# Quote on treating and genetics from Randy Oliver



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

"If you're not part of the genetic solution of breeding mite-tolerant 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-tolerant bees." Breeding Mite-Fighting Bees" by Randy Oliver.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

That is the position we have taken since 1999. Easy to say, but tough to do. It does allow one to consider the benefits of heavy mite losses. Separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
JBJ


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Ouch









Hard to disagree with that statement. I admit, I'm "part of the problem" but I'm also part of the solution, at least I know I'm heading in the right direction.

This should generate some good discussion.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Randy is right on track here! I explained a bit about my beekeeping and beekeeping philosophy to Randy in some email exchanges in his prep for the article. I follow the strict philosophy in all my beekeeping practices, and with every colony and swarm assessed. It is good that Randy makes the quote, but it has been the whole bee philosophy taught by Dee Lusby, and one I have followed for many years. It's good to see 'whole bee' philosophy getting some press.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I really enjoyed Randy's article as well it gave me a lot to think about. The devil can be in the details in applying it all to a commercial outfit but I think we all have to find a better way of doing things to survive long term. Nice to see someone who strikes a balance between the realities of commercial beekeeping and thoughtful research.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

I find most commercial guys are upto date on present theories about mites and such, but because of sheer size choose not to do anything other than treatments. It can be overwhelming just thinking about regressing a 1000 hives, so I understand their position. But it still can be done one hive or yard at a time....:>).


----------



## Beemaninsa (Jun 9, 2004)

I would like to know currently how many (if any)successful commercial migratory beekeepers use no chemicals in their hives.


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

Is there a website where I can read or download articles that Randy Oliver has written. 


Tony


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--That is the position we have taken since 1999. Easy to say, but tough to do. It does allow one to consider the benefits of heavy mite losses. Separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
--JBJ---

You can also separate the chaff by relocation, moving mating nucs to isolated places like woodlands and such. I have done this on occasion to obtain specific traits associated with an area of ferals OR to escape the chaff. Chaff can also be separated by stress breeding, breeding bees early before shipped in domestics can produce abundance of drones, this I believe is being done by Keith Malone in his Alaska bee project. There is also potential for separating the chaff during times of severe weather, because colonies exhibiting stress will restrict or eliminate the feeding of drones causing a reduction of chaff here also, and successful colonies having better fed drones outcompeting. 

Actually, I am looking to 2007 to be an excellent year for feral breeding in my area. Most domestic populations here having been severely reduced or undernourished, reducing the competition.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

beemaninsa states:
I would like to know currently how many (if any)successful commercial migratory beekeepers use no chemicals in their hives. 

tecumsh replies:
now that would be an interesting survey question as would the follow up question of...how many commercial beekeeper use sheep dip and a tounge depressor for their mite treatment?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

And now for another perspective on this matter.

I'm a new beekeeper. I've been at this two years and I have a lot to learn. I'm not an experienced bee breeder nor am I a geneticist and I don't have unlimited resources to throw at this problem. Why should I feel guilty for having varroa infested bees that need treatments to survive? Why is this MY problem to solve? Should I give up keeping bees simply because I'm "part of the problem" and not "part of the solution"? I don't think so!

That said, I'm aware of the problem and in my own way and to the best of my ability, I'm doing the best I can with my lack of experience and limited resources to work towards a chemical-free, treatment-free manner of beekeeping. I've got 15 hives and last season I raised a dozen queens from stock that shows evidence of being superior. I'm raising my own locally acclimated bees. But every spring, about 60 thousand migratory hives arrive in Maine and many hundreds of them get planted on blueberries less than a mile away from my little apiary for a month that also happens to coincide with the beginning of swarm season around these parts. In early June, these hives get pulled off blueberries and scattered around the countryside in yards of 20-30 hives each, a number of which are within 2-3 miles of my home.

Are all these migratory hives in my backyard genetically superior mite-resistant hygenic bees that don't receive treatments? I know for a fact they are not.

Who is polluting whose gene pool?

I maintain these hives are polluting MY gene pool. What can I do in light of this situation to be "part of the solution" and not "part of problem" as Randy so nicely put it? Not much but complain, eh?

The commercial queen producers that crank out the bulk of the nation's queens, they're the ones that need to get with the program. The USDA should be tackling this problem with a Big Stick. Don't be putting the smack down on me. I haven't done nuthin wrong.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

I do believe that george (aka, my other brother george) does suggest the real culprit in this problem... which is that the very fast spreading of disease vectors is much encourage by people that load large number of hives on semi and transport honeybees from coast to coast.. border to border.

the 'local' gene pool is then saturated with individuals (hives in this case) that are adding genetic material that is not resistant to the current problem.

somewhere I read a little quote from brother adam... the general message was that when you determined that a hive was not resistant to the mites you were in fact making the problem worse (or at least no better) if you did not requeen the hive. which is to say that with a new queen at least the hive had the possibility of having some mite tolerance.

george.... I experience somewhat of the same problem here although it is at the opposite time line of the commercial beekeeper's migratory route.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Thanks Tecumseh for acknowledging my point of view.

I want to make it perfectly clear now- and I should have done so in my last post- that I do not hold the migratory beekeepers either responsible or accountable for this "problem". They are entitled to and probably to a great extent do use the same argument as I've come up with to absolve themselves of responsibility for the current state of affairs in beekeeping. They're trying to make a living and God love `em, they chose migratory beekeeping as the way to do it. More power to them!

That is not to say that larger operators including migratory beekeepers haven't been remiss in addressing this problem up-front a long time ago. Their livelihood depends on the health of their bees and keeping their expenses as low as possible, and they should have been demanding genetically superior mite and disease resistant bees a long time ago rather than continuing to pump poisons into their hives in the vain attempt to keep their hives alive and their children fed. They have the market share to really exert some influence where it would do some good. Why haven't they?

I know the answer to this question. I'm sure most of you do too









So Randy! Dood! I like you and respect you but let's paste the bullseye on the right targets and not make every beekeeper with a couple of hives in their back yards culpable for crimes against the industry. Let's put the blame where it really belongs- with the USDA who has the power and authority to control the direction of the industry and to foster appropriate research and methods to solve these problems but who, in their infinite wisdom, have chosen instead to try to poison the mites and treat the diseases until they're no longer a problem. Talk about burying one's head in the sand. It's downright criminal. What are they thinking?

I also hold the major queen producers somewhat responsible, but at least their agendas all boil down to making a buck and they've just responded to the demands of the market and the tacit approval of the USDA's chemical-based mentality. Things might begin to change in a hurry if the big operators said to their favorite queen producer "Gee Bub, I'd like to buy 5000 queens this coming spring, but I guess I'll try raising my own because yours suck."

Hmmm?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Hmmmmm.....I wonder what would happen if the USDA banned all mitacides for use in beehives? Perhaps some people might complain or illicitly use unregulated medications. No George, I believe this to be more of a "demand" issue than a "supply" problem. I think the problem is much less complicated. Really it comes down to the idea that people don't see the routine use of petrochemicals as harmful or threatening and millions of dollars are spent to make sure that good consumers continue to think this way.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

We are not a commercial operation by any strecth but we certainly deal with the numbers game. We focus on purchasing queens from suppliers who advertise mite resistant bees. It is difficult as we change suppliers every 3 or 4 years to keep our gene pool clean. We tested the let them die process the last 2 yrs. in one of our yards. The hives were run in NY year round without any treatments, and we had 50% (12 of 25) losses both years. Virtually all of the losses were from Mite related issues or queen failure except for 4 hives which we donated to feed bears this year. We did a spring treatment on the entire operation this year but skipped our summer formic intervention and used FGMO and Thymol exclusively after April. With the exception of a few hives we had no mite problems this year. We'll see what the spring brings us. The experimental yard would still have a couple of years to go before I could say the stock is responsible for mite resistance. 

One yard of 25 hives represents conservatively $4000 in loss between extra labor, stock replacement and lost product. Now lets extrapolate that to a commercial operation with say 500 hives (20 yards although I know that's not how it's done). 1 yard, 25 hives a yearly cost of $2,000 a year for 4 yrs to reach a reasonable level of resistance, assuming you can keep your stock isolated from other large operations. This means 20 yards @$8,000 which means you spend 160,000 for a "shot" at bees resistant to mites to the point of no treatment. That's a big roll of the dice with a hugh price tag. Of course even once that's done the specter of a new disease (the latest brand of nosema for example) looms to wipe out your effort.

My point is this, it isn't practical from a business standpoint and probably not possible logistically. We have pushed our queen producers to the limit breeding fast easy queens for all the packages, replacement queens and breeder stock we all demand most of which are sold in the spring. Try buying 10 quaility queens anywhere in April or May! Regression is the same picture. Show the commercial operators the studies to refute Bob Harrisons personal experiance and Jim Fischers educated feedback and also provide a workable equipment and stock solution to allow a reasonable transition. A process years, possibly a decade in the making.

This problem will be solved by the queen breeders like Joe and Bjorn, Fatman and a few others who are in the beginning stages of this apparrently desperatly needed stock void. These breeders will grow, provide proof of the allegations of better bees and find they will have to make the yearly decision of pressure breeding for the big bucks or continuing to grow at a pace that will allow and as industry pressure should demand, force other queen producers to follow suit. How does this happen in a market where the demand far exceeds the production of even the lesser quality queens?

The other scenerio will be a collapse(like we may be seeing) yet again of both kept and feral stocks leaving nature to take it's course by leaving mite resisant stock left to carry on. 

One final point is although I agree Migratory operations confined in large numbers geographically will contribute to the quick spread of disease every beekeeper who bought bees and had to treat to control mites contributes to the problem.

It's efficient to say hey commercial guy, let your bees die and save the industry by breeding survivor stock. It's interesting to think we have enough feral survivor colonies to breed the millions of queens we need each year in the industry. I will borrow one of Jims words, gestalt, and say we have to get a big picture of the issue, deal with the realities and know the answer will need to come from the root, the queen breeders.

[ December 31, 2006, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hello George!

--I don't have unlimited resources to throw at this problem.--(GF)

Unlimited sources not needed. 
Just a continuing effort to collect ferals, breed from best stock, eliminate the poor stock, and regression to small cell, weaning out of treatments.

With the exception of buying a little small cell foundation, you have all these at your disposal all around you. 

--Why should I feel guilty for having varroa infested bees that need treatments to survive?--(GF)

No need to feel guilty. But my belief is that you want these types of bees, continue to breed from this stock. If not, make efforts to breed your way out of it. 

--Why is this MY problem to solve?--(GF)

Because by treating, or not doing anything, you are assuming responsibility for the problem away from natural selection OR mother nature. So like it or not, it is your problem.

--Should I give up keeping bees simply because I'm "part of the problem" and not "part of the solution"? I don't think so!--(GF)

Well, in a way YES! You should give up keeping susceptible stock by adopting ongoing efforts to eliminate this poor stock and breed from the best, then becoming part of the solution. 

--Are all these migratory hives in my backyard genetically superior mite-resistant hygenic bees that don't receive treatments? I know for a fact they are not.
Who is polluting whose gene pool?.--(GF)

There is plenty of blame to go around, but blame does not make a creditable excuse for not developing a plan to cope with the situation. A strategy can be deployed to help the feral population rebound in your area by collecting them from all places evaulating them before reintroducing them into your stock. Breeding can be shifted to an earlier time when migratory colonies are not as plentiful. Mating nucs can be taken to the mountains as Kirk Webster does to escape the poor genetics in the commercial areas. Kirk and others do it, why cant this be done? 

--The commercial queen producers that crank out the bulk of the nation's queens, they're the ones that need to get with the program. The USDA should be tackling this problem with a Big Stick. Don't be putting the smack down on me. I haven't done nuthin wrong.--(GF)

Blame game again. Yes, commercial queen are pitiful. But how can you expect southern breeders to produce a bee fit for Maine? Breeders will probably never breed a good bee for your specific local conditions. This puts the responsibility squarely on those living in these specific locations to work towards a bee fit for those specific conditions.

I know this is all hard to swallow, but its the first step in moving forward to becoming the solution.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Blame game ,commercial queens are pitifil

Wow, some strong language here.

Here's my take on this, I have tried some of these so called mite resistent queens.
Yes, they do better than my bright yellow Italans as far as mite load, but are about half the size, as of yesterday.

I have about half avgeraging 15-25 frames right now, yes you read this right.

Flyer Jim (of beesource) paid me a vist in the bee yard yesterday while I was feeding pollen to those hives.
I split about 400 hives BEFORE the almonds so to keep swarming down, they(spits) will be 8 frames.

I can not get these mite resistance queens to build up fast, like the non resistance ones do.

The 400 plus hives (increase) nets me over $ 50,000.00 . 
So thats my 50,000 dollar question?

Can the folks that are not part of the problem help with this small $50,000 question?


Keith Jarrett


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

====KJ
Blame game ,commercial queens are pitifil
====KJ

I am NOT playing the blame game that is commonally used to divert the blame away from ones self. 

I have NO problems with my bees, therefore not a blame game, just a comment identifying the problem, I don't care how you choose to distrubute it, Or interpret









====KJ
Wow, some strong language here.
while I was feeding pollen to those hives.

Can the folks that are not part of the problem help with this small $50,000 question?
====KJ

Well, OK I'll help.









Feeding, propping up and pampering?
Is this pampering the credit for your 50,000 dollar question? OR genetics?
That is the 50,000 dollar question!!!









Sorry, I retract and should have stated "MOST commercial queens I have seen are pitiful", for I have seen some great queens out there, but unfortunately NOT the norm.

Remeber, the conditions bees must live in here in PA and the rest of the north east are a far cry from the tropical climate of Calf.









====KJ
I split about 400 hives BEFORE the almonds so to keep swarming down, 
====KJ 

Here in PA swarming is not too common with snow icicles hanging off the hives. Swarm prevention? You are comparing California oranges to Pennsylvania icicles????









[ December 31, 2006, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Hi Joe,

As you know, I am in North Central Calif, todays weather 30 low 50 high.

Feeding,propping up and pampering, as you say, Joe.

Joe, I am a commercial outfit and not a hobbyist, so my main goal is to be profitable.

I feed all the bees the same, all I'm saying is the non resistance queens are by far the biggest bees.

In this business, one has to look at the magnetude of almond pollination. 

One said, almond pollination revenue will surpass all honeys sales this year.

So we do need to compare apples to apples.

I would pay twice as much for a mite resistance high production queen, I'm mainly looking at this from a economic stand point.

I am like many here,I don't like putting formic and such (chemicals) in the hives if I don't have to.

Keith Jarrett


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I wonder what would happen if the USDA banned all mitacides for use in beehives? Perhaps some people might complain or illicitly use unregulated medications. 

I agree outlawing them would cause a lot of illicit use (as we already have a lot of it just because of costs), but it would help if the USDA would at least RECOMMEND not using mitacides instead of "pushing" them.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hi Keith!

--all I'm saying is the non resistance queens are by far the biggest bees.--KG

Keith, you on small cell, or this an observation?

I can appreciate your prospective of looking at it from an economic stand point. I also appreciate your kind response to my rather stern letter I wrote! But my prospective is very strict due to necessity because of the miserable state of existence of our honeybees here in PA. My position is that breeders here in PA which are very few in number need to retool and rebuild from the bottom up by selecting for survival characteristics as a base of traits from which to build economic traits from, because the current practices are just not working.


----------



## MichelleB (Jan 29, 2006)

I doubt the USDA would ever recommend doing anything--like not using miticides--that would possibly decimate the nation's pollinators. There's too much at risk here, including the immediate livelihood of commercial operators and every crop producer who cares not to pay triple-digit-per-hive pollination fees. 

Sure, long-term, the benefits COULD be worth it, but not if two industries (at least) go belly up in the meantime. 

And who wants to pay $60 for a queen? Because that's probably the minimum a commercial-scale queen breeder would have to charge to make up from losses from untreated stock if they suddenly stopped medicating. At least until several reliably resistant AND producing lines of stock (and resistant to what, most importantly?) can be produced. 

I'm one of few very fortunate people to have a very isolated location available to me where, should I choose, I can raise nothing but miticide-free bees. And I would love to do that. But my other locations will have to sustain that operation, and eventually my livelihood, so until I find my magic genetic line, I'll be dosing my other bees like co-eds at a Spring Break party. 

Not every large-scale outfit has the environment or time to breed resistant queens, but I doubt there isn't a single queen breeder or beekeeper who doesn't see the financial benefit of trying. It's just a juggling act. 

Maybe there can be some USDA grants for the operation of such yards, perhaps with permits to run breeding yards in more remote USFS land. That would be great. But nobody knows better than the individual beekeeper how to best manage their disease problems, and I'd be afraid of the USDA making oversimplified rules about the use of miticides, either way.

But back to the original quote: Yeah, keep yer stinkin' junkie swarms to yourself.

[ December 31, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Lupine ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Is there a website where I can read or download articles that Randy Oliver has written.--(Tony) 

In my last chat with Randy, and he said he is hoping to have such a resource on the web shortly. Will let you know when it happens.


----------



## soupcan (Jan 2, 2005)

We run bees in locations that some have had bees on or near to them for up to 50 years. We mark a lot of hives thru the summer months that when each yard that is checked every 10 to 15 days that are queenless. We have some yards that we have added at most 10% colony count. 
( nukes ). So lets look at this deal real close. We all seem to agree that all most all of the ferral hives are now dead or have died in the last 6 to 8 years. So when I have a hive swarm & they return to the wild & live for 2, 3 or more years with no medication or mite treatment help, it would seem to me we are starting the natural selection process all over again. We had a house 35 miles north of Omaha that has had bees in the wall of the house for over 25 years. The children who sold the estate tell of there always being bees in that wall for as long as they can remember. And there still were up & untill 90 days ago when the house got a remodel. A good number of older farmers tell us that they are finding bees in trees & barn walls that have been empty of bees for the past 5 years or so. Tree cutters are reporting story. So how does one start the natural process all over again?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Keith's point is the same as a point made by Bob Harrison just a few months ago in a PM. I hope Bob will excuse my publicly posting this. Its highly relevant to this thread. This message is from August 8th 2006.

/Message from BOB:
I have got one pure Russian/Russian queen which came out of winter 2005/2006 on 10 frames of bees, I made three splits from her and she produced over 150 pounds of honey in the worse year as far as honey production I have ever seen in Missouri. I figure getting her has cost me thousands of dollars in lost production on the other 400 plus varroa tolerant queens.

I actually kept around 10 other varroa tolerant breeders but my focus now is on getting bees ready for winter. Pulling the last of the supers and treating for mites.

The "live and let die" method of selection for varroa tolerance *usually* selects *in my opinon* bees which survive by not being prolific for the most part. They survive by shutting down for dry weather or wet weather or cold or hot weather which gives a break in the varroa cycle.

Researchers are trying to say otherwise but my observations have been the breaking of the cycle and not prolific for the most part explains the varroa tolerance.

However there are exceptions like my jet black Russian/Russian which you have to search to find varroa in and is on the extreme side of prolific. She is a mystery to me.

Varroa tolerant bees as available today are Ok for hobby beekeepers but will not work for a commercial beekeeper like myself which does pollination both in Missouri & California (at times) and needs a certain number of drums of white honey to supply contracts. I bought two small truck loads of white honey a few weeks ago to tide me over. First time I have had to buy honey in a very long time. Not happy with this years honey production!
End of Bob's message/


The mite tolerant queens do NOT brood up as early and they don't overwinter with strong colonies like the typical commercial Italians used in almonds. One of the "resistance" traits is a strong tendency to stop brood rearing during any nectar/pollen dearth. When the bees are not reproducing, the mites can't reproduce. This causes a reduction in colony mite load. This trait eliminates such colonies from use in pollination. I first observed this trait in my bees in 1995 and wrote a letter to Bee Culture which was published describing the effect.

The underlying breeding problem is not to select mite tolerant bees. Its to select mite tolerant bees that are also suitable for almond pollination.

Can this be done?

I'll answer a resounding YES. But it will take serious support from some commercial guys to make it a reality.

Re the statement USDA etc. are responsible for fixing this mess. Sorry George, but we as beekeepers are responsible. The commercial beekeepers are trying. They are behind the eight ball and need all the help they can get to get over the hump with this. The queen breeders are trying. Just look on the net at the number claiming mite tolerance in their stock. They are behind the eight ball because they have to sell queens to meet a specific set of conditions and mite tolerant bees just aren't there yet. I am trying. I've purchased some mite tolerant stock and have selected some local stock that shows high mite resistance. I'll be raising queens this summer. What will you be doing?

Darrel Jones


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{We had a house 35 miles north of Omaha that has had bees in the wall of the house for over 25 years.}

This is part of the common fallacy of identifying feral colonies. It is highly unlikely the orginal bees lived there 25 yrs and more likely the house has had many different colonies of bees over the years. Empty bee spaces with comb are quickly filled by searching swarms. A church in the neighboring Maybury that had the stained glass windows boarded up from the outside in 1965. In the early 1990's this caretaker called us to remove the bees as they to wanted work on the church. He remembered the bees being their every year (6 windows full). When we opened the windows it was clear from comb and other findings the hives went through many generations of new swarms over those years. The workers failed to fill the spaces when the windows were boarded again and the next year they were once again, full of bees.

The possibilty exists we could benefit from identifying ferals that have survival traits and breeding them for queen stock. We have to have a more definative way to identify and test these bees than anecdotal input and a more prolific manner for breeding. 

Since we are looking for industry impact here who or what group of who's has the knowledge, organizational skills and finances to kick something like this off? How do we get from "them" and "They" to we.

Lupines' and Keiths' statements are the common thread among operations with 10's of thousands of dollars invested and are at some level dependant on income from their bees. It's hard to be Philanthropic about saving the industry when you have to live inside and eat. Who will invest (risk) the 10's of thousand of dollars it will take to find a possible solution breeding ferals or allow their untreated bee's to die, keeping them isolated, until they have truly survivor stock?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--The "live and let die" method of selection for varroa tolerance *usually* selects *in my opinon* bees which survive by not being prolific for the most part.--(FP)

I am seeing this.
I am seeing in honeybees, two distinct strategies ferals / survivors are taking against varroa. 

The live and let die method often tried by beekeepers produces a bee that is non productive. 

Why is this the case?.

Well, as a French saying elegantly puts it, "even the most beautiful woman cannot give more than she has." The innocent should not be blamed for having failed to be endowed by nature with more powers than is the case.

Consider the 6 known mechanisms for varroa resistance in honeybees: Length of phoretic period, Low mite fertility, Brood attractiveness, Length of post-capping, Grooming behavior, Hygienic behavior.

4 of the above; Length of phoretic period, Low mite fertility, Brood attractiveness, Length of post-capping, are already in place to some degree in honeybees of smaller cell sizes. Larger bees having an impossibility to manage all the above without a mechanism to do so, can only manage to stay alive by suppressing brood production and adopting a low brood viability, low fecundity strategy.

This low brood production and low viability strategy however is still an effective strategy. And as drastic as it is, is the first step that enables the colony to survive long enough to allow natural selection the time to choose from the best of this group having some varroa resistance to build from by natural selection. IMO, a fail safe strategy to prevent total extinction and allow time for selection of suppressed traits. 

--Researchers are trying to say otherwise but my observations have been the breaking of the cycle and not prolific for the most part explains the varroa tolerance.--(FP)

I have some ferals just caught and still being assessed that is exhibiting extremely high brood viability above 99%, the mode of resistance is as of yet undetermined, and still being assessed. Other ferals still having high brood viability are prolific, having other varroa resistant traits that I am in the process of documenting.


----------



## Randy Oliver (Nov 27, 2006)

Hi All,
Someone told me that you were mentioning my article. Let me address a few of your points:

1. I'm a commercial migratory beekeeper who goes to almonds. I'm not talking pie in the sky. 

2. I've never used an illegal chem except oxalic. No chems at all for three years except oxalic (will be using thymol this year). Learning curve was tough--wouldn't suggest it for anyone. But you don't need to take losses to change!

3. I split to double my colonies to 500 this season. I also sold about a hundred nucs (although I bought some shook bees from Keith to do so. I made a big honey crop. My better colonies right now are running 20 frames. Overall average is above 10 frames. My mite counts are negligible in most yards. So what's not to like about mite resistant bees? Keith, please don't generalize about resistant bees--there are great ones out there.

4. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. When the first press release of chemically contaminated honey kills the U.S. honey market, then we can blame.

5. I've sent my next two articles to ABJ. First one is an overview of mite population dynamics, and an analysis of how to determine the best strategies to fight the mite. The next is on monitoring--comparison of the methods, what time of year each method works best, when to monitor, and suggested mite thresholds for most areas.

6. I'm not suggesting that anyone do anything extreme or lose money. Everything is common sense, and proven.

7. It costs no more to produce a mite-resistant queen than a non-resistant queen. There's no reason that they can't perform better than standard queens. Quit making excuses!

8. I'm in the bee business to make money. Smart mite control is the way to do it. I want to share what I've learned--use it if you wish. Beekeepers who have a handle on mite control will be making money when others watch their bees die.

9. I appreciate all the help I've gotten. I'd appreciate anyone sending me good resources for my next articles: biotechnical control, chemicals, especially on formic acid, and on problems with chemically-contaminated combs. I've already got a lot of info, but would appreciate your help.

10. George, the USDA has funded great research, but fallen down on overall guidance. However, American beekeepers being who they are, most don't give a squat what the USDA says. They are going to do whatever they think will make them money. Ditto for the queen breeders. No one can tell then what to do, except demand by the customer. Commercial beekeepers are doing the best they can. I'm hoping to supply them with good information so that they can do better. I don't expect them to take losses for the "greater good." They will change if it's profitable.

11. These articles take hundreds of hours of research and pay nearly nothing. My bees suffer from neglect while I research and write. I'm trying to set up a website to make the information available to all. I've got a domain name and website roughed out in Joomla. If there's anyone proficient in Joomla who would like to help me, let me know.

Randy Oliver


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"The mite tolerant queens do NOT brood up as early and they don't over winter with strong colonies like the typical commercial Italians used in almonds. One of the "resistance" traits is a strong tendency to stop brood rearing during any nectar/pollen dearth. When the bees are not reproducing, the mites can't reproduce. This causes a reduction in colony mite load. This trait eliminates such colonies from use in pollination. I first observed this trait in my bees in 1995 and wrote a letter to Bee Culture which was published describing the effect." Darrel Jones

Darrel, while I strongly agree that this mechanism you refer to here reduces mites; it does not preclude bees with such traits from being great pollinators for several reasons. Firstly, not all bees respond to respond to stimulation in the same manner or rate. The bees we select respond explosively to protein stimulation in January here in frosty Oregon. With proper management they can catch up to any Italian. Also they fly at cooler temps. Upper forties to 50F and there will be pollen coming in. The foraging temp difference can be astounding in marginal pollination weather conditions. The difference is most noticeable when you set one of these survivors next to most straight Italians.

Keith Jarret hit on some important points. Sheer economics drive most sound business decisions to keep food on the table and gas in the tank. Sustainability comes to mind here. How long will the current props for non-resistant bees continue to work? Acaricide resistance is cyclical and well documented, but in the mean time the bees must be kept alive some how.

The mite resistance movement is relatively young. There is much room for improvement on top of the progress already made. The resistant bee of today may not look or behave the same in 5, 10, or even 15 years. I think progress will accelerate now that the honeybee genome has been decoded and market forces apply. Large commercial operations help feed this nation and are pivotal for our nations agricultural economy and large crashes of honeybee populations have to be avoided. Hopefully there is enough commercial interest and overall market demand to encourage and support the resistance movement. The golden age of beekeeping is yet to come; we just have to reach for it at every opportunity.

Best of luck to all in the New Year.
JBJ


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Joe wrote,

"Keith, you on small cell,or this an observation"

Joe, this is just what I'm seeing. How this all got started, Joe, was a freind of mine crashed last year with only three hundred left out of twenty five hundred. I sold him thousands of pounds of bulk bees to re-stock his out fit. I told him he can pay me back with next years almond check. In the mean time he starts raising these mite resistance queens. So he ask if I would buy some, I said sure why not, he's aready behind the eight ball. Anyhow, they were nice queens with great patterns but they shut down as soon as the weather changes. In the A.B.J oct issue( page 843), I have a picture of these hives, they're the ones I'm feeding pollen to, I pull out of the valley early because the bees were not building.I put 15 pounds of pollen sub threw those bees, and they are only ten frame average right now.I have about three hunderd hives like this.

Keith Jarrett

P.S. Joe, stern letters are ok, is nice to see the passion, as long as it's truthfull.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Hey there Randy O.
You sliped in while I was responding to Joe's letter.
As you know I'm slow at the keyboard.

Randy wrote; keith please don't generalize about resistant bees

As most of you know by now, I ONLY write about my own experiences, take it for what it's worth.

I had only 300 hives this year of mite resistance queens.

Keith Jarrett


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Re the statement USDA etc. are responsible for fixing this mess. Sorry George, but we as beekeepers are responsible.

Did I say that? Maybe I did. What I really meant was that I think the USDA is responsible, negligently responisble in fact, for taking wholly the wrong approach to varroa and pursuing research in all the wrong places. I don't think it's their responsibility to fix this mess, I don't WANT them to fix this mess or even try because I don't think they CAN fix this mess. I expect they're largely in the pockets of the chemical companies. You're quite right. It's our mess,we gotta fix it. I've never been in favor of foisting off responsibility for anything. Blame maybe, but not responsibility









I was really just trying to stir things up a bit by throwing out a different and possibly controversial perspective, playing the devil's advocate. I think I succeeded, got all kinds of hoopla going. Thanks for yours









>I'll be raising queens this summer. What will you be doing?

Likewise. And I can't wait to see how the queens I raised last season perform next year. The hive I bred from was abandoned and left for dead in the fall of 2005 by a migratory beekeeper, it managed to survive the winter in a deep and a single with the lid half-off and was going strong last spring when I discovered and salvaged it. It's been untreated since the fall of 2004. It's still alive.


----------



## Randy Oliver (Nov 27, 2006)

Hi All,
The basic premise for breeding good commercial bees, as opposed to bees of academic interest, is to always select from your best stock.

My selection is primarily done the first week of February each year, as that is when big colonies make me money. I don't really give a hoot how they go about doing that. I most of my colonies the same exact care and treatment all year. Those I have to help are removed from the potential breeder pool. The best bees in February get to pass their genes on. 

If your focus is too narrow, as in just going for survivor queens, that's what you'll get. Go for production queens that don't require a lot of babying with miticides, and you'll get great production queens.

That said, I do keep a small survivor yard. I checked today, and only one survived again. Same colony for three years straight. Her daughters are also my best producers. The feedback from the purchasers of the nucs I've sold is the same--best bees in the yard.

Be careful what you breed for, you just might get it! If you want bees that make you money, breed for bees that make you money, but slowly wean them off miticides by making them jump through higher hoops each year.

Randy Oliver


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>10. George, the USDA has funded great research, but fallen down on overall guidance.

I largely agree. It is interesting to speculate... though perhaps a waste of time... on where'd we'd be today as an industry if the USDA had NOT fallen down on the guidance end of things.

Great quote by the way, the one Michael Bush tossed out at the beginning of this thread. I still feel the way I first responded- that it's hard to take exception to it.... but I tried Randy, I really tried


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

It ain't over till its over. And this battle is barely begun!

Randy has identified one queen that makes outstanding daughters. From previous writings, that queen is a Minnesota Hygenic crossed with mite tolerant drones. Thats not enough genetic variation to work with.

Keith J. Can you go through those 300 mite resistant colonies you have and pick the best 10 colonies to be evaluated for use as breeders? Can you get those 10 best to someone who will give them the acid test and then produce queens you can use next year?

Are there any more commercial beekeepers reading this thread that can realistically pick out a few mite tolerant high production colonies in their operations? Can you get those colonies to a breeder for stock selection? Can we as a group get something going to put some real mite tolerant genetics into the pollination game and especially going to almonds?

Here are the requirements:
1. Collect at least 100 colonies of bees exhibiting mite tolerance and high brood production. Cull them heavily, try to wind up with 50 good colonies. Use 40 for drones and the very best of the best to raise about 30,000 queens

2. Find a queen breeder willing to produce these queens and he MUST have a market for them. That means the commercial pollinators have to agree up front to buy queens and give them a real shot for pollination and production. Folks, there are a couple of breeders reading this thread and I bet if you waved the right inducement they would step forward.

3. Repeat this process again next year by identifying more tolerant colonies and again breeding from them. It would help if several hundred prolific and mite tolerant colonies could be found the second year.

4. Get someone with serious genetic knowhow to help establish a long term stock selection and maintenance program!!!!!!!

Darrel Jones


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Randy, thanks for joining in the discussion. You and Keith seem to be having success at a larger level.

I have a couple of questions:

1) Are the queens resistant or is the OA the impacting factor?

2) Why are you going to Thymol (IPM?) and how will you apply?

3) What are the dominant genetics. (Italian, Carniolian ...?)

We experianced a sudden year with very low mites in a majority of our hives. We have been breeding and buying for mite resistance for about 10 yrs (since varroa wiped us out in 1996). We dumped Cumophos (for mites) 3 yrs ago, Formic last year and may dump Fluvalinate this year if our spring inspection looks good. I think our results are too sudden to be fully stock related and I don't know what the spring will bring. The only other changes we have made are fogging with (2006 1st. year) FGMO/thymol and adding Minnesota Hygenics to our breeding pool in 2006. Any thoughts?


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

I have about half avgeraging 15-25 frames right now, yes you read this right.

Keith, how in the world do you get that many bees in January? Is it all the pollen patties?

-Rob Bliss

[ January 01, 2007, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: pahvantpiper ]


----------



## Randy Oliver (Nov 27, 2006)

Darrel,
I heartily agree with you, although I have a few lines of bees exhibiting VSH--one is just the best.
There is a big difference between queen breeders and queen producers. The producers buy breeding stock and produce queens. The will respond to demand.
Selection for mite resistant good queens can be fairly easy in a large operation. Run all the colonies the same, and take a sticky count at your mite treatment in August. It's easy at that time to separate the men from the boys. Check those with low counts to make sure they are strong and healthy. Mark those colonies. Come spring, take the best of those and breed from them. You don't have to lose any colonies in the process.

We hope to soon have a stock selection and maintenance program at UC Davis starting this year.

Joel,
1) Are the queens resistant or is the OA the impacting factor?
OA is just a treatment, and part of an overall approach. My upcoming articles will give more details.

2) Why are you going to Thymol (IPM?) and how will you apply?
I'm concerned about overuse of oxalic--there are reports of problems.

3) What are the dominant genetics. (Italian, Carniolian ...?)
Many I'm trying ferals, the best of my previous years, Minnesota Hygienic, Russian, SMR, Weaver, and crosses between them.

We experianced a sudden year with very low mites in a majority of our hives.
We experience those years, too. Can get your hopes up falsely. This year seemed to be low in many yards, but not all.

Let me know how your FGMO and thymol work--I have no experience with them. Again, sorry I can't send you my articles yet--ABJ has first publication rights.

Randy


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I'll look forward to them Randy and thanks again! Hope you'll stop by and keep us posted now and again.

[ January 01, 2007, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Randy,

Sent you a private message.

Darrel Jones


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

We need treatments right now, to help us cope with the invasion of the v mite. The genetics are comming, but it all takes time. To simply state a mass culling of all the hives in North America to solve the problem is really unrealistic. So many bankruptcy, and so many important beekeepers involved with the development of the industry would be outright lost. And for what? Natures best selected?

I really doubt Nature would select a bee that would accomidate all the requirements demanded by beekeepers today. The reason it takes a while to breed in resistance, we have to find it, and keep all the traits we have already estabished in our stock.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I've got a domain name and website roughed out in Joomla. If there's anyone proficient in Joomla who would like to help me, let me know.

Never heard of Joomla but just went to take a peek at it as I've got plans of dressing up my site this winter. Whatcha need help with on yours Randy?

George-


----------



## jjgbee (Oct 12, 2006)

I posted this note befor, poss under diseases and pests. I was in a meeting with a senior DOW chemist. He feels the heavy doses of chems. like Tak tic and Maveric will have no effect on the super mites that have been created. The onion industry did the same thing recently. Nothing would kill the pest that they created. He feels next year is dooms day for hard chem users.


----------



## Randy Oliver (Nov 27, 2006)

We need treatments right now, to help us cope with the invasion of the v mite.

I hear you,Ian. Again, I don't think anyone needs to lose colonies. Just keep requeening with better stock as it becomes available. My next few articles will detail how best to deal with the mite without synthetic chemicals. It is easy for small operations. Large operations are going to have to decide if the extra labor required is worth the return. By my calcs and practical experience, it is. You'll likely have to either hire more help, or reduce the size of your operation at first. But the extra labor will repay itself in increased production.

In your area, colonies going into the honeyflow with moderate mite levels only produce half or less as much honey. So, is a couple of extra minutes of work per colony in spring worth the extra honey production? That's all it takes!

I'm going to detail all in the next few months. Not that I know everything by any means, or that I'm always successful. But I've been looking at this issue in some depth, and I'm very positive for the industry.

The mite's whupped my butt enough times, and pissed me off enough to find out how to fight back successfully. So far, so good for me. I'm going to share all I've found out, and want everyone's feedback. I'll soon be asking for beekeepers to share their success stories, and I'll publish them in ABJ and on my website.

jjgbee,
Your crystal ball is right. Tactic and Mavrik are singing their swan songs. They will keep working for some time if used in rotation, but the bees won't be able to survive on the combs.

Randy Oliver

Randy Oliver


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

mr oliver sezs:
The mite's whupped my butt enough times, and pissed me off enough to find out how to fight back successfully. So far, so good for me. I'm going to share all I've found out, and want everyone's feedback. I'll soon be asking for beekeepers to share their success stories, and I'll publish them in ABJ and on my website.

tecumseh replies:
with that kind of attitude.... my hat's off to ya' dude....


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Seems to me that a couple issues are often forgotten in this type of discussion.

First, look at efforts in breeding plants to be resistant to different insects or pathogens. Those efforts aren't a, "Here we have a resistant variety; now we're set," approach. Instead, breeding programs have to keep working to create newer, resistant varieties. Selection cuts both ways. You may be able to select for resistance, but that resistance selects for pests that are resistant to the resistance.

In the long run, breeding for resistance is usually a "treadmill" approach. Once you start, you'll never cease breeding for resistance. If you come up with a resistant form for now, you'd better start working on the next version immediately.

Secondly, the current selective pressure on the Varroa mites is often overlooked. Some beekeepers report having "resistant" or "tolerant" or "survivor" bees (call 'em what you will, they all amount to about the same thing). These 'keepers tend to be small-time operators (not large migratory operations), relatively few and relatively far between. To me, that suggests that the selective pressure on the mites is relatively low.

Look back at the introduction of Bt corn: growers were supposed to plant refuges of conventional corn to slow down the spread of corn borers capable of surviving in Bt corn. At first, comparatively few acres were planted in Bt corn, and the Bt varieties effectively controlled corn borer populations. But many farmers ignored the planting recommendations, more farmers began planting Bt varieties, and the selective pressure on the corn borers increased. The corn borers adapted to the Bt toxins (they developed resistance, if you will), and the Bt varieties are losing their effects on pest populations.

I suspect that some of these pockets of "resistant" bees can exist right now simply because so many bees are susceptible to mites. Increase the selective pressure on the mites, and the level of resistance to mites in some of these bees may disappear.

Using "resistant" bees may help alleviate Varroa problems, but I believe Varroa are here to stay. We won't eliminate future problems with Varroa simply by switching to "resistant" stock once.

Believing that "resistance" will prove to be a magic bullet against varroa is likely about as realistic as believing that any single chemical would be that magic bullet.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

<Be careful what you breed for, you just might get it!>

Randy (and others), what are your thoughts on environmental and geographic variables in breeding stock? I can't help but wonder whether the bee that's bred in Georgia and develops some sort of resistance will maintain that resistance in Wyoming or the Dakotas. How well can a critter that's successful in a static yard in a warm, moist environment for example do when moved through a variety of ecosystems, all of which impact the diseases and pests that it will be exposed to? 
Is it reasonable to suggest that selection and breeding is most effective when done on a localized basis, and that what works in one area and for a specific set of goals will not be particularly usefull elsewhere where conditions are different?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Kieck, and Coyote,

The objective of breeding for mite tolerance is to establish a host/parasite relationship between bees and mites. If the mites become so virulent that they destroy the bees they are infesting, the mites will themselves die and they will exert selective pressure on the bees to produce a more mite tolerant bee. If the bees become too resistant to the mites, they will exert selective pressure for a more virulent mite. The middle ground is where beekeepers should be going. Find a point where the bees are tolerant to the mites and the mites are not too virulent to the bees. Stabliity at that point can be achieved and maintained indefinitely.

Bees with mite tolerance will most likely exhibit mite tolerance in any geographic location because of the genetic nature of the mechanisms. but they won't necessarily exhibit other adaptations to the specific climate. This means a bee could be mite tolerant in both North Dakota and Georgia but it would be adapted to Georgia and be non-productive in North Dakota. This scenario is almost 100% probable to occur. This is why developing locally adapted stocks is so desirable.

Darrel Jones


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"Secondly, the current selective pressure on the Varroa mites is often overlooked. Some beekeepers report having "resistant" or "tolerant" or "survivor" bees (call 'em what you will, they all amount to about the same thing). These 'keepers tend to be small-time operators (not large migratory operations), relatively few and relatively far between. To me, that suggests that the selective pressure on the mites is relatively low." Kieck

In our case we pollinate almonds and pears commercially. We usually put about 5-6 hundred in the almonds and 400+ in the pears. Plenty of exposure and selection pressure there. Granted we are not a huge outfit by any standard, but we are definitely pollination dependant and get to rub elbows and bees with the big boys.

" Believing that "resistance" will prove to be a magic bullet against Varroa is likely about as realistic as believing that any single chemical would be that magic bullet." Kieck

While I agree that the resistance movement is not a silver bullet yet, I strongly disagree about your view of the future. Look to basic ecology for a counter argument. It is called "host parasite equilibrium." This equilibrium is out of balance now due to the fact that Varroa is a relatively new pest to our bees on an evolutionary time scale. With beekeepers help this process can be accelerated. My prediction is that Varroa will eventually be able to coexist with our bees much like it does on its original host.

"Is it reasonable to suggest that selection and breeding is most effective when done on a localized basis, and that what works in one area and for a specific set of goals will not be particularly useful elsewhere where conditions are different?" Coyote

I would say overall the answer is yes. Stock improvement is a lifetime effort and improvements can always be made for local climates and management. Start with the best you can get and build your program from there. The first survivors or resistant stock you get may not perfectly fit your operation perfectly initially but with adjustments in management and strong selection you may be surprised at the progress that can be made in as little as three years. It is possible to have Survivor Stock with all of the economically valuable traits we have come to love and depend on.
JBJ


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Believing that "resistance" will prove to be a magic bullet against varroa is likely about as realistic as believing that any single chemical would be that magic bullet.

Our guys up here are approching this issue with a three prong approch,

get the genetics you want, need and find the bees that seem to tolerate mites better in ways of grooming ect,

use organic acids to help reduce and maintain mite loads on the colonies so they dont simpley overwhelm the hive,

use chemicals in a three or four year rotation along with the organic treatments to help the organic acids during less effective years. 

Chemical use in the battle against varroa is not a bad thing. It is and has been one of the most useful tools available in the combat against this pest. The overuse of it has unfortunatly cause a slack additude of the overwhelming distruction the mite posses. But then again, as I said earlier, it has bought us time to find alternative treatments and find better genetics while maintaining everything that we have worked for.

Randy Oliver, the only way to get discussion is to get attention. Keep up the good work. There are many beekeepers out here striving for your same goals, presistance is your key to success.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I'm concerned about overuse of oxalic--there are reports of problems.

What are you hearing Randy?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>>I'm concerned about overuse of oxalic--there are reports of problems.


Our guys advise is to us this treatment as a one time treatment. In spring, and in fall.
How many beekeepers on this fourm are treating their hives up to three times, spring, and fall? their going to burn their bees and brood!!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

". . .Plenty of exposure and selection pressure there. . . ." -JBJ

True, but remember that I was talking about selective pressure on the mites, not on the bees. All those bees, all suitable hosts for those mites, where's the selective pressure? Now, if almost all of those bees were "resistant" to mites, the selective pressure on the mites would be huge.

"While I agree that the resistance movement is not a silver bullet yet, I strongly disagree about your view of the future. Look to basic ecology for a counter argument. It is called "host parasite equilibrium." This equilibrium is out of balance now due to the fact that Varroa is a relatively new pest to our bees on an evolutionary time scale. With beekeepers help this process can be accelerated. My prediction is that Varroa will eventually be able to coexist with our bees much like it does on its original host." -JBJ

I think many beekeepers disagree. But how do you explain the examples I've listed in breeding plants, then? These examples aren't hypothetical -- they've already happened. 

"Host-parasite equilibrium" is very real, and it likely can and will happen. You're right that basic ecology teaches us that. However, host-pest equilibrium also works with plants and pests, yet we battle those pests continually. Corn rootworm and corn have coexisted for thousands of years, they have definitely reached an "equilibrium," but we still attempt to control rootworm populations. Why? Because that equilibrium isn't suitable for our economics.

The same goes for honey bees. If all beekeepers are willing to have only a few hives, scatter them widely, and let the bees manage themselves (swarm when they want, build up only to the populations they want, live where they want, etc.), then the host-parasite equilibrium will work quite nicely, in my opinion. However, most beekeepers -- especially migratory operations -- pack huge numbers of colonies into small areas, deliberately manipulate colonies to increase populations when the 'keepers desire (for pollination, honey production, etc), and try to make as much money as possible off their colonies.

If resistance or tolerance to a pest/parasite is so easy to achieve and maintain, and if host-pest/parasite equilibria work for human-managed operations, why haven't they succeeded with plants yet?


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Help me out with the host-pest/parasite equilibrium thing. The varroa problem seems to be a very recent development in the US. Wouldn't the varroa populations of 25 or 50 years ago be considered equilibrium, rather than the current levels?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

It's really a complicated deal. With no Varroa (say, 25 or 50 years ago), it would be an equilibrium of sorts, but not really a host-parasite equilibrium.

The idea of the equilibrium is that the pest/parasite population decreases the host population, but the host population must stay large enough to adequately sustain the pest/parasite population.

Start with a population of the host. The population is large. Add a new parasite, and the population of the host declines. The new, smaller population of the host means that fewer of the parasites can survive, so the parasite population declines. The decline of the parasites allows the host population to increase. The increase of the host population allows the parasite population to increase, which, in turn, decreases the host population. The smaller host population means that the parasite population declines. . . .

Eventually, the two populations should reach an equilibrium somewhere between their low points and their high points.

In reality, it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes, a new pest/parasite eliminates its host. Sometimes, the new host isn't suitable for the parasite/pest in the long run.

If honey bees and Varroa can reach an equilibrium in North America, that still doesn't mean that the population of honey bees in that equilibrium will be adequate for beekeepers. Let's just say, hypothetically, that the equilibrium is reached with a maximum of 200,000 colonies, all spaced randomly (not in yards, but scattered across the continent). Some beekeeper decides he wants a greater income, adds some colonies, and the whole equilibrium is thrown out of whack.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Kieck, I am not sure what plant breeding programs you refer to? I acknowledge there is always going to be evolutionary interplay as species adapt to each other. Evolution is not a static process, however it is possible to fix certain traits in specific genomes, I would cite plant breeders here: herbicide resistance, drought tolerance, salinity tolerance, frost resistance, (although these are abiotic factors); and here is a link citing progress in plant breeding for biological pest resistance: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/text19/hostresist.html

As far as selection pressure goes I see that we have it on both the bees and mites. I might even go as far to say it is impossible to have one without the other. We grow all of our queens from Survivor Stock so the suitability of these hives as hosts as is an interesting variable to consider. Currently industry wide the major selection pressure on the mites is towards acaricide resistance by large acaricide dependant commercial operations. Also pertinent to this discussion is an acknowledgement of multiple types of selection at work. We have natural selection (Darwinian) and artificial selection (domestication or cultivation). The interplay between these can be complex and at times the may work synergistically and other time s they may seem to work against each other.

Host parasite equilibrium is an extremely important concept for our discussion. Look at the population dynamics between Varroa and its original host Apis cerana. This is a perfect example of host parasite equilibrium. Could A. cerana suddenly become vulnerable? Say a more virulent strain of Varroa pops up due to some type of mutation. Will this new virulent strain of mites be able to displace the less virulent strains of Varroa? I would conject they would not in because they would never enjoy the reproductive success of the less virulent strains. The population dynamic between these two organisms has been stable for a very long time and I would wager that it will continue to do so for a very long time (hundreds of years?). Could A. mellifera ever be as tolerant to Varroa as A. cerana? This would represent a shift from parasitism toward commensalism.

" If resistance or tolerance to a pest/parasite is so easy to achieve and maintain, and if host-pest/parasite equilibria work for human-managed operations, why haven't they succeeded with plants yet?"

I don't believe anyone said that this would be easy. The risk of extinction due to an introduced pest is highest in the earlier years of an infestation. As time goes on the risk of extinction declines as pockets of resistance are identified. These genes can be propagated and spread throughout the industry, over time with proper selection the frequency of these desirable genes in the overall honeybee population would increase substantially. There has been some success with some plants as the fore mentioned link illustrates. There will always be room for improvement, but what a worthy goal.

" If honey bees and Varroa can reach an equilibrium in North America, that still doesn't mean that the population of honey bees in that equilibrium will be adequate for beekeepers. Let's just say, hypothetically, that the equilibrium is reached with a maximum of 200,000 colonies, all spaced randomly (not in yards, but scattered across the continent). Some beekeeper decides he wants a greater income, adds some colonies, and the whole equilibrium is thrown out of whack." Kieck

I do not understand the logic here. I am talking about a genetic equilibrium an individual colony basis. Once there are enough bees identified with the ability to maintain a commensal relationship with Varroa there is no reason these queens and genetics could not be propagated in large enough numbers to meet industry needs. Ideally there would be enough different breeder colonies with this commensal ability identified that inbreeding could be avoided.
JBJ


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I obviously need to clarify a few of my earlier statements.

First, plant breeders HAVE had some success breeding "resistant" or "tolerant" varieties. The problem has been that as soon as the new varieties have been grown widely, the pests or diseases have adapted, and the "resistance" or "tolerance" has been lost. Earlier I alluded to the "treadmill" of breeding resistant/tolerant forms. I hold by that statement.

By the way, the link you provided, JBJ, talks about some forms that can provide resistance/tolerance, not how long that resistance/tolerance is likely to be effective.

As far as plant breeding programs, I mentioned some examples earlier. Specifically, I mentioned Bt corn and European corn borer (it's also mentioned on the web site you cited, JBJ, but they fail to mention that corn borers can now successfully survive on Bt corn -- the caterpillars are resistant to the resistance). Fifty years ago, efforts were being made to grow varieties of corn that would be tolerant to corn rootworm. Corn breeders are still coming up with new varieties that are tolerant/resistant to corn rootworm. Wheat breeders have been working for years breeding varieties that are resistant to scabs or aphids -- and they're still breeding new varieties because the scabs or aphids adapt to the resistant varieties almost as quickly as the breeders can develop new varieties.

It's a treadmill -- once you're on it, you need to keep going. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, just that beekeepers can't expect to eliminate the problems with Varroa simply by switching to a "resistant" or "tolerant" bee.

In my opinion, management techniques that control Varroa populations are likely to be just as effective. "Small cell" sounds promising to me.

"This would represent a shift from parasitism toward commensalism." -JBJ

I think you need to check the definition of "commensalism." Do you really believe that Varroa will eventually live on bees without feeding on the bees? How do you imagine that will happen?

I think Varroa will always be parasites, not commensals.

"I am talking about a genetic equilibrium an individual colony basis." -JBJ

I'm assuming from this that you're talking about an equilibrium within a colony, not a host-parasite equilibrium?

Assuming you are, what evidence exists that the population of bees within a hive at equilibrium will be high enough to produce a surplus of honey? Will the population be high enough to meet the demands for pollination?


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

The American Heritage Science Dictionary - Cite This Source 
commensalism (kə-měn'sə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key A symbiotic relationship in which one organism derives benefit while causing little or no harm to the other. Examples of commensalism include epiphytic plants, which depend on a larger host plant for support but which do not derive any nourishment from it, and remoras, which attach themselves to sharks and feed on their leavings without appreciably hindering their hosts. Compare amensalism, mutualism, parasitism. 

According to Odum in his book Basic Ecology (c1983) states that in a commensal relationship "one population benefits while the host is not affected." P369 There is gradations between complete parasitism and commensalism. It is possible that a colony of bees can support a certain amount of mites and not exhibit PMS and no economic injury. This is one of the fundamentals of IPM; and your are right management will be key, and one of the fundamentals of integrated pest management is to use resistant cultivars or genotypes.

"I think you need to check the definition of "commensalism." Do you really believe that Varroa will eventually live on bees without feeding on the bees? How do you imagine that will happen?"Kieck

Just like it does on Apis cerana for just one possibility, there are more. Perhaps I misspoke on host parasite equilibrium, I should have been more specific. I mean equilibrium the in genome between these two populations within a particular colony and in the overall populations of all bees. For example, the VSH trait and others in a hive may be able to reduce the fecundity of the mites such that the Varroa population never reaches the Economic Injury Level (EIL), another applicable IPM term. This status represents an equilibrium state at this particular individual hive level. The frequency of this VSH and other mite suppression genes could be amplified in the overall genome of all bees by propagating resistant queens from identified sources such as this, thus moving the whole population towards host parasite equilibrium (sustainable coexistence). It starts with a few and moves towards the many, once the majority of bees have the ability to maintain harmless levels of Varroa without treatment you have host parasite equilibrium in my humble opinion. This means a balance without significant population booms and crashes in either the host or the parasite.

The plants you mentioned fall into the category of transgenic, and could never be produced with classical breeding and selection programs so I don't think they are truly relevant unless we want to include the concept of transgenic bees witch is an idea I am not wild about as you may ascertain.

"It's a treadmill -- once you're on it, you need to keep going. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, just that beekeepers can't expect to eliminate the problems with Varroa simply by switching to a "resistant" or "tolerant" bee." Kieck

Would you consider the relationship between Varroa and A. cerana a treadmill? Further, I see this "genetic treadmill" as a better situation than a chemical treadmill where you have to put new and more poisonous chemicals and carcinogens into the hive; not really the clean wholesome image of beekeeping that I would like to promote. You are right that simply switching to resistant stock will not cure your all mite problems immediately, but it is a step in the right direction. This process will take years but it can be done. With the bee genome recently decoded progress is bound to accelerate. With the right cultural practices and genetics it is already possible to run a profitable operation without hard acaricides, and it is only going to get better as advancements in honeybee genetics occur and desirable genes spread. The golden age of beekeeping is on the way and we can all help.
JBJ


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Maybe we need to breed Varroa that coexist with the bees. Treating all the time, of course, keeps them from finding any equilibrium, but in theory, the ones that do (without our intervention) should survive. Maybe if we quit killing them we can breed appropriate Varroa...


----------



## Randy Oliver (Nov 27, 2006)

Kiek says Believing that "resistance" will prove to be a magic bullet against varroa is likely about as realistic as believing that any single chemical would be that magic bullet.

You may have missed a couple of points. First, biological resistance of the host is never a "done" thing--the host continues to evolve with the pest.

Second, we already have examples of two bees that are able to handle varroa completely by behavior and other natural factors: Apis cerana and the African bee. They've reached a stable host/parasite relationship, just as Apis mellifera will likely do eventually, if we stop retarding the process. (I'm not saying that beekeepers are necessarily retarded.) : )

Coyote: I agree that we should breed localized stocks. However, genes from other areas may help.
Oh, I see that Darrel has already answered that eloquently!

Ian, thanks. The rotating chemical approach is working for the time being. However, I'm very concerned about the buildup over time of fluvalinate and coumophos in combs (amitraz appears safer in that regard). Also, the buildup of oxalic if used too frequently. There are beekeepers who have had to abandon combs wholesale in order to keep their bees alive. I will be addressing this issue in future articles.

Randy Oliver


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"The plants you mentioned fall into the category of transgenic, and could never be produced with classical breeding and selection programs so I don't think they are truly relevant unless we want to include the concept of transgenic bees witch is an idea I am not wild about as you may ascertain." -JBJ

Did you read all of the examples I listed, JBJ?

Let's see: Bt corn is obviously transgenic. The Bt corn to target rootworms is also transgenic.

The corn that is tolerant to rootworm (larger root masses and more prop roots to support the plants) is not transgenic.

The wheat varieties -- not transgenic.

Most plant breeding for resistance/tolerance to pests and/or diseases has not been transgenic. Simply selection.

Sure, the "chemical treadmill" is a treadmill as well. I'm not suggesting that it's a better alternative, just that breeding "resistant" bees isn't as simple a method as many seem to believe.

"You may have missed a couple of points. First, biological resistance of the host is never a "done" thing--the host continues to evolve with the pest." -Randy Oliver

No, I understand that. I didn't miss that. What I've been trying to point out is that evolution doesn't necessarily follow agricultural economics.

Just because bees can tolerate or resist mites does not mean that those bees will be useful for managed colonies. Bees can survive without producing enough surplus honey for humans to plunder some of their stores, and colonies can be large enough to survive without being large enough to provide the type of pollination sought under pollinator contracts.

Think back to the examples of corn I've mentioned: without human intervention, the populations of rootworm and corn borer and other corn pests would be much greater than they are right now. Yields would be much smaller, yet corn would survive. It can tolerate greater pest populations than humans can economically tolerate on that corn.

I wonder if honey bees wouldn't be the same way.

Maybe some management techniques could be just as useful as breeding "resistant" bees or relying on chemical treatments?


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"Just because bees can tolerate or resist mites does not mean that those bees will be useful for managed colonies." Kieck

It does not mean they won't be useful either. Survivability (mite resistance/tolerance) and other economically valuable traits are not mutually exclusive. 

"Maybe some management techniques could be just as useful as breeding "resistant" bees or relying on chemical treatments?" Kieck

This is definitely true. IPM is the way of the future. Genetics and management will work together. I think the most important part of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is the Integration. This means some intense smart management, great genetics, and good cultural practices. The power is in the synergy of genetics, management, and cultural practices. 

"Think back to the examples of corn I've mentioned: without human intervention, the populations of rootworm and corn borer and other corn pests would be much greater than they are right now. Yields would be much smaller, yet corn would survive. It can tolerate greater pest populations than humans can economically tolerate on that corn." Kieck

Sure that's the way it is now, but wouldn't it be possible to breed from the "survivor corn" corn for yield increase and in 5 or 10 years see dramatic impotents? I think often short-term economic goals cloud our judgment and cause long-term environmental consequences. What humans can "economically tolerate" in the short term may not always be good for the long-term sustainability of humans.

"Sure, the "chemical treadmill" is a treadmill as well. I'm not suggesting that it's a better alternative, just that breeding "resistant" bees isn't as simple a method as many seem to believe." Kieck


I personally do not know anybody who suggested this would be simple. Brother Adam spent a lifetime improving bees and I intend to do the same.

We are breeding for bees that can make us pollination $$, that can survive without hard acaricides, rival any for honey production, are reasonable to work, and great overall fecundity. We like to make a lot of nucs and splits. So far I have found getting the right genetics to be the keystone of this project. There is plenty of room for improvement. I love a great challenge.

The best-managed bees without the right genetics will often require more agricultural inputs in terms of chems and labor.
JBJ


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"It does not mean they won't be useful either. Survivability (mite resistance/tolerance) and other economically valuable traits are not mutually exclusive." -JBJ

You're right. They're not mutually exclusive. I'm still not convinced that the two -- looking only at the genetics -- are inclusive, though.

You might be able to get there -- best of luck if you're trying!

"Sure that's the way it is now, but wouldn't it be possible to breed from the "survivor corn" corn for yield increase and in 5 or 10 years see dramatic impotents?" -JBJ

From what I've read and understand about the issue, your suggestion doesn't seem possible. Corn breeders have been trying this for years. In fact, many have tried just exactly what you suggested. That's why I listed it as an example of the "treadmill."

Corn breeders selected varieties that "tolerated" pests and produced greater yields, but those greater yields made those varieties more appealing to the pests and subjected them to even greater populations of pests. The very trait that makes them appealing to farmers (more yield, or food value) makes them appealing to pests. If the resources (corn) are available, something will move in to take advantage as quickly as possible.

So, the breeders work to breed varieties that can tolerate the pests that are attacking the previously tolerant varieties.

Thus, the "treadmill" begins.

Again, nothing wrong with this approach. I was and am simply trying to point out that it's continual, and may not be quite as fool-proof as it sounds at face value.

"If you're not part of the genetic solution of breeding mite-tolerant 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-tolerant bees." Breeding Mite-Fighting Bees" by Randy Oliver. [cited to start this thread by Michael Bush]

To me, this statement provokes thought, but I'm not convinced that it's quite as cut-and-dried as it sounds.

Think about small cell (SC) for a minute. According to the proponents of SC, SC works simply because the cells are smaller. Nothing genetic, nothing added to the colonies otherwise, just the smaller sizes of the brood cells. Based on Randy Oliver's quote, all of you SC people are contributing to the problem. Your bees are not genetically resistant, it's just your management technique that lends some tolerance to Varroa.

One method of treatment is chemical, one is mechanical, neither selects for genetically-resistant or tolerant bees.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Keick,

Just some thoughts, maybe you can tell me how far off the mark I may be.









So the theory kinda goes, host pest relationship will necessitate that the varroa adapt traits in response to the degree of resistance adapted in a population of honeybees, and the honeybees adapt traits to cope with the mites to the degree that the mites have adapted, hence the theory of host/parasite equilibrium. This is basically a coexistence that contributes no advantage to either species. 

However, Im thinking that there are advantages for honeybees to develop traits that would upset the host/parasite equilibrium, and push to eliminate or at least mitigate the varroa and associated stresses in a linage of honeybees, and the selective pressure behind this would be intraspcific competition. 

Potentially, lineages of honeybees having highly developed varroa resistant traits may exist in subpopulations as a result of intraspicific competition. Any lineages that can mitigate the impact from varroa and associated stresses on the health of the colony beyond that of the host/parasite equilibrium to the smallest degree will have the selective advantage in intraspicific competition. 

In theory, mites adapting a host/parasite relationship with some breeding populations of honeybees, will not maintain that same relationship in breeding populations that are wining in inrraspicific competition where the varroa are potentially suppressed even further.

Would it be fair to say?: Breed honeybees with intraspicific competitiveness, and you will be promoting varroa resistant gentics AHB come to mind here?


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"Thus, the "treadmill" begins." Kieck

Another term for this would be "evolution", and it will go on with or without human intervention, although it may be temporally accelerated or decelerated by our intervention.

" You might be able to get there -- best of luck if you're trying!" Kieck

Thank you, and I am!

I think Randy's quote has merit and a lot to consider. The chemistry first approach arguably has slowed the genetic development of resistance. IPM usually becomes more vogue after problems result in an industry, either from pest resistance, or negative environmental/human (economic)impacts. This is definitely the case with our industry. I like the IPM approach because it is a holistic approach that will yield more long-term sustainability.
JBJ


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I see where you're coming from, Joe, and to some extent I think your right.

First, though, you make the assumption that mite tolerance/resistance is a selective force. To a point, it must be. But where does that point lie? If a colony has so many mites that it's doomed to collapse, but issues many drones, and those mate successfully, that colony may have greater evolutionary fitness than a colony that has a high degree of mite resistance/tolerance but produces few or no reproductive bees.

I know, I know, beekeepers like to argue that drones from colonies with heavy mite loads are less likely to mate successfully, or maybe even less likely to mate, but is there any proof of that? I think that's where Randy Oliver's argument comes from.

The other end, too, is that any mites that can push their advantage just a little bit more without completely killing their hosts will gain an evolutionary advantage, too. They push it back the other way. Especially in instances where the selective pressure is greater, i. e. more resistant/tolerant bees around.

By the way, JBJ (and Joe and anyone else reading this), traditionally, IPM involves mostly management techniques, and not simply breeding tolerance/resistance. Genetics can be fickle. Nothing wrong with breeding programs, in my mind, but too much emphasis can be placed on genetics.

Take a look at my current bees: they're nothing special. They're not "ferals" or "Russians" or "survivor stock" or anything like that. Right now, they're all descendants of Carniolans and Italians and whatever else happens to be around, all mixed together. They're not small cell, and they're not treated with chemicals (haven't been since 2002, anyway). I doubt they're "resistant" or "tolerant." But I manage them with techniques like drone trapping and breaking brood cycles and such to keep Varroa populations low. And it's been working well for me. Sure, it's more work per colony than your average migratory operation has time to complete, but IPM works even without the genetics.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"First, though, you make the assumption that mite tolerance/resistance is a selective force. To a point, it must be. But where does that point lie? If a colony has so many mites that it's doomed to collapse, but issues many drones, and those mate successfully, that colony may have greater evolutionary fitness than a colony that has a high degree of mite resistance/tolerance but produces few or no reproductive bees." Kiek

The mating fitness of mite-addled drones is nil. Look to any collapsing hive for proof. Wingless deformed drones will have no chance of getting the job done.

Any IPM program worth its salt is a balance between genetics, cultural practices and management. As far as genetics goes for us we started having a lot more success by making it a primary focus. Don't get me wrong we still rely heavily on management, but what I consider real progress began when we started focusing on the Survivors
JBJ

[ January 09, 2007, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: JBJ ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>...all of you SC people are contributing to the problem. Your bees are not genetically resistant, it's just your management technique that lends some tolerance to Varroa.

No, we are simply allowing the bees to express what they would if you let them: normal sized cells, which allows them to coexist in a natural way. Natural comb works just as well as "small cell" 4.9mm foundation in my experience.

It's not necessary to purposely create a scenario where they will all die to breed resistance. This just breeds extinction.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

>...all of you SC people are contributing to the problem. Your bees are not genetically resistant, it's just your management technique that lends some tolerance to Varroa.--

I protest that you single out the fine beekeepers of South Carolina as contributing to the problem!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"The mating fitness of mite-addled drones is nil. Look to any collapsing hive for proof. Wingless deformed drones will have no chance of getting the job done." -JBJ

I'll agree that the fitness of wingless, deformed drones should be considerably lower than the fitness of "normal" drones. However, I had a couple hives crash badly from mites back in 2002. Varroa populations soared in those two hives, and both ended up dead. During that time, I found very few bees from either hive that fit the "wingless deformed" description. In fact, many of the drones were indistinguishable visually from drones from other colonies. I don't know if or how their fitness varied from the fitness of drones from healthy colonies, but I don't see how it could possibly have been "nil." 

So, those hives were clearly not mite resistant or mite tolerant, yet the drones may easily have passed their genes on to future colonies. I have no way of knowing. I believe that's part of "contributing to the problem" that Randy Oliver referenced.

For what it's worth, I've learned a lot since then about managing colonies to prevent such devastating populations of mites.

Michael and Joe:

I didn't intend to offend you (or any other small-cell, natural-cell, or South Carolina beekeepers out there  ). To my way of thinking, some of these management techniques -- such as small cell -- hold more promise than almost any other form of mite control in managed colonies. But do you see my point? If you're just keeping bees on small cell (SC) to manage mites, your bees aren't genetically mite resistant or mite tolerant, so you'd fit nicely as a contributor to the problem (using Randy Oliver's statement).


----------



## middlesattrefarm (Jan 3, 2007)

I just want to interject what I know of GMO-crops.
You can not plant transgenic crops on 100% of your fields. You are required to plant subceptable varieties. This allows interbreeding between any pests that have developed resistance, with non-resistant mates, slowing greatly the advance of resistant pests. This Idea should have been implemented for the mites from the first.
I really feel that the first cases were seen as isolated, and extermination/eradication was the goal. 

To answer the original question, I have not heard of any problems with OXalic, but here in the midwest alot of people are having problems with FORMIC, mostly the utopian temp range needed for effective treatment. I only know people who treat for mite in the FALL. The concern is the use of anything will leave the ONE mite, that is resistant.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"...but I don't see how it could possibly have been "nil."" Kiek

Ok, are you actually saying a drone that was fed on by Varroa, infected with a virus, malnourished, under weight could actually compete with a virile healthy drone with a full complement of sperm? I just don't see drones from mite addled crashing colonies having much of a genetic contribution, unless you are willing to help them by "managing colonies to prevent such devastating populations of mites." in which case they will have a flying chance.
JBJ


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Kieck, it's entirely possible that the drones that survived the mites and associated diseases from your crashing colonies have genetics that enabled them to be less attractive to the mites and/or less susceptible to mite transmitted disease and, therefore, by surviving to mate have contributed genetically to the solution rather than being part of the problem. I.e. crashing hives are good, but hives proped up with chemical treatments which allows them to spread their non-survivor genetics are bad!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Ok, are you actually saying a drone that was fed on by Varroa, infected with a virus, malnourished, under weight could actually compete with a virile healthy drone with a full complement of sperm?" -JBJ

I doubt it, but I don't really know. I've never done detailed DNA analyses of open-mated stock to see how they fare. Sure, LOGICALLY, you're right, but logic and reality don't always square the way we imagine.

Of course, I never said the drones were infected with viruses or malnourished or underweight. If others on other threads are right, though, being "underweight" might be an advantage to a drone (right, Joe?  ). I specifically detailed that the drones from the colonies that crashed did not have visible deformities -- in fact, almost all of them appeared quite robust and healthy. I don't know that they were ("invisible" differences might be huge), and I don't know that any mated successfully -- but if you argue that drones from mite-infested colonies are much less likely to mate successfully than drones from mite-"resistant" colonies, you're shooting Randy Oliver's argument in the foot. Those bees can't both be significantly contributing mite-prone genes to the overall gene pool AND be unlikely to mate successfully.

By my "managing colonies to prevent such devastating populations of mites" comment, I was referring to IPM, not necessarily chemical treatments. Separating colonies (so any given yard doesn't have a huge number of hives in it), drones trapping, etc. -- even small cell or natural cell -- are forms of "management."

Selective mating is a form of management, too.

Db_land:

You could be right -- I don't know. Again, I've never done any detailed DNA analyses to see which are mating successfully and which aren't.

My guess is that many of the drones from those crashing hives were simply "lucky." After all, not every bee has to be inflicted with a mite for a colony to crash.

What about hives propped up with other "treatments," such as small cell? D. Murrell (or BWrangler, depending on how you know him) reported that his small-cell or natural-cell bees put back onto large-cell comb lost their tolerance or resistance to Varroa. I'd expect just that if cell size is a mechanical means of control.

[ January 09, 2007, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Kieck ]


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"...but if you argue that drones from mite-infested colonies are much less likely to mate successfully than drones from mite-"resistant" colonies, you're shooting Randy Oliver's argument in the foot. Those bees can't both be significantly contributing mite-prone genes to the overall gene pool AND be unlikely to mate successfully." Kieck

The only way they contribute is if one helps them with treatments/ management (aiding and abetting); left to alone crash they will not contribute significantly. There have been studies to show the effects of mite feeding on drones in terms of body weight viral load, and I do believe sperm count. A dead or sickly drone has nil to extremely low mating fitness. How is that having it both ways? Also note that I was referring to crashing colonies, not susceptible colonies that have been treated and aided.
JBJ


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The critical thing for selection of host/parasite genetics is population density, followed by vector transportation. So long as we have a high density of hives in some areas (say the central valley of CA) and an easy way for diseases to travel (migratory beekeeping), then pathogens will be selected for increased pathogenicity and fecundity, rather than for commensalism.


----------



## Troutsqueezer (May 17, 2005)

There are so many problems I am responsible for just by being alive I can't keep track of them anymore.

A few:
Racism
Global Warming
Terrorism
Health costs

Amazingly, I can still sleep at night.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"The critical thing for selection of host/parasite genetics is population density, followed by vector transportation." -Aspera

I agree.

I'm not following you, JBJ -- do you use any management techniques to limit mite populations, or do you just select colonies that are the most mite resistant/tolerant?

If you're using IPM techniques, how is that doing anything more than just propping up "poor" genetics? How does that differ -- from the standpoint of selecting genetically-resistant stock -- from using chemical treatments?

"The only way they contribute is if one helps them with treatments/ management (aiding and abetting); left to alone crash they will not contribute significantly." -JBJ

Not necessarily. Let's start with a "mite-prone" colony. A beekeeper sets up such a colony from a package in the spring. Almost immediately, mite populations begin climbing. But, drones are produced by that hive early on and at least some of those drones are not much affected by mites. Why couldn't they be just as likely to pass their genes on to future generations as drones from mite-resistant colonies?

Now, let's just say (hypothetically) that that mite-prone colony swarms before mite populations cause it to crash. The mite populations are lower in the swarm simply because it's a swarm and it breaks the brood cycle. That swarm sets up a hive, but again swarms before mite populations climb high enough to cause the colony to collapse. In this scenario, both the first hive and the first swarm to issue from that hive could eventually crash from Varroa populations, but not before they successfully reproduce.

Think of Alzheimer's in humans: the onset of the problems occur after reproduction, and evolutionary fitness is only includes successful reproduction. What happens to the individual/colony after reproduction is meaningless to "fitness."

I think Randy Oliver's comment is worth considering, and I can understand where he's coming from, but I'm still not convinced the issue is quite as cut-and-dried or as simple as he makes it sound.

Since part of the original post pins blame on beekeepers who are "propping up" colonies, let's look back at the original source of the problem: somehow, Varroa arrived in North America. Does anyone else see a lesson in that? Maybe something to do with importing large numbers of colonies, i.e. for almond pollination or other uses?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Dee Bee, 

I'm not really sure what you're referring to, but I was speaking about colony/mite population density. Varroa doesn't give a hoot about us, except as a convenient ride.


----------



## Troutsqueezer (May 17, 2005)

I was referring to the original post, sorry.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

I'm not following you, JBJ -- do you use any management techniques to limit mite populations, or do you just select colonies that are the most mite resistant/tolerant?

If you're using IPM techniques, how is that doing anything more than just propping up "poor" genetics? How does that differ -- from the standpoint of selecting genetically-resistant stock -- from using chemical treatments? 
Kieck

Well, to that I would reply that selection is the first tier of a good IPM program, then management and cultural practices. All three parts must be Integrated if one really wants any hope to lower ones reliance on a chemistry first approach to bees and agriculture.

Not necessarily. Let's start with a "mite-prone" colony. A beekeeper sets up such a colony from a package in the spring. Almost immediately, mite populations begin climbing. But, drones are produced by that hive early on and at least some of those drones are not much affected by mites. Why couldn't they be just as likely to pass their genes on to future generations as drones from mite-resistant colonies? Kieck


Left to their own devices the mite prone would die out in a year or two and contribute no more, whereas a resistant strain could persist long term and contribute genes long after al susceptible strains had long since died out; just a guess though.

Now, let's just say (hypothetically) that that mite-prone colony swarms before mite populations cause it to crash. The mite populations are lower in the swarm simply because it's a swarm and it breaks the brood cycle. That swarm sets up a hive, but again swarms before mite populations climb high enough to cause the colony to collapse. In this scenario, both the first hive and the first swarm to issue from that hive could eventually crash from Varroa populations, but not before they successfully reproduce.

I doubt the mite prone colony will be strong enough to elicit a swarm.
By this logic then, bees that swarm were capable of swarming a lot could survive through natural reproduction without treatment. JBJ


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

I have studied genetics in university. I have followed discussion in several forums. Everyone, at least those, who have not experience, want breed their own mite resistant bee stock. 

No one speak about that mite is very good to adapt itself to bees. Where ever it has gone it succeed and kill almost all bees away which are not protected by good beekeepers. 

But in no country I have seen the drop in honey yields. 30% of beekeepers may stop their beekeeping because they are not able to handle varroa but the rest can. 

"Mite is not problem in Finland" so we say. Mite is not worth whole religion what I may see in forums. 

To breed mite resistant bees is not every boy's job even if it so nice to write. Part of problem - real nonsense.

When I read these forums, very few of writes are able to breed bees at all. Those who do not know what is breeding, how they can solve so difficult task as find mite resistant bee genes. 

Hundreds or thousands experienced beekeepers or professors try to find mite resistant bee stock. Who has found? How many has insemination tools in usage?

The another question is "on economical level."
We can do what ever as hobby but when you must earn living and pay loans, it is suicide to cast himself to new system. 

Most of beekeeprs not change their queens to better. I am first to speak that do it: let behind swarmy, nasty bees. DOn't take daugter from swarm cells, make selention, don't allow bees to select.

If beekeepers do not know what is selection, it is vain to speak to them about mite resistant bee stok.

.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm not an expert bee breeder, but I know that the SMR/vsh trait does work and that it has been a boon to many apiaries including mine. My strategy has simply been to interbreed SMR queens with Russians or whatever queens I like. The USDA has already done the selection for mite resistance! Its just a matter of incorperating this genetic material into whatever crazy bees you happen to breed.

Finman,
Although I generally agree with your opinions I would caution you that Finland probably has a significant break in brood cycles during the winter. Varroa is not well adapted to such circumstances. Texas, Florida, CA and many other beekeeping areas here are subtropical or mediterranian which gives the advantages to very fecund queens, mites, beetles, viruses AHB and a variety of added challenges. This, and the large hive density in these regions essentially means that varroa is *MUCH* harder for our Southern beekeepers to control.


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

To Aspera

I have read the varroa difficulties in New Zealand . HIve robs from nature mite weakened colonies and in few weaks hives may destroyed under miteload. They handle hives often three times a year. It is same with area which have not brood brake. I know that. 

Everywhere they are doing work to find mite tolerant bee stocks. But what I am saying IT IS NOT EVERY BOYS HOBBY TO FIND MITE TOLERANT BEE STOCK. It must be some mistakes in information if some one thinks so. 

I bought mite tolerant bee stock queens but hives have as much mites like other bees.


.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>IT IS NOT EVERY BOYS HOBBY TO FIND MITE TOLERANT BEE STOCK. It must be some mistakes in information if some one thinks so. 


But Finman, if the beekeeper, hobby or commercial are seeking a "tolerat' bee, then they have their heads in the right place. 
Why would you discourage that aditude?


----------

