BeeBreed News announced 15/02/2017

[wightbees]

I see your thinking there Colin

 

[B+.]

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.

Absolutely.
If this was the case why would't you treat them before you put the new queen in though?
There are two scenarios that I can think of:
1. Introducing a test queen into an artificial swarm taken from the supers of an existing colony (this is the method that is recommended). If they are being housed on new foundation and fed, you have the perfect opportunity to set up a "clean" colony (except for the possibility of reinfestation).
2. Requeening an existing colony that has brood already. This is a bit riskier as the colony might take a disliking to the new queen and kill her. However, lets ignore that for the moment and focus on the phoretic mite population on the workers and the reproducing mites still in the sealed cells. This is a bit of a problem. You could treat the phoretic mites with OA but they would just be replaced by new mites emerging from sealed cells when the bee emerges (and there is the possibility of reinfestation too).
You could introduce the new queen into an "infested" colony and simply treat it in the autumn....but, at a cost to the winter bees that queen will need to see her through the winter. These will be the new queens progeny though and, if she's any good, they should start to clean up the mite infestation.

 

[PBee]

I think it is simply an assisted natural selection to select for resistance without reducing fitness so much as to jeopardise the whole program or lose other desirable traits. The alternative being the ‘nuclear winter’ scenario, as Kefuss and others used, where no treatment is applied and the few survivors are used in the breeding program.

On natural reinfestation rates amongst subspecies as a varroa tolerance trait, there is an interesting study from the Institut für Landwirtschaftliche Zoologie und Bienenkunde using instrumentally inseminated queens.

Varroa mites are transferred by drifting and robbing. The degree of drifting depends on the drifting tendency of forager bees and on the defensive reactions by the invaded colonies against foreign bees. The defensive reactions also affect robbery between bee colonies. Robbery increases with the growing ability of bees to perceive food sources. It was therefore of interest to determine whether there were any differences in drifting tendency, defensive reactions and scouting ability between bees of different origin, and whether these resulted in differential Varroa invasion. In the experiment reported in this paper, drifting tendency and mite transfer in 3 bee origins have been investigated. Three 5-comb nuclei of Mellifera, Carniolan, and Buckfast origin with artificially inseminated queens were alternately placed in a circle. They were treated continuously with the acaricide Bayvarol®. In the centre of the circle a mite donator colony was placed with controlled mite infestation.
One hundred bees per colony were marked and mite transfer and drifting observed from August 15, 1990-November 1st, 1990. Compared to Carniolan bees, drifting in Mellifera bees was = 4-fold and in Buckfast bees = 5-fold. Acceptance of foreign bees was highest in Buckfast and Carniolan colonies and lowest in Mellifera colonies. Mite invasion in Carniolan colonies was 51.5% higher than in Mellifera colonies and in Buckfast colonies 72.7% higher. The observed differences in Varroa mite invasion in colonies of Mellifera, Carniolan and Buckfast origins indicate different degrees of drifting tendency, defensive reactions against foreign bees, and scouting ability of the bees of different origins. The recorded values for acceptance of foreign bees suggest that tolerance towards foreign bees depends on the genetic origin. Defensive reactions and scouting ability are presently under investigation.

https://hal.inria.fr/file/index/docid/890949/filename/hal-00890949.pdf

Could be a factor in minimising a major source of infestation in areas where managed colonies are untreated or where there are feral colonies.

 

[Icing Sugar]

I think it is simply an assisted natural selection to select for resistance without reducing fitness so much as to jeopardise the whole program or lose other desirable traits. The alternative being the ‘nuclear winter’ scenario, as Kefuss and others used, where no treatment is applied and the few survivors are used in the breeding program.

On natural reinfestation rates amongst subspecies as a varroa tolerance trait, there is an interesting study from the Institut für Landwirtschaftliche Zoologie und Bienenkunde using instrumentally inseminated queens.

Varroa mites are transferred by drifting and robbing. The degree of drifting depends on the drifting tendency of forager bees and on the defensive reactions by the invaded colonies against foreign bees. The defensive reactions also affect robbery between bee colonies. Robbery increases with the growing ability of bees to perceive food sources. It was therefore of interest to determine whether there were any differences in drifting tendency, defensive reactions and scouting ability between bees of different origin, and whether these resulted in differential Varroa invasion. In the experiment reported in this paper, drifting tendency and mite transfer in 3 bee origins have been investigated. Three 5-comb nuclei of Mellifera, Carniolan, and Buckfast origin with artificially inseminated queens were alternately placed in a circle. They were treated continuously with the acaricide Bayvarol®. In the centre of the circle a mite donator colony was placed with controlled mite infestation.
One hundred bees per colony were marked and mite transfer and drifting observed from August 15, 1990-November 1st, 1990. Compared to Carniolan bees, drifting in Mellifera bees was = 4-fold and in Buckfast bees = 5-fold. Acceptance of foreign bees was highest in Buckfast and Carniolan colonies and lowest in Mellifera colonies. Mite invasion in Carniolan colonies was 51.5% higher than in Mellifera colonies and in Buckfast colonies 72.7% higher. The observed differences in Varroa mite invasion in colonies of Mellifera, Carniolan and Buckfast origins indicate different degrees of drifting tendency, defensive reactions against foreign bees, and scouting ability of the bees of different origins. The recorded values for acceptance of foreign bees suggest that tolerance towards foreign bees depends on the genetic origin. Defensive reactions and scouting ability are presently under investigation.

Could be a factor in minimising a major source of infestation in areas where managed colonies are untreated or where there are feral colonies.

With regard to drifting in the apiary, I came across this paper last week, which might be worth reflecting on:

Wax combs mediate nestmate recognition by guard honeybees
Animal Behviour 2006;71(4): 773-779
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347206000054)
ABSTRACT
Research has shown that the wax combs are important in the acquisition of colony odour in the honeybee, Apis mellifera. However, many of these studies were conducted in the laboratory or under artificial conditions. We investigated the role of the wax combs in nestmate recognition in the natural context of bees at colony entrances. Wax combs constructed by each experimental colony were swapped between hives and the acceptance of nestmate and non-nestmate forager workers was recorded before and after the swap, and in relation to a control hive not involved in the swap. We conducted the experiment twice, in consecutive years with three different colonies each time. Colonies that exchanged combs became more accepting of each other's workers than of workers from the third colony. The overall acceptance of comb swap non-nestmates increased significantly from 3% before the swap to 23% after the swap in the first year, and from 8 to 47% in the second year. This effect wore off within 3 weeks. Chemical analyses showed that the cuticular profile of non-nestmates involved in the experimental comb swap became more similar to each other after the swap, and that acceptance by guards of bees from different hives was negatively correlated with chemical distance between the hydrocarbon profiles of the workers from different hives.


Perhaps us beekeepers can reduce the amount of drifting in our apiaries by minimising:

• the number of colonies whose combs are used in the creation of individual nucs.
• the amount of comb that gets exchanged between colonies (as we strengthen/blunten population size/growth in nucs and production colonies, for example).
• the amount of stored drawn comb that is held in reserve and introduced to hives during the course of the year.

Such comb-level manipulations between different sources might feature particularly prominently in the apiaries of queen rearers/bee breeders. Some of these manipulations will probably be unavoidable but they do represent a significant cause of drift that is amenable to moderation by the beekeeper. It would not surprise me if this cause of drifting is every bit as important as the genetics of the colonies in question.

(At the very start of this thread, you were kind enough to directly answer some questions of mine B+. I continue to dip into the thread with interest but life is getting in the way of my hobby at the moment, as it sometimes does. When I have more free time again I would like to ask some more questions).

 

[PBee]

With regard to drifting in the apiary, I came across this paper last week, which might be worth reflecting on:
...........
Such comb-level manipulations between different sources might feature particularly prominently in the apiaries of queen rearers/bee breeders. Some of these manipulations will probably be unavoidable but they do represent a significant cause of drift that is amenable to moderation by the beekeeper. It would not surprise me if this cause of drifting is every bit as important as the genetics of the colonies in question.
.............

Thanks for that.
I wouldn’t be too worried about internal drifting as I can monitor/control the level of varroa in my own. You can't prevent your colonies robbing out collapsing outside colonies but if entrance defence against non apiary bees is as significant a vector as the study seems to suggest, then it should be a useful trait.

 

[Icing Sugar]

Thanks for that.
I wouldn’t be too worried about internal drifting as I can monitor/control the level of varroa in my own. You can't prevent your colonies robbing out collapsing outside colonies but if entrance defence against non apiary bees is as significant a vector as the study seems to suggest, then it should be a useful trait.

Bees will be bees (which I am very pleased about)!

I am also pleased to see that AMM colonies (the rightful allopatric subspecies near the Institut für Landwirtschaftliche Zoologie und Bienenkunde in a man-made sympatric confusion that covers the whole continent, made even more messy by the development of hybrids) let fewer drifting bees into their hives than the other two types studied. However, both the study you quoted and the one I quoted were very small. Neither can be viewed as the definitive word on the areas they looked at... although I wonder if and when those areas will be studied in more detail.

I assume that the BeeBreed programme can trace its roots back to the decision of the Deutscher Imkerbund several decades ago to improve the mixed-up and poor-quality German honeybee stock by converting exclusively to Carniolans bred by licenced breeders? (Can anyone confirm this and provide a bit of history regarding the whole journey from the Deutscher Imkerbund decision onwards?) Interestingly, in his book "Background to Bee Breeding", John Atkinson suggests that those responsible for the Carniolan programme confided in him that they had chosen the wrong subspecies and that they should have gone for AMM instead. I suspect they were right.

 

[foghornleghorn]

I think it is simply an assisted natural selection to select for resistance without reducing fitness so much as to jeopardise the whole program or lose other desirable traits. The alternative being the ‘nuclear winter’ scenario, as Kefuss and others used, where no treatment is applied and the few survivors are used in the breeding program.

On natural reinfestation rates amongst subspecies as a varroa tolerance trait, there is an interesting study from the Institut für Landwirtschaftliche Zoologie und Bienenkunde using instrumentally inseminated queens.


https://hal.inria.fr/file/index/docid/890949/filename/hal-00890949.pdf

Could be a factor in minimising a major source of infestation in areas where managed colonies are untreated or where there are feral colonies.

What is your varroa treatment do you use? Its possible you could be favouring one over the other

 

[mbc]

Interestingly, in his book "Background to Bee Breeding", John Atkinson suggests that those responsible for the Carniolan programme confided in him that they had chosen the wrong subspecies and that they should have gone for AMM instead. I suspect they were right.

Lol. however musical to my ears this is, everything in that book should be read with a pinch of salt imho.

 

[B+.]

Lol. however musical to my ears this is, everything in that book should be read with a pinch of salt imho.

Yes. John had a strange sense of humour and that comes through in his book. I have an autographed copy from years ago when he was a regular attendee at Stoneleigh.

 

[Icing Sugar]

Lol. however musical to my ears this is, everything in that book should be read with a pinch of salt imho.

His writing style was certainly ribald. In just about every chapter of "Background to Bee Breeding" he flirted with (and typically overstepped) the boundaries of propiety in quite a deliberate manner. Furthermore, he didn't let a potentially punchy message get in the way of a good bit of idiosyncratic storytelling. Even when he stuck to the point, he could be very abstruse, the pamphlet "Micronucs: experimental approach to queen mating" being a case in point. I doubt that anyone could get away with any of this editorially these days.

Despite all of that (or perhaps because of it) he comes across as an interesting and straightforward character who spoke his mind and probably someone I would have enjoyed meeting at least once.

Whilst some of us might be dismissive of his style now, any allowances for his individuality and sense of humour should not compromise the validity of the things he had to say, nearly all of which looks reasonable to me. For goodness sake, "Background to Beekeeping" ends with an appendix of peer reviewed scientific papers that he penned. If you run a search of "John Atkinson" on this forum he appears to be widely held in high regard if the relevant threads are anything to go by.

Do any of us have genuine reason to doubt his claim that the coordinators of the German Carniolan project retrospectively regretted their choice of subspecies?

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

 

[B+.]

Since he is no longer with us, it is impossible to say who said what to whom. Repeating the assertion makes it neither more, nor less, likely to be true. It is all rather irrelevant anyway since that is what they did choose.

 

[mbc]

His writing style was certainly ribald. In just about every chapter of "Background to Bee Breeding" he flirted with (and typically overstepped) the boundaries of propiety in quite a deliberate manner. Furthermore, he didn't let a potentially punchy message get in the way of a good bit of idiosyncratic storytelling. Even when he stuck to the point, he could be very abstruse, the pamphlet "Micronucs: experimental approach to queen mating" being a case in point. I doubt that anyone could get away with any of this editorially these days.

Despite all of that (or perhaps because of it) he comes across as an interesting and straightforward character who spoke his mind and probably someone I would have enjoyed meeting at least once.

Whilst some of us might be dismissive of his style now, any allowances for his individuality and sense of humour should not compromise the validity of the things he had to say, nearly all of which looks reasonable to me. For goodness sake, "Background to Beekeeping" ends with an appendix of peer reviewed scientific papers that he penned. If you run a search of "John Atkinson" on this forum he appears to be widely held in high regard if the relevant threads are anything to go by.

Do any of us have genuine reason to doubt his claim that the coordinators of the German Carniolan project retrospectively regretted their choice of subspecies?

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

I agree with all you say and have been told many tales-first hand accounts- of the great man's bee adventures by people who held him in very high regard but I'd still take much of what he wrote in that book with a pinch of salt. As to the claim about the coordinators of the German Carniolan project who knows, maybe strong characters often get told what they wish to hear, it's by the by now anyway, we should forge our own path taking lessons from any and all who've gone before us.

 

[Poly Hive]

I used to look forward to his writings in the BQ but after the first paragraph I was lost.

Heard him speak once and again after three minutes I was well at sea. I will add I strongly suspect there were very few in that hall that did have the ability to get what he was saying.

PH