Live and Let Die - Do you really reduce the gene pool?

[Solomon Parker]

Does regular, systematic requeening have the potential to reduce the gene pool just as much as the bond method?

An interesting thought, to be sure.

With the Bond Method, some queens get to live, adapt, propagate their genes. Systematic requeening kills every queen no matter her abilities and replaces her with one from somewhere else.

[Oldtimer]

Well yes and no. Many beekeepers will select traits they want and breed from those, whereas with the bond method you leave it to the mites to decide, and thereby risk losing good traits, or any traits except one, being mite resistance. The extreme example of this is seen in Russian bees which it could be argued have been produced by the bond method. In their pure form, mite tolerant. But that's about the end of their usefulness. Don't store much honey, swarm constantly, and can be aggressive.

A human controlled breeding program, done right, we can work towards several good qualities, mite tolerance being one of them.

Not decrying the bond method, on some of my hives I'm doing it myself. As it's only done on the tinyest fraction of hive numbers, it alone is not going to cause loss of genetic diversity, although it could, locally. But just about every bond practitioner I know buys in the odd queen anyway.

[jim lyon]

An interesting thought, to be sure.

With the Bond Method, some queens get to live, adapt, propagate their genes. Systematic requeening kills every queen no matter her abilities and replaces her with one from somewhere else.

Depends on your definition of systematic requeening. If you are buying mated queens from a single source then you are at the mercy of the supplier to be sure. In our case we are requeening with a diverse group of virgins who then get mated by the drones from the hives being requeened so the genetics from the replaced queens very much remain alive.

[Adam Foster Collins]

Well, one could also suggest that the Bond method does not only select for mite tolerance. That may be true if one believes that every colony will die from mite-related issues if mites are not treated. But I don't believe that personally.

The bond method is selecting for survival above all. And the truth is, all methods do that. A person could practice the bond method, and at the same time be selecting for traits beyond survival.

I'm not suggesting that a person can't do a great job in their regular re-queening either. I'm just saying that any method of selection - natural or otherwise - has the potential to narrow the gene pool. I mean, of course it does. That's what selection means in a sense - narrowing down to something desired. And as a consequence - something is discarded.

Adam

[deknow]

Here is a short talk by Randy Quinn, who did much of the field work for the Starline and midnight queen operations.....talking about these same issues.
http://www.beeuntoothers.com/CIG/ind...08/randy-quinn

Deknow

[Oldtimer]

The bond method is selecting for survival above all.

True. But remember, for however many zillions of years bees have been on the planet, they've been getting selected for survival. Another few years of that, say, the last 30 years, is a drop in the ocean and isn't going to change bees at all. Unless, there is a new factor. Varroa mites are a new factor and a major one. So if the Bond method does bring about any change, it would be varroa related, as our current bees are already a product of thousands of years of the Bond method, but without varroa.

[sqkcrk]

It seems as though y'all are wondering about how to not bottleneck the gene pool or how to keep the gene pool ever wide or widening. Is that about right?

I can tell you the results of nonselection thru splitting and allowing the raising of ones own queens by the bees themselves. The Engelhardts of Antwerp,NY ran 2 or 3,000 colonies and took hives to SC back in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. They would split each colony in the Spring and allowed the split to raise its own queen there in the swamps of SC. Apiary Inspectors in NY used to refer to Paul Engelhardt's bees as Engelhardt's Hornets.

They never bought any queens nor did they graft. So, what are you selecting for when practicing nonselection?

[Barry]

It doesn't look like Engelhardts were selecting for gentleness. My guess is survivability and honey production, if that is how they made their income.

[Michael Palmer]

It seems as though y'all are wondering about how to not bottleneck the gene pool or how to keep the gene pool ever wide or widening. Is that about right?

I can tell you the results of nonselection thru splitting and allowing the raising of ones own queens by the bees themselves. The Engelhardts of Antwerp,NY ran 2 or 3,000 colonies and took hives to SC back in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. They would split each colony in the Spring and allowed the split to raise its own queen there in the swamps of SC. Apiary Inspectors in NY used to refer to Paul Engelhardt's bees as Engelhardt's Hornets.

They never bought any queens nor did they graft. So, what are you selecting for when practicing nonselection?

Buster told me that there was a population of Amm in the swamps near Loris where he kept his bees. Buster bought out the Englehardts. That's why he quit making walk away splits and used mated queens instead.

[sqkcrk]

Survivability was not a concern and their focus was keeping bees, taking hives to SC to have Winterloss replacements. I don't think that selection was even thought about, just getting more live colonies. Things were much different back 50, 60, and 70 years ago when big crops of white honey were produced in the St. Lawrence Valley of NY.

[Barry]

So the local Amm was behind his mean bees. Surely we can't apply that to all who let their bees raise their own queens?

[sqkcrk]

Buster told me that there was a population of Amm in the swamps near Loris where he kept his bees.

Makes sense. So, maybe aggressive bees isn't necassarily what one will select for if one practices nonselection. But, one apparently is subject to what is out there in the environment. I guess.

[sqkcrk]

So the local Amm was behind his mean bees. Surely we can't apply that to all who let their bees raise their own queens?

I guess not, but, if you grow thru nonselction you are letting fate take you where it will.

[Barry]

Isn't that OK? One can always buy queens if the fate route turns south at any given point.

[sqkcrk]

And Live and Let Die? Sure.

[Barry]

I don't follow.

[Solomon Parker]

That may be true if one believes that every colony will die from mite-related issues if mites are not treated. But I don't believe that personally.

Nor do I.

The bond method is selecting for survival above all.

Survival above all, but not survival only.

So, maybe aggressive bees isn't necassarily what one will select for if one practices nonselection.

Again, let me point out what actually happens rather than dealing in the hypothetical. Bond Method beekeeping is not non-selection. It's the same beekeeping that everybody else practices without the parts about helping the bees with disease. There is still selection for honey production and gentleness. A good beekeeper still doesn't put up with mean hives even if he believes in letting weak ones die. The two aspects are virtually unrelated.

One can always buy queens if the fate route turns south at any given point.

Yes they can.

[Daniel Y]

Live and let die is itself a selection process. It is one that no one is in charge of what is being selected for and the only real selection trait being selected for is survival. Now their are many paths to surviving. aggression would serve it well.

This is my number one problem with the live and let die idea. what makes anyone think they will not end up with bees every bit as useful as African bees if they just let fate take it's course? Why is there so much thinking that all desirable traits of bees are found in them surviving? It is likely that your bees will eventually survive well. and almost guaranteed you will be sorry as all get out that they do. They are likely to become like weeds that you cannot get rid of.

I just don't see how the thinking that having no intelligent selection going on results in desired selections. The selection process is probably the most critical step in the entire process. so much so that breeding programs live or die on the skill of the person making the selection.

If that is true. what will be the result of just throwing that choice to the wind?

[jim lyon]

Here is a short talk by Randy Quinn, who did much of the field work for the Starline and midnight queen operations.....talking about these same issues.
http://www.beeuntoothers.com/CIG/ind...08/randy-quinn

Deknow

Nice link Dean: There was nothing Randy said that I would disagree with. I don't think this issue is quite as complicated as everyone is making it out to be. When a hive dies, something is lost. When large numbers of hives die even more is lost. I think it is a good thing that some beekeepers are trying to exist without treatments as the resulting bees may prove beneficial. I also believe even more strongly that commercial beekeepers play a far bigger role by keeping lots of bees alive so that we have as broad a choice of bees to select from as possible. We commercial folks are selecting for (at least those who arent buying all their queens) large populous hives that serve our purpose of large scale pollination and honey production while treatment free folks are selecting for another set of goals. I am pretty sure that the end result of either system won't give us a bee that works for everyone.

[Solomon Parker]

what makes anyone think they will not end up with bees every bit as useful as African bees if they just let fate take it's course? Why is there so much thinking that all desirable traits of bees are found in them surviving? what will be the result of just throwing that choice to the wind?

I don't mean to beleaguer the point, but no one does that. Natural selection is not the only selection criteria. Good beekeepers do not tolerate mean bees.

This is a straw man argument. It's making a case against things that nobody is doing. This (as with everything) has to be approached from a perspective grounded in reality. Perhaps you should ask someone who uses the method rather than speculating.