BIBBA presentation (BedsBKA)

[B+.]

My local association had arranged for Kevin Thorn to come and give a presentation last night about his experience with a BIBBA group.

He told how the groups stock is based on 3 queens they acquired from Jo Widdicombe in 2017(?). Of course, my first question was "What was the relationship between them?" as this is a very small number to base a programme on.
He said they were not closely related but, my concern would be that, coming from a single supplier, they were bound to be related to an extent.
My second question concerned the marking of queens, since this is fundamental to any sort of breeding programme. To my surprise, he gave a "smoke-screen" answer about genes that did not answer my question at all. I was expecting him to say that were marked with numbered plastic discs (as my Amc are). The reason became obvious when he explained that they rely on open mating and they assumed there was enough variation in the area to prevent inbreeding. Well, yes. In theory there probably are, but, this is not the way to run a breeding programme.
He seemed quite proud of the money his group has received from corporate sponsors (Tesco and the local Water company), as well he might be. It is good to hear of companies helping to sponsor beekeeping.
I lost the thread about what he was trying to say about Hygiene testing. A 24 hour natural mite drop test in December is not the way to establish this. I can only suggest that he reads the Coloss protocol. For me, his talk demonstrated how much they still have to learn.
No doubt I will take some flack for posting this, but, my intention is to offer it as constructive criticism. If I can see these deficiencies, others will see them too.

 

[For want of a better word]

I am sure that Mr Thorn would appreciate your and any other beekeeper's assistance in getting his breeding program on the right lines.
Did you offer all you expertise to help his group?

Chons da

 

[B+.]

I am sure that Mr Thorn would appreciate your and any other beekeeper's assistance in getting his breeding program on the right lines.
Did you offer all you expertise to help his group?

Chons da

I stayed behind after the meeting for quite a while but didn't have an opportunity to speak to him. I thought one of you guys might pass the comments along.
I appreciate that they have made mistakes along the way (who hasn't?) and I'm not trying to score points. It was actually a nice simple presentation with many good points. I just think, for the audience he had last night, some of it was a bit too simple. However, he was probably focusing on the beginners and I can't fault him for that. It's very difficult to pitch it so there is something for all skill levels.

 

[mbc]

My local association had arranged for Kevin Thorn to come and give a presentation last night about his experience with a BIBBA group.

He told how the groups stock is based on 3 queens they acquired from Jo Widdicombe in 2017(?). Of course, my first question was "What was the relationship between them?" as this is a very small number to base a programme on.
He said they were not closely related but, my concern would be that, coming from a single supplier, they were bound to be related to an extent.
My second question concerned the marking of queens, since this is fundamental to any sort of breeding programme. To my surprise, he gave a "smoke-screen" answer about genes that did not answer my question at all. I was expecting him to say that were marked with numbered plastic discs (as my Amc are). The reason became obvious when he explained that they rely on open mating and they assumed there was enough variation in the area to prevent inbreeding. Well, yes. In theory there probably are, but, this is not the way to run a breeding programme.
He seemed quite proud of the money his group has received from corporate sponsors (Tesco and the local Water company), as well he might be. It is good to hear of companies helping to sponsor beekeeping.
I lost the thread about what he was trying to say about Hygiene testing. A 24 hour natural mite drop test in December is not the way to establish this. I can only suggest that he reads the Coloss protocol. For me, his talk demonstrated how much they still have to learn.
No doubt I will take some flack for posting this, but, my intention is to offer it as constructive criticism. If I can see these deficiencies, others will see them too.

Duw, Duw, you must be a joy for visiting guest speakers to present to
Your local association should have you talking to them on a loop and then they'd only get the best.

 

[B+.]

Duw, Duw, you must be a joy for visiting guest speakers to present to
Your local association should have you talking to them on a loop and then they'd only get the best.

Not at all. I have been on both sides so I know how difficult it can be to get the balance right. There was plenty in his talk for the beginner but not as much for the more advanced beekeeper. Bedfordshire is a large group (~400 members) with some very experienced members.

 

[daroco]

I strongly feel it's important that there is a different viewpoint on this as I feel that this is very different to what actually took place at the meeting.

He told how the groups stock is based on 3 queens they acquired from Jo Widdicombe in 2017(?). Of course, my first question was "What was the relationship between them?" as this is a very small number to base a programme on.
He said they were not closely related but, my concern would be that, coming from a single supplier, they were bound to be related to an extent.
My second question concerned the marking of queens, since this is fundamental to any sort of breeding programme. To my surprise, he gave a "smoke-screen" answer about genes that did not answer my question at all. I was expecting him to say that were marked with numbered plastic discs (as my Amc are). The reason became obvious when he explained that they rely on open mating and they assumed there was enough variation in the area to prevent inbreeding. Well, yes. In theory there probably are, but, this is not the way to run a breeding programme.
He seemed quite proud of the money his group has received from corporate sponsors (Tesco and the local Water company), as well he might be. It is good to hear of companies helping to sponsor beekeeping.
I lost the thread about what he was trying to say about Hygiene testing. A 24 hour natural mite drop test in December is not the way to establish this. I can only suggest that he reads the Coloss protocol. For me, his talk demonstrated how much they still have to learn.
No doubt I will take some flack for posting this, but, my intention is to offer it as constructive criticism. If I can see these deficiencies, others will see them too.

1. He did state the origin of the queens and that they were from different lines. He then went on to explain genetic transfer in honeybees - I'm sure you understand this well enough to follow the number of potential combinations available. I'm assuming this is what is meant by a smokescreen.

2. I do not recall any questions being asked about marking of queens.

3. The explanation of open mating was not as straightforward as you suggest. He explained the pure genetic heritage of the mother being passed to the following generation of drones and how these would be used to establish colonies to provide drones for future years.

4. There were some comments suggesting that some colonies of AMM in other parts of the country had suggested traits. Not that they had been tested under any protocol.

 

[daroco]

Also quite a few of us stayed behind for quite a length of time - I had time to have several conversations before having time to speak to Kevin.

 

[B+.]

I strongly feel it's important that there is a different viewpoint on this as I feel that this is very different to what actually took place at the meeting.



1. He did state the origin of the queens and that they were from different lines. He then went on to explain genetic transfer in honeybees - I'm sure you understand this well enough to follow the number of potential combinations available. I'm assuming this is what is meant by a smokescreen.

2. I do not recall any questions being asked about marking of queens.

3. The explanation of open mating was not as straightforward as you suggest. He explained the pure genetic heritage of the mother being passed to the following generation of drones and how these would be used to establish colonies to provide drones for future years.

4. There were some comments suggesting that some colonies of AMM in other parts of the country had suggested traits. Not that they had been tested under any protocol.

1. Even queens from different maternal lines can be closely related. Even if their mothers were different, their maternal grandmother could have been the same. I was looking for evidence of a controlled process.

2. I did ask. If he had said they were marked with numbered disks, that would have been evidence of maternal selection at least. His answer was more focussed on the fact they did open mating so there was little, if any, inbreeding. That wasn't the point of my question. Again, I was looking for evidence of a controlled process. There was none.

3. Yes. I accept that. Drones of a pure-bred queen are pure because they inherit all their genetic material from their mother. However, you can't rely on your virgin queens mating with those particular drones. Nor does it hold true in the second and subsequent generations. If he had said that they maintained pure lines through instrumental insemination and used the open mated daughters as drone mothers, that would have been fine. I was also a bit concerned that their entire stock stemmed from 3 queens obtained from a single breeder (he made no comment about how they had been mated - were these inseminated or open mated too?).

4. Yes. I heard that, but these are only anecdotes. If there was a systematic approach, they would have been more credible.

His explanation of how they test for hygienic behaviour was just plain wrong. I said it didn't work that way but didn't want to be rude and explain how it did work. That wasn't my place. It is explained reasonably well on the Coloss site and in the JAR article.

 

[Blacky50]

During the talk, Kevin stated that he would have been happy starting his bee improvement with local mongrels, but that one of the sponsors and who owned the location wanted Amm.
His emphasis was about bee improvement and not on breeding. So the questions about breeding were not really relevant to his approach.
If the approach is improvement, then the COLOSS testing approach is less important, and not everyone wants to follow this.

 

[B+.]

During the talk, Kevin stated that he would have been happy starting his bee improvement with local mongrels, but that one of the sponsors and who owned the location wanted Amm.
His emphasis was about bee improvement and not on breeding. So the questions about breeding were not really relevant to his approach.
If the approach is improvement, then the COLOSS testing approach is less important, and not everyone wants to follow this.

Ultimately, we all do what we want, so, I don't have any problems with people who want to rear mongrels. My understanding was that this was a BIBBA presentation about how one particular group were approaching their "breeding". It's this misuse of the word "Breeding" that causes confusion.

 

[Murox]

During the talk, Kevin stated that he would have been happy starting his bee improvement with local mongrels, but that one of the sponsors and who owned the location wanted Amm.
His emphasis was about bee improvement and not on breeding. So the questions about breeding were not really relevant to his approach.
If the approach is improvement, then the COLOSS testing approach is less important, and not everyone wants to follow this.

Now that has really confused me - how can you possibly "improve" (whatever that means - criteria?) a creature without breeding in a systematic and considered manner?? Or are you talking about environmental improvement?

 

[daroco]

Ultimately, we all do what we want, so, I don't have any problems with people who want to rear mongrels. My understanding was that this was a BIBBA presentation about how one particular group were approaching their "breeding". It's this misuse of the word "Breeding" that causes confusion.

The talk wasn't about breeding at all. The clue was in the title Abberton Native Bee Reserve.

 

[B+.]

The talk wasn't about breeding at all. The clue was in the title Abberton Native Bee Reserve.

If you look back at the email advertising it, you will see that it was presented as a talk about a BIBBA group.

"Our next winter talk will take place on Thursday March 21st starting at 7.30pm. The speaker will be Kevin Thorn. Kevin is a commercial beefarmer with 78 colonies in apiaries in and around Lavenham. Starting Stour Valley Apiaries 3 years ago, he has grown it from just 6 hives in a very short period and has plans to expand to 120 colonies. Kevin’s main interest in honey bees is in Bee Improvement and Queen Rearing which led him to join the Bee Improvement and Bee Breeding Association (BIBBA) where he is now a trustee and works with beekeepers around the U.K. supporting them in their Bee Improvement activities.
Kevin started a Bee Improvement group at Abberton Reservoir in 2017 with the aim of re-establishing the native honey bee into that area. Last year was the first year of producing queens and Kevin is going to talk to us about his experience.
BIBBA were formed in 1964 by Beowulf Cooper and a group of enthusiasts keen to preserve the native honey bee which despite reports to the contrary was found to still exist in significant numbers. The work of BIBBA is mainly carried out by groups of beekeepers around the country and in educational events for all beekeepers."

"Bee improvement" was mentioned in that email several times. What is bee improvement if not selective breeding?

 

[B+.]

Now that has really confused me - how can you possibly "improve" (whatever that means - criteria?) a creature without breeding in a systematic and considered manner?? Or are you talking about environmental improvement?

You can't.

 

[Blacky50]

It seems like there are different interpretations of the same words, which of course leads to confusion.
Many Beekeepers would see improvement as culling the worst and making new queens from the best. That is not breeding, but it is an attempt at improving your own stock, whilst accepting the limitations of open mating.
Breeding is all about controlled mating, which is what you do Paul, along with others. II and island mating is the way forward with that.
However it is way beyond what most Beekeepers want to do. They are not scientifically minded and that’s fine.
But they do want to live with better bees, and hence make attempts to improve their stock. It seems like many do this by starting with known stock and producing more queens from them. It’s not breeding, but can be interpreted as improvement, at least by those that do it.
If you don’t like that use of the word improvement how else would you express the approach of ‘culling the worst and propagating from the best’?

 

[daroco]

You can't have it both ways - it specifies in the email Queen Rearing. YOU are the one confusing rearing and breeding here because it suits what you are trying to say. My suggestion is that you give a talk on the breeding group in Bedfordshire or write a report that can be circulated on its progress. It can then be placed on this forum for 'constructive criticism'.

 

[Murox]

It seems like there are different interpretations of the same words, which of course leads to confusion.
Many Beekeepers would see improvement as culling the worst and making new queens from the best. That is not breeding, but it is an attempt at improving your own stock, whilst accepting the limitations of open mating.
Breeding is all about controlled mating, which is what you do Paul, along with others. II and island mating is the way forward with that.
However it is way beyond what most Beekeepers want to do. They are not scientifically minded and that’s fine.
But they do want to live with better bees, and hence make attempts to improve their stock. It seems like many do this by starting with known stock and producing more queens from them. It’s not breeding, but can be interpreted as improvement, at least by those that do it.
If you don’t like that use of the word improvement how else would you express the approach of ‘culling the worst and propagating from the best’?

I suggest that is selective breeding - a step beyond natural selection. Why does nobody appear to state the criteria used for this "improvement". or is that left up to each individual keeper? Breeding is about more than "controlled mating", is there actually a difference between the two terms - selective & controlled in this instance ?

 

[B+.]

It seems like there are different interpretations of the same words, which of course leads to confusion.
Many Beekeepers would see improvement as culling the worst and making new queens from the best. That is not breeding, but it is an attempt at improving your own stock, whilst accepting the limitations of open mating.
Breeding is all about controlled mating, which is what you do Paul, along with others. II and island mating is the way forward with that.
However it is way beyond what most Beekeepers want to do. They are not scientifically minded and that’s fine.
But they do want to live with better bees, and hence make attempts to improve their stock. It seems like many do this by starting with known stock and producing more queens from them. It’s not breeding, but can be interpreted as improvement, at least by those that do it.
If you don’t like that use of the word improvement how else would you express the approach of ‘culling the worst and propagating from the best’?

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.

 

[B+.]

You can't have it both ways - it specifies in the email Queen Rearing. YOU are the one confusing rearing and breeding here because it suits what you are trying to say. My suggestion is that you give a talk on the breeding group in Bedfordshire or write a report that can be circulated on its progress. It can then be placed on this forum for 'constructive criticism'.

Queen rearing is an integral, but subsidiary, part of improvement/breeding. I am focusing on the references to Bee Breeding and Improvement. It is in the name BIBBA, so I am not making anything up.
You have had open mated daughters of my queens in the past so you obviously recognise that they are superior to the local bee. You have raised daughters and sold them to members of the association. Don't you see that this is contributing to the spread of carnica genes?
It is too soon to present a progress report of the breeding groups activities. The first set of breeding values won't be published until February next year. These will be based on Celle-line carnica from the other participants and NL-line carnica for mine. I have spoken elsewhere about my plans for 2019 (https://beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=43806 ). I expect the NL-line to be superior and have offered II daughters to the other participants so their stock also improves. They aren't obliged to accept my offer though. It's entirely up to them.

Added: A 10-year progress report of the BeeBreed NL group (of which I am a member) is published here (http://www.beebreed.nl/Bijenhouden-2018-6-10-Jaar-Beebreed.pdf ) so you will have to use Google translate to read it

 

[daroco]

Queen rearing is an integral, but subsidiary, part of improvement/breeding. I am focusing on the references to Bee Breeding and Improvement. It is in the name BIBBA, so I am not making anything up.
You have had open mated daughters of my queens in the past so you obviously recognise that they are superior to the local bee. You have raised daughters and sold them to members of the association. Don't you see that this is contributing to the spread of carnica genes?
It is too soon to present a progress report of the breeding groups activities. The first set of breeding values won't be published until February next year. These will be based on Celle-line carnica from the other participants and NL-line carnica for mine. I have spoken elsewhere about my plans for 2019 (https://beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=43806 ). I expect the NL-line to be superior and have offered II daughters to the other participants so their stock also improves. They aren't obliged to accept my offer though. It's entirely up to them.

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.