# Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

I've heard it mentioned more than once before:

"These queens are treatment free. They will thrive without treatments. But if you do treat, you'll destroy the genetics and they'll never be able to be treatment free again."

How true is that?

If a certain strain of bees is genetically pre-dispositioned in some way to be treatment free (either hygienic, VSH, grooming behavior, high tolerance to mite spread viruses, ect.), how would a change in environment over a short period of time affect those genetics? While some treatments can be very harsh, I can't say any of them affect bees on a genetic level. And with the life span of a worker bee being about 4 weeks in the summer time, theoretically if you treat, and let all the bees be replaced, the current work force should still be just as genetically treatment free as the previous work force.

I can see how over a long period of time if you treat that hive, and they replace their queen from new genetics and mate with other hives near by that are treated, you would be allowing weaker genetics to combine into the mix. But that's long term, over a series of years. Not short term, as in within one season.

I'm aware that some will say "well, if they are treatment free, why treat at all?" Often times in treatment free situations, you have high mite counts, or borderline mite counts, where it's a coin flip as to whether or not the hive will be able to overcome the mites on their own or whether they will crash and die. Assuming allowing them to die is not an option, if you were to treat to help reduce the mite loads (and further spread their potentially partially mite resistant genetics) and keep the colony alive, the apiary might be better off for it (if two partially mite resistant stocks breed together, some might have no mite resistance, others might have super mite resistance, and by allowing it to die the year before you loose that possibility).

Thoughts? Experiences?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Also, for the record, I didn't post this in the Treatment Free section for a reason. Since the concept involves using treatments on treatment free genetics, the underlying conversation instills a pre-disposed concept that the beekeeper is willing to, or has, used treatments.

If this was posted (or moved) to the treatment free thread, I think there would be a bunch of responses along the lines of "why would you ever do that" or "I don't know, don't treat so wouldn't know what to tell you."


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I don't believe the genetics are affected but depending on the treatment residuals will remain in the hive longer than one bee life. Also, there could be an issue with what the treatment does physically to the queen.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

It's true. For the same reason that you shouldn't be vacinated of take aspirins if you are a generally healthy person. They will change you into a genetic wimp. Now where is that tongue in cheek smiley?

There is the legitimate argument that by keeping less resistant stock alive you water down the whole gene pool. But if you conscientiosly requeen low performing hives with higher performing genetic stock - what advantage would there be to letting a hive die when you could prevent it?

There is also the theory that you irreversibly polute the hive environment when you use some treatments. Which may be true.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Specialkayme said:


> But if you do treat, you'll destroy the genetics and they'll never be able to be treatment free again."


Absolute fact! Once treated a queen will invariably begin laying neonic coated eggs.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

I am skeptical here - some bees are better able to survive without treatments - but they still need "help" once in a while. To me treatment free is the goal and I hate seeing bees not make it when I could have done something. Like my Russians - Kim Flottum reported that Russian Bees seemed to require fewer treatments for mites - my test was all or nothing - the bees didn't have a chance to show how far they had progressed. As truly TF bees they hadn't progressed far enough. The old "work in progress" saying applies me thinks.

My understanding of genetics finds the original statement absurd.


----------



## Chemguy (Nov 26, 2012)

I think that there is not enough information available to substantiate the statement. While there are accepted mechanisms by which genes can be altered through exposure to some agent, and these genes can be passed to progeny, I am not aware of any study that has been conducted with bees. Sounds like an interesting experiment.

In the end, drawing conclusions based on accepted pieces of scientific knowledge but based on faulty hypotheses or data obtained under varying conditions is pseudoscience. This does not mean that such conclusions always turn out to be incorrect. But, until proven, they are opinion at best.


----------



## MJuric (Jul 12, 2010)

*While there are accepted mechanisms by which genes can be altered through exposure to some agent, and these genes can be passed to progeny*

But isn't an alteration in genes a very different thing then a reaction in the genome to an external stimulus? For instance genes may react to radiation, but that change in the gene is not some alteration that makes the offspring resistant to radiation. Typically the alteration to the gene is a random change that has nothing to do with stimulus at all other then being caused by the stimulus. 

For the most part I think this is a largely misunderstood perception of genetics and even evolution. Genes and species don't "Adapt" because of the stimulus they are exposed to. What happens is that either the altered genes are passed on and provide some benefit in some future environment or the environment changes and allows a certain species that has existing gene set to survive that environment.

In this example the idea that a bee would have some genetic level adaptation in response to treatment would be a fluke at best. It is quite possible that the bee already has a gene set that allows them to adapt to the stimulus of treatment in some way, that I do not know and would be interesting to find out. It is also possible that treatment creates some random genetic alteration that is passed on to the next generation, but highly improbably that that random change would provide any change negative or positive as related to treatment.

~Matt


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

MJuric said:


> For the most part I think this is a largely misunderstood perception of genetics and even evolution. Genes and species don't "Adapt" because of the stimulus they are exposed to. What happens is that either the altered genes are passed on and provide some benefit in some future environment or the environment changes and allows a certain species that has existing gene set to survive that environment.


That has been found to be not entirely the case - Google epigenetics - environmental factors don't generally change the genome, but they can change gene expression in ways that can be passed along.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

THis is like asking if after having sex for the first time is the person a virgin.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

No, the genetics won't be changed.

If I treat you for head lice your genetics are not changed. Same thing.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> If I treat you for head lice your genetics are not changed. Same thing.


Same thing? Really? Does everyone in your home die if your lice get out of hand?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>"These queens are treatment free. They will thrive without treatments. But if you do treat, you'll destroy the genetics and they'll never be able to be treatment free again."

The statement makes it sound like they are claiming that treating with some unspecified treatment (or maybe all unspecified treatments) will make some genetic change in the queen. I don't know the context but that's what it sounds like out of context. Obviously that's not true.

On the other hand. Recent studies on microbes in bees have shown that after using antibiotics and other things the disrupt the microbes the microbes do not recover for several years at least.

http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/6/e00377-12.full


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> No, the genetics won't be changed.


So it begs the question, why take a Hard Bond approach? Other than morally being opposed to treatments, or being too cheap/lazy/stupid to treat. If treating a colony to prevent it from dying has no impact on the genetic make up of the hive, and therefore no genetic impact on the gene pool of the area, why would you ever elect to simply let the hive die instead (at least, from a mite resistant genetic point of view)?


----------



## MJuric (Jul 12, 2010)

*environmental factors don't generally change the genome, but they can change gene expression in ways that can be passed along. *

Yes, that is largely what I'm saying. The environment might change and this may trigger a certain trait or expressing. However that gene or gene expression was pre existing, it did not appear expressly because of the change in environment. It's more akin to discovering a previously unknown, but already existing, talent or ability. It certainly makes things a bit more grey but does not generally change the line of thinking.

If bees start laying purple eggs because they are exposed to a certain treatment it's not because their DNA was altered. It will be because they already had this trait and the treatment triggered it in some fashion.

OTOH I won't pretend to be a geneticist, it's way above my pay grade 

In short what I'm saying is that a single treatment to a hive will not alter that hives DNA rendering it unable to be hygienic. It could trigger a sequence of events that might cause some sort of gene expression change that would make the offspring less hygienic if for some reason that trait was pre existing in the code already. By the same token however all you would have to do is turn that trait back off and you would have the same characteristics as the pre treated hive, assuming you could find the trigger to turn it off.

This is different then a DNA change where going back is impossible for the most part as the previous code no longer exists.

~Matt


----------



## stan.vick (Dec 19, 2010)

I have not treated for mites in four years, but would not hesitate to treat to save the bees and progress they've made so far. But I will allow a target percentage to die out.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Specialkayme said:


> "These queens are treatment free. They will thrive without treatments. But if you do treat, you'll destroy the genetics and they'll never be able to be treatment free again."
> 
> How true is that?


It's not true, but what will happen is depending on the treatment, the biology of the hive will be all messed up. For instance treating with an anti-biotic will temporarily mask the symptoms of AFB but will make the hive more susceptible to it in the future.

So while your interpretation of the person's words is technically incorrect, the effect is the same.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Specialkayme said:


> So it begs the question, why take a Hard Bond approach?


OMG! Sol was right....it was a setup.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

beemandan said:


> OMG! Sol was right....it was a setup.


I didn't even get that far into it. I'd be happy to answer the "why Bond Test approach" but I'd be off topic, wouldn't I? The subject of the thread is parsing something someone supposedly said. If someone wants to ask that question, they ought to start a thread for it.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So it begs the question, why take a Hard Bond approach?

No, it doesn't. The "Hard Bond" approach is about selection, not epigenetics. The "Hard Bond" approach is not about changing the genes in the current queen, it's about passing on to the next generation the genes that can survive and eliminating from the gene pool the ones that can't.

>I've heard it mentioned more than once before...

I'd still like to know where you heard it "mentioned more than once before", since I'm a pretty avid reader and have never "heard" it mentioned at all...


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> For instance treating with an anti-biotic . . . will make the hive more susceptible to . . . [AFB] in the future.


Do you have evidence to support this?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> I'd still like to know where you heard it "mentioned more than once before", since I'm a pretty avid reader and have never "heard" it mentioned at all...


I put it in a post that was deleted by Barry. 

I would suspect that you didn't "hear" it on here, or from being an avid reader, as reading would involve "seeing" it on here, not "hearing" it.

I have heard it from at least two local individuals, both not related to the other, both of which sell local queens, and have heard them say it on more than one occasion. I believe that qualifies as "more than once before." At least it does in my books.

As far as identifying the name of the two individuals, I will not. I'm not interested in spreading names. The point of the thread is the truth of the statement, not who said it.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I can see it as a gene expression trigger or something but the reverse would hold true, when you stop treating, they will express the same resistance genes when needed.  I think what it refers to more is treating makes it harder to select for your best resistances on a continual basis because if you're treating queens and therefore drones that wouldn't have made it are still spreading their genes. The only other option is bees that would've died as a larva or pupae or emerged diseased are making it with low mite levels where they would not have during higher selection but then you would see seasonal changes in hives as well as the populations naturally build up during the year peaking in fall.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> The "Hard Bond" approach is not about changing the genes in the current queen, it's about passing on to the next generation the genes that can survive and eliminating from the gene pool the ones that can't.


Hard Bond is about passing genes from one generation to another. Successive queens. 

Lets say that you have a hive on the verge of collapse from mites. Not collapsing at the moment, but on the verge. Is it winning the battle against the mites? I'd say no. Can't say they've lost just yet, as anything can happen. But you are heading into winter. The Hard Bond methodology would say to let the hive die if it is going to die. You don't want the genetics anyway. But that is implying that there is something wrong with it's genetics, and that it's genetics has nothing viable to pass on to the next generation. That's a big assumption. 

If that queen came from TF background, it is carrying some TF genetics. Arguably, not enough (as it is losing the battle with mites). But does that mean that it is incapable of passing on good genetics? Actually the opposite. If the queen came from TF background, she carries TF genetics. She may have mated with a drone (or drones) that don't carry TF genetics, so the workers in the colony might not express TF characteristics (if the non-TF drone genetics overpowered her genetics). But her drones would, as they are genetic clones of her. 

If you allowed her to continue to generate drones, the next line of queens that mate with them may be able to have TF characteristics that exceeded her predecessors. Eliminating the hive via the Hard Bond method would not.

So, in that situation, treating may improve your chances of attaining treatment free faster than would not treating. Assuming that treatments have no effect on the genetics of the current hive.

*I've used TF as a short hand, and means more than just "Treatment Free" but mite resistant characteristics*


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Michael Bush said:


> I'd still like to know where you heard it "mentioned more than once before", since I'm a pretty avid reader and have never "heard" it mentioned at all...


I would also like to ask the same question.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Same thing? Really? Does everyone in your home die if your lice get out of hand?


Come on Solomon. What is changed genetically in the queen when varroa mite treatment is used? If someone is selling queens and saying that their genetics makes them immune or resistant to varroa do they include some sort of money back garuntee?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> For instance treating with an anti-biotic will temporarily mask the symptoms of AFB but will make the hive more susceptible to it in the future.


Really? I know you wouldn't make that statement w/out something to back it up, would you? I think you should have used the word "may" and not "will".


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> What is changed genetically in the queen when varroa mite treatment is used?


I answered that question.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> I know you wouldn't make that statement w/out something to back it up, would you?


Of course I do.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Which Post? One that was Deleted?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Of course I do.


So u do make that statement w/out proof or a study to back it up?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

I think you are looking at this as tryign to get bits and piecs of good in and then keep them. Getting the good is really not the problem. it is getting the bad out. By saving those queens that are loosing the battle you are saving the very traits that do not allow them to survive. Breeding is more abotu selecting agains rather than selecting for. In other words rather than selecting for some degree of resistance you select agains the tendency to fail.

Think of a glass of pure water. Then water is added that is muddy. Just a little but you can still see the color of the water has been tenged. would you want to drink it? How much clean water would have to be added to make it clean enough to make it pure again? What if every bit of water you added had just a tiny bit of mud? It must be pure water you pour back in and you will have to pour it in for some period of time. You must take much care to not let any more contaminants get by. And breeding is actually like that . far more about recognizing and prohiitiing the contaminants than fostering along the desirable traits. the desirable seems to almost come to the forefront due to lack of any other interfering traits to prevent them from doing so.

If you get that idea you will begn to see how a queen with even a small amount of tendency to fail must be removed. she only adds a tiny bit of mud to the water but that is to much.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I'd be surprised if you could quote _anyone_ making that claim.

I'd be willing to bet that you can't quote anyone remotely credible who has made such a claim.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Acebird, post 3, got it right



David LaFerney said:


> It's true. For the same reason that you shouldn't be vacinated of take aspirins if you are a generally healthy person. They will change you into a genetic wimp.


A citation for that exists?



Solomon Parker said:


> For instance treating with an anti-biotic will temporarily mask the symptoms of AFB but will make the hive more susceptible to it in the future.


Heard that old chestnut a few times. A citation for it exists? 

What you are confused with is a hive treated for AFB with antibiotics, runs the risk of getting it again after treatment, because the antibiotics don't kill the spores. This has nothing to do with the thread topic, can a chemical treatment alter genetics. Straw man argument.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

deknow said:


> I'd be surprised if you could quote _anyone_ making that claim.


More off topic nonsense.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

deknow said:


> I'd be surprised if you could quote _anyone_ making that claim.
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that you can't quote anyone remotely credible who has made such a claim.
> 
> deknow


He wrote that two people he knows both said it. Which is why he asked if it could be true. Whether it is ture or not is the question, not whether anyone credible said it. Credibility has nothing to do with his querie.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Well, the heritable microbiome is certainly altered (for at least 20 years, according to the Moran data) from antibiotic use.

Oldtimer, there is a lot of data about other bacillus (and other bacterial) populations playing a huge role in in defense against AFB and other microbial maladies.

A new paper shows a link between exposure to fungicides and a higher incidence of chalkbrood (a fungal disease)..the fungal population disrupted is ripe for an unbalanced infection.

Fungicide Contamination Reduces Beneficial Fungi in Bee Bread Based on an Area-Wide Field Study in Honey Bee, Apis mellifera, Colonies
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=291575


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Ha Deknow, I did know that, and believed that you would be the man with the reference. 

But note I was specifically asking for a reference in regards to AFB as per Solomons claim. Not chalk brood. I am aware of the affect of micro flora on chalkbrood, AFB, not so much.

Point being, your reference has to do with the effects of fungicides on microflora. The thread topic is the effects of treatments on genetics, and the AFB argument as presented by Solomon, is 1. unsubstantiated, 2. a straw man argument, and 3. off topic and misleading.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Just as an interesting aside, chalkbrood is virtually unknown here, and we don't feed our bees antibiotics. Don't think I've seen chalkbrood in 20 years, and not more than a few isolated incidents my entire life.

So that, in a practicle setting, would be consistent with your claims Deknow, happy to believe you on that. Maybe even chalkbrood is a symptom of micoflora imbalance brought about as a direct result of antibiotic use. I'll bet even in the US, it is rare among long term treatment free folks.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> It's true. For the same reason that you shouldn't be vacinated of take aspirins if you are a generally healthy person. They will change you into a genetic wimp.


Oldtimer said:


> A citation for that exists?


Oldtimer, I belive that you may have missed David LaFerney's _sarcasm_. :lookout: Here's the original paragraph:


David LaFerney said:


> It's true. For the same reason that you shouldn't be vacinated of take aspirins if you are a generally healthy person. They will change you into a genetic wimp. *Now where is that tongue in cheek smiley?*


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Ah OK, I get it, the remark was tongue in cheek. Quite funny if one sees it that way I guess.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

So....let me get this straight.
If I was an ugly woman and got one date with a good looking man...it would change my DNA and I would turn into a Victoria Secret model? 

LOL, I believe only a few things like radiation exposure and some serious age can actually CHANGE/Alter/ Damage your DNA. Constant small dose exposure to toxins over time can also cause damage. But *one* treatment changing the DNA? I find that impossible to believe or even consider.
Treatments masking flaws in the hives genetics? Now that's believable.

And depends on what 'treatments' you are talking about. Antibiotics or mite treatment. Disruption of the bees system through medication can be serious. Giving an infested hive a fighting chance to let VSH stock get a foothold and flourish is another.


----------



## MichaelShantz (May 9, 2010)

snip


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Lauri said:


> And depends on what 'treatments' you are talking about. Antibiotics or mite treatment.


I would assume mite treatments. AFB isn't any more of a problem here than anywhere else. And most don't "advertise" resistance to AFB, or really select for it (as far as I know). When you sell a queen as "treatment free" around here, it's usually referred to as mites only.


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, it is known that humans in defoliated areas of VietNam suffered genetic changes as evidenced by several generations of birth defects. How that relates to treatments for bees, I don't know.
As to Lauri's statement, I have personal experience in ugly women being changed into models after the application of alcohol.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Application or ingestion Charlie?


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

Ahem, well, that was many years ago, of course. My recollections might not be that accurate.
I guess my point would be that it's pretty plain that certain agents can cause genetic changes that can be passed on to descendants. But it would certainly matter what that agent was. In the above example, there would probably have been fewer changes had 20,000,000 gallons of Gatorade been applied, instead.
I've not heard of genetic damage being blamed on common mite treatments, though.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i will hopefully have some queens and nucs to sell next year. they will come from a line of bees with a 17 year history of surviving and thriving treatment free.

those interested in working with proven survivor stock might want to consider trying them.

but these bees will come with a disclaimor: past performance is no guarantee of future results, and no representation is made that these bees are any better than any others.

i am in agreement with the comments made by mike bush, jwchestnut, and keith delaplane that we beekeepers probably give ourselves too much credit with regard to our ability to influence bee genetics.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Lauri said:


> And depends on what 'treatments' you are talking about. Antibiotics or mite treatment.


Yes this is a common straw man argument that pops up in nearly all these types of threads sooner or later. The discussion starts off about treating / non treating mites, then somebody says oh, it doesn't work that way because treatment has been shown to disrupt micro fauna. Often they fail to mention they are referring to antibiotics, which are not used to treat mites. So it no bearing to mite treatment at all and is a straw man argument.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

I guess I don't get it... why would you treat when you can re-queen?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

If requeening would solve the problem, I would do it. If it's not going to solve the problem, I wouldn't.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> Yes this is a common straw man argument that pops up ... So it no bearing to mite treatment at all and is a straw man argument.


Did you get Solomon's permission to use the "straw man argument" argument?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Ha Ha, yes I've heard him on the subject so often that I had to find out what a straw man argument actually is, and it was in fact Solomon who completed my education on it. Once I learned about it, I then began to see it happening and could put a name on it, where previously I had just known something with an argument wasn't being done honestly, but couldn't figure out how to express that.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Specialkayme said:


> why would you ever elect to simply let the hive die instead (at least, from a mite resistant genetic point of view)?


Because if you are going to use a chemical to treat you will contaminate the equipment and I do not want to contaminate my equipment for future use. If that is stupid, so be it.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Specialkayme said:


> I've heard it mentioned more than once before:
> 
> "These queens are treatment free. They will thrive without treatments. But if you do treat, you'll destroy the genetics and they'll never be able to be treatment free again."


Now that three of us (treatment-free beekeepers) have questioned the origin of this quote, including two published authors, I would like to provide an example of why it might be questioned.

If a mechanic down at the local wrench shop told me that he heard two people tell him that they run their cars with water in the engine instead of oil, the correct response would not be "that's not how it works," the correct response would be "who told you this now?" The statement is so ludicrous that criticism of it transcends mere refutation and proceeds straight into importunate incredulity. There simply must be an alternate explanation, whether it be misunderstanding, caricature, or misquote.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Because if you are going to use a chemical to treat you will contaminate the equipment


Who says you are limited to chemicals? Your assuming that when I say "treat" I mean "use harsh chemicals." There are plenty of treatments that don't involve chemicals that have long lasting contamination effects to the _equipment_ (I'm not referring to long lasting contamination effects to wax or the bees themselves).


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> Because if you are going to use a chemical to treat you will contaminate the equipment



Specialkayme said:


> Who says you are limited to chemicals? Your assuming that when I say "treat" I mean "use harsh chemicals." There are plenty of treatments that don't involve chemicals ....


Indeed. In fact, the rules of the _Treatment Free_ forum specifically mention sugar dusting as a treatment that is not allowed.


> Treatment: A substance introduced by the beekeeper into the hive with the intent of killing, repelling, or inhibiting a pest or disease afflicting the bees.
> 
> Treatments include but are not limited to:
> Apiguard (thymol)
> ...


(note: the above is intended to point out that dusting with sugar can be considered a _treatment_. Since this is NOT the TF forum, _discussion _of such treatments is permissible )

Any someone who claims that sugar _contaminates _comb for _future _use is, well .... _pretty far out there_!


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

I think the organic acids evaporate away without leaving behind contamination, too.


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

Specialkayme said:


> Who says you are limited to chemicals? .


I'm reminded of a treatment for a certain kind of lice. Shave half the hair, set the other half on fire and stab the ones that run out with an icepick.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm always surprised at the determined attitude of many beekeepers to keep the hive spotlessly clean of any and all contaminates. 
I try my best, within reason, to do so. But let's be realistic. Bees fly everywhere. They come into contact with everything. Many contacts are totally unsanitary. It's the nature of the insect that can't be controlled. Just because you don't put treatment in the hive yourself, doesn't mean the hive is contaminate free. If simple, low toxicity one time exposure changes DNA, we'd all be in trouble.

Even humans have significant levels of many toxins, including the chemical they use for fire retardant products in breast milk. They didn't ingest it.They didn't get 'treated' with it. It is a contact exposure contamination. 
Trying to avoid toxins and contaminates is a good idea, but you are only as 'clean' as your environment. 

I'm not a fan of any treatments. I never treat with antibiotics. I've never needed to.
But in the case of mites, well that's another issue. Especially if your bees are newly purchased this year. You have to work into a treatment free management style. Not just put your head in the sand and 'wish' the mites away.

I worm my horses on a regular basis. Same for my dog. Parasites are not going to quit infesting my livestock and pets just because I wish them to. I can't SEE them, but they are there. Because they are healthy and virtually parasite free due to good care, I don't have to worm them near as often as the manufacturer suggests. 

But if I bought a horse from the auction that was skinny and wormy..would I just feed it well and hope the worm problem cleared up on it's own? I'd treat that sucker and clean him out first. 

I do the same for my bees when necessary. I do have to say I believe my VSH stock is showing it's stuff this year. But I did treat the hives early spring to give the new queens a clean start. I have many hives that are 10 frame, 4, 5 and a few 6 deeps high. No apparent brood break with active brood rearing since January. Hives I expected to need treatment this fall. I won't tell you what my mite drop is, You probably wouldn't believe me.
Maybe it's the early spring treatment with Apivar that is responsible for these clean late summer hives.. Maybe it's the hybrid vigor of second and third generation VSH genetics kicking in. I fully expected to treat again this fall. $400. worth of Apivar sitting by my computer ready to go. But I keep looking at my white slide in under my screened Bottom boards and wonder if it is a trick. One mite, two mites...nothing. I'm amazed.

All in all, unless you're a scientist with a lab at your disposal, the best we all can do is observe and make our best guess. (And read Beesource too of course!)

Eventually getting to treatment free is a great goal, but in my opinion, not a good one for a beginner with new hives. Thriving Hives that are treatment free generally don't happen overnight and on their own.

I'm sure package and nuc producers love to heat newbies talk of being treatment free. Treatment free newbie=Return customers.

It's all been discussed here before. Its hard to have definitive proof of anything when it comes to bees. You have to consider ALL the variables, not just the obvious ones. 

Just my 2 cents

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Miller-Compound-HoneyBees-and-Agriculture/256954971040510


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Now that three of us (treatment-free beekeepers) have questioned the origin of this quote, including two published authors, I would like to provide an example of why it might be questioned.
> 
> If a mechanic down at the local wrench shop told me that he heard two people tell him that they run their cars with water in the engine instead of oil, the correct response would not be "that's not how it works," the correct response would be "who told you this now?" The statement is so ludicrous that criticism of it transcends mere refutation and proceeds straight into importunate incredulity. There simply must be an alternate explanation, whether it be misunderstanding, caricature, or misquote.


"That's rediculous." may have been the most appropriate response. I still see no importance to who said so. If I told you that Jim Thomas and Andrew Swartz said it, what would that tell you or matter? You'd then want to know who they are and what their bonifides are to determine their standing in the beekeeping society. But it still woulkdn't matter. It's still a rediculous statement.


----------



## Chemguy (Nov 26, 2012)

Well, it looks like this thread has, er, evolved.  Forgive me for risking a push in yet a different direction, though I think it is in line with the original post.

I took the original attribution to relate to genetics at the molecular level (occupational hazard), but do see how it could be interpreted at the colony level, as was stated earlier on. 

I'd like to observe that there seems to be an assumption that genetic alteration at the molecular level is always the result of mutation. That isn't so. Genes can also be "silenced" while remaining intact and the silencing can be transferred to offspring, at least to a limited extent. This is part of the field of epigenetics.

Yes, there is published, scientific, peer-reviewed information on hereditary epigenetics. Here is one overview, for those who enjoy such reading: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/12/1623.full.pdf+html . It is interesting to note that honeybees are mentioned in the article, but not in relation to treatment with chemical compounds (nutrition instead). I do not know if any studies have been carried out on the ability of treatments to enact epigenetic change in honeybees. There is much that needs to be learned about this topic in general, so I wouldn't draw any foundational conclusions about all hereditary epigenetics quite yet.

Pete


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> It's still a rediculous statement.


It's the assertion that it _was said_ that I find ridiculous.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

The likely hood of hereditary epigenetic's was also discussed in another thread. Concerns that queens raised under swarm conditions had their DNA changed to produce bees that were more prone to swarming. It was a good thread some might like to read. I will look for it and post the link if I can find it.

Changing gene expression due to environmental exposure is not changing the actual DNA however. This is a big issue with GMO products as well. New DNA is inserted, but cannot be totally controlled where it will 'land' or what genes it will effect. (Turn on or off)Resulting in Some surprising unintended consequences. The DNA IS changed, but it is the unknown and undesired effect on subsequent gene expression that is the problem.

The more I read, the more I realize I don't know. Dang.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

I am not about to read all 60 relys to see if someone has already asked my question, if they have please excuse me, but assuming there is a change is it always for worse or for better?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Lauri said:


> But let's be realistic. Bees fly everywhere. They come into contact with everything. Many contacts are totally unsanitary. It's the nature of the insect that can't be controlled. Just because you don't put treatment in the hive yourself, doesn't mean the hive is contaminate free.
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...


Two very well presented points Lauri.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> It's the assertion that it _was said_ that I find ridiculous.


I.e. I'm a liar.

We get it. Thanks Sol. But still not the point of the thread.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

AR Beekeeper said:


> assuming there is a change is it always for worse or for better?


Exposures leading to eventual evolutional changes? Well that's how resistance develops. Whether it's good or bad depends on if it's what you want. 

-Mite resistance to treatments-bad
-colony resistance to harsh conditions-good


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> It's the assertion that it _was said_ that I find ridiculous.


Why? Saying that implies mistrust of the OPer. Doesn't it?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

AR Beekeeper said:


> I am not about to read all 60 relys to see if someone has already asked my question, if they have please excuse me, but assuming there is a change is it always for worse or for better?


Could be subjective. Better or worse depends on one's point of view.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri said:


> Just because you don't put treatment in the hive yourself, doesn't mean the hive is contaminate free.


This was shown to be true in a study by Penn State's Maryanne Frazier in which she had package bees installed in new equipment w/ frames w/out foundation. When samples of wax and honey were analyzed all sorts of chemicals were found. Even fluvalinate, aka Apistan. No chemical treatments or antibiotics were used in the test hives.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> Why? Saying that implies mistrust of the OPer. Doesn't it?


It seems to me to be pretty obvious. If this gets said all the time, then we ought to find out who is saying it and get them to stop. We have already seen that this thread was a setup to argue against Bond Test beekeeping. There's no point in fighting the straw man. What are the facts? Why do these statements not fit with reality?

It's like if I said commercial beekeepers requeen once and even twice a year. That is something that does get said all the time and something commercial beeks are quite keen to quash. Am I not right?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

No, seems to me you are cynical and untrusting. I believed what was said and took it to be true that someone said what it was said they said. You chose not to trust your fellow man.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Mark, if someone told you they used water instead of gasoline, you wouldn't believe it either. But you're not a treatment-free beekeeper. What people claim they say means nothing to you. 

You are well versed in ripping people a new one for posting things that are obviously wrong.

It's like if somebody said commercial beekeepers requeen twice a year. That is something that _does_ get said all the time and something commercial beeks are quite keen to quash. Am I right?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> It's like if somebody said commercial beekeepers requeen twice a year. That is something that _does_ get said all the time and something commercial beeks are quite keen to quash. Am I right?


Yes, u r right.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Solomon Parker said:


> It's like if I said commercial beekeepers requeen once and even twice a year. That is something that does get said all the time and something commercial beeks are quite keen to quash. Am I not right?


*"New Standard*
The Gold Standard for re-queening used to be once a year. Now, it’s twice a year"

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ewsletter/beekeeper-newsletter-august-1-2011/


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

I'd better start building more mating nucs for next year then...Thanks for the heads up Barry


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

Lauri, sqkcrk; What I was trying to determine was that if any change occurs, is the change capable of producing more varroa resistant bees or does it always produce a bee weaker, and more susceptible to varroa damage. If it is a craps shoot then I would think it is foolish to not wait and see what resistance the colony would show after treatment. Actually, it is my opinion that the probability of a treatment making a change is very low. 

It also my opinion, and we all have one, is that all of this treatment/treatment free discourse is wasted. Each side is entrenched and has no intention of giving ground, therefore we should confine ourselves to giving to other beekeepers what advice we can about practical beekeeping. Ulitmately each person will make their own decision about how they will keep their bees, and if their bees prosper, they will get the credit for making the proper decision.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Commercials requeening twice a year? Who authorized the release of this information? It must have been Snowden.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

AR Beekeeper said:


> Lauri, sqkcrk; What I was trying to determine was that if any change occurs, is the change capable of producing more varroa resistant bees or does it always produce a bee weaker, ...


Who knows? Bees are complex creatures.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

AR Beekeeper said:


> It also my opinion, and we all have one, is that all of this treatment/treatment free discourse is wasted. Each side is entrenched and has no intention of giving ground, therefore we should confine ourselves to giving to other beekeepers what advice we can about practical beekeeping.


And yet the insults keep flying . . . (not from you AR, obviously, I agree with your statement)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Nearly all mutations in bees or for that matter other living creatures are "bad". Yes I accept that "bad" is subjective. Let's say, worse adapted to their environment than they were previously.

Many mutations, and for that matter, additions, simply end up as junk DNA (the majority of our own DNA is junk DNA). Some mutations go on to be the cause of various inheritable conditions and diseases. Other mutations may be relatively benign but you'd rather not have them, such as being at a higher risk of getting breast cancer. A tiny percentage of mutations are beneficial.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

So, are you saying we have deteriorated to our current condition?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> So, are you saying we have deteriorated to our current condition?


On the surface it would appear so. Indeed, if all mutations were good, we would be making pilgrimages to Chernobyl to expose ourselves to this wonderful prospect. More likely though, the Chernobyl induced mutation would involve some deformity, or cancer, or worse.

Joking aside though, it's more complex than that. negative mutations that would cause something like early infant death, or an ugly deformity, tend to be weeded out. The genetic mutation that caused people not to have black skins, was not fatal, but likely encouraged those of us with it, to leave Africa.

That rare thing, a mutation that by sheer luck actually makes an improvement, will give the owner of it an advantage so in theory is more likely to be retained, and even spread, in the population.

Now though, a new anomaly has been introduced. Like varroa to honeybees, we have to humans, the welfare state. This alters what has always been the norm, ie, survival of the fittest, and replaces it with the reverse, ie paying those to stupid to support themselves, to breed. Combine this with modern health care, and I am sure that we are superior beings, to what our descendants will be in a few hundred years.

I'll just throw in that I'm not expressing any political views or judging anyone. Just, expressing what I believe will be a cause and effect outcome, based on Darwinian theory. Not that I fully swallow every evolutionary theory in full, either.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Specialkayme said:


> (I'm not referring to long lasting contamination effects to wax or the bees themselves).


Spit it out honey what are you referring to? I said "if" I assume nothing.

Hey welcome back Solomon haven't heard your comments in a while. Have you graduated yet? I want to send you a post card.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Lauri said:


> Even humans have significant levels of many toxins, including the chemical they use for fire retardant products in breast milk.


Lauri, I only take milk directly from the breast, no fire retardants, although it does set my gonads on fire.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Specialkayme said:


> There are plenty of treatments that don't involve chemicals that have long lasting contamination effects to the _equipment_ (I'm not referring to long lasting contamination effects to wax or the bees themselves).





Acebird said:


> Spit it out honey what are you referring to?


Sorry, that sentence should have said:

"There are plenty of treatments that don't involve chemicals _and don't _ have long lasting contamination effects to the _equipment_ (I'm not referring to long lasting contamination effects to wax or the bees themselves)."

Other than correcting my sentence, I'm not referring to anything. I think the sentence is self explanatory.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Acebird said:


> Have you graduated yet? I want to send you a post card.


I think he was hoping you would say money, not post card.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Lauri, I only take milk directly from the breast, no fire retardants ....


OK, I'll bite. Where *do *you get your "retardants" from? :scratch:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I wondered from where he got the breast to feed from.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> If requeening would solve the problem, I would do it. If it's not going to solve the problem, I wouldn't.


It would solve the problem - if you could get a queen that was genetically equipped to address the issue. In NZ, where you are, I understand, that isn't possible in the case of varroa.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> The genetic mutation that caused people not to have black skins, was not fatal, but likely encouraged those of us with it, to leave Africa.


That's a wonderful theory! Isn't it rather more likely that those living in cold climates benefitted from a lighter skin? The lighter skin might simply have been selected for by female preference. It might have been better camouflage. Not every change is caused by genetic mutation - slow changes caused by incremental adaptation is often the cause of such minor shifs as skin colour. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> The lighter skin *might* simply have been selected for by female preference.


No



mike bispham said:


> It *might* have been better camouflage. Not every change is caused by genetic mutation- slow changes caused by incremental adaptation is often the cause of such minor shifs as skin colour.


Emphasis *might*. I will not ask you to provide evidence for your claim it was not a mutation but rather incremental adaption, because I doubt you could find a link, as usual.

However interesting theory or conjecture Mike, and sorry to have to keep telling you that are wrong all the time. But as I've said before, if possible you should find out what really happens before making up theories, I prefer facts over theories always. And as I stated, white skin is a mutation.

Whether the mutation occurred just before, just after, or during the time people were moving out of Africa, in any case, the Black people stayed, the White people left.

As people moved away from Africa, the white skin mutation became less of a "bad" mutation, and more like a "good" mutation. Purely cos the goodness, or badness, was location dependant. A lesson that can also apply to bees and beekeeping.

Read and learn -

"Scientists have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife....... 
The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA Code out of the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome--the complete instructions for making a human being".


http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/first_appearance_of_white_skin_i.htm


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> It would solve the problem - if you could get a queen that was genetically equipped to address the issue.


I would whole heartedly disagree. If it was that easy, varroa wouldn't be a problem for anyone.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> Lauri, I only take milk directly from the breast, no fire retardants, although it does set my gonads on fire.


Acebird, 

Congratulations, on your 6600th post.

You will soon be the 6th highest posting member of this fourm...


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

And quite the impressive post too, I might add. Might just go down as a new record low for Beesource's informative reputation.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

Lauri said:


> And quite the impressive post too, I might add. Might just go down as a new record low for Beesource's informative reputation.


There are quite a few of those 6600 posts that would compete for that honor.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

For a little _comedic relief_ from all this seriousness, you can revisit one of the all-time great Ace threads here:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...high-winds-question/page5&p=702965#post702965

The link above is to the first page of the thread, but by page 5 the antics got to the point where Mark B posted this:


sqkcrk said:


> Y'all leave my 'bird alone now, ya hear? He doin' the best he can wid wha he got. Ain't we all?



:ws:

(remember that the blue arrow in the quote box links to the original post)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> I would whole heartedly disagree. If it was that easy, varroa wouldn't be a problem for anyone.


I didn't say it was easy - though it is easy for some. But that's the principle of breeding toward resistance, which is the only long-term solution.

What really makes it hard to raise resistance is the ongoing systematic treatments that constantly undermine the natural development of resistance, and the difficulties involved in raising resistance without losing stock. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> I will not ask you to provide evidence for your claim it was not a mutation but rather incremental adaption, because I doubt you could find a link, as usual.


The very same thing is suggested on your very own reference! Not that I want to take that as evidence.



Oldtimer said:


> Whether the mutation occurred just before, just after, or during the time people were moving out of Africa, in any case, the Black people stayed, the White people left.


Or: the white skins did badly in the sun, the darker skins did better...

Where on your own referenced document (or anywhere else) is anything said about white people leaving Africa because their skins had turned white? That was your claim.



Oldtimer said:


> As people moved away from Africa, the white skin mutation became less of a "bad" mutation, and more like a "good" mutation.


Well, yes. I think that's what I've been saying. (I'm still dubious about this business of a sudden mutation, and I'd like a proper reference to the peer-reviewed science).

What I object to is your notion that suddenly there was a single mutation, and somebody's skin turned white, then they and their children/grandchildren (who somehow didn't revert to darker skins - perhaps no-one wanted to mate with them because they had horrid white skin... Wait, how did they have children then... !!!! Anyway, we'll figure out the details later): then all these white people upped sticks and went North which nobody had done before because, er, well they hadn't, and so formed the white population of the North, Ta Da!



Oldtimer said:


> "Scientists have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.......


Not exactly a peer-reviewed source this is it? Revisionist history of race distribution?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> [Originally Posted by mike bispham:
> The lighter skin might simply have been selected for by female preference.]
> 
> No


Why not? That's a perfectly good hypothesis. What make you think you can dismiss it out of hand?

I'm not saying its right. I just want to know your reasons for dismissing it. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> (perhaps no-one wanted to mate with them because they had horrid white skin... Wait, how did they have children then... !!!! Anyway, we'll figure out the details later):


Alcohol. It's worked for a ton of ugly people since.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> What really makes it hard to raise resistance is the ongoing systematic treatments that constantly undermine the natural development of resistance, and the difficulties involved in raising resistance without losing stock.


Again, I'm going to have to disagree. I agree with your end goal, but disagree with your methodology to get there.

Long term the goal is resistant genetics. That is accomplished by selection (at least on our part). Short term goal is to have colonies. We can't get to the long term if we don't deal with the short term. Now, if treating has no immediate effect, positive or negative, on the genetics of the individual hive, treating wouldn't be counteractive to the long term goal, would it not? And it would still achieve the short term goal as well. By treating, and later requeening, you accomplish both goals. By requeening alone you are taking a chance that one will work, and in my experience it doesn't.

If you take a colony that is failing from mites, or just has high mite counts, and choose not to treat but instead choose to only requeen with resistant stock, you aren't getting rid of the mites that exist in the colony. As a matter of fact, it will take 3 weeks before that new queens offspring make it to adults so they can show their resistant traits (either VSH, hygienic tendencies, resistance to mite related viruses, grooming, chewing, ect). That's three weeks worth of varroa that are emerging from cells, that don't have resistant stocks to battle with them. If the hive wasn't on the verge of collapse already, it would be now.

Requeening alone, then walking away wouldn't solve anything (most of the time) if the colony had high mite counts or was showing PMS symptoms. It would waste a queen and spell certain doom for the colony.

If you try to requeen earlier than when they show high mite counts, you don't know you are requeening a troubled colony.

That is assuming that treating has zero effects on the instant genetics of the colony, and the residuary (if any) would have zero effects on the genetics of the new queen. Hence this thread . . .


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

excellent post sk.

at this point i feel like that's what makes the most sense.

while i haven't had to implement it yet, my thinking is why not dequeen, brood break, sugar dust, and then requeen?

i'm not sure why beetle traps with vegetable oil are any less of a 'treatment' than powdered sugar dusting on the tf forum.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> What I object to is your notion that suddenly there was a single mutation, and somebody's skin turned white.


Your objections, do not change the fact. Learn what a mutation is. 

Also, my notion? LOL

I feel for you, with you being in the position of someone trying to defend an already defeated position, so I'd say to you, your latest couple of posts were a nice try. But, sorry, no cigar.


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

Specialkayme said:


> Alcohol. It's worked for a ton of ugly people since.


I won't need any references for that one.


----------



## Bee Bliss (Jun 9, 2010)

Step away from the keyboard ACE! Too much information!!! :no:


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> while i haven't had to implement it yet, my thinking is why not dequeen, brood break, sugar dust, and then requeen?


I guess it depends on the time of year. I know about this time, or in September, it's not wise to have a brood break of 3 weeks. You need young bees going into winter. But I guess doing it in July could work. That would depend on when you find a high mite load. I tested mine in July and found 2-3 mites on a sticky board in 24 hours. In August I found 50 in a 48 hour period on the same hive. 

I also have my speculations as to the effectiveness of sugar dusting as a mite control method. I read an article in ABJ or BC (don't remember which) that attempted to use regular and periodic sugar dustings as a method of mite control. I read it some time in the past year (and don't really feel like combing through 24 magazines to find it . . . sorry). The article found that sugar dusting was not an effective method of mite control. If it doesn't work long term, I question it's ability to knock them back. Although the article showed that sugar dusting didn't kill (or dislodge) mites faster than they could reproduce, it didn't test it in a broodless environment. So maybe that would make a difference. I don't know.

For me, it's alot more work and slightly more questionable than using Formic Acid. If both are considered treatments, and both are accepted by organic standards, but one has a proven track record, I don't really know why you would choose the sugar over the formic. The only down side that hit has (damaging a queen) isn't present in your scenario, as the old queen has already been removed. It also doesn't require a brood break, as formic kills under the cappings as well. Which also means you could do it this time of year and still not be overly concerned about young bees going into winter (although some do notice some brood loss, it would be less than a 3 week queenless time period).

Different strokes for different folks though.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> Again, I'm going to have to disagree. I agree with your end goal, but disagree with your methodology to get there.
> 
> Long term the goal is resistant genetics. That is accomplished by selection (at least on our part). Short term goal is to have colonies. We can't get to the long term if we don't deal with the short term. Now, if treating has no immediate effect, positive or negative, on the genetics of the individual hive, treating wouldn't be counteractive to the long term goal, would it not? And it would still achieve the short term goal as well. By treating, and later requeening, you accomplish both goals. By requeening alone you are taking a chance that one will work, and in my experience it doesn't.


I agree with all that. It works. What I was refering to is the dominant management practice of treating routinely, as an ongoing solution to varroa - the 'veterinary approach', as opposed to population husbandry - the breeding route. 

Splitting hard to make many more colonies than you need, and then assaying the for resistant stocks may also be a route that avoid treatments/manipulations against varroa. The good thing about avoiding treatments is you do see off your weakest bees - and you find out which have what it takes, and which are the best. And its not just about mite resistance.

But my original point remains: I think the 'ambient' level of resistance must make tons of difference. Lots of well adapted ferals around make life much easier than none. Lots of commercial/treated drones about make matters much harder.



Specialkayme said:


> Requeening alone, then walking away wouldn't solve anything (most of the time) if the colony had high mite counts or was showing PMS symptoms. It would waste a queen and spell certain doom for the colony.


Agreed. Maybe getting in a bit quicker through technical assays would avoid it. Or, as above, lots of increase that improves the chances of lots of good 'uns' coming up to replace failing ones. 



Specialkayme said:


> If you try to requeen earlier than when they show high mite counts, you don't know you are requeening a troubled colony.


Agreed. Let it play out, then deal with it by one method or another - or assay with a frozen brood test if you think that will tell you what you want to know.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Letting it "play out", would involve allowing the hive to get into the danger zone before requeening? If so, remedial action would be required, prior to the requeen, as per Specialkayme.

If you don't let it get into the danger zone, you are not letting it "play out".


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> (MB:"What I object to is your notion that suddenly there was a single mutation, and somebody's skin turned white." )
> 
> Your objections, do not change the fact.


If you are going to quote somebody, its a matter of courtesy at least, to do it accurately. Here you've added a full stop, changing the meaning of the statement to a form that allows you attack something else. That's not just discourteous, its downright dishonest. You are trying to pull the wool over your fellow thread readers, as part of your ongoing grubby-handed campaign to discredit me. 

This is what I said:

"What I object to is your notion that suddenly there was a single mutation, and somebody's skin turned white, then they and their children/grandchildren (who somehow didn't revert to darker skins - perhaps no-one wanted to mate with them because they had horrid white skin... Wait, how did they have children then... !!!! Anyway, we'll figure out the details later): then all these white people upped sticks and went North which nobody had done before because, er, well they hadn't, and so formed the white population of the North, Ta Da!"

This scenario demonstrates that the pet theory you found at a historical revisionist website is standing nonsense. The development of settled skin tones within a race takes place as a result of advantages supplied by those tones. They might be natural - the processing of vitamin D as your own source suggests for example - or cultural - a distinct preference for lighter skins may see darker skinned individuals finging it harder to locate mates, or thrive in the population. Heaven knows, we've seen enough colour predudice in recent centuries to comprehend that.

Consider too: the skin tones change gradually from the equatorial regions northward. There is no sudden break from very dark to white - just skins suited to the solar environment. 

It is possible - though I remain unconvinced at this point - that a genetic mutation of the sort you descibe might have occured at some time around one of the several great northward migrations. But the rest is pure speculation. - and demonstrable balderdash.

A few minutes of critical thought might have enabled you to see the obvious absurdities in this notion. Looking more closely at the agenda of the website that is, apparently, your sole source in this matter, might have helped too.



Oldtimer said:


> Also, my notion? LOL


The notion you are promulgating, born, apparently, from a half-baked revisionist website you've happened across. You need to try to be a bit more critical of your sources. 

And much more honest in your dealings with your fellow beekeepers.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

What? you still trying to defy science over a full stop is nonsense.

The full stop I did not put there deliberately. It must have been left behind during the deletion. If it changed your meaning I apologise. Personally I don't think it changed the meaning at all, just for clarity, I deleted the next part of your post which was ridiculous speculation so silly it was embarrassing. Doesn't change the facts of the argument. 

You do go on.


----------



## hedges (May 18, 2013)

To tie it all together, assuming that evolution is the process of selecting for beneficial traits in the face of genetic diversity and environmental stresses, genes which don't provide a benefit eventually get bred out - simply because those without the trait face no undesirable consequence. Reference the appendix. At one point it served a digestive purpose, but as our diet changed over millions of years, it was no longer relevant, so people who had smaller appendixes faced no environmental consequence.

Similarly, people in Europe faced no (or at least less) consequence for producing less melanin in an environment where they consistently had to cover up for the cold. Consequently, other genetic characteristics which HAD some advantage in that environment were selected for, and the trait became irrelevant.

Bees, like all other creatures, face similar evolutionary trials. They select the traits which provide for their survival and thriving in a world of stressors. To mute a stressor, then, mutes the relevance of those traits in evolutionary natural selection.

Of course, it's all so grandeous. I, for one, requeen, add desirable genetics where possible, and value the production and survivability of my hives. The idea that I'm going to set my bees aside for a thousand years and create a super bee that will ultimately repopulate the earth, anointing me their honey overlord - while an entertaining daydream - isnt what I have in mind for my bees...at least in polite conversation.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

hedges said:


> To tie it all together, assuming that evolution is the process of selecting for beneficial traits in the face of genetic diversity...


Isn't it more a case of selecting for beneficial traits _from_ genetic diversity? That is the benefit of diversity - to have lots of different traits and strategies to hand, so that whatever challenges come along, somewhere in the population are individuals that can survive and then thrive, and thus the population can adapt. 



hedges said:


> ... and environmental stresses, genes which don't provide a benefit eventually get bred out - simply because those without the trait face no undesirable consequence. Reference the appendix. At one point it served a digestive purpose, but as our diet changed over millions of years, it was no longer relevant, so people who had smaller appendixes faced no environmental consequence.


I think many genes get tucked away 'waiting' as it were for the time to return when they'll be advantageous. That makes a much more robust species in the face of continuous change. 



hedges said:


> Similarly, people in Europe faced no (or at least less) consequence for producing less melanin in an environment where they consistently had to cover up for the cold. Consequently, other genetic characteristics which HAD some advantage in that environment were selected for, and the trait became irrelevant.


I suspect its a positive rather than negative force - lighter skins allow more vitamin D production in given sunlight levels. But, yes 



hedges said:


> Bees, like all other creatures, face similar evolutionary trials. They select the traits which provide for their survival and thriving in a world of stressors. To mute a stressor, then, mutes the relevance of those traits in evolutionary natural selection.


Absolutely (clumsy treating being the present widespread factor muting the stress provided by mites, inhibiting adaptation) 

Evolutionary 'pressure' is the watchword. (Organic) populations continually respond to positive and negative pressures, bound always to the 'goal' of highest surviving number of offspring made from limited energy resources within in a competitive envionment. Whatever helps at any time comes to the fore through natural selection for the fittest strains. The bits that have worked in the past are archived for future need.



hedges said:


> Of course, it's all so grandeous.


I find it breathtakingly beautiful and elegant. All those little oh-so-neat checks and balances, what wonderous machinery has evolved.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> I deleted the next part of your post which was ridiculous speculation so silly it was embarrassing.


I think you mean so revealing it was embarrassing.



Oldtimer said:


> You do go on.


I will go on when people cheat at discussion. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> The good thing about avoiding treatments is you do see off your weakest bees - and you find out which have what it takes, and which are the best. And its not just about mite resistance.


I still don't see how "avoiding treatments" serves that goal, without losing the colony. Sure, if you don't treat and you lose a colony you "see it off." But back to my original point of long term vs short term goals, its counteractive to our short term goal.

You claim you can see resistance when you avoid treatments. I can see resistance when I treat (or right before, by testing) but I still don't lose the colony. 

I just don't see any advantage to avoiding treatments if it doesn't alter the colony in the instant.



mike bispham said:


> Lots of well adapted ferals around make life much easier than none. Lots of commercial/treated drones about make matters much harder.


How many ferals do you have around you? I know I don't have many. Probably 30:1 compared to commercial, hobbiest hives (at best). I can't rely on ferals if they don't exist. Still not sure if I'd want to if I could.

99.8% of feral colonies in NC died out after the introduction of varroa (as determined by NC State). The remaining colonies might have resistance to varroa, but might have suffered from some severe genetic bottlenecking in the process. Who knows. But inevitably a new pest will come (I'm thinking tropilaelaps). It's anyone's guess what will happen when they make it here. But if I were a betting man I'd say that 99.8% of feral colonies will die out when it happens. I'm not prepared to lose 99.8% of my colonies too.

FWIW areas that are devastated by tropilaelaps report no issues with varroa anymore. 



mike bispham said:


> Or, as above, lots of increase that improves the chances of lots of good 'uns' coming up to replace failing ones.


I think this is a fallacy of thought, if you are assuming the non-"good uns" will be left to die. If you assume you will lose 75% of your colonies, and you split your current hives four ways each and end with the same number of hives, then scream "SUCCESS! I didn't lose a hive!" isn't exactly accurate. You've already resigned to the idea that you will lose colonies. You just throw more on the alter to make it more advantageous for you.

Or you could split four ways, treat, keep them all (theoretically, of course) then wait for a commercial (or perhaps someone else) breeder to produce a resistant and time tested stock and requeen with that. Seems more logical to me. So far I haven't found one (and haven't been able to breed my own) so kinda takes that theory and throws it out the window.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> You are trying to pull the wool over your fellow thread readers, as part of your ongoing grubby-handed campaign to discredit me.


No.

I mentioned the white skin gene mutation, then you jumped in and tried to discredit me. Why, when you were so wrong, I have no idea. I then merely backed what I said, which appears to have badly upset you.

Doesn't matter though. White skin in humans was caused by a genetic mutation.

Tantrums and toy throwing are not going to change that.

And Hedges, yes your post really does tie it all together, much more skilfully than I would be able to. Great post.


----------



## hedges (May 18, 2013)

Thank you kindly, Oldtimer.

That means something coming from you.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> I think this is a fallacy of thought, if you are assuming the non-"good uns" will be left to die. If you assume you will lose 75% of your colonies, and you split your current hives four ways each and end with the same number of hives, then scream "SUCCESS! I didn't lose a hive!" isn't exactly accurate. You've already resigned to the idea that you will lose colonies. You just throw more on the alter to make it more advantageous for you.
> 
> Or you could split four ways, treat, keep them all (theoretically, of course) then wait for a commercial (or perhaps someone else) breeder to produce a resistant and time tested stock and requeen with that. Seems more logical to me. So far I haven't found one (and haven't been able to breed my own) so kinda takes that theory and throws it out the window.


I was working with the notion that more rolls of the dice is more opportunities for resistance to come forward. When it does, you recognise it and multiply it. I think working toward raising resistance is something best done fairly aggressively. Rapid increase of the best, large numbers of drones fom the best. Proactive. 

With this approach you have to lose colonies all the time to make room for the new. And I stand by the point: varroa isn't everything. You can have good mite resistant bees that still don't thrive for all sorts of reasons. I want a test that separates winners from losers on the basis of general vigour and adaptedness to my local climate and environment. I want bees that survive, and thrive, without my help. 

Where I live there are good feral bees - I picked up a large swarm this spring from a colony that has lived contiuously in a cavity accessed by a large split at the base of an old apple tree. For 6 years, putting out a swarm everyear. This followed the coldest winter for 100 years, and was less than a mile from the North Sea coast from where we had a wicked North East wind all winter. I regard these sorts of bees as my best asset by far. They build beautiful comb, wall to wall clean brood, bring in honey steadily. By comparison most beekeeper genetics round here are worthless. I collect their swarms too. 

I do what I can to multiply these sorts of bees - queenside and droneside, and do so quickly to raise numbers to a level where I can raise more, to continue the process of rapid breeding in of traits and to defend my airspace well. That's my strategy. But yours might work better for you, given your situation.

My goal is non-treatment beekeeping, and I think I have to work fast to make best use of the best assets I have. But I could do it your way to. I may have to. We'll see.

Mike (UK)

Perhaps an approach that seeks to maintain existing colonies


----------



## Rolande (Aug 23, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> You are trying to pull the wool over your fellow thread readers, as part of your ongoing grubby-handed campaign to discredit me.


Hi Mike, to be fair, without going into micro analysis of individual posts 'he said-I said' I think that you've simply got off on the 'wrong foot' with oldtimer. As with all forums there are a few people here who's posts I look forward to because they've walked the walk before doing the talking, I won't mention them all and mean no disrespect by omitting anyone but Palmer and Steppler are the kind of people I'm talking about. Oldtimer is another. He always comes across as an open level headed sort of guy to me, someone who's happy to offer his own hard earned knowledge but at the same time is intelligent enough to genuinely search for new information too.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

The Peppered Moth is most likely one of the best known cases of study in regard to changes in color. But if you actually follow it's history you are likely to discover more about mistakes, erroneous hypothesis and how blinded people can become by what they think.

Keep in mind it was once widely believed that the change in color of the peppered moth was due to where it rested (On tree trunks) and how well camouflaged it was against it's background. fine example of natural selection with predation being the selection mechanism. The problem that was demonstrated later was that the moths do not rest on the trunks of trees. in fact they know little to this day about where it does rest.

It is an example of how already existing genetics can be favored in one region over another. There is no mutation involved. there is in fact no change in the organism at all. all moths always have and always will produce both lighter and darker offspring. There is no evolution only favoritism. 

The history of the peppered moth research is a reminder of how strongly people see what they look for. Kettlewell's field experiments showed that birds feed on moths released onto tree trunks preferentially by degree of camouflage. Since the moths are not normally found on lower tree trunks during the day, this experiment created, as all experiments do, an artificial situation and then appeared to prove a hypothesis. Some evolutionary scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould are highly critical of the unwillingness of researchers to consider alternative concepts. If Kettlewell had not been so convinced of the truth of bird predation, he might have been more willing to question his results. When scientists have an uncritical acceptance of a certain theory there is a real danger of seeing what one believes and turning science into dogma. Dogmatic knowledge, teaching what is only an opinion as absolute fact, is the antithesis of science's basic tenet of observation and questioning.

Biologist Craig Holdrege believes that instead of using experiments as a way of proving or disproving an idea, scientists could come to see them as a way of interacting with phenomena.

In the case of many of the issues in this group. You can treat or not treat all you want. but you only see an advantage because you desire to see an advantage. Science would not treat and simply record the results with no claim as to weather it was beneficial or not.


----------



## MJuric (Jul 12, 2010)

*Whether the mutation occurred just before, just after, or during the time people were moving out of Africa, in any case, the Black people stayed, the White people left.*

Actually I think the general consensus is not that mutations cause a person to avoid an environment, rather a mutation causes one to flourish in an environment. 

The idea that primitive man realized that they would not get sun burned in a cooler climate and that darker skin helped then deal with higher temps seems like a stretch to me. In all reality what likely happened is that those with darker skin flourished in hotter temps, thus their genes were carried on. The forces that drove people out of Africa was likely not skin color but rather something closer to looking for additional food or simple curiosity. 

At the point that cooler climates were reached then those with lighter skin found they had advantages over those with darker skin so that mutation became dominate. 

I think the idea that mutations are "All bad" is simply a bit mistaken and based on the idea that all mutations are both dominate and or cause negative effect. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most mutations tend to not even come to light until such a time that the environment exposes them. I.E. you might be the worlds best Tennis player because of some odd muscular mutation that in general life had no impact on you. This mutation would not force you to go looking for a game of tennis, nor would it cause some negative effect on your life. However if you happened to play tennis the same way that our European ancestors happened to end up in Europe, then you would dominate. You would likely marry some other tennis player and Voila!, dominate tennis player genes are passed on. 

Clearly there are dangerous mutations, but as you said most mutations are "Junk" mutations and the vast majority of those have not been exposed as to what effect they may or may not have.

So "Light skin" did not, IMO, cause people to leave warmer climates, rather light skin was a beneficial mutation that became dominate in cooler climates. I suspect this can rather easily be proven by following various genetic markers. To my knowledge there has been no large white groups of genes found in early primal Africa that suddenly decided to go find some place cooler, those traits did not show up until later.

~Matt


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

And then there is Insect Genetics. Much more complicated than Mammal Genetics, especially when a Queen Honey Bee mates w/ umpteen different Drones.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

The only issue I see in this thread is a lot of talk on selecting for traits but no actual proof of doing so. Phenotypical selection is one thing but actual genotype change in a population of bees is unproven for most of us at this point. For all we know we're selecting for differential expression for the exact same fixed genes in our poor inbred bees.... Basing your entire stocks on a few survivors may seem like a good idea but in general is not good husbandry.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Wow some good food for thought in those posts! 

Mjuric I take your points completely. When I said "the Black people stayed, the White people left", I wasn't really talking so much about the exact mechanisms involved, more the effect of the mutation, being that the end result is that's how it ended up. Had I known the furore that would have come from this perhaps I would have discussed more thoroughly LOL. Your analysis that once the mutation occurred, the mechanism involved was selection to the favoured in various locations is quite feasible. I wasn't there though so I don't know. 

JRG13 great points also, that we should be considering.

Daniel that was very interesting. I'd always taken that peppered moth study / experiment, or whatever it was, at face value. Now I discover it was a set up. Very surprised, as it has commonly been held up as one of the famous examples of natural selection in our time.

Probably because it was so "logical", or seemed to make "sense".

I see exactly the same thing with some bee related studies, particularly in regards to some of the small cell studies, and other studies attempting to prove a link between neonicitinoid insecticides and CCD. How does feeding neonicitinoid poison to some isolated bees caged in a lab, prove neonicitiniods cause CCD for example. I think it might say more about a bias on the part of whoever designed the experiment.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

JRG13 said:


> Basing your entire stocks on a few survivors may seem like a good idea but in general is not good husbandry.


Assuming some sort of closed breeding area, you would be right. In my case, I have quite a few bees around, ferals, kept, etc. I'd like to say I'm concerned about inbreeding but it doesn't seem to be a problem, unless there's something just amazing about my drones which I cannot rule out.

While there may be some case to be made for changes in genotype, my argument has been based on epigenetics, which could use more discussion.

There is a certain roll of the dice, umpteen drones as Mark says. The right traits need to be expressed in the right proportion of the population for things to work. What role does changing the genotype or fixing genes play? That's a good question. I'm arguing for a continual winnowing, not necessarily a final fixed product.


----------



## MJuric (Jul 12, 2010)

*Your analysis that once the mutation occurred, the mechanism involved was selection to the favoured in various locations is quite feasible. I wasn't there though so I don't know.*

It is my understanding, and I'm certainly not a geneticist or evolutionary biologist, but I believe that is the general thought as to how evolution happens. Mutations don't drive the change they merely are pre-existing and offer some advantage in some new environment. Simple example is that you throw a bunch of snaggle-dorfer-dinglebats into a lake, the ones that just happen to have the "Mutation" that allows them to swim will survive, the ones that don't...well they sink 

Similar with any mutation, most of which never show up or have any beneficial effect in the current environment. 

Another example. Poison Ivy seems to grow much better with higher CO2 concentrations. Assuming these concentrations go up over the next hundred years or so we will likely have more poison ivy. Which humans will likely be more successful, those highly allergic or those not at all? While we may be somewhat immune in our current "advanced" state, a million years ago the hunter that ended up getting full of rashes is not likely going to be as productive as the one that is not and thus less likely to survive. Sans the poison ivy however the genetic mutation still exists, just that no one knows about it. 

~Matt


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Good points Sol, I forgot to mention diversity of drones playing a role as well, I believe queens who mate diversely have an advantage but like you say, you need the right proportions as well. Fixing genes/expression levels is a tool for breeding, that's the usefulness there. Obviously most of us will never genotype our bees so we have to rely on phenotypical observations which in general is sound but can only take you so far or for so many generations before losing a trait from random selections/mating events.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Amen to that. There have been several times in my life when I thought I had the ultimate bee, bred from it profusely, but ended up losing it.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Never think you have the tiger by the tail until it is dead. Be thankful for the carma that comes your way ... maybe you deserved it.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> The Peppered Moth is most likely one of the best known cases of study in regard to changes in color. But if you actually follow it's history you are likely to discover more about mistakes, erroneous hypothesis and how blinded people can become by what they think.


Before it becomes a BeeSource Established Fact, could we dwell here a little longer while I ask for some detail of this alleged reversal of the scientific understanding that the peppered moth population darkened in response to selective predation due to changes in background colour?

That is what is being challenged, right?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> And then there is Insect Genetics. Much more complicated than Mammal Genetics, especially when a Queen Honey Bee mates w/ umpteen different Drones.


Which is one of the reasons why it is infinititely more revealing and useful to talk about the processes of winnowing - and the selection mechanisms. Winnowing works. (Sure don't over-winnow and cause inbreeding problems - but that's probably never a danger with the multi-mating/open mating Honeybee.) How to find the best in each generation to make increase from - that's important. How to ensure that the best get represented on the male side as well - that's important. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

MJuric said:


> It is my understanding, and I'm certainly not a geneticist or evolutionary biologist, but I believe that is the general thought as to how evolution happens. Mutations don't drive the change they merely are pre-existing and offer some advantage in some new environment. Simple example is that you throw a bunch of snaggle-dorfer-dinglebats into a lake, the ones that just happen to have the "Mutation" that allows them to swim will survive, the ones that don't...well they sink
> 
> Similar with any mutation, most of which never show up or have any beneficial effect in the current environment.


I'm no expert either, but I suspect that if you look hard enough you'll find that we're built from blueprints, every single part of which originated in a mutation. The only issue is: can natural selection make use of it? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

http://natureinstitute.org/txt/ch/moth.htm


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> http://natureinstitute.org/txt/ch/moth.htm


This is a single revisionist viewpoint that is being propagated by creationists. The author basis his critique on the following move:

"Kettlewell brings results of the mark-release-recapture experiments together with those of the bird predation experiments and concludes: "the effects of natural selection on industrial melanics for crypsis in such areas can no longer be disputed," and "birds act as selective agents as postulated by evolutionary theory" (Kettlewell 1956, pp. 341f.). 

Kettlewell believed his experiments prove that the evolution of the peppered moth is caused by selective predation by birds. But how compelling is this conclusion? Consider, for example, the results of his aviary experiments. He observed that the two birds were much quicker at taking moths after they had had experience in doing so. They found the camouflaged moths as well. If one takes this experimental evidence and imagines it transferred into a natural habitat, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that as the dark peppered moth began to initially spread (for some unknown reason), the birds might have begun to recognize them as well? This conclusion is just as sound, but also just as speculative, as Kettlewell's, which states that since the birds feed on the conspicuous (light) form first, its numbers have decreased while the dark form has increased its numbers. "

Can you see the flaw there? Try following the logic closely. See how the author label's Kettlewell's expert view 'speculation', adds his own inane speculation, then equates the two.

From here the author leaps to deep philosophical critiques of scientific methodology made by respected philosophers of science - as if they supported his view. They certainly wouldn't. 

As far as I can see the changes in the peppered moth remain a valid illustration of the natural selection for the fittest strains.

For information about evolution I'd stick with well named orthodox sources. There are many people out there with axes to grind, who have evolved superb disguises. Fortunately they struggle, still, to have their views published within the university system. Stick with that.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Now how did I know you would say something like that LOL 

That was just one reference of many that a google search can find. If your concern is that this is creationist literature, (I didn't see anything about that), check out the work of Stephen Jay Gould, who would concur with the rationale of the article, and was not a creationist, in fact, he was a creationist basher.

And importantly, I'm not arguing with you Mike I have no fixed opinion on this matter. You asked for a link so I have provided some material. Just, Daniel gave information I was not aware of, I am taking an open minded approach. You asked for a link, I have provided some material.

If you search Beesource you will see that I discussed the peppered moth as an example, a long time ago. So I have an interest in it. However looks like it may have been an overly simplistic example.


----------



## j.kuder (Dec 5, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> I've heard it mentioned more than once before:
> 
> "These queens are treatment free. They will thrive without treatments. But if you do treat, you'll destroy the genetics and they'll never be able to be treatment free again."
> 
> ...


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

j.kuder said:


> Specialkayme said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard it mentioned more than once before:
> ...


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

j.kuder said:


> maybe this might be what was heard
> ABJ july newsletter
> Insecticide Causes Changes in
> 
> ...


It wasn't. Thanks for that though.

*Also from S. Jersey.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

cg3 said:


> At the risk of exposing my ignorance, it is known that humans in defoliated areas of VietNam suffered genetic changes as evidenced by several generations of birth defects. How that relates to treatments for bees, I don't know.
> As to Lauri's statement, I have personal experience in ugly women being changed into models after the application of alcohol.


But not genetic changes in the people who were sprayed (or "treated" in the context of this thread). What you are describing is teratogenic effects that occur in the off-spring.


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> teratogenic effects


Meaning the developing fetus was exposed from the environment?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Indirectly by the mother being exposed.


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

cg3 said:


> At the risk of exposing my ignorance,


I stand corrected. Seems there were other non-genetic problems, too.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> I was working with the notion that more rolls of the dice is more opportunities for resistance to come forward.


More rolls of the dice will give you more opportunities to get everything. It will give you more chances to get a resistant stock, it will get you more chances to get a treatment dependent stock, it will even give you more chances to get a bee with 6 asses.

But in the end, it just broadens the impact your bees have on the mating pool, for good or for bad, for better or for worse. If you think you have resistant stock, but it hasn't been properly tested for and ends up it isn't, you could be flooding the area with non-resistant genetics. The better bet would be to start with 10x the number of hives (rather than take one hive and multiply it by 10), keep their numbers as close to the same as possible, evaluate each hive over successive years, and each year eliminate those that you know don't fit your criteria with a broad range of genetics from the other hives that _may_ meet your criteria. 



mike bispham said:


> Rapid increase of the best, large numbers of drones fom the best. Proactive.


And I would have to disagree for the exact reasons set forth above.

People often talk about it taking 3-5 years to fully evaluate if a strain is mite resistant (I'm not eliminating this conversation just to that, it's an example). So you go treatment free for two years, scream success, only to have the hive crash from mites in year 3. This isn't a new topic or conversation. If in year two you scream success, breed aggressively and split rapidly from this hive, but in year 4 it crashes, now you lost everything.

I don't consider that proactive. I consider that gambling. 



mike bispham said:


> With this approach you have to lose colonies all the time to make room for the new.


Why? Why does growth and progression have to equal removal of colonies? Why do you have to "make room" at all?

From a breeding and genetic stand point, you want to remove stock that is not performing from the mating pool. Agreed. But that doesn't require the death of the hive. If treatments have zero effect on the genetics of the hive, why do you have to kill the hive to eliminate it's genetics? Why not treat, knock the mites down, re-queen and keep the colony?

By keeping the colony and requeening, rather than "making room" you are even getting more rolls of the dice than by allowing it to die. For good or for bad.



mike bispham said:


> And I stand by the point: varroa isn't everything. You can have good mite resistant bees that still don't thrive for all sorts of reasons. I want a test that separates winners from losers on the basis of general vigour and adaptedness to my local climate and environment. I want bees that survive, and thrive, without my help.


Your goal flies in the face of all current controlled breeding and selection programs.

In order to properly breed for characteristics, you have to focus on one at a time. When you get that one characteristic bred for, you can then maintain that characteristic and begin to select for a second one. If you attempt to select for multiple characteristics, you'll end up never accomplishing anything.

Let's say that you have a black bee, that averages 20 lbs of honey a year surplus, is aggressive, disease ridden, and not a heavy layer. If you wanted a yellow bee, that averages 100 lbs of honey a year surplus, is passive, disease resistant, a heavy layer, and you can't import stock (theoretically), how would you do it? Would you multiply that hive over, and over, and over again until you found a hive that satisfies all of your characteristics? For each one that doesn't, would you kill them? To remove their genetics from the hive? Enough rolls of the dice, and you'll find that hive you want. It might take 10,000,000,000 rolls, but you'll get there. Why will it take you so long? Because you aren't selecting for one thing. You are selecting for 5 things at the same time. If instead you selected for yellow bees only, it might take you a few generations to get there. Once accomplished, you bred for the post passive. When you have a yellow passive bee, you breed for honey surplus increase, ect. Now you can accomplish your goal.

This is the basis of any honey bee breeding project. Even resistant commercial stocks use progressive genetics and select for one type of resistance at a time. Not everything. That's what Brother Adam did.

To say I want a bee "that is resistant to everything" and "just lives," well, good luck. You are selecting for a million characteristics. You may get hit your goal. Or maybe your kids will. Or maybe 10 generations later will. Who knows. But I'd bet it won't happen in your life time.



mike bispham said:


> My goal is non-treatment beekeeping


Why?

This isn't a snide comment. It's a sincere question. Why is that your goal? Is it because you think it's morally wrong to treat bees? Is it because you believe bees can be healthier without treatments? Do you think it's because the more natural you can get (beekeeping wise) the happier you'll be, or the happier the bees will be? Or do you think non-treatment is the fastest and best way to accomplish what you want out of beekeeping?



mike bispham said:


> , and I think I have to work fast to make best use of the best assets I have.


I just hope you don't lose it all. Literally. I went treatment free for years. I think it was five. Then I lost everything in one season. From over 20 to 0 in 3 months. Not everyone that goes the TF route ends like I did. But more end up with less hives than end up with more. Food for thought.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Right. The birth defects had nothing to do with altering genes. 

However genes do come into play in that if the mother/developing fetus had genes which predisposed themselves to birth defects when sprayed with agent orange, then defects would occur.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> More rolls of the dice will give you more opportunities to get everything. It will give you more chances to get a resistant stock, it will get you more chances to get a treatment dependent stock, it will even give you more chances to get a bee with 6 asses.


I agree



Specialkayme said:


> But in the end, it just broadens the impact your bees have on the mating pool, for good or for bad, for better or for worse. If you think you have resistant stock, but it hasn't been properly tested for and ends up it isn't, you could be flooding the area with non-resistant genetics.


Agree again.



Specialkayme said:


> The better bet would be to start with 10x the number of hives (rather than take one hive and multiply it by 10), keep their numbers as close to the same as possible, evaluate each hive over successive years, and each year eliminate those that you know don't fit your criteria with a broad range of genetics from the other hives that _may_ meet your criteria.]


If you already have lots of hives, I might agree (though I'd be wanting a mating yard away from them.)

In my case my own bees, and incoming swarms and cutouts from longstanding wild/feral colonies, represent by far the likeliest lines carrying resistance that I can get my hands on. So multiplying my own makes sense, according you your thinking (and mine). The same goes for raising drone numbers. I have a small commercial apiary on one side, known survivors on the other. I think my best chances for resistant genes via the male side come from my own drones.

There isn't a narrowing problem - I'm the UK where we have richly diverse bees, and my own bees come from a variety of localities within a radius of around 30 miles.

Given then that I have probably the highest concentration of the best bees around in mite management terms, with a broad genetic base, the best chance of getting more resistant bees is to make strong increase, then winnow off the less capable. And, within limits, the more I do that, the better my chances are of getting outstanding lines, and working them into local bloodlines that I can defend.



Specialkayme said:


> And I would have to disagree for the exact reasons set forth above.


For those reasons, in my case, and others similar to mine, I disagree.



Specialkayme said:


> People often talk about it taking 3-5 years to fully evaluate if a strain is mite resistant (I'm not eliminating this conversation just to that, it's an example). So you go treatment free for two years, scream success, only to have the hive crash from mites in year 3.


I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but I think a sytematic approach like mine is among the best to maximise the chances of it not happening. (Thriving local ferals another) For one thing we're not talking about a 'strain' but a collection of diverse bloodlines. If some colonies fail its unlikely to happen to all. Having lots is insurance against losing all.



Specialkayme said:


> This isn't a new topic or conversation. If in year two you scream success, breed aggressively and split rapidly from this hive, but in year 4 it crashes, now you lost everything.


Agreed: so bring in a diversity of likely resistant bees, mix em up and keep winnowing out the weaker - that includes any sort of assays you feel give a true reading of mite capabilities. Build numbers in the knowledge that the more you, the better your chances of getting survivors to work with every spring. 



Specialkayme said:


> I don't consider that proactive. I consider that gambling.


Breeding is always a game of chance - the trick is to load the cards in your favour, and be able to walk away from losing tricks without having to regret the loss. You'd planned losses in. 



Specialkayme said:


> Why? Why does growth and progression have to equal removal of colonies? Why do you have to "make room" at all?


Because some will die - you're not treating them remember! Some will be born weak - runts. And... because that the way nature works, and how livestock husbandry works. 'Over-fecundity' plus winnowing of the weaker (death in nature, market in husbandry) constantly brings the stronger genes forward in the next generation at the expense of the weaker. That's the process.



Specialkayme said:


> From a breeding and genetic stand point, you want to remove stock that is not performing from the mating pool. Agreed. But that doesn't require the death of the hive.


Sure. We're talking about terminating the individual combination that didn't perform in that case is all - the workers can live on under the new bloodline. 



Specialkayme said:


> If treatments have zero effect on the genetics of the hive, why do you have to kill the hive to eliminate it's genetics? Why not treat, knock the mites down, re-queen and keep the colony?


Yes, fine by me. 



Specialkayme said:


> By keeping the colony and requeening, rather than "making room" you are even getting more rolls of the dice than by allowing it to die. For good or for bad.


No, you _are_ 'making room' - you've made room for a new queen, which you hope will have better genes. But you're not making _as much_ room as you would be if you did that and expanded, and did it again. 

And, importantly, just 10 colonies, even if they're top-notch resistant, may not be enough to hold off the backsliding due to treatment-maintained drones. You've got to try to take control of your mating airspace - to a sufficient degree. Numbers of colonies matter (drone population sizes matter too) , and... the more the better (as long as - as you say - they really are better than the local average)



Specialkayme said:


> Your goal flies in the face of all current controlled breeding and selection programs.


No it doesn't - at all. Breeding has always worked to raise the required traits in the next generation. 



Specialkayme said:


> In order to properly breed for characteristics, you have to focus on one at a time. When you get that one characteristic bred for...


The one characterisic I'm focussing on is ability to thrive despite the presence of varroa in the environment. That's in accordance with your specification. And that is a frequent breeding aim - to prosper in the face of a new micro-organism or parasite.



Specialkayme said:


> .. you can then maintain that characteristic and begin to select for a second one.


In open mating honeybees, unless you are inseminating artificially its unlikely you'll 'fix' any genes. What you can do is raise the numbers of bees around that carry them - and that raises the probability that any new (open mating) bees will also carry them.

You can only 'fix' genes in a closed population. Just as soon as your bees are exposed to alternative allelles they'll start to drop them. That's why the _process_ must be embedded in management. There is no 'super bee - you have to keep winnowing out the backsliders.



Specialkayme said:


> If you attempt to select for multiple characteristics, you'll end up never accomplishing anything."


All breeding presses deliberately toward several things simultaniously. Good general health and vitality, first, propensity to pass on those qualities, second, specific desired traits, third. When picking out a new breeding boar a pig farmer will look for all these things, and others known to be desirable to the breed. Every time. Systematically. The same with breeding sows. 



Specialkayme said:


> Let's say that you have a black bee, that averages 20 lbs of honey a year surplus, is aggressive, disease ridden, and not a heavy layer. If you wanted a yellow bee, that averages 100 lbs of honey a year surplus, is passive, disease resistant, a heavy layer, and you can't import stock (theoretically), how would you do it? Would you multiply that hive over, and over, and over again until you found a hive that satisfies all of your characteristics?


(Accepting your scenario only for the sake of argument) Yes and no. Like the pig farmer you'd weigh up all the traits and qualities you were seeking and look for the breeding stock that best satisfies them. 



Specialkayme said:


> For each one that doesn't, would you kill them? To remove their genetics from the hive?


You send them to market! That's what farming _is_! The animals that go to market have their individual bloodline terminated! But you keep those that perform best, and make increase from them. Sell your duffers if you want to. Just move 'em out - of your breeding pool.



Specialkayme said:


> Enough rolls of the dice, and you'll find that hive you want. It might take 10,000,000,000 rolls, but you'll get there. Why will it take you so long? Because you aren't selecting for one thing. You are selecting for 5 things at the same time. If instead you selected for yellow bees only, it might take you a few generations to get there. Once accomplished, you bred for the post passive.


I think your breeding modelling is based on specialist breeding techniques in closed populations. If you can do that (and you think there are no drawbacks, or you can eliminate them), fine, go ahead, take the one step at a time route, and as you say you'll probably get what you want quicker. But remember, as soon as your bees gets out into the real world, her fantastic qualities will start to degrade in the very next generation. You'll be able to supply your superbee to beekeepers on an ongoing basis, but the're owners will have to work to keep their qualities in sight. 

That's the big point: if you want to work toward raising resistance in your own bees, you have to have a system that winnows out backsliding faster than the backsliding occurs. Permanantly. Its called (population) husbandry.



Specialkayme said:


> his is the basis of any honey bee breeding project. Even resistant commercial stocks use progressive genetics and select for one type of resistance at a time. Not everything. That's what Brother Adam did.


I disagree. As above, all breeders evaluate a range of qualities. Different breeders have different portfolios of desired traits. And the balance of criteria might shift as progress is made, or lost, or as new ideas, or new material comes available. 



Specialkayme said:


> To say I want a bee "that is resistant to everything" and "just lives," well, good luck. You are selecting for a million characteristics.


That's right. That's what nature does - that's why we have animals and plants - because it works. And its why when you don't do it, sickness inevitably results. 

Because natures method is _necessary_. 

That's what husbandrymen have done for thousands of years. That's why we are able to keep livestock, and shape it to serve our needs. Do you think the ancient Mesopotaminas stood around saying, well this bull keeps falling over, but he has small horns, and I like the idea of small horns, so I'll use him until he can't get up any more? 



Specialkayme said:


> You may get hit your goal.


The goal is incremental improvement. People are doing it. 



Specialkayme said:


> Or maybe your kids will. Or maybe 10 generations later will. Who knows. But I'd bet it won't happen in your life time.


Set me out some criteria and I may take you up on that bet.



Specialkayme said:


> This isn't a snide comment. It's a sincere question. Why is that your goal? Is it because you think it's morally wrong to treat bees? Is it because you believe bees can be healthier without treatments? Do you think it's because the more natural you can get (beekeeping wise) the happier you'll be, or the happier the bees will be? Or do you think non-treatment is the fastest and best way to accomplish what you want out of beekeeping?


Among lots of reasons: 

I think being addicted to heroin, or sleeping pills, or painkillers or antibiotics is a worse state than not being addicted. The same is true of honeybee populations addicted to treatments.

In Europe the honeybee is an important member of our natural ecology. It servs a function. Treatment-addiction tends to remove wild bees, damaging the ecology. The same thing reduces genetic diversity - of our honeybees and those native plants that benefit from them - and on - the native species that use them.

I grew up and began beekeeping in a world where wild bees lived in profusion. Varroa decimated them; treatments are maintaining and deepening that damage.

I just hate the idea that an insect that has been wild and undomesticated till know, able to live freely in the wild, has been domesticated, corralled. I don't think we have the moral right to do that - the species belongs to humankind, now and in the future, not to the miniscule proportion that is present day beekeepers. 

A large part of the reason we treat is because we're under the spell of the narrative constantly propagated by the treatment manufactures and their supply chains - that there is no alternative. That isn't true - its just one of many many big fat corporate lies. There is an alternative, and there is no good reason not to move toward it, and many benefits from doing so. I hate seeing people manipulated by lies in order to line the pockets of vast corporations. 



Specialkayme said:


> I just hope you don't lose it all. Literally. I went treatment free for years. I think it was five. Then I lost everything in one season. From over 20 to 0 in 3 months. Not everyone that goes the TF route ends like I did. But more end up with less hives than end up with more. Food for thought.


That was grim. Maybe my material is better than yours. Maybe I'll find a better way to assay. Maybe I'll have a better drone environment - or be able to make one - than you had. Maybe my way (rapid overfecundity + willowing) will prove to be more successful. We'll see. I'm optimistic. I'll take your money!

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Nabber86 said:


> Right. The birth defects had nothing to do with altering genes.
> 
> However genes do come into play in that if the mother/developing fetus had genes which predisposed themselves to birth defects when sprayed with agent orange, then defects would occur.


I'm modifying my position - foetal damage hadn't been part of my thinking. Damage to eggs and sperm-making equipment won't (I would think) cause genetic changes in the queen, but may well have impacts down the line. 

However, given the sorts of things the agri-chemical industry gets up to these days, I suppose its only a matter of time before they start causing deliberate immediate genetic damage in insects. If it isn't happening already. 

A good question.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> However, given the sorts of things the agri-chemical industry gets up to these days, I suppose its only a matter of time before they start causing deliberate immediate genetic damage in insects. If it isn't happening already.


Why so pessimistic? It’s only a matter of time before cures for cancer and AIDS are achieved through genetic research.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Nabber86 said:


> Why so pessimistic? It’s only a matter of time before cures for cancer and AIDS are achieved through genetic research.


Corporations are money-seeking machines. They're in the busines of 'increasing shareholder value', not making the world a better place to live. They'll research whatever area holds promise of profit, and will push hard against anything that gets in the way. Sometimes they end up doing net good, sometimes net bad. Apart from any negative publicity, they're pretty much indifferent to which it is. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Platitude much, do you?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Nabber86 said:


> Platitude much, do you?


You'll have to regrammerize that for me.

Mike (UK)


----------



## MJuric (Jul 12, 2010)

At the risk of completely running this thread off the rails...

*They're in the busines of 'increasing shareholder value', not making the world a better place to live.*

By default isn't increasing a persons personal wealth making that individuals world a "Better place to live"?

*They'll research whatever area holds promise of profit, and will push hard against anything that gets in the way. *

Why is this bad, is this not the same approach that any individual takes in life? Do you as an individual seek out those things that will get you no gain or cause you a "loss of profit" and head in that direction?

* Sometimes they end up doing net good, sometimes net bad. Apart from any negative publicity, they're pretty much indifferent to which it is. *

I think for the most part, IMO, people tend to define "Net good" way to narrowly. As above share holders having their pensions increased in size, something that even in todays relatively un invested society effects over 50% of the population, is a "Good" thing. We seem to want the best of both worlds, a company that causes no negatives and all positives. Unfortunately the world simply does not typically work that way. For every action there is a reaction, some of those reactions are seen as "Negative" to some.

Furthermore I think the assumption that "Evil corporations" don't care is one that has simply been drummed into people. Corporations are made up of people like you and me. To say "They don't care" is to say that you and I don't care. Just like the individual, sure, some don't care. These are the people that will throw trash out the window of their car and dump their used chemicals anywhere they want. When these people run a corp, the corp then takes a non caring direction. However if a corporation is run by a person(s) that do care, the corp will take that direction. 

~Matt


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Corporations are money-seeking machines. They're in the busines of 'increasing shareholder value', not making the world a better place to live.


A comment that adds no value and is best left in the tailgater section.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> You'll have to regrammerize that for me.
> 
> Mike (UK)


As opposed to original thought, do you often post _trite, meaningless, biased, or prosaic statements, often presented as if they are significant and original, but are really unoriginal and shallow?_


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> In my case my own bees, and incoming swarms and cutouts from longstanding wild/feral colonies, represent by far the likeliest lines carrying resistance that I can get my hands on. . . . I have a small commercial apiary on one side, known survivors on the other.


So . . . the swarms you catch are the answers . . . and the commercial apiaries around you treat and are not the answers . . . how do you know where the swarms come from? How do you know the population of your DCA's? How do you know if they are populated more with drones from your commercial neighbor or the "ferals"?



mike bispham said:


> Given then that I have probably the highest concentration of the best bees around in mite management terms


Lol. You make me laugh Mike. 

Yeah, you're probably right. You live in the mecca of treatment free living. The perfect environment of the best bees around in mite management terms. That's probably why there are so many treatment free beekeepers thriving around you.

Those that think they are perfect or special, rarely are.



mike bispham said:


> Because some will die - you're not treating them remember! Some will be born weak - runts. And... because that the way nature works, and how livestock husbandry works. 'Over-fecundity' plus winnowing of the weaker (death in nature, market in husbandry) constantly brings the stronger genes forward in the next generation at the expense of the weaker. That's the process.


I remember what happened when I didn't treat. yes.

I don't know how to ask you the same question, over and over, in different ways, in order to get my point across to you. You are convinced that loss = progress. I'm not. So I guess I'll just leave it as agree to disagree.



mike bispham said:


> You've got to try to take control of your mating airspace - to a sufficient degree. Numbers of colonies matter (drone population sizes matter too) , and... the more the better (as long as - as you say - they really are better than the local average)


And how are you doing that? With the commercial apiary next to you.



mike bispham said:


> The one characterisic I'm focussing on is ability to thrive despite the presence of varroa in the environment.


"living" is not a characteristic. "Living" or "thriving" is not the presence of a particular gene. "living" or "thriving" is the result of an expression of multiple characteristics, which is the combination of specific genes. You can't select for "living" without selecting for multiple characteristics. You can't select for a certain characteristic without selecting for specific genes.



mike bispham said:


> In open mating honeybees, unless you are inseminating artificially its unlikely you'll 'fix' any genes.


Who said I was fixing any genes? I never said that. I said you _maintain_ that characteristic and move on to another. _Maintain_ and fix are miles apart my friend, especially in beekeeping terms. Maintaining requires constant retweeking. 



mike bispham said:


> When picking out a new breeding boar a pig farmer will look for all these things, and others known to be desirable to the breed. Every time. Systematically. The same with breeding sows.


Bees aren't pigs. Bees aren't sows. 

Pigs don't mate with multiple queens. Pigs don't produce sons that are genetic duplicates of their mothers. The genetics of pig raising and bee breeding couldn't be further apart. Mendel attempted to understand genetics from honeybees first, and failed to grasp it. Eventually he moved on to peas and figured it out. Why? Because the genetics of bees is significantly more complicated than the genetics of most other animals and plants.



mike bispham said:


> That's what nature does - that's why we have animals and plants - because it works.
> 
> Because natures method is _necessary_.


And natures method takes thousands, hundreds of thousands, sometimes even millions of years to adapt to some rather minor changes. You don't have that time. So I'd suggest that you don't model your approach directly after nature. While much more effective than anything you can accomplish in your lifetime, it takes significantly longer.



mike bispham said:


> Set me out some criteria and I may take you up on that bet.


A stock that "survives" "thrives" and "lives" without assistance or treatments. Alright, let's go:
Set up a yard consisting of however many colonies you like and maintain a stock that is:
1. Gentle (doesn't provide more than 3 stings in a 45 min inspection at any point in the previous 3 years)
2. Good honey producer (equal to or greater than the regional average, regional defined however it is in the UK, every year for the previous 4 years)
3. Mite resistance (no known mite related deaths in the previous 5 years from that existing yard, plus no greater than a 2% mite infestation rate, at any point in time, in any hive)
4. Tracheal mite resistance (no known mite related deaths in the previous 5 years from that existing yard)
5. AFB resistance (no known AHB infection in the previous 5 years from any hive in the existing yard)
6. EFB resistance (no known EFB symptoms in the previous 5 years from any hive in the existing yard)
7. Chalk Brood resistance (no known chalk brood symptioms in the previous 5 years from any hive in the existing yard)
8. SHB resistance/aggression (no known failures from SHB related issues of any hive in the previous 5 years in the existing yard, plus no greater than 20 SHB found in any one hive)
9. Tropilalaps resistance (no known mite related deaths in the previous 5 years from that existing yard, plus no greater than a 2% mite infestation rate, at any point in time, in any hive)
10. Nosema resistance (both known kinds, plus any new kinds) (no known failures from nosema in the previous 5 years from any hive in the existing yard, plus no greater than 2 million spore count in any bee, from any hive, at any point in time)
11. Zero feeding requirement (not one drop of feed required, or given, to any hive in the existing yard for the previous 5 years)
12. Wax Moths resistance (have no frame destroyed or webbed from wax moths to the point that it is unuseable in the previous 5 years)
13. No adding of any colonies to the yard at any point in the previous 10 years. You can split as much as you want in that yard, and remove anything you want. But once removed, it's off limits. And you can't bring any new queens, nucs, packages, swarms, or hives into the yard, as these would prove the survivability of the stock brought in, not of the stock in that yard (yours).

If you don't satisfy any one of these, you don't really have "survivor" stock, now do you.

In order to validate this, have an inspector come in and test your yard at least twice a year. The inspector has to be independent, preferably employed by the state (I don't know how things go in the UK). And document every part of the requirements, uploading the findings within one month of inspection to a website for public view.

If you can accomplish this in your life time, you can name your price. Literally. But you have to leave to me (or my assigns, should you accomplish it after I die), in your will, a copy provided to me for verification, everything you own, or an amount equal to your price.

That's a bet I would take 8 days a week.


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

:banana:


mike bispham said:


> You'll have to regrammerize that for me.
> 
> Mike (UK)


speling trumps grammar


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialchamy, if you'd like to repost that reply on a new thread I'll respond. Transfer our whole discussion if you want - I'm sure its not appreciated here. 

I don't want to discuss the corporations stuff any more. My opinion, I'm not alone in holding it. Commie Brits, eh?

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

MJuric said:


> At the risk of completely running this thread off the rails... ~Matt


I wish someone would. But, in 144 characters or less please.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Nabber86 said:


> As opposed to original thought, do you often post _trite, meaningless, biased, or prosaic statements, often presented as if they are significant and original, but are really unoriginal and shallow?_


No. Do you often respond ad hominem? Please don't answer that; its rhetorical and off-topic to boot. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## MJuric (Jul 12, 2010)

*I wish someone would. But, in 144 characters or less please. *

I could probably throw out abortion, religion and legalizing drugs and that should do it 

~Matt


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Was my post really off topic? I thought it was fine (especially compared to others). It covers treatments and genetics (and bees). Which is the essential topic of this thread.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> No. Do you often respond ad homenem? Please don't answer that; its rhetorical and off-topic to boot.
> 
> Mike (UK)


No ad hom from me. That was the difinition that I got off of Wiki and it applies perfectly to your quote.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> No. Do you often respond ad homenem?


Do you?



mike bispham said:


> Specialchamy


The intentional mis spelling of someone's name is an ad hominem attack, and is considered abuse under the forum rules. 

Let's quit calling out others for things we do ourselves. :no:

.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> I'm modifying my position - foetal damage hadn't been part of my thinking. Damage to eggs and sperm-making equipment won't (I would think) cause genetic changes in the queen, but may well have impacts down the line.


OK well that clears that up.

Mike has now changed his position on the matter, making the previous arguments he has presented on the subject irrelevant.

I will congratulate you Mike for manning up and actually being prepared to change a position, you have my respect for that. It also kind of wraps up the subject of the thread, being no, treating a treatment free queen does not destroy the queens genetics. A study that has been presented shows temporary changes in reaction to certain stressors that have to be dealt with, but they are not permanent through many generations.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> Was my post really off topic? I thought it was fine (especially compared to others). It covers treatments and genetics (and bees). Which is the essential topic of this thread.


I thought the topic was narrow - and others agree we've swamped it, so no more here. We could pick up the discussion on a thread that would be suitable: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ttner-on-the-importance-of-ruthless-selection

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> I will congratulate you Mike for manning up and actually being prepared to change a position, you have my respect for that.


As I understand things the development of knowledge entails the continuous evaluation and assimilating of new information. I often change my mind, or hedge my bets. Its just - and I don't mean to be rude here, I'm just doing plain English - nothing you've said has caused that to happen - yet. I will tell you if and when it does - and probably thank you too.



Oldtimer said:


> It also kind of wraps up the subject of the thread, being no, treating a treatment free queen does not destroy the queens genetics.


I think we need to be more careful. While it seems unlikely that any approved treatment (thus far) will alter the queen's own genetic make-up, the eggs and sperm she carries are infinitely more delicate, and could, in my view, much more easily be damaged, That's 'the queens genetics' not in regard to her make up - but in regard to the make-up of future generations.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> The intentional mis spelling of someone's name is an ad hominem attack, and is considered abuse under the forum rules.


You misread my action, and my motive. I did actually try to copy and paste the name, but Beesource doesn't allow that. So I did it from memory.

Its rude to point it out, I know, but at this point you owe me an apology.

I would apologise, but actually, if you want to make up wierd names you must expect people to make mistakes rendering them. Personally I give a lot more credence to posters who use proper names, especially if I'm given reason to understand they are real. Anyone can say anything under an alias - and as we all know, they certainly do. 

It also makes it harder to be polite easily. I just can't make myself drop in 'Oldtimer' or 'Specialkayme' as I would 'Ray', or 'Paul', in ways that personalise and make for friendlier posts. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> We could pick up the discussion on a thread that would be suitable: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ttner-on-the-importance-of-ruthless-selection


So it's better to revive a 2 year old dead thread than continue the conversation that has unfolded over the past 9 pages here?

I still think it's on topic. Unless I hear from anyone else, you're the only one that thinks its off topic.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Its rude to point it out, I know, but at this point you owe me an apology.


I don't think he does. You spelled my name wrong in what appeared to be an intentional manner. Whether you did or not, no one knows but you. We can't reach into your mind to figure it out. But when you posted it and didn't change it when you later found out it was spelled wrong, we could only be left to assume it was intentional. Pointing it out isn't wrong, and in my opinion no apology is necessary.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> Right. The birth defects had nothing to do with altering genes.
> 
> However genes do come into play in that if the mother/developing fetus had genes which predisposed themselves to birth defects when sprayed with agent orange, then defects would occur.


Damaging genes is not changing them in a genetic since. For example a child born with a mutated arm will then grow up and produce perfectly normal formed children. this is not a change in genetics. It is also an extreme example. In breeding such influences are called the effects of the environment on genetic expression. It is very important to recognize when you are seeing true genetics or you are seeing the result of the environment on the expression of genes.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> I did actually try to copy and paste the name, but _*Beesource doesn't allow that. *_


This is simply not true. You are making unwarranted assumptions again. 

Here is your name copy & pasted 3 times: mike bispham mike bispham mike bispham. I captured the name from Mike's large member name by placing the cursor slightly to the left of the name and double-clicking. My browser is _Chrome_. If you are having difficulty, perhaps you are using an inferior tool, or simply need some more training. In any case, it is not Beesource preventing you from copy 'n pasting.

Another option is to copy 'n paste a member's name by highlighting and copying from within the quote box header, that works also. If you use this method, the name will not be _actively _linked, unless you take additional steps to make it linked.

And finally, I believe that _Specialkayme _is not just a bunch of random letters, but is a name chosen in reference to a _popular _cereal brand, at least available in the USA.
http://www.specialk.com/en_us/home-page.html




​


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Some of us are unfamiliar w/ how to do many things that computers can do. Is there a tutorial section on beesource.com? How to use? How to Post multiple quotes? Things like that?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

FAQ, it's at the top of every page!

http://www.beesource.com/forums/faq.php


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> As I understand things the development of knowledge entails the continuous evaluation and assimilating of new information. I often change my mind, or hedge my bets. Its just - and I don't mean to be rude here, I'm just doing plain English - nothing you've said has caused that to happen - yet. I will tell you if and when it does - and probably thank you too.


As I said Mike, I admire you for publicly changing your mind. No issues there. And I'm quite aware nothing I have ever said, or for that matter ever will say, will change your mind, no issues there either.

But you tried to copy and paste the name but couldn't, then spelled it wrong "accidentally"? Please..... To me, it sounded like the condescending way an adult might address an errant child.

Re posting under your real name, I'll agree, there's good reasons for that. If someone will do it, fine. But there's good reasons not to also. I joined another forum under my real full name, then after some time discovered my name all over the internet, in ways that were worrisome. I contacted the site owner and had my user name changed, and have not made the same mistake again.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> And finally, I believe that _Specialkayme _is not just a bunch of random letters, but is a name chosen in reference to a _popular _cereal brand, at least available in the USA.
> [/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.specialk.com/en_us/home-page.html
> 
> 
> ​


A play on a cereal brand, my name, and the fact that sometimes I can be a little "special." But summed up as a popular cereal brand works too.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> Some of us are unfamiliar w/ how to do many things that computers can do.


As a member of a younger generation, I believe knowledge of how to use computers is encoded into our DNA. Whether that's from extreme cell phone usage (radiation), having older generations handing us electronics and telling us to figure it out (environmental changes), or the need to use it as a form of communication that's socially acceptable to youth in the 21st century (societal pressures, or evolutionary results), I don't know. But I like it


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Specialkayme said:


> As a member of a younger generation, I believe knowledge of how to use computers is encoded into our DNA.


Because your Mother's genes were destroyed by Treatments perhaps?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> How to Post multiple quotes?

The FAQ section referenced by _Barry _offers _sparse _help on multi-quoting. It wasn't illuminating enough for me, so I went looking for more guidance. Here is a link to another forum using _vBulletin _software where the question is answered with tips and examples. 

https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-support/157706-how-use-multi-quote-feature-v-bulletin.html
Note the link above has nothing to do with beekeeping and is offered only as a tip on multi-quoting.

As I understand it, the multi-quoting feature only helps you add quotes from multiple different posts into one reply. If you wish to quote portions of the same post multiple times in one reply, you will still need to copy, paste, edit, repeat in a somewhat manual process. Having two Beesource browser windows open during this process works best for me.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*WHAT?!!* You must be kidding. I can't do that. Maybe I need a teenager sitting beside me.

This is an Ageist Conspiracy. lol


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

The workings of vBulletin are here:
http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html?manualversion=40200603


----------



## VolunteerK9 (Aug 19, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Because your Mother's genes were destroyed by Treatments perhaps?


I dont care who you are, that was funny.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Some of us are unfamiliar w/ how to do many things that computers can do. Is there a tutorial section on beesource.com? How to use? How to Post multiple quotes? Things like that?



Ctrl + C = Copy highlighhted text

Ctrl + V = Paste highlighted text

Ctrl + X = Cut highlighted text


These comands will perform 90 percent of what you need to edit posts.

Also Alt + 230 comes in handy when discussing pesticides


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Actually, no, this is not a straw man argument of any sort.

On the rather obvious level, organic acids and essential oils (both used as miticides by beekeepers) absolutely impact microbial cultures in the hive. Formic acid is what one might use to sterilize a petri dish, and essential oils are what plants use to keep from being eaten by microbes.

The group looking at fungi (which includes Diana Samataro and Jay Yoder) has shown, in addition to acids affecting the fungi, that feeding HFCS does as well (accelerates some, retards others...throws everything out of balance).

Martha Gilliam's early work (in the 70s) documented large changes in the gut microbe population when bees were fed sugar, confined, exposed to 2,4,D, fumagillian and TM.

So, what treatments do you think have no effect on gut/hive microbes?

Point being: these microbial communities are heritable (like genetics), and treatments create impacts that last 20 years or more.

deknow




Oldtimer said:


> Yes this is a common straw man argument that pops up in nearly all these types of threads sooner or later. The discussion starts off about treating / non treating mites, then somebody says oh, it doesn't work that way because treatment has been shown to disrupt micro fauna. Often they fail to mention they are referring to antibiotics, which are not used to treat mites. So it no bearing to mite treatment at all and is a straw man argument.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

deknow said:


> Point being: these microbial communities are heritable (like genetics), and treatments create impacts that last 20 years or more.


I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone was assuming that there was no impact on a colony that is treated with an organic acid or essential oil (other than mite drops). The question was whether the impact went so far as to change the genetics of the colony. If you consider microbe counts to be the "genetics" of the hive, I think we are broadening our discussion considerably (and also going directly against my current knowledge of genetic science and biology). 

But, even if we did, let's compare two situations. 

1. You take a hive that you treated regularly for the past 5 years (or so) with an essential oil and/or organic acid and gave it a "TF queen" after treatments had stopped, and discontinued any form of treatments.

2. You had a tf colony (that had been so for the past 5 years), gave it a "TF queen", noticed rising mite counts, and treated using an essential oil and/or organic acid.

Would there be any difference between the two? Or would both of their microbe counts be just as decimated? Would the second option degrade the probability that the colony will generate resistant characteristics any more than the first option?

Treating has it's effects. No doubt. The individual beekeeper has to weigh the benefits and the drawbacks of treating vs. the effects the mites will have on the colony. It's a spectrum, and I don't expect everyone to fall on the same end of it.

Point being: It would be great to start off with a yard of hives that never had treatments (ever) that contained treatment free genetics and could thrive without treatments. But most don't have that. Most have hives that had treatments at one point in time. So how do you deal with that? If the microbes are shot and destroyed, and it takes 20 years to get back, and they are essential to the survival of the hive, the only viable option you would have is to burn all of your hives right now and start over. Right?

Or, do you put treatment free queens in these hives, monitor, and hope for the best, knowing when some collapse from mites you treat to save them, knowing that their microbes are already shot and while you aren't doing anything to help them in the long run, you are keeping them alive in the short run (first, do no harm)?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Given this statement:


> ...and also going directly against my current knowledge of genetic science and biology


I have to ask what about your current knowledge of genetic science and biology leads you to think that 'treating a queen destroys her genetics'?

I think the premise of this thread is as silly as if I started a thread stating that the two people in front of me in line at the gas station were both buying scratch tickets, and told me it was a good way to make money...what do members of beesource think?

If the original statements that you based the whole question on are from individuals that don't have a good basic understanding of what genetics are, then it would be unfair (to them) to apply some strict (and correct) definition to their meanings. The guy in front of me in line buying scratch tickets tells me he is lucky, and wins almost every week...should I believe him that 'luck' is responsible....or do I have a better understanding if I realize he spends $200/week on scratch tickets, and that the slim odds are in his favor to win once a week.

I'm trying to eke out some kind of 'truth' from the question you posed. The answer to your question is a simple "no", and doesn't require a thread or discussion to answer.

Is there a broader truth to the question? Does treating affect the superorganism (and its decendents) over a long period of time? Are things changed in the hive that are inherited by splits and swarms?

"counts" will rebound...it's the makeup of the population that changes more permanently.

I don't understand what it much matters between option 1 and option 2 above. There is good work being done to determine what the routes of inoculation are (bees are 'born' sterile), but it is not yet published, and not mine to share. I can say that various gut bacteria use various routes of inoculation (not all the same), and that little work has been done on gut microbes of queens specifically (from a biomass POV, her gut microbes are probably insignificant compared with what workers posses...probably more to do with the health of the individual queen than the health of the colony if I had to guess).

deknow


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

But to answer your question, I don't think it was a stupid question to ask if treatments could alter the genes, or the expression of those genes, in treatment free queens. Ten pages of responses lead me to believe I'm not the only one that thinks that way.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

Gilliams work concerning yeast showed changes in yeast numbers in bee stomachs. The study says healthy free flying bees have very few yeast in their stomachs, so they were forced to confine the colonies and feed artifical diets to make the yeasts increase in their stomachs. 

The bees were fed 2,4,d to cause an increase in yeasts, sugar syrup with antibotic, fed each week from September until the next June, caused a drop in the number/type of yeasts. After feeding the antibotic each week for 3 months, the bacteria in the stomach and all the yeasts were destroyed.

I don't think this study should be quoted to show treatments are damaging to honey bees. It gives an impression that normal feeding of syrup or antibiotics used in the prescribed manner damages the colony. This study was not normal in any fashion.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

The expression of genes is issue of epigenetics, and is not about "destroying genetics".

If a queen's 'genetics were destroyed' by treatments, is it reasonable to think that bees are a special case? That exposure to 'treatments' destroys genetics in all insects, invertebrates, animals, life? If this were the case, there would be much more pressing problems than bees.

The questions you posed are an attempt at simplification, but oversimplify to the point of not being relevant to the questions you are asking.



> Would there be any difference between the two?


Yes, there would be a difference.



> Or would both of their microbe counts be just as decimated?


Microbe counts will always be decimated by treatments that kill microbes.
'microbe counts' is a gross oversimplification...the biomass will generally return to previous levels...but the population makeup will differ based on many factors...probably including what is going on with other hives in the area. That population makeup is what makes things function. Treatments reduce the diversity of these populations.



> Would the second option degrade the probability that the colony will generate resistant characteristics any more than the first option?


No...but both options decimate the microbial populations and constrict the diversity within these populations.
There is a continuum of niches through the alimentary canal of the bee that hosts a continuum of microbial populations (mostly made up of 9 strains and their variants). When you reduce this diversity, you reduce the level of specialization that these populations have developed in concert with the bees.
Some of these bacteria are so well adapted to the bee that they appear integral with the ilium.

I'm not calling anyone stupid...that appears to be your own hangup.

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0068191

They've demonstrated that pesticides can cause a change in gene expression in Honeybee larvae.

So, I would say that while it won't change the queen's genome, treatments can likely influence gene expression.

Treatments can alter the queen's gene expression.

I would put it in the same category as immune priming. Some would say that it carries a metabolic penalty.


----------



## VolunteerK9 (Aug 19, 2011)

deknow said:


> That exposure to 'treatments' destroys genetics in all insects, invertebrates, animals, life? If this were the case, there would be much more pressing problems than bees.
> 
> deknow


So, there shouldn't be anything wrong with treating bees as the effects are only temporary and not genetically modifying them? 

And the only real difference in bee colonies is not the genetic makeup of the hive its the other microorganisms within the hive?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

deknow said:


> The expression of genes is issue of epigenetics, and is not about "destroying genetics".


While I can't speak for those I heard the original statement from, but if you really thought that I suspected (or even asked) if the treatments physically and actually 'destroyed' the 'genetics' of the queen, you may have mis-interpreted me.

My question was more about altering expressions of genes and characteristics, impacting the extent to which some genes are passed down over others, and not about the physical destruction, obliteration, or dissolving of genes.



deknow said:


> Yes, there would be a difference.


What difference would that be? Can you expand?



deknow said:


> Treatments reduce the diversity of these populations.


I'm not following. I don't understand how treatments reduce the diversity of bees. If anything, I would assume that it keeps some colonies alive that would have otherwise died out, thereby enhancing the diversity of the bees. It might be enhancing bees we don't want, but it's a greater diversity, not a reduction. What am I missing?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

If a treatments did cause mutations in a Honeybee/queen, it would be too dangerous to use.

However, if you're referring to organophosphates, then I see that there is a possible issue with a current organophosphate being used to treat Honeybees.

"So, I would say that while it won't change the queen's genome..."

Let me think about retracting the above statement.

Coumaphos is an organophosphate.

Why do you think organophosphates have fallen out of favor?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

VolunteerK9 said:


> And the only real difference in bee colonies is not the genetic makeup of the hive its the other microorganisms within the hive?


Is there a treatment available that doesn't alter the microorganisms within the hive?

I'm not aware of one, but who knows. Sugar dusting would coat microorganisms and appear to alter, in one way or another, these microorganisms. Screened bottom boards allow greater air flow, potential changes in temps in the corners and edges of hives, which could also affect microorganisms. Theoretically, opening a hive for too long to take tweezers to literally "pick" each and every mite off a bee could too. These alterations would be considerably less than a chemical treatment, agreed, but still alter the microorganisms themselves.

So, unless there is a treatment that doesn't affect microorganisms, what's the best option? To play ostrich regarding mites and other unwanted diseases and pests, so that the microorganisms can thrive (at least as long as the hive stays alive, then they die), or to treat to keep the colony alive, sacrificing the microorganisms in the mean time? Which would you rather have, a colony with no microorganisms, or no colony at all?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

just my 2 cents, but with so many variables, chief among them open mating, and considering bee genetics alone, i wouldn't expect to see mite resistance expressed evenly across the board in any given apiary, regardless of treatments or not.

so my answer the question in the op would be it would be really hard to know whether it would make a difference.

just like with other traits, mite resistance will express itself to a greater or lesser degree, and it's my feeling that each queen and her colony have to be evaluated based on their own performance.

the bees i am keeping are from a lineage that have not been treated for mites for many years. these bees are past simply survivability. so far i have only had one hive crash from mites, but i have had queen failures that could have been secondary to mites. some hives have certainly been more productive than others, but that seems to be more related to whether or not they swarmed.

most of my colonies are brooding up right now and we are on our fall flow. sometime around the first frost, i plan to take mite counts using the alcohol wash method. i have kept a detailed journal and hope to see if i can correlate mite count with other metrics.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Coumaphos is class E and doesn't appear to be mutagenic. So, that's a dead end.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Amitraz? It looks like its metabolites have 'issues'.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3280992

"It is concluded that neither amitraz nor its metabolites have mutagenic activity. In contrast to amitraz, its metabolites alkylate DNA in the N3-position of adenine."

I wouldn't call that destroying the queen's genetics. But, it's an unusual DNA alteration.

They've used the term "mutagenic potential' in the following though:

http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/4121


"Chronic exposure to amitraz has been associated with an increased incidence of oncogenicity in mice. The genotoxicity data base indicates that amitraz and 2-4-dimethylaniline (a primary plant metabolite and an intermediate mammalian metabolite of amitraz) have mutagenic potential..."

Maybe Amitraz can alter the queen's genetics? It has potential!


----------



## VolunteerK9 (Aug 19, 2011)

Specialkayme said:


> Is there a treatment available that doesn't alter the microorganisms within the hive?


Define treatment..:lookout:

Just kidding


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> Point being: It would be great to start off with a yard of hives that never had treatments (ever) that contained treatment free genetics


Like my one then...



Specialkayme said:


> and could thrive without treatments.


... as long as you keep up the mite-management genes by husbanding them down the generations... 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Like my one then...


Where was your hive acquired from? A package, a swarm, a nuc? I'm assuming based on your past comments it was a swarm. How do you know it was never treated?

Where did you get your woodenware? How do you know it wasn't stored next to treatments? Where did your wax foundation come from? Did you test it for chemicals?

I think you assume alot Mike. Could be wrong, maybe you've already thought about that.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> So, unless there is a treatment that doesn't affect microorganisms, what's the best option?


To make a sound plan to go treatment free of course.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> Where was your hive acquired from? A package, a swarm, a nuc? I'm assuming based on your past comments it was a swarm. How do you know it was never treated?


Apiary, not hive. I can account for the origins of many of my collected swarms (and of course, queenside, for all their offspring). There's my oldest, for example, from a cherry tree 30 yards from my sister's kitchen window... 'been there 5 years without a break'. There are the 3 I've picked up this and last year from a chimney colony about 5 miles away. 'I've been here 7 years and its been there that long'. There are more like this and several cut-outs with similar histories. So there's reason for thinking these are survivors - and many of them seem of be thriving - some outstandingly. 

Some I know have been apiary swarms - I've seen marked queens on a few occasions. Some have been very large, most have gone off like a bomb. They've all petered out before the next spring.



Specialkayme said:


> Where did you get your woodenware? How do you know it wasn't stored next to treatments? Where did your wax foundation come from? Did you test it for chemicals?


Made it all from fresh-sawn cedar that I'd dried myself. No wax foundation - small starter strip. Yeah that might be loaded with chemicals! You're clutching at straws.



Specialkayme said:


> I think you assume alot Mike. Could be wrong, maybe you've already thought about that.


As you are finding out, it is you who are assuming a lot SpecialKayme.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

VolunteerK9 said:


> Define treatment..:lookout:
> 
> Just kidding


I'll do it:

"Any substance or manipulation that increases the chances of survival, or raises the appearance of health in the colony."

Or: 

"Anything (substance or manipulation) that 'works' on a colony, and which will therefore (given open mating) downgrade the local breeding pool in the longer term."

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

VolunteerK9 said:


> So, there shouldn't be anything wrong with treating bees as the effects are only temporary and not genetically modifying them?


Some may see the effects of medications and treatments as negative because one is keeping alive a set of genes that w/out medication and treatments would die.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

No one *KNOWS* where their swarms came from Mike. Unless it's an artificial swarm, or you're on an island, or you're God. The rest is speculation.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> No one *KNOWS* where their swarms came from Mike. Unless it's an artificial swarm, or you're on an island, or you're God. The rest is speculation.


When you collect a swarm from somebody's garden, and they tell you they saw it come from that hole in that tree over there two hours ago, and it does that every year, sometime twice... and you can see the bees around the parent colony... you can be pretty sure you _know_ where it came from. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> I'll just repeat my comment Mike. Maybe the second time you read it, it can sink in


You can repeat it as often as you like. It won't alter the facts. I know where many of my bees come from - I know something of their histories, and from that something of their qualities. And what I know gives me reason for optimism.

I'm not sure why you're having such a problem with that Specialkayme. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

deknow said:


> Actually, no, this is not a straw man argument of any sort.
> 
> On the rather obvious level, organic acids and essential oils (both used as miticides by beekeepers) absolutely impact microbial cultures in the hive. Formic acid is what one might use to sterilize a petri dish, and essential oils are what plants use to keep from being eaten by microbes.
> 
> ...


Sorry Deknow, been away a few hours LOL.

And as Deknow refers to a post from a while back, just for context, he refers to a post of mine when I discussed the straw man argument that is used when people think they are talking about mite treatments, but somebody else is really talking about antibiotics.

To answer the main points without requoting everything 

Organic acids and essential oils can impact microbial cultures in a hive. Yes. Totally destroy them? No, the hive is not totally aseptic following such a treatment. 

If you say that acids and essential oils can shift the balance between various fungi in a hive, I'll believe you no doubt you are correct. Question is, does it matter? I used for the first ever time last fall, Thymol on my hives. It's now our spring, those hives are pumping. The fungal balance shift, if there was one, does not appear to be a problem, or has reverted back to normal, don't know which.

Your reference to Martha Gilliams work with Fumigillian and TM and their effect on gut microbes, shows just how ingrained this straw man argument is in some peoples psych. Fumigillian and TM are antibiotics and are not used for mite treatment. The fact that you use this straw man argument even in your post trying to argue that people don't use this straw man argument, demonstrates the mindset.

What treatments do I think don't effect gut microbes? Well I really cannot say with authority. But the ones most commonly used here are Apistan, Bayvarol, and Apivar. Those have little, or likely no, effect. 

These microbial communities are heritable, but not like genetics. They can be carried with a swarm, are easily added to by the array of microorganisms that coat everything.

We are commonly told about the 30 different kinds of mites, and 30 different kinds of other insects, that form part of the natural balance of a hive "superorganism". If they really exist, yes, I'm sure treatment would effect them. But again, does it matter? I kept bees from 1969 to early this century completely chemical free. No chemical of any kind was added to a hive other than (occasionally), sugar. But hey even Solomon does that.
During all that time I never saw these 30 kinds of insects, other than 2 kinds of wax moths. I did see some mite looking critters that would invade litter on the bottom of the hive, but were they essential to the hive? No, they got thrown out with the garbage.

My treated bees now, far as microflora related issues go, are every bit as healthy as the chemical free bees I had then. Mind you I have never used antibiotics so cannot from experience comment on that. But as far as mite treatments go, long as they are done right, no noticeable microflora related health issues on the overall "superorganism".

Having said that, pretty much every treatment that exists, has some adverse effect on something, somewhere. For example, Apistan effects drone fertility. I'm not in denial about that. But as to the importance of (possible) shifts in microflora balance, can't say I've seen anything that matters.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> ( Originally Posted by deknow
> Treatments reduce the diversity of these populations.)
> 
> I'm not following. I don't understand how treatments reduce the diversity of bees. If anything, I would assume that it keeps some colonies alive that would have otherwise died out, thereby enhancing the diversity of the bees. It might be enhancing bees we don't want, but it's a greater diversity, not a reduction. What am I missing?


This is a good question, and I'm not sure there is an easy way to answer it. I think somehow you have to take a couple of steps backward in your understanding, before you can take the right step forward. Its a common enough assertion - keeping colonies alive preserves their genetics and thus enhances diversity - which seems to be self-evident, but it is, I think, completely wrong. 

In the first place, genetic combinations (individuals) that don't work properly are undesirable, full stop. Nature dismisses them, and rightly so, because, ceteris paribus (all else being equal) the offspring from that individual is likely to downgrade the health of the population rather than enhance it. And its the population that matters - not the individual. 

In the second place, nothing other than the result of a single roll of the vast dice that is the population is lost. All the genes that made up that (unfit) individual are still contained in the remaining population. And in nature provision is made for such losses through built-in overfecundity. That's the process, roll, pick the winners, roll again, repeat. You simply cannot take short cuts on that process and expect any sort of lasting success.

Treating supplies a terrible influence on the health of the local population, carrying unfit genes into wild/feral colonies and introducing widespread weakness that, lacking anyone to treat them, tend to perish. This causes real loss of genetic material. Local bees that were suited to - and attunued to - the individual environment disappear, and with them the great healing mechanism of natural selection for the fittest strains, that, in all human history, has enabled beekeepers to maintain thriving colonies. 

And of course, unless steps are taken to prevent it, the same goes for the immediate apiary bees - making increase from bees that need treating just makes more bees that need treating. 

For these reasons their preservation runs counter to the most fundamental principle of (population) husbandry. 

To summarise; not only does treating not maintain genetic diversity, it seriously corrodes it. 

This understanding demands health control at arm's length, guiding and nudging health into the local population, and thus the apiary, rather than the futile and destructive attempt to force health on genetically inadequate stock through medications and manipulations. In an openly mating organism, that is, in husbandry terms, sheer madness.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Treating supplies a terrible influence on the health of the local population, carrying unfit genes into wild/feral colonies and introducing widespread weakness that, lacking anyone to treat them, tend to perish. This causes real loss of genetic material. Local bees that were suited to - and attunued to - the individual environment disappear, and with them the great healing mechanism of natural selection for the fittest strains, that, in all human history has enabled beekeepers to maintain thriving colonies.


Question for you. Your statement assumes a viable "feral survivor" population, that are under threat from influence from treated hives. So in your case, as I understand, over the last year you have been able to collect something up to around 30 or so what you have called ferals, ie, cutouts and swarms. If you have got 30, it's a fair assumption there are quite a few more you didn't get, likely many multiples more.

So, how does the success or failure of your projected 40 or so hives influence that? 

By your own claims you have removed existing feral hives, that were essentially subjected to bond conditions, and relocated them to your own hives, where you will subject them to bond conditions. Looking at the whole bee population not individual hives, how do you consider what you will do with these ferals will affect the whole area any differently?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Question for you. Your statement assumes a viable "feral survivor" population, that are under threat from influence from treated hives. So in your case, as I understand, over the last year you have been able to collect something up to around 30 or so what you have called ferals, ie, cutouts and swarms.


This needs unwrapping a bit, showing, I think, 4 distinct questions in here. 

First: yes to the key assumption: there are wild/feral bees around me. Yes there are treating apiaries nearby. Not all that I've collected have been from feral colonies. Some, I know, have.

Over the last three years I've collected perhaps 30-40. Most didn't make it - more might have done had I protected them more (regardless of not treating). My present 30 hives (reduced from 40 by uniting) are either these swarms or (mostly) offspring mated locally.



Oldtimer said:


> If you have got 30, it's a fair assumption there are quite a few more you didn't get, likely many multiples more.


Of course.



Oldtimer said:


> So, how does the success or failure of your projected 40 or so hives influence that? By your own claims you have removed existing feral hives, that were essentially subjected to bond conditions, and relocated them to your own hives, where you will subject them to bond conditions. Looking at the whole bee population not individual hives, how do you consider what you will do with these ferals will affect the whole area any differently?


A slippery question because the key term 'local' varies in its impact. The bees have been collected from a _wide_ (local) area - lets say a 20 mile radius around my location. They have been concentrated in a _small_ local area, which now consitutes a significant part of a local breeding pool.

How has that affected the small local areas they were taken from? Well, if and where they are mite resistant bees, and if they had managed to become established in their original places, then those places are presumably poorer for my taking them. In the case of cut-outs they were being taken because they were unwanted in their locations, so moving in with me has saved them.

So, how does my success or failure impact on, first, my immediate area? If successful: it is my hope that my management will raise mite resistance (considerably) aiding local wild/feral bees in becoming self-sufficient and more populous, supplying a counterweight to the treaters in this breeding pool, and spreading outward. If unsuccessful no impact on existing wild/feral bees. 

Impact on larger (wide) area from which bees were collected: again, the hope will be that success will lead to improvents being exported, by drones, by selling queens and nucs, by showing others that it can be done/how to do it both locally and more widely. I currently have half a dozen outstands over a radius of about 15 miles, some in likely wild/feral country, and I don't restrict brood nests so my drones can, and will continue to have immediate wider influence.

I think that sums to a net positive effect in terms of my beliefs about what is good for bees, and for beekeepers. If I didn't I wouldn't do it.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Question for you OT. What do you mean by bond conditions? Is it not the colony that has decided to stay in the box or container we have given them? Are they not free to leave if they so choose?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> it is my hope that my management will raise mite resistance (considerably) aiding local wild/feral bees in becoming self-sufficient and more populous, supplying a counterweight to the treaters in this breeding pool, and spreading outward. If unsuccessful no impact on existing wild/feral bees.


Ok quite a thoughtful answer although I don't think I quite phrased my question properly. The initial claim was the (assumed) feral survivors are under threat from the influence of treaters. If you move them to your hives, they are still subject to the influence of treaters, regardless of your management, because your management is really just bond. So how does that change anything?

Agreed that selling resistant queens will help spread resistant bees, but the question was not what will you do after you get resistance, more how will you get that resistance in the first place any better than the feral hives would have if left alone?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Acebird said:


> Question for you OT. What do you mean by bond conditions? Is it not the colony that has decided to stay in the box or container we have given them? Are they not free to leave if they so choose?


I just meant using the bond method on them. When they are wild they have the same thing.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> To summarise; not only does treating not maintain genetic diversity, it seriously corrodes it.


I'm sorry Mike, but that post made absolutely no sense [to me].

Was it just me? Did anyone else understand his point?

Diversity defined by dictionary.com:


> di·ver·si·ty [dih-vur-si-tee, dahy-]
> noun, plural di·ver·si·ties.
> 1. the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness: diversity of opinion.
> 2. variety; multiformity.
> 3. a point of difference.


Starting with the understanding that more variety, more points of difference creates greater diversity, allowing colonies to die decreases diversity. Those genetics are not able to pass on to the next generation, meaning the next generation is less diverse.

If you start off with 10 colonies, and 5 of them contain "bad" genetics, so you either kill them or let them die, then repopulate their "space" with 5 splits off the remaining 5 hives, thus making 10 colonies again, those 10 colonies will have half as much diversity as the 10 colonies you started with.

At any point in the game, the removal of colonies will equal less diversity.

Just because the genetics are bad, and the removal of them is better for the future generations, that doesn't mean doing so makes things more diverse.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

For those that haven't been paying attention,  "bond" is a reference to _James Bond_, the fictional secret agent, and one of the series book/movie, "*Live and Let Die*". :lookout:

More info here:
http://survivorstockqueens.org/John%20Kefuss%20Keeping%20Bees%20That%20Keep%20Themselves.pdf


(I'm not particularly endorsing the point of view expressed at the link, it is posted simply as a reference for the background of the "bond" phrase.)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> Just because the genetics are bad, and the removal of them is better for the future generations, that doesn't mean doing so makes things more diverse.


Doesn't mean it's better either. If we select bees for just one trait and discard all others, we can lose much. The bond method does exactly that. All bees that cannot withstand varroa are eliminated just on that trait alone, when they die, they take all their useful characteristics with them.

In the past, beekeepers could never imagine a pest like varroa. In the future, new challenges may arise for bees that we cannot even imagine at the moment, and that is what they need genetic diversity for.

To change tack slightly, bond in nature is a rarer form of evolution, because when two alien species meet, one often goes extinct, that is what has happened down the ages.
more commonly, species evolve together, which does not involve the rapid "evolution", that bond is being claimed to do in bees in just 2 or 3 generations. An example of a more natural method and one that does conserve useful genetics, is the animals on the African plains. Over time, lots of it, both predator and prey, have got faster. But this is not because the prey animals suddenly had 95% losses. It's a long process where the bottom few animals are removed each year, most survive. This constant pressure over a long time means just by removing the worst, there is gradual improvement in the average, but the difference with that and bond as applied to bees, is that on the African plains, the good genetics are all preserved. IE, some animals may have a useful mutation that has nothing to do with escaping lions. But because most of the population survive in any year, the useful mutation is preserved in the population, where a 95% wipeout by the lions could have removed it.

This has parallels with the commercial beekeeping situation in the US. Bond has not been practised, yet there is little doubt the general commercial bee population is more mite resistant than 20 years ago. If you believe the literature, something around 30% of commercial hives are being lost each year. This parallels the African plains good gene preserving model. The majority survive each year making it likely that good genes are kept whether related to mite resistance or not. It will take time, lots of it. But eventually these bees will be more genetically diverse and healthier than bee that have had the bond genetic bottleneck applied to them.

that's in theory. In reality, genes will be getting exchanged between to two groups. But as treated hives make up maybe 99.9 % of hives, the main gene flow will be not fron bond hive to treated, but from treated to bond. So the bond hives stand to benefit and will likely all end up the same.

This process will take a long time and pretty sure it will not fully play out in my lifetime.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> In the first place, genetic combinations (individuals) that don't *work properly are undesirable*, full stop. Nature dismisses them, and rightly so, because, ceteris paribus (all else being equal) the offspring from that individual is likely to downgrade the health of the population rather than enhance it. And its the population that matters - not the individual.


I'm not quoting the entire treatise, but this is where it starts to go wrong. "... don't work properly ..." doesn't apply. The only issue is _survival_. If a change allows individuals to _outcompete _unchanged individuals, that change is more likely to be passed on to a growing pool of future generations. "Proper" and "undesirable" are not terms that nature respects, and don't apply.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Ok quite a thoughtful answer although I don't think I quite phrased my question properly. The initial claim was the (assumed) feral survivors are under threat from the influence of treaters. If you move them to your hives, they are still subject to the influence of treaters, regardless of your management, because your management is really just bond. So how does that change anything?


One thing is that I have the beginnings of a non-treatment apiary which I didn't have before! I can do all those nice things I want to do, which I couldn't if I hadn't collected them! I've concentrated the required genes - that being a good thing for the chances of their continuation. By multiplying and willowning I can concentrate the mite resistant behaviours more, leading toward highly resistant bees that will a valuable addition to any apirary wishing to reduce dependence on treatments.

But I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you have an ethical objection to people removing feral swarms? (That seems perfectly reasonable btw - but I think I can make a case, in my situation, for the ends justifying the means - if you think I should)

The point is: I want to _capture_ those qualities and keep them and multiply them. If I thought I was damaging the prospects for the original sites I might think hard about doing that. But in practice another beekeeper would take them and almost certainly make no attempt to take advantage of, or maintain, those qualities. 



Oldtimer said:


> Agreed that selling resistant queens will help spread resistant bees, but the question was not what will you do after you get resistance, more how will you get that resistance in the first place any better than the feral hives would have if left alone?


Maybe I won't - although concentrating the traits in one place and raising the proportion _here_ against treated bees ought to improve matters _here_ in my local area, in my apiary, in my bees. That is a precondition for any further good to be done. Isn't that obvious? And again, see point above - if I hadn't they'd probably have been wasted.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I'm not quoting the entire treatise, but this is where it starts to go wrong. "... don't work properly ..." doesn't apply. The only issue is _survival_. If a change allows individuals to _outcompete _unchanged individuals, that change is more likely to be passed on to a growing pool of future generations. "Proper" and "undesirable" are not terms that nature respects, and don't apply.


Its the same thing, on one hand described from the perspctive of natural selection, on the other from the perspective of husbandry. I'm seguing from one to the other a bit, which is sloppy, but doesn't negate the point, or the logic.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Just sying 'the post made no sense'


I didn't end there. I went on to explain my point.

If I misunderstood something, or misapplied something in your post, I'm welcome to discuss it.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> But I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you have an ethical objection to people removing feral swarms? (That seems perfectly reasonable btw - but I think I can make a case, in my situation, for the ends justifying the means - if you think I should


No there's no ethical objection, just examining your theories on how you think you are improving anything.

Also, I can tell by how fast you posted, that you would not have seen additional stuff I put in my last post as an edit. Check it out, see what you think.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

what i have is essentially 17 years into mike's 'experiment', i.e. the end result of successive generations of bees that have not been treated which through both natural and artificial winnowing appear to be demonstrating the ability to thrive and be productive off treatments.

but i don't have any grand illusions that i have some kind of superbee, and i realize that all it would take is a very virulent virus to come along to cause mass casualties. there are reports on the forum of just that happening to folks, reports of losing all or most colonies after some years of being off treatments.

since the bee's natural resistance to viruses and other pathogens is mediated through their immune system, and since the effectiveness of their immune system is dependent on nutrition, i think that there should be more focus on bee diet.

i think that one should consider how plentiful and diversified the forage available to their bees is, consider the drawbacks of too much (or too little) supplemental feeding, and make sure that the bees at least have what they need for their natural immunity to be working optimally.

i'm not sure how this could be achieved on the practical level, short of analyzing pollen samples, but it might explain in part why there are pockets of bees that are doing better than others off treatments.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

No matter what you do to preserve or improve genetics in your home apiary your queens fly out and mate with a drone population which you have little or no control over - as do your drones for that matter. The good news is that they have All survived for decades while dealing with mites - and anecdotal reports are that the overall situation may be improving.

I suspect that everyone who has some bees which live, and others which die, contributes a bit toward bees adapting to life in the modern world.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

squarepeg said:


> since the bee's natural resistance to viruses and other pathogens is mediated through their immune system, and since the effectiveness of their immune system is dependent on nutrition, i think that there should be more focus on bee diet.


From my research I think this is really an underestimated aspect of successful treatment-free beekeeping, along with the importance of hive microbiota.

Maybe genetics is an overestimated component of success, given the complexity and unavoidable out-crossing of bee breeding. This seems especially likely with small-timers who are working with a fairly small number of hives.

Partly this idea appeals to me because it's a very optimistic one. If it's right, then you can succeed without super bees, if your cultural practices are good enough.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> what i have is essentially 17 years into mike's 'experiment'


You went "treatment free" while collecting wild swarms, starting in 1996?

Impressive considering they were first introduced into the US in 1987 (at least parts, FL namely, and took up to 3 years to hit some parts of the continental US). Kudos for having the forethought.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

David LaFerney said:


> your queens fly out and mate with a drone population . . . as do your drones for that matter.


I wasn't aware homosexuality was rampant in the honey bee . . .


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

rhaldridge said:


> you can succeed without super bees, if your cultural practices are good enough.


Harry Laidlaw has said that management practices will always have a greater impact on your bees than breeding attempts ever will. Whether you think that applies to breeding resistant stocks, who knows.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> You went "treatment free" while collecting wild swarms, starting in 1996?
> 
> Impressive considering they were first introduced into the US in 1987 (at least parts, FL namely, and took up to 3 years to hit some parts of the continental US). Kudos for having the forethought.


it was a friend of mine (and my bee supplier) and his father that went out into the woods and cut down a half dozen bee trees to start their bee operation back in the mid-nineties. and yes, this was right in the middle of when yards were collapsing from varroa.

this is only my third season with them, having started with nucs and queens from my friend. the seventeen years refers to their lineage off treatments. 

it's unknown how long these colonies had been surviving vs. whether or not they were just new swarms in the trees. the consensus is that the ferals here weren't completely wiped out, and have been and continue to provide drones for those of us rearing queens.

the oldtimers talk about the 'wild' bees around here as being 'german black' bees, which may have some a.m.m. lineage. they had a reputation for being aggressive but good honey producers, and i believe this strain exhibits some resistance to mites.

my bees do tend to be a little on the dark side in terms of their coloration.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> I wasn't aware homosexuality was rampant in the honey bee . . . 

One of our esteemed members _appears _to be an expert on bee sexuality and has some comments ....

> _Boy _bee foragers_? _


Acebird said:


> A bad boy can be a female.


:gh:



(read in context by clicking the blue arrow in the quote box)


----------



## WBVC (Apr 25, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> In the second place, nothing other than the result of a single roll of the vast dice that is the population is lost. All the genes that made up that (unfit) individual are still contained
> 
> And of course, unless steps are taken to prevent it, the same goes for the immediate apiary bees - making increase from bees that need treating just makes more bees that need treating.
> 
> ...


This post makes complete sense....it takes many generations to breed in,or out, genetic characteristics. Those displaying desirable characteristics can still carry the undesirable ones....these will not show up unless they end up as dominant or up regegulated. By "helping" put through bees with undesirable characteristics we are helping to keep that undesirable gene pool active. ( a very crude explanation of a complex topic)

Having said that one usually is looking at many characteristics when choosing breeding stock. The question becomes which are more important to the breeder? Is mite resistance more important than honey production, demeanour, brood expansion etc.

I am very new to bees but in the short time I have been following bee converstions it seems that there are common pressures in both the commercial and back yard bee world. Brood expansion (with survival), honey production and demeanour seem on the top. For the first two feeding seems to be the "artificial" tool that is used to shore up weakness or push nature to the limits. With thriving populous colonies whose natural swarming instincts are then managed as another "artificial" tool mites, and other wellness issues, become a limiting factor in maintaining the desired level of growth and production. Treatments, and management manipulation, are then brought into play to try and diminish the effect parasitism and stress related illness.

To me this seems no different than the issues that arise with any husbandry practices that place production and selection of a few desired commercial traits above all else.

Managed husbandry has very different success markers than does natural selection. Natural selection selects for those that can survive as individuals and as a population....one system cares about how much can be derived from something and the other selects for survivability. With manipulation for the former the traits for survivability are often overlooked.

With the "manipulated" stock that it seems most are staring with now it seems it is possible to select for survivability and production but the journey may be slower than most commercial beekeepers can tolerate.

What is great about this forum is we see both sides of this debate.

Lauri seems to be fortunate in having had access to a genetic line that may have already been influenced by natural selection in her geographical location and in having the time to work with that line without the pressures of immediate $$ production. Hopefully there are many more out t here doing the same thing.

My 2 cents...hope I didn't offend too many folks.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> Starting with the understanding that more variety, more points of difference creates greater diversity, allowing colonies to die decreases diversity. Those genetics are not able to pass on to the next generation, meaning the next generation is less diverse.


As I explain above, it doesn't decrease _genetic_ diversity, since all the genes that were terminated live on in the population. It removes that one combination that didn't work well in the present environment.



Specialkayme said:


> If you start off with 10 colonies, and 5 of them contain "bad" genetics, so you either kill them or let them die, then repopulate their "space" with 5 splits off the remaining 5 hives, thus making 10 colonies again, those 10 colonies will have half as much diversity as the 10 colonies you started with.


You could easily think that but it doesn't work that way. Lets try an analogy: take a finite set of house-making components, say 1000. You have 10 different sorts of bricks, 15 different roof tiles, 8 different curtain colours in 4 different fabrics 5 different sorts of light fittings, and so on. These are the essential components, and the diversity has a figure - 1000. 

You can combine these in millions of different ways - and you build a town of say 10,000 houses. Each is different, unique. 

Now one burns one down because a particular type of light fitting turned out to be faulty, and was tfitted too close to particualr type of curtain that was inflammable. Everything burned to bits.

What has been lost? One set of all the components used in that one house. Many other houses however still stand, still containing all the same components (though not in the same combination). The number of elements in existence is still 1000. 

There has been no loss in diversity of components. 

There has been a loss of one combination - that didn't work well.

And the wise thing to do is _not copy that combination again_

Of course with houses you can re-engineer - fix them by changing the light fittings and curtains.

With bees you can't. But you can stop more of that bad combination being made. And that is what nature does. No cost - it will be replaced with one likely better.



Specialkayme said:


> Just because the genetics are bad, and the removal of them is better for the future generations, that doesn't mean doing so makes things more diverse.


IFF... removal of them sets the stage for the flourishing of local bees, rather than their ongoing suppression, then the genetic diversity that is found in different races - even local races - will tend to be preserved. That is infinitely preferable to the preservation of one unfit combination, let alone its multiplication.

Mike (UK)


----------



## WBVC (Apr 25, 2013)

deknow said:


> Given this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think much of this thread has been fuelled by those that do not have a sound understanding of genetic science.

But...if through this thread some myths can be dispelled and some better understanding can be developed it is a good thread.

Basic punet square genetics, gene regulation, gene modulation..viral or otherwise...will affect any breeding outcomes..individual and population survival...

In the moment will treatments we are discussing have the potential to be anything more than act as a crutch for bees that could not live without it, allowing them to produce for the moment and continue a population that remains dependant on that crutch...no. They will not be directly changing the physical genetic make up of the treated Queen.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> As I explain above, it doesn't decrease _genetic_ diversity, since all the genes that were terminated live on in the population. It removes that one combination that didn't work well in the present environment.


This is what I don't understand behind what you are trying to express.

I would agree with you if bee genetics were as simple as every bee containing 10 different genes, but each one expresses it differently, i.e. in a different combination. Some combinations are winners, others are losers, so by eliminating the losers you aren't eliminating genes from the pool. Because the survivors still have the same 10 genes, but in different combinations. At least, this is what I think you are trying to explain. 

But that's not how bee genetics work. The bees in colony one (or actually, some of them, as many bees inside a colony have different fathers, and different genes) might have genes A-G (extremely simplified here). Colony two might have genes A-C & H-K. Now, genes D-G are only expressed in colony 1, and genes H-K are only expressed in colony 2. Letting one of those colonies die (doesn't matter which one) removes certain genes from the gene pool. By definition, the gene pool is less diverse at the end of this than at the beginning, and allowing it to not happen would increase genetic diversity, not decrease it. Colonies 1 and 2 don't contain the same genetic material but in different combinations. They contain some of the same genetic material (or genes) in different combinations along with other genes entirely. That's what I'm confused about what you are saying. That covers my 'diversity' question.

To take it one step further now, based on my (probably too) simplified explanation above, lets say that gene D is recessive and F is dominant. Now lets say that gene D contains something that shows mite resistance. If the colony has genes D-F, that colony will not show mite resistance, as F will dominate over D. Now you let Colony 1 die out, because it wasn't a winner, and you removed gene D from the pool. If you instead treated to keep them alive, then let them re-mate with the pool, it's possible that colony 1 will create an offspring that contains genes A-D & G-I. But you would have lost this combination possibility if you let colony 1 die when it failed to show resistance, because you reduced the mating pool.

Real bee matings is extremely more complex, for obvious reasons. Multiple matings and uncontrolled mating yards make this more complicated to the n'th degree. I'm just using this example as a discussion point.



mike bispham said:


> There has been no loss in diversity of components.
> 
> There has been a loss of one combination - that didn't work well.


I agree with your analogy. But what if every house that has a lightbulb of 60 watts burned to bits. While every other "component" is available, 60 watt light bulbs are now not available anywhere. Why? Because you saw smoke and let it burn, thinking it was not a viable set of combinations. But that's a big assumption. But bridging it to bees, you assume that every "component" is available in the environment, even if one colony dies out. I'm assuming that there is a set of criteria, at least theoretically, that letting one set of genes die out COULD remove it entirely from YOUR mating pool. It is theoretically possible.

But to get to the main point, it was originally stated that:


deknow said:


> Treatments reduce the diversity of these populations.


To which my question was:


Specialkayme said:


> I don't understand how treatments reduce the diversity of bees.


To which you responded (after considerable back and forth):


mike bispham said:


> The number of elements in existence is still 1000. There has been no loss in diversity . . .


We aren't talking about loss in diversity from letting one hive die or one house burn down. We are talking about actually INCREASING genetic diversity by letting one hive die or one house burn down. To which I don't understand how that is possible.

Using your analogy above, I would agree that AT BEST, you don't reduce or increase the diversity of houses, just eliminate one combination that didn't work. I would still argue that AT BEST you would maintain the status quo, and AT WORST you could remove a component from future selection. But still, if you saw the house was burning, and you put it out before it destroyed the house, and only charred one room. Maybe the house will burn down later. Who knows. But how does putting out that fire DECREASE the diversity of the houses? By putting out the fire AT BEST it maintains the diversity of the houses to the same level it was before the fire broke out. AT WORST it increases the diversity of the houses, as theoretically one component could have only been in that house and would have been completely removed by letting it burn down.

I hope that explains my point of conversation.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Specialkayme said:


> We aren't talking about loss in diversity from letting one hive die or one house burn down. We are talking about actually INCREASING genetic diversity by letting one hive die or one house burn down. To which I don't understand how that is possible.
> .


I don't understand the concern about genetic bottlenecking, unless your bees are on an offshore island, or all your queens are artificially inseminated. How is it possible to prevent the influx of novel genetic material? 

But like you I don't understand how diversity is _increased_ by pursuing the Bond method. I think genetic diversity is not an element that the average beekeeper has any definitive control over.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Ok quite a thoughtful answer although I don't think I quite phrased my question properly. The initial claim was the (assumed) feral survivors are under threat from the influence of treaters. If you move them to your hives, they are still subject to the influence of treaters, regardless of your management, because your management is really just bond. So how does that change anything?


It isn't 'just bond'. (As I understand it that would mean just (let) 'live and let die'.) I actively raise new stocks from what I consider to my best - at a much faster rate than wild bees would do. So I'm multiplying the desirable genes much faster than they would. Furthermore by bringing them together I'm giving the offspring queens access to a larger proportion of resistance-carrying drones that would likely have been the case. 

I'm carrying out a breeding program designed to raise resistance to an objectionable quality more rapidly than nature would do. 



Oldtimer said:


> Agreed that selling resistant queens will help spread resistant bees, but the question was not what will you do after you get resistance, more how will you get that resistance in the first place any better than the feral hives would have if left alone?


As above. Normal breeding toward desirable traits and qualities: source stock exhibiting those traits and qualities, assay and assess, make offspring from the best, repeat. As often as possible.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

David LaFerney said:


> No matter what you do to preserve or improve genetics in your home apiary your queens fly out and mate with a drone population which you have little or no control over - as do your drones for that matter. The good news is that they have All survived for decades while dealing with mites - and anecdotal reports are that the overall situation may be improving.


Hello David, 

As we discussed earlier (though I confess I couldn't really pin down the point in the lietrature) - not all patrilines need to be 'resistant'. there are different forms of resistances, and just some patrilines carrying some forms can amount to a sufficient level of behaviours to allow effective mite control.

On top of that: something all open mating bee breeders have always done is keep large drone populations from their best queens in and around their apiaries in order to swing drone input their way. 

So while you don't have total control, you do have some, and this is perfectly sufficient, given enough attention. 

A couple of sound sources: R.A.B. Manley, Honey Farming, first page of Chapter V; Friedrich Ruttner, Breeding Techniques and the Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee, pages 41 and 87.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> As we discussed earlier (though I confess I couldn't really pin down the point in the lietrature) - not all patrilines need to be 'resistant'. there are different forms of resistances, and just some patrilines carrying some forms can amount to a sufficient level of behaviours to allow effective mite control.


Yes, I haven't been able to find anything to confirm that either.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WBVC said:


> Having said that one usually is looking at many characteristics when choosing breeding stock. The question becomes which are more important to the breeder? Is mite resistance more important than honey production, demeanour, brood expansion etc.
> [...]
> Managed husbandry has very different success markers than does natural selection. Natural selection selects for those that can survive as individuals and as a population....one system cares about how much can be derived from something and the other selects for survivability. With manipulation for the former the traits for survivability are often overlooked.


Many thanks for a fresh perspective and a balanced view WBVC. I think you hit several nails square on the head.

I think one of the things those of us who argue for survivability to be raised in the breeding evaluations are concerned about is that the competitive nature of raw commerce has driven modern commercial beekeeping to a self-destructive level. It focuses on maintaining productivity above all else, and is quite at home with any method that achieves that, regardless of outside impact. It is (I'm deliberately talking about the industry here, not present company) selfish - self interested.

And so it produces bees that perform best in an environment that includes any sort of manipulation or substance input as long as the economic case is sound. And I think that needs regulating as it is harmful to the interests of future generations - of bees and of beekeepers, and of humanity and generation unborn. Raw competitive commerce has its merits, but it has a long record of destroying resources that arguably ought to be regarded as common property.

And the present breeding criteria have a wider impact than the industry itself. Due to the open breeding nature, these self-interested actions impact on other beekeepers and on wild bees - which again impacts on other beekeepers.

The feeling from where I stand is: the future of the bee species is not the property of a narrow interest group, but (if the property of anyone at all) belongs to humankind, now and in the future. I don't know how many people here will want to argue with that point of view (though I'm pretty sure some will). 

I think what we are arguing about just now is what is best for bees (and thus for humanity now and in the future) - and what is possible. Specifically, whether the sorts of husbandry I'm advocating, and practising myself result overall in harm toward the species via a reduction in genetic diversity. 

That seems to be the charge; and it seems to be a counter to my own charge; that widespread treating is corrosive of genetic diversity.



WBVC said:


> What is great about this forum is we see both sides of this debate.
> 
> My 2 cents...hope I didn't offend too many folks.


I think each perspective in some sense offends the other, and the participants are very bound up in their investments - I know I am. But we can't let that stop the conversation. I think the important thing is to winkle out the facts, and this present conversation matters. Is protection of genetic diversity a valid argument for treating? 

If so, is that a generalised conclusion, or would it only apply in certain circumstances - and if so, which.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> But to get to the main point, it was originally stated that:
> 
> To which my question was:
> (treaments reduce the diversity of these populations)
> ...


First, I think we have to break down 'diversity' a bit.

Acknowleging the oversimplifications; lets identify:

a) genetic diversity, in terms of raw gene numbers within the species, and carried within each population.

b) a diversity of local strains, each adapted to locality - climate, habitat.

(Now we must again acknowlege that 'local' means an infinite number of things simultaniously - lets restrict our discussion to continental local, climate local, and breeding pool local)

Speaking sloppily; the 'breeding-pool' local strains will have 'discovered', and will express, those particular genes, gene-sets, alelles, that supply best health and productivity (available energy converted to offspring) in that immediate vicinity at that time - given that parasite and micropredatory environment. A replacement number of offspring of the local population will be able to survive to reproduction age, and as normal those _best able_ to thrive will supply _the greater number_ of offspring in each generation, keeping the population attuned to its total environment/healthy.

Genetic diversity is best preserved by allowing that process to play out in all the different breeding pools and the wider 'localities'. All sorts of bees, able to live in all sorts of places, can do so.

Agreed?

If so: the answer to your question is found in the question: how do we preserve that state of affairs? 

Do we: 

1) adapt widespread treatments that spread treatment-dependency into wild populations, suppressing their numbers and their natural adaptation process, or,

2) allow the process to play out so that as much as possible locally adapted wild/feral bees everywhere become all but immune to the effects of varroa, and return to the pre-epidemic semi-natural state?



Specialkayme said:


> Using your analogy above, I would agree that AT BEST, you don't reduce or increase the diversity of houses, just eliminate one combination that didn't work. I would still argue that AT BEST you would maintain the status quo, and AT WORST you could remove a component from future selection.


That would only be the case if no other houses held that component to be copied. What are the chances? (say largest-choice item is 16 options of window patterns: 10,000 houses.... 1:625. Against.

And this: that window pattern can be restored through contact with other towns. Every town in the whole world has the same elements... 

I'm not saying there are no arguments at all against maintaining local adaptivity by carefully preserving local stocks while resistance is bred in - and allowed to breed itself in. But that must happen. Simply having everyone treating and doing nothing else just prevents it happening. Saying 'we must treat to preserve diversity' is an oversimplification that inverts the realities, and supplies a handy narrative that justifies carrying on as usual.



Specialkayme said:


> But still, if you saw the house was burning, and you put it out before it destroyed the house, and only charred one room. Maybe the house will burn down later. Who knows. But how does putting out that fire DECREASE the diversity of the houses?


One could think of many ways. By failing to create sufficient alarm in the local press and at oversight level, for example, about the faulty light fitting... more houses burn. 
There are consequences to putting out the fire, just as there are consequences to not putting it out.

Lets try something new - Reductio ad absurdum. Your argument seems to me to lead to a position where we must always keep all bees alive alive as long as we can, and encourage all of them to reproduce, in order to maintain local (breeding-pool level) diversity. 

Have I got that right?

Mike (UK)

PS Has anyone else noticed that Deknow was talking about microbe diversity?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

two actual situation I know of that relate to this "What is a suitable variability" issue.

1. this was an actually study that required years to conduct. The question was. how many unrelated pairs of humans would have been required to successfully migrate to the Americas?
The answer was 67 or 134 unrelated individuals.

2. The relatively recent importation of the Serama from Malaysia. 137 unrelated pairs where imported. the number one issue in the breeding of Seramas today is lack of genetic diversity or symptoms of inbreeding. Cross breeding with bantams is under way in order to boost the gene pool.

The analogy to building a house and having a hand full of options does not work. not only is a hand full of options even if you are making thousands of choices not nearly enough. but you are limited to choices of light fixtures that will all short and burn down your house. There is no good choice.

In addition it is not a matter of how many options are out here among suppliers. it s the choices you have in your apiary. You are not building new colonies from the selection the world offers you are building them from the tiny corner hardware store that is your bee yard. The issue is you think that is a first rate hardware store. most think it does not offer nearly enough options. Real world condition of the Honey Bee indicates the latter is correct.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> If so: the answer to your question is found in the question: how do we preserve that state of affairs?


Preserving the state of affairs just explains how you are trying to MAINTAIN diversity.

I still don't understand how removing an item (house, colony, whatever) ends up INCREASING diversity. I don't see you touching on that point, unless I'm missing it. 



mike bispham said:


> Do we:
> 
> 1) adapt widespread treatments that spread treatment-dependency into wild populations, suppressing their numbers and their natural adaptation process, or,
> 
> 2) allow the process to play out so that as much as possible locally adapted wild/feral bees everywhere become all but immune to the effects of varroa, and return to the pre-epidemic semi-natural state?


I'm sorry, but to assume that treating will spread treatment-dependancy into wild colonies is ridiculous. If that was true, you wouldn't be catching any "treatment free" ferals.

99.8% of the feral population died out as a result of varroa within my state, according to NC State. This state has a decent sized commercial industry that treats regularly. If treating spread treatment-dependancy into the feral populations, within my state the 10,000 treated colonies would have overwhelmed the DCA's, and forced the few hundred (at best) feral colonies to be treatment-dependant, and then die out.

The simple fact that you claim to be capturing treatment free bees means what has been happening in your area has worked to create resistant stocks. 

But even still, you are ignoring a third option, which is the entire point of this thread:
3) If treatments make no change in the genetic make-up of a queen, then treating a formerly treatment free queen should have no effects against her other than to remove mites. So, monitor for mites, treat those that are high, and re-queen after. If the colony's genetics were previously identified is mite resistant, and treating has no effects on her genetics, there should be no harm in treating.



mike bispham said:


> That would only be the case if no other houses held that component to be copied. What are the chances? (say largest-choice item is 16 options of window patterns: 10,000 houses.... 1:625. Against.


That's not that bad of odds. 

But still, in moving your analogy to bees, we aren't talking about letting 1 out of 10,000 colonies die out. We are talking about (based on what many others who have gone treatment free before have found) losing 50%, 75%, sometimes 90% of colonies. Assuming we go with the smallest, what are the odds of losing a component if you let 50% of the houses burn down?



mike bispham said:


> And this: that window pattern can be restored through contact with other towns. Every town in the whole world has the same elements...


If that's true, there is nothing special about your "area."

You have stated before that you are in the perfect area to find resistance. A beekeeper's heaven. If the genetics that are available in your area are the same as the genetics in the whole world, what makes your place so special?



mike bispham said:


> One could think of many ways. By failing to create sufficient alarm in the local press and at oversight level, for example, about the faulty light fitting... more houses burn.


You are confusing things with third party causal relationships. 

The question was how does putting out a house fire DECREASE the diversity of the houses? If a causal relationship occurred that resulted in more houses being burned down later, the causal relationship was the reason why you had a decrease in house diversity, not putting out the fire.

Looking at it at the instant, if you put out the house fire, 10 seconds after it's out has the diversity of the houses DECREASED?



mike bispham said:


> Your argument seems to me to lead to a position where we must always keep all bees alive alive as long as we can, and encourage all of them to reproduce, in order to maintain local (breeding-pool level) diversity.
> 
> Have I got that right?


I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking how allowing a colony to die increases the genetic diversity of a hive. I'm also asking if treating a treatment free queen changes her genetics.

Based on my questions, you assume I'm taking a position. 



mike bispham said:


> PS Has anyone else noticed that Deknow was talking about microbe diversity?


I didn't notice that. When I asked him to explain, he didn't.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

here is a conversation abotu this that has formed in my head.

Beekeepers: "Your bees are going to die".
Me: "Why is that"?
Beekeepers: "Because they have Varroa mites".
Me: "So I will kill the mites"
Beekeepers: "Try as we might we have never found a way to kill the mites, But that is okay because the bees could live with the mites if it where not for all the disease that the mites give to the bees. That is what really kills them".
Me: "So then I can just cure the diseases that the mites give the bees"?
Beekeepers: "Oh you don't want to do that".
Me: "Why not"?
Beekeeprs: "because that makes bees to weak to withstand diseases".
Me: "Well that is what I thought you where telling me I already have"?
Beekeeprs: (Silence)
Me: "So what do I do about my bees dying"?
Beekeepers: "You just get more bees".
Me: "but that is not keeping the bees I have from dying".
Beekeeprs: Yes it will , by letting your bees die you will end up with bees that can survive".
Me: "dead bees that survive"? I think this is getting confusing
Beekeepers: "No not all the bees die. some will survive and you then replace your dead ones with those".
Me: well then I want the bees that can survive".
Beekeepers: "Oh, We don't have any of those".
Me: "what happened to them"?
Beekeepers: "They got killed by Varroa mite back in 96". "Didn't we tell you that your bees will die because they have Varroa"?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> I'm sorry, but to assume that treating will spread treatment-dependancy into wild colonies is ridiculous.


We need to clear this one up before we can do anything else. 

What would you expect the effect of hundreds of thousands of beekeepers sending drones possessing almost no mite resistant qualities whatsoever into their feral bees is having?

The wild/feral queens mate with these drones. They produce offspring that consequently have fewer mite-managing patrilines than they would have done had they mated with more resistant drones. These are (much) more likely to perish. The feral population is thus diminished. I don't think that is contraversial [1]



Specialkayme said:


> If that was true, you wouldn't be catching any "treatment free" ferals.


In areas where habitat is good and treating beekeepers are absent, or thin on the ground, progress toward resistance through natural selection occurs. 

The closer treating apiaries are, and the more of them there are, the greater the suppressive effect outlined above will be.

A large treating apiary will force a sort of death ring around itself, decaying outward as the influence of its drones reduces. 

Within this ring escaped swarms will survive for only a short while before perishing. (It isn't hard to imagine: reports of these short-lived colonies reach the beekeeper, who will naturally conclude that ferals are not viable/there has been no rise in feral resistance.)

Around me are areas representing both extremes and their intersections (the rings).

Mike (UK)

[1] It is at least implied here:

"The course of V. destructor infestation over the years shows similarities to the development observed in a tropical island of Brazil where mite infested European bee
colonies were left untreated since 1984: after an increase in the infestation levels of the adult bees during the first years the infestation decreased continuously leading to an obviously balanced relationship between host and parasite till today (de Jong and Soares, 1997; de Jong 2005, pers. comm.). Unfortunately, also in this case, the critical factors for this stable situation are unknown. 

Our results allow us to conclude that the problems facing the apicultural industry with mite infestations probably is linked to the apicultural system, where beekeepers remove the selective pressure induced from the parasitism by removing mites through control efforts.

Survival of mite infested (Varroa destructor) honey bee
(Apis mellifera) colonies in a Nordic climate
Ingemar Freis et al
Apidologie 37 (2006) 564–570 564
http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/ref/2006/05/m6039/m6039.html


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> 1. this was an actually study that required years to conduct. The question was. how many unrelated pairs of humans would have been required to successfully migrate to the Americas?
> The answer was 67 or 134 unrelated individuals.


Interesting



Daniel Y said:


> The analogy to building a house and having a hand full of options does not work. not only is a hand full of options even if you are making thousands of choices not nearly enough.


My example was:

"Lets try an analogy: take a finite set of house-making components, say 1000. You have 10 different sorts of bricks, 15 different roof tiles, 8 different curtain colours in 4 different fabrics 5 different sorts of light fittings, and so on. These are the essential components, and the diversity has a figure - 1000."

This is the first 5 items of 1000 - bricks, tiles, curtain colours, fabrics, light fittings. Just those gives you 10*15*8*4*5 = 24,000 combinations

Just try to imagine what number of combinations will be presented by 1000 different items, with say an average of 6 choices each! It will, I'm guessing, run into the billions.

It is that sort of maths that enables us to say of living things that each is an 'individual'. The mathematical probability of any two being identical are so remote as to be discounted.



Daniel Y said:


> ...but you are limited to choices of light fixtures that will all short and burn down your house. There is no good choice.


.

No - just one of the 5 different sorts is flawed.



Daniel Y said:


> In addition it is not a matter of how many options are out here among suppliers. it s the choices you have in your apiary.


...and which are available from surrounding colonies. Note that in any apiary that has not been subjected to mite pressure (or which has been systematically treated for several generations - it amounts to the same thing) a significant measure of resistance (in the form of one or more of the hygeinic behaviours) can be anticipated in about 10% of colonies. That represents genes held in the background in any population, ready to be 'bought forward' by natural selection as and when that is beneficial. 

So: if you have 20 or so hives there is a good chance you have some good light fittings to hand. But you'll have to apply some skill to bring them forward.



Daniel Y said:


> You are not building new colonies from the selection the world offers you are building them from the tiny corner hardware store that is your bee yard. The issue is you think that is a first rate hardware store. Most think it does not offer nearly enough options. Real world condition of the Honey Bee indicates the latter is correct.


My analogy was intended to illustrate how colonies/queens could be lost without diminishing genetic diversity. Its bound to fail at some point if we try to stretch it too far. But: as above, you have wider resources (though they may be less use than you'd hope - or they may be very useful...) and you (in the US) can buy in resistant queens to help the process along/supply a bigger hardware store.

But I think you are right: an apiary with a narrowish genetic base that has been treated systematically for maybe ten years wouldn't be my first choice of source material to build a resistant line of bees. And that is what is available to most commercial beekeepers. Further, since they've decimated their surrounding ferals, they are not going to get much help from that quarter either. 

I don't know their histories, but my guess is this is something like Specialkayme's and Oldtimer's situations. They tried with poor source stock, and with insufficient understanding of how to maximise their chances and failed. Now they're telling us all its impossible, and defending that position with rationales built on a shaky grasp of the mechanics of population dynamics. That's just my reading.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking how allowing a colony to die increases the genetic diversity of a hive.


I was going to stop while you consider my explanation of how treated colonies corrode nearby feral populations; but this shouldn't interfere...

Not a hive (though that would be the context if we had stuck with Deknow's setting) - a breeding pool.

Allowing a flawed colony to perish/replacing the queen removes from the breeding pool a genetic influence that is a standing cause of damage - the creation of more unfit bees - when what is needed (to maintain local diversity) is more fit bees. ('fit' = adapted = mite-resistant)

I can see that if you don't accept the premise that treated bees are a standing cause of damage to wild/feral bees you can't accept this argument.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Allowing a flawed colony to perish/replacing the queen removes from the breeding pool a genetic influence that is a standing cause of damage - the creation of more unfit bees - when what is needed (to maintain local diversity) is more fit bees. ('fit' = adapted = mite-resistant)


Apples and oranges Mike.

We aren't discussing whether allowing a "bad" colony to die will mean successive generations are better off. We aren't discussing whether it "should" or "shouldn't" happen, or whether the breeding pool is better off for it. I'm asking, very simply, how it is possible to allow a colony to die and yet the death of that colony INCREASES the genetic diversity of the breeding pool. Not maintain the same diversity. Not create better offspring. Just how it increases the genetic diversity of the breeding pool. That's it.

I really don't understand why/how you are defending this statement.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> They produce offspring that consequently have fewer mite-managing patrilines than they would have done had they mated with more resistant drones. These are (much) more likely to perish. The feral population is thus diminished.
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...


If that was true, over the past 20 years the entire world would be subject to this "death ring" as it spread further and further, as the number of treated colonies outweighed (by a very high margin) non-treated or feral colonies.

If that was true, the commercial operation to your one side would have contaminated your feral colonies that live on your other side YEARS ago.

You tell me, on one hand, that the removal of a colony doesn't remove any of the genes from the breeding pool, as they are all still available (although in different combinations). Yet on the other hand, you tell me that we need to remove "treated" colonies from the mix, in order to remove those genes from mating pools so they don't "infect" your feral populations. You don't see the contradiction here?

To be blunt, this conversation appears to be heading down a spiral toward "get your treatments away from me!" because it's "morally right." This is the exact type of conversation I was attempting to avoid by NOT posting this in the TF section.


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> as the number of treated colonies outweighed (by a very high margin) non-treated or feral colonies.


I've seen this statement made numerous times and while in most areas I'm sure you are correct, here I would say feral colonies at least equal in number managed colonies. 


Don


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

I have no idea what your area is like. But was it like that 10 or 15 years ago?


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

One element that doesn't seem to be acknowledged is that treated colonies are also under selective pressure. If 30% of treated colonies are dying every winter, then it seems reasonable to assume that those that remain are more resistant to whatever is killing the colonies in that operation.

(Unfortunately, this leads me to wonder sometimes if what is being selected for... is the ability to withstand treatment and still be productive.)

The optimistic view is that eventually varroa mites will become the non-problem that tracheal mites seem to have become, in spite of the great preponderance of treated colonies in the gene pool. I think it's reasonable to assume that selective pressure dealt with tracheal mites successfully, since by the time they arrived in North America, they were no longer the devastating problem that they were for UK beekeepers in the early part of the 20th century.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> We aren't discussing whether allowing a "bad" colony to die will mean successive generations are better off.


Perhaps that's what is going wrong. I am. Why shouldn't we? We are talking about the _impact_ on future genetics. Keeping alive weak stock artificially and letting it breed impacts furture genetics. Its all pretty simple really.



Specialkayme said:


> We aren't discussing whether it "should" or "shouldn't" happen, or whether the breeding pool is better off for it.


Again I am. _IF_ you want to improve your local population's resistance to varroa... We're in the NT forum remember?



Specialkayme said:


> I'm asking, very simply, how it is possible to allow a colony to die and yet the death of that colony INCREASES the genetic diversity of the breeding pool. Not maintain the same diversity. Not create better offspring. Just how it increases the genetic diversity of the breeding pool. That's it.


By:
a) stopping the damage that would otherwise have decreased it. 

b) allowing the breeding pool to recover and evolve its previous range of attunement (local diversity).

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> If that was true, over the past 20 years the entire world would be subject to this "death ring" as it spread further and further, as the number of treated colonies outweighed (by a very high margin) non-treated or feral colonies.


Exactly this has been recorded in Africa. The death ring spreads out like the first ripple in a pond. Because the African beekeepers were too poor to treat (and perhaps too wise as as well) behind the front wave recovery begins, and things return to normal. 

That's how natural epidemics (that are bourne by physical contact) play out. That's how they've played out since life began.



Specialkayme said:


> If that was true, the commercial operation to your one side would have contaminated your feral colonies that live on your other side YEARS ago.


You are trying to frame a complex event in simple absolutes again. The commercials have continuously been influencing the wild/feral bees. But, as I've pointed out, at a distance from the commercials the ferals are able to recover by developing mite-management behaviours. At the intersections 'contamination' continues - the genetic influence of artificially preserved colonies makes wild/feral bees non-resistant. 



Specialkayme said:


> You tell me, on one hand, that the removal of a colony doesn't remove any of the genes from the breeding pool, as they are all still available (although in different combinations).


I modified that by pointing out that local attunement, which is a from of diversity, can be lost. But yes, the 'bricks' all remain in the population. That's a fact. As long as you have more than a miniscule population, and don't live on an island, there can be no harm in allowing an unfit colony to die. In fact, for the population, it is necessary that they do.



Specialkayme said:


> Yet on the other hand, you tell me that we need to remove "treated" colonies from the mix, in order to remove those genes from mating pools so they don't "infect" your feral populations. You don't see the contradiction here?


There is no contradiction at all. Its very very simple. Try to avoid putting in your own descriptions like 'contaminate' and 'infect' - they just confuse matters. 

We have light fittings that work, and light fittings that don't. These are the analogues of alleles, alternative gene-sets, that may be expressed within a population, or may remain in the background, unused. We want to bring the alleles that code for mite-management behaviours 'forward' in the population. That is, where normally only 1 in 10 or 15 colonies carries these alleles and expresses these behaviours, we want all of our bees to carry the alleles and express the behaviours. 

So what we need to do is remove those bees that don't carry these genes from the population, and replace them with bees that do. We want to swap faulty light-bulb fittings for functional ones.

This is what nature does through natural selection for the fittest strains.

This is what husbandrymen do through selection and controlled mating.

Its a straightforward time-tested method of maximising health and productivity in living organisms. Its well understood on a deep scientific level.

The 'lost' alleles are not lost at all, and so there is no loss of diversity, because - the alternatives are held in the backgound within the population as (mostly) unused genes, just waiting for a time when they will be the better option again.



Specialkayme said:


> To be blunt, this conversation appears to be heading down a spiral toward "get your treatments away from me!" because it's "morally right." This is the exact type of conversation I was attempting to avoid by NOT posting this in the TF section.


We can try harder to avoid that. I agree, lets keep the focus on the mechanics.

That said: I _do_ want 'you' to keep your treatments away from me - but its for the very good reason that they obstruct my objective - which is, I think a fine objective that in no way damages 'you'. 

It is the case, unfortunately, that 'you' do cause 'me' actual damage. Its a fact. I guess that must be pretty discomforting if you'd never realised it before.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> It is the case, unfortunately, that 'you' do cause 'me' actual damage. Its a fact. I guess that must be pretty discomforting if you'd never realised it before.


Mike something you should realise, before pontificating about his discomfort or what you think Specialkayme hasn't realised. He was a successful treatment free beekeeper for considerably longer than you have been. 

Just keeping it real.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> By:
> a) stopping the damage that would otherwise have decreased it.
> 
> b) allowing the breeding pool to recover and evolve its previous range of attunement (local diversity).
> ...


You've exhausted me and derailed this thread to the point that I just don't want to discuss this anymore.

You're welcome to discuss it with others on here, but I'm moving on.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> That said: I _do_ want 'you' to keep your treatments away from me - but its for the very good reason that they obstruct my objective - which is, I think a fine objective that in no way damages 'you'.
> 
> It is the case, unfortunately, that 'you' do cause 'me' actual damage. Its a fact. I guess that must be pretty discomforting if you'd never realised it before.


With all do respect, you are better off expressing these ideas in the TF forum. 

This thread was started off with the understanding that if you wanted to (or thought you needed to) you _would_ treat your colony. If your model involves abstaining from treatments entirely, for whatever reason, your model doesn't fit this thread. If your goal is to convince me that I, or others, should go treatment free, you are in the wrong place my friend.

For the same reason that I don't jump into a TF thread and start telling everyone they are wrong and should start treating (because the colonies you have that fail become mite factories that migrate to my hives, making it harder for me to manage my mites with treatments).

Two sides of the coin. Only one side is allowed to be shown in the TF section. I would appreciate it if you allowed us to discuss the other side here.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> It is the case, unfortunately, that 'you' do cause 'me' actual damage. Its a fact. I guess that must be pretty discomforting if you'd never realised it before.





Oldtimer said:


> Mike something you should realise, before pontificating about his discomfort or what you think Specialkayme hasn't realised. He was a successful treatment free beekeeper for considerably longer than you have been.


Thanks OT. Good to see others notice.

I try not to bring this up to TF beekeepers anymore, as they usually just respond with ridicule or anger. Those that don't, just respond with silence. So not much of a point bringing it up anymore.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> This thread was started off with the understanding that if you wanted to (or thought you needed to) you _would_ treat your colony. If your model involves abstaining from treatments entirely, for whatever reason, your model doesn't fit this thread. If your goal is to convince me that I, or others, should go treatment free, you are in the wrong place my friend.


I do apologise: I hadn't realised I wasn't in the NT forum. 



Specialkayme said:


> For the same reason that I don't jump into a TF thread and start telling everyone they are wrong and should start treating (because the colonies you have that fail become mite factories that migrate to my hives, making it harder for me to manage my mites with treatments).


If you think that's a reality is it should be discussed. Somewhere.



Specialkayme said:


> Two sides of the coin. Only one side is allowed to be shown in the TF section. I would appreciate it if you allowed us to discuss the other side here.


As it happens no such thing occurs in the TF forum. Commercial beekeepers (and/or others) constantly derail any discussion of the mechanics of beekeeping.

In any case, anyone, anywhere, who believes that what somebody says is incorrect is entitled to air their views. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> You've exhausted me and derailed this thread to the point that I just don't want to discuss this anymore.


Just for the record, I offered to stop the discussion and/or move it elsewhere early in the conversation on just such grounds. It was you who insisted on keeping it going, saying it was perfectly on-topic, and doing so here.

I think what has really happened is that you've run out of arguments. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> I try not to bring this up (I was a successful TF beekeeper - till I wasn't anymore [MB]) to TF beekeepers anymore, as they usually just respond with ridicule or anger. Those that don't, just respond with silence. So not much of a point bringing it up anymore.


Whether that is the case or not makes no difference. What matters is getting facts straight, and improving understanding of the all-important population dynamics that govern all apiaries. In that matter you've shown yourself to be short.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> Thanks OT. Good to see others notice.
> 
> I try not to bring this up to TF beekeepers anymore ('I was once a successfu TF beekeeper' [MB] ) as they usually just respond with ridicule or anger. Those that don't, just respond with silence. So not much of a point bringing it up anymore.


That's because your premise is ludicrous. 'I'm an experienced commercial beekeeper, and I tried to go treatment free and failed... THEREFORE... no else can do it, its impossible.'

You then set forth rationales based on a clearly hopelessly inadequate understanding of population dynamics, avoiding awkward questions, and generally acting in a manner seeming designed to stifle any discussion of practical steps that might be taken to raise resistance.

Mike (UK)


----------

