Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

An Option Towards Developing Treatment-Free Bees

36K views 155 replies 20 participants last post by  D Semple 
#1 ·
Hey been working a great deal on my management plan for next year, incorporating a lot of Michael Palmers ideas. Another way of looking at it, is my clutch is broke and I have nothing better to do until the parts come in. This is something I wrote up on my blog today about an idea I had, not something I am currently practicing, but if you write something down its much easier to remember it down the road. You can see a better formatted copy at http://honeydrunkapiaries.blogspot.ca/ but anyway here it is.

An Option Towards Developing Treatment-Free Bees

Being a treatment-free beekeeper is a marathon, not a sprint. First you must learn how to keep bees, and keep them alive. Secondly, you must acquire the genetics that are resistant, or otherwise cope with the varroa mite. This second option can take a great deal of time. Many of the “successful” treatment-free beekeepers have been breeding their own stock for thirty years or better. It is possible to get their stock, but it is unlikely Dee Lusby’s or Michael Bush’s bees will survive a tough Canadian winter –if we even could import their stock, which we cannot. Finding survivor bees is actually the easy part of the equation. If they survive winter you don’t really have a choice but to breed from the bees that survive. Mites however, are not that easy.

Many people ascribe to the “Live, and let Die,” Bond philosophy of beekeeping. Let nature take its course of natural selection and what you are left with are your survivor stock. The largest problem with this philosophy is that you must ask yourself “Where do the mites go?” Weak colonies or dead outs will simply get robbed out, and the robbing bees will take them back to their parent colony. Perhaps that colony was a survivor stock until those robber bees brought back a disproportionate amount of mites, and will now also die because they have exceeded their mite threshold

“A key point to remember is that the relative infestation (percent, or mites per 100 bees) is more important than total mite population—a large colony can handle more mites than a small one. At much above a 2% infestation in spring, honey production drops off severely. At much above 5% in fall, colony winter survival suffers (although the fall “economic injury threshold” numbers by various authors range from 1% to 11%) (Currie & Gatien 2006). “
(Randy Oliver, IPM 3 Fighting Varroa 3: Strategy – Understanding Varroa Population Dynamics)

This method has a great deal of risk; you could end up with no bees at all! Also, it does not really make for a good business model in the years that it takes to get to that point.

Another method is to treat your bees every spring and fall, do mite counts and breed from the bees with the lowest mite counts. This method gives the bees a bit of a crutch; are they surviving because of the treatment, or genetics? There is also not a 100% they will survive despite the treatments. Testing for hygienic behaviour can also be a key marker for your breeding selection. Hygienic behaviour also reduces other diseases like American Foulbrood, and Chalkbrood.

The purpose is then to develop a system creating a balance between two opposing ideologies: sustain a sound productive apiary whilst developing mite tolerant survivor stock; as well as keeping true to a more natural method of beekeeping.

My proposal is this. Do not treat your bees prophylactically; let them have normal and acceptable pressures on them at all times. However, if a hive is in danger of mite related collapse treat it as to not contaminate the hives around it. Keeping chemical contaminated comb, honey and stock out of your developing resources is important.

How do we approach this?

There is a hive in danger of collapse, being robbed out and spreading mites. Treat it with an organic acid, mark the hive body and all the frames so that you know those hives have been exposed to this chemical. Once the mites have been ‘knocked down’ let it overwinter. If it successfully overwinters, split that hive up into nucleus colonies giving each a queen cell from the breeding survivor stock. A queen cell as opposed to a laying queen is important; it allows a short brood break to reduce the mite population, and give the new queen a chance to prove herself. Swarm cells in the spring should be rather easy to find.
The marked frames (contaminated,) are then pulled as time will allow and the wax is rendered. That wax is then put in a separate stock from your uncontaminated wax and used for purposes other than foundation.

What we will have accomplished is:

We have not endangered our existing hives by allowing them to rob out the infested hive
We have created nucleus colonies from a hive that would have otherwise died
We have perpetuated the genetics of our survivor stock
We have isolated any chemical contaminates from our treatment-free operation


How can we model this into our existing apiary management?

Firstly, you have to monitor for mites. Whether it is a sticky board, an alcohol shake, it doesn’t matter. You need a baseline to know which of your hives have a mite problem and which don’t. Which are candidates for breeder stock, and which hives are going to need help?

Secondly, hygienic testing; either begin testing for hygienic behavior or buy bees from breeders who are selecting for these traits and breed from them.

Fall I believe may be the best time for integration: the mite populations are at their peak, struggling hives will be apparent, and winter is coming (had to throw the Games of Thrones reference in there). You take your surplus honey off. At this point we are still treatment-free. We isolate which hives are over their mite threshold and apply a treatment. Those hives/frames are clearly marked, I am thinking green paint marker for plastic frames, or green thumb tacks (green kind of has a chemical connotation to it). Feed and maintain those hives as regular and let them overwinter.

Spring has come. Your non survivor stock has died through the great selector –winter. If your isolated hives have survived split them into as many nucleus colonies as you can, giving each brood, honey, and feed. Acquire queen cells by either: harvesting from survivor stock, or buying new genetics from a breeder. If you let them raise their own queen, you will simply be perpetuating unwanted genetics and you have just exponentially increased them by the amount of nucleus colonies you have made. By giving them a queen cell you create a brood break. This allows the mites developing inside the brood to hatch out, and gives the existing mites no larvae or eggs in which to create more mites. It will not get rid of the mites, but it will decrease their numbers. By the time the queen hatches, mates, and begins laying 16 days +/- will have passed where no eggs have been laid, and the majority of mites will be in the phoretic stage. Nucleus colonies generally do not suffer the effects of mites as severely as large colonies (more bees = more mites). The queen can be evaluated, and the nucleus colony can be put to various other uses.

Summer is business as usual more or less. Monitor mites, and test for hygienic behavior. This is also the time you want to start removing that contaminated comb, melting down the wax, and using it for anything other than new foundation. Any honey harvested from these frames can be sold commercially, but cannot be sold as treatment free honey, or fed to your own bees. Basically treat any product of that frame as like chemical waste, isolate it, get rid of it; minimize the chances of it re-entering your treatment free operation. Remove the marker from the frame and put it back into circulation.

Next fall, rinse and repeat.

Incorporating this into your treatment-free operation will allow you to remain profitable, sustainable, and still retain your core philosophical beliefs without vicariously endangering it by allowing mites to spread from dead hives.
 
See less See more
#93 ·
You don't actually use a microscope for scanning bee wings.
All you need is a decent flatbed scanner and the software is free to download at drawwing.org.
I use the Epson scanner I use for general scanning of documents. Anything at 2400 dpi or over is sufficient.

Wing morphometry easily distinguishes between pure race subspecies.
The average cubital index of Carnica is about 4.0 whereas with A.m.m it is around 1.8.
A.m.m. has a negative Discoidal shift whereas Carnica is positive.
The problem is that it is of dubious use with regard to hybrids.
If you cross a pure A.m.m. queen with pure carnica drones does it produce a CI half way between the two? Who knows.
If you cross a mongrel queen with mongrel drones what do the wings tell you? Probably nothing
 
#95 · (Edited)
Wing morphometry easily distinguishes between pure race subspecies.
The average cubital index of Carnica is about 4.0 whereas with A.m.m it is around 1.8.
Jonathan,

What that says is... one subspecies is associated with one pattern, one with another.

If you have a hybrid - of the least sort - what it tells you is: the dna that coded this wing originally came from a particular subspecies.

It doesn't tell you how long ago the allele was passed on from a pure individual - it might be hundreds or thousands of generations ago.

That bee might be 99.99% Carnica, 0.001% Amm! It might be 99.99% Amm, 0.001% Carnica. And it might be anything inbetween, taking in several subspecies.

Again:

3. Available methods and markers
3.1. Morphometry
There is no morphological "key" to honey bee subspecies, no simple logical tree based on a sequence of single discriminating characters. Instead, measurable morphometric characters show gradual changes and their ranges mostly overlap between subspecies. Thus, subspecies often differ only slightly in the mean values of several body characters, and therefore advanced statistical methods are required for discrimination of groups. The concept of numerical taxonomy was introduced into honey bee taxonomy by DuPraw (1964, 1965) and further elaborated by Ruttner et al. (1978).
Standard methods for characterising subspecies and ecotypes of Apis mellifera
Marina D Meixner1*, Maria Alice Pinto2, Maria Bouga3, Per Kryger4, Evgeniya Ivanova5 and Stefan Fuchs6
https://bibliotecadigital.ipb.pt/bit..._etal_2013.pdf

The problem is that it is of dubious use with regard to hybrids.
If you cross a pure A.m.m. queen with pure carnica drones does it produce a CI half way between the two? Who knows.
It will draw genes/alleles from, yes, about half each. At random.

If you cross a mongrel queen with mongrel drones what do the wings tell you? Probably nothing
That somewhere in its ancestry the bee has a particular subspecies.

Bear with me while I try to get a grip on this with an analogy.

Imagine we have three lego sets, all building the same house, but with red, blue, or yellow bricks and other parts.

We mix them all up, and a colour-blind person separates the parts back into three sets, now of mixed colours.

We build a house, and throw a cover over it. Someone comes along and says, if you take a single brick out of that house, I'll tell your whether the house belongs to the red, the blue, or the yellow set.

Eh? we say? That isn't, can't be, a legitimate question. You can't answer a question that isn't legitimate.

It isn't legitimate because that house is made from a mixture of bricks from 3 sets. It doesn't belong to any.

So.. what you're saying is, you've found a village with 90% blue houses, all covered up, and you can, by making a little hole in the same corner, and looking at one particular corner-brick, tell if one house is more or less than than 90% blue.

Bear in mind, each house is made from hundreds of thousands of bricks.

There is, I agree, a relation: finding a yellow or red brick indicates the likihood of a lower blue component - which is to say more hybridisation. Is that the basis of the reasoning?

(That doesn't btw equate, for a moment, with your claim "Wing morphometry easily distinguishes between pure race subspecies")

And: answer me this: how many deliberate selections made by beekeepers on this basis will it take to negate that diagnosis due to artificially enhanced levels? Have we already passed that threshold? If not, when are we likely to pass it?

At the moment I'm going to stick with the expert line against the amateur would-be pure-subspecies breeder:

"There is no morphological "key" to honey bee subspecies, no simple logical tree based on a sequence of single discriminating characters."

Mike (UK)
 
#97 · (Edited)
Mike.
Post 95 makes no sense from start to finish!
Genetics is not a subject to be made up as you go along.
Stick to what you know.
We are largely in agreement about the limitations of wing morphometry.

This plot shows wing samples from one of my A.m.m. colonies compared with wings from a New Zealand carnica queen colony in Scotland which I scanned. The CI difference alone makes it very easy to separate the two.
Like I said, I have data from about 100 colonies I have scanned and I am much less confident about the utility of this technique than I used to be - when you are dealing with hybrids.

Text Line Parallel Design Font


Incidentally, the queen from the A.m.m colony was superseded in her 4th year and the colony never tried to swarm - for those who believe A.m.m. is naturally swarmy!
 
#103 ·
Mike.
Post 95 makes no sense from start to finish!
Jonathan,

I think it does. It would be useful if you could tell me what doesn't make sense. Then we could do some learning.

We are largely in agreement about the limitations of wing morphometry.

This plot shows wing samples from one of my A.m.m. colonies compared with wings from a New Zealand carnica queen colony in Scotland which I scanned. The CI difference alone makes it very easy to separate the two.
Like I said, I have data from about 100 colonies I have scanned and I am much less confident about the utility of this technique than I used to be - when you are dealing with hybrids.
That seems to me to say: I spent a lot of time finding out something I could have found out by glancing sideways at the bees!

I can see the utility when, like Ruttner, there are only two sub-species in play and you have the capacity to create and hold an island of foreign bees within the larger pond. (In his case he was attempting to wipe out the home bees using a massive scale centrally planned multi-beekeeper operation)

Anyway, its been an interesting conversation and I've learned a lot - thanks.

Mike (UK)
 
#98 ·
I haven't gone back to look at the fundamental papers establishing the wing morphometric discipline. I played around with wing scans (and posted these to a previous thread). I see two big issues with its implementation.

First is auto-correlation. The wing measurements are cross linked -- a shift in one, by necessity affects the intersections of its neighbors. This means rather than 7, or 18 INDEPENDENT measures you have a set of data that reflects the same underlying condition. A movement in one vertex affects its neighbors -- this amplifies apparent differences and distinctions. The statistical technique of Principal Component Analysis obscures the issue of auto-correlation because the x-y coordinates of a PCA are *not* reducible to any single "real-world" parameter. The axes are synthetic.

Second issue affects the "discoidal shift" -- which is the amateur-friendly measure of the position of a single vertex.

Discoidal shift is the measure of the angle of a line (d-e) relative to the perpendicular of the line (a-d-b). The constructed vertex d is erected from the wing vein intersection "c". (or a point of tangency on a circular arc "acb").

In my interpretation, "c" is a vague point (as the wing veins are broad at this juncture). The extremely short segment (c-d) defines the perpendicular, but is very short relative to the very long d-e ray. Inherent error in the Discoidal shift is enormous -- it is at least 3 degrees of freedom away from its definitional vertex's. Extending the baseline from the tangent point "c" which is very close to the chord line a-b magnifies its error in location. "a" and "b" are points of maximum rather than vertexes, and also have error associated with them. Their exact location can shift the tangent perpendicular.

I work with principal component dataset all the time, and am in awe of their power *and* their ability to lead astray. Auto-correlation can be your friend (as it defines "neighborhoods" and linked parameters) or your worst enemy.
 
#100 · (Edited)
JWC.
You need a fairly large sample size to get any meaningful data about wing venation, and it may not even be that meaningful!
If a queen mates with say 15 drones and you want to sample a colony you need to take a reasonable sized sample to reflect this.
A large sample should even out some of the measurement error as well.
Drawwing places the points at the wing vein junctions automatically but you do need to correct some of the placements manually.
I agree with the caveats you are making about measurement.
Getting off topic for a treatment free thread.
 
#109 ·
I found this one, thanks.

Variation morphogeometrics of Africanized honey bees (Apis mellifera) in Brazil
Lorena A. NunesI; Edilson D. de AraújoII; Luis C. MarchiniI; Augusta C. de C. C. MoretiI
(I imagine your author appears in the references)
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0073-47212012000300011

Having only scanned it I have a better idea of what is possible. Its not simple though is it?

I really can't yet see a use for tf beekeeping. Unless you believe a particular race is predisposed toward mite management (I don't think there are any grounds for such a belief) and on the basis that locally adapted bees are best, then you're going to be working with hybrids, and there's little point in trying to do anything else. Unless you live in an area where a native race remains. But then you're doing something else, not doing something that aids tf.

With that said, WLC's reasons (#107) are interesting, and I'd like to hear more. Maybe we could make them the starting point of a new thread - morphometry in the service of tf selection goals or somesuch.

I'd also like to hear what it is Jonathan finds objectionable in my housebrick analogy. I thought it worked rather well. We need to note that every brick is a certain shape/fits in a certain place to complete the picture.

Mike (UK)
 
#107 ·
In my opinion, the real value of using GWV in TF beekeeping is that it can give you information with regards to the degree of hybridization of your resistant stock.

You can also start to answer questions relevant to queen mating.

For example...

Are my queens mating with both domestic and feral/AHB stock?

Do queens mated earlier in the season show different hybridization patterns than later mated queens?

Do I have more than one laying queen in my colony?

So, the GWV/PCA 'app' does have it's limits, but it does have a range of questions that it can do well in exploring.
 
#113 ·
TF beekeepers do need some way to examine hybridization issues or at least know where their bees 'fit in' with regards to other stock.
We do?

Humor me. Do you get on Beesource and reply to posts right there in your classroom in front of students, or do you step out of the room to the teachers lounge to reply? Curious how this happens when you're a teacher around students all day. Is Beesource part of the curriculum? :banana:
 
#121 ·
Jonathan:

I don't think that De Jong is using Discoidal shift and Cubital index in the PCA. They seem to be using just 8 points for the GWV data.

I also wouldn't say that molecular data is that much 'reliable' when it comes to population studies.

I'm not relying on tea leaves. I'm citing peer reviewed studies.
 
#123 ·
I'm not relying on tea leaves. I'm citing peer reviewed studies.
WLC,

I've offered what I think is a half decent criticism of one of your studies (that it makes a key statement that is inconsistent with the others, and with a reasoned position based on biological fundamentals)

From my point of view, you ought to address that criticism if you expect me to accept your references.

A good question to ask of that (suspect) paper: who were the (peer) reviewers? More software designers?

I've been reviewing these issue in my copy of Ruttners book, and he is explicit: 40 different morphometric features are available for the two populations that interest him, and he wants a good number to be used in any interrogation of type. This criticism, against the usefulness of wing measurements alone, even for just two populations, needs answering with more than just one reference written by software designers, that is countered pretty much exhaustively by the more relevant fields.

Mike (UK)
 
#129 ·
From Fusionpower:

"The major item I see missing in your plan is management of drones and management of a mating area so the number of mite tolerant colonies can be dramatically increased in 2 or 3 years. Also, in my experience, finding a mite tolerant colony usually involves a lot of unwanted genetics that take years to reduce to a tolerable level. I found a queen whose colony was mite tolerant in 2004/2005. The unwanted genetics turned out to be a very high level of hive defensiveness. They could not be worked without a suit. And no, they were not Africanized, they were just typical AMM stock for the area. It took 7 years to get them toned down enough to work in short sleeves. "

I think that geometric wing venation has an application to Fusionpower's experience and charting progress towards a TF apiary.

I might be in a similar situation with BeeWeavers.

Having used molecular methods in identifying species and hybrids, I would much prefer to use a simpler, faster, and cheaper approaches like De Jong's method.

Most of us have scanners, but most of us don't have a molecular biology lab or accounts with biotech companies established (although I do).
 
#131 ·
Here's a paper that illustrates how Francoy and De Jong were able to follow hybridization between Africanized and Italian Honeybees:

"Rapid morphological changes in populations of hybrids between Africanized and European honey bees."

http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2012/vol11-3/pdf/gmr2371.pdf

It look likes they were using MorphoJ software to do the statistical analysis.

Here's a peak at some analytical methods used in a different paper (Geometric morphometrics reveals morphological differentiation within four African stingless bee species)...

"Statistical Analyses
The Cartesian coordinates of the landmarks were Procrustes aligned to evaluate existing shape variations among the different populations using MorphoJ software version 1.03 (45). Within MorphoJ software, further statistical
computations including principal component analyses (PCA), canonical variate analyses (CVA), discriminant
function analyses (DFA), Procrustes ANOVA and Regression analyses were conducted to discriminate populations
within each species against the different ecological zones. In addition, relative warp analyses was conducted to
summarize the variation among the specimens (with respect to their partial warp scores) using the tpsRelw software version 1.49 (46). The Mahalanobis square distances between the centroids of CVA were then used to construct a
neighbor joining dendogram with MEGA5 software version 5.05 (47)."

So, yes, you can examine hybridization with a different application in the same software package (MorphoJ).
 
#136 · (Edited)
Here's a paper that illustrates how Francoy and De Jong were able to follow hybridization between Africanized and Italian Honeybees:

"Rapid morphological changes in populations of hybrids between Africanized and European honey bees."
WLC,

Follow changes yes. Undo them (put humpty dumpty back together) no.

... further statistical computations .... were conducted to discriminate populations within each species against the different ecological zones.
Established ecotypes, yes. These may be 'hybrids', yes. But 'established' hybrids. This means you can find features that are common to all individuals. The absence of that feature then signals otherness - further hybridisation.

You have a base to measure against, just as you do with pure species.

None of this is available in the case of mongrels or higher levels of recent, unstable hybridisation between pure races or ecotypes.

I would imagine that deep - forest/wilderness 'survivor' bees might show a good level of stability - and the ability to track that might be a vary useful thing.

So, yes, you can examine hybridization with a different application in the same software package (MorphoJ).
I think you need to refine your terminology for statements like this. There is 'hybridization' and then there is 'hybridization'. A stable local ecotype may emerge from a hybrid population, and be amenable to morphological analysis.

A deeply and recently hybridised ('mongrel') population won't be amenable - it'll be all over the place. But it may have a shared set of feature that are gold dust - the mite tolerance behaviours. And it may well be capable (if left alone) of becoming a thriving, stable local ecotype of the first sort.

Does all that fit with your understanding?

Mike (UK)
 
#138 ·
Mike:

While I think that breeders conserving 'pure' stocks of Honeybees is important, I believe that the vast majority of TF bees are hybrids of one kind or another. We already know that queens that are well mated with a diversity of drone stock can produce healthier colonies.

Since my TF bees are store bought (open mated in Texas), and many TF beekeepers use ferals, I think that GWV morphometrics provides important information with regards to the stock.

For example, I would want to know if loss of hybridization leads to a loss of resistance in my own bees. I can't open mate with the hybrid swarm here in NYC.

I don't have to wait for a miracle with BeeWeavers. I'm trusting Daniel Weaver's skill as a TF queen breeder/producer.

There's one key issue here in the U.S. that you don't have in the UK. We have to have a way to guard against AHB.

While we do use morphometrics to test for AHB, since the Darger Thesis, it looks like we're using a method that gives false positives, and we need to use GWV instead.

With regards to ferals in Florida which are being misidentified as AHB, it becomes a Honeybee conservation issue.

They may be destroying a valuable, resistant stock.
 
#139 ·
Mike:

While I think that breeders conserving 'pure' stocks of Honeybees is important, I believe that the vast majority of TF bees are hybrids of one kind or another.
WLC,

Could you tell me whether you agree my distinction between stable local ecotypes that are 'hybrids', and 'mongrels'? If so, how would you place the dividing line between the two?

We already know that queens that are well mated with a diversity of drone stock can produce healthier colonies.
Yes, although I'm not sure that entails hybridisation - well mated within subspecies works just as well as far as I know.

Since my TF bees are store bought (open mated in Texas), and many TF beekeepers use ferals, I think that GWV morphometrics provides important information with regards to the stock.
I think it can only tell that there may be a fraction of the thing you fear - AHB genetics - that part responsible for WV pattern. I think you'd expect a lot of that in open mated queens from within the Texas hybrid 'survivor population', and there is no rationale for supposing that aggressiveness might accompany it.

For example, I would want to know if loss of hybridization leads to a loss of resistance in my own bees. I can't open mate with the hybrid swarm here in NYC.
You would measure 'loss of hybridisation' by rising uniformity among workers? That may due to lower mating rates, or the presence of a stable survivor hybrid ecotype in NYC.

I don't have to wait for a miracle with BeeWeavers.
What would qualify as a miracle?

There's one key issue here in the U.S. that you don't have in the UK. We have to have a way to guard against AHB.
You have to guard against undue aggressivness. So breed away when you see it.

While we do use morphometrics to test for AHB, since the Darger Thesis, it looks like we're using a method that gives false positives, and we need to use GWV instead.
Eh? Geometric Wing Veination is a morphometric. ...?

With regards to ferals in Florida which are being misidentified as AHB, it becomes a Honeybee conservation issue.
The problem here is that 'Africanised' is mumbo-jumbo. A scare-term. There's no such thing as an 'AHB.' There are hybrids with more or less African genetics, and that seems to roughly corrolate with aggressive behaviours. Fair do's. But finding a bit of African influence in a wing isn't a good reason to terminate the line.

They may be destroying a valuable, resistant stock.
Quite. So might you.

Mike (UK)
 
#142 ·
WLC,Could you tell me whether you agree my distinction between stable local ecotypes that are 'hybrids', and 'mongrels'? If so, how would you place the dividing line between the two? Mike (UK)
Managed Honeybees aren't considered a stable ecotype. That would apply to local ferals. While there have been reports of reproductively isolated feral populations, as a general rule, ferals and managed bees are in disequilibrium. There will be introgression of alleles in either direction.
Yes, although I'm not sure that entails hybridisation - well mated within subspecies works just as well as far as I know.
I'm referring to hybridization regarding resistant vs non resistant stocks.
I think it can only tell that there may be a fraction of the thing you fear - AHB genetics - that part responsible for WV pattern. I think you'd expect a lot of that in open mated queens from within the Texas hybrid 'survivor population', and there is no rationale for supposing that aggressiveness might accompany it.
It's not so much the aggressiveness. It's the other characteristics that make them challenging to work. As I've said elsewhere, I think that AHB drones mate earlier in the season than domestic ones do. I would expect to see that in a scatter plot of early vs late queens.
You would measure 'loss of hybridisation' by rising uniformity among workers? That may due to lower mating rates, or the presence of a stable survivor hybrid ecotype in NYC.
I'd measure that by comparing the before and after analyses. What stable ecotype in NYC? They're managed colonies that get replaced frequently.
What would qualify as a miracle?
Buying any old package bees, and having them actually survive.
You have to guard against undue aggressivness. So breed away when you see it.
How about I just order a new queen from BeeWeaver?
Eh? Geometric Wing Veination is a morphometric. ...?
They use a different method for determining AHB. But, it not the same as De Jong's method.
The problem here is that 'Africanised' is mumbo-jumbo. A scare-term. There's no such thing as an 'AHB.' There are hybrids with more or less African genetics, and that seems to roughly corrolate with aggressive behaviours. Fair do's. But finding a bit of African influence in a wing isn't a good reason to terminate the line.
Africanized is, unfortunately, very real. Some of their traits do seem to be dominant. There are some folks who do hive feral swarms. If they fit the AHB morphotype, you can't keep them. Some southern beekeepers were told that there are AHB around, but Darger has shown that they're some else, and that the test used returned false positives.
Quite. So might you.
My bees are store bought. They're chattel. Not a resource.
 
#148 ·
No Mike, Paul found stable ecotypes on the mountains of NM, then he put them in a hive.

No Mike, the fear was that AHB genes would swamp the genetic diversity of EHB colonies. Now we know that the flow has changed at the AHB front. In fact, in the South, it appears that AHB gene flow has been slowed down considerably by local feral/managed colonies to such an extent, that the flow may be going the other way.

Yes Mike, I can use the term introgression of alleles. Especially in the U.S. since AHB is an issue.
 
#153 ·
More genetic diversity needed.........

Increasing Genetic Diversity of

Honey Bees--A Necessity, Says

Bee-Breeder-Geneticist

Susan Cobey




Dept. of Entomology
University of California at Davis
DAVIS--Increasing the overall genetic diversity of honey bees will lead to healthier and hardier bees that can better fight off parasites, pathogens and pests, says bee breeder-geneticist Susan Cobey of the University of California, Davis and Washington State University.

Just as stock improvement has served the poultry, dairy and swine industries well, the beekeeping industry needs access “to stocks of origin or standardized evaluation and stock improvement programs,” Cobey said.

Cobey is the lead author of the chapter “Status of Breeding Practices and Genetic Diversity in Domestic U.S. Honey Bees” of the newly published book, Honey Bee Colony Health: Challenges and Sustainable Solution.

“The many problems that currently face the U.S. honey bee population have underscored the need for sufficient genetic diversity at the colony, breeding, and population levels,” wrote Cobey and colleagues Walter “Steve” Sheppard, professor and chair of the WSU Department of Entomology and David Tarpy of North Carolina State University, formerly a graduate student at UC Davis.

“Genetic diversity has been reduced by three distinct bottleneck events, namely the limited historical importation of a small subset sampling of a few honey bee subspecies, the selection pressure of parasites and pathogens (particularly parasitic mites) and the consolidated commercial queen-production practices that use a small number of queen mothers in the breeding population,” Cobey pointed out.

The honey bee, Apis mellifera, originated in the Old World where it diverged into more than two dozen recognized subspecies, they related. However, only nine of the more than two dozen Old World subspecies ever made it to the United States and only two of these are recognizable today.

European colonists brought one subspecies, Apis mellifera mellifera or “The Dark Bee” of Northern Europe, to America in 1622, establishing it in the Jamestown colony. The bee was the only honey bee present in the United States for the next 239 years (1622 until 1861).

The Italian or golden honey bee, Apis mellifera ligustica, was introduced into the United States in 1859 and is now the most common honey bee in the United States. “Currently available U.S. honey bees are primarily derived from two European subspecies, A. m. carnica and A. m. ligustica,” the bee scientists said.

The U.S. ban on the importation of bees in 1922 to ward off a tracheal mite (Acarapis woodi) further aggravated the genetic bottleneck. Today the No. 1 enemy of the beekeeping industry is the parasitic Varroa mite (Varroa destructor), which has played a major role in the crippling decline of the U.S. honey bee population.

Found in virtually all bee colonies in the United States, it feeds on bee blood, can transmit diseases, and generally weakens the bee immune system.

What’s being done? “In the U.S. the recognized need to increase genetic diversity and strengthen selection programs of commercial breeding stocks has resulted in collaborative efforts among universities, government researchers, and the queen industry,” according to Cobey, Sheppard and Tarpy. “The current challenges facing the beekeeping industry and new technologies being developed are pushing beekeeping into a new era.”

To increase genetic diversity in the U.S. honey bee gene pool, Cobey and Sheppard are importing honey bee germplasm or semen of several subspecies of European honey bees and inseminating virgin queens of domestic breeding stock. They are also working on diagnostic programs to assist beekeepers to assess colony health and to evaluate commercial breeding stocks.

Cobey, who teaches queen-bee rearing classes and queen bee instrumental insemination at UC Davis and WSU, joined UC Davis in May 2007. Her research focuses on identifying, selecting and enhancing honey bee stocks that show increasing levels of resistance to pests and diseases. Cobey developed the New World Carniolan stock, a dark, winter hardy race of honey bees, in the early 1980s by back-crossing stocks collected from throughout the United States and Canada to create a more pure strain.

Sheppard , who leads the Apis Molecular Systematics Laboratory at WSU, studies population genetics and evolution of honey bees, insect introductions and mechanisms of genetic differentiation. His work was featured in a recent edition of the Washington State University Magazine.

Tarpy, now an associate professor and Extension apiculturist, at North Carolina State University, received his doctorate in entomology from UC Davis in 2000. He studied with Robert Page, emeritus professor of entomology at UC Davis who later became the vice provost and dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Foundation Professor of Life Sciences, Arizona State University.
__________________
 
#154 ·
Modifying my statement: there may be further behaviours, or capacities that are helpful to internal mite management that are less common. But at least some are found in all populations, according to this paper.
I would agree that hygienic behavior is found in all populations of bees. It is a general trait useful in prevention of brood disease. There should be a strong caveat that the trait is present in some populations at a higher frequency than in others. Italians for example have a relatively high level of hygienic traits where A.M.M. bees tend to have very little.

I would strongly disagree that this means that Varroa Sensitive Hygiene is found in all populations. The available evidence so far is that bees expressing very high levels of VSH also test as very highly hygienic, but that hygienic bees do not necessarily express VSH. In other words, you are stating that because A = B, of necessity B = C. You have not first proven that A = C. Either provide some evidence your statement is valid or else back off of it until you can prove it.

After 13 years of exposure to varroa and the death of most feral and many managed colonies in the U.S., I found one single colony that expressed moderately high varroa tolerance. The best I can estimate, 99.9% of our feral bees died up to that point. The only bees that remain from the original population are highly selected for traits that allow them to live with varroa. Unfortunately, this means that most of these bees swarm with an intensity never seen by me before. Serial swarming during summer allows multiple brood breaks which tend to reduce varroa pressure. Any varroa tolerance that relies on brood breaks to keep bees alive is fragile at best and will lead to compromised traits such as honey production.

There are three known mechanisms of varroa tolerance that do not rely on brood breaks. They are mite mauling behavior, varroa sensitive hygiene, and reduced days to worker maturity. VSH traits were present in Primorski bees to a high level as a result of 100 years of mite pressure. Both VSH and mite mauling are now present in feral colonies in the U.S. as a result of unrelentingly high selection pressure from varroa mites plus moderate levels of VSH genetics escaping into ferals.

Look for bees that survive and thrive in the presence of mites without expressing high levels of swarming. Don't hesitate to do what I did by purchasing some queens from a breeder who developed mite tolerant bees. The combination of traits from his queens and from my single queen gave me a very useful and highly mite tolerant line of honeybees.
 
#155 · (Edited)
I would agree that hygienic behavior is found in all populations of bees. It is a general trait useful in prevention of brood disease. There should be a strong caveat that the trait is present in some populations at a higher frequency than in others. Italians for example have a relatively high level of hygienic traits where A.M.M. bees tend to have very little.
I agree. Of course those populations exposed for a longer period have better developed and better balanced defence mechanisms - and are, all else being equal, better candidates for starting stock. Russians are supposed to be still better equipped. In all cases mite management ability will likely vary - according to historic exposure and (more recently, and likely dramatically) the use of treatments in progenitor stocks.

I would strongly disagree that this means that Varroa Sensitive Hygiene is found in all populations. The available evidence so far is that bees expressing very high levels of VSH also test as very highly hygienic, but that hygienic bees do not necessarily express VSH. In other words, you are stating that because A = B, of necessity B = C. You have not first proven that A = C.
On second reading I think you're right:

"Hygienic bees detect, uncap, and remove diseased brood from the combs before the disease becomes infectious. Hygienic behavior also is one defense against Varroa mites (Peng et al., 1987), and although it is not the main mechanism of resistance to the mites (Harbo and Hoopingarner, 1997), it appears to limit their reproduction and population growth to some degree. Our studies have shown that it is possible to select for hygienic behavior without compromising honey production or gentleness (Spivak, 1996; Spivak and Reuter, in press). The trait can be found in approximately 10 percent of the managed colonies found in the United States, in any race or stock of bees." http://www.apiservices.com/articles/us/hygiene_queen.htm

It seems likely that the specific intentions of the terms 'hygienic' and 'VSH' hadn't been separated out at the time this was written (the document is undated, but the latest reference is to a 1998 paper). The authors specify as follows:

"Although the common usage of the word hygienic denotes cleanliness, hygienic behavior is a specific response by the bees to diseased and parasitized brood. A colony that keeps its hive clean does not imply that it will be resistant to diseases. "

The authors go on to talk about the frozen brood assay for 'hygienic behaviour'. This test I agree doesn't specifically select for SMR/VSH.

Do you know of any studies that look at the specific issue of VSH across races and populations?

Its worth noting that only 1 or 2 patrilines need be SMR/VSH equipped in order for the colony to be resistant - and too many more would be damaging. It follows that not all i.e. Russions in a functional natural population are so equipped - just a sufficient proportion. The same must be true of US 'survivor' ferals.

There are three known mechanisms of varroa tolerance that do not rely on brood breaks. They are mite mauling behavior, varroa sensitive hygiene, and reduced days to worker maturity. VSH traits were present in Primorski bees to a high level as a result of 100 years of mite pressure.
There is also general resistance to the micro-oganisms that varroa creates vulnerability to. Grooming (auto and allo) without mauling may be separable behaviours. There may be others we don't know of. I don't necessarily agree that brood breaks are always a bad thing - breaks that are timed well with local flows might well be an advantage. The term 'brood break' might turn out to be a blunt instrument for what might be very nuanced and subtle responses to local environments, and we may want to speak more carefully about them. Of course those people who want mathematically programmed bees won't want anything to do with that kind of thing.

Both VSH and mite mauling are now present in feral colonies in the U.S. as a result of unrelentingly high selection pressure from varroa mites plus moderate levels of VSH genetics escaping into ferals.
It may be only the former reason. Genes coding for all kinds of mite-managment behaviours may well be present in all but the most narrowly diverse populations. I agree levels will be higher where mite exposure is longer (in ferals only).

Look for bees that survive and thrive in the presence of mites without expressing high levels of swarming. Don't hesitate to do what I did by purchasing some queens from a breeder who developed mite tolerant bees. The combination of traits from his queens and from my single queen gave me a very useful and highly mite tolerant line of honeybees.
That makes sense to me, but I'm increasingly thinking that possession of the right sort of mite in initial stocks would be a strong advantage too. A population of low fecundity mites supplies protection against a population explosion of flown-in mites from treated colonies.

Mike (UK)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top