Is it time to stop importing live bees?

[drex]

I have no strong feelings either way. Each to their own, but I do raise all my own queens.
Have a look at " basic honey bee genetics for bee keepers " by John Chambers on you tube - national honey show videos 2019. He does make a good case for natural selection along the lines that gpjohn is talking about

 

[Hachi]

Nope, it would condemn all of us to having nothing but rubbish local mongrel bees. Thankfully that will never happen.
Bee breeding as practised by 99% of UK beekeepers is a bit of joke, as it mainly relies on random mating. No serious breeder of bees would even contemplate leaving this aspect to chance.
The reality is the local drone population is largely irrelevant to any major breeding programmes in the UK. You need II or you are weeing up the proverbial. So imports should have no effect whatsoever on any dedicated breeders indulging in their so called Amm's.

BTW welcome back B+, you have been conspicuous by your absence.

I take my hat of to those on here who have devoted their time to improving our lot with breeding programmes etc. I wouldn't know where to start queen rearing in the way B+, ITLD and HM et al have done, its science, I was crap in the 70's and am still crap now.

I struggled for some years with local mongrels that are in my opinion poor at best. Went over to a two year cycle with bought in queens and I've never looked back.

 

[Repwoc]

A further thought, a few people have mentioned the difficulties in breeding queens posed by our weather. A locally adapted queen of the type I am hoping for will also eventually be able to mate even in sub-optimal conditions. Any that cant would not have the opportunity to pass their genes on unless the weather was perfect.

That trait would make queen breeding easier.

How long have you got? That sort of evolutionary adaptation takes eons, and while it is happening beekeeping and any sort of human interference would have to be banned. To naturally select for varroa resistance for example would mean stopping treatment and allowing colonies to die.
Many or possibly most beekeepers would lose all their stock. Human interference would include farming, because farming obviously changes the environment that the natural selection process is trying to adapt the bees to. And in the end, the 'locally adapted bee' wouldn't be any use to beekeepers because they would be adapted to making more bees, not producing a honey crop. The fact is that all local bees are a result of selection and mollycoddling by humans going back thousands of years and not adaptation to a natural local environment.

 

[Poly Hive]

I will add for clarification when I said there is no breeding in the UK I was thinking of the massive program in Germany and the stock books they have.

In the UK in comparison we have nothing and are getting on for 100 years behind.

We are blessed with islands and make no use of them.

As a beekeeping community, we should be asking why and how this has been allowed to happen.

PH

 

[madasafish]

We basically provide a home for our bees, reduce the number of varroa they have to contend with then take away their food a couple of times a year and exchange it for syrup in the Autumn and try to prevent them from reproducing in the spring and summer. In all other respects the bees live as wild animals, living in the local environment, taking advantage of the opportunities it provides and being subject to the threats.

If my understanding is correct, before widespread management of colonies, left in that environment,natural selection will decide the best genetics to suit. In our country that was AMM and those genes still make up a significant part of the average feral colony genetics.

We have imported so many different bees over the years that the gene pool has been expanded to the extent that any useful genetics from any bee, may be passed on to the local hybrid mongrels. However you can't expect that all the genes of a queen bred in Greece, Slovenia, Germany etc will have a full set of useful genes for the UK.

We do not know better than nature itself and if we stopped or vastly reduced imports of various non-native races, eventually we would have a bee well suited to its environment. Meanwhile we can select for the desirable traits from those locally adapted mongrels and develop a bee with good traits that is well suited to its evnvironment. I think this means that it produces a good amount of honey in an average year but a reasonable amount in a poor year, is not too aggressive, easy to handle and survives the winter with minimal stores. It slows or stops brood rearing when forage is short and may also show some VSH traits eventually.

This would take a while to do but could be worth it. If there are any genes in your buckfast, carnica or ligustica queens that are of use to our british adapted mongrel bees, those genes would survive. Anything unsuitable will either die naturally or be culled by the beekeeper.

It doesn't seem stupid to me to try and look at it from the bees point of view for once.

Err
"natural selection will decide the best genetics to suit"

Quoting natural selection deciding is like playing the lottery.

If your local bees are hassled by wasps and predators, natural selction will end up with a bee best suited to repel these: ie. aggressive.

If there is lots of local food all seasons, a bee best suited will be like Italian bees: big hives all year round and eating stores like mad..


And so on.

Now our local microclimate often has summer stopping early June and then rain.. so the best suited bee would be one that can swim.. (Joke: )


Seriously if you were a livestock farmere relying on natural selction, you would have no business.
And if keeping bees, you would end up with the local rubbish round where I am in N Staffs...

 

[gp125john]

The difference with domestic farm animals is they are not subject to environmental pressures to the same extent as bees.

Natural selection will come up with a similar solution again and again to a problem, which perhaps explains the prevelance af AMM type genes in feral colonies even though they are a hybrid of every race you can think of.

Agression is an interesting issue. I think a bee needs to have some aggression in this country in order to deal with wasps. I have watched in despair as some very gentle colonies have allowed wasps to walk in to their hive, and I was willing them to attack that b#stard. The extreme agression (which the books tend to associate with F2 hybrids) is unecessary and very unpleasant though and such colonies should be dealt with appropriately.

Re breeding programmes, I would love it if we could catch up a bit with the Germans and become more self sufficient. Although we have climatic challenges, it is not impossible and should be encouraged and supported. People seem to be put off queen rearing by its perceived complexity or for fear of failure and never develop the skills. For example It amazes me how many people can't graft and the like. Its not that difficult and could be achieved by any reasonable beekeeper

 

[Murox]

I take my hat of to those on here who have devoted their time to improving our lot with breeding programmes etc. I wouldn't know where to start queen rearing in the way B+, ITLD and HM et al have done, its science, I was crap in the 70's and am still crap now.
I struggled for some years with local mongrels that are in my opinion poor at best. Went over to a two year cycle with bought in queens and I've never looked back.

Would you share how you apply that and the benefits you have observed (any minus points) ? - you highlighted a very old practice (to me anyway, its how my grandfather worked and taught me).

 

[Erichalfbee]

It amazes me how many people can't graft and the like. Its not that difficult and could be achieved by any reasonable beekeeper

Why should it amaze you?
Some beekeepers don’t much want to play with their bees, especially when it’s remarkably easy to to use swarm cells that the bees have selected themselves.
Have a look at Walrus’s post here for a possible advantage
https://beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=45967

 

[madasafish]

. For example It amazes me how many people can't graft and the like. Its not that difficult and could be achieved by any reasonable beekeeper[/QUOTE]

I cannnot graft. My eyesight is poor, focussing is difficult and my hands are no longer steady when manipulating delicate things.. So I use Nicot which has disadvantages but I can get results...

Maybe I am an unreasonable beekeeper (or just plain rubbish)..... or is it just old age or delerium tremens or Parkinsons?

 

[gp125john]

Why should it amaze you?
Some beekeepers don’t much want to play with their bees, especially when it’s remarkably easy to to use swarm cells that the bees have selected themselves.
Have a look at Walrus’s post here for a possible advantage
https://beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=45967

Yes I would agree with that but you have little control over which colony builds them and when. Presumably all the queens people buy are from grafts though which allows queen rearing to be done on a large scale.

Fair point regarding eyesight and as you day the Nicot gets round that issue.

 

[ericbeaumont]

The difference with domestic farm animals is they are not subject to environmental pressures to the same extent as bees.

The differences between beekeepers is more relevant: some want one hive and have no deeper interest, and others run 1,000 with greater dedication and a desire to make a living, and I agree with MDF's point that if you were a livestock farmer relying on natural selection, you would have no business. The suggestion to raise queens from your best stock is sound at one level, but while it can be achieved more effectively in some localities than others (as BF reports with understandable conviction) we should bear in mind that one size of shoe will never fit all feet.

What would be the point of struggling with BF's locals? As B+ put so succinctly, the indefinable local bee that we want to exist does not do so for most of us; I achieve decent results from my own bees not because the general pool inside the North Circular is of romantic long-established local stock, but because it's been fed by hundreds of beginners' Buckfast swarms. If the bees were not so dependably good-natured and productive, I'd also buy in queens rather than pay my bills by less rewarding occupations. In my area, the genie is out of the bottle and there's no point in pretending that it'll go back in.

It's all very well recommending a closed shop and raising our own (we raise queens but few in this country breed, as PH pointed out) but what may work for the one-hive hobby beekeeper is unlikely to be equally useful to the the 1000-hiver, and it's not a good use of energy to believe that regulation will provide for both.

 

[Beefriendly]

When you need to make a living from your bees you quickly see what works and what doesn't.
I raise most of my own queens but raise them from "pedigree" queens that cost serious money. They pay for themselves several times over.
When a beekeeper in my areas tells me he isn't interested in honey yields, then I already know he is keeping local bees.
Yet only 30 miles away the natives are friendly and fecund and annual swarmers. For Teesside that's quite a compliment.

 

[Anduril]

How long have you got? That sort of evolutionary adaptation takes eons, and while it is happening beekeeping and any sort of human interference would have to be banned. To naturally select for varroa resistance for example would mean stopping treatment and allowing colonies to die.
Many or possibly most beekeepers would lose all their stock. Human interference would include farming, because farming obviously changes the environment that the natural selection process is trying to adapt the bees to. And in the end, the 'locally adapted bee' wouldn't be any use to beekeepers because they would be adapted to making more bees, not producing a honey crop. The fact is that all local bees are a result of selection and mollycoddling by humans going back thousands of years and not adaptation to a natural local environment.

John Chambers quoted 94% collapse in Gotland from varroa by the 4th year, then it stabilised. He also quoted Tom Seeley and the bee population in the Arnot forest stabilising. How many of us would like to give up beekeeping for a few decades, to get to a treatment free AMM? Perhaps this should be a poll!
Just in case anyone wants to take sides I'm neutral, I have AMM, mongrels and Buckfast.

 

[SDM]

John Chambers quoted 94% collapse in Gotland from varroa by the 4th year, then it stabilised. He also quoted Tom Seeley and the bee population in the Arnot forest stabilising. How many of us would like to give up beekeeping for a few decades, to get to a treatment free AMM? Perhaps this should be a poll!
Just in case anyone wants to take sides I'm neutral, I have AMM, mongrels and Buckfast.

And they were tiny isolated populations. You'd be looking at a far greater time scale before the same would occur in the whole of the UK.

 

[Anduril]

And they were tiny isolated populations. You'd be looking at a far greater time scale before the same would occur in the whole of the UK.

Yes I agree and this is why the NBU would never advocate going treatment free. Info via Google, there are 274,000 hives in the UK. A 94% loss would be 257,560 wiped out by varroa. A survival stock of 16,440 not allowing for any element of error. Commercial beekeepers losing their livelihood and hobbyists losing their enjoyment.

 

[Beefriendly]

John Chambers quoted 94% collapse in Gotland from varroa by the 4th year, then it stabilised. He also quoted Tom Seeley and the bee population in the Arnot forest stabilising. How many of us would like to give up beekeeping for a few decades, to get to a treatment free AMM? Perhaps this should be a poll!
Just in case anyone wants to take sides I'm neutral, I have AMM, mongrels and Buckfast.

IIRC in both these cases they all ended up as quite small colonies that were frequent swarmers. Not the type of characteristics that are of much use to beekeepers.
The Avignon feral bees that survived varroa were quite interesting. They treated half of them for varroa....and the honey yield practically doubled.

 

[jimbob55551]

Having left the EU it may be just as easy to import bees from the rest of the world. Turkey, USA, Russia, maybe China? Places where the cost of living is lower and the product cheaper, generating more profit. Wasn't this one of the promises the country voted for?

Some of the country voted for. Less than half of even.

 

[Anduril]

IIRC in both these cases they all ended up as quite small colonies that were frequent swarmers. Not the type of characteristics that are of much use to beekeepers.
The Avignon feral bees that survived varroa were quite interesting. They treated half of them for varroa....and the honey yield practically doubled.

Daniel Weaver left his bees to fend for themselves, he went from 1,000 hives down to 9. This would cripple most Breeders.
The next threat then is the Asian hornet, while we discuss which is the best bee to have.

 

[For want of a better word]

IIRC in both these cases they all ended up as quite small colonies that were frequent swarmers. Not the type of characteristics that are of much use to beekeepers.

Unless the beekeeper is a skeppist....who like to have swarmy bees that are nervous on the comb!

Chons da

 

[SDM]

Yes I agree and this is why the NBU would never advocate going treatment free. Info via Google, there are 274,000 hives in the UK. A 94% loss would be 257,560 wiped out by varroa. A survival stock of 16,440 not allowing for any element of error. Commercial beekeepers losing their livelihood and hobbyists losing their enjoyment.

God knows what damage that would do to other bee species as virus levels spiralled.
But it wouldn't even be over once survivor stocks emerged. There would be several isolated groups that would hybridise where they met likely diluting each other's resistance creating further waves of collapse.
Plus you'd have to consider the future. Would this vastly reduced gene pool have the variety to adapt to the next threat or would it be a slow March to extinction.