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 ---
|