|
The New World Carniolan Programme Interview with Susan Cobey, from Ohio State University (by John Phipps, the editor of The Beekeepers Quarterly)
Q. 1. Brief description of queen breeding operation - location, number of units, years in operation and extent of trade. A. 1. The New World Carniolan,
NWC, breeding program was initially
established in 1981 in northern California as part of a small business running
1000 colonies and 1000 mating nucleus for production of queens, honey and
pollination service. We produced 5,000 production queens annually. The NWC
program was moved to Ohio State University in 1990, which allowed me to
concentrate more on the breeding aspects and leave the production work to the
industry. Presently, the NWC foundation stock is based in Ohio and consists of
about 200 colonies. Strachan Apiaries in California also maintains a
subpopulation of NWC. Breeder queens are supplied to the industry and from
these an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 production queens are produced annually. Breeder stock is primarily
provided to commercial queen producers in California. This is also
offered to an increasing market of small producers ; regional queen producers
and honey producers / pollinators who rear their own queens. I also provide
semen to several countries abroad, as this is a safe and easy way to move stock.
It also promotes the use of instrumental insemination, as a follow-up to the
classes I teach abroad. My emphasis now is focused on the
educational aspects and promotion of honey bee stock improvement.
The NWC breeding program is used as a working model for my classes and to
provide support for the overall program.
Q. 2. Your chosen preference
of breeds and why - characteristics of races / hybrids / strains. A. 2.
Obviously, I have a strong bias. I initially choose Carnica
to offer something different. At the time, this race of bee was less
common in the U.S. and difficult for beekeepers to maintain. My initial thought
was that with instrumental insemination – at least I could maintain a dark line
of bees in an area of predominately Italian bees. I collected and backcrossing
stocks from across the U.S. and Canada to establish the foundation of the
breeding program, as importation was not a legal option. Over the past 25 years of working
with this race of bee, I continue to be amazed by them. Overall, I like their
elegance, adaptability, gentle temperament., their
production strategy and hardiness. Carnica
have strong survival skills in the face of pests, disease, drought and
harsh winters conditions. Colonies are well organized, the brood-nest is kept
tight with a surrounding rainbow of pollen and honey packed above. No queen
excluders are needed during the honey flow. They do not require a lot of
management, provided you give them space for rapid growth in spring. Carnica is a spring bee,
responding to increasing day length and the first hint of pollen. Spring
population growth is explosive, hence the reputation for swarming if not proper
managed. In Ohio, my NWC population is generally 2 to 3 weeks ahead of the
locally kept bees, in terms of queen and drone rearing. Yet, they tend to winter
in smaller clusters with efficient use of winter stores. Brood rearing starts early. I do not
use simulative feed to enhance this, as I barely keep up.
Weather is often not an issue. You can work these bees when the days are
overcast and drizzly. It is not unusual for the drones to fly under marginal
conditions. The commercial queen producers using NWC breeders tell me their NWC
queens tend to mate earlier and more successfully than their Italian stocks. Adapted to a short season and long,
harsh winters, Carnica bees are
very responsive o the environment and adapts quickly to change. Conservative in
their use of stores, colonies shut down brood production when resources are
scarce. They have good longevity and will outlast Italians when co-fostered in
colonies for experimental purposes. They are also strong fliers, as indicated by
their dance language. Carniolans have become more popular
in the U.S. since the introduction of
parasitic mites. We have seen a general “darkening” of the US honey bee
population through natural selection, with the impact of tracheal mites.
Programs designed to select for resistance to Varroa mites also seem to
favor working with Carnica. I
think their high adaptability makes then very responsive to selection.
Q. 3. Breeding methods used
both in selection, raising and mating. A. 3. My philosophy has always
been to select for general overall performance within the breeding population.
Of the breeders selected, I then select more specifically for traits of
resistance to Varroa, as this is the major challenge to beekeeping today.
I closely follow the Page-Laidlaw Closed Population Breeding theory. Selection at the commercial level is
very different from that of a research project, designed to identify, measure
and isolate a specific behavior. I am
not concerned with the mechanisms involved, the goal is to simply cross the
best to the best. In this way, I hope to select for the variety and complexity
of traits that make bees productive, adaptable, and able to resist pests and
disease. Selection within a closed population
requires a long term commitment, yet the result is more stable. I have a
population expressing desirable traits, rather than a few prized queens.
Annually, I select the top 25 to 35 % of the population, rear queens and drones
from these colonies. Daughter queens are
mated to the pool of semen from this same source. Annually, I establish a new
test population of 200 to 300 instrumentally inseminated queens. These are
evaluated and the process repeated. We are in the 25th
generation this year. The selection criteria is kept
simple, because the more colonies I evaluate, the more critical I can be.
Several traits; brood viability, temperament, buildup and wintering,
are given a point value. Colonies are ranked and the top performers
selected. At this stage, which I call the pre-selection test, a cut is made.
Those selected are given a weight gain test during the honey flow, tested for
hygienic behavior, and sampled for mite levels. The top performers of these
become the breeders to establish a new generation and the cycle continues. The goal is to maintain selection
pressure on the breeding population over time. A large gene pool provides
genetic diversity and must be maintained. To increase the life of the program, I
occasionally look for new sources of stock. The stock is tested and if
proven of value, some drones from this are added to the NWC semen mix. In this
way I can enhance the gene pool, yet avoid significant change in the population.
Primarily, I want bees that are
productive and a pleasure to work. I assume productive bees have the traits to
minimize the impact of pests and disease. To enhance this, I also select for
hygienic behavior and lower mite growth rates. Colonies are not given
prophylactic treatment to prevent
diseases. The bees need this association to develop natural resistance. Varroa is the exception, for which I
do treat. Mite levels are sampled throughout the year for selection purposes.
“Soft” chemical controls are used in
colonies where mites reach damaging levels. I am amazed at the variation in
mite growth rates and the high levels that can be tolerated. It seems to be the
pathogens associated with the mites that cause the damage when levels are high
during the fall season. These colonies are de-queened, treated and given a
healthy nucleus with a new queen. Most recover. As the research evolves and new
selection tools are developed, these will be incorporated into the breeding
program. Honey bees are flexible and dynamic, the breeding program must
also have these characteristics.
Q. 4. Thoughts on the
possibility of breeding a truly Varroa tolerant bee. A. 4.
I believe this can be achieved and is just a matter of time. Worldwide,
there are many researchers working on various aspects and alternative
approaches. I think we are now approaching a new phase, past crisis management
and the reliance on “hard” chemical treatments. European honey bees, if left alone
would likely develop tolerance/resistance if we allowed natural selection to
take it course. The Africanized bee is a prime example. The maintenance of bees
susceptible to parasitic mites has placed selection pressure on the mites to
adapt to our arsenal of chemical treatments. Beekeepers can reduce mite levels
through management and selection practices, rather than the sole reliance
on chemical treatments. We are now forced to recognize this, faced with the
current failure of chemical treatments. Several honey bee traits are know to
reduce mite infestation levels such as ;
grooming behavior, hygienic behavior, brood pheromones cues, reduced development
time, etc. There are probably many more mechanisms we have yet to identify.
Learning to select and maintain stocks expressing these traits at the commercial
level will be a turning point. New alternative methods of control
may prove practical and effective, such as the developing research looking as
fungus as a Varroa control. Brood pheromones have been identified and may
be synthesized as a control method. With the sequencing of the honey bee
genome, identifying genes of resistance is a possibility. We may also learn how
to turn genes on and off at critical
stages as a means to maintain healthy colonies. The development of transgenic
bees that express resistance may be a possibility. Known genes of resistance
from Apis cerana could be transferred to Apis mellifera to express
resistance. Studies of Varroa have
revealed this is a highly specialized complex of species. Numerous mitotypes of
Varroa have been identified. The mites
infesting European honey bees have been renamed. Further studies may
reveal a means to genetically manipulate the mites to make them less virulent. Basically, the goal is learning how
to achieve the natural balance of the
host –parasite relationship of Varroa and European bees, as exisits in
Apis cerana. We originally upset this delicate balance and created the
problem. Now we must solve it. Our “box of tools” is increasing
and becoming more sophisticated. I am optimistic and think bee research
and beekeeping has an exciting future ahead. I expect to see the development of
things that I can not imagine at present, especially in the field of molecular
genetics. Cyropreservation is another area of
developing research. I see a future where I can order
a tube of semen of stock with specific known traits. It often takes a
crisis to push us in this direction. This makes the future is exciting. Q. 5. What do you believe are
the major problems facing queen breeders today?
A.5. My response is based on
the US beekeeping industry, as this is my experience.
To answer this question we first need to define the word “breeder”. A
breeder is one who applies methods of evaluation, selection and controlled
mating to a breeding system for the purpose of stock improvement. The queen
producer is one who propagates bees. The term “queen breeder” has been loosely
and interchangeably used with the term “queen producer”. The basic problem is – there are too
few bee breeders. Historically, bee breeding has largely been limited to
research institutions. This is partly
due to the stumbling blocks unique to honey bee breeding , compared to the
breeding of domestic animals. Also, before the challenge of parasitic mites and
African bees, the need to focus on selective breeding was not seriously
emphasized or supported by the industry. Commercial queen producers focused on
the efficiency of large scale production techniques and have become very skilled
at this. Yes, selection efforts are made, though generally this is limited to
simply choosing the top performing colonies within their operations, without
regard to heritage or controlled mating.
Gains are made, though often the results are inconsistent and unpredictable. The process of honey bee selection
must be based upon behavioral traits at the colony level within a complex
social unit, over time. Expression is dynamic, flexible and strongly influenced
by the environment. The interaction of genes, traits, individuals and
relationships with the colony influence expression. This complicates the
selection process. The breeder must select for several traits to produce
productive colonies. The isolation and selection of a single trait ( as
necessary in research) eliminates the social complexity of a colony responsible
for its productivity and survival, often resulting in poor colony performance.
There is a conflict in that you want to select for consistency, yet need to
maintain genetic diversity, and the breeding system used must address this. Another complicating factor is the
ability to control mating. Few beekeepers use instrumental insemination. Many
still hold the view these queens are less productive, despite a wealth of
research data proving otherwise. The beekeeping industry needs to
support a new commercial aspect of beekeeping – the bee breeder,
who can supply the queen producers with known and proven breeding stock.
Most queen producer do not have the time or resources to produce and maintain
breeding stock and the current pricing of queens does not support this. The view of bee breeding is changing,
with the increasing cost of chemical treatment and the development of mite
resistance to these, coupled with high losses of colonies.
An investment in breeding stock finally seems like a viable solution and
getting more serious attention. Another issue is the management of
colonies at the commercial level. Colonies are pushed in the demand for
production and frequently moved for
pollination. Colony stress combined with the impact of parasitic mites makes it
difficult for any queen to maintain a strong colony. We need to re-evaluate
management and production practices at the commercial level.
The interview
is published on this website by
Susan Cobey's websites: |
|