# attracting varroa



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

An interesting piece.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul09/mites0709.htm


----------



## 11x (May 14, 2009)

sounds like a good deal. wonder what it is?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

The misconception that almost guarentees that domestic bees will continue to suffer from varroa is that medicating against the mite - in any way at all- is a good idea. Far from that, medicating simply ensures unadapted genes survive and reproduce, thus perptuating the problem. See http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

Mike


----------



## rkr (Oct 30, 2008)

mike bispham said:


> The misconception that almost guarentees that domestic bees will continue to suffer from varroa is that medicating against the mite - in any way at all- is a good idea. Far from that, medicating simply ensures unadapted genes survive and reproduce, thus perptuating the problem. See http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/
> 
> Mike


I do not believe this is "medicating" bees. I do believe we must allow the bees to work on the problem until they evolve a solution. I think varroa trapping is a great way to use a "softer" hammer to nock down the mites, but not eliminate them from the hive, thus continuing the pressure to evolve. You can’t evolve if you’re dead. You have to pass on the good genetic info to the next generation in order to evolve, that is where steady pressure and time play their roll. How much time? We will have to see. Through this paradigm I believe we will help our bees develope new and better ways to fight varroa mites to a stand still. Here is an article that gives an example of the "theory" I am trying to practice.
http://www.scientificbeekeeping.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=50


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

rkr said:


> I do not believe this is "medicating" bees. I do believe we must allow the bees to work on the problem until they evolve a solution. I think varroa trapping is a great way to use a "softer" hammer to nock down the mites, but not eliminate them from the hive, thus continuing the pressure to evolve. You can’t evolve if you’re dead. http://www.scientificbeekeeping.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=50


Hi Randy,

The problem is that by keeping alive bees that would otherwise die you are preventing any evolution at all. Nature culls the weak, and the survivors create the future generations. 

Bees are developing resistance through natural selection just fine in the deep wild. Around beekeepers and their artificially supported unadapted strains however, the good is undone by drones carrying genes that no longer work in the current disease environment.

To "allow the bees to work on the problem until they evolve a solution" is therefore misconcieved; by allowing them to send their genes forward you are undermining evolution-in-action - the death of the weak and the survival of the fittest.

Best wishes,

Mike
http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

until they evolve a solution
My pockets are not that deep and for them to evolve takes a long time.
evolving can be convergent and divigent.
Some of my very best bees are the ones that have been treated with APIGUARD. Yes, I did a mite drop before and after treatment.
Please remember that the blood suckers carry about 20+ known viruses.
Regards,
Ernie


----------



## rkr (Oct 30, 2008)

mike bispham said:


> To "allow the bees to work on the problem until they evolve a solution" is therefore misconcieved; by allowing them to send their genes forward you are undermining evolution-in-action - the death of the weak and the survival of the fittest.
> http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/


So if hive "A" has part of the genetic traits to solve a problem and hives B, C, and D have the other traits to solve the problem. But none of them have the whole answer would it not make since to allow them to live long enough to solve the problem? Not that I am a Darwinist in my total world view, but small changes over time is what the theory is all about. I do believe that if a hive shows no tolerance for a disease or pest that they need to be requeened with a strain that is. Yes their genetic material is of no use, if that is what you are saying then we agree.
A friend has not treated in four years, this year one of his strongest hives has a mite issue. What I hear you saying is that there is no value in this hives genetics and they should be allowed to fail, as failure, if nothing is done, is very possible. If that is so, I disagree; they made it four years with no treatments!! They have stood up to the mites and won 4 out of 5 rounds. I say knock the mites back a bit with soft treatments (trapping would be one option) and see what happens. If they continue to fail then yes they must be doomed. If however they start to thrive again then they have at least part of the answer. How else are these positive traits going to be identified and passed on to combine with other positive traits? Would it not make more since to add a known resistant genetic (NWC,VSH,MH, other survivor queen) to an already partially resistant stock? Would this not aid in the creation of the next generation of resistant bees? This can only be done if the bees are alive.
I read an article in American Bee Journal about resistant stocks. The VSH line is said to have more than one trait that combines to produce the effect. This was not done all at once. It is done by selecting traits one at a time and adding them to the line.

Rod Richter


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

rkr said:


> Not that I am a Darwinist in my total world view, but small changes over time is what the theory is all about.


Hi Rod,

This is a common misconception. Natural selection can be very fast indeed. Left alone, the weak quickly perish, taking their genes with them. Those that can survive reproduce and send the characteristics needed to survive forward. Adaptation has occured in a single generation. In practice a number of generations are required to regain rude health - but wild bees are already flourishing in many districts. If you get in step with them your bees will never require medication again, and you will be able to reproduce and sell resistant stock.



rkr said:


> A friend has not treated in four years, this year one of his strongest hives has a mite issue. What I hear you saying is that there is no value in this hives genetics and they should be allowed to fail, as failure, if nothing is done, is very possible. If that is so, I disagree; they made it four years with no treatments!! They have stood up to the mites and won 4 out of 5 rounds.


They will likely have requeened, and the new queen will have mated with too many local unadapted drones from artificially mantained stocks. They are no longer the same bees. 



rkr said:


> Would it not make more since to add a known resistant genetic (NWC,VSH,MH, other survivor queen) to an already partially resistant stock? Would this not aid in the creation of the next generation of resistant bees? This can only be done if the bees are alive.


This might be worthwhile - if you treated the whole apiary in the same way, and if there were few artificially-maintained/lots of strong mongrels around. You have to get the new blood in _and get old blood out!_



rkr said:


> I read an article in American Bee Journal about resistant stocks. The VSH line is said to have more than one trait that combines to produce the effect. This was not done all at once. It is done by selecting traits one at a time and adding them to the line.
> Rod Richter


You have to understand the way the mechanics play out over time, in your own locality. Do you have local survivors? How many of them are only good for a year or two, because they are escapees/have been compromised by apiary drones? The path to falling back in with healthy mongrels is easy in some places, much harder in others. You may have to find a workable site for an out apiary - someplace where wild bees are thriving.

Mike


----------



## rkr (Oct 30, 2008)

You assume quite a bit, good day Mike.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

rkr said:


> You assume quite a bit, good day Mike.


You'll have to be specific in order for me to be able to understand what you mean by that Rod.

Mike


----------

