# Varroa shouldn't develop resistance to OA?



## wallyblackburn (May 5, 2015)

I've read that in a number of places. I *do* hope this isn't one of those subjects that ignite holy wars. But, can anyone explain to dumb ole IT guy why this is true - or do we really have a good idea that it *is* true?

Thanks,
Wally


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

The way I understand it ( and I could be wrong) is it basically burns their tiny little feet off and there is no real way to develop a resistance to that.


----------



## Robbin (May 26, 2013)

I don't know about the little feet, but I read that it is a physical, not a toxin, so they can't build up a resistance. Kind of like stepping on them, if they survive the first time, doesn't mean they are harder to kill by stepping on them the second time. Which really makes it a great way to treat a hive.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

The OA enters thru the foot pads of the mite and travels to their "bloodstream" thus killing them. In 20+ years of usage in Europe, no resistance. That should tell you something.


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

One of the problems with science and conjecture is that the scientist dies of old age long long before any hypothesis can be proven when it comes to something that takes many generations to find out about. 20 years is a drop in the ocean of time that honey bees have traveled thru. 
Who knows if Varroa will develop thicker feet in 10,000 years? Anybody willing to offer up their crystal balls?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

aunt betty said:


> Who knows if Varroa will develop thicker feet in 10,000 years? Anybody willing to offer up their crystal balls?


Well... that gives us 9980 years to develop an alternate treatment that can replace OA.


----------



## Duncan151 (Aug 3, 2013)

Mike Gillmore said:


> Well... that gives us 9980 years to develop an alternate treatment that can replace OA.


By then, we should be gone, and the bees will be fine!


----------



## JSL (Sep 22, 2007)

Varroa shouldn't infest Apis mellifera either... Only time will tell.


----------



## colby (Jan 12, 2013)

Duncan151 said:


> By then, we should be gone, and the bees will be fine!


I am sure the bees will figure out a way to survive.. and as George Carlin said " the Earths going know where...... We are......"


----------



## GaryG74 (Apr 9, 2014)

They will be able to co-exist by then without killing the hive.


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

Duncan151 said:


> By then, we should be gone, and the bees will be fine!


You logic is fine for you but what about your offspring and their offspring and theirs beyond that? 
Who cares about your kids, grandkids, great grandkids if you don't? You're way of thinking is part of the problem we have today and frankly it terrifies me how you think it's funny.

Ever wonder how a desert forms? I'm betting that they're man-made.


----------



## Duncan151 (Aug 3, 2013)

aunt betty said:


> You logic is fine for you but what about your offspring and their offspring and theirs beyond that?
> Who cares about your kids, grandkids, great grandkids if you don't? You're way of thinking is part of the problem we have today and frankly it terrifies me how you think it's funny.
> 
> Ever wonder how a desert forms? I'm betting that they're man-made.


I do think that it is funny! However, I do not nor will I ever have kids! I am funny like that! 

Deserts are formed by cutting down too many of the trees in a brittle environment. Ever wonder what happened to the fertile crescent?


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

wallyblackburn said:


> I've read that in a number of places. I *do* hope this isn't one of those subjects that ignite holy wars. But, can anyone explain to dumb ole IT guy why this is true - or do we really have a good idea that it *is* true?
> 
> Thanks,
> Wally


I have always thought OA to mites is like fire to humans.... getting burnt to a crisp is hard to adapt from and then procreate tougher offspring.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Hmmm...


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

There is life on every square inch of this planet, from extreme cold, to extreme hot, fish that live in acid water to animals that live without sunlight. 

I am sure mites could figure out how to avoid burning their feet. Look at what we have already done; created resistant mites and antibiotic resistant AFB, and that's in just a few decades. But if we avoid giving the mites continuous sub-lethal doses of OA then we reduce their chance to evolve.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

FlowerPlanter said:


> But if we avoid giving the mites continuous sub-lethal doses of OA then we reduce their chance to evolve.


If you use the correct amount of OA when vaporizing, there is a sub-lethal dose of OA to a mite? Who uses less than advised? With the small amount needed, I'm guessing more beekeepers use more OA than needed rather than less..........


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

FlowerPlanter said:


> I am sure mites could figure out how to avoid burning their feet.


How? The OA covers the entire inside of the hive and enters thru the pads of their feet into their "bloodstream." Again, in over 20 years, it has not happened.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

snl said:


> How?


Never say never. 

How many other treatments have the mites become resistant too?

OAV kills 97 percent of the mites outside the cells? What of the few mites that are left? Why did they not die?

They have feet too.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

FlowerPlanter said:


> OAV kills 97 percent of the mites outside the cells? What of the few mites that are left? Why did they not die?
> 
> They have feet too.


I'm guessing that there were a few vacant cells in which there were mites that the OA just didn't reach.


----------



## Galaxie (May 13, 2015)

I am not a biologist, but if it is true that the OA crystals get stuck to the sticky parts of the mites' feet and abrades them away, then I don't see how they could ever build up resistance. (See post #173 in this thread.)

Besides that, considering varroa reproduce on a 10 day cycle, shouldn't 20 years be more than enough time for any possible resistance to show up? :scratch: That's like 730 generations, right?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

>> See post #173 in this thread.

The explanation/theory of oxalic acid 'mode of action' against varroa that Bernhard posted in that earlier post is roughly consistent with the explanation by the Kentucky State Apiarist in this newsletter: 
http://www.kyagr.com/statevet/documents/BEELINES-SEPTEMBER-2015.pdf

Also, Randy Oliver has some speculation here that oxalic acid may dessicate the varroa in a similar manner to the way boric acid does.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Considering that OA burns off feet and mouth parts, it'd be like humans becoming immune to gunshots to the face.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

shinbone said:


> Considering that OA burns off feet and mouth parts, it'd be like humans becoming immune to gunshots to the face.


it's conceivable that a mutation could arise that renders the mites less susceptible. the old 'dead bugs don't develop resistance' pitch has been around for years, but somehow the few that survive carry on and pass on the ability to carry on to future generations. i sincerely hope that doesn't happen in this case, but to believe that it cannot happen is wishful thinking.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Why are we so bent on changing the bees habits which well might be detrimental down the road. Why not experiment with actions to induce change in the mites to make them less successful? Their breeding success rate would only need to be slightly lowered and their numbers would decline perhaps to obscurity. 

There is a lot of worried emphasis on the possibility of mite adaptation to _some_ of the treatments used. Will they not adapt to the changes being attempted upon the bees? Is this not equally wishful thinking? On the other hand the bees will not make adaptations to try to undo any handicap you impose upon the mites.

I am certainly no geneticist but I see a possible misdirection of efforts to solve this probably temporary situation we have brought upon the bees. Are we overlooking the obvious?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

good points made there frank. in nature parasites and their hosts either develop some sort of equilibrium with each other or one and sometimes both go extinct. with managed bees nature is for the most part taken out of the equation because we are manipulating them for production and introducing variables that would otherwise not be there.

that there are feral bees having survived the invasion of varroa shows equilibrium can be achieved. whether these strains are suitable for production or will continue to thrive in a production setting is another question. it may be one of those we can't have our cake and eat it too situations.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

I still cannot comprehend how any organism can develop a mutation or resistance to "acids". Are there any examples we can reference which show the evolution of acid tolerant organisms?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Mike Gillmore said:


> I still cannot comprehend how any organism can develop a mutation or resistance to "acids". Are there any examples we can reference which show the evolution of acid tolerant organisms?


i haven't spent a great of time reading up on this mike, so i'm pretty much shooting from the hip here, and i have no examples.

graham's link to post 173 on this thread is the best description of the mechanism of action that i have seen so far:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...Acid-Vaporization-Questions-and-Answers/page5

my point was that it's 'conceivable' that a mutation could arise that would interfere with that process in some way or another, be it a mechanical, anatomical, biochemical, or some other adaptation. i offer no speculation as to how likely or not that is to happen, but disagree with the analogies offered as arguments that developing resistance is not possible.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

the mite physically is not tough. So in order for the mite to develop resistance it would have to change its exoskeleton. While there is variability in all creatures DNA that is alot of change. As far as I know mites have not shown any resistance to acid treatments. We beekeepers should never rely on one approach. Breeding for a variety of better bees is always best.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> As far as I know mites have not shown any resistance to acid treatments.


They have not in 20 plus years of usage against them.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

squarepeg said:


> it's conceivable that a mutation could arise that renders the mites less susceptible. the old 'dead bugs don't develop resistance' pitch has been around for years, but somehow the few that survive carry on and pass on the ability to carry on to future generations. i sincerely hope that doesn't happen in this case, but to believe that it cannot happen is wishful thinking.


The problem with these discussions is that some will presume that, if in a laboratory with all the variables carefully fine tuned to maximize the possibility of the organism adapting, and there is then a single adaptation out of 1000's of trials, then they proclaim that it will happen in a bee hive in the real world.

First no one has shown that such an adaptation by mites could every happen in a laboratory under ideal conditions, second, as beekeepers, our purposes involve the real world far removed from the artificially contrived world of a research lab, and, third, OAV has been in use in Europe for 20 years with no evidence of any kind of adaptation.

Put another way, while I am very confident that Earth will not be hit by a huge species-killing meteorite tomorrow, someone can say that we don't know for sure, and they would be right. But this "theoretical rightness" is very different from being a real world concern.

In other words, I gently encourage beekeepers to not confuse an infinitesimally small possibility as a likelihood.

I say that the mites will never adapt to being burned with acid.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

I don't think its a matter of mites "being burned with acid." Note that the _bees _don't suffer from "being burned with acid". Why is that?

The bees have a different material/structure on their footpads. I don't know the exact difference, but clearly the oxalic acid doesn't affect the bee footpad the same way that it does the mite footpad. I think _squarepeg _is correct - there is _some possibility_ that mites with a different style footpad could evolve.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i think dr. latshaw's post #8 says it all.

and we've all heard this one before:

'past performance is no guarantee of future results'

20 years is a mere hiccup on the evolutionary scale.

who said anything about laboratories? 

yes graham, you understood my point. the way that resistance develops is that those individuals that somehow survive the treatment because of some little difference carry on to reproduce and pass on that ability to future generations. 

there's nothing magic about oxalic acid or any other treatment that makes it immune to the possibility of that happening. statements to the contrary or even attempting to assign a high or low probability to the likelihood of seeing it happen are pretty much misguided.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

That last sentence seems a bit out of character squarepeg.

The mites feet and probosis are very specialized pieces of equipment for manoevering on bees and that seems to be the areas especially attacked by OA. It seems to be asking a lot to change a very specific enabling trait. Maybe on parallel with a horse developing tree climbing claws to its ungulate foot in order to escape its enemies by climbing trees. 

The resistance to coumaphos, fluvalinate, amitraz etc. seem to go away when the particular product is taken out of service. In other words the resistance does not get embedded forever into the mite and does not require a complete physical anatomical change like resistance to an outright flesh destroying product like oxalic acid or formic acid would necessitate.

I do think the probability of resistance adaptation is more or less likely to develop with exposure to irritants having vastly different attack modes.

Adaptation is not the only possible outcome in evolution. I do not have a specific one in mind but there are more than a few occasions where one of the combatants in evolutionary events became unsuccessful in adapting and another creative species shifted into that niche.

That particularly cold winter that Napoleon ventured into Russia and his soldiers froze their toes off sure put him out of that fight. To this very day none of his contrymen have developed much resistance to frostbite.

I think it really stinks that so many of our human use antibiotics are losing their affectiveness through flagrant and casual abuse and overuse. I think some foreign honeys even had traces of some of our last ditch drugs reserved for use against superbugs which were apparently being used on bees for AFB and EFB. 

That mechanism I can understand but can you fill us in on how Oxalic and Formic acids are as surely to be adaptabale to.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

crofter said:


> That last sentence seems a bit out of character squarepeg.


probably so frank. my apologies to the forum. i need to work on not allowing myself to become terse like that. i meant what i said but could have been more diplomatic about it.



crofter said:


> mechanism I can understand but can you fill us in on how Oxalic and Formic acids are as surely to be adaptabale to.


perhaps i am way off base here, i'm not an entomologist. in my mind it seems conceivable that those feet and proboscises could change is some way as to render the acids less effective, by becoming thicker perhaps or changing biochemically in some way that neutralizes the acid.

i've not seen it myself, but can someone point me to a reference in which any of our leading researchers have gone on record stating that adaptation to these treatments is extremely unlikely?

i would honestly rather be wrong about this than win a war of words on an internet forum. heaven help us if it happens. i have stated many times that i have no issues with those finding it necessary to treat their bees, and that if i found myself in that position the organic acids are very likely what i would use.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

There certainly have been developments in selection of bee traits that make them more resistant to mites. This _may_be the answer to arriving at some kind of a livable working arrangement between mite and bee but I think it worthwhile to mention that this definitely is not a given though it is highly desired to be so. I feel that the organic acids will buy us time. I truly am more afraid of the potential loss of genetic material; the creation of a genetic bottleneck whereby the bees lose capabilities that are the potential cure, not now, but in the future, for the next pestilence that is sure to come. My gut feeling is that we may be giving up something far more valuable to the future in the name of a cure for a temporary pest that has been on our bees for only a speck of time in evolutionary terms.

I have no crystal ball either but I can imagine some different possible outcomes. I can not climb aboard a boat that appears to have some simplistic answers to some very unknowable outcomes. Fearmongering and other tactics can elevate temporarily the polling popularity of a given hypothesis, so it is a common tactic in the war of words, but surely we can get beyond that. I simply dont know the answer but I object to the the supposition that adaptation and resistance absolutely, and necessarily _must_ take place in an organism no matter what the nature of the attack. 

Extinction is one alternate outcome that has happened over and over. Statistics appear to show that far more life forms have become extinct on earth than those that presently exist.
The mite is terribly specialized and dependent on the honeybee. That really should make it highly vulnerable as a species. Surely we can find some ***** in its armor that will render it a bit less successful. We are not far from that point now, needing only a few points lower breeding success per cycle. I would rather see its genetics monkeyed with than the bees! Different point of view eh?


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

I would say it's at this point where we need experts on varroa mites rather than primarily honeybees.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

good post frank, and i heartily concur with all you say in it.

to be fair, i don't think i said or implied that adaptation_ must_ occur, only that it is conceivable that it _could_.

others put forth the view that it could not happen given the mechanism of action, to which i disagreed, and i stand by my statement that to believe adaptation _cannot_ happen is wishful thinking.

either way, i appreciate the accountability comment, and in the end it's a sure bet we all want what's best for our bees eh?


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Luckily we have many other treatment regimens against the mites and not just oav alone.
Using other treatment options on rotation should not allow the mites to develop resistant.
If the mites want to survive then they have to evolve and adapt faster than the bees. So if 
the bees do not evolve to better protect themselves then the mites should not either. When 
the host crash so are the parasites. So until the super mites are reported sometime in the future we should
maintain our positive outlook. When that day comes we will know. Until then....


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

WLC said:


> Hmmm...



Hmmmm what? You usually have a lot more to say.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

shinbone said:


> Considering that OA burns off feet and mouth parts, it'd be like humans becoming immune to gunshots to the face.


I can't help but think of the picture I have in my head of the revolutionary war.

British soldiers marching in formation wearing bright colors = likely to get shot in the face.

The minutemen adapted their behavior to reduce their risk of being shot in the face....they didn't wear bright clothing, they didn't fight in formation...they hid behind trees amd shot the easy red coat targets.

Both groups have the same soft flesh...yet one group became much more resistant to being shot in the face.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

snl said:


> How? The OA covers the entire inside of the hive and enters thru the pads of their feet into their "bloodstream." Again, in over 20 years, it has not happened.


TM resistance in foul brood didn't happen until misuse (extender patties) came into use....then it developed quickly.

There is a reason that cavalier attitudes about dosage and frequency make many of us nervous.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

deknow said:


> I can't help but think of the picture I have in my head of the revolutionary war.
> 
> British soldiers marching in formation wearing bright colors = likely to get shot in the face.
> 
> ...


lol! Now that is funny.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

crofter said:


> There certainly have been developments in selection of bee traits that make them more resistant to mites. This _may_be the answer to arriving at some kind of a livable working arrangement between mite and bee but I think it worthwhile to mention that this definitely is not a given though it is highly desired to be so. I feel that the organic acids will buy us time. I truly am more afraid of the potential loss of genetic material; the creation of a genetic bottleneck whereby the bees lose capabilities that are the potential cure, not now, but in the future, for the next pestilence that is sure to come. "
> 
> Have you read Seely's et al. latest paper? In the feral bees studied, a bottleneck was shown after varroa, without loss of genetic diversity. If we were worried about genetic diversity, we would be showing concern about the package industry in principal, and the lack of local sustainability in many regions, the genetic impacts of shipping bees all over the place and the limited numbers of queen families.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

Watching invertebrates muck about in acidic and high temperature environments in deep oceanic trenches gives me some pause about saying never. I have some belief that there are physical constraints that can't be overcome. Not sure if this is the case with mites and oxalic acid.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

There are many common practices with bees that should be of concern. If we place infinite time frame to our decisions the outcome is virtually unknowable. Each one of us is susceptible to choosing our own possibilities to demonize and sometimes go to great lengths to gather pieces of information to support that view: Too often we latch onto symptoms and direct our efforts to eliminate them without doing anything to eliminate the underlying cause.

This does not apply just to the mite problem on bees; Think the food production / population / environmental situation! Solutions can have some virtually irreversible consequences.

I think we should go very carefully and try to make as sure as possible that every move made is one that can be undone. Mass media is catastrophizng the conditions of honeybees but is there really any need for panic?


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

If you wanted a mite that could withstand oxalic acid and you did not have a lab to splice genes, How would you do?

I might start with an OA treatment that kill 97% phoretic mites. Breed those 3% mites that survived. let them build up and do it again. Keep breeding the survivors. 

Opps we are already doing that. :doh:

But after "20 years" it has not happened so it's not going to, right? 

It took 45 years of oxytetracycline application before bacteria became resistance. We now have at least 8 different strains of AFB, each having a different tolerance to our regiment of antibiotics in use. 

Mites have already become resistant to several treatments. With more and more people using *only* OA it will bring in resistance sooner.

It's not a matter of if, It's a matter of When.


----------



## dsegrest (May 15, 2014)

I've heard there are ****roaches that have built up a resistance to acme boots.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

So, as beekeepers we marvel at the behavioral adaptations that bees have made...and continue to make in response to pests. We even 'breed' (select) based upon these behaviors in order that these behaviors might become more common in the population and succeed in reducing mite damage.

...but the idea that mites can only develop resistance by non-behavioral adaptations seems to be the assumption.

We know (at least according to the best research available) that tracheal mites are identical to external mites on the bee...except that they changed their behavior and moved inside the tracheae.

I can imagine a number of ways for mites to 'hide behind the trees (or bees)' and avoid being shot in the face...none of them are as incredible as the idea that mites will adapt to live in the bees tracheae and result in harmless external mites becoming a major problem for almost 100 years.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Everything we know about resistance points to the fact that using something to kill mites with no concern about dosage or frequency of application is (as FP states) exactly how one would develop resistance.



FlowerPlanter said:


> If you wanted a mite that could withstand oxalic acid and you did not have a lab to splice genes, How would you do?
> 
> I might start with an OA treatment that kill 97% phoretic mites. Breed those 3% mites that survived. let them build up and do it again. Keep breeding the survivors.
> 
> ...


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

dsegrest said:


> I've heard there are ****roaches that have built up a resistance to acme boots.


No resistance per se, but you know you are only killing the slow ones.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I see lots of words to support a preconceived outcome but mostly analogical support that it will occur with the organic aciids. There is a list of tactics to sway opinion in an argument that range from ridicule, appeal to authority, false analogies, and many more; That is the war of words. It often forms popular opinion but that is politics not science.

There is much information on methods of reducing the likelihood of the target developing resistance. Many are counter intuitive like the caution to not use light or marginally effective doses etc. Rotation of various methods is always advisable as a precaution. It is not wrong to assume that resistance development is a possibility so use the tools available.

It seems that off label use of amitraz resulted in widespread resitance to it but after it got dropped from the menu of common usage for a few years the mites are now susceptible to it again. Some adaptations are forgotten and do not become a permanent part of a super organism. 

Lets not get caught up in agenda where the convenient omission or emphasis of certain factors becomes a contest. What is science and what is the stuff of faith and fortune telling?


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

As I see it, the problem with saying; "given enough time even something with a small probability of happening will still probably happen," is that it ignores many other effects constantly at play. The time scale becomes so long and there are so many other things that could happen, that it is unrealistic and even misleading to talk as if the low probability event is imminent or something we should worry about.

For example, while true that _given enough time_ mites could probably adapt to having their feet and mouth parts burned off with acid, such a statement ignores the long timescales that such an adaptation would take. In the mean time, it is just as likely that mites could go extinct for other reasons, bees could go extinct, humans could go extinct, humans could evolve to no longer being able to tolerate or use honey in any form, humans could create a process whereby a superior product is more cheaply produced, etc., etc.

It is for the above reasons that I think a statement to the effect that "mites will probably someday adapt to being chemically burned" is a silly statement, that, at least, should have a few qualifiers noting the long times scales involved, etc., added to make it have any real world meaning.

JMHO


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

my personal opinion is that none of us here are really qualified enough say whether we are talking about a short time frame or a long time frame. i would venture to say that even the experts in this field would be hesitant to offer a prediction to how long it could possibly take. again, if anyone has a reference to someone recognized as knowledgeable offering an educated guess on the subject please share it with the group.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

crofter said:


> There are many common practices with bees that should be of concern. If we place infinite time frame to our decisions the outcome is virtually unknowable. Each one of us is susceptible to choosing our own possibilities to demonize and sometimes go to great lengths to gather pieces of information to support that view: Too often we latch onto symptoms and direct our efforts to eliminate them without doing anything to eliminate the underlying cause.
> 
> There are generally useful biological principals that are helpful in managing the spread of disease pests. Not following them is what causes problems in the first place. Its not complicated. Learning from mistakes is.
> 
> ...


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

With the invention of my stationary oav gadget I am doing an all year long
mite treatment without being on a cycle or measured oa dosage amount and its related experiments. 
On purpose I will save some mites with treatment not on a schedule intentionally. Figured that 2 seasons had gone by already and
my hives got plaque by the mites on every Spring expansion. Either they die or continue to expand. If the mites develop
resistant to the oxalis acid then my hives are the first ones to go. I will let you all know if this is going to happen or not.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

When OA came in use in Finland (20 years ago) is was pointed out that in no circumstances more than one treatment/year should be done because two treatments would be too hard on bees. This advise was given because in the early phase of usage strange things happened when too big dosages were used: bees vanished altogether or they never settled down after treatment to wintering mode etc.

Today all bigger beekeepers use OA twice a year, autumn and spring.

They say it is not because of resistance, but the viruses have become o much more virulent that 95% efficiency is not enough, 99% is needed.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Juhani, was that being applied as trickle in a sugar solution or vaporized?


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Trickle in a sugar solution, they may have started with water solution, I´m not sure.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

WLC said:


> Hmmm...


Holy cow?!?! Welcome back! How did your soybean trials end up?!?


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

IMO it's not the mites so much as the virus. What we need is an effective tool against them and noting is forthcoming as far as I can tell. Many hives did fine with high varroa counts until the invasion of so many virus issues.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

If it is not the mites then what will carry the virus?
You have the mite infestation first and then the DWVs will come next.
In a severe case the symptom is like a foul brood situation. Get rid of the mites and your
bees will be healthy again.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

As soon as the mites complete their manufacturing contract with Nike us OA Users are in deep and serious trouble.
Johno


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

​Per Jennifer Berry....

"And I also agree, that resistance will not be an issue. It'd be like a ****roach becoming resistant to a hammer. "


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

snl said:


> ​Per Jennifer Berry....
> "And I also agree, that resistance will not be an issue. It'd be like a ****roach becoming resistant to a hammer. "


Give a million people hammers smashing ****roaches and you will get; *faster ****roaches!*

Randy Oliver: "Will overuse of oxalic acid result in its becoming just another “Silver Bullet” with a limited effective life, due to mites evolving resistance? I strongly suggest using it to knock back mite levels only once a year. Otherwise, we’ll just be breeding for OA-resistant mites"


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Different opinions from 2 very well respected entomologists. However, Jennifer has time on her side. 20+ years of no resistance in Europe.


----------



## cervus (May 8, 2016)

I know it's heresy, but could it possibly, maybe, perhaps be that Randy Oliver is wrong on this one? Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that Mr. Oliver's assessment is based, at least in part, on the outcome seen with other miticides with very different modes of action? Possible?


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

snl said:


> Different opinions from 2 very well respected entomologists. However, Jennifer has time on her side. 20+ years of no resistance in Europe.


It took 50 years for AFB resistance to OTC, many said it wouldn't happen. Now we have at least 7 new strains each having a different resistance to our antibiotic regiment. 

Time is the key!


----------



## cervus (May 8, 2016)

FlowerPlanter you left off the last part of the quote. "Will overuse of oxalic acid result in its becoming just another “Silver Bullet” with a limited effective life, due to mites evolving resistance? I strongly suggest using it to knock back mite levels only once a year. Otherwise, we’ll just be breeding for OA-resistant mites—*especially if you’re also using formic acid!*"

What do you reckon he means by that? Mode of action? Kinda hinders a lot of treatment. I know a lot of people who rotate OAV with MAQS.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

No one has a crystal ball to tell us anything for sure of future. However, being a pragmatist, Mr. Oliver is simply cautioning us against "hit often hit hard hit again hit one more time hit just for giggles" strategy that we know doesn't work for very long in any sort of setting.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

Exactly, no one can say it will happen and no one can say it won't. Given what we have seen in the past we can do things to increase or decrease the chances. 

A sole treatment that everyone on the planet uses will only increase the chances. 

Breed a better a bee may avoids it altogether. At the rate it's going I suspect that this may happen long before we have to worry about resistance.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

FlowerPlanter said:


> Exactly, no one can say it will happen and no one can say it won't. Given what we have seen in the past we can do things to increase or decrease the chances.


FP is correct. Take DDT as an example. Within a few years use flies developed resistance such that doses 1000X prior effective doses no longer killed them. Yet, after 65 years use in mosquito control resistance has not developed. Flies had different back ground genetics that set them up to develop resistance fast and mosquitos lack that gene. Still, given long enough use mosquitos will likely eventually become resistant also. So, resistance is also dependent on what insect you are talking about and is totally unpredictable as to when or if it will happen. The potential is always there, but it may or may not happen. We can control how fast it happens by prudent rotation of treatments. That is really the only way to control it. Even that may fail.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

FlowerPlanter said:


> Exactly, no one can say it will happen and no one can say it won't. Given what we have seen in the past we can do things to increase or decrease the chances.


FP is correct. Take DDT as an example. Within a few years use flies developed resistance such that doses 1000X prior effective doses no longer killed them. Yet, after 65 years use in mosquito control resistance has not developed. Flies had different back ground genetics that set them up to develop resistance fast and mosquitos lack that gene. Still, given long enough use mosquitos will likely eventually become resistant also. So, resistance is also dependent on what insect you are talking about and is totally unpredictable as to when or if it will happen. The potential is always there, but it may or may not happen. We can control how fast it happens by prudent rotation of treatments. That is really the only way to control it. Even that may fail.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

aunt betty said:


> One of the problems with science and conjecture is that the scientist dies of old age long long before any hypothesis can be proven when it comes to something that takes many generations to find out about. 20 years is a drop in the ocean of time that honey bees have traveled thru.
> Who knows if Varroa will develop thicker feet in 10,000 years? Anybody willing to offer up their crystal balls?


IN 10,000 years (as if I care what is happening then) honey bees will have enslaved varroa mites to make honey for them. and they will be pooping gold. Wish I could be there.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

I think we should debate this till the "cows come home." Any takers? :lookout:


----------



## Titus_TN (Jun 13, 2016)

There are a lot of people on this thread who don't know much about either molecular biology or genetics. There are a precious couple who sound like they might.

Genetic mutations are random. Organisms do not build resistance to a toxin, or develop any other trait, simply because they are exposed to it over time. Populations develop resistance because, at the time of exposure to the stimulus, there are existing within the population individuals possessing a resistant characteristic; the elimination of other genotypes from the gene pool by operation of the harmful stimulus results in a population all descended from the resistant individuals. They thus either all display or carry the resistant characteristic. Thus, the point in instructions such as "don't use mild treatments," is not that exposed-but-not-killed organisms become resistant; the point is that the treatment has to be strong enough to kill all of the susceptible individuals, allowing other factors (be it bees, or your body's immune system) to destroy the now-smaller population (if any) of susceptible individuals. In the case of bees and mites, since most honey bees groom mites poorly, if you kill all you can you are at least reducing the potential reproduction options of any resistant individuals, keeping the population (and the undesirable trait) in check.

So forget the redcoats-and-colonials analogy. Animals are not inheriting learned behaviors. Some behaviors in lower animals are the result of inherited traits (such as some grooming habits in certain bees), but they aren't inherited after being "learned."

Now, because of the way genetic resistance works, the potential defense has to be something that can be coded for within the critter's DNA. Moreover, in order for a resistance to be likely to develop, it has to be coded somewhere and somehow that is amenable to easy mutation in a non-lethal manner. This is comparatively easy for bacteria: antibiotics work on the molecular level by interacting with proteins or lipids on the cell membrane of an individual bacterium and either starting a reaction that damages the cell or preventing the bacterium from performing some necessary life function. (This is also, incidentally, how most poisons, including, e.g., herbicides and carbon monoxide, work, by impairing chemical pathways the organism needs to survive.) Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics because (1) they have short genomes, (2) reproduce rapidly, and (3) have a fairly plastic genetic tolerance for many of their parts: so an individual bacterium with a cell membrane that isn't affected by penicillin isn't necessarily going to die without reproducing. A human without hemoglobin, by contrast, won't be susceptible to carbon-monoxide poisoning, but also won't live long enough for it to make a difference.

In order to assess the likelihood of resistance to oxyllic acid on the part of mites, one needs to understand (1) the mechanism by which the acid attacks the mite, (2) the characteristic in the mite's phenotype that makes it vulnerable to that attack, (3) the corresponding part of the mite's genotype, (4) what sort of change in the phenotype would insulate the mite against the attack, (5) the compatibility of a change in the mite's genotype capable of producing the helpful phenotype with the mite's existence generally, and (6) the likelihood (based on observed mutation rates and genetic diversity within mite populations) of such a trait emerging.

Needless to say, there are a lot of moving parts there. Not that it's a stupid inquiry or pointless; simply complex.

The one thing you don't want to say is nonsense like, "They will be able to co-exist by then without killing the hive." The assumption of equilibrium ignores what we know about introduced predators. Populations that developed together tend to exist in equilibrium. Introduced predators, by contrast, are more than capable of driving ill-adapted prey to extinction. This is claptrap on par with or worse than a belief in inheritance of learned behaviors.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

Titus_TN said:


> There are a lot of people on this thread who don't know much about either molecular biology or genetics. There are a precious couple who sound like they might.
> 
> Genetic mutations are random. Organisms do not build resistance to a toxin, or develop any other trait, simply because they are exposed to it over time. Populations develop resistance because, at the time of exposure to the stimulus, there are existing within the population individuals possessing a resistant characteristic; the elimination of other genotypes from the gene pool by operation of the harmful stimulus results in a population all descended from the resistant individuals. They thus either all display or carry the resistant characteristic. Thus, the point in instructions such as "don't use mild treatments," is not that exposed-but-not-killed organisms become resistant; the point is that the treatment has to be strong enough to kill all of the susceptible individuals, allowing other factors (be it bees, or your body's immune system) to destroy the now-smaller population (if any) of susceptible individuals. In the case of bees and mites, since most honey bees groom mites poorly, if you kill all you can you are at least reducing the potential reproduction options of any resistant individuals, keeping the population (and the undesirable trait) in check.
> 
> ...


Titus says a lot of good stuff here. One not so minor point is "flood the population with toxin so you kill all of them to prevent resistance" is true sometimes, but not always. There are situations where this is the worst thing you can do. Rather, you want to kill some %, generally in the range of 50% to 80% to get rid of the economic problem, but not so high you select rigidly for resistance. In fact this strategy is used quite often with antibiotics. A dose is fed that is bacteriostatic, but not bactericidal. The former does not kill. It just stunts long enough for your immune system to clean up the job.

Another point is quite often bacteria swap genes thru horizontal transfer so resistance genes can move from species to species. This is less common in higher animals, but can happen. For example 30% of a cows DNA is the result of horizontal transfer of a copy and paste transposon that came from snakes. Next time you eat beef just remember that 30% of the DNA in that beef is snake DNA. Beef is a severe case of a GMO. That is ok. You are a GMO also. You got your foreign DNA from viruses and perhaps other sources as well. Mom nature has been moving DNA for a few billion years now and is real good at it.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Titus_TN said:


> .....
> The one thing you don't want to say is nonsense like, "They will be able to co-exist by then without killing the hive." The assumption of equilibrium ignores what we know about introduced predators. Populations that developed together tend to exist in equilibrium. Introduced predators, by contrast, are more than capable of driving ill-adapted prey to extinction. This is claptrap on par with or worse than a belief in inheritance of learned behaviors.


I followed you right along until that last paragraph. 


I don't understand much of this stuff, but can you tell me if you consider tracheal mites to be "introduced predators" ? If so, how come they didnt (continue to) drive the bees to extinction ? Would you consider varroa to be "introduced predators" that will drive Bee to extinction . If so, how do you explain VSH traits ? 

Didnt tracheal mites and varroa develop together with honey bees ?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Didnt tracheal mites and varroa develop together with honey bees ?

The theory on tracheal mites is that they made some kind of evolutionary leap when they moved from outside the bee to inside the bee. Acarapis woodi are indistinguishable from Acarapis dorsalis, Acarapis externus and Acarapis vagans. These other mites are all classified based on their location rather than they physiology. No one observed any of these in the trachea until 1904 when the bees on the Isle of Wight began dying. Losses were large enough to cause alarm by 1906. This was eventually linked to the mites. The mites spread over the world eventually. Varroa on the other hand did not evolve with Apis mellifera, but rather with Apis cerana. Somewhere when Apis mellifera were introduced to Apis cerana territories, the Varroa made the jump to Apis mellifera.

As much as people want to pretend that Apis mellifera will be extinct from Varroa without treatments the evidence proves otherwise. In Africa they have not adopted treatment. Thousand of beekeepers here in the US are not treating and their bees are still surviving. Tom Seeley's research says the density of (untreated of course) feral bees in Arnot forest has remained the same now as it was in the 1970s.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> As much as people want to pretend that Apis mellifera will be extinct from Varroa without treatments the evidence proves otherwise.


I'm not pretending......Unfortunately in my apiary, they would die........


----------



## Titus_TN (Jun 13, 2016)

DaisyNJ said:


> I followed you right along until that last paragraph.
> 
> 
> I don't understand much of this stuff, but can you tell me if you consider tracheal mites to be "introduced predators" ? If so, how come they didnt (continue to) drive the bees to extinction ? Would you consider varroa to be "introduced predators" that will drive Bee to extinction . If so, how do you explain VSH traits ?
> ...


What I consider them isn't really relevant: the critters' respective history is a factual question. And as Mike notes, Varroa desructor and Apis mellifera are not native to the same places.

Does that mean one should assume that varroa mites _will _cause the extinction of honey bees? Well no, that would be just as unwarranted as the categorical assertion that bees and mites will inevitably "learn to get along." (And since at least some bees are raised in labs, actual extinction of the western honey bee would be highly improbable anyways.) My point is only that it is possible for species in the wild to interact in ways that are not oriented towards equilibrium.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Titus_TN said:


> What I consider them isn't really relevant: the critters' respective history is a factual question. And as Mike notes, Varroa desructor and Apis mellifera are not native to the same places.
> 
> Does that mean one should assume that varroa mites _will _cause the extinction of honey bees? Well no, that would be just as unwarranted as the categorical assertion that bees and mites will inevitably "learn to get along." (And since at least some bees are raised in labs, actual extinction of the western honey bee would be highly improbable anyways.) My point is only that it is possible for species in the wild to interact in ways that are not oriented towards equilibrium.


It is relevant. The way you described, (with that "introduced predators") you are implying that Apis mellifera and varroa are so far removed from each other that Mellifera doesnt have any buried genetics that can express against Varroa. Couple of problems with it. First it assumes there is nothing but Mellifera in the managed population and no genetics from bees that existed with varroa crossed into the population we have. Second, if Mellifera (or whatever we have) doesnt have ANY mechanism in its genes to resist/manage Varroa, how are breeders bringing up VSH, Purdue ? 

How do you explain some of the comments by researchers like Dr. Seeley in this recording ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkYxcgiqvbI

PS: I think you are caught up on "learn" portion of comment. Sure, individual bees dont "learn" and then "pass on knowledge". Thats BS. But the general comments about "learning to get along" is about species (not individual bees or bees in one yard for that matter) constantly pressured by various things (including mites, virus, environment etc) reaching a state where enough population end up with expressing traits that make them survive and manage. And some people may be misquoting that process as "learning to get along" but that doesnt discount the fact that they will reach such state.


----------



## Titus_TN (Jun 13, 2016)

DaisyNJ said:


> The way you described, (with that "introduced predators") you are implying that Apis mellifera and varroa are so far removed from each that Mellifera doesnt have any buried genetics that can express against Varroa. Couple of problems with it.


No, I didn't make any statement, or a statement carrying a necessary implication, concerning the existence of relevant genetic traits within Apis mellifera's genome. My line of reasoning was thus: 1. some introduced predators (or parasites) damage prey (or host) populations below sustainable levels; 2. Varroa destructor is an introduced parasite of Apis mellifera; 3. Therefore, it is _possible_ that Varroa destructor could push Apis mellifera populations below sustainable levels.

I did so in response to comments positing that it was categorically inevitable for honey bees and mites to develop so as to exist in equilibrium. The point is simply that this is not inevitable. The point is not that no bee displays, or ever will display, a trait beneficial in resisting mites. But it's baseless speculation to say that bees will inevitably and necessarily evolve so that such traits (1) are sufficiently efficacious to render varroa mites nonproblematic and (2) are universal among honey bees. People who posit the necessity of such outcomes _simply because _varroa is a parasite and bees their hosts are just talking nonsense.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> The theory on tracheal mites is that they made some kind of evolutionary leap when they moved from outside the bee to inside the bee. Acarapis woodi are indistinguishable from Acarapis dorsalis, Acarapis externus and Acarapis vagans. These other mites are all classified based on their location rather than they physiology. No one observed any of these in the trachea until 1904 when the bees on the Isle of Wight began dying. Losses were large enough to cause alarm by 1906.


This is a pet theory of M. Bush. Like many of his belief-based claims, it is strongly contradicted by sober evidence. I have tried to correct his misapprehension on Acarapis on this forum before.

The evidence (clipped from the source) ---








Source: 
PARASITIC MITES OF HONEY BEES: Life
History, Implications, and Impact
Diana Sammataro, Uri Gerson, and Glen Needham

Free Download at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/person/31186/Ann.Rev.samm.pdf


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

DaisyNJ said:


> But the general comments about "learning to get along" is about species (not individual bees or bees in one yard for that matter) constantly pressured by various things (including mites, virus, environment etc) reaching a state where enough population end up with expressing traits that make them survive and manage. And some people may be misquoting that process as "learning to get along" but that doesnt discount the fact that they will reach such state.


The vast majority of all species that have ever live have gone extinct because they could not adapt to some new pressure. So, it is very far from a "fact" that honey bees and varroa will adapt and get along. By far the best bet is they will never adapt and learn to get along. Do not forget that as the honey bee evolves varroa will also evolve. If both evolve at the exact same rate you maintain the current Hardy Weinberg type equilibrium. That is not the normal case at all. The normal case is one wins and one loses. Or one wins and drives the other so close to extinction that transmission is rare.

All the nonsense about the Arnot forest survivors is pretty much meaningless noise. Those survivors show zero survival advantage over domestics in a hive. The Arnot forest ferals survive because they swarm a lot and only make small colonies plus have enough isolation to likely reduce transmission rates. Of course if you define winning as getting a bee that can survive the mites at the cost of no harvestable honey and no significant pollination benefits then pat yourself on the back as the Arnot forest bees do that today. There is zero assurance they will still be able to do it in 50 years or 100 years. The best bet is they will not be able to do it at some future time simply because that is the way evolution works. Man has lived with bubonic plague, malaria, small pox and polio for a lot of years. How much did evolution help man in preventing those diseases from killing many and maiming for life far more? If evolution were such a ready salvation none of those diseases should be more than a slight and temporary nuisance to humans.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Richard Cryberg said:


> The vast majority of all species that have ever live have gone extinct because they could not adapt to some new pressure. So, it is very far from a "fact" that honey bees and varroa will adapt and get along. By far the best bet is they will never adapt and learn to get along. Do not forget that as the honey bee evolves varroa will also evolve. If both evolve at the exact same rate you maintain the current Hardy Weinberg type equilibrium. That is not the normal case at all. The normal case is one wins and one loses. Or one wins and drives the other so close to extinction that transmission is rare.
> 
> All the nonsense about the Arnot forest survivors is pretty much meaningless noise. Those survivors show zero survival advantage over domestics in a hive. The Arnot forest ferals survive because they swarm a lot and only make small colonies plus have enough isolation to likely reduce transmission rates. Of course if you define winning as getting a bee that can survive the mites at the cost of no harvestable honey and no significant pollination benefits then pat yourself on the back as the Arnot forest bees do that today. There is zero assurance they will still be able to do it in 50 years or 100 years. The best bet is they will not be able to do it at some future time simply because that is the way evolution works. Man has lived with bubonic plague, malaria, small pox and polio for a lot of years. How much did evolution help man in preventing those diseases from killing many and maiming for life far more? If evolution were such a ready salvation none of those diseases should be more than a slight and temporary nuisance to humans.


If they never adapt (in the sense of highlighting some genetic mutations), how do you explain VSH, Purdue and other varieties that (as species) are bringing forth certain attributes which benefit them (bees?). Did Man perform some type of artificial mutation in genetics that didnt exist at all in those Bees or the breeders accelerate the pressure and selection process ? If the varroa is so alien to bees, then the later should never have worked at all. ALL bees under selection pressure by breeders should just succumb and die. 

Normal case in nature often is a balance. Its never one wins one loses or one drives other to extinction. It may be your (or my) definition of normal but not majority case in nature. Sure, species went extinct due to some new pressure. But the key is "new" pressure. New pressure of such nature that its either physical, food etc. Even in those cases, the species evolved to cope with the pressure, but may have evolved so far out to retain or resemble any of the original species. Comparing or implying Varroa to be such pressure, so alien to Honey Bee species that it will bring Bees to extinction is a cheap SciFi flick story at best.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>This is a pet theory of M. Bush. Like many of his belief-based claims, it is strongly contradicted by sober evidence.

Since when is speculation "sober evidence"? Where is the evidence? Speculation by someone on why they believe the prevailing theory doesn't make sense? Because they don't believe anything can evolve that quickly? I don't believe they evolved either, I was just presenting the prevailing theory. Evolution is certainly NOT a pet theory of mine.

The point of the conversation was to clarify the issue of whether or not Varroa and Tracheal mites could have co-evolved with honey bees or if they are recent invaders. Since tracheal mites did not appear on the scene until sometime between 1902 and 1904 that rules out the co-evolution. HOW they suddenly appeared you can speculate on as much as you wish. That was not the point.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> I was just presenting the prevailing theory.


Certainly *not*. The Morse and Eickwort (1990) hypothesis that A. woodi represents a rapid evolutionary leap is soundly rejected by all modern evidence.

1) Phylogentic trees have been constructed that shows mitochondrial drift of the genome does not support an origin in the 19th century.
2) Consider the table of aberant morphology present in my first post.
3) Dissection of museum specimens from Greece and Spain show that A. woodsi pre-exists its first detection in the British Isles.

You may hang on to your non-sense theory, but please don't use your charisma to spout non-sense to naive newbees that hang on every word you utter.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

You still seem to be in a different conversation. The point is that tracheal mites are recent. You can argue how recent you think or the mechanism by which they appeared. But the idea that they are recent is pretty commonly accepted. I do NOT believe that they suddenly made an evolutionary leap. But they did seem to suddenly appear. Explain it however you like. I have no dog in this fight.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

DaisyNJ said:


> Comparing or implying Varroa to be such pressure, so alien to Honey Bee species that it will bring Bees to extinction is a cheap SciFi flick story at best.


Are you aware that varroa are not even the real problem? Are you aware varroa rarely, if ever, kills a hive? Or do you live in a cheap SciFi flick world where you think varroa tolerance would solve the whole problem? Hint, hint - if you gave me a strain of bees that would tolerate a 50% mite load we would still have hives dying all over the place. Only 25 years ago hives tolerated mite loads of 10% with no major problems. Then the real problems came along. By the way if VSH and Purdue are the best success stories out there it simply illustrates how far we have to go yet. They are a nice academic start and commercially close to useless. With enough time the commercial queen breeders might turn them into something useful in another 25 or 50 years. At least the academics have made some progress unlike back yard bee keepers who have made zero progress or more commonly negative progress.


----------



## dudelt (Mar 18, 2013)

How interesting to see how this thread has morphed. Just like beekeeping! Tracheal mites and varroa mites are not new. They are just new here. There is another issue that accounts for the spread of tracheal and varroa mites. Beekeeping changed. In nature, and early beekeeping, beehives were not massed together as they are commercially today. The land in any one area cannot carry that many colonies throughout the year. When beehives are a mile or two from the nearest hive, diseases and parasites do not get transmitted very quickly. When you congregate hundreds and thousands in a small area, the rate of transmission increases. Add to that the removal of natural barriers such as mountains, deserts and oceans via shipping and transporting, the rate of transmission goes even faster. My bet is that these diseases and parasites have been around for a long long time but nobody was looking for them or noticed the patterns of their existence because they were isolated in areas that did not uses "modern" beekeeping methods. They were all kept in check by natural barriers that were breached by humans transporting the bees all over the world. Are fire ants new? How about gypsy moths, West Nile Virus, Asian carp, zebra mussels, Dutch elm? All problems brought in and spread by humans who breached the natural barriers without thinking about the consequences of their actions.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Richard Cryberg said:


> Are you aware that varroa are not even the real problem? Are you aware varroa rarely, if ever, kills a hive? Or do you live in a cheap SciFi flick world where you think varroa tolerance would solve the whole problem? Hint, hint - if you gave me a strain of bees that would tolerate a 50% mite load we would still have hives dying all over the place. Only 25 years ago hives tolerated mite loads of 10% with no major problems. Then the real problems came along. By the way if VSH and Purdue are the best success stories out there it simply illustrates how far we have to go yet. They are a nice academic start and commercially close to useless. With enough time the commercial queen breeders might turn them into something useful in another 25 or 50 years. At least the academics have made some progress unlike back yard bee keepers who have made zero progress or more commonly negative progress.


I am not sure where you are going with this, but what I gather is, in your eyes, everything done (except chemical applications I guess?) is academic non-sense, VSH / Purdue is useless, Dr. Seeley is talking non sense, Bees will never able to cope with Varroa, oh, but wait, Varroa is not a problem, but bee world as we know is ending. Got it. 

And Yes Sir!, I am aware that its underlying ****tail of virus and other deceases vectored are the problem. Hint-Hint, similar logic applies even at decease level. I am sure you will find another obscure dimension to continue this topic.. but here is the link on DWV tolerance.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1226861516302084


----------



## JoshuaW (Feb 2, 2015)

> By the way if VSH and Purdue are the best success stories out there it simply illustrates how far we have to go yet. They are a nice academic start and commercially close to useless. With enough time the commercial queen breeders might turn them into something useful in another 25 or 50 years.


:thumbsup::thumbsup:

I've been reading through old Bee Culture mags from the late 80's-early ninties, and Roger Morse and Steve Tabor were saying that genetics would eventually be the key to mite (both kinds) resistance. Not much closer now than we were then...


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

Lots of energy spent ignoring bees that survive without treatment. A special set of blinders required perhaps. 

All breeders (even arguably GM ones) simply take traits that nature supplies and works with them. So ignoring what feral and other surviving bees do to survive is not science. Nor is ignoring how movement of bees effects viral environments.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> You still seem to be in a different conversation. The point is that tracheal mites are recent. You can argue how recent you think or the mechanism by which they appeared. But the idea that they are recent is pretty commonly accepted. I do NOT believe that they suddenly made an evolutionary leap. But they did seem to suddenly appear. Explain it however you like. I have no dog in this fight.


That tracheal mites infesting honeybees is recent would be true. And not that you made this claim but what evidence is there that it is the mite that changed to allow this to happen? With the degree of involvement man has with the bee and the tendency to muc things up. Isn't it far more likely to think it is the bee that did the changing?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

lharder said:


> Lots of energy spent ignoring bees that survive without treatment.


that's what i was thinking too lharder. there are plenty of examples of survivors and non survivors alike, perhaps someday someone will do a careful compare and contrast to tease out the differences.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> Not much closer now than we were then...

I don't know anyone who still treats for tracheal mites... and I know a LOT of people who don't treat for Varroa mites. I'd say we are much closer now than we were then.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

And to folks who declares VSH etc as commercially useless, dismisses Dr. Seeley comments as academic nonsense, here is an article from RandyOliver on VSH and other things in IPM. Unless this article is outdated or invalid, he says he ran 700 colonies next to larger commercial operations. 

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/choosing-your-troops-breeding-mite-fighting-bees/

Is Randy Oliver spreading non-sense too about VSH or other abilities uncovered from the bees themselves ?


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

squarepeg said:


> that's what i was thinking too lharder. there are plenty of examples of survivors and non survivors alike, perhaps someday someone will do a careful compare and contrast to tease out the differences.


Many people already did various experiments, studies, reported, highlighted differences, strengths and weaknesses. And those people include Dr. Seeley, Randy Oliver, some of the distinguished queen breeders etc. But as demonstrated on this thread, for some people, its never enough. They dismiss any such demonstration as "academic nonsense", "commercially useless" or pick a obscure dimension of the topic to continue debate. 

USDA themselves published series of documents outlining experiments and results of various aspects of Honey Bees ability to self manage problems such as varroa. They highlighted differences in various genetics of bees (RHB, EHB). They also published regional differences in bees ability to manage pests. 

Published articles I referenced on this thread also show various type of bees ability to resist DWV etc.

Yet, there is no shortage of people closing their eyes and dismissing. Their definition of "success" is eradication of varroa from the face of earth, unlimited honey haulers, pollinate 12 months of the year. Any less is end-of-the-world. Yet, they conveniently ignore that alternative solutions (chemical) dont deliver their definition of success either. 

I have to dig up the thread, but one of members here who is dead against "survivors without chemicals" once recommended a queen breeder for someone. I looked up the breeder and his website says he follows "live or die" , "natural selection" methods in picking his breeders queens. Duh.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

DaisyNJ said:


> And to folks who declares VSH etc as commercially useless, dismisses Dr. Seeley comments as academic nonsense, here is an article from RandyOliver on VSH and other things in IPM. Unless this article is outdated or invalid, he says he ran 700 colonies next to larger commercial operations.
> 
> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/choosing-your-troops-breeding-mite-fighting-bees/
> 
> Is Randy Oliver spreading non-sense too about VSH or other abilities uncovered from the bees themselves ?


You linked to a 2007 paper by Randy. How about asking him his 2016 opinion? Particularly ask what he thinks the economic mite threshold was then versus today. Also ask what he has learned about viruses over those years. Ask how much VSH blood he has today. A lot of evolution has happened since 2007.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

Like I have said before if anyone had a truly immune bee to varroa they would be making money like crazy.

there is a reason treatment free beekeepers are more successful online than in the beeyard...... they spend more time posting than the beekeepers that do it for a living. 

Unfortunately my small cell, foundationless, swarm caught, expensive treatment free genetics that i tried for years never consistently lived unless Id split like crazy...

Perhaps I should have clapped my hands and shouted I DO BELIEVE IN TF BEES!

I do believe in oxalic acid I can actually see results


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

DaisyNJ said:


> I have to dig up the thread, but one of members here who is dead against "survivors without chemicals" once recommended a queen breeder for someone. I looked up the breeder and his website says he follows "live or die" , "natural selection" methods in picking his breeders queens. Duh.


I have never once said there were no survivors without chemicals so please do not lie about what I have said. Squarepeg is managing and even makes a reasonable harvest of honey. In my area I have never seen a hive survive with the mite loads he tells me he has. But, we live in very different climates.

I have also run treatment free. I know how to do it. It is not particularly hard. I prefer to make more honey.

I recommended a queen breeder who advertises on his web site he is chemical free. His web site is named Mikes Bees and Honey. I have bought his queens and found them first rate queens. I have an II queen he produced that shows all signs of being with me again next year. This is her second full summer. Mike uses none of the mite killers listed commercially. He also does not use any illegal mite killers. He defines what he does as no chemicals. He is not a chemist. I am not going to tell what he does, other than say I do not follow his formula for a number of reasons. He has told me he maintains mite counts of zero to one mite per 100 bees because of what he does. If anyone wishes to know what he does call him up and talk to him and perhaps he will tell you. But, it is his place to tell you, not mine. He did not give me permission to tell anyone else. He does have a lot of Minnesota Hygienic blood in his bees and in my experience MH bees are considerably more mite tolerant than many bees which is a small part of why I run them. I suspect I could easy get away with only treating once every other year for most colonies. If I were making a living from bees I would not run them exclusively as there are much better commercial strains. But for the back yard bee keeper they are nice bees. Real gentle and grow decent size hives that are not particularly swarmy. And, you do not need to worry about AFB with them as they were developed to be AFB resistant.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Richard Cryberg said:


> I have never once said there were no survivors without chemicals so please do not lie about what I have said. Squarepeg is managing and even makes a reasonable harvest of honey. In my area I have never seen a hive survive with the mite loads he tells me he has. But, we live in very different climates.
> 
> I have also run treatment free. I know how to do it. It is not particularly hard. I prefer to make more honey.
> 
> I recommended a queen breeder who advertises on his web site he is chemical free. His web site is named Mikes Bees and Honey. I have bought his queens and found them first rate queens. I have an II queen he produced that shows all signs of being with me again next year. This is her second full summer. Mike uses none of the mite killers listed commercially. He also does not use any illegal mite killers. He defines what he does as no chemicals. He is not a chemist. I am not going to tell what he does, other than say I do not follow his formula for a number of reasons. He has told me he maintains mite counts of zero to one mite per 100 bees because of what he does. If anyone wishes to know what he does call him up and talk to him and perhaps he will tell you. But, it is his place to tell you, not mine. He did not give me permission to tell anyone else. He does have a lot of Minnesota Hygienic blood in his bees and in my experience MH bees are considerably more mite tolerant than many bees which is a small part of why I run them. I suspect I could easy get away with only treating once every other year for most colonies. If I were making a living from bees I would not run them exclusively as there are much better commercial strains. But for the back yard bee keeper they are nice bees. Real gentle and grow decent size hives that are not particularly swarmy. And, you do not need to worry about AFB with them as they were developed to be AFB resistant.


I wasnt referring to you as someone who recommended queen breeder. Regardless of our opinion, thank you for sharing info about Mike. I may try next year.


----------



## viesest (Jul 13, 2016)

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> Like I have said before if anyone had a truly immune bee to varroa they would be making money like crazy.
> 
> there is a reason treatment free beekeepers are more successful online than in the beeyard...... they spend more time posting than the beekeepers that do it for a living.
> 
> ...


I also believe (partially) in math. Some numbers: 1000 mites and 98% efficient treatment will leave 20 mites in bee hive. Number of mites doubles every 3 to 4 weeks, so from February to October there is 8-10 'doubles'. 9^2=512 and 20*512=10240. That number is to high and we should treat again against 20 mites and with 98% efficient treatment now there is 0.4 mites and 0.4*512=204. The point is, maybe with very efficient and reliable winter treatment varroa can be pushed out of an region.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Richard Cryberg said:


> You linked to a 2007 paper by Randy. How about asking him his 2016 opinion? Particularly ask what he thinks the economic mite threshold was then versus today. Also ask what he has learned about viruses over those years. Ask how much VSH blood he has today. A lot of evolution has happened since 2007.


I took your advice and sent an email to Randy. He was generous enough to take time and reply. I am sure we all will interpret this the way we want to see, but here it. He is very practical, fact driven guy and he is ever more convinced that the solution will come from bees. And his second sentence about industry demand is similar to his take in the second paragraph of that 2007 article where he gets little bit into reservations of commercial guys. 


Question:
I was going through your "Choosing your troops" from 2007 and wondering if your experience and recommendation on VSH and Genetic solution for problems like varroa remained same or changed. 


Kind Response:
-----
I'm ever more convinced that beekeepers need to get serious about breeding bees that are resistant to varroa. The problem in the US is that the bee industry has not demanded this from the queen producers, so there is no financial incentive yet for them to do so.

But a number of smaller scale beekeepers are doing so, with degrees of success.

In my own operation, we are taking a step forward in our breeding program this year. Wish us luck!

-----


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

Thanks Daisy

That's a good and to the point reply from R Oliver.

I have posted several times on inferior commercial bees. They seem to be the weak link and appear to be the reason why many can't have treat free bee. It's like the walmart loop, if you work at walmart you can afford to shop anywhere else. Once you bring in inferior bees that's all you can keep!


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

viesest said:


> I also believe (partially) in math. Some numbers: 1000 mites and 98% efficient treatment will leave 20 mites in bee hive. Number of mites doubles every 3 to 4 weeks, so from February to October there is 8-10 'doubles'. 9^2=512 and 20*512=10240. That number is to high and we should treat again against 20 mites and with 98% efficient treatment now there is 0.4 mites and 0.4*512=204. The point is, maybe with very efficient and reliable winter treatment varroa can be pushed out of an region.


Even if you treat, resistant bees will bring mite numbers far further down compared to non resistant bees. Again Oliver has and interesting presentation on this. At the same time viral resistance is not tested if you are counting mites. When you treat your mite thresholds will go down with time because you are keeping bees alive that would normally die in your viral environment. I'm thinking it would be pretty easy to write a mathematical model for this. TF will select for both mite and viral resistance.


----------



## viesest (Jul 13, 2016)

lharder said:


> When you treat your mite thresholds will go down with time because you are keeping bees alive that would normally die in your viral environment.


In my model bees are still exposed to mites and some colonies can die as early as in September. Then in November are treated only colonies with good trait. It is combination of selecting for resistant bees and sustainable bee keeping.


----------



## Duncan151 (Aug 3, 2013)

aunt betty said:


> You logic is fine for you but what about your offspring and their offspring and theirs beyond that?
> Who cares about your kids, grandkids, great grandkids if you don't? You're way of thinking is part of the problem we have today and frankly it terrifies me how you think it's funny.
> 
> Ever wonder how a desert forms? I'm betting that they're man-made.


I meant the human race will be gone, and not just those of us on Bee Source! I know exactly how deserts are formed, and your lack of humor is your issue, not mine!


----------



## Arnie (Jan 30, 2014)

This thread is still going??!!

10,000 years from now I will be relaxing in the big apiary in the sky and I'll be getting alerts from this thread. Imagine the fancy Homemade OAV Gadgets we'll have then! The whole hive will fold up like George Jetson's flying car. We'll be able to program the robot to do the OAV treatments on a set schedule.....


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>That tracheal mites infesting honeybees is recent would be true. And not that you made this claim but what evidence is there that it is the mite that changed to allow this to happen? With the degree of involvement man has with the bee and the tendency to muc things up. Isn't it far more likely to think it is the bee that did the changing?

The mystery is that mites that look identical have always bee on bees and still are, but suddenly we find them in the bees trachea. Yes, the bees could have done the changing, which is Dee Lusby's theory on the topic. Or the mites could have changed, which was, at least at one time, the other theory on the subject. I have no theory. I'm just presenting those as ones that have been proposed. What I do know is that the solution was to stop treating for them.


----------

