# Question about bee genetics & survival rates



## SugarBeeCo (May 27, 2009)

Last season was my first as a beekeeper and both of my hives made it through the winter. I'm curious to know if there have been any studies done to try and correlate survival rates with the various "breeds" of bees. Perhaps there are too many variations to extract meaningful data, but with any other kind of livestock genetics are incredibly important; bird dogs, horses, chickens, etc. 

My bees came from "survivor stock", so I wonder how much that has helped them. Is it the genes, good management, or luck? I'm sure it's a little of everything. I'm also fortunate to live in an area where I suspect my bees have little exposure to pesticides.

How many of you have "survivor stock" bees? What percentage of your hives made it through the winter? Is the term "survivor stock" even a meaningful measure of a standard, or is it simply creative marketing? Thoughts?


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

You're going to get several different answers to your questions. But for me, survivor stock means something. And those are the only kind of bees I'll buy, when I buy nucs, packages, or queens. 

I entered last winter with 14 hives, lost one, which starved out. I restarted keeping bees a few years ago, and have never treated. So far I lost only one hive to what I was sure was mites, and that was last year or year before last.... 

Like you, I'm sure the survival is a matter of all three - survivor stock, good management, and luck. That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it! :lpf: And I'll take all the luck I can get!
Regards,
Steven


----------



## longrangedog (Jun 24, 2007)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEE CULTURE magazine June 2009 issue: "The most effective method to combat Varroa mites is to use honey bees that are resistant to Varroa mites. They exist. You can buy them. You can make them. They are Russians. They are the survivors. They are hygienic. They are better than the rest. If these bees aren't in your colonies, on your list to buy, on the way to your colonies today...then you are on the list of those who are on the way out. That we continue to pour poison into our boxes when we could be pulling pure and perfect honey out of them instead is amazing. It boggles the mind that this industry hasn't adopted these bees yet." Kim Flottum, editor

I've posted this quote numerous times in response to similar questions. There are people here who believe they know more than and are smarter than Mr. Flottum, the USDA researchers who developed the Russian bee, and the members of the Russian Bee Breeders Association. Ask what qualifications they posess that would convince you to value their opinion over Mr. Flottums.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

We are in a very remote areas - as far as we and the state know there are no other bee keepers within 30 miles of us (we suspect an unregistered keeper within 20 miles though).

We hope to do some small scale breeding for sell of queens and bees along with honey production.

I have figured so far Italian, Carniolan, & either Buckfast or Russian for the breeding stock.

What do you think of those for breeding northern bees?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

longrangedog said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> BEE CULTURE magazine June 2009 issue: "The most effective method to combat Varroa mites is to use honey bees that are resistant to Varroa mites. They exist. You can buy them. You can make them. They are Russians. They are the survivors. They are hygienic. They are better than the rest. If these bees aren't in your colonies, on your list to buy, on the way to your colonies today...then you are on the list of those who are on the way out. That we continue to pour poison into our boxes when we could be pulling pure and perfect honey out of them instead is amazing. It boggles the mind that this industry hasn't adopted these bees yet." Kim Flottum, editor
> 
> I've posted this quote numerous times in response to similar questions. There are people here who believe they know more than and are smarter than Mr. Flottum, the USDA researchers who developed the Russian bee, and the members of the Russian Bee Breeders Association. Ask what qualifications they posess that would convince you to value their opinion over Mr. Flottums.


I've said this before, but he is saying that you can buy resistant bees, and you can breed your own resistant bees. He's describing 3 different mite resistant strains: Russians, survivors (I assume he means feral survivors), and hygienic.

Of course, there are other resistant strains as well.


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper (Jan 24, 2010)

SMR and VSH are resistant strains also. There is no best stock for all the geographic and climatic variations in the country. If there was that would be the only survivor stock by natural selection. The United States curtailed all bee imports in 1922, so after 88 years of genetic isolation our gene pool is real shallow.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

AmericasBeekeeper said:


> ...The United States curtailed all bee imports in 1922, so after 88 years of genetic isolation our gene pool is real shallow.


All? I believe it only curtailed unregulated importations (or at least that is the quote from my state apairist).

From what I remember reading Russian aren't exactly a great breed. They basically only have mite resistance going for them if I recall (as apposed to other breeds that perform well or better in other areas).

I imagine a discussion on breeds is pretty much nothing but opinion though since you either take one persons opinion over another (even if they have "Dr." in front of their names).

I think the terms "developed by" are used a bit loose. Maybe enhanced is a better word. The Russian bees existed already - like so many other things humans "enhanced" and then took all the credit for. I guess when men decided they were God they also decided to take all the credit (where is the credit when varoa showed up - or when a doc kills someone).


----------



## johng (Nov 24, 2009)

I thought one of the problems with Russians is that you have to keep them pure? If they mix with other bees the mite resistance fades pretty fast. Which is not the case with other Hygenic bees. Do I understand that correct or am I completly wrong?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

johng said:


> I thought one of the problems with Russians is that you have to keep them pure? If they mix with other bees the mite resistance fades pretty fast. Which is not the case with other Hygenic bees. Do I understand that correct or am I completly wrong?


They are not different from Hygienic bees in this respect, so in that you would be wrong. Bred bees, just like other bred plants or animals, will not stay true to type for very long if they are allowed to outcross with other lines. 

If you want to use a particular line, like Russians, I think you need to make a long term commitment to it. If you buy only Russians and get your neighbors to go along with it, pretty soon the vicinity will have Russian drones and the resulting outcrosses will be satisfactory. 

However, buying queens every year from a respected source is also a very good idea. That way most of your bees will be headed by good stock. Russian bees are not a one trick pony, by the way. They are suitable for getting honey, but you may find their behavior different from what you are used to.

If you want to have a serious discussion about bee genetics I am interested. If people just want to throw out opinions, I'm not.


----------



## Jack Grimshaw (Feb 10, 2001)

I think the point Kim is trying to make is that when we purchase/raise queens we should search for resistant stock instead of run of the mill genetics.The less we depend on chemical contol of Varroa and other problems,the better off we'll be.

One thing I would like to add to the list is what I call local vigor.You want a bee that is adapted to your area.Temperature ranges,pollen availability,nectar flows.Locally raised queens seem to do better with less intervention.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

Jack Grimshaw said:


> .... One thing I would like to add to the list is what I call local vigor.You want a bee that is adapted to your area.Temperature ranges,pollen availability,nectar flows.Locally raised queens seem to do better with less intervention....


I do not see this as possible. The queen will only be a few weeks/months old. Now the fact she is raised in the same enviroment may have some bearing but still this couldn't be much since she is raised in spring/summer.


----------



## SugarBeeCo (May 27, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> However, buying queens every year from a respected source is also a very good idea. That way most of your bees will be headed by good stock. Russian bees are not a one trick pony, by the way. They are suitable for getting honey, but you may find their behavior different from what you are used to.


How many sources are there for survivor stock? Is there a standard that defines what survivor stock is?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Is the term "survivor stock" even a meaningful measure of a standard, or is it simply creative marketing? Thoughts?


This is good. No, it is not meaningful. It's like saying I am survivor stock because my daddy survived WWII. What does that mean? Maybe he had a desk job! In order to be a "survivor" you have to be subjected to a meaningful challenge. 

The Russian line was chosen because they were survivors in an area that had varroa mites longer than anywhere else and they survived without varroa treatments. But even there, the bees were "selected", brought to the US and subjected to further selection. 

The whole acclimation thing is also a pleasant fantasy. Do you know how long it would take bees to become "regionally adapted"? Just how would this occur? All of these ideas are based on suppositions. Natural selection is not the process of bees turning into what we want. 

Breeding of plants and animals has been going for thousands of years. People began to do it because natural selection didn't produce the results they wanted.


----------



## SugarBeeCo (May 27, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> This is good. No, it is not meaningful. It's like saying I am survivor stock because my daddy survived WWII. What does that mean? Maybe he had a desk job! In order to be a "survivor" you have to be subjected to a meaningful challenge.
> 
> The Russian line was chosen because they were survivors in an area that had varroa mites longer than anywhere else and they survived without varroa treatments. But even there, the bees were "selected", brought to the US and subjected to further selection.
> 
> ...


Peter

In your previous post you mentioned purchasing from a "respected source" to ensure "good stock". Is the beekeeping community making those definitions based on things like customer service and the longevity of a company or is there some qualitative difference in their product?--bees. 

I guess what I'm looking for, as a new beekeeper going into his second year, is some measurable differences between the suppliers and the bees that are in the marketplace. It sounds the data just isn't out there. I've had some success with my bees, but also think it would be interesting to try another breed. Russians, for example. This is a hobby for me, so doing some experimenting is part of the fun. 

I also find the survivor concept interesting. I don't know how long it would take bees to become regionally adapted? It's a great question. Does anyone know the answer?


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

I thought this was discussing bee breeding not opinions? Also I thought people were adverse to bringing religion into these discussions?

So why are we talking about "natural selection" it's just opinion that such a thing even exists... outside of a lion choosing which goat to eat - that is about as natural a selection as your going to get.

Why do people always pull this evolutionary religion into these topics? Sorry but it gets a little frustrating to try to think of a topic seriously if this stuff is just brought in and taken as facts.

Mike


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

"survivor stock"
Can you tell me more about the origin of your bees?
Ernie


----------



## SugarBeeCo (May 27, 2009)

MikeJ said:


> I thought this was discussing bee breeding not opinions? Also I thought people were adverse to bringing religion into these discussions?
> 
> So why are we talking about "natural selection" it's just opinion that such a thing even exists... outside of a lion choosing which goat to eat - that is about as natural a selection as your going to get.
> 
> ...


Mike

Good points. Maybe I need to ask my original questions from another direction. What traits can be bred into or out of bees? How long does it take?


----------



## SugarBeeCo (May 27, 2009)

BEES4U said:


> "survivor stock"
> Can you tell me more about the origin of your bees?
> Ernie


Ernie

My bees were a gift, but came from NM. They're marketed as "survivor stock". I can PM you the website if you're interested. I hesitate to post it in the thread because I don't want this to devolve into a critique of suppliers. 

All things considered, I'll keep going back to this source for my bees.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

I read that it took 10 years for Adams to stabilize each breeding change he made. I do not know how it was determined that the traits were stabilized. I mean this seems very abstract - how do you know it is "stabilized"? I don't think anyone will say that 2 buckfast bees will have the same levels of traits.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

I suggest that the phrase "survivor stock" is meaningful for the following reasons:

1) The stock comes from bees that survive the depredations of varroa and trachael mites, without chemical treatments.
2) Using the analogy of PLB regarding concentration camps in WW2 - for our bees, the war is never over. The Gestapo (mites) are always actively involved trying to destroy the "survivors". Our bees never have desk jobs, they're always prey to the Gestapo. The descendants of the original battle, whether mites or bees, generate offspring that continue the war. Think in terms of the One Hundred Years War in Europe - the battles come and go, generations come and go, different sides win or lose. But the war goes on. So it is between the mites and our bees.
3) In this war, the ones that survive are the ones that somehow adapt to, and deal with, the depredations of the mites. Without chemical intervention. There are those who say this is not possible, but so many others continue to demonstrate this is possible, and is occurring.

Thus the phrase, "Survivor stock." There are currently several different strains of bees that appear to meet this definition.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

StevenG said:


> There are those who say this is not possible


What? Who? I have not heard anyone say it is not possible. Researchers and beekeepers alike have been talking about mite resistant bees for decades. But to be possible is one thing. To have the real thing in your hand is another.



> Recent reports of HB colonies surviving Varroa mite infestation without treatment present a _possible_ way to understand Varroa and HB biology and co-evolution, but this information needs to be considered carefully as Varroa-resistant HBs MAY NOT EXHIBIT THE SAME RESISTANCE IF MOVED TO OTHER AREAS. For example the number of mites may increase when moving bees from one foraging crop to another one, disrupting the equilibrium between the parasite and the host in a way that it unfavorable to the bees.
> 
> Also, bees that survive mite infestation may not have characteristics suitable for beekeeping such as honey production or they may be overly aggressive. Moreover, the apparent lack of resistance of bees in many areas is not just a lack of co-evolution, but may be due to the management practice of KEEPING LARGE NUMBERS OF COLONIES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY WHERE MITES CAN SPREAD even after they kill a colony. The practice of keeping colonies in high-density apiaries makes it easier for Varroa transmitted viruses to spread.
> 
> "Varroa mites and honey bee health: can Varroa explain part of the colony losses?" Yves Le Conte, Marion Ellis, Wolfgang Ritter. Apidologie


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> So why are we talking about "natural selection" it's just opinion that such a thing even exists.


The scientific community and a majority of intelligent people accept the principal of natural selection. Real world examples of it are everywhere. Please don't sabotage the discussion with an_ off topic discussion_ of Evolution.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> The scientific community and a majority of intelligent people accept the principal of natural selection. Real world examples of it are everywhere. Please don't sabotage the discussion with an_ off topic discussion_ of Evolution.


Ahh. Ok. Well there you go. I am not apart of the "Scientific Community" and neither am I "intelligent". I will try in everyway possible to remain my poor stupid self so that I will not be poisoned with this insane lie.

But I did not sabotage anything. I was not the first to bring their religion in as a topic - but when others do I do not shy away from talking of it.
Putting this evolution and natural selection out as fact does not make it so. And there is no real world examples of such. So please stick to the topic of bee breeding or we can talk about religion - I can do either.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

MikeJ said:


> So please stick to the topic of bee breeding


There can't be any discussion of breeding of any kind without allowing for natural selection, evolution, genetics and epigenetics. All selective breeding is based upon these biological principles. By ditching these scientific principles, you are ditching science. Thereby, we would discuss breeding of living organisms without considering science. What would we talk even about?


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Good point PLB. Mites have demonstrably evolved resistance to coumophos and fuvalinate, that is why they are no longer very efficacious. The .2% of mites that survive an initial acaricide application then breed and reproduce their own line of "survivor stock" mites, and soon the acaricide is no longer effective. This principal is exploited in many forms of plant and animal breeding and Apis mellifera is no different. We select our breeders based on having been exposed to mites and pathogens and productively surviving the the challenge in a comercial setting without the help of an acaricide. Natural selection and man made selection can work together to improve stocks and reduce inputs.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Darwin "discovered" natural selection by studying how human selection separated the fit from the unfit, based on human goals. Nature has_ no goals_, therefore natural selection is simply the failure of some species to compete successfully.

The ones that survive are not necessarily more fit, however, some have found niches. For example, mice living in basements have found a comfortable niche away from natural predators (hawks, foxes, etc.). Honey bees could also find niches away from highly infested colonies. 

This would not mean they were more fit to resist mites, of course, but that they found a niche. Real resistant bees would have to be tested on the battle field. Then, tested in different environments to determine whether they possess a real trait, or they just got lucky.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

Completely illogical. I try to refrain from taking part in discussions that start out with a pretty good topic I would like info on and it degenerates into opinions taken as fact without any reasoning.

To quickly answer and then leave (I know I will be missed)...
No breeding has nothing to do with the subjects mentioned. The subjects mentioned are part of a modern religion that goies against everything I know to be True. Breeding took place very successfully back when people believed in God.

And no mites becoming immune or partially immune to some chemicals is not evolution. This is simply a process created by God and distorted by the "Scientific Community" and the "Intelligent" people you mention. If I smash your watch and it still runs is it evolving? Or is simply working in the condition it has been subject to? In the same line of think these same people with yell how advanced we have become because we create such intricate things - yet all creation came about from ........ nothing.

I will gladly discuss bee breeding since I am interested in this.

Mike


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> The scientific community and a majority of intelligent people accept the principal of natural selection. Real world examples of it are everywhere. Please don't sabotage the discussion with an_ off topic discussion_ of Evolution.


The "majority of intelligent people" is not helpful. You can be extremely intelligent and still not realize how evolution is not a religion. You can be a scientist in certain fields and still hold a bias against evolution.

Needless to say, the idea of natural selection is going to hit a sore spot with many beekeepers. Most I have met are very religious, and many of them fear that evolution somehow disproves God at worst, and disproves their particular religion at best, even though neither is necessarily the case. Because of this, I find it better to just act as if they aren't even saying anything than to engage them in an evolutionary discussion. It leads to nothing but a pointless waste of time argument, and their mind will likely never change.

The real debate about evolution is not whether or not it happens, but how evolution happens. Even evolutionary biologists will admit to that. If someone disagrees with that statement, I don't have time to waste on them. 

So, I might say someone has a confirmation bias against evolution if they say it doesn't happen, but to imply they aren't intelligent is inflammatory for no reason but to be inflammatory. When people feel they are under attack, they will close up and hear nothing, and all you have is a fight on your hands.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Getting back to the topic at hand - Survivor stock - on several threads in the past few months various comments have been made that going without treatment is either irresponsible, or doomed to failure. Also that some colonies show mite resistance, but succumb in the end, or are treated before they die. 

I and others believe there is such a thing as "survivor stock" and smart beeks buy and use that stock, or develop that stock, and don't have to treat. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I don't "believe" in it one way or another. Seeing is believing. The question remains: will it work? Will it work for me? I have obtained mite resistant stock and I am starting over again. (Bees died). I think it could work, and I think it could fail. Making one's mind up ahead of the facts is faith. It's your right.


----------



## SugarBeeCo (May 27, 2009)

StevenG said:


> Getting back to the topic at hand - Survivor stock - on several threads in the past few months various comments have been made that going without treatment is either irresponsible, or doomed to failure. Also that some colonies show mite resistance, but succumb in the end, or are treated before they die.
> 
> I and others believe there is such a thing as "survivor stock" and smart beeks buy and use that stock, or develop that stock, and don't have to treat.
> Regards,
> Steven


Steven

Thanks for getting back to the topic and addressing my original questions. 

Do you do regular mite counts on your hives? I noticed a gradual increase in mites last year as the season progressed. By fall, the count had dropped to nearly zero. I didn't treat and don't intend to.

I haven't done a count yet this year.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

SugarBeeCo said:


> Steven
> 
> Thanks for getting back to the topic and addressing my original questions.
> 
> ...


:lookout: I scandalized some folks on the forum earlier this year when I stated I do not do mite counts. Was informed I should, replied I wasn't going to do it... waste of my time, since I'm not going to treat... if they die, I didn't want those bees anyway. So far in 5 seasons (counting this one) I've lost one hive to mites. And this year, one hive to starvation. 

I do notice mites when I inspect the colony, and burr comb is ripped open revealing drone brood with a mite... have seen very few of those so far this year. 

PLB, my "belief" in the efficacy of "survivor stock" is not based on wishful, before the fact thinking. You presume too much. As I've stated before, I did nearly a year's worth of research on bees before restarting in beekeeping. My belief is based on the experiences of those beekeepers who have successfully bred survivors (B. Weaver in TX, for instance, and there are others). That is why I bought survivor stock from the beginning, and refuse to buy anything else.

There may be an assumption in some beeks minds that survivor stock won't ever crash. My bet is that some will succumb to the mites. But I think we'll find out that the overall success rate with survivor stock will be greater, compared to those who use "regular" bees, and treat. Time will tell. But I've bet my money on survivor stock.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

stevenG - I will see your "don't count mites" and raise you(if that is how poker works?). Maybe the hive with the most mites that still survives is the most valuable? It would actually have the most resistance. There are many events, such as a supercedure requeening cycle, that can change mite levels, irregardless of the bees ability to resist mites. In the long run, the ability to endure the parasite is what counts, not the number of parasites.

Yes, I believe that we are seeing a change in the genetics of our bees, and will continue to breed from the best.

Roland


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

A varroa count isn't as onerous a task as it might seem. A sugar shake?

Tracheal mites will require a microscope.

Nosema as well. + a mortar and pestle, etc. .

AFB and EFB requires a brood cell check.

Etc.

Resistance to other pests/pathogens are 'traits' that should be considered as well.

While 'not kicking the bucket' may be considered a trait by some (you know who you are), it isn't very helpful when trying to define a resistent strain of bees.

Resistant to what? Beekeepers?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> “In interviewing beekeepers across the country for an American Bee Journal article on the possibilities of breeding local survivor stock, I found that many seeds planted by Sue Cobey had sprouted and flourished,” Mea McNeil said. “For example, the successful Sustainable Honeybee Program in Northern Virginia attributes its existence to encouragement from Cobey.”
> 
> Dan Purvis of Purvis Brothers Apiaries, Leoma, Tenn., credits Cobey’s drone management program “as a valuable part of his protocol, which has now maintained untreated stock for over a decade,” McNeil said.
> 
> ...


This last part echoes the point I am making. No need to talk about it, just do it. But also recognize that we are constrained by what exists and what is in the realm of possibility. If it were easy to find the invincible bee, people would have already done it.

Also, isn't the topic "Question about bee genetics & survival rates" and didn't I say that I prefer to talk about genetics realistically, not opinions about what "should work". I have been raising bees since the 1970s and I have seen a lot of hype come down the pike.


----------



## longrangedog (Jun 24, 2007)

#5 04-10-2010, 07:21 PM 
WLC Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New York City, NY
Posts: 214 

Re: Question about bee genetics & survival rates 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by longrangedog 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEE CULTURE magazine June 2009 issue: "The most effective method to combat Varroa mites is to use honey bees that are resistant to Varroa mites. They exist. You can buy them. You can make them. They are Russians. They are the survivors. They are hygienic. They are better than the rest. If these bees aren't in your colonies, on your list to buy, on the way to your colonies today...then you are on the list of those who are on the way out. That we continue to pour poison into our boxes when we could be pulling pure and perfect honey out of them instead is amazing. It boggles the mind that this industry hasn't adopted these bees yet." Kim Flottum, editor

I've posted this quote numerous times in response to similar questions. There are people here who believe they know more than and are smarter than Mr. Flottum, the USDA researchers who developed the Russian bee, and the members of the Russian Bee Breeders Association. Ask what qualifications they posess that would convince you to value their opinion over Mr. Flottums. 

I've said this before, but he is saying that you can buy resistant bees, and you can breed your own resistant bees. He's describing 3 different mite resistant strains: Russians, survivors (I assume he means feral survivors), and hygienic.

Of course, there are other resistant strains as well. 

WLC- The words "survivor" and "hygienic" used in the context of this quote are adjectives describing Russian bees. Flottum does not mention any other strain of bee directly or by inference.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Roland, I'll see your "hive that survives with the most mites is most valuable" and raise you - - smallest percent of hives in our apiaries that succumbs to the mites. :lpf: So if I have 10 hives, and one dies, that's a 10 per cent loss... you have 20 hives, one dies to the mites, you have a 5 percent loss and you win! Starvation, bears, beekeeper neglect doesn't count, only mites. 

WLC - Yep! I know who I am... So, when we leave the land of theory, and get into reality, what better definition of "resistant" is there, than the colony that does not "kick the bucket" and survives? :scratch: Seems like reality trumps theory every time. 

Look, I know how important it is for there to be theorists, who do scientific studies and genetics and work hard to breed resistant bees... survivor bees. And I laud them for their efforts. But I don't have to become that type of beekeeper. When you get to the average beek like me, who simply wants to keep bees in the most conscientious manner possible while adding to the probability of their survival, the colonies that survive the mites without treatment are the important ones. I don't care how they do it, just that they do it. And if I can propagate them by walk away splits, and add to the genetic diversity and strength of my neighborhood with drones from those survivors, everyone wins. 

Right now we beeks who keep bees without medications are benefitting from the hard work of theorists and researchers and breeders who have spent many years and much heartache and probably a lot of lost money, who developed the bees we use. Fortunately the process continues, as these dedicated folks continue their work. But even they would admit, reality trumps theory every time. Ask anyone who has bred bees. Or even keeps bees. Those little darlings surprise us frequently.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> There is neither a Varroa treatment available
> which fulfills all the criteria "safe, effective and easy to apply" nor
> a honey bee which is sustainably tolerant to Varroosis under temperate
> climatic conditions. Rather, we now face new problems
> ...


Biology and control of Varroa destructor
Peter Rosenkranz, Pia Aumeier, Bettina Ziegelmann
Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 103 (2010)


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

"In addition,
there are still no data showing that Varroa in general becomes less
virulent or that honey bee colonies selected for mite tolerance
survive without mite control. "

hmmmm I guess we Americans just don't know how to do it! It's hard to follow, as I've been splitting and expanding, but my original hive #1, installed spring 2006, is still alive and going strong, no treatments for mites, at all. Unless you call a screened bottom board a "control". That's four years, no treatments. My next oldest hive was established in spring, 2008, still going strong... that's 2 years. I'm up to 19 hives now, and since restarting in the spring of 2006 I've lost one hive to mites, and one to starvation. 

I guess the breeders I'm buying my bees and queens from haven't read the German study (it appears that is a German study, I might be wrong), that they can't do what they're doing. Then again, maybe SE Missouri isn't considered a temperate climate? opcorn:


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

When I joined this forum in January I tried to get a discussion going about why some bees survive with varroa and some don't. Everyone I know thinks varroa resistant bees are the way to go. The Weavers in Texas sell them, the USDA Russian line is available, the VSH line is, etc.

Some folks have success with survivors, etc. However, not everybody experiences these successes equally, as evidenced by the study I mentioned. In other words, the success or failure of some folks may have less to do with the bees and more to do with isolation.

I have yet to hear from a beekeeper who has bees in a densely populated (by bees) area that can keep bees without treatment. So my suggestion is: maybe being located out of the mainstream and/or having an isolated population of bees accounts for the success that some have.

This is certainly not a far fetched idea. I don't think the fact that bees have lived in the woods a couple of years allows enough time for significant genetic change. But even if it did, it appears that when these bees are brought into contact with other bees, pretty quick they get mites, too, and fail.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

http://www.in.gov/dnr/entomolo/files/CCDbeekeepers-looks_good962007maarec.pdf

"a research group in Israel believes that some bees in Israel have incorporated
part of the DNA of the virus into their bee DNA and this DNA incorporation is offering resistance to the colony."

That's a common theme in virology.

If you have a strain of bees that are CCD+IAPV+Varroa
'proof', then maybe the discovery by that team in Isreal is saying this,

'Resistant strains of bees are the result of viral DNA that has inserted itself into the bee genome and is not a result of the bee genome itself.'

So maybe you should retitle this thread, 'Question about viral ...

PS- I did my first levels on retroviruses.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

The following refers to tracheal mites but underlines what I have been trying to state about bee density vs isolation, as well as the nutrition factor:



> The natural control of the tracheal mite, Acarapis woodi, of the honey bee depends greatly on good foraging opportunities for bee colonies and on limited competition between colonies.


L. BAILEY and J.N. PERRY. 2002. The natural control of the tracheal mite of honey bees.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> Some folks have success with survivors, etc. However, not everybody experiences these successes equally, as evidenced by the study I mentioned. In other words, the success or failure of some folks may have less to do with the bees and more to do with isolation.


is there anything in beekeeping that is experienced by everyone equally? is there any treatment for any bee malady that is unvirsally effective? certainly not OA, FA, fluvalinate, coumaphos, TM, menthol, fumidil, thymol ...you even stated that you had trouble getting the bees to lay drones for drone trapping in some circumstances. not to mention that mites are not experienced by everyone equally (and our colonies are not surrounded by commercial yards, but are surrounded by beekeepers who have mite problems).

in some cases, simply feeding leads to robbing, pulling frames can roll the queen, foundation isn't drawn well, ...and some colonies simply fail to thrive despite boosting with brood/food from stronger hives despite having a similar genetic background and the same foraging range as the thriving hive next door.

so, what in beekeeping is experienced by everyone equally? is it reasonable to expect that anything is?

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

deknow said:


> so, what in beekeeping is experienced by everyone equally? is it reasonable to expect that anything is? deknow


Perhaps not. But then what can we ever learn and carry forward?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> Perhaps not. But then what can we ever learn and carry forward?


well, if the standard is that it has to work for everyone in all circumstances equally, then nothing...but i don't think this is a reasonable standard....which was my point.

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

deknow said:


> well, if the standard is that it has to work for everyone in all circumstances equally, then nothing...but i don't think this is a reasonable standard....which was my point.


But I don't see what you are talking about. Who suggested anything would "work for everyone in all circumstances equally"? I never did, nor would I.

I am trying to ferret out what effects are due to "genetics", what are environmental, and what are attributable to simple isolation. Of course, every hive is different, every region is different, every day is different.

Some things remain true: bees love honey, bears love bees, etc.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Actually, Dean, it seems to me that I'm the one who's more convinced that what works here _may not work there_. You are the one who promotes "treatment free beekeeping". 

The mainstream beekeeper wants treatment free _as bad as_ you do, we are just not so convinced that it will work for everybody that we go around promoting it. 

I mean, _I did write about it_ and even talk about it. But to continue to do so would be to dismiss the failures as not relevant. First and foremost, I am interested in the scientific basis for phenomena. 

If it can't be reasonably explained or depends on a large investment of faith, I'm just not that interested. I mean, I love a mystery as much as they next person, but not in matters of health.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

WLC said:


> http://www.in.gov/dnr/entomolo/files/CCDbeekeepers-looks_good962007maarec.pdf
> 
> "a research group in Israel believes that some bees in Israel have incorporated
> part of the DNA of the virus into their bee DNA and this DNA incorporation is offering resistance to the colony."
> ...


http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/88/12/3428

What's so important about this paper?

It discusses how IAPV is silenced in bees with inserted IAPV sequences.

My take on this? Other Dicistroviruses may be silenced as well. Hence, one possible route for resistant strains of bees to occur.

For example, those resistant strains might contain IAPV sequences and are resistant to not only IAPV but to related dicistroviruses like KBV, and ABPV as well.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> .... You are the one who promotes "treatment free beekeeping".
> 
> The mainstream beekeeper wants treatment free _as bad as_ you do, we are just not so convinced that it will work for everybody that we go around promoting it.


what does work for everyone? i seem to recall that you were claiming 90% die off in your area of NYS in 2008 when you were the local inspector. assuming that something less than 90% of beekeepers in the area were "treatment free" at the time, whatever non-treatment free approaches that were being used at the time weren't working for most.



> I mean, _I did write about it_ and even talk about it. But to continue to do so would be to dismiss the failures as not relevant. First and foremost, I am interested in the scientific basis for phenomena.


oh, there are failures for sure...but as i noted above, there are failures no matter what you do (or don't do).

fwiw, i've written about beekeeping treatments as well...probably much in the same respect you have written about treatment free beekeeping.



> If it can't be reasonably explained or depends on a large investment of faith, I'm just not that interested. I mean, I love a mystery as much as they next person, but not in matters of health.


i'm not sure what is so hard to explain...certainly "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" are easy to understand. how about "treating bees prevents selection for bees that don't need treatments".

when you tell me you won't play tennis because no one can reasonably explain how gravity works, i'll belive that you really need to know how things work in order to accept them.

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"treating bees prevents selection for bees that don't need treatments"

Why is this more relevant to bee genetics than to other insects?

From what I've gleaned so far...

Chromosomes crossing over occurs significantly more than occurs in other insect species.

Viral sequences that can insert themselves into the bee genome, AND silence infections from related viruses, can insert themselves in many locations on different chromosomes in the honey bee.

Honey bees hybridize as a rule.

Sooo...

It certainly makes sense to argue for allowing artificial and natural selection to occur by NOT removing selective agents (pests/pathogens) in an organism like the honey bee.

How can I say this? It seems to be made for it.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> How can I say this? It seems to be made for it.


Of course. The problem is, natural selection doesn't work on dead bees. If all bees die, there is no "fittest" from which to breed.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> when you tell me you won't play tennis because no one can reasonably explain how gravity works, i'll belive that you really need to know how things work in order to accept them.

OK. We'll use gravity as a example. We don't have to be able to explain it, but we can make confident predictions about it. You jump from a plane with no parachute, you die. The parachute lessens your risk, could still die.

If I say if in this area if you don't treat for mites, the bees die, that is a reasonable prediction. I have seen it happen and my friends have seen it happen. Therefore, we are looking for a parachute.

Most of us are using either formic, oxalic or thymol. All of us would like to stop, but nobody _around here _ has successfully gone off varroa treatments. 

So I am saying _around here_, it won't work. How would you respond to that? Of course, we keep on buying more bees, but we want to be sustainable.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Yes, Peter. Dead bees don't do much.

But, you can plan in advance.

The simplest way? Figure out your possible loss rates, and then have enough nuc boxes to cover your losses.

It's a common theme in genetics (a big part of my training).

StevenG is right in saying that obtaining the right stock is a good way to start in breeding your own resistant bees.

However, once you have your own resistant bees, you need to spread those strains around. They need to hybridize with other resistant strains to fully take advantage of the honey bee's own abilities to move those desireable genes around.

There's another piece that I've referred to before, the natural micro (and meso) flora (and fauna) that can occur in an treatment free hive.

TBHs do have an advantage here. They not only allow for natural comb and its micro/meso flora/fauna, they also allows for something else.

Yup, it's that propolis hypothesis again. Perhaps a heavily propolized hive might be the missing piece for those hives that are under pressure from beetles and moths (not to mention ants, etc.).

Too much propolis might create a 'bee space' problem in a heavily propolized hive using frames. A top bar hive doesn't have that problem since it doesn't have the end or side bars that might get 'too close' to the hive body.

One more very important point.

You have to have selective pressures present (like pathogens and pests) for the above to create new resistant strains of honey bees/(hives!).

I'd say for some, the 'pucker factor' will go to '11'.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> OK. We'll use gravity as a example. We don't have to be able to explain it, but we can make confident predictions about it. You jump from a plane with no parachute, you die. The parachute lessens your risk, could still die.


as a parallel, i don't know which (or what combination) of the myriad of traits that the bees posses that causes them to not die from mites (we know that HYG and VSH are not how bees resist mites when left to their own devices). we can confidently predict, however, that when treatments are used against the mite that whatever these traits are will NOT be selected for...in fact, they will be selected against (because they presumably do have some metabolic cost...dr. phil starks at tufts is starting to look at the cost of certain behaviors).



> If I say if in this area if you don't treat for mites, the bees die, that is a reasonable prediction. I have seen it happen and my friends have seen it happen. Therefore, we are looking for a parachute.
> 
> Most of us are using either formic, oxalic or thymol. All of us would like to stop, but nobody _around here _ has successfully gone off varroa treatments.
> 
> So I am saying _around here_, it won't work. How would you respond to that? Of course, we keep on buying more bees, but we want to be sustainable.


peter, this is exactly what we were told here in massachusetts....but we are not the only ones not treating now, and we have not lost all our bees.


part of the problem is numbers....if you look at treatment free commercial beekeepers (a short list off the top of my head, dee lusby, kirk webster, chris baldwin), they all lost a lot of bees in the process of getting off treatments...but they had something else in common....numbers. in a 1000 colony operation, a 90% die off is devastating, but you still have 100 colonies to work with...not death to a scrappy (and low overhead) operation. BUT, they have come out the other side, and are all making honey crops, all making bees...all making money. most folks, when they see a 90% die off coming, they panic and resort to treatments...i can't say i blame them, but this is precisely why they can't get off treatments....they are not willing to take the necessary losses (which, in some cases are 100%) to come out the other side.

in a smaller operation a 90% die off of 300 hives, you might have 30 hives to work with....with 50 or even 100 hives, you might have none left.

this is precisely why the theme for our conference this year is "what is the smaller beekeeper to do?" we have commercial beekeepers (some of them are even "treatment" beekeepers) offering their best advice for smaller operations on how to get off treatments, how to survive the losses, and mostly, how to come out the other side.

i do promote treatment free beekeeping, and i practice it as well.

deknow


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

WLC said:


> Viral sequences that can insert themselves into the bee genome, AND silence infections from related viruses, can insert themselves in many locations on different chromosomes in the honey bee.


Only retroviruses insert themselves into the genome. I'm not aware of a current retrovirus that we are dealing with in bees. What would that be?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

PoDuck,

IAPV isn't a retrovirus, but it is an RNA virus (Dicistrovirus).

http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/88/12/3428

That's the link to the relevant paper again.

It's a good piece of molecular virology research.

What it suggests as a possible mechanism(s) for IAPV resistance in honey bees is, to say the least, amazing.

Dicistroviruses are pretty new in virology though.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> we can confidently predict, however, that when treatments are used against the mite that whatever these traits are will NOT be selected for


First, it is pretty foolish to predict what won't happen, but that's OK, have at it. However, I have seen no evidence in any of these discussions one shred of understanding of natural selection insofar as it applies to bees. All I have seen is idle speculation. 

The only real examples of natural selection applied to bees and varroa are the Santa Cruz Island experiment, where the bees all died, and the situation in South Africa and tropical America, where varroa resistance arises through natural qualities of bees.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

You don't think that IAPV resistance due to IAPV integration into the honey bee genome isn't an example of natural selection?

Peter, aren't we a little too 'jaded' here?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Hmm. I think I said examples of natural selection as it applies to the relationship between bees and varroa. Of course, in the original host, there is a balance, so that would be a good example of a parasite/host relationship that is successful. There are other minor examples, but the bottom line is that they are not credible to the research community. I already cited Peter Rosencranz:


> There is neither a Varroa treatment available
> which fulfills all the criteria ‘‘safe, effective and easy to apply” nor
> a honey bee which is sustainably tolerant to Varroosis under temperate
> climatic conditions.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I guess that those folks who cited the above research in such 'less than credible' publications such as PNAS, and the Journal of Virology thought otherwise.

That being said, aren't the viral infections transmitted by varroa the main cause of death for most hives?

In other words, it isn't the presence of varroa, but it's the viruses that do the actual killing.

Varroa is present in those resistant bee hives. Perhaps the virus may be as well, just not in a pathogenic form.

They sample for varroa and virus, they find both. :doh:

Do you remember lysogeny?


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

WLC, I don't remember ever learning about dicistrovirae in college, and I have to admit paying very little attention to virology except to pass tests. At the time I had no idea how important virology is in genetics, and how interesting genetics would become for me in the future.

From what I see, a dicistrovirus works similarly to a retrovirus, but I can't seem to find much information on how they work that makes them different.

One thing I am curious about is do they work like an endogenous retrovirus, where they pass the RNA through their germ cells and in turn to offspring? If so, does a dicistrovirus have the same limitation as a retrovirus in terms of only being coded to infect certain types of cells? If that is the case, is IAPV coded to infect germ cells?

I don't know your background, so I'm not sure if you know the answers to these questions, but I am curious. If I knew the answers to these questions, I could better address what seems to be some flaws in the conversation if my assumptions are correct.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Poduck:

Let's put it this way, it's a new field in virology.

The viruses in question were considered picorna viruses until they discovered that 2 cistrons were involved.

Anyway, I'd have to do alot of research to answer those questions. Frankly, I wonder if they've even gotten that far with such a relatively new class of viruses.

However, we do know that varroa transmits the virus directly into the hemolymph of the bee. As for tissues and receptors involved, it's time to look throught the literature.

As for IAPV in germ line cells, they are bathed in hemolymph, aren't they?

My point for Peter is that this is a pretty good example of how natural selection can produce varroa resistance.

For the rest of you, it should at least let you know that they're turning over some new stones to find answers.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Varroa destructor is the main culprit for the death
and reduced populations of overwintered honey bee
(Apis mellifera) colonies in Ontario, Canada

Although the causes of the record mortality
of honey bee colonies remains undetermined,
most scientists agree that it is likely
due to a combination of several factors ranging
from viruses, parasites and diseases, to singlesource
diets, compromised disease resistance,
inclement weather, and pesticides

Nosema disease and tracheal mites were
apparently the least damaging factors, while
higher fatality cases were associated with
varroa mites either alone or in combination
with other factors

Results suggest
that varroa mites significantly reduced colony
bee populations, which is in agreement with
previous studies


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

WLC said:


> As for IAPV in germ line cells, they are bathed in hemolymph, aren't they?


Hemolymph is not the actual germ cell itself though, so whether or not it's bathed in it seems irrelevant.

In terms of a retrovirus that may be similar in the sense that it infects the leukocytes of humans, which could be considered similar to the hemolymph in insects, is HIV. HIV is transmitted in seminal fluid as well as fluid from the mother's vaginal mucous membranes. This would suggest that the germ cells are bathed in infected cells, but the parents of a child could be infected with HIV, and the baby can avoid contracting it. This is because it is not an endogenous retrovirus, but just a retrovirus that infects white blood cells.

I would imagine that it would be similar in bees.

Anyway, I have people I know that work in this field I can ask. I am certainly not trying to have you do my research for me. I just thought you, or someone else here, might know the answer.  Thanks for the info so far.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

And the presence of significant #s of varroa mites in resistant honey bee strains? How would you explain that?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17275871?dopt=Abstract


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

the movement of genetic material from species to species is a fairly new discovery and not widely know about.



> Crochu et al. (2004) and Tanne & Sela (2005)
> reported that DNA versions of non-retro RNA viruses is
> incorporated into the genome of their hosts.
> 
> ...


Journal of General Virology (2007), 88, 3428–3438

But phenomena like this and other epigenetic occurrences run counter to traditional evolutionary theory. That is not to say that they eclipse natural selection but it does seem as if there are mechanisms that drive adaptation. 

This is very good news for people interested in medicine and agriculture, because this suggests ways to bring about genetic changes that could boost productivity, combat pests and diseases, and alleviate genetic disorders.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> And the presence of significant #s of varroa mites in resistant honey bee strains? How would you explain that?
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17275871?dopt=Abstract


To whom is this directed? Is it in reference to this paper? Have you read this paper?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> We report that in bees (Apis mellifera), approximately 30% of all tested
> populations carry a segment of a dicistrovirus in their genome and have thus become virus-resistant. Here we report a case showing not only the
> integration of a viral segment into the genome of its host
> (honeybee) but also the reciprocal integration of a host–genome
> ...


Virology 362 (2007) 342–349

But is this natural selection? I somehow don't think so. On the face of it, it appears more like a case of the virus hijacking the host dna in order to prevent the host from dying. Obviously it is "better" for the virus if the host doesn't die; the virus can't survive without the host.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I'd call it a good news, bad news deal.

The good news: your bee strain has a virus integrated into its genome that represses other viruses that try to infect your bees.

The bad news: the virus that's integrated into your bee strain can be induced to become pathogenic under certain conditions, thereby killing your bees and other bees nearby.

So maybe there's a dark cloud above that silver lining.

Anyhow, it illustrates how genetics and survival can produce some surprising results.

It takes a virus to fight a virus. :scratch:


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

Peter: Am I missing something? It looks to me as though this is not epigenetic, since it is actually changing the host DNA.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

PoDuck:

It becomes epigenetic when something causes the integrated virus to become pathogenic through induction.

Which factors can cause that? I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

PoDuck said:


> Peter: Am I missing something? It looks to me as though this is not epigenetic, since it is actually changing the host DNA.


Epigenetic effects do result in changes to the dna; how they differ from regular genetics is that they are not the result of meiotic recombination. However, I think you are right about the retroviruses. Look at this (a bit dense, I know, but it supports what you were saying)


> For honey bee viruses, no true latency (i.e. integration of the virus RNA into the host’s genome or existing as an episome) has been demonstrated so far. The only viruses with RNA genomes known to integrate a DNA version of their genome into host chromosomal DNA are the retroviruses.
> 
> Retroviruses use a virally encoded reverse transcriptase to generate a DNA-copy of their genome which is inserted into the host DNA by a virus-encoded integrase; these reactions are required for normal replication (Flint et al., 2004; Goff, 1992; Hu and Temin, 1990).
> 
> ...


Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 103 (2010) S48–S61


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

Well, in doing a cursory search about dicistrovirae, I found nothing speaking of reverse transcriptase, long terminal repeats, primer binding sites, etc. That's why I was curious about it, since those things are well known markers of retroviruses.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> First, it is pretty foolish to predict what won't happen, but that's OK, have at it. However, I have seen no evidence in any of these discussions one shred of understanding of natural selection insofar as it applies to bees. All I have seen is idle speculation.
> 
> The only real examples of natural selection applied to bees and varroa are the Santa Cruz Island experiment, where the bees all died, and the situation in South Africa and tropical America, where varroa resistance arises through natural qualities of bees.


deknow, do you feel like you're beating your head against a wall? I certainly do. :lookout:

Now, for those backyarders, sideliners, hobbiests who are wondering what to do regarding treatments, _*You don't have to reinvent the wheel!*_

As it has been reported on this thread, and several other threads and postings, there are beekeepers who successfully survived the varroa onslaught, thru natural selection. Peter Loring Borst himself mentioned the Weavers in Texas. deknow and others have mentioned Dee Lusby, Kirk Webster, Chris Baldwin (post #54). Why so many folks continue to state there is no real evidence of bees surviving varroa without treatment is beyond me. 

Now we have a choice. We can pull treatments from our colonies, and watch most if not all of them collapse. And from the survivors, if any, try to develop our own strain of resistant bees. Or we can buy resistant, survivor, whatever you want to call them, bees, and _not have to treat_. Several of us have made this point time and time again, and have cited examples, only to be ignored. But you, the hobbiest, backyarder, sideliner, whatever you are, can buy into the hype that there are no resistant bees available, or you can look at the evidence yourself. Read the Weaver's web site, and other web sites of similar beekeepers, who report the struggles they went thru to survive the onslaught of the mites, and develop resistant bees.

There are survivor, resistant bees out there, and they are for sale. YOU have a choice. You can buy them, or not. But if you don't, then don't complain when your bees fail, even if treated. The evidence appears to reveal you cannot go treatment free with bees that were not bred to be treatment free. And why would you want to go to the expense of trying to "reinvent the wheel" when, for the same price you pay for bees that need treatment and will more than likely fail, you can buy bees you don't have to treat, and the odds are will not fall to the mites??

Your money, your call. I don't know how to explain it more clearly than that.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

It does have poly A tails though.

If many of the varroa resistant strains that are being sold are really just strains that have a virus (like IAPV) that's integrated into the bee genome, thereby repressing viral infections, is this really a good idea?

Since these viruses integrate into different locations on different chromosomes, when a beekeeper buys many different resistant strains, isn't he/she really reassembling a complete virus piece by piece?

If the reassembled virus ever gets induced to 'wake up', it could be quite a shock to the unsuspecting beek.

Just a thought.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> there are beekeepers who successfully survived the varroa onslaught, thru natural selection.


That is the point I dispute. There is no proof that the survival is due to natural selection, except in the case of Arizona. But they have African bees, which are illegal in most states.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> Since these viruses integrate into different locations on different chromosomes, when a beekeeper buys many different resistant strains, isn't he/she really reassembling a complete virus piece by piece?


Hoo boy, you have really gone into this deeply, WLC. Trying to catch up. Here they link viruses to rapid selection, but then digress somewhat...



> Why do RNAi-related genes evolve so fast?
> 
> In Drosophila, antiviral and anti-TE RNAi genes are among the most rapidly evolving genes in the genome, and both viruses and TEs [transposable elements] select for resistance in their hosts.
> 
> ...


D. J. Obbard et al. Review. Evolutionary aspects of RNAi Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> That is the point I dispute. There is no proof that the survival is due to natural selection, except in the case of Arizona. But they have African bees, which are illegal in most states.


Then perhaps I misunderstand how the Russian bee developed its resistance, and how the Weaver bees developed resistance. And you infer that resistance in Arizona is due to African genetics in managed colonies....interesting....I guess I'll have to go to Lusby's site, and see how she manages to keep African bees.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

StevenG said:


> Then perhaps I misunderstand how the Russian bee developed its resistance, and how the Weaver bees developed resistance. And you infer that resistance in Arizona is due to African genetics in managed colonies....interesting....I guess I'll have to go to Lusby's site, and see how she manages to keep African bees.


Both the Russian lines and the Weaver lines have been heavily selected and bred by professional bee breeders. Those are not examples of natural selection. The African bees throughout the tropics, Mexico and Arizona are known to be naturally resistant to varroa. 

But again, this is not natural selection of varroa resistant bees, but rather the bees already had behaviors that made them able to coexist with varroa. One of which is the tendency to swarm and abscond, which makes them less suitable for real beekeeping. Ernesto Guzman, who worked with African bees in Mexico, assured me_ you don't not want those bees. _

A few years back Dean shared videos of bees that he filmed in Arizona. Those bees were nuts, attacking the camera, and clumping all over everybody. Anyone could see they were Africanized. Arizona has been Africanized for decades. You can't point to Arizona as a success story. That's a case of can't beat 'em, join 'em. 

I talked to a beekeeper from Texas. He said bees are civil in the North but in South Texas, they are nuts. He takes hives south to make honey but they often have to be requeened when they get them back. due to African usurpation.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Yes, the Russian lines and Weaver lines have been heavily selected, and bred by professional breeders, _from survivors_. And reading Dee Lusby's work on Beesource, she does not have African genetics or manage African bees. Yes, there are African bees in Arizona, Texas, and elsewhere along the Gulf coast. And they're also in Northern Texas, and Southern Oklahoma. So what? I've used packages and queens from B. Weaver, and those bees are no hotter than my Russians or Purvis bees. 

My key point is, there are resistant, survivor bees available, IF beekeepers want to buy them and use them.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

My question would be: what makes them survivors?

Does anyone have a clue?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> My question would be: what makes them survivors


That's what they call 'em


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> That's what they call 'em


Heh, heh.

So, do you think the integrated IAPV qualifies as both an example of natural selection and an example of epigenetics in action?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> Heh, heh.
> 
> So, do you think the integrated IAPV qualifies as both an example of natural selection and an example of epigenetics in action?


The more I read the less sure I am about anything. Strict Darwinism allows only for survival of organisms that are more fit in some way due to chance mutation or serendipitous recombination. But now we are unearthing evidence that life forms may be self-adapting, which undermines chance as the sole driver of change and "progress". 

Obviously the immune system is a perfect example of how an organism changes itself to accommodate environmental pressure. However, the stuff I read tonight seems to consider the presence of IAPV in the host genome more of a fluke than anything else, and as to whether this confers significant resistance, I don't know. 

The researchers are well into significant field trials of using RNA interference to try to control viruses in honey bees. However, seeing RNA fragments in sick hives doesn't make a very strong case, as we already saw when IAPV was trucked out as a "marker" of CCD.

I may be the only one who is allergic to drawing cause and effect relationships too easily. You may find snippets of viral dna in the host genome, but that _doesn't mean it's doing anything there_


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

Africanized bees are more resistant to varroa because of the shorter amount of time before they emerge as adults. That's why varroa likes drone brood, since they take longer to emerge.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

PoDuck said:


> Africanized bees are more resistant to varroa because of the shorter amount of time before they emerge as adults. That's why varroa likes drone brood, since they take longer to emerge.


I am sorry but that is only one of many behaviors that make African bees different from European bees. What you say is true, but the development is only a day or two shorter and that in and of itself wouldn't do the trick. 

Repeated swarming and absconding is one way they rid themselves of pathogens. They are also highly aggressive, so it is quite likely they more aggressively groom themselves to get rid of mites. There is some evidence they bite them.

But beyond that, tropical bees may have odors that repel mites. The study of cuticular hydrocarbons is just coming on the scene. The whole idea of using Essential Oils to combat mites and viruses is linked to it


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> The more I read the less sure I am about anything. Strict Darwinism allows only for survival of organisms that are more fit in some way due to chance mutation or serendipitous recombination.


What is Darwinism first of all? That is a word made up by people that are afraid of the idea to try and show it as a religion.

Evolution doesn't describe how the changes happen, it explains how changes are passed on through successive generations and how new species are created.

Darwin's original thought was that random mutation over long periods of time was the only way that mutations happen, but we have known for a long time that mutations aren't necessarily totally random. In fact I brought it up earlier that the proteins that cause placental growth are actually caused by mutations caused by ERV's. It has been suggested that ERV's may also have been the cause of such things as sexual reproduction.

So, when natural selection is spoken of, it would be that bees that don't have resistance are less likely to survive than those that do, so eventually the resistant bees will dominate and the non-resistant bees will die out. It has nothing to do with how the mutation came to be in the first place though.

There are many things that can cause the mutations. Viruses, radiation, chemical interference, etc. can all cause changes in alleles, but evolution describes how the allele frequency is changed over time.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

PoDuck said:


> What is Darwinism first of all?


Darwinism is used _neutrally_ within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period. 

Sorry if the use of the term rubbed you the wrong way.


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Sorry if the use of the term rubbed you the wrong way.


I'm sorry if I jump a little quick on those things. I know you're not doing it, but I'm used to people that use that term arguing with me about evolution for religious reasons.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

African bees are thought to be more resistant to mites. However, being resistant to pests and parasites often is offset by costs. There is evidence that the African bee worker lives much shorter than European workers. This may be masked by the rapid buildup of African colonies. But it may reflect itself in quick reduction in colony size, or lack of ability to over winter. Along these lines:


> EVOLUTIONARY COSTS
> 
> When a more powerful immune defense is selected for during the evolution of a lineage, it is likely that some other fitness-related function of the organism might become reduced owing to pleiotropic effects or genetic covariance. For example, host lines refractory to parasitic infection also have decreased fecundity (135) or need more time to develop (43). More stringent proof comes from studies in which host lines are experimentally selected for resistance against a parasite and some other function becomes reduced even when parasitism is absent. Examples include lower larval growth rates in honey bees resistant to American Foulbrood (122), slower larval developmental time and reduced egg viability in Indian meal moths resistant to granulosis virus


Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2005. 50:529–51


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"I may be the only one who is allergic to drawing cause and effect relationships too easily. You may find snippets of viral dna in the host genome, but that doesn't mean it's doing anything there "

Well, the researchers are finding that integrated IAPV is conferring resistance to viral infection to bees.

But you may be right, just because they are finding that IAPV is integrated in 30% of the bees examined, doesn't mean that 30% of the bees are resistant.

However, it does raise the question: do commercial 'varroa resistant' strains of bees get their resistance from integrated IAPV, or is it something else (like hygienic)?

I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that varroa resistance doesn't fall under the classic genetics umbrella. It sounds alike like a case of lysogeny!


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

A lot of research has described specific behaviors that varroa resistant bees have:


> Uncapping of worker bee brood, a component of the hygienic behavior of Africanized honey bees against the mite Varroa jacobsoni Oudemans
> Apidologie 29 (1998) 283-289
> 
> Brood Odor Discrimination Abilities in Hygienic Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.) Using Proboscis Extension Reflex Conditioning
> ...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Bees selectively bred for VSH produce colonies in which the fertility of mites decreases over time. In addition, mite fertility decreases after infested brood is exposed to VSH bees for 1 wk.
> 
> It may be that hygienic activities such as the uncapping of brood cells inhibits or disrupts reproduction by varroa mites.
> 
> ...


Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) With the Trait of Varroa Sensitive Hygiene Remove Brood With All Reproductive Stages of Varroa Mites 
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. (2010)


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> workers that perform hygienic behaviour are better able to discriminate between odours from healthy and diseased brood than other workers, indicating that olfactory pathways play an important role in hygienic behaviour.


Six quantitative trait loci influence task thresholds for hygienic behaviour in honeybees (Apis mellifera)
Molecular Ecology (2010) 19, 1452–1461


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

And, how do we get all six loci filled?
Ernie


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> High survival rates in some local
> populations and significant variability in
> the mite infestation levels between breeding
> lines convincingly demonstrate there is potential
> ...


Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor in Europe
Apidologie 2010


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I had a hive that had yellow or white eyeed drones in it. Where does that trait come from? It was distracting me while I was looking for the queen. I couldn't help but look at the drones eyes. I didn't mark that hive, but if I find it again I will. Were they blind?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Sci. agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.) vol.60 no.2 Piracicaba 2003



> The dark coloration of insects eyes is attributed to the accumulation of the brown pigment insectorubin, a mixture of ommochromes, xanthommatin and several ommins, biosynthesized from tryptophan.
> 
> Eye pigmentation and average longetivity of bees are very closely related. Mutant bees carrying lighter eye pigmentation are unable to return to the hive; there is, therefore, a close association between the eye pigmentation and honey bees lifespan.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

You bring up an interesting point: copy number.

I recall reading that IAPV (and CCD) was associated with ribosome fragmentation.

Since bee genome, integrated IAPV RNA products can insert themselves into the machinery of ribosomes, perhaps if you have enough copies of integrated IAPV occurring in a bee strain, it could produce CCD like symptoms without any varroa or IAPV virus particles being present. The integrated IAPV could also cause disease when it no longer suppresses IAPV virus particle production.

The hypothesis would be: CCD is a genetic disorder that is expressed when integrated IAPV copy number gets too high in the bee genome and ribosomes disintegrate, and CCD can also be induced when the integrated IAPV no longer suppresses virus production or infection, due to environmental factors.

Just a hypothesis.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Now you've got a plot for a bad SCI FI movie. 

What probably happens is this: the immune systems chops up invading viruses which render them ineffective and un-infective. When the cells undergo division, they use random pieces nucleotides to synthesize new dna (they copy themselves). It is not implausible that some of the viral fragments would get picked up and spliced into the copied cells. But, bottom line, viral fragments can't really do much, any more than pieces of a car in your pocket.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I wish that it was a scifi movie.

I wouldn't characterize supression of viral infection by an integrated Dicistrovirus as an immune system. If you are referring to an endonuclease (like a restsriction enzyme), it won't affect integrated Dicistrovirus sequences (however complete they may be), or viruses that are endemic to the species (they've already made it past that system and are methylated in the right places).

As for fragments, they have already induced infective virus particles to form from cells with integrated dicistroviruses (w/ a phosphate if I recall correctly). I know that I've read it, I just don't have the reference handy.

It was just a hypothesis anyway.

Sometimes, my intuition kicks in. 

But, I could always say, "I told you so" if it does paly out as I described. 

What does my hypothesis describe? A syndrome.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

That's cool. I'm in over my head, any way.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> That's cool. I'm in over my head, any way.


I'd say that you fit in perfectly for the diagnosis of a syndrome.

You are a natural bee 'clinician'.

If you think about all of the CCD cases you've experienced, then try to fit the 'symptoms' and other conditions into the hypothesis that I've described above, you'd be the one to say, 'it makes sense' or 'it doesn't fit'.

I can't do that. 

I know squat about bees.

PS-let me park this link here: http://www.hnosyalnif.com/HWF/Uni S...n Emerging Family of Invertebrate Viruses.pdf

and this one: http://flaentsoc.org/09festufts_hunter_integrate.pdf


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Recent work from Brazil



> Varroa destructor mite, an ectoparasite of Apis cerana and Apis mellifera honey bees, is the main pest responsible for problems in apiculture. However, the intensity of damage caused by Varroa mites has been shown to vary according to the region studied. In Brazil and other parts of the world, where bees of African origin and their hybrids predominate, a perfect relationship exists between the parasite and its host.
> 
> However, it is unknown whether the severity of the effects caused by the Varroa parasite depends on the genotype of the bees and/or on the genotype of the mite. Evidence suggests that the mite V. destructor is a complex species. Studies have shown a correlation between the various genotypes of the mite and its fertility in different geographical regions (de Guzman and Rinderer, 1999).


Genet. Mol. Res. 9 (1): 303-308 (2010)


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Specific behaviors that bees use to combat varroa mites:


> Several factors have contributed to the increased tolerance of A. mellifera bee (Africanized) to the parasite. The hygienic behavior and grooming have been reported as key mechanisms of resistance to the mite. Moretto showed that Africanized bees show 38% cleaning capacity, while Italian bees only 5%.
> 
> Moretto found that the daily rate of cells without operculum [capping] was 3.5 times greater in beehives infested with Varroa compared with non-infested beehives. This shows that Africanized bees have the ability to recognize and remove offspring naturally parasitized with the mite.


Genet. Mol. Res. 8 (3): 990-997 (2009)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> Sci. agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.) vol.60 no.2 Piracicaba 2003


Thanks Peter. I knew someone would have an answer.

I guess I won't see these drones again then, since they most likely won't make it back to the hive.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

sqkcrk, 

if you have the same queen, shouldn't you expect to see more of the same types of drones?

As a follow up, were those queens anything special, like from a breeder?

This is the reference for virus activation by phosphate buffer, insect ringer, and temp. 
http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/69/7/1617.pdf


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I saw the drones I menmtioned in one hive. I don't know anything about the queen. I did see the drones again yesterday and their eyes were the same colors as the pollen that the bees were bringing in on their legs. These drones were probably in the same hive that I saw them in earlier, though I'm not sure.

The queen could have been from a small scale breeder, one from VT, one from NY or one from CA. But I have no idea except that the one from VT had green marked queens so I would eliminate that as a source, since I didn't see a green marked queen. Didn't see the queen at all actually.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Sounds like you might just have yourself an interesting strain.

If you do get to the hive, see if it looks like 1/2 the drones have white eyes, but the rest of the colony has regular and lighter eye color. That would mean that you have a mutation on a single gene/chromosome for eye color.

You might even entertain the idea of breeding your own strain of white eyed bees. It would take help from someone who can do instrumental insemination though.

They might also be valuable to someone doing genetic research on bees. They would make a good marker. Also, someone might want to find out if the eye color gene was knocked out by a regular mutation or by an inserted genetic element, like from a virus or a jumping gene.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Johnston’s Honeybee Farm in Eaton, NY has made significant strides in developing a disease resistant strain of bees, well suited to surviving in the Northeast United States. Our bees are resistant to both tracheal mite and the external parasitic mite, varroa jacobsonii. We have not used miticides in our hives since Autumn of 2003 when we treated only part of the operation and realized these drugs were no longer necessary.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter:

He might very well be selecting for bees w/ integrated virus fragments that can produce antisense RNA against viruses, thereby rendering his bees mite resistant.

Of course, unless he actually tests his bees, he'll never know why they are resistant. 

At least the hygienic trait is easier to test for: just freeze up some brood comb, present it to the hive, then see how well they clean up.

So after all of the above, are these breeder and no-treatment beeks really just collecting bee strains w/ viral antisense RNA genes?

It seems like a letdown somehow.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> So after all of the above, are these breeder and no-treatment beeks really just collecting bee strains w/ viral antisense RNA genes?
> 
> It seems like a letdown somehow.


How so? I makes antisense to me


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> I makes antisense to me


That should have went: It makes antisense to me


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Well, while hygienic seems like some pretty good stock to get hold of, who really wants a bee strain with a bunch off viral fragments integrated into its genome? It's kinda 'skanky'.

While I originally wanted to use essential oils to treat for mites, the no-treatment crowd did a good job of convincing me to go no-treatment myself and select for my own survivor stock. I even ordered a few EZ nuc boxes.

I'm not even feeling that comfortable about any survivor or mite resistant stock out there.

Now I'm finding out that those survivors might be all skanked up with virus fragments and antisense RNA. Who wants that in their hive?

It makes me want to go botanical, you know. Essential oils and such.

At least those bees will (mostly) be mite free and won't have the cooties. 

Danged no-treatment/survivor snake oil!  (Is snake oil an essential oil?)


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> (Is snake oil an essential oil?)


It is, if you are a snake!


But seriously, suppose the bees' genome contains these fragments. How will that be passed on to the offspring? The workers pass on nothing. Will the queen and/or the drones' genomes need to contain these viral rna segments to obtain the immunity? Or will it be passed from generation to generation in the hive by epigenetic means?

What do you think? Which makes more antisense to you?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

It was clearly stated in one of papers in the above links that these viral fragments were integrated into the bee genome. It's in their DNA. As to how it's expressed, the antisense RNA could be expressed as part of another RNA transcript.

No matter, it's not what I would consider to be a desirable trait to select for.
It has some real metabolic costs associated with it, you could end up with strains containg multiple chromosomes that are shot through with these viral insertions (they appear to be inserted randomly), and genetic diversity is being sacrificed as you let the 'untainted' chromosomes disappear with the hives that are untreated and left to die.

Natural selection doesn't just select for survivors, it also causes evolutionary dead ends (AKA: extinction). 

This could be a very strong argument for the essential oils crowd. 

It might also cause an 'existential crisis' for the no-treatment folks. :lookout:

'It seemed like a good idea at the time.'


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

HONEY-B-HEALTHY is a honeybee feeding stimulant composed of *lemongrass* and spearmint oil concentrate. HONEY-B-HEALTHY helps promote healthy vigorous hives when used as a feeding stimulant. Use as a feeding stimulant for late winter, early spring, and during dearth's of nectar. Also add to your feeding mix to help build up packages, nucs and swarms.

Lemongrass essential oil properties include antiseptic, analgesic, antifungal, antimicrobial and even antidepressant effects. This oil can treat a variety of problems such as athlete’s foot, acne, skin rashes, excessive sweating, stress, muscle pain and flatulence. 

Royal jelly is composed of a complex mixture of proteins (12% to 15%), sugars (10% to 16%), lipids (3% to 6%), vitamins, pheromones, free amino acids, and variable amounts of minerals. The product is rich in B vitamins, the most abundant of which is pantothenic acid. Trans-10-hydroxy-D2-*decanoic acid* (HDA) is thought to play an important role in bee growth regulation. 

Snake oil sold in San Francisco's Chinatown in 1989 was found to contain:
75% mostly unidentified carrier material, including *camphor*

25% oil from Chinese water snakes, itself consisting of:

20% eicosapentaenic acid (EPA) - an omega-3 fatty acid

48% myristic acid 
also called *tetradecanoic* acid 
Myristic acid is named after the nutmeg Myristica fragrans

10% stearic acid 
14% oleic acid 
7% linoleic acid 

Traveling salesman peddled snake oil throughout Britain, where it was first patented in the 18th century, and the US, it was noted that most did not sell real snake oil. Many products that purportedly had oils from the Chinese water snake contained none, and were instead mixtures of camphor, some form of fat (often beef), and alcohol.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Natural selection doesn't just select for survivors, it also causes evolutionary dead ends (AKA: extinction).


Also, cheats, liars and other deceivers:



> Within the context of evolutionary theory, cheating often refers an individual of a species not upholding its end of a cooperative bargain. For instance, individuals within some species of birds are known to place their eggs in another unknowing individual's nest, thus "cheating" the recipient out of the strategic resources needed to keep the egg warm.





> In their struggle for life, many species signal information which puts (potential) enemies on the wrong track. Examples of 'false' visual cues include the appearance of harmless hoverflies which strongly resemble 'dangerous' wasps or certain orchid flowers which resemble the female sex organs of certain insects ('mimicry'). Misleading is an essential part of communication systems.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Now, now, Peter. I wouldn't say that any of the beeks who select for survivors (by whatever means) have any idea about what they are selecting for besides survival.

It's not a conspiracy, just a matter of awareness.

If you don't like the essential oils idea as a better alternative to selecting for survivors with possible viral genes, you could always fall back on the natural comb/propolis claims.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> It might also cause an 'existential crisis' for the no-treatment folks.





> Hold fast to dreams,
> For if dreams die,
> Life is a broken-winged bird
> That cannot fly.
> ...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> If you don't like the essential oils idea as a better alternative to selecting for survivors with possible viral genes, you could always fall back on the natural comb/propolis claims.


Better still, why not go back to the "notion" that we can achieve impressive results via selective breeding. 

The honey bee has been shown to be susceptible to breeding. Page bred high and low pollen collecting lines. VSH traits are heritable as well. 

The chief problems with line bred bees are: Expensive to produce and expensive to maintain. Potential for inbreeding depression. 

But if there is a payoff down the line, they won't seem so expensive. That's the whole principle of modern agriculture: high input = high output.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Hygienic would be a good choice as long as you regularly requeen with stock from a good breeder.

However, as long as bees readily form hybrids, selective pressures from mites and their viruses continue, and beekeepers who select their own survivors and sell queens/nucs/etc. still exist, I don't see that those 30% of hives with viral fragments in their genome will go away.

At what point does the presence of stock with those viral fragments in their genome become a problem? 40%? 50%? Do I hear 100%?

It's not going to improve anytime soon.

Are the hygienic breeders and others who are selecting for benign, observable traits the only ones who aren't 'mucking up' the bee genome?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> I don't see that those 30% of hives with viral fragments in their genome will go away.


But why are you persuaded that this is a bad thing? If this is one way the genome is modified and adapts, one of which we are only now becoming aware, maybe this is how evolutionary "progress" is made?



> Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts. These expectations open up new ways of thinking about the role of natural genetic engineering in normal life cycles and the potential for nonrandom processes in evolution.
> 
> Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century
> James A. Shapiro
> Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

Having code inserted that protects against disease doesn't necessarily damage the organism. The inserted code is in addition to the code the bees already have. I'm not sure why the worry about it being detrimental.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Do you mean to say that contaminating the bee genome with countless viral fragments is 'benign'?


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

WLC said:


> Do you mean to say that contaminating the bee genome with countless viral fragments is 'benign'?


Viral fragments are a fact of life. Humans have remnants of many thousands of viral DNA fragments. Just the ones we have in common with chimpanzees is 48,000. It happens rarely, but it does happen.

Occasionally, a viral DNA fragment gets activated and causes disease, but there are also times where the fragment is incorporated into the genome and creates new functionality, such as the production of a placenta.

Anyway, most all virus fragments in the genome are dormant and were considered merely junk DNA until recently.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

It's one thing to talk about artifacts of evolution.

It's a whole different issue when it is a current, active, evloutionary process.

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/esq002v1

The Honey Bee has the highest recombination rate of any animal alive.

It doesn't take long for these viral fragments to spread throughout the honey bee population.

The combination of new viral fragments being randomly inserted into the bee genome by well meaning 'no-treatment', 'mite resistant', and 'survivor' breeders; and, an organism that reproduces by polyandry (readily hybridizes), while having the highest recombination rate known in the animal kingdom (crossing over), is, to use understatement, 'problematic'.

Or, perhaps beekeepers need to hit a 'genetic bottleneck' before they realize that it's too late.

Do you remember the 'Gros Michele'? Well the 'Cavendish' is heading towards the same fate. (Banana varieties)

Would you like to make proposals for the replacement species for Apis Mellifera?

With some of the 'virus glorification' that seems to be going on, I think that it's not a moment too soon that you start looking for a replacement.


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

Am I missing something? We're not talking about something that makes bees more susceptible to disease here. I thought we were talking about pieces of viral genetic code that make bees less susceptible to disease. Just because part of the viral genetics remain in the genome does not make it a species that is permanently infected.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

In the light of CCD, I would describe these 'viral fragments' as a genetic disease in their own right.

My Genetics professor, 'Cyrus the virus' once warned, 'Beware of the unknown, unknown.'


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

PoDuck said:


> Am I missing something? We're not talking about something that makes bees more susceptible to disease here. I thought we were talking about pieces of viral genetic code that make bees less susceptible to disease. Just because part of the viral genetics remain in the genome does not make it a species that is permanently infected.


Right. I am also not sure where WLC makes the leap from the report where IAPV infection confers immunity through incorporation of viral DNA into the genome -- to viral contamination of the entire species.

One problem with viruses is the chief way to protect against them (at least in mammals) is vaccination. This works because of the way mammalian immune system uses antibodies. Bees not having this sort of immune system seemed to preclude any sort of inoculation.

And yet, perhaps there is a way. Already RNA interference is being tested, and if there is a way of passing viral immunity from generation to generation, it can hardly be a bad thing. 

Obviously, parents cannot pass immunity gained by vaccination on to their children, hence the need for renewed vaccination for each generation. So, if bees can incorporate viral dna for the express purpose of passing it to future generations, this is quite a discovery!

Of course, there is no proof of this happening. We don't know how or why these fragments are turning up in the honey bee genome. They may have no significance, they may be a side effect of viral infection. The virus may be inserting these segments for its own purposes, to disarm immune response in some way.


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

That is a rather unscientific hunch you are working from.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I've done alot of time in genetics labs in different disciplines.

If you don't know what 'genes' you are selecting for, then don't be surprised by your results.

The correlation between ribosome degradation, picorna/dicistro viruses, and CCD are published results.

I didn't make that up.

Of course, not treating hives, and then breeding from survivors without a clue as to the resulting genotype isn't scientific by any means.


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

Even with things like HERVs, there is no good evidence that they cause any genetic disease, just speculation for now. The thing is, these viruses and the RNA fragments they inject have been around for an extremely long time. They may even predate multicellular life. I realize I am reverting back to the retrovirus, but it seems the only thing I know of that works similarly.

Saying that IAPV, and the code it inserts, is the thing that is causing CCD is also rather interesting, especially since IAPV has been around for a long time. It seems to be the US that is experiencing the most problems though.

I see no reason to equate this phenomenon with any banana disease either. It is a totally different mechanism. Without showing that there are any detrimental effects of the inserted code, it would seem that it is merely a form of immunization, and not something to get all worried about.


----------



## PoDuck (Mar 29, 2010)

WLC said:


> Of course, not treating hives, and then breeding from survivors without a clue as to the resulting genotype isn't scientific by any means.


It doesn't have to be scientific. The fact is, the majority of bees are feral. No matter what steps you take to prevent disease in your own hives, the reality is that eventually all hives will have this code insertion, at least all hives besides hives that are created with artificially inseminated queens.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> The correlation between ribosome degradation, picorna/dicistro viruses, and CCD are published results. I didn't make that up.


No, of course not. And I agree that the answer to the CCD phenomenon no doubt lies right in this area. Dr. May Berenbaum was very clear that the ribosomal RNA fragments were troubling, but -- not readily explained.



> "Our results also indicate an unappreciated variation in gene expression patterns and pathogen loads with geography." from "Changes in transcript abundance relating to colony collapse disorder in honey bees (Apis mellifera)" Reed M. Johnson, et al


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

PoDuck said:


> The fact is, the majority of bees are feral.


True, if you are talking about the world, in general.

True, if you want to include African and Africanized.

False, if you are talking about US, Europe, Australia, and Temperate South America.

False, if you accept the fact that most so called feral colonies have escaped from commercial stock.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

PoDuck said:


> Even with things like HERVs, there is no good evidence that they cause any genetic disease, just speculation for now. The thing is, these viruses and the RNA fragments they inject have been around for an extremely long time. They may even predate multicellular life. I realize I am reverting back to the retrovirus, but it seems the only thing I know of that works similarly.
> 
> Saying that IAPV, and the code it inserts, is the thing that is causing CCD is also rather interesting, especially since IAPV has been around for a long time. It seems to be the US that is experiencing the most problems though.
> 
> I see no reason to equate this phenomenon with any banana disease either. It is a totally different mechanism. Without showing that there are any detrimental effects of the inserted code, it would seem that it is merely a form of immunization, and not something to get all worried about.


The European Honey Bee, mites, and their complement of RNA viruses haven't been put together until recently. There is no reason to assume that these viral fragments have been integrated into the bee genome for very long. However, maybe that monk that developed the Buckfast may have been the first to select for an integrated virus?

They are also beginning to find other viral fragments as well from other than IAPV origins. We'll just have to wait and see.

Why did I use the banana? It's just an example of a real genetic bottleneck.

As for worrying about the effects of these antisense RNAs, some investigators speculate that they may be the cause of the ribosome fragmentation in CCD due to arrested translation.

My hypothesis: RNA viruses (or latent viruses that are induced by environmental factors) infect the bees carrying these antisense RNAs. The combination of these antisense RNAs and the virus RNAs (that have inserted themselves into the ribosome for translation) cause arrested translation. The ribosomes fall apart, the bees wander off and die.

Why does this often occur in 'slow motion'? Because the bees are resistant to the virus to varying degrees depending on their antisense RNA copy number. Some have significantly more of these fragments than others (and may even survive).

How did a relatively recent pathogen get its RNA into the bee genome as DNA? How is it making antisense RNA to these viruses?

Until we find answers to the above, we should be concerned.

You see bees making antisense RNA as a 'cure'. That may be true.

I see this as evolution that is being driven by 'too many cooks'. It's already showing signs of being 'spoiled' (CCD).


----------



## Jack Grimshaw (Feb 10, 2001)

You guys are way over my head ,but I am enjoying it. Hopefully some of this will sink in.

How about bringing it down a few notches for the rest of us plebes.

I'd like to go back to something Peter mentioned in a previous post.

Isolation. I think this is common denominator for many who have had success with "survivor" bees.Not only for breeding but also for exposure to the more virilent parasites and pathogens. Selection can work both ways.


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee (Oct 27, 2009)

Keep good strong laying queens and all bees will be survivor stock.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Jack Grimshaw said:


> Isolation. I think this is common denominator for many who have had success with "survivor" bees.Not only for breeding but also for exposure to the more virilent parasites and pathogens. Selection can work both ways.


This is the first thing I tried to discuss here, when I joined Bee Source in January. The discussion went off on numerous tangents but nobody seem to want to home in on this point. 

Another issue that people avoid talking about is the fact that many people who have brought survivor bees out of isolation (myself included) get to watch them succumb very rapidly.

There is an enormous amount pressure exerted by the survivorists and the nontreatment crowd that it _should work_, that people who can't make it work tend to think they must have done "something wrong"


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> My hypothesis: RNA viruses (or latent viruses that are induced by environmental factors) infect the bees carrying these antisense RNAs. The combination of these antisense RNAs and the virus RNAs (that have inserted themselves into the ribosome for translation) cause arrested translation. The ribosomes fall apart, the bees wander off and die.



Actually this makes perfect sense. I have been talking about the suicide hypothesis for several years. This states that either the bees deliberately commit suicide to rid the hive of pathogens, or the pathogens hijack the bees and cause them to fly off and die. Either way, the virus gets dispersed by this action. (By the way, whether they do it on purpose or not, besides being moot, is probably impossible to prove)

If you observe my contributions over time you will see me criticizing all points of view. Some have referred to this as some sort of schizophrenia or psychological unhingement, but in fact it is the core of the scientific method. A hypothesis that cannot hold up to close scrutiny is a weak one.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> The ribosomes fall apart, the bees wander off and die.


Could this be some sort of auto-immune disorder? Is that where we are headed?


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

You have a great discussion going on.
I am setting on the side lines and being silent for the time being.
Ernie


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

How's this for a movie title?

"Six RNA Viruses and Forty-One Hosts"

www.plospathogens.org 
1 February 2010 | Volume 6 | Issue 2


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Could this be some sort of auto-immune disorder? Is that where we are headed?


Since these integrated viral fragments are making antisense RNA, and conferring immunity to a virus, you could characterize it as Acquired Immunity.

Is CCD really AIS? Acquired Immunity Syndrome? Just throwing that out there.

More to the point, I do think that the genetics of survivor stock is a controversial issue. There is no single 'survivor gene'.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> More to the point, I do think that the genetics of survivor stock is a controversial issue. There is no single 'survivor gene'.


We have not yet established that the survivor bees are surviving because anything that has to do with genetics. In fact, just the opposite. If the bees survive due to isolation and fail when brought into contact with mainstream colonies, that essentially _proves_ that they have nothing special about them at all. 

This is my hypothesis, which has not been disproved by anyone yet: high density of honey bee colonies contributes to the breakdown of colonies due to latent pathogens. Whether this is due to competition for resources, increased vectoring due to sharing resources, or some kind of intercolonial pathogenic synergy, I don't know.

The fact remains that people have succeeded in keeping bees healthier by being isolated, and people have failed to make any headway by keeping bees in high colonial density areas. _They_ think their bees have the right stuff, whereas I think it is due to other factors, perhaps management as well. The management practices of small timers and commercial operators are radically different.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Assuming your hypothesis is correct, how do you account for the success of a commercial operation in a high colony density area like B. Weaver?


----------



## Jack Grimshaw (Feb 10, 2001)

"We have not yet established that the survivor bees are surviving because anything that has to do with genetics."

But hygienic and VSH bees do exist and the traits are heritable.With open mating in areas with high concentration of bees without these traits,they are rapidly diluted.
In isolation,one can maintain these traits more easily.Of course one must introduce new unrelated stock periodically with these same traits to maintain genetic diversity.

Another factor in "survivorship" is not requeening all your hives with sister queens.
The more diversity you have within your bee yard,the greater the chance one or more hives will tolerate the pest/pathogen du jour.

Disclaimer:
Just my opinions.Not based on any facts other than it seems to be working for me(so far). 
I have a real job to support my beekeeping habit.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> "We have not yet established that the survivor bees are surviving because anything that has to do with genetics."
> 
> But hygienic and VSH bees do exist and the traits are heritable.


Yes, but this is exactly my point. You take this and that and assume they are related. No such relation has been proved. Hygienic bees, VSH bees, B. Weaver bees, Russian bees, these are all the product of intensive breeding by experts.

The so called survivor bees are catch as catch can mongrels derived from a hodge podge of descendants of the commercial stock that has been sold all over the country for decades. 

You simply cannot equate weeds with corn. Weeds are better at surviving, corn makes a lot better dinner. What is wanted is a good product that doesn't require excessive input.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Peterloringborst: Reread the isolation experiment in Sweden? where they started with many hives, and after 5 years the losses leveled off at a population density similar to those running a few "survivor" colonies. How does it fit with your above explanations(at 4:28)? Now fit in my "inbreeding of mites in small populations" theory. So it may be possible, within a small gene pool of bees, to find enough "survivor genes" that will survive in an environment of mites that are inbred due to isolation.
This does not however explain the success of the Weavers, unless they had a bigger gene pool to pull from to help combat the larger gene pool of the mites in a commercial setting. 

Roland


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

It's alot more ominous than a weed problem.

A good case study would be how Bt corn has contaminated the seed stock of Mexican farmers growing their traditional blue corn. The resulting (unintentional) hybrids are morphological monsters.

So, honey bee breeders may find that their own stocks are being contaminated by these viral fragments that can integrate themselves into the honey bee genome by some poorly understood mechanism.

It's as if 'survivor' breeders are their own little Monsanto operation.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Roland said:


> they started with many hives, and after 5 years the losses leveled off at a population density similar to those running a few "survivor" colonies.


This is simply not proof that the bees are genetically different in any way. In fact, it may prove that if the colony density gets low enough, disease problems diminish. Furthermore, without comparing the genetic makeup of the survivors to the bees that died off, any speculation on the difference between the survivors and the goners, is just _hot air.
_


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> contaminated the seed stock of Mexican farmers growing their traditional blue corn


WLC,
Contaminated is a loaded word. In what way is the corn "contaminated"? 

Is this a case of the natural vs man made dichotomy? Or is it an instance of the evil science metaphor?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Contaminated.

By some unknown means, Bt pollen fertilized their blue corn. That's the end of their seed stock. I would call it a tragic loss of their cultural heritage.

I would call the contamination of the Honey Bee genome by these RNA viruses another tragic loss in the making.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Would a queen that carries 75% hygienic traits be of interest to you?
Ernie


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

BEES4U said:


> Would a queen that carries 75% hygienic traits be of interest to you?
> Ernie


That's the kind of good stock that you would need to turn to (as long as it's instrumentally inseminated).


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> WLC,
> Contaminated is a loaded word. In what way is the corn "contaminated"?
> 
> Is this a case of the natural vs man made dichotomy? Or is it an instance of the evil science metaphor?


To address the issue, it's a livestock problem.

For those beekeepers who were striving to get the various chemical contaminants out of their hives, this would be totally unexpected.

It's as if they've struck a devil's bargain. They've gotten the chemicals out, but now they find that viral contaminants may be the source of their resistant strains.

What do you tell all those folks who so proudly trap and cut out feral hives? Don't do it?

It's an existential crisis. They may need to change the way that they obtain and keep bees.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> It's an existential crisis. They may need to change the way that they obtain and keep bees.


To bee, or not to bee -- that _is_ the question:
Whether 'tis nobler for the mind to suffer
The stings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to _bare arms_ against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die,_ to keep _--
No more -- and by _keep_ to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
The hive is heir to.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Peter: Per your post 152, we are in agreement. I am explaining their survival by the decrease in density of hives. I wish they woudl go back and study the genetics of those survivors.

Roland


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

the critical colony density



> The rate of vertical transmission in infested colonies will have a major effect on _the critical colony density_ needed to introduce successfully the parasite. In feral conditions, it is likely that drifting is rarer than in domesticated conditions, because of the great distance between colonies. Efficiency of vertical transmission would then have to be high for the parasite to maintain itself.
> 
> 
> Reduction of Tracheal Mite Parasitism of Honey Bees by Swarming
> ...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

In a new report, Tom Rinderer describes the Russian bees and the VHS line:



> Although they differ in general breeding approach,
> the two programs have produced and
> released Varroa-resistant honey bees that are
> sold commercially. These honey bees require
> ...


After decades of work, they have lines that perform well _under certain conditions_, but they are not willing to state that they are _mite-proof._ This is called: honesty.

Later in the report he is a little bolder:



> A group of
> United States queen breeders have formed
> the Russian Honeybee Breeder’s Association
> and are continuing the selective breeding of
> ...


So, it is possible, but the success or failure of the bees to perform under a variety of circumstances is complicated.

source



> Thomas E. Rinderer. 2010. Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor in North America. Apidologie


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> cited Peter Rosencranz: "There is neither a Varroa treatment available which fulfills all the criteria ‘‘safe, effective and easy to apply” nor a honey bee which is sustainably tolerant to Varroosis under temperate climatic conditions.


There are many such strains of honeybee sustainably tolerant... - many people have offered evidence for that - and PR himself demonstrated it:

_Survival of mite infested (Varroa destructor) honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in a Nordic climate_, Ingemar Friesa, Anton Imdorfb, Peter Rosenkrantzc

http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...129&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2006/05/m6039.pdf

This article includes the lucid line:

"Our results allow us to conclude that the problems facing the apicultural industry with mite infestations is probably linked to the apicultural system, where beekeepers remove the selective pressure induced from the parasitism by removing mites through control efforts."

PR makes the very same point in the 2010 paper you cite, describing drones from medicated apiaries as the cause of the failure of bees to adapt.

The BIG problem is that _wherever beekeepers use medications _ varroa resistance cannot be sustained, as that use undermines resistance. This is the crux of the matter. That "under temperate climatic conditions" in the quote at the top needs to be altered to: "within the influence of treatment-based regimes" 

In the final analysis medication is the PRIMARY CAUSE today of poor health in bees. For as long as it continues there can never bee free-mating sustainably tolerant strains in that breeding pool.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Better still, why not go back to the "notion" that we can achieve impressive results via selective breeding.
> 
> The honey bee has been shown to be susceptible to breeding. Page bred high and low pollen collecting lines. VSH traits are heritable as well.


 (And the rest)

It would be very useful to be able to distinguish easily between what we might call 'centralised breeding programs' and 'grassroots breeding'. (Suggestions for better terms?) While both are 'breeding' they are in some very essential respects two entirely different things. Most importantly their outcomes, and what they offer to bee health is very different.

Centralised breeding does not, alone, represent either a desirable nor a sustainable solution, due to economic, conservation, and bio-diversity drawbacks. Since it envisages sending queens out into an environment full of artificially-maintained (medicated) bees, the resistance will always be lost in the next generation. Great for breeders, rubbish for everybody else.

Grassroots breeding on the other hand offers a complete solution. By replacing the fatally addictive practice of medicating (which absolutely undermines any emerging or imported resistance) with careful selection, in any place where the breeding pool is free, or can be freed from, unadapted bloodlines, sustainably healthy bees are possible. The nightmare can be over.

Unless we can readily distinguish between these two different practices, we cannot easily have a discussion about the pros and cons of 'breeding'. 

Mike

PS; Peter, ALL traits are heritable. All traits come from no-where else but parents. ALL organisms are 'susceptable to breeding' All can be manipulated by changing their environments (causing natural selection), and/or by deliberately selecting breeding pairs. All but the very narrowest of bee breeding pools can be bred toward/naturally select for tolerance of mites. All US strains can be pressed by selection toward health = broad-spectrum resistance to predatory organisms - including varroa mite.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"Grassroots breeding on the other hand offers a complete solution. By replacing the fatally addictive practice of medicating (which absolutely undermines any emerging or imported resistance) with careful selection, in any place where the breeding pool is free, or can be freed from, unadapted bloodlines, sustainably healthy bees are possible. The nightmare can be over."

Mike:

If you get the chance, you may want to review some of the papers linked to in earlier posts.

They show evidence that RNA viruses have integrated themselves into the bee genome.

This suggests that the nightmare has only just begun.

It also suggests (to me) that by breeding for survivor stock while not medicating, you are in fact setting up the conditions for propagating strains of bees with these integrated viral fragments. (They've discovered that many bee strains contain viral fragments that are producing antisense RNA to virus thereby conferring resistance).

What does this mean?

It may be the end to grassroots breeding. It can cause genetic fragments of viral origins to contaminate the stock.

Furthermore, we may all need to get our bees from instrumental breeders with institutional affiliations, and we may be mandated to treat against mites to avoid selecting for viral contaminants.

It seems that the no-treatment/survivor movement may have had it all wrong. :lookout:


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> No, of course not. And I agree that the answer to the CCD phenomenon no doubt lies right in this area. Dr. May Berenbaum was very clear that the ribosomal RNA fragments were troubling, but -- not readily explained.


My question is: what part might keeping failing individuals alive by hook or by crook, and then using them to make new generations in combination with similarly artificially-maintained individuals play in causing this phenomenon. It seems to me that the anti-husbandry played out on a global scale is effectively an experiment that will end in us discovering what it takes to dismantle a functional species by disrupting its genetic make-up. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Jack Grimshaw said:


> I'd like to go back to something Peter mentioned in a previous post.
> 
> Isolation. I think this is common denominator for many who have had success with "survivor" bees. Not only for breeding but also for exposure to the more virilent parasites and pathogens. Selection can work both ways.


Good move Jack. Include 'isolation from genetically inadequate parents' at the top of that list. I'd like Peter to consider this issue seriously. What effect does a high proportion of bees conditioned to need treatment simply to survive ('fatally addicted') have on a feral colony, and non-treater's hives? It makes them unviable in health terms, through the inheritance of unadapted, genes, the resultant bees unfitted to their environment. Through the generations what were perfectly good hygienic bees, for example, will become increasingly unhygienic as the proportion of sub-families lacking the 'hygiene' trait within the colony rises. Result: fast failing health.

Imagine too the benefit if medicators bees could be quarantined. This would have the added benefit of dramatically reducing the other factors you mention. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> If you get the chance, you may want to review some of the papers linked to in earlier posts.
> 
> They show evidence that RNA viruses have integrated themselves into the bee genome.


Your whole outlook is built on the increasingly fevered _speculation_ that the presence of rna fragments is unnatural and undesirable, and will require human remedial action. This sounds like a researcher's dream - and nothing more. 

(That impulse should, btw, not be underestimated. I'm beginning to think of the research industry, and particularly its publishing arm, as a plausible ultimate cause of our problems. In the ever more expensive search for more details about more predatory organisms, they entirely overlook the FACT that all their remedies have the effect of MAKING MATTERS WORSE. Of course - where would their salaries, grants, career-making papers be if they actually cured the patient? The honeybee health research industry is perhaps one parasite too many for the honeybee and beekeeping.)

Where was I; yes: instead of spiralling off on a speculatively founded wild-goose chase, heed the hard science; the basic facts of biology. Traits required for vitality and in defence against specific predators are inherited from parents. Or not. In the latter case, failing health is utterly inevitable. Fix that one first - because until it is fixed nothing else will work; and because once it is fixed in all probability there will be no serious remaining problems.

Mike


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

It's not speculation. It's cutting edge science.

Let me take off my genetics hat and put on my conservation hat.

So you think that it's OK to to allow for the very real possibility that these viral RNA contaminants (retrotransposons) can be transferred, horizontally, from honey bees to other bee and insect species?

Of course, if you are a big fan of antisense RNA in your bees, then I understand.

However, I like my wildlife, insects included, to be the regular kind. No Frankenbugs, please.

Do you feel the existential crisis coming on? To bee, or not to bee...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"(That impulse should, btw, not be underestimated. I'm beginning to think of the research industry, and particularly its publishing arm, as a plausible ultimate cause of our problems. In the ever more expensive search for more details about more predatory organisms, they entirely overlook the FACT that all their remedies have the effect of MAKING MATTERS WORSE. Of course - where would their salaries, grants, career-making papers be if they actually cured the patient? The honeybee health research industry is perhaps one parasite too many for the honeybee and beekeeping.)"

Mike:

The funny thing is this: I wouldn't be alive today without them, nor would the majority of my family and friends.

Let's turn this around. How about all of those 'grassroots' no-treatment/survivor beekeepers marketing and selling their nucs/queens/packages for cold, hard cash? 

Add in the possibility that their genetic stock is contaminated by an RNA virus, and what do you have?

It's not beekeepers that are full of 'the milk of human kindness'.

I'd say that they have no motivation to have their stock tested for contaminants because then they might have to stop selling bees and making money. They like the 'fantasy world' just fine. (I won't mention the ones selling other stuff, doing conferences, etc.. )

So, maybe you are throwing stones in the wrong direction.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Unless we can readily distinguish between these two different practices, we cannot easily have a discussion about the pros and cons of 'breeding'.


And, if we cannot, the whole argument falls flat on its face. You have built your whole thesis on a false dichotomy. But then, so has WLC.

Unless we can readily distinguish between good dna and bad dna, we cannot easily have a discussion between the pros and cons of natural or artificial selection .. etc



> The presentation of a false choice often reflects a deliberate attempt to eliminate the middle ground on an issue. Eldridge Cleaver used such a quotation during his 1968 presidential campaign: "You're either part of the solution or part of the problem."


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> PS; Peter, ALL traits are heritable. All traits come from no-where else but parents. ALL organisms are 'susceptable to breeding'


Of course. But some are more plastic than others. For example, wing venation. The wing pattern is very tight and can be used to identify species and sub species. It is heritable but varies little. Color, on the other hand, is extremely variable, easy to change and select for. But, ultimately meaningless. What we want to look for are traits that are modifiable and meaningful


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"Unless we can readily distinguish between good dna and bad dna, we cannot easily have a discussion between the pros and cons of natural or artificial selection .. etc"

The Hygienic trait doesn't require dna tests, just some frozen brood comb.

PCR probes are available for detecting viral contaminants of your stock genome. It just costs a little extra time and money to certify that your stock hasn't been contaminated.

You just don't like the facts that are unfolding.

By the way, it's not a matter of artificial vs natural selection. This is a matter of a bee breeding philosophy that is producing contaminated strains of bees.

The question then becomes: how does one clean up contaminated stock?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> You just don't like the facts that are unfolding


What a thing to say! I thought we were having a scientific discussion here. I don't have a problem with the facts. I have a problem with the misinterpretation of facts. Anyway, it is you who doesn't "like" the way it is looking. I only want to_ find out_. I have no vested interest here. I am a "retired beekeeper".


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> What a thing to say! I thought we were having a scientific discussion here. I don't have a problem with the facts. I have a problem with the misinterpretation of facts. Anyway, it is you who doesn't "like" the way it is looking. I only want to_ find out_. I have no vested interest here. I am a "retired beekeeper".


Here's the original premise for this thread:

"How many of you have "survivor stock" bees? What percentage of your hives made it through the winter? Is the term "survivor stock" even a meaningful measure of a standard, or is it simply creative marketing? Thoughts?"

Here's what I just posted:

"By the way, it's not a matter of artificial vs natural selection. This is a matter of a bee breeding philosophy that is producing contaminated strains of bees. The question then becomes: how does one clean up contaminated stock?"

Peter/Mike: If you don't believe that retro-transposed viral fragments are contaminants, I would just love to hear your reasoning. My position being: treatment free/survivor beekeeping is preferentially selecting for bee strains containing retrotransposed viral fragments.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Some people might find it disquieting that a
> hefty 8% of human genetic material originates
> not from our vertebrate ancestors but from
> viruses. The assimilation of viral sequences
> ...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> endogenous viruses have lost their pathogenic abilities but have retained viral-like DNA structures, such as long terminal repeat sequences, which RNA viruses use to insert their genes into the host genome. Similarly to the bacterial ancestors of mitochondria and chloroplasts, endogenous retroviruses have introduced fundamental functions
> 
> accumulating evidence from viral research indicates that Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot alone explain all aspects of life’s development, but that the gaps can be filled by combining it with the symbiotic theory of evolution. In addition to point mutation in a species, phenotypic novelty would also occur through recombination between different species, leading to genomic reassortment. The idea that this has happened among viruses is no longer controversial. However, the idea that recombination between viruses and their hosts has had a significant role in the evolution of the latter is much more controversial and will provide a focus for research in both evolutionary biology and medicine in years to come.


See

The missing link: Viruses revise evolutionary theory
Philip Hunter ©2010 European Molecular Biology Organization


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> Peter/Mike: If you don't believe that retro-transposed viral fragments are contaminants, I would just love to hear your reasoning. My position being: treatment free/survivor beekeeping is preferentially selecting for bee strains containing retrotransposed viral fragments.


First, I'm entirely unqualified to comment on 'retrotransposed viral fragments'. As I recall some more qualified than myself have already pointed out that such fragments are common and not especially alarming. 

However, I would venture that if, as you claim (and I'd like to see your evidence) "treatment free/survivor beekeeping is preferentially selecting for bee strains containing retrotransposed viral fragments" then it seems entirely possible that the fragments _ convey an advantage_. 

That reasoning is based on the FACT that that is what natural selection does - the population of those strains better-fitted strains present environment increases as they flourish at the expense of less well-fitted. That being so (and that much surely is inarguable) it follows: either this feature must be helping, conferring some kind of defence against the present pathogen-mix, or at least not significantly impeding those strains, as they continue to do what all living organisms do (given half a chance) - naturally adapt to the present environment. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> "Horie et al.1 report
> that non-retroviral viruses called bornaviruses
> have been endogenized repeatedly during
> mammalian evolution. The finding unveils
> ...


All seems entirely unalarming to me. A big fat distraction from the REAL issue: widespread systematic treatments MUST INEVITABLY cause weakening health in the population. 

There's no research money in that - everyone with any background at all in biology and/or evolutionary theory has known that since the first year of their training. And, more importantly, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? 

The trick to actually fixing things, is to find the most significant problem, and attack it; without being distracted by side-issues or secondary features. Bee pest and disease problems are SYMPTOMS of systematic incompetent husbandry, powerfully promoted by self-interested parties, who deliberately keep their victims (beekeepers) in the dark. Nothing more. They WILL continue until the husbandry is repaired. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Hi Peter. To my claim: "Unless we can readily distinguish between these two different practices, we cannot easily have a discussion about the pros and cons of 'breeding' " you respond:



peterloringborst said:


> And, if we cannot, the whole argument falls flat on its face. You have built your whole thesis on a false dichotomy.


What on earth are you on about? Of course we can make such a distinction - although there will of course be overlapping cases. I suggested a _distinction_, note - not a claim of mutually exclusive categories - which would involve a dichotomy - false or othewise. I make no claim to a dichotomy.

And in what sense have I built 'my whole thesis' on that distinction? 

If I have a single thesis it is that the systematic and widespread treatments common in the developed world are the single greatest cause of poor health in bees (in the developed world). They completely frustrate the rise of resistance that would otherwise take place; ensuring the populations remain permantly crippled. 

In what way does the distinction I have outlined impact on that thesis? Surely you can see the value in being able to articulate the two different approaches to breeding solutions? 

Mike

PS Will you ever respond to the suggestion that this mechanism is one of the leading factors in your observation that treatment-free regimes work in some places but not others?


----------



## ekervina (May 18, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> They completely frustrate the rise of resistance that would otherwise take place


Left to entirely natural devices, extinction is also a possibility. I am not arguing that intervention is always the answer, often it is probably a poor answer. But it is a mistake to assume that nature will provide a solution and preserve a species simply because other species depend on or benefit from it.

So far as we can tell, in nature extinction is the rule, not the exception.


----------



## Yuleluder (Mar 2, 2005)

This is a great thread and I find it to be truly enlightening. However I'm a bit taken back by the some of WLC's comments. I think the majority of the non treatment crowd is attempting to do what they feel is right for the overall health of the honeybee and beekeeping in general. I find it hard to believe that one would actually suggest that all beekeepers should have a mandate requiring them to use chemicals in their hives. It's almost like you have given up on the honeybees ability to come out of this slump by natural means, or selective breeding. If beekeepers would ever have a mandate placed on them requiring treatment I would be first in line to leave the industry.

Now I will go back to the sideline...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Mike


> It would be very useful to be able to distinguish easily between what we might call 'centralised breeding programs' and 'grassroots breeding'.


ME:
And, if we cannot, the whole argument falls flat on its face. You have built your whole thesis on a false dichotomy.

Mike:


> What on earth are you on about? Of course we can make such a distinction


I don't think so, especially if they are both based upon the same biological principles, which they must be.



> I'm entirely unqualified to comment on 'retrotransposed viral fragments'.





> All seems entirely unalarming to me. A big fat distraction from the REAL issue


If you are unqualified to comment on the viral fragments, how can you say that it is a separate issue? Oh, by the way, another comment like 



> What on earth are you on about?


and you go back on my ignore list.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Yuleluder said:


> However I'm a bit taken back by the some of WLC's comments. I think the majority of the non treatment crowd is attempting to do what they feel is right for the overall health of the honeybee and beekeeping in general.


Of course, but the point is this: doing what you _feel is right_ can in fact be exactly the opposite of _what is right._


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> So far as we can tell, in nature extinction is the rule, not the exception.


Bingo!


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

ekervina said:


> Left to entirely natural devices, extinction is also a possibility. I am not arguing that intervention is always the answer, often it is probably a poor answer. But it is a mistake to assume that nature will provide a solution and preserve a species simply because other species depend on or benefit from it.


I don't think I'm making that assumption. I haven't said anything about other species being dependent on the bee, or that that would supply a guarentee for its survival.

What I _am_ saying is that nature has a permanant, ongoing solution to the problem of constant evolution (and consequent changes of behaviour) of its predators, and to the arrival of entirely new predators. That solution is the continuous process of natural selection. That process is absolutely necessary for health maintenance. And that it follows that frustrating that process will invariably result in deteriorating health. All that is very standard biology.

As far as extinction is concerned, the best courses of avoiding that (remote) possibility is a return to natural beekeeping. The very last thing needed is the dramatic narrowing of diversity that would come from centralized breeding, and from the continuous strain placed upon local apiaries and feral bees by the artificial maintenance of bloodlines unsuited to the present environment. We must permit (and, preferably, encourage) adaptation of the millions of local bloodlines in order to conserve the valuable diversity that is all species best defence against extinction.

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> respond to the suggestion that this mechanism is one of the leading factors in your observation that treatment-free regimes work in some places but not others?


Tom Seeley was one of the first to suggest just this. He found a population of feral colonies living not far from where I am, and studied _what it was about them_ that allowed them to survive. He suggested a genetic component.

At the time, I was skeptical for two reasons: one, not enough isolation and two, not enough time. When he brought the stock into town and tested it alongside his own stock: they succumbed to mites just like the commercial stock.

_Not behaviorally nor genetically distinct._

Now, he is examining an entirely different hypothesis: colony density as being a key factor in survival.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> ... and you go back on my ignore list.


Translation: 'your arguments are too challenging for me, and I shall retreat, clutching a figleaf of imaginary offence.'

You say you like facts Peter. If you are into facts (and I am) you have to realise that you can't cherry-pick them. Ignoring those facts that don't suit your position is not science, nor is your result rational. 

Ignore list pfff. I ignore your ignore list  

Mike


----------



## Yuleluder (Mar 2, 2005)

So I guess I am a bit confused...

If man somehow disappeared from earth and everything else was left intact, would you suspect the honeybee would be soon to follow? Are you suggesting that the honeybee needs us more then humans need them?

It just seems like some of the things I have read in this thread are more speculation the fact. Where is the data that suggests treatment free beekeepers are doing more damage to the honeybee species then those who apply chemicals. Is this also to say that all feral honeybees should be captured and eradicated? 

What is the right way to keep bees?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> _Not behaviorally nor genetically distinct._


One case, no control, no specifications, no statement of circumstances.... not much to build a theory on here Peter. As for your own personal speculation 'insufficient diversity': as I've shown you before, Marla Spivak specifically states that resistance can be drawn out of ANY population. That speculation on which you base your entire viewpoint on the issue is dead in the water. 

How about: "Those resistant colonies bought into range of non-resistant drones will, in the next generation, tend to lose their resistance as a result of interbreeding. 

What do you make of that theory? What is its flaw? Doesn't it follow perfectly logically from the biological facts of sexual reproduction and inherited traits? Turn it around: given the biological facts how might we suggest anything else could possibly occur.

Its terribly simple Peter. Please do stop running away from it.

Mike


----------



## ekervina (May 18, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> As far as extinction is concerned, the best courses of avoiding that (remote) possibility is a return to natural beekeeping.


Please support that assertion. It isn't as if european honey bees were previously successfully fighting off varroa.

The problem of varroa was caused by human action. We (humans) exposed bees not equipped to deal with _V. destructor_ to them in a relatively short time period. Speaking in terms of the length of time _A. mellifera_ has existed, it has all happened very suddenly. We radically adjusted their environment in practically no time at all. There is very strong evidence that such radical environmental events are exactly the sort of thing likely to drive a species into extinction. 

Given that the problem arose through an unnatural process, it does not follow we should assume there is a "natural" cure.

I agree with you that reflexively relying on ever more or newer chemicals as a first line of defense is likely to be a losing proposition, but it is entirely possible that we may need to practice unnatural controls of several sorts (controlled selective breeding, essential oils, periodic chemical controls in extreme cases, and so on) for an extended time (or maybe even until humans stop keeping bees) before a "naturally" resistant bee arises.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Its terribly simple Peter. Please do stop running away from it.


This is the type of comment which gets you back on the ignore list. Bye


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> (Me) What on earth are you on about? Of course we can make such a distinction
> 
> I don't think so, especially if they are both based upon the same biological principles, which they must be.


Peter, you've lost it I'm afraid. 

1) a central breeding program, where queens are raised in large numbers and sent out to apiaries.

2) apiaries doing their own breeding, and not importing queens from central breeders.

Can you really see no difference between these two propositions? 

If I say: 

"This breeding program will result in narrowing genetic diversity" (paraphrasing Norman Carreck)

and: "This breeding program will preserve and protect genetic diversity" (paraphrasing Marla Spivak)

... can you not tell where the breeding is going on in each case?

If you can then you can make the distinction.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> This is the type of comment which gets you back on the ignore list. Bye


I thought you were ignoring me? What kind of ignoring is that? I can't imagine a worse ignore. 

(I suppose that'll get me back on the ignore list _again!_ Doh!)


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Yuleluder said:


> If man somehow disappeared from earth and everything else was left intact, would you suspect the honeybee would be soon to follow? Are you suggesting that the honeybee needs us more then humans need them?


Not the honey bee as a species. Apis cerana, dorsata, florea, etc. coexist with tropical mites. African bees (Apis mellifera scutellata) coexist with tropical mites. These are all tropical honey bees. 

The varroa has been a scourge primarily for the European strains of honey bee whose life cycle and behavior differs quite a bit from tropical honey bees. European bees, without beekeepers, would likely be reduced to a much smaller number. 

When the density of colonies got low enough, they might do just fine. Or varroa could get the better of them, and they would go extinct. The European subspecies, that is. Just like many tribes of humans went extinct while the species itself prevailed. 

Some would say it was the violent, vicious variety of human that prevailed and the peace loving types went extinct. Maybe the same will happen with bees and everything else in the future. Only the most hostile aggressive violent types will rule the world.

Or do you still believe the meek shall inherit?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Yuleluder said:


> So I guess I am a bit confused...
> 
> If man somehow disappeared from earth and everything else was left intact, would you suspect the honeybee would be soon to follow? Are you suggesting that the honeybee needs us more then humans need them?
> 
> ...


30% of colonies sampled carried IAPV fragments. 95% of those were resistant to IAPV infections. That was a finding in one of the papers cited/linked earlier in the thread. However, that was just IAPV. It doesn't address the other RNA viruses that affect honey bees.

How do you select for bees that can make antisense RNA to picorna/dicistro viruses?

You don't treat the colonies so that they have an increased mite load, and the viruses that they carry. Then, you only select for survivors.

Anyone who has ever worked in a genetics lab recognizes the procedure. This also describes exactly what treatment free beekeepers have been doing. Beekeepers have been carrying out the selection step in a retrotransposition 'protocol'.

When I've used the term 'existential crisis', I did so because this really does apply to beekeepers who are trying to avoid chemical contamination of their hives.

All that I can say after having read the papers, and the findings within is, 'Wow!'


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

ekervina said:


> Please support that assertion. It isn't as if european honey bees were previously successfully fighting off varroa.


Hi Ekervina,

In several controlled experiments european bees have been shown to do just that when left to their own devices. (See my links page: http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/selected links.htm) Around 10% of a typical population survives due to natural resistance, and the population is rebuilt from that remnant. The same is true of African honey bees, now largely resistant after less than 10 years. And, of course, Russians. 

That suddeness is typical of epimemics - that's what epidemics are. And they are common, as is the associated rapid depopulation. Just as common is a rapid rebuild of resistant bloodlines. It hasn't happened in this case because widespread medication was adopted, which has prevented it.

Can I add: 'essential oils', if effective, are every bit as disruptive to the emergence of resistance as the most elaborate 'chemicals.' The principle is: the agent is disruptive in direct proportion to its effectiveness. That's what makes all the expensive research for ever more efficient treatments such a nonsense - the more successful they are, the more effectively they'll inhibit the emergence of resistance... and frustrate the breeding programs... 

'Helping' indivividuals in species where mating is uncontrolled amounts to sabotaging the main health mechanism of the local population. 

Mike


----------



## Yuleluder (Mar 2, 2005)

WTC,

Would you suggest that all feral bees need to be eradicated?

Can you also see how some of your comments could be viewed as condescending?

I also have to ask where the 30 percent comes from? 30 percent of all bees world wide, 30 percent of a certain countries bees or 30 percent of a specific beekeepers bees? 

Are you suggesting that breeders like Glenn Apiaries, VP queens, and all others who produce treatment free bees are actually producing toxic bees if they are not testing for these virus fragments?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Yuleluder said:


> Are you suggesting that breeders like Glenn Apiaries


I know Tom Glenn, and he is a _bee breeder_, not a _bee collector_


----------



## Yuleluder (Mar 2, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> I know Tom Glenn, and he is a _bee breeder_, not a _bee collector_


What is this statement suppose to mean and how does it pertain to any of the questions I have posed?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Yuleluder said:


> WTC,
> 
> Would you suggest that all feral bees need to be eradicated?
> 
> ...


Feral bees don't need to be eradicated. However, it does raise the question as to why they are survivors and if they should be bred by beekeepers.

If I'm condescending, I'm sorry. However, I do believe that no-treatment beekeepers need to address the issue without the 3 Ds (deny, deflect, delay). Did I make myself clear?

A sample of 30 US colonies were sampled (I believe they were in Penn. and Ca.). They certainly need to sample and test many more colonies, in many more locations, for a variety of integrated RNA viruses. If you want more details, please look through the articles at your own leisure.

Which apiaries are affected is unknown at this time. This is all very new. Treatment free also has different meanings. Those selecting survivors using zero additives would be the most likely candidates.

I would characterize bee strains carrying integrated virus fragments or producing antisense RNA as contaminated. They are strains that you shouldn't have in your apiary. Beekeepers don't belong in the recombinant DNA business.

In addition, I would like to see tests done out of an 'abundance of caution'.

The question remains: do beekeepers as a whole have the collective will to keep what I have characterized as a contaminant out of their apiaries?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

What I find somewhat amusing is the idea that some folks have that using essential oils or selected stock to combat varroa is somehow new or radical. These are very old ideas, especially in view of the fact that the US got varroa relatively late in the process



> The use of heat and wintergreen oil for the treatment of varroatosis
> Hoppe, H. ,Ritter, W.
> Publication Date	(1989)
> 
> ...


----------



## ekervina (May 18, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> In several controlled experiments european bees have been shown to do just that when left to their own devices.


Some encouraging result are not the end of the story, and other studies have shown weak or no support for those results. I find the indications encouraging, I am just unwilling to say, "This is the cure! Everybody do it," particularly given that there seems to be evidence that (assuming this is an actual trait and not the result of weakness in the experiments) such resistance is not a dominant trait. And, I believe, we will never be able to stop uncontrolled breeding[1]. Nature will kick our collective ass without batting an eye. So unless we are able to develop a dominant trait, all the recessives we can count won't ultimately serve.

I am confused that you advocate genetic diversity, while using as support studies whose results require a 90% mortality rate. I am uncertain how retaining only 10% of bees qualifies as preserving diversity, particularly given that your nightmare scenario of beekeepers having only queens with controlled insemination seems to me highly unlikely to work. 

The 90% mortality rate would, incidentally, be economically disasterous if we were to allow it. Tell a professional beekeeper running several thousand hives he needs to allow 90%of his livestock to die. The damage that would be done to the agricultural industry would be staggering, and very possibly far worse than continuing with current IPM practices. Absent a dominant resistance trait, we would have to allow such mortality rate to meet your vision, and even then we would remain vulnerable to feral bees undoing what we had done.

In that vein, if I can engage in another quibble... You state that "natural" methods of beekeeping are the answer. Okay. I present to you that "natural" beekeeping would mean eradicating them from the New World and no longer keeping them in boxes anywhere. By virtue of husbanding bees, we are sustaining them unnaturally. 

The genie is out of the bottle, and he isn't going to go back in just because we hope for it to be so. Varroa and bees aren't going to live in equilibrium because we start doing things the way we did many years ago, because the economic reality is we can't afford to. The idea of developing resistant bees is a good one. If possible, it should be done. But it needs to be done in conjunction with other methods.


[1] Sidebar: Look at africanized honey bees in the United States; much as people might wish it were otherwise, feral AHB will continue to spread their genes. The AHB has several dominant traits we find undesirable, and they reproduce colonies faster than Europeans. Unless beekeepers are able to catch every swarm or ensure every queen they have is artificially fertilized, AHB will continue to be a problem for beekeeprs in that region.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Many years ago, when varroa first arrived in western Europe the idea of natural resistance had already been contemplated and regarded as not effective. 



> The use of a range of chemical substances is at present necessary to control varroatosis in all the infested European countries. Under our conditions we have observed no reduction in the reproduction of the parasite due to natural factors such as the host/parasite relationship, temperature, etc.
> 
> Chemical treatments have enabled beekeepers to prevent great losses of colonies and to restore heavily damaged apiaries to their former condition. A number of substances have proved successful against the mite


Essential oils were tested very early on



> Thymol crystals we used were produced via chemical synthesis. The content of thymol was nearly 99 %. During our visit to Vzrejni Center near Ljubljana in September 1983 we were impressed by the widespread use of this substance in the area.


COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENTS USED TO CONTROL VARROA JACOBSONI OUD.
Stefano MARCHETTI Renzo BARBATTINI


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Most of the early work on varroa control, of course, was done in Russia:



> Veterinariia. 1977 Sep;(9):73-7.
> [Evaluation of the preparations against Varroa infection of the bees]
> [Article in Russian]
> Lange AB, Natskiĭ KV, Tatsiĭ VM.
> ...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter, isn't this a genetics thread?


----------



## Jack Grimshaw (Feb 10, 2001)

I'm having trouble grasping the problem with having viral fragments incorporated in the bees DNA.
Did I state that correctly?

If a human is exposed to a virus(smallpox ,swine flu,etc) they either die or recover.
If they recover,they will have developed an imunity to that particular viral strain.
Or am I oversimplifying.

Can bees develope an imunity to a virus? Does that imunity change the DNA? Will this be passed on to future generations?

Last I knew there were no treatments for viruses in bee hives.We can only hope to control the vector or cause the vector to become ineffectual.

A lot of smoke on this thread.
I wonder how many are armchair beeks.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> Peter, isn't this a genetics thread?


Of course. My point was that genetics was thought of first. Much work had been done on tracheal mite resistance. But the lessons learned apparently were not sufficient to head off the ultimate resort to chemical controls. Be they synthetic or biological in nature, these were all tried decades ago. 

Newcomers, with no knowledge of the history of bee breeding nor of the history of varroa in Europe, assume that chemicals were tried first, then essential oils, then genetic improvement -- instead of the other way around. The blame scientists, chemicals and stupidity for the pickle we are in. 

Genetic resistance to disease has been discussed in the literature for over 100 years.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Jack Grimshaw said:


> I'm having trouble grasping the problem with having viral fragments incorporated in the bees DNA.


Perhaps this explains it:


> The main question of how viruses are recruited as permanent allies within the host genome, or how they become ‘endogenized’, remains unanswered. Ryan has developed a novel theory known as ‘plague culling’, which proposes that aggressive invasion by some retroviruses is a prelude to the subsequent establishment of a commensal or even mutualistic symbiotic relationship with the surviving members of the host species that have become immune to the virus. Ryan argues that this has happened with increasing frequency during mammalian and primate evolution, and even that the current AIDS epidemic is part of that process: HIV itself could in time be integrated into our genomes and gain a crucial role.
> 
> For endogenization to occur, the viral genome must unite directly with the host genome at the germ-line level, which is an ability possessed by retroviruses. As Ryan pointed out, eukaryotic genomes contain a large number of genetic elements called long interspersed nuclear elements (LINEs) and short interspersed nuclear elements (SINEs), which he describes as decayed products of past symbiotic endogenous retroviruses.
> 
> In fact, plague culling is not confined to retroviruses but is shared by many DNA viruses, a number of which might persist harmlessly in mammalian populations, spread perhaps from mother to offspring during lactation.





Jack Grimshaw said:


> Last I knew there were no treatments for viruses in bee hives.We can only hope to control the vector or cause the vector to become ineffectual.


Oh, there is:


> Remebee is Beeologics' first breakthrough development in preventing Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) infection, reducing the impact of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) caused by bee viruses, and strengthening honey bee colonies for highly effective crop pollination. Beeologics has filed for patent protection (patent pending) for the technology that covers the Remebee line of products to include not only protection from IAPV, but also protection against all other bee viruses and pathogens.
> 
> http://www.beeologics.com/products.asp


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

If there is still anyone out there who thinks that the idea of disease resistant bees is new or radical, read this:



> The breeding of bees to increase their honey-producing character was commenced in Ripple Court Apiary about the year 1892.
> In the year 1897 Sladen's "Hardy and Prolific" Strain was introduced. This well-known strain originated from a cross between the English bees bred in Ripple Court Apiary and the Italian bee, and the queens and workers were only slightly marked with yellow.
> 
> In 1901 and 1902 a little of the best American Golden Italian blood was introduced into Ripple Court Apiary, and in the spring of 1903 the bees bred were divided according to colour into " Hardy and Prolific," " Golden Prolific," and " Extra Golden," the two latter names having been invented to denote the more brightly coloured bees. These bees, particularly the " Golden Prolific," met with much popularity, on account of their great vigour, immense reproductive power of the queens, and the enormous yields of honey frequently obtained from the colonies.
> ...


----------



## Jack Grimshaw (Feb 10, 2001)

"Remebee is Beeologics'.............."

How does this work?Is it like a vaccine in that it is a weakened pathogen the produces immunity? 

Can't stay on .Wife's getting PO'd


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Jack Grimshaw said:


> How does this work? Is it like a vaccine in that it is a weakened pathogen the produces immunity?


The answer is RNA interference


> RNA interference constitutes a key component of the innate immune response to viral infection in both plants and invertebrate animals and has been postulated to have a similar protective function in mammals ... it can be readily demonstrated that the artificial induction of an antiviral RNAi response in cells can confer strong protection against a wide range of pathogenic viruses
> 
> NATURE IMMUNOLOGY VOLUME 7 NUMBER 6 JUNE 2006 5 6 3


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

ekervina said:


> The genie is out of the bottle, and he isn't going to go back in just because we hope for it to be so. Varroa and bees aren't going to live in equilibrium because we start doing things the way we did many years ago, because the economic reality is we can't afford to. The idea of developing resistant bees is a good one. If possible, it should be done. But it needs to be done in conjunction with other methods.


Ekervina, it is being done. I and others are constantly pointing to the Russian bees, B. Weaver and R. Weaver in Texas, and several others who are doing just that. And there are beekeepers who have been treatment free for years. Some commercial beeks are using Minnesota Hygenic bees, and only using one treatment of essential oils in the fall. No other chemicals. 

Beeks have been accused on this forum of breeding an impending disaster by working toward survivor stock. And yet, just how much difference is there in that, and inoculating a human being with a vaccine to develop immunity? Only with the bees, we're not inoculating them, injecting something foreign into them, we are simply breeding from the ones who survive the onslaught of the pest. Perhaps that is an oversimplication. 

Elsewhere it was stated that extinction is the norm, survival of species the exception on this planet. Probably true. But the ones who adapt, survive. The ones who adjust to, and cope with, new predators, viruses, diseases, whatever, seem to be the ones that survive. They may not be as "pure" as they once were, but they don't go extinct. The ones who don't adapt, go extinct. Surviving mites without human intervention is the goal. And because of the work of many folks, we're getting there. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

How does a bee make antisense RNA that binds to an RNA virus like IAPV, KWV, and DWV thereby inactivating them? Probably the same way that it makes mRNA for making protein.

How does it acquire this immunity? RNA from the virus is reversed transcribed into DNA and then transposed (inserted) into the host chromosome.

Why might this be such an issue? It becomes an issue when a no treatment philosophy selects for bees that produce antisense RNA (called frankenbees by me) because they want to eliminate the 'toxins' of chemical treatments from their hives.

Is this an issue for beekeepers? It may play a role in CCD.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

ekervina said:


> Some encouraging result are not the end of the story, and other studies have shown weak or no support for those results. I find the indications encouraging, I am just unwilling to say, "This is the cure! Everybody do it," particularly given that there seems to be evidence that (assuming this is an actual trait and not the result of weakness in the experiments) such resistance is not a dominant trait.


Hi Ekervina,

The body of evidence is massively on the side of the biological expectations. This is what populations do: we can see both why and how. And we know that interfering with the process (which treatments do very effectively) will disrupt it for as long as it continues.

There is no need to lose 90 % of bees (though, as I understand it, doing so does not reduce the biodiversity, as each surviving queen carries a full copy of the sub-species genome) It does reduce the individual bloodlines - but that is just how nature works, and the same combinations can arise again in the future - if they are advantagous.

The idea is that beekeepers can move away from treatment based health regimes and toward selective health regimes by using survivors, buying in healthy queens, and by doing what all other forms of husbandry do without fail: multiplying stock selectively. 



ekervina said:


> And, I believe, we will never be able to stop uncontrolled breeding[1].


You are right - and that is why treating bees like other kinds of stock, where mating can be controlled, will never work. That single fact rules out treatments - for that results in the pressing of unfit genes into the next generations - where they seriously don't belong. 



ekervina said:


> So unless we are able to develop a dominant trait, all the recessives we can count won't ultimately serve.


All the genes required fo 'hygienic' behaviours are recessive. That is because that behaviour is expensive in energy terms, and unless needed should not be used. And that is one of the reasons why treatments are so very damaging - we have to allow those bees carrying non-hygenic behaviour to be virtually eliminated. When all bees carry only the (recessive) 'hygiene' genes, all bees will be resistant. It can't happen while non-hygenic bees are around.



ekervina said:


> In that vein, if I can engage in another quibble... You state that "natural" methods of beekeeping are the answer. Okay. I present to you that "natural" beekeeping would mean eradicating them from the New World and no longer keeping them in boxes anywhere. By virtue of husbanding bees, we are sustaining them unnaturally.


By 'natural' I mean working with the natural process as all other forms of husbandry do. Beekeeping as currently practiced shouldn't be described as 'husbandry' at all. The idea of husbandry is that the bloodlines are 'husbanded' through the generations. Until and unless that happens, beekeepers will be constantly threatened with bankrupcy in the same way that ignorant farmers have faced ruin for thousands of years. 




ekervina said:


> Varroa and bees aren't going to live in equilibrium because we start doing things the way we did many years ago, because the economic reality is we can't afford to.


Oh yes we can. That is precisely the message being spread by Marla Spivak and many others. We can change over without loss, to the position where bees and varroa do indeed live in benign equilibrium. Please visit and study some of the articles and papers from my links page. You are behind the curve here.

Some of the larger commercial models will find this hard, and some may not survive. The big importers of bees currently meeting the needs raised by weak US bees will also go. The income stream provided by the supply of treatements will fade. All those threatened by such changes make a huge fuss, and put out alarmist nonsense about how bees must be treated or the world will starve. It is pure BS - though many believe it themselves. We can wean ourselves off treatments, and allow bees to thrive once again.




ekervina said:


> The idea of developing resistant bees is a good one. If possible, it should be done. But it needs to be done in conjunction with other methods.


If 'the other methods' involve treatments and manipulations, that will be impossible. These things undercut the processes that allow resistance to emerge.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Genetic resistance to disease has been discussed in the literature for over 100 years.


In striking contrast to the role of treatments in inhibiting resistance...

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> "Remebee is Beeologics' first breakthrough development in preventing Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) infection, reducing the impact of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) caused by bee viruses, and strengthening honey bee colonies for highly effective crop pollination. Beeologics has filed for patent protection (patent pending) for the technology that covers the Remebee line of products to include not only protection from IAPV, but also protection against all other bee viruses and pathogens."
> http://www.beeologics.com/products.asp


Or: 'How to breed bees that are vulnerable to IAPV'. Try to get it: these drugs are addictive for the reasons we have been rehearsing. These drugs are _fatally addictive_. Beeologics will try to make beekeepers the world over addicted to remebee. Their shareholders will make fortunes. That is the objective of their activities.

The traditional, effective response to fatal infection is destroying the colony and burning the hive. Those bloodlines that do not cope are eliminated.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> If there is still anyone out there who thinks that the idea of disease resistant bees is new or radical, read this:


The focus here is on honey production, not disease or pest resistance. There has been a good deal of high level criticism of breeders in the last year, singling out their failure to select for raw health as an important factor in the current crisis.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> How does a bee make antisense RNA that binds to an RNA virus like IAPV, KWV, and DWV thereby inactivating them? Probably the same way that it makes mRNA for making protein.
> 
> How does it acquire this immunity? RNA from the virus is reversed transcribed into DNA and then transposed (inserted) into the host chromosome.
> 
> ...


This is such speculative alarmist bs wlc, it could have been written by a bayer lobbyist. I suggest you leave the science fiction to the experts - or write a novel. 

Mike


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> This is such speculative alarmist bs wlc, it could have been written by a bayer lobbyist. I suggest you leave the science fiction to the experts - or write a novel.
> 
> Mike


Deny. Deflect. Delay.

Sounds like tactics right out of Bayer's playbook. The one's accused of causing CCD (a speculation?).

So, you are critical of the pesticide industry?

You know, the treadmill. You use a pesticide. The pests develop resistance. You develop a new pesticide. The pests develop resistance. Over, and over again. Meanwhile, the stuff accumulates in your hives.

What could Bayer say about no-treatment beekeepers?

Your hives are lousy with mites because you don't treat. The viruses they carry cause disease. You select for survivors carrying integrated virus fragments and antisense RNA that makes them immune to the virus. The virus mutates. You select for survivors carrying new integrated virus fragments and new antisense RNA. Over, and over again. Meanwhile, these virus fragments accumulate inside the bee genome. Another treadmill!

Some scientists speculates that these viral fragments may be involved in CCD.

That's ironic, don't you think?

Just to show you that I'm not such a bad guy, maybe you could eliminate the mites that are at the bottom of all of this with a natural comb/heavy propolis combo. You've got to eliminate the mites, regardless.

Let the microbes in the natural comb and propolis do the 'evolving'.

PS-Brother Adam may have been the first to select for integrated virus fragments. :lookout:


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> PS-Brother Adam may have been the first to select for integrated virus fragments. :lookout:


Maybe. Or maybe it all started when Chinese agents crossed the border into Russia and introduced the varroa mite into Russian bees in the far East. 

Then, the Russian Bee Traders sold bees with viral modified dna to the USDA and they took them to Louisiana. 

Only by sequencing of the DNA of the Sino Acute Paralysis Virus (SAPV) and comparing it to the genomes of survivor bees in New Mexico, will we know for certain.

More likely, however, is that the presence of IAPV fragments indicates that survivor stock is descended from the original Native American Bees which were cultivated in the wilds of Oklahoma by the lost tribe of the Israelites. 

Some sources assert that there is DNA evidence, linguistic research and other research which indicates links between the Cherokee Nation and the Jewish people.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> When I say a thing is so, or say it is not so, what evidence has the reader that it is proved or demonstrated? My mere assertions are not expected to be taken in preference to another's; of such proof, we have more than enough.
> 
> Most people have not the time, patience, nor ability to sit down quietly with close observation, and investigate the subject thoroughly. Hence it has been found easier to receive error for truth than to make the exertion necessary to confute it; and more so, because there is no guide to direct the investigation.
> 
> ...


----------



## ekervina (May 18, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> Please visit and study some of the articles and papers from my links page. You are behind the curve here.


You have an annoying habit of being very dismissive of anybody who challenges your confirmation bias. Perhaps you are unaware of it, but it is very off-putting.

Since neither you nor I will ultimately decide this I see no reason to continue this exchange.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Maybe. Or maybe it all started when Chinese agents crossed the border into Russia and introduced the varroa mite into Russian bees in the far East.
> 
> Then, the Russian Bee Traders sold bees with viral modified dna to the USDA and they took them to Louisiana.
> 
> ...


Do you mean the 'Heckawee' indians?


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Mike B



> All the genes required fo 'hygienic' behaviours are recessive. That is because that behaviour is expensive in energy terms, and unless needed should not be used. And that is one of the reasons why treatments are so very damaging - we have to allow those bees carrying non-hygenic behaviour to be virtually eliminated. When all bees carry only the (recessive) 'hygiene' genes, all bees will be resistant. It can't happen while non-hygenic bees are around.


Not actually true. They are additive rather than recessive.

http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/vsh.html



> The VSH trait is thought to be controlled by more than one gene, just how many is uncertain at this point. These genes are neither dominant nor recessive. They are what is called "additive" which simply means that the more of them that are present, the more strongly the trait will be expressed. This works in favor of beekeepers since a queen with VSH genes can mate to any drones and still have the trait expressed in her colony enough to reduce the mite population. So naturally mated queens produced from pure VSH breeders are mite resistant.


This is totally at odds with your claim that 'It can't happen while non-hygienic bees are around.'


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Maybe. Or maybe it all started when Chinese agents crossed the border into Russia and introduced the varroa mite into Russian bees in the far East.
> 
> Then, the Russian Bee Traders sold bees with viral modified dna to the USDA and they took them to Louisiana.
> 
> ...


As a native Oklahoman, with a few drops of Cherokee blood left in me (not enough to get on the tribal rolls, unfortunately) actually, the Cherokees didn't get to Oklahoma until forcibly removed there from Georgia, Eastern Tennessee and the Carolinas via the "Trail of Tears" in the 1830's. So the cultivation of the original Native American Bees with IAPV would have occurred in the eastern wilds, perhaps even on the eastern seaboard. Which possibly means, as soon as the Europeans arrived with their bees, they became infected by intermingling with those Native American Bees cultivated by the Lost Tribe of the Israelites! Would that help explain the presence of IAPV fragments?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

StevenG said:


> Which possibly means, as soon as the Europeans arrived with their bees, they became infected by intermingling with those Native American Bees cultivated by the Lost Tribe of the Israelites! Would that help explain the presence of IAPV fragments?


Well I thought of mentioning the fact that Joseph Smith was visited by the Angel Moroni in the woods not far from here. Maybe the gold tablets explained about the bees. The Mormons went West to form the Territory of Deseret (honey bee), now called Utah.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> At the time, I was skeptical for two reasons: one, not enough isolation and two, not enough time. When he brought the stock into town and tested it alongside his own stock: they succumbed to mites just like the commercial stock.
> 
> _Not behaviorally nor genetically distinct._


On the surface, this looks "clean." But taking a feral colony out of its natural place and putting it along side commercial (man made) hives equates to some significant changes. Did Tom use the feral comb within the commercial hive is one question that comes right to mind. I fail to see in situations like this how solid scientific conclusion can be obtained of the sort that was.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> Did Tom use the feral comb within the commercial hive is one question that comes right to mind. I fail to see in situations like this how solid scientific conclusion can be obtained of the sort that was.


First, Dr. Seeley is one of the foremost bee researchers in the world, so I see little reason to question his methodology. However, what was under study here was whether there was a genetically based behavior that was enabling the feral colonies to survive while the labs back in town succumbed routinely to mites.

Therefore, all colonies were kept in standard hives and under standard management practices. No difference could be observed in the susceptibility to mites, leading to the conclusion that there were other factors responsible. Dr. Seeley initially speculated that non-virulent mites could be responsible for the formation of a symbiotic balance in the hives.

Lately, however, he and I have discussed the idea of low colony density and its possible relationship to disease transmission. This is supported by recent work by Leslie Bailey which indicated that tracheal mite transmission and infestation is aggravated by high colony density and is alleviated when the bees die off below a certain critical level.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

correction: read "the lab's bees"


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jonathan said:


> (the VSH genes) ...are additive rather than recessive.
> 
> http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/vsh.html


Hi Jonathan,

Yes - the picture is more complicated than the one I painted. As I understand things some of the genes that confer the desirable behaviours are recessive, some are dominant and some neither particularly. And yes, many are involved and the effects are additive. As I understand it, some of the more important ones are recessive. Don't forget narrow VSH behaviours are only one kind of desirable behaviour. 

We don't need to go into all that however while explaining why the basic principle of natural selection is so important, and showing why it is that treatment undermines the emergence of resistance. That is the core point to which I return again and again. 



jonathan said:


> This is totally at odds with your claim that 'It can't happen while non-hygienic bees are around.'


Not so. Additivity helps to maintain the genes (and the desirable behaviours), but it only delays the decay that comes in each generation that is mated with drones not carrying the desirable genes. Some second generation queens mated with undesirable drones will, yes, still maintain a useful level of desirable behaviours (and any improvements that can be made along such lines is useful); but... good genes will always be diluted by, and in proportion to the number of, duff drones in the breeding pool. This will continue, and compound in each new generation. Maintaining stocks that require medication, and allowing their drones to fly, will _always_ progressively corrode the beneficial behaviours; and in each generation the damage will be greater than the last. 

From the page you cite: "Daughters queens of pure VSH breeders who are out crossed by natural mating have good brood production and an acceptable level of mite resistance." This means what it says: ' 'daughters'. It makes no mention of grand daughters and so on. 

(Perhaps what has happened here is that the 'it' in my sentence refers to a full solution in which selection forms the exclusive means of health maintenance. You have perhaps mistaken my meaning to intend 'a solution for the next generation'?)

In any case: lets look at another angle. If you _could_ load a queen with a full compliments of ideal genes, and you _could_ make all of them dominant, perhaps you could then have the desirable behaviours run down through the generations. But you know what would happen... The predators would evolve new lines of attack, and they would do so differently in different places. So then you'd need a whole new set of tweaked queens to meet the change. And then... you know how it goes. Even this then (which is anyway science fiction) would not represent a solution. The only permanent solution is the universal adoption of the single sound method of husbandry: stop the reproduction of deficient offspring by eliminating the deficient parents from the breeding pool, and continue the selective operations always to allow the best parents at any and all times to form the new generations. That also has the added benefit of allowing feral bees to thrive around apiaries, giving beekeepers the benefit of their hard-won genes. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> ...what was under study here was whether there was a genetically based behavior that was enabling the feral colonies to survive while [in?] the labs back in town [they?] succumbed routinely to mites.


Just because their genetic makeup was insufficient to allow them to survive in the apiaries, it does not follow that there was no genetically-determined behaviours that were enabling them to survive in the wild. Ultimately all behaviours are determined by genes (though conditioned by environmental factors).

Of course there are a number of factors in play (the colony spacing you mention may well be one - it would be surpirising if that did not make a difference). It may also be that those bees were closely attuned to the forage and climate they survived in, and not to the new locality. And it is almost certain that in the wild the mites they coexisted with had evolved to be less aggressive. Injecting vicious apiary-raised mites was more than they could take.

Something you have not told us is the duration of the experiment. Are we talking about a single generation? 

Even if we are (and I sincerely hope we are, for otherwise the experiment is meaningless) you cannot take from this result the conclusion that it was not a genetic difference between the wild and apiary bees that allowed the former to survive in their environment. All you can say is that whatever genetic differences there were were insufficient in these cases to allow them to survive in an apiary - details unknown.

Mike


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

mike bispham said:


> Jyou cannot take from this result the conclusion that it was not a genetic difference between the wild and apiary bees that allowed the former to survive in their environment. All you can say is that whatever genetic differences there were were insufficient in these cases to allow them to survive in an apiary - details unknown.


That's my understanding as well.

Peter, I've seen far too many questionable "studies" to simply agree with a researcher's conclusion based on his/her name. One thing that is quite evident in bee research are the vast variables that come into play. It's near impossible to isolate one factor without it having an affect on another.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> The population of European honey bees surviving in the Arnot Forest is probably not unique. Anecdotal reports suggest that feral populations of European honey bees also exist in other areas of North America where there are few colonies kept by beekeepers. Certainly the cases of European honey bees surviving mite infestations without acaricide treatments on isolated islands in Brazil and Sweden shows that European honey bees have the potential to develop a stable host-parasite relationship with V. destructor.
> 
> The long-term survival of these colonies begs the question: how are they surviving with V. destructor? There are several possible answers. One is that these bees have evolved mechanisms of resistance to the mites, such as grooming of phoretic mites off adult bees, hygienic behavior that removes worker brood infested with mites, or inhibition of mite reproduction on worker brood. If the AF bees have evolved resistance, then the AF colonies in this experiment should have had slower mite population growth than the NWC colonies. This prediction was not supported. The mite populations grew as briskly in the AF colonies as in the NWC colonies.


Thomas D. Seeley. 2007. Honey bees of the Arnot Forest: a population of feral colonies persisting with Varroa destructor in the northeastern United States


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

While I haven't read all of the threads in this forum, I just want to point out that the Russian bee has the ability to reach on its back and remove a varroa mite. They weren't developed by the USDA to have mite resistance, they already had it. They were screened by the USDA, and bred for production, docility, and other things that the beeks that had the first Russians found to be problematic. While I am not smart enough nor do I care to understand about the viruses, and genetics in these threads, I just want something that works. The reason I personally am going to try the Russians is that they have many more desireable traits naturally. I believe that some of these traits are available in others who have survival trait advertised bees. I also know, not believe, that as soon as someone is selling survival traits several more are going to jump on the band wagon of survival just to sell. So I am going to go where I know the traits are for survival and not chance getting burned. Also I am getting them from an almost identical climate to mine. 

Now some of these traits besides vorroa resistance is tracheal mite resistance, smaller cluster going into winter, not robbing their neighbors nearly as bad as Italians, supposedly nosema resistant (because they are very hygeinic), being docile, and others that I can't think of right now (I'm having a senior moment). All this while still producing well.

Can BWeaver bees or any of the other survivors do all these things naturally and combine all these traits? I am seriously asking.

I thank all of you highly educated people for your interesting reading and it is important that people that understand all the things discussed here can have a meaningful discussion on these things, and hopefully some good will come from it. God knows the bees need it, and we DEFINITELY NEED THE BEES.:thumbsup:


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Thomas D. Seeley. 2007. Honey bees of the Arnot Forest: a population of feral colonies persisting with Varroa destructor in the northeastern United States.
> 
> "If the AF bees have evolved resistance, then the AF colonies in this experiment should have had slower mite population growth than the NWC colonies. This prediction was not supported. The mite populations grew as briskly in the AF colonies as in the NWC colonies. "


Badly phrased. This is a hypthesis. It should read something like: "If the AF bees have evolved resistance, then, **we hypothesized that** the AF colonies in this experiment should have [] slower mite population growth than the NWC colonies. This prediction was not supported. The mite populations grew as briskly in the AF colonies as in the NWC colonies. "

That at least clarifies an important aspect of the nature of the experimental conditions. And what it says is: "The [apiary] mite populations grew as briskly in the AF colonies as in the NWC colonies."

That's all. It reports that that is what happened. Why that happened, and what it means, is speculation - informed or otherwise. (We have made some in recent posts) From that speculation new hypotheses might be formed, and tested. 

It is important not take too much, or to draw inappropriate conclusions from a report of an experiment. 

So what is this about Peter? What point is it you want to make with this paper? How does it bear on the topic?

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> Peter, I've seen far too many questionable "studies" to simply agree with a researcher's conclusion based on his/her name.


Is there no one you respect, whose words make you stand up and take notice?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

http://mn4h.com/honeybees/components/pdfs/simone_evans__spivak_2009.pdf

It's more epigenetic than genetic. We are also adopting a no-treatment/natural comb/induced propolization approach.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> Is there no one you respect, whose words make you stand up and take notice?


First off, nothing I said deals in the realm of "respect." Second, there are few people, outside of those I know personally, whose words on the surface I take as the gospel truth. In my youth, the world was seen often in black and white. With age comes a more realistic understanding.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> First off, nothing I said deals in the realm of "respect." Second, there are few people, outside of those I know personally, whose words on the surface I take as the gospel truth.


No one suggests taking anyone's words as the gospel truth. I must say I am surprised by your dismissal of the work of a researcher of this caliber, however. Perhaps my surprise led to an inarticulate response. You state 



> I've seen far too many questionable "studies"


in the context of a study by Thomas Seeley. 


> Thomas D. Seeley is Professor and Chairman in the Department of Neurobiology and Behavior at Cornell University. He is a world authority on animal behavior, especially the social behavior of honey bees. At home more in the field than the laboratory, his scientific work features observational and experimental investigations of the inner workings of honey bee colonies living under natural conditions. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, he is the recipient of numerous honors for his scientific work including a Guggenheim Fellowship, the Alexander von Humboldt Distinguished U.S. Scientist Award, and a Gold Medal from Apimondia for his book The Wisdom of the Hive. Currently, he is working on a new book, Swarm Intelligence in Bees.


This is not one of your grass roots honey bee folk doctors, you know.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=2a942362716f0bda5eda355efc47291b

How about some light reading from the Journal of Invertebrate Pathology? It's the 'Diseases of Bees' supplement.


----------



## USCBeeMan (Feb 7, 2009)

Ya'll gave me a headache. Quickly perused through the last few pages of this thread.

Seems to me for a layman (like myself) a lot of the stuff previously mentioned is chest puffing info.

People should get the best genetic bees possible for their area and problem(s). They should then try to stay within that gene pool hoping and looking for more improvements.

Now these bees could be MH or VH to start off or they could be bees that have those traits already for whatever reason. If other beeks around are having some success, then swap some queens.

As far as ferals. If I can find some bees that have been in the same locaation for 3, 4, or 5 years or even longer, I want some of those bees.

Why, because they are living without human interferance/help. I want to see if they are healthy, have low mite counts (or no mite counts), good honey producers, queen lays well, etc. If the hive is healthy w/o or very little mites but are not heavy honey producers, I still want those type of bees. I want to use my drones with their queens and my queens with their drones. Somewhere along the line there should be some queens that produce good honey producers and mite resistant.

Now for all of the scientific theory and BS posted earlier: means nothing to me unless it is put into terms I can understand and use. Somethings regardless are out of my control such as the viral changing of DNA. But doesn't that happen in all living things? So it's just a piece of the puzzle. 

Work on what you can control and change. Pray and let God deal with the viral and other things outside of your/my scope.

The State of TN has approved medications for all known bee problems. Some will not work at all on new diseases like the new Nesoma virus. Some of the approved are categorized as "recommended".

Many of us want to raise our bees without any treatments which in the long run is best. But as our State Apiarist pointed out in a class Thursday, do you let a hive just die that is infested with Varroa or do you try to use some form of treatment and try to save the hive. 

After thingking about it, I will try to save the hive. The hive may have other traits that are very favorable and for some unknown reason got a case of Varroa that it couldn't handle for the first time.

One thing on initial treatsments for new problems. Using a chemical or medicine to initially give your bees a fighting chance makes sense to me. Keeping them on the chemical or medicines for a long period of time does not.

*BTW,* 
I also found out in the class that* Congress passed a law in 2009 that is for all farm animals (which bees fall under this category). Preventive medicines like antibiotics will be outlawed when this law comes into effect.* At the moment it seems that no one knows when/if this law will become effective/enforced.

So giving your bees TM as a preventive measure will be gone. I don't know about some of the other products. Checkmite II and many others may end up falling under this law too.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> That's my understanding as well.
> 
> Peter, I've seen far too many questionable "studies" to simply agree with a researcher's conclusion based on his/her name.


(re. later exchanges) I'm not sure we've seen the researcher's conclusions. Let's read them and see what the guy actually concludes...

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

(up to here I agree with everything)



USCBeeMan said:


> Many of us want to raise our bees without any treatments which in the long run is best. But as our State Apiarist pointed out in a class Thursday, do you let a hive just die that is infested with Varroa or do you try to use some form of treatment and try to save the hive.
> 
> After thingking about it, I will try to save the hive. The hive may have other traits that are very favorable and for some unknown reason got a case of Varroa that it couldn't handle for the first time.
> 
> One thing on initial treatsments for new problems. Using a chemical or medicine to initially give your bees a fighting chance makes sense to me. Keeping them on the chemical or medicines for a long period of time does not.


There is some logic in this, but after reading what you've written I'm sure you realise there is a possible cost. The colony may be a complete flopper, but its drones will have been allowed to fly and mate freely. Would you consider taking some action to stop that happening while colony is being evaluated? Is that even possible?

In thinking about this, it is I think worth noting that nature systematically produces more offspring than are needed to maintain population, as part of the system that locates the strongest to make the new generations. For the system to work, losers are needed. Random selection of genes from sexual reproduction throws out a range of strengths - from corkers to runts; and it's important to recognize the runts, and terminate their bloodlines before they inject their qualities into the valuable bloodstock. There's no shame in having a duffer - that's just the way things work. Artificially maintaining it and allowing it to pollute your future is a different matter. 

The idea that it might have some qualities that may prove useful is dramatically outweighed by the fact that it certainly possesses qualities that are decidedly unwanted. Far better to do what all other forms of husbandry do - make splits from the known best. 



USCBeeMan said:


> *BTW,*
> I also found out in the class that* Congress passed a law in 2009 that is for all farm animals (which bees fall under this category). Preventive medicines like antibiotics will be outlawed when this law comes into effect.* At the moment it seems that no one knows when/if this law will become effective/enforced.
> 
> So giving your bees TM as a preventive measure will be gone. I don't know about some of the other products. Checkmite II and many others may end up falling under this law too.


That is wonderful news - if it happens. Somebody at high level has managed to fight off the pharmaceutical lobbyists and get a no-brainer law into play. I hope it will cover hobbyists too. 

I would have thought that would be routine growth-promotion and preventative use that would be stopped rather than treatment after infection - at least for mammals. And it is hard to see how it will be enforced - but that shouldn't be a reason not to do it imo. 

As I understand it, in the EU veterinary antibiotics such as chloramphenicol, streptomycin and sulfonamides are banned in apiculture - for both preventative and treatment measures. But as far as I know they are still used widely for other farm animals. Where breeding is controlled (ie mammals) there is a much reduced problem. While the development of resistance in the predatory organism is still a problem, systematic controlled breeding of the stock allows the more vulnerable bloodlines to be eliminated while promoting the least vulnerable. In bees however the business of treatment is a grassroots, or 'owner-breeder's nightmare. (A dream come true for commercial breeders of course....)

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

USCBeeMan said:


> I also found out in the class that* Congress passed a law in 2009 that is for all farm animals (which bees fall under this category). Preventive medicines like antibiotics will be outlawed when this law comes into effect.* At the moment it seems that no one knows when/if this law will become effective/enforced.


I think you are mistaken. I think a bill may be in the works but isn't a done deal


> Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-N), the only microbiologist serving in Congress, authored the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, commonly known as PAMTA, to address what she believes is a growing threat to public health.
> 
> The bill would require that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), deny any new animal antibiotic drugs unless the federal government is certain the drugs will not contribute to antimicrobial resistance. The bill would also ban the routine, or nontherapeutic, use of antibiotics in food-producing animals.
> 
> ...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Cows on Drugs
> By DONALD KENNEDY
> Published: April 17, 2010
> NY Times
> ...


note: the fact that this guy is lobbying for the bill in the NY Times seems to indicate that it _hasn't passed yet_



> ‘‘Clinical Infectious Diseases’’ published a report in June 2002, based on a 2-year review by experts in human and veterinary medicine, public health, microbiology, biostatistics, and risk analysis, of more than 500 scientific studies on the human health impacts of antimicrobial use in agriculture;
> 
> the report recommended that antimicrobial agents should no longer be used in agriculture in the absence of disease, but should be limited to therapy for diseased individual animals and prophylaxis when disease is documented in a herd or flock;


This last line is crucial: if disease is in the herd or flock, the whole lot could be treated as a preventative. This is the same as treating one's whole apiary if disease is found in one hive, either in that apiary or the vicinity of that apiary. If several or many hives are found to be sick, this would be logically extended to all the hives in the beekeeper's outfit, or all the hives in a given township.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> No one suggests taking anyone's words as the gospel truth.


Then quit jumping all over me for simply raising a question or two about the way a study was conducted.



> I must say I am surprised by your dismissal of the work of a researcher of this caliber, however.


You sure like to embellish what I said. The only comment I made that was _directly_ related to Seeley was in post 227. All other posts deal with research work in general. You're the one who continues to try and make it a personal thing as evidence of what you wrote below.



> You state: "I've seen far too many questionable "studies"" in the context of a study by Thomas Seeley.
> 
> [long list of accolades]
> 
> This is not one of your grass roots honey bee folk doctors, you know.


In the context of my first post to this thread, I'm unimpressed by the list of accolades.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

mike bispham said:


> (re. later exchanges) I'm not sure we've seen the researcher's conclusions.


You better take this up with Peter then, as this sounds fairly conclusive:

"When he brought the stock into town and tested it alongside his own stock: they succumbed to mites just like the commercial stock."


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry writes:



> Then quit jumping all over me for simply raising a question or two about the way a study was conducted.


Please accept my apologies. I hadn't meant to do that, but if I came off that way, I am truly sorry.

Peter


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

hmmm :scratch: Seems like Lorenzo Langstroth was a "grass roots honey bee folk doctor."


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

USCBeeMan said:


> Many of us want to raise our bees without any treatments which in the long run is best. But as our State Apiarist pointed out in a class Thursday, do you let a hive just die that is infested with Varroa or do you try to use some form of treatment and try to save the hive.
> 
> After thingking about it, I will try to save the hive. The hive may have other traits that are very favorable and for some unknown reason got a case of Varroa that it couldn't handle for the first time.


Some breeders of "survivor" bees, e.g. B. Weaver, suggest requeening with a survivor queen to save a colony. They say they and some of their customers have done just that, if done in time. That is one way to save a hive without chemicals. 

Valleyman, you make some good points. And yes, B. Weaver and others produce bees that have all the traits you mention. I have two colonies of Weaver bees that are second or third generation queens (from the original I hived a couple years ago) and they (at this point anyway) are as gentle and productive and resistant as their parent. This year will be my real test for honey production, though. And if they make it thru next winter. That's the nice thing about honey bees, you don't have to go to the local casino to gamble. :lpf:
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

StevenG said:


> hmmm :scratch: Seems like Lorenzo Langstroth was a "grass roots honey bee folk doctor."


Wrong.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> You better take this up with Peter then, as this sounds fairly conclusive:
> 
> "When he brought the stock into town and tested it alongside his own stock: they succumbed to mites just like the commercial stock."


Hi Barry,

This is a statement of the experimental result, made by Peter. Most scientific papers have a summary at the the end that contains the authors thoughts about what the results actually say, what kinds of conclusions might be drawn, and so on. It often offers ideas about how further studies might clarify things. That is what I meant by the author's conclusions. 

Peter has me on his ignore list, so I can't take anything up with him. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Seeley's conclusions are found in Section 4, Discussion. He explores the following possible explanations for his experimental result:

1) Evolved resistance in the bees along hygienic lines 

2) Evolved avirulence in the mites

3) Frequent swarming.

He rejects 1) and 3) as possible causes, giving his reasons, and suggests further research into 2). His last paragraph:

"The logical next step in the study of the
honey bees of the Arnot Forest is to test rigor-
ously the hypothesis that the basis for this sta-
ble host-parasite relationship is the evolution
of avirulence in the mites. There is evidence
that mite avirulence evolved in an isolated, ex-
perimental population of European honey bees
in Austria (Büchler, 1994;Milani et al., 1999),
and it will be interesting to see if the same has
happened in the northeastern United States. If
so, then this will reinforce the idea that Euro-
pean honey bees and V. destructor mites can
evolve a host-parasite relationship that is sta-
ble." [1]


Personally I'd expect a combinations of factors to be the cause of survival - but scientists like to test just one thing at a time. Any knowledge of follow-up work?

Another thought: the conclusions seem to me to reinforce the notion that the varieties of mite that bother modern apiaries are absolutely the products of modern apiaries. Nothing so voracious could possibly evolve in nature - parasites that exterminate their hosts soon find themselves starving. 

Mike

[1] http://fotb.drogon.org/library/feral_bees/Seeley_Arnot_feral.pdf


----------



## Yuleluder (Mar 2, 2005)

I find it quite contradictory that Peter will take shots at others but places others on his ignore list as soon as someone makes a snip at him....

I posted some fairly simple questions, yet they were seemingly ignored.

There also seems to be some major assuming going on here, especially when it comes to the breeding philosophy of others. 

I do not pull bees from trees and catch swarms and claim they are the saviours to the honeybee world. I select my stock from well known breeders who use the same principles I agree with. I then select from the best over wintered colonies and continue to import stock from other top breeders, like Tom Glenn.

But hey assume all you want about those of us that choose to stay away from chemicals...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Yuleluder said:


> I posted some fairly simple questions, yet they were seemingly ignored. /QUOTE]
> 
> I am sorry, it's been a busy week. Is this what you meant?
> 
> ...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=010af996bb3922123f840322d760e147

"Crucially, no sequences resembling IAPV or any other honeybee RNA virus can be found in the completed honeybee genome sequence."

That's what really scares me.

http://flaentsoc.org/09festufts_hunter_integrate.pdf

They found DWV and KBV integrated into the bee genome. This is after the Honeybee Genome project.

They're also finding these viruses integrated into the genome of other arthropods.

This suggests that this is a recent, ongoing process.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC,

Later they say:



> Whilst RNA virus recombination into the honey bee genome_ is distinctly
> possible_, the suggested high frequency contrasts sharply
> with the sparse reports of such events in the wider literature, and
> _further independent study _by the wider research community is required
> for _confirmation_ of this potentially important finding.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter, the second reference suggests that it's not that difficult to go out, get samples, and get positive results.
The slide for the second document was created July '09. The first article was from June '09.

Why aren't we seeing alot more recent publications on this topic? Maybe everyone's too busy filing for patents.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I don't know, but I know people who are involved with the trials, and met the particulars in Orlando. Curious.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Here we go again. 



WLC said:


> "Crucially, no sequences resembling IAPV or any other honeybee RNA virus can be found in the completed honeybee genome sequence."
> 
> That's what really scares me.


Why are you scared? I've looked at these papers and can find nothing scary whatsover. They are just looking at aspects of relatively newly discovered mechanisms that seem to be a route to immunity from the viruses. From the first WLC supplies a link to:

"Integration of IAPV in the genome prevents infection of the virus in an individual." Integration of Picorna-like Viruses in Multiple Insect Taxa Danielle M. Tufts et al.

Both papers seem to me to indicate that more research would be useful (Doh!) since the process, better understood, might lead to useful products (Doh!). 

Why on earth are you two woo wooing about this? Where _in the literature_ is any sign that this might be something to be alarmed about?

Mike


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Mike:

I've used viruses carrying transposons w/ inserted resistance genes in the lab. They were specially engineered and attenuated strains.

Wild type transposons/retrotransposons aren't attenuated. In short, they can create a real mess as these viral fragments are inserted randomly into the genome. Add to that that some of them are making an actively transcribed RNA (anitsense RNA), they are moving horizontally between arthropod species, and that this is happening now, then you might be able to understand my concern.

Hey, you always were a fan of evolution in action, now you've got front row seats.

As to which species dropped 'the big one' first, I'd like to think that it was the Honeybee. Use it, or lose it ladies.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

There is clearly an evolutionary conflict between the viRNA pathway and its suppression by viruses. This has the potential to result in a _never-ending arms race,_ where the RNAi pathway continually evolves new ways to escape suppression by VSRs [genes that inhibits host RNAi function] which leads to counteradaptations by the virus that restore suppression 

If this is the case, then VSRs might be expected to evolve much faster than other viral genes. Despite evolution and arms races being frequently mentioned in the RNAi literature, there are still few explicitly evolutionary studies of RNAi. 

In vertebrates, acquired immunity can maintain a high diversity of antigens in the parasite population—hosts are most likely to be immune to common antigenic types, so there is _an advantage to rare antigen alleles_ (Hughes 1991). 

A similar process can occur within an infected host, where mutations in _antigens that escape the immune response may be favoured_, leading to a turnover of antigens through time (Allen et al. 2000). 

Could such processes occur in response to the viRNAi pathway? Plants that have been infected by a virus can develop new growth that is free from viral infection and resistant to secondary infection due to RNAi targeted against the virus (Baulcombe 2004). 

If these hosts are exposed to a second viral strain, then this incoming strain may have an advantage if it is not recognized by viRNAs derived from the resident strain. This could potentially maintain genetic polymorphisms in the viral population. 

Similarly, there may be _selection for mutants that escape recognition _by the viRNA pathway within an infected host, by evolving new (and thus rare) sequences (Ding & Voinnet 2007). 

Components of the piRNA pathway might also interact with DNA viruses and retroviruses.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter, 

The honey bee genome contains no more than 1% transposons and retrotransposons. The only representative family being 'mariner'. 

Humans have up to 40% of their genomes derived from transposons.

Do you think that it would be wise to do the same to the honeybee? That is increase the transposon/retrotransposon content of the honeybee genome by adding never before seen integrated viral fragments. How long untill it gets to 2%? A few years?

Bees are very different in that respect, their genome isn't made up of as much transposon/retrotransposon content as some plants (like corn) are.

https://www.vbi.vt.edu/public_relations/press_releases/honey_bee

Also, the microsatellite DNA content (repeated, short 1-6 letter sequences of bases) of the honeybee genome is rather high, about 35% if I remember correctly. That explains why honeybees are good at crossing over and shuffling large groups of genes around. It might be where some of these new viral sequences are being inserted.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC, Peter, 

Where is the concern about these matters IN THE LITERATURE. At the moment its all coming from you two. How do you respond to my observation: this looks like just another of nature's wonderful mechanisms that allows organisms to develop resistance to viruses, and which explain how and why it is that viral material gets into the dna of larger organisms.



WLC said:


> Peter,
> 
> Do you think that it would be wise to do the same to the honeybee? That is increase the transposon/retrotransposon content of the honeybee genome by adding never before seen integrated viral fragments. How long untill it gets to 2%? A few years?


Why are you asking Peter such technical questions? You've told us this is your area of expertise, but what is his qualification to judge such matters? 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

deleted - accidentally repeated


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> There is clearly an evolutionary conflict between the viRNA pathway and its suppression by viruses. This has the potential to result in a never-ending arms race...
> 
> ... Despite evolution and arms races being frequently mentioned in the RNAi literature...


Nothing characterises the organic realm quite so well as the idea of arms races. The world is full of things that want to eat, and everyone is on the menu. Natural selection for the fittest strains is the essential description of the most basic process by which each new generation finds new advantages in the arms race, be they prey or predator. LIFE ITSELF IS A NEVER-ENDING ARMS RACE PETER. 

Any discussion of intereacting organisms that doesn't speak frequently about these things is leaving something critical out. I wish more writers on honeybee problems understood that. 

BTW I wasn't trying that hard, but I counted 2 'mights', 2 'mays', and 2 'coulds' in that post. Perhaps that's best wrapped up as 6 maybes on top of each other. Speculative doesn't come near - I've seen more convincing arguments for a flat earth. zzzzz

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> ...Wild type transposons/retrotransposons aren't attenuated. In short, they can create a real mess as these viral fragments are inserted randomly into the genome.


Surely any individuals so equipped will fail. The bloodline will end. Better equipped strains will remain in the population. Any damage will be self-limiting. Its like any other kind of 'mutation' - if its better it succeeds, if it isn't it perishes. Nature's wonderful cleansing mechanism. Where is the beef?

Mike


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Surely any individuals so equipped will fail. The bloodline will end. Better equipped strains will remain in the population. Any damage will be self-limiting. Its like any other kind of 'mutation' - if its better it succeeds, if it isn't it perishes. Nature's wonderful cleansing mechanism. Where is the beef?
> 
> Mike


The Honeybee Genome Project starts 2003-4. None of these virus fragments were found. CCD strikes shortly thereafter. Integrated virus fragments are recently found in the honeybee genome and the genomes of other arthropods.

Where's the beef?

Beekeepers brought the Honey bees, mites, and viruses together in the first place. I would say that there's nothing natural about retrotransposons showing up in the genome of an organism that has managed to have a very low number of those fragments in its genome throughout history.

These integrated virus fragments are the likely suspect in the CCD outbreak.

These integrated virus fragments, from viruses associated with honey bees, are now showing up in other arthropods.

Natural beekeepers are likely collecting these virus resistant bees carrying the fragments in their genome.

Bee breeders will have to take extraordinary steps to keep these contaminants out of their 'hard earned' stock.

"Nature's wonderful cleansing mechanism. Where is the beef?"

'Nature' might just cleanse a whole bunch of arthropod species from the face of the earth as a result of this contaminant. Beekeepers don't want to leave that kind of a legacy.

Don't you think that I might have a valid reason to break the glass and punch the red button?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I think you overlooked this crucial statement:



> Whilst RNA virus recombination into the honey bee genome is distinctly
> possible, the suggested high frequency contrasts sharply
> with the sparse reports of such events in the wider literature, and
> further independent study by the wider research community is required
> for confirmation of this potentially important finding.


In other words, at this point the finding is isolated and may be due to improper technique. I prepare samples for DNA sequencing at my job and I am fully aware of how contamination arises. If you are sequencing honey bee dna and you inadvertently get viral dna into the PCR, you could amplify the viral dna and contaminate the sequencing results. Sequences that we do are typically in the 500 bp range, which is enough to see the target but wouldn't be enough to differentiate between species.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Don't you think that I might have a valid reason to break the glass and punch the red button?


The problem is this: several people have done this (push the red button) already and the research community is benumbed by the false alarms. The general consensus is that _there is no one thing_ that is behind CCD. A friend of mine has spent many months trying to publish work he has done that homes in on a single factor cause and he can't get it published for the reasons I just outlined. 

Now that almost four years have elapsed, and the deplorable state of honey bee health has been exposed, the general consensus is that we have reached a critical point where _anything_ could tip colonies over the edge, given the pathogen load, pesticide load, and most critically: the cross country trucking, the close contact of bees from all regions of the US, and the severe stress of all of these things.

The California almond pollination is like the Hajj of the beekeeping community. They would be coming from all over the world, were it not for import restrictions. Already you have Australia in the mix and Chile and Argentina would most certainly be there too, if they could. Imagine a viral outbreak in Mecca, and then all those people go back home?



> "It gives me pleasure to announce ... that the Hajj of 2009 was free from any outbreak of disease or epidemic," the minister said, quoted by the official Saudi news agency SPA. Working with international health authorities, Saudi Arabia mounted a concerted campaign to minimize the threat and mobilized 20,000 health workers for the Hajj. Countries were warned not to send children, the elderly or those with existing medical conditions on the annual pilgrimage.


This would be good advice to the beekeeping community, except that with the prospect of earning $200 per colony, you better believe they send any and every hive. Reports came in this February of beekeepers taking "good" hives out of huge potato storage sheds, loading them up, only to have them collapse on arrival in California. The story is, the bees just vanish. But God knows, they go somewhere and take their pathogen load with them.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Well, I wouldn't call the retrotransposon findings a false alarm. CCD isn't a requirement for this to be considered alarming.

However, I do have my own pet hypotheses on how CCD and retrotransposition in the Honeybee are related.

I think that the missing piece is 'induction'. While other factors may cause viruses to become infectious, and then interact with antisense RNA from these new viral fragments, causing ribosome fragmentation; I have a strong suspicion that environmental phosphate, like the kind found in pesticides and fertilizers, might be the 'trigger'.

I think that the 'D.A.' could file charges based on the above.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> Well, I wouldn't call the retrotransposon findings a false alarm. CCD isn't a requirement for this to be considered alarming.


Right, and I agree. I was merely pointing out that 1) it has to be verified, and 2) the research community is jaded on this topic. I told you before, I definitely think you_ are on to something_


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> ... the general consensus is that we have reached a critical point where _anything_ could tip colonies over the edge, given the pathogen load, pesticide load, and most critically: the cross country trucking, the close contact of bees from all regions of the US, and the severe stress of all of these things.


You've missed the most basic one: failure to select. ANY species will, if not selected, progressively weaken. If all other factors (like those you mention) were alleviated, this alone would _guarentee_ continuing weakness. 

Question for you Peter: given that all honeybee predators continuously evolve to take better advantage of their prey, how will honeybees update their defences, if not by selection?

Mike


----------

