BeeBreed News announced 15/02/2017

[PBee]

In my experience the Celle Carnica queens are not particularly impressive. The Torfhaus open mated I found to be worse in temper and stability than my average Amm types. The Neuwerk are slightly more stable and slightly better tempered but are by no means docile. Also I wonder if they are particularly varroa tolerant as, with a comprenhensive treatment regime, I am (unscientifically) noticing some overt DWV in a couple of the Neuwerk hives this spring.

On the averages of selected Amm(Central European), Amc, Aml and Hybrids (Buckfast) – there is an interesting study of a direct comparison in Finland which did not find startling differences.

The winter food consumption was dependent on race: Central European race – 1.04 kg, Carniolan race – 1.06 kg, Italian – 1.26 kg and Buckfast – 1.34 kg. The spring development, measured the quantity of sealed brood was the lowest in Central European race (33.7 dm2, the highest in Buckfast (43.5 dm2). Central European race had the lowest honey production (33 kg). Races: Italian and Buckfast had similar honey production (38 kg), Carniolan race – 42 kg. The ratio of honey production to quantity of sealed brood was in Carniolan and Central European races identical (1.08 kg/dm2) and was higher than in Buckfast and Italian races (0.99 and 0.97 kg/dm2). There were not found statisticaly significant differences.

http://annals-wuls.sggw.pl/files/files/animal/asc2009no46full.pdf#page=37

Because of the increasing variability in weather patterns my current impression is Amm types are better for sustainable ‘realistic’ average honey production and ease of varroa management. Also the weight of opinion (just from general observation) seems to be in favour of Amm so it is unlikely Amc will be adopted in great enough numbers to form pure breeding areas and their apparent competitive mating disadvantage in mixed Amm/Amc areas also works against them.

 

[B+.]

In my experience ....
<snip>
Because of the increasing variability in weather patterns my current impression is Amm types are better for sustainable ‘realistic’ average honey production and ease of varroa management.

I'm always interested to hear of other peoples opinion, especially when it is based on experience rather than hearsay and anecdotes.
What, precisely, is your experience (duration, colony numbers, when, etc)?
I didn't like the Torfhaus queens much either. The Germans have proven that land-based mating sites are unreliable and I think this is true. The Torfhaus queens are described as "production" queens rather than breeding stock and, I think, their price reflects that. Neuwerk are far better but I wouldn't describe them as varroa tolerant yet. That is why people like me have to test them (and I always encourage people to test their queens rather than relying on what other people say). Relative to the local bee, these are far superior and have proven their worth repeatedly to me.
Whether they are necesarily the best, though, is another question, and work continues to improve the stock all of the time. Thats why its important to have a yardstick for measuring progress (i.e. breeding values) so anecdotes can be discounted.
I am certainly not going to read a 330 page document from 2009 unless I have something to go on that makes it worth my while. That is just a pointless paper chase and I refuse to waste my time on it. If you have a specific point to make, at least refer us to a page range.
It is still much too early to perfrm extensive examination of the colonies but I did have the opportunity to examine them a little over a week ago. There was no dwv or any other visual sign of disease. If, as you say, you have them on "a comprehensive treatment regime", you are hardly going to see any difference at all. You're covering up any difference by treating them. I disagree with your approach on this and am against the very idea of profylactic treatment. It goes against the testing protocols I follow.
If weather patterns are increasingly variable, and I see no reason to doubt it based on recent years, what makes you think Amm is better? All you've provided so far is personal anecdotes. I don't mind this, but, its not really evidence. "Amm types" is just another way of saying mongrel to me....and what do you mean by "sustainable ‘realistic’ average honey production"? Is this another "Trumpism" ("so I've been told")? I treat comments like this as "fake news". Its all misinformation and wishful thinking from the increasingly troll-like Amm lobby I see on here

 

[PBee]

......
What, precisely, is your experience (duration, colony numbers, when, etc)?
.....

Enough to give a reasonably informed opinion (in my opinion).

Relative to the local bee, these are far superior and have proven their worth repeatedly to me.

Everyones experience will be different based on their requirements and resources and numerous other variables so it is probably best to acknowledge this.

I am certainly not going to read a 330 page document from 2009 unless I have something to go on that makes it worth my while. That is just a pointless paper chase and I refuse to waste my time on it. If you have a specific point to make, at least refer us to a page range.

The link opens on the page and it is a standard paper length. The thing I like about this kind of study is it usually disregards interests, being peer reviewed, and whilst limited to the particular subspecies/hybrid sources, gives a measured snapshot of 3 years study.

If, as you say, you have them on "a comprehensive treatment regime", you are hardly going to see any difference at all. You're covering up any difference by treating them.

I think my start point would be stock that did not show DWV after correct treatment – I did say it was unscientific therefore just an observation. It would make me think though as, in a largish apiary, these were the outliers.

If weather patterns are increasingly variable, and I see no reason to doubt it based on recent years, what makes you think Amm is better?

Just day to day at the hives. They are not the most docile, or the best producers in good years, but they are not ‘boom or bust’ and there is a size of colony that is optimum for management and therefore yield/work ratio.

 

[B+.]

Enough to give a reasonably informed opinion (in my opinion).
.

You sound just like President Trump with all this avoidance and evasion. Everything after this is just.... Blah.....blah.....blah. All anecdotes! I hate anecdotes!

Believe me, I spent a long time in senior management in large corporates. It taught me a lot of things....spotting thinly disguised pretexts was one of the easier ones.

 

[B+.]

I think my start point would be stock that did not show DWV after correct treatment – I did say it was unscientific therefore just an observation. It would make me think though as, in a largish apiary, these were the outliers.

If you took two 500Mg tablets of paracetemol every 4 hours, do you think you'd have a headache at the end of the day?

That is why prophylactic treatment is not acceptable when assessing performance. It's common sense!

 

[B+.]

Ooops!

The institute have withdrawn the breeding values published recently because of some error (presumably in the coding). The breeding values have been recalculated using the old method until they can sort out what went wrong.
The new method would have incorporated work by Brascamp & Bijma on the Austrian population along with some, as yet, unpublished work by other researchers
This is what the new model means (ignore any funny translation from Dutch....blame it on Google Translate):

"
1. A new calculation model. The core of the method of production values is the pedigree that includes nations queens (= mothers) and groups drones nations (= father). In the past it was just done in the calculation if they were both a mother, as a people, as a father one animal. Now Queen is recognized as an animal model, a people as the average of many workers and the father as the average of a known number of drones nations. This approach has been developed in Wageningen .
2. The result is a better calculation of inbreeding coefficients. One consequence, however, above all in the growing value estimate data from full-sister nations and half sister nations (nations with non-sister queens who have been with the same horse drones nations) are weighed correctly. In addition, now taking into account the number of drones nations that forms the father. There are some practical effects:
a. The expected value of a planned cultivation mating is equal to half of that of the parent (2a) and that of the father (4a). That was in the past not so.
b. The average of progeny groups is expected to be equal to the predicted value of the planned cultivation mating. That was in the past not so.
c. The cultivation estimated values of a group of full sister is (much) more uniform than in the past.De betrouwbaarheden van de teeltwaardes zijn hoger.
3. New heritability of the five characteristics in the cultivation value estimate and new genetic correlations between these traits. Effects are not known to me.
4. Recalculation of the Varroa index.
5. The check of data from the past and improving where possible. An example is that a group of full-sister nations in the calculation method was not recognized as such if the origin of those sisters was not explicitly included in the database. For participants who first participated descent which was lacking sometimes."

 

[PBee]

......... All anecdotes! I hate anecdotes!

......

Anecdotal information without qualification should be graded on where it lies within the norm and any interests that might be involved. The average honey yields in the research above compare reasonably well with FAOSTAT(2010) figures for Finland (46kg) and they are among the highest in Europe. Good anecdotal figures for the UK (often quoted here) are around low to mid 20’s.

Your figure of 72kg average/hive for 2015 (assuming inclusion of all hives) seems fairly remarkable given your testing protocols do not allow any interference that would skew results and particularly in view of your claim of zero varroa treatment.

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/evaluation/market-and-income-reports/2013/apiculture/chap3_en.pdf

 

[colinc]

Problem with anecdotes rather than recordable and repeatable measurements is you will see what you want to see. That is why the gold standard for any trial is double blinded and placebo controlled. It completely negates the test administrator skewing and corrupting their own data. So no, if you want proof that something works to advise on a large scale, anecdotes won't do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[B+.]

Problem with anecdotes rather than recordable and repeatable measurements is you will see what you want to see. That is why the gold standard for any trial is double blinded and placebo controlled. It completely negates the test administrator skewing and corrupting their own data. So no, if you want proof that something works to advise on a large scale, anecdotes won't do.

Thank you ColinC. Thats exactly my point.
One of the conditions of BeeBreed membership is that 1/3 of your test material comes from other breeders. This prohibits a breeder from influencing the figures. Its a very well thought out process.

My test stock from other breeders in 2017 includes:

I.B. Celle
Line A1-013 (6-1-0585-2016, 6-1-0628-2016 and 6-1-0608-2016)
Line A2-001 (6-1-0649-2016 and 6-1-0640-2016)
Line A3-066 (6-1-0727-2016 and 6-1-0734-2016)
All mated to drones produced by 15 daughters of 6-1-0563-2012 on the island of Neuwerk.

NL-Line (55-9-89-2016 and 55-9-90-2016) instrumentally inseminated to drones from 3 daughters of 18-26-7268-2013)

VSH-Line (55-2-73-2016) island mated on Vlieland to drones from 10 daughters of 18-26-7268-2013).

You will notice that the sire is the same for both the NL-Line and the VSH-Line.

I want to return to a point made by PBee earlier that IB celle Neuwerk queens aren't necessarily the best. This is true. The skill of the breeder is to bring together both sides of the pedigree to produce offspring with the highest possible breeding values. The Celle queens aren't always tested for varroa so they are often weaker than queens from other institutes (e.g. Kirchhain) that specifically breed for this trait, although they are higher in other traits (e.g. honey production). Its a balancing act, judging where you can make progress in one area because of what is available to you at the time, and what you have to postpone until the opportunity presents itself. I'm sorry if this doesn't satisfy some people, but, its the way things are in the real world.

 

[B+.]

Your figure of 72kg average/hive for 2015 (assuming inclusion of all hives) seems fairly remarkable given your testing protocols do not allow any interference that would skew results and particularly in view of your claim of zero varroa treatment.

Yes. I quoted the mean for the whole of the test group. It doesn't include open mated queens that are disqualified and don't even appear in a stock book. These are used for other purposes.
There is always a spread in the performance of each queen for each trait. None of them will ever score perfectly in all traits.
You have to remember that the test groups are all queens that have been selectively bred for many generations and it is unfair to compare them with random mated queens in this country. They should always be far higher.
I apologize for losing patience with you earlier. I should have been more patient. I know some of this is alien to people here and it took a lot of work for me to understand it too.
There is always "interference" to some degree. Even assessing a colony for swarming intention is an interference, albeit a brief one. Some would say I am going "above and beyond" by not treating but, I believe, this is the only way we will develop bees that can beat varroa. This isn't mistreatment though (as some people have suggested). By gathering the data and selecting the best for propagation, this is how we make progress which we can all benefit from in the future.

 

[Swarm]

Its all misinformation and wishful thinking from the increasingly troll-like Amm lobby I see on here

That's a bit disappointing B+, please explain.
I see quite the opposite, mere mention of native bees brings the usual derisive, dismissive comments. I've complimented you on your efforts in the past and never made negative remarks about your choice of bee, in fact I don't think I've criticised any type of bee.
What is it about a preference for amm that is so different from favouring Carnica, Buckfast or any other?
The native bees I have matched the other colonies for honey production, which is admirable considering their colonies were a lot smaller. They are just good 'doers' and I'm trying to promote their worth in my area. Everyone has a different passion so obviously I object to the 'troll-like' remark.

Edit: Forgot to mention also, the varroa drop was very low.

 

[B+.]

That's a bit disappointing B+, please explain.
.

I get a bit fed up with it Swarm. I make it clear that I breed A.m.c and test them rigorously. I encourage people to test their stock to the same standard but rarely, if ever, see even the basic level of testing. Consequently, when I see a barrage of sniping from those who have clear agenda, I don't like it.
I take native to mean pure A.m.m. - not the "near native" nonsense that people usually mean when they say native. If I wanted to be pedantic about it, I could say that any queens I raise from island mated A.m.c are native because they were born here...but, I don't. Perhaps if these people were a bit less adversarial, they wouldn't get such a response. I have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of pure races everywhere but not for those who delude themselves (and others) into believing they have something that they don't. My remark was an expression of the frustration I feel and was not addressed to anyone in particular...just the behavior I have encountered,

 

[B+.]

The institute have withdrawn the breeding values published recently because of some error (presumably in the coding). The breeding values have been recalculated using the old method until they can sort out what went wrong.

It is becoming clearer to me why the breeding values using the improved method have not been implemented yet. Basically, some groups adhere to a very strict breeding regime and require more time to transition to the new model. This means that the new approach will probably not be implemented until next year.
I believe the Brascamp and Bijma paper (http://edepot.wur.nl/326724) represents an improvement in our knowledge and should be adopted as soon as possible.

 

[PBee]

......................... The Celle queens aren't always tested for varroa so they are often weaker than queens from other institutes (e.g. Kirchhain) that specifically breed for this trait, although they are higher in other traits (e.g. honey production). ........................

There was a good article published in Bee world at the end of 2016 summarising progress in the selection of resistance in German honeybees by Ralph Büchler & Aleksandar Uzunov of the Kirchhain institute . They do not mention any lines of self sustaining bees and refer to varroa treatment where necessary and as part of their management of test colonies.

As long as the varroa levels remain low at the end of the first year of performance testing, some of these colonies are overwintered without applying varroa control measures (see Figure 2). In doing so, the colony strength at the end of the winter compared to colony strength before the winter is closely monitored (Overwintering index), as this has proven a reliable indicator for the health of the winter bees and thus the resistance of untreated test colonies. The most resistant colonies are then preferentially used as father colonies at the approximately 10 mating stations run by the AGT (see Figure 3). There on average 30–50 colonies are maintained for drone production (Figure 3). These are built up in the summer of the previous year and then treated one time against varroa. So long as the varroa infestation doesn’t increase above 4% by winter, additional varroa treatments are avoided, so that the differences in varroa resistance between colonies can take effect on the drone brood before the next mating season and thus increase the likelihood of matings with drones from the most resistant colonies. In this way the natural selection mechanisms are included in the systematic breeding of disease tolerance.

They also refer to the study on population dynamics of the various European genotypes, agree with the conclusions and summarise a goal which prioritises use of local bee stocks.

To answer some of these questions and to better understand the complex interactions between the honey bee colonies and the environment a group of European scientists (www.beebreeding.net) conducted a Europe-wide study (Costa et al., 2012). 16 different strains from 5 subspecies of honey bees were compared in 21 apiaries in respect to the main economic traits of interest under local and non-local environmental conditions. In order to allow expression of resistance traits the colonies remained chemically untreated against mites and diseases for the period of two and a half years (summer 2009–spring 2012). The main conclusion from the study was that the local bees enjoyed the greatest longevity (Figure 6) and in many cases also performed better in regard to gentleness and honey yield (Büchler et al., 2014; Hatjina et al., 2014; Meixner et al., 2014; Uzunov et al., 2014). Consequently, the scientists suggested that there is need to devote more attention to the preservation of genetic resources across Europe (Figure 5) through the genetic improvement and utilization of local honey bees in the framework of regional breeding programs, where traits like disease tolerance and vitality are the principal breeding goals.

Our ultimate goal, which goes beyond the SMARTBEES project, is the establishment of a Europe-wide network of breeding initiatives. Via genetic improvement of the local populations throughout Europe towards greater performance and vitality these initiatives will enhance the attractiveness of local stock and thus discourage the acquisition of non-local queens. Only in this manner, while simultaneously increasing beekeepers’ awareness of the benefits of using selected and locally adapted stock, can we ensure a long-term sustainable approach that preserves locally adapted populations across the European continent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0005772X.2016.1252178?journalCode=tbee20

Kaspar Bienefeld has an article in the same issue (Breeding success or genetic diversity in honeybees?) with broadly the same conclusions. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0005772X.2016.1227547?src=recsys. This sounds like LASI is correct in its approach, but I would agree with your general sentiment on the possible advantage of a centralised system like beebreed to help co-ordinate the multitude of breeders all doing their own thing.

 

[B+.]

There was a good article published in Bee world at the end of 2016 summarising progress in the selection of resistance in German honeybees by Ralph Büchler & Aleksandar Uzunov of the Kirchhain institute . They do not mention any lines of self sustaining bees and refer to varroa treatment where necessary and as part of their management of test colonies.

By "where necessary" they mean those colonies that fall outside a threshold at the end of the performance test. Those colonies which overwinter well without treatment can become candidate mothers of the next generation but those that don't are excluded.

 

[PBee]

There seems to be a definite statement indicating a restricted routine of treatment aimed at the getting the most resistant, which indicates resistance has not been achieved.

These are built up in the summer of the previous year and then treated one time against varroa. So long as the varroa infestation doesn’t increase above 4% by winter, additional varroa treatments are avoided, so that the differences in varroa resistance between colonies can take effect on the drone brood before the next mating season and thus increase the likelihood of matings with drones from the most resistant colonies

 

[colinc]

Or is this to start them off from a fair baseline with low varroa numbers after requeening colonies with new queens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[colinc]

Treat pre existing varroa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[B+.]

Or is this to start them off from a fair baseline with low varroa numbers after requeening colonies with new queens

Yes. However, if they haven't reached that baseline, why would you treat?
The way I read it is that the prophylactic use of medication is to be avoided.

 

[colinc]

Yes. However, if they haven't reached that baseline, why would you treat?

The way I read it is that the prophylactic use of medication is to be avoided.

I was just suggesting why from the excerpt posted regarding treating early in year 1, you would need to treat before starting the trial. Obviously if you are requeening a colony rejected from the study the most likely reason for that in a resistance study is high varroa load, therefore you would start by reducing that load when the new queen is put in.

That would make sense to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro