1. Introduction
The question of whether to keep local, native, or imported bees remains one of the most divisive topics in British beekeeping. In his 2025 webinar for the Yorkshire Beekeepers Association, Laurence Edwards shared an engaging account of his evolution as a beekeeper – from a novice following “local-only” advice to a successful commercial operator using Buckfast bees. His story, while relatable, encapsulates a growing tension between individual beekeeping success and collective ecological responsibility.
This review analyses Edwards’ position through a semi-critical lens, comparing his experiential claims with contemporary research on honeybee genetics, survival, and sustainability.
2. Edwards’ Position: Beekeeping as Personal Choice
Edwards began by recounting his early difficulties managing locally sourced bees: frequent swarming, poor honey yields, and defensive behaviour. Disillusioned, he turned to Buckfast queens, which he described as calmer and more productive. He concluded that the key to success was not whether one kept “native” or “imported” bees, but rather whether the bees’ characteristics aligned with the beekeeper’s aims:
“It’s not about Buckfast or local bees… it’s about understanding what you want as a beekeeper and matching that with the right type of bee.”
– Laurence Edwards, 2025 webinar
He also suggested that both “camps” could coexist if the UK established government-backed mating zones to preserve genetic lines separately – one for Buckfast breeders, and another for native AMM populations.
This conciliatory view has merit, yet it risks simplifying complex genetic and ecological issues. The evidence suggests that unrestricted hybridisation poses significant long-term threats to locally adapted bee populations.
3. The Scientific Context: Why Local Adaptation Matters
The concept of local adaptation is well established in evolutionary ecology. Bees that have evolved within specific climatic and disease environments develop genetic traits conferring resilience to local conditions (Büchler et al., 2014). When these populations are diluted by hybridisation from imported stock, that resilience can erode – a process known as outbreeding depression.
The COLOSS pan-European study on honeybee survival (Büchler et al., 2014) found that colonies performed best when their genetic origin matched the local environment. Conversely, non-local or hybrid colonies exhibited higher winter losses and reduced brood viability. Similarly, work by Moritz et al. (2020) and Wallberg et al. (2014) has shown that introgression from commercial subspecies such as A. m. carnica and A. m. ligustica threatens the genetic integrity of A. m. mellifera across northern Europe.
In Ireland, McCormack et al. (2022) used mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers to demonstrate the persistence of relatively pure AMM populations in isolated areas, and warned that continued imports of hybrid queens risk irreversible genetic dilution.
4. The Ecological Case for Native Bees
Research from both managed and wild colonies supports the ecological value of conserving native AMM. In studies of feral Irish colonies, McCormack and colleagues (2022) observed long-term Varroa tolerance in untreated populations, suggesting that natural selection in stable, locally adapted populations can produce resistance traits without chemical intervention.
Similarly, van Alphen (2024), analysing wild populations in South Africa and South America, concluded that Varroa resistance arises only where natural selection acts on large, genetically cohesive populations — conditions undermined by continuous importation and artificial breeding.
From this perspective, the traditional “local bee” ethos is not nostalgic dogma, but a scientifically grounded approach to sustainable apiculture. The emphasis on locally adapted bees, minimal chemical inputs, and self-sustaining stock aligns with ecological principles and long-term bee health.
5. Hybridization: The Hidden Cost of Convenience
Edwards’ preference for Buckfast bees – hybrids initially developed by Brother Adam in the early 20th century – reflects a pragmatic choice shared by many commercial beekeepers. Buckfast colonies can be docile and highly productive, especially under managed conditions. However, modern genetic studies reveal that the hybridisation strategy behind Buckfast bees is ecologically unstable.
While short-term hybrid vigour (“heterosis”) may produce desirable traits, subsequent generations often exhibit inconsistent behaviour, loss of adaptation, and decreased survival (Bouga et al., 2011; De la Rúa et al., 2009). Moreover, free-mating in open areas ensures that hybrid drones interbreed with local queens, accelerating the introgression of non-native alleles into native gene pools (Henriques et al., 2018).
This dynamic undermines local breeding programmes led by organisations such as BIBBA and the B4 Project, which seek to restore the genetic integrity of AMM in the British Isles.
6. Reconciling Perspectives: Towards Cooperative Conservation
Edwards’ proposal for designated mating zones has real merit if implemented as part of a structured conservation policy. Successful examples already exist: the Colonsay and Oronsay reserve in Scotland (Archer, 2017) demonstrates that genetic isolation can maintain pure AMM lines while supporting productive beekeeping. Similar protected zones in Ireland have allowed for controlled breeding of disease-resistant, locally adapted stock.
Such initiatives could allow for the coexistence of different beekeeping practices, provided that imports are regulated, genetic monitoring is enforced, and the national priority remains local adaptation. True coexistence must rest on mutual respect for ecological limits.
7. Conclusion
Laurence Edwards’ presentation offered an open and honest reflection on a personal beekeeping journey. His emphasis on experimentation, education, and civility is commendable. However, his argument that “there is a place for all bee types” overlooks the ecological consequences of widespread hybridization.
Scientific evidence consistently demonstrates that local bees outperform hybrids when managed within their native range, and that conservation of Apis mellifera mellifera is critical for maintaining resilience, diversity, and sustainability in UK beekeeping.
The future of British apiculture should not rest on short-term pragmatism but on long-term ecological integrity – ensuring that the bees which thrive here are those that have evolved here.
References
- Archer, J. (2017). The Colonsay and Oronsay Honeybee Reserve: A model for AMM conservation. Scottish Beekeepers’ Association Journal.
- Bouga, M. et al. (2011). “A review of methods for discrimination of honey bee populations as applied to European beekeeping.” Journal of Apicultural Research, 50(1), 51–84.
- Büchler, R. et al. (2014). “The influence of genetic origin and its interaction with environmental effects on the survival of Apis mellifera L. colonies in Europe.” Journal of Apicultural Research, 53(2), 205–214.
- De la Rúa, P., Jaffé, R., Dall’Olio, R., Muñoz, I., & Serrano, J. (2009). “Conservation of honey bee genetic diversity in Europe.” Apidologie, 40(3), 263–284.
- Henriques, D. et al. (2018). “Hybridisation between the Iberian honeybee and imported subspecies.” Molecular Ecology, 27(13), 3111–3125.
- McCormack, G. et al. (2022). The genetic integrity of Irish honeybee populations: Evidence from wild and managed colonies. National University of Ireland Galway.
- Moritz, R. F. A., et al. (2020). “The impact of hybridisation on honeybee populations in Europe.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 35(12), 1075–1087.
- van Alphen, J. (2024). Natural selection and Varroa resistance: Lessons from wild populations. National Honey Show Proceedings.