# Flooding DCAs



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Studies over the years show that queens will usually fly between 3/4 and 1 1/2 miles to a drone congregation area to mate. The way most queen breeders do this is to go out about 2 miles from their mating yard and set up several apiaries to produce drones. The result is that the mating area is saturated with drones of the desired genetics.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Thanks fusion power. Is there a certain direction (N,E,S,W) that the drone builders need to be in correspondence with the location of the mating yard? Is it reasonable to believe that there is only one DCA within the 3/4 to 1.5 mile mating radius? I guess I'm asking how does one make certain that the drone population you are raising will end up where it needs to be?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I read somewhere that DCA's form about 1 per square mile except in plains areas where they usually form around a water feature such as a tree lined stream. One unusual one I know of is a very large and tall sign in a town in Georgia. The drones use the sign as an orientation point. Several hundred dead drones fall in the parking lot under the sign over the course of summer. I do not know of any particular orientation direction, rather, it seems the drones go to a unique landscape feature. If you want to find a DCA, get a helium balloon and tether a queen to the balloon. Use a fishing rod and reel to guide the balloon around about 50 feet up until you find a DCA.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Very interesting stuff, for sure. I am fascinated by this aspect of mating behavior. Thanks for the info. I am going to try the balloon trick someday around this area just for fun. It seems though, in terms of genetic selection, there is no cut and dry method to ensure you're getting the drones where you need them with attempting to flood DCAs. Too many variables. I understand it's the best attempt outside of an II scenario, but it's probably not nearly as fool proof as a lot of breeders make it out to be through advertisement. How does one go about keeping diversity if it is successful, the sole function of DCAs? Keep bringing in different lines? Selection and diversity will continually be at odds with one another. We want to maintain the traits we like, but having all your eggs in one basket as it were, could prove fatal for sustainability.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Diversity would be achieved through open mating and a large genetic pool. Breeding is basically the opposite. Selecting for specific traits. and there is a trade off to gain them. You have to accept the bad with the good. Being as sensitive to inbreeding as bees are I don't think they an actually effectively be bred. some degree of inbreeding is necessary in order to bring out the specific traits desired. The proof that they have not been so far is that there are no "Breeds" of bees. Breeding if it where successful would produce new breeds eventually. As for saturation of DCA's I see it at best as attempting to clear up muddy water by pouring clear water in it. You have to pour in a whole lot of water to make any headway. Even then, once it looks clear. how ready will you be to drink it? There are no certainty's but more of an increase of the odds toward your chosen genetics. All other drones from other sources have equal chance of mating. but your drones will have a slightly better chance than all of those others. eventually and after many many mating this would make a big difference in your chosen genetics being foremost in the area. This part is a certainty but it also requires repetition. many thousands of them. it is basically the law of averages. improve the average of a select individual and it will overtime separate largely from the pack.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

Yes with diversity, there will be more failures, but also more interesting results. How are failures made up for? More numbers. That said, if more keepers made their own increase, and did some selection, the range of outcomes would narrow with local adaptation. There is probably an optimal rate of genetic inflow from the outside that can bring new genetic tools without disrupting local genetics. 

This year I will have a much larger number of started nucs, some mated late with the last queen cells to be placed this saturday. There will be a day of reckoning later this summer to remove obviously inferior queens and combine with more successful. Overall, the nucs will be much stronger going into winter.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Daniel Y said:


> You have to pour in a whole lot of water to make any headway. Even then, once it looks clear. how ready will you be to drink it?


This is a good analogy, and is relative to how huge a population it would take to achieve the goal in most cases. It all depends on how large the "pool" is I suppose. That would be the first step to gauge what it would take for success.



Daniel Y said:


> but it also requires repetition. many thousands of them.


Is this possible for someone on the hobbyist level to achieve? I'm guessing it could be, but would take an exponentially longer time for the traits you are trying to impart to show than when compared to a huge breeder, obviously. Again, how large is the pool in the water analogy.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

lharder said:


> Yes with diversity, there will be more failures, but also more interesting results. How are failures made up for? More numbers. That said, if more keepers made their own increase, and did some selection, the range of outcomes would narrow with local adaptation. There is probably an optimal rate of genetic inflow from the outside that can bring new genetic tools without disrupting local genetics.


This is the balance I am going to shoot for. I have been primarily working with local stock, and bringing in the occasional outside queen. This is my model on a micro-scale, and hoping to expand it considerably over the years.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Nordak said:


> This is a good analogy, and is relative to how huge a population it would take to achieve the goal in most cases. It all depends on how large the "pool" is I suppose. That would be the first step to gauge what it would take for success.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this possible for someone on the hobbyist level to achieve? I'm guessing it could be, but would take an exponentially longer time for the traits you are trying to impart to show than when compared to a huge breeder, obviously. Again, how large is the pool in the water analogy.


The dirty water analogy was first explained to me as a glass of water. so in that case the pool would be relatively tiny. such as an average apiary in comparison to those bees in the environment overall. 

So lets say a beekeeper has two hives. He wants to influence the drone population in his are. He is only concerned with the drones within the mating range of his apiary for his queens. now that gets a bit tricky because range fro drones is different than for queens. He intentionally produces thousands of drones with his chosen genetics increasing the chance any queen in the area will mate with those drones. so lets say every queen produced int eh area mates 20 times. But because of this flooding of the drones 5 of those mating are with drones of your choosing. then every drone that queen ever produces has a better chance of passing on those genes. etc etc etc. and that is how a small time person can get the thousands of repetitions. Produce that great flood of genetics that will help clear the pool. At least in theory. It is actualy a lot more complicated than just that but overall that increase of your averages works and is a powerful tool.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

What you're saying makes sense. I watched a vid with Dr. Larry Connor explaining DCAs. It seems that drones hover around the area closest to their hive location as they have to refuel for multiple flights to and from the DCA. If the queen flies 3/4 to 1.5 miles on average, it would seem placing drone populations about 1 mile from the mating yard would be optimal. I would think if someone could create satellite drone populations in all directions (N,S,E,W) that would be optimal, creating a buffer zone in a sense, if genetic purity is the goal.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

But also consider over time, a beekeeper influences the genetics of nearby bees. Queens from outside are mating with your drones and bringing back that influence to their home sites. Of course this is confounded by people bringing in 100 % new genetics every year and why local raising of queens with appropriate selection should be encouraged. Even if neighbors are treating, there would be a benign infiltration of TF genetics, as long as local bees were raised. But eventually there should be a boomerang effect.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Good point.


----------



## intothewind (Jul 17, 2016)

Also note that feral colonies will make more drone comb...and will contribute more to your genetics than most managed colonies. Feral queens that mate your drones will produce plenty for you w some of your genetics.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

intothewind said:


> Also note that feral colonies will make more drone comb...and will contribute more to your genetics than most managed colonies. Feral queens that mate your drones will produce plenty for you w some of your genetics.


It would be interesting to do some population studies just to see how large the feral population is in my area. I know I have been very successful at bait hive captures around the house, and know of only one confirmed beekeeper about 1 mile to the north of me. There are likely more I haven't noticed. I figure he is getting some pretty good genetics from my bees, and vice versa. He might very well be the genetic source for a lot of my bees. I do think though, given the variations I've seen from each swarm to the next behavioral wise, there must be a fairly hefty feral pool around me. My bees are a bit more homogenized than my first year for sure.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

My first 6 years treatment free beekeeping 2008-2014 I used isolation mated queens. Only the best lines were accepted to be drone hives.

Then, all of a sudden, started serious problems; bees dying in winter and summer. I was confused. Seemed that the level of resistance was not nearly as high as I had presumed.
(One serious problem is that I have AFB, making things maybe just a little bit too challenging for my bees. Also note that I do not collect wild swarms, they are not good and die among the first ones. )

I decided, partly forced by too few hives left, to change my system. Josef Koller in Germany has outlined *a system to the transition period towards TF beekeeping*: start with one yard, make a nuc out of each living hive if possible, each hive makes its own queen and they are allowed to free mating, all hives contribute to the drone pool. Then if, after some difficult years, things get better and the first yard gets crowded, make another yard in the flying zone of drones, etc. This is simple system. It has to be simple if we want all beekeepers, with good and not so good queen rearing skills, to be able to follow.

After one and half years with this system I can now say that Josef Kollers system "Breeding Project Roots" does not necessarily work. *The drone pool is the weakest link.* It all depends on your beekeeping neighbors, but in most cases the drone pool has not enough resistance. TF beekeeping is not getting easier little by little, as Josef has outlined, instead problems start to accumulate. In particular this is true if the TF stock has developed towards "small-survivor-no honeycrop" type of bee, like VSH as 100% pure stock. The situation maybe better if the bee has developed towards "multiple swarming" type which makes a strong hive keen to swarm. 

Now after two rainy mating seasons with a lot of purely mated queens and weak hives I have to the conclusion that my system has to be changed once more: insemination. Without insemination I cannot manage, because the drone DCA´s in my area have too many not resistant drones. 

If in the starting point towards TF beekeeping your bees do not have 100% resistance, say you have VSH bees freely mated or some other supposedly resistant stock with the last couple matings free in uncontrolled and unknown circumstances, then the drone pool around you makes the difference if you will be successful or not. 

Josef Kollers plan towards TF beekeeping needs some tuning.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

intothewind said:


> Also note that feral colonies will make more drone comb...and will contribute more to your genetics than most managed colonies. Feral queens that mate your drones will produce plenty for you w some of your genetics.


This is based upon random information I have seen here and their some of it in this thread. so the actual numbers are debatable. A drone hangs out near home as much as possible but a queen will travel 1 to 1.5 miles to mate. I have actually timed a queens mating flight at roughly 20 minutes. At a speed of 15 miles per hour a mile with still time to actually mate and get back sounds about right. so I will use a mile to keep the math simple. the are of a circle one mile radius from my apiary is 6.28 square miles. Pi(3.14XR(1)X2= 6.28. Now say there is one feral colony per square mile in my area. I have 6 to 7 colonies in my apiary breeding range. I need 6 to 7 colonies in my apiary to match the number of feral colonies. 12 to have double 18 to have triple etc. Keep in mind with the averages I only need a tiny advantage. being double or triple the number is vastly overwhelming advantage. Then if I manage those colonies intentionally to produce excessive drone brood I have increased that advantage even more. My chosen genetics will be spread at overwhelming odds.Enough that at even a second round of queens breeding every single mating will have some portion of my genetics involved. by the third or fourth my genetics could very well be the predominant genetics. Keep in mind my genetics influence the feral colonies just as much as feral genetics influence my apiary. The law of averages already takes that into account.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Juhani Lunden said:


> After one and half years with this system I can now say that Josef Kollers system "Breeding Project Roots" does not necessarily work.


I can't blame you for not wanting to climb the uphill battle for trying to infuse your genetics in a pool that "muddied" with inferior genetics, but I would say 1.5 years would not be a long enough time frame to say the system couldn't work. It is possible you could see a shift in your survival given enough time. If II were a possibility, I can see why you would choose that route. Perhaps you could try and talk surrounding beeks to try some of your queens for free or a low price in order to try and spread your desired genetics at a faster pace? How many beeks are in your surrounding area?


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Daniel Y said:


> The dirty water analogy was first explained to me as a glass of water. so in that case the pool would be relatively tiny. such as an average apiary in comparison to those bees in the environment overall.
> 
> So lets say a beekeeper has two hives. He wants to influence the drone population in his are. He is only concerned with the drones within the mating range of his apiary for his queens. now that gets a bit tricky because range fro drones is different than for queens. He intentionally produces thousands of drones with his chosen genetics increasing the chance any queen in the area will mate with those drones. so lets say every queen produced int eh area mates 20 times. But because of this flooding of the drones 5 of those mating are with drones of your choosing. then every drone that queen ever produces has a better chance of passing on those genes. etc etc etc. and that is how a small time person can get the thousands of repetitions. Produce that great flood of genetics that will help clear the pool. At least in theory. It is actualy a lot more complicated than just that but overall that increase of your averages works and is a powerful tool.


Actually if she mates with your drones, her drones will not be influenced at all. If she makes any daughter queens though, then there's a chance of her daughters passing on your genetics if the egg the daughter queen came from is fertilized using sperm from your drones, so now you see it's even more convoluted then you think.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Juhani Lunden said:


> Then, all of a sudden, started serious problems; bees dying in winter and summer. I was confused. Seemed that the level of resistance was not nearly as high as I had presumed.
> (One serious problem is that I have AFB, making things maybe just a little bit too challenging for my bees. Also note that I do not collect wild swarms, they are not good and die among the first ones. )


So do you think your isolated mating yards weren't that isolated suddenly? From a possible root cause standpoint, I mean. What caused this sudden crash...? AFB?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Juhani Lunden said:


> *The drone pool is the weakest link.* It all depends on your beekeeping neighbors, but in most cases the drone pool has not enough resistance...
> 
> the drone pool around you makes the difference if you will be successful or not.


i believe you are spot on juhani. i've been speculating that this is the most likely reason why we hear such varied reports when it comes to the successes and failures folks are experiencing with keeping bees off treatments. 

it's as good an explanation as any as to why resistance from proven stock fades quickly after a generation or two when that stock is transplanted into a population that does not have resistance.

one of the common (but not necessarily universal) denominators among those having tf success is that they are located in areas with habitat capable of supporting feral colonies, i.e. large expanses of wooded lands and abundant floral diversity.

i think that in my area it is the drone contribution from surviving feral colonies providing the genetic component for resistance, which along with the nutritional component provided by the availability of many and diverse flowering plants, work together making it possible for the bees to thrive off treatments here. 

it undoubtedly helps that we have relatively mild and short winters here as well.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

squarepeg said:


> i believe you are spot on juhani. i've been speculating that this is the most likely reason why we hear such varied reports when it comes to the successes and failures folks are experiencing with keeping bees off treatments.
> 
> it's as good an explanation as any as to why resistance from proven stock fades quickly after a generation or two when that stock is transplanted into a population that does not have resistance.
> 
> ...


Are the odds insurmountable though? That's what I'm wondering, if given time, the genetics wouldn't shift and the survival curve might head the other direction. You would have to put up with a ton of loss and be steps ahead of your beekeeping neighbors in terms of population and location. I dunno. I think it goes back to how saturated is saturated and if we're dealing with a pool the size of a puddle or an ocean in context of population.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

nordak, west central arkansas looks pretty good habitat wise. i would be surprised if there wasn't a thriving feral population there.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.5895783,-92.6270124,247400m/data=!3m1!1e3



SwampCat said:


> I keep 20 to 25 hives and average losses of about 10%. Of my losses, fully three fourths of them are late spring, early summer. I live in Arkansas, so winter losses due to inclement weather are not really a problem. I lost a hive this winter to what I think was caused by the warm weather and early build up and not enough nectar to support a bustling hive - starved to death. I believe most of my losses come after a swarm and failure of the hive to make a new queen. I do not treat for mites.


swampcat is in ben lomond. you will be way ahead in the game if you can acquire some of that stock and implement whatever management strategies are working for him.

trapping feral swarms is another good way to get your hands on survivor stock.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Thanks squarepeg. My bees are thriving, I was just throwing that out there for those in less than ideal locale. Trying to make sense of the issue of one's own population to counter the unwanted. I am convinced I have a gold mine here in terms of resistant bees. I am fortunate. As all things in nature, that can change tomorrow. For now, I am blessed to have some amazing bees.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

understood nordak. i didn't realize you were already up and running. so far i'm finding it hasn't been difficult to take feral derivatives and select for beekeeper friendly attributes like lower swarm propensity and better honey production without losing natural resistance.

i hope that you have the time and inclination to propagate the heck out of your best colonies and do what you can to spread those good genetics around.

to your point, i believe that most of us keeping bees have to realize that our own populations are just small subsets of whatever metapopulation happens to surround us. 

i also believe that it would be pretty difficult to have much impact on that population one way or the other, although fusion_power appears to have had success in doing so by initially allowing swarms to issue from his resistant colonies.

others have reported setting up 'mating' yards whereby they place numbers of 'drone' colonies meant to flood the area dca's. it kind of boils down to a crap shoot however, which i believe is why juhani is leaning toward ai.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

That's my plan, expansion on a much broader scale. At the moment, I am limited as I have about an acre to work with surrounded by neighbors. It's a semi rural area, but not quite rural enough. It seems in many ways our experiences and areas are similar. I have family in Alabama, around Hamilton and Mobile, the terrain here reminds me quite a bit around the northern Alabama region particularly. We share the same stifling humidity during the summers for certain.

Your concerns are my concerns when I originally started this thread, and was hoping to perhaps be convinced I was missing something inherent in the way DCAs can be saturated effectively outside of a huge scale operation. I'm starting to see how insurmountable it could be indeed in certain regions...California comes to mind specifically. 

Thanks for listening.


----------



## intothewind (Jul 17, 2016)

Yeah. I don't think it would be possible to do much next to a commerical operation. But again, managed hives are typically managed to limit the number of drones put out. It is a shame their is no way to breed bees other than AI. Actually....has anyone done experiments simply trying to stick drones next to/onto virgin queens?


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Nordak said:


> I can't blame you for not wanting to climb the uphill battle for trying to infuse your genetics in a pool that "muddied" with inferior genetics, but I would say 1.5 years would not be a long enough time frame to say the system couldn't work. It is possible you could see a shift in your survival given enough time. If II were a possibility, I can see why you would choose that route. Perhaps you could try and talk surrounding beeks to try some of your queens for free or a low price in order to try and spread your desired genetics at a faster pace? How many beeks are in your surrounding area?





Nordak said:


> Are the odds insurmountable though? That's what I'm wondering, if given time, the genetics wouldn't shift and the survival curve might head the other direction. You would have to put up with a ton of loss and be steps ahead of your beekeeping neighbors in terms of population and location. I dunno. I think it goes back to how saturated is saturated and if we're dealing with a pool the size of a puddle or an ocean in context of population.




The surrounding beekeepers and wild stock is partly unknown to me, how much unknown, I don´t know. This brings uncertainty to this plan of flooding the DCA. An more, it is not just the number of drones, also their ability to fly and amount of sperm are lower in TF beehives, another uncertainty. I want to be sure I don´t lose what I have been developing 15 years, that is why insemination is the only route. 

When queens mate in a somewhat saturated DCA, there is a variation in their level of purity, some have more suitable qenes than others. This brings still another uncertainty: Do I have the time and patience to judge the queens well enough, so that I don´t spread susceptible genes more than resistant genes? The crosses are likely to be the best performers, in short term.

The most astonishing thing to me is that breeding with an isolated mating yard did not work. What went wrong? Too much inbreeding? Resistance is a multiple gene depending character that develops so slowly in breeding venture, maybe 2% in a year like honey crop, that the starting population is needed to be very big, maybe thousands of hives. 



jwcarlson said:


> So do you think your isolated mating yards weren't that isolated suddenly? From a possible root cause standpoint, I mean. What caused this sudden crash...? AFB?


I think the reason was that the level of resistance was not 100% (maybe 110% is needed with AFB...). Because resistance is not 100%, mite levels and damage increase, slowly but with eventually deadly outcome. 



squarepeg said:


> one of the common (but not necessarily universal) denominators among those having tf success is that they are located in areas with habitat capable of supporting feral colonies, i.e. large expanses of wooded lands and abundant floral diversity.


Yes, we don´t have much feral stock. They are escaped swarms which die in the first hard winter.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

JRG13 said:


> Actually if she mates with your drones, her drones will not be influenced at all. If she makes any daughter queens though, then there's a chance of her daughters passing on your genetics if the egg the daughter queen came from is fertilized using sperm from your drones, so now you see it's even more convoluted then you think.


JRG13, not true the newly mated queens carry half the genes of the drones her mother mated with. those are what will be passed on. You are correct that it is convoluted in it's entirety though but I am not going into all of that in this thread. Drone flooding does spread you chosen genetics in an area. Now how good is your genetic selection. how effective will it be passed on. what will be the unknown results and then the idea that it is not simply one gene that causes a chosen trait. I don't see the critical cross this set of genes with this set of genes I would expect in effective breeding yet. I have to some extent with VSH breeding attempts but more is not known than is at this point. For example in some poultry breeding methods offspring with short legs indicate a problem that seemingly is completely unrelated. In general breeders simply no to avoid it and cull short leg birds out. I have not seen that sort of level of selection even get developed in honey bees yet. Identifying the traits that let you know with certainty that your choice carries the genes you desire. They are not always obvious. For example a queens that simply lays well may only produce daughters that are poor layers. A good layer mated to a good layer then mated again to a double mated good layer may be what is required. Another example from poultry. A grey chicken is the result of breeding a black and white bird then breeding their offspring to each other. the first generation is black and white patched. then breed two grey birds and you get an endless variety of patterns. But you know you can tap into that variety by mating two grey birds. We don't even know what it means genetically when we look at a dark queen in comparison to a light one. What genes in what combination made that difference. And what reproductive gene combinations are associated with it. More than likely if all we are looking at is a bees tendency to rid themselves of mites. we are not even looking at the right stuff. But for now any attempts to influence the genetic pool I consider worth encouraging. sooner or later somebody will see something.


----------



## intothewind (Jul 17, 2016)

Another baseless thought. Not feeding excessively to promote buildup may put you more in-sync w natural colony rythms In An Area...Increasing The Chances Of Interacting W Wild Stock


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

intothewind said:


> Increasing The Chances Of Interacting W Wild Stock


How do you figure?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

jwcarlson said:


> How do you figure?


They didn't "figure" the post starts with "Another baseless thought". indicating no figuring was involved. I am interested in what the Natural Colony Rythms are.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Daniel Y said:


> I am interested in what the Natural Colony Rythms are.


interesting concept daniel. how would you describe those rythms?


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

I think this takes us into insect phenology, how critters/plants time their season to take advantage of foraging and coordinating mating etc. Its usually a combination of changing day length, and a temperature/degree day modulator though I'm sure there are other possible cues. Plant emitted volatile compounds for instance. 

Its always a bit of a hedged bet. There is variation in the population, which is critical for short term adaptation, allowing a population to shift with shifting conditions. Its an example of how variability and adaptability are key points of optimization rather than optimizing to a supposed perfect timing. Adaptability requires some death is the idea.

My guess with bees is that they are probably in a race to swarm to take advantage of dead out cavities in spring. They walk a fine line between starting too early and getting whacked with a cold snap, and waiting too long and having all the cavities occupied by the time they get around to swarming. The majority of feral bees should be in the sweet spot of good timing, but there will always be some at the other ends of the bell curve.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

But what does that have to do with "interaction with feral colonies"?

What's the best chance for your bees to interact with feral colonies...? And what does this mean. Mating I assume? Or are we talking robbing of deadouts or something? Get some of that good, feral gut microflora.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

In all honesty, drone flooding I believe is the least efficient way to saturate an area with 'your' genetics. It may help with getting queens mated with more of your desired genetics, but if you want to really change the make up of bees around you, you need to get your queens out. Think about the 'chance' that a feral queen mates with your drones, lets even put it at 50% of your drones. This does not influence anything directly in this first mating. None of her drones will have your genes present, so the only way she will pass on your desired genetics is through daughter queens. Now give her chance of surviving 50%, and the chance they swarm the following year at 50% and we come to the conclusion that there's a 12.5% chance she will produce a daughter queen carrying half your genetics the following year, if they swarm or supercede her. Also, you must now consider that roughly only 50% of her drones will carry the desired traits you're looking for, and that's assuming simple single gene inheritance at this point....


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I'm in complete agreement JRG13 on this. There is a lot of magical and wishful thinking on the part of forum participants on the subject of shifting honeybee genetics.

The "closed population" model of Harry Laidlaw & Robert Page Jr. (hat tip to Juhani) and its implentation by Sue Cobey and others, can laboriously move the center of gravity in bee population over a long term time horizon. 

Closed population models require 1) large initial populations, 2) strict standards-based selection. (And in the Cobey implementation, artificial insemination to control the crosses).

The idea that a backyard breeder with a handful of hives letting his queens fly will breed up a "miracle" bee in two years has no basis in the known science of honeybee genetics. The starting genetics "dilute" back to the population norm. If you let your breeders die (such as promoted by the host of "bond" keepers), the dilution happens faster.

Many of the commenters on this thread have one or two years experience working with queens, I really don't think they have the long term perspective on queen genetics needed to promote an "answer". Their prescriptions are definitionally "sophomoric" -- the second year of study when the student believes he knows everything.

I've posted images of the Rufer Apiary queen selection data sheets (aided by the Spivak tech transfer team)-- they are selecting their breeders out of hundreds of candidates, and make the selection on strict protocol, not just what happened to survive the winter. 

Just to give some perspective, an Avocado variety breeding trial I was involved in began with more than 60,000 crosses and culled from that point. Avocado varieties can, of course, be extended indefinitely once a cross has been found to be advantageous.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I think it becomes more of a displacement model when I think about it. You want to saturate and displace the genetics around you with your own if you want a chance at something stable. Fusion Power pretty much did this approach by letting his bees swarm for a couple years and now is getting beekeepers around him to switch to his genetics. When you think about it as well, queen saturation is basically drone flooding with the added advantage that all daughter queens carry and pass on more of the selected traits in both their drones and daughter queens.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> model of Latshaw, .


You mean Laidlaw? (and Page)


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

JRG13 said:


> When you think about it as well, queen saturation is basically drone flooding with the added advantage that all daughter queens carry and pass on more of the selected traits in both their drones and daughter queens.


This makes a lot of sense. I suppose queen saturation and drone saturation could be synonymous terms depending on how they are utilized, as I can't imagine a scenario with one and not the other as you were saying. Perhaps a better model is queen saturation based in a stationary yard, as this could potentially affect genetic composition outside of the yard given the nature of DCAs in relation to location of surrounding populations.

**Edit: After reading this, I basically reiterated your post. I'm a little slow today, apologies, haha.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I guess the main point is, if you have lots of other bees around you, drone saturation probably won't get you very far.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

those of us who happen to be located in areas already supporting populations of feral survivors are fortunate in that nature is already flooding the dca's with treatment free genetics. those survivor genes could potentially see dilution if there are a significant number of beekeepers bringing in nonresistant stock to the point of outnumbering the feral colonies.

my opinion is that it would be difficult but not impossible to influence the gene pool in areas that don't support ferals where the population is comprised primarily of commercially available stock. the biggest hurdle would be to get the majority of beekeepers in a given area to cooperate on a strategy to bring in resistant stock and adopt a kirk webster type approach, i.e. stop treatments, overwinter lots of nucs and propagate from the survivors.

i saw a video of former moderator of this forum espousing such a strategy while speaking at a bee club meeting. i wonder how that went over.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

squarepeg said:


> the biggest hurdle would be to get the majority of beekeepers in a given area to cooperate on a strategy to bring in resistant stock and adopt a kirk webster type approach, i.e. stop treatments, overwinter lots of nucs and propagate from the survivors.


i just listented a webinar featuring kim flottum and to my surprise he reports having knowledge of beekeeping groups cooperating in this way and having some success with it. wow.

http://u.osu.edu/beelab/common-sense-natural-beekeeping/


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

I will have to check this out. Thanks for the heads up, SP.


----------



## intothewind (Jul 17, 2016)

I figure if you do not feed as much and produce queens(via swarm prevention) at the same time natural colonies in the area produce a pulse of drones...then you increase the chance of your queens mating those drones. If you live in an area where commercial folk feed early to promote early build up, then their colonies may start producing drones a bit sooner(?) Same perhaps goes for if wild colonies slow drone production during a summer dearth 



The breakdown of getting genetics of yours back is excellent. Also add in the 1/10 chance(assuming 10 drone matings), say, of any particular drone's sperm being used to father the particular egg that gets turned into the first queencell to emerge.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

intothewind said:


> I figure if you do not feed as much and produce queens(via swarm prevention) at the same time natural colonies in the area produce a pulse of drones...then you increase the chance of your queens mating those drones. If you live in an area where a dearth hits that cuts summer drone rearing down, but then also live amongst commercial/hobby folks who feed...a queen mated later may be more likely to mate a drone from a managed hive. Maybe the reverse is true. This all is purely conjecture, no more no less.
> 
> The breakdown of getting genetics of yours back is excellent. Also add in the 1/10 chance(assuming 10 drone matings), say, of any particular drone's sperm being used to father the particular egg that gets turned into the first queencell to emerge.


I think that would depend on the area. I can see where you are going, and while I think the idea has merit perhaps in say my situation where maybe a handful of hobbyists exist, the "feral" population surrounding the commercial scenario is most likely compromised. I think if people could forge ahead in coalition beekeeping, on terms SP has referred to, that could solve so many of the issues for areas where it is seemingly impossible to not treat.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

squarepeg said:


> i just listented a webinar featuring kim flottum and to my surprise he reports having knowledge of beekeeping groups cooperating in this way and having some success with it.


i'll attempt to contact kim and see if i can get more information on where these groups are located, how they are going about it, and what kind of success they are having.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Very cool, please share what you learn when you do. I haven't listened to the webinar yet, but looking forward to It.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

kim graciously responded to the query and is attempting to forward my contact information to an ohio group. i'll keep the forum posted.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> View attachment 26891
> 
> I'm in complete agreement JRG13 on this. There is a lot of magical and wishful thinking on the part of forum participants on the subject of shifting honeybee genetics.
> 
> ...


This is all so true. In theory bee breeding and specially breeding for quantitative traits like varroa resistance is almost impossible for all of us except BeeWeawer with thousands of colonies. And even they have probably succeeded because of africanized wild bees. In Germany there has been ongoing systematic state funded beebreeding for decades. Result: honeycrop increases 2% /year and even this result is largely because bees today have much larger brood areas than in say the 60´s. 2% a year would be the best estimate of success in varroa resistance breeding too, because both traits depend on multiple genes.

What is happening in many beeyards around the world cannot be understood: bees left without treatments refuse to die. My own beeyard is a good example: 8 years without treatments, no viable wild bee population around, no swarm collecting, no nuc (and mite) selling to beginners. And yet I have live bees. 

I would like to explain this is a result of my breeding success, but hey I started with 150 hives, it is nothing in breeding. Why cannot I find any mites on my hive bottoms? Why are my bees living? Why is it all imported bee material gets AFB and my old own stock bees doesn´t? Something else is going on. What is it? If it is because of hive microbes, why did Paul Jungels in Luxembourg and Josef Koller in Germany find my queen varroa resistant 1500km south from here?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Juhani Lunden said:


> Why are my bees living?


good post juhani. what is your best guess as to why your bees are doing so well off treatments?


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

squarepeg said:


> good post juhani. what is your best guess as to why your bees are doing so well off treatments?


You tell me, I don´t have the faintest idea.
I have thrown the idea of epigenetic factors, some others have shot it down.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Juhani Lunden said:


> I have thrown the idea of epigenetic factors, some others have shot it down.


are you aware of others in your country of achieving the same success? if so, is there a chance you could persuade the academics to look for common denominators?


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

squarepeg said:


> are you aware of others in your country of achieving the same success? if so, is there a chance you could persuade the academics to look for common denominators?


Peter Neuman from Switzerland was coming with his group here, but eventually (because of my terms) cancelled.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

that's unfortunate juhani. it appears that dr. neuman would have access to resources that might help explain how your bees are surviving. are your terms negotiable?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i took a moment to look at your blog page juhani and read this:

"(25.9.2015) Winterlosses were unbeliavable 70%."

which is in contrast to your statement:



Juhani Lunden said:


> What is happening in many beeyards around the world cannot be understood: bees left without treatments refuse to die.


was the 70% loss for the previous winter? if yes, how were your losses this past winter?

is this why you are considering moving to artificial insemination for your breeding program?

i'm not trying to play 'gotcha' juhani, i'm just trying to understand what your experience is.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

My point is I still have living bees  after 8 years TF, without wild bee population around, without swarm capturing, without selling nucs etc. 

I totally agree with JWChesnut that by breeding means this is not possible. I´m wondering what is the factor why I still have bees.


My last winter losses were about the same as everybody else´s around, 20%.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

Perhaps the error is that one assumes the background genetics (Feral/treated bees) is in stasis.

Even with treated bees, there would be selection pressure. A hive with hapless mite control and no viral resistance will not do well compared to better adapted hives. Guess which one the beekeeper will make a split from. The change would be slower than if nature had its way but slow change is inevitable. Most TF keepers would be wiped out within a year if they tried it when varroa was first introduced. 

I'm starting to believe that varroa resistance is present to some extent in all stocks. Its the viral background in combination with strong or weak resistance that may make a hive succumb to mites or not. In a sense, a mite out is a symptom of a viral problem. In areas where mite resistance seems impossible, perhaps the viral background is too dynamic. Too many new sub types being introduced with bee migration. 

Just my opinion for today


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Juhani Lunden said:


> I´m wondering what is the factor why I still have bees.
> 
> My last winter losses were about the same as everybody else´s around, 20%.


understood juhani. i'm happy to hear your losses were much less last winter.

i too am curious about the reasons why my bees are doing well off treatments. perhaps some day we will be fortunate to have researchers looking carefully at our colonies in the way they are looking at lharder's.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

the other thing with bees, is you must consider the super organism that is the hive. Juhani, your bees sound like you have some isolation, this is probably one of the key factors in your success. For me, it's not about showing that a queen or lines of bees is resistant, it's about showing how heritable said trait is under typical circumstance and across geographic locations. Going back to the hive as a whole, perhaps some behaviors are learned as well and genetics plays a minor role or perhaps the key to the trait is only a small percent of the workers need it for the resistance to show, say for example, if mite removal was based on chemical signalling where certain bees marked cells for brood removal. Now you can see that this trait would require a very small percentage of bees to be effective and as long as it didn't become hypersensitive a large number of bees carrying the trait would lead to the same results. Alas, we don't exactly know how resistance traits work or even what other traits are out there helping. I also suspect viral resistance plays a key role but I don't see any experiments to evaluate what viral resistance gives you in a high mite environment. Beeologics has the tools with RNAi to get the experiments done in my opinion but I don't know what they're doing these days.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

lharder said:


> Most TF keepers would be wiped out within a year if they tried it when varroa was first introduced.


 I was around when Varroa invaded North America. My last hive died in 1992, 4 years after I first started noticing bees with crumpled wings. I would say the difference between then and now is the emphasis on making increase. Backyard keeps were not attempting to build Nucs by the dozens to stay ahead of mortality. 

I don't have clear records of those days, some notebook diaries, but I would guess mortality was about 60% year in the first Varroa wave. This is the same as the Marin Beekeepers "non-treatment" mortality reported in 2015. The 2015 Solomon Parker experience, 9 of 15 dead, represents 60% mortality. _Plus ça change_

LHarder has a current obsession with "migratory beekeepers" transporting disease. The record in New Zealand, Scotland and Hawaii is different and has been subject to rigourous testing, the bee-varroa interaction selects for virulence in DWV among the background variants already present in the population.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

JRG13 said:


> we don't exactly know how resistance traits work


Agreed, bees keep on living and changing and we don´t have a clue what is going on, that is pretty obvious.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Juhani Lunden said:


> we don´t have a clue what is going on, that is pretty obvious.


Agreed. Gotta do something to pass the time over coffee.  Seriously though, I am humbled by some of the minds that have contributed to this thread. Thanks all for contributing, very informative and thought provoking.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

JRG13 said:


> Alas, we don't exactly know how resistance traits work or even what other traits are out there helping.


yep. 

i'm thinking that being better at keeping (mite carrying) drifters from entering the hive as well as a decreased propensity for robbing are potential candidates for those not so obvious traits that could contribute toward resistance.

that we don't have an easy metric is mostly why allowing the winnowing process to play out appears to be as effective as anything in terms of advancing resistance in our stock.

maybe the ferals know something we don't?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Or it might just be that the viruses in our TF hives happen to be less virulent than those in most commercial treated operations. Don't lose sight that there is a biome in each hive!


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Fusion_power said:


> Or it might just be that the viruses in our TF hives happen to be less virulent...


i suspect that is the case as well dar, and/or locations that support tf management may provide exceptionally good nutrition potentially augmenting natural immunity to infection.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Fusion_power said:


> Don't lose sight that there is a biome in each hive.


that's another really good point dar. it's possible that some locations foster more healthy biomes than others, i.e. allow for the preponderance of necessary beneficial organisms.

it's a good bugs/bad bugs scenario like in our gut.

jwchestnut linked a paper some time back that suggested even differences in the chemistry of propolis may play a role in resistance.

so many factors to consider. i've contemplated reaching out to the entomology folks at auburn to see if one of their graduate students is in need of a thesis...


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

While not entirely on point, I have seen pseudoscorpions on several occasions in my hives. Seeing as they are phoretic, I would guess they are hitching a ride on the bees in search of mites. I doubt they could make a dent in the varroa population, but it's one visual scale representation of what you are referring to.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

yes, that's a good example nordak. 

you started the thread inquiring about how one could go about increasing the footprint of desirable genetics in a local population.

breeding bees for desirable traits has enjoyed a long history and there are notable success stories.

breeding bees for varroa resistance has thus far met with limited success and this suggests to me that we need to gain a better understanding with respect to some of these other factors.

in my opinion the group that is taking metrics on lharder's colonies is making strides toward that end.

in my area the number of beekeepers having success keeping bees off treatments and the number of colonies managed by them is increasing over time. these colonies may hold answers to some of those questions should the opportunity arise for them to get asked.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

squarepeg said:


> yes, that's a good example nordak.
> 
> you started the thread inquiring about how one could go about increasing the footprint of desirable genetics in a local population.
> 
> ...


So many layers to solving the puzzle, and so many differing interpretations with varying results. But I think like you said before, the ferals maybe know something we don't. I am thinking that to be the case for certain.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Nordak said:


> the ferals maybe know something we don't


But even without ferals and DCA flooding they just keep on living, although just, because queens have difficulty to mate, too few viable drones. (Which of course creates an enormous bottleneck.)

And it is not because of hive biome or virus conditions if the ability goes, like I have proven, with a queen to other beekeeper into another country and floral conditions.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

JWChesnut said:


> I was around when Varroa invaded North America. My last hive died in 1992, 4 years after I first started noticing bees with crumpled wings. I would say the difference between then and now is the emphasis on making increase. Backyard keeps were not attempting to build Nucs by the dozens to stay ahead of mortality.
> 
> I don't have clear records of those days, some notebook diaries, but I would guess mortality was about 60% year in the first Varroa wave. This is the same as the Marin Beekeepers "non-treatment" mortality reported in 2015. The 2015 Solomon Parker experience, 9 of 15 dead, represents 60% mortality. _Plus ça change_
> 
> LHarder has a current obsession with "migratory beekeepers" transporting disease. The record in New Zealand, Scotland and Hawaii is different and has been subject to rigourous testing, the bee-varroa interaction selects for virulence in DWV among the background variants already present in the population.


The migratory thing is just the obvious elephant in the room if you pay ANY attention to ecology and epidemiology. Transporting biological critters around WILL lead to bad consequences. Do I need to remind you yet again of the long list of self inflicted insults to agricultural and forest systems because we ignore this basic principle? Or are bees special?

The virulence thing obviously breaks down or we wouldn't have persistence. In case you weren't paying attention SP doesn't bother with the over abundance of the nuc thing because he doesn't have to. The studies you refer to are snapshots in time and doesn't describe the evolution of this system with time. Nor of systems in general. Certainly New Zealand and Hawaii have recently acquired varroa and aren't good examples of what is happening where varroa has been present for a long time. Like Russia.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

squarepeg said:


> i'm thinking that being better at keeping (mite carrying) drifters from entering the hive as well as a decreased propensity for robbing are potential candidates for those not so obvious traits that could contribute toward resistance.


I'd call that avoidance, not resistance.

But it's part of the reason I run reduced entrances all bee-year even on monster hives and try not to keep bees that rob.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

jwcarlson said:


> I'd call that avoidance, not resistance.


i was just suggesting just a couple of hypothetical mechanisms by which a colony could be keeping its infestation rate lower, no need to get hung up on semantics.



jwcarlson said:


> But it's part of the reason I run reduced entrances all bee-year even on monster hives and try not to keep bees that rob.


indeed. the thought hadn't occurred to me jw, but it's entirely possible those screens could be reducing the influx of drifting bees as well as preventing access to would be robbers into a hive housing a colony collapsing from varroasis. good point and potentially good ipm.

conventional wisdom is that the italian strains have a greater propensity for robbing as compared to some of the other strains. does anyone here know if that has been established with science as opposed to just being 'common knowledge'?


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Juhani Lunden said:


> But even without ferals and DCA flooding they just keep on living, although just, because queens have difficulty to mate, too few viable drones. (Which of course creates an enormous bottleneck.)
> 
> And it is not because of hive biome or virus conditions if the ability goes, like I have proven, with a queen to other beekeeper into another country and floral conditions.


I have just finished reading most of your chronicled work on your apiaries, very interesting stuff, and well documented. Someday I hope to be as thorough as you and SP in my observations. There are times when your controls on keeping variability (in terms of breeding) at a minimum escaped you, which is expected. How did these scenarios play out in terms of resistance? I'm guessing as most variability scenarios play out, good and bad? Also, are there any documented viable feral populations surrounding your area? Has anyone done population studies? 
Truly a fascinating read. I found this tidbit interesting: "biting of the bees has increased clearly, they land on you hand and pull your hair." Most of my bees exhibit this behavior. Do you see it as a sign toward hygienic behavior or purely a defensive one? I often wear shorts during inspection and the bees often tug on my leg hairs. Better than stings! Off topic, I know, but I suppose this thread has segued before.

Thanks.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

squarepeg said:


> conventional wisdom is that the italian strains have a greater propensity for robbing as compared to some of the other strains. does anyone here know if that has been established with science as opposed to just being 'common knowledge'?


Simply anecdotal here, but my bees that have roots as package Italians are robbing monsters. Including bullying smaller colonies even when there's a decent flow on. I had at my house, a 4-way, 2-frame queen castle in my front yard, left overs waiting to get moved... and they'd been there a week, so it's not like they were new. And I moved a recently queenless (sold the queen) 5-frame nuc that was made up of cordovan (a few generations removed) Italian bees.

I moved it and opened it up about 6 PM. By 6:30 that same night it looked like a really small scale version of World War III in the front yard. Cobbled together robbing screens and shook my head. My Italians get their own yard where they are free to rob each other as much as they want. In my first year I made the mistake of moving another colony to that yard. They swarmed and while queenless were robbed relentlessly. Other than mating nucs, pretty much all of my colonies are strong enough that defending against robbing isn't really much of an issue.

But the lesson has been learned. I've whittled it down to just two Italian colonies now, it's tough to justify requeening when they're putting up 150#+... but my "own strain" is doing the same with less robbing and less mite issues. Maybe I'll just requeen one of the two?


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

squarepeg said:


> i was just suggesting just a couple of hypothetical mechanisms by which a colony could be keeping its infestation rate lower, no need to get hung up on semantics.
> 
> conventional wisdom is that the italian strains have a greater propensity for robbing as compared to some of the other strains. does anyone here know if that has been established with science as opposed to just being 'common knowledge'?


This is purely anecdotal but anyways: 

I have bees from a single source (Szabo Queens) but he does not declare their lineage. There is no known feral bees or other bees around me so they stay pretty stable. They definitely are not Italian in habits and definitely show no signs of robbing. I have worked bees at my son's place west of Ottawa and there is no comparison in the amount of commotion when pulling and sorting honey frames at hive side. There the background seems to be Italian and bees with the Szabo genetics get absorbed there very quickly. My son has had quite a number of nucs robbed out this summer. For me it has not been an issue at all. Mites there seem pretty persistent and you get crawlers very quickly if you dont stay on top of them. I think the tendency to rob might have something to do with the difficulty to control mites. 

It sure does not take much to keep these bees of mine pretty much mite free. Almost 100% isolation can skew their apparent mite resistance. Thunder bay Ontario was a mite free area for many years but there is miles of boreal forest and lake superior separating them from other bees.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Nordak said:


> How did these scenarios play out in terms of resistance?



I don´t understand your question, please formulate in other words.



Nordak said:


> Also, are there any documented viable feral populations surrounding your area?



No viable wild population, they are all escaped swarms. And these die if not in the first winter then in couple winters. Some exceptions may be scattered around, but there is no documentation of how long they have lived.

We got some swarms 2015, flying into our empty boxes and barn wall: they were the first to die, last one died in May 2016.



Nordak said:


> Has anyone done population studies?


No. But maybe there should soon be because viable wild population is something we can get in the near future when climate is warming.



Nordak said:


> "biting of the bees has increased clearly, they land on you hand and pull your hair."



This remark was several years back. Sadly I have not noticed anything in the last couple years.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Juhani Lunden said:


> I don´t understand your question, please formulate in other words.


Apologies, that was rather vague. What I mean is when your formulated breeding plans escaped your control (I.e. supercedure, emergency queens) did you notice any less survivability in these cases?


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Nordak said:


> What I mean is when your formulated breeding plans escaped your control (I.e. supercedure, emergency queens) did you notice any less survivability in these cases?


In the beginning yes, and I felt good.

Later on, when isolation apiary had been in use for some time, I noticed a change: every now and then I could find a free mated queen which was well over average, sometimes near the best ones. This made me thinking something may be wrong.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Juhani Lunden said:


> Later on, when isolation apiary had been in use for some time, I noticed a change: every now and then I could find a free mated queen which was well over average, sometimes near the best ones. This made me thinking something may be wrong.


This is a shot in the dark, and dependent on the amount of beekeepers in your area, but perhaps there are colonies of your making, your work for years that perhaps survived or overwintered in the surroundings long enough to contribute to the "above average" scenario. I realize that your environment is harsh in winter, but part of your selection involved overwintering, so it is not out of the realm of possibility that a number of colonies could survive if given the right housing environment in nature. Perhaps you should try a study with less control factor just to see how these open mated queens do.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Nordak said:


> This is a shot in the dark, . Perhaps you should try a study with less control factor just to see ... "above average" scenario...


That what it is, shot in the dark. There are too many of these scenarios and theories. 
When your bees are dying and you are about to loose 15 year work it is not the good time to try if something works. It is time to make sure you save all you got and therefore insemination is the only possibility I see.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

I completely understand why you would want to practice II. There is too much at stake. It's obvious you have much knowledge, and certainly have much more understanding of your situation than I. I hope I did not offend.

I think sometimes that perhaps my own good fortune has been because I have no input. In my case, variability has brought me wonderful things. I have been able to take and rear queens from the best of what is around me. Nature and neglectful beeks have forged my genetic material. You on the other hand, are trying to create something from scratch. I think if you keep going , you may just create for yourself a situation where open mating will be possible eventually. I hope that shot in the dark becomes a sure thing for you one day, and I wish you the best in your endeavors. I am impressed with your tenacity and spirit, and can not say I would be willing to keep at it like you have given the circumstances. Best to you and your bees, I'll be rooting for them.


----------

