Bee Genetics

[JOHNYOGA2]

I'm a hobby keeper. Hives in a large open area, acres and acres, plenty of feed but few, if any, feral bees. Before my hives, during the spring seeing a Honeybee was a rare treat.
Assuming NO practical feral bee population and no other Beekeepers in the area, (the assumption being that the only drones in the DCA would be from my hives) how many unrelated queens would be necessary to insure a good gene pool?

[USCBeeMan]

I can't answer that question but you sure can increase the pool by adding swarms with mated queens and/or doing splits and purchasing mated queens.

I would think that it's not the amount of drones in the gene pool initially but over a period of time.

[11x]

it is hard to bee shure there are no feral bees. i read thay will travel as far as 2 miles radius. that is a long way to be certin there are no feral hives.

[BigDaddyDS]

The answer to your question is a minimum of 12 hives for the greatest odds of a queen mating with a non-brother, with the fewest hives, and the best chance of genetic diversity.

This is taking into account that a queen will mate a minimum of 12 times, and a maximum of 42 times during her mating period.

But, also keep in mind that while the DCA's (Drone Congregation Areas) for your hives may be located about 1 1/2 miles away, the queen will travel up to 4 miles to prevent mating with her own brothers. That's over 19 square miles that she can mate in! Are you SURE you don't have a feral colony within that area? 'Cuz I'm not.

DS

[JOHNYOGA2]

I'm NOT sure there are no feral bees but I was wondering one of the big IF questions.
12 hives is a managable number and it gives me a justification for expansion. Thanks!

[mike bispham]

I'm NOT sure there are no feral bees but I was wondering one of the big IF questions.
12 hives is a managable number and it gives me a justification for expansion. Thanks!

If you were importing from zero hives I would say...

Whatever you find, do try to import only self-sufficient bees. If you bring in bees that are not resistant to varroa, you'll be saddled with sad sick bees until you take the tough decision to change them. What's worse your unadapted bees will dump their genes in the locality, undermining any adapted wild bees there, and screwing any of your neighbours currently untroubled by pests and diseases.

And yes, bring in several strains, making sure each queen has mated naturally, preferably with mongrels. Since she'll have mated with 10 or 15 drones each will be conveying considerable diversity. Hope for - and encourage - wild bees that will have exactly the right traits for your locality.

Aim to never medicate, in the knowledge that each bloodline resulting from artificially maintained stock will need similar treatment forever.

However, since you are expanding, I would have to say... get rid of your unadapted/non-self-sufficient stocks first. They are probably the reason why there are no wild bees in your area.

Best wishes,

Mike
http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

[BoBn]

Can anyone speak of first-hand experience of inbreeding?
Much of beekeepers discussion about "inbreeding" doesn't make much sense to me from a background in genetics and breeding.

Often times, the F2, or F3 hybrid generation is surprisingly superior to the F1 generation. Many invertebrates and vascular plants have been inbred for thousands of generations.

I realize that artificial inbreeding of 2 or more lines and out breeding has produced some exceptional results, and can produce some wonky 3rd generations.

But does anyone have experience of inbreeding for 8 or 10 years?

[justin]

i dont have any first hand experience with inbreeding bees, i think there is a stigma (for me anyways) based on the many stories i have heard of inbreeding among pure breed dogs, race horses, and royalty. and to think i grew up in tennessee with all my beautiful cousins....

[Beekeeper's hubby]

Bee genetics are a little different from animals. They seem to operate on a system that is genetically promiscuous. I do not think there is any way you could inbreed them.

[mike bispham]

Inbreeding can be done through AI by using only drones from the same strains. In my view its a terrible idea. Natural selection for the fittest strains and careful selection for the soundest stock for reproduction supply the way to health. Experimenting with imported queens chosen for beekeeper preferences should only come on top of good locally adapated mongrel stock, safe in the knowledge that her narrow genes will never come to dominate the environment. Genetic diversity is the name of the game; then when some nasty pest or disease comes along your bees have a wide range of material to draw upon to find the resistant strains and rebuild.
Mike

[JOHNYOGA2]

But bee genetics are a bit more complicated, aren't they? Since workers born from eggs fertilized by the same drone are super-sisters (sharing 75% of the same genetic material-there are studies which indicate feeding preferences within the hive to super-sister groups), and workers born from eggs fertilized by different drones are half-sisters, doesn't the queens genetic profile count for more then the drones? Therefore to ensure a good genetic mix shouldn't we be relying more on the genetics of available queens then available drones since they are, if from a fixed group with no outside intervention, identical? If we assume a non-functional feral population, wouldn't the ideal situation be 12 hives with 12 different queens from 12 different local breeders?

[mike bispham]

But bee genetics are a bit more complicated, aren't they? Since workers born from eggs fertilized by the same drone are super-sisters (sharing 75% of the same genetic material-there are studies which indicate feeding preferences within the hive to super-sister groups), and workers born from eggs fertilized by different drones are half-sisters, doesn't the queens genetic profile count for more then the drones?

Complicated, yes! Perhaps that's a good argument for using the colony as the unit of individuality. After all, traditionally keeping consisted of reproducing from the strongest, culling the weak, and making up numbers from the wild - and that was a lot more successful than most of what goes on today.



Therefore to ensure a good genetic mix shouldn't we be relying more on the genetics of available queens then available drones since they are, if from a fixed group with no outside intervention, identical? If we assume a non-functional feral population, wouldn't the ideal situation be 12 hives with 12 different queens from 12 different local breeders?

IF the drone are from a fixed group with no outside intervention... and of narrow, or 'pure-bred' stock, then, yes, the drones will not contribute much genetic diversity. But this will only bee the case from breeders who a) breed 'narrowly' and b) use AI and inbreed or c) manage to dominate their local environment. (If they medicate hard this is easy to achieve - because what you are raising is not self-sufficient, and lays waste to the surrounding life.)

I think since it is good to have a) as much new blood as possible, from as many richly varied sources as possible, and b) disease-resistant stock, you should choose your sources very carefully.

I don't think you can beat mongrels. Ones that come from nearby will be likely to be genetically diverse, will be suited to your habitat; and if you use self-sufficient wild stock you get the important bonus of resistance to disease, since they have adapted.

In other words, choose your breeders carefully, yes, go local; and make use of nature's selection at least some of the time - even if that means going out of the locality.

Looking forward; having gone to all this trouble, once started, how will you keep these bloodlines fit?

Mike

[JOHNYOGA2]

Mike,
I completely agree. The idea is to increase the genetic diversity of the yard and ideally, that genetic stock would be hardy survivor stock. That was the motivation for my original question about the number of hives necessary to insure that diversity. It becomes much more complicated because of the excessive gene donation of the queen, which always throws me. Whenever I get hopelessly confused, which is often, I remember that Mendel started with bees, gave up and then turned to garden peas...
But what we have seen here is a decrease in the feral population. There are certainly questions arising about the causes of this decrease, and I would agree that a strong feral survivor colony would be great, but, at this time, the practical feral population may be suspect. So my question was premised on NO feral contribution.
So how many hives are necessary, assuming no feral contribution, to assure genetic diversity in a yard, in your opinion?

[mike bispham]

Mike,
So how many hives are necessary, assuming no feral contribution, to assure genetic diversity in a yard, in your opinion?

I don't think an answer can be given in absolute terms. All you can say is the more resistance you bring in, and the more you reduce its exposure to unadapted input, the better your chances of moving over to unmedicated bees entirely.

In this case, what is already there is as important as when you bring in.

The more you outnumber unadapted stock with adapted, the better your chances.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it is much easier to import and then maintain resistance, than to try to raise resistant stock from unadapted stock. The losses would be likely to be stupidly high (80% seems usual - but if your stock is genetically narrow you might expect it to be higher... unless that stock happened to have some resistance...)

The question of genetic diversity has moved into the background, behind the question of resistance - how you import it, and how you keep it...

So I'd start again at the beginning; how many hives do you already have; what kinds of degrees of resistance do they exhibit, how hard have you been medicating (masking non-resistance and undermining the emergence of resistance in the wild bees) for the past few years? I think the best way forward is dependent upon a lot of different factors, which I'd need to know before I could start suggesting a strategy.

Mike

PS if your find these ideas useful you might want to lookat my other posts, since I only ever talk about the one thing : )

[JOHNYOGA2]

Mike,
This last November I purchased a five acre plot about 50 miles west of my home. It is in a rural location with roaming cows and horses, acres of fields, and woods. But very few bees. My next door neighbors, not really great historians, told me that before my hives were in place, they hadn't seen a honey bee in two years. I doubt this is an accurate evaluation of the local feral population density, but I have no first hand knowledge and am assuming the worse case.
This spring I moved two of my home nucs onto the property and they are prospering. Assuming winter survival of these hives, they will be split next spring. At that time I will allow the splits to raise their own queens and I will replace the original queens. I intend to get these new queens from a different local supplier (different from the supplier from whom I have been getting my nucs and queens). I am also considering two additional nucs (not mine) which would bring the total hive count to six with queens from three different local sources.
I don't medicate. My intent is, within three years, to make the property an organic farm. I was under the understanding that my supplier also did not medicate. I discovered this spring in conversation that he does indeed medicate. Thus my uneasyness with the bees in my home yard, my decision not to transfer any more of my home bees to the property, and my intent to genetically diversify the farm hives. I'm having the new hives draw out new comb from foundation. The original nuc frames will be returned to their original location at my home yard.
In conversations on this website, I have discovered that a new beek has hives located about seven miles from my location so that is a potential genetic help assuming queens and drones meet somewhere in between. So I am interested in the minimum number of hives necessary to insure a good genetic mix assuming I have the only breeding population available.

[mike bispham]

[...] So I am interested in the minimum number of hives necessary to insure a good genetic mix assuming I have the only breeding population available.

So we're looking at an 'oasis situation' with several unknowns: the robustness of your bees; the same of your neighbour's - and if he medicates regularly they must be assumed feeble and unwanted -and the existence of mongrel survivors.

I think all you can do is bring in a reasonable number of colonies, doing your utmost to find resistant and genetically-diverse one - 12 sounds like a good number to me. If things go well, and if you think no fresh blood is arriving via wild bees, plan to import new strains from time to time. Trust to luck, pray for good weather!

Have you tried contacting the organicbeekeepers list (Organicbeekeepers@yahoogroups.com) for folks in your area with varroa resistant stock? You may be able to borrow a few swarms, or find likely spots to collect them...

Further thoughts - the natural or free-cell folks swear that allowing bees to build from unprinted, or no foundation makes a lot of difference to mite resistance (I think what they call 'regressed' is actually 'adapted' - but I'm in the middle of an argument about that...) -are you planning to go this way?

Another thought - why not try to set up boxes for wild bees to live in likely spots nearby? If you explain that you are trying to help resistance develop I reckon many farmers will agree; and you might find quiet spots no-one ever goes. If you get an 'natural' out-apiary humming you'll have a constant source of swarms....

Last thought; I think part of the problem for re-colonising bees in some places is lack of 'corridors' of country linking good bees to good country. If you can find where the good bees are, and then help them jump across to you, that would good. We could probably say more about this - if you truly are an isolated oasis, then diversity might take on more importance - but you'd also be vunerable to shocks if new diseases come in.

Anyway, hope that helps, best of luck, and sorry if I've rambled,
Mike

[Kathleen]

I think what they called 'regressed' is actually 'adapted' - but I'm in the middle of an argument about that...)

I would argue that it is neither, since both are terms apply to shifting of genes in a population. This is a behavioral trait based on the available substrate.

Bears near a human establishment eat more garbage because it's available and easy pickings. Their genes don't adapt or regress in order to eat the garbage.

I know, I know, it's a poor analogy. The stately bee is far superior to the trash picking bear. :)

[JOHNYOGA2]

Mike
I have found your comments both well reasoned and enjoyable. Hardly a ramble.
I would like to try foundationless hives and likely will at some point, but frankly, I've not seen a "need" for it yet, which I see as a good thing. My supplier has always produced good strong queens and their colonies do well without much help from me (even if he does medicate). I see framed foundation as a advantage because it allows me to proceed through a hive without too much concern about breaking anything off! I don't much mind the bees building brace or burr comb and I will avoid distrubing it if it's not in the way. I try hard to stay out of the hives unless I have some good reason to go in, and when do go in, I try to keep my visits as short as possible.
Love your idea about the out-apiary. If the Oasis hives swarm, maybe I won't be in such a hurry to try to capture them back to my yard.
Thanks, you've given me a lot to think about.
John

[mike bispham]

I would argue that it is neither, since both are terms apply to shifting of genes in a population. This is a behavioral trait based on the available substrate.

I think 'regressed' is sometimes used to refer to what has happened in the original generation, and also to the state of the subsequent bees. It is possible that I'm not following the user's intentions properly, but as I understand it it is a veracular term with no clear scientific counterpart.

However, those bees that are varroa resistant when on in small cells - whether they have built them or not - are presumably adapted to varroa only when in small cells.

Anyway we perhaps we ought to talk about this the bee genetics thread...?

Mike

[mike bispham]

[...] I would like to try foundationless hives and likely will at some point,

Quick postsript - why not try unprinted framed foundation? best of both worlds?


Thanks, you've given me a lot to think about.
John

And you've helped me clarify my own ideas - thanks too.

Mike

[JOHNYOGA2]

Kathleen,
While this sound s like the middle of a whole other thread, are you saying that cell size is not genetic?
Clearly the bee will adapt to any size cell offered, more or less. But there is a lot of information on this site that says when given just a starter strip, the bees will, eventually, build smaller cells. Are you saying this is behavoral?

[dug_6238]

In this context regression was meant not in terms of genetics, but rather in returning following generations to a smaller body size by raising in a smaller space (smaller cells).

[Kathleen]

Kathleen,
Are you saying this is behavoral?

No, I'm saying that must be the natural trait. It's building on the available larger cell that is a behavioral, but not genetic shift. It's not the ancestral trait for bees to be building on frames at all. A genetic shift would mean they build the larger cells even without the frames.

I don't know enough about bee genetics, or bees at all, to make any connections. However, if the same bees are more mite resistant on smaller cells than they would be on larger cells based on the anecdotal evidence, this would not indicate that mite resistance and the propensity toward building smaller cells are carried together on the same gene. More that there is something about the larger cells/larger size that the mites use to their advantage.

Maybe we should be talking mite genetics? Either way, it's my favorite subject, so I'm enjoying the discussion.

[mike bispham]

Kathleen,
While this sound s like the middle of a whole other thread, are you saying that cell size is not genetic?
Clearly the bee will adapt to any size cell offered, more or less. But there is a lot of information on this site that says when given just a starter strip, the bees will, eventually, build smaller cells. Are you saying this is behavoral?

Hi Kathleen,

I'm not sure I follow your division between 'genetic' and behavioural'. As I understand things most bee behaviour is genetically-progammed, so I can't follow that division.

What I am saying is that I think in the wild bees will probably build within a narrow range (some strains exhibiting smaller and some larger cell-building behaviour as a result of genetic diversity), and that if cell size makes a difference to how well they do then it will move up and down a little as natural selection works out what works best.

It appears at the moment that artificially-imposing a larger size increases vulnerability to fatal levels of mite infection. We may imagine that any strains that tend to build similar large cells will tend to be killed off in the current environment, and that that particular trait will die with them.

It may be that in the future varroa will be cast off, or dealt with easily by (genetically-driven) hygenic behaviours, and there will be an advantage of some kind in larger cells. If that happens natural selection will tend to favour strains that use larger cells.

If that is accurate then your statement: "Clearly the bee will adapt to any size cell offered, more or less" is shown to be mistaken... if by 'adapt' we mean the biological sense of 'change over generations to cope with new circumstances'. Since they do not appear to do will in large imposed cells, they clearly haven't 'adapted' in this, biological, sense.

Whatever; its import in my view that there are homes in which bees can build freely, and therefore use cell size in whatever way they can to adapt (in the biological sense) to the new disease environmment.

Does that work for you?

Mike

[dug_6238]

Kathleen,
MB and others claim faster time to emerge from the cell as one advantage, if I understand that part of your question...it's not the whole answer but at least a relevant piece. A lot more variables would have to contribute at the same time though.

Anyway, I don't think that the building of smaller cells is genetic, it's just a product of a smaller-size bee body, which was brought about by raising the previous batch in smaller cells...

[JOHNYOGA2]

Kathleen,
Thanks, now I follow.
It is my understanding that the larger cell size was introduced to produce larger bees which, in turn, would produce more honey. The bees, being adaptable, didn't much care and worked with whatever they were given.
The smaller cell, as I understand it, is a much less inviting environment for the development of the mite. The larger cells do work to the mites advantage, exactly as you say.
Since you've followed the discussion, what imput do you have for the number of colonies that make a genetically competent oasis community?

[Kathleen]

Hi Kathleen,

I'm not sure I follow your division between 'genetic' and behavioural'. as I understand things most bee behaviour is genetically-progammed, so I can't floow that division.

Mike

Agreed, but not all behavior is genetically programed and bees are not building larger cells because of a genetic shift. Without the frames they do not build these cells.

[mike bispham]

[...]
Clearly the bee will adapt to any size cell offered, more or less.

This happened on the other thread. When I say 'adapt' I'm using the term in the narrow biological sense of advantagous change over several generations as a result of natural selection. And nothing else...

Mike

[Kathleen]

Kathleen,

Since you've followed the discussion, what imput do you have for the number of colonies that make a genetically competent oasis community?

Absolutely none, but I've been thinking about getting my grad degree and it's an interesting idea for a thesis. :D Or maybe some crunching some hard data with regards to small cell and mite resistance.

[mike bispham]

Agreed, but not all behavior is genetically programed and bees are not building larger cells because of a genetic shift. Without the frames they do not build these cells.

I would say cell-size from no pre-ordained foundation is genetically programmed behaviour.

I'm also going to say lets not forget that we can talk about these things endlessly; when what is really important is that bees are either free for nature to select for the fittest strains, thus allowing adaptation to the changing pest/disease environment, or we must do the job through sound husbandry. That must not include allowing reproduction from artificially-maintained hives.

Endlessly reproducing unadapted bees, and then regularly medicating them just to allow them to survive is a horrendously ugly approach to 'husbandry'.

Sorry to be tedious, but these things link up.

Mike

[JOHNYOGA2]

Mike
My comment about cell size was directed at trying to figure out what Kathleen was saying. My fault, poorly worded. Kathleen was on point, I was off somewhere else mentally! That often happens...

[Kathleen]

Mike
Kathleen was on point, ...
I wouldn't be so sure about that. My horoscope today said I was one brick shy of a load.

[JOHNYOGA2]

So, the Michael Bush website says that "regressing" cell size may take several generations. If cell size is genetic, wouldn't the bees default to small (natural) cell size immediately if provided with blank foundation? It's almost like the bees have to "unlearn" what they've been doing, which makes them seem almost trained, which would be behavorial. Since I've never done foundationless hives, do foundationless colonies always regress to "natural" cell size?

[Kathleen]

Interesting questions. Is there empirical data about cell size from before frame use? Are they actually regressing with regard to cell size over several generations? The beauty of most insects is the quick turnover of generations which lends itself to this kind of study.

[mike bispham]

So, the Michael Bush website says that "regressing" cell size may take several generations. If cell size is genetic, wouldn't the bees default to small (natural) cell size immediately if provided with blank foundation? It's almost like the bees have to "unlearn" what they've been doing, which makes them seem almost trained, which would be behavorial. Since I've never done foundationless hives, do foundationless colonies always regress to "natural" cell size?

I don't know much about this, but, in the spirit of food for thought:

1) it seems that for Michael 'regression' is a return to a previous way of working (otherwise it couldn't be called 'regress' could it?).

2) It is possible that what he means is that they start exhibiting resistance after several generations (of being left to sort out their problems) - in which case I'd say what has happened is 'adaptation' - at least partly through the establishment of genes promoting small-cell building behaviour.

3) You would think that recently free-cell/mongrel/wild bees would revert to that behaviour immediately.

4) In the wild bees take over old comb, and those that are adaptable (in the ordinary sense of the word) to different sizes will have advantages over those that are fussy- so there may be an inbuilt ability to be flexible.

5) After living for several generations on large comb, perhaps those sub-strains that do best on large cells come to the fore; and it takes a few generation for them to reced as the advantages of small cells (against the mites) play out.

It would be nice to get to the bottom of this; get a clear idea of what folks mean by 'recession', and whether it is always the same thing. Fingers crossed..

Mike

[BoBn]

when what is really important is that bees are either free for nature to select for the fittest strains, thus allowing adaptation to the changing pest/disease environment, or we must do the job through sound husbandry.

I think that survival stress (nature) does not select for the "fittest". It is simply selection of the "good enough". I think that survival of the "fittest" is much more limiting in the long term health of the gene pool.

[mike bispham]

I think you are right to see deeper nuances in the process than are conveyed by the common phrase. 'Best able to thrive as a species' might wrap it up for me. (It is of course 'fitness' to live in that environment' that is conveyed by the phrase, and not just 'physically fit'.)

I think though that natural selection does continue to refine and hone the health of each species. We can see, for example, that in those species in which males fight to earn the right to mate with a harem, strength, aggression, (physical) fitness and cunning all come into play. These are traits that will help the species compete against competitor-species, hunt well, and fend off large predators. This is a continous mechanism, in each generation, that brings the strongest and most physically-fit genes through, and leaves the rest behind; and it it is clearly a very important mechanism as competition to mate is prevalent in nature.

In bees in-flight mating supplies the same kind of raw pysical-fitness filter; and over time the best genes are kept on top. But yes, the good-enough are still there, and provide the stock from wich the best are selected by mating competition, and other pressures - like bad winters and diseases.

I think though that it is important to maintain an emphasis on the negative side - the weakest die. That feature is immensely important, and we tamper with it (through medication and disease management) at our peril.

I find your equating of nature with 'survival stress' interesting. I'm not sure it works well for me, partly because for me nature includes non-living things - but its interesting.

Thought-provoking stuff, thanks

Mike

[Kathleen]

This is a continous mechanism, in each generation, that brings the strongest and most physically-fit genes through, and leaves the rest behind
I think it skews the idea to use the bolded words, though I got a good chuckle at the very manly example. Adaptations in animals involve many other traits besides physical prowess. A long slender bird bill that fits down the long corella of a flower. An exterior that blends in with the environment. Large ears to hear predators. The physiological changes that enable many insects to survive winter.


I find your equating of nature with 'survival stress' interesting. I'm not sure it works well for me, partly because for me nature includes non-living things - but its interesting.


Survival stress=environmental pressures which is the mechanism for natural selection, though I disagree that natural selection is limiting to long term health. Au contraire.

[mike bispham]

I think it skews the idea to use the bolded words, though I got a good chuckle at the very manly example. Adaptations in animals involve many other traits besides physical prowess. A long slender bird bill that fits down the long corella of a flower. An exterior that blends in with the environment. Large ears to hear predators. The physiological changes that enable many insects to survive winter.

Yes, sorry - my environmental stress levels are high! The ladies often dominate the mate-slection process! Think peacock, bower birds, humans!



Survival stress=environmental pressures which is the mechanism for natural selection, ...

Surely 'Survival stress=environmental pressures' is the driver of selection?

The mechanisms are multiple, but we can pick out winners/loosers in the reproduction game as the chief and underlying mechanism.


...though I disagree that natural selection is limiting to long term health. Au contraire

I don't understand that - perhaps you use of limiting is unfamilar to me. NS is surely the guarentor of continuing health?

Mike

[dug_6238]

Folks, I think you're missing it. I don't think MB or anyone else was stating that cell size was genetic. Regression was meant in the context that the bee's body size was a function of the size of the container that it was raised in, and that by raising subsequent generations of bees in progressively smaller cells, you would bring the average body size of the bees in that colony down to a smaller size (closer to 4.9, etc.), and the other premise being that these smaller size bees often seemed to these folks that they were better able to deal with mites through hygienic means.

Warranty not included. :popcorn:

[mike bispham]

Folks, I think you're missing it. I don't think MB or anyone else was stating that cell size was genetic. Regression was meant in the context that the bee's body size was a function of the size of the container that it was raised in, and that by raising subsequent generations of bees in progressively smaller cells, you would bring the average body size of the bees in that colony down to a smaller size (closer to 4.9, etc.), and the other premise being that these smaller size bees often seemed to these folks that they were better able to deal with mites through hygienic means.

Warranty not included. :popcorn:

As I understand it MB (Michael Bush) reports that if you let bees that have been raised in the largish standard cells make their own comb, they reduce to a smaller size. This however takes several lots of pupae -though can be done under the same queen. This 'stepping down' is I guess the origin of the vernacular term 'regress'. I think putting in small comb, or small foundation, in an attempt to force them down quickly might jamb the works - though you can get bees down to suprisingly low sizes - if you want to force them.

This has come from a very quick read of Michael's 'short versions' at http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#whatisregression and I might have missed or misread something...

Doubtles there is a range of views on just what goes on, and why what happens happens.

Research work has shown that natural comb alone has not made any difference to mite counts.

This tends to support my tentative hypothesis that it is the tendency of natural-cellers to avoid medication that is the actual mechanims at work - since this allows natural selection to operate. And of course some of them also use traditional breeding methods that select primarily for health.

In this view natural comb become something of a red herring in terms of the development of mite tolerance - but that doesn't mean I'd want to dismiss or discourage it. It just means that we must look to sound reproduction foirst and formost.

Btw, someone on my list bought my attention to this wonderful page today:

The exciting potential of remote feral bee colonies for Varroa coexistence, a short 2005 paper by Adrian M. Wenner of the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California. This closely parallels the general thesis proposed here.

http://www.beesource.com/resources/point-of-view/adrian-wenner/the-potential-of-remote-feral-bee-colonies-for-varroa-coexistence/

Again I'd want to fine-tune it to get rid of bleddy medication altogether...

Mike
http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

[JOHNYOGA2]

Dug,

WE are talking genetics, and while MB was too, I agree that I don't think that was his direct intent. So we've just taken what he said and sort of "run" with it. We're talking what size cell the bee would make if left to her own genetic inperitive. Someone discovered that they could provide the bees with a bigger cell foundation and the bees would accordingly raise bigger bees. This was thought a good idea for the production of more honey. And it's actually a form of training.
But somewhere inside their little bee brains is their pre-programed genetic code which tells them what cell size they "should" use. I wonder, if cell size is genetic, why they don't immediately regress to "natural" cell size instead of taking several generations as the MB (I wonder if Michael ever is annoyed by being talked about in the third person?) website suggests. Genes tell is everything about the organism, everything that isn't learned behavior.
So is cell size genetic or is it behavorial? Do bees raised in large size cells then allowed to go foundationless always regress? Isn't having bigger bees for both forage and defense an advantage? And if they always regress, why don't they do so immediately? Why does it take "some" generations? Kathleen may get her research project material right here!

[mike bispham]

So is cell size genetic or is it behavorial? Do bees raised in large size cells then allowed to go foundationless always regress? Isn't having bigger bees for both forage and defense an advantage?

Given that most bees probably lived in tree hollows that were size-restricted, more small bees could be raised than large ones...?

I would imagine since most insects are pretty small there is some kind of limiting factor to the insect structure. there is probably a good asnwer to this out there somewhere...



And if they always regress, why don't they do so immediately? Why does it take "some" generations? Kathleen may get her research project material right here!

I don't think it is 'generations' - just brood-batches. What he says is:

"What is Regression?

Large bees, from large cells, cannot build natural sized cells. They build something in between. Most will build 5.1 mm worker brood cells.

The next brood cycle will build cells in the 4.9 mm range.

The only complication with converting back to Natural or Small cell is this need for regression."

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#whatisregression

He does use the term 'generation', but qualifies it with double quote marks.

It seems you have to mess around taking out each drawn frame and letting them build again the next size down until you are happy that they are building what they want. This process is 'regressing', and the end result 'regressed bees. How much we want to read from there seems uncertain.

One thought: on this reading, a wild swarm should build small straight away, while a swarm from a large-foundation colony will build an intermediate size - supplying a way of telling how long your swarm has been wild - no, ****, they may have been living on old large comb drawn by escapees! But while large swarms only might be survivors, small bees would be a good indicator of survivor stock and thus mite tolerance, no?

Mike

[dug_6238]

No. Entertaining conjecture though. Just a little misleading for those who might read it and believe that it's based on fact.

[JOHNYOGA2]

Mike,
As to a natural size limiting factor, I would direct your attention to the movie "Them". If left on their own in a nuclear implanted desert, the limiting size of ants appears to be something large enough to eat James Whitmore...
I'm not convinced that the natural size of the bee is determined by the caviety in which they nest, it just doesn't sound right. In that case wouldn't bees that populated caves be larger then bees in log hollows? In that case we're talking not genetic factors or even behaviorial factors, but we're introducing environmental factors determining bee natural cell size. There are two species of asian bee that I've read about recently. Both build comb that they hang outside. One is huge the other tiny. I don't think the environmental factor holds.
If my hives swarm (not natural foundation) and head off into the woods, will they not immediately regress? Would it still take several brood batch generations?
I am also not convinced bigger bees (with the exception of the mite problem) are not an improvement. They would have more gathering capacity and more defensive ability. It seems to me that if there was no concern over pests, our discussions would likely be about the optimal bee size.
There was an earlier post about survival of the "good enough". If colonies are bread for mite resistance, and that is practically acheived, I think foundationless hives still may be a good idea, but for reasons other then pest control. I'm not convinced they would be fittest.

[dug_6238]

Opps, sorry John, hope that wasn't my fault. Container would mean cell size that that particular bee was raised in, not size of the cavity. Bees don't really 'nest', it's probably not the right word to use in that circumstance. The size of the cavity (hive) for honeybees changes every time you add another brood box or another super. Asians and other bees would be like comparing apples with oranges I suppose.

No they would not immediately regress, especially if that new comb was re-used for subsequent generations and not replaced. Regression as followed by the N & S-cellers most often involves some removal of the larger-celled combs periodically throughout the regression process. It's as much management as anything - you're replacing comb giving smaller cell sizes in which to...(uh-oh, this forum doesn't have the beating a dead horse smiley :D )

[mike bispham]

No. Entertaining conjecture though. Just a little misleading for those who might read it and believe that it's based on fact.

Ok, which bits are wrong and why? Given the way it is phrased, I'd doubt many would be silly enough to read it as fact.

Mike

[JOHNYOGA2]

Dug,
I know, you're very right, but "caviety in which they hive" just sounds clunky!
I'm having some difficulty with the "natural cell size" concept. If I catch a feral swarm and put it on waxed foundation, the bees will immediately use that foundation to draw out new comb.
If I decided the next year, to go foundationless, it will take the bees two or more brood cycles to make the cell size smaller, assuming that I remove the intermediate drawn cells because without such removal with will go on using what's available.
If, instead of deciding to go foundationless, my hive swarmed and went into the woods, would it also take them two brood cycles or so to regress, or would that hive have intermediate size cells and the next swarm from that first swarm would be regressed? What Mike is suggesting is that perhapes the size of the wild swarm cell is an indication of how long the swarm has been wild.
What we're considering is whether cell size is genetic or behavorial. And if it is completely genetic, I don't understand why there would be "stages of regression". If it is behavioral, what are the limits?
Your point about "management" is spot on. My eyes are brown and will always be brown. Genetic. I have a preference for the use of my right hand. It it becomes damaged, I can train myself to use my left hand. Behavorial. Is cell size then just a management technique? And what are we breeding for, honey production or mite prevention? Then what Kathleen said yesterday about maybe studying "mite genetics" being more important then "bee genetics" makes a LOT of sense (a complete brick load though she might not think so). And what Mike says about breeding for mite resistance makes perfect sense too. Are we manageing pets or livestock? If we're manageing livestock, we need to do whatever we can to improve the breed.

[mike bispham]

Mike,
As to a natural size limiting factor, I would direct your attention to the movie "Them". If left on their own in a nuclear implanted desert, the limiting size of ants appears to be something large enough to eat James Whitmore...

Er, that's a movie, right?



I'm not convinced that the natural size of the bee is determined by the caviety in which they nest, it just doesn't sound right.

Not the cavity, the cell size. If you raise brood in small cells you get small bees. Wild bees naturally build smaller cells, and are therefore smaller bees.

From Michael Bush's page, given earlier:

Observations on Natural Cell Size
First there is no one size of cells nor one size of worker brood cells in a hive. Huber's Observations on bigger drones from bigger cells was directly because of this and led to his experiments on cell size. Unfortunately, since he couldn't get foundation at all, let alone different sizes, these experiments only involved putting worker eggs in drone cells which, of course, failed. The bees draw a variety of cell sizes which create a variety of bee sizes. Perhaps these different subcastes serve the purposes of the hive with more diversity of abilities

The first "generation" of bees from a typical hive (artificially enlarged bees) usually builds about 5.1 mm cells for worker brood. This varies a lot, but typically this is the center of the brood nest. Some bees will go smaller faster.

The next generation of bees will build worker brood comb in the range of 4.9 mm to 5.1 mm with some smaller and some larger. The spacing, if left to these "regressed" bees is typically 32 mm or 1 ¼" in the center of the brood nest

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#whatisregression



If my hives swarm (not natural foundation) and head off into the woods, will they not immediately regress? Would it still take several brood batch generations?

Complication: IF they build new comb they'll build intermediate size cells. they are then stuck with that size - that comb will raise intermediate bees always - unless they replace it (rare?), or unless they later build an extension, of new, smaller comb which they then use as brood nest.


I am also not convinced bigger bees (with the exception of the mite problem) are not an improvement. They would have more gathering capacity and more defensive ability. It seems to me that if there was no concern over pests, our discussions would likely be about the optimal bee size.

Sure, but that's not where we are. And letting nature decide is generally the best thing to do. You only move away from that until a problem shows up, then you retreat fast. And boy, did a problem show up.


If colonies are bread for mite resistance, and that is practically acheived, I think foundationless hives still may be a good idea, but for reasons other then pest control. I'm not convinced they would be fittest.

That which best thrives is by definition the fittest.

Mike

[JOHNYOGA2]

Mike,
Yes "Them" is a movie about giant ants...My poor attempt a some humor.

[mike bispham]

What we're considering is whether cell size is genetic or behavorial.

That's a false opposition and will lead to confusion.

All organisms are predisposed to particular behavoiurs by their genetic makeup. Those predispositions determine how they will react to particular circumstances. On top of that bottom-level factor, environmental factors come into play. Those that are raised in large cells will grow bigger (up to a point) Those that are fed well will become strong and healthy. Both these things assume the genetic makeup allows for these things - poor genes may prevent an individual ever attaining good health despite the best environment.

Left to their own devices bees will make smaller comb and become smaller bees - that is determined by their genes. If however they have been raised in large cells, and are large bees, they cannot immediately construct small cells. This may be for mechanical reasons, or because they 'know' that if they make cells too small they won't be able to get in to clean them - or some reason we don't know about. It doesn't really matter unless we really want to know that particular thing.



Your point about "management" is spot on. My eyes are brown and will always be brown. Genetic. I have a preference for the use of my right hand. It it becomes damaged, I can train myself to use my left hand.

'Learned, not 'behavioural'. 'Genetically-directed behaviour' vs. 'Learned behaviour' is the distinction that makes the discussion possible.

Or, as its often said: 'Nature vs Nurture'.

It is often the case that these questions are all but unanswerable - although the search for answers goes on, and progress is made. However, again, do we need to know?



And what are we breeding for, honey production or mite prevention?

imo it is high time we bred for health. That means breeding out strains that cannot cope with mites.



Then what Kathleen said yesterday about maybe studying "mite genetics" being more important then "bee genetics" makes a LOT of sense (a complete brick load though she might not think so).

Absolutely. The two 'co-evolve' and that fuller story is much more able to make deep explanations. But we can do a great deal with simple accounts too, and that's often better. Follow the precepts of traditional husbandry, and its job done. our fathers and grandfathers probably knew nothing of genes, but the know how to keep stock healthy by breeding properly.



And what Mike says about breeding for mite resistance makes perfect sense too. Are we manageing pets or livestock? If we're manageing livestock, we need to do whatever we can to improve the breed.

Whatever we're breeding, we don't want to be screwing the species. That's what we're doing at present; and it has to stop while we still have a species to screw with.

Mike