VSH Testing

[Beefriendly]

People have been controlling which bulls serve cows for a couple of thousand years at this stage

As I said they don't need much, just a bull introduced to field of cows and stand well back. Unlike horses which often need a guiding hand!

 

[B+.]

Actually there would be considerable differences in offspring

This is just variation between sisters though. I am talking about breeding progress. Each iteration increases the gain.

 

[B+.]

I am in the process of re-testing a queen (55-2-70-2016) for VSH and have encountered something I can't explain.

After inspecting the contents of 231 cells under the microscope, I managed to find 30 containing at least one mite. Interestingly, there weren't as many non-reproducing mites as I thought there'd be (perhaps this is seasonal?).
If this queen overwinters, she'll definitely be my 2a mother for next year. I was also advised to use her as a 4a mother to provide drones to mate with daughters of other worthy queens. That would widen the line.

 

[Fusion_power]

After inspecting the contents of 231 cells under the microscope, I managed to find 30 containing at least one mite. Interestingly, there weren't as many non-reproducing mites as I thought there'd be (perhaps this is seasonal?).

Time of year calculation suggests this colony has higher population of varroa than would be acceptable. I'm filtering your thoughts on using this queen for breeding through knowledge that you don't have access to genetics expressing higher levels of mite resistance. If I found 1 in 7 cells harboring a mite, I'd kill the queen immediately and replace with a queen cell. OTOH, I haven't seen a colony with 30 mites since I got rid of a purchased queen that did not measure up in 2015.

Was there any selection bias in your choice of cells to inspect for mites? In other words, is there a possibility cells were deliberately chosen that were more likely to be infested?

 

[Beefriendly]

This is just variation between sisters though. I am talking about breeding progress. Each iteration increases the gain.

Really, no males produced then?

 

[B+.]

Time of year calculation suggests this colony has higher population of varroa than would be acceptable. I'm filtering your thoughts on using this queen for breeding through knowledge that you don't have access to genetics expressing higher levels of mite resistance. If I found 1 in 7 cells harboring a mite, I'd kill the queen immediately and replace with a queen cell. OTOH, I haven't seen a colony with 30 mites since I got rid of a purchased queen that did not measure up in 2015.

Was there any selection bias in your choice of cells to inspect for mites? In other words, is there a possibility cells were deliberately chosen that were more likely to be infested?

No. Absolutely wrong! You are based in AL, USA. I am based in Bedfordshire, UK. The conditions are completely different!
I find your comments extremely unhelpful. Our approach, here in Europe is different to the approach taken in the US. If you can't appreciate that, then, I suggest you don't comment at all.
If this is the sort of comment I get from top-liners, I wont be releasing the rest of my data. Well done.

 

[B+.]

Really, no males produced then?

Of course.
The point I was trying to make (which I am sure you got) was that a breeding programme consists of many small increments in performance. By selecting the highest performing individuals of each generation and compressing the interval between generations, you are able to achieve much higher performance in a shorter period. Of course, this assumes that all gains are cumulative (which isn't always true), but, I am sure you get the point.
There is nothing complicated about this. I only introduced the farmyard analogy to illustrate how breeding programmes have given us the higher performing breeds we have today. Of course, weaknesses can develop but, this is why we have to have a portfolio approach and not focus on too narrow a range of traits,

 

[Beefriendly]

B+ I've no beefs with your approach or understanding it, it's excellent but the long term prospects from this research for the average beekeeper or the local bees are best described as "eventually we will sell you a VSH queen" And as this will not breed true we will sell you another one. This is not criticism, just my interpretation of the end result of this wonderful breeding program.


Step out of the program you are involved in and look at the bigger picture...how is all this work on your breeding program going to help most beekeepers or local bees fight varroa?
To me it's just proof of principal stuff, that in a closed environment using specialist techniques (beyond most peoples ability) extremely prolific and honey monster gathering VSH queens can be created and maintained artificially. We used to do this in creating transgenic mice where we directed specific cells to glow under UV light. Helpful to our research, but of no practical use to mousekind!


Now Fusion powers approach has been to saturate his local area with his bees that can live with varroa. Immediate (one hopes) potential benefits for the average beekeeper in his area. This is a practical approach that could be applied in the UK......

 

[B+.]

Step out of the program you are involved in and look at the bigger picture...how is all this work on your breeding program going to help most beekeepers or local bees fight varroa?

Ask those who already have open mated daughters of my queens. I wont disclose who they are unless they choose to do so themselves. Brian bush has already given his assessment of their worth and his desire to improve bees in his area. Others do too.
It's not as insular as you are making it seem.
The core of the group will always work with pure island mated or II queens. That's just the way things are. It's a development programme though...just like in software development. Those in the programme will always have access to things others don't. Otherwise, where would the next generation come from?

 

[Beefriendly]

Ask those who already have open mated daughters of my queens.

No doubt excellent queens (that is not in question!), but when they breed them to the local rag tag are those VSH characteristics carried forward? Or will they need further queens from you?
As I said earlier "how is all this work on your breeding program going to help most beekeepers or local bees fight varroa?".

 

[B+.]

No doubt excellent queens (that is not in question!), but when they breed them to the local rag tag are those VSH characteristics carried forward? Or will they need further queens from you?
As I said earlier "how is all this work on your breeding program going to help most beekeepers or local bees fight varroa?".

I think I answered this in an earlier post: the expression of all traits will diminish with each passing generation unless effort is expended to maintain it.
In my opinion, the "value" of these queens is not so much in the improved behavior or the increased honey yield (which are a direct benefit to the beekeeper), but, in the drones they produce. These drones will pass on the traits (subject to heritability of the trait) to any virgins they may mate with. This is the principal you referred to earlier (although I would hardly call it "breeding").
I have apiaries every 1-2 miles apart (each containing up to 20 daughters of a queen which expresses good characteristics). This is classic "drone flooding" which is only partially effective. I wouldn't rely on it for stock maintenance.

 

[Beefriendly]

These drones will pass on the traits (subject to heritability of the trait) to any virgins they may mate with. This is the principal you referred to earlier (although I would hardly call it "breeding").

Drones mating with virgin queens is breeding!
Or do you mean "selective breeding" but can't put it into words?....if so just raise your right hand.
I think we are going round in circles here , you don't seem to understand the points I'm making. And I think you need to be able to critically analyse, warts and all, what you are doing, without this defensive approach.
Perhaps ask your Professor the question...what is the point and long term strategy we are attempting here? I'd be interested to hear what he says.

 

[Fusion_power]

No. Absolutely wrong! You are based in AL, USA. I am based in Bedfordshire, UK. The conditions are completely different!

I understand that your approach is different. That is not a question or even an issue. Suggest keeping your skin on and remember you have to have thick skin to be a beekeeper. I am not trying to be critical and I am trying to suggest something helpful.

Go back to the numbers quoted above. Thirty mites were found in 231 cells. The concern would be that 1 brood cell in 8 is infested with a mite. If the colony has 12,000 cells of sealed brood, that translates to 1500 mites present in the colony plus a small percentage that are phoretic. Do you not consider 1500+ mites in a colony at the end of August to be a problem? Have I done the math wrong?

What would be interesting would be to find out what the program directors consider to be an acceptable mite load for a VSH queen under the conditions stated. Also interesting would be the mite load of non-VSH colonies in your apiary as comparison with the VSH queen.

 

[B+.]

Suggest keeping your skin on and remember you have to have thick skin to be a beekeeper.

If you want information, I suggest you ask for it before launching into your usual derission

 

[B+.]

I think we are going round in circles here , you don't seem to understand the points I'm making. And I think you need to be able to critically analyse, warts and all, what you are doing, without this defensive approach.
Perhaps ask your Professor the question...what is the point and long term strategy we are attempting here? I'd be interested to hear what he says.

You seem to want me to say something that I'm not prepared to say. I've answered your question.
I don't regard random mating as real breeding. There has to be an element of selection, evaluation and control. There is none in random mating. Despite Fusions bluster, he doesn't evaluate or control (he has previously admitted this). All I see is lots of hot air.

 

[Beefriendly]

I don't regard random mating as real breeding.

I think we really need to sit down and define a few parameters here. Because I certainly don't ascribe to your definition
Any conjoining and resultant offspring is breeding random or not. Most of us are the result of random breeding....so we aren't real?
You are talking selective breeding for improvMENT. a MINOR BUT SIGNIFICANT POINT. dAMN CAPS LOCK!"

 

[B+.]

You are talking selective breeding

Indeed. I would have thought it was quite clear.
Why do you resist such a rational approach?

 

[Beefriendly]

Indeed. I would have thought it was quite clear.

Clear as mud.
So when "you" say "breeding" you don't actually mean breeding you actually mean "selective breeding".
Have you got any other literal idiosyncrasy's lined up for us? No wonder we aren't singing from the same hymn sheet.
As Einstein famously said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"

 

[SDM]

You can't be as dense as you are making out beefriendly.
Although breeding can refer to the act of mating
Its obvious here it refers to the selection of individuals in animal husbandry.
Your coming real close to just trolling .

 

[foghornleghorn]

what is your problem beefriendly? The same process b+ and his colleagues are following has been done tens of thousands