> You still haven't defined
> your terminology. What do you mean by these words? It is hard enough
> to communicate using the *same* words, let alone a unique jargon no
> one understands. Just because you can confuse us, doesn't mean you
> are on to something.

I think this one gets us all ... Her terminology is her own, but always
consistent. If you read biobee or organicbeekeeping for a while, you finally
get the meaning of most of it via context.  But even there long time members
are confused by her meanings (easy to do when she uses techniques of
inbreeding to reduce her genetic variation and calls it broadening the
genetic base).

> When you say *retrogressive breeding" I take it to mean that you are
> trying to revert to some "previous type".

>From following many of Dee's posts this apparently describes breeding for
smaller bees that will live on 4.9 foundation, "as nature designed them to
do". Since her area is Africanized (and has been for quite a while), the
open mating she uses has to have included the smaller Africanized bee. She
intentionally then selects for these small bees on the queen side.  As a
result of her breeding, she has ended up with a line of small bees that
coexists well with whatever mites are in her area without the aid of any
chemicals, drone trapping or other means of human aided control.  She also
does not treat for AFB, just cutting out any open signs of such that she
finds.

Several of her posts have claimed she has proof her bee is not Africanized,
but her bees also apparently have a unique wing morphometry (an extra vein
is seen). This wing formation is her proof of finding the original feral
American bee (prior to 1400 invasion by Europeans).  I would be interested
to see if any actual DNA analysis has been done on her bees - more than
likely she has a cross between the newer AHB and some remnants of the bees
originally introduced to Latin America by the Spaniards.

Her biggest claim is that through the use of small cell foundation, anyone
can breed out the bad characteristics of the bees they already have and get
back to a more natural bee. This bee will then be able to remove mite
infested brood on its own and never need treatment for varroa. Although not
stated, I think the assumption also is that the smaller size will render
them immune to tracheal mites, as the altered bee size will not accommodate
them.

More likely, her size selection has favored AHB (and she has since started
selection for more gentle bees ... very seldom mentioned but I have seen one
or two references and I'm sure she will comment), which are through some
unknown mechanism more tolerant/resistant to mites.  The ruthless selection
process basically was -- let bees breed naturally and any hive that
collapses let it die. I believe she went from around 900 hives down to
around 100 before starting to build back up to a viable commercial level
over several years.  Others trying her techniques seem to be mostly
hobbyists with 3-5 hives. They don't have the available number or genetic
diversity (or location to her "ferals" except those in the local AZ area),
so are relying on only using 4.9 foundation to breed their own strains of
super bees that will toss out mite infected larva and bite legs off the
mites so they cannot climb onto bees to infect them.  I doubt it will work
for most.  Many seem to have lost some, most or all hives in just a year or
so ... in a year or two that will probably approach 100% loss for most that
truly do no treatments (part of her doctrine).  Otherwise, we would be
seeing pockets of resistant feral bees building back up (since they have had
as long or longer exposure to the mites as her bees) and true ferals from
prior to man-made foundation did exist in the US previously .. some of them
had to have been on this more 'natural' cell size and had the genetic base
to survive, if her hypothesis is true.

Karen