BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 8 Apr 2006 19:05:38 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (85 lines)
The reason beekeepers are "taught" to destroy laying workers is because a
hive that has them is already doomed. They are nearly impossible to requeen
and all the bees are already old so there is little of value to save. If
left alone, they will get robbed out and taken over by wax moths. 

If found soon enough, a laying worker colony is best dumped out away from
the other hives. Even if a laying worker hive could save itself, the queen
it would raise would be not worth keeping. Far from being an enhancement,
the laying worker phenomenon in honey bees appears to be some sort of
vestige. The capensis bees that have this trait are considered to be
parasitic pests of healthy normal honey bees. 

* * *

Parthenogenesis

Parthenogenesis is a particular form of asexual reproduction in which
females produce eggs that develop without fertilization. Parthenogenesis is
seen in aphids, daphnia, rotifers, and some other invertebrates, as well as
in some plants. Among vertebrates, there are several genera of fish, amphibians.

A consequence of asexual reproduction is that offspring are typically
genetically identical or nearly identical to their parent. This genetic
similarity can be beneficial if the genotype is well suited to a stable
environment, but disadvantageous if the environment is changing. For
example, if a new predator or pathogen appears and a genotype is
particularly defenseless against it, an asexual lineage is more likely to be
completely wiped out by it. In contrast, a lineage that reproduces sexually
has a higher probability of having at least some members survive due to the
genetic recombination that produces a novel genotype in each individual.
Similar arguments apply to changes in the physical environment.

An example of non-viable parthenogenesis is among common honeybees. The
queen bee is the only fertile female in the hive; should she die without the
possibility for a viable replacement queen, it is not uncommon for the
worker bees to lay eggs. However, ironically, the unfertilized eggs that the
worker bees -- females that are unable to mate -- lay, produce only drones
(males). Thus, in a relatively short period, all the worker bees die off;
the new drones, essentially useless except for mating with the queen, follow
shortly thereafter. 

-- Wikipedia

* * *

Scut colonies are killed wholesale by capensis. Everyone has their own way
of describing the phenomenon. Suffice to say that in practical terms, once
capensis behaviour starts to dominate a scut colony, that colony is
economically dead. In essence, all you need is a single capensis worker to
get into a scut hive - rather like a robber bee. Given a chance (mainly
stress, e.g., a power flow, or migration), this capensis worker dons the
mantle of a queen.

She starts laying as her phenorome output increases. The scuts kill their
own queen, and that's the beginning of the end. In cases of severe
infestation, you find single cells with a dozen or more eggs. Of course,
capensis is famous in the bee world for being the only race in the world in
which workers can lay eggs that can be grown into queens. The obvious
question: why not ignore the scuts, and run pure capensis colonies? The
answer: outside its (small) natural range, capensis is a very poor second to
the scut in every possible category, and a particularly poor honey producer.

It's doubtful South Africa has any pure scuts left; most colonies are
scut-capensis hybrids. It's difficult to know the extent of economic damage
occasioned by capensis. The problem really started about a decade ago, when
some beekeepers allegedly migrated capensis colonies from around Cape Town
to the fabled aloe davyana winter flow near Pretoria.

The initial destruction was such that the government paid beekeepers a
certain amount for each colony lost. Today, commercial and other beekeepers
continue to trap wild swarms, which are extremely abundant in certain parts
of the country. The average life of these swarms - under migratory
conditions - is estimated at nine months before capensis kills. Usually, up
to two thirds of colonies migrated to a new location will fall to capensis.

Each hive that succumbs presents the following problems: lost honey
production; the bees must be killed; the brood chamber comb must mostly be
removed, and the hive moved, restocked and placed on new ground.

Barry Sergeant
Kyalami
South Africa

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2