# bispham's causal chain



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> interesting post mike, and worthy of a thread of it's own.


Thanks for saving it SP.

The context here is: during a conversation about dwv I'd remarked that the virus wasn't the primary problem - varroa was. Somebody expressed bewilderment with that statement, so the post above elaborated.

The deeper background was (I think) questions about the benefits of detailed post-mortems of winter dead-outs. Here I was preparing to argue that what could usefully learned about the cause of a winter dead-out could probably be learned in 20 seconds or so, and that questions about the types of virus that might have been present were not especially useful in the context of working (i.e. busy) treatment-free operations.

I'd hoped to provoke a discussion exploring the differences between a treating and a treatment free operation when it comes to post-mortems of winter dead-outs. This might help those moving from a treating philosophy to a treatment-free approach to better appreciate the different rationales that underlie the two.

Mike (UK)


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

Apparently I missed something, now removed.....

Anyway, I don't think that there's any disagreement between TF or Not-TF beekeepers that the key point is step #1, which is controlling varroa mites. And that if that can be accomplished it's easier, and far more preferable, than trying to deal with any of the subsequent steps.

TF-beekeepers believe that controlling varroa can be done by the bees themselves; those of use whose experience belies that reality simply want to accomplish step number one in another way. 

I realize that this is the TF-forum so I won't go further than that. But I did want to point out that whatever varroa control strategy you choose to use, it is a separate decision from all the other choices you may make about your bees' health. 

Enj.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

enjambres said:


> I don't think that there's any disagreement between TF or Not-TF beekeepers


I don't think I can possibly agree with any statement that would follow that sentence . . . . 



enjambres said:


> TF-beekeepers believe that controlling varroa can be done by the bees themselves; those of use whose experience belies that reality simply want to accomplish step number one in another way.


I'd agree, only slightly.

TF people believe the bees can manage the mites themselves. They can accomplish #1. Others (myself included) believe that while that is a noble and worthwhile goal, evidence and history have proven that goal to be much more difficult (and repeatable) than some want it to be. So if you can't accomplish #1, the best option is to eliminate #2 by killing the mites yourself through a treatment.

Nothing earth shattering here . . .


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> I don't think that there's any disagreement between TF or Not-TF beekeepers


 Take a statement out of context and the meaning changes dramatically.

All current mite control efforts focus on killing varroa mites, either by the bees efforts or by use of chemicals of whatever nature. Plenty of folks say it is too hard or it doesn't work or it is somehow something special that one person does. I say to do one thing. Ignore varroa. The susceptible bees will die and the survivors will all be resistant. I know it is unrealistic and that commercial beekeepers would suffer, but in 3 years, varroa would be a minor nuisance and we could get back to beekeeping. The correct way to achieve this would be to require that all queen breeders adopt mite tolerant stock over a period of years so that mite tolerant genetics gradually filter into the population. At some point, require all queen breeders to stop treating for mites. This would take at least 10 years, but at the end, we could eliminate all mite treatments.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

squarepeg and Barry....demonstrating how to evict a hijacker without resorting to violence.
Bravo!


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

There's synergy between the virus and the mite as well. The mite adjusts the population of the virus to the more or most virulent strains, this has been documented. Mite resistance is a good start, but I never hear anything about DWV resistance.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

JRG13 said:


> There's synergy between the virus and the mite as well. The mite adjusts the population of the virus to the more or most virulent strains, this has been documented. Mite resistance is a good start, but I never hear anything about DWV resistance.


There was an excellent paper by Steve Martin on this topic. He looked at bee populations on the Hawaiian islands, some of which have varroa and some of which dont.
Before the arrival of the mites, there are multiple DWV strains present in the bee population but they are relatively harmless.
After the arrival of the mites, this facilitates a single virulent strain of DWV at the expense of all the others.

Global Honey Bee Viral Landscape Altered by a Parasitic Mite - Stephen J. Martin et al


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JRG13 said:


> There's synergy between the virus and the mite as well. The mite adjusts the population of the virus to the more or most virulent strains, this has been documented.


Surely evolution would tend to adjust the virulence toward viral mildness. It isn't in the mites interest (or the bees) to have a strong virus removing the available energy quickly. 

What happens in the artificial environment of treated hives will be different of course. 



JRG13 said:


> Mite resistance is a good start, but I never hear anything about DWV resistance.


But then there's always responsiveness between all parties in (co)evolution. If you (or nature) are selecting for unaided fitness you are selecting for all those things that make a difference. That will include all and any innate resistance capabilities, the totality of all parties and their interrelations. 

I think you don't hear much about dwv resistance because its recognised that its a secondary feature. Its useful as an indicator, otherwise there isn't much benefit to be had from learning more about it.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jonathan said:


> There was an excellent paper by Steve Martin on this topic. He looked at bee populations on the Hawaiian islands, some of which have varroa and some of which dont.
> Before the arrival of the mites, there are multiple DWV strains present in the bee population but they are relatively harmless.
> After the arrival of the mites, this facilitates a single virulent strain of DWV at the expense of all the others.
> 
> Global Honey Bee Viral Landscape Altered by a Parasitic Mite - Stephen J. Martin et al


Interesting. I can only see the abstract Jonathan - do you have access to the complete text? If so, can you tell me if the context of the study is treated hives or untreated - or a mix?


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> Interesting. I can only see the abstract Jonathan - do you have access to the complete text? If so, can you tell me if the context of the study is treated hives or untreated - or a mix?


I had it on a PDF at one point.
The facilitation of the more virulent strain of DWV has nothing to do with treating. This study looked at the arrival of mites into an area for the first time and compared DWV in mite free populations with DWV in bee populations with recently arrived mites. The elimination of the less virulent strains happened quickly after the arrival of the mites, from memory it was 12-18 months.

Edit.
Found it. If you PM me an e-mail address I'll send you a copy


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jonathan said:


> I had it on a PDF at one point.
> This study looked at the arrival of mites into an area for the first time and compared DWV in mite free populations with DWV in bee populations with recently arrived mites. The elimination of the less virulent strains happened quickly after the arrival of the mites, from memory it was 12-18 months.


Is 'elimination' the right word, or is what happened that the dwv populations exploded and became dominant, while the others remained at low levels? 

Anyway: interesting; but critical knowledge? If so, why?

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

> this study indicates that the presence of Varroa over time isselectingforparticularvariantsthatmaygive them a competitive advantage. In Hawaii, the main Oahu strain was also detected in colonies from the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai during 2009 but at much lower frequencies (Fig. 2), supporting the hypothesis that Varroa facilitates the dominance of certain strains (23), which is strengthened by the loss of strain diversity between 2009 and 2010 as Varroa became established on the Big Island


It also found that after mite arrival, once the virulent DVW strain took over, it stayed dominant even after a year of chemical treatment for mites. The shift to the virulent form took place before treatment started.



> Many factors are likely to influence the DWV variant population in different colonies, but the arrival of DWV variants that can replicate in the mite (13) means that these strains would rapidly increase inabundance.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Again: interesting; but critical knowledge? If so, why? How does this help the putative tf beekeeper?

Mike (UK)


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Full reprint of the Martin (2012) paper that establishes the rapid evolution towards virulence in the presence of Varroa observed in the "natural experiment" on the Big Island, Hawaii.
Global Honey Bee Viral Landscape Altered by a Parasitic Mite
Science 336, 1304 (2012);
http://www.thecre.com/forum2/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CCD-Science-Martin.pdf

2014 study that replicates the findings in vitro.

A Virulent Strain of Deformed Wing Virus (DWV) of
Honeybees (Apis mellifera) Prevails after Varroa
destructor-Mediated, or In Vitro, Transmission

Eugene V. Ryabov
http://www.plospathogens.org/articl....1371/journal.ppat.1004230&representation=PDF

The Ryabov (2014) paper has a very useful bibliography that with cites to the theoretical papers that demonstrate the evolutionary logic of the parasite-infection co-evolution to virulence.


There is a paper on the invasion front of Varroa in Scotland (it has not reached the Western Isles) that establishes the same conversion to DWV virulence in the UK itself.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> Again: interesting; but critical knowledge? If so, why? How does this help the putative tf beekeeper?


Yes, it matters a whole lot. The papers demonstrate that horizontal transmission is the dominate element for Varroa.

Horizontal transmission is big deal because "letting hives dwindle and die" is the prescription of the armchair TF theorists.

Folks with real world experience call these dwindling hives "mite bombs". The scientists have demonstrated that is their function -- infection foci that select and transmit the most virulent variants of the Mite-Virus package. Mites have an imperative to kill hives because that is how they move from colony to the next colony. Mites that are deadly enough to kill their host before August have a head start on the weak ones that don't do their colonies in for three years. Mites that allow a colony to enter winter, die with the colony. The imperative is towards quick death.

The "Bond Test" advocates have designed a perfect system to increase the survival and virulence of their (not-so-target) organism.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> The "Bond Test" advocates have designed a perfect system to increase the survival and virulence of their (not-so-target) organism.


Which is why it is important to monitor mite levels and treat, remove or requeen poor performers before they dwindle and die releasing the mite load to neighbouring colonies as they get robbed out in the final stages.

There was another good paper re. horizontal transmission of mites which was set up in an army training area in the UK somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it out. Colonies which were set up mite free a considerable distance from colonies with mites all got a significant mite load relatively quickly.

Edit.
Here it is.
Invasion of Varroa destructor mites into mite-free honey bee colonies under the controlled conditions of a military training area


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> Yes, it matters a whole lot. The papers demonstrate that horizontal transmission is the dominate element for Varroa.
> 
> Horizontal transmission is big deal because "letting hives dwindle and die" is the prescription of the armchair TF theorists.


This is by no means new knowledge; nor anything unusual. Horizontal transmission is the norm.



JWChesnut said:


> The scientists have demonstrated that is their function -- infection foci that select and transmit the most virulent variants of the Mite-Virus package.


I'm not sure you can speak in terms of 'function' here. Can you show me a quote from a paper that shows things presented that way. 'Function' assumes a goal, intentionality. Nature has none of that.



JWChesnut said:


> Mites have an imperative to kill hives because that is how they move from colony to the next colony.


Again, 'imperative' seems out of place. Probably 'competitive advantage' is the term you need.



JWChesnut said:


> Mites that are deadly enough to kill their host before August have a head start on the weak ones that don't do their colonies in for three years. Mites that allow a colony to enter winter, die with the colony. The imperative is towards quick death.


That needs a bit of unpicking. I can see where you're going, but you haven't said it well. Can you let us have a chunk of published text that summarises that aspect?

As far as I can reconstruct a workable thesis, it would be something like: 'those mite/viral combinations that 
are sufficiently virulent to kill their hosts in the autumn, (in a manner that allows for fleeing bees to migrate to other colonies) are dramatically advantaged over those that tend to kill bees over the winter when migration opportunities are lessened by hard weather' - or something of that sort?

What you are saying is that there exists a mechanism in the bee/virus/mite relation whereby over-virulence is counter productive. Well, it usually is. The mites will be 'striving' (as it were) to find their optimal virulence level, and the bees the same. That's what Darwinian 'arms races' are.



JWChesnut said:


> The "Bond Test" advocates have designed a perfect system to increase the survival and virulence of their (not-so-target) organism.


I guess that's one way of looking at it. But another is: that's exactly what's needed. You need bees that can survive the worst the joint predators can throw at it. Where's the beef?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jonathan said:


> Edit.
> Found it. If you PM me an e-mail address I'll send you a copy


Kind of you Jonathan - I'll take you up on that offer when I've been convinced that reading it will be good use of my time. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jonathan said:


> Which is why it is important to monitor mite levels and treat, remove or requeen poor performers before they dwindle and die releasing the mite load to neighbouring colonies as they get robbed out in the final stages.


I say again: I want my bees to be able to handle the worst the predator-set can throw at them. Its no good me shielding them from what's likely to go on happening for years. 

When raising his strains John Kefus loaded his hives with all the varroa he could find. Now he complains he's never got enough, and offers to buy varroa infested hives!

Mike (UK)


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

This study http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/2010/04/m09037.pdf suggests that mites thresholds should be reviewed: "_It is relevant to highlight that surviving colonies had mean varroa infestation levels lower than 3% (2.9 ± 0.2%), and 5% or lower for surviving colonies in the low infested category during the fall. These fall varroa infestation rates are lower than previously published acceptable mite loads (Delaplane and Hood, 1997; Currie and Gatien, 2006). Perhaps acceptable mite loads need to be re-assessed downwards._" pg. 448. 

Increased virulence of the virus-mite or/and less resistant bees due to other external factors?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Eduardo Gomes said:


> Increased virulence of the virus-mite or/and less resistant bees due to other external factors?


Or possibly the initial, acceptable mite loads were too heavy all along and now simply need refining.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

jonathan said:


> There was another good paper re. horizontal transmission of mites which was set up in an army training area in the UK somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it out. Colonies which were set up mite free a considerable distance from colonies with mites all got a significant mite load relatively quickly.
> 
> Edit.
> Here it is.
> Invasion of Varroa destructor mites into mite-free honey bee colonies under the controlled conditions of a military training area


Thanks for the link, behind a paywall for me. The abstract weirdly misuses(?) "vertical" to describe transmission to unrelated host bee colonies. Do they imply the descent of daughter mites is a vertical transmission or is this just a mis-print.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Eduardo Gomes said:


> This study http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/2010/04/m09037.pdf suggests that mites thresholds should be reviewed: "_It is relevant to highlight that surviving colonies had mean varroa infestation levels lower than 3% (2.9 ± 0.2%), and 5% or lower for surviving colonies in the low infested category during the fall. These fall varroa infestation rates are lower than previously published acceptable mite loads (Delaplane and Hood, 1997; Currie and Gatien, 2006). Perhaps acceptable mite loads need to be re-assessed downwards._" pg. 448.
> 
> Increased virulence of the virus-mite or/and less resistant bees due to other external factors?


Virues (which don´t need mite made holes to infect, quote of opening post) have become worse. "Earlier 95% treatment efficiency was enough, today 99% is needed." This is how it is seen in Finland.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

squarepeg said:


> interesting post mike, and worthy of a thread of it's own.


Gotta hand it to you SP for having way more tact and good manners than I would have been able to muster.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

Juhani Lunden said:


> "Earlier 95% treatment efficiency was enough, today 99% is needed." This is how it is seen in Finland.


Juhani how you guys in Finland reach 99% of efficiency? If you think your response violates the rules of this forum can send me a PM please? With this degree of effectiveness I suppose I can stop treating twice a year to treat just one. I have to do some calculations to greater certainty.

Turning back to the virulence of the virus vs. weakness of bees, I read some time ago a study in Kenya noted that the viral load effects in hives studied where lower than in Europe and North America. The hypothesis put was that this could be due to the fact that there are fewer pesticides in the hives (in waxes and the bees). If I find the study I'll post it in this thread. Mike and squarepeg sorry if I'm out of line of this thread.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Juhani Lunden said:


> Virues (which don´t need mite made holes to infect, quote of opening post) ...


You have to be kidding Juhani. Seriously, you have to be kidding.



Juhani Lunden said:


> ...have become worse. "Earlier 95% treatment efficiency was enough, today 99% is needed." This is how it is seen in Finland.


To what extent is do you think that might be due to:

a) mites becoming more virulent 

b) new viruses/evolving strains of virus that are more virulent

c) bees losing mite management skills

And finally

d) beekeepers obstructing the natural process of co-evolution.

Can you list those in order of priority? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

My numbers:
40, 000 bees have normally 5000 varroa.
Dealing with 99% efficiency: get 50 varroa in the hive after treatment.
Life cycle of varroa: 12 days and 5 more days to re-enter in brood; total 17 days to complete the cycle.
50-100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400 reached the economic threshold after eight cycles 
8 cycles x 17 days give about 4 months. 

I conclude that 99 % effective in a preventive approach tells me to treat after 6 months (2 months with treatment and 4 with no treatment) . As I have not had major problems with varroa, and I do treatments of 6 in 6 months, I conclude that the effectiveness of my treatment is around 99% . Unless that percentage would force me to treat more than twice year.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Eduardo Gomes said:


> I conclude that 99 % effective in a preventive approach tells me to treat after 6 months (2 months with treatment and 4 with no treatment) . As I have not had major problems with varroa, and I do treatments of 6 in 6 months, I conclude that the effectiveness of my treatment is around 99% . Unless that percentage would force me to treat more than twice year.


We might be drifting too far off topic now Eduardo.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> d) beekeepers obstructing the natural process of co-evolution.


We are SO far away from anything that anyone could call a "natural process of co-evolution" that it isn't even worth mentioning the topic here.

You take an insect:
1. move it to a continent that it isn't native at
2. force it to feed off food sources it isn't used to
3. Put it in a home site not of it's own choosing
4. Actively select for breeding based on predetermined characteristics that are beneficial to the beekeeper
5. Manage their populations to sizes that aren't natural
6. Overcrowd them into areas that isn't natural
7. Expose them to chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, ect.
8. Expose them to diseases they aren't used to (EFB, AFB, ect.)
9. Create a genetic bottleneck on their own species

THEN, you introduce a foreign pest to them (varroa), sit back and watch, and you expect them to "naturally" co-evolve? And by adding chemicals _that_ is what is obstructing their ability to evolve?

Bees have been brought so far down the rabbit hole. Letting them do their own thing now will not create a "naturally" co-evolved creature. They wouldn't "naturally" have encountered varroa, had to overcome, or even dealt with any of the 9 things listed above.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Eduardo Gomes said:


> Juhani how you guys in Finland reach 99% of efficiency? .


The sentence "Earlier 95% treatment efficiency was enough, today 99% is needed." is more like the official statement, answer to me by a beekeeper adviser when I asked how come beekeepers are nowadays needing to do spring treatments as well as normal autumn treatments. 

Mike: As far as I know viruses can live without mites. If you have other information please send it.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

Thanks Juhani. Your numbers are mine also.
Mike I am sure you can live well with this drift and understand it in context. My apologies anyway.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> We are SO far away from anything that anyone could call a "natural process of co-evolution" that it isn't even worth mentioning the topic here.
> 
> You take an insect:
> 1. move it to a continent that it isn't native at


I'm in the UK. Honeybees are native.



Specialkayme said:


> 2. force it to feed off food sources it isn't used to


Hmm - a little but not entirely



Specialkayme said:


> 3. Put it in a home site not of it's own choosing


People have done that for thousands of years without any great difficulty



Specialkayme said:


> 4. Actively select for breeding based on predetermined characteristics that are beneficial to the beekeeper


At one end of the spectrum TF beekeeping tries to breed without distorting the natural stains too much; and encourages natural populations too 



Specialkayme said:


> 5. Manage their populations to sizes that aren't natural


Tweak them, if you want to. Actually large populations are not unnatural



Specialkayme said:


> 6. Overcrowd them into areas that isn't natural


Yes - however note that highly concentrated apiaries have been used for thousands of years, and at least some natural honeybee populations are strikingly concentrated. 



Specialkayme said:


> 7. Expose them to chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, ect.


Many try to avoid that.



Specialkayme said:


> 8. Expose them to diseases they aren't used to (EFB, AFB, ect.)


Moving organics large distances is always asking for trouble. But remember new pest and disease and larger predatory species come along regularly, and have done throughout the honeybees 20 odd million year history. The trick is not to prevent the magical process of adaptation.



Specialkayme said:


> 9. Create a genetic bottleneck on their own species


Speak for your own space. there isn't much chance of that round here. We have bees from all over.



Specialkayme said:


> THEN, you introduce a foreign pest to them (varroa), sit back and watch, and you expect them to "naturally" co-evolve?


Yes, absolutely. that's what happens. That's how nature works. Its documented, in the case of Honeybees, in your own country. Where have you been?



Specialkayme said:


> And by adding chemicals _that_ is what is obstructing their ability to evolve?


Yes. Absolutely. Removing the selective pressure to adapt prevents adaptation. Textbook stuff. Again, where have you been? 



Specialkayme said:


> Bees have been brought so far down the rabbit hole. Letting them do their own thing now will not create a "naturally" co-evolved creature. They wouldn't "naturally" have encountered varroa, had to overcome, or even dealt with any of the 9 things listed above.


Given freedom from interference feral populations rapidly adapt to varroa, and become self-sufficient. That is predictable and documented. Yet again; where have you been?

Thousands of beekeepers are raising and keeping bees treatment free.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Juhani Lunden said:


> Mike: As far as I know viruses can live without mites. If you have other information please send it.


Maybe they can. But its very well established that the reason viruses are figuring large in moden beekeeping is because open wounds caused by mites gives them points of entry that they wouldn't otherwise have. 

Remove the open wounds and the viruses are no longer a problem. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> But its very well established that the reason viruses are figuring large in moden beekeeping is because have open wounds caused by mites gives them points of entry that they wouldn't otherwise have.
> 
> Remove the open wounds and the viruses are no longer a problem.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I wonder. There are at least in Finland a lot of beekeepers saying that they do not have mite problems( they treat with all possible methods) but they have virus problems.

Something well established is not necessary true. Can you point out a study which says that viruses need mite made wounds to be a problem?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Juhani Lunden said:


> Something well established is not necessary true. Can you point out a study which says that viruses need mite made wounds to be a problem?


No! Its so obvious no-one would ever fund such a study!

But in the introduction to: 

Varroa: Still a Problem in the 21st Century? Norman Carreck, the director of the varroa research project at Sussex University (and active in plenty more highest-level bee/varroa projects) makes plain this obvious fact. Varroa is the cause of bee deaths, not the infections that follow.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> There's the Mike I know. Rather than have a thoughtful discussion, you want to throw insults and try to prove everyone's dumber than you.


Come on, we've been around and around with this stuff for years now. If you've never got round to catching up you'll look silly very fast, but there's no-one to blame but yourself. Evolution is a fact, not a dogma, and it applies to bees. You have to get used to that real-world stuff.

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> Maybe they can. But its very well established that the reason viruses are figuring large in moden beekeeping is because open wounds caused by mites gives them points of entry that they wouldn't otherwise have.
> 
> Remove the open wounds and the viruses are no longer a problem.
> 
> Mike (UK)


That is incorrect. If you read the two papers jwchesnut provided a link to in an earlier post and you will get more of an idea about how viruses and mites interact.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jonathan said:


> That is incorrect. If you read the two papers the 2 papers jwchesnut provided a link to in an earlier post and you will get more of an idea about how viruses and mites interact.


Are you telling me: take away the mites and the viruses remain a problem? Would you like to extract passages of text for us that make that clear?

Mike


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> Are you telling me: take away the mites and the viruses remain a problem?



What possible method of "taking away the mites" are you referring to, Mike? :scratch: :s


Even recognizing that this is the Treatment Free forum, I have never seen _anyone else_ suggest that there is any way to get rid of _ALL _varroa mites. Do you have any references to back up this _highly unlikely_ claim? 
:kn:


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

"In order to survive, viruses must have ways to invade hosts and be transmitted from one host to another. Although bee viruses multiply abundantly and fatally when injected into bee hemolymph, the initial infection site of most honey bee viruses usually occurs through the cuticle by direct contact between healthy and infected bees or in the alimentary tract when bees ingest virus-contaminated food. Viruses can attack at different development stages and castes of the honey bees, including eggs, larvae, pupae, adult worker bees, adult drones, and queen of the colonies. The densely crowded populations and high contact rate between colony members provide an ideal environment for transmission of pathogens. They are transferred both horizontally (between bees, through infested food/ feces or vectored by hive pests, predominantly varroa mites), or vertically (transferred from queen to offspring).

Although bee viruses usually persist as unapparent infections and cause no overt signs of disease, they can dramatically affect honey bee health and shorten the lives of infected bees under certain conditions. Since both horizontal and vertical transmission pathways have been demonstrated, they represent important survival strategies for viruses. *Indeed, viruses choose the appropriate transmission pathway based on the developmental, physiological, ecological, and epidemiological conditions that abound.* When colonies are under noncompetitive and healthy conditions, viruses may remain in bee colonies via vertical transmission and exist in a persistent or latent state. However, under stressful conditions, such as infestation of varroa mites, coinfection of other pathogens such as N. apis, or decline in food supply, viruses switch to horizontal transmission and start to replicate. Other environmental factors, such as cold temperature and unfavorable flying conditions for long periods of time that keep all the bees in their hives may create similar circumstances. For example, this may lead to in-hive fecal deposition from the bee gastrointestinal tract, a major source of replicating viruses in the bee, which can be a major cause of rapid spread of disease within the community. High numbers of produced virions then become much more infectious, leading to the death of hosts and possible collapse of the whole bee colony." in http://www.beeologics.com/colony-health/bee-viruses/


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Mike's list reminds me of the old joke about Napoleon "to-do list" 
• (1) Take over world.
......

Yup, Mike, you are going to get much agreement even among vexatious and fractious beeks on the benefits of *not* permitting "1. Bee fail to control Varroa."

Its all the steps before 1) that you and Napoleon had problems with.

Breeding for resistance is a fact. Several points can be made -- the persistence of varroa resistance (VR) in the open is debatable. The efficient model of VR breeding uses Latshaw closed population models. VR (or any trait selection) needs quantifiable testing. 

My position is that VR requires a series of half-steps and compromises to preserve favorable traits in the effort. Breeding can be done, but requires intelligence and humility, rather than bluster and arrogance.

Take the example of a prominent (former) member of this sub-forum. He relocated from Arkansas to Denver, and entered the winter with 14 colonies (which we assume he selected as the best-of-the-best. His conviction that "bees heat the cluster and not the hive" led him to stack super after super on top of small winter clusters (evidently he has a space and storage problem). The inevitable result of this bluster -- the hives are perishing in the high plains winter. 

One could argue (and I am sure someone will) that this is an accelerated "Bond" test. I maintain it is pure thoughtlessness -- an apiary can be rebuilt from one survivor -- but the genotypes selected for over years since the last collapse are lost to the winter wind.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> Are you telling me: take away the mites and the viruses remain a problem? Would you like to extract passages of text for us that make that clear?
> 
> Mike


You made a claim about virus action and 'open wounds'. You back it up with evidence or a reference. Both the papers are open access. Go read them for more detail instead of making stuff up.

Edit.
I see Eduardo has posted some basic info about viruses and bees which might help you out.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

JWChesnut said:


> My position is that VR requires a series of half-steps and compromises to preserve favorable traits in the effort.


JW and others who wish to participate and hep me: I have ordered 150 queens to Mr. John Kefuss. They are virgin queens that will mate with drones of my apiaries and neighbors apiaries. In your opinion beyond the II, mating in isolated areas and moonlight mating what else can I do to develop a consistent program of development of these resistant/tolerant features?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jonathan said:


> You made a claim about virus action and 'open wounds'. You back it up with evidence or a reference.


"One of the serious problems caused by Varroa is the transmission of viruses to honey bees which cause deadly diseases. Viruses found in honey bees have been known to scientists for 50 years and were generally considered harmless until the 1980’s when Varroa became a widespread problem. Since then, nearly twenty honey bee viruses have been discovered and the majority of them have an association with Varroa mites, which act as a physical and or biological vector (Kevan et al. 2006). Therefore controlling Varroa populations in a hive will often control the associated viruses and finding symptoms of the viral diseases is indicative of a Varroa epidemic in the colony."[1]

I've already given you a reference to Norman Carrick's published view 

There are of course viruses that operate without being vectored by mites. This discussion began with dwv, and it would have been helpful if I'd made clear once the post was removed from that context that it was concerned only with viruses so transmitted. 

Mike (UK)

[1]Honey Bee Viruses, the Deadly Varroa Mite Associates
Philip A. Moore, Michael E. Wilson, and John A. Skinner
http://www.extension.org/pages/7117...he-deadly-varroa-mite-associates#.VOoLxhbkClQ


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> Are you telling me: take away the mites and the viruses remain a problem?


As I told, if you read, a lot of that happening in Finland.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> Breeding for resistance is a fact.


Good to hear you acknowlege that. 



JWChesnut said:


> My position is that VR requires a series of half-steps and compromises to preserve favorable traits in the effort.


That's not a fact: its your position John. 

It isn't mine. Or, lets be fairer: I would load the desiderata differently to you. Breeding is an art - you and I have different approaches. 

That's not all. A lot depends on what you have already. If you wrote: '...VR _often_ requires a series of half-steps and compromises _if it is_ to preserve...' I might struggle to disagree.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Juhani Lunden said:


> ... a lot of that happening in Finland.


What hypotheses are being put forward to explain that?

Damage done prior to treatment? High ambient viral loads? Decreasing innate defences due to removal of adaptive pressure?

A combination of the above? Other?

I have to say it doesn't surprise me. Treating an open mating animal is a recipe for decaying health. Period.

One day that simple truth will be recognised.

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

The point I was making, which you surely know and are avoiding, is that transmission is not just about puncture wounds.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jonathan said:


> The point I was making, which you surely know and are avoiding, is that transmission is not just about puncture wounds.


Yes. As I just explained, we've had our wires crossed a little. I apologise for not picking up sooner with that. Let's try to see what separates us:

1) In many (most?) cases of dwv the primary causal factor is varroa. Puncturing the skin to feed makes open wounds that allow the virus easy entry. Mites moving from host to host the mites spread the virus on their feeding parts. 

2) Many other viruses also take advantage of the same vectoring arrangements. In such cases it can again be said that withdrawing the mites will most often dramatically reduce the apprarance of viral symptoms.

(Both these statements are sustained by the quoted text posted a few minutes ago)

Both these statements are consistent with my original causal chain (post #1 above). 

3) Other virus problems persist independently of varroa; since the vector arrangements are not mite-dependent. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> 1) In many (most?) cases of dwv the primary causal factor is varroa. Puncturing the skin to feed makes open wounds that allow the virus easy entry. Mites moving from host to host the mites spread the virus on their feeding parts.


That's not the case. The Martin paper explains that right from the start. DWV is present in many variants in bee populations without mites. When mites arrive this favours the tranmission of one specific variants of DWV which happens to be the one which is most damaging for the honeybee. The viral titres increase enormously. DWV is not caused by varroa.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> 3) Other virus problems persist independently of varroa; since the vector arrangements are not mite-dependent.
> Mike (UK)


That is correct. The transmission of some of the paralysis viruses is not related to varroa. Bee fecal matter is implicated.



Spread of Infectious Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus by Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Feces▿


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jonathan said:


> That's not the case. The Martin paper explains that right from the start. DWV is present in many variants in bee populations without mites. When mites arrive this favours the tranmission of one specific variants of DWV which happens to be the one which is most damaging for the honeybee. The viral titres increase enormously. DWV is not caused by varroa.


Jonathan,

Millions and millions of viruses exist at background levels almost everywhere you can to imagine. On your skin and mine, and on bees skin. Millions of different strains and substrains, which are mutating constantly to form new strains.

"a liter of seawater collected in marine surface waters typically contains at least 10 billion microbes and 100 billion viruses"[1]

Not all these can infect us, or bees; but many can. Ordinarily this doesn't matter. That's because we have a remarkable barrier between the outside worlds and our internal warm wet, nutrient rich insides. Our skin. The few body openings have highly specialised concentrated micro-organism neutralising defences.

Yes, when bee insides are exposed to these millions of different viruses, just a few have the qualities needed to flourish and reproduce fast enough to dominate. That describes i.e. the dominant dwv strains. Probably the strains will shift and changes as bee defences adapt (where and when that is permitted...). And likely other strains will emerge as significant.

(Strains establish dominance by being best able to make use of the nutrient source, and consequently raising their number dramatically, meaning that if anything gets infected its likely to be by that strain.)

But it remains the case that:

If mites are removed from the equation, dmv tends to diminish.

Its dwv is removed from the equation, mites do not diminish. 

That demonstrates the causal priority. 

If I stuck healthy you with pins dipped in something nasty, and you caught something nasty, it would be daft to say me and the pins didn't cause that. We did. 

If I shot you I couldn't stand up in court and claim I didn't kill you, the bullet did.

Its easy to overlook causal priorities, when you're engrossed in details. Its important to have them right. 

Mike (UK) 

[1] http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36120/title/An-Ocean-of-Viruses/


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Mike. You can't have looked at the Martin paper yet.
JWchesnut gave a link to the full paper a few posts after mine which had only linked to the abstract.
DWV exists in many variants. It is there all the time in bee populations. The arrival of mites favours the replication of one of the variants over the others. This is not just related to puncture wounds.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jonathan said:


> .
> DWV exists in many variants. It is there all the time in bee populations. The arrival of mites favours the replication of one of the variants over the others. This is not just related to puncture wounds.


Jonathan,

I'm not sure I've disgreed with that. What is your (and/or) JW's point? 

To be clear my position is: 

1)Following Carrick, my post #44, and More et al, #56 mites tend to vector viruses largely through the wounds they make to feed.

2) Where this is the case (and it very often is) the mites can be seen to be the cause of the viral symptoms.

3) One can also take the view that, in such cases, it is lack of mite resistance in the first place that is a deeper cause.

The rest (of what you and JW are on about) is interesting, but doesn't seem to me to unsettle that position. Perhaps I'm being dense here? 

Maybe it'll help if I pick you up: 

"The arrival of mites favours the replication of one of the variants over the others." 

I'm not sure that's good english, or gives a clear picture of what is happening. When mites arrive one of the variants tends to become dominant. Yes? 

" This is not just related to puncture wounds"

Hmm. Are you saying if mites were present, but not making puncture wounds the same thing would still happen? If so; what is your evidence, and what is your point - how does it impact on my position.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mbc (Mar 22, 2014)

"The feeding activities of varroa mites damage their host bees.
Often worker bees that have been parasitized by varroa mites are underweight and have deformed wings. Injuries from the feeding mites damage and weaken bees to the point that the wings do not expand properly. Varroa mites can also infect bees with dangerous viruses and bacteria.
An adult worker bee with damaged wings as the result of developing within a brood cell infected by varroa mites (photo courtesy of Dr. Keith Delaplane; University of Georgia)."

So is this image,( from http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=2744&page=14 ), of a bee having suffered dwv during development, or simply "damaged and weakened" by the feeding activity of mites as the text suggests.
I know it's largely irrelevant, but I'd be interested in your opinions anyway.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

mbc said:


> The naughty step thing and the rock solid personal conviction are beyond normal comprehension and I find I have to take it as a joke, but in the interests of kicking the ball I have to admit to finding a lot of Mike's posts thought provoking and interesting, and whatever you may think of his style, he teases out some quality posting from others, bravo Mike!
> The place would be sterile without a slap of lunacy imho


mbc I could not say better, even in portuguese. 

As to your question I think this quote can help:
"During the summer, the proportion of adults, sealed brood and mites in which DWV was detected increased until either the colony died or was treated. When colonies were treated, thus removing mites from the colony, DWV became undetectable in the sealed bee brood at a similar rate to the loss of mites. The speed at which DWV became undetectable in adult workers depended, however, on the season, reflecting differences in life span between adult workers emerging in summer or winter. If treatment was delayed until October, DWV was still detected in adult bees during the winter even in the absence of mites. To reduce the viral load of the colony, therefore, mite treatment should be started no later than the end of August in order to remove the mites before production of the overwintering bees begins." in http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/Varroa-destructor-treatment-and-deformed-wing-virus


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> Hmm. Are you saying if mites were present, but not making puncture wounds the same thing would still happen? If so; what is your evidence, and what is your point - how does it impact on my position.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Puncture wounds are clearly one of the primary means of transmission but the paper posted by JW did point out that:



> ' Repeated cycles of Varroa replication within an infested colony would preferentially amplify DWVV , potentially resulting in it becoming the predominant virus present, transferred both by Varroa and per os. Further studies will be required to determine whether such a virus, if sufficient were ingested, would also cause symptomatic infection. Oral suscepti-bility to a virulent form of DWV may also explain reported cases
> of deformed wing disease symptoms seen in Varroa-free colonies in Hawaii [20] and Scotland (Andrew Abrahams, pers. comm.)'


DWVv is the virulent DWV variant which causes the problems for bees.
per os, ie via the mouth so not just via puncture wounds.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jonathan said:


> (No attempt whatever to relate the quote, or anything else in the paper to Mike's position!)


Oh this is beautiful  No wonder you didn't want to quote it! From the Abstract, the very first paragraph of the paper:

"The globally distributed ectoparasite Varroa destructor is a vector for viral pathogens of the Western honeybee (Apis mellifera), in particular the Iflavirus Deformed Wing Virus (DWV). In the absence of Varroa low levels DWV occur, generally causing asymptomatic infections. Conversely, Varroa-infested colonies show markedly elevated virus levels, increased overwintering colony losses, with impairment of pupal development and symptomatic workers."


Is this, or is it not, exactly what I've been saying all along? 

From the author's summary:
"The most important virus for colony
health is deformed wing virus (DWV), high levels of which
cause developmental deformities and premature ageing
resulting in high overwintering colony losses. In experiments
on individual Varroa-exposed pupae we demonstrate
that a single type of virulent DWV is amplified 1,000–
10,000 times in the recipient pupae, despite the mite
containing a high diversity of replicating DWV strains. We
could recapitulate this by direct injection of pupae with
mixed virus populations, showing the virulent strain is
advantaged by the route of transmission."

The author's point, and the point of the paper: It was demonstrated that it is the repeated cycling of the virus by direct injection into repeated generations of bees (by ourselves, as the mites do), which causes one strain to become dominant. Nothing much new there, but the general understanding of the way specific strains build runaway populations is seen to apply to the 3-way bee-mite-dwv relationship. 


From the conclusion:
"We show here that the markedly elevated
levels of DWV-like viruses in Varroa-exposed honeybee pupae are
likely attributable to the direct inoculation of a specific virus,
DWVV, by Varroa to haemolymph."

First a quick lesson: the way conclusions in academic papers function is by stating the main outcome of the test of the hypotheses, and then immediately suggesting further work. So that's what you're reading.

The outcome is the first part above, explaining how the experiments demonstrated the understanding that bite wounds are the main vector. 

Now comes the extract Jonathan sent, with the inconvenient 'innoculation' sentence missing:

" ' Repeated cycles of Varroa replication within an infested colony would preferentially amplify DWVV, potentially resulting in it becoming the predominant virus present, transferred both by Varroa and per os.'"

A recap of the explanation of the emergence of dominance, and the introduction of a new, untested idea, that the resulting dominant strain might ('potentially') give rise to a strain that no longer needs varroa as a vector, but can remain dangerous by mouth only. 

This is the key to JW and Jonathan's case. They think that IF this is the case then... well I'm not sure what. That what I've said has somehow been disproved, or that 'live and let die' might result in the same thing happening. So... we have a responsibilty to treat bees in the autumn thouroughly to guard against that possibility??? Is that the beef? 

We'll see. This untested suggestion forms the basis of the standard suggestions for further studies (which Jonathan has again ommitted). It is further suggested that this hypothesis would explain the phenomena noted in Hawaii and Scotland.

"Further studies will be required to determine whether such a virus, if sufficient were ingested, would also cause symptomatic infection. Oral susceptibility to a virulent form of DWV may also explain reported cases of deformed wing disease symptoms seen in Varroa-free colonies in Hawaii [20] and Scotland (Andrew Abrahams, pers. comm.)'

Note the keywords: 'whether', 'if', 'may', - all indicating possibilities, nothing more. 

So come on JW, Jonathon. I've done your work for you. Now explain what part of this impacts on my positions, as laid out during this thread. Exactly what part of this text disproves exactly what part of my positions? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>It can be seen that modern beekeeping practice is the sole cause of the crisis affecting both wild and domestic bees

Perhaps overstated. But not that so terribly far off of the mark. 

"Without a doubt, modern apiculture with movable-frame hives and a global trade in bees and bee products is one of the most efficient vectors for disease"--Honey Bee Colony Health: Challenges and Sustainability, Diana Sammataro, Jay A. Yoder, Pg 99


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Michael, are you suggesting that landowner/farmer applied pesticides, and lack of forage are somehow less significant than beekeeping practices?


How can _one _issue be the _sole _cause?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

The "modern" beekeeping practise that has caused the most spread of disease is actually the shipping of bees around the globe. Pests and diseases that used to be confined to small areas or different species are now endemic over the planet.
It may not all just be shipping bees though, hive beetles for example can be accidentally transferred in fruit. Cannot be proved of course but it's possible varroa mites came to my country on cut flowers.



mike bispham said:


> Jonathan is a Black Bee breeder


Learn something every day, I always thought he was a European. 

Joking aside though Mike, your attempt to discredit Jonathan by saying he only recently caught the idea of breeding for resistance is incorrect. I had a discussion with Jonathan on the subject way back in time. Likewise implying JWC ran a "failed" experiment is a load of hogwash.

I see you have caught a fair bit of flack in this thread. I can only say that when you first showed up in Beesource, for quite a while I attempted to engage you in useful dialogue, those threads still exist although the worst of your abuse has been moderated out of them. Eventually I realised constructive dialogue was a waste of time with someone whose main preoccupation was to belittle, I stopped trying. To my shame I even succumbed to the temptation to respond to an insult with an insult although I was always outgunned. As you have treated others the same you now find yourself in the position you are in, and claim "bullying". How ironic. However I will say you are not as pompous and arrogant as you once were, maybe peer pressure is having an effect.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I admitted it was overstated. Obviously there is not "one" cause. The quote said "... is one of the most efficient vectors for disease" and certainly diseases and pests (hard to separate) are two of beekeeping's biggest issues. I'm just saying it may not be as overstated as you think.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

LOL Oldtimer.
I am a bit pasty looking.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> ...there is not "one" cause.


Back to the top. There never really is one cause, there's a chain of causes stretching all the way back to the Big Bang (assuming that account is sound). The universe is, in real sense, nothing more than a great chain of cause-effect relations. Nothing in the universe occurs without a cause. 

We often focus on a single causal event or process (chain of cause-effect events), dig in, and get really engaged... and after a while we forget about the stuff that came before. We don't realise we're not seeing the wood for the trees.

Problems with dwv result from (are caused by) problems with mites, which result from people shipping bees about the world...

We're stuck with viruses be-cause we're stuck with mites, be-cause... they haven't yet adapted to the introduced pest. (And yes, of course be-cause they were introduced at all, and back and back...)

That adaptation can't take place while we're systematically treating them... so... we have to find a different way.

As I see it that's pretty much the whole case for treatment free. It would be good if that simple chain was understood clearly, and used to underpin as much thinking and discussion about nt practice as possible. Its real, and what is real is all that matters. If it doesn't fit the way the universe actually works, its bs.

Mike (UK)


----------

