# The Scourge of Varroa?



## Lburou

I'm glad to hear that Joseph, its hard to argue with 20 years of TF beekeeping. 

I think I've seen you write that all beekeeping is local. Along that line of thought, i saw a world map highlighting areas infested with varroa. The arid regions of East, Central Africa (Kenya, and the Sudans in particular) were not included in the infestation. Is your arid environment, and subsequent lower hive humidity a factor in your good fortune?


----------



## JRG13

Do you see mites in your hives? Location is everything. If you really want to test your bees bring them this way...


----------



## Honey-4-All

Would you agree that a high degree of African genes within the DNA pool in your area might be a large factor in the results you speak of? It may be that some of the Varroa eliminating benefits are being exhibited while some of the "attack" genes have dissipated!!!! The Africans sneak in queens on a regular basis from what I have read.


----------



## jim lyon

Joe: Good for you. A couple of questions. What percentage of your queens would you estimate are locally mated? Are your imported queens marked so you can monitor supercedure rates?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Joseph Clemens said:


> I began this thread, because it is difficult for me to believe all the hype being promulgated about Varroa - especially how devastating they are, since they have yet to show any of that devastation to my own colonies.
> 
> I believe that those who are reporting Varroa devastation, are sincere. However, after my own experience, it is difficult to believe that those beliefs are entirely justified.
> 
> Even some fellow beekeepers, in my own area, are treating for Varroa. Either they are mistaken, or somehow my bees, in my area, are immune from this dreaded curse, while colonies in nearby areas, are being devastated by them.


Very good job!
The real change in beekeeping happens only and then when beekeepers realize that varroa is our friend. We are now killing the mites as well as we can, target 100%. In fact we should be killing so few of them as possible, to keep bees alive. Many times the local beekeeping advisor has told me that my losses are equal to many treating beekeepers. Makes you wonder what is wrong with them...

This thread could also be under "Treatmentfree beekeeping"


----------



## burns375

What color are your queens?


----------



## jmgi

I know beekeeping is local, but is varroa infestation also? I don't know if it is, but sometimes it appears so. I read here on the forum of beeks who apparently don't treat and at the same time have no varroa problems to speak of, they may lose colonies here and there, but it's not varroa related according to them. Its hard to believe that a colony anywhere in the U.S. is totally varroa free, but is it possible colonies like that exist? Doesn't it seem that colonies in southern areas of the U.S. where it never gets extremely cold, and where the bees are actively flying most months of the year and rearing brood would have the greatest varroa issues?


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Lburou said:


> . . . Is your arid environment, and subsequent lower hive humidity a factor in your good fortune?


I hope it is our climate that is making this difference. At least something positive, from such uncomfortably warm and dry Summer experiences.

There are Varroa in my hives. I don't believe I've ever inspected a hive that was Varroa free, yet. Since they're present, I'm sure they are doing harmful things to my bees. Just not harmful enough to be a major problem, or kill a hive. I even see a little DWV and sometimes a hive, or two with PMS (Parasitic Mite Syndrome). Though it is alarming for me to witness these things, none has ever persisted for very long, or escalated beyond an annoyance.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

JRG13 said:


> Do you see mites in your hives? Location is everything. If you really want to test your bees bring them this way...


Yes, I see mites almost every time I open a hive. I often think about relocating (I am particularly fond of the eight years I spent in Oak Harbor, Washington), and would love to return there, but my wife is still determined to remain here, having escaped Michigan to naturalize in Tucson, Arizona more than forty years ago.


----------



## beemandan

Joseph Clemens said:


> Because I once kept them and am in their occupied territory, others have assumed that I am continuing to keep AHB, but I am not.





Joseph Clemens said:


> or somehow my bees, in my area, are immune from this dreaded curse





Joseph Clemens said:


> Belief can be a very strong influence.


Yes….I see exactly what you mean.


----------



## beemandan

From the original post you’ve suggested that those countless beekeepers the world over who lost massive numbers of colonies during the debut of varroa and since have done so solely because they believed they would. 
On the other hand, if they’d simply followed your lead and ignored the news of catastrophic bee losses …all would have been well.
Preposterous!


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Honey-4-All said:


> Would you agree that a high degree of African genes within the DNA pool in your area might be a large factor in the results you speak of? It may be that some of the Varroa eliminating benefits are being exhibited while some of the "attack" genes have dissipated!!!! The Africans sneak in queens on a regular basis from what I have read.


I raise many of my own queens, for myself, and for many other local beekeepers. I regularly import several queens (with Cordovan coloring) from those who are producing them, in areas predominantly AHB-free. I raise daughters from those and use them to saturate the area with drones. I also encourage swarms from my drone producing colonies, and I mark the queens as soon as they start laying.

There certainly are AHB colonies in my area. We get our water from a small community water company, and they, being aware of my beekeeping, request my assistance whenever the meter reader encounters a colony residing in a meter box. Of their several hundred customers, I've, so far, dealt with three colonies in meter boxes, and we've been at our present location for 15 years.

I've also had feral AHB swarms, voluntarily occupy idle equipment in my bee yard. It is nearly impossible to get AHB swarms to stay, with any other swarm hiving technique (even open brood does not work - though perhaps a queen includer might). I've captured several swarms that behaved as though they might not be AHB (most AHB swarms are extremely defensive, even when newly clustered), only to have their AHB behaviors, present, soon after hiving them (now, I always cage their queens for at least a day or two and give them a donor frame of open brood). I usually requeen them with young virgins, as they often reject mated/laying queens. I've also seen AHB swarms, of various sizes, take over my colonies. Once you've seen this happen, a time or two, you will likely stop doubting its occurrence, as I did, and start keeping an eye out, so it can be halted, or reversed ASAP. It seems that EHB colonies, once they accept an AHB queen, are difficult to again requeen with EHB queens. I've had success doing this only with ripe cells, or sometimes, young virgins. It is, as if, the AHB queen pheromones, spoil the bees, so they resist EHB queen pheromones, thereafter.

I do consider the possibilities you mention, as likely contributing factors to my experience. Though I do my best to reduce invasion of undesirable AHB genetics. It could be that this intense level of screening is helping to incorporate desirable AHB genetics and reducing undesirable AHB genetics. I believe other breeders are doing similar work (such as the Weaver's).


----------



## rniles

Joseph Clemens said:


> I often think about relocating (I am particularly fond of the eight years I spent in Oak Harbor, Washington), and would love to return there.


It is nice here ..damp though. The weather hasn't changed much but the population has grown. Still a great area and I'm glad I get to live here - especially on those sunny fall days when the bees are flying and the salmon are running strong!


----------



## Joseph Clemens

jim lyon said:


> Joe: Good for you. A couple of questions. What percentage of your queens would you estimate are locally mated? Are your imported queens marked so you can monitor supercedure rates?


Most of my queens are locally mated, being daughters of the few queens that I import. Those MQs (Mother Queens) are maintained in nucs, and some are now starting their third year with me. Few have ever made it beyond their third year.

I use the Cordovan coloration to help keep track of genetic purity, and I mark each queen, right after they begin laying. I also replace any queen that is non-Cordovan colored, as soon as practical, with one that is. And if a queen produces runny, or overly defensive workers, she is quickly replaced.

Supersedure is less common than usurpation.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

burns375 said:


> What color are your queens?


Most are Cordovan Italian colored. It really helps keep track of their genetics.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

jmgi,

My colonies are certainly not Varroa free. It's just that the Varroa seem hardly worth mentioning as a source of problems.

I see your point, that we, in warmer climates, should actually be having more Varroa issues, not fewer.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

beemandan said:


> From the original post you’ve suggested that those countless beekeepers the world over who lost massive numbers of colonies during the debut of varroa and since have done so solely because they believed they would.
> On the other hand, if they’d simply followed your lead and ignored the news of catastrophic bee losses …all would have been well.
> Preposterous!


Not at all. I'm simply suggesting that more factors are interacting to create the observed situation, than are commonly assumed.

For instance, I know that if I were younger, and in perfect health, that I could contract many illnesses, and they would hardly even slow me down. But if I were first exposed to various toxins, the results, for me, would likely be very grave.

And what I am proposing, is that we are standing in front of a forest on fire (Varroa), and perhaps missing the fact that it was ignited by a nuclear bomb (prevalence of pesticides).


----------



## beemandan

Joseph Clemens said:


> And what I am proposing, is that we are standing in front of a forest on fire (Varroa), and perhaps missing the fact that it was ignited by a nuclear bomb (prevalence of pesticides).


Agriculture where I keep hives is typically livestock. Trust me….mites don’t need pesticides to do their damage.



Joseph Clemens said:


> I began this thread, because it is difficult for me to believe all the hype being promulgated about Varroa - especially how devastating they are, since they have yet to show any of that devastation to my own colonies.
> 
> I believe that those who are reporting Varroa devastation, are sincere. However, after my own experience, it is difficult to believe that those beliefs are entirely justified.


Hype?!
Countless beekeepers experiencing devastating losses but you qualify that as hype? 



Joseph Clemens said:


> Belief can be a very strong influence.


 As I said….I see exactly what you mean.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

So then Dan, what is your belief as to why Varroa are devastating to so many, and only a slight annoyance, to others?

I'm not trying to be offensive, or insulting, I'm just trying to understand what's happening.


----------



## gmcharlie

Well the real test is how do your queens strand up outside your area? Mite tolerant gueens are worth a fortune


----------



## Lburou

Joseph, what would you say to the assertion that your bees are in effect surrounded by the perfect storm of Africanized bees? Meaning, your TF operation is the hole in the doughnut with AHB surrounding and protecting your operation, somehow suppressing an overpowering re-infestation by the mites. Just a thought, but I still think it is your dry and hot climate that trumps all other factors.


----------



## beemandan

Joseph Clemens said:


> So then Dan, what is your belief as to why Varroa are devastating to so many, and only a slight annoyance, to others?


A ‘slight annoyance’ to who? You? Dee Lusby? Michael Bush? Maybe a half dozen others? If you read the treatment free forum you’d soon see that the vast majority of responsible beekeepers who claim any significant amount of success will also acknowledge that it doesn’t come simply. Brood breaks. Maintaining enough nucs to support losses. And any number of other methods to offset the effects of varroa.

Varroa are recognized by any reputable authority as the most serious problem facing beekeeping today….but not Joseph Clemens. You, on the other hand, insist that they are simply hype. All the while denying any influence of AHB….although readily acknowledging their presence in your area.

My biggest distress when I read a post like the one that started this thread is my concern for those potential and new beekeepers. You pitch the idea that mite problems are a figment of many beekeepers’ imaginations. It is a message that many of those newcomers yearn to hear. And then we read their posts about losses. Suggesting any and every possible explanation except the most likely….varroa mites.

I believe you can do more damage in a single post like that than you realize. And…as I’m sure you can tell….that is more than a slight annoyance to me.


----------



## Tim B

Don't you think that the millions of dead colonies and the near total eradication of feral populations in the 80s across much of the north american continent is evidence enough of the potency of varroa?


----------



## Tim B

I'm wondering if some of us have mites that are spreading more lethal viruses among our bees. I'm having problems that I didn't use to have with similar mite loads. Your mites might not carry the more lethal viruses.


----------



## Oldtimer

Slightly off topic, but I still think this is the place top ask it.

From reading over several years many people talking about their varroa issues / non varroa issues, seems to me it is at least partly location dependent. With beekeepers in semi desert areas having less problems, and beekeepers in areas with low honey production having less problems.

But I'm not that familiar with the US landscape to know that for sure, is there any truth in my assumption? Or if not, how does locality and climate affect things?

From a personal perspective my interest in this is to help piece together why we have the issues in my country.


----------



## gmcharlie

Well if joe is not full of it, it must matter. We have a huge variety of microcliamtes here. AZ/nm, and SoCal being very dry. A few parts of New Mexico see snow, but still manage to have almost no winter. Other parts like the midwest run a lot of snow and Ice for 3 months. and them real northern guys who very well may spend 4 months with 2 feet on the ground... and then the southwest which winter is the rainy season, not much blooming but darn few nights below 50 deg


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> With beekeepers in semi desert areas having less problems, and beekeepers in areas with low honey production having less problems.


It is interesting that you point that out OT. Off the top of my head, there's Dee Lusby, Joseph Clemens and that Beatle guy....Paul McCartney, all desert folks having what appears to be easy times in varroaland. 

ps...I know...it's really McCarty.


----------



## CtyAcres

Joe, I agree with you about pesticides. You are not exposed to them as much, so the bees aren't weakened enough to
succumb to varroa. Healthy bees can exist and/or beat varroa. Pesticides are the nuclear bomb and will always be the
worst problem for bees and us, look at our allergies and our rate of childhood autism.

I'm TF and lost one hive out of 32 to varroa in my first 3yrs. in Wy. Moved to NE and had problems instantly with more pesticide
spray. Been trying to relocate my hives away from spray areas and close to rivers, creeks, and towns where there seems to be
less spray and more forage. Varroa still is not a problem for me and I don't treat.

Off topic, but could you tell me who you bought those Cordovan Italians from? Thanks Joe


----------



## Tim B

It is easy to blame it on pesticides. If pesticides were the issue then why did 99% of all feral hives, even the ones in wilderness areas died when varroa first appeared? Their destruction was/continues to be nearly uniform whether near agriculture or not.


----------



## jim lyon

Oldtimer said:


> Slightly off topic, but I still think this is the place top ask it.
> 
> From reading over several years many people talking about their varroa issues / non varroa issues, seems to me it is at least partly location dependent. With beekeepers in semi desert areas having less problems, and beekeepers in areas with low honey production having less problems.
> 
> But I'm not that familiar with the US landscape to know that for sure, is there any truth in my assumption? Or if not, how does locality and climate affect things?
> 
> From a personal perspective my interest in this is to help piece together why we have the issues in my country.


In Joes case my take is that he may well have some climate advantages. It also appears to,me that he does an excellant job of analyzing and managing his bees to the unique challenges of his area. 
As far as a large honey crop being a marker of sorts for fall varroa collapse my opinion is that it used to be true more in the early years of varroa than it is now. Interesting theory, not saying there isn't anything to it but it dosent really square with my personal experiences. I remember lots of cases years ago where we pulled off large crops late and found small collapsing hives remaining. In recent years, with bees that now seem to exhibit more mite tolerance, our strongest hives are generally those which have had the best late summer honey flows and the poorest are those that have experienced a late summer dearth.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Perhaps, some, especially newbees will somehow get the idea that problems bees have, especially with Varroa, are, less virulent, than they actually are.

Not discussing these observances, that some of us are having, seems more harmful, than any potential harm that may be created, if any newbee gets a spurious, possibly erroneous idea about Varroa.

Thanks to all that have been sharing ideas with me in this thread, and other threads. Some of the ideas shared, I've already been thinking of, but some are new, even to me. I greatly appreciate new ideas on this subject.

Since Varroa is such a horrible scourge, I am not sure I can understand why the focus of more research is not done to help those of us with the fewest Varroa issues, to simply identify the factor or factors responsible for our successes.

I often hear that AHB can handle Varroa, better than EHB, but have yet to read any convincing research that would strongly support that hypothesis. Though, if that hypothesis is true, I don't deny that in some way, AHB may be helping my bees manage their own interactions with Varroa. AHB are quite likely very common in my area, though there was never a die-out of feral colonies, as had been reported in other areas. When I had first relocated here, I could have easily cut-out dozens of feral colonies, all thriving beneath the superstructures of mobile homes in our neighborhood. Those feral colonies are still there, despite many that became overly defensive, being removed or destroyed. More overly defensive feral colonies are destroyed, than those that go about their business peacefully. Exterminator's, thus doing a service for us beekeepers, as well as the public. 

For instance there was a colony, in the wall of a doctors office, and their entrance/access was behind a wooden stair, that went to roof access for maintenance. So, not a thoroughfare. Beneath the stair was a trellis, supporting some vines over the public walkway. The property manager approached me about removing the bees. The bees were entirely non-defensive, despite being there several years, with the bees flight path at 90 degrees to the sidewalk below. They had never stung anyone. Instead I suggested they fasten a piece of shade fabric to the underside of the trellis. This forced the bees to fly above the trellis. The shade cloth also made it more difficult to view the bees, though they could still be seen, and on warm Summer days a gentle hum could be heard as one passed the colonies entrance. Perhaps someday, if they become more defensive, they may need to be removed, but for now, human and honey bee can coexist in peace.

I only have half-baked hypothesese as to why my bees demonstrate such a high tolerance to Varroa. Wouldn't everyone want to know what actually produces such tolerance? I certainly would, though I'm happy to experience it, for myself. I would like to be able to share it, if that were possible. I can't reliably do so, until I have a more accurate understanding of how it is working for my bees.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

The Cordovan Italian queens I've used for raising daughters were obtained from C. F. Koehnen and Sons, Pendell Apiaries, and Russell Apiaries.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

An additional thought:

If Varroa are so absolutely terminal - and I concede that they are. How can they still be with us? Wouldn't those that are the worst, be self-limiting, extirpating themselves, as they extirpate their hosts?

As they extinguished vast numbers and high percentages of feral colonies, wouldn't that also limit them?

Also, other pests, diseases, and hazards affecting the survival of honey bee colonies, would also be disastrous for Varroa populations. After all, there are a finite number of honey bee colonies, how can Varroa continue to thrive and expand, with fewer and fewer surviving hosts?


----------



## max2

Joseph Clemens said:


> The Cordovan Italian queens I've used for raising daughters were obtained from C. F. Koehnen and Sons, Pendell Apiaries, and Russell Apiaries.


Lucky for us, we don't have Varroa as yet.
Interesting to read all the comments, thanks Joseph for making us aware that there may well be hope when Varroa arrives here.
I understand that some Government Department is importing queens to test for Varroa resistance( or for Hygienic behaviour) and I will pass the contacts of the two breeders on to them - thanks!


----------



## MichaBees

gmcharlie said:


> Well the real test is how do your queens strand up outside your area? Mite tolerant gueens are worth a fortune


I have plenty of Mr. Clements queens he mated on his yards, and some of his cells that matted at my yards, plus, I have my own raised queens and from other suppliers, included Webber’s. 
They all dye from varroa, or lack of nectar, or lack of pollen, or just like any other bee; from lack of care, his bees do not behave any different from any other bee. Over the years, I have tried to bring different genetics from different suppliers just to try to keep the gene pool balanced. 

A long time ago, Mr. Randy Oliver gave a presentation in Santa Fe; I was able and fortunate to attend. He said to the audience, that varroa was a big problem everywhere, but on the southwest. He said back then, bees in this area (New Mexico, east Arizona), appear to deal with the varroa problem better than any other place he had ever been. 
I am fully surrounded by africanized feral bees, I deal with them when I have to do cut outs and swarms –maybe one out of ten is Africanized. Sometimes our bees replace queens and the new queens -sometimes- mate with africanized drones and then we end up with over protective, over reactive, over aggressive and over achiever hives! 
A small percentage of all locally mated queen bees get to the point of aggressiveness, that need to be bathed with soap.
If and when I get this aggressive hives, I make as many nucs as possible to find the queen and take the aggressiveness out -if they are kept on small nucs they are nice girls. This year, I picked up a large swarm early on the spring; they were africanized. By early june, I had 3 deeps full of brood and resources, and made 10 nucs, my wife loved how prolific this queen was, so we kept the Taliban queen. She did it again, so, by late august, we harvest another 3 nucs, and she was sent to Taliban heaven, and now, a calm Italian girl is at the throne. 

I would keep all africanized hives if I could, but they are a liability to self and others. I have gotten stung up to 70 times with a single hive in one event; even while wearing full good quality gear. The ventilated suits help a lot and I wear one if I am dealing with swarms and cut outs -no compromise there. 
I have lost lots of bees to varroa when and if I do not treat –I only use essential oils now. But, I have noticed that you can lose a complete full colony easier than a fresh nuc if you do not treat either; leading me to believe that the break on the varroa cycle is a better weapon than any treatment and may be the key to keep healthy colonies. 
I just do not know if my observations have any value, but this is my experience.


----------



## beemandan

MichaBees said:


> A long time ago, Mr. Randy Oliver gave a presentation in Santa Fe; I was able and fortunate to attend. He said to the audience, that varroa was a big problem everywhere, but on the southwest. He said back then, bees in this area (New Mexico, east Arizona), appear to deal with the varroa problem better than any other place he had ever been.


Paul McCarty and JwChesnut have had a recent exchange where they suggested that the bees in Paul's area (somewhere in NM) might actually be a different strain of EHB...that, according to Paul, handle varroa well. Which might explain Randy Oliver's statements.


----------



## beemandan

Joseph Clemens said:


> If Varroa are so absolutely terminal - and I concede that they are. How can they still be with us? Wouldn't those that are the worst, be self-limiting, extirpating themselves, as they extirpate their hosts?


Varroa’s natural host is Apis ceranae, the Asian honey bee. Over the eons the two have evolved together. EHB have only been exposed to them recently….Primorsky bees about a century ago. 
If every beekeeper in the world stopped treating and managing for varroa and allowed their apiaries to collapse, then a few remaining survivors MIGHT produce mite tolerant bees….over time. And the experiment would eliminate beekeeping throughout the world for many decades. Of course they might not be successful either…there’s no guarantee. Or the only survivors might have qualities that are unacceptable for beekeeping (AHB, A ceranae)

Even at the end…even if they killed every honey bee colony in the world, varroa would continue to exist with their natural host.


----------



## Honey-4-All

Micabees,

Well written take. on this situation in your back yard. Brood breaks and nucs might be a way to slow them down. 

Does anyone know anyone else who uses the "no treatment" queens from Texas raised at the big W bee Farm in an operation besides themselves who are 100% varroa treatment free and run over 300 colonies?


----------



## Michael Bush

I have had no Varroa issues (nore issues with any other diseases) for more than a decade now and have not treated for anything for most of the last 40 years. Why does that make people angry? You want me to have problems? You don't want to NOT have problems? I'm always surprised how angry people get about it. I'm pretty sure Joseph is running foundationless...


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

MB, a location question. Are your bees isolated from the bees of others?


----------



## jmgi

Another question for MB, what was your percentage loss last winter?


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> Why does that make people angry?


I assume that you are referring to someone other than me but, if not....I'm happy for folks to have no problem. If, on the other hand, you publicly proclaim that varroa issues are all hype, then I'll respond.
I know countless beekeepers who've tried small cell and foundationless....and still had their hives collapse from varroa. I'm glad it works for you. If you claim that small or natural cell is a universal varroa fix....I'll argue that as well.
None of that has anything to do with me being angry at your success...which is why I assume you are referring to somebody else.


----------



## Michael Bush

>MB, a location question. Are your bees isolated from the bees of others?

There are other bees around. I can't say if they are domestic or not, but my guess is some are and some are not. I do have Varroa, just no issues. I have seven bee yards. I would guess there are some domestic bees in flying distance of some of them, but I'm not sure where.

>Another question for MB, what was your percentage loss last winter?

Last winter, I would guess between 10 and 20%. We have hard winters here, sometimes -17 F for a week or two. (not as hard as when I was in Western Nebraska where I saw -40 every night for more than a month one winter and -40 briefly another winter). The losses usually occur in that hard cold snap that we usually get sometime in January or February. Some of the smaller ones just can't generate enough heat. Sometimes the larger ones get stuck on brood in late February or early March. No signs of Varroa issues in the deadouts. Hard to find any Varroa on the trays under the screened bottoms and hard to find any under the dead bees on the solid bottoms. No signs of Varroa feces in the cells.


----------



## marshmasterpat

Michael Bush said:


> >Last winter, I would guess between 10 and 20%. We have hard winters here, sometimes -17 F for a week or two. (not as hard as when I was in Western Nebraska where I saw -40 every night for more than a month one winter and -40 briefly another winter). The losses usually occur in that hard cold snap that we usually get sometime in January or February. Some of the smaller ones just can't generate enough heat. Sometimes the larger ones get stuck on brood in late February or early March. No signs of Varroa issues in the deadouts. Hard to find any Varroa on the trays under the screened bottoms and hard to find any under the dead bees on the solid bottoms. No signs of Varroa feces in the cells.


I don't know much about bees, but it would seem logical to me from what I have read about their ability and need to maintain body temperatures, when temperatures hit -40 for even a night or two, then you would have some hive death. Varroa or not, those temperatures are harsh on any critter's survival. Hope my survival in the long term will be around 10 to 20%.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

marshmasterpat said:


> I don't know much about bees, but it would seem logical to me from what I have read about their ability and need to maintain body temperatures, when temperatures hit -40 for even a night or two, then you would have some hive death. Varroa or not, those temperatures are harsh on any critter's survival. Hope my survival in the long term will be around 10 to 20%.


Cold is no problem for EHB. We have in Finland sometimes -40F for couple days and sometimes -30F for a week or two, no problem if the hives are in good condition. The long cold periods are toughest for the small clusters. (AFB is not capable to form a winter cluster?) 

Happy Christmas everybody, Santa Claus has just left Korvatunturi with his reindeer!


----------



## beemandan

Juhani Lunden said:


> Santa Claus has just left Korvatunturi with his reindeer!


I hope he remembered my bag of coal.


----------



## rhaldridge

Michael Bush said:


> I have had no Varroa issues (nore issues with any other diseases) for more than a decade now and have not treated for anything for most of the last 40 years. Why does that make people angry?


I've wondered about this too, a lot.

My best guess? Human nature. It makes people angry if you succeed where they have failed. It's one of the less admirable aspects of human nature.

In this case, it seems to make people angry even if you say you're going to *try* to succeed where they have failed. I see that constantly when I attempt to defend my decision to keep bees without treatment. This decision evidently makes me arrogant and unrealistic as well as ignorant. I suppose they feel that by attempting to do something that so many have failed to do, I'm implying that I hope to be a better beekeeper than they are.

It's weird. I expect further angry analysis of my many character deficiencies to appear below. 

I've seen a double standard in this sort of discussion. Folks have called TF beekeepers all sorts of unpleasant names... naive, True Believers, granola hipsters, liars, self-deluded, etc. But in a recent thread about why people treat, I said I thought it was because they couldn't keep bees alive without treatment. To me this seemed a simple statement of fact, but it was deemed insulting by one poster.

I was astonished.


----------



## gmcharlie

Not to change it to a TF forum, but Ray, you got a ways to go yet...... I have tried TF for the last 5 years on several hives. and tried every trick published..... No magic. a lot of work. and poor results...... Just ordered a OA vaporizer. tired of deadouts from mites. Going to switch half teh hives. 
Trying to cut back on the granola, I seem to be constipated....

I wish the trick was some of joes magic queens.


----------



## Dave Burrup

Has anybody thought that it may not be the bees that make the successful TF practitioners successful. Could there be microbes present that are pathogenic or some how suppressive to the mites, and our mite treatments remove these microbes. Michael B have you had your hives cultured to see what else is in them other than bees. I mean funguses, and bacteria?
Dave


----------



## beemandan

I won’t be surprised if one day we discover that Tom Seeley is on to something. He has proposed that some mites may be less virulent.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> In this case, it seems to make people angry even if you say you're going to *try* to succeed where they have failed. I see that constantly when I attempt to defend my decision to keep bees without treatment. This decision evidently makes me arrogant and unrealistic as well as ignorant.


Really, nobody is angry when someone succeeds. I cannot believe anyone would.

The pontification and critical attitude that sometimes goes along with it can get old pretty fast though.

But I do enjoy the 95% of constructive treatment free folks who are able to have a sensible dialogue about these things without peppering all conversation with a chip on their shoulder. Those I can learn from and in fact encouraged me to try it.

When I *tried* to succeed but failed at treatment free beekeeping, admitting my failure certainly got some people angry, I was even told I should not post. IE, it should be kept secret cos it might mislead people. Which of course leads me to wonder about the openness of information from those sources. But that only came from 5%. The 95% are open, honest, and helpful. And were very supportive of me during the whole thing which was quite humbling.


----------



## Tim B

That's what I'm thinking. Some ticks carry Rocky Mountain spotted fever of lymes, some fleas carry bubonic plague and others do not. Perhaps not all mites are carrying the same viruses. I know for a fact that I've been dealing with something over the past six or seven years that I wasn't dealing with 15 years ago. My goal is to use every possible means to kill every last mite for the next six months and see if that makes a difference come august.


----------



## Michael Bush

> Michael B have you had your hives cultured to see what else is in them other than bees. I mean funguses, and bacteria?

No, but I think that is an important aspect of treatment free. Letting the microbes flourish.

>He has proposed that some mites may be less virulent. 

And the only way to breed less virulent mites is to stop treating them. Treating them makes super mites and wimpy bees. We need wimpy mites and super bees... I've also been saying we need less virulent mites (as have many others) for years now.


----------



## rhaldridge

gmcharlie said:


> Not to change it to a TF forum, but Ray, you got a ways to go yet.....


Oh sure. From the first I've said that I expect I'll kill a lot of bees.

I haven't lost any colonies yet, but I know it's just a matter of time. Still, I believe it's a worthwhile attempt to make.


----------



## gmcharlie

rhaldridge said:


> Oh sure. From the first I've said that I expect I'll kill a lot of bees.
> 
> I haven't lost any colonies yet, but I know it's just a matter of time. Still, I believe it's a worthwhile attempt to make.


I understand, and do wish you the best... in a few years say 3, you will either give it up, or be the next Solomon Parker but with 9 months in, you haven't even gotten to the first threashold yet. usualy about 11 months is when the go.. then again about 15 months in... has to do with mite/brood cycles.


----------



## boddah

Hey guys. 

First off I'd just like to say that it is my experience that anger is very easily perceived on the internet. It is like a breeding ground for conflict. I have been around the internet my whole life, and since the beginning, and there is no doubt in my mind that people will say things to others that they would absolutely never even consider saying in person. Not only that but the internet is devoid of intonation and gesturing, and we can't see the human faces of who we speak to. It is very easy to fight people for no reason; its a similar phenomenon to road rage IMO. 



Otherwise after reading this thread I wanted to ask you guys a few questions. 

Has anyone considered that the loss of habitat for plant species has caused the viral epidemics being associated with varroa parasitism? For instance, and I don't know if bees do, but throughout the history of mankind, people have used plants like say yarrow or elderberry as a source of medicine. What if loss of habitat is cutting down on medicine available to bees? In fact I would almost guarantee, (wager a healthy sum) that if you spread out 10 colonies a couple hundred feet from each other inside a plantation of strictly medicinal flowering plants for 2 sq miles and a healthy source of water, there would be almost no winter loss. Again I'm just speculating but with most livestock, if you ask the progressive types (ie sepp holzer) you will find the belief and practice of letting them medicate themselves with access to various, even toxic plants. If animals know this skill, I would have to believe that honey bees who basically speak in scent and consume flowers would be able to identify flowers that could solve their medicinal needs. 


Has anyone found any plants that kill varroa? Or tried to use plants commonly converted into essential oils for EHB benefit planted densely in the area of the hive?


It seems to me a very common theme in reading about varroa that the EHB main defense is its mobility. It seems that many who suffer with varroa problems might be doing so because of their inability to allow their bees to be more nomadic. It seems it might be somewhat a problem of bee husbandry and not bees. Is it true many if not all the people having success without treatment are doing so with the use of a lot of splitting?


Someone mentioned healthy guts. I think this is an enormous point. Its a very common modern problem in man as well. Now I don't know much about the honey bee gut, but I do know that in man some alternative type medical practitioners consider it a 'second brain'. We use the phrase armies march on their stomach. It is possible that water sources for bees along with other sources of bacteria that enter honey bee guts in certain areas is more useful to the honey bee. Potential experiment... having success? send plant samples and water samples from the immediate area to someone not having success TF. When the samples arrive throw them in a bucket for a couple hours with a high level of aeration. Then strain out all vegetal matter. Aerate a half hour, mix with sugar and serve. Someone with some more knowledge could probably find a better way to share honey bee guts to novel hives.


Have there been any attempts at bee probiotics? 


What is it about the dry climates that thwarts varroa? Can this be simulated?


I'm sure people have thought to check for natural varroa pests and disease... I assume they came up empty? 




I like this thread. I want more than anything when it comes to bees to just let them do their thing. Small cell/foundationless, and TF are my ideals, as I stated on my bee forum post. But I don't have my own bees to work with, I am purchasing them. So while i think its great that some people have been able to make TF work, I do not know I will be able to accomplish that in my second season. The advantage of saving a "weak hive" is that the eggs are also a product of a foreign drone, so you may have better results from the next queen. But I think at the heart of this issue is probably something very similar as to what is going on in modern man. There are so many toxins, so much unnatural living conditions, unnatural foods, there are so many things that make us different than what evolution has accommodated for, that we are finding all sorts of weird illnesses pop up. And yet there are so many diseases which we carry the microbes for in our bodies and yet don't suffer symptoms. Then we get a mite like a tick and contract lyme. Say we lose our job. Then the whole bundle of problems may manifest when our immune system was compromised. The question becomes how do we allow the bees to breed themselves for the utmost health. Are there substances or flowers, or locations etc that can be provided for bees much the way we might use vitamin c, or turmeric?


----------



## Oldtimer

Without getting too trippy hippy over it, you are correct in at least one thing, that there has been a loss of bee forage as would have occurred in the natural environment where bees came from.
Where bees are living in a near monoculture situation their diet can be lacking in some things, and this is evidenced by the results commercial beekeepers get by feeding pollen substitutes, and the hives do much better. All the pollen substitute is doing is replacing food the bees should have been getting naturally.

Just whether this affects their mite resistance is debatable, I've seen very well fed hives go down to mites just as quick, it is even possible mites may prefer a well fed bee. But I did see a pollen substitute manufacturer say that the hives fed his substitute suffered less losses to mites than the other hives in the same area that were not fed. So, it's possible you may be correct in that.

As to bees collecting medicine, just how and what they can discern is probably very different to how we see the world. They are not always as smart as we might think, for example bees have been seen collecting both sawdust, and coal dust, thinking it is pollen. However they do collect propolis, which is sometimes used by the bees for it's medicinal properties, for example sealing off and mummifying a dead animal such as a mouse in the hive, to prevent infection to the hive.

Interesting points you raise Boddah, I'll look forward to seeing how you do with your bees.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> >He has proposed that some mites may be less virulent.
> 
> And the only way to breed less virulent mites is to stop treating them. Treating them makes super mites and wimpy bees. We need wimpy mites and super bees...


It is easy to make such speculations. If you can demonstrate this somehow…please do so. Heck…at this point I don’t believe that there is evidence that a less virulent mite exists. It is, to my knowledge, just one hypothesis proposed by Tom Seeley.



Michael Bush said:


> I've also been saying we need less virulent mites (as have many others) for years now.


Yes…and I’ve been saying for years that we need fewer mites. So that makes you and I speakers of the obvious. It hardly makes either of us visionaries.
If either of us can come up with a practical way to achieve those desires….then that would be meaningful.



rhaldridge said:


> Still, I believe it's a worthwhile attempt to make.


Of course Ray. Heaven knows, I can’t imagine anyone who would get angry about that. Surely not me. I wish you only the best in it.




boddah said:


> What is it about the dry climates that thwarts varroa? Can this be simulated?


 You ask a lot of questions…and that is good. As far as dry climates….I don’t think there is any evidence at this point that it thwarts varroa. We were simply speculating earlier.


----------



## MichaBees

Boddah, 

There is an abundant desert plant on the southwest called "Goberadora" -Creosote. 

This plant, is widely ignored in the US as a medicinal plant, but in Mexico, especially amongst the Pima and Tarahumara Indians and people that was raised in the desert like myself, this plant is a miracle plant for a lot of illnesses. When Creosote is blooming, you can see the desert turn yellow and green, and people come to me asking me for creosote honey. Since the creosote blooming is one of many at the same time, I do not think I can gather just Creosote honey, and I just do not know if it produces a lot of honey or not but, I can see the benefit of the propolis and honey at the time of its blooming. The plant has a distinct smell, and when propolis is gathered, you can smell the same thing on the hives, plus, this propolis is clearly distinct from any other they bring in. If applied directly into an open wound, it heals it. If you have a sore throat or a bad cold, or cough; within hours of taking this propolis you are fine. My wife suffers from bad allergies and that is all she takes. We mix the propolis with honey collected during the Creosote bloom. 
We run some orphanages and an old folks home in Mexico, our budget is so tight sometimes, that we just have to try to use any product at hand that is natural and free to us when it comes to treat health issues for those under our care. We use the Governadora at the old folks home for rheumatoid pain, also for athletes’ foot and a lot more. Some people in the high mountains of Chihuahua, where this plant does not grow, are always asking me for plants so they can heal prostate cancer for it is widely believed that it can heal it. 
In Mexico’s department of health web site, under natural remedies utilizing native plants, that the different “Native Peoples” have used this plant urinary infections, inflammations, fertility, menstrual pain, abortion, rheumatoid pain, diabetics; and so many more, that it is just incredible. This plant has to be processed differently and the different parts of the plant are used for every illness. 

We have an old Pima (90 years old) at the old folk’s home, I believe he believes he is a “Christian Shaman” or “Curandero Cristiano” for he does not practice the worship of idols plus he is gifted with knowledge of the use of plants for cures – no spells or moon walks. He waits for different seasons, moon faces, and especially plants collected before the rain and after the rain in order to make his “magical cures” from the plant. 
The chemical composition is crazy and the studies are also intensive; 

http://www.medicinatradicionalmexicana.unam.mx/monografia.php?l=3&t=gobernadora&id=7544

We have only used it on a limited way, but I can tell you that I have used it dried on my smoker, just because I had nothing else. I noticed that immediately after using it on my bees, they are calmer than usual and more mites land on my essential oil pads – who knows… 

Aurelio Paez 
DBA Michas Honey House


----------



## Michael Bush

>It is easy to make such speculations. If you can demonstrate this somehow…please do so. 

You can't breed for fast race horses if you never let them race. You can't breed for bees that can survive mites if you never let them survive mites. You can't bree for mites that can live in harmony with the bees without treatments if you keep treating. It doesn't take much to figure that out.

>>I've also been saying we need less virulent mites (as have many others) for years now.
>Yes…and I’ve been saying for years that we need fewer mites. So that makes you and I speakers of the obvious. It hardly makes either of us visionaries.

There is a marked difference between simply wanting less mites and breeding mites that are less virulent. If you keep treating you are selecting for mites that are able to reproduce fast enough to keep up with your treatments and mites that resist your treatments. But no, it does not make me a visionary. Many people have seen that we need a parasite that is in balance with its host.


----------



## clyderoad

MichaBees said:


> Boddah,
> 
> There is an abundant desert plant on the southwest called "Goberadora" -Creosote.
> 
> Aurelio Paez
> DBA Michas Honey House


thank you for sharing this information. keep up your hard and caring work.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> There is a marked difference between simply wanting less mites and breeding mites that are less virulent.


Just so I'm clear...are you claiming to have bred a less virulent mite? Or are you simply speculating?


----------



## Michael Bush

>are you claiming to have bred a less virulent mite? Or are you simply speculating? 

Speculating on what? That I have less virulent mites? I have no idea if I do. I have bought a few packages from time to time to populate early mating nucs so I'm sure I've brought in other mites.

That we need to breed less virulent mites? We obviously do. 

That we CAN breed less virulent mites? I see no reason we can't if we stop treating and see no way we can as long as we treat.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> That we need to breed less virulent mites? We obviously do.


So you ‘want’ a less virulent mite.

When you said


Michael Bush said:


> There is a marked difference between simply wanting less mites and breeding mites that are less virulent.


You see…I want fewer mites….and you want a less virulent mite. The difference isn't 'marked'.

Tom Seeley hypothesized that there MIGHT be a less virulent mite. And based on the possibility suggested by such a respected entomologist, I daresay there are a number of labs currently testing for just such a thing. No pie in the sky…racehorse analogy speculation….just real research. And it MAY prove out.

At the end of the day both you and I are merely speculating while folks in the world of research will determine if it is a reality.....

You see you and I aren't the visionaries...Tom Seeley and his peers are.


----------



## Michael Bush

>You see…I want fewer mites….and you want a less virulent mite. The difference isn't 'marked'.

One is an outcome. The other is a mechanism. One is wishing. The other is a process that takes place in nature if you allow it.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> One is an outcome. The other is a mechanism. One is wishing. The other is a process that takes place in nature if you allow it.


Actually not….both are outcomes. The difference is that one is your want…and the other mine. Mine you choose to give no credibility.


----------



## rhaldridge

boddah said:


> Have there been any attempts at bee probiotics?


Yes. 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033188

http://m.ijs.sgmjournals.org/content/early/2013/10/04/ijs.0.053033-0.abstract

There was a piece about the Swedes from Lund Univ. in the new ABJ.


----------



## JWChesnut

I tell myself, repeatedly, not to get involved in these threads..... but.

The endlessly-repeated common meme in these posts is "Varroa will naturally become benign if left alone". I nick-name this "the peaceable kingdom" faith (the famous painting from 1820 of Hicks). It is based on a conviction that nature is in "perfect balance" and an Eden-like paradise can be achieved in the American wilderness. This belief has spawned an entire sub-culture of advocates.

Host-parasite interaction and co-evolution is a rich and deep academic field. A paper by Troy Day and James Burn, A CONSIDERATION OF PATTERNS OF VIRULENCE ARISING
FROM HOST-PARASITE CO-EVOLUTION (2002) is responsive:

"We find that counterintuitive patterns of virulence are often expected to arise as
a result of the interaction between co-evolved host and parasite strategies. In particular,
despite the fact that the parasite imposes only a mortality cost on the host, co-evolution
by the host results in a pattern whereby infected hosts always have the same probability
of death from infection, but they vary in the extent to which their fecundity is reduced."

In bees, this pattern is already observed: Varroa kills (via hyper-infection) honeybees irregardless, evolution has pushed honey-bee survivors into high-swarm-frequency life strategy.

Honeybee/Varroa/Virus patterns are evolving systems. The dominant hypothesis in similar systems is called the "Red Queen" hypothesis. The model organism used is pond Daphnia. In short, the Red Queen idea is a rare, resistant genotype will arise.... and will reproduce with greater initial fitness. (this is step one in the "peaceable kingdom" theory of bees).

As the rare, resistant genotype of the Red Queen line becomes dominant --- the parasite will shift genotype to match -- and the level of parasite induced death will return to the initial level. In summary, unbalanced resistance is only temporary and is dependent on rarity of the trait. A review of the Red Queen idea is http://www.evolution.unibas.ch/ebert/publications/papers/01_papers/2008_Ebert_CurrOp_Microbiol.pdf

Varroa (and its attendant virus) has horizontal transmission. This means that the primary mode of infection is from one hive to a genetically unrelated nearby hive.

In this thread, two ideas about Varroa are being mixed. Treating is supposed to be breeding "super-Varroa" with more virulence. This is based on the observation that the rapidly breeding varroa have overcome resistance to the specific miticides they have been exposed to. These are not "super-virulent" bugs, they are bugs that have absorbed the genetic and metabolic cost to resist a single compound. Resistance to Amitraz does not persist -- it is costly to the bug and is discarded unless constantly selected for. 

I maintain the "natural" advocates are the villians breeding the "super-Varroa". Small cell is advocated because it supposedly shortens the gestation time of the bee larvae by a day. Doesn't that argue that Varroa co-evolution will quickly produce a mite with a shorter generation time. Small-cell (in this thought experiment) is creating a monster race of Varroa with a 20% greater reproductive potential.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Mine you choose to give no credibility. 

You are just wishing for less mites with no plan or path to get there in the long run. How is a wish "credible"? It's just a wish. There is no lack of credibility nor presence of it...


----------



## gmcharlie

Well typed chestnut... well typed...

One might add that this "balance" that some think will happen is purely hypothetical and probably bull. First off the bees will probably not figure out how to survive with mites in our lifetimes. Are we ready to give up beekeeping until it happens??
Second, it probably won't happen at all. History is full of cases where the parasite kills off all host. You can look at something simple like typhoid, man made like passsenger pigeons (in theory some would have remained wild and remote), or as simple as wolves on baniff island. many many many cases where extinction is the result.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> no plan or path to get there in the long run


The sole basis and strategy for the MB plan:


Michael Bush said:


> I see no reason we can't


You have a plan to breed for a thing you don’t even know exists…a less virulent mite.


----------



## Lburou

Thank you for taking the discussion to the next level JW.....For a moment, I thought Elvis had entered the forum, but it was just the shock of raising the bar for the discussion that shook the thread. 

A lot to think about in your post JW. That 'perfect balance' you mention has managed to wipe out 99% of all the organisms that have ever lived in the history of the earth.

I read about the 'Soft Bond Method' the other day, it seems a reasonable balance between theory, research and nitty-gritty practicality. What do you think about the Soft Bond Method JW?


----------



## JRG13

Good points JW, I've said the same thing but it's always glossed over. No matter the methods, resistance will be sought after. The other question I ask is, are the bees resistant to mites or the viruses that's important?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Here is some more fuel for the Christmas yule log fire:









From Randy Oliver (emphasis by Randy):


> The feral population of bees, left to their own, also largely perished. But we inadvertently hampered their efforts to evolve resistance to the mite by flooding drone congregation areas with mite-susceptible drones from our managed yards, and filling hollow trees with mite-infested swarms, which would then collapse in a year or two. Nonetheless, we’re seeing feral populations starting to survive.
> 
> This brings up a good point: *If you’re not part of the genetic solution of breeding mite-resistant bees, then you’re part of the problem. Every time you allow drones or swarms to issue from a colony that owes its survival to a miticide application, you’re hindering the natural process of evolution toward mite-resistant bees!
> *_
> Read the whole page here:
> _http://scientificbeekeeping.com/choosing-your-troops-breeding-mite-fighting-bees/


----------



## sqkcrk

Message Received: Confine your drones if you treat. And don't let your treated bees swarm w/ their treated queen.


----------



## JRG13

And what happens when I take 'your' resistant bees and they collapse in my location? Is that still considered breeding a resistant bee? Rhaldridge, that post you made in another thread, can you clarify exactly what you meant? The way you worded it plainly translated to, if you can't keep treatment free bees then you are a ppb.

To blindly follow the idea that you cannot select for resistant bees by treating is fundamentally flawed. Not treating surely makes selection more straight forward, but isn't the only factor in the equation to breeding a resistant bee.


----------



## JWChesnut

Lburou said:


> What do you think about the Soft Bond Method


This is selective breeding. Selective breeding in bees faces an enormous headwind due to bee society ---

Honey bees have a nearly unique social and genetic system -- it is eusocial and polyandrous. Worldwide, honey bees are widespread, flexible, and fully interbreeding. My hypothesis is that eusocial polyandry is the result (and the maintenance) of a core evolutionary imperative of a species generalist strategy and resistance to sub-speciation. 

In common terms, honey bees are selected to resist drift to new and narrowed life histories. This is at odds with the nearly universal pattern of extreme specialization present in most other insects. The honeybee strategy is a co-evolutionary challenge to flowers. Flowers can evolve to a single pollinator --- and become evolutionarily fragile. The "generic" honeybee flower does not demand co-evolutionary changes and resists the inevitable extinction that accompanies specialization.

The core evolutionary imperative works against the agency of selective breeding.

In plants and insects, polyploid chromosomes are a marker for generalist (and mutable) life history. Polyploid chromosomes are the duplication of chromosomes (so instead of 2n pairs, plants maintain 4, 6, 8 ... pairs in each cell). Corn is an example -- polyploid was introduced with domestication and selection. Bees are diploid, but maintain a colony level polyploid equivalent -- a colony will have 20-30 different alleles for each trait (contributed by the fathers). The sex-incompatibility system (no viable backcrossing from a queen mother's own drones) ensures that alleles remain fully mixed and out-crossed.

Polyandry means that no particular father is responsible for the fitness of the colony, and consequently no particular father is selected for. Heritability of traits is very low in bees because a particular allele from a particular father has a low probability of founding a subsequent generation).

Eusociality (and the absence of genetic "castes" as in ants) means that survival fitness is conferred on the super-organism and not an individual. (e.g. A particular genetic caste of ants could confer significant survival advantage on a colony, but worker differentiation is by age, and not genotype, in bees).

Randy Oliver has a very instructive annecdote about testing an instrumental inseminated Glenn Apiary VSH-Russian hybrid. He called it a super-queen and it sounds like he hit the jackpot. He grafted it into hundreds of future daughters. The daughters were not stars like the mother. And the super-queen genetics have been diluted fully in subsequent generations. 

Selective free-flight breeding at a backyard scale is not practical. It requires 1) isolation, 2) saturation, 3) deliberate out-crossing. The Russian Queen Breeders model grafts one selected queen, moves the queen hive to an isolated outyard populated by drone hives from a separate, independent population (drones hives are transported from other breeders in a regular circulation).


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

sqkcrk said:


> Message Received: Confine your drones if you treat. And don't let your treated bees swarm w/ their treated queen.


I didn't see any place where Randy Oliver advocated confining bees. And I didn't see Randy advocating NO treatment either. Indeed, Randy has _multiple _pages on how to do treatments properly.

But clearly, at least Randy can recognize that _in spite of _treating, treating contributes to .....
(well - read it for yourself in post #76)


----------



## Richter1978

Curious if anyone has ever noticed this:
I had a large (double deep/double medium) prosperous colony that the inspector said had a high mite load. There were always "crawlers" and bees showing DWV around the hive. This fall their attitude was bad enough to warrant me moving the hive about 1 mile up the road to a friends place with more room (he has three acres). I don't get by there to check on them but about every 3 to 5 weeks. Point is, there isn't a single bee to be found on the ground dead or alive and the hive (now just double deep) is still full of bees.

Could the lack of attention/disruption be cause for the lack of mite symptoms? Possibly a reduction in mite load? I haven't done a sticky count at the new location, but at the end of Sept. I had about 200 at 48 hrs.


----------



## gmcharlie

I would bet your move/ mite change has to domore with the fact new brood is at a low, and the older bees have already died. Do a mite check and report back, other than that its just a observation that has no value. If moving bees reduced Mites some guys with migratory units would be mite free.


----------



## beekuk

sqkcrk said:


> Message Received: Confine your drones if you treat.


 No need to confine your drones if you treat, they are unlikely to mate with the feral survivor virgin queens, apparently there is an invisible barrier.:shhhh:


----------



## Richter1978

Thank you, I am finding that a lot of what I do "has no value". That said, I will do a check, I'm curious what the drop will be.


----------



## Oldtimer

We are so privileged to have REAL scientists among us, I just love it when they step in. Some of these posts are like an beautiful thing, in a bland landscape, reading them is good for me in more ways than just learning stuff only.

And Michabees, what a fascinating post! Wow that was interesting I would so much love to see what you do, and your Curandero Cristiano, what an amazing treasure you have there I hope he will continue to live long.

A trip for me, to the US and Mexico is not something I will do in the foreseeable future but if I ever do this, your post has made sure I would have to come and see what you do.


----------



## beemandan

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Here is some more fuel for the Christmas yule log fire:


And then one must relegate Randy O’s words when compared with those who claim that the feral populations didn’t collapse. That their nests were all natural sized cells which conveyed immunity to varroa infestations. In fact…the idea that mite resistant genetics aren’t even of consequence.

Who to believe? .


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> We are so privileged to have REAL scientists among us, I just love it when they step in.


It does move the entire dialog to a higher level....at least until some of us post again. I'm sure I'll find that lump of coal under the tree tomorrow morning.


----------



## MichaBees

Oldtimer said:


> We are so privileged to have REAL scientists among us, I just love it when they step in. Some of these posts are like an beautiful thing, in a bland landscape, reading them is good for me in more ways than just learning stuff only.
> 
> And Michabees, what a fascinating post! Wow that was interesting I would so much love to see what you do, and your Curandero Cristiano, what an amazing treasure you have there I hope he will continue to live long.
> 
> A trip for me, to the US and Mexico is not something I will do in the foreseeable future but if I ever do this, your post has made sure I would have to come and see what you do.


Viejillo, It would be a pleasure to take you to see the places we work at. We travel between two countries and 3 states every week -or almost every week. We own bees in Mexico and New Mexico USA, plus, we travel a lot for orphanage work and charity stuff. We do provide all of our own expenses and you would be welcomed at any time if you wish to visit. 
A few years ago, I had a chance to visit southern Mexico, and got to see the sting-less bees and africanized apiaries at the purest of forms. They still work the sting-less bees in logs, just like centuries ago. That is interesting and mostly unknown. I will post pictures, different kinds of sting-less and beautiful stories about the interaction between man and bees before the Spanish conquistadors started the destruction of the per-hispanic culture.


----------



## rhaldridge

JWChesnut said:


> I tell myself, repeatedly, not to get involved in these threads...
> As the rare, resistant genotype of the Red Queen line becomes dominant --- the parasite will shift genotype to match -- and the level of parasite induced death will return to the initial level. .


Clearly, this is exactly what happened with Apis Cerana.

Right?


----------



## squarepeg

i firmly believe it's more about the viruses than the mites and reistance via natural immunity (if you can get it) trumps knocking the infestation rate back. but when natural immunity is insufficient, reducing the virus titer via mite removal give the bees an fighting chance.


----------



## JWChesnut

A note on Creosote (Larrea tridentata)

This plant is a geologically recent arrival from Patagonia. It is hypothesized that it was introduced by migrating birds into the Chihuahua Desert on a single ocassion about 500,000 years ago. The Sonora plants are 4n polyploid, Patagonian and Chihuahua plants are 2n, and Mojave plants (the marginal extreme) are 6n polyploid. Viz: http://www.ramseylab.org/Ramsey/Publications_files/Laport et al 2012.pdf

In some ways, Creosote is like Varroa, a recent arrival into a naive and non-resistant ecosystem. It is now the predominant plant across vast stretches of North American desert -- aided in expansion by its virtual lack of predators. 

Creosote epitomizes the glacially slow response of naive and non-resistant ecosystems to new invaders in the course of evolution. Perhaps in 500,000 years honeybees will find a modus operandi with Varroa, perhaps not.


----------



## squarepeg

interesting analogy jwc. the same case might be made for **** sapian.

a better analogy would be another parasite/host out of equilibrium, the outcome of which could play out at least four ways:

1. parasite extincts host but carries on by moving to new host(s)
2. parasite extincts host and becomes also extinct
3. host defeats parasite loosing the metabolic cost of dealing with it and gains ecologically
4. host and parasite achieve equilibrium and life goes on for both, but at a cost to the host

are there other examples past or present in which host/parasite equilibrium is in flux as it is with or bees? 

apis and varroa have achieved number 4. in the eastern hemisphere. there are some observations that support it is happening here as well. it's the timeline that inconvenient. are we helping or hurting are bees by intervening? i'd say both.


----------



## JWChesnut

rhaldridge said:


> Clearly, this is exactly what happened with Apis Cerana.
> 
> Right?


Couple of points
"Asian bee colonies have been reported to produce 6 to 10 swarms in a year, compared to honey bees with an average less than one swarm per year." Cite: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/382161/Asian-bees.pdf

This supports the "Red Queen" hypothesis -- increasing fecundity is the primary parasite response, just like we are observing in the competitive replacement of AFB over European races.

In fact, I think the storied resistance of A. cerana may partially be the same mechanism of the noted "first-year" halcyon experience of novice beekeepers who trumpet success on forums. Certainly the smaller size of worker bees may also show some effect. 

Exceptionally high swarm rates implies exceptionally high colony death (or otherwise the world would be awash in nothing but bee colonies). A. cerana may be dieing from pathogens just like A. mellifera.

_A. cerana_ has become cross infected with North American strains of DWV (and other lethal virii) cite:http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0047955

In China, introduction of A. mellifera has led to extreme losses in A. cerana. Colony decline goes both ways, and virus and foulbrood introduced through failed quarantine (and epizooitic on varroa infection) are implicated.

A. cerana is a derived species from near the hypothesized point of origin for the genus Apis (and the center of diversity for the Varroa genus). The length of time required for evolutionary cross-tolerance in A. cerana is measured in tens of millions of years and involves two speciation events. A. cerana is invasive (with globalization) into New Guinea (and hence northern Australia). In New Guinea (where it is a recent invader) it has become cross-infected with Varroa jacobsonii

If you have tens-of-millions of years to wait, you likely can adopt the lovey-dovey "peaceable kingdom" model. The evolutionarily demonstrated adaptation is extreme swarming and lack of honey reserves. Your peculiar future ancestors won't be keeping honeybees but some other quite distinct insect.


----------



## rhaldridge

JRG13 said:


> Rhaldridge, that post you made in another thread, can you clarify exactly what you meant? The way you worded it plainly translated to, if you can't keep treatment free bees then you are a ppb..


I just don't understand this translation. Why would anyone treat if they could figure out how to have the same results and *not* spend the money and time and suffer the possible side effects of treating? I assume that most folks would choose to not treat if they could keep their bees alive and productive without treatment. But I see it argued constantly in these forums that it isn't possible. Doesn't that translate to "I can't figure out how to keep bees alive and productive without treatments?" And as an addendum, "Neither can you, you fool." Those who *can't* do it insist that those who *can* keep bees without treatment have either been wildly lucky or deeply deceptive. That seems a bit more insulting, wouldn't you say?

I think those who perceived my admittedly unadorned statement of fact to be insulting maybe ought to think about *why* they found it insulting. I certainly didn't mean it as an insult. I meant to boil down the rhetoric to its essence.

Now, I've felt insulted when treatment free beekeepers are characterized as unscientific, naive, hipsters, True Believers, followers of fads, liars, and frauds. I may be annoyed, but I don't take these criticisms seriously because those are all ad hominems that say more about those who post them than they say about the management practices that I like. There is no ad hominem in the statement I made:



> I've always assumed that the reason people treat is that they can't figure out how to keep their bees alive and productive unless they do.
> 
> Is that wrong?


All that said, I've been thinking about my statement, and I have to admit that it was overly simplistic. I suspect that many who treat do so because they've been convinced that it's the only way to keep bees alive, and not because they have tried and failed to keep bees alive without treatment. I suppose my remark was mostly directed to those who have tried to keep bees without treatment, have failed, and have as a consequence (it would seem) become the loudest and most intemperate critics of treatment free beekeeping here on Beesource. 

So it goes. I honestly didn't mean to insult anyone. As a beginner, it's a given that I'm a PPB. But I hope to be one of those who figures it out. Someday.


----------



## squarepeg

JWChesnut said:


> This supports the "Red Queen" hypothesis -- increasing fecundity is the primary parasite response, just like we are observing in the competitive replacement of AFB over European races.


i have witnessed such hyperfecundity in some hybrid evergreens that i planted on the farm.

i made a dense hedge by planting a row of 'carolina sapphires'. a few of them started looking sickly in their second year and became completely covered up with seed cones, whereas the healthier cohorts don't make much seed. 

i guess this is nature's way, try to win the numbers game and stack the deck for beneficial mutations.


----------



## sqkcrk

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I didn't see any place where Randy Oliver advocated confining bees. And I didn't see Randy advocating NO treatment either. Indeed, Randy has _multiple _pages on how to do treatments properly.
> 
> But clearly, at least Randy can recognize that _in spite of _treating, treating contributes to .....
> (well - read it for yourself in post #76)


"Every time you allow drones or swarms to issue from a colony that owes its survival to a miticide application, you're hindering the natural process of evolution towards mite resistant bees."

How do you not "hinder the natural process of evolution ..." unless you don't allow drones to issue from your treated hives, ie confine them, or swarms to issue from your treated hives, or stop treating?

Maybe I am not sharp enough to understand what he really meant.


----------



## sqkcrk

beekuk said:


> No need to confine your drones if you treat, they are unlikely to mate with the feral survivor virgin queens, apparently there is an invisible barrier.:shhhh:


Invisible? No wonder I missed it.


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> Clearly, this is exactly what happened with Apis Cerana.
> 
> Right?


Varroa feed primarily on Apis cerana drone brood and not the workers. From what I recall reading somewhere. When they were introduced to Apis mellifera the mechanism which kept them from Apis cerana worker brood and adults wasn't present in the Apis mellifera colonies.

Then there are the viruses we have here. I don't know if they exist in Southeast Asia. Maybe someone else does.


----------



## sqkcrk

JWChesnut said:


> Couple of points
> "Asian bee colonies have been reported to produce 6 to 10 swarms in a year, compared to honey bees with an average less than one swarm per year." Cite: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/382161/Asian-bees.pdf
> 
> This supports the "Red Queen" hypothesis -- increasing fecundity is the primary parasite response, just like we are observing in the competitive replacement of AFB over European races.
> 
> In fact, I think the storied resistance of A. cerana may partially be the same mechanism of the noted "first-year" halcyon experience of novice beekeepers who trumpet success on forums. Certainly the smaller size of worker bees may also show some effect.
> 
> Exceptionally high swarm rates implies exceptionally high colony death (or otherwise the world would be awash in nothing but bee colonies). A. cerana may be dieing from pathogens just like A. mellifera.
> 
> _A. cerana_ has become cross infected with North American strains of DWV (and other lethal virii) cite:http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0047955
> 
> In China, introduction of A. mellifera has led to extreme losses in A. cerana. Colony decline goes both ways, and virus and foulbrood introduced through failed quarantine (and epizooitic on varroa infection) are implicated.
> 
> A. cerana is a derived species from near the hypothesized point of origin for the genus Apis (and the center of diversity for the Varroa genus). The length of time required for evolutionary cross-tolerance in A. cerana is measured in tens of millions of years and involves two speciation events. A. cerana is invasive (with globalization) into New Guinea (and hence northern Australia). In New Guinea (where it is a recent invader) it has become cross-infected with Varroa jacobsonii
> 
> If you have tens-of-millions of years to wait, you likely can adopt the lovey-dovey "peaceable kingdom" model. The evolutionarily demonstrated adaptation is extreme swarming and lack of honey reserves. Your peculiar future ancestors won't be keeping honeybees but some other quite distinct insect.


What about Apis dorsata? They exist in the same geographic area as Apis cerana, don't they? Do they co-exist w/ varroa too?


----------



## Richter1978

ppb?


----------



## sqkcrk

Piss Poor Beekeeping


----------



## beemandan

Richter1978 said:


> ppb?


Don't listen to Mark...his post will surely be deleted anyway.
Pretty Poor Beekeeping


----------



## Richter1978

Thank you!


----------



## rhaldridge

JWChesnut said:


> If you have tens-of-millions of years to wait, you likely can adopt the lovey-dovey "peaceable kingdom" model. The evolutionarily demonstrated adaptation is extreme swarming and lack of honey reserves. Your peculiar future ancestors won't be keeping honeybees but some other quite distinct insect.


"lovey-dovey "peaceable kingdom" model" Well, that's certainly not at all an insulting way to describe treatment free beekeeping. I could have some more fun analyzing your peculiar statements, but it's Christmas.

First you said it can't happen. Then you said it happened, because reasons. Inconsistent, in my opinion.

The elephant in the room is that there are indeed treatment free beekeepers who do not have excessive swarming and have good honey production. That, unfortunately, does not fit into the hypothesis you put forward.

I believe your only option in dealing with this conundrum is to declare them frauds or the beneficiaries of extreme good fortune. As you apparently enjoy doing.

Because reasons.

Don't disappoint me.


----------



## JWChesnut

sqkcrk said:


> What about Apis dorsata? They exist in the same geographic area as Apis cerana, don't they? Do they co-exist w/ varroa too?


A. dorsata (and its close relatives) is the natural host of Tropilaelaps spp., (T. clareae and T. koenigerum). https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/beebase/downloadDocument.cfm?id=18

Tropilaelaps will cross infest A. mellifera (endemic in this respect in Vietnam). It reproduces 25 times faster than Varroa, so could be a tremendous issue if quarantine breaks down. Fortunately, it cannot pierce and suck from adults, so enforcing a brief brood break will control it.

A. dorsata can be infested with V. jacobsonii, but grooming behavior keeps infection level lower.

V. destructor (the Korean variant on A. cerana) infests worker brood. Much of the "common wisdom" on V. destructor shows signs of internet mythology. A. cerana may avoid V. destructor by small colony size and rapid colony swarming and by the fact the agricultural virii common in Europe and NA were not present in Asia until being introduced. viz: http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/1988/03/Apidologie_0044-8435_1988_19_3_ART0003.pdf


Finally, in getting current links for the references cited I picked up this 1985 editorial on Varroa --
Bee World Vol.66 (4) 1985 pp. 125-126
Varroa's natural adaptation to Apis mellifera?
Author(s)	N. Koeniger
Abstract	

""During the last 20 years the Asian bee mite, Varroa jacobsoni, has become the major problem of beekeeping with Apis mellifera in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. After infesting a honeybee colony, the mite population increases slowly but apparently without check over the next couple of years. In *the third or fourth year damage caused by the mite*, mainly during the reproductive phase within the sealed brood cell, leads to the development of 'crippled' workers and the subsequent breakdown of the colony. This happened to countless colonies and forced beekeepers to interfere to save their bees.""


This is anecdotal, but if in 1985 virulence was "third or fourth year", then infections have *increased* in strength and velocity, rather than becoming less serious.


----------



## JWChesnut

rhaldridge said:


> Don't disappoint me.


Hey, Ray ... rather than sniping, why don't just we agree to wait 6 million years and then judge the result. You go first. 

((1991 paper calculates A. cerana divergence at 6 mya Cite: http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/1991/01/Apidologie_0044-8435_1991_22_1_ART0011.pdf))


----------



## JRG13

Rhaldridge, 

Thanks for clarifying that one post. Just the way it's worded comes off differently as you can't infer much from a post as if you were actually talking to someone. I see the point you were making now. I'll just say this, don't blindly follow some method without trying to develop something that fits your needs and that beekeeping is highly locational. I also encourage you to jump into the chat room sometime... Some good discussions take place there.

Jeff


----------



## squarepeg

rhaldridge said:


> ......the beneficiaries of extreme good fortune.


the survival of feral bees in the southeastern united states post varroa bodes for some good fortune. my vote is habitat, weather, and availability of very diverse flora.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

To answer a question Michael Bush asked me, a few posts back: Presently most of my combs are, foundationless. Those that are predominantly drone cells, I move to outer positions, or up into honey supers; unless I want more drones, then I place them in the heart of the brood nest. About a third of my combs are PF-120's from Mann Lake.

I would also like to repeat my thanks to everyone participating in this thread. It is wonderful to hear the many different views being shared about this subject. It certainly helps me to evolve my own perceptions.


----------



## rhaldridge

JWChesnut said:


> Hey, Ray ... rather than sniping, why don't just we agree to wait 6 million years and then judge the result. You go first.
> 
> ((1991 paper calculates A. cerana divergence at 6 mya Cite: http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/1991/01/Apidologie_0044-8435_1991_22_1_ART0011.pdf))


Well, I'd like to accommodate your thoughtful suggestion, but I fear I may not not be able to, since I do not have access to the time travel gear that you referred to: my "peculiar future ancestors." I've been told I'm an imaginative person, but that seems a little hard to follow, even so.

I'm almost sorry to point out that the paper you cited is about the *divergence* of A. Cerana, and searching the pdf for "varroa" or "mites" yields no hits. So your cite really doesn't seem to address the issue of how long it took cerana to reach an equilibrium state with that particular predator. A. mellifera is pretty old too, and yet they only encountered this mite recently. Also, your first assertion was "tens of millions of years." So, both inaccurate _and_ irrelevant.

I'm a beginning beekeeper, but not a beginning word chopper... or beginning student of human nature. I really don't wish to offend you any more than you have offended me (not much at all) but as an outside observer, it appears to me that you spend far more energy looking for reasons why you couldn't succeed than in trying to come up with reasons why other beekeepers are succeeding. You are clearly very intelligent, experienced, and well read. I wish you were devoting your considerable energies to a more positive goal.


----------



## rhaldridge

JRG13 said:


> Rhaldridge,
> 
> Thanks for clarifying that one post. Just the way it's worded comes off differently as you can't infer much from a post as if you were actually talking to someone. I see the point you were making now. I'll just say this, don't blindly follow some method without trying to develop something that fits your needs and that beekeeping is highly locational. I also encourage you to jump into the chat room sometime... Some good discussions take place there.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff, as a beginner, I've taken a somewhat scattershot approach to developing management practices. My basic objection to treatment rests on the idea that poisoning bugs on bugs is probably not a sustainable solution. It hasn't proven sustainable with other agricultural pests, and I think it is probably even less so in the case of bees, due to their being arthropods preyed upon by arthropods. it's probably a rather more difficult task than killing bugs on tomatoes.

Anyway, I've done whatever seems rational to me to avoid treatment. I've acquired local bees, a swarm, and a small cell package. I've queened a split with a Beeweaver queen (doing well so far.) I've used foundationless frames to avoid foundation toxins. I've used brood breaks, I've aggressively split my colonies and except for the Beeweaver queen, I've allowed splits and colonies to queen themselves. I've done sugar rolls to monitor mite levels. I'm using horizontal hives because they seem to make it a lot easier to monitor the colonies. I've even experimented with predatory mites.

I still expect to lose most of them, but I've tried to set things up so I can learn something from my failures.

What is so hard for me to understand is the impulse I've seen over and over here to disparage the success of those few beekeepers who have succeeded in keeping bees without varroa treatment. I just don't get it. It's so counterproductive. There's a migratory commercial beekeeper named Chris Baldwin who does not treat. He came here briefly, posted a half dozen times, got called a liar and disappeared. I don't blame him. He doesn't need that nonsense. So we lost a valuable resource. Tim Ives is another example. He encountered a fair amount of hostility and reacted in kind. If we'd been more civil, we might have learned a lot from him. He is far more forthcoming on his Facebook page, where he can deal more decisively with those who engage him just to tell him why he can't possibly be getting the results he claims.

I put up with uncivil behavior because I have so much to learn. But I have very thick skin, developed over the last 30 some years (I was on Fidonet when that was the only way folks could argue on the internet in public forums.) 

And, I admit it, one of my many character flaws is that I can never pass a stuffed shirt without bringing out a pin.


----------



## JWChesnut

Annotated phylogeny of the Genus Apis.
Shared parasites indicate that the conversion of the predatory (comb cleaning) to parasitic mites occured at the root division, and the obligate genus Varroa arose before the division between Giant and Cavity sub-families (about 20 mya). 

V. destructor (the north Asian sp) co-evolved with the N. Asian form of the widespread A. cerana from the pre-existing and much less damaging V. jacobsonii. V. destructor evolved as *more* (not less) destructive form. V. destructor may be the factor that limited the expansion of this sub-species of Apis cerana (japonica) into unoccupied northern latitudes. 

The hyper-trophy of marginal populations (ie. the transition of V. destructor from benign to damaging form and A. cerana from a stable to an invasive life history -- see expansion into New Guinea) is a evolutionary pattern widely observed on the margin of populations. Its possible that the adaptive response to V. destructor (swarms and short colony duration) has involved a catastrophic shrinkage of range in Asian Apis.

Note that the Indonesian Apis are derived species with roots post A. mellifera -- and these have co-evolved specific (but benign) parasites. Host-parasite specificity is a noted condition.

It should be noted that a single Apis sp. has been detected as a 14 mya fossil in North America. This sp. died out (which might involve the expansion of grasslands in NA).


----------



## JWChesnut

weird double post....


----------



## sqkcrk

JWChesnut said:


> A. dorsata (and its close relatives) is the natural host of Tropilaelaps spp., (T. clareae and T. koenigerum). https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/beebase/downloadDocument.cfm?id=18
> 
> Tropilaelaps will cross infect A. mellifera (endemic in this respect in Vietnam). It reproduces 25 times faster than Varroa, so could be a tremendous issue if quarantine breaks down. Fortunately, it cannot pierce and suck from adults, so enforcing a brief brood break will control it.
> 
> A. dorsata can be infected with V. jacobsonii, but grooming behavior keeps infection level lower.
> 
> V. destructor (the Korean variant on A. cerana) infects worker brood. Much of the "common wisdom" on V. destructor shows signs of internet mythology. A. cerana may avoid V. destructor by small colony size and rapid colony swarming and by the fact the agricultural virii common in Europe and NA were not present in Asia until being introduced. viz: http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/1988/03/Apidologie_0044-8435_1988_19_3_ART0003.pdf
> 
> 
> Finally, in getting current links for the references cited I picked up this 1985 editorial on Varroa --
> Bee World Vol.66 (4) 1985 pp. 125-126
> Varroa's natural adaptation to Apis mellifera?
> Author(s) N. Koeniger
> Abstract
> 
> ""During the last 20 years the Asian bee mite, Varroa jacobsoni, has become the major problem of beekeeping with Apis mellifera in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. After infesting a honeybee colony, the mite population increases slowly but apparently without check over the next couple of years. In *the third or fourth year damage caused by the mite*, mainly during the reproductive phase within the sealed brood cell, leads to the development of 'crippled' workers and the subsequent breakdown of the colony. This happened to countless colonies and forced beekeepers to interfere to save their bees.""
> 
> 
> This is anecdotal, but if in 1985 virulence was "third or fourth year", then infections have *increased* in strength and velocity, rather than becoming less serious.


Really good report JW. May I suggest some editing? Change "infect or infection" to "infest or infestation"? Pests infest. Diseases infect. Right?


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> There's a migratory commercial beekeeper named Chris Baldwin who does not treat. He came here briefly, posted a half dozen times, got called a liar and disappeared. I don't blame him. He doesn't need that nonsense.


Ray please point me to the post / thread.

I have been hoping to chat with Chris Baldwin and would like to see what happened. Perhaps it is something that can be put right.


----------



## rhaldridge

JWChesnut said:


> Annotated phylogeny of the Genus Apis.
> Shared parasites indicate that the conversion of the predatory (comb cleaning) to parasitic mites occured at the root division, and the obligate genus Varroa arose before the division between Giant and Cavity sub-families (about 20 mya).


What is the evidence for this belief?


----------



## squarepeg

good thread, and merry Christmas to all!

from an amateur biologist's point of view, and considering the diagram shared from n. lo et.al.,

a couple of things jump out at me regarding the genus apis;

looking at the three branches of species differentiation, it appears that the branch including a. mellifera is the most diversified, two and three times more in fact than than the other two apis groups.

within the species a. mellifera, the differentiation of subspecies looks to be mostly if not entirely influenced be geography, i.e. terrain, fauna and flora, weather. looks like all things bee are 'local', even on the grander scale.

when we look at the sub-species of a. mellifera, there is even further differentiation at the sub-species level. again, this appears to be heavily influenced by geography.


----------



## TalonRedding

Happy Holidays to everyone! This is a very intriguing thread and has really made me think. I haven't had any time to look, but I wonder if there is any sufficient PR literature that goes into details of the viruses that accompany varroa species, and the differences in traits/effects of those viruses, if any (ie mutational differences). IMHO, varroa is not as big of an issue as the viruses they carry. I wonder if we should be more interested in breeding less resistant varroa instead of more resistant bees? That is to say, breed to alter varroa instead of breeding and altering bees. I know that is a vague way of asking the question, but you have to start somewhere. I would love to hear a virologist's point of view on this issue. :lookout:


----------



## rhaldridge

The belief that honeybees are unable to rapidly evolve resistance to mites seems to be undermined by the tracheal mite example. In the early part of the 20th century, these pests wiped out the British beekeeping industry thoroughly. Fast forward a hundred years, and these pests are no longer a major problem.

I also wonder if those who proclaim that such resistance to varroa is impossible realize that they are calling Binford and Daniel Weaver liars. I would assume that the Weavers have quite a bit more experience and credibility in the industry than most of those who are calling them liars, since the Weaver family has been in the bee business for 125 years.

The way science works, no matter how pretty and internally consistent your theory, if a single verifiable realworld example cannot be explained by that theory, a scientist must conclude that the theory is incorrect or incomplete. There are now enough examples of beekeepers keeping bees without varroa treatment that I am astonished that anyone can continue to ignore the existence of these beekeepers.

But people believe what they need to believe, I guess.


----------



## beemandan

> varroa is not as big of an issue as the viruses they carry.


.
I’ve seen this expressed a number of times. I don’t know the relative impact on a bee colony of virus vs direct mite predation but I wouldn’t underestimate the latter.
When a foundress mite lays her eggs on a developing bee…and that bee, at a most important time in its development, is fed upon by multiple mites…it takes a huge toll, often to the point of killing the bee before it emerges. If it survives, it is certainly greatly weakened for its entire life. It impacts the bee’s lifespan, vigor and productivity…as well as making it more susceptible to any and every other pressure.
Mites are nasty…the diseases they spread are nasty….and I couldn’t even guess which is the worse.


----------



## sqkcrk

Just being picky here. What DISEASES do varroa mites spread? They vector VIRUSES. Seems like we need to have some basic understanding of the differences if we are to really understand what we are chatting about.

My understanding is that the viruses are already present and that the damage the varroa does makes it possible for the viruses to do what they do. Maybe someone can explain to me whether this is accurate, true or my misunderstanding.


----------



## squarepeg

good point dan. i'm guessing that the bees that show resistance have the right combination of hygienic traits and natural immunity. the traits develop gradually over time and are selected for by nature and man. immunity also has a genetic component, but is very much dependent on the environment having the right stuff for the bees to bring in to make it all work. i'm not surprised that quality feed supplements promote colony health when applied in those areas of poorer habitat.


----------



## Dave Burrup

Mark viruses cause disease but so do bacteria, and funguses. Some viruses can invade host cells on their own, but many need a vector to inject them into the host. With mites it is through their saliva and feeding activity. Influenza only needs to be inhaled and come into contact with our mucus membranes. In cereal grains the vector is often an aphid, but barley stripe mosaic virus will invade from abrasion contact caused by the wind or something walking through the leaves. Some bee viruses, Deformeed wing virus are probably endemic in the colonies and spreads slowly. Add mites and the frequency increases due to stress or possibly the physical wounds. Israeli Paralytic virus seems to need mites to inject it.
Dave


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> Just being picky here. What DISEASES do varroa mites spread? They vector VIRUSES. Seems like we need to have some basic understanding of the differences if we are to really understand what we are chatting about.


Hmmmmm...does seem a bit picky. I believe that mites vector Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) and Chronic Paralysis Virus (CPV)…both of which can become symptomatic…and at that time, I believe, qualify as a disease.

Also the wounds inflicted by mites may become contaminated with bacterial and fungal organisms, some of which also exhibit symptoms, at which time, I believe, qualify as a disease…any of which also take a toll on the colony’s vigor.

In addition are the direct effects of mite predation....which includes increased susceptibility to all of the above.


----------



## crofter

rhaldridge said:


> <snip>
> 
> The way science works, no matter how pretty and internally consistent your theory, if a single verifiable realworld example cannot be explained by that theory, a scientist must conclude that the theory is incorrect or incomplete. There are now enough examples of beekeepers keeping bees without varroa treatment that I am astonished that anyone can continue to ignore the existence of these beekeepers.
> 
> But people believe what they need to believe, I guess.


RHA, I think there may be some deep protective mechanism in the human makeup that keeps us from accepting an idea until it gets to critical mass. This mechanism can often delay the adoption of ideas that eventually prove out to have been good all along. I still think the number of examples of treatment free success (percentage wise and across the total geographic extent of bee keeping) is not large enough to reasonably be expected to overcome the inertia. You can rail against the foibles of human nature but it likely will get you more opposition than converts. We have to remember that the examples of many who have failed (for a variety of reasons) at treatment free beekeeping despite their unbridled enthusiasm, has an inordinate effect on the perceptions of the whole. The hubris exhibited very much hurts the campaign for acceptance. In the meantime the exhibited doubt and derision cast upon the new idea is highly effective on consolidating the inertia.

The net result may very well equate to a double standard of what constitutes proof. That just is as it is. We all have strong attachment to our ideas and it has been shown frequently to destroy complete objectivity. The strength of a persons conviction is not automatically connected to the likelihood of their being totally correct.

I think it is going to take more time to collect well documented and independently verified examples of effectively resistant bees and husbandry. The examples must stand up to double blind, transferability, and repeatability and be in large enough numbers to rule out fluke. The must also satisfy the economics of their immediate major purpose plus utility going forward. There will be many cautions raised about the possibility of unintended consequences like any loss of genetics, possibly of unknowable future value, for the relief of an immediate nuisance. Man has gotten clever enough to influence evolution and that may be way above his intellectual pay scale. 

This is something that likely cannot be rammed through. Think Ghandi and Mandela. 

Seasons Greetings All!


----------



## squarepeg

two thoughts:

1. it doesn't have to be either/or, more often than not it is both/and. the idea being that there are morsels of truth in most of the views expressed here, and the reality of it likely lies in the mix.

2. integrated pest management and treatment free are not mutually exclusive. the fact is that treatment free is the expressed desired outcome of a successful ipm approach.


----------



## TalonRedding

sqkcrk said:


> Just being picky here. What DISEASES do varroa mites spread? They vector VIRUSES. Seems like we need to have some basic understanding of the differences if we are to really understand what we are chatting about.


See post #118. As far as mites being a vector, they may not be a typical vector by definition in the biological sense that I am used to. All the vectors I have studied, mainly in mammals, are classified as an invertebrate that actually carries and transmits the virus (ie Bluetongue and EHD in deer species). Granted, that is a mammalian host, and vectors may be classified differently in the insect world. Perhaps they manipulate the virus structure in bees? I obviously need to do more reading on this myself. To me though, there is a whole lot of mystery remaining about varroa, and I'm afraid to make any real conclusion on how to go about treating/not treating for them.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks for clearing some things up for me. I have a better understanding of how things work, somewhat.

Ray, some of us believe what we are capable of understanding or what we think we know. Much of which may be wrong or partly wrong. Which may not be very much different. A miss is as good as a mile it is said.


----------



## Oldtimer

Some excellent posts on the foibles of human nature.

The other thing that happens in just about everything including beekeeping, is people gain their own experience, then tend to assume it would be true for everybody else.

Guilty myself. When I was only 2 years in as a commercial beekeeper at the southern end of my country I moved to the other end of the country, quite a different climate, and proceeded to tell my new boss what he was doing wrong in the way he wanted me to manage the bees. He was kind with me but it was really time that taught me what worked in the South Island, did not always work here. 

In a similar way we have people throwing stones at each other cos one guy didn't treat and it worked out for him, another guy didn't treat and it did not work out for him. Each can angrily accuse the other of being wrong. When they get wiser they realise the other was not wrong, merely had a different experience.

The different experience, and this part is key, can be caused by a host of factors from environment to bee type and many others, that are not yet fully understood, and probably most especially not understood by some (not all) of the people claiming expert status, purely because they have made up their minds and are not open to further views (learning).

The lying accusations are reactionary and unhelpful, the reality is few doubt that there are bees that have survived a long time without treatment and few doubt there are other bees that have been killed by mites. There are treatment free beekeepers who can buy just any queen and put it in their hives and not see them die of mites. There are also treatment free hives and queens been moved to a different location then succumb to mites.


----------



## beemandan

crofter said:


> RHA, I think there may be some deep protective mechanism in the human makeup that keeps us from accepting an idea until it gets to critical mass.


I think it probably works from both sides.
There are those who require substantial evidence to adopt a view.
And there are those who find a view so desirable that they will accept it with a minimum of evidence.
And, in all likelihood, if a ‘truth’ exists, it falls somewhere between the two.


----------



## rhaldridge

crofter said:


> RHA, I think there may be some deep protective mechanism in the human makeup that keeps us from accepting an idea until it gets to critical mass. This mechanism can often delay the adoption of ideas that eventually prove out to have been good all along. I still think the number of examples of treatment free success (percentage wise and across the total geographic extent of bee keeping) is not large enough to reasonably be expected to overcome the inertia.


Very sensible and articulate post!

In dealing with absolutist beliefs, it is very difficult to make headway. What I try to get across is that if even one beekeeper manages to keep varroa-infested bees alive and productive without having to use miticides, then this single example constitutes proof that it is *possible*. Some factor or combination of factors has evidently made this possible. I want to know what they are.

The absolutist belief put forward by some is that it is impossible to successfully keep bees without treatment. This is a contention that can be disproven by a single example. It's not as if we need to hold a double blind trial to demonstrate that the absolutist belief is incorrect. 

As an analogy, consider a disease which has always proven to be fatal. For example, rabies. The belief used to be that if you get bitten, do not receive inoculations, and contract the disease, you will die. Always. But it took only one survivor to prove this absolutist belief false. Now we have to say that rabies is almost always fatal.

We could look at that first survivor and say, "he was just lucky, luckier than anyone else has ever been; nothing of value can be learned from his survival." Or we could look for the reasons why he survived, and try to learn something that could help another victim to survive.

No one really knows why some beekeepers are able to keep bees without treatment. I've been studying the question for a bit more than a year, and even in that short time it is obvious to me that the factors that contribute to success are not known. There are so many differences in the management practices and local conditions and colony genetics of those who have succeeded that it is beyond bewildering. But that complexity shouldn't be a reason to reject the possibility, or, worse. to spend all one's time coming up with reasons why no one can possibly succeed.

That ship has sailed. A person with a realistic worldview must concede that it *is* possible. And conceding that, the next step is to wonder how that success is achieved.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> There's a migratory commercial beekeeper named Chris Baldwin who does not treat. He came here briefly, posted a half dozen times, got called a liar and disappeared. I don't blame him.


Ray please point me to the post / thread.

I have been hoping to chat with Chris Baldwin and would like to see what happened. Perhaps it is something that can be put right.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I am still trying to determine why my colonies seem to have little trouble with Varroa. I had entertained several hypotheses, but none seem to fit, yet. This thread has given me many more possible hypotheses.

Thanks to all who are sharing their ideas and information they have that, might be illuminating. Please keep sharing - even what sounds silly, might disguise a profound truth. I welcome all posters and ideas on this subject. If I ever find a hypothesis that seems to fit, even some of the parameters, I will certainly share it freely. This Winter I will try to write-up a description of my beekeeping practices, and share them, this Spring.


----------



## Oldtimer

One experiment you could do Joseph is supply some queens to a beekeeper in a location where they are losing hives to varroa. The result could help determine if it is your bees, or the location.


----------



## TalonRedding

Darn, OT beat me to it! :thumbsup:

Could also move a few hives to those areas.


----------



## AstroBee

Joseph Clemens said:


> I am still trying to determine why my colonies seem to have little trouble with Varroa. I had entertained several hypotheses, but none seem to fit, yet. This thread has given me many more possible hypotheses.


What's happening with others in your immediate area? Are they experiencing the same success as you? If not go visit their operation and observe some differences.


----------



## RiodeLobo

Oldtimer said:


> One experiment you could do Joseph is supply some queens to a beekeeper in a location where they are losing hives to varroa.


I for one would pay to try out a couple of queens, but the environmental difference would be an additional factor.


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> The result could help determine if it is your bees, or the location.


It seems that this has been done on at least one occasion.



MichaBees said:


> I have plenty of Mr. Clements queens he mated on his yards, and some of his cells that matted at my yards, plus, I have my own raised queens and from other suppliers, included Webber’s.
> They all dye from varroa, or lack of nectar, or lack of pollen, or just like any other bee; from lack of care, his bees do not behave any different from any other bee.


----------



## crofter

I think a person is denying human nature in saying that people should automatically (and logically) change point of view because of one ( or a statistically minute) instance of an issue being found true. You can wish that it were so but that does not change the fact that man has been conditioned and rewarded evolution wise by shying away from the novel or outside the group advice. On the whole it has paid dividends to resist that input till thoroughly proven to be undeniably true. That is all in the story of man. 

I much prefer a purely mechanical problem to one that is complicated by evolved human value systems. One is ruled by logic and the other by emotions. Any attempt to force an absolutist solution causes a lot of grief and often fails. I see the philosophy of success simply from stopping all treatment as being very absolutist. I think there have been some good objections to the viability of that. Success is not guaranteed in any approach in fact the majority of species that ever existed on the planet have perished or changed dramatically.

Actually I think the position of the treatment free concept is doing remarkably well. It is however going to take a number of people with established status to go out into new territory with their concept and genetics and prove that their success is transferable. I dont think that many (or at least not affectively) enough have done this though some resistance genetics is being spread. Some large operations are being run with decreasing use of chemicals that induce resistance in mites. Procedures are being developed. Still, I see a one size fits all solution based on a simplistic concept, is not just around the corner.

To suggest that people are intellectually deficient because they are skeptical is not at all productive in furthering acceptance. A few can be converted by browbeating and foot stamping, but I think their number is small. Dont try to rush a simple solution.


----------



## Steve10

Joseph Clemens said:


> I am still trying to determine why my colonies seem to have little trouble with Varroa.


Joe,
I think your management and husbandry practices are more effective, than you believe, at reducing Varroa's ability to potentiate disease in your colonies; First, your breeding program, even from the very start, interrupts Varroa's breeding cycle, thus reducing the parasite load in the colony to a level the bees can manage. Second, you raise your bees in an area of minimal exposure to the chemical stessors proven to weaken the bees biological resistance to disease. Lastly, the first two points have allowed you the luxury of not having to treat any of your hives with miticides, which after bee-generations of use selects for more resistant and virulent parasites. Bottom line, you produced hardy bees that have the upper hand over Varroa that work in your location using your management and husbandry practices. Parasites and pathogens are opportunists and you've been successful at preventing varroa mites the opportunity to overwhelm your bees. Congratulations! (After reading your posts over the years there, are other subtle practices you use to stack the cards in your favor, but those already mention are the main items relative to this thread.)

I don't have any experience with AHB, so I don't feel qualified to comment on that particular topic.

Varroa mites don't kill colonies! ( Couldn't resist - that's sure to stir the pot and help Barry see that 1 millionth post before the end of the year!)

Merry Christmas, Steve Burton


----------



## rhaldridge

crofter said:


> I see the philosophy of success simply from stopping all treatment as being very absolutist.


Who believes that? No treatment free beekeeper I'm aware of takes that view. Every one I know about seems to ascribe his success to something other than simply stopping all treatment. Michael Bush says it's small cell, among other things. Tim Ives says it's not feeding sugar, among other things. Kirk Webster says you have to go through several cycles of collapse and resurgence, among other things. Dee Lusby never treated but she also went through those cycles of collapse and resurgence. BeeWeaver, a large commercial bee breeding operation, started out by losing almost all of their untreated stock, and over a period of years, bred back from their survivors.

The only absolutist view of which I'm aware, pertaining to this subject, is the one that holds it to be *impossible* to keep bees alive and productive without treatment. To believe that it is *possible* is hardly absolutist, even if there were not so much evidence in favor of that view. Consider this: If you'd known Isaac Asimov in 1950, and he said to you, "I think it's possible that one day a man will walk on the moon," and you replied. "That is impossible," who in that scenario is the absolutist?

About skepticism. It's a good thing. When I'm told that it is impossible to keep bees without treatment, I am rightly skeptical, because of those who have succeeded in doing just that.

There is, however, a useful distinction between skepticism and cynicism.



> The skeptic says, "I don't think that is true. I'm going to check it out. The cynic says, "I know that's not true, It couldn't be. I'm going to slam him."
> 
> --Thomas Friedman


----------



## Oldtimer

In fact there are many, probably the majority, who take the view they will treat on occasion if need be rather than let a hive die, cos to them the sensible course would be requeen it, which achieves the same aim of improvement, without losing the bees. 

The most extremist, in terms of one way or the highway type philosophies, are mostly new beekeepers who have not been in it long enough to learn the several different sides to a story. Of those, for some their extremist one way views work out and they stick to them, some spending their spare time taking pot shots at everybody else, but the majority being grateful for their good fortune and being gracious and helpful to everybody else. For others it does not work out, and they either modify their views to some extent so as to keep their bees, or find themselves not in the hobby any more.

And of that group who do modify their views, based on what I read on Beesource, many of them have total non treatment as their end goal, and many of them end up achieving it. They are not usually bashing everyone else over the head about it though.


----------



## beemandan

There are the _I’ll believe it when I see it_ folks on one side of the spectrum….
Then there are the _You’ll see it when you believe it_ on the other.
Most of the rest of us fall somewhere along the continuum between the two.
I don’t think any amount of argument will ever change anybody’s position on that line.


----------



## sqkcrk

Show me.


----------



## Michael Bush

>If you have tens-of-millions of years to wait, you likely can adopt the lovey-dovey "peaceable kingdom" model. The evolutionarily demonstrated adaptation is extreme swarming and lack of honey reserves. Your peculiar future ancestors won't be keeping honeybees but some other quite distinct insect.

But I didn't wait tens-of-millions of years nor do I have bees "quite distinct" from the insects I was keeping 20 years ago. I don't understand why people keep talking as if many of us are not already keeping bees without problems from Varroa. Someone on a panel at the Ohio state meeting said something to the effect that if we all quit treating honey bees might become extinct and Dan O'Hanlon sid something to the effect of "but I haven't treated my bees in many years and they are not dead, and Michael here hasn't treated his in years and they are not dead" yet somehow people seem to want to ignore that.

My bees are not any more swarmy than the bees I've been keeping these last 40 years.


----------



## TalonRedding

I'm a new beekeeper, thus I am in a unique position to begin a management technique without losing my whole operation that I've spent twenty years of my life building up. I do not and will never claim to know a lot about bees (a lot is a relative term anyhow). I learn something from them every day I observe them, and what I read on these threads I am soaking up like a sponge. I do not doubt the treatment free claims one bit. For one, I have never met these folks, so I certainly won't call them liars. I believe some of them, certainly the more prominent members of the "treatment free crowd", are on to something. I would LOVE to learn more from them in person. I would also like to see the contrast in a large operation that operates on what some call the "other side of the fence" that way I can have a balanced picture of what's really occurring in the world of beekeeping. I'm not picking sides here, I just want to see both sides of the story without biases. With that being said, I am open to any invitation to help folks in their bee yards for a few weekends (maybe even during the week depending on work schedule). I am being as sincere as I can be here. I'll bring my camping gear so you don't have to worry about accommodations. It would be beneficial for me to get a network going at the very least. I do not expect an answer to this on this thread. Feel free to PM me though. Seriously. 
By the way, this is an opportunity at free help.


----------



## gmcharlie

Michael Bush said:


> >
> But I didn't wait tens-of-millions of years nor do I have bees "quite distinct" from the insects I was keeping 20 years ago. I don't understand why people keep talking as if many of us are not already keeping bees without problems from Varroa. Someone on a panel at the Ohio state meeting said something to the effect that if we all quit treating honey bees might become extinct and Dan O'Hanlon sid something to the effect of "but I haven't treated my bees in many years and they are not dead, and Michael here hasn't treated his in years and they are not dead" yet somehow people seem to want to ignore that.



Tis true, but unless those skills are transferable on a larger scale they are not helpful to the population at large, and so far no one has shown transferable skills of any sizeable numbers. Could be location, or a number of other things The reasons I do not know. but the reality is painfully obvious.

Which gets us to the root of the problem.


----------



## sqkcrk

Over the many discussions and arguments that have occurred and will continue to occur on this topic what I take away is that keeping bees w/out treatments is possible. That in itself is inspiring. It says that it can be done. If treatment free beekeeping is your goal then get to it. Figure it out. Follow the models that are out there. Adapt them to your own needs and abilities. It won't be easy. I haven't done it. Keep exploring the possibilities.


----------



## D Semple

Regarding waiting millions of years for bees to adapt I'm very glad the feral bees in my area are not aware it will take that long and are thriving.

Don


P.S. Been busy last 6 months and have not had time to post or lurk much, good to see I have not missed anything!


4y, 40H, TF


----------



## Juhani Lunden

gmcharlie said:


> Tis true, but unless those skills are transferable on a larger scale they are not helpful to the population at large, and so far no one has shown transferable skills of any sizeable numbers. Could be location, or a number of other things The reasons I do not know. but the reality is painfully obvious.
> 
> Which gets us to the root of the problem.


Harry Laidlaw Jr and Robert Page Jr. write in the book "Queen rearing and bee breeding" p.199 ISBN 1-878075-08-X
" Institutional breeding programs at state supported universities, and the United States Department of
Agriculture, have never succeeded due, at least in part, to the failure of the bee industry to adopt the stocks they produced. If the
beekeeping industry is not willing to pay higher prices for selected stocks and/or is not willing to support and accept stocks produced
by institutional stock improvement programs, then the only alternative for the future is the continued use of dangerous and
expensive chemicals."


----------



## sqkcrk

Almost 30 years ago Steve Taber told us that us that were we to forego treatments it would take bees to naturally adapt to varroa. So maybe that is what we are seeing. A prediction come true.


----------



## sqkcrk

Juhani Lunden said:


> Harry Laidlaw Jr and Robert Page Jr. write in the book "Queen rearing and bee breeding" p.199 ISBN 1-878075-08-X
> " Institutional breeding programs at state supported universities, and the United States Department of
> Agriculture, have never succeeded due, at least in part, to the failure of the bee industry to adopt the stocks they produced. If the
> beekeeping industry is not willing to pay higher prices for selected stocks and/or is not willing to support and accept stocks produced
> by institutional stock improvement programs, then the only alternative for the future is the continued use of dangerous and
> expensive chemicals."


When was that written?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

sqkcrk said:


> When was that written?


1997


----------



## gmcharlie

Its not correct, that statement misses the point. solutions that are not economically viable are not solutions. State solutions have not succeeded because they are clueless. I have bought 200.00 VHS queens, i have tried the small cell, Played the game... and so far no formula for success around mites. I am NOT giving up. its a great economic goal. but reaility is the man who figures it out will be rich or famous.


----------



## rhaldridge

gmcharlie said:


> I I am NOT giving up. its a great economic goal. but reaility is the man who figures it out will be rich or famous.


I like that you said "rich *or* famous." The guys who have figured it out are famous enough that I know some of their names, but as far as I've heard, none of them are driving Bentleys.

Folks are probably right that all the hollering and arm-waving we do here isn't going to convince anyone who already has an opinion. But I'll still do it, for several reasons. The least flattering one is that I'm an argumentative person, and for that I apologize. Second, there are many more lurkers here than posters, so it seems worthwhile to defend my speculations (yes I understand that they are speculations, but at this stage, what else can I do but study and speculate?) Finally, and most important, it lets me test my notions against the collective experience and wisdom of the others here. If those ideas can't stand up to criticism, I'd better come up with better ideas.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

gmcharlie said:


> Its not correct, that statement misses the point. solutions that are not economically viable are not solutions. State solutions have not succeeded because they are clueless. I have bought 200.00 VHS queens, i have tried the small cell, Played the game... and so far no formula for success around mites. I am NOT giving up. its a great economic goal. but reaility is the man who figures it out will be rich or famous.


VSH queens are becoming part of commercial breeding programs in Europe:
http://perso.fundp.ac.be/~jvandyck/homage/elver/pedgr/ped_PJ_2013.html


----------



## beemandan

If one wants to see what a century of pure tf beekeeping produces genetically…one need only look at the Primorsky bees. I’ve asked before….why aren’t these taking a higher profile than they seem to be?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

beemandan said:


> If one wants to see what a century of pure tf beekeeping produces genetically…one need only look at the Primorsky bees. I’ve asked before….why aren’t these taking a higher profile than they seem to be?


I have wondered it, too. When the first Primorski queens landed in Europe in (about) year 2000, there was a huge hype and almost all breeders started working with them (in Buckfast breeders association of Europe). Now there are only couple having Primorski lines in their programs (Jungels, Koller, myself...) Maybe they thought getting something more ready... it took years to make something of that what we got. Over 10 years of matings in isolation apiaries, lot of work with uncertain results...and now we have something, ready to be mixed with VSH material. Thanks USA!


----------



## Oldtimer

That's something you have in US that we don't in my country, primorsky bees. The few posts of Chris Baldwin I was able to read he said he switched to primorsky but soon found their disadvantages, and for one reason, or another, left the primorsky breeders group. 

But prior to getting primorsky he was able to get a few of his hives to withstand mites, but not prosper. Primorsky moved that up a level and increase mite resistance. But with the bee mix he ended up with, he abandoned primorsky as a breed, but just selected the best bees regardless of breed, and has been able to arrive at a treatment free status for his operation. But he says his bees are not primorsky but include some of their genetics.

It would be great if he could post some more.

By the way Ray you didn't answer my post, so I searched the word Liar that you said Chris had been called, nobody said it to Chris so I suspect your Liar claims were untrue. Probably just part of your self confessed argumentativeness and perhaps embellishment. So luckily that is not something that needs to be addressed with Chris but not sure how to get him back here posting though. He did kind of excuse himself by saying he is a very busy guy so maybe he's just not the chat site type.


----------



## Michael Bush

>If one wants to see what a century of pure tf beekeeping produces genetically…one need only look at the Primorsky bees. 

There were not really being kept domestically in Russia so it shouldn't be surprising that they lack the traits that beekeepers want. It's easy enough to select for traits you want, but my problem with the Primorsky bees is they don't have any particular traits I really want... they still die from Varroa on large cell foundation just like the rest...


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Michael Bush said:


> >If one wants to see what a century of pure tf beekeeping produces genetically…one need only look at the Primorsky bees.
> 
> There were not really being kept domestically in Russia so it shouldn't be surprising that they lack the traits that beekeepers want. It's easy enough to select for traits you want, but my problem with the Primorsky bees is they don't have any particular traits I really want... they still die from Varroa on large cell foundation just like the rest...


I must bee a good breeder, cos they survive in my hives, with normal 5,3mm cells

Are there really any evidence of small cells having anything to do with varroa resistance?


----------



## beekuk

Not about resistance, but about small cell not having much effect in this thread...http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...lls-Debunked-by-World-Renowned-Bee-Researcher


----------



## Michael Bush

>Are there really any evidence of small cells having anything to do with varroa resistance? 

Here are most of the more recent studies with an overview by Eric Osterlund:
http://www.beeuntoothers.com/index.php/beekeeping/articles/66-small-cell-studies

There have been several positive studies.

Here is an excerpt from an article by Phillip Denwood on Dave Cushman's site:
http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/denwood.html

A group of Brazilian researchers (De Jong et al.) found that:

"When a piece of European bee comb is implanted within an Africanised bee comb, the larger diameter cells of the European comb attract more mites, even though the larvae in the two cell types come from the same queen"

www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm‎

Another group of Brazilians concluded (Apidologie 26 (1995), p.381-386) that with both Africanised and Italian bees, infestation was greater in large cells, but that this was not the main reason for the apparently greater resistance in the Africanised bees. 

Eric Erickson and others state that 
... "reduced cell diameter may have a limited impact on varroa ... and population dynamics, and on colony performance."

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...oundation-for-mite-control/arizona-beekeeper/

References to quite a few both pro and con studies here:
http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/do_small_cells_help_bees_cope_with_varroa.pdf

But what convinced me to try it was Dee and Ed Lusby were the only people I knew of who even purported it was possible to keep bees after the arrival of Varroa with no treatments. I was still a skeptic. I tried both natural cell (to see what they would really make) and small cell. Both worked. What convinced me it worked was my own experience with it for the past 13 years.


----------



## Michael Bush

Here is Eric Osterlund's article from his own web site:
www.elgon.se/pdf-filer/Small_cell_test_designs13c.pdf


----------



## WLC

We already have stocks with AHB genetics in the U.S. South West.

AHB is common enough in places like Arizona, etc., that it's probably the kind of resistance genetics that the Lusbys used.

There's even some AHB genetics in BeeWeavers.

I had no problem ordering them, and frankly, I can see immediately that they're different than VSH or the other domestic stock that I've had.

I won't get into what kind of feral genetics they have in the south.

We already have resistant bees here in the U.S. . I don't think that you can find the same variety anywhere else.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Michael Bush said:


> >Are there really any evidence of small cells having anything to do with varroa resistance?
> 
> Here are most of the more recent studies with an overview by Eric Osterlund:
> http://www.beeuntoothers.com/index.php/beekeeping/articles/66-small-cell-studies
> 
> There have been several positive studies.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from an article by Phillip Denwood on Dave Cushman's site:
> http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/denwood.html
> 
> A group of Brazilian researchers (De Jong et al.) found that:
> 
> "When a piece of European bee comb is implanted within an Africanised bee comb, the larger diameter cells of the European comb attract more mites, even though the larvae in the two cell types come from the same queen"
> 
> www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm‎
> 
> Another group of Brazilians concluded (Apidologie 26 (1995), p.381-386) that with both Africanised and Italian bees, infestation was greater in large cells, but that this was not the main reason for the apparently greater resistance in the Africanised bees.
> 
> Eric Erickson and others state that
> ... "reduced cell diameter may have a limited impact on varroa ... and population dynamics, and on colony performance."
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...oundation-for-mite-control/arizona-beekeeper/
> 
> References to quite a few both pro and con studies here:
> http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/do_small_cells_help_bees_cope_with_varroa.pdf
> 
> But what convinced me to try it was Dee and Ed Lusby were the only people I knew of who even purported it was possible to keep bees after the arrival of Varroa with no treatments. I was still a skeptic. I tried both natural cell (to see what they would really make) and small cell. Both worked. What convinced me it worked was my own experience with it for the past 13 years.


The link to the Brazilian study didn´t open.

It is good if there is something in small cells. But it remains very controversial, as you pointed out, studies both ways. (Österlund is no scientist)


----------



## Saltybee

An anecdote where TF did not transfer with the import of queens but did succeed with the transfer of a nuc or hive might provide insite to the complete fauna theory.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Juhani Lunden said:


> The link to the Brazilian study didn´t open.


Here is a working link:
http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm

The link in Michael's post has some hidden characters at the end that result in the link failing..


----------



## WLC

Saltybee said:


> An anecdote where TF did not transfer with the import of queens but did succeed with the transfer of a nuc or hive might provide insite to the complete fauna theory.


While I was successful at feeding LAB fermented milk and syrup to bees w/o killing them, I was also able to use different honeys to ferment milk and syrup. It might be possible to use honey as source of 'complete flora'.


----------



## David LaFerney

rhaldridge said:


> I've always assumed that the reason people treat is that they can't figure out how to keep their bees alive and productive unless they do.
> 
> Is that wrong?


Yes, that is wrong.

Some people don't care to spend years *figuring it out* for one reason or another...

Some people treat because it works for them and "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

Some people treat because they have done treatment free, and it didn't allow them to achieve their goals (without spending years figuring it out). 

Some have done TF and failed utterly - as in losing all hives and being forced to start over - and they don't care to repeat the experience (and spend years figuring it out).

Some people treat because they have observed that although Many try it Few succeed - most never do figure it out i guess.

Some people treat because their livelihood depends on Productivity with a capital P and staking that on figuring it out would be utterly irresponsible to them. 

Some of us see that it is apparently *possible* to keep bees alive without treatments, and a *few *people are even being productive with it - but the preponderance of evidence is that it isn't quite ready for prime time - that is what we have figured out.

I suspect that there are very few people who treat just to be evil and thwart the plans of the TF faction. Except me, that's why I treat.

Those just popped into my head I'm sure you can think of others if you use your imagination.

And BTW - why is it that we don't have super virulent super tracheal mites that are immune to menthol and grease patties? Shouldn't they be? Figure that out.

Sorry if this sounds snarky - I'm really not at all hostile to TF, but I do believe that it leads a lot of beginners down the garden path that leads to not keeping bees anymore.


----------



## WLC

The reason why I'm still TF, despite repeated failures, is because I see it as a worthwhile beekeeping goal.

If they can make it in NYC, they can make it anywhere.


----------



## Saltybee

WLC said:


> It might be possible to use honey as source of 'complete flora'.


Or stored bee bread.


----------



## WLC

Saltybee said:


> Or stored bee bread.


Even better, if it's available.

However, I can go into a store today, and purchase raw honey from all over the world.

You can't do that with beebread.


----------



## Saltybee

Raw honey from all over would scare me. Bee bread from a known source; no more than a nuc or package.


----------



## Duranthas

JWChesnut said:


> I maintain the "natural" advocates are the villians breeding the "super-Varroa". Small cell is advocated because it supposedly shortens the gestation time of the bee larvae by a day. Doesn't that argue that Varroa co-evolution will quickly produce a mite with a shorter generation time. Small-cell (in this thought experiment) is creating a monster race of Varroa with a 20% greater reproductive potential.


Forgive me for the late entrance, I'm still catching up
If this were the case then what was the point of the Primorsky Russians brought over? Why is it their natural resistance did not get trumped by an even greater parasite?

Great thread! Thanks to all who have participated because I'm learning quite a bit here.


----------



## rhaldridge

David LaFerney said:


> Yes, that is wrong.
> 
> And BTW - why is it that we don't have super virulent super tracheal mites that are immune to menthol and grease patties? Shouldn't they be? Figure that out.
> 
> Sorry if this sounds snarky - I'm really not at all hostile to TF, but I do believe that it leads a lot of beginners down the garden path that leads to not keeping bees anymore.


I think that the reason we don't have tracheal mites resistant to menthol and grease patties is that those "treatments" really didn't do much. By the time tracheal mites reached this country, bees with resistance were already here. Some American researchers had a tough time breeding enough tracheal mites to study. But when the mites first appeared in the UK they were even more devastating than varroa was here. The bee industry was not saved by treatment. It was saved by breeding.

I really didn't mean to be so offensive, and I think your response was a good summation of the many reasons people might choose not to treat. So I'll amend my statement: the reason people treat is that they can't figure out or don't want to figure out how to keep their bees alive and productive without treatment.

I've wondered about why folks found my statement to be an insulting simplification, and I believe it's because they saw in it an implication that those who tried and succeeded are better beekeepers than those who tried and failed. As you point out, that isn't necessarily the case.


----------



## gmcharlie

rhaldridge said:


> I've wondered about why folks found my statement to be an insulting simplification, and I believe it's because they saw in it an implication that those who tried and succeeded are better beekeepers than those who tried and failed. As you point out, that isn't necessarily the case.


Because it is a insulting over simplification from someone with little to know experience or knowledge on the topic. just an opinion.
I take it that you didn't mean to be rude.... Got that, appreciated your sentiment. But it was and is rude.

I went thru my wonderful TF hives today. barely mid winter. losses are well over 50% and almost all were fancy smancy TF proven queens......and I have been at the TF goal for well over 5 years @100 hives a year.... I have a lot of money invested in trying to be TF...... and I can tell you, absolutly no asperisions to those who treat...... in fact, given the price increases in bees, I am defiantly headed that way.


----------



## rhaldridge

gmcharlie said:


> Because it is a insulting over simplification from someone with little to know experience or knowledge on the topic. just an opinion.
> I take it that you didn't mean to be rude.... Got that, appreciated your sentiment. But it was and is rude./QUOTE]
> 
> Well, when it comes to rudeness, I believe that posting a statement that some folks perceive as insulting by implication is not quite in the same class of "insulting" as, for example, the multiple postings of some who constantly characterize treatment free beekeepers as naive, foolish, mindless followers of trendiness, or liars. I hope you've made your displeasure with these insults public, too.
> 
> I may well be wrong in many of the things I say, but just because I am inexperienced does not mean that I am wrong. Furthermore, referring to my inexperience is not exactly an impressive argument against my opinions, and I wish folks would realize that. It's a logical fallacy, sort of the the inverse of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. To put it another way, to say, "You must be wrong because you are inexperienced" is no more logical than saying "I must be right because I am experienced."


----------



## Oldtimer

Ray. Your statement was correct and for me anyway I did not find it offensive, although I did wonder about the motives. The reason I treat is because I have not figured out how to keep them alive and at maximum productivity if I don't treat. That's the truth in my case anyway.

But some advice. Play the ball, not the man. You will find that less inflammatory.


----------



## gmcharlie

when the doctor tells you whats wrong, and you tell him your hes a fool, well thats just rude. you may be right.. TF will save the world... I hope it does. but to tell guys with alot of skills, that you know whats best when you haven't even been at it a year? I get your not trying to be rude. I accept it... but it doesn't change it.

I run a transmission shop, I get guys all the time who tell me they know what the problem is..... I either nod my head and take their money, or send them on their way......If they were polite about it I help them. if they are ****y I send them on.... point being, how you phrase it, and your knowledge base is a factor.


----------



## beemandan

I’ve heard ‘us’ described as set in our ways, not open to new ideas, closed minded or environmentally unconcerned. Name calling goes both directions.

I have tried Russian queens, Purvis queens, ‘survivor queens’ from a variety of sources and for a couple of seasons had an entire yard of ‘feral’ (caught swarms with no identifiable source). I’ve tried small cell (30 hives) and fully foundationless (10 hives). In every case my losses were greater than twice that of my treated yards. My production/hive was also, in almost every case significantly lower.

My dollar margins are small. If I resorted to tf beekeeping, based on my experiences, there would be no margins….I would be operating at a loss. I love most aspects of beekeeping…which is why I work so hard and am willing to earn so little. As much as I love it…I cannot operate long term at a loss.

So, indeed, I’ve tried various forms of tf beekeeping but was unable to do so successfully.


----------



## JWChesnut

Duranthas said:


> Forgive me for the late entrance, I'm still catching up
> If this were the case then what was the point of the Primorsky Russians brought over? Why is it their natural resistance did not get trumped by an even greater parasite?


The Vladivostok bees are in the Apis cerana japonica natural range. This means the mite genotype is "controlled" by adaptation to naturally coevolved A. cerana-V. destructor dyad. The Siberian population of Varroa won't re-adapt to the uncommon and marginal new introduction of western honeybees, as the normative constraint is the native bee population. 

V. destructor is a offshoot of the widespread V. jacobsonii. The central tendency of this derived species is towards greater virulence (compared to its mother taxon). This is (hypothetically) due to the environmental imperative of the Siberian winter. Tropic species of bees would always have drones available, Siberian ones do not, hence V. destructor adapted to infect worker cells (as clearly reported for A. cerana in Korea). V. destructor is pre-aligned to pursue hyper-virulence as a over-arching strategy. Evolution has multiple and diverse optimums and the gravitational tendency toward one (rather than another, more benign) trajectory sometimes gets baked into a survival strategy.

The phylogenetic evidence clearly points to a mite-bee coevolution that predates the A. mellifera branch. This supports the idea that the supposed African origin of the proto-A. mellifera had mites (of the proto-V. jacobsonii type). The (original) A. mellifera lost its mites during its African exile -- was this behavioral, or a climatic bottleneck? 

A. cerana (not of the japonica ssp) has a natural range that extends into Afghanistan (and some references have it in Somalia, Ethiopia and Arabia). It seems like another natural zone of contact for A. cerana/A. mellifera would be along the Afghanistan//Iranian border. This contact would be several millenium in age. I would look for adaptations to Varroa (generically) at that line of contact. The various killer virus are vectored by the V. jacobsonii, so perhaps these Persian bees would be most tolerant of virus.


----------



## Honey-4-All

Amen Charlie . Amen


----------



## Saltybee

I always understood that if an experiment could not be reliably duplicated by others; then conclusion was wrong or all the variables had not been controlled.
I do not believe insults make progress. Based on very good keepers not reaching the same results when practicing the same methods, occasionally the best summation of "D**n I'm lucky." would be less offensive than "if you would only, then ".


----------



## sqkcrk

rhaldridge said:


> By the time tracheal mites reached this country, bees with resistance were already here. Some American researchers had a tough time breeding enough tracheal mites to study. The bee industry was not saved by treatment. It was saved by breeding.


How is it we had bees resistant to tracheal mites here when tracheal mites arrived? I don't recall anyone mentioning that when tracheal mites appeared. I don't know who had a tough time finding T. mites to study. We had plenty of them in NY. Miticure, if I recall correctly, was an Amitraz impregnated strip which had a short production life.

I believe that T. mites are not a problem now because Varroa is everywhere and something tells me that the two are not found in the same hive. Varroa occupies the niche.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> I believe that T. mites are not a problem now because Varroa is everywhere


In my opinion, the big difference is that tracheal mites weren’t an exotic parasite to EHB. Some subspecies had coevolved with tmites and the genetics of those were dominant enough to overcome the effects on a large scale.
Varroa are an entirely different matter. A completely exotic parasite. No coevolution….zip….. with EHB. And as JW has indicated….if beekeeping ceased to exist, in a few million years some form of apis might evlove that could coexist with varroa. That bee would probably not be recognizable to today’s beekeeper. 
Tracheal mites and varroa mites….apples and oranges.


----------



## beekuk

> ...In 1991, the United States Department of Agriculture imported queen bees that Brother Adam had bred to be resistant to acarine disease, which had badly damaged honey production in America. His acarine-resistant bees earned the abbey more than $31,000 a year


....


> ....
> Since about the mid-80s, the trachea mite has been causing in some cases catastrophic losses in the bee population, (until then the American continent had been spared by the trachea mite). Many bee-keepers tried to fight the epidemic proportions of the trachea mite infection with all sorts of chemical treatments. Charles P. Milne and Jan Dormaier (Washington State University, USA), Frank A. Eischen (from Texas A&M University, USA) and Gard W. Otis (University of Guelph, Canada) started an experiment in 1991, whereby queens from 2 potentially mite-resistant honeybee broods, from Texas (Buckfast) and California were compared. The test results, which were surprising for the American scientists, completely confirmed Brother Adam's findings in the 40s. What is more, although the Buckfast brood was already imported in 1968 and was then kept and bred until 1986 in the absence of trachea mites, it kept its full resistance against the inside mite. Following invitations from various institutions, Brother Adam traveled to the USA in the winter of 1990/91, at the great age of 92, to impart his experiences concerning resistance breeding to the trachea mite.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks for clearing that up. I've seen a growing number of "facts" being invented lately, and deliberately so. Not only talking about this thread either. Whatever ones view, if it cannot be presented honestly, it is not good enough to present.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. I've seen a growing number of "facts" being invented lately, and deliberately so. Not only talking about this thread either. Whatever ones view, if it cannot be presented honestly, it is not good enough to present.


From the 'wonder' on the other side of the world. Who nobody knows.


----------



## beekuk

WLC said:


> From the 'wonder' on the other side of the world. Who nobody knows.


 That is an insulting comment to make.


----------



## WLC

He keeps insinuating. Now it's time for a fact check on him.


----------



## JWChesnut

Some data images:
Haplotypes and ranges of V. destructor and V. jacobsonii
The North-eastern races (Korea-1 and Japan-1) have jumped to A. mellifera, others races have not. The researchers worry that other slight variants of K and J will extend infection as they have jumped to A. mellifera in Thailand and China. K-1 is more dangerous to A. mellifera than J-1. J-1 was transported to Brazil, and K-1 to Ukraine and the West separately.










The Pakistan/Afghan/Iran end of the distribution was not sampled in this paper.

The reported natural range of A. cerana (though both Pakistan and Iran report native populations in other publications)









The Afghan population is "Morphotype 1" and shares apparent lineage with Korean/China/Japan. Not shown is a Apis mellifera race map -- the Syrian and Iranian variant of A. mellifera (sometimes named as A. m. meda) is native to a zone of contact with Afghan A. cerana. 

Here a hypothesis -- V. destructor local haplotypes supported by A. cerana of the Korea/Afghan/China is pre-adapted to be virulent on A. mellifera. This is because it serves the ecological function to reduce the A. mellifera fitness where the two are in contact. In other words, A. cerana has evolved to encourage and support a virulent form of Varroa, because it uses the parasite to exclude A. mellifera from its home range. A. cerana is engaging in biological warfare to prevent A. mellifera from spreading into the Indian subcontinent.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Who nobody knows.


Now that's rich.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk said:


> Now that's rich.


Barry did drop a satellite on me, and he saw what I had at that time.

Someone needs to check on this chump.


----------



## squarepeg

JWChesnut said:


> Here a hypothesis -- V. destructor local haplotypes supported by A. cerana of the Korea/Afghan/China is pre-adapted to be virulent on A. mellifera. This is because it serves the ecological function to reduce the A. mellifera fitness where the two are in contact. In other words, A. cerana has evolved to encourage and support a virulent form of Varroa, because it uses the parasite to exclude A. mellifera from its home range. A. cerana is engaging in biological warfare to prevent A. mellifera from spreading into the Indian subcontinent.


interesting hypothesis.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Someone needs to check on this chump.


If Profiles mean anything people should check WLC's and Oldtimer's Profiles and people will see that there is no there there.


----------



## WLC

Barry knows I have hives. I've even bought VSH packages from a beesource member in NC. Thanks Larry.

Who is this Kiwi?


----------



## sqkcrk

Check his Profile. There is a Bio and a Photo. Under About Me, you got nothing. Under Photo, nothing. Tells me a lot.


----------



## WLC

No mark. You don't keep calling someone a liar, unless there's something going on.

You can't read people like I can.

He disappeared as soon as I posted.

Barry needs to drop a satellite on this insulting character.


----------



## sqkcrk

Yer a peach.


----------



## WLC

Right, and you're a real piece of work yourself.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> He disappeared as soon as I posted.


Yes. I'm terrified.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> You can't read people like I can.


I can't? No, I don't. See the difference? Over the years I have read Posts by both of you and I find Oldtimer more accessible and real than you. You Post a lot of information and opinion, but not much real agreeable substance. That's my reading.


----------



## WLC

So, what's your problem today?


----------



## sqkcrk

I see an end to this Thread in its future. Seems like this happens pretty regularly.

I thought this was beesource.com, not bickeringsource.com. 

#bickeringsource


----------



## max2

beekuk said:


> That is an insulting comment to make.


I agree - beekuk. 
We seem to get these type of unfounded insults too often and it makes the source much less enjoyable. Maybe the editor should simply delete them.


----------



## WLC

Except OT keeps getting away with them.

Equal protection pal.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC. Thank you for your concern. And at least you've given me my needed chuckles for today I found this pretty funny and have emailed the link to a few buddies. 

I do exist LOL. On Beesource if you search, you can find photos of me, photos of my work, and even a video of me. There are also other Kiwi's on Beesource you can chat to about me if you wish.

However, if you suspect it's all special effects, no worries, we can all have our own beliefs. 

Back to topic before the moderator sees it, I think it's a classic and would hate to see it get deleted.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Except OT keeps getting away with them.
> 
> Equal protection pal.


Is this the same argument you gave your Mom when she sent you to your room for fighting w/ a sibling?


----------



## justin

WLC, it's the internet, barry doesn't need to do anything. calling someone a chump? calling out a beekeeper from across the globe? what are you trying to accomplish? if he called you a liar prove him wrong or prove him right, or ignore him. there is a button for that i believe. as for being off topic i appreciate the info on destructor vs. jacobsonii and cerena vs. mellifera. i get lost in it all.


----------



## WLC

No Beesource member should ever be subjected to what OT is doing.

He doesn't belong on a forum, and frankly Mark, neither do you.

You both should have been bounced for trolling long ago.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Gosh - now I feel personally insulted!  :no: I want to be on that troll list as well. :lpf:




:gh:


----------



## WLC

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Gosh - now I feel personally insulted!  :no: I want to be on that troll list as well.


Sorry Rader, you're just 'special'.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes sorry for the diversion folks, this has detracted from the excellent post number #192, which involved a lot of research and some very interesting thoughts and insights, and a useful hypothesis that had never before occurred to me, anyway. Justice should be done to this post and those who lost it in the fog could refer back to it for consideration and possible discussion.


----------



## sqkcrk

wlc said:


> no beesource member should ever be subjected to what ot is doing.
> 
> He doesn't belong on a forum, and frankly mark, neither do you.
> 
> You both should have been bounced for trolling long ago.


Wow.


----------



## WLC

How about you both cut it out, and one of you actually quotes the post OT is talking about.

There really aren't that many folks here that are following the Amm studies.

Get it?


----------



## Oldtimer

Here it is.



JWChesnut said:


> Some data images:
> Haplotypes and ranges of V. destructor and V. jacobsonii
> The North-eastern races (Korea-1 and Japan-1) have jumped to A. mellifera, others races have not. The researchers worry that other slight variants of K and J will extend infection as they have jumped to A. mellifera in Thailand and China. K-1 is more dangerous to A. mellifera than J-1. J-1 was transported to Brazil, and K-1 to Ukraine and the West separately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pakistan/Afghan/Iran end of the distribution was not sampled in this paper.
> 
> The reported natural range of A. cerana (though both Pakistan and Iran report native populations in other publications)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Afghan population is "Morphotype 1" and shares apparent lineage with Korean/China/Japan. Not shown is a Apis mellifera race map -- the Syrian and Iranian variant of A. mellifera (sometimes named as A. m. meda) is native to a zone of contact with Afghan A. cerana.
> 
> Here a hypothesis -- V. destructor local haplotypes supported by A. cerana of the Korea/Afghan/China is pre-adapted to be virulent on A. mellifera. This is because it serves the ecological function to reduce the A. mellifera fitness where the two are in contact. In other words, A. cerana has evolved to encourage and support a virulent form of Varroa, because it uses the parasite to exclude A. mellifera from its home range. A. cerana is engaging in biological warfare to prevent A. mellifera from spreading into the Indian subcontinent.


----------



## WLC

We're doing Varroa haplotypes?

That's a bit dated here in the U.S. .


----------



## Oldtimer

To a man of your extensive knowledge and wisdom, of course it's already outdated. But to the rest of us common folks, we may find something of use. What do you think of the hypothesis?


----------



## frazzledfozzle

WLC said:


> We're doing Varroa haplotypes?
> 
> That's a bit dated here in the U.S. .


I thought Beesource was a forum for beekeepers around the world?

WLC .... pull your head in its getting old


----------



## WLC

Rubbish.

We know what the haplotype is here in the U.S., and quite frankly, we even know how DWV segregates thanks to the Martin study in Hawaii.

You're the guys that have to pull your heads in.

This isn't new or helpful to me.

But, you know what, you keep it up.


----------



## Oldtimer

Too much coffee?


----------



## frazzledfozzle

deleted for reasons of extreme profanity :no:


----------



## WLC

No coffee at this time of night.

Are you kidding me?

I don't want to even begin to tell you how far behind the curve you are.

However, I'll tell you what. Let's see if you've got one brain between you.

I'll give you one chance to see if you're an equal.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

What better time for this gem from the 'Apocalypse' thread ....



WLC said:


> I think that some of you are living in a dream world.



:gh:


----------



## WLC

Yet, you still can't name the major Varroa haplotype in the U.S. .

Is it A) the Japan Haplotype.

Or, is it B) the Korea Haplotype?

Duh, dee, duh, duh, duh, dee duh.
Duh ,dee, duh, duh, Duuh, dee, duh, dee, duh, duh...


----------



## frazzledfozzle

WLC said:


> I don't want to even begin to tell you how far behind the curve you are.
> 
> However, I'll tell you what. Let's see if you've got one brain between you.
> 
> I'll give you one chance to see if you're an equal.


I can't speak for Oldtimer, but for me I will never be your equal... and I'm Ok with that.

You can have your brain that knows all the big words.

I will keep my tiny brain that knows no big words and is happy mindlessly working my bees and making a living 

Merry Christmas to you WLC


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Duh, dee, duh, duh, duh, dee duh.
> Duh ,dee, duh, duh, Duuh, dee, duh, dee, duh, duh...


What can I say .... :lpf:



WLC said:


> What a load of self serving nonsense.


:doh:

.... from this thread ...

:gh:


----------



## WLC

A) or B) Rader.

One is a real killer, the other isn't.


----------



## Oldtimer

frazzledfozzle said:


> I can't speak for Oldtimer, but for me I will never be your equal... and I'm Ok with that.


LOL me neither.


----------



## heaflaw

What is Korean.


----------



## Steve10

And Heaflaw is the winner!

>The North-eastern races (Korea-1 and Japan-1) have jumped to A. mellifera, others races have not. The researchers worry that other slight variants of K and J will extend infection as they have jumped to A. mellifera in Thailand and China. K-1 is more dangerous to A. mellifera than J-1. J-1 was transported to Brazil, and K-1 to Ukraine and the West separately.


----------



## WLC

heaflaw said:


> What is Korean.


Killer.

Haplotypes are determined by mitochondrial DNA tests.

The rest of you flunked.


----------



## David LaFerney

WLC said:


> No Beesource member should ever be subjected to what OT is doing.
> 
> He doesn't belong on a forum, and frankly Mark, neither do you.
> 
> You both should have been bounced for trolling long ago.


What? They are among the most helpful and reliable sources on beesource.


----------



## heaflaw

Steve10 said:


> And Heaflaw is the winner!
> 
> What's my prize?


----------



## sqkcrk

Look here buddy, nobody likes a know it all. But I guess you aren't here to make friends r u, buddy?


----------



## WLC

David LaFerney said:


> What? They are among the most helpful and reliable sources on beesource.


I heartily disagree.


----------



## beekuk

David LaFerney said:


> What? They are among the most helpful and reliable sources on beesource.


 I agree with that.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I heartily disagree.


It's a woman's perogetive.


----------



## WLC

heaflaw said:


> What is Korean.


You have earned the right to read this study heaflaw: http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Public/File/41/336-6086/pdf/1304.full.pdf

Enjoy!


----------



## Steve10

heaflaw said:


> Steve10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Heaflaw is the winner!
> 
> What's my prize?
> 
> 
> 
> A weekend in NYC with WLC!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## David LaFerney

WLC said:


> Yet, you still can't name the major Varroa haplotype in the U.S. .
> 
> Is it A) the Japan Haplotype.
> 
> Or, is it B) the Korea Haplotype?
> 
> Duh, dee, duh, duh, duh, dee duh.
> Duh ,dee, duh, duh, Duuh, dee, duh, dee, duh, duh...


Seriously? Tell the truth now - you are really a very bright 14 year old with underdeveloped social skills? Right?

Otherwise what are you trying to accomplish? It's truely a mystery.


----------



## WLC

Steve10 said:


> heaflaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> A weekend in NYC with WLC!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how many bars there are where I live?
> 
> Plenty of good eats too.
Click to expand...


----------



## WLC

David:

I take it you're not familiar with Final Jeopardy. Duh, dee, duh, duh,...


----------



## Steve10

WLC said:


> Steve10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how many bars there are where I live?
> 
> Plenty of good eats too.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, are you at a bar now?
> 
> Seriously sir, if your motive is to help Beesource hit the 1 millionth post, there are better ways to do it. If you're having problems, seek help. This is a forum to exchange ideas and information related to beekeeping. Being the individual that was asking all the guests to log in, well, quite frankly I think you're scaring them away. As to you insulting these fine folks, they actively contribute to this forum very frequently. All I can say for you is you seem to be casting an even bigger shadow on your yourself. If you have any shred of decency, try to apologize and lets get back to what we really are here for.
Click to expand...


----------



## WLC

Steve10 said:


> WLC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, are you at a bar now?
> 
> Seriously sir, if your motive is to help Beesource hit the 1 millionth post, there are better ways to do it. If you're having problems, seek help. This is a forum to exchange ideas and information related to beekeeping. Being the individual that was asking all the guests to log in, well, quite frankly I think you're scaring them away. As to you insulting these fine folks, they actively contribute to this forum very frequently. All I can say for you is you seem to be casting and even bigger shadow on your yourself. If you have any shred of decency, try to apologize and lets get back to what we really are here for.
> 
> 
> 
> Save it for the wife. If you come out here to visit, it's always the same pattern.
> 
> Funny thing is, only a couple of you knew the haplotype.
> 
> 915 to go.
Click to expand...


----------



## frazzledfozzle

How would knowing the haplotype make me a better beekeeper?

it's like saying knowing what brand of spark plug is in my car will make me a better driver


----------



## WLC

Like it's, 'the scourge of Varroa'.

OT linked to an old paper.

You really should know what's been killing bees in most of the world anyhow.

What would make you a better beekeeper in NZ?

Maybe, move to Alabama? Wise guy.


----------



## Steve10

Sad.


----------



## WLC

Yes, not knowing that the Korean Haplotype of Varroa is the big killer is sad.

What's your problem Steve10?

This is the disease and pest section. Right?


----------



## clyderoad

Steve10 said:


> Seriously sir, if your motive is to help Beesource hit the 1 millionth post, there are better ways to do it. If you're having problems, seek help. This is a forum to exchange ideas and information related to beekeeping. Being the individual that was asking all the guests to log in, well, quite frankly I think you're scaring them away. As to you insulting these fine folks, they actively contribute to this forum very frequently. All I can say for you is you seem to be casting an even bigger shadow on your yourself. If you have any shred of decency, try to apologize and lets get back to what we really are here for.


:applause:


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Maybe, move to Alabama? Wise guy.


Nice.


----------



## WLC

SHB is already in Australia, sport.

It's just a matter of time before it get's to NZ.

Frankly, the southern U.S. is a good place to get used to SHB mitigation practices.

Or, am I the only one aware of this?

Besides the Canadians who are getting SHB from Australia, and Varroa from New Zealand, but still not accepting U.S. packages because of 'Biosecurity'?


----------



## WLC

Steve10 said:


> heaflaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> A weekend in NYC with WLC!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, then what was this about before you turned 'puritan'?
> 
> Hypocrit.
> 
> PS-heaflaw won because he answered the final jeopardy answer in the form of a question. Tough luck.
Click to expand...


----------



## heaflaw

If anyone is interested, I think this paper is an excellent overview of the mechanism of varroa/apis interaction. 
And, no, reading it will do very little to making us better beekeepers. But it's still interesting. It gives us an appreciation of what we are up against and also how much the scientific community is trying to help us. 

http://www.extension.org/pages/65450/varroa-mite-reproductive-biology


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> How is it we had bees resistant to tracheal mites here when tracheal mites arrived? I don't recall anyone mentioning that when tracheal mites appeared. I don't know who had a tough time finding T. mites to study. We had plenty of them in NY. Miticure, if I recall correctly, was an Amitraz impregnated strip which had a short production life.
> 
> I believe that T. mites are not a problem now because Varroa is everywhere and something tells me that the two are not found in the same hive. Varroa occupies the niche.





> In the years since 1916, the "Isle of White" disease, later identified as the trachea mite, had wiped out 90% of the bee colonies in England. The Abbey’s apiary was also affected. It had been forced to import bees, mainly from France, but also from Northern Italy. The native dark bee, the Northern variant of the "Apis mellifera-mellifera", had proved to be extremely vulnerable to the trachea mite.
> 
> Brother Adam : "This race is a thing of the past. It no longer exists. It has been completely wiped out by the mite epidemic. Our tests and experiments have proved conclusively that the remains of the dark bee present in England today definitely do not stem from the old English bee, as has been conjectured from time to time, but from imports of the French variety."
> 
> Brother Adam made a strange discovery: cross-breeding of the Italian bee and the drones of the dark local bee - and with appropriate selection their descendants also - proved to be resistant to the mites.


We here also have a lot of Italian genetics.



> Much confusion exists in the U.S. as to the economic importance of this pest. Bee scientists located in Weslaco, Texas where the mite was first discovered have a difficult time maintaining mite levels high enough to conduct research. Florida beekeepers report minimum losses caused by the tracheal mite while other states report extreme devastation attributed to this parasitic mite.


Odd and weirdly inconsistent, it seemed to me. I wasn't even keeping bees when tracheal mites arrived and I still remember the gloom and doom hype about them.

It doesn't really make sense to me that the two mites occupy the same niche, since one is an external parasite and the other internal.

In any case, there no longer seems to be the same concern about tracheal mites as there is regarding varroa, for whatever reason.


----------



## rhaldridge

gmcharlie said:


> when the doctor tells you whats wrong, and you tell him your hes a fool, well thats just rude. you may be right.. TF will save the world... I hope it does. but to tell guys with alot of skills, that you know whats best when you haven't even been at it a year?


When did I ever tell anyone that he was a fool? When did I ever say that I knew what was best? Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are disrespecting you. Is it your belief that those beginners who disagree with you should sit down and shut up and not bother their betters with their stupid opinions?

All I've ever said is what I plan to do with my own bees. I guess if you're a frail flower or a sensitive soul who believes in doing something else, you might interpret that as criticism, but most grownups wouldn't.


----------



## Oldtimer

I liked some of what you said in post #256, which was interesting and useful, it would be interesting to find out the origins of the AMM species in the US, for example in the Arnott forest.

But post #257 where you claimed you did not call anyone a fool, is semantics. Your often repeated statement which says in weasel words that people fail at treatment free beekeeping because they just can't figure it out, is pretty much crafted to say they are a fool, or at minimum, less of a beekeeper. The statement taken literally is true. But the implication is obvious, especially from a professional writer, a word craftsman.

Kind of wonder not just why you made the statement, but also why you feel the need to keep repeating it. No need to feign surprise if such a statement gets a reaction. :no:


----------



## frazzledfozzle

WLC said:


> Like it's, 'the scourge of Varroa'.
> 
> OT linked to an old paper.
> 
> You really should know what's been killing bees in most of the world anyhow.
> 
> What would make you a better beekeeper in NZ?
> 
> Maybe, move to Alabama? Wise guy.


So knowing what varroa haplotype wont make a better beekeeper but moving to Alabama will ?

I know varroa is the number one problem for our bees I dont believe I need to know what halotype it is and it's made no difference to my bee management now that I've been enlightened

Wise guy?... I dont have a willy.

Nuff said.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

I have to note that it's now after 1.30am in the morning at WLC house,

all is quiet on the forum,

sleep well our Beesource Santa it's very quiet without you


----------



## frazzledfozzle

I would be interested to know if there is more resistance in the "non resistant" bees in the US than there are here in NZ.

I wonder if in fact there has been an upscaling of resistance even among the treated bee population in the US compared to somewhere like here where varroa is still relatively new.


----------



## max2

frazzledfozzle said:


> I have to note that it's now after 1.30am in the morning at WLC house,
> 
> all is quiet on the forum,
> 
> sleep well our Beesource Santa it's very quiet without you


Is this the time and our chance to flood the forum and claim the 1 000 000 post for the south?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

frazzledfozzle said:


> I would be interested to know if there is more resistance in the "non resistant" bees in the US than there are here in NZ.
> 
> I wonder if in fact there has been an upscaling of resistance even among the treated bee population in the US compared to somewhere like here where varroa is still relatively new.


There was some speculation about that, some time before that nonsense part. Speculation, that even treated bees would be slowly evolving towards resistance.
Seeing it from Europe, the opposite seems to happen. Beekeepers report, that bees used to withstand much bigger (10 fold) loads of mites say 15 years ago.
Before there was no need for real concern (of death) before 2000-3000 mites in a hive, now even 200 may be bad. Beekeepers are forced to do treatments many times during the summer, 15 years ago only autumn treatments were needed. Some beekeepers in Finland even report that they have serious bee losses because of viruses, but they have very few mites in their hives. Viruses, but no mites. 

Virus resistance is in key roll in the ability of bees to withstand mites.

Does anyone recall the name of the island, where scientists were wondering how on earth (Italian)bees there could cope with 20 000 mites in them? Then they discovered, that there were no bee viruses on the whole island (somewhere near South -American coast).


----------



## RayMarler

Some of you here has made this thread very hard to read through with all of your uncivil personal attacks on each other.

I think some folks here need to be reminded of some of the rules of posting in these forums...

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the Beesource Beekeeping Forums to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree to be civil and "observe with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy." You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by BeeSource.com.

Be civil. Personal attacks are never okay. We can disagree and debate a subject, which is fine. You'll find no "know-it-all's" here. No one on this forum is in a position where they can't be questioned or disagreed with in a civil manner.


----------



## WLC

The Hawaii study by Martin et al. found that as Varroa invaded the islands, a single DWV strain became dominant.

So, attenuation of viral strains carried by Varroa could be a mechanism explaining the differences in observed mite loads and colony losses.

Some populations of mites may simply carry less virulent strains of DWV, for example.

Since Canada does get packages from New Zealand, and Australia, and since provinces in Canada have experienced some very large colony losses, you could infer something about the viral strains carried by those bees.

Apparently, neonicotinoid pesticides played a role in the colony losses, perhaps by weakening the bee's resistance to viruses. The cold wet spring then finished the weakened colonies off.


----------



## Steve10

Thank you, this last post is informative and pleasant to read about. Keep up the good work.

Steve Burton


----------



## Juhani Lunden

WLC said:


> Since Canada does get packages from New Zealand, and Australia, and since provinces in Canada have experienced some very large colony losses, you could infer something about the viral strains carried by those bees.


New bee material from Central-Europe is prone to have more virus symptoms than the main stock. I have made the assumption, that these imported bees have adopted to their local viruses, but when transferred 1500 km north they are not coping virus variants there. 

Unlike varroa, viruses have huge potential to make new, local variants.


----------



## gmcharlie

Oldtimer said:


> I liked some of what you said in post #256, which was interesting and useful, it would be interesting to find out the origins of the AMM species in the US, for example in the Arnott forest.
> 
> But post #257 where you claimed you did not call anyone a fool, is semantics. Your often repeated statement which says in weasel words that people fail at treatment free beekeeping because they just can't figure it out, is pretty much crafted to say they are a fool, or at minimum, less of a beekeeper. The statement taken literally is true. But the implication is obvious, especially from a professional writer, a word craftsman.
> 
> Kind of wonder not just why you made the statement, but also why you feel the need to keep repeating it. No need to feign surprise if such a statement gets a reaction. :no:


thanks OT, the bigger problem is that he thinks I am offended, I am not. I was trying to help him understand why he has ticked off others. Frankly I don't care.


----------



## WLC

I was recently shocked to read a research study showing that DWV can replicate in the common eastern bumblebee.

Since there clearly are environmental reservoirs for DWV, the virus can replicate in Varroa and Honeybees, and then infect bumblebees at the pollen source. It's a kind of Honeybee sandwich for DWV as it replicates back and forth between Varroa and bumblebees, with the Honeybee in between the other hosts.

It does make it all the more important to keep Varroa under control.


----------



## Lburou

edited by lburou


----------



## Lburou

Juhani Lunden said:


> Unlike varroa, viruses have huge potential to make new, local variants.


JL, you make an important point. It is the mite that delivers the viruses to our bees but the viruses that inflict them. The evolution of viruses creates a moving target. The bee's resistance to miticides creates another moving target for our friends at Bayer and Monsanto. Bees and mites are not going to change rapidly the way the viruses do. Thanks for helping me put the pieces together.


----------



## JWChesnut

The specific races of Varroa that have invaded A. mellifera world-wide are different. The Korean variant is dominant in Europe and North America. The Japanese variant in Brazil (and by range extension throughout the Africanized invasion front). Varroa is mostly clonal (and backcrosses to a foundresses own sons), so variants are highly persistent and homogenous.

An ecological postulate (the competitive exclusion principle) assumes that different taxa cannot occupy the precisely identical niche simultaneously. (Since niches can be subdivided nearly ad infinitum, this postulate has a somewhat circular application). In short, the principal is: Winner Takes All. The taxon with the greater fitness will triumph and the loser will disappear. This has been seen in the advancement of the Korean type over the Japanese type in Europe (where both were initially present).

The Korean type is reported to be more virulent, than the Japanese.

Here's a hypothesis: Colony survival is reported on the AHB front lines (Florida, Alabama, South Texas, Arizona). The AHB invasion front has brought Japanese/Brazilian Varroa along with the African race bees, Varroa clones traveling with Bee clones. The colony survival that accompanies Weaver Bees or trapped "survivor" hives within the AHB front line is the result of pre-innoculation with the relatively more benign Japanese variant varroa. 

Keepers that are managing their hives to preserve these "improved" Varroa experience greater survival. Keepers that fumigate will experience reinfection from the regions background wild type -- which in North America is the virulent Korean strain.


----------



## squarepeg

JWChesnut said:


> Keepers that are managing their hives to preserve these "improved" Varroa experience greater survival. Keepers that fumigate will experience reinfection from the regions background wild type -- which in North America is the virulent Korean strain.


another interesting hypothesis, thanks jwc.


----------



## gmcharlie

JWChesnut said:


> Keepers that are managing their hives to preserve these "improved" Varroa experience greater survival. Keepers that fumigate will experience reinfection from the regions background wild type -- which in North America is the virulent Korean strain.


interesting but I would disagree, This hypothsis assumes a either/or scenario. IE you get one or the other. Thats is just silly.
Assuming you have a hive full of one, the others will also be attached to drifters in the same levels. You will end up with both. In fact you may find out that the two interbreed, which of course may give us the weeker OR more of the stronger.

Knocking down all levels of mites (less good) or bad is a good thing. And I am DARN sure not lead to more of Korean strain

When you get down to it I am pretty sure were going to find out these southern states do a lot better due to no real long cold snaps to kill the hives off. 
I know in my yards the losses are blamed on mites, but the real reason is small clusters (cold) and starvation from not being able to move. The root cause id Varro, but if you took away the weeks o subzero temps, survival numbers would go way up.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

gmcharlie said:


> interesting but I would disagree, This hypothsis assumes a either/or scenario. IE you get one or the other. Thats is just silly.
> Assuming you have a hive full of one, the others will also be attached to drifters in the same levels. You will end up with both. In fact you may find out that the two interbreed, which of course may give us the weeker OR more of the stronger.
> 
> Knocking down all levels of mites (less good) or bad is a good thing. And I am DARN sure not lead to more of Korean strain
> 
> When you get down to it I am pretty sure were going to find out these southern states do a lot better due to no real long cold snaps to kill the hives off.
> I know in my yards the losses are blamed on mites, but the real reason is small clusters (cold) and starvation from not being able to move. The root cause id Varro, but if you took away the weeks o subzero temps, survival numbers would go way up.


You missed this part: "An ecological postulate (the competitive exclusion principle) assumes that different taxa cannot occupy the precisely identical niche simultaneously. (Since niches can be subdivided nearly ad infinitum, this postulate has a somewhat circular application). In short, the principal is: Winner Takes All. "

and this: " Varroa is mostly clonal (and backcrosses to a foundresses own sons), so variants are highly persistent and homogenous."


----------



## gmcharlie

didn't miss it, totally disagree with that assumption. You walk thru the woods, and you get deer ticks on you, you assume since you have a deer tick you can't get a wood tick?? these pest propagate until the hive dies.
assume one comes over on a drifter, You think hes gonna look around and decide to leave? nope gonna move right in with the rest. he may have a harder time breeding, then again maybe not but you WILL have both in the same hive. assuming your region already has both of course, killing one of, does not create a vaccum for the other.


----------



## heaflaw

JW: great post and great discussion. But, I and may others don't understand the genetic "jargon" as well as you guys do. Could you or someone "translate" this into "common" language.

Thanks


----------



## WLC

Varroa's niche is that it's an ecto (outside) parasite of Honeybees.

They're speculating on whether or not two different kinds of Varroa (Japan or Korea) can infest the same hive.


----------



## sqkcrk

JWChesnut said:


> The Korean type is reported to be more virulent, than the Japanese.
> 
> Here's a hypothesis: Colony survival is reported on the AHB front lines (Florida, Alabama, South Texas, Arizona). The AHB invasion front has brought Japanese/Brazilian Varroa along with the African race bees, Varroa clones traveling with Bee clones. The colony survival that accompanies Weaver Bees or trapped "survivor" hives within the AHB front line is the result of pre-innoculation with the relatively more benign Japanese variant varroa.
> 
> Keepers that are managing their hives to preserve these "improved" Varroa experience greater survival. Keepers that fumigate will experience reinfection from the regions background wild type -- which in North America is the virulent Korean strain.


So, if I understand what you are saying here, we need to get Japanese/Brazilian varroa in our hives? And then we will be able to cope w/ them better?


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> So, if I understand what you are saying here, we need to get Japanese/Brazilian varroa in our hives? And then we will be able to cope w/ them better?


Which does follow Seeley's hypothesis of a less virulent mite.


----------



## WLC

He's hypothesizing that the reason that resistant stock are resistant is because they harbor the Japan Varroa haplotype.

It's part of a whole attenuated Varroa concept.

For example, I've used attenuated virus when doing studies because the 'regular' kinds would simply multiply too fast and ruin the experiment.


----------



## crofter

Silly at first thought but maybe it is the mite we should consider genetically modifying instead of the more genetically complicated host!


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> didn't miss it, totally disagree with that assumption. You walk thru the woods, and you get deer ticks on you, you assume since you have a deer tick you can't get a wood tick?? these pest propagate until the hive dies.
> assume one comes over on a drifter, You think hes gonna look around and decide to leave? nope gonna move right in with the rest. he may have a harder time breeding, then again maybe not but you WILL have both in the same hive. assuming your region already has both of course, killing one of, does not create a vaccum for the other.


W/in an ecosystem I believe that what you are saying isn't right. There is a mechanism which will favor the existence of one variety over another. I don't know enough to know how to explain it other than to refer to a disease which is not an apt comparison since we are talking about a pest, Varroa. But, where you find colonies infected w/ AFB you will not find the same colonies infected w/ EFB, even though there may be other colonies in the area infected w/ one or the other.

It's like whatr I was getting at earlier w/ Tracheal mites being displaced by Varroa mites. Even though Tracheal mites infest and feed on the trachea of honeybees and Varroa are an exoskeleton pest/feeder, you will not find them in the same colony. Leastwise I don't think you will. Maybe people don't bother to look once the diagnosis of varroa is made.

What makes you feel like you do so strongly gm?


----------



## sqkcrk

crofter said:


> Silly at first thought but maybe it is the mite we should consider genetically modifying instead of the more genetically complicated host!


Were we able to shift the trajectory a little one way or the other we would be in a different situation. That situation being better or worse.


----------



## beemandan

crofter said:


> Silly at first thought but maybe it is the mite we should consider genetically modifying instead of the more genetically complicated host!


I think it is a pretty safe assumption that work is being done in that direction.


----------



## JWChesnut

Introduction of a relatively benign strain of disease to ward off the virulent one is practiced. It was successfully trialed on American Chestnut -- where a weakened form of the infectious fungus was deliberately introduced to occupy lesions and prevent establishment of the wild-type.

To bring it back to bees --- "Leg chewing" for mite removal is reported from AHB in Yucatan and in Indiana, and elsewhere. I have never observed that on the mite fall in my hives. Either I have poorly adapted bees with weak teeth, or I have mites with well protected legs.

Leg Chewing was described as a bee hygenic behavior under genetic control. Possibly, but what if Japanese mites are exposed to leg chewing and Korean mites keep their appendages safely tucked under their carapaces. That difference in mite behavior would explain the observed result instead of Bee genetic predisposition to gnawing.

Consider the Berrea College test of the Spivak "hygenic behavior" trait. No significant differences in VSH among a diverse array of bloodlines.


The Berrea College result argues that effective VSH is universal -- even in the much-maligned Italian race. I interpret this to mean that a particular race of Varroa's susceptibility to any bees effort to dislodge it might have greater effect than the bee bloodline.

I can hypothesize a Cerana bee -- Varroa evolutionary dyad where relative fragility of the mites is selected for (as is apparently widespread). However, the Siberian experience turned that inertia on its head. The Korean Varroa race >> A. mellifera transfer did not happen immediately upon introduction. The cross-infectivity was a selected adaptation --- Vladivostok area A. cerana had greater (relative) fitness if they hosted a new virulent genotype. In evolution, it is not surviving "better" -- the operating principle (since everyone dies) is to survive just a bit marginally better and a bit marginally longer than the competition. By hosting a "killer" varroa, the Vladivostok A. cerana survived just a tiny bit better than their competitors, newly arrived A. mellifera. It was the competitive arena that generated the hyper-virulence.


----------



## gmcharlie

Mark, My feeling is pretty simple, it doesn't pass the smell test on any level. These are not bacteria looking for a particular niche. these are blood sucking parasites who have proven adept at switching host. 
The original hypothesis was that we could live with one over the other. These mites are not looking to live in some peaceful colonies at some "acceptable level" they breed as fast as possible, until the host dies. limited only by the bees ability to reproduce, or clean them off. they don't stop breeding. they don't reach a stasis level. And to assume that if one hive has one type the others won't come in??? Ludicious at is face value.

Gee if i have a wolf eating a carcass, the bears will run away?? I fully agree that some things can not live together AFB and EFB?? well I don't know.. could be.... it could aslo be when you have one the other doesn't matter. I do know the environmental conditions in the hive do not change to favor one over the other.
SO making the ACCUSATION that killing of the weaker mites will allow the strong ones to move in is insane thinking. It would take a LOT of years of data to sell that line.
It may be possible that one genetic line is stronger than the other. IE the weaker mites continually crossed with Korean mites, can reduce virility of the mite, but that wasn't the claim. the claim was killing one makes the hives more susceptible to the other.

Doens't pass the smell test.... 

There is a great book out there called "blink" by Malcom Gladwell it points out the fallacy of allowing one to be persuaded by terrible thinking (think new Coke)


----------



## Oldtimer

Some excellent food for thought anyway, great to see this being discussed, especially theories why varroa is so virulent, I had never thought of the concept of giving advantage to one or other of the host species before, just by killing it slower. 

The concept could cut both ways, if a truly resistant strain of EHB could be introduced into the area, it would then be the _apis cerana_ at a disadvantage. But until one or other species was totally eradicated, the mites job would be to be as virulent as possible.


----------



## JWChesnut

gmcharlie
Competitive exclusion works at the population level, and is a process that works on an evolutionary time-scale, and requires multiple generations to stabilize. There is a genetic corollary, which is expressed as the inverse principle -- the Harvey-Weinberg equilibrium states in the absence of selective pressure, or under conflictory selective impulses, diverse alleles (the individual genes of chromosome doubles) will remain in the population in stable proportions.

If particular colonies have predominance of a particular Varroa variant -- this is likely just a "first mover" advantage. The pests in a particular hives are perhaps clonal descendants of a founderess. At the population level (say all of the Sonoran ecosystem), the competitive exclusion principle comes into play and the genotype migrates (in evolutionary timeframe) to the favored combination.


----------



## Lburou

It is clear there are gaps in our education about the mites. Would those "in the know" please post more links for the required readings that would fill those gaps? It would be a boon to the level of our discussions. 

Thanks!


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> Mark, My feeling is pretty simple, it doesn't pass the smell test on any level. These are not bacteria looking for a particular niche. these are blood sucking parasites who have proven adept at switching host.
> The original hypothesis was that we could live with one over the other. These mites are not looking to live in some peaceful colonies at some "acceptable level" they breed as fast as possible, until the host dies. limited only by the bees ability to reproduce, or clean them off. they don't stop breeding. they don't reach a stasis level. And to assume that if one hive has one type the others won't come in??? Ludicious at is face value.
> 
> Gee if i have a wolf eating a carcass, the bears will run away?? I fully agree that some things can not live together AFB and EFB?? well I don't know.. could be.... it could aslo be when you have one the other doesn't matter. I do know the environmental conditions in the hive do not change to favor one over the other.
> SO making the ACCUSATION that killing of the weaker mites will allow the strong ones to move in is insane thinking. It would take a LOT of years of data to sell that line.
> It may be possible that one genetic line is stronger than the other. IE the weaker mites continually crossed with Korean mites, can reduce virility of the mite, but that wasn't the claim. the claim was killing one makes the hives more susceptible to the other.
> 
> Doens't pass the smell test....
> 
> There is a great book out there called "blink" by Malcom Gladwell it points out the fallacy of allowing one to be persuaded by terrible thinking (think new Coke)


How do *you* explain the absence of Tracheal mites? Here for a while and seemingly disappeared.


----------



## beemandan

At the risk of derailing this thread, I'd like to say, that with only a few exceptions this has been the most civil and informative threads on the subject in my memory.
Congratulations to those who've kept it on the high road!


----------



## David LaFerney

rhaldridge said:


> didn't mean to be so offensive, and I think your response was a good summation of the many reasons people might choose not to treat.


Fair enough, thank you.




rhaldridge said:


> So I'll amend my statement: the reason people treat is that they can't figure out or don't want to figure out how to keep their bees alive and productive without treatment.


But that's not quite it either. Everyone *wants* to be treatment free - treating is expensive and time consuming. No one treats because they want to. Everyone is on that same page I think. We don't all * chose* to go treatment free (or try to, or continue to...) for those previously mentioned reasons. 

Surely you know that you are rubbing shoulders (virtually) with some seasoned beekeepers who are well equipped to figure out pretty much anything that anyone else is (not me) when it comes to bees and beekeeping. They are also able to figure out which battles they do and don't need to fight.


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> So I'll amend my statement: the reason people treat is that they can't figure out or don't want to figure out how to keep their bees alive and productive without treatment.


I believe I'm going to tag this post.....it might be a useful reminder in a couple of years.


----------



## gmcharlie

sqkcrk said:


> How do *you* explain the absence of Tracheal mites? Here for a while and seemingly disappeared.


I don't they have come and gone many times, we didn't see them. i don't think that another less virulent trach mite has suppressed them......
Its even possible varro feed on them... don't know but there unrelated questions in my mind.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

gmcharlie said:


> SO making the ACCUSATION that killing of the weaker mites will allow the strong ones to move in is insane thinking. It would take a LOT of years of data to sell that line.
> It may be possible that one genetic line is stronger than the other. IE the weaker mites continually crossed with Korean mites, can reduce virility of the mite, but that wasn't the claim. the claim was killing one makes the hives more susceptible to the other.


I think nobody is accusing anybody. JWChesnut just made a hypothesis, a very interesting one. South-American bees might be surviving because they have less virulent mite type (Japanese), but the idea, that it might explain the varroa resistance seen in the southern states of US was new, to me. I thought the (korean) mite was there in southern US already. But anyway, even if it was, the theory of the "Winner take it all" would explain that when/if the "Southern-US niche" is favorable to the Japanese mite type, it would take over. In fact there are studies, that the varroa resistance of South-American bees might be because the mites make less offspring, for some reason they are not as fertile in AHB as they are in EHB. Add to this the less virulent mite and this will be the secret.

BTW it is amazing how hard it is to understand, for some beekeepers in this forum, that there is no such thing as mites interbreeding. The same thing comes over and over again. Mites are nearly like clones: the female which goes into the cell, makes, as her first job under the wax cell ceiling, males, who after that, mate with their mother. This biological fact makes mite crosses impossible.


----------



## beemandan

gmcharlie said:


> I don't they have come and gone many times, we didn't see them.


I really believe that tmites co-evolved with at least one sub species of Apis mellifera. Brother Adam in his search for resistant bees surely found at least one strain that had.
Varroa are an exotic parasite....to all sub species of Am.
That's my opinion....as I said before....apples and oranges.


----------



## beemandan

Juhani Lunden said:


> BTW it is amazing how hard it is to understand, for some beekeepers in this forum, that there is no such thing as mites interbreeding.


Cross breeding is the exception but it does happen. Typically one foundress mite lays her eggs in a cell but with some degree of frequency two or even occasionally more foundress mites will reproduce in the same cell. And when that happens....



Juhani Lunden said:


> as her first job under the wax cell ceiling, males, who after that, mate with their mother.


By the way...I believe that you meant that the single male mates with his sisters...not his mother. The mother lays a single male egg and then female eggs. The lone male then mates with his sisters….except when there are multiple foundress mites in one cell…..then things can get a bit more mixed up.


----------



## David LaFerney

gmcharlie said:


> In fact you may find out that the two interbreed, which of course may give us the weeker OR more of the stronger.


Since (as I understand it) female varroa mate with their brothers before emerging from the capped brood that they are born in - it isn't possible for two types to interbreed is it? Unless, two foundress mites lay in the same brood cell at the same time - ?


----------



## jim lyon

beemandan said:


> Cross breeding is the exception but it does happen. Typically one foundress mite lays her eggs in a cell but with some degree of frequency two or even occasionally more foundress mites will reproduce in the same cell. And when that happens....
> .


Logic tells me that as phoretic mite numbers explode, in a classic fall colony collapse scenario, interbreeding may become more the norm than the exception.


----------



## David LaFerney

sqkcrk said:


> How do *you* explain the absence of Tracheal mites? Here for a while and seemingly disappeared.


You didn't ask me, but I would think that a reason Tracheal mites aren't a common problem today might be that they are significantly suppressed by treatments being aimed at varroa mites. IE when you treat for varroa you also treat for other mites - both bad and good (such as Stratiolaelaps) types unfortunately.


----------



## josethayil

Inter breeding is common in varroa. varroa does tend to breed in clusters in certain parts on a comb. If you go through a whole comb of brood and open them up, you can see thatvarroa tend to cluster together when breeding. You will find certain parts in the comb where every cell is infested with varroa and certain parts where no cells have varroa in them. There are ofcourse exceptions to this, as somtimes its only one cell out in the middle with varroa. But mostly you wil see varroa clustering in close by cells to breed. Usually in a circle (using cells next to each other and forming to look like circle). 

When you open up cells and pull bee larvae out, some time you do find more than one adult female mite in each cell. Which means both the female mites will be laying one male egg before laying female eggs and they have a chance to interbreed. If the korean and japanese type enter a cell and the mate produced from the japanese type mates with the korean female mites, it might actually produce less virulent mites. We may even find out that Japanese male mites have a mating advantage over korean male mites, whcich could work in our advantage. 

I dont think anyone has ever experimented with adding japanese type mites to a colony with koran mites to see if this actually works. Might be an interesting experiment to do. And if it works, it could be a bonus.


----------



## beemandan

josethayil said:


> If the korean and japanese type enter a cell and the mate produced from the japanese type mates with the korean female mites, it might actually produce less virulent mites.


Of just as likely a more virulent mite. One never knows how hybrid vigor may play out in such experiment.


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> I don't they have come and gone many times, we didn't see them. i don't think that another less virulent trach mite has suppressed them......
> Its even possible varro feed on them... don't know but there unrelated questions in my mind.


You don't have an explanation for why we don't see Tracheal mites anymore? They have come and gone many times? When were those times? I am only familiar w/ one occurance when Acerine Disease, aka Tracheal mites, was found in England and called The Isle of Wight Disease. And then in 1984 in America Tracheal mites show up and we start the Age of Mites in America.

I don't think anyone wrote anything about less virulent tracheal mites, but Varroa mites.


----------



## josethayil

I guess if we are trying to mix the korean and japanese mite types together, it might be better to do it on an island, so that just in case it turns out that we produce more virulant mites, we can tremiinate them.


----------



## JWChesnut

Lburou said:


> It is clear there are gaps in our education about the mites. please post more links for the required readings


Get this publication: https://bienenkunde.uni-hohenheim.d...ier_Ziegelmann_Varroa_biology_and_control.pdf

*Biology and control of Varroa destructor*
Peter Rosenkranz, Pia Aumeier, Bettina Ziegelmann


----------



## rhaldridge

JWChesnut said:


> Keepers that are managing their hives to preserve these "improved" Varroa experience greater survival. Keepers that fumigate will experience reinfection from the regions background wild type -- which in North America is the virulent Korean strain.


Very interesting idea. We can't really know what all the unintended consequences of treatment are, but some must exist, or all would be fine in the bee industry.


----------



## rhaldridge

David LaFerney said:


> Fair enough, thank you.
> 
> But that's not quite it either. Everyone *wants* to be treatment free - treating is expensive and time consuming. No one treats because they want to. Everyone is on that same page I think. We don't all * chose* to go treatment free (or try to, or continue to...) for those previously mentioned reasons.


That's true. Some do choose not to try to do without treatment, for reasons that seem good to them. You can want something, but not be willing or able to do the work and go through the hardships associated with getting it. _This is especially true if you believe that getting it is impossible._ And we are told constantly by some here that it *is* impossible, or at any rate, so difficult and unrewarding that only a fool would try. In addition, many don't consider it to be a very important goal. Many times I've heard this sentiment expressed "Why should I go treatment free? What's in it for me, except for bragging rights on Beesource?" Implicit in this is the belief that going TF is going to be more trouble that continuing with treatment, in the short term, and they are certainly right about that, from the available evidence. 

If it were easy, everyone would be doing it.



David LaFerney said:


> Surely you know that you are rubbing shoulders (virtually) with some seasoned beekeepers who are well equipped to figure out pretty much anything that anyone else is (not me) when it comes to bees and beekeeping. They are also able to figure out which battles they do and don't need to fight.


Yes, of course. But from the perspective of an outsider, I notice that those who have actually tried to keep bees without treatment and failed are among the harshest critics of TF beekeeping.

Probably these failures had nothing to do with the abilities of the beekeepers involved, and everything to do with misfortune, but their attitude distorts the conversation. You can't work out a rational management philosophy based on luck, good or bad. Therefore, since I don't think treatment is sustainable in the long run, I tend to give more credence to the views of those beekeepers who have succeeded in doing what I want to do than to the views of those who have not.

It gets me in trouble.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

beemandan said:


> Cross breeding is the exception but it does happen. Typically one foundress mite lays her eggs in a cell but with some degree of frequency two or even occasionally more foundress mites will reproduce in the same cell. And when that happens....
> 
> 
> By the way...I believe that you meant that the single male mates with his sisters...not his mother. The mother lays a single male egg and then female eggs. The lone male then mates with his sisters….except when there are multiple foundress mites in one cell…..then things can get a bit more mixed up.


Thanks for correcting me up!

No need to use books or wikipedia, knowledge is here in these conversations...


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

rhaldridge said:


> ...the harshest critics of TF beekeeping.


I am among them, but can speak only for myself: it is not treatment free beekeeping itself that is criticized. But the people that tell others, that you only need to stop treatments and it works out alright. This might happen somewhere but certainly not in all parts of the World. All beekeeping is local. And all localalities I know personally, I have seen a lot, produced lots and heaps of dead hives when just stopping treatments full stop. So those apiaries typically has more empty hives and supers than other apiaries, where every single box is filled with bees.

It is the unnecessary death toll on bees that some preaching produces. One has to be careful and choose a slow approach or wreckage is the most likely outcome. Especially here in West Europe with a high density of apiaries per square mile and no wilderness at all. 




rhaldridge said:


> You can't work out a rational management philosophy based on luck, good or bad.


We don't need another philosophy, we do need to work out a practical approach. I think we all know what would be ideal, but we need to doublecheck it with reality. The path to follow lies in between.


----------



## Steve10

Sorry if I missed it in the discussion, but is it known what makes the Korean race more virulent than the Japanese race?

Steve Burton


----------



## WLC

Besides the reproductive viability of female mites, not really.

I would hypothesize that viruses reproduce at different rates in the two haplotypes, with the Korea hapltotype having the higher load.
But, I haven't seen any studies on it.


----------



## Oldtimer

Good question Steve. Certainly heard it said so often that I just accepted it must be true. But now you bring it up, don't think I've ever heard an explanation of any kind.


----------



## Steve10

That makes sense. All else being equal, higher parasite reproductive rates in new host/parasite situations is common, thereby weakening the host/colony by consuming more resources.

Interesting hypothesis about virus reproduction rates. So the mite is a host, not just a vector?


----------



## Oldtimer

Some of the DWV strains are incubated by varroa.


----------



## WLC

Try DWV titers on the order of billions in Varroa.


----------



## sqkcrk

"titers"?


----------



## WLC

The number of viruses present. Although they're usually counting a nucleic acid marker and not actual virus particles.


----------



## Steve10

Hmm, interesting. It stands to reason DWV, and the other suspected viruses Varroa is attributed with transmitting from one host to another, must survive in the parasite long enough to infect other hosts. Just curious if it's just a passive transport or if the viruses actively multiply in the Varroa mites body somewhere before infecting our bees. It would make a big difference in the figuring out how to prevent the transmission of these viruses. Wow, may have to pull out some of my old textbooks on virology. LOL


----------



## WLC

OT, Starting that again, are we?

They often use a technique known as Quantitative RT-PCR to come up with estimates of the titer of + strand RNA viruses, like DWV.

I've seen DWV titer estimates as high as a trillion per mite.

Varroa is a DWV factory.


----------



## Steve10

WLC, the number doesn't surprise me remembering what little I do about virus multiplication. Curious, do you know if there is a level of virus leathal to the mite?


----------



## sqkcrk

Steve10 said:


> Hmm, interesting. It stands to reason DWV, and the other suspected viruses Varroa is attributed with transmitting from one host to another, must survive in the parasite long enough to infect other hosts. Just curious if it's just a passive transport or if the viruses actively multiply in the Varroa mites body somewhere before infecting our bees. It would make a big difference in the figuring out how to prevent the transmission of these viruses. Wow, may have to pull out some of my old textbooks on virology. LOL


And those viruses which the Varroa carry don't effect the Varroa? Interesting. Why can't we find one that can?


----------



## Oldtimer

sqkcrk said:


> If you disagree, then what is it?


It's complex Mark, and it does not always mean the same thing. For the most simple explanation as it would relate to this discussion, here's a quote from Wiki -

"A titer (or titre) is a way of expressing concentration.[1] Titer testing employs serial dilution to obtain approximate quantitative information from an analytical procedure that inherently only evaluates as positive or negative. The titer corresponds to the highest dilution factor that still yields a positive reading.[2] For example, positive readings in the first 8 serial twofold dilutions translate into a titer of 1:256 (i.e., 2−8). Titers are sometimes expressed by the denominator only, for example 1:256 is written 256.[3]

Examples[edit]

A specific example is a viral titer, which is the lowest concentration of virus that still infects cells. To determine the titer, several dilutions are prepared, such as 10−1, 10−2, 10−3,...,10−8.[1]".

My own feeling on the matter is the simple English word "number" could have been used in the post more accurately and would have also been understood by all. But it sure wouldn't have sounded as impressive.


----------



## WLC

Steve, it depends on if DWV is injected into the hemolymph directly, as Varroa does, or if it's an oral dose.

Usually, 10^8 is thought of as the titer of DWV, that when injected, will cause overt infections.

But, there are too many 'ifs' to discuss.

Let's just say that DWV replicates very well in Varroa, and the Varroa mites act like countless hypodermic needles in a colony when they inject DWV into the hapless bee's hemolymph (blood).


----------



## sqkcrk

Oldtimer said:


> If you really meant numbers of viruses, you could have said numbers of viruses.


That's why I asked. I didn't know what the word meant. Now I have a better idea. Let's get passed it.


----------



## Steve10

> And those viruses which the Varroa carry don't effect the Varroa? Interesting. Why can't we find one that can?

You're brilliant Mark!!! That's exactly what i'm thinking we could do to find a solution....or a vaccine?!?!

Got to run, but don't lose this train of thought over some squabbles... work always gets in the way!!!


----------



## WLC

No, OT. They don't count virus particles themselves. They count genetic units when they fire up qRTPCR.

Don't get stuck on the technology.

As a beekeeper, you need to know that Varroa is a virus factory that injects viruses directly into the Honeybee's blood.


----------



## WLC

Steve10 said:


> > And those viruses which the Varroa carry don't effect the Varroa? Interesting. Why can't we find one that can?You're brilliant Mark!!! That's exactly what i'm thinking we could do to find a solution....or a vaccine?!?!
> Got to run, but don't lose this train of thought over some squabbles... work always gets in the way!!!


But, they are working on a vaccine to Varroa, viruses, etc., in Honeybees.

It's called RNAi technology, and right now, Monsanto seems to be holding all the cards.

It's one of my own research interests.


----------



## Oldtimer

Just to clarify, RNAi does not only refer to the work being done on varroa.


----------



## WLC

I don't know anyone else here who has ever ID'd DWV from Honeybees, or who has even started looking for RNAi related resistance in their own bees.

I keep bees for educational/research purposes. But, I don't just do Honeybee related stuff.

There's a lot of folks out there looking for solutions.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> or who has even started looking for RNAi related resistance in their own bees.


Oh OK I'll bite, please show us where you are up to with it then. For me, I am not yet aware of any man created RNAi virus resistance in bees.

Plain English


----------



## WLC

Maori found IAPV resistance in Isreali Honeybees, and it was developed into an anti CCD 'vaccine' by Beeologics.

Hunter, from the USDA, found evidence that Honeybees here in the U.S. might be doing something similar.

My own focus is on one specific site where these potential resistance 'genes' might show themselves.


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> But from the perspective of an outsider, I notice that those who have actually tried to keep bees without treatment and failed are among the harshest critics of TF beekeeping.


An interesting irony Ray. The harshest critics are those who’ve actually tried and failed as opposed to the most strident supporters being those who have yet to make it through a couple of seasons.

I am surely not a harsh critic of those who choose to try tf beekeeping. I get critical when it is oversimplified by some or preached to those who have chosen to take a different path.


----------



## WLC

OT:

Some of us believe that Honeybees are already acquiring resistance naturally. There's evidence for this in the literature. So far, I've confirmed that one site reported as being 'active', is indeed active.

When I get the time, I'll go 'fishing' in my BeeWeavers.

We were talking about vaccines.

I thought that it was a good time to bring up that we should also look for 'natural resistance' in Honeybees.


----------



## sqkcrk

Long distance relationships are often hard to maintain. Some how "Get a room." just doesn't cover it.

Lay down your arms, please.


----------



## D Semple

rhaldridge said:


> Yes, of course. But from the perspective of an outsider, I notice that those who have actually tried to keep bees without treatment and failed are among the harshest critics of TF beekeeping.


As it should be, any good idea will stand up to critics. 



rhaldridge said:


> Therefore, since I don't think treatment is sustainable in the *long run*, I tend to give more credence to the views of those beekeepers who have succeeded in doing what I want to do than to the views of those who have not.


Ray, is there such a thing as a "long run" when it comes to bees? The very nature of bees is that hives at best only maintain the same genetics for a couple of years.


As to others participating in TF discussions do you really want to discount the advice of lifelong beekeepers often having managing thousands of hives?


Don

4y, 40h, tf


----------



## rhaldridge

BernhardHeuvel said:


> I am among them, but can speak only for myself: it is not treatment free beekeeping itself that is criticized. But the people that tell others, that you only need to stop treatments and it works out alright.


Bernhard, I don't know who these people are that say just stop treating and everything will be okay. As a beginner, I didn't get that from my research. Every prominent TF beekeeper of whom I am aware has had difficulties at first. Kirk Webster, for example, talks about "Collapse and Recovery: The Gateway to Treatment Free Beekeeping" Michael Bush continued to lose bees until he converted to small cell. Tim Ives lost up to 90% of his colonies when he started out. Beeweaver lost almost all of the 1000 colonies they set aside to not treat. This is a constant refrain among advocates of TF beekeeping. 

Of course, there are always credulous beginners who base their views on what they want to believe, but this is true of every human endeavor. It is unfair to tar everyone with that same brush.


----------



## rhaldridge

D Semple said:


> Ray, is there such a thing as a "long run" when it comes to bees? The very nature of bees is that hives at best only maintain the same genetics for a couple of years.


I think there is a long run associated with any living organism. For example, corn is an annual and most commercial cultivars are hybrids that won't reproduce true next year. You could say that there is no long run associated with corn. But now we have Roundup resistant pigweed, leading to higher costs and higher use of herbicides. In the long run, Roundup ready corn may prove to be a less-then-optimal solution.




D Semple said:


> As to others participating in TF discussions do you really want to discount the advice of lifelong beekeepers often having managing thousands of hives?


You have to pick and choose. As a beginner, I feel that I can learn something useful from just about any experienced beekeeper. But when what they tell me conflicts with observable reality, I have to assume that they are wrong in that instance. If you tell me "TF beekeeping is a foolish and impractical way to keep bees and you will inevitably fail," and I look around and see that many beekeepers are keeping bees successfully without treatment, I have to conclude that you are wrong in that instance. Doesn't mean that you are wrong about everything.

There seems to be an attitude that if you do not believe *everything* an experienced beekeeper tells you, then you are somehow disrespecting that beekeeper. That's not the case at all.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Vaccination, if it becomes reality, should be listed as treatment. (my view)


----------



## Barry

A reminder is needed in this thread. Been editing out the snarky parts. From here I'll simply delete posts.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Juhani Lunden said:


> Vaccination . . . should be listed as treatment. (my view)


That seems understandable, but at least it should be without noxious synthetic toxins.


----------



## WLC

Juhani:

Yes, I would call a vaccine a treatment.

What occurred with the Beeologics' testing, is that some of us felt it had crossed the line into transgenesis.

I would prefer to work with the bee's own biology, rather than try to alter it.


----------



## JRG13

WLC,

That's the funny thing with Rnai treatments isn't it..... it's not "transgenics" by definition but at the same time it is to a high degree.


----------



## WLC

I'm probably the only person who publicly stated that what was being tested was a very advanced technology platform and not simply RNAi.

However, even simple RNAi is considered a form of transgenesis by many, and I do see their point.


----------



## JRG13

Well, that is why beelogics was bought....


----------



## rhaldridge

beemandan said:


> An interesting irony Ray. The harshest critics are those who’ve actually tried and failed as opposed to the most strident supporters being those who have yet to make it through a couple of seasons.


I don't pay much attention to those who advocate TF but have not succeeded over a number of years. That's just common sense. What bothers me is when strident beginners like me are conflated with people like Michael Bush, Dee Lusby, Kirk Webster, for argumentative purposes-- as you just did. These longtime successful TF beekeepers are folks who *have* figured it out, unlike those who so stridently criticize the concept because they personally were unable to succeed.

Here's an analogy. Those book critics who are most venomous about the books they don't like... are almost always those who have failed as writers themselves.

Human nature.


----------



## gmcharlie

> Here's an analogy. Those book critics who are most venomous about the books they don't like... are almost always those who have failed as writers themselves.


You could use that tact, as it would fit the narrative you like... but here is another tact.. these individuals, have and have taken the time to write. and share..While most of the really successful professional beekeepers do not write.
The utmost respect and admiration for MB, mostly for his sincere attempts to help newbies. But his economic model is definitely not on my list of asperations. I will take Ron Housholder, Jim Lyon, OT and half a dozen others just here. Not to mention the 60 or so I know the run 1000's of hives and don't even have a website.

There are a few other quotes you might ponder 
Like "when you argue with a fool, no one can tell which is which" Or, "one convinced against his will, is not convinced" or maybe " a fool and his money are soon parted" Or finally, my dads favorite, "well, lets wait and see"


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> What bothers me is when strident beginners like me are conflated with people like Michael Bush, Dee Lusby, Kirk Webster, for argumentative purposes-- as you just did


Of all of those you’ve conflated yourself with, in recent times only Michael Bush posts here….and of course you. I’d hardly refer to Michael Bush’s posts as strident.


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> I don't pay much attention to those who advocate TF but have not succeeded over a number of years.


Who did that Ray?


----------



## Steve10

Geez, I go away for a few hours and you guys are giving Barry grey hairs having to delete all kinds of posts! 

Anyway, can we please get back to Deformed Wing Virus (DWV) discussion....I have an idea and need some help. 

The short answer is diluted chlorine bleach! Yes, regular household Chlorox.

Background - Back in the early 80's, a deadly disease, Parvovirus, erupted here in the USA that was killing dogs. It hit like a hurricane. The signs were bloody diarrhea and vomiting. It was a death sentence for those poor critters that developed any signs. (Sound familiar to some our colonies?) Any veterinary hospital at the time reeked of bleach trying to avoid further spread. Some fast thinking research veterinarians determined it was a cat virus that mutated. We vaccinated dogs with a cat vaccine that included a killed strain of the virus suspected of mutating, to confer quick immunity in an attempt to curb the deaths until researchers developed a dog vaccine to prevent the disease. Today, the disease is rarely seen, but others have taken its place. As fast as we get ahead of one virus, it mutates and gives us other problems, then we discover more...again, sound familiar?

The point here is, we will never eradicate varroa mites. Much like we've failed to eradicate the ****roach, fleas, mice, and rats (or the possum in New Zealand - right OT?) Varroa mites are considered a "successful" parasite because in and of themselves they don't kill their host. Their own survival is dependent on the survival of its only host - the honeybee. Yes, they arguably weaken their host, and if their numbers overwhelm the host, the bees can't carry on their functions to maintain the life of the colony. We have learned there are ways to reduce the numbers of mites through management and full spectrum of miticides. So if we have to learn to live with the mites, maybe our attention should be turn to "sterilize" the mites by destroying or inactivating the pathogens (viruses) they carry that are really killing our bees. This would give researchers and beekeepers more time to work out the genetics of developing bees that aren't susceptible to these viruses. I don't think we can keep ahead of the viruses by continually developing different vaccine against each virus and its mutated cousins that plagues our bees, nor a way to effectively pass on that immunity from the queen to her offspring. 

Back to the bleach, I learned back in the 80"s a 1:32 (1 ounce per quart or 1/2 cup per gallon) ratio of chlorine bleach to water would kill all bacteria and viruses. For instance, it may be very easy and inexpensive to treat our bees, but we'd have to sneak up on the right ratio so that we inactivate the viruses, but not upset the normal intestinal microorganisms or be toxic and kill the bees!

OK, WLC - Do you know if anyone is able to grow DWV in the lab and if so what kind of growth medium are they using? How little bleach do you think it would take to kill that culture?

Mark - I'm not sure if this is a Bill Crowell recommendation, but have you heard of adding a few drops of chorline bleach to sugar syrup to so it keeps it from spoiling after fed? For someone with an operation like yours, is it easier to drench or feed a treatment? What time of year is it easiest to treat?

Oldtimer - What would you like to see in an experimental design for a breeder like yourself?

Radar - Can you do some of you wizardry and see if folks have used chlorine bleach in any beekeeping tasks?

Everyone - What is the concentration of chlorine in a swimming pool? Anyone add bleach to their syrup? Anyone know of any deleterious effects on animals or people using bleach as a sanitizing agent - MSDS? Anyone know of any Veterinary Universities working on honeybee diseases?

I'm way out here on a limb, so please don't nail me to the wall....just an old country vet trying to look for solutions from a veterinary angle.

PS - I'm not the only veterinarian that visits this forum...so any vets out there please chime in or PM me if you're shy and don't want to make a fool of yourself like me!

OK everyone - hit me with your questions and find out if this idea would stand up in a Beesource Court! As with everything, the more I look the more questions I have, but don't want to bore anyone by making this long post any longer.

Thanks for your time, I hope I'm not wasting it!


----------



## sqkcrk

Steve, I do know that guys put chlorine bleach in their syrup tanks, but I don't know the proportions. I don't do it myself.


----------



## Steve10

Mark, if you've been working with any of them, can you smell the chlorine at all? Do you think they are just using it to disinfect the tank and/or extend the life of the syrup?


----------



## sqkcrk

I don't think they are putting anymore than half a gallon, maybe a gallon at most, into 250 gallons of HFCS. No, I don't recall smelling it. It might help preserve the syrup, but seems like the bees suck it down pretty fast, so preservation wouldn't be a problem.

Thinking about it now, the bleach is added to the syrup when it comes out of the tanker into the storage tanks. Still don't know how much. I'll have to ask someone.


----------



## Steve10

Thanks for your input Mark. Be interested to hear how they are fairing on losses.


----------



## Oldtimer

Steve10 said:


> Oldtimer - What would you like to see in an experimental design for a breeder like yourself?


First off, you were dead right about the possum situation in NZ, there are many similarities between dealing with this introduced pest, and dealing with varroa.

As to an experimental design for a breeder like myself, you mean in terms of feeding bleach in syrup? It would be interesting, but I feed almost no syrup, when I do it's pretty much only to hives that are about to be sold the purchaser sometimes requests it.

A few thoughts though, to kill DWV, the bleach containing syrup would have to permeate the entire food system including being fed to larvae. As bleach breaks down rapidly when not in pure water I would imagine some sort of continuous drip feed would be needed. It would have to be fed to hives while they are in dearth, there is a window for this here in spring.

Other issue, the bleach could also kill other microflora. The DWV is located not just in the bee gut, but throughout the bee, could enough bleach be administered to those areas without killing the bee?

Sorry, I only seem to be seeing problems, not much help am I . However if the discussion brings forth any good ideas I would certainly be keen to try them. I have no idea how to evaluate DWV numbers in a hive though other than observing the symptoms, which is probably not going to be accurate enough for this experiment, happy to get a microscope, or whatever is needed and be guided in the procedure though.

DWV is less of a problem to me lately than it has been in the past, the bigger problem for me in hives with high mite numbers is mite induced PMS.


----------



## WLC

Steve: 

While there is progress being made, they really don't have viruses grown in Honeybee tissue culture well plates yet. Honeybee cells have been notoriously difficult to culture. There's nothing to bleach, yet.


----------



## WLC

Well, in the U.S., Oxalic Acid is officially listed as a 'toilet cleaner'. So, it's not too nutty to assume that another toilet cleaner, like a bleach solution, wouldn't be as effective as OA in killing mites.

I can't believe what you guys are getting away with though. :scratch:


----------



## WLC

By the way, 8-15 drops of household bleach per gallon of water can be used to treat suspect sources of water in an emergency.

Bees have been reported to like swimming pool water. So, maybe that's what the bleach is about.


----------



## Hokie Bee Daddy

I have learned much more from this thread about varroa and the causes of bee deaths than I knew before. Thanks for all who have taken the time to present the state of the art in our understanding.

WLC,

The colony that developed immunity to IAPV, was that through natural selection or was that with human intervention? Also, is there one virus that kills most honeybee colonies?

Thanks.


----------



## WLC

Maori found natural resistance to IAPV in an existing Honeybee population in Israel. They then demonstrated that RNAi could be an effective treatment in tests.

They described those original Honeybees as being 'Naturally Transgenic'.


----------



## gmcharlie

Bleach mix is 1 cup per 50 gallons. I use it constantly.. Slight odor if your nose is good. Bees could care less, no downside. I would bet there is not enough to harm the bees Microfauna. it evaporates out over time. Prevents fermentaion and mold buildup which I think are much worse issues.
no differnces in losses in my yard before or after I started useing bleach


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> By the way, 8-15 drops of household bleach per gallon of water can be used to treat suspect sources of water in an emergency.


If bleach is all you have to treat drinking water, its better than nothing. But according to the CDC, bleach may not kill Cryptosporidium and Giardia.


> If you don’t have safe bottled water and if boiling is not possible, you often can make water safer to drink by using a disinfectant such as unscented household chlorine bleach or iodine. These can kill most harmful organisms, such as viruses and bacteria, but are not as effective in controlling more resistant organisms such as the parasites _Cryptosporidium_ and _Giardia_.
> 
> ...
> 
> [HIGHLIGHT]Chlorine dioxide tablets [/HIGHLIGHT]are another disinfectant that now is available in some outdoor stores. This disinfectant has [HIGHLIGHT]proven to be effective against pathogens, including _Cryptosporidium_[/HIGHLIGHT], if the manufacturer’s instructions are followed.
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/emergency/safe_water/personal.html


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> I don't pay much attention to those who advocate TF but have not succeeded over a number of years.


As you advocate TF but have not succeeded over a number of years, we have ourselves an oxymoron here.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> see if folks have used chlorine bleach in any beekeeping tasks?

There are plenty of threads regarding the use of bleach in sugar syrup fed to bees. The stated intent is to delay the eventual spoilage (growing mold) of the syrup. Here's a couple:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?279898-2-1-sugar-syrup-adding-formic
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?289446-Corn-Syrup-Bleach&highlight=bleach

Randy Oliver has done some evaluation of chlorine bleach as a feed additive. More here:
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/fat-beespart-4-timing-and-tummy-aches/

Note that oxalic acid is sold in hardware stores as "wood bleach". That means that there are plenty of threads involving varroa / viruses and "bleach", but in this case the "bleach" is not chlorine based bleach, but instead actually referring to oxalic acid. This double use of the word "bleach" makes it unlikely that _Search _will find the kind of information that one might like about "chlorine based" bleach with regard to viruses affecting bees.

.


----------



## Steve10

Oldtimer - Thank you for your insight.

Couldn't resist about the possum, spent a couple weeks on a cruise ship with a bunch of Aussies cruising around your absolutely beautiful country. Could kick myself for not looking you up, but our shore excursions left little time for my version of exploring. Our New Zealand guides could not resist poking the Aussies to take the possums back with them. For all who never have seen New Zealand, definitely worth the trip. 

I see your point about feeding, part of the design should cover the different methods of administration. Because the chlorine gases off very quickly, maybe a drench would be more effective at getting the chlorine where it can do the most good.

The gut microflora is a big issue with me. It's the limiting factor in most medical treatments. One potential side benefit is it may be an effective Nosema treatment. The trick is to see if we can find an effective level of chlorine (if one exists) without harming us or the bees. It would be a real bonus if it wipe out mite flora and not the bee flora!

No need to be sorry! I'm hoping this discussion can produce more good ideas. All I'm wasting is idle time and a few electrons!

Thanks again.


----------



## beekuk

Steve10 said:


> One potential side benefit is it may be an effective Nosema treatment.


 Thymol is a better one, also stops fermentation of syrup, and has been used for many decades in syrup feeds by some.


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> Bleach mix is 1 cup per 50 gallons. I use it constantly.. Slight odor if your nose is good. Bees could care less, no downside. I would bet there is not enough to harm the bees Microfauna. it evaporates out over time. Prevents fermentaion and mold buildup which I think are much worse issues.
> no differnces in losses in my yard before or after I started useing bleach


I have half a tank of syrup which I bought last March. I put about 25 or 30 gallons of water in the tank before the syrup to keep it from setting up. Seven months later I found the remaining 100 or so gallons of syrup to be discolored. Kind of a yellow color. Could it be spoiled? I didn't taste it. Any thoughts?


----------



## Steve10

WLC said:


> Steve:
> 
> While there is progress being made, they really don't have viruses grown in Honeybee tissue culture well plates yet. Honeybee cells have been notoriously difficult to culture. There's nothing to bleach, yet.


Hmm, very important point. Well, that pretty much makes developing a vaccine impossible. Need them in bulk to attenuate them and remove or disable the lethal component. Maybe someone will stumble onto a good tissue culture that mimics honeybee cells.

Just a note - I believe all viruses require a cell to enter (infect) in order to reproduce, hence the need for culture of cells. Also, viruses do especially well in cells that reproduce more quickly like blood cells and gastro-intestinal cells (including the oral cavity.)


----------



## Steve10

WLC said:


> By the way, 8-15 drops of household bleach per gallon of water can be used to treat suspect sources of water in an emergency.
> 
> Bees have been reported to like swimming pool water. So, maybe that's what the bleach is about.


Wouldn't be the first time a species has figured out a way to self medicate.....the South American parrots that search out clay licks comes to mind as an example.


----------



## Steve10

gmcharlie said:


> Bleach mix is 1 cup per 50 gallons. I use it constantly.. Slight odor if your nose is good. Bees could care less, no downside. I would bet there is not enough to harm the bees Microfauna. it evaporates out over time. Prevents fermentaion and mold buildup which I think are much worse issues. no differnces in losses in my yard before or after I started useing bleach


Thanks Charlie, so if my math serves me right...there are 16 cups to a gallon, then there are 800 cups (16 x 50gal) so you've got a 1:800 dilution, if Mark is remembering correctly his numbers figure out to a 1:500 to a 1:250 dilution. This is all good to come up with a safe baseline. Wouldn't want to design an study that kills bees right off the bat. WE may be just whistling in the wind so to speak and we don't find the results we want.


----------



## Steve10

Rader Sidetrack said:


> If bleach is all you have to treat drinking water, its better than nothing. But according to the CDC, bleach may not kill Cryptosporidium and Giardia.


Good job Radar! Maybe some of the chemists amongst us can teach us the difference between liquid chlorine bleach and chlorine dioxide. I'm not sure, but I think Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Nosema have similar reproductive biology in the intestine. The reference to iodine jogs the memory for some micronutrient deficiencies that cause or reduce the resistance to disease. But the entire world can't be deficient in the same bee micronutrient, can it?


----------



## Steve10

Another stellar job Radar. Interesting finding by EastSideBuzz about the benefits seen against tracheal mites using chlorinated syrup. 

>Randy Oliver has done some evaluation of chlorine bleach as a feed additive. More here:
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/fat-...d-tummy-aches/

This article was really interesting. For those interested, a very good read. I like how Randy puts a practical twist on the science. What interest me is how the the effect of the liquid chlorine bleach retained it's effectiveness when in syrup despite the fact chlorine is known to gas off rapidly.


----------



## Steve10

beekuk said:


> Thymol is a better one, also stops fermentation of syrup, and has been used for many decades in syrup feeds by some.


Thanks beekuk, I have no experience with using Thymol in syrup. I did talk to a good friend of mine who is doing nosema studies here and said the same but feeding it wasn't easy. If my memory serves me right, he felt it better to drench them with the solution. Have you found the same?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Maybe some of the chemists amongst us can teach us the difference between liquid chlorine bleach and chlorine dioxide. 

I'm not a chemist, nor do I play one on TV (or on Beesource). :lookout:

But this page offers an interesting discussion on chlorine dioxide compared to chlorine, at least with regard to use in water, including impact on viruses:
http://www.lenntech.com/processes/disinfection/chemical/disinfectants-chlorine-dioxide.htm


----------



## Steve10

> I have half a tank of syrup which I bought last March. I put about 25 or 30 gallons of water in the tank before the syrup to keep it from setting up. Seven months later I found the remaining 100 or so gallons of syrup to be discolored. Kind of a yellow color. Could it be spoiled? I didn't taste it. Any thoughts?

Oh, just suck some down Mark! But it's an awful cold time to be stuck in the outhouse because you listen to me! 

Seriously, if light can get at it it will discolor with time without any serious side effect. But if it smells like vinegar or appears cloudy, I'd feed it to the hogs not the bees. Could try adding bleach and see what you've got in a few weeks.


----------



## beekuk

Steve10 said:


> Thanks beekuk, I have no experience with using Thymol in syrup. I did talk to a good friend of mine who is doing nosema studies here and said the same but feeding it wasn't easy. If my memory serves me right, he felt it better to drench them with the solution. Have you found the same?


 It was first used back in the 1940s by ROB Manley, (after 12 years of using it he noticed the lack of Nosema problems in his bees which others were having) he used it simply to prevent fermentation though, i use it at three times Manley, but it is also emulsified with lecithin to mix better, i use 5ml (teaspoonful) to every gallon of syrup fed in autumn, thymol is used in quite a few commercially available feed additives, in research tests it has been found to be more effective than fumidil against Nosema.
Quite a few research papers about it, also the effect it can have on varroa in the cell feeding on larvae which have recieved thymol in the diet. It has strong anti fungal properties and Nosema in classed as a form of fungi i believe.

Edit. only use it as a strong drench on badly infected colonies, 5ml to two pints of thin syrup, sprayed over the bees 3 times about four to six days apart, that seems to cure them well.

The best use i found for bleach has been in a knap sack sprayer around, and in any puddles/tractor ruts where bees drink from in early spring near to the apiary/bee yard.


----------



## Steve10

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I'm not a chemist, nor do I play one on TV (or on Beesource). [/COLOR]:lookout:
> 
> But this page offers an interesting discussion on chlorine dioxide compared to chlorine, at least with regard to use in water, including impact on viruses:
> http://www.lenntech.com/processes/disinfection/chemical/disinfectants-chlorine-dioxide.htm


Radar, I'm going to nominate you for a Nobel Prize. You may have found the cure for American Foulbrood!!

>Chlorine dioxide can also be used against anthrax, because it is effective against spore-forming bacteria.

Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/processes/d...infectants-chlorine-dioxide.htm#ixzz2p0bf8H16

Anthrax and American Foulbrood are both sporeforming Baccilus organisms. These spore are darn near resistant to everything except heat sterilization. If Chlorine dioxide can eliminate Anthrax, American Foulbrood doesn't stand a chance! :applause:

One concern though...we better find a chemist because Chlorine dioxide is explosive under pressure! Is your plan to blow up the hives to rid them of mites and viruses? :lpf:

Great detective work! Thanks Radar


----------



## Steve10

Thanks Beekuk,

Very enlightening! I believe the same results were found here comparing it to fumidil. I'm not sure on the proportions that my friend used of the thymol so that may be the issue. 

Great to here whats going on on the other side of the "Pond."


----------



## sqkcrk

Been tried and found inadequate.


----------



## Steve10

Mark, Is that the Fumidil or the Thymol found to be inadequate?


----------



## sqkcrk

Bleach


----------



## rhaldridge

beemandan said:


> Of all of those you’ve conflated yourself with, in recent times only Michael Bush posts here….and of course you. I’d hardly refer to Michael Bush’s posts as strident.


He's not a beginner either. Apparently, I'm the strident one. And I'm not the one doing the conflating, I'm the one saying that people like me should not be used to disparage the work of people like Michael Bush (by conflating me with people like him.). The ones doing the conflating are being dishonest, in an effort to be personally unpleasant. Everyone needs a hobby, I guess, but I wouldn't be proud of having that particular hobby.

Maybe I can help you with this statement too: "I don't pay much attention to those who advocate TF but have not succeeded over a number of years."

What this means is that I don't pay much attention to beginning TF beekeepers, unless they back up their opinions with cites from the real world. The statement above was in response to someone who was complaining about beginner beekeepers foisting their dumb opinions off on others. Presumably those others are gullible new beekeepers. I'm a beginner, but I don't like to think of myself as gullible, so I take my direction from those who have been successful over a number of years.

Well, I give up. It's not worth the effort to keep defending my views. If I can never figure out how to keep bees without treatment, I'll say so. And if I can, I'll say that too.


----------



## Steve10

Against AFB? Radar was so counting on that Nobel Prize...


----------



## beekuk

Steve10 said:


> Against AFB?


 Bleach is recommended for sterilization of equipment that has had AFB colonies in, by our national bee unit, but that has nothing to do with feeding bees of course. We burn them if they have AFB.


----------



## Steve10

The bleach has to be at least in the 1:32 concentration to kill bacteria and actually has to contact the bacteria. That ropey mess produced by AFB in the cells may prevent the bleach from contacting the bacteria at the required concentration. The only effective way to sterilize an infected frame has been to irradiate it. That's why the chlorine dioxide intrigues me. It works at breaking down "biofilm" which to me sounds like the slime coating the inside of water pipes. Maybe it can breakdown the ropey mess of AFB enough to kill the bacteria and spore. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## db_land

Since varroa mites SUCK the bees blood, why/how do they INJECT viruses into the bee's blood? Maybe this is researched/documented somewhere? Thanks


----------



## Oldtimer

Bleach is used here commonly for disinfecting gear that has been in contact with AFB in fact it is in government recommended guidelines. But it is not recommended for disinfection of actual comb. The gooby mass, could possibly be dissolved with enough work, but not so the scale, and spores trapped behind cocoon material may not be accessible either. Chlorine dioxide does break up those types of materials, but unless a comb was restore top white, no cocoon virgin wax, it would be pretty risky to assume all spores had been dealt with.


----------



## Oldtimer

db_land said:


> Since varroa mites SUCK the bees blood, why/how do they INJECT viruses into the bee's blood? Maybe this is researched/documented somewhere? Thanks


Can't link you the studies I'm no google expert, and hate to be seen agreeing with WLC about something , but V mites do transmit viruses from bee to bee, and from themselves to the bee, it is a sad fact that some of these viruses can replicate in the mites also, and from there to the next bee it bites. The mites are an ongoing source of infection.

The practical application of this, is you can nearly always cure a hive sick from some virus, by treating for and getting rid of the mites, the hive will then recover, long as nothing else is holding them back from throwing off the viruses.

Somebody else may supply some references.


----------



## JRG13

They suck blood yes, but they probably inject some enzymes etc... to help keep the wound open and hemolymph flowing.


----------



## WLC

While researchers know that many viruses associated with Honeybees infect the digestive tract, they've never been able to consistently demonstrate specific tissues involved. So, you can imagine why it would be difficult to say that DWV is reproducing in a secretory gland in Varroa and being injected as it feeds.

Frankly, they're not even sure exactly where viruses hide in Honeybee cells during covert infections.

The histology is challenging.


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> If I can never figure out how to keep bees without treatment, I'll say so. And if I can, I'll say that too.


You stick with that Ray....and you can't go wrong.


----------



## beemandan

beekuk said:


> Bleach is recommended for sterilization of equipment that has had AFB colonies in, by our national bee unit.... We burn them if they have AFB.


That'll sterilize them well enough....I'm thinkin'


----------



## Steve10

Oldtimer said:


> unless a comb was restore top white, no cocoon virgin wax, it would be pretty risky to assume all spores had been dealt with.


I agree 100%. I still feel far more comfortable burning the whole mess. For those who feel compelled to sprinkle Tetracycline in their hives every spring, chlorine dioxide COULD be a more effective preventative and avoid the antibiotic residue and resistance issues. Again just a thought, if we could just get past that little explosive problem!


----------



## beekuk

Steve10 said:


> I agree 100%. I still feel far more comfortable burning the whole mess.


 That is the law in this country, only boxes, roofs, floors can be sterilized by scorching or chemical treatment.


----------



## Michael Bush

> Maybe some of the chemists amongst us can teach us the difference between liquid chlorine bleach and chlorine dioxide. 

I'm not sure how enlightening it will be. I'm not a chemist but I do have 16 semester hours of college chemistry...

Chlorine dioxide is a gas, not a liquid or a solid. ClO2. The tablets advertised as based on it are actually sodium chlorite (NaClO2) and sodium dischloroisocyanurate dihydrate (C3Cl2N3NaO3) which when dissolved in water the sodium chlorite becomes Na+ and ClO2- and the sodium dischloroisocyanurate dihydrate reacts in some way that frees the ClO2 slowly over time.

Clorox is a solution consisting of:
Water, Sodium Hypochlorite (NaClO), Sodium Chloride (NaCl aka table salt), Cetyl Betaine (a surfactant), Sodium Carbonate (Na2CO3 aka washing soda), Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH aka lye), Sodium Polyacrylate (CH2-CH(COONa)-]n as a sequestering agent, which keeps dirt that has been removed from adhering to other clothes), Sodium Xylene Sulfonate (a stabilizer)

The main active ingredients are the Sodium Hypochlorite, Sodium Carbonate and Sodium Hydroxide. I think the Sodium Chloride is as much a byproduct of the manufacturing process as anything.

If strong enough both are very reactive chemical composites and I'm sure either would kill Giardia, but the chlorox water at that concentration will not be drinkable because of the other ingredients (lye, washing soda and salt).


----------



## sqkcrk

In most States that I am familiar w/ once an AFB infection is found that colony is supposed to be killed and burned along w/ all combs, brood combs as well as honey combs w/in the hive that colony occupied.

Once that is done, boxes can be scorched to kill and remove any spores which may be present on the wooden surfaces.

I see no need to use bleach. If you think you are doing anything by washing equipment exposed to AFB, then hot soapy water will probably do just as much. And, probably, cold water will do just as much too. All you would be doing by washing, if anything, is removing traces of AFB spores.


----------



## Steve10

Michael,

Thank you. As always you "enlighten" me with you vast diversity of knowledge. Also, I'll sleep better know Radar will not blow himself up treating his hives!

Seriously, I'd appreciate your candid opinion on the use of a chlorine based product in our beehives.

Thanks again


----------



## gmcharlie

sqkcrk said:


> I have half a tank of syrup which I bought last March. I put about 25 or 30 gallons of water in the tank before the syrup to keep it from setting up. Seven months later I found the remaining 100 or so gallons of syrup to be discolored. Kind of a yellow color. Could it be spoiled? I didn't taste it. Any thoughts?


Yes it could. HFCS breaks down (mostly with light) and forms HMF typicaly noted by a brownish color (in pure syrup) there is a test for it, but I don't know who can do it. For me, I wouldn't risk it. off colored 100 gallons is worth 30.00 its gone down the drain myself. Might ask your supplier about testing, I know the guys in CA test regularly


----------



## sqkcrk

I'd hate to just dump it on the ground, but I don't know what else to do w/ it, if it is spoiled. Though I don't know what damage it might do to the environment, the soil, or the ground water. Seems like I would also want to dig a hole so I can cover it so bees can't get to it.


----------



## beekuk

sqkcrk said:


> Once that is done, boxes can be scorched to kill and remove any spores which may be present on the wooden surfaces.


 I agree, that is the best way for wooden hives, but most hives in Europe these days are poly, so cannot be scorched,so the government sites advice to use bleach, this would usually be done by a bee inspector.

This is from one of the web sites...

Plastic beehives have been used in Europe for at least 30 years. Although still
relatively uncommon in the UK, they are becoming more popular. Prior to
sterilisation, plastic hives and components need to be carefully cleaned, just as you
would a wooden hive. I.e. freeze components to kill insect pests, place onto a
disposable work surface (newspaper or cardboard), scrape all parts as thoroughly as
possible to remove adhering wax comb or propolis, and destroy all debris that you.remove, by burning. Once your plastic hive is clean, it is ready to be sterilised. However, options available are limited compared to the range of treatments you can use on wooden hives. Use of a blowtorch, for example, is clearly out of the question as this would simply melt the equipment, and the temperatures involved in paraffin wax treatment would also be inappropriate. Manufacturers of popular plastic hive brands recommend that the best available options are chemical disinfectants that contain hypochlorite or caustic soda, as described above for wooden hive sterilisation. Only hypochlorite-based products are recommended for AFB (see Dealing with EFB and AFB, below).

Brood boxes, and supers (and other beekeeping equipment) can be effectively sterilised using disinfectants containing hypochlorite. Sodium hypochlorite is present at a concentration of about 3% in household bleach. Research has shown that immersion for twenty minutes in a solution of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite in water kills AFB spores and other bacteria. In this case you therefore need to make a solution of one part of household bleach to five parts of water. It is essential that the spores are in contact with the solution, so any items immersed must be thoroughly cleaned.

And this is from some research on Bee L.

David Knox may not have been aware of the research at the time of his
conversation with you, but I can assure readers that the ability of bleach
(sodium hypochlorite) to kill AFB spores is not an urban legend.

For those who are interested, and have access to overseas beekeeping
journals, trial work showing that the substance is effective has been
reported in the New Zealand Beekeeper magazine (Goodwin, R.M., Haine, H.M.
1998. Sterilising beekeeping equipment infected with American foulbrood
disease spores. New Zealand Beekeeper (5)9:13.)

The work was carried out by Dr. Mark Goodwin and his team at Ruakura
Agricultural Research Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand. Mark is a
well-respected apiculture scientist who has carried out extensive research
on the causes and spread of AFB.

The following is a quote from a book Mark and I have written on AFB control
in New Zealand (Goodwin, R.M., Van Eaton, C. 1998. Elimination of American
Foulbrood Without the Use of Drugs: A Practical Manual for Beekeepers.
National Beekeepers' Assn. of NZ, Napier, NZ. 78 pp.):

"Sodium hypochlorite is a commonly used sterilising agent, and is one of the
few disinfectants that is effective against AFB spores. Sodium hypochlorite
is the active ingredient in household bleach, and is present in such
products at about 3% concentration. Research conducted at Ruakura has shown
that concentrations of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite in water will kill all AFB
spores in 20 minutes.

Sodium hypochlorite is potentially useful to treat beekeeping equipment such
as plastic or metal feeders and plastic frames. It is important to note,
however, that sodium hypochlorite will only kill what it comes into contact
with, so any material to be sterilised must be very clean before treatment.

Care also needs to be taken with the types of materials being treated. Some
plastics, metals, and especially leather, can degrade when put into sodium
hypochlorite solutions. It is therefore worthwhile carrying out a small
trial run before doing any major sterilisation of equipment. The material is
not recommended as a disinfectant for gloves, hive tools or smokers, since
the 20 minute contact time is crucial to successful destruction of AFB
spores.

Sodium hypochlorite solutions must be kept in the dark, since the chemical
breaks down in sunlight. The solution should also not be kept for long
periods and must be disposed of safely after use.

Finally, a note of caution. The effects of bleach on clothing are
well-known, so protective clothing should be worn when using the material.
Eye protection is recommended. Some individuals also react adversely
(dizziness, fainting) to the fumes of sodium hypochlorite, so extreme care
is needed when using the material."

The important point to note is that sodium hypochlorite is only a surface
sterilant, and will not penetrate into wood, wax, propolis, etc. In New
Zealand, we sterilise woodware recovered from AFB hives by dipping it in
paraffin heated to at least 160degC for at least 10 minutes. Mark has also
done research to show this is effective.


----------



## sqkcrk

Then that makes sense to do. Probably the best that can be done, though it doesn't kill the spores. It gets them where bees won't access them.


----------



## db_land

Do varroa carry/transmit AFB or EFB? I don't believe they do but could be wrong! Regarding how varroa transmit DWV and other pathogens: are their excrement deposits in the brood cells known to be infective or known not to be infective? How are the viruses transferred from one varroa to another --- perhaps only via an intermediary bee? How is it that varroa have been devastating the bee industry for the last 30? years, but we know so little about this scourge?

Maybe a good policy: About 2 years ago I started burning all brood comb because I think it becomes contaminated with fungicides --- especially when the hives are pollinating "pick-your-own" strawberry, pumpkin or veggie patches.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

What does all this AFB stuff have to do with Varroa?


----------



## beekuk

Joseph Clemens said:


> What does all this AFB stuff have to do with Varroa?


 Bleach, and if it would be effective in killing the viruses vectored by varroa.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Seriously, I'd appreciate your candid opinion on the use of a chlorine based product in our beehives.

I see no issues if you have a reason to disinfect a hive. Feeding it, I have two issues. The first, when I tried, it set off massive robbing. The smell seemed to incite a frenzy once they associated it with syrup. I had the same issue with vinegar added to the syrup. The second is my concern about the bacteria and yeasts in the hive that are beneficial. I don't want to kill off the bacteria in the gut of the bee.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Michael Bush said:


> >Seriously, I'd appreciate your candid opinion on the use of a chlorine based product in our beehives.
> 
> I see no issues if you have a reason to disinfect a hive. Feeding it, I have two issues. The first, when I tried, it set off massive robbing. The smell seemed to incite a frenzy once they associated it with syrup. I had the same issue with vinegar added to the syrup. The second is my concern about the bacteria and yeasts in the hive that are beneficial. I don't want to kill off the bacteria in the gut of the bee.


I agree. Putting chlorine bleach in sugar feed, to bees? Sounds like a ghost story. Unbelievable! No wonder you have CCD.


----------



## beemandan

Juhani Lunden said:


> I agree. Putting chlorine bleach in sugar feed, to bees? Sounds like a ghost story.


In the municipal water systems in Finland....what antibacterial compound is used?
When I need to feed, I add some ascorbic acid to mine to help keep it from growing mold too quickly. I know others who use citric acid and some acetic acid. I guess I don't see using chlorine bleach as much different.


----------



## melliferal

It's not. But if it always gets the same results that Bush's experiments got - the bees associating the smell with syrup and getting into robbing frenzies - it might be better to stick with those acids you use instead.


----------



## gmcharlie

While I cannot speak to killing of beneficial Bacteria, the feeding issue is a non starter in my yards, and that of most commercial guys I know of. The concentrations are VERY low. I can tell you there are no differences in my losses before or after additives (I have used vinegar at times also) so I don't really support its bad for them. and as mentioned if your useing tap water, its already done for you.

I can tell you I waste a lot less feed, and there is no MOLD growing in the feeders or hives... Now some may claim thats a beneficial mold, but I don't think so. I also am DARN sure that when it ferments or molds the bees no longer want it but the ants do.

I thought this was a thread on the falacies of varroa?? how did we get to feed additives again??


----------



## Juhani Lunden

gmcharlie said:


> While I cannot speak to killing of beneficial Bacteria, the feeding issue is a non starter in my yards, and that of most commercial guys I know of. The concentrations are VERY low. I can tell you there are no differences in my losses before or after additives (I have used vinegar at times also) so I don't really support its bad for them. and as mentioned if your useing tap water, its already done for you.
> 
> I can tell you I waste a lot less feed, and there is no MOLD growing in the feeders or hives... Now some may claim thats a beneficial mold, but I don't think so. I also am DARN sure that when it ferments or molds the bees no longer want it but the ants do.
> 
> I thought this was a thread on the falacies of varroa?? how did we get to feed additives again??


There is no chlorine in our well water. They use it in big cities.

I have fed bees fermented, one year old sugar frames, full boxes, I have seen no effects. But it is not wise to put them too late in autumn so they have time to clean everything up. 

Lets get back to discussion about varroa, our friend and allied!


----------



## squarepeg

beemandan said:


> In the municipal water systems in Finland....what antibacterial compound is used?
> When I need to feed, I add some ascorbic acid to mine to help keep it from growing mold too quickly. I know others who use citric acid and some acetic acid. I guess I don't see using chlorine bleach as much different.


not sure how important or not this is, but the acids lower the ph which keeps the bees from having to work as hard to do it themselves, bleach is a strong base and would raise the ph. seems like i've read somewhere that the more acidic ph is beneficial against harmful pathogens.


----------



## beemandan

squarepeg said:


> the acids lower the ph.... bleach is a strong base and would raise the ph.


Initially I was responding to the 'ghost story' comment made by our Finnish friend, Juhani Lunden. Was only pointing out that the feeding of chlorine to living organisms wasn't only a US beekeeper practice. 

I'm pretty sure that, if used, in proper concentrations chlorine bleach and acids will each have some advantage over the other. I also suspect that both will have an impact on gut microorganisms...but again the concentrations are the issue. 

We are sort of on topic. The whole chlorine issue was raised as a suggested defense against varroa vectored viruses. I would submit that concentrations that could be ingested by bees that would have a significant effect on those viruses would probably be toxic to the bees themselves. But that's simply conjecture on my part.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

beemandan said:


> Initially I was responding to the 'ghost story' comment made by our Finnish friend, Juhani Lunden. Was only pointing out that the feeding of chlorine to living organisms wasn't only a US beekeeper practice.
> I'm pretty sure that, if used, in proper concentrations each will have some advantage over the other. I also suspect that both will have an impact on gut microorganisms...but again the concentrations are the issue.
> We are sort of on topic. The whole chlorine issue was raised as a suggested defense against varroa vectored viruses. I would submit that concentrations that could be ingested by bees that would have a significant effect on those viruses would probably be toxic to the bees themselves. But that's simply conjecture on my part.


If we want to have virus resistance, is it wise to kill viruses?


----------



## beemandan

Juhani Lunden said:


> If we want to have virus resistance, is it wise to kill viruses?


I'm not advocating feeding bees bleach. Someone else suggested feeding bleach/syrup to kill mite vectored viruses. My statement was...if it was strong enough to kill the viruses vectored by the mites, it would also likely be toxic to the bees.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

beemandan said:


> I'm not advocating feeding bees bleach. Someone else suggested feeding bleach/syrup to kill mite vectored viruses. My statement was...if it was strong enough to kill the viruses vectored by the mites, it would also likely be toxic to the bees.


Sorry ,did not mean that you suggested, I meant generally.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I don't see how an oxidizing agent, such as bleach or other chlorine compounds could have a positive affect on destroying virus particles, without serious problems for the bees, since the active virus particles (the ones we need to worry about), are residing inside the living cells of our bees, and the Varroa mites. If these agents were able to interfere with the "life"-cycle of the virus, they would have, most certainly, seriously disrupted the cells containing them.

Of course, a strong enough dose, could extirpate the mites, and the virus they carry. However, it seems unlikely that a dose, strong enough to affect the mites, wouldn't affect the bees too.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Has anyone tried supplementing the bees diets with copper. I've read some early studies that this was good for the bees and detrimental to mites.

I am right in the middle of many copper mining operations, and have been wondering if the forage in my vicinity might also be enriched in copper, thus providing a natural Varroa inhibiting effect.


----------



## Oldtimer

Copper certainly gets rid of those nasty little arthropod parasites in fish tanks.

It's like treating for varroa though, have to make sure you don't kill the fish.


----------



## melliferal

Juhani Lunden said:


> If we want to have virus resistance, is it wise to kill viruses?


I don't think bees can actually develop a "virus resistance". They have plasmatocytes in their hemolymph which can eat invading bacteria and other parasites; but I don't believe they have antibodies and related mechanisms for combatting viruses. So I would tend to say, go forth and kill the viruses!


----------



## beekuk

Joseph Clemens said:


> Has anyone tried supplementing the bees diets with copper. I've read some early studies that this was good for the bees and detrimental to mites.


 Some have, yes, it was on sale in the UK, but i have no idea how well it worked.
Was this the kind of thing you saw, Joseph.

http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/cuguse.html

http://www.honeybeez.freeserve.co.uk/HAPPY HIVE SALTS.htm


----------



## WLC

Yes, Honeybees can have viral resistance.

Maori found IAPV resistance in Israeli Honeybees which was subsequently developed by Beeologics.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

beekuk/Pete,
Yes, those are some of the links I had read, earlier, about supplemental copper. Earlier, I had tried feeding a little copper gluconate to nucs, as I was first making them up. It may have been beneficial, though difficult to determine, since even hives not receiving the supplementation, exhibited no overt Varroa distress.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

melliferal said:


> I don't think bees can actually develop a "virus resistance". They have plasmatocytes in their hemolymph which can eat invading bacteria and other parasites; but I don't believe they have antibodies and related mechanisms for combatting viruses. So I would tend to say, go forth and kill the viruses!



I can only rely on my own experience:
I got some 20 Italian virgin queens from a friend of mine, they were all mated in my isolation apiary and my drones.

I sent laying queens back to my friend, all but one. The one I kept, I put into hive on my home yard, just 20m from home door. The queen I replaced was my normal stock. 3 weeks after the queen was put into this home yard hive, there started to be loads of wingless bees in the entrance and flying board of this Italian queen hive. All other hives in that yard had nothing.

This is only my assumption: Those Italian queens must have been exceptionally weak against viruses (or my hives strong). Lots of variation anyway, if not resistance.


----------



## melliferal

WLC said:


> Yes, Honeybees can have viral resistance.
> 
> Maori found IAPV resistance in Israeli Honeybees which was subsequently developed by Beeologics.


Interesting!

But was the resistance to the virus itself, or the vector of infection? I am curious how the viral resistance is manifested, if bees don't have antibodies (etc). Just a natural incompatibility with the virus maybe?


----------



## WLC

melliferal said:


> Interesting! But was the resistance to the virus itself, or the vector of infection? I am curious how the viral resistance is manifested, if bees don't have antibodies (etc). Just a natural incompatibility with the virus maybe?


It was RNAi.

The current forms of immunity in Honeybees that are under study are: RNAi, Toll, Imd, and Jak/STAT.

Just google RNAi to get the basics of how it works.

What's known is that both Varroa and neonics can indeed weaken the antiviral response controlled by the Toll pathway. It's a bad combination.


----------



## melliferal

RNAi, gotcha. So this bee's immune system isn't actually _directly_ attacking the virus itself; it just happens that this bee's RNA represses the particular virus's copying instructions. That's pretty handy!

However, it seems to me that this trait suffers from the same negative that treating AFB with terramycin suffers from - those particular bees are safe, but their colony is a disease vector for other colonies.


----------



## WLC

Not really. Virus levels are greatly reduced in RNAI virus resistant colonies. So, they're less of a 'vector' problem than non-resistant colonies.


----------



## melliferal

I'm sure it is; it's not the level in the colony that I mean to say might be a problem. It's the fact that the disease's presence is undetectable in a colony with this resistance, so you don't know when it's there (and therefore when you're getting some of these bees you can't tell if you're bringing IAPV into your apiary).

But, the gene is certainly an important discovery. I think people should try keeping a few colonies of these bees and crossing them with their non-resistant bees so this gene starts growing some legs.


----------



## WLC

Well, what we should really be looking for is the mechanism that put the resistance gene there. What they found was a 'jumping gene'.

Some of us would like to know exactly what made it 'jump' in the first place.


----------



## melliferal

Like most evolution, it may well be coincidence. The particular RNA that happens to repress the replication of the virus might not be there for that reason; it could have some other actual function and the RNAi with the IAPV is a nifty bonus.


----------



## db_land

db_land said:


> Regarding how varroa transmit DWV and other pathogens: are their excrement deposits in the brood cells known to be infective or known not to be infective?


I think this means that the varroa mite feces does contain the DWV: "DWV was found only in the midgut lumen of V. destructor in structures resembling large, dense spheres, which were presumably faecal pellets." reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18559939


----------

