Ferals & Domestics - Take II

[mountainvalleybee]

An awful lot of research has always been done in the easiest manner, based on the wrong premises, and not based on actual experience with nature. These bees had to be requeened by shaking the bees through an excluder to find the queen often and then you had to let them build cells and destroy them before they would accept a queen. They had a great tendency to mate only with their on type of bee and would not cross readily with Italians, crosses in the other direction however were too easy to obtain, even when you did not want them. And yes, most of the breeders tried to locate their queen yards as far away from areas which had these bees as possible.

[naturebee]

Tell me one breeder that has verifiable, tested, ferals of some line of bees that has proven themselves better than anything else we have?

Hum, strange how you previously state that ferals are nothing more than recent escapes,
then you turn around and say that these escapes are un proven, junk and so forth.
Aren’t your bees proven?

Joe

[Jim Fischer]

> That’s what they say.
> this research comes from
> NATHAN M. SCHIFF AND WALTER S. SHEPPARD(1)
> Bee Research Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research.
>
> Take that issue up with them.

No dodging or weaving, stand and deliver. You cited the paper,
and I asked you to explain your trotting out of that paper in light
of the facts I presented that many would consider "common knowledge".

After all, the annual USDA honey reports are published in both
beekeeper magazines, and are also available online. The massive
difference between 400-some odd thousand queens and nearly
3 million colonies is simply too stark to ignore.

The paper they wrote is available here on BeeSource, so it appears
that multiple people have read the paper, yet none noticed that it
was utterly defective in the basic assumptions presented.

How could so many people be so far off in something so basic
like "roughly how many hives are kept in the US"?

Maybe the problem is similar to this one:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071206-youtube-users-prefer-lousy-science-over-the-real-deal.html

Anyway, let's take that paper down, as it is clearly misleading,
and will not shed any light on the issue at hand.

[naturebee]

>
The paper they wrote is available here on BeeSource, so it appears
that multiple people have read the paper, yet none noticed that it
was utterly defective in the basic assumptions presented.

Good lord, thats just terrible.

But, I don’t see that ARS has retracted the study.

Go through it again and check for crossed ‘T’s and dotted ‘I’s
maybe that will help.

Joe

[Jim Fischer]

Somehow, I get the feeling that you are not going to explain
how the claims made as to possible feral populations are
affected by the basic contradiction between an obscure
paper and the regular yearly counts of hives done by the USDA.

Somehow, I also get the impression that you are not going
to address any of the other points brought up by me and
others.

As we have complied with your amusing "rules", this seems
unresponsive in the extreme. We all want to arrive at the
truth, so we have to consider facts, and I submit that
the USDA Honey report is considered "fact" by everyone,
and tends to UNDERestimate hive counts in the view of
many.

All are certainly entitled to their own interpretations, but
everyone isn't entitled to make up their own "facts".

[Mike Gillmore]

>
If 433,900 queens were installed in a total population of 2.8 million
managed hives, they missed quite a few queens. It is laughable to think
that only one of every six hives was requeened in any one year.

This has been an interesting discussion to follow. I have a few questions in reference to the above statement. The percentage of requeened hives does seem quite low when comparing it only to the "total" number of managed hives. And I think we are talking strictly about "commercially" bred queens, right?

But, do we know how many of the total hives retained their queen for a second year?

What percentage of the total do their own queen breeding in house?

How many of the total hives swarmed and produced new queens without outside commercial replacement by the beekeeper?

** Also, what percentage of the total hives were commercial "packages" replacing the prior years dead outs? Are these queens included in the 434,000?

I don't know, these numbers may be insignificant. But is there an data or reports available to determine exactly how high or low that it may be? It may be laughable.. maybe not.

[mountainvalleybee]

I believe a distinction needs to be made between True Ferals and what I would call Feralized Bees, Feralized being recent escapees, mixed escapees, and their Progeny. True Ferals would exist even further out in the Environs and be the ones the others were mixing with. And even though some would not agree the True Ferals which have never to a great extent been modified by mankind since their introduction to this Continent do still exist in remote areas and areas which have never been overpopulated by commercial bees. Part of this is due to location, and part is due to their methods of survival. The genes contained in the man modified bees, (commercials), would not be conducive to survival in the True Ferals in most cases and would not mix into their populations and survive.

[Jim Fischer]

Mike asked some reasonable questions:

> ...how many of the total hives retained their queen for a second year?

Well, if we look at the data, 1/6 of the hives known to exist were
requeened by the queens said to have been the total number of
queens sold. That's gotta be low, because at that rate, each
hive would be requeened once only every six years.

No one has ever said that the queen business was cyclical, so
they are selling about the same number every year. Note that
we do not discuss queens for new hives, as the number of hives
has gone down overall every year by a few percent, so, on
average, there really aren't any "new" hives.

> What percentage of the total do their own queen breeding in house?

The bigger the beekeeper, the more common this is. Vertical integration
is a good way to keep costs down, and to assure oneself a supply
of queens of consistent quality. Now, could these private breeding
programs be exactly where all that A.m.m. genetics comes from?
Of course! Large beekeepers are exactly the sort of folks to keep
something like Am.m. alive, merely because the professional queen
breeders want to eliminate the traits they carry. Why? These
guys are "contrary" by nature, and they are looking for any "edge"
they can get. They "bet" on all sorts of counter-intuitive stuff
all the time, and some of these bets pay off, which only encourages
them to be even more wacky.

> How many of the total hives swarmed and produced new queens
> without outside commercial replacement by the beekeeper?

Well, if a colony swarmed, any captured swarm would be counted
as a "new hive", but this is going to be a rare event, one that is
not going to make a significant difference in the overall numbers.

But regardless of the explanation, the parentage of a mere 400K
queens sold is no basis for declaring that feral swarms are presenting
any sort of "mystery", when the basic count of managed colonies
was nearly 3 million. In this case, the queens not documented as
to parentage outnumber the queens examined by a 6 to 1 factor,
and the radial wacky genetics of lone-wolf, large-scale DIY queen
breeders, each producing tens of thousands of queens each at
minimum, are not only likely, but absolutely certain to skew the
results toward the "lunatic fringes" of bee hybridization.

[BjornBee]

Ok, Mike, If your going to rationalize the numbers in one direction, let do it both ways.

Lets look at Pennsylvania as example.

95% of beekeepers would fall into the level not even looked at within the numbers. 95% have less than 10 hives in Pennsylvania.

Numbers of between 10 an 50% have been used in realizing how many beekeepers do not even register their hives. They are not counted, except perhaps in the numbers of queens they order from queen producers who counted their orders.

EVERY major beekeeper I ever inspected NEVER had all his hives counted or listed on the records. If it even approached 50% I would be amazed. Nobody with many yards or hundreds/thousands of hives have them all listed. Its funny how how they throw around huge numbers in telling what they have in casual conversations, but then the numbers listed on the records is way lower. Of course, its a "Don't ask, don't tell policy" for the most part.

And I don't care how the numbers were obtained, some don't answer with the right numbers for a host of reasons. Whether its the inspector, the tax man, the "big brother", or whatever else, many hives are not counted. Thats a fact.

Getting the queen numbers from producers may be one thing. Whether they are correct, I don't know. But the number of hives in the states is low, that I'll guarantee!
I think the overall hive count is WAY low.

[Jim Fischer]

> True Ferals which have never to a great extent been modified by
> mankind since their introduction to this Continent do still exist in
> remote areas

Which "remote areas" might this be? Where, exactly?

I've been bee-lining longer than just about anyone still breathing,
and I'm pretty darn good at it, so if you really think that there are
unique genetics of value out there, let's go get 'em!

Now, here's the deal - if they do turn out to be unique genetics,
something not readily available to the Labs and breeders, and
not something that these labs and breeders have worked to
eliminate from managed colonies, I'll pay our expenses. It they
turn out to be nothing but more of what we already have, you'll
pay our expenses. I'm ready to start anytime after the Holidays.
Get your game shoes on.

> and areas which have never been overpopulated by commercial bees.

I can't think of where this might be, as everywhere I go, I keep
running into beekeepers and beehives.

> The genes contained in the man modified bees, (commercials), would
> not be conducive to survival in the True Ferals in most cases

What specific traits would be "good" for a bee bred by someone like
Sue Cobey, but somehow "not conducive" to survival in the wild?
Does a hive in a box have different needs from a hive in a tree?
Does location really matter, now that bees are kept everywhere
except Antarctica, from Equators to nearly the Arctic and Antarctic
Circles?

> and would not mix into their populations and survive.

Why not, specifically? Could we have a specific example?
These are statements that, if backed with examples, would
be very interesting.

[naturebee]

> 136 breeder queens all had mtDNA haplotypes associated with
> A. m. carnica and A. m. ligustica, this accounted for 433,900
> (97%) of the total queens sold.

433,900 Queens?
Say what?

There is no way that so few queens could be the "total" queens
sold or produced in the US in 1994.

Now Jim,

You need to restrain yourself from using trickery
and deceit in order to discredit scientific
studies that happen not to suit yourself.

IF you read the study:

They are clearly saying that:

The 136 breeder queens tested from
the ‘22 apiaries’ all had mtDNA haplotypes
associated with A. m. carnica and A. m. ligustica,

This accounted for 433,900 OR (97%)
of the total
<<<queens sold from these 22 apiaries>>>

Now I credit you for being more attuned to detail than
you appear to be with your submission of your
rather disingenuous reply, to which I have a
small portion of it quoted above.

>
So, what does the cited study "prove"? It proves that one must be
careful when looking at data, and one must examine narrow-focus
data only in the broader context of "common knowledge".
Some published work is absolutely wrong.

Perhaps, it proves that you must be
careful when looking at data, and you must examine narrow-focus
data only in the broader context of "common knowledge".


In any event, thats very good advice you give.
Perhaps you should try adhering to it.

Now, I created the ‘take II’ rules,
to force people to be a bit more careful
in selecting their 2 best arguments,
by forcing them to trash the junk.

Had you followed the rules, I would
hoped that you would have presented
your best argument rather than attempting
to use this sort of deceit to discredit the
study

Unless of course this was your
best argument.


Best Wishes,
Joe

[Mike Gillmore]

Would someone post the study cited on the feral bees?

I would love to read it also. Could someone provide a link? Thanks!

[naturebee]

I would love to read it also. Could someone provide a link? Thanks!

Here it is:
Genetic Analysis of Commercial Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from the Southeastern United States
http://www.beesource.com/pov/ahb/jee1995.htm


SPECULATIONS ON SURVIVOR HONEY BEE FERAL POPULATIONS IN FLORIDA, USA.
http://www.beesource.com/news/articl...alsurvivor.htm

Best Wishes,
Joe

[naturebee]

opps duplicate post.

Well since I'm here:

“You can keep a bee away from you by the use
of tobacco-smoke, but a bee is always in such a
confounded hurry that he gets in his work before
you can light your cigar.” (quote from 1879)

Best Wishes,
Joe

[Jim Fischer]

I am accused of "decit", yet the reasoning upon which the
accusation is based is faulty in the extreme.

Let's assume that 400,000 or so queens were produced by
22 apiraries. Where did they go? They were shipped ELSEWHERE.

They would have little or no possible impact on the local population of
feral colonies, as a queen breeder would be one of the last operations to
have colonies swarming. Funny how you expect everyone to think
that all the local beekeepers bought their queens from the local
suppliers, and none bought queens from elsewhere. That's simply
impossible - some number of beekeepers in GA are sure to either
raise their own queens, or buy queens from other states.

So, even though Joe is playing verbal contortionist in an attempt to
make the study seem like it proves anything of value to his theory
of "survivor ferals", all one must do is realize that queens come from
all over, and that the mystery he wants to present is not a mystery at all.

> Now, I created the ‘take II’ rules, to force people to be a bit more
> careful

As luck would have it, you don't make any rules around here, and
you overtly BREAK THE RULES that do exist when you accuse others
of "trickery and deceit". So, retract your name-calling at once, and edit
your post to be more civil.

Nice try though. I understand how hard it must be to come up with
an idea, and then scour the published literature looking for scraps
that at least seem like they might support the idea. What most of
us do is look at the evidence first, and base the conclusions and
theories on the actual evidence, rather than the other way around,
which requires much less in the way of verbal gymnastics.

[mountainvalleybee]

This discussion has taken a turn which reminds me of a discussion I had with a Noted Honeybee Entomologist I had several years ago, at the time honeybees in certain areas were swarming in what was thought to be an unusual degree, I like the guy and respect him quite a bit so no names. He was asking various commercials and others at our state bee meeting why this was happening, I listened to the answers and thought about the subject because I already knew the answer. None of the answers he was recieving were anywhere near accurate so I waited till everyone else had left and asked him if he really wanted to know why. He looked at me with an amused expression and asked if I really knew what the answer was. So I asked him if it was not true that bees had been dying out in the woods and peoples colonies for the last several years and he said yes but what has that got to do with it, I asked him , have you ever heard the expresson that Nature Abhores a Vacuum, he sat there and just looked at me but he could not disagree, then I went home and discussed this happening with several friends, about two months later he wrote an article which appeared in the ABJ with that same statement I had made to him about bees swarming in the article, this was brought to my attention by one of the people with whom I had previously discussed the conservation I had with the Entomologist. Of course it involved more than just that, the bees were also swarming to a great degree because they were able to crowd their brood nests earlier than normal due to the lack of competition and availability of forage.

[naturebee]

Jim,
I selected 2 of your statements to respond to
per thread rules.

Let's assume that 400,000 or so queens were produced by
22 apiraries. Where did they go? They were shipped ELSEWHERE.
.

Who cares where they went!
It has no bearing on the study.

Will you next have us believe these queens took the tens of millions
of drones with them?

They would have little or no possible impact on the local population of
feral colonies, as a queen breeder would be one of the last operations to
have colonies swarming. .

Your bluffing aren't you?

Don’t be silly Jim.
You want us now to believe bees only reproduce by swarming?
OK, Lets make your assumption work,,,

You need to assume the main selective force at the colonial level to be only on the female side.

You need to assume that there is NO selective force at the colony level from drones.

You need to assume that the millions of drones produce by drone
colonies are not somehow not leaving the yard to compete for feral queens

You need to assume that the breeders do not sell queens to local beekeepers,
and that these local beekeeper colonies do not swarm or produce drones.

You see,
FAR too many assumptions to make that silly theory work.

The article ‘How to win a queen’, perhaps might suggest why
ferals remain significantly different than the commercial populations.

Commercial drones are simply losing out to feral drones when
it comes to competition for a feral queen. In the world of real competition,
because the ferals remain significantly different from the commercial population,
this suggest to me that feral drones are simply out competing the
commercial drones for feral queens.

Best Wishes,
Joe

[naturebee]

This discussion has taken a turn which reminds me of a discussion I had with a Noted Honeybee Entomologist I had several years ago, at the time honeybees in certain areas were swarming in what was thought to be an unusual degree,
,,,,
,,,have you ever heard the expression that Nature Abhores a Vacuum,

Hello MVB,

This is a wonderful point you make!

I often thought this vacuum while trying to understand the feral recovery
here in my area.

The excessive swarming may be due to many things.
Genetics that fill the void quicker would have the advantage.
So first off, you need healthy colonies to throw swarms.

As a general rule, colonies that are healthy will throw prime swarms.
For a feral colony to have this ability to throw prime swarms,
it would make a necessity that theses bees have traits that are
effective against varroa and disease, because there is no beekeeper
there to coddle them. This also necessitates that the queen bee is
well mated, colony healthy and strong. This is why many ferals do so well
for beekeepers; many of them have what it takes.

Ferals in my area are recovering strong, but I am seeing a tendency
for them to be highly competitive in testing other colonies for
weakness. When I think of how this trait might have surfaced
in the ferals. It appears that with many colonies succumbing to
varroa in the fall, any colony that is highly competitive and
can identify these failing colonies first, will gain the advantage
from the stores acquired.

Best Wishes,
Joe

[Sarge]

Hmmmm. Ok then. The study written in 1994 and published in 1995, it appears, indicates that in the South Eastern U.S. roughly 1 in 3 feral colonies are decendants of Apis Mellifera Mellifera a strain not imported to any real degree since 1859.
From this it would suggest that the AMM bees were the closest to a "Natural" Honeybee for North America. The presence of the strain in some degree after over 150 years in the wild has to count for something.
The study seems to take place after the big influx of Varroa and Trachea mites. From all accounts the mite die off took roughly 75% of the feral bees. It then comes to mind that those that died off did not have the AMM roots. If the mites had effected all bees equally, then the feral gene pool would be more tilted toward the more recent bee strains as the AMM would have been reduced even furthur as a percentage of the whole.
Interesting.
Again does anyone know if this kind of testing has been done in the more northern states?

[Jim Fischer]

Joe, it would not matter if an infinite number of drones of any type
you choose were to be "in the area", as the marker tracked in the
study you quote was mtDNA, which is carried by the FEMALE.

It seems clear from the massive change between your initial claims
and your current claims that you really had no idea what
the study meant, and now it seems clear that you also
don't understand what mtDNA is, either.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

What's really sad is to read your babbling about feral colonies, and to
compare it with Steve Shepard's summary of what he will present next
Tuesday at the Entomological Society of America Meeting. His summary
overview is as follows:

"Based on our collection of commercial honey bee stocks representing
most CA and the southern US producers in 1994-1995 and a recollection
in 2004-2005 from existing producers – there was a 25% loss of the alleles
that were present in 1994-5. we measured msat variation – but as they
are randomly distributed in the genome – you can think of it as a proxy for
sex allele diversity. Thus - although we found 128 alleles in 10 msat loci
in the 1994-5 population – only 92 of these were still remaining after a
decade. this loss would have been truly staggering – except some new
alleles came into the commercial breeding population. the origin of these
new alleles - for some we can trace the origin to africanized honey bees,
for some we can trace to Russians or illegal importations."

So, while you are fantasying about feral bees that somehow mysteriously
NEVER MATES WITH THE QUEEN PRODUCER'S STOCK, real work is being
done on the same issue that shows we need to import some genetics
pronto, as there is a shrinking diversity in US bees.

What is needed may be a letter-writing campaign to convince APHIS to
allow the importation of semen from Europe that ironically would likely
include some A.m.m. genetics, as our genetic base here in the USA is
getting so limited, it is putting the genetic diversity of our breeding stock
at risk.

Everyone would LOVE to have your fantasy feral survivors, but if
they existed, they would show up in the genetic surveys being
doing by skilled pros like Steve Sheppard, who really really really
want to find more diversity than they are finding.