“Thoughts on Survivor Bees”
Bee Culture (November 2005), Vol. 133 (11): 47-49
By
http://apis.shorturl.com
In my
August 2005 article on survivor bees around the world, I mentioned the Russian Primorski stock that has now been introduced into the
Humans historically have
adapted to honey bees that are endemic in a specific region. They engage in purposeful introduction of
other bees from elsewhere at considerable risk to their enterprise. The history of worldwide introduction of Varroa destructor speaks eloquently and sadly
to this fact. Biogeography of honey
bees, thus, is an important area of study.
Unfortunately, it has never been much of a focus for investigators in
the
A symposium at the Third European
Congress on Social Insects, sponsored by the European branch of the
International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) held in
A.G. Nikolenko,
A symposium on swarming in
honey bees somewhat paralleled that concerning biodiversity. Again Ibrahim Çakmak took the lead by reporting information on swarming
by the various races of honey bees found in
Correlated with higher
swarming rates in A. m. anatoliaca is a dry hot summer season. The same is true for A. m. syriaca, which swarms far more
frequently and may build hundreds of queen cells. This is due to a combination of several
things, including unpredictable weather (hot, dry desert conditions) and the
fact that it does not have to store as much honey as bees in the north because
the winter season is typically wet enough to promote vegetative flowering. In addition, this race is often challenged by
an enlarged group of predators, including two wasps, known to kill entire
colonies on occasion. Although not
mentioned in the paper, this author would add the bee eating bird (Merops. sp.) to this list. Swarming to avoid predation, therefore, is
not out of the question.
Readers
may remember my musings on Iraqi beekeeping in the August article: “It
could be that in a rural village without many resources, a system based on many
more traditional, smaller colonies that are not treated and encouraged to swarm
and become ‘survivors’ would be more productive in the aggregate than one
founded on larger moveable-frame colonies that require treatment and more
resources. Frequent reproductive and
migratory swarming are also thought to be one of the
reasons that Africanized honey bees in
I then asked for feedback from readers based on the following questions:
1.
If you were
to counsel those beginning from “scratch,” in a region where the bees and
people have been devastated by conflict, how much would you suggest relying on
local “survivor” bees? How long could or
would you recommend waiting for an industry based on such a stock to develop?
2.
If you
needed new genetic material quickly, how would you go about importing queens
from the rest of the world with minimal risk?
(Note: so far Acarapis woodi has not
been found in
3.
In rural
villages with established populations of bees in traditional hives made of
narrow woven baskets covered with wood ash as a wattle, would you recommend
immediate transfer to Langstroth moveable-frame hives
and elimination of the traditional hives as is currently proposed? If not, what would you recommend with
reference to developing sustainable and appropriate beekeeping in this setting?
Several subscribers were kind enough to send me their observations. The majority of the remarks can be summarized
in the following from a bee regulator:
“The proposal of relying on the recovery of local stock
is preferable for many reasons. Being in the foothills of the
“I recommend that this
"back up" import stock should come from the region instead of
overseas sources. For example, northern
“Transfer to Langstroth may be ultimately desirable, but for the purpose
of development, it is important to first assess the ability of local beekeepers
to pay for such high input costs. If much of the region is busy with
reconstruction, the availability and affordability of lumber may be out of
reach for many. If woven bee hives have
been a traditional hive form in the region, why not aim for a hive body using
the same basic materials? I am thinking here of a modified Kenyan Top Bar hive.
Instead of using lumber for the hive body, a woven basket can be used that is
attached to a wooden frame on which the top bars rest. The input costs will be
far lower and construction of woven baskets may offer some local employment
(e.g. women's groups, etc.)
“The manufacture of hive
bodies, although light industrial, still needs machinery, electricity, spare
parts, in some centralized location. This immediately brings up the question of
the logistics and costs of distributing hive bodies to villages and outlining
areas. Even though Langstroth hive bodies may
potentially provide the highest production levels, if the operating environment
and infrastructure are not sufficiently established Langstroth
hives will simply not be the right technology at this time. My recommendation
is to tailor-make a development project with the focus on local input,
providing rural families the opportunity for generating some cash flow through
simple technology that is locally available and sustainable.”
I received this from a
long-time commercial beekeeper:
“If you look at history, when
bees were kept in skeps, hollow logs and box hives,
the production was around 5 lbs per hive per year and disease was
rampant. When laws were passed requiring moveable frames production
increased to the 70 - 100 lb range. Modern hives are easier to manage in
all respects; requeening, moving for pollination or
to maximize production, making splits, etc. I would definitely go with
modern hives.
“As for survivor bees, you
need to have some understanding of how they survived. It is my conviction
that most survivor hives have survived because of environmental conditions
rather than genetics. Hives in the wild usually have a deep void under
them and most mites that fall off do not make it back up to the colony.
Wild hives also swarm often, breaking the reproductive cycle of both the mites
and the bees. After swarming the bees rebuild faster than the mites and
therefore can survive longer. Those that don't rebuild faster do not
survive. Neither mechanism is adaptable to modern beekeeping.
If you go with the
non-movable hive then I would go with survivor stock. But everyone should
be aware that it will take 15 to 20 traditional hives to equal one moveable
frame hive.”
And this from a bee
scientist:
“Stay with the old bees and
the old bee equipment. Changes will only
be possible once you have a group of beekeepers working as a unit or a team.”
Another observation:
“Wholesale transfer to
moveable frame hives without appropriate guidance is probably the fastest way
of getting AFB and EFB up to epidemic proportions and thus eliminating the
incipient beekeeping industry or forcing it into being dependant on
chemicals. Beekeepers are always reluctant to renew brood comb and it is
so easy not to with moveable frames in stacks of boxes, thus allowing disease
organisms to build up.
“Depending on what is
traditional in that area and the forage available and the habits of the native
strain, a life cycle of 2 - 3 years for each colony with renewals from swarms
could be indefinitely sustainable and rely only on local inputs. Output
would not be maximised but could be high value,
including as medicine. There would also be a regular harvest of wax which
has a multitude of uses and can be turned into value - added products, often on
a small scale as cottage industries.
“This approach keeps the
income close to the original producer and may be a way of bringing income and
therefore power to the distaff side. The beekeepers would probably do
well to supply high quality products in limited quantities for the local market
at a good price rather than to over-produce and have to dump surplus through
packers onto the over-supplied world market.
“I can't remember the name of
the economist who made a study of the subject as
if people mattered (cobblers is in my mind) but he
coined the phrase 'small is beautiful' and I think it is appropriate in this
instance.”2
Finally, I am preserving the words and tone in this comment. Sometimes English spoken from non-native
perspective has greater impact than when conventionally expressed.
“I play
with the notion that men trying to impose it's will to nature's doings
and more often than not we find ourselves at
the short end of the stick . So, to me it became cut and dry : The
genetic features are to be preserved and helped along the
way to survival of the species without stepping on the
creature's feet.
I am on the
warpath with those prohibiting any transport of queen bees with
attendants. Is there evidence that queens had phoretic mites ? Can an inspection be of validity ? Yes ! .
Therefore queen shipments of SMR queens would
give the start up a boost . I take a dim
view of bureaucratic arguments since all this quarantine
stuff and associated ballyhoo did nothing to prevent
the spread of critters or diseases but guaranteed the
salaries of the officials.”
References: