Hello Peter & All,

Peter said:
The reason that it was posed in the first place was due to Bob
Harrison's comments relating to the apparent limited genetic pool of the
Russian lines present in breeders "hands" .

Brood viability is a complex issue.

short version:
I have tried to point out what I consider problems in the Russian program
but want the list to know I am very gratful to Dr. Shiminuki, Tom Rinderer
and the Baton Rouge Bee lab for the hard work they did. As the Russian bee
would still be in Russia without their belief in the project! Many
researchers and commercial beekeepers bad mouthed the project from the start
*and a few still do* but the bee is the proof of the projects success.

 The bee is the proof of the Purvis Brothers survivor enhanced bee success.

Beekeepers will give the final analisis.

 To address the above question I quote from the book "Queen Rearing and Bee
Breeding" (pg. 187)  by Page & Laidlaw:

" Computer simulations demonstrated the following: 35-50 breeder queens are
needed with random queen selection to maintain at least 85% brood viability
for 20 generations"

My own opinion is *at least* 50 breeder queens. I must clarify we are
talking about a queen breeder selling a *pure as imported from Russia line
bee*. If brood viability issues arise in mine or Purvis brothers Russian
bees  we will simply blend in outside genetics but then the bee can not be
called Russian/Russian (as imported) but a Russian hybrid. From the wording
of Peter's  post  I am sure Peter & I are on the same page. If not ask
further questions Peter.

Peter asks:
If the alleles present are of limited diversity, giving rise to an
enhanced risk of early inbreeding problems - what is the future for
those introducing them into their stocks?

Excellent at the start if your stock does not allready have a inbreeding
problem. The problem with the Russian line *in my opinion* is the hybrid
Russian does not display the varroa tollerance of the bee as imported from
my research. The bee lab culled many queens which were imported  as they did
not many times display varroa tolerance (among other things) in Baton Rouge
they had (according to those doing the Russia selection) in Russia. Was the
Russia selection process flawed ? Was the selection based on the lowest mite
drop maybe not the best way to find the best varroa tolerant bee as
suggested by researchers at the ABF Reno convention AND by Dee Lusby?  Were
some of the  Russian import queens  dispatched  perhaps the better  survivor
bee?

Dann Purvis and myself ponder the question.

Peter asks:
Are individuals introducing genetic material, something that will not
have the possibility of being refreshed in the future by purchases of
good genetic stock.

I think I have explained as best in can in a short post above. The answer is
and always has been for the *queen breeder* to bring in outside genetics if
he/she sees a brood viability problem caused by inbreeding from a narrow
gene pool.

Peter asks:
Am I correct in thinking that this developmental effort may be likened to
designing of a car, then building a prototype, selling a few models,
followed by the manufacturer then dumping the project and getting rid of any
spares.

No! See above! Finding the right genetic combination is not easy but a good
queen breeder would not drop the Russian line  because of a narror gene pool
but produce the best hybrid to take the Russian/Russian place.

I must add I am not a professional queen breeder like my friend Dann Purvis.
I believe I have got the above correct but not an expert by any manner. I am
also not an expert on beekeeping although many try to use the term when
introducing me at times.


Sincerely,
Bob Harrison
beekeeper

" What we do not know is so vast it makes what we do know seem absurd"

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::