> But as when most folks talk beekeeping, I too am referring to the other 
> 99% of beekeeping, not necessarily the obscurity.

Actually, BEE-L typically considers ideas that some might consider to be 
obscure.  This is an advanced list, or tries to be.

My comment, which was an aside, and which is not my own observation, but 
rather a caveat made in a meeting by a respected researcher, and is of some 
importance when commenting on brood patterns and queen breeding.  For 
example, the selection leading up to SMR, renamed VSH, led to bees which had 
terrible brood patterns.

Hygienic bees, when confronted with a challenge, like AFB may appear *a bit* 
spotty whereas, other, non resitant hives would be broken down completely. 
A second consideration, though, is that a good queen under good conditions 
will get back and refill those holes.  All this is not my thinking, but 
taken from talks by some highly respected breeders.

> My main point of the letter is to discuss the point that it can be very 
> difficult to determine the causes of low brood viability.  And therefore, 
> to assume that being too discriminatory against spotty patterns might 
> select against hygienic behavior is subject to too many variables, to such 
> great extent that is may not be a good rule to follow, IMO.

Nobody suggested it is a rule, unless you are suggesting that now.  On the 
contrary, in my opinion, is a 'note to self' to think more deeply when 
confronted with a troublesome pattern and consider what may be behind it.

If you are a production guy, and buying your queens, then your thoughts will 
be different than if you are a queen breeder.

A production guy is going to be concerned about whether an environmental 
factor might be causing this pattern problem to appear in a number of hives 
such as in your example.  The last hive is an apparent possible anomaly and 
suggests that the problem may not be external.  It almost does not seem to 
be from the same timeframe and yard.  Whether requeening is in order in 
specific cases or whether the problem is general and due to bad forage or 
disease being picked up locally can be deduced from such observations.

A queen breeder will consider these same things, but also whether this queen 
carries important genes, looking beyond the obvious weakness which could be 
due to inbreeding in this specific case,and will not necessarily be carried 
in offspring, and whether the queen is an important part of the programme..

> Letting a spotty pattern prevail with the thinking that one is promoting 
> hygienic behavior, can actually be a selection for colonies having higher 
> mite loads, which might reflect a spotty pattern.  It can also be a 
> selection against other resistant traits that that deal with mites prior 
> to cell invasion, which likewise, would tend to reduce substantially the ’visual 
> symptoms’ of hygienic behavior.  A spotty pattern can be reflective of 
> mite pressure in the population, it can be reflective of inbreeding… and 
> the list goes on,,,,

That is true and that is why this is not a rule, but merely a consideration 
among many.  It is something to think about and investigate further before 
just assuming that requeening is in order.

> I gave you my word that it is not a ‘trap’.

I believed you.  The many silent ones did not.

> These are just the pics that best illustrated a poor brood pattern, and I 
> wanted to hear opinions on that aspect of the photos, has nothing to do 
> with the pin prick method.

Did you get an answer?

And howcum the one hive seems much better than the others? 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L