New BIBBA website

[Peter]

Has BIBBA always been about breeding AMM or was it wider than that ?
In the 50 years has there been much progress?

That's not a criticism I use the work of Peter Edwards to make life easier for me
has there been any change to the beekeeping map which can be attributed to BIBBA ?

Thanks for that - glad to have made someone's life easier.

My view is that BIBBA does no really know its purpose in life.

It started, as we all know, as the Village Bee Breeders' Association - and at that time I guess that there would have been very little available other than A.m.m. - so perhaps it was not necessary to spell out 'native bees'.

This changed to the British Isles Bee Breeders' Association, which was no more than a recognition that it had grown.

The name then changed to Bee Improvement and Bee Breeders' Association - a 'politically correct' (or perhaps incorrect?)change that was seen as keeping members in Eire on board. Of course the name now suggests that the association could get involved in improving any race of bee - something that I suspect would have Beowolf Cooper turning in his grave.

So where are we now? Is BIBBA an association devoted to native bees, or just bee improvement. If the former, then perhaps the name should be changed again to reflect that; if not, then I am not sure where its future lies.

What is very clear is that the Galtee group, NIBHS, and perhaps the mooted Scottish group have a much more clearly defined purpose.

[The Drone Ranger]

Thanks Peter I didn't know how the organisation came about
Maybe if the internet had been around for 50 years things might have moved more quickly
Is the difficulty that stipulating bees are local and AMM might be mutually exclusive in most places

[Jon]

Some in Bibba get hung up on 'local' but as far as I am concerned the British isles is our neck of the woods.

[The Drone Ranger]

I seems like a difficult to resolve issue

[Jon]

The main problem is that these issues lead to a complete lack of progress.
From outside of Bibba it looks bizarre.
Rather than hand-wringing about 'local' what is needed is people rearing queens and multiplying good stock sourced as locally as is feasible.
if there is nothing decent in your area, get some decent stock to graft from from as locally as possible.
Rubbish in rubbish out applies to grafting and queen rearing. You need to start with a few good queens.
Whether local is 10 miles, 50 miles or 250 miles - why get hung up about it? Just start.

[Rosie]

One argument against "parachuting" bees to anywhere is that they might be incompatible with the bees that already dominate the area. If that happens, and particularly if the bees are in the hands of someone inexperienced, then the results of future open matings could be less than desirable. This is the difficulty associated with reintroduction.

Anyone lucky enough to live in an area where there is a high proportion of native genetics has no such problem. They can breed from their purest, provided the selected bees exhibit other desirable traits, in order to eliminate the worst of their bees and can afford to bring in purer stock to sweeten the blood.

Some areas can manage to keep 2 separate isolated strains on AMM and cross breed the 2 to get within-race hybrids. These, in theory, will offer outbred vigour without the usual unsustainable problems associated with hybridisation. I haven't tried this yet but I am working towards reaching the point where we can do it here.

BIBBA don't dictate to people how they should proceed but do try to encourage them to think about what they are doing and not just buy the first thing they stumble across or fall prey to suppliers who do not consider future generations. They also encourage cooperation between the beekeepers in any particular area so that they don't find themselves pulling in different directions. The local group approach has been a consistent policy of BIBBA from the start. However individuals choose to proceed I would expect BIBBA members to have the long-term interests of AMMs at heart.

It's a fact that BIBBA members disagree about how to proceed but I can live with that as it demonstrates tolerance and thoughtfulness.

Steve

[Black Comb]

Even if you parachute in "pure" amm then open mating will degrade the line. Unless you live in an isolated area, most beeks do not.
I think Jon has got it right.

BTW, how reliable are the measurements for purity when set against DNA testing? Do discoidal shift, morphometry, white cappings, etc. really prove a bee is amm?

[The Drone Ranger]

Is that the thinking behind the AMM survey BIBBA are they attempting to find suitable stock?
Has there been any progress with that

I see your point about breeding Steve, it might be counter productive (in certain circumstances)

Are the majority of beekeepers in Britain effectively excluded from this program to re -introduce AMM ?
Could this mean it can never succeed ?

Hi Black Comb I think the wing selection can end up just that so the Carniolan breeders have found the bees can have the right wings but not be particularily pure.

It's the only tool most people have though so they would need to use it
DrawWing and Morphplot make that so simple (largely due to the instructions which Peter Edwards provides)

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Rosie;22043]One argument against "parachuting" bees to anywhere is that they might be incompatible with the bees that already dominate the area. If that happens, and particularly if the bees are in the hands of someone inexperienced, then the results of future open matings could be less than desirable. This is the difficulty associated with reintroduction.

The only way that I can see is to flood your area with good drones. Remember that if you rear plenty of queens from the parachuted stock then they will produce pure drones, regardless of mating. Given that native queens frequently live 3 or more years, that can give you pretty good control of the skies for a long time - especially if a group do it.

Of course, it is not a one-off operation - you have to then keep selecting and culling.

[Rosie]

So where are we now? Is BIBBA an association devoted to native bees, or just bee improvement. If the former, then perhaps the name should be changed again to reflect that; if not, then I am not sure where its future lies.

Sorry to bring us back to this line of Peter's but I think we should remember here what's in BIBBA's constitution:

"The objectives of the Association shall be the conservation, reintroduction, study, selection and improvement of native or near-native honeybees of Britain and Ireland."

This is the only objective BIBBA has. There was a move a couple of years ago to change this. The reason was well intentioned but it would have given the impression that other sub-species could encouraged in areas where Amms were already lost. It did not, however, define how lost they had to be for the area to count as a lost one. Fortunately the proposal was defeated in a strong vote of the membership. This, to me, confirmed what BIBBA members really think and that they still firmly support the objectives as currently stated.

Steve