In message <[log in to unmask]>, Aaron Morris
<[log in to unmask]> writes
snip
>I'm a bit confused by this.  My interpretation is that James is saying that
>IOW disease endemic in Britian in the 1920s may have been vectored by
>acarine but now is believed to be the Slow
>Paralysis Virus (SPV) which is being spread by varroa.  Actually, I'm not
>sure what is being said.  Perhaps that SPV has always been around, acarine
>vectored the outbreak in the '20s and that varroa is a more efficient vector
>today?  James, if you will, please set me straight.  I have not read Beowulf
>Cooper's writings.
I think you are correct. The viruses have always been around and acarine
was the vector. Actually this statement is within the prevailing
paradigm of disease.
>Having read some of Brother Adam's writings I thought Britain's bee
>populations were left quite devastated by IOW disease and Brother Adam
>searched Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East for genetic material to
>breed with the survivors.
Beowulf Cooper claimed that the mortality figures were much exaggerated
having discovered that a great many beekeepers throughout the country
had bees which did survive. His figure is more like 50%: most of the
mortality was in the south east of the country. He was able to document
the characteristics of the surviving bees and estimate the percentage of
the native characters in each part of the country. Recent genetic
studies confirm that the bees selected for study in the UK are very
close to those selected in Sweden and elsewhere which are as pure A.m.m.
as you can get. Pockets have also been found in Tasmania where natural
selection favours the descendants of the original imports rather than
crosses with Italians.
>  Does Mr. Cooper assert that perhaps things would
>have been better off without Borther Adam's importation of genetic material?
I don't think Beowulf said anything like that. He and BIBBA members
(myself excepted) are much too polite to polarize the debate and risk
alienating people. My way of putting it is "think what might have been
if Adam had done his work with the native stock"! But was it not his
goal which sent him off in search of bees already with one or more of
his desirable characteristics.
>Admittedly I am not up to snuff on BIBBA's (Bee Improvement and Bee Breeders
>Association) stance on the issue.  I think one of their goals is to
>reestablish the native dark bee.  Is the intent to "filter out mongrel
>genes" or to select from existing stock the characteristics that are most
>desireable while concentrating towards those attributed to the native dark
>bee?  Any enlightenment will be appreciated.
I think filtering genes is much too difficult to do consistently. The
aim is to improve the stock. Repeated culling and selection coupled with
mating isolation by the weather and drone producing using selected
colonies is practised. Some geographical isolation is also practised. So
some beekeepers buy in from Ireland or high ground such as the Peak
District.
I will look out the book and recent BIBBA publications and pull out some
further information to post. Perhaps any more experienced BIBBA member
reading BEE-L will also reply.
--
James Kilty