From: "Dave Cushman" <dave.cushman@lineone.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:16:09 -0000
Subject: Re: girls on small cells, regressing bees



Hi Dee & All

----- Original Message -----
From: deelusbybeekeeper <deelusbybeekeeper@excelonline.com>

> > I have to dissagree on nature breeding as a "whole bee" it is in fact minor
> > changes over many generations that enable survivership.
>
> Reply:
>
> Explain your reasoning here vs your breeding. I use the term in what I am
> looking at and breeding.Let's go behind the term and look at what we are
> both actually doing to see if it is a play on words.

It is not "a play on words" but we do use words somewhat differently on each
side of the Atlantic.
see further down the page under record keeping and assessment.

> > My queen rearing cannot be achieved without the feeding of honey and pollen
> > (which I trap from fullsize colonies). In our local conditions, deliberate
> > queen and drone raising has to be concentrated early and late in the season
> > to avoid the italianised drones (which prefer the warmer weather).
>
> Reply:
>
> We feed liquid warmed honey in our starter/finishers, but use whole frames
> of pollen next to the brood with the next one full honey, the next for a
> place to put the warmed liquid honey fed. We also concentrate early and late
> in the season to take advantage of the upswing and downswing of the first
> and last breeder cycles for drones of our black bees before the yellower
> ones are either out much or few are left. Please see:
>
> http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/apiacta1995.htm There is also an
> open-mating breeding chart on thermodynamic temperture cutoffs relative to
> bees there and a sample of sorting out breeder curves on Fig 2 Tucson
> Arizona Queen Rearing Cycles.
>
> >From what you say above then this would be similar to what you are doing?

We trap pollen as there are not large enough amounts of pollen in the frames
to use as you do.
We raise some colonies as deliberate drone producers.
We do not "split" colonies as we would have no control over the genetic make
up of the queens that would result in the queenless halves of the "splits".

We raise our queens mainly by grafting. Otherwise our methods seem very
similar.

> > Perhaps my techniques are not "Fully Biological" by your criteria. Only when
> > I have a large enough pool of genetic material that has significant, proven
> > survivability, will I feel justified in withdrawing all of the "crutches"
> > that you mention.
> >
> > I have regularly outcrossed my bees.
>
> Reply:
>
> Dave, our criteria is simple. We feed honey and pollen. We outbreed, not
> inbreed. We use a small natural cell size within the spectrum of natural
> cell sizes near the top, knowing the bees will make smaller with age, so no
> need for going smaller as that will automatically come now if the bees want
> it.We treat nothing with chemicals HARD or SOFT which includes all the acids
> and essential oils and no artificial antibiotics. We would recommend natural
> propolis though mixed with honey.
>
> We will gladly help people come off of chemicals with their colonies to
> include decontamination of combs etc, but we will NOT tell people how to use
> or put into a hive chemicals/drugs of any type.
>
> If you regularly outcross your bees, then why do you give advice i.e. to
> John as to inbreeding, if it is something you yourself do not do and maybe
> do not believe in then?

I out cross regularly but certainly not everytime.
Inbreeding, "ie backcrossing" is just as useful a breeding tool as
"outcrossing". Backcrossing helps stabilise lines and "fix" characteristics
that would otherwise be variable. My advice to John was to read what John
Atkinson (the expert on the subject) says about it before he makes any
attempt at it himself.

> > I am not trying to "save" a particular bee but merely select those
> > components of its nature that have good historical documentation.
>
> Reply:
>
> I went back to early written archives from many sources as traits for bees
> have changed dramatically since the late 1880s and early 1900s to see how
> they were described and what to look for in our bees here. Also to use the
> early descriptions as a guide to select from what stocks we had, bees to use
> for breeding, and to throw those characteristics forward with drones and
> then queens, to get away from todays' problems. Again we are not sounding so
> far away in mind now from what we are actually doing.

We may use different words to express it but our ultimate aims are similar.

> > I am strongly in favour of 4.9 mm cells as I believe that was the norm
> > around 1880.
>
> Reply:
>
> Good this reinforces what information we found in the archives then.
>
> > but I will not risk undoing what I have so far achieved just because I have
> > not yet got a bee that can totally survive the onslaught of pests and
> > diseases unaided.
>
> Reply:
>
> If you are changing your nucs to 4.9 this year like you say, this problem
> will dramatically change with your bees making the conversion to get them
> more into balance with natural flora and consequently a whole full food
> source for health. You will see it will also change your selection pressure
> for what you have, also throwing the mating advantage to the small blacks
> you want so much by vertue of your latitude and climatic area.

If these things happen then we will be able to withdraw the chemical
support. I hope it does happen the way you describe it. There have been
several attempts in UK at withdrawing, or just not using, chemicals but so
far no one has been succesful. There is promising work by John Dews in
Yorkshire but he still needs to use Thymol or lactic acid when infestations
get too high.

> > > Why do you like saving fragments, especially unrecognized ones? You sound
> > > like a person that likes to save everything, in case you may need it
> > > someday.
> >
> > That is the right! In case I may need it someday.
>
> Reply:
>
> Well, Dave, while we believe in letting weak bees die if they will not come
> round or merge them into stronger colonies to absorbe up for numbers, we do
> save and ratpack everything else and try to repair it forever. So we do not
> seem so far off here either.

Weak or sickly bees are of no use and are destroyed. We do not unite them to
other colonies.
We will collect swarms from any source and observe and record their
behaviour and characteristics if there is a trait we see that we think is
better than that particular feature in our bees then we will try to
incorporate those genes into our pool.

> > We must maintain the genetic diversity to enable
> > selection...wether this selection is "manual" or "automatic" makes little
> > difference if a gene has been "lost" it cannot help in any future re-selection.
>
> Reply:
>
> I fully agree here Dave, However I will not select a colony for use by odd
> bits and pieces of character that could be useful. It is too hard to use.

It is not easy but this "bits and pieces" aproach has been used in the UK
for the last 80 years.
Most notably by Bro. Adam (I do not agree on many counts with his philosophy
but he was a brilliant queen breeder).

> It is easier to select a colony with all whole bee concepts and go forward from
> there.
>
> Question: Since one cannot physically SEE A GENE, then what actually are
> you looking at in physical/behaviour attributes for selection?

I think you have aquired the Irish book that was edited by Eddie
O'Sullivan...The selection and assesment method is described in that and
more can be found on Galtee Bee Breeding Group website.
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~eduard/

> Certainly
> again, you cannot be doing much different from me in view of what we have
> already discussed. Another play on words
>
> >
> > I am merely trying to re-assemble a bee type that has become diluted over
> > a period of a century or so. This should not be considered meddling with
> > nature. Indeed I seek to correct much meddling that has occurred in the past.
>
> Reply:
>
> So are we, so we are in agreement here to. Do you use an incubator?

No I do not use an incubator, I prefer my virgins to emerge in a small
colony of about 1500 bees. they fly from these for mating and then are
allowed to lay up the small nuc so that their quality can be assessed. The
mating nucs have frames which are only half the size of a BS standard brood
frame (some are only one third of the width). See:-

http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/brbits.html

> > The differences
> > between us are very small, we are both pulling in the same general
> > direction.
>
> Reply:
>
> Good, as long as we are not pulling apart. I am glad you are at the
> forefront of biologically friendly husbandry of bees in the UK. But, if you
> are truly on this path then please try not to recommend practices to others,
> you yourself do not do yourself,.with your bees to survive, like inbreeding.

I can only repeat that "inbreeding" does have a justifiable place in bee
breeding. I do use it when I think it will be beneficial. You need to be
fully aware of degradation that can occur. all the progeny of such matings
are scrutinised thoroughly for defects and any suspicious queens are culled.

Indescriminate or repeated inbreeding will lead to disaster. I believe the
American practice of "splitting" colonies increases the chance of inbreeding
and is a major reason why so many US outfits purchase commercially produced
queens.

> I feel if we cannot do it ourselves then I cannot recommend nor show others
> how. Somehow this is morally wrong at least in our minds.

I do not suggest or recommend anything that I do not practice myself.

Regards, Dave
and 88's from G8MZY for the festive season.