BIBBA presentation (BedsBKA)

[B+.]

Again, I'll make the point that it wasn't about breeding though - it was explaining what had been done in Essex.

In terms of your daughter queens, one was used for a particular characteristic (rapid build up) to provide the brood used to create later nucs for distribution. Actually, these colonies were not sold but returned to me at the end of the season - none of this is hidden and I have shared my queen rearing records with at least 20 members as well as having had multiple sessions last season where people, around 25, were able to see the process and learn for themselves. The point of the approach is to make a difference to local stocks by allowing people to understand a straightforward process of selection, understand what others are doing, maybe learn to do this for themselves and to see how they can have an impact (even if only by culling their worst). It is about accessibility for all; not wading through scientific papers, pin tests or any of the rest of the testing protocols.

I'm sure the two participants will take you up on the offer.

I was only going from what you told me at the agm: that half of the queens were daughters of the open mated queens I sold you. I really don't care to be honest. Its good to hear that even after a couple of years, they built up better than the local bees.
I have no problem with anyone who wants to make open mated queens. If that's as far as they want to go, that's completely ok with me. However, for those who want more, there is a better way

 

[Blacky50]

I think it's a matter of what "improvement" can be made. Simple open mating doesn't automatically lead to improvement unless the drones come from superior stock. That can only come from bees that have been bred or introduced otherwise they would descend to the average for that area within a few generations.
You can cull your worst if the drones are superior and you will probably see an improvement over the generations (although even these "worst" queens will be contributing their drones to the local environment), but that it is relying on other people to do your improvement for you and offers no guarantees.
I know of people who are using improved stock to help raise the qualities of bees in their area but that takes active involvement, not passively accepting what others choose.
If he had said they keep a core group of queens and instrumentally inseminate daughters in a controlled manner for future generations, I'd have been over the moon. That would have demonstrated a systematic approach towards populating the local area with a defined sub-species. I don't see how he can keep control of his stock if they don't mark their queens though. Furthermore, if they supply other groups from this open mated group on the assumption that they are pure Amm, they won't be.
IMO, groups that rely on open mating are accepting a gradual movement towards whatever sub-species serious breeders in the area use.

Ultimately you are correct about how much improvement can be made either by introducing known stock or by culling the worst, however I suspect that most beekeepers are hobbyists and are not doing anything. The queens that they use are the ones they got from their artificial swarm control or swarms they have collected.
So even if a ‘cull the worst’ message is promoted and beekeepers actually do that, then that will give an improvement. Not as great an improvement as your methods give, I agree, but changes in practices are slow to catch on.
On a different point, Kevin did say that what they are doing is an experiment. His methods aren’t the ones you would choose, but I think he would accept that, and also accept the outcome you describe. But if he doesn’t try it and see what happens he will never know.

 

[B+.]

Ultimately you are correct about how much improvement can be made either by introducing known stock or by culling the worst, however I suspect that most beekeepers are hobbyists and are not doing anything. The queens that they use are the ones they got from their artificial swarm control or swarms they have collected.
So even if a ‘cull the worst’ message is promoted and beekeepers actually do that, then that will give an improvement. Not as great an improvement as your methods give, I agree, but changes in practices are slow to catch on.
On a different point, Kevin did say that what they are doing is an experiment. His methods aren’t the ones you would choose, but I think he would accept that, and also accept the outcome you describe. But if he doesn’t try it and see what happens he will never know.

I don't think he said exactly where the apiary was but I assumed from the way he talked about everything being based on weekly visits that it was actually at/near the reservoir. If he'd placed mating nucs containing virgin queens there before setting up the apiary, he'd have known if the site was isolated. Then, he could have set up the apiary with more confidence that they would mate true. However, this brings us back to how viable a line would be that stemmed from just 3 queens. Of course, he could introduce new lines as time went by...that was the sort of approach I was hoping for.

If the sponsor specified that it should be an Amm site, I think they should have been doing everything they could to make sure the bees bred true. Not using it as just another apiary the way Dave suggests. Doing what he says is not sticking to the mandate