> ...Bob commented about the issue of open
> mated production queens resulting in a lower level of hygenic
> behavior or SMR trait.  In both cases researchers have done tests and
> have shown that the selected X nonselected cross shows intermediate
> levels of the selected trait i.e. not as good as the selected parent
> but considerably better than nonselected stock.  Both were shown by
> this testing to have much better disease ( hygenic ) or mite ( SMR )
> resistance than the nonselected stock they were crossed with.  Bottom
> line: even if you don't control the mating you will get some
> improvement in the first year.

That is encouraging.

I would also like to add that the belief that perfection may not be achieved
immediately -- or ever -- is no reason not to start in that direction.

For that matter, no one knows exactly what degree of hygienic behaviour (HB) is
desirable, and if it can be overdone.  Maybe, in the extreme, it has a downside.
Maybe a consistent 50% is all we need.  Maybe even 20% across the board (or even
just eliminating those that score near zero) can make a huge difference -- or
mean the difference between never seeing any AFB and having a bonfire.

People are assuming that scoring 100% on the HB test is desirable -- and
necessary.  It is not.  I think we must remember that the HB tests are extremely
rigourous artificial benchmarks, and no one knows what level of HB test
performance is necessary to get some significant improvement in AFB resistance
in real life.

Apparently it does not take much HB to knock out all signs of chalkbrood. It is
not hard to visualize how *even a little resistance to AFB*, and the resulting
early cleanup of diseased pupae, could prevent spore formation in hives that
have only an occasional diseased cell.  This could ultimately protect the
hive -- and perhaps subsequently the whole operation or neighbourhood -- from
avalanching into AFB breakdown. HB is a finger in the dyke.

As it stands now, some bees in circulation are very susceptible to AFB.  Once
the hives they occupy break down with a few cells, then the rest of the hive
gets contaminated and there is a serious risk to surrounding bees, even those
that do have a higher breakdown threshold.  This is due to the high levels of
AFB spores that have been incubated in the susceptible hives and which get
distributed in the normal course of bee and human activity.  Eliminating
extremely susceptible bees from the general population by flooding
neighbourhoods with increased levels of HB will make it much harder for AFB to
get a foothold.

AFB starts with one or two hives in a yard breaking down, then that disease is
spread through the other hives by the beekeeper and the bees.  If that initial
breakdown never happens, then we will never know how we have been saved from
disaster.

Black and white thinking and an emphasis on 'perfection or nothing' can keep us
from many worthwhile projects.  In this case perfection is not necessary and
perhaps not even desirable.  A little improvement in resistance could save a lot
of money, and constant pressure towards the goal of increased HB (together with
determining an ideal level of the trait) will pay huge dividends over time.

allen
http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/

PS: I wonder what those using the current hygienic stocks are experiencing in
terms of AFB breakdowns and subsequent cleanup.  I also wonder what the
perspective on HB is from those countries which do not permit use of drugs to
prevent AFB, and if they are using the HB test to improve their stocks.  As I
indicated in a previous post, some Australian bees I have here demonstrate truly
amazing levels of chalkbrood, so I am wondering if HB awareness is strictly a
North American phenomenon.