/HIGHLIGHT]
> 
> Fred now no longer has to worry about at fence a all. He's happy - but only because he doesn't care about the wild animals.


:scratch:Why do the foxes die? :scratch: After all, more rabbits are coming through the holes in the fence.


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> Originally Posted by *Rolande*
> (Concerning damage done to local feral wild bees by treating) No, honestly, please don't worry about that.


In fact Mike, you did misquote Rolande. You're the one that added the words in brackets and included it as Rolande's words. :no:

In your own words:



> I've just substantiated it for you (again, you're welcome). You can take issue with that substantiation, or accept it. Ignoring it and carrying on like it isn't there won't impress anyone worth impressing.


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bispham said:


> I've you haven't picked that up already I don't suppose further explanation is going to help.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Well thanks anyway. Can't you guys argue w/ yourselves any closer to home?


----------



## deknow

Michael Palmer said:


> Hard to say OT. It's been a few years since we've been in touch, but historically he has large losses every few years.


....the losses I've seen reported on the internet (usually reported by Mike Palmer) don't generally match with what I hear from Kirk. I don't think I'm mistaken when I say that it seems that almost every year Mike reports that Kirk has had large losses (and posts such on the internet). These reports are probably as accurate as guesses about what is going on with Mike Palmer's operation by those that have "not been in touch" with him for a few years.



> Most years he has enough nucs to replace his losses, and that's the foundation of his TF apiary.


I think it's fair to say that 'most years' he has nucs to sell after replacing his losses.



> His Russian hybrids are nothing soecial, as they too crash from varroa and often swarm uncontrollably. Can't speak to his recent production.


I don't think Kirk has a "super bee" (hard to say if they are special...they are not special enough to get boutique cattle dip imported from the other side of the world...it would be hard to compare the performance of his bees vs bees from a somewhat similar operation without feeding his bees sugar and treating them with illegal miticides).

It blows my mind that anyone (especially someone that knows Kirk and could pick up the phone) would guess at all of this. Kirk is likely the most honest person on the planet as well as the most friendly and giving. Anyone that wants to know about his operation/experiences could read his writings at http://KirkWebster.com/ and use the contact info on that site to call him and ask questions.

I really do like Mike, but he has rather consistently done poor reporting on Kirk's operation...I'm not sure the reason, but it is uncool at best. There is no reason for it.

deknow


----------



## Fusion_power

At some point, the rubber meets the road. If you want to promulgate treatment free, do it for several years and then talk about how well it works. I've been there and got the t-shirt.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Kamon it has been tried. There are even people here on Beesource who started exactly like you, wanted to build up to commercial and be treatment free. And years later they are still stuck on a dozen or two hives, with a honey crop of a few hundred lb's. If they had treated they may have succeeded.


Anyone care to tally up the 'people on Beesource' who wanted to 'build up to be commercial' and _not_ treatment free?
A relatively new beekeeper thinking they are going to expand to 1000 hives is a common goal/dream. It rarely pans out, treatment or not.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

Fusion_power said:


> At some point, the rubber meets the road. If you want to promulgate treatment free, do it for several years and then talk about how well it works. I've been there and got the t-shirt.


Are they made from treatment free cotton?


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> In fact Mike, you did misquote Rolande. You're the one that added the words in brackets and included it as Rolande's words. :no:


I didn't misquote him (in the normal sense of that phrase). I added the subject in brackets, as clarification as to what we wrere talking about -since beesource had removed the part of my post that would have made that clear. Next time I'll do it in square brackets and add 'MB' to make it clearer. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Can't you guys argue w/ yourselves any closer to home?


Sorry Mark that was short of me - work to raise resistance in your bees if that's what you want to do. There.

No we can't argue closer to home. The Land of the Free does what it says on the tin, in this case. You can't about t/f on UK forums

Mike (UK)


----------



## jim lyon

deknow said:


> Anyone care to tally up the 'people on Beesource' who wanted to 'build up to be commercial' and _not_ treatment free?
> A relatively new beekeeper thinking they are going to expand to 1000 hives is a common goal/dream. It rarely pans out, treatment or not.
> 
> deknow


Thats true Dean at least from the limited perspective of the postings here on Beesource. My contacts in the real world of commercial beekeeping paint a different and I think more realistic picture though. I know of lots and lots of successful stories from start-ups who have had great success in this business. I know of none that have done it treatment free. Those are the facts as I know them not idealistic notions. The only one I am aware of that has come on here to personally state a treatment free case is Tim Ives, he apparently has been successful with something in the 150 hive range though I think it's fair to say that his numbers seem a bit clouded in mystery. I don't state this to demean those who are attempting tf beekeeping but it seems like these arguments always boil down to second hand accounts of what someone heard that someone else is doing as proof that it works.


----------



## deknow

Jim,
In the first half of your post you make a case that posting on Beesource is not a good way to gauge what is going on with commercial beekeepers ("a more realistic picture" seems to come from your contacts rather than from posters on beesource).
In the second half you seem to demonstrate how few commercial tf beekeepers there are by pointing out that only Tim Ives has posted here on Beesource.
The last thing that I would do to my commercial tf beekeeping friends/contacts is tell them they should get on the internet/beesource so they can be told that they are not doing what they are doing.
There are TF beekeepers in the research community (one researcher, when I asked what he/she treats with replied with, "well, I'm managing for honey production, so I don't treat with anything") that simply don't advertise that they don't treat. 

There are TF beekeepers in the commcerial beekeeping community as well. If commercial beekeepers (or researchers) were really interested, they would at least be talking to Chris Baldwin and Bob Brachmann.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

I'm not quite sure what case you are making here Dean. I am always interested in hearing any successful beekeeping accounts tf or otherwise but no one has come on here (at least that I am aware of) and made a compelling case for a treatment free operation that even remotely resembles any that I know in the commercial world. The only ones I am aware of are people selling tf stock (such as Weavers or Adamf) and I have bought from each of them. Their experiences are welcomed and their work important but everyone can't do that or there would be no customers. It would be imteresting if the folks that you mentioned would come on here, post their experiences and answer some questions. Their models may well be compelling but it shouldn't be incumbent on me to seek them out and I think my experiences are every bit as relevant though they may not be as palatable to those dedicated to the strict tf model as defined here on Beesource. I have gone to Kirk's website and frankly I didn't learn much and I mean no disrespect to Kirk by that. I have no doubt he is a nice gentleman who is dedicated to his business.


----------



## deknow

I mean no disrespect (Jim, you do have my respect), but there are a lot of beekeepers and researchers that I get a lot out of talking/writing/visiting with (TF and otherwise) that don't post to beesource...so I seek them out.

Waiting for someone for whom computers aren't a part of daily social life to come to beesource and tell you what they are doing (and inevitably be told they are not doing what they say they are doing) is passive, and it is not what one does if one really wants to know. You want a list of people you should talk to? A list of folks that I have interesting and worth talking to?

I'd start with Deb Delaney and Paul Arnold (Young Harris) as people in the academic/research/education community that don't say so loudly, but (as last I knew) weren't using any treatments. I've met Deb once, and she was really nice and really smart. Paul stayed with us a few days around our conference 2 years ago...great guy and very knowledgeable.
Commercial beekeepers? I'd start with Bob Brachmann...he is part of the Russian breeding program, and uses the Russian stock in his treatment-free operation. Bob is well known and well respected in the more 'mainstream' circles (at least that is my impression). Chris Baldwin would be an obvious person to talk to as well. Kirk's and Dee's operations are also important to look at.
I don't think it is productive to wait until these folks start spending time on Beesource...book them for your club meeting, travel to see them, or pick up the phone.

deknow


----------



## deknow

...I know from the previous go around with this that if I post a summary of what these beekeepers are doing (some I'm more familiar with than others), that I will be "corrected" by other beekeepers who know better


----------



## squarepeg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDQNoQfW-9w

i had not seen this before, thanks for the link.

i had only assumed there was still a significant population of feral colonies in this part of the country, and it's nice to know that they are this prevalent. also interesting is that they are so genetically different from the commercial stock.

i believe that this is what i have, but it would be nice to get dna conformation. i plan to write dr. dulaney and see if she might be interested in sampling these.


----------



## rhaldridge

Chris Baldwin, I believe, is right there in the Dakotas.

Jim, of course it's not your responsibility to find out about the existence of TF commercial operation. But from what I've read here, you are interested in minimizing treatments. 

If you are perfectly content with every aspect of your operation, I could understand it if you were uninterested in these successful TF operations. Otherwise, I don't see why you wouldn't want to be proactive in seeking out this information.

From an outsider's perspective, it would appear obvious that these guys who are managing without treatment must be doing a lot of stuff very very well, Even if a person feels no strong interest in avoiding treatment, the guys who are good enough at beekeeping that they don't need treatment to prop up their operations are probably worth studying and learning from.


----------



## WLC

You missed Dr. Delaney's video?

Listen for the bit on reproductive isolation.

I hope that you didn't miss her grad student's paper on AHB false positives in the south.


----------



## Fusion_power

> Are they made from treatment free cotton?


Lol, in this case, they are. I happen to grow brown and green cotton. It makes nice thread with no dye and no insecticides used in the growing. The big reason it works is because boll weevils were wiped out in this area a few years ago.

http://www.meamcneil.com/Survivor Stock Part 1.pdf


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> Next time I'll do it in square brackets and add 'MB' to make it clearer.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Next time, simply leave your editorial comments out of the quote field so there is no misunderstanding.


----------



## mike bispham

jim lyon said:


> Thats true Dean ... I don't state this to demean those who are attempting tf beekeeping but it seems like these arguments always boil down to second hand accounts of what someone heard that someone else is doing as proof that it works.


All very interesting, but what has it to do with Why Treatment Free? What is your interest in going treatment free, Jim, why do you want to do it? What are you doing about it?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> All very interesting, but what has it to do with Why Treatment Free?


It seems that Jim's comments are certainly more relevant to Treatment Free beekeeping than your fable about _rabbits and foxes_!


:gh:


or were those treatment-free rabbits? 

.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I've just substantiated it for you (again, you're welcome). You can take issue with that substantiation, or accept it. Ignoring it and carrying on like it isn't there won't impress anyone worth impressing.Mike (UK)


You have not substantiated it at all.

As it is key to all your arguments (hundreds of pages of them), please substantiate. If you don't, nobody need believe anything else you say. As you only ever have one subject and it's all based on this supposed " resistant feral" English bee. Where are they?


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> It seems that Jim's comments are certainly more relevant to Treatment Free beekeeping than your fable about _rabbits and foxes_!


Fable: a short tale to teach a moral lesson, often with animals or inanimate objects as characters; apologue: _the fable of the tortoise and the hare; Aesop's fables_.

Analogy: a similarity between like features of two things, on which acomparison may be based: _the analogy between the heart and a pump_.

Marvellous things, dictionaries. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> Roland I've been doing this long enough to recognise when someone really wants to learn, and when they are just very eager to protect their own position. The ones who want to learn engage with the material. The others just find fault with the supplier/the way the material is supplied.
> 
> When you want to engage with bee-mite co-evolution and apiary/feral dynamics, you'll know where to begin.
> 
> Mike (UK, definately UK)


Mike, that is absurd. You did misquote the guy. If you wanted to add another sentence in brackets, add it outside the quotes so it does not look like he said it.

remember a time I quoted you, and while deleting the rest of the post, ended up with a full stop at the end of your quote. Your were reduced to near hysteria as you spent several posts frothing at the mouth and in the strongest and angriest terms accusing me of misquoting you. Over a full stop at the end.

To then tell somebody else who has had a whole sentence added to their quote that it is not a problem, says something about you, your level of honesty, and could I even say double standards.

To illustrate -



mike bispham said:


> Roland I've been doing this long enough to recognise when someone really wants to learn, and when they are just very eager to protect their own position. The ones who want to learn engage with the material. The others just find fault with the supplier/the way the material is supplied.
> 
> When you want to engage with bee-mite co-evolution and apiary/feral dynamics, you'll know where to begin. (There are no feral resistant bee populations in England).
> 
> Mike (UK, definately UK)


Now you are in the other persons shoes, can you see the misquote? Or you'll hold your former position and say it is not a misquote?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Apparently Mike missed the _moral lesson_!  :lpf::no:




:gh:

... something about stones and glass houses ... 

:ws:
and thats no _fable _... or is it [not] an _analogy _...
... are spelling lessons next? ...
.... how about the _ethics _of misquoting? ...


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

deknow said:


> Anyone care to tally up the 'people on Beesource' who wanted to 'build up to be commercial' and _not_ treatment free?
> A relatively new beekeeper thinking they are going to expand to 1000 hives is a common goal/dream. It rarely pans out, treatment or not.


Keep track deknow. 

If I can do it with 100 I can do it with 1000. As I said before guys. I totally understand the current situation. I am not promoting the bond method. I have a bee that is resistant but not immune. Due to proper breaks of the varroa's brood cycle a coexistence can be maintained. 

I might fail, but my Grandpa has always taught me if your not growing your dying. If your not going forward your going backward. 

The mites have gotten immune to many treatments.

What happens when a new pest is introduced and our bees have not learned to deal with varroa? More chemicals? Can the bees take more? Can the commercial operations survive paying for more chemicals and possibly more CCD incidents to come?

I don't have the answers.

I'm pushing towards what I believe is progress. Maybe I fail and someone learns from my mistakes and succeeds. Who knows. 

Don't get me wrong I have the utmost respect for the commercial beekeepers on here and out there. I have learned a ton from Mark and others on beesource and the last thing I want is create a rift over a difference of opinion. You commercials inspire me! 

The thing is I am always hearing how experienced beekeepers want to see young guys get into the business. Until the young guy opens his mouth and mentions treatment free and then well.... we don't expect you to survive kid and that is funny to me.

I more or less expected more beekeepers to want this dream of having bees that did not require as much treatment. The overall feeling that I get is this is how it is, will always be, don't buck the system kid. I am not saying try the bond method. small experimental batches from every big operation would surely yield a bee that was better than the average overtime. 

Call me what you like I am going forward. Keep track.


----------



## jim lyon

mike bispham said:


> What is your interest in going treatment free, Jim, why do you want to do it? What are you doing about it?
> 
> Mike (UK)


The advantages would be obvious. I have greatly reduced our treatments to a single fall treatment window and I am always looking for resistant stock to add to out operation. So thats what I am doing about it. 
You can reread the exchange I had with Dean if you are unsure of what or why I posted. It was civil and constructive and I felt I was pretty clear. I am not here to get into an involved point-counterpoint with you, though, Mike. I know better.


----------



## Oldtimer

Kamon Reynolds said:


> Keep track deknow. Watch. If I can do it with 100 I can do it with 1000. As I said before guys. I totally understand the current situation. I am not promoting the bond method. I have a bee that is resistant but not immune but due to proper breaks of the varroa's brood cycle a coexistence can be maintain My business model is sound and doable. Maybe you can't do it with 10,000 plus hives without having to hire to many workers....but then there lies another question should there be operations that big and not several smaller ones?


Kamon for me anyway I'm very interested in your progress and ask that you continue to update.
The advice I give to anyone treatment free or not, who wants to keep bees full time for a living, is go work for somebody doing it first. The experience gained will almost certainly be the difference between success and failure.

And yes I can say this from personal experience. I kept bees as a hobby for 3 years, got good crops, thought I was pretty good and wanted to do it full time. So at age 16 I got a job with a commercial beekeeper. It was a rude surprise. About what matters and what doesn't, about time management, and about how to get a certain amount of work done in a day. If I had tried to become a commercial beekeeper by just building up what I had, I doubt I would ever have been as good a beekeeper it would always have been a struggle.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Anyone care to tally up the 'people on Beesource' who wanted to 'build up to be commercial' and _not_ treatment free?
> 
> deknow


I can't tally them. I know several but will not be asked to "name and shame" people, some of whom I see as personal friends. However both you Dean, and Solomon parker, have made no secret in time past that they wanted to be commercial beekeepers, it is in the public arena so I could name you both. And, as per my previous statement you would both be good examples, went treatment free, and years later stuck on a dozen hives or two.



deknow said:


> A relatively new beekeeper thinking they are going to expand to 1000 hives is a common goal/dream. It rarely pans out, treatment or not.
> 
> deknow


Exactly, it rarely pans out, where are they now? They all go the treatment free route. Compound that with their lack of knowledge and inability to see what is killing their bees, the situation is hopeless. Seeing keen, decent people end up in this situation is very saddening for me, I just wish I could help some of them, as I do in my own country. But unfortunately on Beesource, I am seen as being on the "other" team, and their "friends", are the ones egging them on to ruin.


----------



## TalonRedding

Kamon Reynolds said:


> The thing is I am always hearing how experienced beekeepers want to see young guys get into the business. Until the young guy opens his mouth and mentions treatment free and then well.... we don't expect you to survive kid and that is funny to me.


I feel what you mean Kamon. It doesn't have to be just treatment free either. It can be any different or new idea, you share it with someone, and the next thing you know you have people waiting in line to tell you that you're gonna fail. My personal and even "professional" one it's that you are in a good spot to do it since you are basically starting out. I'm in the same position myself, but you have a few more years of experience than I do. I think that there is a gap in communication between younger Beekeepers and older Beekeepers. Beekeepers that had thousands of hives in the 1980's were put in a pickle when the threat of losing their livelihoods was a very real possibility. The luxury of time to get to the bottom of things really wasn't present. If I was in their shoes, I probably would have made similar choices. New Beekeepers today though have many options now. Resistant stock has become a reality, there are soft treatments, small cell foundation, drone comb management techniques, brood breaks, more IPM strategies than you can shake a stick at, and even standard treatments. It seems to me that the younger Beekeepers (myself included) forget about what the older ones went through and that the older Beekeepers forget where we have come. I honestly believe that the future is pretty bright for Beekeepers, commercial and non commercial, and that management strategies will vary with various people. It is good to experiment with all the options; I am, and will continue to do so. I wish you the best of luck and look forward to hearing about your success. I'll be attempting the same.


----------



## mike bispham

jim lyon said:


> I have greatly reduced our treatments to a single fall treatment window and I am always looking for resistant stock to add to out operation.


I'm fine with civility Jim. Can I assume your operation sytematically seeks to encourage co-evolution, to raise resistance toward the point where treatments (and manipulations) will be unnecessary? Can you outline for us your evaluation procedures, and your approach to concentrating resistance traits to that end? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Kamon Reynolds said:


> I more or less expected more beekeepers to want this dream of having bees that did not require as much treatment. The overall feeling that I get is this is how it is, will always be, don't buck the system kid. I am not saying try the bond method. small experimental batches from every big operation would surely yield a bee that was better than the average overtime.


I was that naive too. 

As to start-up failures and put-downs, they're par for the course. A very large proportion of business start-ups do fail - that's a fact. And people do pour cold water on your prospects. You need a strong vision, both a 'dream' and a well thought-through plan, and an ability to both stick to your guns and shift with the flows of opportunities, to make it work. The people you talk with don't have what you have in your head in theirs, and they struggle to see it. And so their response come across as negative. I've been self employed, in various ways, for over 35 years, and I've experienced it time and again. 

Every now and the you meet someone who says: sounds like a great plan, go for it. Mostly they're other business folk - there's a kind of community of people who understand the loneliness of those who dare be captain of their own little ship. 

But mostly you meet scepticism. You have to learn to trust your own judgement, and ignore the negative vibes - and that can be hard work. But you have to be used to hard work anyway. I've often said to myself: if it was easy everyone would be doing it. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> But mostly you meet scepticism.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Haven't found that to be true in the circles I mix in, but I guess we all make our own world.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

mike bispham said:


> Yes, please. I'd like all the (hard) information you can supply.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Ari replied my e-mail from India (!), he was pretty sure it was Eurbee conferens in Halle Germany in September 2012. (where he met Kefuss)

http://www.eurbee2012.uni-halle.de/


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Haven't found that to be true in the circles I mix in, but I guess we all make our own world.


That's true, and probably applies. The very idea of becoming self employed was odd to most of my friends. Perhaps too my ideas have been more out of the box than is often the case. Whatever, I've often felt the need to listen to my own inner voice and cut out the rest in order to maintain the confidence to continue. That's my experience, both in my own social world and here. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> Ari replied my e-mail from India (!), he was pretty sure it was Eurbee conferens in Halle Germany in September 2012. (where he met Kefuss)


Thanks Juhani. For now, with respect, I'm filing that as anecdotal, and a little out of date. If you hear anything further I'd be very interested.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I've often felt the need to listen to my own inner voice and cut out the rest in order to maintain the confidence to continue.
> 
> Mike (UK)


That's likely the problem. For me, I view all advice long as it's given in good faith, as positive and that's how I consider it. Even if it goes against my current business plan.

So my words to Kamon were that if he wants to make a living he needs to do what it takes to make a living. To me, that is good, positive advice. However I am not trying to change your kind of outlook on the world, or force Kamon to change his business plan, people can consider advise positively, not consider it, or live their life any way they choose.

So a big thanks for the input Mike, however I exchanged some ideas with Kamon. Kamon did not complain about it.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> That's likely the problem.


I don't feel there's a problem.



Oldtimer said:


> So a big thanks for the input Mike, however I exchanged some ideas with Kamon. Kamon did not complain about it.


I haven't complained. I've offered a view. I can't win (civility) with you, so I'm going to go back to not responding to you.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Mike I think I know who the negativity, complaints of put downs, complaints of scepticism, complaints of pouring cold water, etc etc, of your post was directed at LOL 

But hey, if you say you didn't complain, well, I'll just shut my eyes and pretend the post isn't there. 



mike bispham said:


> I can't win (civility) with you, so I'm going to go back to not responding to you.


Oh don't be so hard on yourself. If you could experiment with dropping the agenda and having honest conversation you'd find me pretty easy to get on with. Why be concerned about having to win?


----------



## Rolande

Oldtimer said:


> Kamon for me anyway I'm very interested in your progress and ask that you continue to update.
> The advice I give to anyone treatment free or not, who wants to keep bees full time for a living, is go work for somebody doing it first. The experience gained will almost certainly be the difference between success and failure.


Kamon, I'm also interested to see how things work out with your plan and hope that you will continue to update us but I think that Oldtimer's advice about gaining that extra experience has got to be worth following. It seems to me that the really successful treatment free commercial operations, the one's with large numbers of colonies surviving (or, number counts being sustained by rotating in home produced nucs each season) for several years have one important aspect in common, they're headed by very good, experienced beekeepers/queen breeders. I think that this is probably quite important because we often hear of Kefuss and the Weavers etc pulling treatments and ending up with sustainable stock but I wonder if they'd have succeeded without an already highly developed knowledge of queen selection and breeding. Maybe they would have, no one can really say for certain, either way it can do no harm to add an edge to your own chances of success.


----------



## jim lyon

mike bispham said:


> I'm fine with civility Jim. Can I assume your operation sytematically seeks to encourage co-evolution, to raise resistance toward the point where treatments (and manipulations) will be unnecessary? Can you outline for us your evaluation procedures, and your approach to concentrating resistance traits to that end?
> 
> Mike (UK)


Yeah, that would certainly be the ultimate goal. We select breeders from among our own hives with low mite counts along with high productivity, gentleness, and large winter cluster size as criteria (I am aware a couple of those work at cross purposes) and then mix in some tf stock from breeders that do the hard work of systematic mite counting. I could care less what color they are, though I always make it a point to include a dark one or two as it seems yellow always tends to dominate.
Getting down to a single fall treatment a year is the easy part. Justifying taking the leap of faith to go all in and miss that ideal fall treatment window is quite another matter as the businessman in me is convinced that the gamble isn't worth taking. I like the state of my bees and the purity of my product. The only incentive I see are some verbal "pats on the back" from the tf purists here on Beesource. 
Why not do it with some? To understand you would have to observe the process of moving, pooling, loading, unloading and redistributing a large quantity of hives. I think of it as adding a spoonful of chocolate to a blender full of vanilla ice cream.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well just treating yearly instead of twice yearly will save a heap of money and time.


----------



## Fusion_power

email from John Kefuss.



> Dear Mr. Jones,
> In yards with high mortality we found lambda-cyalothrin and imidaclolprid But that does not explain everything. So it is difficult to conclude just what took place. Colonies had no bees, no brood , few signs of varroa and plenty of stored food. This last September we took brood and bee samples and put them in the freezer so we have something to refer to if the situation arises again.


On the surface of it, this is a classic description of CCD. There is a suspicion of pesticide involvement but nothing provable. One or more unknown viruses would be next most probable cause.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> A relatively new beekeeper thinking they are going to expand to 1000 hives is a common goal/dream. It rarely pans out, treatment or not.
> 
> deknow


Blake Shook from Texas? 2,000 cols by age 22. But that is only one. Therefore rare. Or exceptional.


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bispham said:


> Sorry Mark that was short of me - work to raise resistance in your bees if that's what you want to do. There.
> 
> No we can't argue closer to home. The Land of the Free does what it says on the tin, in this case. You can't about t/f on UK forums
> 
> Mike (UK)


You can't discuss/argue about Treatment Free Beekeeping on UK forums? Now that's amazing. Sure you don't live in China?


----------



## Oldtimer

Well, I'm thinking about the various characters who have had to be banned from Beesource due to outlandish views / behaviour, with a "view" either on treatment free, or neonicitiniods, but usually both. Most of them so extremist they would crash any thread they touched. They did mostly seem to come from a particular country, starting with E.

A whole bunch of them folks on your local treatment free thread, I can quite see why the subject may have become off limits. 

But Mike did you mean Nobody can discuss this in England any more, or just You cannot discuss this in England any more. I can understand both scenarios.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Hmm, and I thought there is no bigger treatment free group in Europa than in the UK? I know of some people tf in France but most I know of are in the UK. More than there are in Germany for sure. I got the impression while communicating through biobees.com and through the group surrounding David Heaf. (Dr. Heaf that is.  )

I can speak for Germany only, though. Here a lot of fresh beekeepers are overly enthusiastic about tf beekeeping and do want to go through the walls whatever it means. A lot of hives die - and create trouble for surrounding apiaries. We have (or at least had) a high density of apiaries here. So with all the trouble by the keyboard beekeepers the tf movement is seen very sceptical by most beekeepers. 

But there are more serious attempts by very experienced beekeepers and some institutes. Some try to breed on a big scale with hundreds of beekeepers taking part in the project, some do small scale tf beekeeping. The smaller beekeepers which are successful do it by bringing in as many genetic diversity for a start and multiply from those that do well. Consequently they requeen every year. 

The breeding project is going on for decades. The results are promising, but treatments are needed still, but much less. Once a year or every second year or so. The smaller scale projects do split a lot to replace losses. 

The topic is discussed wildly but only few do it. Most beginners fail, I'd say about 99 % I know of. With a total loss within the first, second and third year. Some give up, most follow the Soft Bond Test developed by Kefuss. 

Back to topic: why treatment free? Because it is necessary to do it. Sooner or later. It can't go on forever with treatments. 

On the other hand it is necessary to treat those who need it. You still need to requeen them, but no need to actually let the bees suffer and die. Which is completely pointless?!


----------



## Paul McCarty

I am still trying to figure out why it seems there are so many non-TF people in the TF forums. What am I missing? How is discussion possible when everything degrades to a fight? There's some good info, but man, you have to wade through pages of disagreements to find it in many cases.


----------



## mike bispham

jim lyon said:


> We select breeders from among our own hives with low mite counts along with high productivity, gentleness, and large winter cluster size as criteria (I am aware a couple of those work at cross purposes) and then mix in some tf stock from breeders that do the hard work of systematic mite counting.


Jim,

Its interesting to be thinking about the very different problem of converting a treatment-dependent apiary to my attempt at resistant-to-begin with stock raising. A few questions:

Do you take any other steps to minimise varroa, or is your varroa management absolutely limited to just that one treatment? I'm asking because I wonder just how good your assays might be? Even after just one treatment - whether you are actually bringing the best of the resistant stock forward or if its a little hit and miss. A bit of this and a bit of that, and a treatment, and... can you still really tell which are the best mite managers? Or are you just getting those that do best under your regime?

Another question: do you promote your chosen genetics down the drone side too? If so, how?

Maybe there are ways to fine-tune your assays, press a little harder on the selection, with the aim of making the switchover gradual all the way - rather than having to make that leap of faith.



jim lyon said:


> The only incentive I see are some verbal "pats on the back" from the tf purists here on Beesource.


If the only incentive is approval here, why does that matter to you?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rolande

Paul, speaking for myself I think that there's far more to be learnt by taking an active interest than there is by simply ignoring a forum because it's not 'what I do'. Even here, the only disagreement has been over whether there's a resistant wild population (we did, at least, establish that they're not 'native') in the UK and if so, where. To be truthful, another's choice to treat or not isn't as big a deal to me as are the methods that they use to keep bees alive and healthy.


----------



## mike bispham

Paul McCarty said:


> I am still trying to figure out why it seems there are so many non-TF people in the TF forums. What am I missing?


I think of some of them as Bi-curious, wanting to ask yet unwilling to admit ignorance of any part of their field of expertise - and so unable to openly put questions. They want to learn, but they can't reconcile that with the knowledge that they already know everything. Again, they want to belong, but at another level they are angry at themselves for wanting to belong.

Just kidding men! We know you're all really astroturfers funded by Bayer!

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> (we did, at least, establish that they're not 'native')


Hmmm. I argued that the issue was more complex than you were (and still are) allowing, given that it would seem very likely that a good part of many mongrels would be genetically Amm. That is what has been discovered to be the case in the US feral population, and its no less likely here - they are at least partly native. There are probably no pure natives I'll agree, but that is not to say there is no remnant of the natives. 

Its not especially relevant to the issue of whether resistance has risen in the feral/wild population. I think a great many people here in the UK think it has, in some places significantly. 

In my view these discussions are invaluable. We're slowly homing in on the key issues - the things that really matter. It is a shame we have to wade through syrup to do it, but I suppose that's the price of freeish speech.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> To be truthful, another's choice to treat or not isn't as big a deal to me as are the methods that they use to keep bees alive and healthy.


Another quibble - an important one I think. To my mind a colony that is dependent on regular medication (or manipulation), else death, cannot be described as 'healthy'. At least, not in the same sort of way that a health-self-sufficient colony can. 

Try this: suppose you had to add ten different treatments to a colony to keep it alive; and with those treatments it was vigourous and productive. Would you still call it 'healthy'?

Try twenty treatments...

At what point does a vigourous and productive colony stop being healthy in virtue of the number of treatments you are having to supply?

Inborn vivacity is true health. Anything else is inferior

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC

As long as queens last an average of only six months, overwinter loss rates are at 30%, commercial pollinators have difficulty meeting almond pollination contracts (since they don't have the reserves despite knowing full well that almond acreage is increasing), we'll need to develop resistant stocks of Honeybees.

You can only do that without using treatments (although there may be a technological breakthrough on the way).

We know what the pressing issues are for TF beekeeping, but there's no real organizational leadership to make it happen where it really counts. In almonds.

Without it occurring there, you'll never be able to develop newer markets, like over 50 million acres of soybeans.

Jim said that he can't justify the risk as a businessman. I would rephrase that by saying that he can't find a compelling reason to open up a new market because of the logistical limiting factors.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> it would seem very likely that a good part of many mongrels would be genetically Amm. That is what has been discovered to be the case in the US feral population
> 
> Mike (UK)


Actually, no. I think Delaneys video has confused you on the genetic level Mike. She showed a population of bees with AMM mitochondrial DNA. Which simply means that at some time in the past, likely pre varroa, the bees were AMM. I saw the video of them they are quite clearly not AMM any more, due to the cross breeding. Except for one hive that Delaney got very excited about, that looked and behaved somewhat AMM, but I saw them on the vid, quite clearly they were not pure AMM.

The only way Delaney could justify her claim that there are 2 different populations, was to hint that they mate at different times of the year. This is simply not true and I was very surprised to hear her say it.

AMM's do poorly against mites. In your own country hardly any AMM's even lived long enough to experience varroa. Because when tracheal mites showed up they had a decimating effect on the English bee population. That is, until the native AMM's were virtually exterminated leaving other introduced more mite tolerant species, and the bee population began to recover, but with the more tracheal mite resistant strains.

It's possible some small pockets of AMM survived tracheal mites long enough to meet varroa. The varroa would have certainly finished them.

In my own country, bees were brought here by the English settlers, and they were AMM's. This was the status quo for a long time till a new breed, Italians, were imported. Having worked with AMM bees a lot in my younger days, where few still living English people actually have, (tracheal mites never made it to our shores), I can tell you it was a great relief when varroa mites arrived and exterminated them, they disappeared amazingly fast. AMM's have their good points but working them, or at least the English variety, is a nightmare.

Various methods are used now to id AMM's, from DNA, wing structure, and others. I do not trust any of these methods. They have in the main been developed too long after AMM's have been hybridised and even exterminated. In my opinion it is impossible these tests could be totally reliable.

Show me an AMM, and I'll tell you if it is one or not I spent 1/2 my life working with them. That is probably as reliable as any other test.


----------



## WLC

OT:

We do know that AHB drones fly in congregation areas earlier in the season than EHB drones do. We also know that Carni drones fly about 20 feet higher in congregation areas than Italian drones do.

It's not a stretch to suggest that feral colonies send drones out earlier than domestic hives do.

Frankly, I found the reproductive isolation hypothesis for why the two populations (ferals vs managed) are genetically distinct to be something worth proving or disproving.


----------



## WLC

Knowing that ferals drones fly in congregation areas earlier than managed drones would be nontrivial in producing resistant hybrid bees.

There's a lot to be said for hybrid vigor. It has quite a good track record.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> I found the reproductive isolation hypothesis for why the two populations (ferals vs managed) are genetically distinct to be something worth proving or disproving.


Been disproved.

I have worked with, and even professionally bred, all three bee species you mention. keeping them from hybridising with each other is impossible if they are in the same area. Any queen breeder will tell you the same. Some even try to isolate them from each other by using islands or similar, it's the only way.

I will give you though, that each have their own preferences re a number of aspects of how and when the drones and queens fly. But there is enough overlap that interbreeding has to be considered to happen freely, as that is in practise, what will happen.

Where do you think your own hybrid mutts came from?

Delaneys hypothesis just was not the reality. I think she was trying to claim 2 different populations, and the only way to explain that would be separate mating. But that argument was the weak link in the whole presentation and I could see she was not comfortable with it.

However, I'm not here to make converts, short of actual practicle experience with mating bees of different breeds, a person can choose to believe what they want.

I will say though, that since I've been on Beesource I've been surprised, shocked even, by the cynical attitude many take towards scientific studies, to me, I tended to accept any seemingly properly done study as Gospel. But following my viewing of the Delaney presentation, and one or two other (non Delany) ones, I now find myself coming from an angle of questioning them, rather than outright believing them.


----------



## WLC

OT:
You didn't study bees on the U.S. South.

You really do need to read her grad student's thesis to understand that they're really describing two populations (feral vs managed) of a uniquely American Honeybee.

They're hybrid EHBs rather than Amm.


----------



## sqkcrk

Paul McCarty said:


> I am still trying to figure out why it seems there are so many non-TF people in the TF forums. What am I missing?


It's just us Commercials slumming. And reciprocating for all of the Hobby guys chiming in on the Commercial Forums.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> OT:
> You didn't study bees on the U.S. South.


Correct I'll give you that.



WLC said:


> You really do need to read her grad student's thesis to understand that they're really describing two populations (feral vs managed) of a uniquely American Honeybee..


Maybe. Given the "facts" I saw her present that I do know to be untrue, I don't see taking the time to read her grad students thesis. All grad students are under pressure to come up with some new thing to do a thesis on, and that can at times, be a problem.



WLC said:


> They're hybrid EHBs rather than Amm.


On that, best I could tell by what I saw, you are correct.


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bispham said:


> I think of some of them as Bi-curious, wanting to ask yet unwilling to admit ignorance of any part of their field of expertise - and so unable to openly put questions. They want to learn, but they can't reconcile that with the knowledge that they already know everything. Again, they want to belong, but at another level they are angry at themselves for wanting to belong.
> 
> Just kidding men! We know you're all really astroturfers funded by Bayer!
> 
> Mike (UK)


I guess you miss my previous tag line "I don't know crap about bees."?


----------



## WLC

OT:

Don't be afraid to read a grad thesis, especially one where Dr. Delaney was the advisor:

'DETERMINING LOW LEVELS OF AFRICANIZATION IN UNMANAGED HONEY BEE COLONIES USING THREE DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES'

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

The real question remains why there are distinct populations of feral vs managed Honeybees.

Some one has to ask the prezygotic vs postzygotic question.

If the feral drones are flying earlier, then it may be possible to get resistant hybrids by open mating queens.

If the ferals really are a reproductively isolated population, then they're a distinct species.

It's would make for a very interesting study.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> Just kidding men! We know you're all really astroturfers funded by Bayer!


Actually, I did find Mikes joke pretty funny. 

He has gone up one point in my estimation LOL.


----------



## Paul McCarty

I am still missing the point I guess. Whatever knowkedge there is to gain seems to be lost when you enter someone else's house and start "breaking the china" so to speak.

I do like hearing about the AMM though.


----------



## Oldtimer

Paul who is entering someones house and breaking the china. We are discussing AMM's. A view either way is quite acceptable within a treatment free discussion, nothing I have said about AMM's attacks treatment free philosophy and beliefs in any way.

That's why I've been happy to discuss. A good neutral topic.


----------



## sqkcrk

I don't know if you are having trouble w/ my questions and comments in particular, but have my questions over all not been pertinent to the conversation, Paul?


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC. 

I really do not want to continue a debate that focusses on and involves denigrating this particular individual.

Let's just say I have worked in the field professionally and do have a passing understanding of it. Based on views expressed by certain people that are not the reality I would not trouble myself to continue to study more of their work on the same subject.

Are you trying to convert me? Cos it won't work. I am not trying to convert you, just sharing my ideas. People may accept or reject at their pleasure.


----------



## WLC

OT:

You could at least take a peak at table 7 in the grad thesis.

It looks likes there's a significant population with the M mitotype in Georgia. (Black Bees).


----------



## Paul McCarty

I just get frustrated. I do like the topic of AMM, but dislike the bickering. Seems to be all there is on some of these forums.

I know nothing about AMM in Europe, so I really have nothing to say about it.


----------



## RiodeLobo

Paul, wheat and the chaff.


----------



## WLC

Paul:

Since you like Amm, at least you can appreciate table 7.

What I found interesting was the difference between C mitotypes in managed vs unmanaged bees in Tennessee.

That could be some of the evidence for reproductive isolation that Dr. Delaney was referring to in her video.

I wouldn't have thought that there was an M mitotype population in Delaware.


----------



## Fusion_power

Oldtimer, in this case, I think I can prove you are wrong and when I do, I think you might just agree with me.

Survival of an ecotype of honeybee depends on 3 critical factors; fitness, adaptability, and population. A bee with very high levels of fitness will survive and prosper even if it is missing adaptability and population. Consider the Africanized honeybee. It does not have high levels of adaptability and the original population brought to South America was very small. Why then did it overwhelm European genetics? Because it is an adapted bee for tropical conditions. It has "fitness" for the climate which means European bees are permanently outnumbered by Africans in a tropical climate.

What about adaptability? This embraces ability to respond to changes in climate, food source, seasonal timing, etc. I would argue that AMM bees were extremely adaptable in most areas with the significant exception of disease and pest tolerance. Brother Adam repeatedly noted three flaws with AMM; swarming tendency, susceptibility to disease, and susceptibility to pests. I expect that you would be able to expand on the positive traits of AMM such as explosive spring development, exceptional thrift, wintering excellence, etc.

This leaves population. When there is a large embedded population, it takes a huge hit to make a dent the numbers of colonies. Here in the Southeastern U.S. there was an incredibly huge population of AMM derived feral bees. They survived almost unchanged in spite of huge numbers of Italian queens brought in by beekeepers. When I was a teenager, I could easily catch a dozen swarms each year from feral colonies within a mile of my house. They would all have a few yellow bees, but the overwhelming population was jet black.

Here are the traits of the AMM honeybees I grew up with. They swarmed. They swarmed some more. They built up very fast in spring. They made very dark honey, probably because they collected honeydew as well as nectar from plants Italian bees won't visit. They stung mercilessly. They stung without provocation. Just being within 100 feet of a colony was all they needed to sting, but they did NOT sting in excessive numbers except in rare circumstances. They were the thriftiest bees I've ever handled routinely wintering on 5 to 10 pounds of honey with a softball size cluster of bees. They collected pollen more than any other bee I've dealt with, even storing random cells of pollen throughout honey supers.

Your position is based on the observation that AMM in NZ were wiped out by varroa. I would agree that most AMM colonies were wiped out here in the U.S. by the double hit of tracheal mites and varroa, however, I have clear and convincing evidence that some of them had significant levels of varroa and tracheal mite tolerance. I've repeatedly posted that my bees are based on a single queen that I caught in a swarm in 2004. Here are the traits of that original colony. They were very dark bees, more than 70% were black. They bees were a bit larger than the typical Italian. They were almost too hot to handle. They foraged very early in the morning and very late in the evening. They foraged at very cold temperatures. I clearly recall standing beside that colony on a 40 degree F evening watching the sun sink below the horizon and seeing bees flying into that colony loaded with nectar they had collected. The other 4 colonies at that location were all totally shut down at the time.

I submit that the colony that I used to develop the mite tolerant bees that I am currently using to produce honey was in fact a hybrid AMM colony. The traits clearly point toward AMM. Mite tolerance is the only trait they had that was not typically found in AMM.


----------



## Oldtimer

Fusion_power said:


> Oldtimer, in this case, I think I can prove you are wrong and when I do, I think you might just agree with me.


Ha Ha! 

However :-

The comments you have made show that in my opinion anyway, you are totally familiar with the breed, have done a lot of work with them and understand them well. Your descriptions and comments would be mine exactly.



Fusion_power said:


> I submit that the colony that I used to develop the mite tolerant bees that I am currently using to produce honey was in fact a hybrid AMM colony. The traits clearly point toward AMM. Mite tolerance is the only trait they had that was not typically found in AMM.


You've convinced me. Based on your obvious knowledge of AMM's, I will have to concur with you, that if you say your bees are part AMM, I have no option but take your word for it.

What I am familiar with is NZ AMM's which are also English AMM's. I've heard talk of other AMM's but remain to be convinced they are true variations rather than just hybrids of some type.

However for the bee you describe, it is entirely possible that of all the millions of AMM's that used to be out there, most hybridised to a greater or smaller extent, there could be some that have absorbed, from a different bee, the ability to resist mites better than a pure AMM. If that is what you have, all the best with them. 

Some of the positives you mention of the breed, are truly awesome and they can outmatch any other bee I have seen. If they could somehow be retained and also lose some of the negative traits, AMM's would be the best bees on the planet.


----------



## WLC

OT: 

We do have resistant stocks of Honeybees here in the U.S. .

So, of course we can develop our own treatment free Honeybees.

What I still find fascinating is Dr. Delaney's report that that there appears to be some type of a barrier to gene flow between managed and 'unmanaged' Honeybees.

That's were I think some of the answers can be found to the 'how' rather than the 'why' of treatment free beekeeping.


----------



## Fusion_power

WLC, there is no direct barrier. It is an indirect. Managed colonies are severely unadapted because mites kill them off after a couple of years. Ergo, the only survivors are the bees that are mite tolerant. End result is that the mite tolerant bees survive and breed. That is the basic system I started here where I live. I pushed enough swarms out into the woods to get a thriving feral population which buffers me from managed bees in the area.

Oldtimer, I would stipulate one important thing. The AMM bees that were here in the U.S. were most likely from dutch bees imported in the 1600's. I don't know what was imported into NZ, but it is probable that there were not from England. You might dig around and find some ship manifests that tell where they were imported from. Also, Brother Adam's description of the bees he worked with 100 years ago gives a very good idea of the difference between local races of AMM. He was particularly impressed with French AMM because of the stamina and wing power. The English AMM had phenomenally good honey cappings. I've only seen cappings like that a few times in my life, mostly when running Buckfast queens. I did see some of the pure white dome shaped cappings on a few colonies of AMM over the years.


----------



## sqkcrk

Certainly there must have been more bees imported after 1609. And how do we know what kind of bees those were anyway?


----------



## Paul McCarty

Fusion_Power, don't forget we also had Spanish Black Bees (and Intermissa) imported to the American Southwest in the 1560 era. I am pretty convinced that the feral bees I see in certain areas of NM have a size-able amount of their genetics still in them.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Hmm, and I thought there is no bigger treatment free group in Europa than in the UK? I know of some people tf in France but most I know of are in the UK. More than there are in Germany for sure. I got the impression while communicating through biobees.com and through the group surrounding David Heaf. (Dr. Heaf that is.  )
> 
> I can speak for Germany only, though. Here a lot of fresh beekeepers are overly enthusiastic about tf beekeeping and do want to go through the walls whatever it means. A lot of hives die - and create trouble for surrounding apiaries. We have (or at least had) a high density of apiaries here. So with all the trouble by the keyboard beekeepers the tf movement is seen very sceptical by most beekeepers.
> 
> But there are more serious attempts by very experienced beekeepers and some institutes. Some try to breed on a big scale with hundreds of beekeepers taking part in the project, some do small scale tf beekeeping. The smaller beekeepers which are successful do it by bringing in as many genetic diversity for a start and multiply from those that do well. Consequently they requeen every year.
> 
> The breeding project is going on for decades. The results are promising, but treatments are needed still, but much less. Once a year or every second year or so. The smaller scale projects do split a lot to replace losses.
> 
> The topic is discussed wildly but only few do it. Most beginners fail, I'd say about 99 % I know of. With a total loss within the first, second and third year. Some give up, most follow the Soft Bond Test developed by Kefuss.
> 
> Back to topic: why treatment free? Because it is necessary to do it. Sooner or later. It can't go on forever with treatments.
> 
> On the other hand it is necessary to treat those who need it. You still need to requeen them, but no need to actually let the bees suffer and die. Which is completely pointless?!


Good post.

I have read everything I can get my hands on about European and some German beekeeping info. I have been several times impressed with the level of team effort in reducing treatments, using better treatment and the innovative IPM management strategies. 

I have thought for several years that American beekeepers were behind in this regard partially due to poor and stupid regulations, and also having a larger country which can get by with more diversity without it affecting the whole country quickly. (Such as a AFB breakout.) or something else. 

Then there is the lack of unity in some circumstances.


----------



## WLC

FusionPower:

What Dr. Delaney has described is no gene flow either way between the managed and unmanaged colonies she was referring to.

So, it doesn't quite describe your own situation where you've buffered your own area.

I suppose we'll just have to wait to understand the details of the gene flow barrier.


----------



## Oldtimer

The alleged gene flow barrier.


----------



## Fusion_power

WLC, I've raised too many queens to believe there is a gene flow barrier such that no flow occurs. Give it a try sometime, see how many pure mated queens you can get. Even a highly skilled queen breeder near Ft. Payne Alabama complained of the woods drones that mated with his queens. He managed several yards of bees to produce Italian drones but even so still had about 20% of his queens mated to drones from feral colonies.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Oldtimer said:


> Various methods are used now to id AMM's, from DNA, wing structure, and others. I do not trust any of these methods. They have in the main been developed too long after AMM's have been hybridised and even exterminated. In my opinion it is impossible these tests could be totally reliable. ... AMM's have their good points but working them, or at least the English variety, is a nightmare.


The race definition of _Apis mellifera mellifera_ is made by a Swedish scientist Calolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné) year 1758. Partly the race definition is based on Friedrich Ruttners and Brother Adams beesamples from the early decades of 1900 and partly to thousands of years old specimen found in amber. So they really have information which goes beyond the influence of the mankind. 
And I wrote this before: the original pure AMM found in Läsö island in Sweden and in other places, is very gentle, no problem of working without a veil. 

http://www.nordbi.org/Projektet.html


----------



## Oldtimer

Juhani Lunden said:


> And I wrote this before: the original pure AMM found in Läsö island in Sweden and in other places, is very gentle, no problem of working without a veil.


That's the thing though. How does one really know it's the same bee? Could be a different bee with a similar wing structure.

Not saying it isn't I'm no scientist. Just, gentleness goes against everything I know about AMM's.

I'm thinking about mistakes made in ID'ing Africanised bees, still not sorted yet. And even mistakes made in telling the difference between _nosema apis_ and _nosema cerana_. Cos they have now discovered some _nosema cerana_ has been mistakenly ID'ed as _nosema apis_, cos the original microsporidiae (spelling, don't know) on which _nosema apis _ definitions were based, were contaminated with _nosema cerana_, before people knew it actually existed.

But likely Juhani, you are correct. But when you get to my age you have seen enough re-definitions and re-classifications to never bet more than 90% probability on absolute correctness.


----------



## rhaldridge

This is very interesting. I recently read a book by a treatment free Russian beekeeper who said that much of his success was due to him locating bees that resembled the older bees kept in the days before the Soviets imported a lot of foreign bees, in order to increase production.

Anyway, Fedor Lazutin calls them "European dark bees" and says they can be somewhat hot and are somewhat less productive than Italians, Carniolans, Caucasians, and other imported bees. But they winter very well, and he has no mite problems.


----------



## Oldtimer

One of the features of AMM is they are very productive, when the time is right.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Kept the AMM, too, the variety that stems from Belgium: Gentle. I also have a AMM colony from France: they sting like hell. So it depends. Most AMM I kept were "runny", they run on the combs when pulling frames, clustering at the bottom of the frame and even drop to the ground as a cluster. The runnyness is a nice feature when working them in skeps or other fixed comb hives, since the comb can bee freed of bees more easily. I know quite a lot of beekeepers keeping the AMM in Germany, the popularity of that bee is high. 

If anyone is interested, I could forward any bee samples to an expert of AMM which can do wing measurements and such to find out the grade of hybridization and variety.


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> WLC, I've raised too many queens to believe there is a gene flow barrier such that no flow occurs. Give it a try sometime, see how many pure mated queens you can get. Even a highly skilled queen breeder near Ft. Payne Alabama complained of the woods drones that mated with his queens. He managed several yards of bees to produce Italian drones but even so still had about 20% of his queens mated to drones from feral colonies.


Two things seem pretty obvious to me:

First that no such barrier will be foolproof. All populations contain variety, and that is likely to include variety in, foe example, the propensity of drones to stretch their ranges. However, all that is needed is for _more_ to possess and pass on that trait than don't. As time goes by, natural selection has raised that/those traits that tend to keep the populations apart, to the point where it offers effective protection from mite-vulnerable apiary drones. 

That's the only thing that matters.

A trait that simply caused the queens to reject apiary drones - were that possible - would have the same effect (female selection). Most likely there are several mechanisms contributing to the tendency that allows feral bees to avoid mating with apiary bees. Its happened because it offers effective protection from the 'genetic poisoning' of mite vulnerability. Interestingly, it will also offer protection against apiary races.

We don't know the details yet. However, and secondly:

The thesis of mating separation is an explantion put forward to account for the empirical facts. It is surely incumbent on anyone who thinks its wrong to put forward a better explanation - to account for the empirical facts. Or to accept this as the best explanation thus far.

Thanks guys for some wonderful posts.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> And I wrote this before: the original pure AMM found in Läsö island in Sweden and in other places, is very gentle, no problem of working without a veil.


Races contain a great deal of variety, derived from local attunement. In areas that lack natural predators a predisposition to attacking would be a waste of energy - and will be lacking in the population.

I'd be willing to bet that the aggressive Amm's found in the Souther US described here didn't lack large predators.

We should be careful not to over-generalise traits. 

Mike


----------



## Juhani Lunden

mike bispham said:


> Races contain a great deal of variety, derived from local attunement. In areas that lack natural predators a predisposition to attacking would be a waste of energy - and will be lacking in the population.
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that the aggressive Amm's found in the Souther US described here didn't lack large predators.
> 
> We should be careful not to over-generalise traits.
> 
> 
> Mike


My mistake, I wanted to point out, that AMM can be a gentle bee, too. This is what many beekeepers don´t believe at all... 

AMM is not a natural animal in southern US, so its behavior has changed. It lived originally in Central Europe's northern parts. There are very few predators for a bee linving in hollow trees, I would imagine. And therefore no need to be aggressive. But of course, you like the details, we cannot actually say anything about its behavior before man made observations.

It is very important to notice, that all races are only definitions made by man. Nature actually promotes great diversity and crosses in honeybees and does that with multiple matings and drones and queens flying many miles to meet each other. In the devastating effects of inbreeding we can also see the importance of diversity for honeybees survival.


----------



## WLC

FusionPower:

I don't doubt that hybridization between managed and unmanaged Honeybees isn't a 'problem' for most beekeepers.

I think that what Delaney has described as a barrier can explain why so many who have resorted to using ferals to obtain resistant stock have been so successful while those using domestic stocks, haven't.

I'll agree with OT in that we really don't have enough information about these resistant hybrids until, at the very least, we can do more geometric wing venation studies to see where they all 'fit in'.

My own hypothesis, we probably need to start mating queens at least a month earlier to capture more of the resistance genetics from ferals into domestic stocks.


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> AMM is not a natural animal in southern US, so its behavior has changed. It lived originally in Central Europe's northern parts. There are very few predators for a bee linving in hollow trees, I would imagine. And therefore no need to be aggressive.


On the contrary Juhani, there were bears galore, all sorts of mid-sized and small furry mammals, more birds than we can imagine... The honeybee evolved here in Europe, as elsewhere, in the face of constant efforts to steal its energy - honey, brood, the bees themselves. An ability to defend would have been very necessary - exept perhaps on some isolated islands that hadn't been reached by predators. The sting itself evolved and remains for that purpose.

Locally, a lack of threat will allow aggressive responses to mellow - they are energy wasting, so gentler bees will be advantaged. And of course man has been working to breed gentle strains for a considerable time. Where and when colonies under his control have formed a significant part of the population (and where man has managed the ecosystem in ways that have reduced bee predators), aggression will have retreated.



Juhani Lunden said:


> It is very important to notice, that all races are only definitions made by man. Nature actually promotes great diversity and crosses in honeybees and does that with multiple matings and drones and queens flying many miles to meet each other. In the devastating effects of inbreeding we can also see the importance of diversity for honeybees survival.


Yes and no I think. Certainly any close discussion must take account of the complexity of this issue. But we can note that bees today are often of dramatically mixed parantage compared with any natural setting - but sometimes not. The US feral population will be of relatively recent mixed parantage, but might locally be fairly genetically narrow. That narrowness might have come about from limited initial and continuing input, and might have come about due to the dramatic population crash caused by varroa and/or other health problems.

Mostly I think we don't really need to know. We can be happy that locally attuned resistant bees exist in many places and can probably always be further bred to achieve our own aims. All we need to do is help them stay away, in mating terms, from the genetic nightmare of artificially sustained bees. 

To that end, it would be just fantastic to know more about this business of different mating periods. If we could time our own propagation efforts properly it could make the world of difference to those of use bothered by apiary bees.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> FusionPower:
> 
> I don't doubt that hybridization between managed and unmanaged Honeybees isn't a 'problem' for most beekeepers.
> 
> I think that what Delaney has described as a barrier can explain why so many who have resorted to using ferals to obtain resistant stock have been so successful while those using domestic stocks, haven't.


I think an explanation was already there - the ferals had rapidly evolved resistance in lost of different ways - but this improves that picture dramatically.



WLC said:


> I'll agree with OT in that we really don't have enough information about these resistant hybrids until, at the very least, we can do more geometric wing venation studies to see where they all 'fit in'.


We can always use more information... but we know enough already to take heart - and advantage - of Nature's remedies.



WLC said:


> My own hypothesis, we probably need to start mating queens at least a month earlier to capture more of the resistance genetics from ferals into domestic stocks.


Bingo! (And - just as importantly - back off during the apiary bees mating maxima)

I wish I knew how much of this applied to the UK... 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

In deference to those folks who have discussed non aggressive AMM's, you are experienced guys, with solid literature, so I'll accept what you say. I would like to meet some of these bees, but don't see leaving my country in the foreseeable future. there is though, a Beesource member from US paying me a visit in a couple of weeks. 

As to the discussion about the "genetic barrier", it does not exist. Truly. 

Mike and WLC. Do you understand the significance of mitochondrial DNA? If you do, you would see why the arnott forest bees can have different mitochondrial DNA to the surrounding managed bees, yet still be interbreeding with them freely. To explain, mitochondrial DNA does not change from queen to daughter regardless of who they mate with. the nucleic DNA changes around 50% each new mating, and it is that that determines the makeup of the bee. 

I guess, for some people, it would help if you actually had experience trying to breed a line of pure bees, among other bees. Then you would find for yourselves they freely interbreed, no barrier exists.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

mike bispham said:


> On the contrary Juhani, there were bears galore, all sorts of mid-sized and small furry mammals, more birds than we can imagine... The honeybee evolved here in Europe, as elsewhere, in the face of constant efforts to steal its energy - honey, brood, the bees themselves. An ability to defend would have been very necessary - exept perhaps on some isolated islands that hadn't been reached by predators. The sting itself evolved and remains for that purpose.
> 
> Locally, a lack of threat will allow aggressive responses to mellow - they are energy wasting, so gentler bees will be advantaged.


From which source have you got the information, that AMM bees were aggressive in the time before mankind? In the terms we use here and now. I would love read that book, must be old.

As I wrote, and you skipped to quote: "we cannot actually say anything about its behavior before man made observations." 
No matter how many furry animals there might have been running.


----------



## TalonRedding

In response to genetic barriers and traits of bees: you all would gain a lot of understanding of this topic if you would further research "source populations and sink populations". The concept of source and sink populations applies greatly to population ecology as well as the genetic makeup of those populations. It could very well be that the "genetic barrier" you all are speaking of is nothing more than this concept in action. 
In response to traits of bees: this is a topic that I find hilarious when it comes to hearing people breeding for pure bred bees and that they can tell if they are pure bred by seeing the traits. Traits that are visible to the eye are phenotypes, an outward expression of a certain gene. A truly purebred is confirmed by its genotype, which is not visible to the eye. To determine the genotype, this has to be done in a lab with all sorts of neat and expensive, very expensive, tools. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is one method used in determining a genotype. I used one of these machines when I was in school, it was a "cheaper" model, and it cost in the neighborhood of $200,000.00. To my knowledge, most bee breeders don't have one of these. I'm no expert in genetics, but I've had enough class time in the subject to know that if you want a pure bred, you have to start with a pure bred or breed out hybridization, and there is no such thing as pure bred when it comes to bees kept by Beekeepers except for Apis mellifera mellifera. All "races" of bees came from this ancestor, and mostly by artificial selection by Beekeepers. Therefore, Italians, Russians, Cordovans, Carnilians, Buckfasts, VSH, and any other bee that is kept and bred by Beekeepers, are hybrids of mellifera mellifera. I know that this is not the accepted way of looking at things in the bee world, but it is Genetics 101 for me. The good news for those who want pure AMM is that you can breed hybridization out of the stock, but it takes a long time considering the amount of time hybridization has occurred. It's a fun topic to me, and there is certainly a large arena for graduate research on this topic. Be careful when you say that such and such race has traits of gentleness, yellow color, black color, aggressiveness, etc. These are only phenotypic traits and not genotypic. You have to have a lab in order to have certainty.


----------



## Oldtimer

Talon. Hilarious as you may find it, I do not have a two hundred thousand dollar machine to analyse the purity of my bees.

In my world, which is a fairly low tech one, production queens are produced and sold to people who want what they consider Italians, carniolans, or whatever. Far as my customers are concerned, if it looks like an Italian, behaves like an Italian, produces like an Italian, it is an Italian. They don't have a two hundred thousand machine either, just so they could double check.

In fact, I know, that my Italians are not pure. Nor are any other breeds. But that does not bother the customers long as they get the bee that will do the job they want.
However I could tell you, without use of your two hundred thousand dollar machine, and I suspect with a fair degree of accuracy, if the progeny of my breeder queens are cross mating, and with what, and at what percentage. Your two hundred thousand dollar machine may be able to put the exact numbers on things that I couldn't. But would it be worth the money for a breeder of production queens?

About your two hundred thousand dollar machine. How helpful has it been? how many extra "pure" queens have you been able to sell?


----------



## jonathan

TalonRedding said:


> All "races" of bees came from this ancestor, and mostly by artificial selection by Beekeepers. Therefore, Italians, Russians, Cordovans, Carnilians, Buckfasts, VSH, and any other bee that is kept and bred by Beekeepers, are hybrids of mellifera mellifera.


That is not true at all. The various races of bee, Amm included, are thought to have evolved from a common ancestor in Africa. 

This paper, Thrice Out of Africa: Ancient and Recent Expansions of the Honey Bee,
Apis mellifera by Whitfield et al discusses the evolutionary history of the honeybee through various migratory events.


----------



## TalonRedding

Oldtimer said:


> Talon. Hilarious as you may find it, I do not have a two hundred thousand dollar machine to analyse the purity of my bees.
> 
> In my world, which is a fairly low tech one, production queens are produced and sold to people who want what they consider Italians, carniolans, or whatever. Far as my customers are concerned, if it looks like an Italian, behaves like an Italian, produces like an Italian, it is an Italian. They don't have a two hundred thousand machine either, just so they could double check.
> 
> In fact, I know, that my Italians are not pure. Nor are any other breeds. But that does not bother the customers long as they get the bee that will do the job they want.
> However I could tell you, without use of your two hundred thousand dollar machine, and I suspect with a fair degree of accuracy, if the progeny of my breeder queens are cross mating, and with what, and at what percentage. Your two hundred thousand dollar machine may be able to put the exact numbers on things that I couldn't. But would it be worth the money for a breeder of production queens?


Heck no, it's not worth it! That's partly my point. Folks are losing sight of what's really going on around them, thus failing to see the base of problems around them. I have no problem at all with calling bees Italian, Russian or whatever. I know that they are hybrid lines, and I know certain ones have traits that I like. I'm just referring to discussions as to whether people's bees are pure bred or not. I guess you could have fun with wordplay and say that you have a pure bred hybrid whatever, and go with it. 
My world is low tech too. I prefer it that way, and it is why I didn't go into research. However, I do enjoy the field of study. Learning how to use the genetics is one of the best tools a person who farms can use. It can apply to everything living. I will never own one of those fancy machines, neither will any other beekeeper more than likely. And by hilarious, I was just using it as a figure of speech. 

:digging:


----------



## TalonRedding

Jonathan,
I am referring to mellifera mellifera being brought to the Americas as the bee of choice. Basically, all bees for sell today in the U.S. come from this ancestor. In that case, though, your Mediterranean strains will be the more pure line. That's why I said that it will be difficult to get a truly pure breed again. Bees have been carried all over the globe, bred for different traits, inbred to make the hybrids, and hybrids being bred back together. I guess this should be written in a different format than a blog. I just like the subject and I get excited about it.

:doh:

Beemandan,
I wasn't trying to be condescending. I apologize that it came across that way. I just thought it would be interesting to folks. It is to me anyway. I sometimes have difficulty writing because it's without facial expressions. :lookout:

I will consider keeping my replies under 50 words from here on out. :applause:


----------



## beemandan

TalonRedding said:


> Beemandan,
> I wasn't trying to be condescending. I apologize that it came across that way.


And I've been known to overreact to posts that strike me that way. My apologies as well.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> Darn, sucked back in to an unsubscribed Thread. :doh:


Or at least fell back in....but staying way clear of the fundamental topic.
Heaven knows if those tf trolls will not preach their sermons on the general forum....I try to avoid trolling theirs.


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay. Message received. opcorn:


----------



## Michael Bush

>I think that what Delaney has described as a barrier can explain why so many who have resorted to using ferals to obtain resistant stock have been so successful while those using domestic stocks, haven't.

It seems likely this "barrier" is just a result of cell size. Large drones and small drones.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> I'll agree with OT in that we really don't have enough information about these resistant hybrids until, at the very least, we can do more geometric wing venation studies to see where they all 'fit in'.


I don't know much about this, but I have this suspician that wing venation tells you where the allelles that formed the wings came from and very little else. Can anyone straighten me out?

Mike (UK)


----------



## beemandan

mike bispham said:


> Can anyone straighten me out?


Ahhhhhh....the $64,000 question. 
Sorry....I couldn't resist.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

And whether Delaney is fully right or not I don't know for sure but a lot of it makes sense. The average bee is not that strong, the average queen does not live as long as they use to in our hives.

Though the new may be weird or out there. Once again as beekeepers we have to be constantly pushing the envelope or we will find ourselves further behind and deeper in to chemical treatment usage.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> I guess, for some people, it would help if you actually had experience trying to breed a line of pure bees, among other bees. Then you would find for yourselves they freely interbreed, no barrier exists.


If female white rabbits decide they don't like black rabbits, and female balck rabbits decide they don't like white rabbits, there will be a genetic barrier - the females preference.

Female preference accounts for a whole stack of adaptation. And it isn't the only kind of barrier.

Some sub-species interbreed freely. Others don't - not because they can't but, because they instinctively avoid each other.

Different timing preferences can form just as affective a barrier - and that is the mechanism postulated - by a trained scientist and specialist - to account for the empirical fact of what are effectively largely separate species found in the US. Between you and the scientific specialist, I'm going with the latter. Particularly as it makes perfect sense, and there is no alternative explanation in view.

There is more to this than what you've gained from experience. 

Further, no-one here is trying to breed a pure strain of bees. Try to set that idea aside. They are trying to raise resistance to varroa. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> From which source have you got the information, that AMM bees were aggressive in the time before mankind? In the terms we use here and now. I would love read that book, must be old.
> 
> As I wrote, and you skipped to quote: "we cannot actually say anything about its behavior before man made observations."
> No matter how many furry animals there might have been running.


We can infer from the facts supplied by the fossil records, by evolutionary theory, by the fact that bees are still here, by the fact that they are equipped with stings, by the fact that they can be aggressive... that they would have become more aggressive where and when aggression paid off. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

TalonRedding said:


> In response to genetic barriers and traits of bees: you all would gain a lot of understanding of this topic if you would further research "source populations and sink populations". The concept of source and sink populations applies greatly to population ecology as well as the genetic makeup of those populations. It could very well be that the "genetic barrier" you all are speaking of is nothing more than this concept in action.


I had a quick look (on wiki) but it seems to me to be of limited application here. Are you suggesting that (in the US anyway) the apiary population is the source, and the feral the sink population? If so, how do you account for the fact that they seem to be separate in genetic makeup?

Could you outline how you see this concept being relevant to this issue?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Michael Bush said:


> >I think that what Delaney has described as a barrier can explain why so many who have resorted to using ferals to obtain resistant stock have been so successful while those using domestic stocks, haven't.
> 
> It seems likely this "barrier" is just a result of cell size. Large drones and small drones.


Another possible mechanism. So far we have Delaney: (preferred mating periods); Bush (drone size - in fact bee size, following from cell size); WLC: different preferred mating heights); Bispham (feral queens find apiary drones smelly [not serious, but not not a possibility either]).

Any more suggestions of mechanisms of separation to account for the new yet apparently empirical fact of two sub-populations side by side, allowing the ferals to avoid treatment-dependent genes?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden

mike bispham said:


> We can infer from the facts supplied by the fossil records, by evolutionary theory, by the fact that bees are still here, by the fact that they are equipped with stings, by the fact that they can be aggressive... that they would have become more aggressive where and when aggression paid off.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Since you know everything, I have one question:

What would be factors mostly increasing the pay-off of aggressive behavior:
1. The number of bears (a bear would not care less bees buzzing, they destroy the hive with one hit and eat peacefully everything)
2. The number of all kinds of animals species (capable of climbing in trees, eating everything) 
3. The number of insect eating birds (wanting the brood and bees)
4. The number of other insects (wanting the honey)
5. The number of other bees (competing the same resources and in the same ecological niche)


Would there be more of these in south or north?
Jonathan says that honeybee evolved in Africa.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> So far we have Delaney: (preferred mating periods); Bush (drone size - in fact bee size, following from cell size); WLC: different preferred mating heights); Bispham (feral queens find apiary drones smelly [not serious, but not not a possibility either]).


That's it? You forgot the part about the rabbits.

So let's check all this out one at a time.

1. preferred mating periods. - They overlap. I'm telling you that, and any of the literature will tell you that.

2. White rabbits won't mate (in Mikes world) with black rabbits. - We are talking about bees.

3. Different sized drones - The drones in my natural cell hives are the same size as all the other drones. And in any case, it has never been shown that smaller ones, or larger ones, long as they are viable can't mate, probably cos they can. And oh, for complteness. The queens I raise in small cell hives, are exactly the same size as the queens I raise in large cell hives. (yes, I still have some small cell hives, I have cells being raised in small cell hives as we speak).

4. Different preferred mating heights - Ever seen a queen mating? Fast, furious, up, down, and all over. Preferred mating heights make zero difference in practise.

5. feral queens find apiary drones smelly [not serious, but not not a possibility either]. - Let's go with that. I see it all now. You guys were right the whole time, I was wrong.

Clearly cross mating does not happen. Bees do not mix and always stay pure. 

Clearly a couple of people have made up their minds, set their opinion in concrete, and want to believe that. Forgetting that even Delaney did not state what you believe, as a fact, she touted it as the only possible explanation to try to support what she had to support. She hypothesised it. You guys want to go in boots and all, buy into it 100% despite all the evidence to the contrary, then spend hundreds of posts discussing it and in the process making up lots more imaginary scenarios and convincing yourselves they too, are true, then you go ahead.

Not my problem (again).

Or, you could try it on your bees. They will tell you.


----------



## beekuk

Oldtimer said:


> 4. Different preferred mating heights - Ever seen a queen mating? Fast, furious, up, down, and all over. Preferred mating heights make zero difference in practise.
> 
> Or, you could try it on your bees. They will tell you.


Many of them, lots of times, and exactly as you say.

Let the bees tell you....( Brother Adam.)


----------



## jonathan

Some mate above the apiary (Apiary Vicinity mating) and some mate in drone congregation areas.
The ones which mate in the apiary are more likely to mate with the drones from the apiary itself.
Like Pete, I have witnessed this on a number of occasions.


----------



## WLC

OT:

Delaney's Bar plots of managed vs unmanaged populations of Honeybees, as determined by the program STRUCTURE, showed rather clearly that there was very little gene flow between the two populations.

So, reproductive isolation between the two populations is indeed occurring.

We're just hypothesizing as to how that isolation is occurring.

While some are saying that that barrier doesn't exist, I would beg to differ based on the genomic evidence.

I would state that knowing how we can overcome that barrier would allow for both the production of newer resistant hybrids, as well as the protection of established domestic queen stocks.

You could keep your favorite breeder queen lines, and make resistant hybrids with grafts as well.

That's what I'm inferring from Dr. Delaney's findings.

Otherwise, we're left with hiving ferals and Bond colonies to get treatment free bees.


----------



## squarepeg

i have written to dr. dulaney to see if it is possible to have the dna my feral derivitives analyzed. i have had no response so far. wlc, seems like you have mentioned having done some dna testing on your bees. is it the same kind of testing that dr. dulaney is discussing in the video?


----------



## WLC

I did start out testing bees for RNA viruses in a genomics lab that does linkage map work.

I've done both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequencing on Honeybees.

However, I'm currently doing other things.

squarepeg:

Perhaps your best first step would be to contact the researcher doing geometric wing venation work in Brazil.

You'll find the name in her grad student's thesis.

That would be both cost effective and fast.


----------



## squarepeg

sounds like that would be worth a try. can you link me to the thesis?


----------



## WLC

squarepeg said:


> sounds like that would be worth a try. can you link me to the thesis?


-Dr. David De Jong - [email protected] 

You can email him directly. 

See what he says.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Delaney's Bar plots of managed vs unmanaged populations of Honeybees, as determined by the program STRUCTURE, showed rather clearly that there was very little gene flow between the two populations.


It showed there was little gene transfer of MITOCHONDRIAL dna.

But in that situation, there wouldn't be, would there.

I found the constant use of mitochondrial DNA to try to prove a point misleading. As any scientist but probably not most laymen, know that will not change down the matriarchal line regardless of which drones are mated with. And the bees in the arnott forest are following a matriarchal line, with AMM mother forebears.

IE, convincing as it may have sounded to the laymen audience, the case is not convincing.

Even introduced swarms from kept hives with their introduced different mitochondrial DNA, probably make little dent in this cos it's likely they will be killed off by mites eventually. The mitochondrial DNA of the main forest population will remain at the status quo.

Even yours and Mikes positions are contradictory. On the one hand we have Mike lamenting the "danger" of drones from managed hives breeding with and corrupting feral populations. On the other hand 5 minutes later, he'll tell us it cannot happen. 

A person who believes everything believes nothing.


----------



## WLC

OT:

I invited you to look at table 7. You would have noticed a partitioning of mitotypes in Tennessee between managed and unmanaged colonies.

Sometimes, you get lucky with mitochondrial DNA. Other times, you have to look at nuclear markers like satellites, etc. .

I you're lucky, morphometrics can do the job.

It depends.


----------



## Oldtimer

My point exactly.


----------



## Paul McCarty

I would love to have my bees tested, but so far no interest. I used to have the nuclear test done to every hive, but that is no longer an option in my state.


----------



## Oldtimer

In fact now I think about it, I can now argue with Mike on this subject whichever side of the argument he takes, simply by quoting his own words to him. As he has made contradictory and opposing arguments at some times saying one thing, and at others saying the opposite LOL. 

Problem with arguing philosophically and following the wind where it blows.


----------



## WLC

Paul:

I don't think there's any reason why you shouldn't contact Dr. De Jong.

Frankly, I'd think he'd jump at the chance to plot feral stock from the peaks of NM or the Alabama woods.

They're some very tempting samples, IMHO.

Both squarepeg and yourself would be interested in figures 2 and 3:

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


----------



## Paul McCarty

I would love to be a part of a project like that. That is where my real interest lies in all this bee stuff. My rather unpopular opinion is that most of the bees that we have in living in the wild are exhibiting genetics that slowly seem to be reverting to a sort of mutt AMM type of bee - especially those we term "africanized" in some regions. Of course it may have been pre-existing. Who knows?


----------



## WLC

I did track down the software used above to the SUNY Stonybrook Morphometrics Lab.

So, it's possible that an amateur can create image files (in the correct format) of the right fore wings of Honeybees on their own.

http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/


----------



## jonathan

The best program for scanning beewings is Drawwing downloadable from drawwing.org

You can plot the results using this modified spreadsheet

However, if you read this paper by Robin Moritz on the limitations of biometric control it should leave you with serious reservations about this method.

Wing morphometry should be able to pick out an obvious hybrid between say Amm and Carnica as the wing pattern values are so different - but if it is used long term as a selection technique for bee race purity you end up with the wing pattern you are selecting for irrespective of the underlying genetics.


----------



## WLC

Well, my 'all in one' can scan up to the minimum 2400 dpi in enhanced mode, so theoretically, I should be able to do it.

Thanks jonathan. That's very helpful indeed!


----------



## squarepeg

many thanks for the links wlc, i've got some reading to do.

i was hoping that i might be able to find out if my feral derivitives belong in the unmanaged partition. 

do you have a link to the paper(s) by dulaney that were the basis for her youtube video?


----------



## WLC

Her video presentation contains information from several sources.

http://www.dissertations.wsu.edu/Dissertations/Summer2008/d_delaney_070108.pdf

This doesn't have anything to do with the above, but I found the mating frequency table for different Am species to be interesting:

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/entomology/apiculture/pdfs/Tarpy_et.al.2010 copy.pdf


----------



## Roland

To throw another "spanner" in the works(all hearsay):

What if AMM drones where more aggressive than AM lingusta, etx (assuming NO Scutalla)? What results would be expected?

What if the genes for swarming distance and meanness where linked(read it somewhere), such that people catching swarms NEAR the beeyard, where meaner than the gentle swarms that landed AWAY from beeyard and where lost?

Crazy Roland


----------



## Oldtimer

Roland said:


> What if AMM drones where more aggressive than AM lingusta,


In fact, they are, and in several ways.

Don't know about actual "aggression" as in chasing queens or similar, but they carry more sperm, and there are more of them to a similarly sized hive.

Hence, in pre varroa New Zealand, if there was an unmanaged (breeding wise) bee population of mainly lingusta, they would gradually move towards AMM and if left long enough be virtually pure AMM. This was in my opinion due to the mating advantage AMM drones had. It was not due to the AMM's swarming more, because in those days hives dying was rare, even in poorly run outfits.

There were some beekeepers who almost never requeened and rarely went in the broodnest. They almost invariably had black AMM bees. I have seen an entire 600 hive outfit like that.

He didn't look in the brood nest much or requeen because the bees were so vicious, and the bees were so vicious because he didn't look in the broodnest much or requeen. LOL.


----------



## Paul McCarty

Traits like that seem very common in the "wilder" sorts of bees - AMM, African, some Russian, etc. Many parallels can be drawn.


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> .... I have one question:
> 
> What would be factors mostly increasing the pay-off of aggressive behavior:
> 1. The number of bears (a bear would not care less bees buzzing, they destroy the hive with one hit and eat peacefully everything)


More bears would have a greater effect than fewer bears. Hungry bears would have a greater effect than full bears. The same is true of any other predator.

Every time a nest is saved by an aggressive response, the agressive genes will tend to be maintained. Those nests without an aggressive response will not get the opportunity to reproduce. Those genes that supply an aggressive response are maintained in the population. This is basic evolutionary theory Juhani. It applies to the arising of traits in the first place, and the ongoing fine-tuning adaptations with a population. 



Juhani Lunden said:


> 2. The number of all kinds of animals species (capable of climbing in trees, eating everything)


The same of course - to the extent that they can affect bee nests, and to the extent that an agressive response can deter them.



Juhani Lunden said:


> 3. The number of insect eating birds (wanting the brood and bees)


Same



Juhani Lunden said:


> 4. The number of other insects (wanting the honey)


These will require a different sort of response, though there may well be some sort of overlap.



Juhani Lunden said:


> 5. The number of other bees (competing the same resources and in the same ecological niche)


I can't see that the sort of response we've been discussing would have any effect here. 



Juhani Lunden said:


> Would there be more of these in south or north?
> Jonathan says that honeybee evolved in Africa.


No idea. 

Just bear in mind the fundamental rules of the game of life Juhani: in order to exist at all you have to avoid being eaten. The bee's primary defensive strategy is the sting. Using it causes death. Those individual colonies that get the use it/don't use it judgement right most often will be the winners in the competitive game of life. The ability to locate the right level of response to suit every circumstance will endow a population with the best chances of success. All populations (given sufficient diversity - and that means any but the tiniest/most narrowly founded) will be able to adapt to circumstances - and will do.

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC

Looking through Dr. Delaney's thesis paper, I found the range of mitotypes in the U.S. feral populations to be of interest.

I particularly found the large M7, Amm mitotype in Arizona, putatively iberiensis, to be of interest.

I was also gratified to find that she referenced Brand.

That's the mark of a true scholar. 

In short, I'd say that treatment free beekeepers have a real ally in Dr. Delaney. That hasn't been the case before with other investigators though.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Even yours and Mikes positions are contradictory. On the one hand we have Mike lamenting the "danger" of drones from managed hives breeding with and corrupting feral populations. On the other hand 5 minutes later, he'll tell us it cannot happen.


Maybe I get it. You're looking for black-and-white answers; I'm acknowledging and working with the greyscale that reflects the complexity of the reality.

Mating is a game of chance. The more of one race in any one place, the more likely it is that any offspring will inherit its features. Yes?

So near apiaries, with high concentrations of treated bees, the likelyhood is that any mating with a resistant feral will result in a downgrading of that resistance. Yes?

Do you follow? Nearness = probablity of effect.

Lets work with a graphic representation of this effect, looking as if down at a map.

Imagine a doughnut shape around an apiary, dark toward the middle, light toward the outside. That is a graphic illustration of the _probability_ of the apiary influence on the surrounding bees. Dark = nearer = higher probability of downgrading due to loss of resistant traits; Light = more distant = lower probability of downgrading for the same reasons. The shading the represents the sliding scale of influence due to proximity. Get it?

Imagine a single apiary in a setting capable of supporting feral bees that have adapted to varroa. The apiary represents a pool of treatment-dependent bees surrounded by resistant survivor bees. In between the two populations, in the doughnut, is an area of sickness where feral bees cannot survive because of the effects of the apiary drones. This area supplies the picture seen by most large beekeepers. Near their apiaries there are no survivors, just lame colonies that soon perish. And they naturally imagine that its the same further away. It isn't.

Now imagine a wider picture, in which many apiaries, and the doughnut shaped sickness zones around them, mostly touch. In this area, there can be no feral bees. The natural adaptation toward resistance cannot be sustained due to the high concentration of treatment-dependent bees.

Lets return to the low apiary density picture in which ferals can thrive in relative isolation, and look at the light area, where there is mild negative influence from apiaries. Any bees that can find a way to thrive here will have the place to themselves. The treatment-dependent bees and their genetic heirs can't survive here - there's nobody to treat them. Any resistant feral survivor bees that can somehow counter the presence of treatment dependent drones however can. So there is an evolutionary advantage in locating mechanisms _that will downgrade the influence of apiary bees_. Any sort of 'barrier' that lowers the influence of apiary genetics will do the job. It doesn't have to be effective 100% of the time, but the more effective it is the more those bees will reproduce, and develop it.

This gets more challenging as we get further into the dark zone, where _the proportion of apiary to feral drones increases_. But the more effective the barrier, the closer to the apiary the ferals can come. It narrows the doughnut.

On a widespread scale this ability to survive ever-closer to treatment dependent bees, through a mechanism or mechanisms that effectively amount to genetic 'barriers' seems to have become widespread. That means: its an effective adaptation. Where there is sufficient fertile space between treated populations are opportunities for so equipped bees to flourish. 

Does that enable you to see that there is no contradiction in my position? I understand how you would have thought there was. But we were just talking about different localities, the different things that happen at different distances from the treated populations. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Roland said:


> To throw another "spanner" in the works(all hearsay)


We have haven't had a single sustainable spanner in the works (the hypothesis to account for the empirical fact of parallel populations) yet...



Roland said:


> What if AMM drones where more aggressive than AM lingusta, etx (assuming NO Scutalla)? What results would be expected?


Mate more aggressively you mean? (A different form of aggression to what we've been discussing...)

Yep. Anything that increases effective mating will raise the chances of enduring genes. As longs as it doesn't bring along other less helpful genes...



Roland said:


> What if the genes for swarming distance and meanness where linked(read it somewhere), such that people catching swarms NEAR the beeyard, where meaner than the gentle swarms that landed AWAY from beeyard and where lost?


All good reasoning. I don't think any of it impacts on Dr. Delaney's hypothesis though. (BTW Dr. Delaney's hypothesis is not 'hearsay' - its a considered explanation put forward to account for carefully made observations in the real world, by somebody highly trained to do just that.)

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Could you explain all that some more?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

mike bispham said:


> More bears would have a greater effect than fewer bears. Hungry bears would have a greater effect than full bears. The same is true of any other predator.
> 
> Every time a nest is saved by an aggressive response, the agressive genes will tend to be maintained. Those nests without an aggressive response will not get the opportunity to reproduce. Those genes that supply an aggressive response are maintained in the population. This is basic evolutionary theory Juhani. It applies to the arising of traits in the first place, and the ongoing fine-tuning adaptations with a population.
> 
> 
> 
> The same of course - to the extent that they can affect bee nests, and to the extent that an agressive response can deter them.
> 
> 
> 
> Same
> 
> 
> 
> These will require a different sort of response, though there may well be some sort of overlap.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see that the sort of response we've been discussing would have any effect here.
> 
> 
> 
> No idea.
> 
> Just bear in mind the fundamental rules of the game of life Juhani: in order to exist at all you have to avoid being eaten. The bee's primary defensive strategy is the sting. Using it causes death. Those individual colonies that get the use it/don't use it judgement right most often will be the winners in the competitive game of life. The ability to locate the right level of response to suit every circumstance will endow a population with the best chances of success. All populations (given sufficient diversity - and that means any but the tiniest/most narrowly founded) will be able to adapt to circumstances - and will do.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Thank you for your answer. The right answer is that there are a lot more of these factors causing pay-off for the bees aggressive behavior in the south. The competition from other bees is one of the most important ones. That is why the likely place for the more calm bees to evolve is in the northern Central-Europe forests, where the AMM has been living. 

(We all have been reading Winnie the Pooh books, but I think bears influence in the evolution of bees aggressive behavior is minimal, because bears don´t care at all about bees stinging. In fact it is the same bears that do most of the damage, once they have learned how to find honey. If the bear had some trouble with stings, why would it find all the bees in 20 or more km radius, as long as it is shot? Some bears can make up to 50000€ damage, and they are really expensive for the taxpayers.)


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Could you explain all that some more?


Of course. What part/s would you like me to elaborate? (I'm writing under the assumption that you're being sarcastic btw)

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Well you could start with this part that I've quoted. It's too general, it does not give specifics or real examples, and it does not reconcile the two opposing views. For example Delaney did not offer distance as a mechanism, nor would have intended it as the bees were in close proximity. So if distance is the basis of your hypothesis, it falls a over. If you want to reconcile your two opposing positions you would have to hypothesise something else...


mike bispham said:


> On a widespread scale this ability to survive ever-closer to treatment dependent bees, through a mechanism or mechanisms that effectively amount to genetic 'barriers' seems to have become widespread. That means: its an effective adaptation. Where there is sufficient fertile space between treated populations are opportunities for so equipped bees to flourish.
> 
> Does that enable you to see that there is no contradiction in my position? I understand how you would have thought there was. But we were just talking about different localities, the different things that happen at different distances from the treated populations.
> 
> Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Well you could start with this part that I've quoted. It's too general


It _is_ general. Its meant to explain a general, universal phenomena.

Its like 'all cars need fuel to go'. That's true everywhere, anytime. Its a statement of general application.

'Only drones within range can mate' is a similar general statement. We don't allow that a drone from Wisconsin is likely to mate with a queen in Florida. There is a self-evident _general_ relation between proximity and likelihood of mating. We don't need scientific studies to tell us the truth of that.

We're looking at the doughnut shaped area around _any_ treatment-dependent apiary, where the likelihood of mating with a treatment dependent drone is _always_ in inverse relation to distance. 

This doesn't require any support from empirical studies, because its self-evidently universally true. If you think it isn't, you can say why. 



Oldtimer said:


> ... it does not reconcile the two opposing views. For example Delaney did not offer distance as a mechanism, nor would have intended it as the bees were in close proximity.


Distance isn't a part of the mechanism. I'm just explaining, for you, how matters are different according to proximity - for her that would be so obvious as to not need remarking. Bees mate with nearby bees; mating more resistant bees with unresistant bees will, on average, result in lower resistance in the offspring. Once you break it down to steps like this, the logic is simple and straightforward, and among specialists needs neither mention nor elaboration.



Oldtimer said:


> So if distance is the basis of your hypothesis, it falls a over.


Distance is the basis of the observation that near things mate more often than distant things! Do you really need a scientific study to acknowedge the reality of that?

If you are truly sincere in your implied position that you are not following my reasoning, can I suggest you try something? Sit with pen and paper and draw the graphic I've described. Now draw a horizontal view, apiary at one end and resistant survivors at the other. Ask yourself now which bees are most likely to be supplying the drones to matings taking place at all stages along that line. Ask yourself what the likely outcome of those matings will be in terms of resistance. 

Swap back to overhead view, taking your insights with you. Build up a model in your own mind of the ways the interplay of treatment-dependent and resistant bees *must* play out, according to distance.

Actually work with the material, on paper, taking time, raising your own questions and coming to your own conclusions. It might well make a difference to how you are conceiving things. 

If you can get a clear picture of the effect of non-resistant bees adjacent to resistant and self-sufficient bees, we'll have the foundation to examine the proposition of a genetic 'barrier' mechanism.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> It _is_ general. Its meant to explain a general, universal phenomena.
> 
> Its like 'all cars need fuel to go'. [HIGHLIGHT]That's true everywhere, anytime. [/HIGHLIGHT]Its a statement of general application.


No its not. That is the trouble with making "_general_" statements.

My car will GO about 1/3 of a mile, down off my hill without ANY fuel, _anytime_. I don't even have to start the engine.


:gh:



Certainly, my car won't go back up the hill without fuel. That is why I don't claim it to be a _universal _phenomena.

Just imagine if I lived on _Pikes Peak_ ... :lookout::lpf:


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> No its not. That is the trouble with making "_general_" statements.
> 
> My car will GO about 1/3 of a mile, down off my hill without ANY fuel. I don't even have to start the engine.


Of course you can wiggle out with exceptions, but I can tighten the conditions to stop you. It comes down to a universal law: the law of conservation of Energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so unless you have an energy source, you can't move an object. A hill is a source of energy. 

So I'll re-submit it: On a level surface a petrol powered car won't move under its own power unless it has petrol (or a usable equivant energy source)

Here's another general application of laws of Nature Rader: Any naked man held underwater will drown within an hour. See what you can do with that one.

You can make billions of these - arguably an infinite number (or as near infinite as anything).

There is nothing wrong with working with general laws. Its the basis of scientific understanding - it allows you to know things without having to witness them.

General statements, sound applications of general laws supply a huge amount of understanding. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Any naked man held underwater will drown within an hour. 

:scratch: :s

Isn't that a _treatment_? :no: 


:ws:

I guess Mike has never heard of the concept of breathing through a _hollow reed_ while submerged.

How about getting these *fables *back closer to discussing _bees_???


:gh:


----------



## Fusion_power

All the discussion presented so far neither proves nor disproves that a breeding barrier exists between feral and managed populations of bees. It is all speculation. If you want to prove that there is a barrier and prove the cause of that barrier, you are going to have to get your feet dirty. As in go chase down some feral colonies and figure out if there is indeed reproductive isolation and if so, what is causing it.

In 1988, I lost all of my colonies of bees to tracheal mites. I got Buckfast queens and rebuilt. Feral bees in the area were severely pruned, but there were still some survivors, probably in the range of 5%. Varroa arrived in 1990 and wiped out my bees again in the winter of 1993/1994. I rebuilt again and with treatments was able to keep bees successfully. Feral colonies were wiped out to a level that they were almost undetectable. I estimate less than 1 in 1000 survived. Fast forward to 2004 and I catch a few feral swarms. One of them turns out to be moderately resistant to varroa. I purchased some queens from Purvis in 2005 and used them as drone producing colonies to mate queens from the feral queen. In subsequent years I pushed them to swarm heavily so the number of mite tolerant feral colonies would dramatically increase. This is about the same time the number of mite tolerant swarms I catch increased significantly.

Feral colonies in the region of North Alabama show signs of genetic change within the last 25 years because they are clearly surviving and thriving in the face of two unprecedented threats from tracheal and varroa mites. Managed colonies in the area are treated with miticides and must by implication limit the effectiveness of the genetic tolerance that is developing in feral populations. Varroa is still severely affecting any non-tolerant colonies, so the probability is that any introgression of managed colony genes into the feral population will be wiped out within a year or two. This would constitute a breeding barrier between managed vs feral colonies. Only tolerant feral colonies survive. But it is still just speculation!


----------



## rhaldridge

Fusion_power said:


> But it is still just speculation!


It seems like a pretty plausible speculation to me, based as it is on good observation.

What I've wondered about is whether or not the managed population is progressing towards varroa resistance. I think it must be. Those who treat still lose significant numbers of colonies to varroa, I understand. So those that survive must be a little better able to tolerate the mites.

Let me ask longtime beekeepers a question. When you buy a commercial package, nuc, or queen, does the colony founded thereby succumb to mites, if untreated, as rapidly as colonies did when varroa first appeared here?


----------



## mike bispham

rhaldridge said:


> Those who treat still lose significant numbers of colonies to varroa, I understand. So those that survive must be a little better able to tolerate the mites.


Why? More information needed Ray. Its a good question (with variable answers I'm certain - depends where they came from....) But I don't see a mechanism for improvement in systematically treated stocks - unless there is a deliberate and sustained effort to select for better resistance. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> All the discussion presented so far neither proves nor disproves that a breeding barrier exists between feral and managed populations of bees. It is all speculation. If you want to prove that there is a barrier and prove the cause of that barrier, you are going to have to get your feet dirty. As in go chase down some feral colonies and figure out if there is indeed reproductive isolation and if so, what is causing it.


It isn't speculation: its a hypothesis put forward by an expert to account for an empirical fact. Its new, and some of us would like to explore its ramifications and possibilities, perhaps design experiments to carry out ourselves, and share the results.

So, as we wait for more quality information, are we to be allowed to talk about it? 

The genetic barrier is, at present, the best (only) hypthesis put forward to account for the _empirical fact_ of parallel populations. Furthermore it has been put forward by somebody who should command our respect.

And for some of us, the way the hypothesis meets the need for an explantion is neat - and convincing. It is potentially at least immensely helpful - it might make a huge different to tf beekeeping.

Are we to be allowed to explore the possibilities, without our efforts being continually (and ridiculously) denigrated as (uselessly) speculative, 'theoretic', 'lacking evidence', 'over general'?

Constructive speculation is one of science's greatest tools. 'Theory' covers everything from 99.9999999% certain to 0.000001% certain. Properly built rational constructions based on established general laws are valid forms of knowledge - though of course the least doubt as to their applicability leads straight to a demand for empirical evidence. 

Less amateurish disparagement and more freedom for those who want to investigate together to do so.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Paul McCarty

I don't know why a deliberate and sustained effort to select for better resistance is even up for debate. It seems the only course of action available.


----------



## rhaldridge

mike bispham said:


> Why? More information needed Ray. Its a good question (with variable answers I'm certain - depends where they came from....) But I don't see a mechanism for improvement in systematically treated stocks - unless there is a deliberate and sustained effort to select for better resistance.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Well, because commercial stocks still suffer fatalities due to varroa infestation. If treatment were 100% effective, then the idea that commercial stocks are not selecting for resistance might be plausible. But that isn't the case. It seems reasonable that the commercial colonies that survive and are used to breed from will be slightly more resistant, since they did not die from varroa in spite of being treated.

There is an argument to be made that what we are selecting for when we treat bees is bees that can withstand treatment. But because miticides are so quickly rendered useless by the superior reproductive rate of the mites, I find this to be a less plausible argument.

Certainly resistance would have evolved a lot quicker if no one treated. But the disruption to the industry and to individual beekeepers would have been pretty rough. I think the bees would have come back, but a lot of beekeepers wouldn't have.

It's one reason why I think smalltime beekeepers are more likely to come up with resistant bees than the big guys. I think if I were a commercial beekeeper, I'd try to locate all the local guys who claim to have resistant bees and then I'd start trialing those bees. I don't understand why Chris Baldwin hasn't been swarmed by commercials trying to find out how he keep 1800 migratory colonies without treatment.


----------



## Oldtimer

Mike, your many words have tried to fluff over and obtusificate the original issue, and avoid answering the question.

To clarify - your two opposing views do not reconcile, and still don't. It is obvious that your "distance hypothesis" is not what Delaney was talking about as the bees in her study are close, ie, within mating distance.

So your "distance hypothesis" is not the "barrier" she was talking about. But you seemed to insist it was. So in post #253 I asked you to explain, with specifics. Fluff and wordiness just isn't doing it for me, or anyone else.... Why do you struggle so with specifics? Is it cos you don't have any? Your reply in post #254 was to say you don't have any specifics and simply repeat a lot more fluff, which condensed (by me), into a few words was effectively to say bees that are too far away from each other to mate, can't mate. And imply how stupid I must be if I cannot understand that. Trouble is, it's not even the question I asked. It may surprise you to learn that you are not the only person who can understand this amazing revelation that bees too far away to mate, cannot mate. Or except of course, for Delaney, you said that of course she would be able to understand.

Actually, we all understand it, writing huge hundreds of word posts trying to explain it is absurd., especially when it was not even the question. I'd suggest drop the condescension, go back and re read my question, and answer it properly.

Specifics. Not Fluff.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

rhaldridge said:


> I don't understand why Chris Baldwin hasn't been swarmed by commercials trying to find out how he keep 1800 migratory colonies without treatment.


Me too. When we were visiting Kirk Webster in April 2011 I asked him to name some beekeepers worth visiting next time. Chris was one of them. How cold is it there in April? (family hates cold, Finns...)


----------



## Oldtimer

Try asking him something, as I have. You find out why.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> To clarify - your two opposing views do not reconcile, and still don't. It is obvious that your "distance hypothesis" is not what Delaney was talking about as the bees in her study are close, ie, within mating distance.


I don't have a 'distance hypothesis'! I'm simply emphasising the obvious point: the closer populations are the greater the degree of genetic exchange! And show how that leads to a 'sickness' zone around treatment-dependent apiaries where ferals are suppressed by drone input.

I'm trying to help you understand the detail, the dynamics, the context, in which a genetic barrier makes sense. To that end I'm having to step you through the reasoning, backing up each time you get stuck to supply the detail that seems to be missing.

And I'm doing so from the starting point that you think I'm holding a contradictory position; viz. that bees can't live outside apiaries because the apiary bees kill them, and that feral bees can live alongside apiary bees because the genetic barrier allows it.

What I'm trying to explain to you is how it is that Dr. Delaney's hypothesis accounts for two parallel populations, and how it is their proximity that has given rise to the barrier. I'm trying to help you understand how ferals and treatment dependent bees interact.

How, given sufficient distance, ferals are able to thrive through naturally supplied resistance. Wherever that process has come under pressure (i.e. around apiaries) that pressure has resulted in mechanisms to relieve the problem - a genetic barrier. This (is what Dr. Delay observes, and) enables feral bees to survive in those many areas where apiary bees would others prevent it.

We can understand how that happens, why it happens, what it is Dr. Delaney's hypothesis - which you disgree with - is built upon. What it is that makes it so convincing and exciting. That's what you're missing! I'm trying to fill in the missing bits of the puzzle for you! 

Lets try to find a common starting point. Do you at least accept the picture I have painted of the caustic relation between distance and effect between treatment-dependent and resistant feral populations: "Nearer = greater effect"?

If not, where does it break down for you? Specifically. In what way or ways do you think the statement: 'the effect of treated drones on resistant ferals is related by the factor of distance' falls down? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Again. No need to state the obvious. Much less spend pages stating it. And much less again trying to make many words in an attempt to make it sound like some amazing revelation. We all know bees to far away to mate, will not mate. It's really that simple Mike.

Forget your distance hypothesis. It's not even what Delaney was talking about, or what I was asking about.

Read my question, and answer it properly. It would also be appreciated if you could move away from vague, non specific generalities and fluff, and use specifics. Real stuff.


----------



## Fusion_power

Most commercial beekeepers are pollinators with a scattered few who produce honey. To get pollination income or honey income, the beekeeper has to have a productive colony at the right time. They must requeen on a regular basis whether it is every 9 months or once a year, they MUST requeen because failure to requeen means at least 1/3 of the colonies will be unproductive in a given year. The problem with developing treatment free bees is that you have to let the susceptible bees die. That means at least 1 year you lose 95% of your colonies. The next year you lose 70%. The next year, you lose 35% if you are lucky. In that three years, the commercial beekeeper will go bankrupt because he does not have enough income to sustain the money losing part of the operation. 

The key element in this paradigm is regular replacement of queens. A commercial beekeeper has to have a steady supply of queens that meet the required traits. So if commercial operations are ever going to go treatment free, it means the queen breeders have to go out on a limb and develop stock that can make it without treatments.

How have a few commercial operations managed to get off the treatment bandwagon? They did it by developing nuc based systems where they produce their own queens. So far, this is the only way for commercial beekeepers. Ask any of the commercial beekeepers here on Beesource how many times a year and why they requeen? Ask also how many are using nuc based systems to requeen?


----------



## WLC

Well, we have come up with some possible courses of action.

We now know that there are at least some barriers that have kept resistance genes from flowing into domestic stocks from ferals, and that is something worth exploring.

We've also found that it is indeed possible for someone with resistant stock to take forewings, scan them, and create a morphometric profile of their resistant stock. So, we can begin to characterize some known resistant colonies.

Not too shabby.

By the way, there's nothing to prevent someone with resistant stock, or resistant local feral populations, from making hybrid queens starting with domestic queens. Unless they can't get past the 'barrier'.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Mike, your many words have tried to fluff over and obtusificate the original issue, and avoid answering the question.


I'm not sure there was a 'question' there was a request for further explanation, which I gave.



Oldtimer said:


> To clarify - your two opposing views do not reconcile, and still don't. It is obvious that your "distance hypothesis" is not what Delaney was talking about as the bees in her study are close, ie, within mating distance. So your "distance hypothesis" is not the "barrier" she was talking about.


This idea of a 'distance hypothesis' is yours, not mine. And what I've been showing you is what happens when feral bees and apriary bees _are_ in mating distance. How that varies according to proximity, and how the pressure of apiary bees, in that zone, results in an advantage for those ferals best able to counter it.

The counter is the genetic barrier.

Is that short enough for you?

Now: what are these two opposing views I hold that do not reconcile?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

What? I have to tell you again?

See post 231.

Then explain your two opposing views. Your distance hypothesis does not explain it because we are talking about bees that are within mating distance of each other. Introducing the distance hypothesis was just fluff, a waste of time, and a red herring. And an extremely wordy red herring at that.


----------



## db_land

Some of you might find this article interesting. It's about an open-mating system for creating pure-bred breeder queens without requiring apiary isolation and without using AI.

Reference: ABJ, volume 153 no. 8, August 2013 "The Buzz Down Under Part VI Joe Horner's Closed Mating Season by William Blomstedt.


----------



## rhaldridge

Juhani Lunden said:


> Me too. When we were visiting Kirk Webster in April 2011 I asked him to name some beekeepers worth visiting next time. Chris was one of them. How cold is it there in April? (family hates cold, Finns...)


It's still pretty chilly in the Dakotas in April, I understand. Not too much different than Vermont in April.


----------



## beekuk

db_land said:


> Some of you might find this article interesting. It's about an open-mating system for creating pure-bred breeder queens without requiring apiary isolation and without using AI.
> 
> Reference: ABJ, volume 153 no. 8, August 2013 "The Buzz Down Under Part VI Joe Horner's Closed Mating Season by William Blomstedt.


http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...inbegattung-method&highlight=moonlight+mating

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/101/3/334.full.pdf


----------



## Fusion_power

> We now know that there are at least some barriers that have kept resistance genes from flowing into domestic stocks from ferals


Please check this statement. If I read it correctly, the article you are quoting infers the exact opposite, i.e. that there is little gene flow from domestic into feral.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> Well, because commercial stocks still suffer fatalities due to varroa infestation. If treatment were 100% effective, then the idea that commercial stocks are not selecting for resistance might be plausible. But that isn't the case. It seems reasonable that the commercial colonies that survive and are used to breed from will be slightly more resistant, since they did not die from varroa in spite of being treated.


Sorry Ray, missed your small but succinct post among the very wordy, very long ones I was wading through.

I agree with you completely and I am sure the process you describe is exactly what is happening. Even if a commercial beekeeper (or small beekeeper for that matter), is not intentionally breeding for mite resistance, they will normally breed from what they see as the best.

One of the things that makes a hive best, can be less mite issues than the others. Whether the beekeeper is aware or not, they are among other things, selecting for mite tolerance.


----------



## WLC

Fusion_power said:


> Please check this statement. If I read it correctly, the article you are quoting infers the exact opposite, i.e. that there is little gene flow from domestic into feral.


w/o getting too far into the thesis...

Keeping in mind that this was from a 2008 study...

So, here the barrier is hypothesized.

"Together, these findings suggest that barriers to gene flow existed between
feral populations and both managed breeding populations and may continue to this day."


Yes, new alleles from feral populations into managed populations were indicated. 

"The increase in the proportion of alleles shared between
pooled feral populations and the western managed population collected in 2004, the
decrease in the proportion of shared alleles between the feral population and the
southeastern managed population collected in 2005 and the identification of known feral
alleles newly found in both of the managed populations collected in 2004-2005 strongly
indicate that the feral population was a source of allelic variation for both managed
populations."

Regardless, we do know that Delaney is looking for 'barrier' effects.

Her grad student did quite a job in demonstrating that the Florida 'Africanized' bees weren't AHB, although they did share some alleles.

I would ask, "What stopped AHB from invading Florida?"

I would hypothesize that the barrier may be the Southern ferals themselves.

There's enough evidence that a barrier exists, I can see it in the data.

We're not quite at the point where we can easily explain it though.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> We're not quite at the point where we can easily explain it though.


Well allow me to try to enlighten you. 

First, there is no genetic barrier as such.

But if you are trying to explain what is claimed to be happening, here is a possible mechanism.

As I already pointed out, and as Roland alluded to but you all missed it, in unmanaged populations, where there are AMM, the AMM drones have a strong mating advantage. More drones per hive, and more sperm per drone. Thus, there is a continual tendency for populations to revert to AMM. That is, unless the AMM are susceptible to varroa, which will alter the equation.

In the case you guys are all talking about, it is claimed the managed hives are largely Italian, and the ferals are mite resistant AMM. So goes the story, anyway.

If it's true, the "barrier", is simply that the unmanaged population continually reverts to AMM and whatever other genes those bees are carrying, because of the mating advantage. 

No "barrier" required, just the same thing I've observed in my own bees and surrounding bees, all my life.

Simple, Huh.


----------



## WLC

But, the managed colonies aren't becoming Amm.

I'll just have to wait for another study from Delaney that sheds more light on her findings.

From one of her students studying the ferals of the Arnot Forest:

"So far, nuclear DNA allele frequency comparisons have found genetic differentiation between forest bees and bees from surrounding managed apiaries, supporting the hypothesis that there are barriers to gene flow between feral and managed populations."


----------



## Fusion_power

> "So far, nuclear DNA allele frequency comparisons have found genetic differentiation between forest bees and bees from surrounding managed apiaries, supporting the hypothesis that there are barriers to gene flow between feral and managed populations."


So much nope in that statement that I have to call it. Managed bees are generally based on shipped in queens, usually produced in a locale far from the "managed population". If the managed apiary is constantly replenished with shipped in queens, then logically we would expect the managed bees to have different genetics than the feral population. There is nothing in this report that says the managed bees are always re-queened with queens from the same source, and even if they are, the breeder queen they are from can be different. The end result of this is that there is at least one readily apparent explanation for the genetic differences between managed and feral bees.

Please work through this carefully, several posters are intent on saying that the study shows genetic barriers. There is at least one highly likely explanation that does not require genetic barriers, all it needs is a steady supply of shipped in queens.


----------



## Oldtimer

Exactly, and it stood out to me that was not addressed in the study, a rather glaring omission. Which in turn had me wondering why something so basic and important would not be discussed, maybe the answer was going to be a rather inconvenient truth.

WLC, something you are very fond of saying is that managed commercial hives have to be constantly requeened. Why change your story now? 

It's actually simple. If AMM's are around and mites are not an issue, everything reverts to AMM in an unmanaged situation. The managed hives, well, they are managed.

I'm not saying that's definitely the answer, but I will say that none of the other explanations tendered, such as mating at different times etc, are plausible. 

Also, Delaney put a big emphasis on mitochondrial DNA, which to me, is not suitable for then attempting to build a "mating barrier" hypothesis on.


----------



## Beregondo

I dunno -- 
I'd say management practices that isolate a managed population from amm influence by importing domestic genetics selected to be a certain domestic strain (carnica/ligustica/caucasica) is a pretty substantial genetic barrier, albeit a human-influenced one.


----------



## Oldtimer

Been a long time coming in this thread, but, common sense at last!!


----------



## JRG13

Barriers?? Requeening with mated queens = no gene flow from ferals into managed stocks. Feral queens that get mated with managed stocks and subsequently die out never get sampled, equals no gene flow from commercial to feral populations. Ratio of 100 managed hives to 2-3 ferals in the area means not a whole lot of gene flow happening from feral to managed either.


----------



## mike bispham

JRG13 said:


> Barriers?? Requeening with mated queens = no gene flow from ferals into managed stocks. Feral queens that get mated with managed stocks and subsequently die out never get sampled, equals no gene flow from commercial to feral populations.


I agree, this is a good alternative explanation to the mating period hypothesis. That doesn't rule it out - nor does it rule out any of the other suggested barrier mechanisms. It is quite possible - likely in my view that several mechanisms are at work. Just as with mite management, different strategies and different combinations are around.

Oldtimer, remember a 'genetic barrier' in evolutionary terms doesn't need to be absolute, impermeable. It just needs to swing the odds such that the small difference it makes each over time it occurs supplies a mechanism that accumulates. A 'preference is quite enough. Female peacocks prefer males with large showy tails. That doesn't mean the rest don't get to mate. It just means the males with the best tails get to mate with the best females, and get to mate a bit more often. That is enough for evolution to go to work.



JRG13 said:


> Ratio of 100 managed hives to 2-3 ferals in the area means not a whole lot of gene flow happening from feral to managed either.


Again, we should try to encompass the variety and complexity. There are all sorts of 'managed' apiaries going about things in different ways. Some may be collecting genes from surrounding ferals - though the big ones, with big 'sickness zones' won't have much luck. Some may be finding ways to raise resistance in their populations as a result. In general however I don't think there is much evidence for rising resistance in systematically treated/manipulated apiaries. Treating/manipulating removes the adaptive pressure too effectively.

There remains the situation: within feral populations those individuals that have ways of avoiding the otherwise fatal gene injections that occur where they come into contact will be advantaged over those that don't. That is a positive adaptive pressure. We can therefore anticipate adaptations.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Then explain your two opposing views. Your distance hypothesis does not explain it because we are talking about bees that are within mating distance of each other. Introducing the distance hypothesis was just fluff, a waste of time, and a red herring. And an extremely wordy red herring at that.
> 
> See post 231.
> 
> [post 231]
> "Even yours and Mikes positions are contradictory. On the one hand we have Mike lamenting the "danger" of drones from managed hives breeding with and corrupting feral populations. On the other hand 5 minutes later, he'll tell us it cannot happen."


We might now have the context in place to say this simply enough for you.

Part 1
Close to treated apiaries the effect of treatment dependent drones undermines feral bees. The closer, and the more treatements dependent drones present, the greater the effect.

I haven't said 'it cannot happen'. What I've said is that where it does happen it undermines ferals. That's the 'corrupting feral populations' bit.

Part 2
What has happened is that you've taken my enthusism for Dr. Delaney's barrier hypothesis as meaning I think that there has evolved an impermeable barrier between apiary and feral bees, such that they have become two species, no longer able to mate. I did use the phrase 'genetic barrier', which easily be taken to mean that. But I didn't mean that. I meant a 'barrier' in the sense she meant it - a mechanism of some sort - perhaps her proposed different mating period mechanism - that amounted to a means for feral bees to avoid apiary mates. As I've said before, and again today, it doesn't have to be impermeable. A tendency is fine - over time it makes the necessary difference.

In the meeting places between apiaries and ferals sufficiently isolated to develop resistance/self-sufficiency, such a 'barrier' will allow feral bees to occupy the spaces that would otherwise be empty of bees - since the apiary genetices cannot survive without treatment, and 'non-barrier enabled' feral bees suffer the loss of resistance due to apiary drones. This is a niche just waiting to be filled by an adaptation. 

I'm saying that has happened. I still think - despite the good alternative explanation proposed today - that it is a real possibility.

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> Oldtimer, remember a 'genetic barrier' in evolutionary terms doesn't need to be absolute, impermeable. It just needs to swing the odds such that the small difference it makes each over time it occurs supplies a mechanism that accumulates.





> In general however I don't think there is much evidence for rising resistance in systematically treated/manipulated apiaries. Treating/manipulating removes the adaptive pressure too effectively. (UK)


These two statements are contradictory.
Unless treating is 100% effective, and it never is, you get that same small selective pressure you described with the peacock tails. The argument then becomes one about the speed of adaptation. There is actually quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that bees in the UK are dealing better with mites than when varroa first arrived.

I think the way forward is to stop requeening with stock from outside your area every year, and selectively requeening the worst performing colonies with daughter queens from the better performing colonies.

There are different variants of mites with differing levels of virulence so moving bees and mites about just stirs things up all the time.
The same applies to viruses. The Martin et al paper published last year re. the arrival of mites in Hawaii mentioned that there were about 9 variants of deformed wing virus. Moving bees about can introduce different variants of an existing virus.
Stock which survives in one area often crashes when moved to another and differences in mites and/or virus likely play a part.

Estimating mite levels should not be down to guesswork and you need to accurately sample them. You can do this by taking a sample of 300 bees and doing an alcohol wash or a sugar shake. This gives you a % infestation rate and you can then requeen the colonies with the highest number of mites as soon as feasible.

On the basis of sampling you can decide if treatment is needed at all or needed infrequently. It all depends upon the data you have collected.

The way forward is step by step rather than calling for a 'cold turkey' non treatment regime. There is nothing to be gained by letting colonies die when they could be saved by requeening from more resistant stock.


----------



## WLC

JRG13 said:


> Barriers?? Requeening with mated queens = no gene flow from ferals into managed stocks. Feral queens that get mated with managed stocks and subsequently die out never get sampled, equals no gene flow from commercial to feral populations. Ratio of 100 managed hives to 2-3 ferals in the area means not a whole lot of gene flow happening from feral to managed either.


I'm not arguing about the impact of regular requeening with commercial mated stock.

Delaney is presenting various types of genomic evidence for a barrier to gene flow between feral and domestic stocks.

I still think that it's likely. However, the mechanism by which it's occurring is still up for debate.

Some of you are suggesting that there is no such evidence for a barrier. I'll disagree with that position.

It looks like there's some clear evidence for reproductive isolation to me.

It's a good news/bad news position. It's good for queen breeders since they can avoid unwanted genetics. It's bad for them since they might not be getting the hybrid genetics they want.

It's also an explanation for why many treatment free beekeepers have found success by hiving feral colonies rather than hybridizing domestic stocks with ferals. Hybridizing domestic with feral stock may not be viable in their area.

I would also consider it to be an argument for applying Instrumental Insemination to produce hybrid feral/domestic mated queens.
There might not be any other method available to produce certain hybrids reliably.


----------



## Roland

Where is Occam and his Razor? 

Argue all you want, but us crazy people like the simple solutions, less pain on the brain. Sad thing is, when the fat lady sings, Occam is ussually right.

Carry on.....


Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk

Roland said:


> Where is Occam and his Razor?


In the box w/ Shrodegers cat. opcorn: Or is it?


----------



## Vance G

Don't you two know how long Heinlein has been dead? He didn't even include beekeeping in his long list of things a man had to do before calling himself civilized!


----------



## Fusion_power

Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. - Heinlein

Semantics is what turns a piece of half raw castrated bull meat into a sizzling hot juicy rib-eye steak. - Heinlein

I still like the juxtaposition of Occam's Razor in the box with Schrödinger's cat.... or is it?

But that is pretty much OT so please get back to discussing bees. I'm busy building frames and getting ready for spring. Checked bees a bit yesterday and most are lead heavy. Have one colony that will need feeding before spring. One of my best colonies is going to be used to produce a few queens as of March. She built up from 2 frames of bees last spring to produce over 100 pounds of honey by fall. The colony has never been treated in any way.


----------



## JRG13

Collecting feral stocks would dilute the so called barrier effect, is this being seen at all? Also, is it a true barrier or more of a selection criteria for managed hives that may manifest as a barrier effect.


----------



## mike bispham

Originally Posted by mike bispham 

"Oldtimer, remember a 'genetic barrier' in evolutionary terms doesn't need to be absolute, impermeable. It just needs to swing the odds such that the small difference it makes each over time it occurs supplies a mechanism that accumulates."

"In general however I don't think there is much evidence for rising resistance in systematically treated/manipulated apiaries. Treating/manipulating removes the adaptive pressure too effectively. (UK)"



jonathan said:


> These two statements are contradictory.
> Unless treating is 100% effective, and it never is, you get that same small selective pressure you described with the peacock tails. The argument then becomes one about the speed of adaptation.


Jonathan,

Possibly, but also possibly not. As I understand things, in cases where some of the genes controlling specific hygeinic behaviours are recessive, the presence of the wrong allelle will always set the resistance position back to zero. In those cases nothing other than elimination of the wrong allelle will do. Continuing treatments won't allow that. It was that sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote what I did. 

There isn't necessarily any symmetry between the rise of resistance, and its falling. It may well be that its hard to get it to rise, and easy to make it fall again, for these sorts of reasons. 

(BTW when I said 'manipulating' I was referring to practices that aid bees to overcome varroa, thus, like treatments, removing selective pressure. Just to be clear)

I agree that where care is taken to propagate only from the more resistant some progress can be made. And that progress can go all te way to treatment free beekeeping - that's the soft bond method as I understand it. But it seemed to me the statement I was arguing against referred to cases where treatment was systematic and universal - I think it was said that 'some die anyway, so resistance must rise'. I didn't - and still don't - think that is sound. It certainly isn't a sufficient basis alone for the expection that things will get better with no further help.



jonathan said:


> There is actually quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that bees in the UK are dealing better with mites than when varroa first arrived.


Whether that (if true) is due to progress made in systematically treating apiaries is another matter. It may due to input from wild/feral suviving bees and/or beekeepers who follow FERA advice and do what they can to promote resistance.



jonathan said:


> On the basis of sampling you can decide if treatment is needed at all or needed infrequently. It all depends upon the data you have collected.


And find out which would benefit from requeening, sure.



jonathan said:


> The way forward is step by step rather than calling for a 'cold turkey' non treatment regime. There is nothing to be gained by letting colonies die when they could be saved by requeening from more resistant stock.


I hope you don't think I'm advocating that line.

Mike (UK


----------



## mike bispham

Roland said:


> Argue all you want, but us crazy people like the simple solutions, less pain on the brain. Sad thing is, when the fat lady sings, Occam is ussually right.
> Crazy Roland


The awkward part is that organisms are complex, and some of the ways evolution works are complex too.

That doesn't mean there is no simplicity. Just that its often tricky to spot. In studying complex systems you look for patterns and try to find their causes. Slowly you build up and improve understanding.

Critical discussion and argumentation are among the best tools for that process.

None of that means Ockham was wrong. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

None the less, despite all the complexity of the arguments advanced and the intricacies of the hypotheses' postulated, in the end, the solution was simple.

Usually turns out that way.

Uproar died down, everybody returned to zen, peace and tranquillity restored at the Treatment Free Forum.

Till next time..... LOL.


----------



## sqkcrk

Vance G said:


> Don't you two know how long Heinlein has been dead? He didn't even include beekeeping in his long list of things a man had to do before calling himself civilized!


Laying on the bottom of the swimming pool w/ Michael Valentine Smith pondering that one.


----------



## sqkcrk

Fusion_power said:


> Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. - Heinlein
> 
> Semantics is what turns a piece of half raw castrated bull meat into a sizzling hot juicy rib-eye steak. - Heinlein
> 
> I still like the juxtaposition of Occam's Razor in the box with Schrödinger's cat.... or is it?
> 
> But that is pretty much OT so please get back to discussing bees. I'm busy building frames and getting ready for spring. Checked bees a bit yesterday and most are lead heavy. Have one colony that will need feeding before spring. One of my best colonies is going to be used to produce a few queens as of March. She built up from 2 frames of bees last spring to produce over 100 pounds of honey by fall. The colony has never been treated in any way.


Lead heavy? But alive?


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> As I understand things, in cases where some of the genes controlling specific hygeinic behaviours are recessive, the presence of the wrong allelle will always set the resistance position back to zero. In those cases nothing other than elimination of the wrong allelle will do. Continuing treatments won't allow that. It was that sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote what I did.


What do you mean exactly - setting the resistance position back to zero?
that makes no sense in terms of genetics.
Hygienic behaviour is known to be a polygenic trait with up to 10 alleles involved.
These work in an additive fashion, ie if you have 6 of them present there is more hygienic behaviour expressed than if you have 4 present. It is not a simple concept of dominant or recessive.
There are other traits which help with varroa tolerance as well, such as grooming behaviour and the ability to bite and damage mites. These behaviours will be governed by genes which are independent of the VSH genes.


----------



## TalonRedding

Holy cow! I checked my email, and I can't believe this thread is still going. Do any of you get tired? Are all of you just bored? Working/ not working? Nothing better to do perhaps? Why can't we all just get along!? Just kiss and make up for crying out loud. :gh:


----------



## WLC

"Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get." is Mark Twain.

In Europe, they're finding introgression of C type alleles into M stock to such an extent, that they're concerned about conserving M stock.

That's not the case here in the U.S. .

Ocham's Razor doesn't apply to genomic studies of the type described.

As for hygienic traits, they've been unable to get linkage maps from different studies to corroborate.


----------



## Paul McCarty

That was my point earlier TalonRedding.


----------



## Danpa14

No don't kiss and make up....this is better than a soap opera. Plus I am learning a few things.


----------



## TalonRedding

Danpa14 said:


> No don't kiss and make up....this is better than a soap opera. Plus I am learning a few things.


I hate soap operas. See, I'm disagreeing with you. :banana:


----------



## jonathan

Some varroa tolerance is retained after mating with unselected drones. Harbo and Harris 2001. Old news.
It is not all or nothing.
This is typical of polygenic traits such as VSH



> Abstract
> 
> This study demonstrated (1) that honey bees, Apis mellifera L, can express a high level of resistance to Varroa destructor Anderson & Trueman when bees were selected for only one resistant trait (suppression of mite reproduction); and (2) that a significant level of mite-resistance was retained when these queens were free-mated with unselected drones. The test compared the growth of mite populations in colonies of bees that each received one of the following queens: (1) resistant—queens selected for suppression of mite reproduction and artificially inseminated in Baton Rouge with drones from similarly selected stocks; (2) resistant × control—resistant queens, as above, produced and free-mated to unselected drones by one of four commercial queen producers; and (3) control—commercial queens chosen by the same four queen producers and free-mated as above. All colonies started the test with ≈0.9 kg of bees that were naturally infested with ≈650 mites. Colonies with resistant × control queens ended the 115-d test period with significantly fewer mites than did colonies with control queens. This suggests that beekeepers can derive immediate benefit from mite-resistant queens that have been free-mated to unselected drones. Moreover, the production and distribution of these free-mated queens from many commercial sources may be an effective way to insert beneficial genes into our commercial population of honey bees without losing the genetic diversity and the useful beekeeping characteristics of this population.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> In Europe, they're finding introgression of C type alleles into M stock to such an extent, that they're concerned about conserving M stock.(


Fascinating.

Or, I'm sure it would be, if I had any clue what you are talking about.


----------



## WLC

OT:

That's where they did find gene flow into black bees.


----------



## Oldtimer

My mission in that post, WLC, was to draw attention to some of the technobabble that has been getting used in this thread, I think deliberately, to confuse. And to avoid being open, cos the plain light of straightforward English can reveal gaps in an argument, that technobabble can conceal, from the masses.


----------



## WLC

OT:

Some folks do know that Carnies/Italians have the C mitotype, and BlackBees have the M.

They know what gene flow means. They usually know what an allele is.

I think that you got stumped by the term 'introgression of alleles'. 

Use gene flow instead.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> OT:
> 
> *Some* folks do know that Carnies/Italians have the C mitotype, and BlackBees have the M.


Emphasis *some*.

If speaking a language that is confusing to the rest suits a persons purposes, I have to wonder about their purposes.

But, each to their own. Some here obviously enjoy obtusification, and find it a perfect way to mask their muddled thinking and even make it sound like science. Not just talking to you WLC.



WLC said:


> I think that you got stumped by the term 'introgression of alleles'.


 And as per this example, implying that anyone who disagrees is really just ignorant, is another favourite tactic used by purveyors of technobabble.

So in these ways, technobabble is a great tool for those wishing to disguise a weak case.


----------



## WLC

OT:

So, you've called Dr. Delaney's hypothesis wrong, yet you couldn't understand what you were reading in the theses and papers I provided?

:scratch:


----------



## Oldtimer

Where did you get the notion I couldn't understand? Quite a leap to that assumption, WLC.

But hey, leaping to assumptions is another favourite pastime for some, which also allows these types of threads to continue, _ad nauseaum_.


----------



## WLC

I'm interested, as are others, in Dr. Delaney's hypothesis.

I've understood the evidence as well as it's significance to treatment free beekeeping. It's part of the 'why' of treatment free beekeeping.

What's your point OT? I don't see how you're contributing any useful content to the discussion.

However, I do see your agenda.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> However, I do see your agenda.


Do tell!


----------



## WLC

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Do tell!


Instigation.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

You mean instigation of discussion? :scratch: Isn't this a discussion forum about bees? :s


:gh:


... or maybe WLC has confused Beesource with a _lecture _forum ...


----------



## WLC

We should be discussing treatment free beekeeping, and not personal attacks.

You know, like what a friend of TF beekeeping, like Dr. Delaney, is saying.


----------



## Oldtimer

I thought my contribution was pretty worthwhile. 

The personal attacks on me such as being called stupid (since moderated), or having it implied I cannot understand etc.. are just par for the course.

I just put them down to frustrated people whose agendas aren't working out for them, and I move on.

And I got to say, had a few chuckles during the thread. 

Here's something to ponder. The real friend of TF beekeeping, or any other similar endeavour, is truth and honesty. Never fear them.


----------



## Fusion_power

Another friend is open discourse though not necessarily with no holds barred. Which is a really good reason for having this forum and threads like this.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> What do you mean exactly - setting the resistance position back to zero?
> that makes no sense in terms of genetics.
> 
> Hygienic behaviour is known to be a polygenic trait with up to 10 alleles involved.
> 
> These work in an additive fashion, ie if you have 6 of them present there is more hygienic behaviour expressed than if you have 4 present. It is not a simple concept of dominant or recessive.
> 
> There are other traits which help with varroa tolerance as well, such as grooming behaviour and the ability to bite and damage mites. These behaviours will be governed by genes which are independent of the VSH genes.


Again, as I understand things... there are several behaviours - as you point out - that help bees manage mites, and some - for all I know all - of these are, as you say, polygenic. It has been my understanding - and this could be wrong - that in some cases the the genes controlling them work not in additve fashive, but require all parts to be present simultaniously and ... some of the genes involved are recessive - and this makes a big difference. 

I'm not familiar with the latest findings in these respects, nor am I clear about how such things work. But I formed the veiw, several years ago, that the description I made in my last post - that resistance was something that must could painfully built up by eliminating the unwanted allelles within a population, could be very easily lost through their re-introduction. 

Its probably I could have chosen a better way to put matters than 'reset to zero'. Its the simplistic way I've pictured things, and it suits my own approach - of collecting what I believe to be colonies well endowed with resistance traits and breeding from them in a bond approach. Had I been trying to increase resistance in an existing treatment dependent apiary I might have felt the need to look closer at the topic.

I don't think I'm wrong about some genes involved in resistance being recessive, and that being meaningful to our purposes. Can you add to that?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> in the end, the solution was simple.


Not in my view. Another hypothesis to account for a functional 'barrier' between has been posited. That adds to the several posited previously. All, in my present view, are likely to contribute an effect. What we've done is added another layer to our complex model, that attempts to mirror the complex reality.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Some varroa tolerance is retained after mating with unselected drones. Harbo and Harris 2001. Old news.
> It is not all or nothing.
> This is typical of polygenic traits such as VSH


Your abstract does seem to make your point Jonathan, I agree - though only in respect of smr. However the direction (when strongly resistant queens are mated with less resistant) is downhill. The wouldn't be much left after a few generations.

And it might be that the result was for reasons other than those you assume. Other studies have shown that only a few patrilines are needed for smr (called VSH these days?) to be effective in a colony. What might be happening is that the queens are able to pass on smr to a sufficient number of partrilines (in the first generation), despite _always_ losing the resistant alleles completely when meeting unequipped drones.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> ... also allows these types of threads to continue, _ad nauseaum_.


If you don't like continuing threads, why not switch them off your system? 

Some of us like to talk. We like learning. We appreciate the extra understanding a working knowledge of the technicalities brings (and are grateful to those who are equipped to guide us here). We like hearing out-of-the-box ideas.

Characterising technical talk as 'technobabble' as soon as it extends your reach and accusing others of using it to 'obtusificate' is evidence that you're feeling left behind. In that case, you could read other threads, or look up the terms and educate yourself. Don't try to stop us talking about things that can make a big difference to our lives just because you're struggling to keep up. 

It isn't personal, and we're not doing it to frustrate you. We doing it because its meaningful and relevant. 

There is no reason why some threads couldn't continue for years. Science is one long discussion/argument - and that's how things get learned, and how learning gets passed along. If you don't like it, find something else to do. Starting your own thread might be a way to go.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Whatever you do Mike, please do not think I would try to stop you talking. I'm a pretty clever guy, but I do not imagine I could ever accomplish that. LOL.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> We like learning. We appreciate the extra understanding a working knowledge of the technicalities brings


Really. I'm keen to learn too.

Just for me, please elucidate on your working knowledge of the technicalities.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

WLC said:


> I'm interested, as are others, in Dr. Delaney's hypothesis.
> 
> I've understood the evidence as well as it's significance to treatment free beekeeping.


A lot of discussion about the possible mating barriers! I don´t say there can´t be any, but I have never experienced any. Certainly a barrier like this could be working only slightly (=not 100%), put it would still have an effect in the long run. Temperature for matings to take place, other flying manners, odors, many possible, but not confirmed explanations... 

I can give one practical beekeeping example:
I have my own beekeeping area, there are only very few 2-3 hive beekeepers inside my area in Ruovesi. All my queens are mated in isolated mating station (Haukkamaa), with selected drones, usually one sister line, recently more ofter a group of daughters of the best survivors. 

I have some hives further south (50km, Orivesi), in an area where there are a lot of other beekeepers. 

2008 I had such big losses, that I decided, for the first time in 13 years, in order to keep the biggest possible variation in my population, that I ´ll let all queens to mate freely in their own hives and yards. That year my isolation apiary for queen production was not in use. 2009 and more in 2010 and 2011 I had to choose my breeders from this group of free mated queens. Not a single 2008 queen from Orivesi region was good enough for breeding. I suppose the reason is that the queens mated freely there in that year got partly mated with other beekeepers drones.


----------



## Fusion_power

> What might be happening is that the queens are able to pass on smr to a sufficient number of partrilines (in the first generation), despite _always_ losing the resistant alleles completely when meeting unequipped drones.


Of all the things I've learned about genetics, one of the most important is that "always" and "never" almost never apply to genetics. Most genes give varying levels of expression depending on whether there is one copy or two copies present. This is referred to as partial dominance or penetrance or intermediate expression. The easiest example would be from Mendel's work with flowers where crossing a white to a red resulted in pink flowers. Color expression is penetrant meaning that both white and red are expressed with the result in between the parent extremes.

I have anecdotal evidence that intermediate expression is the most likely mechanism for most of the genes involved. That evidence is the simple observation that once I get enough colonies into an area with enough of a buffer of feral mite tolerant colonies, nearly 100% of queens produced and mated in that area are highly mite tolerant. If the genes involved were all dominant, I would expect 100% tolerance and it would be much easier to develop mite tolerant bees. If they were all recessive, I would expect a predictable percentage to be susceptible. Since the numbers are running more in the range of 95% to 98%, the best explanation is that most of the genes involved are intermediate in expression.

Why is this important? Well if your world is wrapped up with expecting varroa tolerance to be all or nothing, you will make breeding mistakes that could cost a lot of time in development of highly tolerant breeding lines. To use an old analogy, you will often throw the baby out with the bathwater, not recognizing a colony with partial tolerance that would be useful for breeding. What if you have a colony with strong hygienic traits, but not quite good enough to be fully self-sustaining? What if you have another colony that expresses a high level of allogrooming? Recognizing the value of the traits, you cross the two lines and test the resulting queens to find that nearly 100% of them are susceptible to very susceptible to mites. What do you do now?

Just to answer the question, at that point, you backcross to one or both of the parental lines to re-concentrate the genes. Most of the selection work has to be done in the F2, not the F1.


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> Why is this important? Well if your world is wrapped up with expecting varroa tolerance to be all or nothing, you will make breeding mistakes that could cost a lot of time in development of highly tolerant breeding lines. To use an old analogy, you will often throw the baby out with the bathwater, not recognizing a colony with partial tolerance that would be useful for breeding.


Interesting points, thanks. Many own strategy - at present - is to collect as many as possible, let them be, and make increase from a range of the flourishers. I'm not examining the hows and whys of their flourishing, just working with whether they are or not. The second line hives are left alone to do their thing. I'm trying to build mating dominance around my apiary (there are too many treated hives too close for my liking) and selecting isolated spots where I believe there are survivors for some of the mating. So I'm going broad, hoping that whatever is helping I'll be able to maintain and build on. Without knowing all the details. 

As John Kefuss says, when you go on a plane you don't need to know how it works in every detail. You just need to know _that_ it works. In this case I'm pretty sure I know that locating survivors and working at breeding up from them while aiming for whole health self-sufficiency will work - if anything will.

I'm pretty sure I also know that doing anything else will push away from my aim of owning self-sufficient bees. If I can't build numbers, health, productivity, I'll think again. But so far the building is happening.

Mike (UK)


----------



## beekuk

Fusion_power said:


> Feral colonies in the region of North Alabama show signs of genetic change within the last 25 years because they are clearly surviving and thriving in the face of two unprecedented threats from tracheal and varroa mites.


Genetic ‘remix’ key to evolution of bee behaviour: York University research

Recombination allows natural selection to act on specific mutations without regard to neighbouring mutations.

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


----------



## jonathan

Treating the bees is not a problem.
The issue is working out which bees deal better with the mites and that involves collecting data.
If you have an apiary with high mite levels and you treat so that they are all reduced to a similar low level, you will find very different mite levels in the colonies a year down the line.
You need to measure this and breed from the colonies with the low mite levels.
You have to create an even playing field, ie treat them all or treat none of them.
Treating none of them means that most will die within a couple of years.
Collecting data and acting on it is a more science based approach.
Record the mite levels by taking a sample of 300 bees from the brood nest a couple of times per year. Do an alcohol wash or a sugar shake if you have an aversion to killing 300 bees.
Work with your neighbours who keep bees. Someone may have an excellent colony which is worth taking grafts from.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

jonathan said:


> Treating the bees is not a problem.
> The issue is working out which bees deal better with the mites and that involves collecting data.
> If you have an apiary with high mite levels and you treat so that they are all reduced to a similar low level, you will find very different mite levels in the colonies a year down the line.
> You need to measure this and breed from the colonies with the low mite levels.
> You have to create an even playing field, ie treat them all or treat none of them.
> Treating none of them means that most will die within a couple of years.
> Collecting data and acting on it is a more science based approach.
> Record the mite levels by taking a sample of 300 bees from the brood nest a couple of times per year. Do an alcohol wash or a sugar shake if you have an aversion to killing 300 bees.
> Work with your neighbours who keep bees. Someone may have an excellent colony which is worth taking grafts from.


I would ad that breeding varroa resistant bees is not a problem ( it only took 12 years, and has been done by many) The real problem is that how on earth are we going to spread them to all beekeepers. Treating is so easy, so efficient, so cheap, so consumer friendly (acids, and essential oils), that the scenario does not look good. 

The new consumers are however coming: increasingly beekeepers are asked (in Internet, at the markets) "Do you give your bees medicines?" or even "How do you treat mites?" This might be the force making the change to tf beekeeping at large scale possible.


----------



## rhaldridge

Juhani, this is something I've found interesting. In many TF vs. T threads, it's come out that those who treat are often annoyed by those who don't and who also ask a premium for their untreated honey. I think the linkage of ideas is that "if you say your honey is better because you don't treat, then you are implying that my honey is worse because I do treat. And that's unfair."

I can understand the resentment, but it's just marketing. It happens in any business. Vendors attempt to distinguish their product in some way, in order to get a premium price. Microsoft may resent Apple marketing their wares to young hipsters (and implying that their product is just so much cooler than those stodgy old Microsoft products) but they have better sense than to claim it's unfair.

To me, there are probably better ways to present the merits of treatment free honey than to claim that it is healthier or tastier (because of the foraging habits of bees.) Were I trying to market treatment free honey on a commercial scale, I think I would sell on the basis that treatment free beekeeping is better for the bees. And better for the longterm survival of the bees. (Some folks won't agree with this assertion, but you can't market a niche product to everyone.) That marketing approach would take advantage of the current cultural concern among the industrialized nations over the destruction of the ecosphere and the ongoing problems with industrial agriculture. 

I think of the organic food movement for an analogy. It's gone from being the province of crackpots to one of the most vital segments of the agricultural economy (in terms of increasing market share.) It is sold not just on the basis that there are no pesticide residues, but also on the basis that it is better for the environment. 

There probably won't be a widespread swing to treatment free beekeeping until there are strong economic incentives to do so, as was the case with organic farming. That could be better bees, or it could be a change in consumer expectations.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I'm trying to build mating dominance around my apiary (there are too many treated hives too close for my liking) and selecting isolated spots where I believe there are survivors for some of the mating.Mike (UK)


I don't know why you would bother.

You have many times explained that your hives are stocked with wild swarms and ferals.

You have in this thread been strongly supporting the hypothesis that there is a "mating barrier" that prevents flow of genes from kept hives to ferals.

Do I understand a mans beliefs from his words? Or his actions?


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> this is something I've found interesting. In many TF vs. T threads, it's come out that those who treat are often annoyed by those who don't and who also ask a premium for their untreated honey. I think the linkage of ideas is that "if you say your honey is better because you don't treat, then you are implying that my honey is worse because I do treat. And that's unfair.


In fact that is not the case. Bad information.

There have been issues where beekeepers have discovered their neighbourhood TF beekeeper has been going out of their way to badmouth their honey, name the beekeeper, and imply their honey is contaminated with poison. You would not expect anyone whose living depends on selling their honey to be overjoyed to find someone is spreading this talk about them, to their own customers, in their own neighbourhood.

Where the TF beekeeper focusses on promoting their own honey positively, rather than negative advertising, ie, badmouthing everybody else, there is not a problem. promoting honey positively is good for all.

I would also point out that one beekeeper who was a victim of this type of attack, treats, but lightly, carefully, and at the right season. He had his honey tested and no treatment chemicals of any type where found. he publicly challenged the TF beekeeper who had been badmouthing him to have his honey tested also, and the TF beekeeper refused.

Very bad form.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

rhaldridge said:


> Were I trying to market treatment free honey on a commercial scale, I think I would sell on the basis that treatment free beekeeping is better for the bees. And better for the longterm survival of the bees. (Some folks won't agree with this assertion, but you can't market a niche product to everyone.) That marketing approach would take advantage of the current cultural concern among the industrialized nations over the destruction of the ecosphere and the ongoing problems with industrial agriculture.
> 
> I think of the organic food movement for an analogy. It's gone from being the province of crackpots to one of the most vital segments of the agricultural economy (in terms of increasing market share.) It is sold not just on the basis that there are no pesticide residues, but also on the basis that it is better for the environment.


Yes, we have to be careful. If we are not, it will have a negative effect on all honey consumption, not only t honey. When customers ask me about treatments, I´ll always say, that all beekeepers in Finland use very natural products, when/if they treat their bees: oxalic and formic acid (these are found in honey naturally) and thymol. This is true. There are of course some illegal use of some other products ( which?, no clue), but it is not in even my interest to tell this detail to the customer. If I told it, that would put a shade over all beekeeping for irresponsibility. I don´t want that and it would do harm to me too, eventually, in the long term.


----------



## WLC

I'm starting to pick up on a 'TF beekeeping as a belief system' vibe.

Frankly, it's definitely a lot more interesting to some of us than simply saying, 'if it's early September, it's time to do this...'

I can't believe that I was able to get something like BeeWeavers into Manhattan so easily.

They really are pushing out the edge of the envelope.

Compare that to something more commercial.


----------



## Oldtimer

Where do your vibes come from?


----------



## WLC

Most of the TF beekeepers have some really 'groovy' views on what they're doing.
Especially the Southern Beekeepers.

They've got so many 'positive waves'.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Do I understand a mans beliefs from his words? Or his actions?


What you might want to do is read what he says carefully. No I'm not finding the relevant parts for you, nor explaining why they are relevant again.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> but it is not in even my interest to tell this detail to the customer. If I told it, that would put a shade over all beekeeping for irresponsibility.


My guide in these sorts of things is: speak the truth as you understand it. Anything else is damaging in some way or other.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Where do your vibes come from?


In my case: the belief that we're doing something honourable and socially useful. Ecologically we're at the forefront of a real 'save the honeybee effort' that will supply enormous help to the natural ecology worldwide. 

Unmasking the self-interested fibs of grinding blank-faced corporations is always fun as a bonus. Discovering that you've been right all along (20+ years of believing in the ability of honeybees to rapidly adapt to an introduced parasite) is a delight. 

And then I can watch my bees flying (as they were yesterday - a bit). I don't know what the source or the detailed character of the feeling is - partly: they're my charges and I'm taking care of them - the right, long-term way. They'll go out in the world and make a real difference. A real multiple/who cares/its all wonderful thing! 

The vibes come from all over! 

Groovy Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> My guide in these sorts of things is: speak the truth as you understand it. Anything else is damaging in some way or other.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Agree Mike, but it's sometimes easier to apply those standards to others, than oneself.

For example, the TF beekeeper I mentioned who was badmouthing the guy who treats, failed to mention to his customers that 80% of his own bees died a miserable death from mite infestation every year. Do you think he should have filled them in on that?


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> The issue is working out which bees deal better with the mites and that involves collecting data.


That all make sense to me - if you are wanting to preserve an established strain/maintain a working level of production.

I think for myself with the collected ferals approach the non-treatment/breed from most productive takes mite levels into account as part of a wider assay that selects for broad health. 

I agree completely with the equalisation part - its important to compare like with like. I've always objected to FERA advice 'treat only those that need it'. That _must_ be followed by 'and requeen from the best'.

Do you take any positive steps to press the preferred genes through the drone side Jonathan?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Fusion_power

> failed to mention to his customers that 80% of his own bees died a miserable death from mite infestation every year


If my losses were that high, I would not have bees. My losses have been in the 10% range for the last 5 years. There is no way on earth it could be that low except that my bees have genetic tolerance to mites.


----------



## Oldtimer

He supports the package industry.


----------



## rhaldridge

Fusion_power said:


> If my losses were that high, I would not have bees. My losses have been in the 10% range for the last 5 years. There is no way on earth it could be that low except that my bees have genetic tolerance to mites.


I imagine this is another apocryphal story. Who is this TF beekeeper who loses 80% of his bees every year, and how does he stay in business? Fishy.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> I *imagine *this is another apocryphal story. Who is this TF beekeeper who loses 80% of his bees every year, and how does he stay in business? Fishy.


Emphasis *imagine.*


----------



## Grant

rhaldridge said:


> I imagine this is another apocryphal story. Who is this TF beekeeper who loses 80% of his bees every year, and how does he stay in business? Fishy.


If this TF beekeeper only kept five hives and lost four, that's 80% If he purchases susceptible bees from a treated nuc/package producer, they would likely demand treatments or die. 

There are a lot of beekeepers like this, I know six or seven beekeepers, personally, who routinely lose 80% of their bees. Of the 20% that survive, these hives usually swarm on them. 

The largest of these guys starts out in the spring with 20 hives and he insists on going treatment-free. Never mind it doesn't seem to work for him. These kind of beekeepers stay in "business" because they use money from a real job to buy new bees every spring. Not very sustainable, but you'd think they'd soon tire of the financial drain. Either that or their spouse would get tired of nagging them about when this hobby is going to pay off.

None of the six I know harvest any appreciable honey, two of them buy a couple of buckets from me to satisfy their in-laws, probably to maintain the mystique of being a bee "keeper." They call me off and on during the season and ask advice, but they reject any suggestions to treat their hives. They "read somewhere on the Internet that treatment-free beekeeping was natural."

Sometimes I wonder how treatment-free losses compare to losses in treated hives, and yet I also ponder how many losses never make the statistics and surveys.

Hard tellin. I have some treatment-free hives. Some of them live, some die. I treat most of my hives with soft or natural approaches. Some live, some die. I'm doing my best to keep them all alive and productive, but if my losses ran 80%, I think I'd start looking at my management practices to see what needs to change...because something needs to change.

Grant
Jackson, MO https://www.createspace.com/4106626


----------



## WLC

Then the TF beekeeper needs to get actual resistant stock if he's getting 80% losses.

He could try local ferals or order resistant queens.


----------



## squarepeg

rhaldridge said:


> I imagine this is another apocryphal story. Who is this TF beekeeper who loses 80% of his bees every year, and how does he stay in business? Fishy.


not fishy at all considering mites are relatively new in nz. i believe these kind of losses were not uncommon here after they first arrived. my understanding is that there is no resistant stock available yet down there, correct ot?


----------



## WLC

I believe VSH is available in NZ.

However, I've read that as part of their strategy to combat Varroa, NZ beekeepers destroyed local feral populations.


----------



## Oldtimer

Mites destroyed the feral populations, not people WLC. We may be crazy down here, but not that crazy.

When mites were first found here one of the strategies discussed was kill every hive managed or feral, in the area. But it was quickly discovered mites were spread over an area too big for such a plan to be possible.

By the way, you say you read this, where? It never happened, and I don't think you did read it.

Squarepeg the guy I'm talking about is actually in the US, however haven't heard how he's going this last year, maybe he improved.

I think WLC may have got one thing right, that the guy just repeatedly buying packages every year, is merely getting the same result, by doing the same thing.


----------



## rhaldridge

squarepeg said:


> not fishy at all considering mites are relatively new in nz. i believe these kind of losses were not uncommon here after they first arrived. my understanding is that there is no resistant stock available yet down there, correct ot?


Ah. I didn't realize this was an Oldtimer story. Just saw a snippet in someone else's post.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Grant said:


> There are a lot of beekeepers like this, I know six or seven beekeepers, personally, who routinely lose 80% of their bees. Of the 20% that survive, these hives usually swarm on them.


This sounds like a strong indication of poor management. I have 95% survival with very low swarming.


----------



## mike bispham

Grant said:


> I treat most of my hives with soft or natural approaches.


Could you explain how 'treat' and 'natural' work in the same sentence Grant?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Back to the mating barrier thing, I argued against it because as a breeder I have seen the different breeds mentioned interbreed freely, and also because Delany's hypothesis, that they mate at different times, did not ring true to me, I know there is overlap between the times.

However, I have had to have an opinion change on the mating barrier, because of a paper that Beekuk was kind enough to send me, here is the link.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-013-0212-y/fulltext.html

One interesting finding was that (as I understand it), they found a partial mating barrier between AMM's and Carniolans. Although it is mostly one way. IE, The AMM queens mate mostly with AMM drones, but the Carniolan queens showed a preference for Carniolan drones but will also mate with AMM drones.

This actually ties in completely with my own observations of a lifetime, that with the races I worked with, pre varroa, if allowed to supersede enough times they would eventually revert to AMM. (Sorry to those who already saw me post that earlier in the thread). But I had put it down to the AMM mating advantage of more drones per hive plus more sperm per drone, whereas the study seems to indicate there is a preference during the actual mating process.

So getting back to Delaneys video, she may be quite correct in her observations, if the bees in the forest are indeed AMM survivors. The mating advantage (more drones per hive more sperm per drone) of AMM's, combined with the mating preference described in Beekuk's study, will ensure the breed is likely to stay relatively unaffected by the surrounding managed hives. Her hypothesis would be less likely to cut the other way though, based on info from the study I linked, as these bees will mate with AMM's. It is more likely the managed colonies stay different because they are managed. (Requeened, etc).

I thought it quite important to bring this to peoples attention for several reasons. In my own country AMM's were quickly wiped out by varroa, and the same has been reported elsewhere. However as has been reported in this thread, there are several AMM strains, and it may well be that some are varroa resistant, in fact it would certainly seem that way based on Delany's observations. Where the information in the study will be important to breeders, is that given time, these AMM's could gradually supplant everything else, probably not AHB, because of the mating advantage plus the mating preference, which mainly only goes one way.


----------



## WLC

Yes OT, I was aware of that study.

We really need to find out more about the nature of these barriers to gene flow.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Pretty interesting link. Sounds like there is a lot the industry needs to learn about this process


----------



## WLC

That's why there's an interest in the EU in Amm conservation.

What's happened with the much feared AHB invasion here in the U.S. is also very interesting in terms of the genetics studies that have been done and what they imply.


----------



## Paul McCarty

From what I have seen AMM and AHB have a lot in common. The hybrids seem to be very much like AMM in a temperate region. I suspect as they progress into a cold environment, the AMM in their genetic code (which they absorbed from the Spanish AMM) is being expressed allowing them to adapt. and basically become more like AMM type bees. Just my uneducated observation. I think a point will be reached - if it has not happened yet - where the two will be nearly indistinguishable without an MTDNA test. If I were a scientist I would be studying this.

Your AMM barrier also explains why I see AMM like bees in my more remote mountain regions near me that do not test genetically as African. Like I have said before, I think I am seeing the remnants of the old Spanish bees. - mostly dark hardy mutts at this point.


----------



## ptmerrill

OT with amm you say they produce more drones. What percent more would you say?


----------



## Oldtimer

Straight up, cannot tell you. Just basing that on observation, the AMM hives had noticeably more drones. Just my view I guess though.


----------



## WLC

Paul:

While they've found M7 and M7' haplotypes, they still need to do studies in the Iberian peninsula to find the matching haplotypes.

It isn't the worst field assignment in the world. Getting Honeybee samples by day, hanging in tapas bars in the evening.


----------



## gmcharlie

Most of the guys(not all I am sure) but most who claim 95% survive, are fudging the numbers terrible,... they go thru the hives and only count the ones they Thought would survive...... the ones they killed off or knew wouldn't make it don't count....


----------



## Fusion_power

gmcharlie, my count is simple. How many did I go into winter with? How many made it into spring? I usually take Farrar's advice on winter losses in the fall, i.e. combine weak colonies in the fall. So far, I've lost one colony that went queenless at least a couple of months ago. I did not have any sgnificantly weak colonies that needed combining. I had to feed one colony that was light on stores. I cleaned out some reallly badly built comb from another colony (5 combs) and gave them 2 quarts of feed today because removing that much comb reduced their stores significantly. Note for reference, if you run 11 frames in a 10 frame box, culling frames has to be done more often.

Re AMM and drones, 1/3 of their comb is usually drone size and in spring it will be pretty much full. I never tried to count drones in a colony, but it is obvious AMM like to have plenty during swarming season.


----------



## gmcharlie

Fusion, that was not in particular aimed at you.... There are a cpl others who know who they are. You have a huge perk, your in AL. very little down time, and a nice fall brood break. 
When you combine 3 months of ice with mites your results IMO will be a lot different. I tend to think that has a lot to do with some of the AZ and NM successes. As for MB in his location. well I sure wish I could be defined. something working for him that a lot of us envy... (I also don't think he claims 95%)


----------



## Fusion_power

Gmcharlie, I think there is a disconnect here. You seem to be under the impression my bees are somehow loaded with mites, yet survive them anyway. I checked a patch of brood in one colony a few days ago. There were no mites in sealed brood. Where were they? I had mites in the past. My bees were wiped out by mites in the past. When you can't find mites in your bees, mites become a non-sequitur. Wintering then comes down to basic wintering ability.


----------



## rhaldridge

gmcharlie said:


> Most of the guys(not all I am sure) but most who claim 95% survive, are fudging the numbers terrible,.


Well, that's not at all insulting.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> So getting back to Delaneys video, she may be quite correct in her observations, if the bees in the forest are indeed AMM survivors. The mating advantage (more drones per hive more sperm per drone) of AMM's, combined with the mating preference described in Beekuk's study, will ensure the breed is likely to stay relatively unaffected by the surrounding managed hives. Her hypothesis would be less likely to cut the other way though, based on info from the study I linked, as these bees will mate with AMM's. It is more likely the managed colonies stay different because they are managed. (Requeened, etc).


Another significant hypothesis for the partial barrier put forward in the study is that hybrids are weaker. Given that the offspring of Cs are almost certain to need artificial support while the (feral) Ms are not, perhaps that isn't surprising. 



Oldtimer said:


> I thought it quite important to bring this to peoples attention for several reasons. In my own country AMM's were quickly wiped out by varroa, and the same has been reported elsewhere. However as has been reported in this thread, there are several AMM strains, and it may well be that some are varroa resistant in fact it would certainly seem that way based on Delany's observations.


There are an almost infinite number of Amm 'strains'. A 'strain' is an artificial categorisation that draws attention to the fact that among the massive genetic diversity present in natural populations, locally some particular genetic recombinations will be better suited than others, and so will become commonplace - there. This can be described as a (local) 'strain'. Breeders can also artificially concentrate particular genetics into enlarged near-related families or 'strains'. 

If you can conceive the bee population as a vast well of diversity rather than a small number of 'strains' you can work with a clearer picture of what is actually there. 

Except where genetic diversity is extraordinarily limited, it is my understanding that all populations - 'strains' and mongrels - will hold the genes necessary for effective mite management. All that is required is that natural selection be allowed to take place. 

It was (is?) common lore, both here and in the US, that all ferals had been wiped a few years after introduction of varroa. Added to that it was commonly understood that bees might take thousands, or tens of thousands of years to adapt to a 'new' parasite. (And that beekeepers had to look after them while this happened - because the feral/wild populations were completely wretched.)

But it turned out that neither of those assumptions was true. There were 'survivor' feral bees, and they have been steadily rebuilding their populations - adapting in tens, not thousands of years. And it turns out too that the beekeeper strategy of 'looking after them while they adapt' is entirely misconcieved - the 'looking after' is what is preventing adaptation (near apiaries - where beekeepers see things.)

Those beekeepers that are still attached to the old suppositions are working in a badly flawed information environment.



Oldtimer said:


> ... Where the information in the study will be important to breeders, is that given time, these AMM's could gradually supplant everything else, probably not AHB, because of the mating advantage plus the mating preference, which mainly only goes one way.


What would be ideal would be for breeders to understand that the system of large scale breeding (and consequent narrowing of diversity) is hugely harmful, as is the constant replication of individuals with zero fitness in the environments they end up in. That they are very much part of the problem. Since that won't happen (turkeys don't vote for Christmas...) what we really need is sound scientific oversight of a regulatory system that is capable of governing breeding in the interests of total, long term bee health. Given the scale of the damage poor breeding does nothing else is acceptable.

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Mike, for the records: how many hives did you have in summer 2013 and how many hives did you lost so far until now? (Sacrified for the good.)


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Mike, for the records: how many hives did you have in summer 2013 and how many hives did you lost so far until now? (Sacrified for the good.)


Of course I can't know, but can surmise that something in my last post has prompted this enquiry as an attempt to diminish my beekeeping understanding and outlook. My best guess is that its the appeal for the true complexity of natural breeding dynamics to be employed, rather than artificial and inadequate fictional categories ('strains'). Not appealing to those who like things to be simple. 

[Ahh, no, its the beekeeper assumptions that have turned out to be untrue/strategy misconceived bit that Bernhard doesn't like]

To your question: 40ish at the top, reduced to 33 by a couple of failures and some combining of small nucs in September/October. 

Currently 33 as far as I know. I've seen all but 3 in the last couple of weeks. (Those three I haven't visited, but they were good 4 weeks ago)

No treatments or manipulations of any kind whatsoever anytime. For the record. 

I did autumn feed some and have supplied candy more recently - I want numbers to work with next year (aiming to go to 100)

Early days Bernhard, but right now it looks like sacrificing for the good in winter 2012 (and previous years) might just be paying off doesn't it? 

Of course this is something you'd only want to try with good levels of wild/feral/survivor genes.

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Hi Mike,

uuh, I do not want to put the finger into the wound. I am just curious on how your project goes on. I need to orientate myself and I am honestly looking up to the man with the only rightful concept in the World, the right hypothesis and approach. Hardly surprising I want to know how the progress is in it's second year.

To throw something useful from my part into the discussion: this is a recent table of mine with chosen examples of treated colonies. I reckon that you can select bees towards resistance even from colonies that are treated. See the differences.

Explanation/Translations of the titles of the columns. First colum is number of example hive. Second column is the natural mite fall before autumn treatment. (October) Third is the calculated mite population derived from the natural mite fall. Up to 10 mites per day is multiplied with 300, 10 to 50 mites per by 200, above 50 mites by 100. (Note: All calculated values in the table are italic/cursive. Also note that in German the . is used to mark a thousand. So 2.400 means 2,400)

The fourth column is the number of mites that dropped after one single treatment with vaporized oxalic acid. The fifth column is the calculated rest of the population derived from the calculated population in column three minus the mites that dropped after treatment.

On the right hand of the blue vertical line, the same but in December. Winter treatment.










As you see by the numbers some populations come with low numbers of mites and do continue to have low numbers. In this example this is hive D,F and G. It is interesting that hive C and D are actually sitting right next to each other. No invasion of mites throughout the year observed. One hive simply copes with mites, the other doesn't.

Hive E is a typical example for a natural swarm. I regularily found natural swarms do have a higher mite population. Splits do have the lowest.

Guess which hives I breed from next year? Yes: D,F and G. They also build up strong colonies and do get a good honey crop, too. Such outstanding hives go into the Bond test, means they are not treated at all. If they fail to cope on their own, they are taken out of the test and breeding.

The Soft Bond Test by Kefuss is so easy. And I do see some progress since less and less hives need treatments. This is how it works:

1) Start with as many different breeder lines as possible, preferably with some resistance background. Rear daughters and re-queen a maximum number of hives. Put daughters in all bee yards to maximize drone production of selected stock.

2) Select more resistant stock from treated hives as shown above. Select by monitoring results. Use different methods to monitor mite populations. Sugar roll, mite drop and visual assessment is what I use. I plan to use hygienic tests, too. (Removal of killed brood.) Put those that do good into the Bond test. Monitor them.

3) Breed from those that do fine without treatments. Requeen your yards with survivors that thrive. Exchange genetic material with others. Introduce good survivors from other locations from time to time.

That's basicly it.

Losses are limited. The work of detailed monitoring is concentrated on selected hives. So monitoring costs are reduced to those that are worth it. Saves treatments on selected hives. Slow progress and growing resistance can be observed. All in all few risks and no unnecessary waste of bee colonies by letting them die. (What for anyway...)


----------



## Paul McCarty

That is basically what I have been doing. But survival is my main test.

I honestly think the feral bees (north and south) here in NM are different than the ones you get from the suppliers. Totally different beast. Mites do not seem to affect them so bad. The last study done here on bee parasites showed mite issues we not much of a factor. A few commercial operations in the Mesilla Valley showed no issues at all, not sure why. I think it is because their homegrown bees have out-crossed with the locals. Now, is it a local factor and can it be reproduced elsewhere, who knows. I would not recommend transplanting them anyplace else. I think that is part of the problem, the importation of strange bees into different regions.


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> I am just curious on how your project goes on. I need to orientate myself and I am honestly looking up to the man with the only rightful concept in the World, the right hypothesis and approach. Hardly surprising I want to know how the progress is in it's second year.


Hi Bernhard,

Perhaps I'm misreading you - bits like this look very like sarcasm...?

Regardless....

I think more and more that we interfere with the processes of raising mite managers at our peril. I'm trying to select (from same-circumstance hives) those that are most productive, in the belief that that will locate the best possible bee for my purposes, and, happily, for the local feral population. 

I don't really care what sort of mite load they're carrying, and part of the reason for that is I think it might be better for hives to carry more of the right sorts of mites than for them to carry fewer (of possibly the wrong sort of mites). Maintaining a population of low-fecundity mites acts as a guard against ingress of high fecundity mites. I don't think selections based on mite counts are cognisant of that fact - and that is deeply problematic - a fatal flaw in my view.

I don't care either what race or 'strain' they are. If they can make lots of honey, while looking after their own health, they're the ones I want. I just think I can't do better than that - and so there's no point in investigating the workings, never mind getting involved. 

I've seen how some just don't build, and they have high mite loads, and yes, lack of mite-managing behaviours is probably their main problem. I've also seen hives that suffer from DWV in the spring, that overtake and outperform most others. I don't know which are going to supply the best foundations for future colonies, but making increase mostly from the top performing 15% of untreated, 2 or 3 year year queens seems to be a reasonable strategy. The second-line hives I'll probably split from too, to preserve their genes and give them a chance to shine. I'll requeen any really obvious duffers. 

I do struggle to understand why anyone would take any other approach - given enough hives to make plenty of offspring, and assuming a willingness to take a few out of production in order to become part of a separate breeding outfit. Why not make 20 new colonies from your best 20% (with a sprinkle of second-line hives), making an effort to mate with only good mite-managers, then let them be to see what happens? 

If that is beyond your resources I can understand not doing it... and fiddling around trying to raise resistant bees while constantly polluting your gene pool with unresistant bees instead... but otherwise it seems like a no brainer. 

I'm not arguing that its an approach that cannot work, only that a parallel, labour light (once hives are built) effort along stronger lines, might succeed much faster. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Paul McCarty said:


> A few commercial operations in the Mesilla Valley showed no issues at all, not sure why. I think it is because their homegrown bees have out-crossed with the locals. Now, is it a local factor and can it be reproduced elsewhere, who knows.


That could only be the case if they were raising their own bees of course - systematically importing (idiodically) bred queens would prevent it. Perhaps they are (accidentally?) getting a (production-assayed) soft bond effect as well as sound feral input?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Paul McCarty

I am not sure if they import or not. Another possible factor is regional genetics. I know African genetics appears to play a factor in mite resistance. The scientific speculation (other than swarming frequency - which is not always true) is that they put off something or have an unidentified behavior that reduces the fecundity of the mites. Those genetics do exist in the area I was referring to (Mesilla Valley). 

So they could be breeding their own queens yes, but they could also be open mating with the local hybrid population. Don't know these guys, so I can't say one way or the other. 

I was asked to be part of the study but I did not have any yards large enough (11 hives or more in one location) so I did not take part in it. My yards are all too small and scattered. I usually have no more than 4 in one location, because I don't want to overload the area with bees. This region is pretty dry and cannot support a large hive count unless you concentrate on agricultural areas that are irrigated. Most of my production hives are not in those areas, but are located in the mesquite/creosote desert, which can be just as productive, but does not support large numbers of hives. I have a few in ag areas, but don't want to change contamination with pesticides for the majority of my bees... well, and I also like mesquite honey better.


----------



## gmcharlie

rhaldridge said:


> Well, that's not at all insulting.


might be,, but its true.... I have sat down and grilled and actually harassed 3 of the big claims guys.... and they are all doing the same thing. When a hive gets infected and is about to die, they "split it" and don't count it as a loss. Its a fun way to play with numbers. If you split and requeen your hives every year, its not survivabilty, its juggling. One of the other "big names" just flat culls the ones that won't live before winter. that way they don't count. 

Last Year I was setting up a queen test on "TF queens" Funny how when it was time to produce queens suddenly when told how they would be tested, 5 of the quys who advertised TF queens, couldn't supply any. Yup, thats colored my opinions.
There are some serious and legitimate successes. when they become transferable, it will be great.


Fusion, have you done a alchol wash or? if you have no mites and you can repeat it, your on to something. I run about 100 hives into winter(200 summer) and I have a cpl that will test near 1% but reproducing it and spreading it has not worked. there are definatly hives that either have darn few for whatever reason, or seem to survive and thrive with heavy loads..... 

You guys miss the point. I am ALL FOR TF..... 110% as soon as we can make it work. Several VERY prominant members here have tested and tested and tested, on larger scales than mine, and so far, no Joy. If any of you have a real answer or genetic line, FANTASTIC... name your price, and put me down for 20 queens....... but you better be ready to back up the claim.

( I need to add these bees also have to produce honey in surplus, some TF claims are just about keeping bees, no production)


----------



## JRG13

Fusion, would you like to sell me some queens? I'm serious on that, I'd love to see if they hold any merit over here. I will pay you a decent price and expenses to ship and treat them well (or actually, I won't treat them at all... lol). I can understand local successes but how many of them translate into what gmcharlie says, transferrable results to other beeks or locations. I'm sorry if I sound too pragmatic at times but I tend to look at things differently than most people.


----------



## Fusion_power

JRG, I'm not a queen breeder and have no aspirations to become one, however, I will take your request into consideration and see what can be done. I've already committed to getting two local acquaintances set up with bees for next year. This means I have to split mine 3 for 1 if possible. Along the way, I will have to have some new queens.

Gmcharlie, The queen must mate with a predominance of drones that are from mite tolerant colonies. From your description, you are not able to achieve this level of drone saturation. You might have a queen carrying mite tolerant genetics, but without the drones, your success rate will be very low. My suggestion would be to raise queens from the colonies that have very low mite levels and use them to requeen your other colonies. Then re-select and raise more queens and you will have enough drones with the right genes to affect the results.


----------



## jonathan

BernhardHeuvel said:


> The Soft Bond Test by Kefuss is so easy. And I do see some progress since less and less hives need treatments. This is how it works:
> 
> 1) Start with as many different breeder lines as possible, preferably with some resistance background. Rear daughters and re-queen a maximum number of hives. Put daughters in all bee yards to maximize drone production of selected stock.
> 
> 2) Select more resistant stock from treated hives as shown above. Select by monitoring results. Use different methods to monitor mite populations. Sugar roll, mite drop and visual assessment is what I use. I plan to use hygienic tests, too. (Removal of killed brood.) Put those that do good into the Bond test. Monitor them.
> 
> 3) Breed from those that do fine without treatments. Requeen your yards with survivors that thrive. Exchange genetic material with others. Introduce good survivors from other locations from time to time.


That's more or less in line with what we are hoping to achieve in the long run with native stock (AMM) in Ireland.
Keeping good records is a key part of the work.
Some colonies cope better with mites than others and breeder queens should come from these ones.
If you combine this approach with some DNA work which can look for genes associated with useful coping behaviour such as grooming or biting mites as well as VSH this could bear fruit.

Ireland Varroa project


----------



## gmcharlie

Thats a great plan Fusion, but unfortunately I live in a place where feral colonies are as numerous as mine. So not possible. We could also go back over the math that shows drones have very little genetic influence. but thats a moot point as I agree it can be an issue.


Bernhard. is that number in any way correlated to the number of bees in the hive?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Fusion_power said:


> JRG, I'm not a queen breeder and have no aspirations to become one, however, I will take your request into consideration and see what can be done. I've already committed to getting two local acquaintances set up with bees for next year. This means I have to split mine 3 for 1 if possible. Along the way, I will have to have some new queens.
> 
> Gmcharlie, The queen must mate with a predominance of drones that are from mite tolerant colonies. From your description, you are not able to achieve this level of drone saturation. You might have a queen carrying mite tolerant genetics, but without the drones, your success rate will be very low. My suggestion would be to raise queens from the colonies that have very low mite levels and use them to requeen your other colonies. Then re-select and raise more queens and you will have enough drones with the right genes to affect the results.


Fusion-Power: Do you have drone saturation area or isolation apiary to mate your queens in Alabama?

Once met Sue Cobey in Germany and she told there is a import stop to US (which she found a bit silly) Is it still there? Love to sell you some of my queens.


----------



## mike bispham

Paul McCarty said:


> I am not sure if they import or not. Another possible factor is regional genetics. I know African genetics appears to play a factor in mite resistance. The scientific speculation (other than swarming frequency - which is not always true) is that they put off something or have an unidentified behavior that reduces the fecundity of the mites. Those genetics do exist in the area I was referring to (Mesilla Valley).


Paul,

It might seem to be stating the obvious but... They're feral bees, they're gonna have resistance (or they'd die out), its gonna come over (because that happens in hybridisation). Its got nothing to do with African genetics, and everything to do with natural selection. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## JRG13

Juhani,

Can't bring in queens, drone semen is accepted though. They did open up Australian packages for almonds when ccd hit, maybe you could sneak one in as a special Finland aid to the almonds this year.....


----------



## Juhani Lunden

JRG13 said:


> Juhani,
> 
> Can't bring in queens, drone semen is accepted though. They did open up Australian packages for almonds when ccd hit, maybe you could sneak one in as a special Finland aid to the almonds this year.....


Or you come and help me extracting end of July (lots of ripe queens those days) One Kiwi is coming.


----------



## Fusion_power

> We could also go back over the math that shows drones have very little genetic influence.


That would be a very good discussion topic in the queen breeding forum. Summarizing from my point of view, the only way to properly account for drones in honeybee breeding is to treat them as flying gametes. In other words, you are always breeding one queen to another queen. When you look at it that way, selection becomes much easier to visualize. From this perspective, you must always have disease tolerant queens to produce the drones that mate with more disease tolerant queens. I've tried to quantify the mite tolerance traits and it keeps coming up that there are multiple genes involved, at least 7, maybe twice that many. Most of them are recessive so they only work when homozygous.


----------



## Paul McCarty

mike bispham said:


> Paul,
> 
> It might seem to be stating the obvious but... They're feral bees, they're gonna have resistance (or they'd die out), its gonna come over (because that happens in hybridisation). Its got nothing to do with African genetics, and everything to do with natural selection.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I agree, completely. At this point they are all wild mutts anyway, and any that survive in the wild are probably pretty hardy.


----------



## sqkcrk

Or not. How would you gauge hardiness in bees in a feral situation? Do you expect bees found in the wall of someone's house to be naturally mite resistant and to remain so in your equipment?


----------



## Paul McCarty

It would depend upon how many beekeepers are in the area and how many swarms they lose. Not many where I live. Down in the place I was talking about, probably 3/4ths feral or more. Not many beekeepers in this state in general. You can pretty much bet they have been in the wild for a while and they fact they exist means something. Probably not the case in places like New York, or Alabama or anywhere else in the "civilized" world where beekeepers are a dime a dozen.

The current opinion amongst the beeks here is that if you are seeing them in the wild, they must have some type of resistance. Not too long ago there were no feral bees.


----------



## sqkcrk

Wonder where they came from?


----------



## Fusion_power

Feral bees have been slowly recovering. Here where I live, I deliberately pushed swarms into the woods to jump start a feral population. They are surviving very nicely. I know where several bee trees are located.


----------



## Paul McCarty

Yep, lot's of them I had 26 removal calls last season. Only got to around 6. My best guess is that the bees I deal with are a mixed bag of descendants left over from the Spanish back in 1550, crossed with the odd homesteader's bees, and left-overs of the Depression era apple economy around here. I know of several scientific studies that seem to point to this same conclusion. 

There was some small scale beekeeping in the area back during the Great Depression, but not much after that until the current bee craze. Our local apple orchard industry died around the end of WWII, and along with it any vestiges of a bee industry here. So once again, we are back to local survivors who have been on their own for a while. All the old timers gave it up decades ago in my neck of the woods. Anything living here would have been on it's own for quite some time. Between the bears, and the mites, sub-freezing temps, and the persistent drought , anything living here in the wild have to be some hardy little critters or they simply would not be here. Heck, this place is so uninhabited, we still have Plague and human diseases long since banished to obscurity in more populated areas.


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Or not. How would you gauge hardiness in bees in a feral situation? Do you expect bees found in the wall of someone's house to be naturally mite resistant and to remain so in your equipment?


Whether or not I would anticipate such bees to be hardy (including mite resistant) would depend on other factors - chiefly how long they'd been there without a break, and the quality of that information. Then I'd look at the number of apiaries nearby, and whether there was any fruit that might have had migrant pollinators. 

But yes, if they'd been in the wall for a number of years, with no breaks, I'd rate them as _more likely_ to be mite resistant/hardy than apiary bees. That's all. 

And yes, I wouldn't anticipate any significant difference in their mite-management capacity, whatever that is, once moved to a hive. The shift in environment wouldn't alter the genetics. The move to a perfectly good dry wooden box wouldn't disadvantage them.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

gmcharlie said:


> Thats a great plan Fusion, but unfortunately I live in a place where feral colonies are as numerous as mine. So not possible. We could also go back over the math that shows drones have very little genetic influence. but thats a moot point as I agree it can be an issue.


Can you point me to where that was discussed before? Or rehash it for me?

Even if we grant that drones are essentially nothing but gametes (and I'd appreciate a little more explanation of that) it doesn't follow - on that basis alone - that they have 'very little genetic influence'. Bee breeders always work hard to have the right sorts of drones available for mating. They wouldn't be doing that if they had 'very little genetic influence'. Something's wrong here.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden

"We could also go back over the math that shows drones have very little genetic influence."


Fusion_power said:


> That would be a very good discussion topic in the queen breeding forum. Summarizing from my point of view, the only way to properly account for drones in honeybee breeding is to treat them as flying gametes. In other words, you are always breeding one queen to another queen. When you look at it that way, selection becomes much easier to visualize. From this perspective, you must always have disease tolerant queens to produce the drones that mate with more disease tolerant queens. I've tried to quantify the mite tolerance traits and it keeps coming up that there are multiple genes involved, at least 7, maybe twice that many. Most of them are recessive so they only work when homozygous.


I thought that too, that these varroa resistance genes might bee recessive, and that is why it is so difficult to breed a varroa resistant strain. The genes have to come both from mother and father. If they are not, the ability doesn´t show up. But the latest knowledge says they are additive, that is the more the better. Pure VSH are 100% resistant, first crossings about half of that. 


What about if the whole mystery, why somebody can be TF and the other beekeeper cannot, is in the drones. I don´t know the exact situation in US, but seems that in the southerns regions (lots of AHB related drones+ maybe Japanese mite) and in some remote areas where feral bees are actually feral, not runaway swarms, there are successful TF beeks. In areas where the bee density is high, it is impossible to be TF if the beekeeper relies on free matings. 

I couldn´t even dream of being TF without the control of matings.


----------



## sqkcrk

Paul McCarty said:


> Yep, lot's of them I had 26 removal calls last season. Only got to around 6. My best guess is that the bees I deal with are a mixed bag of descendants left over from the Spanish back in 1550, crossed with the odd homesteader's bees, and left-overs of the Depression era apple economy around here. I know of several scientific studies that seem to point to this same conclusion.
> 
> There was some small scale beekeeping in the area back during the Great Depression, but not much after that until the current bee craze. Our local apple orchard industry died around the end of WWII, and along with it any vestiges of a bee industry here. So once again, we are back to local survivors who have been on their own for a while. All the old timers gave it up decades ago in my neck of the woods. Anything living here would have been on it's own for quite some time. Between the bears, and the mites, sub-freezing temps, and the persistent drought , anything living here in the wild have to be some hardy little critters or they simply would not be here. Heck, this place is so uninhabited, we still have Plague and human diseases long since banished to obscurity in more populated areas.


Sounds hard to believe.


----------



## Paul McCarty

Mark- you can come visit if you want. That is the recorded history here, at least where I live. Go to the Rio Grande Valley (across two mountain ranges and several hundred miles of desert with no water) and it's a different story. Third world or wilderness conditions once you get off the beaten path.


----------



## jim lyon

Tis true.

http://www.cdc.gov/plague/maps/


----------



## gmcharlie

Juhani Lunden said:


> "We could also go back over the math that shows drones have very little genetic influence."
> 
> 
> I thought that too, that these varroa resistance genes might bee recessive, and that is why it is so difficult to breed a varroa resistant strain. The genes have to come both from mother and father. If they are not, the ability doesn´t show up. But the latest knowledge says they are additive, that is the more the better. Pure VSH are 100% resistant, first crossings about half of that.


Queen cells are fertilized by any one of the males that originally breed the queen, so technically only 1/2 of your genetics came from a random male that queen mated with.
You don't know or have any control over that. The drones that she lays(or her mother) only have one set of genes completly from the mother.
But where it get really diluted is in the mateing of the queen you want, say she mate with 10 drones. the genetics of your hive are 1/2 the queen mother, and thats 1.2 the drone that mated her grandmother. As to the colony your working with you get 1/2 the original queen, and 1/2 a random drone. and the bees in your colony are 1/2 of that and say 1/10 of the flying drones. Thats not a lot of control.

I have even tried some AI queens to control it, but it has not panned out either. 

As for wild colonies being resistant, not seeing it here. Several wild colonies and swarms tested, have not fared any better longer term than 2 years.


----------



## WLC

Having tried both VSH and Hybrid genetics (BeeWeavers), I would say that the hybrids are more productive.

As long as you requeen yearly with VSH, you're good to go.

With the hybrids I've chosen, queens are readily available, but I've heard that daughter colonies, open mated locally, do well also.

So, on balance, I would give hybrids the advantage of being more flexible.

There is the caveat that they have less of a domestic phenotype though.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

gmcharlie said:


> Queen cells are fertilized by any one of the males that originally breed the queen, so technically only 1/2 of your genetics came from a random male that queen mated with.
> You don't know or have any control over that.


I have been a beekeeper for 37 years and done isolation apiary matings (mostly with sister line matings) the last 18 years. How so you mate your queens?

I´m very surprised if you have no idea how powerful the control of mating is. Brother Adam (I recall) said, that there it is absolutely no point doing any breeding work without the control of matings. It is like one step forward and two back. Hopeless to get any results. Too many mistakes. Honeybee is the only domestic animal where free mating is the rule. In pig breeding the annual gain is 2%, even with total control of matings. Famous Swedish bee breeder Ulf Gröhn writes in his book "Queen rearing for the ordinary people": "Free matings are allowed in our house only for our daughters and cats."

Drone hives are the hives (6-20) in which queens are daughters to the selected breeder drone mother queen. The queens of the drone hives are sisters.

In AI there are human errors. There is no way we can select drones for insemination as well as in the controlled free mating situation.


----------



## WLC

Juhani:

I've read that fewer than from anywhere between 700 and 500 breeder queens are being used for producing queens in the U.S. .

We pretty much know that trying to use many of those lines in a treatment free setting won't work.

Whereas, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that queens from outside of that stock, aka ferals, can produce TF resistant colonies.

So, most queen breeders aren't the source of choice for TF beekeepers.

I would go as far to say that TF beekeepers need to continue looking elsewhere for their resistant stocks.

"There is no way we can select drones for insemination as well as in the controlled free mating situation. "

Actually, that's not quite accurate.

Once sperm is 'harvested' from a drone for AI purposes, you're still left with the rest of the 'popped' drone.

We can do genetic tests on that drone. So, you can select for any marker you wish in that drone, as long as you have the technology available.


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> I thought that too, that these varroa resistance genes might bee recessive, and that is why it is so difficult to breed a varroa resistant strain. The genes have to come both from mother and father. If they are not, the ability doesn´t show up. But the latest knowledge says they are additive, that is the more the better.


Again, I'm learning here: surely it is right to say while the genes are additive, any of the individual genes may be of a dominant/recessive character. It isn't a case of either additive or recessive/dominant. 




Juhani Lunden said:


> Pure VSH are 100% resistant, first crossings about half of that.


And the picture is complicated further by the fact that not all patrilines need be vsh. Furthermore vsh is only one of several mite-management behaviours, which might work better in some combinations than others, and with some mites that others.




Juhani Lunden said:


> What about if the whole mystery, why somebody can be TF and the other beekeeper cannot, is in the drones.


Of course that's a critical factor. If you're getting useless genetics from treatment-dependent apiary drones your bees will not maintain resistance as they would if you weren't.



Juhani Lunden said:


> I don´t know the exact situation in US, but seems that in the southerns regions (lots of AHB related drones+ maybe Japanese mite) and in some remote areas where feral bees are actually feral, not runaway swarms, there are successful TF beeks. In areas where the bee density is high, it is impossible to be TF if the beekeeper relies on free matings.


Do you mean apairy bee density? If so, not necessarily impossible (though what is 'high'?) - just harder. You need to establish and maintain strong drone hives to combat the incoming genetics.



Juhani Lunden said:


> I couldn´t even dream of being TF without the control of matings.


There is 'control' and there is influence - at arm's length. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

gmcharlie said:


> The drones that she lays(or her mother) only have one set of genes completly from the mother.


While they come only from the 'mother' they are a new random mix of the two sets of genes she inherited from her mother and 'father' as I understand it.



gmcharlie said:


> But where it get really diluted is in the mateing of the queen you want, say she mate with 10 drones. the genetics of your hive are 1/2 the queen mother, and thats 1.2 the drone that mated her grandmother. As to the colony your working with you get 1/2 the original queen, and 1/2 a random drone. and the bees in your colony are 1/2 of that and say 1/10 of the flying drones. Thats not a lot of control.


While I'm not so sure about your math - not saying you're wrong, but I think something is missing... I agree 'control' is not a good term to describe the influence you can have (AI aside). But that doesn't mean you can have no mating control. Go to a remote island and you get a great deal of control. You have control in staying clear of large treating operations, in seeking out feral drones. You can further swing the odds your way by soaking the area with own chosen drones. These are standard bee breeders techniques. Its a game of odds, not precision control. You take what steps you can to move the odds in your favour.



gmcharlie said:


> As for wild colonies being resistant, not seeing it here. Several wild colonies and swarms tested, have not fared any better longer term than 2 years.


What would say is the proportion between treatment dependent apiary bees and feral in your area? 

What does that tell you?

Mike (UK)


----------



## gmcharlie

Mike, very few treated hives in my area... DARN few and they would all be mine ( I don't treat much, goal is TF)
My point was not that the drones have no effect, I don't believe that at all. just that the effect is not nearly as dramatic as that of typical m/f crosses. the drones being unfertilized and extremely diluted makes them much less than a 50/50 cross and good crosses that much more difficult.
Flooding the area with "good drones" does seem like the plan, but some research says the queen will fly past the "local" DCA to a more remote one. Knowing where the DCA she picks will be and flooding it, is a bit more tricky.

Juhani, I have no idea how you isolate your mateings, but here where I am that is not even remotely possible In my area there is probably abouot 3 feral haves per square mile. real hard to get isolated like that.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

WLC said:


> "There is no way we can select drones for insemination as well as in the controlled free mating situation. "
> 
> Actually, that's not quite accurate.
> 
> Once sperm is 'harvested' from a drone for AI purposes, you're still left with the rest of the 'popped' drone.
> 
> We can do genetic tests on that drone. So, you can select for any marker you wish in that drone, as long as you have the technology available.


The advantage of what you described is there only, if we can inseminate the queen after drone genome examination and results in our hands. If we do the tests after the insemination, all costs (to make a queen, mating hive etc.) are there all ready. No sense.

These tests (I doubt there are any at reasonable price) are not fast enough for insemination work. Takes 30 minutes (for me, I´m hopelessly slow, counted from getting drones from hive, until putting the queen back into her hive). Can you do the test in that time? Other possibility would be to test them in advance and mark somehow. This is all theoretical, maybe something for the future. 
I said "There is no way we can select drones for insemination as well as in the controlled free mating situation. "
I don´t believe that kid of test would ever be good enough to beat natural selection. There are too many genes and interactions and epigenetic factors involved.

However, it could be useful for selecting just one or few genes.


----------



## WLC

Juhani:

I thought you were talking about the usefulness of AI or Instrumental Insemination?

Drone sperm is routinely harvested and stored both long and short term.

While the current genetic testing technologies do take some time and investment, I am aware of one in development that's rapid.

Having used SWNTs, a nanotechnology, to isolate nucleic acids from bees/honey, I do have all the ingredients needed to make a new class of rapid probes.

One day I'll get back to it, but it is being developed elsewhere..


----------



## Juhani Lunden

WLC said:


> Juhani:
> 
> One day I'll get back to it, but it is being developed elsewhere..


Hope you do, I´m ready to pay.


----------



## WLC

http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~tan/group/Old website/Publications/PDF/2008-7-ssDNA_Cnanotubes_Dr. Yang.pdf

That should give you some idea of what the probe technology would look like. By the way, I think that it could also work with non florescent dyes as well.

Now if only they could actually come up with some resistant markers to probe for.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

WLC said:


> http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~tan/group/Old website/Publications/PDF/2008-7-ssDNA_Cnanotubes_Dr. Yang.pdf
> 
> That should give you some idea of what the probe technology would look like. By the way, I think that it could also work with non florescent dyes as well.
> 
> Now if only they could actually come up with some resistant markers to probe for.


One or two years ago a researcher from Basel University in Switzerland contacted me for help. His idea was to study the genetic background of varroa resistance. He had been doing work, same kind of work with genetics, with waterhoppers (or whatever) but wanted to change to something more useful animal... 

Anyway, he made a huge paper (I can send it to you if you give me e-mail), 10 pages application, and did not get the money. 
That´s life. Waterhoppers are more important than bees. The reason was, that they figured that he could not get enough answers in three years (the application for money was for three years).


----------



## D Semple

mike bispham said:


> But yes, if they'd been in the wall for a number of years, with no breaks, I'd rate them as _more likely_ to be mite resistant/hardy than apiary bees. That's all.
> 
> *And yes, I wouldn't anticipate any significant difference in their mite-management capacity, whatever that is, once moved to a hive*. The shift in environment wouldn't alter the genetics. The move to a perfectly good dry wooden box wouldn't disadvantage them.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Mike I respectfully disagree. 

Ever wonder why we hear constantly from fellow beekeepers that they bought or caught resistant bees but they still died from varroa once hived?

Mite counting on feral caught bees for the last 3 years has shown me that brood breaks and swarming are a key ingredients to "mite resistance". You may not change the genetics of a feral colony putting them in a hive, but any management you then do to that hive (like swarm control, feeding, adding supers, moving, etc.) will change brood rearing, which changes everything in regards to the bees then being able to cope with varroa.

Don


----------



## Oldtimer

Indeed, one of the constants is tales of bees that were "resistant", being moved to somewhere else / some different situation, and succumbing to mites.

This may be a likely reason why instead of simply restocking with these mite resistant bees and then being done with mites, the majority of beekeepers still struggle with mites.

And discussions etc about mites, still continue on Beesource.

I would still like to see Tim Ives bees being trialled in other locations. Claimed to be gentle, productive, etc, Not allowed to import to my country but why not a few US guys try them in a few different places. One day, if US beekeepers crack it & can collectively forget about mites, I believe my own government would have to make a dispensation and bring a few carefully selected ones in.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

D Semple said:


> Mite counting on feral caught bees for the last 3 years has shown me that brood breaks and swarming are a key ingredients to "mite resistance". You may not change the genetics of a feral colony putting them in a hive, but any management you then do to that hive (like swarm control, feeding, adding supers, moving, etc.) will change brood rearing, which changes everything in regards to the bees then being able to cope with varroa.


Very good point. For the same reason it is crucial, that if a beekeeper is even dreaming of some kind of breeding (which without mating control is almost useless), he needs to have marked queens, preferably also wing clipped.


----------



## Fusion_power

> While I'm not so sure about your math - not saying you're wrong, but I think something is missing.


Suggest getting a copy of Brother Adam's Breeding the Honeybee and read his example and description of why the drone has less influence in bee breeding. Re considering drones flying gametes, if you think about it a while, you will see that chromosome segregation occurs in the queen that lays the drone eggs. All of the drones reflect her genome and only her genome. Therefore, drones can be viewed as flying gametes with several millions of identical sperms. In effect, when one queen is mated to drones from another queen, you wind up with an effect similar to breeding one queen to the other.


----------



## WLC

Juhani Lunden said:


> Very good point. For the same reason it is crucial, that if a beekeeper is even dreaming of some kind of breeding (which without mating control is almost useless), he needs to have marked queens, preferably also wing clipped.


My BeeWeavers came with marked/clipped queens.

By the end of the third season, I'll know just how resistant they are.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Fusion_power said:


> Suggest getting a copy of Brother Adam's Breeding the Honeybee and read his example and description of why the drone has less influence in bee breeding.


Reading these conversations from US (mainly) I would say Brother Adam is the last person on earth to minimize the importance of drones.

50% of the genes in honeybee come from drone father, but I understand the thinking of flying gamete.


----------



## gmcharlie

true but his point is 100% of the drones Genes came from its mother.....


----------



## Juhani Lunden

gmcharlie said:


> true but his point is 100% of the drones Genes came from its mother.....


And 50% of that queens genes from her father


----------



## mike bispham

D Semple said:


> Mike I respectfully disagree.
> 
> Mite counting on feral caught bees for the last 3 years has shown me that brood breaks and swarming are a key ingredients to "mite resistance".


Don,

The most you can say is that brood breaks and swarming are important to feral survival _where you are_. In other places it seem grooming, allogrooming and vsh are among the adptations bought into play to manage mites. (Many of my bees too seem keen on big summer brood breaks BTW. Swarming hasn't been noticable yet - but I try to arrange for them to have empty comb all the time)



D Semple said:


> You may not change the genetics of a feral colony putting them in a hive, but any management you then do to that hive (like swarm control, feeding, adding supers, moving, etc.) will change brood rearing, which changes everything in regards to the bees then being able to cope with varroa.


I take your point. A lot will depend on what sorts of mite management they are employing - and will vary between different feral populations, and probably too within any feral populations. And these things will be expected to change through time, as the role of productivity refines local evolution, and as they come into contact with genes from greater distances. As I understand thing extreme swarminess is seen as a very early behavioural adaptation, which soon gives way to more reliable defences. 
Reliance on swarming would obviously be a difficulty, in several ways. Queens that simply shut down for a month or two are a different matter - not nearly as bad, as long as you understand and anticipate them. 

It seems to me that getting to know your (new) bees, learning how to keep them to best effect, and continuing to work with self-sufficient productivity will overcome any problem (except total reliance on swarming). That 'self-suffiency' would, to me, preclude swarm cell removal. I'd rather scatter bait boxes around as a means of overcoming the nuisance of swarming rather than go through all my hives every fortnight. 

Interesting thoughts Don, thanks

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> Very good point. For the same reason it is crucial, that if a beekeeper is even dreaming of some kind of breeding (which without mating control is almost useless), he needs to have marked queens, preferably also wing clipped.


Juhani, could I ask more directly: what do you mean by 'control'? Do you mean AI and that alone, or do you include the list of steps taken by most bee breeders to do 'control' at arm's length - as I've recently outlined?

Simply selecting genetics from chosen hives is, alone, a very strong measure of control - and certainly amounts to 'breeding'. Would you agree? 

Raising many queens from just a few hives and requeening an entire apiary can very swiftly change the character of that apiary. That isn't the level of control that is possible with controlled mating, nevertheless; how is that not 'control'.

Have you ever read Manley, who talks about the extraordinary measure of genetic control made possible by grafting combined with drone rearing? Who, like all almost beekeepers/breeders of his time relied on that alone, and was able to maintain a high degree of (foreign) racial purity amongst a thriving native/mongrel population? Did he have no 'control'?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> Re considering drones flying gametes, if you think about it a while, you will see that chromosome segregation occurs in the queen that lays the drone eggs. All of the drones reflect her genome and only her genome.


We had this conversation here recently. As I recall meiosis occurs during egg formation, meaning all drones are individuals made up of (a new and unique combination of) half the queen's genotype and half her father's. 

That means all drones are new individuals. They might, and might not, carry any particular allele (given that the queen had alternates). That is, the drones can convey genes/alleles that were not expressed in the queen, as well as those that were. *If* this view is right....



Fusion_power said:


> Therefore, drones can be viewed as flying gametes with several millions of identical sperms.


Each individual drone can. But each has its own unique combination, made up from half the queen's mother and half her father. 



Fusion_power said:


> In effect, when one queen is mated to drones from another queen, you wind up with an effect similar to breeding one queen to the other.


Sure you do. But that doesn't make drones any less important than queens! Not for the technical reasons - right or wrong - that I've outlined above; but because you don't want your new queens mating with the wrong drones, because you don't want their duff genes in your queen's offspring. 

Despite the weird genetic set-up, things are exactly as they are in all mammalian matings: you want to put best to best, and both matter equally. 

Its that simple. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> We had this conversation here recently. As I recall meiosis occurs during egg formation, meaning all drones are individuals made up of (a new and unique combination of) half the queen's genotype and half her father's.


The drone gets all it's genes from the queen. Where the queen got it's genes from is it's parents.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

mike bispham said:


> Juhani, could I ask more directly: what do you mean by 'control'? Do you mean AI and that alone, or do you include the list of steps taken by most bee breeders to do 'control' at arm's length - as I've recently outlined?
> 
> Simply selecting genetics from chosen hives is, alone, a very strong measure of control - and certainly amounts to 'breeding'. Would you agree?
> 
> Raising many queens from just a few hives and requeening an entire apiary can very swiftly change the character of that apiary. That isn't the level of control that is possible with controlled mating, nevertheless; how is that not 'control'.
> 
> Have you ever read Manley, who talks about the extraordinary measure of genetic control made possible by grafting combined with drone rearing? Who, like all almost beekeepers/breeders of his time relied on that alone, and was able to maintain a high degree of (foreign) racial purity amongst a thriving native/mongrel population? Did he have no 'control'?
> 
> Mike (UK)


As I said earlier, pig breeding is going forward 2% annually even if they have total control of both parents, very little environmental factors, tens of thousands of individuals and computers counting breeding values with BLUP method etc.

Somebody has stated that what has happened in bee breeding, is that queens are laying more than some decades earlier. Thats all what has happened. If we look back, is there really progress being made? As you said what Manley has done "was able to maintain a high degree of (foreign) racial purity" He was able to maintain, not to go any further? 

In the 60s, beekeepers in Finland said that 50-70 kg, even near 100kg honey crops in average was no problem for a good beekeeper and Italian bees. Every year. That is quite rare today. (for the US readers: the Scandinavian countries have the best honey crops in whole Europe) It seems like going back to me. With 2% annual growth, we should be harvesting more than double that (2% x 50 years plus the affect of interest on interest, which I cannot count just now, it is huge) 

We are blind. We cannot see the genes inside the animal. We take grafts from the best hives. These hives are the best, because they have hybrid vigor, which is not sustainable breeding progress, it melts away. They are hybrid if/because we have no mating control. Couple black drones is all Italian queen needs to be a super performer. Color of the colony remains yellowish. These hives very rarely are the best picks for a breeder. I have made that mistake too many times, have finally learned my lesson. Breeding without mating control is just a list of these false choices, and some good choices. One step forward and about the same amount back.


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> As you said what Manley has done "was able to maintain a high degree of (foreign) racial purity" He was able to maintain, not to go any further?


The point is that we have sufficient control to be able to hold the genes in play that we want. That means that we can take the honeybees' own defence mechanisms (from ferals) and introduce and hold them in our own populations. That's all we want to do, - and all we need to be able to do. We don't need to improve on the bee's defence mechanisms - we just need to bring them into play and keep them there. 

That's straightforward breeding practice, and as easy with bees (given the right circumstances) as it is with any other animal.




Juhani Lunden said:


> We take grafts from the best hives. These hives are the best, because they have hybrid vigor, which is not sustainable breeding progress, it melts away.


Juhani,

It remains as along as you continue the selection process indefinately - and effectively. Its called 'husbandry', more specifically 'population husbandry' the care of genes (traits) down through the generations. Its straightfoward, and the basis of all agriculture. And as workable in bees as anything else. 

Further it _must_ be done, or sickness _will_ result.

Again, that is basic _husbandry_



Juhani Lunden said:


> They are hybrid if/because we have no mating control. Couple black drones is all Italian queen needs to be a super performer. Color of the colony remains yellowish. These hives very rarely are the best picks for a breeder. I have made that mistake too many times, have finally learned my lesson.


Now you are talking about something else - _hybrid vigour_. Yes, crossbreeding throwns up extremes. Yes, it can only be done reliably from pure(ish) populations. In beekeeping - at leat in amateur selective propagation for health and productivity, its not relevant. 



Juhani Lunden said:


> Breeding without mating control is just a list of these false choices, and some good choices. One step forward and about the same amount back.


You've sidestepped my question again. What do you mean by 'control'?

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> Suggest getting a copy of Brother Adam's Breeding the Honeybee and read his example and description of why the drone has less influence in bee breeding.


Brother Adam wasn't a scientist, and for the most part he was working before the sex life of bees was even remotely understood. 



Fusion_power said:


> Re considering drones flying gametes, if you think about it a while, you will see that chromosome segregation occurs in the queen that lays the drone eggs. All of the drones reflect her genome and only her genome.


No. They reflect both the expressed and unexpressed parts - both what she is, and what she carries without using. They are unique individuals - its just that all of each's sperm is genetically identical - unlike the sperm of diploid males. 



Fusion_power said:


> Therefore, drones can be viewed as flying gametes with several millions of identical sperms. In effect, when one queen is mated to drones from another queen, you wind up with an effect similar to breeding one queen to the other.


Not quite. Similar, but not quite. And, not really relevant. The main point is that to ensure the health of your ofspring you want your queens to be mating with drones from healthy hives, and very much not with drones from unhealthy ones. The basic principles of selective propagation (husbandry) remain.

From Glenn's website:

[...] the egg can only carry half of the queens 32 chromosomes so she can only pass on half of her genes to her offspring. Each egg contains a unique collection of her genes, so each egg is different. [Including those that will become drones - MB]
Principles of Honeybee Genetics
http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/principles.html

The same page shows how each new fertilized egg (that will develop into a worker or new queen) contains 16 chromosomes (genetic packages) from drone and 16 from the queen (which are already unique recombinations of her parents' genes). They are then recombined (meiosis), using half from queen(s parents) and half from the drone. 

In terms of genetic input it seems to me to be evident that drones are just as important as queens. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

BTW: While I was searching the topic of bee reproduction I came across the technical term that describes how traits disappear when not needed: 

"Traits under relaxed selection are expected to become reduced or disappear completely, a process called vestigialization."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15454547

Vestigialization describes the disappearance (or non-development) of mite-management behaviours when not needed. That circumstance includes, of course, when beekeepers are treating. Another way to speak about the 'removal of evolutionary pressure'. This is a description of what happens in treating apiaries, and the reason for consequent downgrading of needed management traits in surrounding feral populations - resulting in the 'ring of sickness'

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Juhani: "We take grafts from the best hives. These hives are the best, because they have hybrid vigor, which is not sustainable breeding progress, it melts away."



mike bispham said:


> Juhani,
> 
> It remains as along as you continue the selection process indefinately - and effectively. Its called 'husbandry', more specifically 'population husbandry' the care of genes (traits) down through the generations. Its straightfoward, and the basis of all agriculture. And as workable in bees as anything else.
> 
> Further it _must_ be done, or sickness _will_ result.
> 
> Again, that is basic _husbandry_


If you have no idea what I meant, you obviously have no experience on breeding and controlled matings. If you have never taken grafts from a very good hive and after several years of testing her, AND HER DAUGHTERS, found out that nothing good is left. All other lines are doing much better. If you really found nothing familiar with my saying, there is no point me trying to explain any further.

(With the best hives I meant hives without controlled matings. Those free mated queens, which are exceptionally good hives. Normally we make no grafts from them, unless they are so good, that exception is made. The disappointment comes 4 years later, after testing her and her daughters. Very seldom anything from these breeders lines are there after 5 years.)


----------



## Oldtimer

Juhani Lunden said:


> If you have never taken grafts from a very good hive and after several years of testing her, AND HER DAUGHTERS, found out that nothing good is left. All other lines are doing much better.


Very true, and absolutely my experience also, so frustrating to lose a line or realise it is gone. And I try as much as possible to only breed from purebreds but of course for me, with my technology, that's impossible to be 100%. So very interested to hear what procedures you use or any thoughts you have on the problem Juhani, without considering II (AI).


----------



## WLC

Looks like the Scottish are doing something to conserve Black Bees:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/haven-established-for-native-honey-bee.23035975


----------



## Oldtimer

Good idea!


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> Juhani: "We take grafts from the best hives. These hives are the best, because they have hybrid vigor, which is not sustainable breeding progress, it melts away."
> 
> If you have no idea what I meant, you obviously have no experience on breeding and controlled matings. If you have never taken grafts from a very good hive and after several years of testing her, AND HER DAUGHTERS, found out that nothing good is left. All other lines are doing much better. If you really found nothing familiar with my saying, there is no point me trying to explain any further.


I think what you are saying Juhani is that while many hives are fine in themselves, they don't make good daughters. Perhaps it would be clearer if we spoke in terms of generations rather than years.

Its well known in breeding that some strong individuals don't make good offspring, or that the quality of offspring trails off quickly in future generations. I think Manley (or it may be Ruttner) called such queens 'blenders'. (Whoever it was also said that pure strains are much more amenable to stabilising traits - which make me think it wasn't Manley as he said that in his view perfectly good strains could be raised from mongrels.)

Professional breeders judge their queens by results _in the second generation and on_. That's why promising queens are removed from production, and kept in small quiet nucs, to preserve them as long as possible - it takes time to evaluate them (through future generations) and if they prove to be good 'uns they can be used for many years that way. 

All this is consistent (I think) with your observation that your second-generation results are poor, and diminish further after several generations. That is a) par for the course - its why you raise many more than are needed and then use only the best; and why you test future generations while keeping the queen quiet; and b) a good argument to control the drone input as strongly as you can - to diminish the likelihood of going backwards due to poor drone input.



Juhani Lunden said:


> (With the best hives I meant hives without controlled matings. Those free mated queens, which are exceptionally good hives. Normally we make no grafts from them, unless they are so good, that exception is made. The disappointment comes 4 years later, after testing her and her daughters. Very seldom anything from these breeders lines are there after 5 years.)


So by 'controlled' matings I take you to mean AI matings? By 'free matings' I take you to mean open mating with any old drones. So how would you describe a routine that involves boosting drone numbers from queens known to best at passing on her qualities?

(Other questions: After how many generations? With what sort of (arms length) control over drone input?)

I hate to get philosophical on you, but what is happening here is a well recognised language problem. We often take terms that are essentially _vague_ and work with them as if they were precise. That makes it hard to talk about the complexity of gradations that exist between full (term) and no (term).

You are using the vague term 'control' as if there were only two state: on or off, full or none. 

The fact is that a measure of control exists on a linear continuum. There can be full control, or a lots of control, or some control, or just a smidgin... or none.

Matings can be partially controlled. [edit]

Please don't be offended at my disagreeing with you about various things. I'm just trying to locate the realities through our discussion. I know we're on the same side.

All the best,

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Oldtimer said:


> Very true, and absolutely my experience also, so frustrating to lose a line or realise it is gone. And I try as much as possible to only breed from purebreds but of course for me, with my technology, that's impossible to be 100%. So very interested to hear what procedures you use or any thoughts you have on the problem Juhani, without considering II (AI).


Good to hear somebody understand!

But seriously, this is a thing which a beekeeper notices only after he has experience about controlled matings. Without controlled matings he, of course, takes grafts from his best hives. What else could he do? After he has used controlled matings, he very soon realizes, that he has bees which are moving towards the center(average) in all ways, color, honey crops etc and then, for various reasons, he has also free mated queens. They are more mixed up. Often hybrid vigor is shown in not only better crops but also some more burr comb, some more restlessness etc. Unless you have idea what a purebred looks like, you cannot see the difference. Breeding is about making averages better, in the same time the extremes are lost.

We need those crossed bees too. Buckfast breeding has gone forward using race crosses. If we want to create a new beeline using race crosses, controlled matings become, if possible, more necessary. Even with total control over matings, it is a challenging task. Bee books in Germany put it this way: "Don´t try this at home." But that is another story...


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> Juhani: "We take grafts from the best hives. These hives are the best, because they have hybrid vigor...


Can you explain the grounds for your understanding that they have hybrid vigour Juhani?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> We need those crossed bees too. Buckfast breeding has gone forward using race crosses. If we want to create a new beeline using race crosses, controlled matings become, if possible, more necessary.


Do we want that that? Or is that just what you want for yourself? 

Most of us here are aiming at tf beekeeping through selective husbandry/avoiding treated drones.

We know that this is an arms race, which can never be won, but can be constantly fought by selective propagation. And that that's just the nature of husbandry.

Reliable new lines would serve the purpose of allowing commercials to go treatment free - and that's a fine aim. (though if successful it will become self perpetuating the breeder will lose you his market...)

But it isn't what most of us are aiming at. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## beekuk

WLC said:


> Looks like the Scottish are doing something to conserve Black Bees:
> 
> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/haven-established-for-native-honey-bee.23035975


 They are also varroa free on Colonsay, and bees from here are being used in ongoing university research into viruses.


----------



## Oldtimer

Juhani Lunden said:


> Good to hear somebody understand!
> 
> But seriously, this is a thing which a beekeeper notices only after he has experience about controlled matings. Without controlled matings he, of course, takes grafts from his best hives. What else could he do? After he has used controlled matings, he very soon realizes, that he has bees which are moving towards the center(average)...


Yes this is my problem atm.

I first learned about breeder queen selection in my first job. We did not use II, but we had nearly 4,000 hives, each one had the line of the queen written on the hive mat, and with so many hives, there was always a few in each line that had got lucky and mated right purely cos there was so many for us to choose from, although we did lose one line while I was there. Now, I just got a little over 100 production hives, I cannot keep a pure line not even one. As you say exactly, they just move to the middle, and it happens pretty quick.


----------



## Oldtimer

beekuk said:


> They are also varroa free on Colonsay.


Since we've talked about varroa and AMM, how do these ones go if sent to the mainland?


----------



## beekuk

Oldtimer said:


> Since we've talked about varroa and AMM, how do these ones go if sent to the mainland?


 The research is still going on, think it's been three years now.


----------



## WLC

I haven't heard anyone discussing that the breeder queen and queen production operations can occur in separate locations, thereby allowing for hybridization and hybrid vigor to occur in the mating yard, while still conserving breeder queen genetics in a more isolated/controlled location.

At least that's my take on what BeeWeaver is doing to produce/sell resistant queens.

They would almost certainly have to keep the two operations separated, or they would indeed lose the Italian/Buckfast breeder queen lines.


----------



## Oldtimer

They claim to do that, however check their web site, they also say that 3 of the lines they used to have are not sold separately now cos they merged into one.

I had an ironic smile on my face when I read that I know the hard way how they feel!!


----------



## WLC

It must have been a logistical nightmare to try and maintain 3 distinct lines in isolated locations while maintaining their resistance genetics.

I probably got a better deal than I realize when I bought their queens. I've had 5 total from them. Let's hope that these two I have now actually make it through winter.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

WLC said:


> I haven't heard anyone discussing that the breeder queen and queen production operations can occur in separate locations, thereby allowing for hybridization and hybrid vigor to occur in the mating yard, while still conserving breeder queen genetics in a more isolated/controlled location.
> 
> At least that's my take on what BeeWeaver is doing to produce/sell resistant queens.
> 
> They would almost certainly have to keep the two operations separated, or they would indeed lose the Italian/Buckfast breeder queen lines.



For instance Paul Jungels and Jos Guth in Luxembourg are a team like this. Jungels does the breeding (and does not sell any queens) , Annette and Jos Guth are doing the queen production. 

It is very challenging for the breeder to be also a queen producer.

(I had a cooperation for a long time with Ari Seppälä. Ari has over 1000 hives and was doing the queen production, while I could concentrate on breeding. In sometime year 2007 we ended it up, because I had difficulties with angry bees. Later on it was found out that they were angry just because of their mite loads, not genes.)


----------



## WLC

Juhani:

Did you send queencells/virgins only to the producer? Or, did you send him your mated queens for additional production?

I'm thinking about how BeeWeaver solved their 'angry bees' issues considering that at least some of their operation is in a 'hybrid swarm' zone, and they do open mate their queens.

I've heard reports that while the F1 do get defensive in those types of circumstances, the F2 can be less defensive.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

WLC said:


> Juhani:
> 
> Did you send queencells/virgins only to the producer? Or, did you send him your mated queens for additional production?
> 
> I'm thinking about how BeeWeaver solved their 'angry bees' issues considering that at least some of their operation is in a 'hybrid swarm' zone, and they do open mate their queens.
> 
> I've heard reports that while the F1 do get defensive in those types of circumstances, the F2 can be less defensive.


I gave him some breeders in spring before queen rearing started.

A large enough producer can rely on drone dominance in their own area. They surely find some locations in their beekeeping area where the dominance is better than elsewhere. Matings need not to be 100% sure, but don´t ask how much is needed, I haven´t a clue...


----------



## WLC

In my opinion, it might be both faster in terms of queen production, and better in terms of keeping your own local genetics from mixing with your partner's local genetics , to send virgin queens only outside of your own area. 

It's likely better for maintaining hybrid vigor in production queens.


----------



## Fusion_power

> called such queens 'blenders'


If I have your reference correctly, the correct translation of the word "blenders" is "blinders". Or a more correct idiomatic translation into english is "flash in the pan". In other words, a colony that produces an overwhelming good result "blinding" the observer to the reality of the genetics involved. The problem with this concept is that the exceptional colonies are often the correct route for the breeder to follow.

I read above about maintenance of "lines". I have not yet seen a queen breeder, with one possible exception, who has the genetic background to avoid this pitfall. Summarizing, the way to avoid losing lines is to do selection from the other end of the breeding population. Instead of picking the very best colony you have to breed from, pick the very worst colonies and then eliminate the worst 20% of the total population. Done consistently over a period of 10 years, the selection pressure from removing the worst performers is equivalent to the selection advantage of the same 10 years spent breeding from the very best performers and you don't lose the breeding line in the process. Please note that this statement applies only to maintenance of a population. If you are going to do active selection to increase specific traits in a population, breed from the very best performers THAT EXHIBIT THE SPECIFIC TRAITS you are selecting for. I should also qualify this statement by saying that it applies to outbreeding populations ONLY. If you are dealing with an inbreeding population like tomato, an entirely different set of rules apply.

A good analogy to illustrate why the above is true is an hourglass. If you select only the best performers, then the top of the hourglass gradually narrows to the center as you eliminate genetic variation. Selecting and removing the worst performers is working from the bottom half of the hourglass and allows you to avoid moving into the bottleneck in the middle.


----------



## squarepeg

Fusion_power said:


> Instead of picking the very best colony you have to breed from, pick the very worst colonies and then eliminate the worst 20% of the total population. Done consistently over a period of 10 years, the selection pressure from removing the worst performers is equivalent to the selection advantage of the same 10 years spent breeding from the very best performers and you don't lose the breeding line in the process.


is the reasoning behind this to eliminate the drone contribution from the worst performers?

would you still want to rear daughters from the queens of your better performers?

our apiaries are similar in size dar, how many different 'lines' do you try to maintain?


----------



## Fusion_power

When you cull the bottom 20%, they are replaced with stock from better performers.

I have 3 apiaries, one major line, and one minor. The minor line is an attempt to introduce allogrooming to the major line. I swap queens between the three apiaries to limit inbreeding effects. Two apiaries have been aggressively pushed to swarm so that feral populations in those areas are much higher and act as a buffer against mite susceptible colonies. One apiary is in an area with a commercial beekeeper who treats, therefore is not used for mating queens.

There are two other beekeepers in this area who have my stock. One has 4 colonies, the other has 5. Both are planning on 2 for 1 splits next spring. I just sold several queen excluders and some frames to one of them yesterday. I tried to get another guy set up with tolerant stock about 7 years ago, but he insisted on requeening with commercial Italian stock. He is no longer keeping bees because of mites.


----------



## Oldtimer

How do you monitor for the allogrooming and how long have you had bees with that, and how much success getting it into the other line?


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> If I have your reference correctly, the correct translation of the word "blenders" is "blinders". Or a more correct idiomatic translation into english is "flash in the pan".


Online Dictionary:

1. blinders A pair of leather flaps attached to a horse's bridle to curtail side vision. Also called blinkers.
2. Something that serves to obscure clear perception and discernment.

Sense 2. might work

There's also:

'Play a blinder' (British informal): to perform with a lot of skill, especially when you are playing sport, 'He's played a blinder in every game so far this season.'

That doesn't seem to work.

Your 'flash in the pan' does make limited sense, and fits with sense 2. above, although as if from a different pespective. 

The source is Ruttner, Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee, Trans. Ashleigh and Eric Milner, 1988. The term is used 3 times (from his Index) along the lines I've described. Its a queen that performs well but fails to forward her qualities. Presumably the incidence of such queens is high, sufficiently so for evaluation to rely on the properties of (well mated) offspring.

This is no different to breeding in all areas. 



Fusion_power said:


> In other words, a colony that produces an overwhelming good result "blinding" the observer to the reality of the genetics involved. The problem with this concept is that the exceptional colonies are often the correct route for the breeder to follow.


Interesting.



Fusion_power said:


> I read above about maintenance of "lines". I have not yet seen a queen breeder, with one possible exception, who has the genetic background to avoid this pitfall. Summarizing, the way to avoid losing lines is to do selection from the other end of the breeding population. Instead of picking the very best colony you have to breed from, pick the very worst colonies and then eliminate the worst 20% of the total population. Done consistently over a period of 10 years, the selection pressure from removing the worst performers is equivalent to the selection advantage of the same 10 years spent breeding from the very best performers and you don't lose the breeding line in the process.


More interesting still. Of course in tf beekeeping this is largely what happens anyway - the lower end remove themselves - or are requeened, which is effectively the same thing. 

Would I be right in thinking that the rest entails, broadly speaking, propagating from a wide range of the better performers, rather than narrowing to the very best?



Fusion_power said:


> Please note that this statement applies only to maintenance of a population. If you are going to do active selection to increase specific traits in a population, breed from the very best performers THAT EXHIBIT THE SPECIFIC TRAITS you are selecting for.


Again, in our tf setting that will largely happen automatically. 



Fusion_power said:


> A good analogy to illustrate why the above is true is an hourglass. If you select only the best performers, then the top of the hourglass gradually narrows to the center as you eliminate genetic variation. Selecting and removing the worst performers is working from the bottom half of the hourglass and allows you to avoid moving into the bottleneck in the middle.


As I understand it, on the whole genetic narrowing isn't really a problem in beekeeping, except where big breeders produce thousands of sister queens.

Are there any insights in all this into different approaches taken by a) apiaries wishing to raise resistance traits (from near zero) in their existing bees, and b) People collecting feral genetics that already possess resistance traits?

Mike (UK)


----------



## beekuk

mike bispham said:


> Brother Adam wasn't a scientist, and for the most part he was working before the sex life of bees was even remotely understood.


 No he was not a scientist, but was a pretty good geneticist when it came to bees, and was awarded two Honorary Doctorates, although these are not the real deal as such.

He did pioneer the idea of isolated matings, and from the below there was reasonably good knowledge about the sex life of bees during even his early days.



> ..The first genetic mechanism for sex determination was proposed in the mid-1800s by a Silesian monk named Johann Dzierson, according to the study's co-author and Arizona State University Provost Robert E. Page Jr. Dzierson was trying to understand how males and females were produced in honey bee colonies. He knew that the difference between queen and worker bees – both females – emerged from the different quality and quantity of food. But, what about the males, he asked.
> 
> Dzierson posited that males were haploid – possessing one set of chromosomes, which was confirmed in the 1900s with the advent of the microscope. Under the magnifying lens, researchers could see that eggs that gave rise to drones were not penetrated by sperm.


Father Dzierzon first noted the fact of parthenogenesis in 1835.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Father Dzierzon first noted the fact of parthenogenesis in 1835. 

And his only degree was in theology... although he also was conferred several honorary degrees...


----------



## JRG13

Obviously breeding from hybrids is difficult which is why breeders typically select for fixed queen mother and fixed drone mothers to flood genetics with or use II to hybridize the two for evaluation, which is effectively selecting for hybrid parents to produce 'known' hybrid production daughters. Creating parent lines can get tricky with sex alleles but if I'm thinking about it correctly, you would need to introgress or integrate traits you want into two separate lines (at least) and then cross them together to fix them and select your parent lines from there. Again, this is still a little difficult as MAS or MABC is out of reach for most of us to select for true fixed lines and with few phenotypical traits to use it mostly comes down to guess work and proper evaluation of traits if you don't want to II your parent lines.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

JRG13 said:


> Obviously breeding from hybrids is difficult which is why breeders typically select for fixed queen mother and fixed drone mothers to flood genetics with or use II to hybridize the two for evaluation, which is effectively selecting for hybrid parents to produce 'known' hybrid production daughters. Creating parent lines can get tricky with sex alleles but if I'm thinking about it correctly, you would need to introgress or integrate traits you want into two separate lines (at least) and then cross them together to fix them and select your parent lines from there. Again, this is still a little difficult as MAS or MABC is out of reach for most of us to select for true fixed lines and with few phenotypical traits to use it mostly comes down to guess work and proper evaluation of traits if you don't want to II your parent lines.


We have to separate two type of doings in this matter. First are the hybrids made by Dadant Co (Midnite and Starline, some more?). These are the original and only hybrids by definition. The company keeps four different parent lines pure (enormously difficult task, because of the massive inbreeding) then they make first two crosses and then mate these two. Actually: Does Dadant do this any more?

Buckfast breeding is quite different. Here the aim is to get new valuable traits into the main population. To get further in breeding, to invent something new. First the bees with the found desired qualities are crossed with the main stock. Vigorous culling is done after the initial crossing, then there is a series of back crossings and in about 10 years a new line is born. Hopefully the desired genes have remained.

What are MAS and MABC ?


----------



## JRG13

Marker Assisted Selection and Marker Assisted Back Crossing


----------



## Juhani Lunden

I guess all the others are hiding the winter storm?:s


----------



## SeaCucumber

I hope to be treatment free once I get a proper queen to breed from. Its sustainable. The hive ecology might affect other insects and my garden.

I'm trying to get a data job, and I'm supposed to have public programs for the major skills. I made this to extract data from this site. It uses resources equal to opening all of this thread's pages, so don't run it for no reason.

https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1IOfmLkJk3S0uBk_-g6jQOH1yrG7tZmFq#scrollTo=m5DDLkQJeGHC
https://github.com/DavidSmolinski/portfolio/blob/master/web scraping bees/web scraping.ipynb


----------



## Litsinger

SeaCucumber said:


> I hope to be treatment free once I get a proper queen to breed from. Its sustainable. The hive ecology might affect other insects and my garden.
> 
> I'm trying to get a data job, and I'm supposed to have public programs for the major skills. I made this to extract data from this site. It uses resources equal to opening all of this thread's pages, so don't run it for no reason.
> 
> https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1IOfmLkJk3S0uBk_-g6jQOH1yrG7tZmFq#scrollTo=m5DDLkQJeGHC
> https://github.com/DavidSmolinski/portfolio/blob/master/web scraping bees/web scraping.ipynb


David:

This is a really impressive effort- I am not too tech-savvy so I am glad there are folks like you who make the whole IoT work.

Good luck on the job prospect.

Russ


----------



## GregB

SeaCucumber said:


> I hope to be treatment free once I get a proper queen to breed from. Its sustainable. The hive ecology might affect other insects and my garden.
> 
> I'm trying to get a data job, and I'm supposed to have public programs for the major skills. I made this to extract data from this site. It uses resources equal to opening all of this thread's pages, so don't run it for no reason.
> 
> https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1IOfmLkJk3S0uBk_-g6jQOH1yrG7tZmFq#scrollTo=m5DDLkQJeGHC
> https://github.com/DavidSmolinski/portfolio/blob/master/web scraping bees/web scraping.ipynb


Good try but you should debug it.
Lots of dups to begin with. 
I did not look further.

You say:


> Aside from "post_date", all columns are about users (their id, when they joined Beesource, location, number of posts they made).


But then generate lots and lots of duplicates like this example.
I suspect, all these rows point to the same TF guy from Finland we have in BS.
There should be exact one row for the user *97794 *, if I understand this data set's intent.


427 97794 01-01-2014 Oct 2013 Finland 1,673
......
432 97794 01-01-2014 Oct 2013 Finland 1,673
...........
442 97794 01-01-2014 Oct 2013 Finland 1,673
..........


----------



## msl

> I hope to be treatment free once I get a proper queen to breed from


in your area I would check out http://yardbirdsfarm.com/beekeeping/


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> Brother Adam wasn't a scientist, and for the most part he was working before the sex life of bees was even remotely understood.


 I'd be willing to wager that if brother Adam was in his prime and here now, he would have defeated varroa.


----------



## Roland

I will second that. There where some smart people that came before us. Just because they did not have our knowledge, that does mean they could not think logically.

Maybe Mites are NOT our problem, but rather a symptom. He had fewer pesticide to deal with than we do now.

Crazy Roland


----------



## GregB

Well, let me append here too.

The bees are my food and medicine.
Food and medicine must be as clean as practically possible.
Not mixing artificial ingredients into my bees.
Enough is enough.


----------

