# Genetics in Beekeeping - Fact vs fiction



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I struck a nerve with my friend Joe on a subject that sometimes is a difficult one here. Let's open a discussion on the importance of Genetics and explore the value of "Feral bees" and "managed stock" and the realistic applications of genetics, feral and managed or even combined, in real time modern beekeeping. 

I am of the opinion that good genetics can improve our beekeeping. I often wonder how realistic the goal of real time genetic solutions to real beekeeping issues, especially in the realm of "Natual Genetics" or "Feral Bees" since their "natural tendencies" are contrary to managed beekeeping goals? I would hope through this we might gain a better understanding of and maybe even define what “good genetics” are in the scope of modern beekeeping. The common issues encountered in beekeeping are shared in any type of agricultural undertaking. In my mind this is the concept of helping un-natural populations of a species in a controlled environment thrive and provide us with a benefit. What is the real influence of Genetics, naturally or man-influenced on different aspects of Beekeeping. I also want to address the practice called natural beekeeping since little of what happens in any managed beehive is a natural methodology and more aptly should be called low impact beekeeping.

A few points for a base line I look at relating to honey bees: 
1) Bees have existed for millennia completely untouched by human hands and in that time have not developed total resistance to diseases, parasites and genetic defects nor will they in the next millennia with or without our help. Diseases will continue to evolve and mutate in every living organism and the concept of managing bees in un-natural conditions and populations is a genetic impossibility. Logically we can conclude that even true feral bees (if such a thing can exist within our borders without being “polluted” by non-feral bees) are unlikely to have developed these traits (nor will they ever) in 100 or so years since they escaped Human Management in North America where they did not exist prior to the arrival of Europeans. This is assuming they and their prodigy survived that 100+ years through natural propagation without interference from kept bees.
2 Honeybees in their millennia of genetic development did not develop the ability to produce large crops of honey which would allow humans a consistently harvestable crop of their excess stores. Bees did not evolve to feed humans or other animals.
3) Bees are genetically inclined to choose living quarters that would be smaller than the common modern hive with supers, build round nests not separated by wood barriers and space (wooden frames between supers) larger than 3/8 of inch and prefer a height of approximately 9 feet off the ground.
4) Honeybees natural method of propagation is swarming. Propagation of species is a major Genetic drive and has allowed the continuation of wild or feral populations of bees prior to and where they do exist today. It is contrary to the common to the goals of most beekeepers.
5) Honeybees are not commonly found or survive in populations in the wild where 5-40 colonies co-exist a few feet from each other in a limited space providing for limited or reduced forage capabilities, increased exposure to disease and competition for mating.
6) Honeybees developed alarm phermones and stingers to defend against intruders in the hive since human and other intrusion into any beehive is an un-natural act in itself.
7) Honey bees did not develop the ability to overlap nutritionally into food sources other than flower nectar and pollen like many herbivores and omnivores did which does not allow them ability to survive in dearth nectar years. 


As soon as we put bees in movable frame boxes, a few inches to a foot off the ground, in unnatural competion with other hives and with a goal of managing those bees to obtain a consistently harvestable crop of honey the word natural beekeeping doesn’t apply. We can have low impact beekeeping, chemical free beekeeping, genetically feral beekeeping, modern hobby beekeeping and commercial beekeeping but we are not keeping bees in their natural environment or with their natural methodology. 

For most of beekeeping, from the hobbyist level to the commercial level, the “Natural” traits of honeybees are contrary to the goals of beekeepers. Thus the concept that we can solve our problems in the honey bee industry simply through genetics, in any type of real time application, especially through the use of feral genetics is unrealistic for both the hobby beekeeper and the commercial beekeeper alike. Although some of modern bee breeding which is conducted is much like puppymill puppies, many responsible breeders are working on lines of bees which will provide stock which is more sustainable in the un-natural environment in which we all keep bees combined with other agricultural tools ranging from better bee equipment to artificial ingredients used to control and destroy what will be a never ending mutation of disease common in nature where “natural” population control, which has existed in every species for millennia, has kept overpopulation in check. 

These are some of my thoughts on the genetic discussion. Better genetics, not necessarily “natural” genetics, are only one part of a puzzle that will provide for widespread rewarding beekeeping experiences at virtually any level. It is my belief some have found a “feral” stock through years of work and isolation. I would also suspect by their own descriptions the isolation of this stock as well as very specific management practices contributes a great deal to survivability. What are your thoughts on the viability of genetics? I think overall success, if defined by the goals of most beekeepers, will always involve a wide array of tools, genetics only being one constantly evolving tool. This idea all problems can be traced to Genetics and this is where successful change will come is not realisitic in any short term sense outside limited application and not applicable in the long term sense with the constantly changing face of parasites and disease.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"the “Natural” traits of honeybees are contrary to the goals of beekeepers." Joel

For starters I couldn't disagree more with this premise. I am of the school of thought that in order to succeed with bees one must help the bees to what they "want/need" to do. In my way of thinking this would be to help them store a surplus and to reproduce (swarm or division). Why fight these natural tendencies? These are some of their greatest assets as livestock other than pollination. I love bees that require splitting and still make a nice honey crop.

On a side note perhaps honey is sweet in order to attract humans to care for bees? Natural is a relative term.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Good Morning,

If we (humans) never kept bees, would there be a
selective/behavioral/adaptive/difference between European Honey Bees and
African Bees?

Animal husbandry models Natural Selection somewhat, but the breeder/farmer
becomes the selection pressure in animal husbandry, whereas with Natural
Selection, the organism with the most suitable adaptive make-up *at that
time*, is the fitest.

Feral bees were foraging before man kept them, but now, European Honey Bees
have enjoyed some millennia of human animal husbandry, shaping their life history.

If left alone, will our honey bees "revert" to feral bees? 

And, one beekeeper's feral bee is another beekeeper's swarm from last Spring.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

joel writes:
Better genetics, not necessarily “natural” genetics

tecumseh:
disclaimer... it has been a long spell since I have taken a genetics course.

limitation in joel rhetoric... I think from the get go you had better nail down in your own mind and on paper (at least to some degree) what you mean when you use the word natural. it looks like to me 'natural' will (and should) be a stumbling block in discussing this topic. I suspect everyone dictionary to the word will vary quite a bit. If the internalized definition varied just a tad... I would expect some problem in conveying meaning.

as a general rule in regards to cattle, horses, bees, etc (ie improving/changing any kind of livestock)... when one speaks of better genetics this is the polar opposite of 'natural' genetics (I assume you to mean natural selection where you use the words natural genetics). That is... human selection of traits is the polar opposite of how natural forces select for traits. The time line for change in each system (one rapid, one extemely slow) is also quite extreme. Rapid change in the system of natural selection (we may be talking a thousand years here) typically requires some fairly extreme natural event (like an ice age or the impact of a meteor) to bring about any noticable change. Rapid change in man directed selection make take only one or two generation. In the realm of natural selection the only way change can occur that would even approach the time line of man direct selection is typically via hybridization. this in the natural world typically requires some extremely unusual events for this to occur... ie two somewhat like species must be seperated for some extreme long period and then thrown back together via some very unusual natural event.

certain basic concepts (terms) held by genetic folks like drift and reversion to the mean which are very much components of natural selection but seen as impediment to man directed selection.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

adamf writes:
If we (humans) never kept bees, would there be a
selective/behavioral/adaptive/difference between European Honey Bees and
African Bees?

tecumseh:
I always quite enjoy adamf's take on stuff.

modern day micro genetic techniques suggest that the two are from the same progenator (sp?) stock. One is simple the other via a very long period of time and a very different landscape plus add a couple of exteme 'natural' condition to isolate and magnify traits.

so I would suggest that even without man that the differences you ask about would still exist.


----------



## BoBn (Jul 7, 2008)

Joel said:


> A few points for a base line I look at relating to honey bees:
> 1) Bees have existed for millennia completely untouched by human hands and in that time have not developed total resistance to diseases, parasites and genetic defects nor will they in the next millennia with or without our help.


By transporting bees, we have introduced parasites and diseases from localized areas throughout the world. Just like apple trees. Many of these diseases were localized until they were spread. Localized populations have developed resistance to localized problems. 



> 2 Honeybees in their millennia of genetic development did not develop the ability to produce large crops of honey which would allow humans a consistently harvestable crop of their excess stores. Bees did not evolve to feed humans or other animals.


It seems to me that because of pressure from robbing, honeybees have developed the ability to produce excess stores to ensure their survival. 



> 3) Bees are genetically inclined to choose living quarters that would be smaller than the common modern hive with supers, build round nests not separated by wood barriers and space (wooden frames between supers) larger than 3/8 of inch and prefer a height of approximately 9 feet off the ground.


Bees are opportunistic and swarms will take up residence in man-made structures.



> 4) Honeybees natural method of propagation is swarming. Propagation of species is a major Genetic drive and has allowed the continuation of wild or feral populations of bees prior to and where they do exist today. It is contrary to the common to the goals of most beekeepers.


The goal of most beekeepers is propagation of honeybees. This is accomplished with artificial swarms.



> 5) Honeybees are not commonly found or survive in populations in the wild where 5-40 colonies co-exist a few feet from each other in a limited space providing for limited or reduced forage capabilities, increased exposure to disease and competition for mating.


It would be difficult to find natural nesting cavities in this configuration. I did find an old hollow basswood tree that had 2 separate colonies living in the same tree. 



> 6) Honeybees developed alarm phermones and stingers to defend against intruders in the hive since human and other intrusion into any beehive is an un-natural act in itself.


It seems to me that intrusion and robbing is natural. There is a long list of mammals, birds, and invertebrates that rob honeybee colonies.



> 7) Honey bees did not develop the ability to overlap nutritionally into food sources other than flower nectar and pollen like many herbivores and omnivores did which does not allow them ability to survive in dearth nectar years.


Bees are opportunistic. When natural flowers are unavailable they will rob weaker colonies, collect "nectar" from soda cans in trash, honeydew from aphids, collect grain dust, road tar for propolis, etc. 




> For most of beekeeping, from the hobbyist level to the commercial level, the “Natural” traits of honeybees are contrary to the goals of beekeepers. Thus the concept that we can solve our problems in the honey bee industry simply through genetics, in any type of real time application, especially through the use of feral genetics is unrealistic for both the hobby beekeeper and the commercial beekeeper alike.


I think that we all try to work with the natural traits. Natural behavior of honeybees is the baseline that our management techniques are built around.

The genetics is the potential. Environmental pressure does not equate to "survival of the fittest". It is survival of the "good enough".


-BoB


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I am of the school of thought that in order to succeed with bees one must help the bees to what they "want/need" to do. In my way of thinking this would be to help them store a surplus and to reproduce (swarm or division). Why fight these natural tendencies? 
Natural is a relative term.[/QUOTE]


I agree with the premise we have to work within the guidelines of the bees natural traits to gain the benefits we want. As to swarming we have countless threads on controlling swarming and apparrently many, possibly most beekeepers find this trait undesirable. I would submit a breeder advertising queens with high swarming tendencies would not get much business. I agree on making increase in relation to swarming. I spent last week manipulating and feeding our SC hives to move them toward a swarming condition in the spring when we have an opportunity to take advantage of that for increase and queen breeding in April. Much of my manipulatons was aimed at providing space for field workers to cluster at night below a large brood nest with storage for surplus honey to build strong hives that would not swarm. However swarming in July at the beginning of a good basswood flow or in August just before the main fall flow is a common tendency and is not an advantage to most beekeepers who either have limited time to keep a yard of bees or the commercial operator who works 5 yards of bees in a day and isnot looking to make increase in July or August.

"limitation in joel rhetoric"  My friend the panther keeping me honest!


"it looks like to me 'natural' will (and should) be a stumbling block in discussing this top"

One of my goals would be for us to develop some definitions of the different aspects of beekeeping without any negative conotation attached to any methodolgy. This gives a real chance at comparisons relating to losses and successes within a reasonable scope. I don't think in the long run it matters if we call "low impact beekeeping" "natural beekeeping" as long somone doing it puts forth their definition and we have a chance to set up a parameter we can understand when we talk about it. One aspect that comes to my mind to this definition would be is a beekeeper who has regressed commercial stock onto small cell and does not use any medication and is successful would appear to be natural. However are we going to find stark differences or influences which are affecting beekeeping even more from the "natural beekeeper" like Joe or MB who have made a concerted effort to add feral genetics to their stock AND are using methology such as small cell. What am I with 250 hives using live and let die but intervening with controls when economic feasability borders are being breeched. What are the operations using shop towels and mavrik? Once we have a map of who we are beekeepers could be potentially polled according to location and methodolgy as well as size of their operations to determine what is actually working and where and in what size operations. If Joe is runing 12 hives of Ferals on small cell and we find 5 other beekeepers doing roughly the same and with similar success we have a baseline for comparison. At what description, level and possibly what regions are we seeing the need to intervene with treatments. We could also get a chance to look at specific regional issues which might help us all identify what specific issues (trends) in disease and mortality are common denominators in those regions.

I think we need to establish some borders in order to allow us to find out where the line is on genetic and environemental pressures and then move to expand those borders to allow for a less chemical impacting methodolgy of beekeeping.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Here's some examples of suggested catagories to start. Lets go simple for the purpose of our research here.

Level A - Feral bred bees, on small cell, no treatments for at least 3 years 1-25 hives.
Level B - Same as A but 25 - 100 hives
If there is anyone doing this above 100 hives successfully please post and we'll make a C.

Level D - Small cell bees - regressed - with no treatments -3 or more years 1-25 hives
Level E - Small cell bees - regressed - no treatments - 3 of more years 25-100 hives
If anyone is doing this successully above 100 please post for and we'll do a level F

Level H - General practice beekeeper - meds as tools 1-25 hives
Levels I - General practice beekeeper - meds as tools 25-100 hives
level J - General practice beekeeper - meds as tools 100+hives

Suggestions, corrections or additions?

I'm not sure how we do the regional aspect?
Once we figure this out I'll post a poll.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

tecumseh said:


> modern day micro genetic techniques suggest that the two are from the same progenator (sp?) stock. One is simple the other via a very long period of time and a very different landscape plus add a couple of exteme 'natural' condition to isolate and magnify traits.
> so I would suggest that even without man that the differences you ask about would still exist.


Tecumseh,

I disagree. Without man, honey bees would resemble the "African Bee" phenotype.
We've had a huge influence on shifting the population to be a "European bee" phenotype.

Classification via genetic relatedness is not necessairly more accurate than classification via morphological/ecological data. The discerning biologist will use both methods as the context dictates--neither is more accurate. 

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

BoBn said:


> It seems to me that because of pressure from robbing, honeybees have developed the ability to produce excess stores to ensure their survival.


Okay, but then why don't African bees produce excess stores? They certainly are in an ecolgical position to get robbed based on their habitat.

Honey bees that produce excess stores (hoarding behavior) have been selected by *man* and by adapting to a colder climate. Mostly by man, though.

IMHO of course.



Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Suggestions, corrections or additions? -Joel


How about some categories for "large cell" bees of, say, Russian or hygienic origin?

And maybe some categoreis for "large cell" mutts (but not "feral") that are being kept without meds as tools? From other threads, it seems that some beekeepers are doing this one successfully, too.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Joel said:


> Here's some examples of suggested catagories to start. Lets go simple for the purpose of our research here.
> 
> Level A - Feral bred bees, on small cell, no treatments for at least 3 years 1-25 hives.
> Level B - Same as A but 25 - 100 hives
> ...


Joel, I understand your reasoning for these classifications. However, you base your category list on the term "feral". How do you define "feral" bees? Maybe that should be your primary goal before you move to the next groupings?

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Having a discussion about genetics with people who are not geneticists is comparable to talking rocket science with a borneo savage.


I am not a geneticist, I do however have an active mind and can read enough to know that I have little knowledge of bee genetics.

Here are some thoughts.

1. It is obvious that good feral traits are not necessarily good traits for managed beekeeping.
2. Traits that are valued in managed bees such as hoarding behavior are detrimental for feral bees.
3. Bee breeders have proven time and again that bees can be selectively bred to be more productive.
4. Brother Adam was an outstanding beekeeper and a self taught geneticist.
5. Buckfast bees are still known around the world for their ability to produce honey.
6. A beekeeper who ignores genetics is not a beekeeper. He is a bee haver.
7. Trying to manage feral bees is never going to be cost effective over the long term.
8. The single most detrimental trait in managed bees is inclination to swarm.
9. There are management steps that can be used to reduce swarming.
10. Brother Adam's bees did not need swarm management, they just produced honey.
11. Most Buckfast bees available today no longer have the reduced swarming trait.

Now, take any one of the comments above and post something either agreeing or disagreeing. Please post effective and well thought out arguments.

DarJones


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hello Joel,

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I sometimes like to read the posts in the morning, and think about a response during the day. I am forming a reply, but I am kind of stuck and I find that I need some further information concerning your quote below. 



Joel said:


> 2 Honeybees in their millennia of genetic development did not develop the ability to produce large crops of honey which would allow humans a consistently harvestable crop of their excess stores. Bees did not evolve to feed humans or other animals.


Do you believe the “ability to produce large crops of honey” has developed in the honeybee? And if so, what approximate dates do you credit the occurrence and to whom or what?

Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

adamf writes:
I disagree. Without man, honey bees would resemble the "African Bee" phenotype.
We've had a huge influence on shifting the population to be a "European bee" phenotype.

tecumseh:
humm... ain't certain what that means adamf? 

are you suggest that without man the various races of european honeybees would look like african honeybee? furthermore are you suggesting that dna markers are no more accurate than morphological identification? 

dna markers now seem to suggest that the european bees were products of their african cousins that issued out of african in three distinct waves (likely punctuated by some extreme geological event on the world scale)

bioliogy ain't (wasn't really ever) my thingee... so enlighten me here brother.

finally... I would suggest that any individual traits expressed may be quite useful for 'one purpose' in having bees and not useful if 'the purpose' in having bees changes. therefore (in the simplist analogy I can provide) traits that are useful for bees held for honey collection purpose would not the the same traits you would desire if the bees you held were used for pollination purposes. the overarching idea of human driven selection is you id traits that are useful and isolate and concentrate the expression of those traits. over time most practicing bee breeder seem to recognize that by placing such great weight on one trait you lose something somewhere else.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hello Joel,

On second thought, I am not going to participate in this thread, it has already evolved to topics other than what our original differing opinion was about concerning ‘clusters breaking’ and ‘generics of the bee playing a role in winter survival’.

The poll that has evolved in this thread that we seem to be calling “research” is IMO really stretching it. It doesn’t consider the varying level of a; beekeepers experience, wintering techniques, types of hives, what size dictates a “small cell”, what size dictates “large cell“ and ,,,more. 

What are “treatments” or “meds”? 
This is can mean anything from a menthol cough drop to a sticky board, to Amatraz 

What was the timing of treatment?
This is important to know,

What was the frequency of treatment?
Very important also.

What are “no treatments”?
Is a sticky board a treatment?, is normal drone culling a treatment?,,, it does have an effect on varroa so these things need recorded.

What is the amount of drone cells in these colonies?
Because bees are on comb that a beekeeper placed in a hive, does not mean that the comb was made by those particular bees, and therefore not a true reflection of what those genetics would be capable of. 

Ferals are nothing more than escaped domestic bees, so the degree of feral IMO is important, and this different from region to region. 

Joe


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

naturebee said:


> Hello Joel,
> 
> Do you believe the “ability to produce large crops of honey” has developed in the honeybee? And if so, what approximate dates do you credit the occurrence and to whom or what?
> 
> ...


It is my direct experiance large harvestable honey crops are better facilitated by the management techniques of skilled beekeepers. As far as dates and too whom I credit, I do a great deal of reading but there is nothing more accurate to me than direct obsevations from real beekeepers who support their facts from a position of experiance and education not just spending hours searching for others people ideas, efforts and opinion and using them to further an individual effort to prove oneself right. I can research studies all day, much of the information is valuable and useful. I'm really interested in having posts that reflect real experiance AND studies.

As far as large harvestable crops, lets credit Mr. Langstroth who through offering us movable frame/managable equipment allow us to better manage what the bees have for better production. Timing, late 1800's or early 1900's?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

naturebee said:


> Hello Joel,
> 
> On second thought, I am not going to participate in this thread,
> Joe


So Joe, in your 1st post on this thread you said you took all day thinking about a response, made what you considered an educated response and then later decided you weren't going to participate. Instead you asked someone else to post their argument starting a new thread (which you could have quoted and done yourself) apparrently so you could disagree/debate the persons opinions? It just seems a little, well, disengenous if to borrow from your terminology. That's fine. My genetic opinions (and others) are clearly stated here, debate them or not. 

I'm looking for some confirmation and then a chance maybe to map the success methods involved in better beekeeping through ferals and/ or superior stock (ie Russians if they are) and specialized methodology. Some members, me included, feel Some posters, not all, Who keep bees without treatments seem to want to flame those who are using responsible tools in modern and responsible beekeeping. It's had a chilling effect on posting about the responsible use of medications. Responsible in the terms of what folks like Calderone, Shiminoko, Tew, Deleplane, most state inspectors and other similarly qualified apiarists would put forth. Certainly I would also classify successful beekeepers not using chemicals as responsible. I just don't know if it is or can be done in the long term and an other than a very small and isolated basis. I think it's time to get to where the rubber meets the road. I'm looking, in a non-judgemental method, for yours and other successful non-treatment beekeepers or even beekeepers using other stock successfully without treatements to share with us and help us deterime. 1) How common an occurence and for how many years has this type of beekeeping been successful 2) Is it something we can map here and apply in different size operations 3) What should our realistic expectations of the Genetics involved in mainstream beekeeping be. Not just what is possible (the ideal), but what is likely (the mean). As to treatements, let's make treatement to mean any substance added to a hive to control disease or parasites. I hope others who are having similar success will share whether you do or not and we will gain a better understanding of the impacts of Genetics, methodogy and region where beekeepers are keeping bees without treatements successfully. I have no doubt there are many having success and I don't fault anyone for having this type of success. My ideas (which might well be completely wrong) are as I've stated over the years there are not magic genetics, methodolgy or bees, it is some unique combination of all. If people participate we may actually get some realistic answers in real time.

Feel free to keep up the arguments my now friendly aquiantance Randy Oliver so aptly identified here as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin but count me out. IMO this stalls the effort, maybe that's your goal. I fully expected some may avoid an effort that involves accountability. That's an individual choice.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Joel said:


> As far as large harvestable crops, lets credit Mr. Langstroth who through offering us movable frame/managable equipment allow us to better manage what the bees have for better production. Timing, late 1800's or early 1900's?


There are plenty of references that show bees were capable of producing large quantities of honey without movable comb. This was credited to the Honeybees in their millennia of genetic development that allowed them the ability to produce large crops of honey for us, that beekeepers often in error, calim credit for developing.

1822, a bee tree found in Reedy Bottom, in Halifax county, Va
“and five gallons of honey obtained therefrom“. 

1832, a bee tree found in Bradford township, Clearfield county
“The next morning they proceeded to ascertain the quantity of honey, which they found to be of the liquid which had left the combs, eleven gallons"

1887, a bee tree found in Reno Nevada 
“A few days ago some of the workmen at Smith & Lewison’s saw mill found a bee tree in the vicinity. It was a big one nearly six feet in diameter and the cavity was immense and completely filled with honey. Ten large buckets were filled and about 300 pounds had been secured when night came on and work was suspended for the day.”


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Joel said:


> So Joe, in your 1st post on this thread you said you took all day thinking about a response, made what you considered an educated response and then later decided you weren't going to participate. Instead you asked someone else to post their argument starting a new thread (which you could have quoted and done yourself) apparrently so you could disagree/debate the persons opinions? .


Since you have felt the urge to bring it up.
Discussions are to be made by invitation, not forced. 
The asking of Keick to start a new thread was my way to politely invite him to a discussion. This, put the ball in Keick's court, he did not have to respond if he felt he did not want to discuss the topic with me, and this would have been acceptable to me. It is perhaps a more gentlemen way of inviting a discussion rather than the way you have chosen to force debate upon another by your usual mode of starting threads and inserting a most kind and gentlemanly invite starting with: 
“I struck a nerve with my friend Joe ” (friendly quote by Joel)  

PS. in your title, "Genetics in Beekeeping - Fact vs fiction"
Which part are you, the fact or the fiction?   (kidding) 

Joe


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

*I just don't know if it is or can be done in the long term and an other than a very s*

I didn't treat anything for 3 full years, and then got hammered by nosema....is it possible to go without treating? I think so, but, you would need to be isolated from most commercial beekeepers and definitly amish beekeepers to do so.

I know exactly where I goofed, and am moving to correct that, but, I still think that somewhere down the road, I will need to treat again for nosema. 

Our real problem here is that the bees adapt to one pest or desiese, and then are hit with one or more that they arn't adapted too..just my .02 cents worth..


----------



## Robert Brenchley (Apr 23, 2000)

Manley ('Honey Farming') refers to 'Pettigrew or bushel skeps' which were significantly larger than the normal ones and gave three times as much honey. He doesn't say anything about the strain of bee kept in them.

I've always felt that it was better to look for signs of mite resistance - whether hygeinic behaviour or mite damaging - and breed for that, rather than leaving non-resistant stocks to die out. They could easily be requeened, after all.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

I guess if there is or isn't a fiction in regards to genetics and the various problems of modern day beekeeping... it is that we assume there is a genetic solution to every problem. historically this has been true to some degree.. that is we have examples where genetics provided a solution to some problem. on the other hand as peggjam suggest (nosema) some concerns have no genetic solution. at the exteme end of this spectrum of problems species have (and are) becoming extinct all the time.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

tecumseh said:


> I guess if there is or isn't a fiction in regards to genetics and the various problems of modern day beekeeping... it is that we assume there is a genetic solution to every problem.


I agree, to the extent of what solution genetics are capable of achieving. 
Far too often, folks assume the meaning of “solution to a problem” to mean it is 100 percent effective. This is far from the truth, and in fact, in beekeeping, you do not need 100 percent of anything to have an effective solution. A beekeeper need not have hygienic bees that are 100 percent hygienic to be effective in their suppression of some maladies, in fact, only 7% of the bees must have the trait for the colony to express it, and even that small amount may be part of the solution to some kind of minor problem. Baring the random tornado, comet, asteroid strike or other rather obscure catastrophic event, genetics can be a <<<part of the solution>>> to many problems facing beekeepers today. 

Joe


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

naturebee said:


> I agree, to the extent of what solution genetics are capable of achieving. Far too often, folks assume the meaning of “solution to a problem” to mean it is 100 percent effective.


Joe is right on. We often have to perceive things in black or white. All or nothing. When dealing with Biology or Agriculture (applied biology) there are _many_ answers to problems, _many_ management techniques and _many_ interpretations. The present paradigm asks for ONE answer, ONE technique, ONE breed, ONE treatment...you get my drift. Beekeeping is changing and has always been dynamic--the beekeepers who try new techniques or experiment will most often have bees when the majority loses theirs. There isn't any ONE solution. A combination of them usually works, and sometimes only for awhile.

Breeding bees until recently, was pretty much ignored. You ordered your bees and got them. They produced for you. "New" breeding that's occurring now with bees, concentrating on hardiness and mite-tolerance, is mainly selection without the chemical management, to isolate bees that might perform well without treatment or with a very low level of treatment. 

If one is looking for those combinations and one is chemically treating how is one going to find the combinations that not only produce well, but do so without intensive treatment? They aren't. That doesn't mean a beekeeper has to stop treating, but maybe instead that a beekeeper ask and converse with bee breeders making an effort to pick/select/choose/isolate combinations that will be productive and hardy. No big deal.

Whatever works for you, is good! If you're concerned about some of the latest news/info on managing bees, and are considering a change, make a transition slowly, and experiment. There's no simple solution to keeping bees: that's why you enjoy being a beekeeper, right?

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Reply to Tecumseh,

*original quote of adamf*:
"I disagree. Without man, honey bees would resemble the "African Bee"
phenotype. We've had a huge influence on shifting the population to be a
"European bee" phenotype."

*tecumseh replied*:
"humm... ain't certain what that means adamf? 
Are you suggest that without man the various races of european honeybees
would look like african honeybee? furthermore are you suggesting that dna
markers are no more accurate than morphological identification?"

Yes and Yes, sort of. If man had not been involved in the dispersal of
honey bees from Africa, the honey bees in other areas besides Africa would
be much more similar to the "African" phenotype. My point is that MAN
selected for many of the traits that make European Honey Bees different
than African honey bees.

DNA markers's value depend on the biological context. They can be
interpreted many ways. Their value is maximized when they are used in
conjunction with morphological and life-history details in classification. 

Example: there are some species that are closely related genetically, but
have completely different morphologies, habitats and behavioral
adaptations. They're completely dissimilar except for their genetic
relatedness. Becasue of their genetic relatedness, do we throw out all the
other glaringly accurate information? 

Since we don't have time machines, we have to carefully use all the results
from classification systems to propose theories about species' history and
development. That's what I was getting at. Pardon me for being unclear.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

adamf writes:
Pardon me for being unclear.

tecumseh:
you first desciption was not as unclear as my thinking. thanks for adding the bit of detail.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Robert Brenchley said:


> Manley ('Honey Farming') refers to 'Pettigrew or bushel skeps' which were significantly larger than the normal ones and gave three times as much honey.


Skeps are still legally used in England? Interesting.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"...Without man, honey bees would resemble the "African Bee"
phenotype." Adam F

I would disagree here also. Nature hates a void and will fill all niches. There are certain biomes where their reproductive strategy is not well suited and bees that swarm less and hoard more for longer winters would be favored through natural selection. We have found 100 million year old bees preserved in amber. The phylogenetic tree most certainly would branch with or without the help of man.

"As to swarming we have countless threads on controlling swarming and apparrently many, possibly most beekeepers find this trait undesirable. I would submit a breeder advertising queens with high swarming tendencies would not get much business." Joel

I am not suggesting that swarming is a desirable trait, but that bees that are robust and well adapted will have a strong drive to reproduce that we can exploit. Things seem easier when working with natural tendencies instead of against. Making a well time reproductive split is a great way to work with the life history of bees.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

naturebee said:


> PS. in your title, "Genetics in Beekeeping - Fact vs fiction"
> Which part are you, the fact or the fiction?   (kidding)
> 
> Joe



Well Joe, when I'm right about something, which is sometimes, I'm the fact, when I'm wrong, sometimes, then I'm the fiction. Of course being right and wrong often is a matter of perspective! 

Joe, I agree strains of bees have developed which produce large harvestable crops without human intervention and this would be attributed to good genetics. Look at the dates of these finds. Where are these strains today? Are they the strains you and others have isolated in your feral capture projects? Is it possible to map these strains genetically and then be able to locate and breed from this stock. Has the capture and commercial breeding of honeybees adaptaded for modern beekeeping so polluted the population they are for all intensive and useful purposes gone?

As you stated in the post where you identify the realities of loss to toranado's or other unusual phenomenon we need to think in the "likely scenerio" in these discussions. Finding stories about bees that were producing huge crops 100 or more years ago and transposing that to today finding these same bees (genetics) is as uncommon and unlikely as a tornado destroying hives. Possibly in those times, before masses of kept bees and over 150 years very superior genetics were able to come about. Of Course even with those great genetics AFB wiped out a large population of honeybees in the early 1900's. I understand your point as to the genetic progression but what about today. I can't keep bees in the 1880's, I have to keep bees today. If we are to reduce Chemical treatments and invavisve type management through Genetics and other low impact methods, how do we learn to do this unless we A) have a scientific study done using hives and methodolgy already being successful B) In as anonymous manner as possible, collect data here, analyze that data and look for the common denominators which may be applied in any operation and although we may not elimanate the need for chemotheraputic controlas we might greatly reduce that need and in the long run improve everyone's genetics? Conduct our own study so to speak. You also need to face the concept that possibly we will not overcome the hurdles because keeping bees in un-natural conditions and populations may overide genetics and passive treatements only due to nature's ability to reduce these populations through disease. There is an increasing evidence and thinking that some of the mass extinctions, even of species which survived and developed natural genetics for millions of years were wiped out by a virus or bacteria which also developed better genetics. I may have to face the fact it is possible. If that's the case I'll eat my slice of humble pie with a big smile on my face because it would be the ideal then wouldn't it.

If you truly want to get your message accross about chemical free beekeeping then be a part of setting up and examining the data we need in a way beekeepers can respond without fear of being flamed. Your observations in your apiary (and mine in mine) are anecdoatal. If 20 beekeepers having similar methodology and stock are seeing this then we have a pattern. If we take that pattern and apply it to other apiaries and others succed we now have some answers.

I've offered to talk to Dyce, I'm suggesting to you to help set up an in depth "Beesource Study" here so it's not just my one sided views. If your beekeeping desiderada is correct heres the way demonstrate it in a useful way. You have your views, I have my views, the "Fact" or "Truth" lies somewhere in between. 
Your move!


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

JBJ said:


> "...Without man, honey bees would resemble the "African
> Bee" phenotype." Adam F
> 
> I would disagree here also. Nature hates a void and will fill all niches.
> ...


John,

"Nature hates a void and will fill all niches" could include one species' adapting to a specific niche via selective help from another species. The term is synanthropy. Woa Beevis... seriously, remove man's hand in primitive migatory beekeeping, neolithic beekeeping and dispersal and I think you'd have European bees that would more readily turn their honey into brood and swarm. Sure thermoregulation is more derived-- bees need it further North/South away from the Equator, but we've always selected for hoarding behavior, somewhat pressuring the population.

Are there any other examples of Eusocial bees that thermoregulate as much
as our European bees? If there are, your void maxim fits. If there aren't,
then we should nod to our power as a trans-species selective force.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

I would wager through natural dispersion mechanisms bees had migrated into some of the available niches long before man had attempted any animal husbandry. The fossil record should tell us this. Speciation, genetic drift, genetic isolation, convergent & divergent evolution, mutation, ect. are at play even without mans help. The survival strategy for higher elevation temperate regions would be much different than for the African savanna. Longer colder winters would represent a strong selection pressure to hoard more honey. Conversely, warmer milder climates would naturally select for bees that swarmed more frequently that tended to hoard less. Turning honey into brood and swarming to late in the season would be a death knell in temperate climates.

"...the work of Danforth and his group suggests that the earliest branches of the bee's evolutionary tree originate from the family Melittidae. That would mean that bees have an African origin and are almost as old as flowering plants, which would help explain a lot about the evolutionary diversification of these plants." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209083342.htm

The above is from the article I referenced earlier about the 100 million year old bee fossil found in Burma.

Insect pollinated plants have been around well before any quasi migratory/managed beekeeping. It is easily arguable that the evolutionary history of bees predates and exceeds that of man by a very long geologic time period (100 million years vs 5-7 million years).

"Are there any other examples of Eusocial bees that thermoregulate as much as our European bees? " Adam F

How about Apis cerana? Here is a tidbit from Wikipedia: "Apis cerana is found at altitudes from sea level up to 3,500 metres in areas with appropriate flora and climate. This bee species has adapted to adverse climatic conditions and can survive extreme fluctuations in temperature and long periods of rainfall. It is unique in its ability to survive temperatures as low as -0.1ºC, a temperature lethal for other bee species (Apis mellifera)."

Don't get me wrong, human applied selection plays a big role, especially in ag and domestication; however I would argue that natural selection has played a bigger role historically and resulted in the 16,000 recognized species of diverse niche filling bees.


----------



## mudlake (Nov 26, 2007)

i am not sure how cold or hot bees will survive, but they can't survive mostiure. Do what ever you have to to keep the inside dry. Good Luck Tony


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

JBJ said:


> "Are there any other examples of Eusocial bees that thermoregulate as much as our European bees? " Adam F
> 
> How about Apis cerana? Here is a tidbit from Wikipedia: "Apis cerana is found at altitudes from sea level up to 3,500 metres in areas with appropriate flora and climate. This bee species has adapted to adverse climatic conditions and can survive extreme fluctuations in temperature and long periods of rainfall. It is unique in its ability to survive temperatures as low as -0.1ºC, a temperature lethal for other bee species (Apis mellifera)."
> 
> Don't get me wrong, human applied selection plays a big role, especially in ag and domestication; however I would argue that natural selection has played a bigger role historically and resulted in the 16,000 recognized species of diverse niche filling bees.


John,
The quote above about _Apis cerana_ is what I was refering too. Another species in the same genus that thermoregulates using honey. Does _Apis cerana_ hoard honey like _Apis mellifera_?

From Wikipedia:
"Beekeeping with Apis cerana has become an important source of income for mountain farmers, especially the poor and marginalised, as it is easy to practise. There is no capital outlay as the bees do not need to be fed, fumigated, or migrated to warmer areas in winter, and are mostly kept in traditional log hives[2]. They also produce high-quality honey and their wax is organic and natural.

Honey production is lower than for Apis mellifera, but is being increased through a focused queen breeding and selection programme."

There you go!

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


[2]Engel, M.S. (1999) The taxonomy of recent and fossil honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Apis). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 8: 165-196.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

JBJ said:


> I would wager through natural dispersion mechanisms bees had migrated into some of the available niches long before man had attempted any animal husbandry. The fossil record should tell us this. Speciation, genetic drift, genetic isolation, convergent & divergent evolution, mutation, ect. are at play even without mans help. The survival strategy for higher elevation temperate regions would be much different than for the African savanna. Longer colder winters would represent a strong selection pressure to hoard more honey. Conversely, warmer milder climates would naturally select for bees that swarmed more frequently that tended to hoard less. Turning honey into brood and swarming to late in the season would be a death knell in temperate climates.
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, human applied selection plays a big role, especially in ag and domestication; however I would argue that natural selection has played a bigger role historically and resulted in the 16,000 recognized species of diverse niche filling bees.



A couple of things this leads me to 1) wonder about 2) Conclude

My understanding is honeybees are not native to North America ( and I assume South America). Do we know this for sure and if so what prevented honey bees from existing here other than the distances resulting from continental drift? 

On the note of the climate adaptations of bees the current methodolgy of shipping queens/bees from every where to everywhere seems to be working in direct competition to our goals of breeding better or at least more regionally favorable genetics. As an example, here in the north we are trying to breed for bees that have the behavior you describe for northen climate adapted bees. My breeding program is going to constantly be defeated by drones from the huge influx of Package bees raised in the South and Sold in the north, migratory hives bringing southern bred bees for pollination (not bashing migratory operators, just making an observation) and replacement or nuc queens raised in the north. How do we possibly overcome a breeding obstacle like this without having to requeen annually?

Finally are you saying our impact on bee breeding has been minimal in comparison to the extensive history of bees and your breeding program show signs we are not as far from a superior stock as it appears? Do you see a light at the end of the tunnel?


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

How about the analogy of European Honey Bee to Dog as African Honey Bee is to Wolf. That's what I was thinking.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

"Beekeeping with Apis cerana has become an important source of income for mountain farmers, especially the poor and marginalised, as it is easy to practise. There is no capital outlay as the bees do not need to be fed, fumigated, or migrated to warmer areas in winter, and are mostly kept in traditional log hives[2]. They also produce high-quality honey and their wax is organic and natural."

Am I correct Apis Melifera and Apis Cerana do not coexist well?


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Joel said:


> A How do we possibly overcome a breeding obstacle like this without having to requeen annually?


Sorry I'm not John, but my keyboard is warm...

You overcome this breeding obstacle by controlling your matings: using II, isolated mating areas and drone saturation.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Joel said:


> "Beekeeping with Apis cerana has become an important source of income for mountain farmers, especially the poor and marginalised, as it is easy to practise. There is no capital outlay as the bees do not need to be fed, fumigated, or migrated to warmer areas in winter, and are mostly kept in traditional log hives[2]. They also produce high-quality honey and their wax is organic and natural."
> 
> Am I correct Apis Melifera and Apis Cerana do not coexist well?


I don't think they have enough $$$$ to bring in _Apis mellifera_ into this area.
_Apis mellifera_ does not naturally live in the _Apis cerana_ range.


Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

adamf said:


> Sorry I'm not John, but my keyboard is warm...
> 
> You overcome this breeding obstacle by controlling your matings: using II, isolated mating areas and drone saturation.
> 
> ...


I'm not sorry your not John! 

Hadn't thought about that. Our queen rearing is still in the rudimentary stages as far equipment and in depth location commitments. We have that in SC but are literally surrounded by hives (must be 600 in our county) here in the Fingerlakes. We do have areas in adjoining counties where this isn't so. A dedicated isolated breeding yard in the north will be my next priority. Thanks!


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

BoBn said:


> Bees are opportunistic and swarms will take up residence in man-made structures.
> 
> The goal of most beekeepers is propagation of honeybees. This is accomplished with artificial swarms.
> 
> ...


In regards to bees living in close quarters. I did a removal years ago in an old boarded up church, I'll see if I can find those pictures. There were 7 boarded up, 8 ft tall, stained glass windows. 5 of the 7 had combs in them 2 of those had active bee colonies. In looking throught the dead combs there was one which was clearly AFB. This unit had been occupied at different times since 1963 when the caretaker 1st. noticed bees there. This was apparrent due to the aged comb divisions. 2 had died of unknown causes, one was occupied and weak and one was a boomer with bright yellow combs 8 feet long. The beekeeper in this town runs 300 hives so plenty of swarms to fill all the windows which were the ideal man made environent. Out of 7 available spaces only one strong hive had developed in the 31 years. Only one example but one still the same.

In thinking about to bees taking up in made man made equipment, yes. Cornell studies show they prefered a height off the ground of approximately 9 feet, not a hive entrance a few inches of the ground.

As to Swarming when I look at how you stated it I agree, swarming may be a trait we don't want to breed out, just not excessive swarming (IE AHB). Increase would be much more difficult without that instinct. John said much the same thing.

I have to say I've never seen a honeybee, even in a dearth year, drink a drop of soda pop. Gazillions of yellow jackets but never a honey bee. But then we don't dring much pop at my house. We're sun tea people most of the summer. The rest except road tar I've seen.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Joel said:


> Finding stories about bees that were producing huge crops 100 or more years ago and transposing that to today finding these same bees (genetics) is as uncommon and unlikely as a tornado destroying hives.


Hello Joel,
There are many more recent examples of large amounts of honey being secured from bee trees, but I chose to select from those of earlier years which some were prior to the movable frame hive.



Joel said:


> If you truly want to get your message accross about chemical free beekeeping then be a part of setting up and examining the data we need in a way beekeepers can respond without fear of being flamed.


Know one should be in fear of me flaming them, I don’t do that message anymore. I don’t really care if beekeepers treat or not. You can look back over perhaps the past 6 months, I have not argued that message to any one. I do however promote the selection of best stock from either ferals, or any domestic strain of bees present in the usa prior to the introduction of Russian Bees. 



Joel said:


> Your observations in your apiary (and mine in mine) are anecdoatal. If 20 beekeepers having similar methodology and stock are seeing this then we have a pattern. If we take that pattern and apply it to other apiaries and others succed we now have some answers.


I agree with you. But I have this growing belief based on anecdotal evidence, that the proverb ’all beekeeping is local’ carries more weight than I had ever believed. What I see in the breeding population in my area, I don’t think is the same from location to location. 



Joel said:


> I've offered to talk to Dyce, I'm suggesting to you to help set up an in depth "Beesource Study" here so it's not just my one sided views. If your beekeeping desiderada is correct heres the way demonstrate it in a useful way. You have your views, I have my views, the "Fact" or "Truth" lies somewhere in between.
> Your move!


From what I see, we are in basic agreement, and the discussion has petered out. I may respond later if my interest is sparked. I would agree that there needs to be a forum on beesource where invites for debates can be held. Debates tend to get way off topic and bumped down the list on these high traffic forums, as well as being a huge distraction to those that need normal bee topics like the new bees.

Joe


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

naturebee said:


> Hello Joel,
> There are many more recent examples of large amounts of honey being secured from bee trees, but I chose to select from those of earlier years which some were prior to the movable frame hive. Joe


Yea, I did understand your point, Bees producing harvestable crops of honey had developed. If only we could pinpoint more about those strains which have survived with those genetics it might be an important step.



naturebee said:


> Know one should be in fear of me flaming them, I don’t do that message anymore. I don’t really care if beekeepers treat or not. You can look back over perhaps the past 6 months, I have not argued that message to any one. I do however promote the selection of best stock from either ferals, or any domestic strain of bees present in the usa prior to the introduction of Russian Bees. Joe


I'll take your word for it, I often disappear for months at a time when things get busy and have not been up to date on many posters positions here.



naturebee said:


> I agree with you. But I have this growing belief based on anecdotal evidence, that the proverb ’all beekeeping is local’ carries more weight than I had ever believed. What I see in the breeding population in my area, I don’t think is the same from location to location. Joe


I've thought this in the past, we've discussed it in the past and I think this may be one key which could come out in a "Beesource Study" 



naturebee said:


> From what I see, we are in basic agreement, and the discussion has petered out. I may respond later if my interest is sparked. I would agree that there needs to be a forum on beesource where invites for debates can be held. Debates tend to get way off topic and bumped down the list on these high traffic forums, as well as being a huge distraction to those that need normal bee topics like the new bees.
> Joe


Yep, we've reached that truth in the middle. I'm going to continue with the "Beesource Study", feel fee to jump in if you are interested in helping to sort out data.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"Finally are you saying our impact on bee breeding has been minimal in comparison to the extensive history of bees and your breeding program show signs we are not as far from a superior stock as it appears? Do you see a light at the end of the tunnel?" Joel

Good question. I would say I suspect the answer to the first part of your question would be yes. In relative terms Mom Nature as been this adaptation/evolution thing a very long time. It would be interesting to quantify this; genomic comparison of todays bees to those of past and ancient times. It would also be interesting to know where Apis m and Apis c began divergent branches on the phylogentic tree.

I would say there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Beekeepers have been able to identify bees that suppress mite reproduction (SMR), show varroa sensitive hygeine (VSH), and resistance to IAPV. There are other traits that we may be able to select for such as shorter pupation period and higher degrees of allogrooming. The trick is to develop bees that have this useful traits and/or others without loosing the economically valuable traits.

Every year we identify bees that seem to meet this criteria and winter well without acaricide and are robust enough to easily make the grade for the early almond pollination. The problem is that when we make daughters from one of these exceptional queens we get bell curve with some daughters nearly identical to their mother and a bunch in the middle and a few on the other extreme that you wonder where the heck they came from. Each year I feel we can incrementally move the distribution of daughters towards end of the bell curve with the desirable traits. I think the use if II and isolated yards may help us develop more true breeding lines and accelerate the process. I also feel that now the honeybee genome is sequenced and fields such as epigenetics develop we are bound to have some big breeding advances.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

JBJ said:


> " The problem is that when we make daughters from one of these exceptional queens we get bell curve with some daughters nearly identical to their mother and a bunch in the middle and a few on the other extreme that you wonder where the heck they came from. Each year I feel we can incrementally move the distribution of daughters towards end of the bell curve with the desirable traits. I think the use if II and isolated yards may help us develop more true breeding lines and accelerate the process."


John is describing selection in animal breeding. Moving the distribution toward what is desirable. No magic nor vauge mysterious theoretical mumb-jumbo, just good-old-fashioned observation and hard work. *Breeding.*



JBJ said:


> "I also feel that now the honeybee genome is sequenced and fields such as epigenetics develop we are bound to have some big breeding advances."


Maybe. That would be great. However, good selection from a diverse population over time will always produce results.


Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Good Post John.

This really illuminates for me what I'm seeing when I order from queen suppliers who I think have a solid interest in better genetics as well as explaining what we've seen from some who are clearly making bees as fast as they can to fill orders. I was suprised at some of the wide variations we get from even the best breeders. When I read about the Bell curve you've observed suddenly it all makes sense. It will be of great value in our small breeding project and be a guide for ordering queens from suppliers in the future as we try to keep our stock fresh.


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

Fusion_power said:


> Having a discussion about genetics with people who are not geneticists is comparable to talking rocket science with a borneo savage.


This is the best line of this thread and the most true.

My wife is a human genetisist and she says that bee genetics are too complicated even for her when you factor in parthenogenisis and the ability of the queen to select the drone father of each egg laid. Unless the queen in the hive is artifically inseminated there are 20 or more genetic combinations in any given hive. 

As far as managing feral colonies is concerned: The minute they are put under management they are no longer feral.


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

So only geneticists are allowed to participate in the conversation? 

II queens are typically going to inseminated by the use of blended sperm from ten or more donor drones. Granted, from know stock but still carrying their own distinctive traits.

Hiving feral bees causes those bees to become managed by someone. How they are managed vary's by the keeper. Breeding and genetics can be somewhat influenced by diligent work but still is at the discretion of nature just as they would be in the tree at the corner of your yard. Feral is quite a loose term with bees IMO.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Do we know this for sure and if so what prevented honey bees from existing here other than the distances resulting from continental drift? -Joel


Honey bees, or bees in the genus _Apis_ are not native to the western hemisphere. Stingless bees, in the genus _Melipona_, are native to the Americas.

The two genera show some ecological overlap. That is, they tend to fill the same ecological niches on different land masses.



> Feral is quite a loose term with bees IMO. -Bizzybee


Exactly. I believe "managed" and "unmanaged" are better terms. At least, they're more accurate and descriptive for the purposes of discussion.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> Far too often, folks assume the meaning of “solution to a problem” to mean it is 100 percent effective. This is far from the truth, and in fact, in beekeeping, you do not need 100 percent of anything to have an effective solution.


To me, the best we can hope for is to reduce the frequency of susceptibilities to various diseases and pests in the general population. 

Although nature would take care of this in the absense of human interference, treatments necessary for commercial activity and breeding efforts impede and skew the process to the point where we find it necessary to have some beekeepers specialize in selection and propagation of bees with superior adaptation to pests and disease, while asdditionally encouraging traits that make beekeeping profitable.

Seems to me that identifying and reducing the undesirable traits is essential, since commercially produced stock has such a huge influence on national bee populations in developed countries.

As you point out, thinking in terms of 100% or 0% is often unrealistic and obscures reasonable and achievable solutions. Progress is often made in a series of baby steps, rather than quantum leaps.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Bizzybee said:


> Breeding and genetics can be somewhat influenced by diligent work but still is at the discretion of nature just as they would be in the tree at the corner of your yard.


I disagree with what you're saying Bizzybee. A breeder performs selection
that supersedes nature. That's the crux of breeding. To exert selection
pressure on the framework of the population.

Certainly there is a foundation to work on and boundaries, but once breeding begins, 
there is a departure from Nature as a selection force. Think of some large and small dog breeds 
trying to mate. That's man's breeding, and not Nature. Feral dogs, once they have escaped man's selective 
influence, are all fairly similar in morphology depending on their habitat, as nature, 
via natural selection, favors the most adaptive phenotype.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

The poll that has evolved in this thread that we seem to be calling “research” is IMO really stretching it. It doesn’t consider the varying level of a; beekeepers experience, wintering techniques, types of hives, what size dictates a “small cell”, what size dictates “large cell“ and ,,,more. - Joe

This is the problem with data keeping and studies, what is considered, what controls are in place to make sure the study is objective, etc. Research should be conducted through scientific methodology, not guesswork or the picking of factors that exclude or taint objective results.

Most beekeepers want bees that don't require a lot of treatment, chemical or natural. What is the best way to raise or obtain that stock is under debate.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

gingerbee said:


> Most beekeepers want bees that don't require a lot of treatment, chemical or natural. What is the best way to raise or obtain that stock is under debate.


I think something that could be said here is that we are all breeders of bees. Much of what follows is second nature to some here, but I think some is not well understood by those starting out on selective beekeeping. 

That is: the principles that apply to professional breeders, which Adam speaks about so very clearly, apply at every level. Bees are made from bees; the art of husbandry is about controlling parentage. If you do this well each new generation is, on average, likely to be as good as, and perhaps better than the last. If you do it poorly each new generation is likely to be weaker than the last. 

Breeding for health (that is, for strength and vigour, and against vulnerability to diseases and parasites) is something that in the past has not been widely practiced in either breeder yards or plain apiaries. Changing that, in both places, is what will make the difference. The push toward non-treatment systems of management through selective breeding can occur at both breeder and keeper level.

It is especially important to ensure those individuals requiring treatment are eliminated from the breeding pool - not permitted to be parents. Every time a beekeeper medicates, and thus artificially maintains a colony that would have otherwise failed, and then allows that colony to swarm, otherwise multiplies it, or allows drones to fly, he or she downgrades the local breeding pool. 

All this is true universally. Animal husbandry (and plant husbandry) involves making breeding choices that put heath at the top of the list of desirable features, where 'health' means 'freedom from the need to medicate'. 

This returns us to Gingerbee's point:


gingerbee said:


> Most beekeepers want bees that don't require a lot of treatment, chemical or natural. What is the best way to raise or obtain that stock is under debate.


The foundational answer to take care to do both (preferably in the reverse order). Obtain bees that don't need treatments, and take care of this strong genetic material by being careful about the way new generations are raised. 

Upon this foundation, much discussion of detail can be made - and it will be great to see it happening. But we shouldn't lose sight of what is important and what isn't; what is foundational and what is supplementary detail. 

The biological fact that traits are inherited from parents is the core. Selection of good parents sits next. How to do that comes after. 

Boring though the repetition is, when we explain principles to newcomers, this hierarchy of causes should be explicit. Talking about, i.e. VSH to somebody who doesn't understand inherited traits doesn't make for a coherent picture. 

Mike


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

The biological fact that traits are inherited from parents is the core. 

Yep, and we are ahead of you on the other side of the "pond"
Ernie


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

BEES4U said:


> Yep, and we are ahead of you on the other side of the "pond" Ernie


By a long way. 

Mike


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

All in all, it's pretty much utter vanity in my opinion, that we assume we can propose a concrete, authoritative single answer.

You can call the manipulations and techniques beekeepers implement 'husbandry' and artificial, etc.. as though by wishing that man had the absolute power to shape bee genetic essence is a foregone conclusion.

All we can do is insert our tools and dictate conditions based on our 'reasoned' guesses and hope/expect they will be fruitful.

I beleive in a Creator, you don't have to agree, but where I come from, we are only fooling ourselves to think we have any true 'power' where his other creations are concerned.

Just seems to me just one more example of men playing at being little gods when they can't manage their own lives.

Big Bear


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

bigbearomaha said:


> All in all, it's pretty much utter vanity in my opinion, that we assume we can propose a concrete, authoritative single answer.


Hi Bigbear,

I hope that an assertion of a single answer is not what you took from my post. All beekeeping situations are different, and all propsed solutions to unhealthy bees require 'tuning' from the basic premise: that bees are made from bees, and that traits are inherited from parents.



bigbearomaha said:


> You can call the manipulations and techniques beekeepers implement 'husbandry' and artificial, etc.. as though by wishing that man had the absolute power to shape bee genetic essence is a foregone conclusion.


I think one of the things I would argue is that on average where unhealthy bees are mated unhealthy offspring will result. That is a fundamental part of the biological sciences. It is something that was first observed many thousands of years ago - as witnessed in the Old Testament. It has formed the basis of all plant and animal husbandry ever since. 

If our ideas about bees are to be premised upon the best-established facts of science, and the long-practiced traditions of farmers, then we have to accept the principle of inherited traits. 

From there, the logic by which our interferences disrupt bee health are fairly easily understood. It simply stands to reason that treating poor health and then breeding from the treated stocks will simply tend to make more stock that suffer from poor health. 

This is the basis of the entire breeding effort to raise varroa tolerant bees. 

Mike


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

What you are describing is current behaviors and actions we take in trying to affect bee biology in terms of genetic dispositions is based on past practices, then I would agree.

However, Using past practices no more ensures that our expectations will be 'guaranteed' than by listing options and assigning a coin toss result to determine what we do.

I did not ascribe said 'vanity' to any one person here, more to the notion itself that people can achieve such exactness and control over other living creatures. So please, don't take my opinions personally, I just beleive the idea in general is one that is folly.

There is nothing wrong with basing efforts on observed results of trial and error. That's pretty much what our 'science' boils down to, trial and error and seeing which of our tests result most often in what we call success versus how many end in what we think of as failure.

However, one thing I think most, if not all, beekeepers have concluded is that in the end, despite what our most educated and intellectually thought out reasoning teach us to expect, At any time, the bees, as well as any animals we think we dominate can and will throw us a curveball that defies our intentions. As if to remind us from time to time that many of our experimentations might really be nothing more than happy coincidence.

Ultimately, I agree with you on the statement that ther eis no such thing as one 'right' or 'wrong' answer or way to do things.

The traits we as individual beekeepers want to see 'bred into' our bees will vary from one beekeeper to another in terms of priority. A honey producer wil lwant bees that first and foremost make honey like gangbusters. A conservation beekeeper like myself might want to see as top priority resistance to parasites and 'common' diseases, etc.. as best as could be hoped for anyway.

However, this 'breeding' and steering of genetic behaviors/qualities, pertains to what we humans 'think' is in the best interests of the bees.

All to often we think we are doing something that is 'best' for another living creature and far too often, we end up making things worse because we can't help but to insert our own desires and expectations into the situation.

I'm not saying beekeepers can't or shouldn't make efforts to 'help' bees become what we think is healthier and stronger, we just shouldn't think what we come up with is the last word on the subject.

Big Bear


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Almost a year since I started this thread and the debate goes on. Here's a few misnomers we all have seen:

Certified Organic Honey (can use antibiotics to control AFB????!)
Free Range
Humane Raised
Humane Killed
Survivor Stock
Feral Stock
Made With Organic ingredients
Wild Catch
Natural
Sugar Free
Local
Biodynamic

We come up with a great deal of hype that the buying public hungers for so they can think what they are getting is different and somehow better and what will allow us as the producer to hook our customers. Never mind the research to support any facts it's all about the promotion. Sometimes I suppose a product claim may be better it is, some times. The lack of scientific evidence does not preclude the truth of anecdotal evidence. 

I don't have a problem with claims but it's like seasoned firewood - Lets be prepared to validate our claims in some real and definitive way so we maintain our credibility and sort out the realbees from the BSbees. That's why we come here, to ferret out truth.

By the way, I need to go work on my humane raised, survivor feral stock almost natural (except the plasticell and galvinized coating on the screws) organic, leaning, biodynamic managed nucs for sale later in the season.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

That's why I've come to appreciate those who advertise their queens as "mutts". More definitively, would that make them Heinz 57 Survivor Stock? :lookout:


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

bigbearomaha said:


> What you are describing is current behaviors and actions we take in trying to affect bee biology in terms of genetic dispositions is based on past practices, then I would agree.
> 
> However, Using past practices no more ensures that our expectations will be 'guaranteed' than by listing options and assigning a coin toss result to determine what we do.


Hi Big Bear

I agree there are no guarentees most of the time. But that doesn't mean nothing at all is certain. Let me try to explain what I mean.

The basic idea of science is that you make a hypothesis (If we do x then we expect y to occur as a result) and then, under tightly controlled conditions, you test it. The more it is tested, without being disproven, the stronger the hypothesis becomes. If, as with the notion of inherited traits, millions and millions of tests have been made, and none has denied the hypothesis, then you can be fairly sure that the next time x is done, y will follow. 

For current purposes: the next time a male and a female are mated, the offspring will inherit traits from them.

That is the empirical side, the testing and establishing of the hypothesis. At the same time, in parallel, you make an explanation of why y should unerringly follow x. In this case, you talk about the mechanisms that govern life, of genes, sexual reproduction and so on. You try to make this theoretical explanation as good as possible by taking the things apart and looking closely at the pieces, trying to figure out how they interact. 

Since you struggle to see the parts and interactions well, you have to call this side 'theoretical'. And since life is an extremely complex business, _some_ aspects of biological theory are less than certain. _But some are not_. If, for example, you suggest a mosquito be immersed in a certain strong acid, you can predict it will die. You can give a theoretical explanation for that (that strong acid dissolves insects because...), and you can do it lots of times, and say 'it has happened in every case that we've tried so far'. Together the empirical facts (we have witnessed it happen x number of times, and _never_ witnessed a counterexample) and the theory (strong acid dissolves all insects because...) amount to a strong case for saying: _the next time _you put a mosquito in stong acid, it will dissolve. 

In the case of inherited traits 'all' we have is a 'theory' and some empirical evidence. But it is a very very good theory, and the evidence is extraordinarily extensive. In what must be hundreds of millions of observations made under controlled conditions, it has held. At the same time the mechanisms are very well understood. 

That is not to say it is precise in every aspect. For example, the offspring of two parents will inherit genes and the traits they convey from each parent at random. Again, the parents may contribute genes that they themselves do not use. And it is not easy to control mating in bees. 

Here you are quite right - there are no guarentees - allthough there are often probabilities. (And here we must leave science and do art.)

But, despite these uncertainties, the underlying biology tells us that whenever offspring are made their traits will be inherited from their parents.

These facts, together with the similarly well demonstrated fact of natural selection - that stronger individuals tend to reproduce more often than weaker ones - supply the basic workings of nature that keep populations healthy in the face of contant attack from parasites and diseases. 

When we meddle by disrupting the natural system populations weaken - because we have taken away their defence mechanism. Nothing does that quite like treating weak individuals and then allowing them to reproduce. When done systematically, the result, as predicted by theory and witnessed by countless experiments and field trials, is increasing weakness and vulnerability. 

So now I disagree with the following:



bigbearomaha said:


> Ultimately, I agree with you on the statement that ther eis no such thing as one 'right' or 'wrong' answer or way to do things.


It can safely be said, with the whole weight of biology: failing to select for the fitter to make the new generations will _always_ lead to a weakening population. Just as sharks need to swim in order to avoid sinking, populations need to select in order to stay strong. If you don't let nature do it, you must do it. This is the art of husbandry, practiced for tens of thousands of years. As the medievals put it 'put best to best'. Farmers who thought they could do otherwise tended not to last long.

If you throw a pint of petrol in a small closed hive the bees _will_ die. Its not heads or tails. If you don't select, and you prevent them (or nature) from selecting, they _will_ weaken. Its not heads or tails. The two statements are factually equal.

Where we go from there, in the face of the many things we cannot control, is the necessary _art_ of beekeeping. But we should hesitate before challenging the basic _science_. Its just too good. The need to select is scientifically demonstrable, and the effects are treatments are similarly scientifically predictable. 

On that basis, the remaining uncertainties mean we have to also treat beekeeping as an art. 

I hope you'll see that there are things we agree on in there, and that all we are doing is sifting them out. I think and hope we'll soon find there is little need to disagree. 

Mike


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Breeding bees for desired traits is all fine and good, but how is that going to combat all the new pests and diseases brought about by globalization? I think it would be interesting to have a list of all the known diseases and pests that we could possibly inherit in the US including the potential of cross species pests (e.g. Nosema c) and then consider the time scale differences between introduction of a new disease and generation of a resistant bee. I suggest that the best bees are the ones not exposed to new threats. So, IMHO, the best way to keep our bees healthy is isolationism. The same could be said about human diseases, but we are committed to this path and it is only a matter of time before we experience a pandemic like humans have never seen before. As a molecular biologist I can see an extra option but transgenic bee would be unpopular enough in the beginning to prevent investors from supporting such an endeavor, and it is likely that the benefits would be short lived. I can only imagine, in the long term, transgenesis of bees would parallel the experience of plants where the mono-cultural practices of corporate Ag have reduced the gene pool of some plants even further.
Personally, I don't think stock improvement has any chance of keeping up with the global introduction of new diseases.

Try to breed against this -
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/206326/10_giant_japanese_hornets_vs_10_000_honey_bees/


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

HVH said:


> Breeding bees for desired traits is all fine and good, but how is that going to combat all the new pests and diseases brought about by globalization?


Selecting for those that do best against pests and diseases - including newly introduced ones - is the simple and natural way to go. It has taken only 10 years or so for US feral bees to adapt to varroa, and there is reason to hope that similar timescale might be reasonable against most pests and diseases. Bees have been adapting to new diseases for millions of years, and, we are learning, are very capable of doing so rapidly. In this they are no different to most species. New predators often result in rapid depopulation, followed by almost as rapid repopulation, and the refined genes flourish. Certainly there is no alternative. Treatments are not just a dead end - they positively worsen matters.



HVH said:


> I suggest that the best bees are the ones not exposed to new threats. So, IMHO, the best way to keep our bees healthy is isolationism.


While I share your dislike of movement, which can only bring new problems, I disagree to an extent with your conclusions. An example: the Australian bees currently imported into the US in great numbers have no resistance to varroa. As soon as they meet it, they start to keel over immediately. Much much worse, while alive (kept alive by treatments) they send their vulnerable genetic material into the local populations, tending to make the new generations similarly vulnerable! This means death to many local populations that might be making good progress on adapting to varroa - might even be well adapted. 

So Australian bees are not at all the best bees to have. Those bees well adapted to the local environment, and with resistance to any problem organisms they are likely to encounter are far better.



HVH said:


> I can only imagine, in the long term, transgenesis of bees would parallel the experience of plants where the mono-cultural practices of corporate Ag have reduced the gene pool of some plants even further.


It seems to me to be likely that some people are angling this way, and I agree it is extremely dangerous. Biodiversity is incredibly important, and should be systematically maintained and improved.



HVH said:


> Personally, I don't think stock improvement has any chance of keeping up with the global introduction of new diseases.


Adaptation is nature's first line of defence, and the backstop. Interfere with that and you can only make matters worse. I disagree with your position; I think the results that have been coming in for some time from the breeding and ongoing selection methods disprove it.

Any apiary that attends carefully to genetic health will improve (from what for many is a very low ebb). The future can be bright. Any that doesn't is caught in a downward spiral of weakening stock. 

Mike


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

mike bispham said:


> It has taken only 10 years or so for US feral bees to adapt to varroa


hrm... 98% of feral bees have been wiped out, and it's been 20 years since varroa made their way into the U.S., so three things strike me about that... #1 It's been twice as long already. #2 Who wants to spend that many years losing bees, who can afford to? #3 Their numbers seem to indicate that they haven't YET adapted to varroa.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

Time frames and patience, or lack thereof.

Natural Selection does indeed work to help insects and animals overcome or adapt or be eliminated for lack of doing so.

However, people claiming x amount of time has gone by (20 years, for example, which to nature and this earth isn't even the blink of an eye) and trying to declare that natural selection "isn't working" i don't think is correct. perhaps it is working, just not on a time scale for you or me in our current lifetime.

This is an example of more of that human vanity I mentioned. Just because we are impatient for things to happen in our brief lifespans, doesn't mean it isn't happening, just we don't see it as happening fast enough.

As a matter of fact, natural selection has already been seen to work, which is why one of the reasons for popularity of the 'russian' breed of bees is popular because they have been living a VERY long time with varroa, people beleive these bees have shown adaptation to mites.

I'm not here to be disagreeable, although I am to an extent disagreeing with some items in this discussion. 

I am not against genetic adaption per se because it is happening whether any of us wants it or not. Genetic adaption occurs to all living creatures, intentionally or as a matter of consequence.

My concern is that there are some people who would insist that the human driven and intent of controlling the process of adaptation is the 'best' or 'right' way to do do things.

This is why I don't use terms like identifying what my management style is as simply 'natural' The very fact that I am managing to any extent beyond what they would choose or do is not 'natural' per se. I like to use the term 'facilitated' because of my objective to use what they do on their own 'naturally' and make only what I think and hope are the least intrusive yet effective manipulations to 'prop up, expedite and otherwise assist the bees in their adaptations and building sustaining behaviors.

To me, there are manners in which humans interject themselves into the lives of other living creatures like honey bees. 'Dictatorial' which is people thinking they control every thing the bees do, from where and what they live in, to how and how much honey they produce to attempting to control their health and genetic/biological reactions to pests and illness.

or 'Facilitation' which as I mentioned above, isn't forcefully trying to make the bees adapt to our intents and methods as much as trying to implement methods and effect changes based on how they act and what they do when left to their own practice.

I am once again using a lot of words to simply say,

When people attempt to force change in creatures like bees, it is influenced by our vanity to think we have such power and to make it happen when we want it to happen.

If we instead just approach things from a 'natural selection' POV, and try to gently assist the the process and let nature do what it does best, in the long run, the bees and us will end up in a better spot.

As for that, I will not be posting to this thread again. Not because I don't enjoy the discussion, but because I think I have said anything that really mattered and am just being repetitive now.

Thanks for the discourse and above all else, let's enjoy the bees.

Big Bear


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

SgtMaj said:


> hrm... 98% of feral bees have been wiped out, and it's been 20 years since varroa made their way into the U.S., so three things strike me about that... #1 It's been twice as long already. #2 Who wants to spend that many years losing bees, who can afford to? #3 Their numbers seem to indicate that they haven't YET adapted to varroa.


But feral bees have come back in many areas. For example, Michael Bush is a very successful beekeeper and from what I have read of his posts and website, he uses mostly feral bees from his local area. They have the genetics to deal with Varroa. I see a lot of ferals around me and so do many others. 

The reason ferals have not returned in some areas is because they have not developed an adaptation to Varroa. And the reason they have not adapted is because their genetics come from bees that are being treated for Varroa. When drones from hives that are treated and do not have resistance mate with feral queens, the feral colonies lose their genetic ability to resist Varroa. Swarms from treated hives have the same effect. Those genetics cannot survive in the wild. 

If all beekeepers stopped treating, within a few years ferals would be as numerous as they were 20 years ago before Varroa arrived.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

HVH....case in point.....my wife ran off an article for me to read titled "Importation of non-native bumble bees into North America: Potential Consequences of Using Bombus terrestris and Other Non-Native Bumble Bees for Greenhouse Crop Pollination in Canada, Mexico and the United States".

What new parasites, bacteria and viruses are these non-native species going to introduce into the U.S.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

SgtMaj said:


> hrm... 98% of feral bees have been wiped out, and it's been 20 years since varroa made their way into the U.S. ...


Can you tell me where you get that figure?



SgtMaj said:


> ... so three things strike me about that... #1 It's been twice as long already. #2 Who wants to spend that many years losing bees, who can afford to? #3 Their numbers seem to indicate that they haven't YET adapted to varroa.


#1 needs justifying with references before you can draw any conclusions from it. It doesn't sit well with my understanding

#2 Of course nobody would... Bear in mind the major part of my argument is that the systematic large scale treatments and importation of non-resistant bees has continually frustrated adaptation - the more so wherever the proportion of treated and non-resistant colonies is greater than wild colonies. Anywhere there is a preponderance of treating keepers the breeding population _cannot_ adapt, and the feral population is suppressed. 

#3 Again, you have built on the unjustified #1. If you'd like to substantiate that figure we might be able to go forward. 

Mike


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

I have been reading most of the threads in this forum, and man have I ever been dazzled by brillance, and also equally baffled by b.s.. I'm not complaining. While I am not as literally gifted as some here, I still learned. That is my intent here instead of wasting time. NOW I have a question. While I agree that adaption by any speicies takes a very long and necessary road, i think that I will use information that has been researched by the USDA. No matter how flawed it may be it may be the most unbiased that we have available. My point is that they spent several years developing the Russian bees that are now available. I know that they are not perfect and in most all apiaries they will become mutts. But they will still be Russian mutts!! If you requeen every year with (almost) pure Russian queens that has to help. I see this as the best, almost natural resistance we have available I am interested in any and all responses.


----------



## CentralPAguy (Feb 8, 2009)

bigbearomaha said:


> When people attempt to force change in creatures like bees, it is influenced by our vanity to think we have such power and to make it happen when we want it to happen.
> 
> If we instead just approach things from a 'natural selection' POV, and try to gently assist the the process and let nature do what it does best, in the long run, the bees and us will end up in a better spot.


BigBear,

I like to think of ourselves of a farmer of bees and I do believe that we have the power to direct the bee into a particular genetic path such as mite resistancy, honey production, gentleness, pollination. 

I think of the Minnesota Hygenic VHS (Varroa Hygiene Sensitive) Queens. There was an interesting article in Bee Journal that showed how three large Beeks in Minnesota were able to get the Hygenic quality bred into the Bee itself by saturating the area with Drones from these queens. It took them 6 years to get this trait bred into their bee. I don't know whether they were russian or not.

It would be interesting to find out that someone has created a genetic map of the various types of bees. We all want to get to the point where we don't use any type of treatment for our bees. 

I know that there are others who would rebel at what I am going to say. We can not let the bee determine its own natural selection as we (human race) would suffer if we lost most of our bees waiting for the survivors to colonize and spread. 

I liken it to the medical manipulations that we have done for ourselves where we have become healthier than we would have become thru natural selection. Think of what life might be like if we didn't have vaccinations/antibiotics, to fight Polio, Smallpox, Diptheria, and Tuberculosis.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

bigbearomaha said:


> I am once again using a lot of words to simply say,
> 
> When people attempt to force change in creatures like bees, it is influenced by our vanity to think we have such power and to make it happen when we want it to happen.
> 
> If we instead just approach things from a 'natural selection' POV, and try to gently assist the the process and let nature do what it does best, in the long run, the bees and us will end up in a better spot.


I'm sure I'm guilt of the same offence of using too many words. It occurred to me after I posted earlier that what I was trying to say was something Marla Spivak has said - that beekeeping is both an science and an art. I guess my view is that having a good grip on the core science allows you to plan well. A lot of people I think do exactly the wrong thing without realising it, because they miss that core science. But from there on you are quite right - the rest is just trying, and knowing sometimes you'll feel like you're going backward.

Mike


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

This is a very interesting and important topic but I think it is only looking at half of the genetics. I am not convinced when I read an article about resistant bees that the mites themselves aren't actually the ones that have changed. I remember when varroa was the new kid on the disease block and authors were describing bee characteristics relative to the mites without taking varroa variability into account. Then years later, low and behold, different strains of varroa were discovered and the virulence and pathogenicity varied greatly. So when one discusses feral populations coming back on the scene, lets not forget that the mite cannot thrive if it kills the host. With the population doubling time for mites, it is likely that Varroa is adapting much faster than bees. IMHO what we are witnessing is more of an equilibration from the mites and less from the bees. 
If man can breed a more successful bee then nature will be breeding a more successful mite. Go ahead and place your bets. Then we can breed for resistance to picornaviruses, N. ceranae, AFB, SHB, tracheal mites, and maybe some new stuff jumping off imported bumble bees.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

Valleyman,

I'm not an expert by any means but from what I have read in Bee Culture, American Bee Journal & Glen Apiaries web site: VSH, New World Carniolian and Minnesota Hygenics have more or less the same resistance as Russians do to Varroa. Also, local strains can be just as resistant. Marla Spivak, who developed the Minn Hygenics strain, is advocating & teaching courses on beekeepers developing their own local strains so that there is more genetic diversity. So, yes, Russians are great, but others are also.


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

heaflaw 
You and I are on the same page. Read #69. But as I said about the USDA hopefully being unbiased was one consideration. #2 The Russians have a natural resitance to the mites, developed thru centurys of developing it, and #3 and the most important to me is I have Russian breeders closer to me and I am going to drive to buy some nucs. The USDA developed the now Russians from the strongest, and best of the best


----------



## NasalSponge (Jul 22, 2008)

Looks like maybe we did have some native honeybees.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45857/title/Fossil_shows_first_all-American_honeybee


----------



## giant pumpkin peep (Mar 14, 2009)

Valleyman...Yes russians have natrual resistance to varroa. But russians arn't the only answer all of our to our problems, Would it be a good idea to have them in a queen rearing yard in in some sorta breeding program? Yes. But I don't think if we all requeen our hives our hives with russians it will solve all of our problems. I don't beleive this is the best or only way. But remember 5 beeks equals 7 opionions.


[QU OTE] If you requeen every year with (almost) pure Russian queens that has to help. I see this as the best, almost natural resistance we have available I am interested in any and all responses. [/QUOTE]


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

Does anyone know when the Russian bee became mite resistant? My under standing is the Bee was imported to the Primorsky region in the mid 1800's but I can't fine what year the mite made the jump from Cerana to Mellifera or how many years from that time to resistance.
Anybody Know?




> Evidence from A. mellifera in far-eastern Russia, Primorsky (P) originating from honey bees
> imported in the mid 1800’s, suggested that many colonies were resistant to V. destructor.


http://www.culturaapicola.com.ar/apuntes/revistaselectronicas/apidologie/32-4/rinderer.pdf


----------



## longrangedog (Jun 24, 2007)

BEE CULTURE magazine June 2009 issue: "The most effective method to combat Varroa mites is to use honey bees that are resistent to Varroa mites. They exist. You can buy them. You can make them. They are Russians. They are the survivors. They are hygenic. They are better than the rest. If these bees aren't in your colonies, on your list to buy, on the way to your colonies today...then you are on the list of those who are on the way out. That we continue to pour poison into our boxes when we could be pulling pure and perfect honey out of them instead is amazing. It boggles the mind that this industry hasn't adopted these bees yet." Kim Flottum, editor

'Nuff said. Time to get on board.


----------



## giant pumpkin peep (Mar 14, 2009)

Don't get me wrong, I think russians are good and are part of the soulution, but they arn't a silver bullet. I want to raise queens in 2011...I will make sure I have some russian mutts in my nucs I am going to overwinter so I can have more diverse genetics...Probly get some carnis, some buckfast (from canada) Good ole italian, and some survivor stock that been proven already.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Peep - I think the stock you list, the concept behind it and your methodology are on point. This is what we have used over the past 15 years, rotating through good breeders every 3 years, and our stock has been great. Bulletproof is a myth, consistently members here have asked those claiming to have bulletproof bees to put up stock for testing and consistently they don't. Not to prove them wrong but to hopefully prove them right. Imagine someone has disease and varroa proof stock , the answer to all our woes, and they aren't willing to share it. That's what actually spurned this thread.


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

G.P.P & JOEL
Let me first apoligize because i'm going to argue with you. First Peep what you are doing might work for you. but it is still experimental from my stand point. I wholly agree with the diversity that you seek and I hope I can find some in the Russians Themselves. Differient lineages. Once again the USDA from 1994 until 2000 tested several different lines of the Russians before releasing them to the now members of the Russian Breeders Association. They have strict rules and testing for purity before they can sell them as Russians. They receive new genetics each year to work with. They buy their breeder queens from the USDA at about 1/10 of their true worth or expense. I beleive I like those odds better than some individuals experiment. I agree that there other bees out there that has been developed over time that may be just as good (ie: Mn. hygenic, VP queens) but they are not as proven from my view as are the Russians. And are not as available to me as are the Russians. There is a lot of info out there on the research and development. I can't remember where I read it now but it impressed me as you can tell. 

JOEL I know that they are not bulletproof. But like I tell my wife when I want make her mad. I'm not perfect just good. So are the Russians.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

There is a great article in July 09 American Bee Journal by Stu Jacobson discussing and comparing VSH, Minn Hyg, New World Carniolians and Russians. They all get good marks. And don't we need much more genetic diversity? And don't we also need genetics from the individual smalltimers who have bred their own Italians to be Varroa resistant?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Valleyman, I'm not pointing out, you weren't even a member when this feral/survivor stock conversation started. If you read through some of the threads by the people who have varroa proof, AFB Proof bees you'll see that how this debate started was trying to get a baseline to establish a basic criteria for collecting and reporting some meaningful Data for beesource users in a time of challenging beekeeping. If you have these bulletproof bees please share the genetics with the rest of us. Many of us, as can clearly be read in the threads, were tired of being lectured to. The efforrt included coming up with standards for Feral or survivor stock, finding out who had what, what was working and then looking at some real research to see if maybe someone did have something special. Cornell would be a definate possiblity, I know some folks there, I helped get the soft money to restart Dyce back in 1994 or 5 or whenever it was. Joe Calderone and I spoke after a lecture we gave at a local college on CCD a couple of years back and He is always interested in focused stock research. One of our former members who is an Ivy League alumni offered to do some stock research, has the ability and money and I'm pretty sure a couple of source members here offered to put up some dough. Unfortunately the biggest claims offered the least participation. That pretty much said it all.

We have a great deal of resource people here and I think we do, even though threads get scattered, get to the heart of beekeeping issues. 

Beekeeping is tough business these days, nothing like 20 years ago. For someone to be making amazing claims about bees and processes that might help 1000's of beekeepers to fall hush when the light got turned on spoke volumes.

IMO You guys are on the right track and seem willing to share what you have and know with the rest of us, that's what counts.


----------



## giant pumpkin peep (Mar 14, 2009)

Valleyman...I am not arguing with where debating.   I thank any beek who tries something different. I might not agree with that course of action but your trying. I got stuck sitting next to a beek in the bee meeting who had a squeeky voice and insisting she couldn't do anything. She was exited about the mums blooming. Anyhoo she lost her one hive three years in a row and we talked bees and I sorta felt bad for her. Anyway on the way home I thought gee...Maybe this person had a hive die and didn't do anything different. 

Next year I am gonna have some fun with nucs. Gonna overwinter some single polystyrene nucs. Take a frame of brood in july and add a queen. Also gonna run one single deep hive and make two single nucs at some point then build up to double nucs. If it works great, and switch half my hives to that format. If not I have a few extra nuc boxes for swarm traps. I am 14 and I love this stuff. Experimenting and seeing what I can do.

I wish you luck valleyman and all to other beek

-chris


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Peep, You'll be happy and suprised with the outcome of 5 frames in polystyrene in your neck of the woods !


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Joel said:


> Peep - I think the stock you list, the concept behind it and your methodology are on point. This is what we have used over the past 15 years, rotating through good breeders every 3 years, and our stock has been great. Bulletproof is a myth, consistently members here have asked those claiming to have bulletproof bees to put up stock for testing and consistently they don't. Not to prove them wrong but to hopefully prove them right. Imagine someone has disease and varroa proof stock , the answer to all our woes, and they aren't willing to share it. That's what actually spurned this thread.


'no stock is bulletproof...' is simply fact, and will remain, always.

There are two main reasons. They are related, and overlap, but we can treat them separately for the sake of discussion. 

1 Each new genaration is downgraded by a) drones flying from some treated yard b) the duff new individuals (queens) that arise naturally even in the very same stock.

2 Beekeepers with good stock are failing to maintain their populations in the face of this downgrading by identifying the criteria by which to select, and actively and systematically selecting - eliminating poor queens and multiplying from the best. Worse, much much worse, some are actually treating and then allowing the individuals that reqired treatment to contribute to the next generation. Pure poison

Sharks have to swim to stop sinking. Bees have to select/be selected to stay healthy. You can't just buy good queens and think your problems are over.

(or, see Joel above: you can, but you need to keep buying in new queens)

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

giant pumpkin peep said:


> Anyhoo she lost her one hive three years in a row and we talked bees and I sorta felt bad for her. Anyway on the way home I thought gee...Maybe this person had a hive die and didn't do anything different.
> -chris


Something we haven't tallked about yet - generally speaking, it is absolutely natural and indeed necessary to lose a small proportion of colonies each year. That is part of the process of population health maintenance.

The impulse to keep alive everything that moves is a big part of the problem. No better way to get weak new generations.

Mike


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

JOEL 
Let me be the first to say and admit that after months of research and studying I have just barely begun to learn. I acknowledge that there were other, and in my opinion a lot of proven bees from other resources. But I am tired of spending money on the robbing, dying, and mite vulnerable Italians that I have had thus far. My best hive is a wild swarm that I caught. It even has several small solid black bees in it. Please understand that what I'm saying is that the most logical bees for me are, because of the research and development BUT MOST OF ALL THEIR AVAILABILITY to me, are the Russians. That being said, no matter what works or survives today probably won't 20 years from now. Man is his own worst enemy, and bees, because look at some history. Just to name a few,English Sparrows, Starlings, Johnsongrass, Canadian nodding thistles, all kind of bee diseases and natural enemys that weren't here before. I understand that in the everglades there are several species that are spreading quickly. Including Python snakes. I'm not smart enough to know the answers, but I am smart enough to know that we will continue out of ignorance to bring more problems on ourselves. Sorry to get off topic but I am pointing out that what genetics of bees that work today almost for sure will face future problems. So I am thankful for everyone that works to improve genetics. And I thank God that I found beesource!!
Brent Cook


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Hi Valleyman,



valleyman said:


> ... no matter what works or survives today probably won't 20 years from now.


It never will, never would. 

Bee predators (meaning for our purposes parasites and diseases) constantly adapt to take better advantage. So the very best bees around now will be out of date in just a few years. Just like anti-virus software, bee genetics have to update _constantly_ in order to remain viable in a constantly changing environment. 

There are no 'best bees' - just 'up to date' bees. The Russian are up to date - but they fall back in a single generation if exposed to weak stock. The same is true of any specially bred stock.

Good survivors are similarly up to date. They too fall back just as quickly.

The trick is to eliminate the weaker constantly. That means, more than anything, stopping treatments. Helping the individual effectively poisons the next generation. 

Mike


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

My wife is a human genetisist and she says that bee genetics are too complicated even for her when you factor in parthenogenisis and the ability of the queen to select the drone father of each egg laid.[/QUOTE]

If any of you guys who know are still viewing this thread: Does this mean that the queen can choose, out all the sperm in her body, which drone's sperm to use for each individual egg laid? In what instance does she do this? If so, that is absolutely amazing.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

*Re: I just don't know if it is or can be done in the long term and an other than a ve*



peggjam said:


> I didn't treat anything for 3 full years, and then got hammered by nosema....is it possible to go without treating? I think so, but, you would need to be isolated from most commercial beekeepers and definitly amish beekeepers to do so.
> 
> I haven't treated for 5 years with 15-20 hives. I don't know if it's because I have bees that have the genetics to deal with varroa and brood diseases or if it's isolation. I am holding my breath that Nosema or something else doesn't suddenly hit mine. It is great to not spend the time & money with treatments.
> 
> How can I find out what I really have?


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

I think there is a tendency to ascribe a bit too much power to natural selection and man's ability to direct it. I don't think it would be generally wise to deliberately chose one's weakest stock to breed from but I suspect people would be surprised at the results. 
There are so many factors that we never have a complete picture of the selective pressure being applied. We have multiple strains of Varroa and it is likely that they are also affected by disease. Varroa destructor seems more pathogenic than other strains, but is that because it is resistant to IAPV or some other pathogen and therefore more robust? Are the mites infecting our feral populations more innocuous than they were when they were introduced into this country or are the bees resistant? Do Russians carry a varroa pathogen that weakens the mite? Is it possible to breed queens that are resistant to multiple viruses when the virus reproduces and mutates much faster than the bee? Is it possible that we might breed for hygienic behavior that will make bees more susceptible to brood carried diseases in the future? 
Some of the above may sound silly, but it is only meant to illustrate that there are many more considerations than just a single variable under our control. Perhaps the idea of breeding away from disease is appealing because it seems more natural than applying poisons and seems to fit mother natures schemes better. Besides, nature has evolved to deal with this type of threat before and succeeded right? If one considers the history of extinctions and takes into account our newly acquired ability to transport new diseases with "next day air" I am not sure if nature has experienced this kind of threat before. By the time we get bees that survive well against varroa, we will have imported new threats. Add to the mix (not meant to impugn anyone here) the practice of sending bees from all over the country to the bee Sodom of the US, California Almonds, and we are opening our arms to the coming plague. This may sound overly pessimistic, but consider for a moment the explosion of MRSA, Herpes, Hepatitis, TB, and HIV etc., among humans. Many of the drug resistant strains are imports and God help anyone that needs to stay in a hospital for very long.
So what can we do? Keep breeding the best and cross your fingers.


----------



## Michael Johnston (Nov 25, 2007)

I find this discussion interesting but I must admit that I haven't read every post yet. I think that there is a tendency to underestimate the honeybee's ability to evolve to meet new threats. We get a new generation every year and each queen mates with up to 20 drones. Bee breeding can go a lot faster than any other kind of animal breeding. Even with plants, you're only just crossing one male with one female. With the honey bee, we're crossing 20 males with one female each generation. I am of the opinion that we can breed bees to be resistant to most anything in a relatively short period of time.


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

Sorry I wish I could share your optimism but I don't! There are too many possibilities of problems ahead.


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

This brings to mind a science-fiction story line:

The story has an antagonist character(s) who is desperately trying to extort the secret to perfect health, extremely long life, and rapid healing of any wound from the native population of a land where all the inhabitants share these characteristics. Of course, there really isn't any secret, the reason these people are so robust is simply because of the natural and unnatural selection pressures put on their ancestors. They are simply the survivors of the history of their race.
---

For my mind, the bees we have today are stronger and more resilient than their ancestors. With or without medications, at least _Apis mellifera_ is still with us today. If this weren't true, it would likely be that honey bees would be an endangered or even extinct species.

Of course catastrophy can be right around the corner.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Well said Joseph! What ever we breed mother nature is breeding the control and it will always be - right around the corner.


----------



## hoodswoods (May 15, 2009)

Discounting the 2, 3, 4+ million years of the human existence/influence on all of genetics is not logical. What we have done, are doing and trying to stop or start is just who we are. There are as many natural selections as there are genetically altered. I'm afraid that it is going to take a few more generations to figure out who's right and then we will act accordingly.

We will, most likely, be the solution, or the demise - (you go, big brain), but we certainly do have the reality of catastrophy right over the next horizon (not necessarily in geologic terms) and then we possibly won't survive to know... and then what will have been the decider? - if bees still fly after we're gone, did we do the right thing, or did we do nothing? (I hear twilight-zone music).


----------



## Claressa (Oct 1, 2009)

I just found this thread and (as a geneticist) thought I should introduce this newfangled concept of epigenetics. Here's a link from wikipedia. I know it's only wiki, but as of today it was pretty accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

The gist of this is you may have the best bred queen in the world, but if she is starved, too warm, or otherwise traumatized at a crucial developmental period she (and/or her offspring) can display a vastly different phenotype for generations to come. Thus, I think effective management is crucial to success in the hive. You can't lay this all on genetics, because despite having sequenced the entire genome, we're still far from building a honeybee. 

Don't get me wrong. I am all for selective breeding in agriculture/animal husbandry. We'd still be spear-toting, cave-painters if we hadn't figured out that trick. My only qualm is that we tend not to know when to leave well enough alone. A mild example is what we have done to corn, making it almost 300X sweeter than what Native Americans produced. An extreme example are turkeys with breasts so large that they can only reproduce through artificial insemination. I just hope there is a strong ethical committee overseeing it all. We can do much good to the honeybee, but also much harm.

By the way Joel, I admit that I am only an egg in this beekeeping endeavor. In my defense, I don't have hobbies, just different levels of OCD so I did a year's worth of research before I started last spring with 2 hives. I don't treat with anything unless you count powdered sugar shakes and wintergreen oil. And I let them build whatever sized cell they liked from strips of small foundation. I lost one hive to the Atlanta floods this fall (we were in a drought for the previous 7 years, how could I possibly anticipate that!!!) but the other one is still good as of last week. I try to chime in only on the parts where I feel I have some underlying understanding due to my background in molecular genetics. I readily admit I'm clueless elsewhere such as "Can I expect a swarm this year?"

Hmmm, excuse me. Gotta start a new thread!


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Claressa said:


> By the way Joel, I admit that I am only an egg in this beekeeping endeavor. In my defense, I don't have hobbies, just different levels of OCD so I did a year's worth of research before I started last spring with 2 hives. I don't treat with anything unless you count powdered sugar shakes and wintergreen oil. And I let them build whatever sized cell they liked from strips of small foundation. I lost one hive to the Atlanta floods this fall (we were in a drought for the previous 7 years, how could I possibly anticipate that!!!) but the other one is still good as of last week. I try to chime in only on the parts where I feel I have some underlying understanding due to my background in molecular genetics. I readily admit I'm clueless elsewhere such as "Can I expect a swarm this year?"
> 
> Hmmm, excuse me. Gotta start a new thread!


1st off Claressa (2nd time i've spelled it right  ) get with the program, the correct term for Atlanta Flood losses is Atlanta Colony Flood Collapse disorder or ATFCD. Please don't try this acronym around the kids!

If your beekeeping is like your posts you're destin to be a master beekeeper because this stuff is blowing me away! I find I can't have my black light on and read one of your posts at the same time lest my head may explode! I at least have to have a drape over my flourescent wolf poster.

Keep us up on your ideas and we'll help you along with hour beekeeping! Good stuff!


----------



## Claressa (Oct 1, 2009)

Joel, you are officially absolved of having ever misspelled my name. You're a dear, let's never fight again! 

Most everyone on this thread has some very good points to make. I just felt the need to caution that many people seem to think knowing the sequence of A's, C's, G's, and T's is all there is to understanding an organism. It's so very much more than that!

That being said, I hope all of y'all experienced beeks *do* check out my thread on swarming. I'm especially interested to hear what you have to say, Joel.


----------

