Man made v natural breeding and selection

[Fusion_power]

One of the things Randy Oliver emphasizes is that mite roll tests are necessary for informed breeding decisions. In years past, I would have disagreed, but after seeing first hand the results, I now believe that progress in breeding for varroa resistance is glacially slow without testing for mite levels in each colony. The target is "informed breeding decisions" which is a different animal than Darwin's "survival of the fittest" as applied in nature.

What did I find when a researcher did mite roll tests on my bees? Two colonies out of 8 had extremely low mite counts, 1 colony was on the verge of death from mite overload, and the rest were in a range from low to moderate counts. I could easily have plotted it on a bell curve. I needed very much to know that two colonies showed mite resistance and to breed from them. My suggestion if BN wants to provide serious proof his bees are tolerant is do mite roll tests and provide the results. It takes about 3 minutes per colony. There is little benefit to testing newly established colonies. Test any that are a year or more established and have not swarmed to get the most useful results.

 

[Finman]

Fusion

Are 8 hives your total number. It is narrow base to make breed from own apiary.

2 colonies is extremely narrow base for breeding. But it is better than nothing.

... But if you have in near surrounding the total genepool wider than 8 colonies.

 

[Beesnaturally]

I've actually lost track of what this thread is about and simply can't bear the thought of going back and starting from the beginning. Finding myself agreeing with bits from lots of different posts from both sides of what appears to me to be an unnecessary divide.

----------------

The business about isolation in Kent (was that this thread or another?) seems ludicrous to me, better to embrace the fact that these survivor colonies are surrounded by loads of managed ones than to dumb things down by implying they're surviving as a result of isolation because that's little use to any of us.

------------------
What I really want to know even though its none of my business is how much profit they're enabling the beekeeper to make as a percentage against the capital in the business. Is it a fully viable business or not. I appreciate there are only 60 colonies But there's been plenty of time to get numbers up unless of course there's some as yet undescribed roadblock stopping expansion.

You may have missed the link I posted about what actually happens during mating flight. The majority of queens are followed as soon as they leave the hive by a comet of waiting drones, and most will be from nearby hives. My main site has perhaps 50 other hives within 5 miles, and perhaps the same number of feral colonies; and will most often get most male genes from its own, or nearby feral bees, many of which will have originated in my hives/been influenced by my genes.

Isolation: this is deep Kent countryside. Most of the surrounding small villages have one or two hobby beekeepers. Many of the churches have between three to four feral colonies. Most orchards are pollinated by colonies whizzed in and out in 6 weeks or so.

So it is likely that most of the drones my queens meet are good ones - and they don't all need to be good. Again, 2/3rds of the chromosomes come down the queen side. So my making nucs from my own queens will soon obliterate the influence of stray beekeeper drones.

The idea that you need an island is ridiculous. You need reasonable isolation, a good concentration of good hives, and unlimited brood nests to raise plenty of drones. If you have ferals around its like falling off a log.

As to how much money I make: enough to live frugally on and grow my business is about it. I'm not a great beekeeper, and we suffer from late cold east wind in this part of the world (few beekeepers here had any crop worth mentioning last year). And I'm a one-man band with a clinically screwed back. Honey sales 2020-21 came to around £24,000, and this financial year will be better - despite the ropy season. I also made and sold 9 splits, and have kept another 6 to replace winter losses. Also my bees built some 40 supers of comb, plus three new brood combs each - 3/4 of which they build themselves (I give them a short starter strip). TBH they did half that work on syrup.

I've done the groundwork Roland. What I really have now is potential. With a part time second pair of hands I could run twice the number of bees, start requeening (which I've not yet done) and move them to crops. That would likely quadruple yield.

 

[Beesnaturally]

One of the things Randy Oliver emphasizes is that mite roll tests are necessary for informed breeding decisions. In years past, I would have disagreed, but after seeing first hand the results, I now believe that progress in breeding for varroa resistance is glacially slow without testing for mite levels in each colony. The target is "informed breeding decisions" which is a different animal than Darwin's "survival of the fittest" as applied in nature.

What did I find when a researcher did mite roll tests on my bees? Two colonies out of 8 had extremely low mite counts, 1 colony was on the verge of death from mite overload, and the rest were in a range from low to moderate counts. I could easily have plotted it on a bell curve. I needed very much to know that two colonies showed mite resistance and to breed from them. My suggestion if BN wants to provide serious proof his bees are tolerant is do mite roll tests and provide the results. It takes about 3 minutes per colony. There is little benefit to testing newly established colonies. Test any that are a year or more established and have not swarmed to get the most useful results.

I exchanged emails with Randy today to seek clarification. This, with his permission, is what we said:


Dear Randy

I'm struck by your view that 1000 colonies are needed to raise a mite resistant bee strain.

Where I live, in the UK, feral bees have made a strong comeback, and I have 60 or so strong healthy and productive hives, the oldest of which are 7 years now.

This is the result of a 'live and let die' experiment, using only collected swarms and cutouts as base stock.

So my results are markedly different to your expectations.

Do you have any thoughts about that? Might it be that to talk about 'strains' is taking the wrong approach, and that we ought to shift the emphasis to 'populations'? Successful mongrel populations would, given time, purify themselves and become a 'strain' - but that is unlikely to happen with humans around.

BTW I advocate a co-evolutionary approach. It isn't just queens you need, you need the microflora and parasite context that she is successful in. The goal of a resistant queen - alone - is I believe futile

Food for thought?

---------------------
Hi

>Might it be that to talk about 'strains' is taking the wrong approach, and that we ought to shift the emphasis to 'populations'?

That's exactly my point! I'm sorry for any misunderstanding, since I can't remember ever speaking of "strains."
My entire point is that one must work on a "population."

>Successful mongrel populations would, given time, purify themselves and become a 'strain' - but that is unlikely to happen with humans around.

Again, my point exactly. When I proposed eliminating the human population of North America in order to promote such purification of our mongrel populations, the idea fell flat.

In the U.K., your bee populations have now had many years of evolutionary pressure to develop resistance to varroa, with less of the genetic dilution by the huge amount of non-resistant commercial stock sold each year in North America. Here in North America, our regional populations of honey bees are continually flooded with commercial stock. There are some unmanaged "wild type" feral populations that by some means have managed to maintain genetic identity separate from the continually-introduced managed stocks.

The experience of those who have developed stocks/populations by natural selection have had difficulty maintaining their resistance when they then out-mate to non-resistant populations.

Your own approach of restocking your failed colonies solely with feral or native unmanaged colonies is something that I continually suggest as an option for beekeepers.

But my main target audience is the large-scale queen producers, who will need to manage a full breeding population, which, unless they have a mating "island" available, will require maintaining a breeding population in the ballpark of 1000 colonies. Those queen producers are not about to consider the "live or let die" approach, since they would quickly go out of business. So I'm testing a method that they might be able to use to "direct" the evolutionary process without the requirement for the majority of their colonies to die.

Thank you for your questions. I may include some of them in my next progress report.
Randy Oliver

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Isolation: this is deep Kent countryside

 

[Beesnaturally]

My suggestion if BN wants to provide serious proof his bees are tolerant is do mite roll tests and provide the results. It takes about 3 minutes per colony. There is little benefit to testing newly established colonies. Test any that are a year or more established and have not swarmed to get the most useful results.

My bees have mites. But they never have a high levels of mites.

My mites are bee 'bred' low-fecundity strains. They protect my bees from incoming high-fecundity strains.

This is co-evolution at work.

My bee inspector was baffled, then disbelieving, now fully on board. When the wrong sorts of mites are around, you _need_ the right sort. The bees tolerate low levels of low fecundity mites because of the protection they give by mating with incomers.

So that is what roll tests would pick up, and that is consistent with the fact: they don't suffer from exploding mite populations.

Here is a bit of spreadsheet fun. The column headed '3' represents a strain of mite in which each female has, on average 3 successful female offspring. The column headed '2' models a strain of mite in which each female has, on average, 2 successful female offspring.

Look how numbers build in each generation

1​	3​		2​
2​	9​		4​
3​	27​		8​
4​	81​		16​
5​	243​		32​
6​	729​		64​
7​	2,187​		128​
8​	6,561​		256​
9​	19,683​		512​
10​	59,049​		1,024​
11​	177,147​		2,048​
12​	531,441​		4,096​

​

​

​

 

[Beesnaturally]

You are very good at tomfoolery when you don't like a proposition, but can't think of a way of confounding it.

Few people are fooled by this sort of thing nowadays.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Most semi competent thinking beekeepers tend to NOT breed from colonies prone to varroa. So a degree of simple selection for resistance is going on in the UK.

And the they medicate the whole lot and wonder why they are back at square one!

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

My mites are bee 'bred' low-fecundity strains. They protect my bees from incoming high-fecundity strains.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

You are very good at tomfoolery when you don't like a proposition, but can't think of a way of confounding it.

Few people are fooled by this sort of thing nowadays.

I'm sorry but I cant help it when someone talks total B*llix that in all honesty doesn't deserve the effort of any other answer

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

My bee inspector was baffled

speechless is probably the word you're looking for

 

[Fusion_power]

BN, posting a spreadsheet that posits what might happen is not exactly the same thing as posting mite roll test results that tell you exactly what is happening.

 

[pargyle]

Don't waste time wondering, he's been at this for a good length of time and isn't claiming anything that others with far fewer colonies are getting away with claiming while no one gives them the stick he receives.

Someone called ?

I've been TF since I started keeping bees ... with a maximum of 8 hives. I know enough TF beekeepers in various locations that also succeed without losing excessive numbers of colonies or seeing them riddled with disease or heavily infested with mites and who get a decent crop of honey from their bees .

Would I recommend it to everyone - probably not - but, as I've said on many occasons - TF in some areas, with some bees, with some beekeeping regimes is possible.

Don't knock it until you've tried it - and lets stay away from the belittling comments please. I've been interested in what Beesnaturally has to say - you can take it or leave it - but let's stick to playing the ball not kicking the man.

This forum is a welcoming one for all styles of beekeeping.,,, let's not turn it into one where Treatment Free has to scorned or ridiculed.

 

[Sanntos]

My mites are bee 'bred' low-fecundity strains. They protect my bees from incoming high-fecundity strains.

This is co-evolution at work.
..

Clearly something is at work

 

[Beesnaturally]

BN, posting a spreadsheet that posits what might happen is not exactly the same thing as posting mite roll test results that tell you exactly what is happening.

I think it is Marla Spivak (a scientist) who points out that that genetic husbandry is part science and part art. We need science (appallingly lacking when it comes to plain husbandry, but then science isn't in the business of studying the well-known and flipping obvious), observation, and theory all thrown into the mix. I bung in what I can and what I feel like in the moment on the basis that someone might find it interesting.

I rather follow John Kefuss' dictum. It doesn't matter how it works. It matters that it works. Leave the detail to the bees.

I suspect another reason I wouldn't bother with mites counts is my belief that you _need_ protective low-fecundity mites. I know I don't have high mite counts, and if I did I wouldn't do anything about it. The population has to be capable of coping with sickness in the community.
If I find low mite counts what am I going to do? Nothing again. So why do it?

I need one thing above all else: to know which hives have grown big and given me lots of honey on a multi-year basis, looking after themselves in every way (including timely supercedure and no catastrophic swarm loss. Those are the ones whose genes I'll multiply. Period.

 

[rolande]

Don't knock it until you've tried it - and lets stay away from the belittling comments please

I suggest you wind your neck in rather than accuse me of something I wasn't doing. Ask BN himself about our many email conversations back in the day. I was stating a fact.

I've also taken an exceptionally light hand with varroa treatment for years, you'll find comments to that affect in the forum archives no doubt.

 

[rolande]

You may have missed the link I posted about what actually happens during mating flight. The majority of queens are followed as soon as they leave the hive by a comet of waiting drones, and most will be from nearby hives. My main site has perhaps 50 other hives within 5 miles, and perhaps the same number of feral colonies; and will most often get most male genes from its own, or nearby feral bees, many of which will have originated in my hives/been influenced by my genes.

Isolation: this is deep Kent countryside. Most of the surrounding small villages have one or two hobby beekeepers. Many of the churches have between three to four feral colonies. Most orchards are pollinated by colonies whizzed in and out in 6 weeks or so.

So it is likely that most of the drones my queens meet are good ones - and they don't all need to be good. Again, 2/3rds of the chromosomes come down the queen side. So my making nucs from my own queens will soon obliterate the influence of stray beekeeper drones.

The idea that you need an island is ridiculous. You need reasonable isolation, a good concentration of good hives, and unlimited brood nests to raise plenty of drones. If you have ferals around its like falling off a log.

As to how much money I make: enough to live frugally on and grow my business is about it. I'm not a great beekeeper, and we suffer from late cold east wind in this part of the world (few beekeepers here had any crop worth mentioning last year). And I'm a one-man band with a clinically screwed back. Honey sales 2020-21 came to around £24,000, and this financial year will be better - despite the ropy season. I also made and sold 9 splits, and have kept another 6 to replace winter losses. Also my bees built some 40 supers of comb, plus three new brood combs each - 3/4 of which they build themselves (I give them a short starter strip). TBH they did half that work on syrup.

I've done the groundwork Roland. What I really have now is potential. With a part time second pair of hands I could run twice the number of bees, start requeening (which I've not yet done) and move them to crops. That would likely quadruple yield.

I'd forgotten about the bad back so that answers one question that had been niggling away.

As for your description of what sounds like apiary vicinity mating, I did miss that link, but as I've said on many threads before, I've never been convinced. Bit of an artifact of high density apiaries if anything at all.

 

[mbc]

You can lead a horse to water...

From what I know of Jbm and what I can discern from your posts he's a vastly more experienced beekeeper and has a better understanding of bee and mite biology than you, so a little self awareness and humility wouldn't go amiss imho.
I think the problem with the "blueprint" you seem to be advocating is that many have been there and experienced the car crash themselves and so don't like seeing this sort of advice pumped out ready to be read by unwary beginners without challenge.
Jbm is in his own humorous way offering this challenge, if you don't like it there's an ignore function.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, and certainly not on your poor bees, but my money is on it all going horribly wrong for you and for someone of your demeanour to not then have the community spirit to revisit these high foluting posts and admit your misplaced bravado and so it sits 8n the archives of the forum ready to lead astray future beekeepers.
No one should watch colonies with high mite counts slowly die even if they believe 8ts for a greater cause in the long run, its cruel

 

[Mabee]

A few of questions…

My understanding of feral colonies was that they swarm more often therefore resulting in lower mite loads due to brood breaks(?), not necessarily due to evolving into mite resistant bees.

Secondly, is it not the case that bees can live treatment free for a couple of years before often succumbing to viral loads as a result of varroa(?)

Thirdly, how long does an evolutionary process like this usually take? (Any scientists know on here?)

I think it is important that there are (scientific, knowledgeable) beekeepers who are willing to trial breeding bees for varroa resistance but as a small scale beekeeper, i’d rather keep my bees (livestock) alive by treating them for a parasite known to kill them. Until such evolution has taken place and scientifically proven resistant bees are produced then i’ll continue to treat.

 

[rolande]

From what I know of Jbm and what I can discern from your posts he's a vastly more experienced beekeeper and has a better understanding of bee and mite biology than you, so a little self awareness and humility wouldn't go amiss imho.
I think the problem with the "blueprint" you seem to be advocating is that many have been there and experienced the car crash themselves and so don't like seeing this sort of advice pumped out ready to be read by unwary beginners without challenge.
Jbm is in his own humorous way offering this challenge, if you don't like it there's an ignore function.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, and certainly not on your poor bees, but my money is on it all going horribly wrong for you and for someone of your demeanour to not then have the community spirit to revisit these high foluting posts and admit your misplaced bravado and so it sits 8n the archives of the forum ready to lead astray future beekeepers.
No one should watch colonies with high mite counts slowly die even if they believe 8ts for a greater cause in the long run, its cruel

This is the thing, it is nasty it can also be a financial nightmare for those who are reliant on the bees to feed them. Sure, some will get away with it but many haven't. I've been at both extremes, going back 22 years ago I can remember a rather derogatory comment about my lack of mite treatment (RSPCA were mentioned!!) from a bee inspector, this was out in the field not on a forum full of keyboard warriors. I did get a pretty good wake up call as the years went on and numbers went down (a lot depends on the depth of our pockets, if we have sufficient reserves we can ride these things out irrespective of how much distress it causes the stock) and flipped to the other extreme and decided that I'd kill every mite I could! I've now drifted back to a more subtle - some will say lax approach. History is probably in favour of the bees but they won't be the bees we remember from childhood and I doubt they'll pay the bills in the short term.

The hard Bond test is just that; hard on the bees, hard on anyone who's trying to make a living by keeping bees (alive).