James Wrote:
… We are looking for ways the ordinary beekeeper can
>identify a good colony to breed from in their locality, not do more
>exact science.
http://www.kilty.demon.co.uk/beekeeping/improvement.htm 

Hi James,

I looked at your site, very nice work!  Nice pics of what appears to be 
characteristic of ’fall chewing’.  It seems also from reading the page,  
that you have a well balanced approach to the selection process.

james wrote:
Anyone have an explanation
>(last picture in a group of 10 pictures in the section characters of
>varroa tolerance on the page below)?
http://www.kilty.demon.co.uk/beekeeping/improvement.htm 

Many might suggest that there is evidence of chewing out of worker pupa in 
that pic as indicated by the pupa  parts.  I am just recently pondering 
the possibility that there may be two existing sub traits concerning the 
removal of infected pupa.  Looks in your pic like honeybee pupa 
exoskeletons and large bee parts is evidence of ‘pulling and discarding’ 
of diseased pupa. Which as I hypothesize may somehow be related to, but  
may also be separate from the trait of ‘chewing and reabsorbing’ diseased 
pupa, as opposed to discarding the pupa (as I stated in my reply to 
Michael I state that some beekeepers report chewing out of worker brood 
and others occasionally report the brood being discarded).   Also, looks 
to me like some wax worm feces. 

How a beekeeper should interpret what he sees in a honeybee colony has 
been a point of extreme interest to me lately.  Lets for a moment consider 
how we should interpret this debris.

First, if I may,,,
Here’s an interesting article concerning bi-directional selection, written 
by Steve Sheppard.
‘Selection and possibilities within honey bees – be careful what you are 
selecting for.’
http://www.beeculture.com/storycms/index.cfm?cat=Story&recordID=480

I would like to expand what Steve wrote in his article to other varroa 
symptoms.  Looking at the honeybees resistance to varroa as you would  
honeybees resistance to AFB, there are several lines of defense against 
AFB.  1 st. line of defense in AFB resistance might be filtration of 
spores by action of the proventriculus, midgut growth inhibitors and 
pollen and larvae food inhibitors.  2 nd line of defense might be the 
ability to remove infected larva during the vegetive stage (which not all 
hygienic bees seem capable of doing). And 3 rd line of defense might be 
removal of infected larva and pupa in the later stages of AFB.  This is 
why simple selection of hygienic behavior itself, is often not sufficient 
for effective selection of AFB resistance.     

With Steve’s article in mind, lets look at chewing (that most consider a 
good thing) from a bi-directional selection aspect.  Seeing a large about 
of chewing IMO is not always desirable for me because this may indicate 
heavy varroa pressure in worker brood and a possible less grooming 
efficacy or apparent lack of other essential mite suppression traits in 
earlier lines of defenses.  
From my experience with varroa in small cell colonies, populations of  
varroa should steadily decline, especially a big drop in varroa population 
during winter and being  observed during spring assessments.  So, I would 
not necessarily want to see a high degree chewing out in spring because 
this might indicate something lacking else ware.  So I may for example 
(along with considering the over all evidence) give more favorable grades 
to a colony having the trait exhibiting less pupa chewing in the spring.  

Let’s now consider the bi-directional selection possibilities that exist 
from selecting traits based on bottomboard debris as a main selective 
tool.  By selecting colonies based on pupa and mite parts on the bottom 
board (which would certainly be a good thing, suggestive of traits 
concerning grooming and diseased pupa removal).  Could we actually be 
selecting against colonies with a high degree of cleanliness, that tend to 
vigorously remove debris from the colony instead of letting it fall to the 
floor?  For example, a colony vigorously removing debris from the hive as 
a result of a highly developed  cleanliness trait,  may not assess well 
for grooming and chewing out traits if selection based on bottom board 
debris is given too much consideration.  The selection of colonies is 
based on the degree of mites, pupa parts and debris on the bottom board,  
could also result in a subsequent rise in harmful bacteria within the 
colony causing stress at the colony level due to the selection against 
cleanliness.  

This is something that I think about with every selective process I make, 
due the possibility that exist for making an unintentional selection of 
undesired traits as a result of bi-directional selection that could occur 
with almost every selection criteria.  But I believe the chances of 
harmful bi-directional selection can be mitigated by adopting a well 
balanced approach in the selective process that places fundamental colony 
functions, queen performance and colony productivity in the forefront of 
any selective process.         
 

Joe Waggle 
Ecologicalbeekeeping.com 
‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' 
Feral Bee Project:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FeralBeeProject/ 

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---