Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

801 - 820 of 827 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,976 Posts
This is the best TF/Chemical Free IPM Presentation I have seen. Realistic and exportabul, coming from a well educated researcher that has walked the walk (as apposed to seeleys "hey you all should try this and see if it works" )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuJlgzcQWAg
his other 3 are good to
What are his results? How far has he come with TF stock? Or is he not breeding for resistance at all, just chemical free?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,976 Posts
From the table (40min35s) can be seen that in after six years of work (2013-2018) they have about 10 colonies( or even less?) which are above 75% SMR. That is important because they survive without treatments.

10 colonies out of 363 makes 2,7% of their test population.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
I have watched them all and all 4 lectures are really worth watching from beginning to end.

When you make a complete brood removal 1-2 weeks before the main honey flow you don't loose honey yield and you get strong hives going to winter. By the complete brood removal you don't need to treat in winter, only if there is reinvasion (but you can measure).
Ralph talks about not treating in winter and the colonies then have a higher mite load in the next mating season and that this is a very good natural selection on the drones for Varroa resistance. They have even tested this on the Norderney island, drones from hives with bigger mite loads do not make it (the drone hives are not treated for a year).

This management along with varroa counts and the Pin-test (counting also opened cells not just fully cleaned) you can breed for a better Varroa tolerance without heavy losses. A good thing is more associations and beekeepers are seriously trying to find mite tolerance over more treatments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,522 Posts
Discussion Starter #806 (Edited)
How far has he come with TF stock? Or is he not breeding for resistance at all, just chemical free?
JL I think it All depends on your TF/CF/Management Free prism and views.. IE Seeley 2107 shows a significant increase in TF swarm survival when hived in a lang vs natural cavity and kept TF.. is that treatment, or just management.. or chemical free IPM ..
enough info in the you tubes to goggle scholar the peer reviewed studies and make your own judgments (I believe you have a 2nd connection to 1 or 2 of them...Oddie (2018) "Melissa Oddie and Ralph Büchler contributed equally to this work". )

My thought is he has made a proven of gains in TF management(or at least showing whats all ready out there and working), less in the genetic end(despite having an island mating station at his disposal.. that is hard core food for thought) .. my 2 cents is that management matters A LOT more to the typical backyard keeper that wants to keep bees TF.. your hard pressed to get them to buy resistant stock, pick up the grafting needle(much less a II rig) so management is all that is all that is realistically left (point of this thread).. I feel the advice given is a heck of a lot better then put them in a box and watch them die.

I found the pin test recommendation surprising. I had seen it said it was a poor substitute in for FBA, and FBA was linked to hygienic behavior, But not VSH or mite resistance (Kefuss 2015)
. He sites Hoffmann S. (1996) (in German so no idea ). Either he is working without dated info(that is an old study), or more likely we in the states are missing something.
US version http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/breeding.html
EU version https://www.researchgate.net/public...earing_and_selection_of_Apis_mellifera_queens page 18
regardless hygienic behavior is a good trait, we have a lot more problems then just mites.
Ralph talks about not treating in winter and the colonies then have a higher mite load in the next mating season and that this is a very good natural selection on the drones for Varroa resistance
and on a landscape scale that would be great. But its a hard sell to tell people not to kill mites at the cheapest and easiest time of year.

My take home is with out isolation unless TF people are doing something to insure there drones are healthy they are not being competitive at the DCAs with most of there hives. Death nail in the "My drones arn't treated so they are stronger/faster/better" argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,870 Posts
Snip<My take home is with out isolation unless TF people are doing something to insure there drones are healthy they are not being competitive at the DCAs with most of there hives. Death nail in the "My drones arn't treated so they are stronger/faster/better" argument.>
Seems like this would be hard to deny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,759 Posts
Seems like this would be hard to deny.
During the presentation, he stated, about drones from hives with a lot of mites a) sick hives raise far fewer drones, b) likely would not win the race to the queen, Imagine running a race when you are sick, AND when dissected the Spermatheka, had less amount of seman from sick drones, vrs healthy ones,, so the untreated , sick, Hives would have less representation in the off spring than the treated, or healthy ones. So could be really healthy non treated, OR well treated none VRH type drones in the DCA. Bottom line hives that do not handle mites well do not get good representation in offspring.
which I agree seems somewhat intuitive.
GG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,522 Posts
Discussion Starter #809
Bottom line hives that do not handle mites well do not get good representation in offspring
in BUBALO (2004) the 2 year old TF hives lost 90% of their drones on the 1st orientation flight.. only 1.3% of the ones marked were recovered at the DCA vs 13.41 % for the treated, low mite hives...

For many, a 2 year old TF hive would be "breeder stock", but you would need 10 of those to match the DCA impact of one treated and healthy hive.

I would say the bottom line is otherwise good TF hives are poorly performing at DCAs. Do to the mites preference for drone brood it doesn't take that many to start impacting the drones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
967 Posts
The way he describes his breeding stock it sounds like he has a very narrow genetic base. Not good when looking for new traits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,976 Posts
I would say the bottom line is otherwise good TF hives are poorly performing at DCAs.
I have personal experience of this. When heavily infested, drones are hard to raise, and queens needed much more time to mate in my isolation apiary.

And poor mating results (drone layers in the next summer) was one reason to start inseminating all queens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,976 Posts
Good reason MSL to question the usefulness of pin tests.

Did he show a diagram how had the SMR% developed during the years? The SMR trait (VSH) is, like he said, the one which matters.

He did show a diagram how the cell recapping tendency developed.

I got the idea that they did not make the pin tests in the usual way: if I heard right he said that they do not kill the larvae. They just make a hole. Anyone heard better?








(I´m getting serious trouble with my hearing...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Good reason MSL to question the usefulness of pin tests.

Did he show a diagram how had the SMR% developed during the years? The SMR trait (VSH) is, like he said, the one which matters.

He did show a diagram how the cell recapping tendency developed.

I got the idea that they did not make the pin tests in the usual way: if I heard right he said that they do not kill the larvae. They just make a hole. Anyone heard better?
You heard right.
In the Carnica breeding they use the size 2 insect needle and they gently pierce the cell (not all the way to bottom.). But there is no mention about doing it differently than they have done it before.
In the Carnica breeding program they use the pin test to find those worth testing for VSH. There is according to them those with good pin test results are those that show VSH, if they do not score good in pin test then they do not show any VSH. Same goes for the recapping.

The results speak for them self, if one reads the results in BeeBreed (Carnica breeding Germany, Neatherlands and Belgium)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,444 Posts
I got the idea that they did not make the pin tests in the usual way: if I heard right he said that they do not kill the larvae. They just make a hole. Anyone heard better?
i understood him to say that a small pin is used and the larvae are pierced just enough to cause injury buy not enough to kill it, which supposedly results in the release of an odor that the nurse bees can smell and cause them to remove the injured larvae.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,444 Posts
The results speak for them self, if one reads the results in BeeBreed (Carnica breeding Germany, Neatherlands and Belgium)
"More than one hundred beekeepers are now actively running the selection program in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland. Almost 700 colonies were prepared, infested with mites and assessed on their resistance level. 189 colonies were identified as highly resistant (≥50% of reproducing mites removed from the brood). Of these, a third of the colonies removed all of the mites and are considered 100% resistant."

from: https://aristabeeresearch.org/category/blog-news/blog/arista-bee-research/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,522 Posts
Discussion Starter #816
i understood him to say that a small pin is used and the larvae are pierced just enough to cause injury buy not enough to kill it, which supposedly results in the release of an odor that the nurse bees can smell and cause them to remove the injured larvae.
I didn't hear him say that at all, but that was the thought in the back of my head as to what the effect may be, must have registered sub consciously! I will have to watch it again
however in his other works(such as the link in post 806) he definitely refrers to it as "pin-killed brood assay"

but "The highest discriminatory power of the test is reached when all of the test colonies remove an average of 50% of the pupae within the time interval. Therefore, the time interval between piercing the cells and checking should be adapted to the average removal response of the test population. If the average removal rate is much lower than 50%, the time interval should be prolonged to yield higher differences between colonies with high and low hygienic behaviour. If the average removal is much higher than 50%, a shorter time interval should be realized in further test repetitions. "
perhaps the time fexabuuility and not waiting for the brood to warm back up, etc has an effect

I realy WANT to believe, such a simple test for a small operation could be a huge benfict ... but given it all seems to be based on a 1996 study that I can't find replicates of... I have my doughts... what we know about mites has changed a lot sence the 90s
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,976 Posts
"More than one hundred beekeepers are now actively running the selection program in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland. Almost 700 colonies were prepared, infested with mites and assessed on their resistance level. 189 colonies were identified as highly resistant (≥50% of reproducing mites removed from the brood). Of these, a third of the colonies removed all of the mites and are considered 100% resistant."

from: https://aristabeeresearch.org/category/blog-news/blog/arista-bee-research/

Ralph Büchler is talking in these videos about his own work in Kirchhain Institute. He might be somewhat involved in Arista too, but for exaple the protocol they use to find resistance is totally different in Arista.

https://llh.hessen.de/bildung/biene...onen/verbundprojekt-smr-selektion-bei-bienen/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,522 Posts
Discussion Starter #820
Thanks SP, I totally fell a sleep during part 1, looks like I soaked up the info despite it
 
801 - 820 of 827 Posts
Top