- From the President – Jo Widdicombe
I like to do a spot check to see roughly what percentage are of native appearance. The figure goes up and down a bit according to who has what bees in the area. - 53 AGM Notice
- Trials and Tribulations – Frank Hilton
The regeneration of the black bee would eliminate the necessity to import bees from abroad… - Are you a Natural Beekeeper? – Brian Dennis
So what is a natural beekeeper? The term ‘natural beekeeper’ is an oxymoron. A dictionary definition of natural is ‘existing in or caused by nature, not artificial’. - Natural Beekeeping – Philip Denwood
A few natural beekeepers are simply providingsites for bee colonies to occupy, as they might put up bat boxes or bird nesting boxes. - Racial Profiling of Mongrels – Paul Honigmann
Colour and size variation is apparent … - Future Bee Improvement and QR – R Patterson
These courses are very popular, with lots of information and tips on improving your own and your local bees. - History of Manx beekeeping – Cilla Platt
Beekeeping started even before the Irish gods were told to find an island to go into exile. - Making Increase – Brian Dennis
There are bad tempered bees, which should not be tolerated… - Locally Adapted Bees – Wally Shaw
The natural distribution of A.m.m. starts north of the Pyrenees in France, spreading north into most of Western Europe. . . - Bee Races & Protected Areas in Switzerland – Balser & Padruot Fried
The search for ‘better’ bees (more honey and/or swarms) began already in the late 19th century. - B4 Press Release – Plymouth University
B4 and staff at Plymouth University are about to embark on an exciting new project that will investigate local adaptation in UK populations of dark honey bee. - SICAMM Conference – Eoghan Mac Giolla Coda
Over 60 delegates from 15 countries met at De Werelt Conference Centre in Lunteren for the latest SICAMM conference - Intelligence v. Chemical Responses – Brian Dennis
Brood recognition pheromone is produced by larvae and pupae and helps nurse bees distinguish between worker and drone larvae and pupae - This is a non-smoking area – Brian Dennis
Gently smoke the entrance to the hive. The smell of smoke causes the bees to fill themselves up with honey … and this renders them much more amenable to handling …
and Conservation
Spring 2017 • Issue Number 49 • £5.00
Friday 7 April • Saturday 8 April • Sunday 9 April 2017
2017
25 Lectures and over
50 Courses and Workshops
Trade-show Friday and Saturday
On-site Accommodation
Dinners
Tickets now on sale from
www.bbka.org.uk
Harper Adams University
Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB
Enquiries to:
Looking for a gift?
Then visit the BIBBA bookshop at
www.bibba.com/store
and select from these titles . . .
‘The Principles of Bee Improvement’
by Jo Widdicombe
‘The Honeybees of the British Isles’
by Beowulf A Cooper
‘The Dark European Honeybee’
by F Ruttner, E Milner and J E Dews
‘Breeding Techniques and Selection for
Breeding of the Honeybee’
by F Ruttner, A & E Milner
‘Queen Raising: The Jenkins Way’
by G Jenkins
‘Pedigree Bee Breeding in Western Europe’
a BIBBA Publication
Full details of each title are available on the
BIBBA website – www.bibba.com/store
Cymdeithas Gwenynwyr
Cymru
The Welsh Beekeepers’
Association
B I M 4 9 – Spr ing 2017 1
Contents
From the President – Jo Widdicombe 2
53 AGM Notice 2
Trials and Tribulations – Frank Hilton 3
Are you a Natural Beekeeper? – Brian Dennis 5
Natural Beekeeping – Philip Denwood 6
Racial Profiling of Mongrels – Paul Honigmann 7
Bee Improvement and QR – R Patterson 10
History of Manx beekeeping – Cilla Platt 11
Making Increase – Brian Dennis 12
Locally Adapted Bees – Wally Shaw 13
Bee Races in Switzerland – Balser & Padruot Fried 16
B4 Press Release – Plymouth University 21
SICAMM Conference – Eoghan Mac Giolla Coda 22
Intelligence v. Chemical Responses – Brian Dennis 27
This is a non-smoking area – Brian Dennis 28
Editorial
Following on from the Manx theme of the previous
issue, we have an article from Cilla Platt on the history of
beekeeping in the Isle of Man.
Other articles explore the problems of assessing and
multiplying native bees. Ideally potential breeding stock
should be assessed by DNA analysis, as in the B4 project
at Plymouth University, and as is often done in Switzerland
(see the article by Balser and Padruot Fried). The
expense of doing this will leave most people to fall back
on morphometric analysis, whether using one or a few
wing characters, as by Paul Honigmann, or a wider range
of indicators, both morphological and behavioural.
Another approach, as proposed by Wally Shaw and Frank
Hilton, is to start by seeking bees which are thought to
be ‘locally adapted’, e.g. from presumed feral swarms,
then perhaps subjecting them to analysis of morphological
and behavioural characters.
Having obtained the desired bees, there is then the
question of how to propagate them. There are of course
many systems of queen raising and making increase.
Pairing with the desired drones can then be by instrumental
insemination, another skilled and expensive task
which can carry its own risk of excessive inbreeding.
Open mating would ideally be carried out in isolated
mating stations or areas known to be largely inhabited
by local bees, again not easy for everyone.
A third and perhaps more ‘natural’ method is simply to
let the queens mate as they please, selecting the offspring
by culling apparent crossbreeds. The natural
beekeeping movement, as discussed by Brian Dennis
and by me, is gathering momentum – it is if nothing
else, cheap to operate, and arguably can lead to bees
which are healthier and better adapted to their localities,
while still yielding a reasonable honey crop.
Philip Denwood
Editor
Bee Improvement and Conservation
The Journal of the Bee Improvement and Bee
Breeders’ Association (BIBBA), founded in 1964
for the conservation, restoration, study, selection
and improvement of native and near-native
honey bees of Britain and Ireland.
President: Jo Widdicombe
Chairman: Nick Bentham-Green
Treasurer: Iain Harley
Secretary:
Membership Secretary: Nick Mawby
Editor: Philip Denwood
Copyright: ©BIBBA March 2017
The copyright of all material in this edition of
BIM remains with the Authors, or BIBBA, and
may not be reproduced, by any means what
so ever, without the copyright holders written
permission.
Contributions, including photographs or other
illustrations are always welcome, but BIBBA
assumes no responsibility for the safety of contributions,
although all reasonable care will be
taken, they are accepted at the risk of authors.
If the images are irreplaceable then the author
should submit duplicates.
The Editorial Committee reserves the right to
refuse to publish any article or advertisement
and takes no responsibility for any goods
advertised in this issue.
Readers should note that statements made by
contributors are not be necessarily representative
of those of the Editor or BIBBA Trustees.
All enquiries about articles in this issue should
be addressed to the Editor.
Copy dates:
Advertising and Submissions:
Please contact the Editor for submissions.
Copy dates: 1st October (November issue), 1st
February (March issue) and 1st June (July issue).
BIM is produced irregularly by the Editorial
Committee of the Bee Improvement and Bee
Breeders’ Association.
BIBBA is a Registered UK Charity No. 273827
Website: www.bibba.com
Printed by: Cambrian Printers Ltd.
Produced using FSC paper and printed with
environmentally friendly waterbased inks.
Design and Artwork: Roger Cullum-Kenyon
Front Cover: Roger Cullum-Kenyon
Back Cover:
All other images are by the authors of their respective articles unless
otherwise indicated. Please respect all IP and copyright material.
2 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
Some argue that the beekeeping year
begins in the autumn as that is when
the foundations are laid for the following
season, but from the colony’s
point of view the new year starts as
the days begin to lengthen. We assume
the queen has had a break
from laying but now she commences
to lay a few eggs and the build up to
Summer is on its way.
I do not have any hives in my garden
but have just observed at least ten
honey bees as well as one Bombus
terrestris queen on a clump of
heather. I like to do a spot check to
see roughly what percentage are of
native appearance. The figure goes
up and down a bit according to who
has what bees in the area. I will
check all my colonies in the spring
and move away any that are not of
native appearance. This is because I
use this as the mating area and do
my best to saturate it with near-native
bees. Anyway I am pleased to
report that every worker just seen is
of native appearance so I take that to
mean we stand a chance of getting
some good matings this year.
It is not only a new year for the bees
but also one for BIBBA. After a successful
conference last year, on the
Isle of Man, we have no conference
to prepare for until 2018. This
means we can focus on other things,
in particular, thinking about BIBBA’s
future strategy in regard to ‘the conservation,
reintroduction (‘restoration’,
see below), study, selection
and improvement of native or nearnative
honeybees’.
A charity has a lot of mundane activities
to perform and amongst these is
the matter of keeping the constitution
up to date and workable to
allow the smooth functioning of the
organisation. Organisations can
spend far too much time discussing
and falling out over such issues,
diverting attention from what we
should be focussing on. Since our
current constitution there has been
new legislation (in England and
Wales), the Charities Act (2011), and
a new model constitution has been
produced by the Charities Commission.
For this reason, it is timely that
we look at our constitution again and
base it on the new model, GD3.
There are a few extras in the new
constitution but much is very similar
except in a different order. By reviewing
it we have the opportunity to
tweak a few things which perhaps
need changing.
One change that we are proposing is
that the wording of our objects goes
back to the original, that is ‘restoration’
rather than ‘reintroduction’.
‘Restoration’ is a more inclusive
word which covers ‘reintroduction’
but allows for restoring the native
bee through selection, thus getting
back to a purer strain from a hybridised
bee, the position that most
of us find ourselves in.
Our AGM, on April 9th at Harper
Adams, is when a new committee is
elected. It is your chance to have a
say in what BIBBA should be doing as
well as your opportunity to get involved
in the running of BIBBA.
To serve on the committee (15 members)
a signature of a proposer, and
a signature giving consent, presented
to a BIBBA officer before the
meeting, will allow you to fill a
vacancy, or stand for election if more
than the required number are
proposed.
The proposed new constitution will
be emailed to members shortly, before
the AGM. For those who do not
receive emails, a copy can be posted
to you but you will have to contact
the Membership Secretary with your
request: Nick Mawby, Glenwood,
Wood Road, Longsdon, Stoke on
Trent ST9 9QB.
PS: Just counted one yellow banded
bee in my latest spot check, and a
worker Bombus terrestris!
Jo Widdicombe
President
I like to do a spot check to see roughly
what percentage are of native appearance. The
figure goes up and down a bit according to who
has what bees in the area.
From the President
BIBBA
53rd Annual
General Meeting
2017
Notice is herby given
to all Members’ of
the Association that the
53rd AGM
of the
Bee Improvement
and Bee Breeders’
Association
will take place at
Harper Adams
University
Newport, Shropshire
TF10 8NB
on Sunday
9th April 2017
The regeneration of the black bee would eliminate
the necessity to import bees from abroad…
Trials and tribulations of a Bee Improver
In the last issue [of the Cheshire
News] I gave my interpretation of
why we need to eradicate the importation
of bees and breed all our
queens from local stock, as prescribed
by every speaker I have
heard over the last two years. For
new readers, briefly the case for
breeding dark bees is as follows.
It was widely (though wrongly) believed
that dark native bees had become
extinct following the so-called
Isle of Wight disease around the time
of the first world war; bees from
Italy, Apis mellifera ligustica and
elsewhere continued to be imported
to fill the demand for bees. Consequently,
most known British bees are
now hybridised, to some extent, as
virgin queens mate with up to twenty
drones from different colonies. The
Italian bee, for example, evolved in
very different conditions i.e. hot dry
summers and warm wet winters.
This has caused problems for our national
bee stock in that hybridised
bees do not over winter so well. In
the winter of 2012 in some regions,
over 50% of stock was lost. In the
same year only two hives from 60
were lost on the Isle of Colonsay in
Scotland where, over the last thirty
years, there has been a dark bee
breeding project that has achieved
95% of the DNA of the original local
bee.
Following the wild bees
In Cheshire some of us are trying to
do the same as on Colonsay, that is
to rear near-native bees. In order to
find some good breeding stock we
are trying to track down wild
colonies of honey bees which may
have survived in an isolated location.
Delamere Forest is thought to be the
most likely area to be hosting wild
bees in the County of Cheshire. A
method of locating wild bees has recently
been described by Tom Seeley
in his book Following the Wild Bees.
I have now made all the necessary
gadgets, prescribed in the book, in
order to find them. Initially I am
practising and developing my technique
in the Delamere Forest, which
involves catching bees in the process
of pollination within the forest.
Having caught a small number, they
are released one at a time and followed
until one loses sight of the
bee and then another is released,
and so on, until the colony is located,
usually in a cavity of a hollow
tree. At no time is a bee, plant or a
tree damaged in any way. Beekeepers
with colonies in close proximity
to Delamere Forest can give me a
rough idea of where they are, in
strict confidence of course, and I will
abandon my efforts in these areas.
In the event of finding a colony of
bees I would then establish about
four bait hives spread within about
50mtrs of the bees to catch a swarm
emitting from the colony during
April to August next year. The bait
hives would be secured to adjacent
trees around the target tree, by a
method approved by the Forestry
Commission, who has recently
granted me a permit.
The regeneration of the black bee
would eliminate the necessity to import
bees from abroad every year to
replace natural losses. A reduction
in imports reduces the risk of importing
Tropilaelaps, small hive beetle
or even different strains of
pathogens already here.
First Steps
So let’s get down to the nitty gritty
of how we can stop such a catastrophe
from happening in Cheshire.
Firstly, talk to your immediate beekeeping
neighbours and suggest
starting a bee improvement group,
using information from this series of
articles. Next select a breeder queen
from a colony within the group with
the most uniform native appearance,
that is, dark abdomens and yellow
brown hair around the thorax. Then
you need a handsome prince to lead
her down the aisle and consummate
the royal marriage. Build a nursery
in which to raise the heirs to the
throne. Then provide royal palaces
from which the new queens can rule
over their subjects amongst your
members’ apiaries.
Simple? Well not really; it is difficult
and will cause all kinds of trials and
tribulations along the way, many of
which I already have personal experience
of. So in the next articles I am
going to explain each stage in turn,
to the best of my knowledge and
with the help of my more experienced
colleagues in CHIP (Cheshire
Honey bee Improvement Partnership).
Setting up a group
By talking to our neighbouring beekeepers
we can soon ascertain attitudes
to the importation of queens.
Obviously any refusal to agree to
non-importation, or not purchasing
via the internet (you cannot possibly
know where they come from) makes
your endeavour to improve your
local bees more difficult, but not impossible.
If you can get the agreement
of others surrounding an
uncooperative beekeeper, you can,
within a short time, reduce their
detrimental effect. What is agreement?
The minimum that you need
is a verbal agreement but written
agreement not to import bees may
be preferable. If beekeepers enter
into the spirit of selective breeding
by allowing the group to use Their
best queen to breed from it will be
all the better. Each breeding session
only requires the use of one queen
and the production of eggs can be
completed without moving the
chosen one’s location. All members
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 3
4 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
of the group, including the owner of
the selected queen, can still continue
queen rearing by their usual
methods.
How to find like thinking
members?
I have twenty beekeeping neighbours
within two kilometres of my bees,
their addresses are published in the
CBKA annual report and balance
sheet each year. I legged it around
all the members and all appeared to
be in full agreement to the principle,
but most did not turn up to the
meetings. With hindsight I should
have hand delivered a letter with a
response email address. Things
have improved since then now that
BIBBA has a system for communication
via their web page. This eliminates
the necessity to meet, other
than to actually conduct practical
work. Also this column has, to date,
resulted in a list of more than forty
Cheshire beekeepers interested in
selective breeding within a group.
I will update these contacts and put
people in touch with others in their
area.
Selecting suitable queens
Those who have partnered up with at
least one other like thinking beekeeper
are in a position to start dark
bee queen rearing.
There are a few ways of choosing the
breeder queen; firstly, by simply
looking at the bees at the hive entrance
or at bees on a frame and
finding a colony of uniform native
appearance. The best way is to
score your bees by using the method
recommended by John Dews and Eric
Milner in their publication Breeding
Better Bees, using simple modern
methods. This is a BIBBA Publication
available from Northern Bee Books
online. If you do not have or cannot
obtain a copy, I can email information
to you.
This sheet can be used to choose
your queen just by using the body
colour section alone which gives a
very high degree of accuracy, but
there are three other measurements
available; the more you use the more
accurate will be your result. Once
every member has established their
best bee, the group has to decide
the best one in the group. After
which submit a thirty bee sample for
FOC disease testing (if you do not
have a member with a compound
microscope I will find one for you).
If all is well you are ready to choose
her suitors.
Selecting the Drone colony
We use the colony characteristics to
choose the colony from which to provide
the drones for mating with the
queen. The media for this is last
year’s inspection sheet. Because you
are now working in a group it would
be best if each member used the
same inspection sheet, so that we all
understand how each member works
their bees. As every beekeeper appears
to be using their own design
or one of the multiple designs proposed
by various institutions, we are
in the process of developing one
with selective breeding in mind and
are at the stage where a sheet has
been developed and is ready to test
practically. We would welcome your
co-operation for its improvement or
comment. It contains a method of
giving the queen a unique code,
which will be required to produce a
pedigree later. It also has a facility
for choosing drone characteristics
from what we think are the best ten
possibilities, such as docility, disease
resistance, honey yield, non-swarming
etc.. We have also got rid of a lot
of info that is seldom used, the back
of the form has a complete explanation
of what we are trying to achieve.
A copy of our record-keeping form is
available by email for you to comment
on.
My overall ambition is for every
branch of the Cheshire BKA to have a
main queen production apiary using
the best queen in their jurisdiction
chosen from local mini groups. Each
mini group will donate a queen from
each of their sessions to the branch
group for second generation selective
breeding. In turn each branch
will donate one queen to CHIP from
their breeding, who will be using the
best beekeeping brains and the best
queen in the county to produce high
quality queens for further breeding
and distribution to members
throughout the County. Hopefully in
three years’ time we will have saturated
the whole of Cheshire with
blackish drones and be well on the
way to offsetting the risks that bee
importers cause to the rest of the
bee fraternity. Most recently I have
accepted the position of Cheshire
Dark Bee Queen Breeding group Co-
Ordinator, and will be setting in motion
my ambitions for the County on
behalf of BIBBA.
Just to put a value on what we are
trying to do, the July issue of Bee
Craft reported the LASI (Laboratory
of Apiculture and Social Insects) experimentation
of breeding hygienic
behaviour queens and offered the
surplus stock for sale. The price is
from £20.00 for Open-mated daughters
of hygienic breeder queens to
£500.00 for instrumentally inseminated
daughters of hygienic breeder
queens. At least we now know we
are doing the right thing, only slower
but at zero cost and also we know
the value of what we are doing. We
do have a big advantage, other than
cost however; ultimately we are
affecting a whole area with our desirable
characteristics, so that our open
matings will gradually improve. And
we also anticipate that our home
produced colonies will be better
winter survivors.
Frank Hilton
This article has been adapted from
Part 4 of a series of articles in
Cheshire News, CBKA Newsletter
Email contacts:
Cheshire Honeybee Improvement
Partnership:
Lymm Dark Bee Project:
Frank Hilton:
for any other business
As Dr Joad used to say on the BBC
Brains Trust “It all depends on what
you mean by …”. There are those
who suggest that the way most beekeepers
keep bees is unnatural and
is the cause of most of the problems
which exist today. There should be
less interference and manipulation of
colonies. The Warré hive and the top
bar hive are claimed to be more suitable
for natural beekeeping. It seems
that since 1860 when Langstroth
patented his movable frame hive, we
have been keeping bees unnaturally.
So what is a natural beekeeper? The
term ‘natural beekeeper’ is an oxymoron.
A dictionary definition of
natural is ‘existing in or caused by
nature, not artificial’. Bees do not
naturally live under the care of humans.
So if you are keeping bees in
a manmade structure and you prevent
swarming, you have created an
unnatural situation – one that does
not exist in nature. Prior to movable
frame hives, bees were kept in
skeps. This might appear more natural
since the bees produced ‘wild’
comb and there was little manipulation.
However, the method of obtaining
a crop of honey and wax by
killing the bees over a sulphur pit
cannot be considered natural.
There used to be beekeepers known
as let alone beekeepers. They were
bee owners and simply removed the
honey at the end of the year. When
varroa arrived, doing nothing was
not an option and their colonies died
and many gave up. Again, as a result
of varroa, there are few, if any,
long-standing wild colonies – without
treatment most eventually die. That
is natural!
There are beekeepers who claim not
to have treated for several years &
have bees able to survive varroa infestation
– the Bond approach, Live
and Let Die. When claims are made
for long-standing feral colonies, the
usual response is that the original
colony died and was replaced by
another swarm. However, that may
be an assumption and some feral
colonies may have survived without
treatment. Allowing bees to evolve
can be considered a natural approach
– survival of the fittest.
The importation of foreign subspecies
has resulted in a mishmash
of unnatural bees.
The majority view is that maintaining
healthy and productive stocks requires
husbandry (as with all livestock).
Swarming, varroa and
diseases have to be managed. The
prevention and control of swarming
requires a weekly inspection of the
brood nest and manipulation of the
colony if signs of swarming are
found (usually by making an artificial
swarm). The varroa mite population
has to be monitored either by uncapping
drone brood or counting mite
drop on a tray insert and the colony
treated when necessary using a
combination of techniques in an integrated
pest control management
programme. The favoured natural
treatments are organic acids and
essential oils. It is difficult to understand
how the use of any chemicals
can be considered natural. Inspection
for diseases requires an appraisal
each time the colony is
inspected. Using a movable frame
hive, these essential checks are relatively
easy, but appear more difficult
in a Warré or TBH.
So what is unnatural, at least from
the bee’s perspective? It depends
who you talk to, but the list would
include:
u Hive inspections.
u Marking & clipping the queen.
u Re-queening. Instrumental
insemination.
u Swarm control.
u Harvesting honey,
pollen, propolis & wax.
u Using foundation.
Removing old comb.
u Feeding sugar or pollen
substitutes.
u Drone management.
u Plastic hive parts.
u Using smoke to subdue bees.
It is good advice never to open a hive
without a reason. Each time a hive is
opened the colony is disrupted and it
takes a long time for the bees to
recover, exacerbated by the use of
unnecessary smoking. Most beekeepers
do not want to use chemicals
to treat their bees and keep
them to a minimum, using biotechnical
methods as part of their IPM
programme. Our management
should involve the minimum impact
on our bees.
There is always room for improvement
and one should always question
practices and methods that are
given as facts. But I am not convinced
that using the Warré hive or
the TBH is an improvement and the
way forward. It may be that I have
not read enough or understood fully
what has been written. If you have
used either hive, what is your
experience?
Brian P. Dennis
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 5
Are you a natural beekeeper?
So what is a natural beekeeper? The term
‘natural beekeeper’ is an oxymoron.
A dictionary definition of natural is ‘existing in
or caused by nature, not artificial’.
The article by Paul Honigmann in
this issue is by a self-confessed ‘natural
beekeeper’. That by Brian Dennis
on natural beekeeping is from
the viewpoint of what I would call a
‘conventional beekeeper’. I would
like to explore a little further what
these terms imply, and how the promotion
of native bees might fit into
the picture.
One can draw up a spectrum of approaches
to beekeeping as follows:
1. ‘Conventional’ beekeeping a):
bee farming.
2. ‘Conventional’ beekeeping b):
amateur beekeeping.
3. Horizontal or long hive
beekeeping.
4. ‘Balanced’ beekeeping with
horizontal top bar hives.
5. ‘Natural’ beekeeping a): with
vertical Warré or similar hives.
6. ‘Natural’ beekeeping b):
provision of nest sites for bees.
1. Conventional beekeeping, using
supered magazine hives with frames,
employs one or more of the practices
listed by Brian, including frequent
hive inspections, maximum honey
removal, sugar feeding, mass medication,
swarm control and artificial
queen raising. These and other manipulations,
taken to extremes by
some commercial beekeepers in, for
example, North America, are regarded
by most natural beekeepers
as ‘over-invasive’ or ‘interventionist’,
causing excessive stress to the bees
and leading to a weakening of their
stamina and health, which in turn
prompts the beekeeper to administer
even more intervention. Methods of
queen raising produce bees selected
for maximum honey production
under artificial conditions rather
than adaptation to any particular
local environment.
2. Most amateur conventional beekeepers
will not subject their bees to
such intense stress, and some may
even practise what Brian refers to as
‘let-alone’ beekeeping: simply
adding supers in spring and removing
them in autumn. Nevertheless
the configuration of their hives, with
large box volumes, frames and
supering rather than nadiring, would
still be objected to by many natural
beekeepers.
3. There are various hives which
might be considered intermediate
between the conventional hive and
the horizontal Top Bar Hive. Working
on the principle of the ‘trough
hives’ of the North European plain
from Eastern Europe through to Denmark
and Southern Sweden, their
combs are arranged in a single layer,
but on deep frames rather than top
bars and with vertical rather than
sloping sides. Such hives include the
wooden Golden Hive and the Zest
Hive made of concrete blocks. Intermediate
again between these and
conventional hives is the Dartington
Hive, again a long hive but with a
single tier of supers above. These
hives allow most of the ‘conventional’
manipulations to be carried
out if the beekeeper wishes.
4. The horizontal Top Bar Hive, promoted
by Philip Chandler (a speaker
at the BIBBA Isle of Man Conference)
and others, is convenient for the
beekeeper who, once the hive is in
position, has no heavy lifting to do
and can decide for himself how
much to intervene in the colony. A
low-intervention regime known as
‘balanced beekeeping’ is often
adopted with this hive.
5. Over the last decade or so the
‘natural beekeeping’ movement has
become ever more prominent. Even
Thornes now sell Warré and top bar
hives. David Heaf based in North
Wales and his associates have provided
an effective international network
exchanging information on the
Warré hive. A new magazine has
been launched by Northern Bee
Books: Natural Bee Husbandry.
The storied Warré hive aims to mimic
the proportions of a natural tree
cavity – narrow and tall. Boxes are
‘nadired’ rather than supered, which
may not be easy without a specially
constructed lifting device. Combs
are normally built from top bars,
though it is possible to use frames.
Natural beekeepers in general prefer
to let natural selection take its
course – in so far as it can be called
‘natural’ when the bees are being
kept in the beekeeper’s hives – and
eliminate the weak while encouraging
the strong to survive. There is
some hard evidence that this approach,
or elements of it, works.
A study in North Wales of over 1500
overwintered colonies over five years
(presumably mostly kept by conventional
beekeepers) showed a lower
rate of loss among beekeepers not
treating for varroa (13%) than among
those treating (19%). Individual beekeepers
elsewhere in the UK have
successfully kept bees for years without
varroa treatment. David Heaf’s
annual losses over nine years of a
low-intervention regime in Warré
Hives have been 20%, which many
would consider acceptable. Honey
takes are typically lower from ‘natural’
hives than from ‘conventional’
ones – say 12kg against 20 kg – but
cost-benefit studies in France suggest
that a kilogram of ‘naturally’
produced honey from a Warré Hive is
still significantly cheaper because of
the lower costs of equipment and
labour. This means that natural beekeeping
on a commercial scale with
hundreds of Warré Hives can be economic,
as shown for example by
Gilles Denis in France and Tim
Malfroy in Australia.
6 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
Natural Beekeeping and Native Bees
A few natural beekeepers are simply providing
sites for bee colonies to occupy, as they might
put up bat boxes or bird nesting boxes.
6. A few natural beekeepers are simply
providing sites for bee colonies
to occupy, as they might put up bat
boxes or bird nesting boxes. Honey
is rarely if ever harvested. There are
various hives designed for this purpose
– the egg-shaped Sun Hive and
Veuille Hive, the cylindrical Freedom
Hive, or simply a cavity hollowed out
of a living tree.
Natural beekeepers would be
favourable to the idea of keeping
bees adapted to their local environment
– in Britain, Apis mellifera mellifera
or something very close to it.
Beowulf Cooper, founder of BIBBA,
objected to the use of the term
‘mongrel’ for crossbred bees as too
pejorative. Such bees, he maintained,
were just as worthy of study
as any others. This is what Paul
Honigmann is doing, although he
still calls them ‘mongrels’. His
graphs would seem to suggest that
there is a significant A.m.m. element
– without it the peak of the bellshaped
cubital index curve would be
at least 2.35 rather than about 2.05,
and there would be far fewer examples
below 1.9. According to the
NBU’s random DNA survey of
colonies in England & Wales, A.m.m.
genes average 45% of the total, a far
greater percentage than any other
single subspecies – see the article by
Bob Black in the last issue of Bee Improvement
(No. 48).
However, it should be emphasised
that morphometric analysis of racial
makeup based on one or a few characters
has a very poor correlation
with DNA microsatellite analysis, except
for bees of very pure race1. In
the absence of the DNA analysis, it is
necessary to assess a wide range of
morphometric and behavioural characters
to be reasonably sure of how
‘native’ the colony we are dealing
with is. What Paul’s analysis tells us
is that the bees tested are of mixed
origins, with probably a significant
but unquantifiable A.m.m. component,
apparently in line with the NBU
survey. At least this is a start.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that
bees kept under low-intervention
regimes gradually become more
A.m.m.-like – for Oxfordshire, see
the article by Gareth John, also in the
last issue of Bee Improvement. This
has certainly been my experience in
West Hertfordshire, using National
Hives managed as if they were
Warrés. Perhaps this is the answer –
just leave the bees alone and natural
selection will make them more nearly
native, which is of course what one
would expect in the absence of
significant foreign imports.
Natural beekeepers in any case
would object to artificial queen raising
involving grafting, Jenter systems
and the like. Many Warré beekeepers
do however carry out relatively
low-intervention forms of artificial
swarming or make splits, and this
could be done with a view to increasing
the progeny of more native-like
queens, while perhaps culling the
less native-like, thus trying to work
with natural selection rather than
against it.
Philip Denwood
1. See for example Catherine
Eleanor Thompson, The health and
status of the feral honeybee (Apis
mellifera sp) and Apis mellifera
mellifera population of the UK.
PhD thesis, University of Leeds 2012,
chapter 4.
Racial profiling of
North Oxfordshire
mongrels
Colour and size variation
is apparent …
Like many natural beekeepers I am
interested in having locally adapted
bees, especially tough ‘survivor
stock’ from unmanaged feral
colonies which thrive without treatments
for varroa mites.
In observing my several swarmcaught
colonies, all gathered ‘locally’,
I have always wondered about
their racial origins and hybridity.
Colour and size variation is apparent,
but sadly this is not a reliable
determinant of actual genetic mix,
and lacking DNA testing I had
thought I may never know better
than guesswork what mixes my
Oxfordshire mongrel bees actually
were. However, since learning about
wing morphometry and gaining
access to a suitable microscope I
have found that I could make a study
of the key races represented in my
apiary.
Clearly making such a study requires
a high-intervention action in that I
would need to sample bees from
each of my colonies. So, as a low-intervention
beekeeper who believes
in leaving my bees undisturbed to
pursue their natural behaviours and
hardly ever open my hives, why
would I choose to do this? The reason
is that I believe in the better
survivability of local, hybrid bees
(especially those with A.m.m. genes
in the mix) over ‘purer’ race bees,
and would like some hard evidence
of this to track alongside the health
of my colonies. Ideally I would like
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 7
If you are interested in finding out
more about BIBBA committee work,
please email the chairman
Fig. 1. Oxfordshire hybrids vary in colour.
Also, the rear areas naturally pulse darker as
the bee moves/breathes and its segments
(tergites) slide over the rear stripes.
to track how my mixed-breed nontreatment
apiary thrives and evolves
over time; hopefully showing that hybrids
can produce increasing varroa
and disease resistance and reducing
queen failure. A secondary reason is
to gain some evidence to support
anecdotal reports that A.m.m. genes
are preferentially expressed in just a
few years if bees are allowed to freemate
in this area. On balance, therefore,
I thought the question of the
racial mix of my colonies a question
worth answering. I captured ~30 foragers
from the entrance of each of
my 7 colonies and this article is
about what I found when I examined
their racial mixes.
Where do my ‘mongrels’ come
from?
My current bees originate from all
round Oxfordshire (red dots on map)
and are allowed to free-mate, so are
probably a good representation of
local bees. I know of 13 hives and
four feral colonies within 1km, and
each queen probably mates with a
dozen or more drones, so every
colony has a range of workers who
are half-sisters with different genetic
mixes producing different strengths
and weaknesses.
With seven colonies I feel secure that
I’m unlikely to lose them all at once –
never say never! – so I can be more
ruthless about natural selection. I
support casts in their first year, to
conserve their genetics until they are
large enough to support themselves,
but thereafter they are on their own.
Swarms are plentiful, I collected 13
this year (gave away most). If I have
empty hives I repopulate, preferentially
from long established local
feral colonies.
How I determined their racial mix
Unless you have access to DNA
analysis technology, the most reliable
honey bee race indicator is to
examine the vein patterns of the
fore-wings under a low power microscope.
In particular, the ratio of two
lengths, highlighted in the photo –
called the Cubital Index – is straightforward
to measure and a strong indicator
of the dominant race in the
bee’s genes.
Other indicators include other vein
features like the characteristic discoidal
angle; width of abdomen;
length of hair and proboscis; but surprisingly,
the colour of a bee is a
poor guide to its race unless it
comes from a very pure line. Most
hybrid colonies show a lot of variation
in bee colour. Most of the characteristics
are tricky to measure –
the difference between a 5 and 6mm
proboscis for example – so I’m just
using the worker Cubital Index for
now to get an overall profile of the
dominant races.
I took samples of foragers from each
of my hives and plotted the results
as graphs of Cubital Index against
frequency of occurrence, i.e. if eight
bees in the sample had CI’s of 2.1
this would show as a frequency of 8.
For pure racial samples you expect
to see a peaked or bell-shaped distribution
around a characteristic CI,
and the purer the lineage the narrower
the peak. This first graph
shows the spread of C.I for some
common pure races – normally the
range for an individual colony would
be narrower.
Results for my colonies
My sample size was 233 worker
bees, so just ~30 per hive, which is
just statistically acceptable to get an
overall initial profile. The black
columns peak around 2.1 and represent
the summary result for the entire
apiary – it can be thought of as a
first stab at the “North Oxfordshire
mongrel profile”. The smaller
coloured bars are results for individual
hives.
Conclusions
u There is a wide gene pool in the
apiary – with clear indication in the
range and shape of a mix of Buckfast
and Apis ligustica (Italian), with some
A.m.m.
u A lot of beekeepers round here
use Buckfasts, occasionally requeening
from local Buckfast queen rearers.
Buckfasts are already a hybrid
race created using a cross of mainly
Italian with A.m.m. (from both England
and France), Turkish and Greek
bees, with traces of two rare African
bees.
u There is little influence from
Carniolan which surprised me as I
see them talked about on forums a
lot, but maybe they are more popular
in other parts of the UK.
8 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
Fig. 3. Wings from one colony and cubital
index.
Fig. 4. Mutant! The wing vein patterns are incredibly
consistent, but I did come across one
bee, on the right, with an ambiguous C.I. due
to a non-standard pattern with a tiny extra cell.
Fig. 2. Map of Oxfordshire showing origins of
my colonies.
u If you click on the graph and
zoom in on the detail of individual
hives, they aren’t pure strains! Even
for the ones which have a bell
shaped curve, it is very broad, and
spans CI values which no one pure
race does.
u Anecdotal evidence implies Oxfordshire
bees allowed to supersede
and free-mate are getting darker and
expressing more native A.m.m. characteristics.
Looking in more detail
There are a couple of colonies (hives
1 and 2) which have a lot of A.m.m.
(true Black Bee) in their makeup – so
let’s have a closer look at these.
Hive 1 is a random cast I picked up
near Bicester this year – it is very
calm and a profuse user of propolis,
which may be other indicators of
A.m.m., but it seems to be poor at
building up stores, instead it eats all
its food and keeps breeding. Looking
at the profile, I think it is A.m.m.
crossed with something more spendthrift
like Italian, and although I fed
it and hope it will, I don’t fully expect
it to make it through winter as
it is still light. These bees aren’t particularly
dark, which illustrates how
(except in very pure lines) bee colour
doesn’t really tell you anything.
Hive 2 is an established colony
which descends from one Gareth
John gave me about three years ago
– he seems to have A.m.m. in his
locality and is finding his bees are
expressing more A.m.m. traits every
year.
So what next?
Measuring wing morphometry by
hand is clearly high-intervention for
those ~30 bees per colony, and also
time consuming and somewhat tedious,
so I am considering doing this
just once a year to see how the
make-up of my apiary is evolving (I
could then choose to encourage
those colonies with A.m.m. genes
being expressed). The mix is bound
to change as the queens supersede
and free-mate, and as I bring in replacement
swarms for any deadouts.
Obviously with all this random mixing,
and collecting feral swarms, I’ll
need to watch for aggression and
maybe need to force supersedure if I
get a nasty colony. This would retain
some of the colony’s genetics,
whereas simply replacing the queen
with one from another colony in the
apiary would reduce the local diversity
of ‘survivor’ genes. Another option
might be to requeen with one
from another local non-treatment
beekeeper. However, my colonies
have free-mated for the last six years
and I have not had any aggression
problems (neither have the bees!).
I’m sure the results could be improved
upon/added to with additional
sampling and other techniques
(see section below on what I could
do differently next time) but as a
first pass I feel it was quite interesting
and clearly shows distinct differences
between colonies. I already
knew each colony had a distinct ‘personality’
regarding e.g. breeding
rates, hygiene, vigour, comb building
preferences, honey storage and
propolis use; though their temperament
is uniformly mild, even the one
which is more actively guarded.
These differences will be partly due
to differences in hive types, colony
size (some are small casts caught
this year) and other environmental
factors.
What could I do differently next
time?
This was a first attempt at studying
wing morphometry and I’ve learnt
some other things since, but given
my low-intervention aims have yet to
decide whether to do a straight repeat
or alter my methodology next
time (suggestions welcome!):
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 9
Fig. 7. Cubital index: Hive 1.
Fig. 8. Cubital index: Hive 2.
Fig. 9. With hives this near our house and
neighbours, aggression is not an option.
Fig. 5. Cubital Index spread (for workers) of races common in Oxfordshire.
Fig. 6. Cubital indices overall and for individual hives.
u Wings should have their base
intact to allow the measurement of
Discoidal Angle, another indicator.
u and the measurements can be
refined by plotting them in different
classes on a log scale.
u In addition to wing morphometry,
abdominal markings, shape and
pilosity can be recorded too, although
these are weaker indicators
of racial origin.
u The sample bees should be
young workers in theory taken from
on the brood comb, to avoid the risk
of taking foragers who’ve drifted in
from other hives;
u A sample size of 50 rather than
30 is statistically better.
u I understand that the process
can be somewhat automated by
scanning wings and feeding the results
into DrawWing and Morphplot
software.
u If I can utilise semi-automation
(above point) then I could sample the
drones also. Drones have different
Cubital Indexes from workers so
need to be looked at separately. As
drones are meant to only have genes
from their queen mother, you would
expect their wings to be identical
within one colony and that their
racial mix would reflect exactly that
of the queen. But it would be interesting
to see if this holds, or if our
hybrid colonies’ drones vary within a
hive.
u the FERA lab in York offers DNA
testing of strains and may be able
to offer more accurate results to
compare with, but this sounds
expensive.
Paul Honigmann
Further reading
Breeding Techniques and Selection
for Breeding of the Honeybee by
Friedrich Ruttner contains a wealth
of detail on techniques to distinguish
A.m.m., Carniolan and Italian bees.
Available from Northern Bee Books.
This article was first published on
the website of the Oxfordshire
Natural Beekeeping Group
www.oxnatbees.wordpress.com
1&2 Day Bee Improvement Courses
This is the third year of BIBBA summer
Bee Improvement courses.
These will be apiary based, with topics
including colony assessment,
colony handling techniques, selection
criteria, producing queen cells,
cell building colonies, mating nucs,
etc. These courses are very popular,
with lots of information and tips on
improving your own and your local
bees. Past experience suggests they
are likely to fill up quickly.
Numbers will be limited to give attendees
individual attention where
needed. See the BIBBA website
https://bibba.com/event-info-2/
for details.
Currently the following 2 day
courses have been arranged:-
Thurs 8/Fri 9 June in North Wales.
Sat 10/Sun 11 June at Preston, Lancs.
Mon12/Tue 13 June, Preston, Lancs.
Wed 14/Thurs 15 June in N. Wales.
Other venues are being arranged.
See https://bibba.com/event-list/ for
venues. Prices may vary depending
on local costs. Please check before
booking.
Those in North Wales will be working
with native bees, at the apiary of
Steve Rose, in a rural location with
lovely surrounding scenery. In the
previous two years they have filled
up quickly (on one occasion within
48 hours of announcement!).
Bee Improvement Days
Planning is in progress for some all
day events, with presentations and
demonstrations on a number of topics
related to bee improvement and
queen rearing. No dates have been
fixed yet. Details will be circulated
when available.
Bee Improvement For All
(BIFA) Days.
We have nearly finished these for the
winter, but we are planning for next
winter. They are run in conjunction
with local BKAs.
BIFA days are intended to encourage
beekeepers to raise their own
queens from the best colonies in
their area, rather than using imported
queens. They are very popular,
giving beekeepers lots of ideas
on improving their bees, either on
their own or in a group.
We are in need of venues. If your
local BKA would like to stage one,
please contact Kevin Thorn
for details.
BIBBA at the National Honey Show
BIBBA will be working with the
National Honey Show by providing a
workshop on Friday 27th October.
Nick Bentham-Green and Steve Rose
will be presenting “Setting up and
Running a Local Bee Improvement
Group”. This is a National Honey
Show event, with tuition given by
BIBBA members Nick, who is Groups
Secretary, and Steve, who runs a very
successful breeding group in North
Wales.
Bookings will be limited, so regularly
check the NHS website for details.
Roger Patterson
BIBBA Conference and
Workshop Secretary
10 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
Future Bee Improvement and Queen
Rearing events
These courses are very popular, with lots of
information and tips on improving your own
and your local bees.
The Isle of Man may not be the centre
of the universe when it comes to
beekeeping, but that does not mean
that it is a backwater where there is
no change. In fact there have been
some very forward thinking and well
known beekeepers here.
Up until the late 1800s skeps were
the usual hive for bees on the island
as well as across (“across” is a Manx
term for the adjacent isles: England,
Ireland, etc). An old farmer in Andreas
(north end of the island) said
that every cottage had a skep or two
during the 1800s. Many islanders
were so poor and sugar so expensive,
it was essential.
Beekeeping started even before the
Irish gods were told to find an island
to go into exile. Mannanin came to
the Isle of Man and a song he sang
told of rivers pouring forth a stream
of honey!
In 1275 tythes of honey and wax
were charged, only changed to a
monetary payment in 1839.
A law of 1629 dealt the death
penalty for stealing hives, again only
repealed in 1817. Shame!
Two long lived beliefs about bees tell
of putting a bumble bee in your
purse to keep it with money in (probably
because it stung you if you tried
to get money out!); another saying in
the Middle Ages was that a Manx
woman would make a good wife only
if she was a good beekeeper.
There is still evidence of bee boles in
old stone farms outer walls even
today. They were mostly faced away
from the south-west winds rather
than a sunny aspect! There are
records that these were used well
into the 19th Century. Ones on
Ronaldsway Farm, knocked down to
make way for the Airport, were dated
1506.
However, beekeepers here were
quick to pick up on the moveable
frame hives well before the turn of
the century and a fascinating account
of Lancelot Quayle, who lived
in a tiny village on the west coast,
shows he and others were well aware
of how to build up their colonies
early in the season to take advantage
of and get, huge crops of wild flower
honey.
In 1897 Lancelot won the record for
the biggest British crop of honey
from one colony: 334lbs. He would
never have got that with skep beekeeping,
or the modern flora here on
the island! He also won a special
prize in Manchester for Bell Heather
honey in 1892.
Lancelot told of foul brood in his
colonies which reared its ugly head
now and again. He treated it with
sugar syrup to which was added
some Izal (a disinfectant used for
long years). It became clear though
that the only way to get rid of it was
to destroy all comb and disinfect
hives.
During his lifetime he sold hundredweights
of honey in jars and tins to
buyers in England for their own use
and to retail.
Records show that honey was traded
off the island much earlier, in fact in
the 17th and 18th centuries. Interesting
how they did this, in what
must have been skep beekeeping,
and everything being transported
by sea.
It is recorded that by 1911 a Mr Kelly
of Sulby in the north of the island
ran 120 hives.
A journalist for the British Bee Journal
reporting a trip to the island in
1914, said he had not seen a single
skep on the island, but all bees were
kept in “modern” hives. He also said
that most villages had at least one
beekeeper.
The first Beekeeping Association was
set up here on the island in 1913.
During the war the number of beekeepers
rose to 450. However, many
gave up post-war due to IOW Disease
and no longer needing to try and
make rations stretch.
Lancelot and all the beekeepers on
the island suffered badly from Isle of
Wight Disease which appeared in
1912, but by 1917 it was wiping out
whole Apiaries and continued into
the 1920s.* There seemed to be a
flurry of importation of queens to try
and replace the incredibly low numbers
of stocks – Italian and Carnolian
queens are mentioned.
It was a truly miserable time on the
island during the First World War. So
many families were mourning the
death of one or more of their young
men. They were worrying about the
internees billeted here eating huge
amounts of food, whilst they had
very poor rations. And to top it all,
when they really needed their honey,
they were losing their bees to Isle of
Wight Disease.
Importation of queens was popular
at the end of the 19th and beginning
of 20th Century. However, Lancelot
Quayle recorded that having lost all
his colonies to disease he had a wild
swarm of black local bees come in
and repopulate one of his hives!
They unfortunately hybridised with a
Dutch strain and they became very
swarmy and after that his yields went
right downhill.
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 11
A Short History of Manx Beekeeping
Beekeeping started even before the Irish gods
were told to find an island to go into exile.
Another son of the island John
Amery, born here in 1918, became
the beekeeping adviser to N. Scotland
Agricultural College aged
just 21.
Later in the 20th century the notable
characters Trevor Rimmer, Joe Crebbin,
Herbie Quirk and Harry Owens
amongst others, took up the cudgel
of not only keeping bees but doing it
in unusual ways.
Trevor Rimmer who was president of
our Federation when the last BIBBA
conference was here in 1973, kept
bees in a covered trailer which held
twelve hives. Each had access portals
to the open air of course! It was
not often moved, but enabled him to
do so if required, whilst keeping
them warm and dry.
Trevor also instigated the Manx Mark
for honey. He personally inspected
apiaries and kitchens where honey
was produced and if they passed
muster, they were issued with beautiful
red and gold labels for their
jars, each numbered and totally
traceable, and almost impossible to
remove! Again, way ahead of the
game.
Joe Crebbin at much the same period,
had a bee house beside his
plant nurseries at The Braaid. The
hives were kept in complete darkness
except when he worked the
colonies, when the shed door was
left open.
Herbie Quirk was a member of the
Federation committee when he realised
in the 1970s that varroa was
invading Europe. With much pressure
from Herbie and the Federation
committee of the time, restriction on
imports of bees to only those from
the British Isles was instigated. Then
with much lobbying the Manx government
were encouraged to shut
the door before this pernicious pest
got to the UK and climbed on a ferry
to cross to our shores.
Herbie was a forward thinker, and
with the help of another Quirk, this
time a Member of the House of Keys,
an order was passed to prevent the
import of any bees followed by the
“Importation of Bees Act”.
This was an act by our own parliament,
and much more recently the
EU became aware we had this restrictive
practice, and as we trade with
them they would not uphold our law.
After a huge amount of effort to
prove we do not have varroa on the
island, by Harry Owens and helpers,
we now are legal in the eyes of
the EU.
Harry Owens has also had a big hand
in bee breeding trials using the first
mini nucs which were trialled on the
Calf of Man, a 600 acre island off the
foot of our mainland. This was set
up in 1965 and managed by Tom
Cain and carried on for at least seven
years.
Some important figures in European
beekeeping were involved.
This is by no means a complete history
of Manx Beekeeping. But it is
difficult to find written evidence
without a huge amount of digging,
about what was after all a common
place and background activity.
Cilla Platt
*Editor’s note:
For a scientific view of the ‘Isle of
Wight Disease’, often attributed to
the acarine mite, see Leslie Bailey,
Honey Bee Pathology, Academic
Press 1981, p.81-84.
If bees do not respond to smoke
And handling them is no joke,
Their mother can’t be very nice.
Get rid of them at any price!
Apart from increasing the number of
stocks, the quality of your bees will
not improve unless you take a hand
in it. There are bad tempered bees,
which should not be tolerated. The
maxim is: cull the worst and breed
from the best.
In recent years following the decline
of bees, the cost of buying bees has
risen dramatically. Raising colonies
from your own bees is not only financially
worthwhile, but will ultimately
produce bees better suited to
your environment.
Choose a colony with desirable qualities
e.g. good honey production, low
swarming tendency, disease resistance,
docility, etc. – do not breed
from bad tempered colonies!
Build the colony up in the spring by
gentle feeding until the brood box is
full of bees. This can be as early in
the year as possible with the proviso
that drones are present in the apiary.
Find the queen and transfer her to a
nucleus hive with a comb of sealed
brood flanked by two frames of food
& pollen [and the adhering bees]. If
the nuc is to remain in the apiary,
shake in bees from two more combs.
Close up the combs in the original
colony and replace the removed
combs with frames of comb or foundation.
After 24 hours, feed with
weak syrup (1 lb sugar in 1 pint
water) – feeding immediately might
incite robbing.
12 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
Making Increase –
Simple Queen
Rearing
There are bad
tempered bees,
which should not
be tolerated…
Electronics Engineer
I am looking for an Electronics
Engineer to help and advise with
an amateur beekeeping project.
If you are suitably qualified and
have a bit of spare time to devote,
then please contact me to
discuss further.
Roger Patterson
T: 01403 790637
After four days, look for queen cells.
Remove any sealed queen cells –
they have been started on two day
old larvae (the best queens are produced
from <1 day old larvae).
After nine days, the brood box can
be divided into three separate parts,
i.e. the brood box + two nucs., each
with a sealed queen cell. The brood
box is left on the original site to collect
the flying bees. The bees in the
brood box can be brushed - do not
shake queen cells - into the nucs –
the flying bees and those hatching
are usually enough. After 24 hours,
the nuc should be fed.
The original colony now consists of a
queen-right nucleus and three other
nuclei with queen cells. The queens
should start to emerge about two
days later. They will mate with any
available drones. The next year the
colonies headed by these queens will
be producing drones like their
mother.
Another method is to divide a colony
that is making swarming preparations.
If the queen is present, remove
her to a hive on the original
stand. The remaining colony is
divided into nuclei, each with a
queen cell.
If you do not have suitable stocks for
propagation, you may be able to obtain
a queen cell from another beekeeper
from bees of known worth.
Nuclei that have been made up for
two days will start queen cells of
their own. They will readily accept
any other queen cells given to them.
The given queen cell will hatch first
and the small nucleus will allow the
queen to destroy their own cells.
Brian P. Dennis
Origins of our Native Bee
There are widespread misconceptions
about the meaning of the term
‘locally adapted bee’ which need to
be clarified. The honey bee (Apis
mellifera) returned to Britain after
the last Ice Age around 6,250 BC (ie.
over 8 thousand years ago). Our native
bee (Apis mellifera mellifera) belongs
to a group of sub-species that
is usually thought to have evolved on
the Atlantic coast. Its common (nonscientific)
name is very variable but
the most widely used version is
probably the ‘northern dark bee’ but
it is also referred to as the ‘British
black bee’ or ‘Welsh black bee’ or
simply the ‘black bee’. It is thought
to be most closely related to Apis
mellifera intermissa (Western side of
North Africa) and Apis mellifera iberica
(Spain and Portugal). The natural
distribution of A.m.m. starts north of
the Pyrenees in France, spreading
north into most of Western Europe
including Scandinavia, Northern Germany
and Northern Russia. Some
authorities consider the origin of
A.m.m. to be Northern Russia but
exactly how this can be reconciled
with its Atlantic (genetic) affinities is
not clear. No doubt DNA studies will
shed further light on this matter in
the near future.
Regardless of its true origins, this is
the race of honey bee that colonised
Britain when the climate and vegetation
became suitable and progressively
adapted to the changing
post-glacial climate. This is the origin
of the British native bee and,
with the closing of the land-bridge
with Europe, it would have continued
to evolve in genetic isolation - that is
until man came along and started to
move bees around. In response to
the widely different climatic regimes
that occur in Britain, locally adapted
strains would have developed. Similarly,
over the rest of its wide geographical
range in Europe, other
strains of A.m.m. have evolved in
the 10-12 thousand years since the
last glacial period and they differ
from our own island version, ie. you
can not import a true ‘native’ black
bee, only a near relative.
In Middle Europe the native subspecies
is the Carniolan bee (Apis
mellifera carnica) and in the Mediterranean
regions the Italian bee (Apis
mellifera ligustica) – again with many
local variations. As the ice sheets
withdrew they arrived by an entirely
different route round the eastern end
of the Mediterranean. These two
races are on a different branch of the
honey bee family to that of the
northern dark bee. All these different
sub-species or races of honey
bee (and some others) have been
repeatedly introduced to Britain over
the years – bees of Greek origin are
particularly popular at the present
time. All the sub-species (and
strains) are genetically compatible in
that they can inter-breed with our
native bee. The ‘incompatibility’ of
certain sub-species, particularly
those from the four different evolutionary
lineages, is sometimes discussed,
but usually in reference to
the temper of the offspring produced
from such crosses.
When the problems started
In the mid-19th century it became
the fashion for Victorian beekeepers
to import honey bees from other
parts of Europe (particularly the Italian
and Carniolan races) under the
assumption that they had advantages
(for beekeeping) compared
with the native bee. Importation of
non-native races accelerated in the
early 20th century in response to Isle
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 13
The natural distribution of A.m.m. starts north
of the Pyrenees in France, spreading north into
most of Western Europe. . .
What do we mean by locally
adapted bees?
of Wight disease – a problem that the
earlier importations may well have
created. Some people claimed that
the British black bee became extinct
at this time but, as with Mark Twain,
their death was greatly exaggerated.
Recent studies by BIBBA (and others)
have shown the native black bee,
with more or less its original genotype,
is alive and well in several parts
of Britain, and this includes parts of
Wales. Most black bees have been
exposed to other races and some
degree of genetic introgression has
occurred - such bees are usually
referred to as ‘near native bees’.
It was the northern dark bee that the
early colonists took with them to
places like North America, Australia
and New Zealand (where there are no
native honey bees). Several centuries
later it was replaced by what
were considered to be ‘better’ races
of bee (mostly Italian but some
Carniolan). However, it is interesting
to note, that in climatic conditions
similar to their natural range (such
as those found in South Island New
Zealand and Tasmania) the northern
dark bee has proved to be something
of a survivor and has persisted
as a background feral population
and in some places is still the beekeepers’
choice. What is even more
significant is that in these situations
the northern dark bee seems to have
resisted genetic introgression (remained
fairly pure) despite being
outnumbered by other races of bee
in beekeepers’ hives. On the contrary,
the flow of genes seems to be
from northern dark bee into the
other races and not vice versa. In
New Zealand this is welcomed by
some beekeepers who find that
‘mongrelized’ bees are better foragers,
but not by others who consider
an increase in defensive
behaviour (which often occurs) to be
unacceptable. The process underlying
this situation is simply natural
selection; swarms of Italian bees that
escape from beekeepers do not survive
for long in the wild. In the absence
of large scale queen rearing
and for use in regular (beekeeper
controlled) queen replacement, it
seems likely that the northern dark
bee would gradually re-establish itself
in beekeepers’ hives in some
areas.
Where can locally adapted bees
be found?
In Britain locally adapted bees have
developed in places where natural
selection is allowed to operate, without
(genetic) interference from outside
sources, over a number of
years. There is no information to say
how long this process takes but it
seems unlikely that stability could be
reached in less than 10 to 30 years.
Each time bees from external
sources are introduced to an area,
through their drones and swarming,
they create genetic ripples which
may take some time to die down. In
order for locally adapted bees to
become established in an area it
requires the elimination (or serious
reduction) of external genetic influences.
In any given area the result
of local adaptation may not be a
pure black bee (they are often mongrelized
– but appearances can be
deceptive) but there is no rule that
says the inclusion of some genes
from other races can not be adaptive.
In this context ‘adaptive’ simply
means they are genes that make
them fitter (more likely to survive) in
their locality. Some degree of genetic
introgression may also be an
advantage because species that
evolve in genetic isolation can lose
adaptability and find themselves at a
disadvantage when conditions
change - and this is exactly what
may happen with climatic change.
The mechanism by which locally
adapted bees are created is almost
entirely through natural selection
(survival of the fittest). The winter of
2012-13 was a severe test and the
colonies that survived must be assumed
to be those with greater fitness.
Tightly controlled bee
breeding is not a viable substitute
for natural selection because it is difficult
to know which characteristics
are important - and rather arrogant
to think we do know. In rigorous
selective breeding there can only be
loss of genes and no gain and in the
long-term that can have serious
implications – as has been discovered
in North America. It is a basic
misunderstanding of the biology of
the honey bee to attempt to breed it
using the type of model that has
been successful with other domesticated
animals. Herd animals, like
sheep and cattle, have a totally different
reproductive strategy in which
a single dominant male fathers most
of the offspring, often for a period of
several years. In this system males
born to the herd are usually driven
out as they approach sexual maturity
and disperse in search of a herd in
which they can oust the (aging) dominant
male. The result is a period of
inbreeding followed by a sudden
switch when a new male takes over
and introduces new genes. This is
very similar to the breeding system
that farmers employ to run their
stock, introducing a new ram or bull
every few years. By contrast the reproductive
strategy of the honey bee
is one of extreme out-breeding in
order to maintain the maximum
amount of intra-colony genetic diversity.
The honey bee is the most extreme
example of polyandry (mating
with multiple males) known to science
and this reproductive strategy
is pursued at no small risk to colony
survival. When a virgin queen goes
out to mate the whole future of the
colony depends on her safe return
(there is no backup plan) so mating
with numerous drones (10-20 is the
normal target) from as many different
sources as possible is clearly
vital to the way in which a honey bee
colony functions.
Swarms from feral colonies
Swarms often get a bad press and
advice ranges from treat them with
extreme caution (put them in quarantine)
to killing them by spraying a
solution of detergent. This attitude
seems to be based on the fear that
they are carrying disease. Whilst this
may be true of swarms that have emanated
from the hives of other beekeepers,
the risk with feral swarms
seems to be low. I have asked NBU
how many outbreaks of AFB can be
traced back to feral colonies and
there seem to be few if any confirmed
examples. The New Zealand
14 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
handbook entitled Elimination of
American Foulbrood without the use
of Drugs claims that feral colonies
are rarely a source of this disease –
and they have high levels of AFB.
The advantage of swarms from feral
colonies is that they have been subjected
to natural selection and survived
in a condition in which they are
able to swarm. This they have done
on their own merits and without cosseting
by beekeepers and can, therefore,
be regarded as a possible
‘shortcut’ to a better adapted bee.
So how can you recognise a feral
swarm? Best of all you can have
found the location of a feral colony
and seen it actually swarm. Or you
can recover a colony from a feral
nest site. For some swarms there is
only circumstantial evidence that
they have a feral origin. Small castsize
swarms that turn out to be
prime swarms (ie. have an already
mated queen who starts to lay immediately)
and are found in an area
where there are no known beekeepers
are probably of feral origin. We
place a great value on such bees and
at least half or our current colonies
have this genetic background. Fig 1
shows the queen and some workers
from a feral swarm and Fig. 2 shows
the recovery of a colony from the
wall of a shed. For the shed colony
there was evidence that it had been
in residence continuously for at least
the two previous seasons.
Why do beekeepers want to
purchase queens?
One of the motivations behind beekeepers
wanting to purchase pure
bred races of non-native bee is their
low level of defensive behaviour,
resulting in easier handling. The
northern dark bee has a bad reputation
in this respect but this is primarily
because it is difficult to establish
and maintain a reasonably pure race
under conditions where there is a
continually changing genetic background
from other races. Beekeepers
who buy other races to obtain
good temperament are in fact purchasing
a time-bomb. This is only a
short-term solution because when
subsequent generations of queens
mate with local bees the result is
often extreme aggressive behaviour.
It is with what is called the F2 generation
(but in genetic terms should
probably be called the F1) of interracial
crosses that the worst problems
occur. They are also
jeopardising the genetics of their
neighbours’ bees – no beekeeper is
an island.
The way forward
The above explanation should have
made it clear that locally adapted
bees can not be bred but only be
bred from. The only place you can
breed from locally adapted is locally
and this means that large scale or
centralized breeding can not (by definition)
be the best solution.
The Welsh Beekeepers’’ Association
aims to encourage its affiliated Beekeeping
Associations (and their individual
members) to become
self-sufficient for new colonies and
queens using locally adapted breeding
stock. If this can be achieved it
will reduce the market for imported
queens and bees and this is the only
practical way forward. This policy involves
an important element of positive
feedback because, as more areas
become populated with locally
adapted bees, the easier it will be to
establish a population of near-native
bees. The WBKA have produced a
booklet on Simple Means of Making
Increase which has been distributed
to all members. The booklet is
down-loadable from the WBKA website
(under ‘Library’ – ‘Library documents’)
- but really needs colour -
and has also been published by
Northern Bee Books (ISBN 978-1-908
904-75-1).
In conclusion I would draw your
attention to the summary from an
article written by Leslie Bailey from
the IBRA publication Bee World in
1999 entitled “The quest for a superbee”:
“Highly intensive selection of the
honey bee for any quality [my italics]
may decrease its resistance to its
wide variety of enzootic pathogens
by decreasing its genetic variability.
Maintenance of naturally adapted
regional strains by traditional means
and management that least inhibits
their essentially independent lifestyle
may be more rewarding.”
Les Bailey is an internationally
renowned honey bee pathologist and
made these comments primarily in
relation to bee disease. There has
been much research over intervening
years on the importance of intracolony
genetic diversity which only
serves to reinforce his opinions.
Wally Shaw
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 15
Articles wanted
We are always looking for suitable
articles and images related
to A.m.m bees and beekeeping.
If you have been on a course,
attended a lecture or are setting
up an A.m.m breeding group,
and wish to write an article
about your experiences, then
please write to our Editor –
Philip Denwood.
Contact Philip at:
Fig. 1. Queen and workers from a Wesh
feral swarm.
Fig. 2. Colony in the wall of a shed.
Abstract
With the growing realization that
original, locally adapted bees compared
to hybrids or introduced subspecies
have an advantage, the
desire for protected areas for those
local breeds receives further support
and encouragement. In this publication
we report on the status of the
Dark Bee Apis mellifera mellifera,
(A.m.m.; mellifera), in Switzerland
and about efforts which are being
executed to maintain this local race
(subspecies) and ecotype.
Introduction
Since industrialization, man has used
global resources intensively and in
doing so stressed many of our
ecosystems. We endanger our own
long-term bases of existence. The
UN has addressed these problems
and in December 1993, the Convention
on Biological Diversity came into
force1. Switzerland ratified this in
1994, which means that the cantons
(provinces) have to act according to
this agreement which means they are
obliged to maintain biodiversity and
ecosystems and use them in a sustainable
way2.
This concerns countless creatures,
even our native bee races (Fig. 1).
The development of the bee races
in Switzerland
In Switzerland two original, native
honey bee races of Apis mellifera are
kept: Apis mellifera mellifera north
of the Alps and Apis mellifera ligustica
south of the Alps3. In addition
two foreign bee races are kept,
namely the native bee of Carinthia
and Slovenia, Apis mellifera carnica
and the one brother Adam (1898-
1996) bred in the Benedictine
Monastery of Buckfast in Devon (England)
called the Buckfast race.
The search for ‘better’ bees (more
honey and/or swarms) began already
in the late 19th century. Experiments
with foreign bee races followed
in the late 1950s. After the
suppression of the dark bee was
already well advanced in Germany,
the spread of the Carnica race in
Switzerland gradually started. The
main motives for this were probably
the seemingly more quiet nature, the
fertility and early honey foraging of
these colonies. However, this action
resulted in a fateful hybridization of
the native population and in particularly
aggressive colonies, which was
again used in the episode as an argument
against A.m.m.. Certainly,
at that time such relationships and
the importance and the value of
locally adapted populations were
little known. And so this ominous
development for the dark bee took
its course until dedicated Swiss beekeepers
founded towards the end of
the last century the Swiss Association
of Mellifera Bee Friends (VSMB)
and engaged themselves for the promotion
and preservation of the dark
bee. In the meantime, the dark bee
which was native in all of Switzerland
virtually disappeared in the Frenchspeaking
area. In the Central Plateau
of the country there is actually no coherent
population anymore. In the
foothills and the Alps this bee could
survive (with few exceptions) quite
well. The pressure comes, however,
from single colonies of other races
causing hybridization and with that
disturbance of breeding efforts. Of
the approximately 100,000 colonies
of today in German-speaking
Switzerland about 10,000 are purebred
Apis mellifera mellifera and
perhaps 30,000 are mellifera hybrids.
Particularly in regions with
predominantly mellifera hybrids and
few colonies of other races it would
be useful to establish a unified mellifera
population. Everyone would
win: the bees and the beekeepers.
The threat to lose many bee races
is recognized
Other races of bees in Europe came
under pressure, too, as for example
the Siculan Bee of Sicily and the Dark
Bee of La Palma4. However, especially
during the last 10 years the importance
of preserving all Honeybee
breeds is now undisputed, this in
order to conserve biodiversity. For
years, this disastrous development
has been noted in scientific studies.
A few years ago even Prof. H. Pechhacker,
Austrian Carnica Association
(ACA), said at a breeder meeting in
Hungary: “Major parts of our native
European bee races are threatened
with extinction”. Also in the final report
of the project Beekeeping and
Apis Biodiversity in Europe (BABE) it
is warned about an ominous proliferation
of “seemingly superior races of
bees”5.
In connection with the high colony
losses in recent years, the importance
of origin and selection of the
bees has been examined and significant
interactions between location
and bee origin were found. A locally
adapted bee is in other regions often
less successful6,7,8,9. Alice Pinto
points to the threat of destabilising a
long-established successful genome
in a given area: “Accordingly, native
honey bee subspecies represent
reservoirs of unique combinations of
genes and adaptations to local conditions
that must be preserved and
passed on to future generations of
beekeepers”. (Pinto, M.A. et al.
16 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
The search for ‘better’ bees (more honey
and/or swarms) began already in the late
19th century.
Bee races and Protected Areas
in Switzerland
Fig. 1. Dark bees with queen, drones and
workers. (Photo: Balser Fried.)
2014, in press)11. In addition De la
Rúa et al., 201310, make the point as
follows: "Admixture may lead to increased
genetic diversity, yet it may
also compromise local adaptations
by disrupting co-evolved gene complexes
fine-tuned by natural selection
over evolutionary time".
Sanctuaries for endangered typical,
locally adapted bees
As stated, therefore, the importance
of typical, locally adapted bees is
very high. But we also know that
their protection is in general very difficult,
especially for our native dark
bee. The understanding of the necessity
of protection and therefore
the willingness to restrain are not
with us, and abroad a similar attitude
is present. Thus, at the Apimondia
2013 in Kiev, for the first
time a conference meeting (Fig. 2)
on endangered bee races took
place12. Interestingly, even the
Slovenian representative complained
about the impact of “yellow bees”
from Austria. The whole country of
Slovenia is a Carnica-sanctuary and
the adjoining Austrian Länder of
Kärnten and Steiermark are legally
Carnica sanctuaries! A certain irony
is - from the point of view of mellifera
- hard to hide
In order to avoid the disastrous
crosses between bee races, protected
areas (sanctuaries), are
mandatory where only a single bee
population can be kept. For practical
reasons islands such as Ouessant, a
Breton island in France, the Scottish
island of Colonsay in the Atlantic or
Kangaroo Island in Australia are, in
particular suited for that. In an interior
land like Switzerland very high
mountains form valleys which offer
excellent sheltered places. These
have usually an open access, where
natural migration by swarms and
thus hybridization can occur. This
must be countered by changing
queens.
Four protected areas for the Dark
Bee in Switzerland
Today, the four existing sanctuaries -
Canton of Glarus (about 1000
colonies), Biosfera Val Mu?stair (about
300 colonies), Diemtigtal Natural
Park (about 300 colonies) and the
Great Melchtal (about 50 colonies) -
are maintained locally. The VSMB
offers support and advice when
needed. However, the necessary
input exceeds the financial capacity
of the local beekeeper's organizations.
The Federal Ministry of Agriculture
(BLW) evaluates the projects
proposed jointly by apisuisse (the
national beekeepers organisation)
and VSMB to promote endangered
Swiss bee subspecies13. This also
testifies the legitimacy of protected
areas. The funds will be mainly used
for finding racially pure colonies in
partly hybridized populations and to
assess drone colonies for local mating
stations. With purchase of racial
pure and ecotype queens, hybridized
colonies are requeened. The hybrid
test is performed with DNA analysis
of the queens. Thus it can be determined
whether the queen emerged
from a non-pure mating or a pure
breed mating14.
Beekeeping in VSMB is based on two
pillars: on the one hand pure breeding
from typical colonies. In this,
drone colonies are stationed, which
consist of sister queens, bred from a
colony according to the rules of ‘Beebreed’
15, 24. The whole population
consists of many lines and is managed
in a well-balanced way. Special
care is taken to avoid inbreeding.
The second pillar comprises the protected
areas in which local, mixed
mating is not only possible but
highly desirable, because the whole
bee population in the area is free
from other races or hybridized
colonies. Due to the free mating a
great genetic diversity is maintained.
That does not, however, mean that
in a conservation area no quality promotion
by selection in the population
should be aimed at. In our case,
race specific mating stations (B stations)
are found in some protected
areas. The drone colonies there
originate from different sources. For
the care and management of
colonies in a conservation area the
VSMB has established guidelines16.
Colonies and queens from protected
areas are very important for the entire
mellifera breeding program as a
genetic reservoir for new blood.
In recent years, several projects have
been realized in Switzerland, which
had the objectives to identify purebred
stocks of the Dark Bee, to multiply
it, to protect it and to preserve
it for future generations. These are
the legally protected conservation
area in the Canton Glarus, the mating
stations Grund and Gletsch in the
Canton of Valais as well as the Great
Melchtal (OW). Additionally legally
unprotected areas exist in the Val
Mu?stair. In the following, we report
on the status of these efforts and the
necessary measures taken in the
various regions17.
Canton Glarus
In 1977, the political bodies of the
Canton of Glarus decided that in
their Canton only native bees may be
kept. This decision was anchored in
the cantonal agricultural law. All
other races are not admitted. In
Article 1 of the corresponding law on
beekeeping and bee breeding from
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 17
Fig. 2. Round table at the Apimondia 2013 in Kiev on the topic ‘Conservation of endangered bee
races’. Chair: Maria Bouga, University of Athens, then from left: Per Kryger, University of Aarhus,
Denmark and rightmost Ralph Bu?chler, Bieneninstitut Kirchhain. (Photo: Balser Fried.)
May 1 1978 it is literally stated that
“across the canton only bees of local
landrace the Dark Alpine bee Apis
mellifera mellifera may be held and
maintained”. Other articles regulate
the breeding issues, the notification
requirement and the temporary
colony migration. In the years 2006-
2008 the Swiss Association of Bee
Friends (VDRB) realized a project
with the aim to promote pure breed
type colonies. Wing measurements
were used to differentiate hybrids
from pure bred colonies. After the
results were analysed, a series of
queens were replaced in the northern
part of the canton because it
was recognized that in this part of
the canton a strong mixing had
occurred18.
In 2012 the Society of Friends of
Glarner Bees (VGB) launched together
with the VSMB (financed by the company
‘Innocent’, fruit juice manufacturer)
a project to obtain a preliminary
verification of racial purity in
Sernftal (local valley) using the DNA
hybrid test. The aim was to obtain a
clue about the extent of mixture
there. Samples were taken and analyzed.
In 16 of 17 cases, racial purity
was found.
In a new project, again funded by the
VSMB and ‘Innocent’, started in
2014, and in one apiary in Sernftal
hybrid colonies were replaced with
purebred queens. A second activity
is driven by three family beekeepers.
They produce from their 'old' Glarner
colonies queens and sell them to interested
beekeepers in the canton or
elsewhere. The local society subsidizes
the queens and covers the
costs of the office which executes
the wing measurements to determine
the racial purity. The VSMB
funded DNA analysis. The aim is to
achieve that pure ‘Glarner blood’ is
propagated. For 2015-2017 it is
planned to carry out similar work in
the canton, mainly in the northern
part of it.
A problem to be solved in the canton
of Glarus remains to be solved: the
mating station, which had existed for
over 100 years in Klöntal, had to be
closed in 2013 because of foreign influence
through a newly established
Buckfast mating station in the neighbouring
Wägital19. For this unsatisfactory
situation one will continue to
look for an acceptable solution.
Val Mu?stair
The Val Mu?stair (Mu?nstertal) is
located in the south-eastern part of
Switzerland and is surrounded on
three sides by high mountains. To
the southeast, the valley opens up to
Italy. The local beekeepers’ association
was founded in 1897 and as
long as anyone can remember dark
bees have been kept there20. After
the Second World War individual beekeepers
began to requeen with
Carnica bees hoping to earn higher
yields and gentler colonies. The
concomitant hybridization with the
negative by-product of increased defence
readiness followed at once and
did not satisfy the majority of the
local beekeepers. Therefore, in
2006 the local beekeepers association
unanimously decided within the
project Biosfera Val Mu?stair (Care
and Development Zone of UNESCO),
to initiate a project of propagating
the pure Dark Bee. The request for
the project came from local beekeepers
association and the VSMB together
with Pro Specie Rara. In the
following second phase, Apisuisse
was included (Fig 3).
The aim was to build a sanctuary for
the Dark Bee and thus contribute to
the preservation of it. Funding was
provided by the BLW and internal voluntary
work. Altogether, about 300
colonies from about 20 beekeepers
are held in the valley. In the six
years of the project (two phases,
each of three years, 2006-2012)
about 500 queens were produced
and distributed. The main activity
focused on the raising of local
queens for requeening hybridized
colonies and the procurement of
purebred drone colonies for the mating
station. In the first phase of the
project the racial purity was determined
by means of wing analysis, in
the second phase the DNA hybrid
test was used for it. Overall, the
project can be assessed as very suc-
18 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
Fig. 3. The Val Mu?stair is surrounded by high mountains. View from the Ofenpass to Lu? at 1920m
above sea level, the highest village in the valley. (Photo: Balser Fried.)
Fig. 4. The maiing station Las Clastras in Val
Mu?stair is located at 2000m and is open all
year! The electric fence protects against bears
and is being reactivated here after work by Duri
Prevost, Breeding Chief, and Renata Bott, President.
(Photo: Balser Fried.)
cessful. But to secure what has been
achieved, it is still necessary to continue
with the DNA hybrid tests and
especially towards the southeast
substitution of queens may be
needed.
Diemtigtal
Christoph Wissler, a dedicated local
beekeeper, took the initiative in
2010 to start the project of a protected
area for the Dark Bee in the
Nature Park Diemtigtal21. The goal
was to locate and identify the existing
population of purebred mellifera
colonies, to breed queens from these
colonies and requeen the hybrids.
The Diemtigtal is geographically well
suited to ensure secure local mating.
A survey of the local beekeepers
found 90% support for this idea. The
project was also welcomed by the
Diemtigtal Nature Park and financially
supported. In the year 2011
150 DNA samples were taken, 60
pure colonies were identified and 66
queens were substituted. In each
year of 2012 and 2013 82 queens
were substituted. A project of this
magnitude requires meticulous planning
and coordination of all stakeholders.
In addition, in the Diemtigtal
Valley when at lower altitudes
dandelions already bloom, at higher
altitudes there is still snow on the
ground. In the following years it is
necessary to consolidate the work.
For that, external visual characteristics
are considered, supported by
DNA analyses, and where hybridization
is there, queens are replaced.
Additionally queens will be bred and
hybridization monitored.
Grosses Melchtal
In the canton of Obwalden various
bee races are held: the dark bee, the
Carnica and the Buckfast. In order to
avoid crosses between races, welldefined
protection zones where only
the dark bee may be held are necessary.
The Beekeepers’ Association
Obwalden has set itself the task to
contribute his part for the conservation
and propagation of the dark bee
by establishing a mating station in
Melchtal (Stöckalp). Such a mating
station was mentioned in documents
as early as 1898. Today it is increasingly
used by members of the association
but also of external breeders.
After the Beekeepers’ Association
Obwalden had in principle decided
for the protection of the dark bee, increasingly
the desire was also expressed
to establish a legally bound
conservation zone in Melchtal. Contacts
with interested parties and the
various offices were established.
Based on these investigations then
the government of the canton Obwalden
approved the request for the
conservation region ‘Grosses Melchtal’
by adapting a supplement to the
regulations on protected animal and
plant species. This supplement entered
into force on April 1, 201322.
Thanks to financial support of the
company ‘Innocent’, DNA analysis
and changing of queens could be
made in 2013. Similar work was
planned for 2014 and 2015.
Canton Valais
It remains to mention that two mating
stations in the Valais have been
declared protected areas. This is the
B-mating station in Grund on the
Simplon Pass and the A-mating station
Gletsch on the Furka Pass. The
corresponding order from the Valais
State Council was issued on September
28th, 2008 based on the Law on
Agriculture and Rural Development23.
Final considerations
These protected areas are already
more than a ray of hope for the conservation
of biodiversity of honeybees
in Switzerland. Their consolidation
and security will remain an ongoing
task. This requires funds (the
Federal Government has promised
this) and continuous engagement of
committed beekeepers who fulfil the
task with a lot of passion. We recognise
their work with thanks and appreciation.
With the breeding work
in the context of Beebreed24, our native
bee developed into a quiet, powerful
partner and in which the
hygiene aspect is given greatest attention.
There is no objective reason
not to keep the dark bee. The VSMB
who is heavily involved in this activity
is neither naïve nor fundamentalist.
We do not want to turn back the
wheel of time. But it is a reality: the
dark bee does not exist anymore
everywhere in Switzerland. Although
the conservation of biodiversity is
recognized politically and socially at
all levels, there are still areas with
predominant mellifera population
where selective resistance to protective
measures are found, leading to
unnecessary tensions. For a consensual,
sustainable coexistence the
mellifera beekeepers expect a more
considerate behaviour in the following
points:
u Individual beekeepers living in the
middle of a proven area of a breed
should not establish differently bred
colonies and hybridize the whole environment.
This applies analogously
to migrant beekeepers.
u No queens of other races are to be
sold in established protected areas.
Free market economy in honour, but
not at any price!
u Bee houses and bee sheds that
have an obvious impact on sanctuaries
and mating stations are to be
moved.
It would also be highly desirable if
there were national legal bases for
the implementation of such protected
areas. The fundamental constitutional
principle of proportionality
should be respected: must it really
be accepted that in a larger area
with dark bees, differently bred
colonies can be kept, hybridizing
the local indigenous mellifera
population?
A lot has already been achieved, but
there are still challenges to work on
the legitimate aim of sustainable
preservation of our unique Swiss
breed of bees. It's not only important
to start something, it’s crucial to
lead it to an end.
Balser Fried, Padruot Fried
Swiss Association of Mellifera Bee
Friends (www.mellifera.ch)
B. Fried, Azmoos, Switzerland.
E-Mails: , and BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 19
References
1. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Biodiversit%C3%A4ts-Convention
2. http://www.bafu.admin.ch/
international/04692/04696/index.ht
ml?lang=de
3. Ordinance on Livestock: Art. 12
4. http://www.beekeeping.com/
artikel/canaries.htm
5. Final Report of the EU project
«Beekeeping and Apis Biodiversity in
Europe» (https://wiki.ceh.ac.uk/
display/biota/BABE ).
6. Bu?chler, R. (2011) “Eine Frage
der Herkunft? A question of origin?”
German Bee Journal 2011-12: 8-9.
http://www.bienenjournal.de/
die-zeitschrift/archiv-suche/
7. Blumer-Meyre, P. (2014) “Local
bees are better.” Schweizerische
Bienenzeitung 7: 42. “Lokale Bienen
sind besser.“
http://issuu.com/vdrb_ch/docs/sch
wbienenzeitung_juli2014
8. Meixner, M.; Bu?chler, R. (2014)
“Where to find ‘the best bee’?” ADIZ
8: 7-9.
9. Quote Dr. R. Bu?chler; Report DIB
Breeder Conference 2012: “ According
to current knowledge, the
genetic predisposition of the provenience
and their local adaptation is
of utmost importance. The diversity
of races and ecotypes must be obtained.
For our breeding success in
Carnica we are indeed envied, but
the unilateral selection for honey resulted
in an increase of susceptibility
to Varroa. Therefore a lot of responsibility
lies with the breeders".
10. De la Rúa, P.; Jaffé, R.; Dall Olio,
R.; Muñoz, I.; Serrano, J. (2009) “Biodiversity,
conservation and current
threats to European honeybees.”
Apidologie 40:263-284
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/
00/89/20/07/PDF/hal-00892007.pdf
11. Pinto, M. A. et al. (2014)
“Genetic Integrity of the Dark European
honey bee (Apis mellifera mellifera)
from protected populations: a
genome-wide assessment using SNPs
and mtDNA sequence data.” Journal
of Apicultural Research 53 (2): 269-
278
http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/
Diversity-of-protected-A-m-mellifera
12. Bouga, M. (2013) RT_conservation_
Bouga_Apimondia_Kiev.doc
(www.mellifera.ch and then click on
“Literatur”).
13. Maintenance and preservation of
the endangered dark bee in Switzerland
in four protected areas
(www.mellifera.ch and then click) on
«Publications».
14. Soland, G. (2012) “The importance
of DNA Hybrid Tests for breeding
and conservation of the dark bee
in Switzerland.” Mellifera Magazin 1:
22-26
“Die Bedeutung des DNA-Hybridtests
fu?r die Zucht und Erhaltung der
Dunklen Biene Schweiz.”
http://www.mellifera.ch/cms/
magazin/16-magazin-1-12
15. Sutter, F. (2014) “The father
side.” Swiss Bee Journal 5: 13-15.
“Die Vaterseite.“
http://issuu.com/vdrb_ch/docs/
schwbienenzeitung_mai2014
16. VSMB document: (2014)
“Strategy of protected areas VSMB.”
www.mellifera.ch and then click on
“Publications”.
17. The text on protected areas is
based on relevant chapters of the
project submitted by apisuisse to
Ministry of Agriculture (responsible
R. Ritter and involvement from VSMB
Padruot Fried) (www.mellifera.ch and
then click on “Publications”).
18. Rickenbach, Ch. (2011) “Sanctuary
for Apis mellifera mellifera in
Glarnerland.” Mellifera Magazin 2:
15-17
http://www.mellifera.ch/cms/magazin/
17-magazin-2-11
Schutzgebiet Apis mellifera mellifera
Glarnerland
19. Knobel, R. (2012) “History and
operation of the Mating station Klöntal.“
“Werdegang und Betrieb der
Belegstation Klöntal.“
(www.mellifera.ch and then click on
«Literature» ).
20. Letter by Hunkeler from the year
1947 to BZV Val Mu?stair in which he
refers to the beautiful Dark Nigra Bee
and recommends to maintain it carefully
(www.mellifera.ch and then click
on “Publications”).
21. Wissler, Ch. (2011) “Sanctuary
for the Dark Bee in Diemtigtal.”
Mellifera Magazin1:19
http://www.mellifera.ch/cms/
magazin/18-magazin-1-11
Schutzgebiet Dunkle Biene Diemtigtal
22. Huser, E: (2013). “A Sanctuary
for Apis mellifera mellifera in Melchtal.”
Mellifera Magazin 1: 16-17
http://www.mellifera.ch/cms/magazin/
14-magazin-1-13
Schutzgebiet Apis mellifera mellifera
Melchtal
23. Sanctuary agreement with the
canton of Valais
www.mellifera.ch and then click on
“Publications”
24. Breeding concept ‘Beebreed’
https://www2.hu-berlin.de/beebreed/
ZWS/
A.m.Mellifera
Genetic evaluation
Swiss Association of Mellifera Bee
Friends no.: 50
NOTE:
Literature not available at ”www.
Mellifera.ch” can be obtained from
the author: 20 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
The B4 Project –
Press Release
Bees are among the most charismatic
and familiar animals of the insect
world. Thoughts of a summer’s
day picnic in a meadow are not complete
without the recollection of the
hum of bees or the sight of a belaboured
bee lifting off from a flower
with its heavy load of pollen. And of
course, some bees give us honey
too.
Despite these positive associations,
many casual observers are unaware
that there are many different species
of bee. In the UK alone there are
around 250 species, which includes
the honey bee, 24 species of bumblebee
and many solitary species.
Unfortunately, many of these species
are now under threat, with widespread
records of significant reductions
in their abundance. The
reasons for the declines are complex
but are generally associated with
agricultural intensification and the
associated losses of floral diversity,
and the use of agrochemicals and
pesticides. There are also interconnected
threats from the spread of
novel diseases and pathogens.
It is important to tackle threats to
bees not just for aesthetic reasons,
but because of the value of the pollination
service they provide. Insect
pollination of crops and wildflowers
has been estimated to have an annual
economic worth of €153 billion.
Honey bees are the most commercially
important of all bee species,
for their role in pollination of crops
and because they provide us with
honey, but like many of their sister
species they have suffered recent
heavy declines in numbers. “Colony
collapse disorder” has become welldocumented
over recent years as
having a very significant impact on
honey bee colonies, but there is no
single smoking-gun identified as its
cause. Like all other bees, honey
bees face losses of floral diversity,
the impacts of pesticides (like neonicotinoids),
the spread of pests and
diseases (such as the Varroa mite,
foulbrood and chalkbrood) and are
affected over winter by the weather
and the strength of the colony in the
autumn.
One important aspect of the conservation
of bee diversity is recognising
the diversity that exists within
species. There are 27 subspecies
(distinct varieties) of honey bee
across the world, and 10 within
Europe alone (which owe their origin
to the glacial history of Europe).
Within these varieties lies much
genetic variation. Having genetic
variation and thus diversity within
species is important as it enables
species to adapt and survive in
changing environments. Favourable
traits that allow individuals to survive
(e.g. disease resistance) are
coded for in DNA and passed on
from one generation to the next.
Because genetic variation is this raw
material for evolution, it is important
to conserve it: species that are more
genetically variable have a greater
probability of long-term survival.
Genetic variation in natural populations
of honey bee is distributed
among individuals but also among
different varieties of honey bee, and
populations of these varieties.
Conserving the diversity that exists
among varieties of honey bee now is
therefore a crucial legacy for future
generations. There is some debate
amongst academics about how this
genetic diversity should be maintained.
On the one hand, commercial
practices used by commercial
honey bee keepers could threaten
the native diversity that exists. Most
commercial honey bee colonies are
from two Mediterranean varieties of
honey bee (Apis mellifera ligustica
and Apis mellifera carnica). Hybridisation
between these varieties and
native ones can potentially erode the
local adaptations and genetic integrity
of naturally occurring varieties.
On the other hand, hybridization
itself can increase genetic diversity,
although the way that it is
‘structured’ and distributed amongst
natural varieties is altered. Many
conservation biologists believe the
best way to manage and ‘futureproof’
natural populations is to
maintain the natural population
structuring that occurs. This allows
varieties to act as important ‘reservoirs’
of genetic variation.
Being alert to this potential loss of
diversity amongst varieties, a group
of beekeepers in Cornwall have come
together to try and conserve native
honey bee diversity in south-west
England. Under the banner ‘B4:
bringing back black bees’, this group
is interested in protecting the UK’s
native honey bee variety, Apis mellifera
mellifera. Recently, the group
has come together with staff at
Plymouth University to use modern
genetic methods to ask how distinct
black bees are in south-west England,
and whether much uncontrolled
mating with commercial
colonies has already taken place.
Building on this project, which has
revealed that while there has been
some hybridisation, some apiaries
contain relatively pure Apis mellifera
mellifera, B4 and staff at Plymouth
University are about to embark on an
exciting new project that will investigate
local adaptation in UK populations
of dark honey bee. This will
involve using the latest in genetic
screening techniques as well as looking
at colony traits such as worker
production, disease susceptibility,
colony longevity and honey yield of
honey bees with different genetic
signatures. They will also investigate
the feasibility of cryopreserved
sperm as an archive of genetic material
for safeguarding present day
genetic variation (and therefore local
adaptation) for the future. A Ph.D
project is currently being advertised,
funded by the Natural Environment
Research Council.
For more details see
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/AWF502/
nerc-case-studentship-bringing-backblack-
bees-investigating-the-genomic-
and-phenotypic-basis-of-localadaptation-
in-the-black-honey-beeapis-
mellifera-mellifera/.
School of Biological & Marine
Sciences, Plymouth University
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 21
On October 20th-23rd, 2016, over
60 delegates from 15 countries met
at De Werelt Conference Centre in
Lunteren for the latest SICAMM (International
Society for the Protection
of the Black Bee) conference.
SICAMM was established in 1995 at a
meeting in Flekkefjord, Norway, of
beekeepers and scientists concerned
about protecting the remaining populations
of the European dark bee
(Apis mellifera mellifera, A.m.m.).
The Lunteren conference was held in
association with the Dutch organisation
De Duurzame Bij (The Sustainable
Bee). Opening the meeting,
SICAMM vice-president Per Thunman
pointed out that the original range of
A.m.m. stretched across Europe
northward from the Pyrenees and
Alps and from Ireland in the west to
Russia in the east. Almost all countries
within this range were represented
at the conference. As well as
the status of the various European
A.m.m. populations, topics covered
included varroa tolerance, legal and
practical aspects of conservation,
bee improvement and breeding, foraging
by A.m.m., genetic research,
and commercial opportunities for
A.m.m. beekeepers.
Romée van der Zee reported on
studies of the A.m.m. population on
the Dutch island of Texel. Research
revealed lower losses among the 200
or so A.m.m. colonies on Texel than
in the mixed honey bee population
of the mainland. Opening of thousands
of sealed worker cells revealed
a much higher percentage of non-viable
varroa offspring. Given that the
optimum temperature for mite reproduction
is 33ºC and that mite reproduction
is limited or delayed at
temperatures above 34.5ºC, it may
be that black bees are better at
maintaining a higher temperature in
the brood nest.
Marleen Boerjan of the Dutch organisation
De Duurzame Bij (The Sustainable
Bee) discussed efforts to
develop varroa-tolerant honey bees.
Initially, the organisation combined
the varroa-tolerant properties of
Primorsky bees from the U.S. with
A. m. carnica and Buckfast strains
already showing some varroa tolerance.
However, in recent years, research
has concentrated on A.m.m.
from Texel because of its apparently
high tolerance to varroa. Varroa-tolerant
behaviour is analysed using a
statistical protocol based on the continuous
counting of mite fall. The
data can be used as fundamental
selection criteria for varroa tolerance,
and more and more of the
tested colonies are surviving winter
without varroa treatment.
Aat Rietveld described an ongoing
project in the Dutch city of Breda to
provide more diverse forage for
urban bees. Beekeepers in Breda are
trying to provide bees with an integrated
environment in the city, exploiting
all opportunities to create
nutrition for bees and also improve
the human environment. Beekeepers
have also formed an alliance with an
important bulb gardner, and together,
they are enriching urban
green areas that until now have just
contained grass. A highlight of Aat's
presentation was images of a bulbsowing
machine that could plant
hundreds of bulbs per hour.
Roger Patterson discussed efforts
by the Bee Improvement and Bee
Breeders association (BIBBA) to encourage
UK beekeepers to improve
their bees. Roger described BIBBA's
‘Bee Improvement For All’ days, indoor
events held during the winter,
and ‘Bee Improvement’ courses,
partly apiary-based events held during
the summer. Among the topics
covered at these events are colony
handling, queen selection, larval
transfer, cell building and queen-cell
distribution.
Philip Denwood reviewed some recent
developments in the U.K. in the
areas of treatment-free beekeeping
and genetic research. Studies in
North Wales have found survival
among non-treated colonies to be
higher than that of treated colonies,
and there is evidence of aggressive
grooming of mites by native or nearnative
bees. A major genetic study
of many colonies from across England
and Wales also revealed that, on
average, honey bees continued to retain
45% A.m.m. genes even after
22 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
SICAMM Conference, Lunteren, the Netherlands
Over 60 delegates from 15 countries met at De
Werelt Conference Centre in Lunteren for the
latest SICAMM conference
Fig. 1. De Werelt Conference Centre, Lunteren. (Photo: De Werelt.)
over a century of importations.
Philip also presented observations
made by Gareth John of the Natural
Beekeeping Trust of the development
of varroa resistance in openmated
and wild honey bees in the
south of England. Gareth found that
the presence of untreated wild honey
bees nearby appears to provide a
source of varroa resistance that is
passed on to open-mated queens.
He has also found that with time the
behavioural and physical characteristics
of his bees have become increasingly
similar to those of A.m.m..
Pierre Barois of Pollinis, the French
association for the conservation of
the black bee, explored the legal status
of A.m.m. in France. Three islands
in Brittany are expressly
restricted to A.m.m., and there are
also several areas on the mainland
where local decrees allow only
A.m.m. to be kept. On a national
basis, legal tools aimed at combatting
the introduction and spread of
non-native species refer only to
“wild” organisms, whereas a ministerial
order has formally identified
honey bees as being domestic. In
contrast, EU law allows member
states to protect their native honey
bees. Strict regulations exist in
some French metropolitan areas and
on overseas islands, such as Réunion,
preventing the introduction of
bees due to the risk of disease, especially
varroasis. On the island of
Corsica, honey can only be sold as
Corsican if it is produced by black
bees. Overall, the French government
is becoming increasingly concerned
about preserving the native
black bee, as demonstrated by its financial
and technical support of conservation
areas, but is unwilling to
back this up with legal measures.
Anja Laupstad Vatland discussed
the status of the Flekkefjord black
bee of Norway. In 1987, a legally
binding A.m.m. conservation area of
3,500 square kilometers was established
in the southeast of Norway.
Although there were 100 beekeepers
keeping 2,000 colonies in the conservation
area in 1995, this had declined
to 40 beekeepers with less
than 500 colonies in 2015. Efforts
have been initiated to revitalise beekeeping
in the area by motivating existing
beekeepers, recruiting new
ones and improving commercial possibilities
for A.m.m. beekeepers. It is
also hoped to expand the conservation
area, and to strengthen its legal
basis. Already, these efforts have resulted
in 30 new beekeepers keeping
100 hives, three existing beekeepers
becoming commercial and one planning
to breed A.m.m. queens.
Ole Hertz reported on the status of
A.m.m. in Denmark and Greenland.
Three Danish islands are home to
A.m.m., with Laesø being the most
famous. Despite the decision by the
Danish government not to support
the European Court ruling on the
conservation of Laesø's unique
A.m.m. population, black bees are
increasing on the island. Black bees
introduced to Greenland are providing
local people with a new source of
income, with Greenland honey commanding
a premium price.
Ingvar Arvidsson of Projekt NordBi
provided an update on the preservation
and development of the Swedish
black bee. Following 100 years of
considerable imports, A.m.m. had
almost become extinct in Sweden.
A mating project on Lake Vänern had
limited success due to poor control
of drones. With the establishment of
Projeckt NordBi in 1990, an inventory
of black bees across Sweden
was carried out, and pure-mating
areas were set up. Today, the project
produces 600-800 pure-mated
queens per annum, and there are
1,200-1,500 pure A.m.m. colonies.
Although varroa has been a major
problem in southern Sweden, A.m.m.
colonies show very low mite levels.
Dylan Elen of the Limburgse Zwarte
Bij vzw (LZB, the Limburg Black Bee
Association) described recent efforts
to promote the native black bee of
Limburg, in northeastern Belgium.
Decades of imports of A. m. carnica
and then Buckfast bees into Flanders
has resulted in the demise of the
local black bee. However, growing
interest in the native bee resulted in
the establishment of LZB in 2015,
and the association now has 50
Flemish and Dutch members. Black
queens were introduced from Chimay
in the southeast of Belgium and
initial matings of their progeny provided
bees with higher than expected
A.m.m. morphometric
characteristics given that the area is
dominated by A. m. carnica. A survey
of 75 beekeepers in the area also
found that 86% would switch to
A.m.m. if they could.
Ralf Ullrich of Zuchtverband Dunkle
Biene Deutschland discussed efforts
to reintroduce the native black bee
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 23
Fig. 2. Conference participants. (Photo: mellifera.ch.)
of Germany. From the 1930s, major
imports of of A. m. carnica bees
from Austria resulted in an extremely
hybridised population, and
from the 1950s onward, it was decided
to keep only A. m. carnica in
Germany. Initial attempts to reintroduce
A.m.m. was hampered by problems
relating to the introduction of
A.m.m. queens into A. m. carnica
colonies, as well as practical issues
relating to cell building and mating
nuclei. Many of the best mating locations
in Germany are already being
used by non-A.m.m. beekeepers, but
a suitable site was found in the Alps,
and successful matings were carried
out for two years. However, there
was no legal protection for the site
and other beekeepers moved into
the area. This year, a new mating
station has been set up, and initial
efforts with instrumental insemination
have developed well. The association
now has 56 members keeping
around 200 pure A.m.m. colonies.
Andrew Abrahams discussed the
legal status of the black bee reserve
on the island of Colonsay in the Scottish
Hebrides. Although there was a
black bee mating apiary on Colonsay
in the 1940s-1950s, Andrew was responsible
for establishing the current
reserve. This involved tortuous
negotiations with government officials
and a comprehensive exploration
of both agricultural and
conservation legislation. After many
years, a bill was passed in the Scottish
Parliament setting up the reserve,
which now provides A.m.m.
queens for export to the rest of Scotland.
In a second talk, Andrew examined
challenges relating to
selection and improvement within
the small, isolated Colonsay population.
The island population is based
on just 30 queens, and new queens
cannot be imported because of the
threat to Colonsay's varroa-free status
and because of the possible introduction
of undesirable genes.
Some improvement of the population
is needed to maintain good productivity,
docility and swarming characteristics,
but too rapid improvement
would lead to loss of genetic variability.
Andrew practices a strategy in
which the worst queens are culled
and the rest are allowed to replace
themselves. Genetic studies of the
Colonsay A.m.m. population in 2000
and again in 2010 revealed that inbreeding
was practically negligible.
Janis Trops reported on the status
and breeding of the black bee in
Latvia. There are around 4,000 beekeepers
in Latvia, mostly managing
A. m. carnica, Buckfast and A. m.
ligustica of Finnish origin. Around
20 beekeepers keep roughly 350
A.m.m. colonies, although the black
bee is increasing in popularity. The
A.m.m. breeding programme involves
station mating and instrumental
insemination, and there is a
strong emphasis on breeding for hygienic
behaviour. Black bees are
found to forage ling heather better
than Buckfast bees, where heather
honey fermentation is a major problem
possibly due to the genetic influence
of A. m. anatolica.
Marija Ivoilova of the Russian Association
for the Conservation of
A.m.m. examined the influence of
various factors on the quality of
queens produced in a queen rearing
programme. A graftless system involving
the Jenter system provided
more and heavier queens. Queens
should be selected at the capped-cell
stage, and cells with a length of less
than 22 mm should be rejected.
The best queens were produced during
the swarming period, at average
temperatures of 16-28ºC, and with
flows of less than 1.2 kg/day. Feeding
using a newly developed supplement
(APIKAR) increased the number
of queens reared and their laying
abilities.
Anna Brandorf of the same group
examined flower specialisation of
A.m.m. in north-eastern Russia.
Analysis of the pollen loads of foragers
returning to A.m.m. and A. m.
carpatica colonies revealed that the
former prefer to specialise on a
small number of flowers and that
A.m.m. foragers tend to work more
on plants that produce nectar and
pollen simultaneously. This narrow
floral specialisation would make
A.m.m. better at pollinating agricultural
crops. Interestingly, despite
their shorter tongues, A.m.m. foragers
had no problem collecting nectar
from red clover, probably due to
the exploitation of capillary action in
warm temperatures.
Eoghan Mac Giolla Coda discussed
the efforts of the Native Irish Honey
Bee Society (NIHBS) to preserve and
breed Irish strains of A.m.m. He out-
24 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
Fig. 3. Presentation by the Finnish delegation: l-r Raija Haataja-Nurminen, Aimo Nurminen, Lassi
Kauko, Maritta Martikkala, Tuula Lehtonen. (Photo: Philip Denwood).
lined NIHBS' involvement in training
and educating beekeepers on bee
improvement and bee breeding, the
society's research collaborations with
third-level institutes, its interactions
with governmental agencies in the
Republic of Ireland and Northern
Ireland, and challenges faced in conserving
the native Irish honey bee.
Jack Hassett of Limerick Institute of
Technology reported on the ongoing
genetic analysis of the native Irish
honey bee. DNA was extracted from
the hind legs of honey bees from
several locations in Ireland. Mitochondrial
sequences were analysed
to examine subspecies and lineage
and microsatellite sequences were
used to determine the level of hybridisation.
The data revealed a large
and diverse A.m.m. population, including
genotypes possibly unique
to Ireland. In addition, hybridisation
was found to be extremely low, with
preliminary indications that the Irish
A.m.m. population is one of the
purest in Europe.
Keith Browne of National University
of Ireland, Galway, reported on research
into factors that influence the
health of the Irish A.m.m. population.
Data from managed A.m.m.
colonies reveals a considerable
amount of variability in the ability to
tolerate/resist varroa, providing
scope for selecting and breeding
from the more tolerant ones. Keith
is also studying the ecology and
genetics of feral honey bee colonies
around Ireland. The findings suggest
that these unmanaged bees
have a very high proportion of
A.m.m. genes, that they are adapted
to the available, local habitats, and
that they are capable of persisting
without assistance.
Gabrielle Soland of Apigenix and
mellifera.ch, the Swiss Black Bee Association,
described the application
of modern molecular methods to the
conservation and breeding of indigenous
honey bees. Gabrielle highlighted
problems associated with
using wing-vein morphometry to
quantify hybridisation. She emphasised
that initially morphometry involved
measuring a lot more morphological
characters and was aimed at
differentiating between different
subspecies rather than determining
hybridisation. Microsatellite DNA
analysis has the advantage of not
being affected by selection pressure
and provides a strong differentiation
between different subspecies. Such
molecular techniques have played a
major role in conserving Swiss
A.m.m. populations, resulting in a
decline in hybrid stocks.
Balser Fried, also of mellifera.ch,
discussed lessons learned from the
breeding of A.m.m. queens in
Switzerland. According to Balser,
sustainable conservation of A.m.m.
requires the line breeding of purebred
queens. Even the presence of a
small number of strange drones at a
drone congregation area causes a
considerable reduction in the proportion
of purely mated queens. However,
controlled mating with
pure-bred drones can reduce the
amount of hybridisation in a population
in a few generations.
Padruot Fried reported on efforts to
protect A.m.m. in Switzerland. Of
the estimated 150,000 honey bee
colonies in Switzerland, about 10%
are pure A.m.m., although there are
also many hybrids between A.m.m.
and A. m. carnica. Around 5,000
pure-bred A.m.m. queens are produced
each year. In 2014, mellifera.
ch, together with the national
beekeeping organisation, Apisuisse,
initiated a project in four areas in
which A.m.m. is dominant to study
the structure of the local bee populations
and to replace hybrids with
pure-breed queens. It is hoped that
once good A.m.m. populations are
established, mating stations can be
set up to provide a high degree of
purity in following generations.
Alexander Uzonov of the Smartbees
Project discussed activities for genetic
improvement of A.m.m. within
the project. Alexander first described
the Beebreed database (beebreed.
eu), which has a large amount
of data on A. m. carnica breeding
lines but very little on A.m.m.. He
then reviewed the results of the
COLOSS pan-European study on genetic-
environmental interactions in
honey bees. This found that local
bees perform significantly better
than non-local bees with regard to
survival and that productivity also
depends on local adaptation. There
were large variations in many other
characters, but it is obvious that
local honey bees could improve even
further with more organised breeding
activities. Alexander then described
the Smartbees project,
outlining the criteria for testing and
selection and the breeding goals
(www.smartbees.eu).
Job van Praagh of the Blankensee
Breeding Programme in Germany discussed
the potential benefit of homogenous
mixing of sperm for the
selection of honey bees for varroa
tolerance using instrumental insemination.
Sperm was collected from as
many as 7,000 drones and stirred to-
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 25
Fig. 4. Presentation by Balser Fried (Switzerland)
(Photo: Philip Denwood.)
gether with 10% new sperm containing
the varroa-tolerance VSH trait.
A total of 250 queens were inseminated
with the mixed trait, and genetic
analysis confirmed that mixing
was homogeneous. The behaviour
of the bees in the various sisterqueen
groups was found to be
consistent.
Martine Dermine of the Belgian
black bee organisation Mellifica and
Balser Fried of the Swiss black bee
organisation, mellifera.ch, highlighted
two projects in which the
Slow Food movement supports
A.m.m. beekeepers. In the Belgian
black bee conservation area of Chimay,
a Slow Food certification
scheme allows A.m.m. beekeepers to
market their honey with a special origin
label. The initiative has garnered
considerable media and political attention
and has attracted the attention
of non-A.m.m. beekeepers.
A similar collaboration in Switzerland
among mellifera.ch, Slow Food, and
the COOP supermarket chain enables
A.m.m. beekeepers to put a unique
label on their honey. Most of the
logistical support for the scheme
is provided by COOP, and the jars
contain considerable information on
A.m.m.. There are now 25 beekeepers
producing 12,000 jars per
annum under the scheme.
Overall, this was probably one of the
best beekeeping conferences I have
attended. The presentations were
generally excellent and provided
great insights into the challenges
faced by A.m.m. beekeepers across
Europe, the progress being made,
and scientific research into the black
bee. As well as the formal lectures,
there was considerable information
exchange in question-and-answer
sessions after each talk, as well as in
more informal exchanges at breaks
and meals (and of course at the
bar!). The lecture facilities, the accommodation
and the meals were
excellent, and Marleen Boerjan and
her team at De Duurzame Bij deserve
congratulations for their outstanding
hosting of the event.
From the point of view of the Irish
delegation, of whom I was one, the
work being carried out by a myriad
of black bee groups across Europe
show that NIHBS are not alone, and
we should probably do more to benefit
from the experiences of these
other groups.
The Irish research presented at the
meeting was extremely well received,
and there was astonishment at the
purity and healthy status of the Irish
population. There were also many
enquiries about the availability of
black Irish queens, especially for
areas in which native A.m.m. populations
have been all but wiped out.
The next SICAMM conference will be
held in Mustiala, Finland, on July 13-
15, 2018. (The summer date is because
snow can often arrive in
Finland in autumn, and the hosts
want to bring delegates to see
Finnish A.m.m. colonies). The
conference has yet to be hosted by
Ireland, despite our strong black bee
movement, but maybe 2020?
Eoghan Mac Giolla Coda
This article is reprinted with some
minor editing from The Four Seasons,
Magazine of the Native Irish
Honeybee Society, Issue 64, Winter
2016, pp. 14-21.
26 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
Fig. 5. Delegates dancing to folk music from the Low Countries by the group “Madlot”.
(Photo: Philip Denwood)
When considering the complex organisation
of a honey bee colony,
the bees appear to be showing intelligent
behaviour. However, much
behaviour is governed not by intelligence,
i.e. the ability to acquire and
apply knowledge and skills, but by
chemical responses.
These chemical responses are produced
by pheromones: a chemical or
mixture of chemicals released by a
bee that affects the behaviour or
physiology of other bees. They may
cause rapid changes in behaviour
e.g. the alarm pheromone quickly
engages other bees to defend, or
long-term changes in both behaviour
and physiology e.g. the brood
pheromone suppresses worker’s
ovary development.
Examples of honey bee
pheromones:
Alarm pheromones
The Koschevnikov gland near the
sting shaft releases an alarm
pheromone containing more than 40
components including iso-pentyl
acetate. They are highly volatile and
smell like bananas. They attract
other bees to sting. The solvent in
aftershave or perfume is similar to
iso-pentyl acetate and will elicit the
same response.
It was thought that another alarm
pheromone was 2-heptanone released
by the mandibular glands.
However, it has been determined
that bees use it to anaesthetise and
paralyze intruders – bees sink their
mandibles into their opponents and
emit 2-heptanone into the lesion to
numb the area. The bees are then
able to remove the intruders from
the hive, which gives protection from
their main enemies, wax moth larvae
and varroa.1
Beeswax pheromone affects intensity
of hoarding behaviour.
Brood recognition pheromone is
produced by larvae and pupae and
helps nurse bees distinguish between
worker and drone larvae and
pupae. It also inhibits development
of ovaries in workers.
Diploid drone cannibalism
pheromone, produced by diploid
drone larvae, causes workers to eat
diploid drone larvae preventing the
colony rearing diploid drones.4
Drone pheromone enables drones
to form a congregation area.
Dufour’s gland pheromone (‘alkaline
gland’) only occurs in females
i.e. queens and workers. It is not
clearly understood. It is said to be
responsible for retinue formation
around the queen3 and allows worker
bees to distinguish between eggs
laid by a queen and those laid by
workers. The composition of the
pheromone changes as a worker
evolves into a laying worker.
Egg marking pheromone allows
worker bees to distinguish between
queen-laid and worker-laid eggs.
Faecal pheromone is produced by
virgin queens. Fights between virgin
queens or virgin queens and workers
are sometimes resolved when virgin
queens squirt faeces on the opponents.
Workers covered in
pheromone-laced faeces retire to
groom; virgin queens covered in
faeces are ignored by the workers.
Footprint pheromone is secreted
from the workers’ feet and is attractive
to other bees. It may help foragers
locate a good food source and
aid finding the hive entrance.
Forager pheromone (worker
pheromone). Ethyl oleate is released
by older forager bees to slow
the maturing of nurse bees to keep
the ratio of nurse bees to forager
bees in the balance that is most beneficial
to the hive.
Nasanov gland pheromone.
Workers expose the gland located
between the sixth and seventh
abdominal tergites and by fanning
send the scent into the air. It is used
to attract nest mates to the hive
entrance, a clustering swarm or a
food source and attracting a swarm
to a nesting site. The smell of the
Nasonov pheromone, including
geraniol, citral, nerolic acid and
geranic acid, can often be detected
in the air.
Tarsal (Arnhart gland) pheromone
is similar to the footprint pheromone
but is secreted by the queen.
It is deposited on the surface of the
comb and is believed to delay or
prevent queen cell construction – it
diminishes as the queen ages.
Tergite pheromone is produced by
all the bees in the hive, but the composition
and amount varies with the
type of bee. Virgin queen’s tergite
pheromone is believed to be related
to fighting among virgin queens.
Queen mandibular pheromone
(‘Queen substance’) regulates social
behaviour, swarming, mating and
suppression of laying workers. It is
spread throughout the hive by the
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 27
Intelligence v chemical
responses in honey bees
Brood recognition pheromone is produced by larvae
and pupae and helps nurse bees distinguish between
worker and drone larvae and pupae
workers alerting colony members
that the colony is queen-right and
operating normally. The most important
components are:
u 9-oxodec-2-enoic acid (9-ODA) inhibits
queen rearing as well as ovarian
development in worker bees,
strong sexual attractant for drones
when on a nuptial flight, critical to
worker recognition of the presence
of a queen in the hive.
u 9-hydroxy-2-enoic acid (9-HDA)
promotes stability of a swarm.
Queen retinue pheromone encourages
workers to groom and feed the
queen and causes a retinue of attendants
to surround and care for her.
A pheromone affects the behaviour
of another individual of the same
species. A pheromone that affects
the behaviour of individuals of a different
species is called a kairomone,
used by parasitic or predatory insects
to locate their hosts or prey.
Varroa destructor and Apis mellifera
are different species. Varroa uses
the odour produced by the honey
bee to find a host.
Brian P. Dennis
Acknowledgement:
Rusty Burlew, Honey Bee Suite for
permission to use her article on
pheromones.
References:
1. “Honeybee Bites Can Act As Anesthetics,”
Medical News Today, 17
Oct. 2012.
2. www.honeybee.drawwing.org/
book/dufour’s-gland.
3. Wikipedia: Honey Bee
Pheromones.
4. www.easternmobeekeepers.com.
Nowadays, no smoking signs outside
public buildings are commonplace.
I suggest that they should also be
displayed outside hives!
Before opening a hive for examination,
the usual advice is to smoke
the hive entrance. Almost any beekeeping
primer could be cited e.g. in
Guide to Bees and Honey1, Ted
Hooper says ”Gently smoke the entrance
to the hive. The smell of
smoke causes the bees to fill themselves
up with honey … and this renders
them much more amenable to
handling. It takes about two minutes
for the bees to fill up and for the full
effect of the smoking to be obtained.”
This is what I was taught to
do and it is what I did.
I then read Don’t be an Awful Beekeeper2
by Bruce Crookson in which
he wrote “Awful beekeepers pump
smoke into the entrance, driving the
bees to the top to meet the keeper!
The other books tell you to. Don’t.
Be awless. Smoke through the feedhole.
Loosen the crown board and
take it off when they’ve got over the
shock of your breaking the propolis.”
Several years before I started keeping
bees I had read Bee-Keeping
Practice3 by F. S. Stuart. Although it
aroused my interest, I only had a
minimal recollection and understanding
until I had a hive of bees. I reread
what F.S. Stuart had to say
about ‘Manipulation and Examination’:
“A manipulation hint sometimes
given is to blow smoke into
the hive entrance before manipulation.
This should be done only with
the greatest caution. On a hot day it
28 BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017
This entrance is a non-smoking area.
Gently smoke the entrance to the hive. The
smell of smoke causes the bees to fill themselves
up with honey … and this renders them
much more amenable to handling ...
drives off all the fanners; the subsequent
manipulation creates excitement
and still further raises the
temperature of the hive. I have seen
dozens of suffocated bees carried
out after too much entrance-smoking,
and occasionally the brood gets
‘scalded’ through subsequent excitement
and heat in the hive. Apart
from that, the process of smoking
the entrance does not seem to me to
make the slightest difference to the
behaviour or temper of the hive!”
Browsing through some old Bee
Craft magazines, I discovered that
criticism of the practice of smoking
the hive entrance was not new. In
1938, an article entitled The Smoker
by L. J. Rogers was published in
which he wrote:
“In spite of what most of the text
books say, NEVER smoke the hive
entrance: confine the smoke solely
to the parts of the hive that are
being opened. The only effect
smoke has when applied to an
entrance is to demoralize the entire
guard on duty there; render the bees
open to any annoyance from robbers
or other enemies, and send them
running to the tops of the frames –
exactly where they are not wanted.
“This is not a modern fad, but an
accepted fact amongst present-day
beekeepers. Leave the entrance
alone, and a glance at the flight
board after a manipulation will show
that both the guards, and the field
bees coming and going, are actually
unaware that any disturbance of the
hive has taken place.”
It may have been “an accepted fact
amongst present-day beekeepers” in
1938, but appears to have been forgotten
by the time I started beekeeping!
To be fair to Ted Hooper, an
experienced and well-respected beekeeper,
he does go on to say: “The
beekeeper, as he becomes more experienced
and confident in his handling,
will find that smoking at the
entrance can be cut out entirely,
smoke being applied under the
crown board as this is removed.”
L.J. Rogers also goes on to say:
“There is, of course, one exception
to this rule, i.e. when a savage
colony has to be dealt with. Then a
thorough subduing with smoke at
the entrance is often the only means
of making the bees tractable.”
When it is necessary to examine a
colony, I ensure my smoker is handy
and burning well. Having removed
the roof and crown board, I use the
smoker to control the bees i.e. if
they start to come up, a little smoke
sends them down. If they are tetchy,
more smoke may be needed. I want
to cause as little disturbance as possible
– on a warm day when the bees
are actively foraging, they should
hardly notice my presence. In poor
weather they will not be foraging and
will be ‘at home’ and not happy!
Rather than using smoke in an attempt
to subdue them, leave the examination
(if possible) for another,
better, day.
Apart from the reason for the examination,
I want to assess their temper
without subduing them with smoke.
I try not to keep bad tempered bees,
but they can be useful in an out-apiary!
In which case I follow L.J.
Rogers’ advice.
Brian P. Dennis
References:
1. Blandford Press Ltd. 1976.
ISBN 0 7137 0782 8.
2. Northern Bee Books 1987.
ISBN 0-907908-40-3.
3. C. Arthur Pearson Ltd. 1945.
From the archives.
“He had rather an unusual veil for it
had a smoke blackened hole in the
front and through it was protruding
a lighted pipe. I asked him later if it
was to keep the bees away, but he
said ‘No. I don’t like to miss the
chance of a smoke even when beekeeping
and I can’t very well smoke
a cigarette inside’.”
A tribute to the late Mr Lewis –
NBKA’s Bulletin Spring 1975.
Mr Lewis died aged 86.
BIM 49 – Spr ing 2017 29
BIBBA
Membership
Subscriptions
Subs were due on
01.01.17
Please ensure that you pay your
annual subscription to the
Charity promptly.
You may do this via our website
at www.bibba.com/subscribe
where you can use a
Credit/Debit card or set up a
Direct Debit for renewals.
Alternatively you may use the renewal
form printed on the back
of the address cover sheet sent
with your magazine and send us
a cheque.
Early payment helps our
Treasurer Iain Harley and saves
time and unnecessary money in
sending out reminders to late
payers.
Contact Iain at: Bee Improvement and Bee Breeders’ Association
Registered Office: The National Beekeeping Centre,
Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth,
Warwickshire CV8 2LG
BIBBA is a UK Registered Charity No: 273827