On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 15:13 -0500, J. Waggle wrote:


> I looked at your site, very nice work!

Thanks - I replied off list.

>   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.

We have 2 parallel selection processes which seem to converge on the
chewing. I am sure next season we'll take photos daily on a small
selection of colonies to follow through the process and timings. I was
told the 2-gene theory (one to uncap, one to remove) has been modified
recently to multiple genes but have no source - anyone?
snip

> Also, looks 
> to me like some wax worm feces.

I left these in deliberately, on the grounds that the hygiene may not
apply across the board (to wax moth as well) or there are insufficient
bees with the trait to cope (as yet). However, there are colonies with
no wax moth poo(p) and no wax moth on the floor.
You mentioned

> http://www.beeculture.com/storycms/index.cfm?cat=Story&recordID=480

I reread this article and came to the same conclusion as I did the first
time. The review seems to contradict itself. If the selection criterion
was mite mumbers, they should NOT be able to deduce anything about the
various VKFs (Varroa Kill Factors to use Wallner's code) at all. And
obviously, we breed only from strong colonies that can produce us honey.

We cannot say anything about AFB as we don't get it here - it is not
endemic, though AFB is most likely to be so, though our local source was
finally tracked down and few of us actually get it. We can make sure no
colony with obvious viral infection is used as a breeder.

We cannot determine without more detailed examination, if high chewing
is high mite pressure. I have left most colonies untreated (low mite
counts) in the hope that the chewing is part of the tolerance we are
aiming for. In any case i became apparent in July, when the brood
rearing dropped, perhaps because the mites piled into the same cells.

> 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. 

I would expect it at all times the brood size was smaller than the mite
numbers.

I did wonder, like you, about colonies with NO debris and will look more
closely at them - again no treatments this time. We had much lower mite
falls this year - in some I never saw any on the floor! The spring build
up will show if I was right.

james
http://www.kilty.demon.co.uk/beekeeping/improvement.htm


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