Selective Breeding and IPM

[mike bispham]

I wonder if this will find a home here? Its a short exploration of the reasons why beekeepers don't select for health like other stockholders do. The general idea is that not selecting is effectively carrying out a policy of breeding from sick animals, and what you should expect is more sick animals.

Mike

Selective Breeding and IPM

None of the modern 'IPM' regimes that I've seen make any mention of the importance of selective breeding away from diseases and pests, and towards resistance and vigour. I will outline below why I think this is a mistake.

In the not so distant past, beekeepers could rely on natural selection in a vigorous wild population to supply well-adapted genetic material to apiaries. This is, in husbandry terms, a unique relationship. In all domestic species - plant and animal - considerable control of the breeding arrangements is possible. In animals selective control allows breeding for health and vigour, as well as secondary desirable traits. In plants natural selection is also evident - those seeds that are not well-adapted fail to mature and supply further seeds.

Until recently most husbandry of all kinds required an understanding of the benefits of controlled selection, and a keen awareness of the downside of failing to control breeding. Farm herds were constantly tuned by the selection of strong breeding males, and a parallel process selected less able females for market, away from the breeding herd. Before professional seedsmen took over, much seed raising was achieved by simple and natural means - some of the seeds that grew well were planted next year, and selection took place naturally during the growing process.

But most farmers as well as most rural dwellers also kept cottage gardens, and here seed management was something of an art. Seed taken from what were judged to be the best plants was routinely saved for planting the following year, in the knowledge that there was no better way to raise strong plants. The annual flower and vegetable competitions that were part of the rural seasonal calendar supplied a further incentive to many to practice the art of raising prize specimens.

In this environment, the understanding that the best plants supply the best seed was simply second nature. In the raising of prize animals of all kinds, again selective breeding was everything - there is simply no other way to raise healthy specimens, and prize-winners commanded best prices. The equine community and anyone breeding working or show dogs followed exactly the same principles.

In the rural environment then, natural selection was part of the fabric of knowledge, and selective breeding across all forms of husbandry was second nature. Nobody who practices husbandry in this kind of way is in any doubt at all; not all individuals are viable, and that in every generation, even if it is worth keeping them going until they can be taken to market, most should never be used as parents.

For rural beekeepers this understanding would have been present; yet they would also have understood that their stock was different. Bees are not domesticated, for the very reason that their breeding cannot be controlled. This has two significant consequences. First, attempts at breeding in particular traits are harder, take longer, and are more likely to succeed in large apiaries where the numbers compete with, or out-compete the local wild population. Secondly, natural selection in the wild population forms the main breeding mechanism. That, as rural dwellers, knew, is fine. Nature is, in her own way, just as good at ensuring health and vigour in her charges, as mankind is in his enclosed domain.

But a result of this unique situation is that beekeeping didn't have to develop a strong tradition of selective breeding. As a result almost all talk of breeding bees has always taken at a specialist level, rather than at the level where most bees are 'bred'. There is little talk in bee books about selection for health - indeed most make no mention whatsoever of the notion. Accordingly, the modern treatment-based approach to husbandry that appears successful in other areas offers an apparently plausible regime to beekeepers. The fact that even the most modern treatment-based approaches are overlaid on a largely hidden yet very strict regime of selective breeding, has escaped our notice.

The fact is that we now breed sick bees. We treat colonies that would otherwise perish, yet fail to prevent them supplying genetic material to new generations. Unfit bees beget more unfit bees. Without selection for heath and vigour, and against pests and dieases, there can be no improvement in resistance. The inadequate genetic material bred in apiaries pollutes wild bees, effectively poisoning the surrounding populations; and meaning that, in a vicious circle, we can no longer rely on a wild population to do our selecting for us.

We thus perpetuate our problems.

The recovery of a healthy population is now conditional upon the application of selective breeding to bee husbandry in most apiaries. It is proven to work; selection for 'hygienic' bees has been repeatedly shown to be successful. And where treatments are significantly reduced, wild bees are able to recover.

The new model of 'IPM' regimes cannot then succeed in restoring the national population to good health unless it is shaped by an understanding of the selection process that maintains health in all living organisms. We all have to reconnect with our roots as stockholders, learn again the way nature functions, and work with, and not against her.

For further reading see:

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

See especially the top items in the links page for supporting evidence and expert guidance on selecting for heath and resistance to varroa.

[StevenG]

You make excellent points.

Is this not, in fact, what is now being done by those breeders breeding from "survivor" stock? and in those beekeepers who purchase only survivor-bred queens and packages?

It seems like the more beekeepers demand and buy bees bred for health, and drug-free beekeeping, the more pressure put on breeders to provide such bees.

Regards,
Steven

[Countryboy]

What is the difference in quality between good bees and the best bees?

What has been your experience using these selective breeding techniques which you advocate? How much of an improvement in bee quality have you personally achieved - how did your original bees quality compare with the quality of the bees you now have, which are the result of your selective breeding?

[heaflaw]

Amen! We should not treat bees at all and let the ones that cannot survive mites and brood diseases die off.

Here's another point: I got 2 hives of feral bees this summer from a logger who called me. He told me that after seeing almost no bee trees for the last 15 years that he is starting to see them again. The feral population is making a comeback despite those queens mating with beekeeper's treated bees.

Our hives are going to swarm no matter what we do to minimize it. Those bees are going to later mate back with our queens and bring back whatever genetic traits were in the hives that swarmed from us in previous years. Since the feral population is just now rebounding, we have a unique opportunity to populate the feral population with the traits we want (for the first time since Europeans brought bees into the Americas 300 years ago). We should take advantage of it.

HIves with undesirable traits should not ever be allowed to swarm.

[mike bispham]

What is the difference in quality between good bees and the best bees?

I think that is a subjective choice. In my view, something like 'vigourous good health' is the primary desirable trait. That definition very much implies freedom from the need to treat, or what might be called 'self-sufficiency in heath'.

I'll mention three reasons for that.

First, the modern medical approach to 'husbandry' that tolerates vulnerability to specific items of poor health in the understanding that there are medical 'solutions' to those items, seems to me to be wrong-headed. Clearly not everyone shares that view, but clearly also many do.

Second, while the redistribution of the genetic material held in domesticated animals can be controlled, and can have no adverse impact on fellow stockholders and on wild populations, this is not the case for bees. Our ill-adapted drones mate with our fellows' bees, and with the wild colonies. The resultant offspring carry the weakeness we have bred into them. By not breeding in resistance to pests and diseases, and we thus damage our neighbours property and our natural environment. This seem irresponsible.

Third, if we do not breed in health we undermine our own future generations. That doesn't make sense.

For those reasons it seems to me that to continue to act against the fundamental principles of husbandry, and to consequently perpetuate the need for continual treatment, and repress the wild populations by not selecting for the primary trait of health, benefits chiefly those areas of the bee 'support' industry that profit from sick bees. It is in the interests of beekeepers to help the honeybee repair itself properly, not to, as it were, keep breaking its legs and then offering it crutches.

It is up to individual beekeepers to choose the traits they think most important, and to try to raise the expression of those traits in their apiaries. I merely advocate consideration of vitality and freedom from the need to medicate in the belief that not doing so is the actual cause of most of our health problems.

[QUOTE=Countryboy;459976]
What has been your experience using these selective breeding techniques which you advocate? How much of an improvement in bee quality have you personally achieved - how did your original bees quality compare with the quality of the bees you now have, which are the result of your selective breeding?

I have not yet had the opportunity to put these things into practice. My purpose here is to share what seem to be beneficial insights with others, and to direct those who wish to investigate further to expert sources that have already applied the precepts of good husbandry to bees, have demonstrated the benefits, and provide close guidance. To that end see:

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

especially the top items in the links page, which offer clear supporting evidence, and expert guidance on selecting for heath and resistance to varroa.

Mike

[honeyshack]

May be the first step in this "plan" would be for beekeepers to treat their bees like livestock and not "pets". Once that mentality is overcome, it is much easier to select traits that are postive in a hive. Just like selecting traits in a bull or cow, culling the funnel butts, built like a fridge, foot conformation, feed conversion etc. HOWEVER...good husbandry practices in cattle maintain strict vaccination schedules to "prevent" a whole host of diseases! A single case of PI BVD can wipe out a calf crop the following year if there is no prevention in place. Black leg can wipe out a calf crop if there is no vacciantions in place. Trust me when i tell you this, It is a difficult thing to bounce back from. Seen it happen to to many people. These are diseases that can not be "bred out" of a herd. Disease resistance, disease threshold, weather, GMP, all play a roll in disease management.

As for me and my bees, if they do not meet my standards for going into winter, trust me, they do not make it to winter. If they are poor doers in spring, they get a new queen or get culled. And i tend to look at some treatments as disease management like in our cattle. My husband and i have way to much tied up in both commodities to not practice some animal husbandry.
And if i told my banker he was not getting his payment this year due to my inability to practice GMP, I doubt i would have a farm to come back to!

[mike bispham]

May be the first step in this "plan" would be for beekeepers to treat their bees like livestock and not "pets". Once that mentality is overcome, it is much easier to select traits that are postive in a hive. Just like selecting traits in a bull or cow, culling the funnel butts, built like a fridge, foot conformation, feed conversion etc.


I agree completely. I often wince at hearing people refer to their 'babies' who must be preserved at all costs. Unfortunately the powers that be seem eager to promote this mentality. The bees 'need taking care of' is fine, but it is important to take care of the whole apiary and local population by paying attention to health through selection, not attending to every single sick individual as if they were human children. That perpetuates the problems.



HOWEVER...good husbandry practices in cattle maintain strict vaccination schedules to "prevent" a whole host of diseases! A single case of PI BVD can wipe out a calf crop the following year if there is no prevention in place. Black leg can wipe out a calf crop if there is no vacciantions in place. Trust me when i tell you this, It is a difficult thing to bounce back from. Seen it happen to to many people. These are diseases that can not be "bred out" of a herd. Disease resistance, disease threshold, weather, GMP, all play a roll in disease management.

I don't want to contradict any of this, except to say that it would seem to an outsider that to move toward maximising control through breeding and minimising tolerance made possible by vaccination seems a better bet. I don't doubt that would have economic drawbacks; but the problem is that as we allow our strategic decisions to be made in such ways we 'creep' toward a position of relying more and more on the short-term acts that make for trouble in the longer term.

Could I ask, do you use AI, or your own bulls?

I'd also want to say that we need to be aware that what constitutes 'good husbandry' is under review here. I'm arguing for 'traditional' husbandry with a strong emphasis on selective breeding, and on the allied notion that previously medicated animals should not if at all possible be allowed to reproduce. I think we agree a great deal, and I suspect that we broadly agree on what good bee husbandry is, and we'd want to be careful about applying practical modern husbandry for cows to bees.

I think for example, when you say below "have way to much tied up in both commodities to not practice some animal husbandry" that doesn't work for me because I think of 'animal husbandry' primarily in terms of selection. I guess I'm out of date, but I'm reluctant to let go of that and let modern beekeeping have the word, because it seems to me that relying on treatments alone for health purposes does not merit the term.



As for me and my bees, if they do not meet my standards for going into winter, trust me, they do not make it to winter. If they are poor doers in spring, they get a new queen or get culled. And i tend to look at some treatments as disease management like in our cattle. My husband and i have way to much tied up in both commodities to not practice some animal husbandry. And if i told my banker he was not getting his payment this year due to my inability to practice GMP, I doubt i would have a farm to come back to!

I don't want to tell people how to keep their bees, and I understand the difficult economics, but think it is important to try to show how and why selection can make a big difference. There is no official advice on the matter, and I think that's an appalling situation. Mostly what we seem to get is a picture constructed by parties with a vested interest in promoting the view that ill health in bees is some kind of mystery, but that we can manage if we medicate properly. Certainly that helps individuals' immediate needs, but on the larger scale it simply makes matters worse by perpetuating the sicknesses.

Mike

[honeyshack]

We provide our own bulls. This however has nothing to do with the diseases, unless you want to talk about reproductive diseases due to things like trich...and yes a farmer or selling an untested bull that is PI BVD.
Do a search and learn on PI BVD or Blackleg... Or IBR or homophelus (sp) or colstridial prefridgent (sp) selective breeding will not prevent this.
What will work is to raise the tresehold in which the disease can take control through vaccinations, prorper nutrition, a good mineral program, culling infected animals, testing any incoming animals for breeding, buying only vaccinated calves and working cattle in a less stressful way. The deal here is that weather, poor nutrition, poor mineral, stressed out animals, can infact lower the disease threshold by putting stress on the bovine. When the bacteria or viruses reach levels above the threshold you have can have abortion storms, weaning sickness and death, summer pasture deaths or "persistently infected" PI animals that will not do well. The cost to treat far out weigh the cost to vaccinate, the loss in weight, and the time to gain it back if ever, is costly. An abortion storm due to IBR or BVD take years to recover from since the animals who aborted the calf are now infected and need to be tested and culled from the herd for slaughter so as to decrease the stress on the healthy animals. Lost animals, vet bills, culling, all very costly and heart wrenching.

If you the consumer is willing to pay more than double for your beef so that the cost of added deaths or poosr doers can be made up for, I might consider dropping the vaccination program.

The same can be said for things like nosema, or varroa. Costly. The cost to replace the hive and maybe some frames are far more than a bottle of fumigillan B or some type of varroa treatment. The preventative measure this gives that prevents a hive from becoming sick IMO IN MY OPERATION far out weighs the cost of replacing, or the splits that will be lost due to disease. The splits that can be sold, or the splits that can be made to increase # or replace lost hives. That is dollars in a commercial beekeepers pocket. That could be the difference of a red or black year. Yes IPM is a good tool to use. Yes disease monitoring and culling the poor doers is a tool in itself. But there are also other options at hand that people can choose to use ALONG SIDE IPM AND DISEASE MONITORING. It is not forced on them. It is a choice!
If you choose to not treat...your position, just as it is mine to treat.
I find it interesting that a person who has not put it into practice as you, touts it as a way to go. Live the life of a REAL Farmer, one whose livelyhood is on the line with any commodity and you might just get an understanding of the reasons we do what we do to survive and put food on other peoples table.

.

[chillardbee]

I've been selectivly breeding for 4 years now for bees that show resistance to mites. I don't have isolated yards to get those flawless open mated queens but I beleive that the queens I would rear from form the drone base for the following queens next year.

It is very hard for a beekeeper who depends upon his bees for his livleyhood to allow natural selection by allowing those bees that are not adequate to simply die if it means that he could loose 1/3 - 3/4 of his hives. Rather, I've been making my assissments by counting ND before and after mite treatments, and from those i'll pick which will be good mothers to breed from.

I don't think that we'll ever have a bee that'll be 100% resistant to AFB, Varroa, Acrine, but being to breed for bees that can keep these to managable levels and applying the breeding of such bees should be a part of the IPM.

The other side of the coin is having a bee that is profitable. don't get me wrong, I love bees and i have since i was a little kid, but If I'm to make a living off the thing I love and know how to do best, then they need to be able to store ample stores for winter, over winter well, build up fast in the spring, and be proffecient at gathering honey, and if they don't do this, then all I have is a box of useless bees, useless bees that are relatively resistant to mites.

There so much more that can be siad on this subject and most certainly agree the selective breeding can be a huge benefit to all of us.

[StevenG]

The disclaimers: First, I do not make my living from bees or any form of agriculture. I am an ordained minister serving a local congregation, who loves bees and honey. Last fall I took three hives into winter, came out with two. The deadout appears to have been CCD, based on a thorough post-mortem.

Second, my bees have mites, SHB, and who knows what else.

Third, I decided when I re-entered beekeeping 3 years ago after a 25-year hiatus, that I would go chemical-free. I buy "survivor" stock, and practice IPM. I now have 14 colonies, going to 30 next year, and hopefully will reach a total of 50 in 2011.

Now my comment: Beekeeping is like anything else, we simply need to use common sense. There are similarities in beekeeping and ranching/cattle business, but there are also key differences. Whether we keep bees, or run cattle, we all breed for better stock that requires less care and work, and produce a better end product. But we also know that our livestock requires intervention at times. Different types of livestock requires different types of intervention. It doesn't mean one type is right or wrong, it simpy means they are different because the animals (or insects) are different and have different needs and abilities.

I for one am going to raise my own queens next spring from the strongest that survive through the winter. Reading in the literature indicates there are several ways to do this, some ways easier than others. But the end result is to get a healthier and stronger bee. Such a bee yields stronger colonies, better honey harvests, and colonies that make it from year to year. Isn't that the goal we each have?

It seems the honeybee has this amazing ability to survive, and even thrive, if we give it a fighting chance, and as one poster commented, we quit breeding unhealthy traits into our bees.

Of course, that is my opinion, and we all have them!
Regards,
Steven

[Lil Grain of Rice]

Black leg resistance can be bred for. Black leg occurs in beef animals, typically in the fastest growing animals in the herd (and typically in herds that are being over-fed), first. By breeding up cows to grow ultra-fast and by over-feeding them (to meet the economic imperatives you mention), we have bred in some susceptibility to black leg.

[Roland]

Mike Bispham, you have some good theories, however, there is one fatal flaw. Having first hand experience with CCD and it's causes, I can say with relative confidence that NO bee can survive CCD. Therefore, your suggested path will lead us down a dead end. You can NOT breed from survivors if no one survives.
It is that simple. It would be quite help full if you could find such a bee that can survive CCD, and then report back, otherwise we are just arguing "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin". No personal attack intended or implied, I just hope you see how pointless this discussion is.

Roland

[Countryboy]

Our ill-adapted drones mate with our fellows' bees, and with the wild colonies.

What ill adapted drones? Where did they come from? If they have survived thus far and been here all along, it's difficult to say they are ill adapted.

By not breeding in resistance to pests and diseases, and we thus damage our neighbours property and our natural environment. This seem irresponsible.

But in order to breed in resistance to disease and pests, we must introduce new diseases and pests. This seems irresponsible.

And please explain to me how I am damaging my neighbor's property, and damaging the natural environment if I do not interfere? I am not aware that it is possible for inaction to cause damage. It is my understanding that only action can cause damage.

Third, if we do not breed in health we undermine our own future generations.

How do we breed in what is already there? :scratch:

My purpose here is to share what seem to be beneficial insights with others, and to direct those who wish to investigate further to expert sources that have already applied the precepts of good husbandry to bees, have demonstrated the benefits, and provide close guidance.

There is no official advice on the matter, and I think that's an appalling situation.

There are many 'expert sources' which argue the need for medication, and a completely different approach to husbandry than you advocate. Which expert source is correct?

And how can you cite 'expert sources' when you also say there is no official advice?

I don't want to tell people how to keep their bees, and I understand the difficult economics, but think it is important to try to show how and why selection can make a big difference.

I have not yet had the opportunity to put these things into practice.

Let me get this straight. You want to show how and why selective breeding is so important, but you say you haven't actually put these things into practice. How can you show anything, when you haven't put these things into practice? :scratch:

Experience has shown that a well reared queen from poor stock will outperform a poorly reared queen from good stock. How can people do selective breeding for 'better' genetic traits when factors such as how well the queen larva is fed plays a bigger role in colony health than genetics?

Where is the icon for this?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Tobacco-Enema.jpg

[waynesgarden]

......I have not yet had the opportunity to put these things into practice......

Please let us know when you do. Sounds good in theory. A mere hint of real-world success would go a whole lot further than a whole website of theory.

Meanwhile, if I have to treat, I will. I've been using low-impact methods like powder sugar treatments and freezing frames of drone cells, but if the mite counts get too high, I'll just treat with something like Mite-away until I hear that you've had some real-world success to point to.

I'm not a skeptic. I just need to see more than ideas before I let my hives die off in the interests of genetic improvement. (I'lll be the first to order some queens from you when you have some actual success.)

Wayne

[heaflaw]

I keep between 15 & 20 hives and haven't treated with anything at all for 4 years now. I sugar dust occasionally only to do a mite count. I fully admit that my success is probably more from luck than from any organized plan. But, from what I've read on this and other sites, I'm not alone at all.

This site has an article on how to do it (Resources>USDA>Producing Varroa-Tolerant Honey Bees From Locally Adapted Stock). VSH, Minnesota Hygenics and NWC's were all bred to not need treatment. This is real and it can be done fairly easily.

My bees' biggest threat is that my queens will mate with drones from neighbor's hives that are regularly treated and they will lose the genetic mechanisms to successfully deal with mites and brood diseases.

[Countryboy]

My bees' biggest threat is that my queens will mate with drones from neighbor's hives that are regularly treated and they will lose the genetic mechanisms to successfully deal with mites and brood diseases.

What evidence has convinced you that these traits are carried by the drones, rather than genetic traits carried by the queen?

If it was a drone trait, then any drones from your hive which mated with feral queens would quickly pass on the desired characteristics to the feral populations - and their drones would in turn have the desired genetics.

[mike bispham]

Mike Bispham, you have some good theories, however, there is one fatal flaw. Having first hand experience with CCD and it's causes, I can say with relative confidence that NO bee can survive CCD. Therefore, your suggested path will lead us down a dead end. You can NOT breed from survivors if no one survives.
It is that simple. It would be quite help full if you could find such a bee that can survive CCD, and then report back, otherwise we are just arguing "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin". No personal attack intended or implied, I just hope you see how pointless this discussion is.

Roland

Hi Roland,

I'm sorry to hear about your experiences. It seems likely however that it is possible to look at things from a different perspective. A number of expert breeders have selectively bred bees that are tolerant of the varroa mite, and highly resistant to the range of diseases that affect bees. Many ordinary beekeepers report working with wild 'survivor stock' that has similar qualities. This shows that selective breeding enables us to own bees that do not need treating at all, but can be strong and healthy through having sound genetics. This is exactly what traditional breeding practice would have us anticipate. Its opposite, bees bred from parents vulnerable to disease being similarly vulnerable, is simple good sense.

So selecting in bees has been shown to work, for varroa, and for health generally. That much is not really arguable to my mind. But such well-bred bees will have no defence against poisonous chemicals, or countryside stripped of forage, or entirely new diseases, or plain sloppy stock-keeping. And CCD may well be due to these things, or a combination of them.

I hope you get your stock back,

Best wishes,

Mike

[heaflaw]

I agree that my drones will pass on traits to the feral population as well as to my neighbor's hives. Genetic traits are carried by both male and female. If a queen mates with 10 drones, then half of the genetics of the brood come from the queen and each of the 10 drones will pass their genetic traits to 1/10th of the brood. Each individual bee in a hive gets half it's genetic traits from the queen and half from one of the 10 drones. My bees will be healthier if all 10 of the drones have genetics that are resistant to mites and brood diseases. Drones from feral colonies that have survived several years are resistant because if they weren't, they would not have survived. So, I welcome my queens mating with those drones. But drones from hives that are regularly treated are probably not resistant. I don't want them around me because some of their poor genetics will get passed on to some of the bees in my hives.

[mike bispham]

My bees' biggest threat is that my queens will mate with drones from neighbor's hives that are regularly treated and they will lose the genetic mechanisms to successfully deal with mites and brood diseases.

What evidence has convinced you that these traits are carried by the drones, rather than genetic traits carried by the queen?

As I understand it, simple biology tells us that all traits are conveyed by both sexes. Genes are genes, and all are carried by both parents.

But there is some question about whether the required behaviours are carried by a single gene or by many. It seems, for example, likely that hive cleaning behaviour is carried by one, and that grooming by another. We can expect that other beneficial behaviour are carried by other genes.

In some case one copy of the gene is enough, in others the gene needs to be present in both parents. To a large degree chance plays a part, that is, the parents carrying the right sorts of genes are more and less likely to produce the right sort of behaviours.

(Its worth noting that we don't need to get into all this. If we have the skill to recognise the healthiest and weakest colonies, and ensure genetic material comes only from the first, we will have done all that is necessary.)

Then there is the problem of multiple matings and the resultant multiple patrilines in the colony. This fact of bee life forces us to talk about having more or less of the right sorts of bees in the hive, rather than having bees that are hygienic or not.

So the issue is about raising levels of tolerance and resistance, rather than thinking in terms of are/are not tolerant or resistant. And the more there are bees around that are resistant, through carrying the right sorts of genes, the better the chances that offspring will be resistant.

Because bees mate freely we have to think in terms of the health of the local area, rather than of just the hive or apiary. If we keep putting out strong drones, and wild bees do the same (and they always will) then all the bees in the locality will become resistant. If however we undermine things by failing to select, we drag the whole area down.


If it was a drone trait, then any drones from your hive which mated with feral queens would quickly pass on the desired characteristics to the feral populations - and their drones would in turn have the desired genetics.

Apart from the bit about 'drone traits', yes. That is the general idea. Of course only traits that tend to confer 'self-sufficiency' will benefit the wild bees. Any traits that make them vulnerable to pests or diseases will tend to kill them. In genetic terms, the worst thing for wild bees (and for your own bees, and your neighbours) is poor parents. Preserving weak bees and allowing them to send out drones amounts to poisoning the locality.

Mike

[mike bispham]

Please let us know when you do. Sounds good in theory. A mere hint of real-world success would go a whole lot further than a whole website of theory.
[...]
I'm not a skeptic. I just need to see more than ideas before I let my hives die off in the interests of genetic improvement. (I'lll be the first to order some queens from you when you have some actual success.)

Wayne

Hi Wayne,

Its a valid complaint. All I can do is point toward others who have done this, and try to join the understanding up a bit.

If you follow my links you'll find accounts from some of the folks who are successful, and we're hearing more and more success stories every day. I think the pages I link to by Marla Spivak and Michael Bush are almost good enough alone to convince many people - but there are lots more.

You don't need to think in terms of letting your hives die off, just in terms of catching the best genes as they naturally turn over. You can select as much as you want or as little - though of course I'd say the more the better. But what I mean is; you can move over from a medication-based health regime to a selection-based health regime in stages. You don't have to lose any more hives than you'd normally expect to. If you have enough hives you can also be working at bringing forward other desirable traits at the same time.

Mike

[Michael Bush]

>why beekeepers don't select for health like other stockholders do.

Because all the books and the experts keep telling them to buy queens instead and the queen breeders are breeding to have lots of bees to fill packages in March and April...

[honeyshack]

Black leg resistance can be bred for. Black leg occurs in beef animals, typically in the fastest growing animals in the herd (and typically in herds that are being over-fed), first. By breeding up cows to grow ultra-fast and by over-feeding them (to meet the economic imperatives you mention), we have bred in some susceptibility to black leg.

Show me the scientific evidence on this. I will be sure to ask my vet on this when i see her for bovine preg testing...
I will also ask several hundred cattle producers on Cattle today...something they might be interested in or tell me to "go fish"

[heaflaw]

>why beekeepers don't select for health like other stockholders do.

Because all the books and the experts keep telling them to buy queens instead and the queen breeders are breeding to have lots of bees to fill packages in March and April...

And because the chemical companies and beekeeping suppliers want us to keep buying their products even though they do not have to be used.

[Lil Grain of Rice]

Show me the scientific evidence on this. I will be sure to ask my vet on this when i see her for bovine preg testing...
I will also ask several hundred cattle producers on Cattle today...something they might be interested in or tell me to "go fish"

I was just curious about black leg and researched it on the net. Can't remember all the sites I visited, but one was Merckx (I think). Anyways, veterinary sites, and the common thread was that black leg tended to strike what seemed to be the healthiest, fastest growing animals first, and predominantly beef breeds. If that is the case, I think we can see what traits seem to influence blackleg susceptibility. But since breeding for a slower growing animal would be heresy to modern thinking, I suppose my conjecture will remain nothing more than that. Perhaps deeper research will indicate other patterns of black leg dispersal, geographic, or across the breeds. I've never seen black leg before, nor had I heard of it before I read your post, so what do I know. But perhaps some breeds are already more or less susceptible. But you're right, just because I have read somewhere that the disease strikes some animals first, isn't a scientific slam dunk that the opposite would tend to help provide resistance.

[StevenG]

I wish I could remember where I read this, it might have been Mike Bush or Marla Spivak, but it was about genetic diversity in the drone pool. Say the queen bred with drones representing 10 different genetic traits.... Each of her individual offspring will not have all the traits, good or bad. But the colony as a whole will have all those traits, either to the benefit or the detriment of the hive. Thus by having a genetic mix, a colony can be, in the totality, stronger, than any one trait might otherwise be by itself.

I sure hope I've done justice to explaining the theory. I've been chemical free for 4 years, using only "survivor" stock from various breeders. I'm going to raise some of my own in 2010, and hope by 2011 to not have to buy any queens elsewhere.
Regards,
Steven

[heaflaw]

Hey Steven,

I've been chemical free for 4 years also. It's great to save money and the hassle of treating. But, I need more genetic diversity. Did you get queens from local stock that beekeepers bred to be varroa free or have you bought them from VSH or Minnesota Hygenics lines.

Heaflaw

[StevenG]

Heaflaw, I am not endorsing any particular breed...I will pull honey this weekend, and know how the various lines did. I began the spring with 3 hives, now have 14, due to splits. Will be pulling honey from about 6 hives.

Now, to answer your question, I have two hives of Russians, 5 with queens from B. Weaver, and 7 from Purvis. I'd like to add some Minnesota Hygenic to the mix next year. Someone has posted elsewhere that if Russians mix with other lines, they lose their mite suppression abilities. I have no way of knowing that at this point.

Needless to say, I'm not endorsing any particular line at this time. I don't have enough data from my own apiaries (I have them in three locations, plan to expand to 30 hives next year).

I also practice IPM...running screened bottom boards and slatted racks. When I've inspected the hives and opened drone brood laid between the frames, there have been mites, but that particular colony is going gang-busters. I am working hard to get them all prepared for winter now. I guess the "proof in the pudding" will be how they are next spring, coming out of the winter.

There is another thread on this forum about losing 30% of one's colonies each year. 25-30 years ago when i kept 16-18 hives, if I lost two colonies, it was a terrible year! i did lose one last year, but now, if I lose 30% (or 4 of 14) I would think I had done something terribly wrong!

My plan at this point is next spring to grow queens from the one or two colonies that: a) produced the largest honey crop this year, and b) came out of the winter of 2009-2010 the strongest. All of my colonies are fairly gentle and easy to work.

I hope this answers your question!
Regards,
Steven

[heaflaw]

Thanks Steven,

Your operation sounds a lot like mine. My 19 hives are all from 3 that I purchased 15 years ago. They became mite resistant just from accepting losses and requeening from the best for a few years. I need more genetic diversity (not good brood patterns) and I am getting agressiveness from the feral bees and neighboring beekeepers. I don't know whether to buy queens from people nearby who have developed ressistant bees like I did or to buy the high dollar lines developed by USDA & Universities.

[StevenG]

The ones I'm using have real good brood patterns, and lots of brood, with a few exceptions.

The exceptions are one or two individual queens...they just don't seem to do as well as the others. I think that's more a judgement of that particular queen though, than her line, as the others of her kind are doing great. I did have a hive earlier this year that had a third-generation queen from one I bought that caused the hive to be hot...and I mean HOT. The two times I opened that hive before requeening (with store-bought) it was like fighter craft lining up for takeoff from an aircraft carrier! It was amazing! they'd take off dozens at a time and hit my veil and arms...before I could turn around I had six stings on my hands...got the gloves on, finished my work, closed them up. Requeened asap with store-bought.

You might talk to your neighbors who have/are raising queens to see about the aggressiveness of theirs. Perhaps after a few generations, we have to bring in outside genetics? Just not sure.

But like I said, I'd like to add another line or two.

Regards,
Steven

[heaflaw]

I agree that we should bring in outside genetics occasionally that are the best possible for gentleness, production and can handle mites and brood diseases without treatment. I think it is the responsible thing to do for ourselves and for future generations of beekeepers in our area. I think that by nursing a hive along through treatments of Apistan, menthol, terramycin, etc, we are contributing to future generations of bee problems.