NIHBs

ezra_

Hello,

I joined a local bee keeping association recently and did the intro course (waiting for the practical side now).

However, they association is very much into the Native Irish bees. To the extent that talk of any other bees is pretty much verboten.

I'm all for going with Irish bees, but I'd rather know what the alternatives are and then hear the pros / cons etc.

To say some of the members are fanatics when it comes to the native Irish would be an understatement. It was made clear that if we got another type of bee, we wouldn't be welcome to be members of the association.

We are beginners (1st timers). Really enjoyed the course and the people, but want to make sure I'm going down the right path

If you use non native bees, especially hybrids they will breed with other bees in the area and affect their genetics. If your area is a native irish bee area, you could affect the characteristics of the bees of your beekeeper colleagues. In addition the beekeepers may have a breeding programme in operation and bringing in non native genetics might mess this up.
Secondly, if you use imported or non native bees, their offspring will breed with the native bees and that will similarly affect their characteristics. Some such crosses have a reputation for turning from docile to very nasty, which might not be good for you next year.
And thirdly, importation of bees is not a good practice from a health perspective.
Of course if the predominant bee in your area is non native, which seems not to be the case,then the opposite to the above would apply.

wexfordman2

ezra_ wrote: »

Hello,

I joined a local bee keeping association recently and did the intro course (waiting for the practical side now).

However, they association is very much into the Native Irish bees. To the extent that talk of any other bees is pretty much verboten.

I'm all for going with Irish bees, but I'd rather know what the alternatives are and then hear the pros / cons etc.

To say some of the members are fanatics when it comes to the native Irish would be an understatement. It was made clear that if we got another type of bee, we wouldn't be welcome to be members of the association.

We are beginners (1st timers). Really enjoyed the course and the people, but want to make sure I'm going down the right path

I am sure that they would have explained all the issues and risks with non native bees cross breeding, the risks of importation of bees and diseases, and the overall aim of preservation of the native Irish bee ?

Surely you picked up those basic facts from them, and perhaps researched it yourself online if you were in doubt .?

ezra_

wexfordman2 wrote: »

I am sure that they would have explained all the issues and risks with non native bees cross breeding, the risks of importation of bees and diseases, and the overall aim of preservation of the native Irish bee ?

Surely you picked up those basic facts from them, and perhaps researched it yourself online if you were in doubt .?

Actually no - as I said, no other bee type than the Native Irish was mentioned in the course. They went through how other countries have other bees, but this only really arose when they were saying that you should never buy from done deal as they could be imports and that is illegal. The impression given - that people on donedeal are trucking them into the country and breaking EU law. Some googling afterwards has shown how you can get non native Irish bees in the country, legally. This of course raises questions - ones that can't be addressed in the course because no other bees can be talked about!

Like I said - I've no problem taking the best course of action, but I don't like being told what was clearly such a one-sided story.

DrDonkey's post gives an excellent summary of the issues. I don't know what bees are local to my region, I'm assuming native Irish and when it comes to be buying them, I'm of course most likely going to go down the route of working with my local association because a) they are a good bunch, b) they give the help and support that will be needed and c) you'd just be mad not to.

But I don't like feeling like I've been forced to make a decision in the dark.
If they are pro the native Irish bee, then they should be able to rationalise that debate and run through the other types, while being able to demonstrate why the native Irish should be chosen.

yosemitesam1

What you'll find is that most of the people most vocal against non amm bees are involved in selling queens and/or nucs.
The majority have zero experience of well bred bees of different species.

If you want to try another breed, do. There has been serious breeding programs behind the other breeds while amm has had none.

The story that the amm brigade tells is always down to what suits them best.
Eg. Supposedly amm was on the brink of extinction in the 80's but now we have a huge pure population of amm despite imports and availability of non amm bees increasing massively.
That doesn't add up...

Ultimately amm was abandoned across most of Europe because it was less desirable. Our weather isn't so different that other breeds don't thrive and produce good yields here. They pretty much eat the same amount over winter as amm also. But other breeds can be easier managed as amm are so conservative and unstable by nature.

ezra_

ezra_ wrote: »

I'm of course most likely going to go down the route of working with my local association because a) they are a good bunch, b) they give the help and support that will be needed and c) you'd just be mad not to.

Above.
Work with your local association. Learn how to work with bees in your locality. In two or three years, you can decide to go out on your own, when you have experience and knowledge. There is sooo much to learn in beekeeping that this issue is not remotely a priority for you now.



To be honest your questions on this one issue come across as just too naive and persistent that I did consider whether you were trolling.

ezra_

Deleted User wrote: »

Above.
Work with your local associatio
To be honest your questions on this one issue come across as just too naive and persistent that I did consider whether you were trolling.

I get that.

It was just on the course - the people were very helpful and the classes were great but on the topic of the type of which bee species it felt like Blur or Oasis (where only one of the bands was mentioned). It jarred with the rest of the course content and I'm not someone who wants to be bounced into something without at least know what the alternatives.

I'll still end up making the same decision - but I'll feel happier about my choice.

wexfordman2

ezra_ wrote: »

Actually no - as I said, no other bee type than the Native Irish was mentioned in the course. They went through how other countries have other bees, but this only really arose when they were saying that you should never buy from done deal as they could be imports and that is illegal. The impression given - that people on donedeal are trucking them into the country and breaking EU law. Some googling afterwards has shown how you can get non native Irish bees in the country, legally. This of course raises questions - ones that can't be addressed in the course because no other bees can be talked about!

Like I said - I've no problem taking the best course of action, but I don't like being told what was clearly such a one-sided story.

DrDonkey's post gives an excellent summary of the issues. I don't know what bees are local to my region, I'm assuming native Irish and when it comes to be buying them, I'm of course most likely going to go down the route of working with my local association because a) they are a good bunch, b) they give the help and support that will be needed and c) you'd just be mad not to.

But I don't like feeling like I've been forced to make a decision in the dark.
If they are pro the native Irish bee, then they should be able to rationalise that debate and run through the other types, while being able to demonstrate why the native Irish should be chosen.

You seem quite articulate and able to speak up, did you not query, question and push them on this ? If you were on a course, which you paid for, why would you not ask these questions?

ezra_

wexfordman2 wrote: »

You seem quite articulate and able to speak up, did you not query, question and push them on this ? If you were on a course, which you paid for, why would you not ask these questions?

It was made clear that this association supports the native Irish bees. If you didn't want to buy into that, you were more than welcome to speak to other associations.

Also - lets be clear here, we (my partner and I) knew nothing of bees in January. the course was great - we learned the basics and that demonstrated to us how little we know now (after the course). We are very much looking forward to starting to keep bees. We are looking forward to learning from the association members.

Its been by googling and external research that has thrown the light on the other types of bees, once we get to know more people, I'm sure we could have those conversations informally and I'm sure there are people in the association who aren't as dogmatic about it.

It was the one part of the course that was very off putting to me (and also to my partner). It was clear that this was dogma rather than theory, and I'm not that comfortable having that rammed at me when the rest of the course was much more open.

You all seem to know this quite well - how do you approach beginners on this topic?

Apiarist

I think a beginner should start with the Native Irish bee. This is because it is prevalent in Ireland and any new queens produced naturally are likely to be the same type. If you get other strain of bees you would have to work to maintain the breed, for example by constantly buying queens of this strain from breeders. Introducing a newly bought queen just to see it killed because of a simple mistake is a lot to ask from a beginner.

Or the beginner can start his/her own breeding regime for queens to maintain the non-native characteristics. It would be a very brave move

bpmurray

It's a pity that the reasoning for the support for the native bee wasn't explained. So, let's look at the reasoning:

• The Native Irish honey bee really is a thing - there are those who say it isn't but recent research by Jack Hassett and others in Limerick University (and Cork and Galway) shows that Irish bees really do have a unique DNA fingerprint.
• This bee is perfectly suited to Irish weather, plants and other circumstances, so it's the most efficient bee for here.
• When they are reasonably pure, they are docile and easy to manage. Today I found that one of my hives had turned into a bunch of evil screaming demons, and noticed that they had stripes. So some jerk has non-native bees locally and they have contaminated one of my hives, turning them vicious.
• If everyone around you has native bees, everything is rosy and easy to manage. If they don't, you're forced to buy in new queens every couple of years, or have to learn instrumental insemination since your queens can't be open mated, i.e. they can't mate the natural way without producing nasty bees.
• There are other groups across Europe trying to re-establish populations of the dark bee. Ireland is the last source of pure Apis melifera melifera, so it's critical that we prevent this from being destroyed by introducing non-native bees.
• All (and I mean every single one!) of the diseases attacking bees, including acarine, varroa, nosema, etc. have all been imported from the UK. Under no circumstances can imports of bees be defended as being rational or sane.

As to the Donedeal thing, the fear is that nobody is looking at the bees for you. When you buy them through your local association, they will have been checked for quality, docility, disease, etc. Since you admit you're inexperienced, why would you know what the bees really are like? You could be introducing foulbrood into your local association, or hybrid bees that will destroy hives for miles around you.
So while it may sound like a religious dogma to you, there really are good sound reasons for preferring one bee over another.

BTW, those who prefer Buckfast bees in Leitrim or West Cork have pretty much the same arguments: they are fighting to protect their open mating areas from contamination by other bee subspecies for fear of turning their bees nasty. The idea is that if you stick with one bee type in a particular area they will thrive, but if you mix, you end up with major problems.

Edit: I forgot to comment on the title of the OP. NIHBS (the Native Irish Honeybee Society) is an organisation that focuses on the preservation of the native bee. They work with the other beekeepers associations and educational institutions and government departments to help try to ensure that this critical natirual resource isn't harmed or diluted. Many associations across the country support NIHBS so I understand why their name was used as the title, but the reality is that it's the local association that has been talking to you, not NIHBS, so don't blame them!

yosemitesam1

bpmurray wrote: »

It's a pity that the reasoning for the support for the native bee wasn't explained. So, let's look at the reasoning:

• The Native Irish honey bee really is a thing - there are those who say it isn't but recent research by Jack Hassett and others in Limerick University (and Cork and Galway) shows that Irish bees really do have a unique DNA fingerprint.
• This bee is perfectly suited to Irish weather, plants and other circumstances, so it's the most efficient bee for here.
• When they are reasonably pure, they are docile and easy to manage. Today I found that one of my hives had turned into a bunch of evil screaming demons, and noticed that they had stripes. So some jerk has non-native bees locally and they have contaminated one of my hives, turning them vicious.
• If everyone around you has native bees, everything is rosy and easy to manage. If they don't, you're forced to buy in new queens every couple of years, or have to learn instrumental insemination since your queens can't be open mated, i.e. they can't mate the natural way without producing nasty bees.
• There are other groups across Europe trying to re-establish populations of the dark bee. Ireland is the last source of pure Apis melifera melifera, so it's critical that we prevent this from being destroyed by introducing non-native bees.
• All (and I mean every single one!) of the diseases attacking bees, including acarine, varroa, nosema, etc. have all been imported from the UK. Under no circumstances can imports of bees be defended as being rational or sane.

As to the Donedeal thing, the fear is that nobody is looking at the bees for you. When you buy them through your local association, they will have been checked for quality, docility, disease, etc. Since you admit you're inexperienced, why would you know what the bees really are like? You could be introducing foulbrood into your local association, or hybrid bees that will destroy hives for miles around you.
So while it may sound like a religious dogma to you, there really are good sound reasons for preferring one bee over another.

BTW, those who prefer Buckfast bees in Leitrim or West Cork have pretty much the same arguments: they are fighting to protect their open mating areas from contamination by other bee subspecies for fear of turning their bees nasty. The idea is that if you stick with one bee type in a particular area they will thrive, but if you mix, you end up with major problems.

Edit: I forgot to comment on the title of the OP. NIHBS (the Native Irish Honeybee Society) is an organisation that focuses on the preservation of the native bee. They work with the other beekeepers associations and educational institutions and government departments to help try to ensure that this critical natirual resource isn't harmed or diluted. Many associations across the country support NIHBS so I understand why their name was used as the title, but the reality is that it's the local association that has been talking to you, not NIHBS, so don't blame them!

It has been normal across much of the country for yellow bands to appear from time to time even in the absence of new introductions. Doesn't make one bit of difference in the vast majority of cases, only it gives some beekeepers a reason to find fault with the bees.
Had they been as black as coal, their weaknesses would not have been given the same scrutiny unless they were proper nasty. At which stage it would have been decided that they must've been hybridized anyway as "pure amm are docile", which is total nonsense as pure strains of any race can be anywhere on the scale from bastards to angels. It's constant selection and culling of bad genetics that keeps bees docile.

Amm is only a resource IF it is improved, 95%+ of beekeepers in Europe wouldn't want it if given the choice because it has so many downsides that aren't realized by those who have no experience beyond amm.
Nobody in Ireland is truly interested in improving amm. They're interested in controlling what kind of bee is kept in an area and in having a market for queens+nucs while continuing on as they have been doing for years.

i71jskz5xu42pb

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

They're interested in controlling what kind of bee is kept in an area and in having a market for queens+nucs while continuing on as they have been doing for years.

The association I'm in is very pro-AMM and against importing bees. The existing members provide free bees for new members, organised by the association. There's no "market" as you say.
The experience in your location may be different but I don't think you can apply that everywhere.

Apiarist

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland is truly interested in improving amm.

While there is some interesting thought in your post, this particular assertion is nonsense. I personally know people who are very much interested in improving AMM characteristics and produce 100s of selected AMM queens each year.

brianmc

I find this conversation very interesting. I'm on the fence in my own mind. For the record, the bees I keep are reasonably AMMish but in reality are probably currently "local mongrels". I wouldn't like to act to the detriment of genuine attempts to promote/improve AMM if the plans have genuine merit and so (certainly for now) I stick with what I have.

The questions though, for me...

Firstly, Jack Hassett's research showed traits common to a population of Irish AMM that aren't seen in other areas. The popular conclusion is that this indicates genuine "Native Irish" honeybees. I don't know enough nor have I read enough to answer my questions... How do we know that these markers reflect something historic? Could they reflect the efforts of several closely related breeding groups selecting stock over decades rather than something centuries old?

Secondly, if we accept that these markers indicate something of historic and unique Irish origin - what does it mean? Why is this something worthy of protecting/saving? What do these markers really indicate? Are we talking the equivalent of red hair and freckles? Something more? Something less?

Most suited to our environment...? This conclusion is derived from the assumption that evolution will have caused these native bees to adapt to suit our local climate. That seems a solid argument but it should be acknowledged that evolution's only goal is survival of the species - not honey production, docility or resilience to diseases and pests introduced at the rate at which we humans introduce them these days.

I have to think that the bees most suited to honey production and docility are much more likely to be the bees that have been raised and selected in highly organised breeding programs with pedigree registers, instrumental insemination and/or island mating. To think that the small population of breeders in Ireland with a small breeding stock can keep up with that using open mating doesn't make sense to me.

Finally, (I think), if it is important to preserve the native Irish honeybee, is it not hypocritical to constantly select stocks to improve docility and honey production? When is a native Irish honeybee not a native Irish honeybee?


Again, I'm on the fence. It may sound like I'm arguing for hybrids and imports but I think my points above are only coming from the perspective of the under-discussed side. These are my genuine questions that I would love to know the answers to. For now I'm defaulting toward preserve but I would love more genuine science and answers.

ezra_

bpmurray wrote: »

Edit: I forgot to comment on the title of the OP. NIHBS (the Native Irish Honeybee Society) is an organisation that focuses on the preservation of the native bee. They work with the other beekeepers associations and educational institutions and government departments to help try to ensure that this critical natirual resource isn't harmed or diluted. Many associations across the country support NIHBS so I understand why their name was used as the title, but the reality is that it's the local association that has been talking to you, not NIHBS, so don't blame them!

Just to clarify, I had the title with a small s - it was the plural of the Native Irish Honey Bee (AMM?) and not the society!

Sorry if I caused confusion.

wexfordman2

brianmc wrote: »

Finally, (I think), if it is important to preserve the native Irish honeybee, is it not hypocritical to constantly select stocks to improve docility and honey production? When is a native Irish honeybee not a native Irish honeybee?


.

It would be a bit hypocritical only for the fact that its not the case, there are breeding programs which are aimed at improving the ability to cope with varoa for example, so honey production and docility is not the only aim (albeit that may be the aim of many bee keepers irrespective of strain).

yosemitesam1

victor8600 wrote: »

While there is some interesting thought in your post, this particular assertion is nonsense. I personally know people who are very much interested in improving AMM characteristics and produce 100s of selected AMM queens each year.

A queen mates with circa 15 drones, some with good genetics and some with bad across all traits.
The colony is evaluated for breeding under various traits and you see an average for some traits while other traits are increased/suppressed because they're not present in all the sub strains.

That results in a situation whereby you don't know what you're breeding from when you graft from a queen you have "selected" and you have absolutely no idea what she goes on to mate with.

That is most certainly not breeding, it's flipping a coin and hoping for the best. There isn't much (if any) interest in controlling breeding and changing this which is where that statement came from.

yosemitesam1

brianmc wrote: »

I find this conversation very interesting. I'm on the fence in my own mind. For the record, the bees I keep are reasonably AMMish but in reality are probably currently "local mongrels". I wouldn't like to act to the detriment of genuine attempts to promote/improve AMM if the plans have genuine merit and so (certainly for now) I stick with what I have.

The questions though, for me...

Firstly, Jack Hassett's research showed traits common to a population of Irish AMM that aren't seen in other areas. The popular conclusion is that this indicates genuine "Native Irish" honeybees. I don't know enough nor have I read enough to answer my questions... How do we know that these markers reflect something historic? Could they reflect the efforts of several closely related breeding groups selecting stock over decades rather than something centuries old?

Secondly, if we accept that these markers indicate something of historic and unique Irish origin - what does it mean? Why is this something worthy of protecting/saving? What do these markers really indicate? Are we talking the equivalent of red hair and freckles? Something more? Something less?

Most suited to our environment...? This conclusion is derived from the assumption that evolution will have caused these native bees to adapt to suit our local climate. That seems a solid argument but it should be acknowledged that evolution's only goal is survival of the species - not honey production, docility or resilience to diseases and pests introduced at the rate at which we humans introduce them these days.

I have to think that the bees most suited to honey production and docility are much more likely to be the bees that have been raised and selected in highly organised breeding programs with pedigree registers, instrumental insemination and/or island mating. To think that the small population of breeders in Ireland with a small breeding stock can keep up with that using open mating doesn't make sense to me.

Finally, (I think), if it is important to preserve the native Irish honeybee, is it not hypocritical to constantly select stocks to improve docility and honey production? When is a native Irish honeybee not a native Irish honeybee?


Again, I'm on the fence. It may sound like I'm arguing for hybrids and imports but I think my points above are only coming from the perspective of the under-discussed side. These are my genuine questions that I would love to know the answers to. For now I'm defaulting toward preserve but I would love more genuine science and answers.

Those markers that were found in the Jack hasset study were simply markers that had not previously been found. There is nothing at all to say that they are not present in the rest of the amm population and just haven't been found yet. They are unlikely to result in any noticeable traits by the beekeeper as the main traits such as prolificness, swarminess etc are very complex and would need more than what was found.

Agree with your other points

Apiarist

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

That results in a situation whereby you don't know what you're breeding from when you graft from a queen you have "selected" and you have absolutely no idea what she goes on to mate with....That is most certainly not breeding, it's flipping a coin and hoping for the best....

Nah, what you are saying is true in a general case, for most beekeepers cannot control their environment. But a dedicated breeder can move to one of the many secluded areas of Ireland, set up a colony of 50-100 hives and swamp the area with drones. You are then 99% guaranteed to get drones from the colony. And then you work towards improving the characteristics of the whole colony by selective breeding and aggressive culling of queens from hives that show less than desired traits. Easy peasy.

You do not flip one coin, you flip 1000 coins and you get your predictable result.

yosemitesam1

victor8600 wrote: »

Nah, what you are saying is true in a general case, for most beekeepers cannot control their environment. But a dedicated breeder can move to one of the many secluded areas of Ireland, set up a colony of 50-100 hives and swamp the area with drones. You are then 99% guaranteed to get drones from the colony. And then you work towards improving the characteristics of the whole colony by selective breeding and aggressive culling of queens from hives that show less than desired traits. Easy peasy.

You do not flip one coin, you flip 1000 coins and you get your predictable result.

Who is doing that (with sister queens as drone mothers), I'm not aware of any who do that even without using sister queens as drone mothers.

brianmc

wexfordman2 wrote: »

It would be a bit hypocritical only for the fact that its not the case, there are breeding programs which are aimed at improving the ability to cope with varoa for example, so honey production and docility is not the only aim (albeit that may be the aim of many bee keepers irrespective of strain).

As I said earlier, I have questions that I don't know the answers to, not points per se.

But I think my question still lies unanswered by this... If they are being selectively bred for any trait, the underlying genetic makeup of the population is being changed and managed... I just can't decide where the line lies. It seems sensible to breed for varroa resistance. Is it sensible to select for otherwise unobservable genetic markers because "they need to be preserved". Perhaps thats more sensible but then selecting for varroa resistance or any other trait become the wrong thing to do if you decide that the natural genetic profile is what should be preserved.

I guess if I keep breaking down the argument, it would seem to me that either the answer is full "rewilding" of honeybees and not beekeeping, or, we accept that honeybees are managed livestock and so I can't argue with those who would choose hybrids.

brianmc

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Those markers that were found in the Jack hasset study were simply markers that had not previously been found. There is nothing at all to say that they are not present in the rest of the amm population and just haven't been found yet. They are unlikely to result in any noticeable traits by the beekeeper as the main traits such as prolificness, swarminess etc are very complex and would need more than what was found.

Agree with your other points

I think I misused the word traits where I meant simply "genetic markers". My question is pretty much as you described.

wexfordman2

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Who is doing that (with sister queens as drone mothers), I'm not aware of any who do that even without using sister queens as drone mothers.

There is a research apiary in Waterford where I beleive this is being done, with the aim of breeding Varoa tolerant bees, with some very knowledgeable people involved, not just in bee keeping but genetics. I also bele8ve nui galway are doing similar research

yosemitesam1

wexfordman2 wrote: »

There is a research apiary in Waterford where I beleive this is being done, with the aim of breeding Varoa tolerant bees, with some very knowledgeable people involved, not just in bee keeping but genetics. I also bele8ve nui galway are doing similar research

They have little chance of making much of an impact unless things are really scaled up and a lot more effort put in.
Efforts over the last 20 years in Europe have only made small progress with a much larger and controlled mated population, it's only as more breeders have started moving towards single drone insemination that any major progress has been made.

If things were scaled up and the effort put into a breeding program similar to in Europe it would be great but I can't see it happening. If in the future we have varroa resistant amm, it will be most likely due to European strains being imported as there's currently one amm breeding group who've started a single drone insemination vsh breeding program.

bpmurray

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

They have little chance of making much of an impact unless things are really scaled up and a lot more effort put in.

Unfortunately, the reality is that breeding from Amm to find an ability to coexist with Varroa is likely to take hundreds of years. I would find it quite amusing to listen to those who advocate treatment-free beekeeping if it didn't cause so much harm to everyone else. The reality is that there are probably a dozen or more alleles that are responsible for making bees good at handling varroa, many of which are recessive. To actually have a population where all the dominant variants are present, as well as both loci for the recessive genes, at the same time, is really, really difficult and is likely to be lost in subsequent generations.

Forcing evolution to happen faster is possible, but it's on a scale much larger than a couple of years!

bpmurray

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Those markers that were found in the Jack hasset study were simply markers that had not previously been found. There is nothing at all to say that they are not present in the rest of the amm population and just haven't been found yet. They are unlikely to result in any noticeable traits by the beekeeper as the main traits such as prolificness, swarminess etc are very complex and would need more than what was found.

Agree with your other points

Incorrect. The markers were not present in other samples from other populations - they really are unique to the Irish population. The lab in Switzerland that confirmed their findings did not find these markers in other bees.

bpmurray

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

It has been normal across much of the country for yellow bands to appear from time to time even in the absence of new introductions. Doesn't make one bit of difference in the vast majority of cases, only it gives some beekeepers a reason to find fault with the bees.

True - I wasn't aware of this until Dr. Grace McCormack explained that they found no correlation with hybridization and stripes. However, given that a hive has become nasty and simultaneously the new queen's offspring have stripes, it's not unreasonable to infer that something has mixed in!

Had they been as black as coal, their weaknesses would not have been given the same scrutiny unless they were proper nasty. At which stage it would have been decided that they must've been hybridized anyway as "pure amm are docile", which is total nonsense as pure strains of any race can be anywhere on the scale from bastards to angels. It's constant selection and culling of bad genetics that keeps bees docile.

I have another hive where they are as black as the Earl of Hell's waistcoat: they make the Queen of the North's flying monkeys look positively innocuous. I blame the queen because everything points to the queen's pheremones causing these situations, but I doubt they are hybridised, just evil.

Amm is only a resource IF it is improved, 95%+ of beekeepers in Europe wouldn't want it if given the choice because it has so many downsides that aren't realized by those who have no experience beyond amm.
Nobody in Ireland is truly interested in improving amm.

What are you smoking? Of course anyone breeding queens tries to improve their bees. This includes Amm, obviously.

They're interested in controlling what kind of bee is kept in an area and in having a market for queens+nucs while continuing on as they have been doing for years.

Have you been watching what's happening in the country? If you bred bees with 8 wings, with green and pink stipes, you could sell 1000 nucs tomorrow.
My own local association has doubled the number of beginners this year, and it's the same all over. The market is there, irrespective of the quality of the bees.

bpmurray

brianmc wrote: »

I find this conversation very interesting. I'm on the fence in my own mind. For the record, the bees I keep are reasonably AMMish but in reality are probably currently "local mongrels".

Actually, I think you might be surprised. Many of us gave Jack samples to check their quality. Two lines of mine showed 93% and 97% Amm rather than the mongrels I expected!

Firstly, Jack Hassett's research showed traits common to a population of Irish AMM that aren't seen in other areas. The popular conclusion is that this indicates genuine "Native Irish" honeybees. I don't know enough nor have I read enough to answer my questions... How do we know that these markers reflect something historic? Could they reflect the efforts of several closely related breeding groups selecting stock over decades rather than something centuries old?

Sort of - the breeding groups can select for a particular trait and make that chunk of DNA common in their bees, but they can't simply introduce a new chunk of DNA without a lot of effort in the lab. If it's there, it came from their forebears.

Secondly, if we accept that these markers indicate something of historic and unique Irish origin - what does it mean? Why is this something worthy of protecting/saving? What do these markers really indicate? Are we talking the equivalent of red hair and freckles? Something more? Something less?

Nothing, really. However, this source of Amm is pretty much unique - Ireland is the go-to source for Amm in all these areas that are trying to reintroduce their native bee, in Germany, Poland, Sweden, UK, etc. The original bee in these areas was Amm but successive imports of Carnolians, Italians, etc. has meant that they have been almost wiped out all across Northern Europe.

Most suited to our environment...? This conclusion is derived from the assumption that evolution will have caused these native bees to adapt to suit our local climate. That seems a solid argument but it should be acknowledged that evolution's only goal is survival of the species - not honey production, docility or resilience to diseases and pests introduced at the rate at which we humans introduce them these days.

Are they a better bee? Probably in some circumstances and probably not in other. However, this is not about breeding better bees, but rather preserving an animal that is on the verge of extinction elsewhere.

I have to think that the bees most suited to honey production and docility are much more likely to be the bees that have been raised and selected in highly organised breeding programs with pedigree registers, instrumental insemination and/or island mating. To think that the small population of breeders in Ireland with a small breeding stock can keep up with that using open mating doesn't make sense to me.

Don't think in terms of what the bee can do for you: it's not about honey and docilty, but rather about the preservation of the species.

Finally, (I think), if it is important to preserve the native Irish honeybee, is it not hypocritical to constantly select stocks to improve docility and honey production? When is a native Irish honeybee not a native Irish honeybee?

That's a simple concept to understand: attributes like docility and production are merely attributes of the bee, not fundamental changes to the genotype. As long as they are Amm, they are our dark bee.

Again, I'm on the fence. It may sound like I'm arguing for hybrids and imports but I think my points above are only coming from the perspective of the under-discussed side. These are my genuine questions that I would love to know the answers to. For now I'm defaulting toward preserve but I would love more genuine science and answers.

A couple of points about hybrids and imports:

• Hybrids can be OK, but more often than not, 2 generations on, you'll have to find a queen from somewhere else since they become wicked. This is the general problem with Buckfast which is a hybrid. Teh only alternative is II, and most of us can't do that.
• Imports are really, really harmful: those who import say they're not, but they know that they're importing hybrids which will cause major problems at the F2 stage. Forget open mating with imports - you'll simply end up with unmanageable bees. Another aspect about imports is that our friend the Varroa arrived with imports, as did acarine and any number of other diseases. There are morons in the UK importing bees from southern Italy which has SHB - it's only a matter of time before they arrive there and the Irish idiot importers will continue to import despite the risk.

yosemitesam1

bpmurray wrote: »

Incorrect. The markers were not present in other samples from other populations - they really are unique to the Irish population. The lab in Switzerland that confirmed their findings did not find these markers in other bees.

The markers were not previously found, only small studies have been done so it's no surprise. If you sampled another few hundred hives there'd likely be more markers previously not discovered

Galvium Irredentum

All (and I mean every single one!) of the diseases attacking bees, including acarine, varroa, nosema, etc. have all been imported from the UK. Under no circumstances can imports of bees be defended as being rational or sane.

Nothing, really. However, this source of Amm is pretty much unique - Ireland is the go-to source for Amm in all these areas that are trying to reintroduce their native bee, in Germany, Poland, Sweden, UK, etc. The original bee in these areas was Amm but successive imports of Carnolians, Italians, etc. has meant that they have been almost wiped out all across Northern Europe.

So Irish amm is being exported all over Europe? How can you thus argue for an import ban?

bpmurray

Galvium Irredentum wrote: »

So Irish amm is being exported all over Europe? How can you thus argue for an import ban?

The import ban prevents hybridisation of our native Amm. It is this source of rather pure Amm that others across Europe want, not a hybridised version. If we allow our native Amm to be mixed with all the other subspecies, we will have lost yet another native species. And, of course, as you probably know, hybridised bees tend to become vicious a**holes.

Ask those who insist on importing bees: how often do they have to import new queens because their current hives have become unmanageable? Most Amm beekeepers actively participate in a queen breeding program, open mating their queens. This would have to stop because of imports, and only II would produce queens that are sufficiently docile to be manageable.

Danzy

Galvium Irredentum wrote: »

So Irish amm is being exported all over Europe? How can you thus argue for an import ban?

Varroa etc.

That biggest change in thousands of years of bees being kept here, which was imported.

Not the only problem that can be imported here via bees.

yosemitesam1

bpmurray wrote: »

The import ban prevents hybridisation of our native Amm. It is this source of rather pure Amm that others across Europe want, not a hybridised version. If we allow our native Amm to be mixed with all the other subspecies, we will have lost yet another native species. And, of course, as you probably know, hybridised bees tend to become vicious a**holes.

Ask those who insist on importing bees: how often do they have to import new queens because their current hives have become unmanageable? Most Amm beekeepers actively participate in a queen breeding program, open mating their queens. This would have to stop because of imports, and only II would produce queens that are sufficiently docile to be manageable.

An import ban doesn't do anything to prevent poor quality aggressive bees, there is more than enough bad genes already present in the bee population here to go on producing bad bees for thousands of years to come. Trying to blame poor quality strains on hybridization is BS. The reason amm has so many poor traits is that no effort has been put into controlled breeding as has happened with the other races. They have had 100 years work put into them but yet the amm enthusiasts believe that wild strains of amm can be every bit as good with no work put in. Doesn't add up.

There is practically NO demand for amm in Europe because it is worse across all traits than buckfast,carni,Italians

Hybridization doesn't cause hives to become unmanageable. That is a MYTH. The characteristics generally just move towards whatever it is being crossed with over a few generations. Work without gloves here most of the time and can work buckfast and carnies anytime comfortably with no gloves, can.do amm only in reasonably good weather and must work slower as they don't ignore rough handling like the gentler bees do.
The main reason to get rid of subsequent generations is the loss of vigour as the hive becomes more amm like. When you can have queens averaging 2,500 eggs a day producing big productive hives, why would you want queens that will be laying the best part of 1,000 eggs less per day. While being more susceptible to disease and generally poorer all round as they become more and more influenced by the local population...

bpmurray

You clearly have a problem with protecting one of our native species. In any case, I follow the science, rather than the religion of beekeeping. Well bred Amm with little to no hybridisation are sweet to work with. Some of my hives are really, really docile, but some in an apiary which I assume is exposed to non-Amm drones, can become quite defensive. According to the scientific research (e.g. see link above), hybridisation is a major cause of defensiveness in all bees, Amm included. That famous hybrid, Buckfast, commonly becomes completely unmanageable by the F2 generation. It is normal for Buckfast fans to buy in new instrumentally inseminated queens every couple of generations and there are some who simply squish & replace their queens every year or two.

There has been hybridisation in Ireland for years, from those that selfishly introduce new strains into an otherwise relatively pure area, and it is this that NIHBS is trying to avoid. And yes, the Amm in these areas become cross.

As for no work being done on Amm, then I suppose you have never heard of BIBBA, the Galtee Bee Breeding Group, NIHBS? Compare that to Buckfast - Bro. Adam would turn in his grave if he saw what his concoction had become - the modern Buckfast bears little resemblance to the original hybrids he produced, although I suppose the concept of breeding to specific traits without reference to lineage does follow his goals.

In the UK, practically all bees are hybridised with the exceptions of the Amm pockets in Cornwall and Colonsay, with help from Irish Amm. In the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, again Irish Amm have boosted their attempts to rebuild the northern European populations of the almost extinct Amm.

I really don't understand your anger at the idea that it's good to preserve a native animal, nor your denial, in the face of all the evidence, that hybridisation really is a problem, not only for Amm but for all bees, resulting in increased defensiveness and increased swarming.

BTW, I have nothing against other bee types - there should be room for us all. For example, I would consider siting Amm hives in Leitrim as being unconscionable because of the damage they would do to open mating of Buckfast. Similarly, I think bringing non-Amm into areas that are 100% Amm is equally appalling - that definitely should not happen.

yosemitesam1

bpmurray wrote: »

You clearly have a problem with protecting one of our native species. In any case, I follow the science, rather than the religion of beekeeping. Well bred Amm with little to no hybridisation are sweet to work with. Some of my hives are really, really docile, but some in an apiary which I assume is exposed to non-Amm drones, can become quite defensive. According to the scientific research (e.g. see link above), hybridisation is a major cause of defensiveness in all bees, Amm included. That famous hybrid, Buckfast, commonly becomes completely unmanageable by the F2 generation. It is normal for Buckfast fans to buy in new instrumentally inseminated queens every couple of generations and there are some who simply squish & replace their queens every year or two.

There has been hybridisation in Ireland for years, from those that selfishly introduce new strains into an otherwise relatively pure area, and it is this that NIHBS is trying to avoid. And yes, the Amm in these areas become cross.

As for no work being done on Amm, then I suppose you have never heard of BIBBA, the Galtee Bee Breeding Group, NIHBS? Compare that to Buckfast - Bro. Adam would turn in his grave if he saw what his concoction had become - the modern Buckfast bears little resemblance to the original hybrids he produced, although I suppose the concept of breeding to specific traits without reference to lineage does follow his goals.

In the UK, practically all bees are hybridised with the exceptions of the Amm pockets in Cornwall and Colonsay, with help from Irish Amm. In the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, again Irish Amm have boosted their attempts to rebuild the northern European populations of the almost extinct Amm.

I really don't understand your anger at the idea that it's good to preserve a native animal, nor your denial, in the face of all the evidence, that hybridisation really is a problem, not only for Amm but for all bees, resulting in increased defensiveness and increased swarming.

BTW, I have nothing against other bee types - there should be room for us all. For example, I would consider siting Amm hives in Leitrim as being unconscionable because of the damage they would do to open mating of Buckfast. Similarly, I think bringing non-Amm into areas that are 100% Amm is equally appalling - that definitely should not happen.

Preserving/improving amm if taken seriously would rely on controlled mating. Gbbg/nihbs have not made any serious efforts in this area. 100 years ago hives were being hauled up to isolated mountain areas to improve carnica and buckfast.
100 years of breeding with all of the important production traits taken into account has made significant progress. Amm has sat still at best in this timeframe and so a gap has opened between it and the European breeds which is why the majority of beekeepers throughout north west Europe gave up on amm.
The whole idea of working with a niche species is nice for those with a handful of hives but for any serious amount of hives you tire of amm faults after a while when you've no need at all to put up with them.
I run a couple of hundred hives and there is no issue with buckfast or carnica becoming aggressive in amm crosses. It's a myth despite what your link might say. If they controlled the hybridization they would have seen that the bad amm genes simply start to show up with the more amm added (not saying there's not good amm genes, just as you go further along chance makes it more likely for the bad to get their chance).

If amm is to be conserved it should be done in the same way as every other breed of agricultural importance has been. Controlled mating and creation of a pedigree. If it is really so deserving of conservation, to do anything less is an insult as it is the only way to guarantee with 100% its future bar of course DNA testing every single hive in the country and culling however many thousand that don't meet the right spec...

Danzy

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Preserving/improving amm if taken seriously would rely on controlled mating. Gbbg/nihbs have not made any serious efforts in this area. 100 years ago hives were being hauled up to isolated mountain areas to improve carnica and buckfast.
100 years of breeding with all of the important production traits taken into account has made significant progress. Amm has sat still at best in this timeframe and so a gap has opened between it and the European breeds which is why the majority of beekeepers throughout north west Europe gave up on amm.
The whole idea of working with a niche species is nice for those with a handful of hives but for any serious amount of hives you tire of amm faults after a while when you've no need at all to put up with them.
I run a couple of hundred hives and there is no issue with buckfast or carnica becoming aggressive in amm crosses. It's a myth despite what your link might say. If they controlled the hybridization they would have seen that the bad amm genes simply start to show up with the more amm added (not saying there's not good amm genes, just as you go further along chance makes it more likely for the bad to get their chance).

If amm is to be conserved it should be done in the same way as every other breed of agricultural importance has been. Controlled mating and creation of a pedigree. If it is really so deserving of conservation, to do anything less is an insult as it is the only way to guarantee with 100% its future bar of course DNA testing every single hive in the country and culling however many thousand that don't meet the right spec...

Without wiping out amm bees how will this theoretical programme of breeding work?

The theory may be correct but open breeding will always be a problem. Reality will be the challenge to theory.

yosemitesam1

Danzy wrote: »

Without wiping out amm bees how will this theoretical programme of breeding work?

The theory may be correct but open breeding will always be a problem. Reality will be the challenge to theory.

We have a number of islands and there is also the knowledge of instrumental insemination in nihbs. All they need do is copy what's already in place in Europe. If they sat down and put a serious plan together they could get financial support.
When you suggest this though its dismissed that it should be their right to open mate their bees and only expect to have pure drones in all areas to mate. Even if that were the case, improvement would not happen and swarmy aggressive bees would still exist