# Mean bees...a big deal?



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

It seems to me that we over emphasize the quality of gentle bees. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to keep African bees and sure, it's great to work bees with no gloves - I've done it plenty. But...is it healthy to breed out the natural defenses of our bees? Why don't mites kill African bees - is it cell size, that they swarm so readily or could their aggressiveness have something to do with it?

My favorite queens come from a breeder who promotes his bees as being highly mite resistant. Are they mean? Yes, the meanest hives I have! But nothing a little smoke won't take care of. They're great honey producers too.

I bought some Russian queens a couple years ago and they were meaner than average too. Anyway, I know all of this is anecdotal but common sence tells me that meaner bees "may be" healthier bees. Am I off base or is there some truth to this?

-Rob


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Rob,
I think your on target.

Think about it. We have bred for example....

1)Gentle bees. I have no doubt that bees a little more defensive, will handle v-mites, shb, wax moth, as well as other pests, allot better. I'm not talking mean, just more defensive. On some hives, I can throw a fly into the hive, and it walks around unchallenged. Another hive will have bees all over the fly. Try it, you'll see what I mean. Some bees will not allow SHB to walk around while other do nothing. Generally speaking, those hives a little more defensive will fend off many things.

2)Low propolis producers. Propolis has antibacterial properties among other things. Why have we been breeding this out of bees? I can only shake my head and mumble......

3)Longevity. We try to have queens last several years. some brag of 5, 6, or even older queens. Huh? That means no upgrade in stock for 5 year increments. In nature, colonies swarm much more than what we let them. A healthy colony in the wild will swarm on average 2-3 times a year. They may also supersede. Nature does not allow queens to become several years old. Nature knows that young queens produce more and handle stress and other factors (winter) much better. Nature wants young queens. We want to be cheap and see how many years we can make one queen survive. Complete opposite from what nature wants.


----------



## Beaches' Bee-Haven Apiary (May 22, 2007)

I agree. What's the point of breeding bees to conform them to make it easier for us, the humans, when we're taking out their natural defensive nature? When a bee has a good strong defensive nature she's going to be aggressive towards the beekeeper, naturally, but she's also going to be just as aggressive against natural pests and predators. I started w/Italians and than let my bees raise their own queens. The colonies w/home-grown queens are much more aggressive than the Italians, however they have the lowest pest levels out of all 5 of my hives! They also made more honey this year, I'm happy w/that!

I think we need to stop taking the sting out of the bee, God put it there on purpose!

-Nathanael


----------



## Alan (Feb 13, 2006)

Rob,

I believe that the vsh/hygienic gene is closely linked to the defensive behavior gene. This would support your anecdotal evidence. I read this or heard it directly from a bee scientist, can't remember which.


----------



## LSPender (Nov 16, 2004)

*African vs. Aggressive*

Guess you've never had an Africanized hive before. YES, There is a difference between an Aggressive hive and an African ( Killer Bee). I don't mind an Aggressive be that is alive and mite resistant, but once you've worked with AHB ypu will never want that again. Smoke just brings them out more, when you have hundreds of bees head to toe it takes the fun out of beekeeping.


----------



## soupcan (Jan 2, 2005)

We have been watching the more agressive bee thing for about the last 8 to 10 years or so. 
It seems to be very true that the " gentle " bee may become a thing of the past.
I am not to say that we select for a " mean" bee but more times that not in checking out a
" mean " bee we will find more v-mites missing one or two legs on the bottom boards & drip boards in the honey house.
Some years ago when we used to use 3/8" hail screen for mouse guards. 
The spring will roll around & it became time to remove the guards. 
Some hives woud have the bottom boards spotless with the screen in place. 
Others would have the bottoms plugged & could care less about house cleaning.
From the hives that had the clean bottoms we then would remove a frame of bees & brood & introduce a couple of small black ants. 
If the house bees would attack the ant and tear it apart you knew you were on the right track.
We then would place a frame of brood with a lot of drone brood in the same hive for about 5 to 10 minutes.
When removed after that time we would scratch drone brood untill we found a mite.
Most of the time a worker bee or 2 would rush over as soon as the mite was uncapped and start to chew on the mite.
In many cases it was an act by the bees that seemed to be more of a smell of the mite not so much the sight of it.
We also to the same hive have added bees that you could see the mites on the bees body.
Here again the house bees made many attempts to groom the infested bee & help dislodge the mite.
Are these bees gentle?
Not really.
Yes a little smoke is a must & the days of lifting a lid with out a veil & a smoker lit may be a thing of the past.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

First of all, I highly respect the knowledge of all previous posters, but I struggle with the concept "aggressive = better resistance to pests". I don't have a grand theory to explain it any better, but I do have experience that seems to contradict other observations. A few years back I had the most aggressive hive that I ever worked - it was just darn right nasty. Myself and family members were stung 30 yards away a full week after the last inspection. And no skunks, etc were bothering them. This same hive was DIRTY with SHB! The number of SHB in this hive was terrible. They had no aggression whatsoever towards the SHB, but would tear apart a human that even came close to their hive. I've also seen some of my "gentle and lambs" mutts jump all over a shb if it tried to enter the hive. I think this behavior is far more complex than simply equating aggression towards humans being a marker for resistance to pests.


----------



## France (Apr 5, 2007)

I agree with AstroBee ! 

IMO aggression is a sure sign that something is not well with the hive.
In my 52 years messing with little buggers, I had them all. 
Last few years I abandoned everything and went on a natural system and I tell you that bees are happy and so gentle that I can't believe it myself. For three years now I don't even use the smoke - ever! 

Healthy bee is a Happy bee. . . .


----------



## soupcan (Jan 2, 2005)

We have had the same deal right here in our back yard in Omaha.
Had one hive that could not deal with our compressor unit on our heat pump.
And if you left the rear porch lite on at nite they would fly at it all nite long.
We have had other that were gassed off thru out the years for there mean actions.
But all I am saying is the I have yet to see a gentle hive that was a good house keeper be agressive toward the mites.
Yes I admit we have in the last 4 to 5 years moved a lot of bees away from the city or farmsteads.
Yes there are still a few in the city but not like it was 10 years ago.
My 76 year youg mother will not let me move an ill tempered hive from here back yard.
She has huge gardens & lots of fruit trees.
I explained why this hive should be moved & she instructed me to leave it put that they never bother her that much!!!!!


----------



## shughes (Jan 17, 2007)

i'll state up front that this was my first year and only have 14 hives to compare against, but my meanest hives turned out to have the highest mite counts and also found more SHB in them then my other hives. It's still an interesting point that pahvantpiper brings up and will keep it into consideration when I compare hives next year.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I've been keeping bees since the days when "the internet" was something 
that no one knew about except a small circle of friends, and I've never
gotten around to buying a bee suit for myself in all those years.

I've bought lots of bee suits for family and employees, and I certainly
know where my veil is at all times, and a lit smoker is within reach 
at all times, but my lack of a full suit is one of my management tools. 
If I get stung too much, I requeen that hive. Life's too short to get 
stung 30 times by one hive, moreso when you have a hundred more 
to work before sundown.

I expect to get stung now and then for no reason at all, that comes
with the territory. I also expect to get stung if I screw up.

But yeah, I want bees I can work with.
And I expect my supplier to provide them.
I've never seen any credible evidence that "nasty" bees were better
at making honey or pollinating, despite the rationalizations offered by
those who run bees that make them run away from time to time.

I am not a "St. Sebastian Pincushion" (look it up), I am a beekeeper.


----------



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

I'm not sure about SMR/VSH, but Sue said a couple years ago in class that she noticed the bees did tend to become more aggressive if she selected too aggressively for hygienic behavior. She seemed to think that the same genes didn't control both, but could be close on the chromosome. In fact I've heard no breeder state that mechanism for resistance was the same as aggressiveness but have heard them (Joe Latshaw and others), say productivity was independent. In many of the programs (Joe's, NWC, Minnesota Hygienic, and I believe even John Harbo's), gentleness seems to be a common theme and doesn't seem to have a detrimental effect on the programs' success.

I wasn't aware of anyone breeding for queen longevity as a heritable trait (a separate thing from swarming which they are selecting for). It would be a very difficult trait to select for because so many other things we do control the longevity of queens. Most notably the amount of sperm the queen stores vs. the number of eggs she lays has a profound effect and is often the limiting factor baring disease. How many sperm are stored varies considerably with both II and naturally mated queens due to many factors, many outlined in Sue's recent paper. It would also be a horribly slow process when it would take many years to evaluate the queens. Of course I'm talking 'productive longevity', not how long a queen could live when egg laying is limited.

-Tim


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Tim,
Why is longevity different from swarming? Swarming is a form of supercedure. Both swarming and supercedure plays out several times in a year of a feral colony. I believe they do this for optimal survival odds. 

Young queens gives the colony the greatest chance for survival.

Young queens head the most productive colonies.

Young queens, (first year queens) swarm far less than second year queens. And if nature dictates that swarming (supercedure) greatly increases from one year to two year old queens, maybe they are telling you something.

Studies have all found the three above statements to be fact.

Inevitably, all discussions about less swarming center around one beekeeper or another commenting that they have two year, three year, or older queens. The discussions never center around a queen line that swarms little, while also promoting or suggesting queen replacement on some frequency of every year or even every other year.

If your selecting for queens that do not swarm, you are also selecting for queens with longevity. Your selecting for a trait that mother nature finds negative, non-productive, and less odds of survival.

Yes, selecting for queens to swarm less is possible and is done. But the only way to NOT lose out on the benefits of swarming and supercedure that mother nature finds so important, would be to re-queen yourself on the same level that nature finds the most advantageous. And lets not fool anyone here, those beekeepers are few and far in between.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

This seems like excuse making to me. Either you are selecting for gentle bees or you are selecting for aggressive bees. The evidence that mean bees are more productive, disease resistant, or healthier is scant to completely absent. Mean bees defend themselves against vertabrates better, and my observation is that the bears don't care. The only thing they are good for is turning the general populace against beekeeping and perhaps scaring the occasional vandal/curious child.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Figures.... discussions like this go right to the far extremes. That any discussion about benefits of one trait or another slings off into the edges with discussions of African bees, liability, and absurd comparisons.

Sorry Aspera, Categorizing everything into extreme of gentleness or aggressiveness is a tad, how should I say....extreme. 

Who by the way is "excuse" making? Up till this point, not one person has mentioned anything that I could see being called as excuse making. Excuse making for what?


----------



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

But swarming doesn't necessarily mean the queen is poor or old, or necessarily have any bearing on longevity of the queen. There are often more mechanisms at play, some unrelated to genetics. Frequent swarming may not necessarily be beneficial to the hive, who hasn't had a hive fail due to it? Though it's arguably beatifically to the species, and occasional swarming beneficial to the hive (but how often is that ideally?) Longevity of the colony if left unattended with a queen that tends not to swarm is another thing entirely from longevity of the queen herself, so I think we are talking two different things here.

Ultimately, much of what breeders select for isn't what may be ideal in nature, or there simply may be no natural mechanism in nature to select for it. Gentleness, color, high productivity resulting in many times the honey the hive would need in the wild, reduced swarming, running on the comb, pollen collection, brooding up all year long (not suitable in many areas), hybrids, etc. are all traits selected for because they are desirable to the beekeeper, not necessarily to nature.

Aspera, I agree. As the population spreads, bees are kept close to people more often. So regardless of if it's good for wild bees, gentle bees that don't frequently swarm into your neighbors bush or home will be increasingly desirable. Even to commercial keepers, such traits are desirable because of proximity to people (field workers and residential properties), and productivity. 

-Tim


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

As I said, bees are constantly selected for traits, either getting meaner or gentler. The excuse makers are those that allow their stock to be driven by the whimsy of nature and the natural tendency of the wild to select for more aggressive bees. I prefer bees selected by talented attentive keepers who like hives that are a joy to work. Yes their are trade-offs and we sometimes must focus more on some traits than others, but I prefer that temperament always be in the top 5 selection criteria.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Aspera said:


> As I said, bees are constantly selected for traits, either getting meaner or gentler. The excuse makers are those that allow their stock to be driven by the whimsy of nature and the natural tendency of the wild to select for more aggressive bees. I prefer bees selected by talented attentive keepers who like hives that are a joy to work. Yes their are trade-offs and we sometimes must focus more on some traits than others, but I prefer that temperament always be in the top 5 selection criteria.



Oh, I see. Your stating YOUR preference. I thought you were making allegations against others with the way you stated things.

Not sure how I see some who choose something other than your defined criteria, being labeled as excuse makers. I guess just mentioning what you like would of been one option, but I guess throwing out some allegations and name calling on a slow day is something we've all done from time to time.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Aspera,
Since you sound as if you despise nature.. "stock to be driven by the whimsy of nature and the natural tendency of the wild", I'm sure you'll enjoy the next thread I started concerning swarming on this same forum.


----------



## soupcan (Jan 2, 2005)

We gave up on the swarm control trait about 10 years ago.
Many of our bee locations are on locations that have had bes on for dozens of years.
Some locations well over 50 years.
Here is my point.
Last fall before we were done pulling honey we had marked 9% of our operation that was queenless.
Some 60 plus days later going into winter the count was less than 2%.
This included the ones we shook out due to small clusters.
We always take our winter loss in the fall as much as we can. ( small clusters )
Total winter loss was less than 5% when this spring came around.
This ncludes a yard of aprox. 80 or so that moved some 4 plus times in late September & still in October.
This yard had a 25% loss before the 1st of Mayrolled around.
Do I like to get stung, heck no.
Do we like to work crabby bees, heck no.
We have a bees that seem to do a very good job of controling mites.
If they are a little to mean we will work with that.
I feel at this time it is much better to have the mite control & work out the meaness as time goes along.
I can assure you it is much better to come thru winter with a under 10% winter loss and have a few crabby bees to work with then try to rebuild your winter loss from stacks of dead outs.
A farmers worst enemy used to be drought.
Grandpa would always tell me " just give me a bin of corn to work with I can't make a living if the bin is empty"
Our queen bill last year was right at the $15.00+ range delivered to our door times couple a hundred.
As we start to contact every one in the past few days we are starting to hear the same story.
No one wants to work & we will probably need to cut back as there is no way we can handle this by ourselves any longer.
Look at the Bee Journal from 10 to 15 years ago & tell me how many queen breeder ads are not to be found in the spring of 2007 as they were 10 years ago?
Every had a breeder call you a week before he was to ship you a bank of a 100 queens and tell you your order will be probably 7 to 10 days late due to the rainy weather in CA.
Then you call Texas to check on your order & get the same story.
It's not the breeders fault for the weather problems.
In the mean time you got bees that need to be split or else.
How about getting a bank of queens in & inside of 60 day 90% lay one cycle of brood & drop out due to poor mating due to the weather.
This will be the next huge problem.
Give me the box of bees to work with from the start
I can deal with the meaness later.


----------



## Beaches' Bee-Haven Apiary (May 22, 2007)

I buy into the theory that if bees are given the time they will adapt to their surrounding problems. I don't mean they evolve, but there has been evidence to show that their is a behavior change in feral colonies to fight off natural preditors. Therefore I let my bees raise their own queens w/the drones around them. I'm sure their being mated by numerous feral drones and the genetics apear rich in variety (my bees are all sorts of different colors!) I believe that home-grown bees will be better for the home-grown problems in nature. This of course may not be the case in a highly beekeeping populated area where there are many beeks keeping domestic bees. But in my area the nearest beek is miles away and my bees seem very resistant to pests. This doesn't mean that I'm against commercial queen producers and breeders, I'm considering trying out Russians just to introduce some new genetics to the community. However, I have found that my home-growns have a much stronger laying patturn than store-boughts. I don't know, more on the aggressive side or gentle side really doesn't matter to me. It's getting strong stock and good produce, and I love my home-grown colonies all the more for it!!

-Nathanael


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

*gentle/mean*

i have no studies to back this up and want to be clear this is just MY OPINION but in my bee yard a mean, productive hive almost always has a nieghbor hive that has been robbed.


----------



## Fred Bee (May 5, 2007)

*Mean Bees = More Honey?*

Funny to see this discussion going on. Just at our last bee meeting I shared how my wife enjoyed helping with our bees since we got gentle stock of NWC Queens. Several of the old timers then shared their belief that because our bees were gentle and easy to work that we wouldn't make as much honey. I inquired how much honey thier hives had made this year and on average, our gentle bees made as much as their "mean" bees did. None-the-less, I left the meeting with the old timers swearing that they were right and that the "meaner bees" were better, not only for mite resistance but also for honey production. 

Now, that said, I respect the old time beekeepers in our local association, but...my personal expereince with our NWC bees proves otherwise. It appears to me that gentle bees can be both hygienic and productive. IMHO...


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>all traits selected for because they are desirable to the beekeeper, not necessarily to nature.


The on going struggle of the beekeeper, to select his bees for perferable traits, while trying to keep things natural.
I think we are doing a pretty good job.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Not to take the wind out of anyone's sails, but I am a big fan
of bees that have been bred by professionals, tested for 
specific traits, and provided as AI breeders to producers
who assure proper numbers of drone colonies headed by
queens of known genetic value, and verified as laying
before they send them.

I like "pedigree" bees, not "mutts".

But regardless of what one likes/dislikes, I don't see the 
rationale behind positions like the one below:

> I buy into the theory that if bees are given the time they will adapt 
> to their surrounding problems. I don't mean they evolve, but there 
> has been evidence to show that their is a behavior change in feral 
> colonies to fight off natural preditors. 

Ever popped the top on a colony that has been harassed by a skunk
for a few nights? Trust me, all hives tend to stay at "DEFCON-3"
for a good long time after a predator has retreated. 

> Therefore I let my bees raise their own queens w/the drones 
> around them.

This sounds a lot like the "raise local queens" trend, where each
state seems to have the idea that locally-raised queens will do
"better" in their area than queens from elsewhere.

> I'm sure their being mated by numerous feral drones 

As long as you are sure you have sufficient colonies producing 
sufficient drones in the area.

> and the genetics apear rich in variety (my bees are all sorts of 
> different colors!) 

Doesn't that tend to indicate that the swarms making up your
local feral population are from a wide variety of different types
of bees shipped in to the surrounding beekeepers?


> I believe that home-grown bees will be better for the home-grown
> problems in nature.

But what is different between bees raised in, say MD vs bees
raised in VT? Specifically. Both places have spring, summer,
winter, and fall, and both are well within the normal range of
Apis mellifera? How are "local conditions" going to make for
any tangible difference that can be measured in some objective
way using consistent metrics?


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

"How are "local conditions" going to make for
any tangible difference that can be measured in some objective
way using consistent metrics?"

You're joking right? Russians, Italians, Carniolans, Africans, etc. Have each adapted to their own environment and each have "tangible differences."

-Rob


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I prefer gentle bees. I don't tolerate aggressive bees. Do aggressive bees make more honey? I don't think so. Sometimes one mean colony might stand out, but I think they are robbers, not harvesters. I enjoy working gentle bees. I don't enjoy working hot bees. Maybe if I ever get small hive beetles I'll change my mind...


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

One thing I have noticed is that there is huge variability across beekeepers in what defines aggressive bees. There is also a huge variability in the defensiveness of a colony based on external factors (repeated mechanical/critter disturbances, weather, season, etc.). I have even observed differences in a colony's defensiveness based on the person who approaches it (I had one colony that my son could not get near, yet I was always able to work it in shorts and tee shirt, six weeks after re-queening, we both could work it with no troubles). As a result, I have not yet really found a good single standard to judge a colony's temperament. The best I can come up with is, in the absence of external factors, I or my helpers can do what is needed with/around them without taking an excessive number of unprovoked stings (I don't mind an occasional overzealous guard bee) and they are good honey makers, thats all that matters to me as far as temperament is concerned. A lot of it still boils down to what are your expectations in beekeeping and how much time you have to devote to management of an individual colony.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

The question may be,

Is defensiveness and aggressiveness the same thing?

Can you breed out aggressiveness, and still have 
a colony capable of defending itself?

Are we grouping them together as one trait 
when they perhaps are separate?

In 1891, Mr. Kildow, Sheffield, Illinois, 
a respected bee breeder in the United
States, bred a bee popular during 
the very late 1800’s sprang 
from an Italian sport, known as the
albino bee. 

In his description of albino bees, 
Kildow seems to be describing gentleness 
and defensive behavior as two separate,
but essential traits, not in conflict with 
each other. 

"...Their habits are somewhat
the same as the Italians, but for gentleness
they surpass the Italians, being
very quiet and easy to handle, requiring
very little smoke. Instead of taking
fight on the removal of a comb from the
hive they cluster close to it, thus showing
no desire to leave it,..." 

"...As to their breeding, the queens
are very prolific and fill the combs very
compactly with brood. These bees are
good workers, good defenders of their
home, strong of wing, as well as good
providers for winter stores...."

Best Wishes,
Joe ~ Derry, PA 
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Michael Bush said:


> I prefer gentle bees. I don't tolerate aggressive bees. Do aggressive bees make more honey? I don't think so. Sometimes one mean colony might stand out, but I think they are robbers, not harvesters. I enjoy working gentle bees. I don't enjoy working hot bees. Maybe if I ever get small hive beetles I'll change my mind...


I agree with Mike here that hot bees should never be tolerated. 

I recently made an emergency combine of a extremely hot colony
to tame it down as they were chasing the landowners 
out of the area. 

remember:
Knowingly keeping aggressive colonies can perhaps enter
a degree of liability to the beekeeper should someone get hurt.

Best Wishes,
Joe ~ Derry, PA 
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Agressiveness in Honeybees*

I believe what is wanted is what would be called directed aggressiveness, not toward humans but very agressive toward everything else which the bees might consider a pest.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

mountainvalleybee said:


> I believe what is wanted is what would be called directed aggressiveness, not toward humans but very agressive toward everything else which the bees might consider a pest.


Speaking of 'directed aggressiveness',
reminds me of a wartime story 
from 1942. 

IMPRESSED by the ferocity of
his Cyprian bees and by the severity
of their stings, a Victoria,
Australia, apiarist wrote to the
governor of Cyprus just after the
fall of Crete and suggested that
hives should be distributed over the
island and the bees released as the
invaders advanced. He was sure,
he said, that the bees would so disconcert
the enemy that they would
be easy meat for the defenders.

The apiarist has now received a
reply in which the governor said
his correspondent seemed to be under
a misapprehension, because the
bees on Cyprus were remarkably
docile. He was interested to learn
that they developed such belligerent
tendencies when they were
taken to Australia and suggested
that what Cyprus needed was a
supply of Australian bees—wild ones
for preference—provided that a
guarantee could be given that they
would distinguish between friend
and foe.

And there the matter rests.

The Lethbridge Herald-1942 
Lethbridge, Alberta

Best Wishes,
Joe ~ Derry, PA 
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

Rob writes:
"How are "local conditions" going to make for
any tangible difference that can be measured in some objective
way using consistent metrics?"

You're joking right? Russians, Italians, Carniolans, Africans, etc. Have each adapted to their own environment and each have "tangible differences."

tecumseh replies:
your lack of evolutionary understanding is showing Rob. There may be small to large differences in these 'races' of bees (I don't have a clue as to what race Russians are derived from although I would suspect most entomologist would not consider these to be an individual race of honeybee) but each acquired these differences over a million years of isolation from other bees. so the question is do you as a local producer of bees have a million years to devote to the task at hand?

as to defensive/aggressive nature.... I for one consider these to be quite different things. a defensive nature is when you tap the side of a hive with a hammer or hive tool and a modest number of bees pour out the front door to defend THEIR territory. an aggressive hive pours out the front door when it's neighbor on the far side of the apiary is tapped and seem to have the desire to defend territory as far away as they might fly.

in days gone past very aggressive bees was a sure sign of inbred stock and the beekeeper refusal to BUY queens from reputable sources to mix up their stock. typically there was a lot of 'excuse making' by these same beekeepers when an aggressive incident turned ugly. these ugly incidents would then result in reduction in the number of possible places to set bees because someone had a bad experience with honeybees. oftentimes this 'reduced possiblities' would linger long after the offending beekeeper past on. the only thing these kind of beekeeper pass on is a bad taste in other peoples mouths for honeybee and bee keepers. 

lastly any number of variable may araise that turns bee more and more aggressive. skunks have been mentioned... but I also suspected an aging queen (and reduced queen pheromone production) should be quite obvious.... to this variable I would add varroa load as something that can turn a perfectly workable hive into an intolerable monster.

unless you are a real heartless self absorbed monster.... the first time one of your hive mobs someone you like greatly your attitude in regards to tolerating excessively aggressive bees WILL be forever altered.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

Looking through these posts, it's hard to come to a conclusion. From my own experience, four years ago I had a lot of gentle bees. About two years ago I had a couple of hives develope that my wife named the hives from hell. I don't think they were africanized, but they were mean enough that the only fun working them would be if someone was into the thrill of an adrenalin rush. Last spring I came out of the winter with six out of forty five hives still viable. Three of those six were from the aggressive stock. I would have re-queened all three but I couldn't get queens this spring and when I did pick up a couple gentle queens and put one into one of the hot hives she didn't last two weeks before they decided to supercede her, and the daughter hive was gentle but has not thrived. MITES? They have them. Honestly, I haven't done mite counts on the hot hives because I don't mess with them any more than I have to. Going into winter this year I now have four hives from this stock, mostly because, lacking queens, I split the original two mid-summer to weaken them and calm them down a little. (It did help a lot). These are the four strongest hives I have going into winter. On the last inspection, they all had some degree of shotgun brood, but they had frame after frame of it when my gentle hives were down to four to six frames. Even the late splits went into winter over 100 lbs gross weight. Some of my more gentle splits from the summer are doing OK, but just that. A bear took out four out of seven strong hives in the location I put them in late in the summer. He didn't touch the hives from hell.

The down side: I lost my best location because the bees were making the landowner downright nervous. I had to make the splits because I was afraid I would lose the location I had moved them to.

What this all adds up to = a beek that is having a devil of a time figuring out where the ballance point is between hive survival and unacceptable behavior. I expect that my four nasty hives will still be around next spring, will still have varroa, probably have the Israli virus and anything else the mites vector, will probably be the strongest and most productive hives to make it through the winter, and do their best to take all the fun out of my beekeeping. It sure is a differant world of beekeeping than it was in the 1980's. If I wasn't addicted, I would probably quit.


----------



## Fred Bee (May 5, 2007)

*Hey...*



sierrabees said:


> and do their best to take all the fun out of my beekeeping. It sure is a differant world of beekeeping than it was in the 1980's. If I wasn't addicted, I would probably quit.


Hey Sierra,
If it takes the fun out of your beekeeping...I would opt for a more gentle stock of bees and have "more fun."  I hope you stay addicted & don't quit! Good luck getting some new queens that will do better for you!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

It does not take millions of years to change things on a local scale.

An interesting study was done not long ago in Russia. The study was based on taking the mink (or was it a small fox), and domesticating it so breeding and control could be used to enhance the fur production.

Within 25 years, complete domestication of the mink was achieved. Although some side issues made them useless for the fur industry. (The fur changed back to a youthful appearance (color change) over this same time, and thus made it not high quality.

What the study did show or answer, was a question many had over the years as to how long did it take for the wolves to be domesticated to the point that people could keep them safely. Many had thought the process from wolves to "dog' would of been done gradually over many years. But domestication and changes in appearance, as seen with the recent Russian fur study, shows that domestication and selection criteria, even if mother nature controlled for millions of years, can be swiftly changed and benefited from on a short period of time.

It does not take long to acclimatize, change, or benefit from bees being selected and bred on a regional or local level.


----------



## Beaches' Bee-Haven Apiary (May 22, 2007)

BjornBee said:


> It does not take millions of years to change things on a local scale.
> 
> An interesting study was done not long ago in Russia. The study was based on taking the mink (or was it a small fox), and domesticating it so breeding and control could be used to enhance the fur production.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Millions of years and evolution is all baloney!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Beaches,
I'm not really on board stating that evolution is baloney. Just that changes don't need thousands or millions of years. Yes, I believe with small changes in the world over long periods of time, does allow species to change gradually. But what happens, is that many feel that because it took a long time for some changes to come about, that all change takes this long.

This study really does not discount long term evolution. It just allows us to see that a species with a drastic change in criteria, can allow changes to come about very fast just the same.


----------



## Beaches' Bee-Haven Apiary (May 22, 2007)

BjornBee said:


> Beaches,
> I'm not really on board stating that evolution is baloney. Just that changes don't need thousands or millions of years. Yes, I believe with small changes in the world over long periods of time, does allow species to change gradually. But what happens, is that many feel that because it took a long time for some changes to come about, that all change takes this long.
> 
> This study really does not discount long term evolution. It just allows us to see that a species with a drastic change in criteria, can allow changes to come about very fast just the same.


I just stated my belief, I wasn't trying to indicate your's at all, just that I agreed with you in your post. When I say evolution I'm referring to the theory of evolution as far as a world origin, not that small changes can occur within species. That can happen to some extent but a honey bee has been/is/& always will be a honey bee.

I won't say anymore, or else this'll become one for Tailgater!

-Nathanael


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Evolution produces new traits and stock of bees, breeders just figure out how to combine traits in desirable ways. Unfortunately, we are not protecting the original habitats and the stocks that they produced. I would like to see a few heirloom apiaries with breeders placed around the world to maintain the breeds produced prior to modern transportation.


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

tecumseh writes:
"your lack of evolutionary understanding is showing Rob. There may be small to large differences in these 'races' of bees (I don't have a clue as to what race Russians are derived from although I would suspect most entomologist would not consider these to be an individual race of honeybee) but each acquired these differences over a million years of isolation from other bees. so the question is do you as a local producer of bees have a million years to devote to the task at hand?"

Rob replies:
No queen breeder I know of is one million years old and yet they claim all kinds of wonderful characteristics that they have bred into their bees.

tecumseh writes:
"as to defensive/aggressive nature.... I for one consider these to be quite different things. a defensive nature is when you tap the side of a hive with a hammer or hive tool and a modest number of bees pour out the front door to defend THEIR territory. an aggressive hive pours out the front door when it's neighbor on the far side of the apiary is tapped and seem to have the desire to defend territory as far away as they might fly."

Rob replies:
That's YOUR definition of aggressive. Mine is, if I pop the lid using no smoke and 20 or so bees fly at me in an aggressive manner. If you read my first post you will notice that I said I'm not talking about African bees and that is what you described in YOUR definition of aggressive. I once had a hive of what I believe was African bees when I lived in Texas and I want no part of that.

tecumseh writes:
"in days gone past very aggressive bees was a sure sign of inbred stock and the beekeeper refusal to BUY queens from reputable sources to mix up their stock. typically there was a lot of 'excuse making' by these same beekeepers when an aggressive incident turned ugly. these ugly incidents would then result in reduction in the number of possible places to set bees because someone had a bad experience with honeybees. oftentimes this 'reduced possiblities' would linger long after the offending beekeeper past on. the only thing these kind of beekeeper pass on is a bad taste in other peoples mouths for honeybee and bee keepers. 

Rob replies:
So in "days gone past" skunks and bad weather made bees insestuous? Interesting hypothesis.

tecumseh writes:
"lastly any number of variable may araise that turns bee more and more aggressive. skunks have been mentioned... but I also suspected an aging queen (and reduced queen pheromone production) should be quite obvious.... to this variable I would add varroa load as something that can turn a perfectly workable hive into an intolerable monster."

Rob replies:
So today it's any number of vaiables but "in days gone past" it's inbreeding? 

tecumseh writes:
"unless you are a real heartless self absorbed monster.... the first time one of your hive mobs someone you like greatly your attitude in regards to tolerating excessively aggressive bees WILL be forever altered."

Rob replies:
So what is my attitude toward tolerating excessively aggressive bees tecumseh? Why don't you read my first post since it's obvious you haven't yet. I'm just stating some of my observations and ask what everyone else thinks. My bees are not excessively aggressive. Some are meaner than others but not aggressive by your standard.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

I agree with Jim, Michael and Joe.
"Hot" queens are doomed in my outfit.
I, along with a number of others worry that too much focus is being placed on mites rather than good bees.
With urban sprawl, it is getting harder and harder to keep bees as it is, let alone running stingy bees.
My $.02
But by all means; suit yourselves.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

<Evolution produces new traits and stock of bees, breeders just figure out how to combine traits in desirable ways. Unfortunately, we are not protecting the original habitats and the stocks that they produced. I would like to see a few heirloom apiaries with breeders placed around the world to maintain the breeds produced prior to modern transportation.>

I'll drink a toast to that!

As regards the speed of evolution, evolution takes place in response to environmental stress. Some forms of environmental stress occure slowly and remain for long periods of time resulting in a gradual evolutionary process. Other stresses have a rapid onset and may or may not persist for long periods of time. This accounts for the extreme variability of evolutionary changes. It makes sense, although I have not read any studies to support it, that the changes that occur slowly and remain perhaps for thousands of year would persist in the face of short term environmental change and the speces would revert once the conditions returned to "normal". We the Beekeepers, have created extremely short term environmental condition and the bee is able to adapt to some degree, but with many weaknesses cropping up due to the rapid evolution and inability of the breeder to control more than a few variables. Our bees have about as much chance of surviving beyond the era of modern beekeeping as the mountain gorrilla has of surviving the loss of it's habitat. The differance is that with populations of billions of bees there is a greater chance of the honeybee adapting to the environment they will find themselves in once we are out of the picture, wheras the gorrilla with it's low population and low reproductive rate will probably be lost forever. In the end, it's all a numbers game.


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Areessiveness*

What people may be forgetting is that learned behavior controls the genes and the genes control the behavior, they are not mutually exclusive. Other environmental factors apply also, as i have noted many times in the past when one hive in an apiary learns something the others in the same yard usually do also.....


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

bjorn writes:
An interesting study was done not long ago in Russia. The study was based on taking the mink (or was it a small fox), and domesticating it so breeding and control could be used to enhance the fur production.

tecumseh writes:
it was fox bjorn. and the details are that they 'selected' the friendlys foxes (those that hung around people and garbage dumps) and inbreed these 'selected' individuals and over a cople of generations and certain physical changes (somewhat unfox like) appeared.... droppy ears and curved tail is what I recall.

they were in essence inbreeding friendlys with friendlys.

rob adds:
No queen breeder I know of is one million years old and yet they claim all kinds of wonderful characteristics that they have bred into their bees.

tecumseh replies:
the point I was trying to make rob is that 'natural' selection requires a long time and that 'selection' as is used by queen breeders requires a regime of serious inbreeding to isolate characteristics and then outbreeding to make these isolated trait usable or viable. established queen breeder have short circuited the time line but you would be foolish to assume that the time line is not a signicant requirement (investment).

then rob adds:
if I pop the lid using no smoke and 20 or so bees fly at me in an aggressive manner.

tecumseh replies:
pose this question to jim fischer, ol' sol, sqrcrk or anyother beekeeper with some experience and tell me whether they think this kind behavior is defensive or aggressive? secondly I would suggest that anyone who is popping a lid of an active hive of bees with no smoke is a rank (and possible dangerous) novice. I hear folks suggest all the time that they work bees without a veil, no gloves and no smoke.... most times these people only have one hive to contend with and they are just one incident away from giving up beekeeping altogether.

rob then adds:
So today it's any number of vaiables but "in days gone past" it's inbreeding? 

tecumseh replies:
we did not always have iapv, varroa, trachael mites, etc. have you ever worked german black bees(the bees of preference of my original mentor)? bad to the bone bees they would meet you a quarter mile from the apiary and chase you a mile down the hill. I don't suspect we have many of those bees around anymore. 

then rob sezs:
Why don't you read my first post since it's obvious you haven't yet. I'm just stating some of my observations and ask what everyone else thinks. My bees are not excessively aggressive. Some are meaner than others but not aggressive by your standard.

tecumseh replies:
the only thing that is obvious Rob is that you have yet to discriminate between aggressive bees and defensive bees (which was my first suggestion). if they are not excessively aggressive when you use a modest quantity of smoke then don't worry yourself (is there some kind of genetic flaw that requires beekeeper to worry about something all the time?) with this nonexisting problem. A honey bee that does not defend the hives resources likely will have nothing to defend... a hive that is excessively aggressive will (especially if you have these kind of bees on other peoples property) reduce yours (and any future beekeeper that may follow you) possiblities of places to keep honeybees.

just my two cents.... I will REREAD your original post.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Lots of replies to different folks in here...

>> "How are "local conditions" going to make for any 
>> tangible difference that can be measured in some 
>> objective way using consistent metrics?"

> You're joking right? Russians, Italians, Carniolans, 
> Africans, etc. Have each adapted to their own environment 
> and each have "tangible differences."

Ah, I see - you are speaking of what happened over millions
of years to isolated populations. I was asking about the
ability of local beekeeper associations in the present to 
"breed a better local bee" without any AI at all, without 
much trait testing, and via open mating with a random 
collection of drones from hives headed by a mish-mash of 
queens from different suppliers.

> Is defensiveness and aggressiveness the same thing?

Of course not.
No one can accuse bees of being "aggressive" towards humans 
at all without overlooking massive amounts of known bee behavior.

Bees are entirely "defensive" and not a bit aggressive.
Robbing is opportunistic behavior, and the need to defend
a hive's stores will always override the robbing opportunity.
This is why removing outer and inner covers in a yard that
is beset by robbing works so well, as all colonies switch
from "robbing" to "protecting". Defensive behavior overrides
any other behavior, not so much to protect honey as to
protect brood and queen.

> figuring out where the ballance point is between hive 
> survival and unacceptable behavior

It is rare that bees drive off a determined threat like a bear,
so I don't think that you need to worry about having bees
that are so wimpy, they won't survive.

> It does not take long to acclimatize, change, or benefit from 
> bees being selected and bred on a regional or local level.

Overt breeding, which would imply a closed or AI breeding 
program certainly could result in tangible changes, but my
question was more pointed than that - I was asking what would
be different about the _*criteria*_ for bees between your location
in PA and (for example) a location in CT or in NC?

What's the specific difference(s) between the idea bee for 
PA and the optimum bee for Virginia? 

> What people may be forgetting is that learned behavior 
> controls the genes 

We "forget" this because we have proof that this is
not at all true. If this were true, then Lysenko would 
have been right, rather than a complete fraud. 
Acquired traits are simply not inheritable. Yes, behavior 
can change in response to conditions, but changing 
traits predictably requires a large population to test/select, 
and tight control over both queens and drone semen.

> if I pop the lid using no smoke and 20 or so bees fly at 
> me in an aggressive manner.

Now, if you were walking down the street to the library,
and 20 or so bees had followed you to ambush you at
the library when the sun was in your eyes, then THAT
would be something that might be called "aggressive".

But you _*disturbed their hive*_, so their reaction was
inherently defensive. 

And what's with the "using no smoke"? Do you WANT
some of your bees to die needless deaths? If your
criteria is to be able to work bees without smoke,
you should sell your hives right now, and buy an
ant farm. That's about the only colony that you
will be able to consistently work without smoke. 

Sheesh - what's next after "no smoke"? Removing
hive covers with a swing of a sledge hammer? 

> pose this question to jim fischer, ol' sol, sqrcrk or any
> other beekeeper with some experience and tell me whether 
> they think this kind behavior is defensive or aggressive?

Right on, tecumseh - there is no question in my mind
that the behavior is pure 100% defensive. Sure, anyone
can open up a hive with care with a flow is on and the 
bees are as busy as, ummm... bees, and get away with
"no smoke", but just try that trick in late fall! 

Now, if I use smoke AND a flow is on AND 20 bees still
engage in 20 kamikaze runs, that colony's queen is history
in my book. And I'm not being wimpy here, I'm being
practical. Stings bother me so little, I need a strong
magnifying glass to find where I was stung as little as 
5 minutes after I am stung.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"Acquired traits are simply not inheritable." JF

The latest research in epigenetics strongly refutes this statement. In many species acquired traits have been found to expressed in many subsequent generations of progeny of many organisms including humans. As it turns out even diet can activate genes that will be expressed in both the current generation and its progeny.

I also feel strongly that it cruel to not use smoke or one or its equivalents when working bees. There will be much less inadvertent crushing of bees which can help the spread of diseases as the house bees will have to bee licking up the innards as they clean. Smoke also allows one to work faster with greater confidence that queen is where you want her, not mention calming the hive. There is an art and a science of the how to and techniques for smoking bees, perhaps this would bee a good thread to start elsewhere.

I came in late on this thread, but I would say 20 bees bouncing off my veil would not qualify as aggressive. Now if the same 20 followed me way out of the apiary I would take a closer look at the temperament of that particular hive, especially if I had been using smoke at the time.


----------



## Troy (Feb 9, 2006)

I have read that there are groups in both England and Germany that are working to preserve the heirloom bee varieties from those areas.

I'm really curious how that is done. How many different lines of bees must be maintained in order to retain enough genetic diversity for them to remain viable?

Certainly 2 yards with one family in each one is not enough, because the first time you cross them, then there is not a 4th one to cross them with..... They would have to be crossed back to one of their parents and this results in inbreeding. 

I'm curious how far you must go before crossing back into the parent line is OK.

I read Laidlaw's Queen Breeding book, which has a reasonably good overview of the the genetics of queen rearing in there, but it did not go into the details of genetic diversity etc.


----------



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

Lets not forget that ALL feral hives in the US today came from managed hives in the relatively recent past. Our beloved Italians only were imported in the 1860's and quickly replaced the the original Black Bee, to the extent by 1884, the Black Bee was considered almost worthless and Gleanings offered free ads to those selling black bees and they were sold for 1/3 to 1/6th the price of an Italian queen. Carniolan's just a little bit later I believe. There are ads in 1884 for imported Carnilans at 7 times the price of Italians so I don't think they came in much before that.

I'm not aware of anyone maintaining any of the old Black Bees, or German Black Bee as they are often called in the US, so the breeds produced before modern transportation are already gone from the US.


Breeding isn't about creating new traits or evolution, just isolating and selecting for ones that already exist. These traits may go unnoticed in the general population because it occurs in only a small percentage of the population and may even be a recessive trait. (The Cordovan color comes to mind). The selection in breeding programs simply speed up the process significantly or chose things nature doesn't have a good or quick mechanism to select for, so it's far faster than leaving things to chance.

I wouldn't call behaviors caused by genes that are activated by environment (diet, etc.) an acquired trait. They already existed and were heritable, they simply weren't expressed before the required stimulus was applied.

-Tim


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Anyway, I know all of this is anecdotal but common sence tells me that meaner bees "may be" healthier bees. Am I off base or is there some truth to this?}

Rob. I too, think you are right on track.

My healthiest and best producing bees are often my more 'Spirited" hives. I still love Buckfast bees but have always found them to be the 1st. ones to greet me at the gate! They are also the last ones to get chosen when the black bears do breach a fence on one of the yards. I will requeen a " hot hive". Those are the ones that are a hazard to have in my yards should someone wander by. I use the distance they follow (meaning chase me during a tactical retreat) and the feriocity of an attack as a gage for "spirited vs Hot".


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

>> Acquired traits are simply not inheritable." JF

> The latest research in epigenetics strongly refutes this statement. JBJ

Sorry, but the latest research in epigenetics _*merely 
suggest**s*_ that there _*may*_ be SOME impact on the 
sorts of known-inheritable factors that had been 
credited to the DNA/RNA sequences in the past.

This is very very different from claiming that acquired
traits can be passed to offspring, as to date no one 
has offered even a single "acquired trait" as inheritable via this 
mechanism, or any other mechanism, for the simple reason 
that if it were possible, there would be clear evidence (or least
hints) that acquired traits/behaviors could be passed down, 
refined, improved, tweaked, perfected, and so on.

This would result in some pretty extraordinary things.
To date, there have been no such mysterious traits passed down.

And I'll say it again, extraordinary claims (like this one) require
extraordinary proof.

The proof we have is the concept of "regression to the mean",
where mundane things like height do not get out of hand.
The offspring of two exceptionally tall people are very highly
likely to be closer to the "mean height" than their parents'
heights. Likewise, the offspring of two very short people are
very likely to be taller than their parents.

This explains why we do not have 20-foot tall people, and do
not have 2-foot tall people, and also explains why the offspring
of sports celebrities rarely are good enough at the same sport
to also "go pro".

Music on the other hand, DOES often "run in families", as the 
skills can be taught, and are taught by the parents.

Hey - wait a second... "epigenetics"... who else trotted that 
out recently in regard to bees? Oh, yes it was trotted out
by the folks marketing "The CCD Solution":
http://beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=277140&postcount=1


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

*epigenetics...a new frontier*

Tim, I see your point. Some traits we know nothing of until they are switched on, frequently by diet or other environmental factors. What is is fascinating is that many of these genes continue to be expressed in future generations despite the absence of the continued presence of an environmental trigger. Sure the genes were already there in the genome but the trait itself is only "acquired" (or shall we say expressed)when turned on by environmental factors. Once the gene is switched on the trait can continue to be expressed in future generations even though the future generations are not exposed to the same environmental trigger, thus a trait is acquired in a population of ancestors of the originally affected organism.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> ...frequently by diet or other environmental factors. 
> What is is fascinating is that many of these genes continue to be 
> expressed in future generations despite the absence of the continued 
> presence of an environmental trigger. 

Where are you reading these claims?

Or what are you reading that leads you to such conclusions?


----------



## xC0000005 (Nov 17, 2004)

I won't step into the debate raging at the end of this thread. Your question can be answered without that. For me, yes, mean bees are a big deal. Gentleness is the single most desirable trait. These bees share my backyard with my kids and my family, the area with my neighbors.<p>

If being gentle means less honey, so be it. If being gentle means I have to watch out for disease, that is fine. If being gentle means that I have to treat for mites, well, that's the price of keeping bees where I am.


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

When did honeybees become LESS DEFENSIVE?? [NOT aggressive]. Was it ..20 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years or more?? I have nothing [worthwhile] to say regarding..genetics, evolution breeding, "gentleness" etc., but.................................

45 years ago my family had 8-10 colonies from 1960 [I was 19yo.] to about 1972. It was a 'sideline' of my father's business; an orchard. The few times when I was near the colonies, 10-15 feet without "protection", quite a few; 6+ bees would fly around my head [not sting] and say [appeared to be saying,.lol.] like; BACK AWAY FROM OUR HIVES.....GUY! BACK AWAY!! And No sudden movements!!....and I did!! I wish had more experience with them in those years with testing their "defensiveness" but I don't. Bees were bees, and they stung. So we stayed away from them except when properly "protected". 

Fast forward;......2003-4. I set up one colony and now have three.

I am quite amazed now and pleasantly surprized at how gentle the bees are [most of the time]. I can walk up to the hives with the camera and "sit down beside them" a few feet away and ................................nothing happens! No bees zooming in on me to STING! OK..................for 30 to 45 minutes, but then only one, the CHIEF guard bee I guess, always seems to be "bugging" me.

"I would suggest that anyone who is popping a lid of an active hive of bees with no smoke is a rank [and possible dangerous] novice. I hear folks suggest all the time that they work bees all the time without veil, no gloves,..and no smoke..most times these people only have one hive to contend with and they are just one incident away from giving up beekeeping altogther." ......tecumseh.

I don't think it should be ASSUMED that if a beekeeper makes that statement that they DO IT ALL THE TIME. I do it;.. no veil, no smoke,..............etc. I DON'T do it ALL the time but it is interesting to see how the bees react at different times of the year. I don't think that I am.... "rank",.............. or possibly.."dangerous". OB.

I certainly don't know if defensiveness [as perceived by beekeepers] has anything to do with protection from the honeybee pests.
Is this all something new?? Lack of "defensiveness" in our bees?


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

xC0000005 and I have different opinions. I like mine on the testy side. He does have nice bees though...very gentel. 

But someones comment, I think it was Bjorns, that it is interesting when you see a yellow jacket fly right on the landing board, pass three bees and go in the hive. That, to me, means a problem.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What people may be forgetting is that learned behavior controls the genes and the genes control the behavior

??? Sounds pretty Lamarckian to me.

>came in late on this thread, but I would say 20 bees bouncing off my veil would not qualify as aggressive.

That would depend on what I had been doing. After a complete and thorough search through every frame for a queen? Maybe not. After just pooping the top for a peek? That's way too aggressive for me.

>Now if the same 20 followed me way out of the apiary I would take a closer look at the temperament of that particular hive, especially if I had been using smoke at the time.

I probably would too. But I found the Russians seemed to follow a lot further and yet they didn't sting any more than the Italians.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

troy ask:
I'm really curious how that is done. How many different lines of bees must be maintained in order to retain enough genetic diversity for them to remain viable?

tecumseh replies:
good question. I don't really know about honeybees (nor a specific answer) and certainly the genetics would be somewhat different, but the zoo world considers the same question in regards to large predator (wolves, large cats) populations and the maintance of genetic diversity.

tarheit writes:
I'm not aware of anyone maintaining any of the old Black Bees, or German Black Bee as they are often called in the US, so the breeds produced before modern transportation are already gone from the US.

tecumseh replies:
my old abc-xyz identifies the German Black Bee as being Danish in origin.. for some reason the Danish became German on this side of the pond. At least as late as the 1960's they were a fairly common honeybee in much of the Applachian Mountain area. I also remember them being extremely defensive and aggressive.... you didn't dare pop the lids on one of those bad girls without a veil, gloves and lots of smoke. Since you typically didn't have a lot of folks around the only people they bothered were beekeepers.

old bee sezs:
I don't think it should be ASSUMED that if a beekeeper makes that statement that they DO IT ALL THE TIME. I do it;.. no veil, no smoke,..............etc. I DON'T do it ALL the time but it is interesting to see how the bees react at different times of the year. I don't think that I am.... "rank",.............. or possibly.."dangerous". OB.

tecumseh replies:
I suspect oldbee that you have more than a few years experience in knowing exactly when to and when not to pop a lid with no smoke or veil.

I could pose a simple question to ya' Oldbee and see how you might answer... lets just suppose rather than three hives (I think that is the number you stated that you owned and I would assume you know quite well) that you had 40 hives on 10 pallets in a yard and at this particular time of the year you know that 10% of the hives are in the process of the queens being superseceded.... would you approach anykind of modest inspection of those hives without a smoker being lit? without a veil?

certainly with a bit of experience you can work bee (in some minor way) without smoke or veil. I don't think it is such a good idea to give new comers to beekeeping the idea that they should somehow (and most won't consider the experience that you invested to pull off this little hat trick) be able to do the same thing. you are building false expections and I do believe that can be dangerous.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"Where are you reading these claims?

Or what are you reading that leads you to such conclusions?" JF 

Jim I love your skeptical nature, we need that to make good science happen. Weren't you the same guy who said there are absolutely no beneficial microbes in and on bees? Here are couple citations for you:


http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/plus/sfg/resources/res_epigenetics.dtl
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html

However more recently there was a Swiss or Norwegian study I heard on NPR or BBC, I cant recall for sure at the moment, but they were able to document heritable epigenetic traits that were first turned on in pregnant mothers during a Russian occupation (WWI or WWII?) and still expressed 3 or 4 generations later (to this day) in their descendants.


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

"let's suppose..............that you had 40 hives [I wish, OB] on 10 pallets in a yard and at this particular time of year [right now my hives are under 6-8 inches of snow; OB.] you know that 10% of the hives are in the process of the queens being superseded..would you approach any kind of modest inspection of those hives without a smoker being lit? without a veil?" Oh no! tecumseh ,........not me! I could "pop" the lid on 2 or 3 though.

the "little hat trick"??.... You mean, ...no smoke,..no veil,.....no gloves?? When I installed my first package after 40 years, I was all dressed up in beekeepings' finest "attire". The bees were all sugared down and went into their new hive properly. Got stung when a bee got pressed against the suit;.. while taking it off. Today, I think I would be the laughing stock of beekeepers if I was all "decked out" while installing 1-5 packages. I have no intention of "building false expectations" among newcomers.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Jim this document sounds like it may be referring to the study I heard on the radio:http://www.the-scientist.com/2004/7/5/14/1/

Some may wonder what all this may have to do with temperament of bees. My interpretation would be that there may epigenetic effects that may activate certain genes despite those traits not being expressed in their ancestors such as defensiveness.

So far has I have able to determine no has mentioned kakugo virus and it s affect on temperament. Could this viral infection be considered an acquired trait that is passed on to subsequent generation? Here are a few links for those not familiar with the virus:

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/google/abstract.asp?AcNo=20053024744

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1642587

http://www.virologyj.com/content/3/1/61


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

epigenetics ???? u folks are going right over my head. what that genetics with an epi pen?

there seem to be some confusion in regards to genes and gene expression.

and thanks for the answer Oldbee. I would suspect if I was showing my latest hat trick, wearing no veil and did not have a smoker lit, that the first queenless hive I popped the lid on would have me thankful that I was wearing track shoes and a door to duck into not so far away.


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

tecumseh writes:
"I would suggest that anyone who is popping a lid of an active hive of bees with no smoke is a rank (and possible dangerous) novice. I hear folks suggest all the time that they work bees without a veil, no gloves and no smoke.... most times these people only have one hive to contend with and they are just one incident away from giving up beekeeping altogether."

Rob replies:
This is exactly my point, I should have to use smoke and gloves! But about 200 of my hives are headed by queens bought from a well known and well respected queen breeder. The bees are so extremely gentle that I can pull frame after frame with no smoke and it doesn't even phase them - it's business as usual even with this guy ripping their hive apart. They are ALL that way, not just one or two.

Originally I called defensive bees mean and later agressive. I guess defensive IS probably the best word for what I'm trying to describe - bees that want to defend their hive. Common sense tells me bees should want to defend their home and this characteristic is being bred out of them. I want bees that I have to smoke but not Africanized. 

Thanks,
-The rank (and possibly dangerous) novice and heartless and self absorbed monster


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Directed Agressiveness*

I ,as I am sure others have seen also, have seen bees which were so lacking in agressive or defensive behavior that you could mash them and they would rarely sting. These bees a lot of times were also not very defensive against predators, this seems counter to survival. Directed agresssiveness as I stated in an earlier post however is the level of agressiveness or defensiveness where the bees will fight almost anything else off but not get unruly with humans unless you are rough with them. My bees for instance will kill wasps, hornets, yellowjackets, bumblebees, and other bees which are bothering them, however we work them in t-shirts the majority of the time although we always keep protection reasonably handy.


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Behaviors and Genes*

I would think that it would be better to not break down a post because that can change the intended meaning of said post and allow for contextual difficulties. Learned Behaviors where they are conducive to the survival of an Organism do control the Genes through Increasing Frequency of the Genes in a given population which allowed for the expression of Said Behaviors in the first place. This of course leads to the Said Behaviors being expressed more frequently. Therefore as earlier stated Learned Behaviors control the Genes and Genes control the Behaviors and they are indeed not Mutually Exclusive.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I hear folks suggest all the time that they work bees without 
> a veil, no gloves and no smoke....

Gloves clearly ARE optional, once one calms down and realizes that
bees are easier to handle when you are not fumbling around in
gloves. If you must wear gloves, wear some of the thick yellow
rubber kitchen gloves (Playtex, et al), as they at least give your
fingers some grip. The "beekeeping" gloves are all crap except 
for a few very expensive ones.

Smoke and veils are not at all optional.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

MVB, I think there is a discrepancy here between learned VS acquired behaviors. Somewhat circular logic there in your last post. This is very close to the classic nature VS nurture debate. Epigenetics offers an explanation for the potential of acquired traits being passed on with without significant changes in the genome.

Activation of unexpressed genes already present in the bee genome via epigenetic mechanisms could significantly influence temperament and possible explain why two different breeders can get different results despite starting with the same original stock. 

Tecumseh, did you check out that Nova link, it gives a pretty clear explanation of the field of epigenetics. There is potential for epigenetic tools & understanding to influence bee breeding and behavior.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

JBJ said:


> Jim this document sounds like it may be referring to the
> study I heard on the radio:http://www.the-scientist.com/2004/7/5/14/1/


I think you are reading far too much into a written-for-laymen
interpretation. It says "_The finding is remarkable because it _*suggests*_"_*.
*This is not a basis for your claim that "_The latest research in epigenetics
strongly refutes this [my prior] statement_." The study is just a little
wacky, in that it makes a giant leap to the conclusion that one specific
event (the famine) had long term effects, without looking at the ancestors
of the people claimed to be showing these long term effects, the ones
that lived BEFORE the famine. 

To illustrate, no one in my family has ever been over 6 feet tall, and none
of us have ever been fat. Is my Grandfather to blame for this, due to his
exposure to nasty chemicals in his lab for his entire career? Of course not.
We would have been short and slim anyway. The poof is that my
great-grandparents were Hobbits, and their parents were Munchkins.
long before any of them worked in any labs.



> So far has I have able to determine no has mentioned kakugo virus and
> it s affect on temperament. Could this viral infection be considered an
> acquired trait that is passed on to subsequent generation?


No, not at all, it is a *VIRUS*, a disease pathogen. It is not a trait at all.
Yes, viruses can be transmitted "vertically", and Judy Chen at Beltsville
proved this very elegantly as applied to bees. But a virus is not a trait!
A virus is not "inherited", it is a whole different creature from the one
that reproduces.


----------



## Tia (Nov 19, 2003)

"Is defensiveness and aggressiveness the same thing?"
Good point. No, they are not the same. I've been keeping bees for 5 years now, averaging 8 hives per season. In that time I've purchase only 2 queens (that was in the beginning) and use only FGMO fog (when I remember to do so). 24-hr mite crop count averages 5. And they have attained the perfect balance of defensive/aggressive: I mowed in front of the hives the other day (yes, it's warm enough here in Coastal NC to be mowing) and on first pass the entrances were covered with bees on the ready for attack. . .but they didn't attack. I made five passes, each pass getting further from the hives. They watched me. . .boy, did they watch me. Message was clear that I shouldn't get closer. But they never got past the defensive stage. I think my girls and I have come to an understanding.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Jim Fischer said:


> I think you are reading far too much into a written-for-laymen
> interpretation. It says "_The finding is remarkable because it _*suggests*_"_*.
> *
> 
> ...


Vertically transmitted viruses, and similar pieces of genetic material CAN be inherited, can cause disease/parasitism and in some cases do replicate in a manner similar to infectious, horizontally transmitted viruses. One common theory of CCD is that harmless host adapted viruses were selected for increased pathogenicity by varroa, which transmits viruses horizontally (between hives) like a beekeeper moving brood between hives. Such a virus does not need its host colony to survive and is therefore selected for higher reproductive rates and greater virulence. It is an elegant theory and not without supportive evidence from the past.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Vertically transmitted viruses, and similar pieces of genetic 
> material CAN be inherited,

By "vertically transmitted", it is meant that the specific infection 
of an egg was from the queen that laid it, but this must be stressed 
as not being any form of "inheritance", as the virus is merely a disease
pathogen, a separate beastie from the bee.

It is not a "trait".


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

Rob writes (nice alliteration huh?):
I want bees that I have to smoke but not Africanized. 

Thanks,
-The rank (and possibly dangerous) novice and heartless and self absorbed monster

tecumseh replies:
to you first statement I would say right on and to your second I would say I hope not. 

I also hope that you have read my response to oldbee in that with experience some of us can make what we are doing look so easy, effortless and safe when in reality none of these are quite correct. We can inadvertantly toss out the message to the newbees and uninformed that what we are doing is absolutely safe when in fact we are working with a wild beast that is quite capable of turning on you at any moment.

Furthermore Rob it is my impression (could be right, could be wrong) that for a very long time it is the new converted hobby beekeepers that have kept the beekeeping business a float (money) for a very long time. It would be beneficial to all those that are determined to make a buck or so from beekeeping to not start these folks out with false expectations or set them up for some brutal experience which will cause them to toss in the towel in the first 6 months. Some beekeeper seem to feel that this part of the bee keeping market is disposable and constantly replaceable. I think this is just a poor business model that makes little cents... but no bucks.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

old sol writes:
Tecumseh, did you check out that Nova link, it gives a pretty clear explanation of the field of epigenetics. There is potential for epigenetic tools & understanding to influence bee breeding and behavior.

tecumseh sighs...
looked all the way thru this tread John and I can't find it...

as I have previously suggest it does sound to me like there is more than a bit of confusion between acquired genetic material and what turns that genetics on and off and results in expression/non expression of a trait. for example Taber suggested that africans aggressive behavior was modified by location...if memory serves he suggest altitute, but I would also suspect humidity was a variable.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Tecumseh here is that link again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html

"I think you are reading far too much into a written-for-laymen
interpretation. It says "The finding is remarkable because it suggests".
This is not a basis for your claim that "The latest research in epigenetics strongly refutes this [my prior] statement." The study is just a little wacky, in that it makes a giant leap to the conclusion that one specific event (the famine) had long term effects, without looking at the ancestors of the people claimed to be showing these long term effects, the ones that lived BEFORE the famine." JF

Jim, what about all the other studies? There are numerous studies out there. The heritability of activated genes has been demonstrated in mice, drosophila, and plants, just to name a few.

http://www.wgi.su.se/pub/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=6988&a=25317
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org...031903.141641?cookieSet=1&journalCode=arplant
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7092/abs/nature04674.html




"A virus is not "inherited", it is a whole different creature from the one
that reproduces."JF

Agreed, however virus genomic material can be incorporated into host genomes and be inherited, IAPV for example. 

I wanted to bring the kakugo virus up because of its affect on bees...it makes them mean and mean bees are a big deal for sure.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Jim Fischer said:


> > Vertically transmitted viruses, and similar pieces of genetic
> > material CAN be inherited,
> 
> By "vertically transmitted", it is meant that the specific infection
> ...


This is an incorrect understanding of basic biology. Some viruses and transposons are fully integrated into the genome and transmitted via the hosts natural gametic reproduction. These genetic elements are essential genetic parasites, and often carry genetic traits associated with the virus or gene into which they integrate. It is probably more correct to thick of genomes as competing ecosystems/confederations rather than blueprints for a single organism. Congenital viruses are quite common, genetically important and have been found pretty much every animal species where we have looked.


----------



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

Interestingly, this may not always be a bad thing. Greg Hunt (Purdue University) said at the North Central Queen Assembly that they found part or IAPV in bee DNA, and that these bees seemed immune to IAPV.

-Tim


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Agreed, however virus genomic material can be incorporated into 
> host genomes and be inherited, IAPV for example.

Yes, and this was offered by Sela (in his paper in "Virology" where he
first presented IAPV as a unique virus) as a possible mechanism for
immunity to IAPV. It was about 200-400 base pairs, so it was
a very short fragment.

>> they found part or IAPV in bee DNA, and that these bees seemed 
>> immune to IAPV.

Yes, exactly. But quick - what changed?
The GENOME.
The DNA.

And what was "inherited" here?
A minor DNA modification.

No magic, same old mechanisms we've known for years.
No need for any new theories to explain this.

I need to put on my special tee-shirt now.
[edit by mod]


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Next, By*

MICHAEL CRICHTON, now I see.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

I prefer the modified concept that learned behavior can influence or modify genetic behavior and geneticd effect the ability of an individual organism to learn new behavior. If any of you take Newsweek, you may have noticed there is a new variable in this equasion that suggest that nutrition can modify the expression of DNA codes which would mean that nutrition could modify both of the above, and if genetic predisposition and learned behavior both effect diet preferances we now have a whole new, barely studied set of interactions.

I don't follow the scientific journals much any more, but I strongly believe we haven't touched the surface of understanding the workings of those few behavioral variables we know about and we will probably end up identifing at least as many more variables in future generations of study. Having spent most of my life in practice rather than research my personal bias is, what works for me may not work for the next man and vis versa, and none of us have enough time on this earth to study everything. Therefore, I do what I have found works, try a little something new each year, and respect the differances between my approach and another person's. For myself, I don't like aggressive bees. I have found that in the current environment my most aggressive hives are the most reproductivly successful,(kind of works that way for humans and all other animals too). My approach is going to be to try to attenuate that aggressivenes with selective breeding without completely losing the survivability. I don't plan on developing a new strain of super bee with charm, but just something I can work with that will do well in my environment.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

well doug your approach and bias are not so different from mine. I like to tell folks that I am much more interested in where the rubber meets the hard top than in some pure theory with limited to no application. and I have more than one little story to suggest that theory may lead to new application but without application theory is basically worthless (zero $ value).


----------



## mountainvalleybee (May 13, 2007)

*Theories*

I also like Practical Application because it works for me and I am having absolutely NO problems with my approach because it is working extremely well for me and my Bees also. Mixing up a boatload of different genetics and then by natures intervention and colony selection the best characteristics appear in such a manner that they are self supportive and none enhanced to the point that others are lost.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

We are all looking for practical applications of good science for apiculture. I will predict that epigenetics is going to have a huge impact on agriculture and medicine. For example, we may be able to activate or deactivate, in a heritable manner, specific genes affecting temperament or other behaviors through dietary or other environmental switches. What if we could more easily turn off the "mean genes" rather than breed out in AHB or any other type?


----------

