# Coevolution of Honey Bees and Varroa Mites: A New Paper



## mike bispham

Here's a beautiful new paper. Look at this statement:

"Coevolution by natural selection in this system has been hindered for European honey bee hosts since apicultural practices remove the mite and consequently the selective pressures required for such a process."

More sound backing for the understanding: treatments ('apicultural practices') prevent the rise of resistance which otherwise occurs rapidly. 

Mike

Host adaptations reduce the reproductive success of Varroa
destructor in two distinct European honey bee populations
Barbara Locke, Yves Le Conte, Didier Crauser & Ingemar Fries

Ecology and Evolution 2012; 2(6):
1144–1150
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.248/pdf

Abstract
Honey bee societies (Apis mellifera), the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor, and honey bee viruses that are vectored by the mite, form a complex system of host–parasite interactions. Coevolution by natural selection in this system has been hindered for European honey bee hosts since apicultural practices remove the mite and consequently the selective pressures required for such a process. An increasing mite population means increasing transmission opportunities for viruses that can quickly develop into severe infections, killing a bee colony. Remarkably, a few subpopulations in Europe have survived mite infestation for extended periods of
over 10 years without management by beekeepers and offer the possibility to study their natural host–parasite coevolution. Our study shows that two of these "natural" honey bee populations, in Avignon, France and Gotland, Sweden, have in fact evolved resistant traits that reduce the fitness of the mite (measured as the reproductive success), thereby reducing the parasitic load within the colony to evade the development of overt viral infections. Mite reproductive success was reduced by about 30% in both populations. Detailed examinations of mite reproductive parameters suggest these geographically and genetically distinct populations favor different mechanisms of resistance, even though they have experienced similar selection pressures of mite infestation. Compared to unrelated control colonies in the same location, mites in the Avignon population had high levels of infertility while in Gotland there was a higher proportions of mites that delayed initiation of egg-laying. Possible explanations for the observed rapid coevolution are discussed.


----------



## Paul McCarty

...hence, the comeback of the feral bee in many locations.


----------



## wadehump

yep same here


Paul McCarty said:


> ...hence, the comeback of the feral bee in many locations.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Perhaps also, why the Varroa mite never really caused much of a problem, here in my apiaries.


----------



## Paul McCarty

I once had Les Crowder tell me that the bees we have now in the wild are there because the have adapted to the mites and should require no treatments. I tend to agree.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Hurrah! The bees are starting to coexist with mites successfully. There is unfortunately a disconnect between the people lauding this study and the people who are commercial beekeepers - that is - the potential for 100% loss of bees by the commercial beekeeper. That could very well put the beekeeper out of business. I applaud those who are big enough to play the percentage game and live in climates where rebuilding stocks are possible. It isn't for everyone. I continue to search for genetics that will make it treatment free in my climate. I am heavily feeding my yard of treatment free bees from Texas. They stored no where near enough honey to get them through a typical Maine winter. Should I just let them die because they weren't good enough to make it? I think not, as I want them to have another chance at getting accustomed to Maine and what they need to do to survive up here. If i let them die, I'm out a bunch of money and am still looking for "good" genetics. Studies like the one mentioned are encouraging and serve to remind us that in beekeeping there is no one size fits all answer.


----------



## Kristen2678

Andrew - Have you ever tried Kirk Webster's stock? I have two nucs on order for next year. He's not a small cell guy. His are on 5.2 and his bees coexist with mites. VT is pretty close in terms of climate. If you are near the cost you have much more humidity to deal with than I do. I'm anxious to find other folks with his bees and find out what their experience has been.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I took some time to sit down and read the whole paper last night.

I don't meant to toot my own horn, but this paper says many of the things that I have been saying for years.

1. There are multiple methods of mite coexistence not necessarily including the VSH trait.
2. Bees don't necessarily have to have the VSH trait to survive mites.
3. Treating bees doesn't allow them the opportunity to become resistant to the mites.
4. It works both ways, the mites have to evolve to become less virulent AND the bees evolve (or express) methods to handle them. 

Especially number four, the mites beekeepers are breeding by treating are stronger. Non-treatment produces weaker mites ultimately because the more virulent mites kill the hive and themselves die. Killing mites with various methods decreases the population of mites and therefore may allow the hive to survive, but the mites that remain are those that are the strongest and most capable of surviving the treatment. Therefore treating bees makes the problem worse and pushes it down the calender a bit, but it most assuredly doesn't fix anything.

The paper talks about populations of bees that have been feral and unkept for 10 years. I have kept mine treatment-free for nine and a half years. There is no eminent crash as I have been told over and over and over. The population has stabilized. Capable and worthwhile honey production has returned to my population. Some of the credit goes to breeding, but much of it goes to allowing weak hives to die. This year, I also have taken the step of not only allowing weak hives to die, but requeening hives that fail to thrive given a reasonable opportunity. 

This is the work of beekeeping that needs to be done. The solution is simple: quit treating and the bees will sort it out themselves. If backyard beekeepers with limited number of hives want to keep them year after year, then they must quit buying packages like cheap plastic China-made toys and buy quality locally raised treatment free stock. You get what you pay for. A $20 queen is a queen you're going to pay for over and over and over, so don't buy it.


----------



## Paul McCarty

I totally agree with Solomon, and also would like to add that people need to broaden their horizons and quit killing feral colonies. I think the small scale guys are going to save the big guys once again, when this is all sorted out. And Andrew Dewey - you should try some Zia stock from New Mexico - our mountain bees live in cold conditions very similar to Vermont. I would think they would do better than TX bees.


----------



## jim lyon

Paul McCarty said:


> I totally agree with Solomon, and also would like to add that people need to broaden their horizons and quit killing feral colonies. I think the small scale guys are going to save the big guys once again, when this is all sorted out. And Andrew Dewey - you should try some Zia stock from New Mexico - our mountain bees live in cold conditions very similar to Vermont. I would think they would do better than TX bees.


Once again?


----------



## Barry

You know, when "we" saved the industry back in '48 and again in '72. Bet you're glad we did!


----------



## Andrew Dewey

I appreciate the suggestions of Kirk Webster and Zia stock. Folks may remember last Spring when I was lamenting the seeming lack of commercially available survivor stock (which is how I ended up with Bee Weaver packages.) I anticipate looking for queens to over winter in nucs prior to placing the nucs in production colonies. Any other stock suggestions? Most places won't start taking 2013 orders until January, but I do want to be at the front of the line!


----------



## jim lyon

Barry said:


> You know, when "we" saved the industry back in '48 and again in '72. Bet you're glad we did!


So your the guys? :applause:


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys

Mike, thanks for the link.

Years ago, I setup a small cell test yard optimized for the scientific method. But when those small cell hives become mite tolerant, I dropped my scientific approach and switched all my hives over to small cell, including the control hives.


At the time I was more interesting in running healthy, productive hives. And less interesting in proving something.


Since then, I’ve always wished I’d left a few of those control hives untouched. I've still got a few questions about that experience that nag me. And the impacts of natural selection and co-evolution are at the top of the list.


And that's why, besides still having some small cell equipment, I'm going to try and replicate those past small cell successes. This time I'll be more interested in the whys and less interested in the hows.

As a natural beekeeper, I've found that the more I can cooperate with the natural processes, the better my bees do. But as with any natural process, there's an interaction of a whole scheme of things:

- bee genetics.
- mite genetics.
- colony health/stress.
- environment.
- colony decisions.
- colony management.

Alter just one and the results can dramatically change.

Beekeepers tend to focus on bee genetics and will go to great lengths to get the right stuff. As a small time queen producer I focused on bee genetics and found out the hard way that:

- when you select for something, you are also selecting against something.

And that something that was selected against often becomes the bee's next weakness in the co-evolutionary dance for survival between the bee and its pests.

My narrowly selected bees were absolutely varroa tolerant. But they were all wiped out by CCD.

Regards - Dennis


----------



## Solomon Parker

Paul McCarty said:


> I think the small scale guys are going to save the big guys once again, when this is all sorted out.


I would approach this point of view with trepidation. This isn't an industry based on farming an endangered species which happens to also be kept by a bunch of hobbyists...like tigers or something.

Honeybees (as noted in the paper) have a recombination rate ten times higher than other eukaryotes. They have an amazing ability for adaptation. Furthermore, they exist in substantial numbers throughout every inhabited continent both kept and feral. The feral populations have already adapted, be it by whatever means they found, they have adapted.

In conclusion, this is a self-righting species and system. As long as there is food (even if it is maraschino cherry juice) they will survive. What is evident however is what I've been saying for quite a while. The treatment regime practiced by at least half of American beekeepers and the vast majority of commercial beekeepers only serves to slow down the adaptation process. Isolated populations adapt quickly. However, the American population is very homogenous and mixed quite frequently. 

Pockets of natural resistance have developed but not really in areas where there are many commercial beekeepers coming and going.

Transition to softer chemicals is good. But it's a smaller and smaller bandaid that still keeps ripping the wound open.

The bees aren't dying. They are coming back from varroa. And it won't be because we smaller beekeepers have done it. It will be because the feral population adapted. Some of us will learn to follow that model sooner than others.


----------



## Paul McCarty

Didn't mean to cause drama by my "small scale" comment, just meant to say that local non-migratory beekeepers have provided most of the impetuous for change in the last 30 years or so.

I am all for feral stock. I think a lot of what is being bred for is the wrong stuff. For whatever reasons, my "commercial" stock bees never seem to do as well as my bees of feral origin. By "do as well" I mean survive without treatments or undue manipulations to keep them strong. In fact, they usually don't make it. I have wild derived colonies going strong after several years with no treatments at all, the only manipulations being swarm prevention or the occasional split. Just have to watch their temperament and nervousness. 

It is a bit hard to find bees that thrive where I live. they either seem adapted to desert life or high altitudes, but not so much both. I am always looking for wild bees that can do both.


----------



## jim lyon

Paul McCarty said:


> Didn't mean to cause drama by my "small scale" comment, just meant to say that local non-migratory beekeepers have provided most of the impetuous for change in the last 30 years or so.
> 
> I am all for feral stock. I think a lot of what is being bred for is the wrong stuff. For whatever reasons, my "commercial" stock bees never seem to do as well as my bees of feral origin. By "do as well" I mean survive without treatments or undue manipulations to keep them strong. In fact, they usually don't make it. I have wild derived colonies going strong after several years with no treatments at all, the only manipulations being swarm prevention or the occasional split. Just have to watch their temperament and nervousness.
> 
> It is a bit hard to find bees that thrive where I live. they either seem adapted to desert life or high altitudes, but not so much both. I am always looking for wild bees that can do both.


Drama? On Beesource? Nah, just wondering what event you might be basing your statement on. Nothing wrong with seeking out and working with feral genetics. I do have my doubts, though, that it will have as much of an impact on the industry as will a large scale breeding program done by those with a very broad genetic pool at their disposal. Let's not forget if humans bred only from the strongest survivors we would have been deprived of a genius such as Steven Hawking. I would maintain that even the most obscure of hives has some desirable traits. 
Out of curiosity are your best survivor hives showing any AHB tendencies?


----------



## Paul McCarty

Well, officially it is too cold here for full Brazilian AHB to survive the Winter according to scientists, but we do see them, and bees with their traits. We have had African genetics in New Mexico for many, many years - centuries actually from what I have learned. The Spaniards brought them over with their Iberian/Intermissa bees. They say the Brazilian bees are just passers-by and do not stay. If they do, their genetics are pretty watered down.

I re-queen any bees that are nervous and runny or too defensive. Most of the feral bees where I live are fairly tame, but a lot of them are nervous and runny, and a bit flighty. I have had hives that would fit the description of Brazilian AHB, but those are way out in the desert by themselves and get re-queened pretty quick - or they just fly off when you mess with them too much. They are actually fairly rare. I did 15 removals this year and only ran across two like that. Hard working bees though. They will fill up a box of honey, just have to feed them drawn comb - and not bang them around too much. I only keep the bees that are calm on the comb, store a nice rainbow of honey in the brood comb, and don't mob me when I check them. The others get new queens. On the good side of African/AHB genetics - the bees are all VSH and will pick the mites from each other. I have sat and watched them do it. They will not tolerate hive invaders either - like yellowjackets. I have seen more domestic varieties just let them come right in. 

The key traits to watch out for are nervous and runny (as in dripping en-masse from frame when picked up), overly defensive, coming out of the hive and bearding while the hive is opened (heavy bearding in general), very little nectar in the brood nest (it is stored in the next box), and bees that enter and exit the hive like they are being blown out by a leaf blower. I have found the other traits as depicted in the scientific literature to be inaccurate - especially the overwintering part. In general - they behave like untamed, undomesticated wild bees. I do DNA test my bees when they show these traits. Like I said - it earns them a new queen. My mountain bees are mostly Russian/feral crosses - mated at around 8000' feet. Not your usual AHB area. I do not let my bees in the desert keep a queen past the second generation - especially if she is open mated down there - just to be safe. They get one of my Russian/Feral/Survivor queens or similar local survivor based stock from another local beek. 

So yeah, AHB is a scary thing, but I have found it to be mostly hype, at least around here. A little closer to the border, yeah, I can see it, but not where I live.


----------



## mike bispham

jim lyon said:


> Let's not forget if humans bred only from the strongest survivors we would have been deprived of a genius such as Steven Hawking. I would maintain that even the most obscure of hives has some desirable traits.


Your point is taken: but where would we be if we bred only from the Stephen Hawkins's? Would you deliberately propagate from only your weakest hives? Would you make efforts to keep them alive just to be able to reproduce them? 

The answers are surely no, and no. The logic that flows from there is simple, time honoured, and consistent with standard practice in all other fields of husbandry. Put Best to Best. Never propagate weakness.

The fact remains: nature knows best.  The natural way is ruthless selection of the best adapted in each generation; and the beekeeper who wants healthy bees needs to understand the process and work with it.

The problem is the bee farming industry is stuffed by people who don't understand - or who want obscure - that simple imperative.

Mike


----------



## sqkcrk

Coming late to the game, but, you are assuming that Stephen Hawking came about from the combination of weak genes?

You are also assuming that we humans are outside of Nature and natural selection. Or that what we do w/ the husbandry of species is not in fact natural, part of Nature. Is that correct?

I'm sure I am one of those people who don't understand, so I don't mind whatever answer comes my way.


----------



## jim lyon

mike bispham said:


> Your point is taken: but where would we be if we bred only from the Stephen Hawkins's? Would you deliberately propagate from only your weakest hives? Would you make efforts to keep them alive just to be able to reproduce them?
> 
> The answers are surely no, and no. The logic that flows from there is simple, time honoured, and consistent with standard practice in all other fields of husbandry. Put Best to Best. Never propagate weakness.
> 
> The fact remains: nature knows best. The natural way is ruthless selection of the best adapted in each generation; and the beekeeper who wants healthy bees needs to understand the process and work with it.
> 
> The problem is the bee farming industry is stuffed by people who don't understand - or who want obscure - that simple imperative.
> 
> Mike


My best are always the basis for selecting queen mothers and even I can be ruthless but by keeping more hives alive I have as broad a pool of drones as is possible and yes that would also include nearby feral stock. Greater genetic diversity surely has to be a good thing in any breeding endeavor. Add to that the fact that we have been able to dramatically decrease our mite treatments in recent years and the logic becomes even more clear. Ummmmm that is about all I believe I can really say (perhaps i have already said too much) as the unique forum rules here say that those who choose to be treatment free need not have to defend their point of view.


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Coming late to the game, but, you are assuming that Stephen Hawking came about from the combination of weak genes?.


Hi Mark: no. I've made no assumptions about the cause of his illness at all. 



sqkcrk said:


> You are also assuming that we humans are outside of Nature and natural selection. Or that what we do w/ the husbandry of species is not in fact natural, part of Nature. Is that correct?


If you think of Nature as what is, and happens, without humans in the picture, and 'artificial' as what happens as a result of our acts, you get a nice clear dividing line that enables to think clearly about the two separate spheres of causes. Humans practice 'arts', operate with 'artifice'. A round rock tumbling down a hill follows an entirely natural path. 

The human construct 'Nature' was devised to make this distinction (by the ancient Greeks), and I think that's the best way to use it. (Acts of Gods are also ruled out of Nature BTW. That leaves 'physica' as a mechanical sphere in which matter simply rubs against, and moves matter - and that makes it possible to look for 'laws' of nature. With all else ruled out you can make the assumption that identical causes will have identical effects - and the rest is the history of science.)

Of course, we come from nature, and are part of nature - but if you think that way its very hard to have conversations about what is 'natural'.

Mike


----------



## sqkcrk

I see. Thank you. If I understand correctly we have to seperate ourselves from Nature, the Natural World, in order to have perspective. Is that correct?


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> I see. Thank you. If I understand correctly we have to seperate ourselves from Nature, the Natural World, in order to have perspective. Is that correct?


I'm not sure I'd put it quite that way. Adopting that position enables clear and simple conversations, that's my point. This is human activity, that is natural activity. Natural stuff happens alone - the rock rolling down a hill example - human activity is artful, purposeful. Its results are artifacts, and artificial, in the sense of non-natural (according to our definition).

Its not perfect, but its a useful way of working. We can say: 'bees naturally mate competitively', without having to then think about how we remove humans from the picture. We can talk about natural 'selection' as opposed to human selection (of parents).

Mike


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay, then I have to ask, humans don't mate competitively?


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Okay, then I have to ask, humans don't mate competitively?


Yes they do. Quite naturally I guess. I think we're going a bit off topic here Mark. Why don't you try reading the Wiki article (an extract below), and thinking about the issues for a little while?

Best wishes,

Mike

Within the various uses of the word today, "nature" often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature may refer to the general realm of various types of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects – the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth, and the matter and energy of which all these things are composed. It is often taken to mean the "natural environment" or wilderness–wild animals, rocks, forest, beaches, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay, thank you.


----------



## mike bispham

jim lyon said:


> Greater genetic diversity surely has to be a good thing in any breeding endeavor.


Hi Jim,

I'm not so sure about that. Doesn't natural selection tend to narrow diversity until a 'race' emerges? The best strain would then be that which does best any particular place at any particular time. Breeders of other kinds of livestock seem to go out of their way to exclude all but those showing desired characteristics, and aim to 'fix' desired traits by inbreeding. Of course if over-inbreeding can become a problem, and new blood is generally required from time to time - but there is no general aim for ever broader mongrelization.



> Add to that the fact that we have been able to dramatically decrease our mite treatments in recent years and the logic becomes even more clear.


That would seem to be a good thing - although it could also mean you're getting better at targeting and using other tricks rather than raising mite-management skills through breeding. Would you be prepared to talk about that?



> Ummmmm that is about all I believe I can really say (perhaps i have already said too much) as the unique forum rules here say that those who choose to be treatment free need not have to defend their point of view.


Do you think they should have to? I'll be happy to offer a defence of my treatment-free beekeeping. I don't suppose the forum rules allow us to ask treaters to defend their point of view? But then, perhaps its rather obvious; they want to keep their bees alive, and (sometimes) to preserve and enhance their livelihoods, and they don't see an easy path to doing that without treating. Often they don't believe it is possible. Both positions are understandable. But I think non-treaters are entitled to complain, on grounds that treaters downgrade and endanger both wild bees (and the genetic diversity that belongs to future generations) and their own (i.e. my) bees. It effectively amounts to mass slaughter by genetic poisoning.

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## jim lyon

Delete


----------



## BEES4U

You get what you pay for. A $20 queen is a queen you're going to pay for over and over and over, so don't buy it.
That blanket statement can be questioned strongly!
Quality queens pay dividends.
They do not cost!


----------



## BEES4U

Re;
Your DNA testing.
What lab are you using and what is the cost per sample?
Thanks,


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bishop said:


> Do you think they should have to? I'll be happy to offer a defence of my treatment-free beekeeping. I don't suppose the forum rules allow us to ask treaters to defend their point of view? But then, perhaps its rather obvious; they want to keep their bees alive, and (sometimes) to preserve and enhance their livelihoods, and they don't see an easy path to doing that without treating. Often they don't believe it is possible. Both positions are understandable. But I think non-treaters are entitled to complain, on grounds that treaters downgrade and endanger both wild bees (and the genetic diversity that belongs to future generations) and their own (i.e. my) bees. It effectively amounts to mass slaughter by genetic poisoning.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Mike


Mike,
In my own case I have experienced that not treating is not a viable option. For me. Not yet. How to keep bees in largeish numbers w/out antivarroa mite treatments is not something I can afford or have not figured out how to establish in my business.

This is sort of what you eluded to above. And I don't write it in defence as much as to agree w/ your point.

I'm finding this discussion interesting. I look forward to reading more.


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Mike,
> In my own case I have experienced that not treating is not a viable option. For me. Not yet. How to keep bees in largeish numbers w/out antivarroa mite treatments is not something I can afford or have not figured out how to establish in my business.


What sorts of things have you tried Mark?


----------



## sqkcrk

Well, my main experience w/ not treating for varroa waas either the same year as CCD was identified or the year before. I had 732 hives in May 2006(?) or was it 2005(?) and had not treated them that Spring. By Fall, when it was time to transport them South for the Winter I was down to 432 and did not treat them then either. By March of the next year I was down to 100 colonies. I have not yet recovered back to the original number or up to the 800 I have pallets for, for a number of reasons.

I did not consider continuing not treating or even raising queens from the survivors. I am not that organized or that good at grafting. So I borrowed colonies to cover my pollination contracts. I bought honey to cover my obligations to my customers, stores. I bought queens to use in splits, every Spring. I used mite treatments which successful beekeeping friends used. 

Since then I have not had really big loss. I have had some years of 33% loss, but this last year losses were more like 10 or 15%. The best in years. Attributable to what exactly I can't really say. Don't really know. Coulds have been the mild Winter. But my hives Winter in SC where harshly cold weather is usually not much of a factor. Bees can be worked almost during any week of the Winter in SC.

What else can I tell you? Thanks for asking.


----------



## mike bispham

Hi Mark, When you wrote earlier: "In my own case I have experienced that not treating is not a viable option. For me. Not yet. How to keep bees in largeish numbers w/out antivarroa mite treatments is not something I can afford or have not figured out how to establish in my business." 

...I had imagined that you'd looked into given treatment-free beekeeping, come to understand the principles, tried it, and failed. (Had you rebuilt from your survivors I think you'd likely have made it!)

A lot has been learned about raising mite resistant bees in recent years. If you undertook to study the principles and form a structured breeding program to that end, I'm pretty sure you'd be able to do it. There might be some cost to productivity for a while. 

I can't offer any more than that - I've never kept bees on that scale, and am in the early stages of a much more modest breeding program. But everything I learn shows that the increasing number of people who think that treatments are addictive and a major part of the problem, are right. The paper I linked to is just one of a number of sources that can help us understand the underlying nature of the problem - a useful first stage I think in forming a plan to overcome it. There are more from my link page at the website below my signature.

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## Paul McCarty

BEES4U - As far as DNA testing is concerned - to answer the question... I use the county extension office. It is free. I believe they send it out to the ARS Tucson Bee Lab.


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bispham said:


> Hi Mark, When you wrote earlier: "In my own case I have experienced that not treating is not a viable option. For me. Not yet. How to keep bees in largeish numbers w/out antivarroa mite treatments is not something I can afford or have not figured out how to establish in my business."
> 
> ...I had imagined that you'd looked into given treatment-free beekeeping, come to understand the principles, tried it, and failed. (Had you rebuilt from your survivors I think you'd likely have made it!)
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Mike


I should have made it clear that I meant for me when I wrote that treatment free is not viable. Viable for me. If I did not make thaty clear.

You could very well be correct Mike. But life circumstances will quite often direct actions. I am sure you understand that. Had I another source of income, a job other than what I supplied myself, perhaps developing a business based on nontreatment could possibly been doable. On the other hand I have only heard of a small handful of commercial operations smaller than mine here in the US. So, it seems that indicates that goinbg treatmenty free on a commercial basis is not practical, yet.

Commercials do seem to be going towards softer, more natural, miticides like formic acid and thymol based materials. Perhaps in time this will lead to less or even no treatment. Time will tell. Then we will look back and wonder why we didn't do things differently from the start.

ps: thanks for your patience and willingness to naddress this issue with me.


----------



## Paul McCarty

I have observed there seems to be a size cut-off for being able to go totally treatment free. I cannot tell if it is because of the ability to provide more oversight of the hives or if it is the "too many rats in tha cage" effect. The larger you get, the harder it becomes to stay totally treatment free. It seems to be that way with many animals.


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Commercials do seem to be going towards softer, more natural, miticides like formic acid and thymol based materials. Perhaps in time this will lead to less or even no treatment. Time will tell. Then we will look back and wonder why we didn't do things differently from the start.


Hi Mark,

Sadly 'softer' treatments are just as bad, in genetic terms as the harshest chemicals! The rule is: the better it works (at killing varroa), the worse it is in terms of reducing mite-tolerance in the next generation! 

The only good treatment, from the perspective of the feral bee population or the non-treater, is one that doesn't work at all. This also applies to mechanical tricks, sugar dusting and artificial swarming. 

Similarly, treating 'only those that need it' is a self-defeating strategy! They are the very first you want dead!



sqkcrk said:


> ps: thanks for your patience and willingness to naddress this issue with me.


Its a pleasure - I just hope you find it all useful. As a large commercial beekeeper your problems with this are as much of interest to me. Have you looked at the various forms of advice and training offered by Marla Spivak?

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bispham said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> Its a pleasure - I just hope you find it all useful. As a large commercial beekeeper your problems with this are as much of interest to me. Have you looked at the various forms of advice and training offered by Marla Spivak?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Mike


I am finding it interesting. No, I haven't read or experienced Marla Spivak's training or advice. I have used some queens which came from her stock. I shouild look into what you refer to. Any advice on how to go about that? A websearch probably, right?


----------



## mike bispham

Paul McCarty said:


> I have observed there seems to be a size cut-off for being able to go totally treatment free. I cannot tell if it is because of the ability to provide more oversight of the hives or if it is the "too many rats in tha cage" effect. The larger you get, the harder it becomes to stay totally treatment free. It seems to be that way with many animals.


As I understand it John Kefus and his partners have managed this - I think they run several thousand hives. I think operations on that sort of scale are requeening yearly, and I would think it would be necessary to be taking breeding queens (and sourcing drones) from the farmed stock, in order to be managing a process of co-evolution with the mites. But it could be there is just too much horizontal transmission of mites genes to allow the milder, less fecund strains of mites to evolve - something that is I believe key. 

It may be too that there are limits to the degree to which you can pack hives and expect them to thrive without throwing chemicals at them. Like battery hens; at a certain size and density its impossible to continue without systematically feeding antibiotics. 

In theory at least a large operation could be composed of a number of smaller genetically independent apiaries - in which case any such critical-mass problem shouldn't exist...?

These are just my own thoughts mind...


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> No, I haven't read or experienced Marla Spivak's training or advice. I have used some queens which came from her stock. I shouild look into what you refer to. Any advice on how to go about that? A websearch probably, right?


You could start from here Mark. There may well be more up to date stuff from Marla and her colleagues out there - I haven't looked in a while. There are links to other related documents.

http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/selected links.htm

This links to her Bee Lab at the University of Minnesota, from where information on her courses can be found:

http://beelab.umn.edu/

Mike


----------



## Solomon Parker

mike bispham said:


> But it could be there is just too much horizontal transmission of mites genes to allow the milder, less fecund strains of mites to evolve - something that is I believe key.


I'm not sure I follow you. It's the more virulent mites that must evolve to be less virulent. One prime way that is done is by letting them kill hives and thus remove themselves from contention. At the same time, good bees will be able to deal with any kind of mites, otherwise treatment-free beekeepers would see periodic crashes as once in a while the virulent mites will occasionally get into the system. I don't see these crashes, nor does anyone I am in contact with.


----------



## mike bispham

Solomon Parker said:


> I'm not sure I follow you. It's the more virulent mites that must evolve to be less virulent. One prime way that is done is by letting them kill hives and thus remove themselves from contention.


Hi Solomon,

My starting point was the general principle that horizontal transmission tends to encourage virulence, while vertical transmission favours (evolution toward) gentler strains. Virulent mites killing colonies can escape death themselves by moving sideways into other hives. This will occur far more where colonies are closer together, allowing robbing and wholesale movement into new homes of colonies failing because of over-virulent mites. 

Where colonies are further apart, and there is thus less opportunity for sideways movement, the only mite strains that will survive are those that don't kill their hosts, and allow them to build sufficiently to swarm. These must be gentler (that probably largely meaning largely less fecund). 

Too much horizontal movement thus allows virulent strains to prosper, and I related that to larger outfits where many hives are often close together. 

I'm not sure I agree that 'more virulent mites must evolve to be less virulent.' I think its more the case that the more virulent strains who kill their hosts will perish, while the less virulent strains who don't will continue. Again, this process is made harder when wholesale horizontal transmission is available.



Solomon Parker said:


> At the same time, good bees will be able to deal with any kind of mites, otherwise treatment-free beekeepers would see periodic crashes as once in a while the virulent mites will occasionally get into the system. I don't see these crashes, nor does anyone I am in contact with.


I agree. I don't think that observation is inconsistent with my understanding - but I could be wrong. 

I suspect though that bees that do well with reasonably gentle mites might be overwhelmed by a heavy enough attack from highly virulent mites - though it seems that's not likely to happen very often in larger apiaries. 

A lot of this is about questions of degree - which makes understanding and discussion harder, but I suspect its important to try to engage with it. It's not just about 'good bees vs bad bees', but about bees that are good enough for the conditions at hand. 

Mike


----------



## sqkcrk

And what about the presence in this Country of two different kinds or strains of mites? Genetically different I believe. Is one more virulent than another? Or is it w/in a kind or strain that degree of virulence is found?


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> And what about the presence in this Country of two different kinds or strains of mites? Genetically different I believe. Is one more virulent than another? Or is it w/in a kind or strain that degree of virulence is found?


I don't know, but I expect the general principles we are discussing apply equally to both. In other words, there's probably no need to know.


----------



## Solomon Parker

mike bispham said:


> I'm not sure I agree that 'more virulent mites must evolve to be less virulent.' I think its more the case that the more virulent strains who kill their hosts will perish, while the less virulent strains who don't will continue.


They are the same thing. You're making the assumption that more virulent mites cannot evolve to be less virulent and thus will hopefully extinct themselves. However, as is the normal for most species, there is a continuum. It may very well be the case that there is not enough genetic diversity to accomplish the feat, we don't know. But if more virulent mites kill off hives (and thus themselves, there will not always be another hive to move into) then the ones that don't will be the ones that survive.

On the other hand, I feel all this is immaterial. Mites are receiving strong selective pressures from the vast number of commercially kept and treated hives to become more virulent, to survive treatments. It would seem that mite adaptation would be moving in two directions among the two types of populations. However, the commercial population is much more cohesive and pervasive, therefore I conclude that the mites in general are adapting to be more virulent and survive treatments, and at the same time, the bees among the non treated and feral populations are out-adapting the mites, or have reached a tipping point where they have gained the upper hand.

For whatever reason, it absolutely can be done, which was not accepted to be the case a few short years ago. At first there was only Dee Lusby, then Michael Bush, then BeeWeaver, and now small treatment-free producers are popping up all over. I am one and I'm overjoyed to demonstrate the fact that bees can survive and thrive treatment free when a little more than a year ago, I was being told it couldn't be done. Hopefully, I'll get a few more chances to rub it in.


----------



## mike bispham

Solomon Parker said:


> They are the same thing. You're making the assumption that more virulent mites cannot evolve to be less virulent and thus will hopefully extinct themselves. However, as is the normal for most species, there is a continuum. It may very well be the case that there is not enough genetic diversity to accomplish the feat, we don't know. But if more virulent mites kill off hives (and thus themselves, there will not always be another hive to move into) then the ones that don't will be the ones that survive.


I agree with this.



Solomon Parker said:


> On the other hand, I feel all this is immaterial. Mites are receiving strong selective pressures from the vast number of commercially kept and treated hives to become more virulent, to survive treatments.


I think there are two separate kinds of virulence in play here:

First: virulence against the defences of bees (which largely relates, as I understand it, to fecudinity - do the breed so fast they cripple or kill medium-resistant bees?); 

Second, resistance to treatments. This might have something to do with fecundity, but it might have nothing to do with it - its simply about being less affected by the treatment.



Solomon Parker said:


> It would seem that mite adaptation would be moving in two directions among the two types of populations. However, the commercial population is much more cohesive and pervasive, therefore I conclude that the mites in general are adapting to be more virulent and survive treatments, and at the same time, the bees among the non treated and feral populations are out-adapting the mites, or have reached a tipping point where they have gained the upper hand.


I think that my distinction above is relevant here. Mites in the wild, and in non-treating apiaries are encouraged to become less virulent (in the first sense), while the second sense (resistance to treatments) is immaterial - they're not being subjected to any selective pressure vis a vis treatments.

In the wild and non-treating environments mites and bees (and viruses) are co-evolving to states where all can survive and thrive together - because of selective pressures that force that - live together or die together. 

In intensive apiaries none of this is occurring, and the system is sick. Evolution toward co-existence is frustrated by treatments, and by the continual import of new non-resistant queens. Meanwhile mites are having theor own little arms race with beekeepers and their treatments.

Do you see what I mean? 



Solomon Parker said:


> For whatever reason, it absolutely can be done, which was not accepted to be the case a few short years ago. At first there was only Dee Lusby, then Michael Bush, then BeeWeaver, and now small treatment-free producers are popping up all over. I am one and I'm overjoyed to demonstrate the fact that bees can survive and thrive treatment free when a little more than a year ago, I was being told it couldn't be done. Hopefully, I'll get a few more chances to rub it in.


I couldn't agree more! I think now we'll soon be turning to questions of what the 'it' it is that can't be done is. Some things can't be done. But small and medium scale treatment free productive beekeeping ain't among them.

Mike


----------



## Solomon Parker

mike bispham said:


> Do you see what I mean?


I do, and we largely agree. Where we differ is that I take the position that resistance to treatments (be they chemical, physical, whatever) goes hand in hand with virulence. I find it difficult to isolate causes and effects especially when sets of both exist side by side in the same system. I feel that stimulus that causes strength in one area will lead to strength in other areas as well, whether it be fecundity or just the ability to hang on.

Speaking of non-resistant queens, in my first foray into beekeeping, I was given a hive of Kona (Hawaii) stock. They didn't have a chance. At the time, Varroa had been present in my area for almost a decade, and had not existed in Hawaii. And yet, for some reason, people have continued importing queens from Hawaii (and Australia and New Zealand), areas that have had even less time to deal with varroa than we have. I am unable to understand the logic behind this. Interestingly enough, my great uncle had lost more than a hundred of his colonies and had half a dozen still remaining treatment-free in the mid nineties. He didn't seem to be aware of the existence of varroa at all and credited the losses to 'the drouth.' Another thing I never understood was the wholesale destruction of infected colonies when mites first surfaced. When has a program like that _ever_ worked?


----------



## jim lyon

Solomon Parker said:


> I do, and we largely agree. Where we differ is that I take the position that resistance to treatments (be they chemical, physical, whatever) goes hand in hand with virulence. I find it difficult to isolate causes and effects especially when sets of both exist side by side in the same system. I feel that stimulus that causes strength in one area will lead to strength in other areas as well, whether it be fecundity or just the ability to hang on.
> 
> Speaking of non-resistant queens, in my first foray into beekeeping, I was given a hive of Kona (Hawaii) stock. They didn't have a chance. At the time, Varroa had been present in my area for almost a decade, and had not existed in Hawaii. And yet, for some reason, people have continued importing queens from Hawaii (and Australia and New Zealand), areas that have had even less time to deal with varroa than we have.


Are you aware that the Kona stock was built up by Binford (Bweaver) and Roy S. Jr. (Rweaver) and it was the Weavers who turned the Kona operation into a major queen raising area? Are you also aware that Kona has been constantly improving their stock by importing drone semen from resistant stock years ahead of any mite infestation? I am not going to try to make the case that Kona queens are the best queens around but I have been around their operation enough to know that no one tries harder to furnish a quality product and to do so on a timely basis than Gus and the folks at Kona queen. If you book a queen there you are going to get it and you are going to get it on time, they have been invaluable to the industry for years.


----------



## Solomon Parker

What I will say is that 16 years ago, a Kona queen didn't have a snowball's chance in a blast furnace without Apistan.


----------



## Ben Franklin

I picked up two Tree hives this past week. Very Strong hives. The comb inside tells me these are old hives. The owner said they have been there for over five years.
One of the things we noticed is the calmness of these bees. Chain saws going and all and no one got stung. Even after a bumpy ride home they were peaceful.
Now I hope to raise some queens from these feral hives.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

I found this paper to be very interesting, and encouraging.

For commercial beekeepers or people who have larger operations, I wonder if there might be an economically viable method of an approach to getting away from treatments. For instance, what if you were to create a small nuc yard, and not treat just those. Say, begin with 20 nucs, or single deeps. Don't treat. Winter those. Graft from survivors. Create more nucs the next season, winter, etc. The idea being to use a relatively small amount of resources through using small colonies from which to make selections.

Nucs are great to have anyway. And if you make the nucs up on the early side, then remove resources to keep them small, you aren't really managing the mites so much through the breaking of the brood cycle (if that works at all).

Is there some managable way to work toward treatment-free while maintaining a commercial enterprise? Is there a way to approach treatment free without risking your whole business?

Adam


----------



## sqkcrk

You would have to do so much more than replace the bees.


----------



## mike bispham

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Is there some managable way to work toward treatment-free while maintaining a commercial enterprise? Is there a way to approach treatment free without risking your whole business? Adam


Hi Adam, 

I don't speak from personal experience - I'm raising a treatment free apiary from feral stock - but Marla Spivak and others advocate a systematic approach of locating 'hygienic' queens through a frozen brood test (search that phrase). 

New queens are raised from those that pass, replacing those that failed the test. (Low tech ways of doing the test are possible... don't be put of by talk of liquid nitrogen)

This process should be aided by the normal breeder act of helping the right genes through the male line as well, by keeping large unrestricted brood-nest colonies producing lots of drones around the apiary to help press the right genes forward. 

The frozen brood test (or 'assay') allows you find out which queens are 'varroa sensitive hygienic' (VSH) while maintaining treatments - something treatments normally obscure.

Once a sufficient proportion of hives are testing positive you can drop the meds. You must never restart - that will just set you back to square one. 

From there on just propagating from the best producers will maintain the hygiene levels, as any mite-vulnerable queens will always tend to be poor producers. 

This amounts to simply bringing the characteristic of mite-resistance into a normal selective propagation process - something essential to all kinds of husbandry. 

Feral 'survivor' blood will also help, as will bought in hygienic queens. 

Again, read up from my link page. Knowing what is happening and why helps a lot.

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Solomon Parker said:


> I do, and we largely agree. Where we differ is that I take the position that resistance to treatments (be they chemical, physical, whatever) goes hand in hand with virulence. I find it difficult to isolate causes and effects especially when sets of both exist side by side in the same system. I feel that stimulus that causes strength in one area will lead to strength in other areas as well, whether it be fecundity or just the ability to hang on.


Yes, I can see that. I reckon we could talk about a lack of restraint on virulence. Without selection of less virulent strains the more aggressive simply gain the upper hand. In general terms, virulence will allways win through until a restraining factor comes into play. In the case of feral stocks that factor is death of the host, with no opportunity for horizontal transmission. Result: death of (virulent) strain.

Does that make sense?



Solomon Parker said:


> Speaking of non-resistant queens, in my first foray into beekeeping, I was given a hive of Kona (Hawaii) stock. They didn't have a chance. At the time, Varroa had been present in my area for almost a decade, and had not existed in Hawaii. And yet, for some reason, people have continued importing queens from Hawaii (and Australia and New Zealand), areas that have had even less time to deal with varroa than we have. I am unable to understand the logic behind this.


I raised this issue on Bee-L a couple of years ago. Clang! The censor's doors swung shut! 



Solomon Parker said:


> Another thing I never understood was the wholesale destruction of infected colonies when mites first surfaced. When has a program like that _ever_ worked?


I think it can work. American Foul Brood is controlled here that way. The trick is to destroy the vulnerable hosts, and let the non-vulnerable rise in the population. [1] Of course treatments and/or manipulations defeat any such effort. It is the vulnerability which must be systematically bred out and eradicated.

Mike

[1] From the UK regulator, FERA

"AFB is a notifiable disease under the Bee
Diseases and Pests Control Orders (for England
and Wales) and is subject to official control by a
programme of apiary inspections carried out by
the NBU. Control of the disease is through
compulsory destruction of infected colonies,
which is a very effective measure. This
eradication policy has been highly effective since
the 1940s when first introduced, bringing the
incidence of foul brood down from several
thousand infected colonies per year to less than
100 nowadays. In recent years disease incidence
has been characterized by sporadic but large
outbreaks which have been rapidly brought under
control by the inspectors and beekeepers
working together. Methods of control of AFB
using antibiotics that are used in some overseas
countries are not effective, as they only serve to
suppress signs of the disease without eradicating
it and through frequent use allow the
development of resistant bacterial strains. The
use of antibiotics to control AFB is not
permitted in the UK."

(Note the logic of breeding in the host is not included in this rationale. FERA are idiotic in this respect - they do it because they know it works, not because they understand why it works. MB)


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

mike bispham said:


> ...Marla Spivak and others advocate a systematic approach of locating 'hygienic' queens through a frozen brood test ...
> New queens are raised from those that pass, replacing those that failed the test...The frozen brood test (or 'assay') allows you find out which queens are 'varroa sensitive hygienic' (VSH)
> 
> This amounts to simply bringing the characteristic of mite-resistance into a normal selective propagation process - something essential to all kinds of husbandry...


Mike,

Interesting. However, consider this portion of the paper:

*"...However, since the Gotland population does not demonstrate hygienic behavior (Locke and Fries 2011) nor had signiﬁcantly high proportions of infertile mites, there is no reason to suspect that they are expressing VSH. Instead, the suppression of mite reproductive success in Gotland may be due to another mechanism, such as pupal volatile compounds that can inhibit the initiation of egg-laying of mites 
(Garrido and Rosenkranz 2003; Milani et al. 2004)."*

In selecting *for* VSH, how do we know we're not also selecting *against* other desirable traits that we don't yet understand. The Gotland population is surviving without apparent VSH traits, but they're not sure how - so this trait cannot yet be selected for. In some ways VSH traits are the most obvious - we can test for and see the traits fairly easily. But what about something like "pupal volatile compounds"? Who's to say that there aren't more common traits that are just as effective, but more difficult for us to see? Who's to say that the bees don't have some other, more readily displayed trait that's just as effective? 

For example, someone in the future discovers that if you don't feed bees sugar, their body chemistry changes enough so that they're just that critical bit less nutritious for the mite, and that is the tipping point. Of course, I'm not suggesting that is the case- but just that it is so difficult to understand all the variables. When bees are left to their own, all of the beekeeper-induced variables are soon eliminated. But which needles in that haystack are the important ones to the bees surviving mites?

Is this were the addition of feral genetics might fill the gap? With "wild cards" that add genetic variables we hope will help?

This potential to inadvertently select against important traits is, I think, what Dennis was talking about earlier on this thread. And it is also what I fear in selecting for a specific trait regarding varroa. If one selects based on survival, it allows for things we don't yet grasp. You still select for production, gentleness, etc etc., but survival is first.

Does that make sense? I don't profess to know a bit about this from a breeding standpoint - but these are just questions from a person interested in getting into it.

Adam


----------



## mike bispham

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Mike,
> 
> 
> In selecting *for* VSH, how do we know we're not also selecting *against* other desirable traits that we don't yet understand. The Gotland population is surviving without apparent VSH traits, but they're not sure how - so this trait cannot yet be selected for. In some ways VSH traits are the most obvious - we can test for and see the traits fairly easily. But what about something like "pupal volatile compounds"? Who's to say that there aren't more common traits that are just as effective, but more difficult for us to see? Who's to say that the bees don't have some other, more readily displayed trait that's just as effective?


I think those are very sound thoughts - I was just outlining what I believe to be Marla Spivak's main method. And yes, adding in feral and bought hygienic strains must help the apiary to find a fuller range of tools. I think moving toward selection based on performance as soon as possible is a good plan (once treatment free), as whatever it is that's working is working best in those colonies. And to guard against losing valuable traits a range of mite -resistant queens (and drones) should be maintained and used. They'll mix in anyway in a free mating environment.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> But which needles in that haystack are the important ones to the bees surviving mites?


Those that work best! That's natures way - the ones that thrive get off more swarms, which survive more often, and put up more drones. The weakest drop out altogether. Size and productivity (sans treatments) = 'has what's needed'




Adam Foster Collins said:


> This potential to inadvertently select against important traits is, I think, what Dennis was talking about earlier on this thread.


I agree, as much as possible try to broaden the defences - but the frozen brood test might be the best way for larger/commercial operations to make the initial break from treatments. It can be systemized and taught to workers - these things matter. 

I think working to keep variation up while insisting on sound mite-managers is the way to start. In general, thinking about these things is very worthwhile, and a sensible course can be found to suit all circumstances.

Mike


----------



## Solomon Parker

Adam Foster Collins said:


> If one selects based on survival, it allows for things we don't yet grasp. You still select for production, gentleness, etc etc., but survival is first.


This is 100% for me. I came to the conclusion based on information I had heard in the past that feral colonies had widely varying rates of VSH. Whatever the bees need to take care of the problem (be it pheromones, hormones, smells, tastes, colors, timings, temperatures etc.) that's what I want them to do. I leave it up to them.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

I think I'm with you, Solomon.

Honestly, I think letting them alone in terms of selecting for survival is all any of us are really qualified to do. There are just too many things we don't (and may never understand about the bees).

I think we must continue to select for traditional traits like temperament and production levels, as these are things that are important to our interaction with them. But in terms of survival, I think survival itself is the only trustworthy indicator.

Adam


----------



## mike bispham

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I think I'm with you, Solomon.
> 
> Honestly, I think letting them alone in terms of selecting for survival is all any of us are really qualified to do. There are just too many things we don't (and may never understand about the bees).
> 
> I think we must continue to select for traditional traits like temperament and production levels, as these are things that are important to our interaction with them. But in terms of survival, I think survival itself is the only trustworthy indicator.
> 
> Adam


I'm with you both on this - as an ideal. But the question was: how does a large commercial operation go over to treatment free without loss...

For myself: I source survivors, don't treat or manipulate, and don't feed. I only propagate - from the best. So my bees _are_ survivors in every sense. 

One of the things I aim to do is carefully support, and definiately don't downgrade, my local breeding pool. I want feral bees around me, sending their genes inward, and I want to be able to think I understand their needs. So my bees are selected to be strong (which I think benefits the ferals) and to carry no impeding traits. They know when to build, when to raise winter bees and when to store. They are local bees tuning themselves constantly to local conditions. I haven't yet felt the need to select for temperament or quietness on the frames. (I worry - probably foolishly - that gentle bees might be more prone to robbing)

Mike


----------



## Solomon Parker

mike bispham said:


> I'm with you both on this - as an ideal. But the question was: how does a large commercial operation go over to treatment free without loss...


If it is possible for bees to survive long term (this is a big if and I am not yet certain it can be done) then it will be done using queens produced treatment free. I believe it will also require wholesale removal of old combs as well. But it won't just be a two step thing. Queens produced treatment free will most likely come from stationary operations. The few performers that result from migratory operation must continually be recycled back into the breeding program so that a treatment-free migratory bee will be developed. But even that will result in some loss. So it's a conundrum.


----------



## jbeshearse

It is not really either or. Both the treatment free/feral populations and the managed populations will eventually reach the same level or mite tolerance/ resistance. It will take the treated managed populations longer to get there but they will eventually get there, just as the treatment free will. Managed treated colonies that have the necessary genes to survive untreated are not killed off or managed out. They survive better than the rest of their treated kin. The only reason it will take the treated bees longer to reach that point is that the populations are larger and the treatments mean non resistant bees will continue to survive until the treatment free gene works it's way into the entire population.


----------



## mike bispham

jbeshearse said:


> It is not really either or. Both the treatment free/feral populations and the managed populations will eventually reach the same level or mite tolerance/ resistance. It will take the treated managed populations longer to get there but they will eventually get there, just as the treatment free will.


Hi,

This is not what the science of evolutionary biology or the art of breeding foresee. Organisms adapt to their environment. An environment in which a beekeeper supplies treatments offers no selective pressure toward adaptation - in this case mite resistance. It just won't happen - unless those same beekeepers also systematically select for the best and eliminate the worst strains. That's just the way things work, and what is needed. As the paper that forms the subject of this thread states: 

"Coevolution by natural selection in this system has been hindered for European honey bee hosts since apicultural practices remove the mite and consequently the selective pressures required for such a process." (Post #1 of this thread)



jbeshearse said:


> Managed treated colonies that have the necessary genes to survive untreated are not killed off or managed out. They survive better than the rest of their treated kin. The only reason it will take the treated bees longer to reach that point is that the populations are larger and the treatments mean non resistant bees will continue to survive until the treatment free gene works it's way into the entire population.


That's possible in most cases - because most bee populations have the necessary traits in about 10% of the individuals. But it all hinges on just what is meant by 'managed'! If they are systematically selected and propagated to promote resistant strains (and that includes keeping non-resistant strains out of the breeding pool...) then that will happen. But that's best described as 'managed toward non-treatment'. 

If, to take the other extreme, they're managed by systematic treatment and/or importing of non-resistant queens, it'll never happen. The selective pressure just isn't there. Even if you started with good resistant stock you'd very soon breed the resistance right out again.

It really is 'either/or'. One consequense of that is the unfortunate corrollary: if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Solomon Parker said:


> If it is possible for bees to survive long term (this is a big if and I am not yet certain it can be done) then it will be done using queens produced treatment free. I believe it will also require wholesale removal of old combs as well. But it won't just be a two step thing. Queens produced treatment free will most likely come from stationary operations. The few performers that result from migratory operation must continually be recycled back into the breeding program so that a treatment-free migratory bee will be developed. But even that will result in some loss. So it's a conundrum.


I think it might be worth remembering that this is all about adopting the right _process_. There isn't some endpoint where we can all relax and stop breeding purposefully. The bees, and the mites, and the viruses constantly adapt, and we must guide their evolution through selective propagation - always. This is what happens in every other field of husbandry - and must.

The possible alternative is a heathly feral population in which nature does the breeding for us. (Note many livestock animals are constantly refreshed by the injection of wild or semi-wild stock. In the UK most breeding sheep are first crosses of 'hefted' upland (mountain) flocks - essentially survivor strains - with carefully raised lowland breeds. The same thing happens with moorland ponies.)

Such a state would not reliably supply highly productive hives - that would need further breeding. But it would go a long way to taking care of essential health. Nor would it stop occasional population crashes. These things are part of nature; populations rebuild - usually rapidly from the (resistant - and newly invigorated) survivors.

Back to my point: maintaining a population necessarly involves selective propagation. Mite resistance has to be built into the list of desirable characteristics, and selected routinely. There will never bee a once-and-for-all-time resistant strain. Management has to be about managing the ever-needed ongoing process of maintaining resistance. It needs to be done wherever bees are purposefully reproduced.

To the extent that that happens things will improve. Where it doesn't they will probably get worse. That's just nature correcting poor husbandry.

Mike


----------



## Detroit Bees

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I think this is a fantastic thread with many, many insightful and intelligent questions and responses and I thank you for all that I have learned so far.

Here is my uneducated point of view as a noob to bee keeping and a semi-weekend scientist:

No matter what the breeding/husbandry history of a particular "wild" animal, both good and bad traits are going to be transferred from one generation to the next. Neither man nor nature can select out just the "bad" traits and keep just the "good". What's good for my Detroit bees may be terrible for your Houston bees based on innumerable factors. So we will continue to raise "better" bees for our purpose based on those innumerable factors. 

Before man tamed his first bee hive, bees did just fine in nature. Good colonies lived and died and so did the bad ones. I think that ultimately, Mother Nature will breed the best bees and, if left alone, bees will be fine no matter where they live or what other pests are thrown at them. 

What we as bee keepers are faced with is breeding out our own bad traits that we bred into bees. We want bees that are docile and productive and resistant (plus more good traits) of course, but can we have all of them at once? I understand we want our cake and to eat it, but this is not nature's way. Nature breeds fighters who aren't docile...how can you have both? 

I think what we as bee keepers need to do is adapt ourselves to the bees that can survive any problem thrown at them. Build a better bee suit that can protect you from aggressive bees, build a better hive to help bees be more productive, keep all the man made problems out of a bee's life so they don't have to work so hard to be resistant to chemicals, cities, pollution, etc...leave bees alone in a natural place without man's influence and they will survive and prosper just like they did for thousands of years before we came along to "keep" them.

Nature will select the best traits for the geography and topography and every other kind of "ography" you can throw at a species. However, nature doesn't live on your time line or mine...and no amount of husbandry will make it do so. This entire problem and most others are man made and now we as the small time sect, must try to reverse the bad things we have done. Bees survived just fine without us and if we leave them alone they will again...perhaps not on our timeline. We want what we want and we want it now...

As for correcting these issues, how can we do all these things? I am not so smart to have any great insight into that. This thread (and forum) has opened my eyes to many new issues both small and large scale with regards to bees and I thank you all for that. 

Respectfully,

Peter


----------



## WLC

There are a few problems that remain:

"Mechanistic explanations of the bees’ ability to suppress
mite reproductive success remain unknown."

Until they can 'bottle' mite resistance, there's no way to make use of it.

Secondly, there have been many attempts to sell "mite resistant bees", and they generally fall flat, with the exception of hygienic bees, and they still understand only about 30% of what makes those bees hygienic.

So, while the paper demonstrates the existence of mite resistant bees that have a mechanism other than hygienic behavior, we're still where we were before.


----------



## crofter

Peter, I agree with your philosophy: I do question the part though, that bees always have adapted and always will if we just let them; that indeed may not be a given. In Mother's Nature, extinction of species and succession by something better suited to changing conditions, is much more common than adaptation and survival. One wrong adaptiive turn can, and has lead many species into a fatal evolutionary blind alley.

Unfortunately mans actions are responsible for most of the stressors in the adaption process, or more exactly he is directly the organism that must be defeated for others to survive. It is a leap of faith to suggest he might have the ability to wisely steer the permanent solution of the conflicts. My advice is that we should be very afraid of any simplistic solutions. Unforseen consequences can sure bite us in the butt!


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

WLC said:


> There are a few problems that remain:
> 
> "Mechanistic explanations of the bees’ ability to suppress
> mite reproductive success remain unknown."
> 
> Until they can 'bottle' mite resistance, there's no way to make use of it. ...So, while the paper demonstrates the existence of mite resistant bees that have a mechanism other than hygienic behavior, we're still where we were before.


That's my big problem with the whole discussion of mites. We don't actually have a solid grasp of the mite/bee relationship, and really don't understand completely the different methods a bee might employ to deal with them. So we can't really select for it specifically. And if we try, we might very well be selecting against some of them. VSH is one we know, but it might be only one of several important mite-resistant traits. How do we find the rest of them if we continue treating?

That's why I think the first selection criteria has to be survival. If you don't treat at all, and the bees survive the presence of mites and continue to winter, then the mite resistance (whatever that actually is) is "in there", so to speak. If I get a population of bees that is consistently living and thriving in the presence of mites, then don't I have "mite resistant bees"?

Isn't it possible - even likely - that we may never know the full range of the honeybee's ability to deal with mites until AFTER we have stopped treating and let her fully adjust to deal with mites on her own? And that allowing the bee to do her thing naturally, might be the only way for her to get there - that human beings may have no other way of assisting her?

Adam


----------



## mike bispham

crofter said:


> I do question the part though, that bees always have adapted and always will if we just let them; that indeed may not be a given. In Mother's Nature, extinction of species and succession by something better suited to changing conditions, is much more common than adaptation and survival. One wrong adaptiive turn can, and has lead many species into a fatal evolutionary blind alley.


'Adaptation' is something that occurs in every generation. It may lead to larger changes (even new species) further down the line, or it may more or less reverse a short while - or any time later - when conditions are such that the old set up is favoured. We can say, without fear of dispute, that bees have adapted conditinuously for 20 million years or so, without changing a great deal. 

This perspective forces us to challenge your statement; and indeed, to forcefully reverse it: adaptation is far far more common than extinction. As to an adaptive turn leading to a fatal evolutionary alley, I'd like to see some documented examples or references.

Furthermore such adaptaion is utterly necessary. From the first paragraph of the paper:

"Coevolutionary theories in the study of host–parasite interactions
indicate that antagonistic reciprocal selection pressures
will lead to an “arms race” with a series of adaptations
and counter-adaptations by the host and parasite (Thompson
1994)."



crofter said:


> Unfortunately mans actions are responsible for most of the stressors in the adaption process, or more exactly he is directly the organism that must be defeated for others to survive.


Yes. In this case his action is the frustration of the essential process of adaptation - in every generation, such that the honey bee can keep up in its 'arms race' with mites. He must be defeated by... stopping this systematic frustration.

All this is key background understanding, forming the basis for the study. You rather have things back to front, and dramatically underestimate the forceful nature of scientific studies. This isn't up for argument, its fact.



crofter said:


> It is a leap of faith to suggest he might have the ability to wisely steer the permanent solution of the conflicts. My advice is that we should be very afraid of any simplistic solutions. Unforseen consequences can sure bite us in the butt!


This is not a 'simplistic solution': its the logical application of straightfoward evolutionary biology and breeding practices, as embedded in this (and other) scientific studies, corroborated by thousands of empirical observations of bee/mite relations. It is observant of, and in agreement with, many other similar studies. It does not contradict any aspects of scientific understanding. You can take it as read - or stand pretty much alone against the body of scientific understanding of the relations between hosts and parasites generally, and the application of that understanding here.

Mike


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

I have to wonder how much good anyone is able to do by going treatment free, if their apiaries are within mating range of others who continue to do treatments.

How much can be accomplished if the majority of beekeepers are treating their bees?

Adam


----------



## crofter

Mike, I am not disputing the premise of the article. I think there are plenty of occasions where introduced species have wiped out others whose adaptive processes did not work fast enough. That is not to say that their existing mechanisms were faulty. Mans meddling or abrupt climate change can be devastating to species already in severe competition. When man has the power to change conditions so rapidly he interferes with the natural pace of things. If he makes an opps in one direction should he be allowed to make what he considers a rectifying move in the other? That is where I caution simplistic solutions. Perhaps loss of genetic material is not a consideration but I believe it will be hard for scientific man to avoid that while trying to steer the mite/bee adaptive process to include his objectives. I worry that future defensive properties may be lost in the process of dealing with the recent and current and perhaps temporary, problem of Asian mites.

I would like to think that Science is altruistic but it seems to have some skeletons in its closet and would do well to have some big picture generalists looking over the shoulder of the specialists when tinkering with mother nature. Though it would be the wisest thing to do, I dont think we have the collective will to back off and let nature take its course.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> Until they can 'bottle' mite resistance, there's no way to make use of it.


If that's the answer you're looking for, it won't be found. You're asking to bottle something found only after throwing away the bottle. It's the same sort of concept of people who come to this forum looking for, and I quote: "treatment-free treatments."

Think outside the bottle.


----------



## heaflaw

I agree with Solomon. Species have successfully adapted to adverse conditions for millions of years without humans understanding the mechanisms. It would be more efficient if we understood the mechanisms and could more easily monitor them to spread them around, but I don't see why it's necessary at all.


----------



## WLC

Let's not forget that folks have been selling bees that they claim are mite resistant, but the claim doesn't work out even if the bees were resistant for the seller.

It generally hasn't worked when resistant bees are moved to a different environment for some very obvious reasons. The pests and pathogens in the new location are different.

For instance, if you switched the locations of the bees from Avignon, France and Gotland, Sweden, then you might find the very same thing that has been reported again and again. The resistance seems to disappear.

That being said, it's OK to try, just in case you happen to have bees that are universally mite resistant.

As for 'bottling' mite resistance, VSH is one example, maybe there are others that can be found if we bother to look.

As for the treatment-free-treatmentrs remark, I thought that we might be looking for good genetics, or something similar.


----------



## jbeshearse

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I have to wonder how much good anyone is able to do by going treatment free, if their apiaries are within mating range of others who continue to do treatments.
> 
> How much can be accomplished if the majority of beekeepers are treating their bees?
> 
> Adam


Host/parasite relationships are almost always a cycle. As the parasite species grows to virulent, the host species declines. Until such a time that the parasite species declines to a level which allows the host species to rebound. 

Treatment free or treated will have little to no effect on the overall honeybee resurgence. After the majority of feral (treatment free) colonies perished (probably 90%+), those that remained had better coping mechanisms and are slowly rebuilding populations. The managed populations are experiencing the same thing. Treatments do not kill that 10% of the managed population that would have survived anyway. The managed population may take longer to to reach the same level of hardiness as the ferals (treatment free), as those that are not adapted are treated and thus survive. In reality, treatments are an effective way to insure overall populations do not severely decline before the species rebounds on it's own. I don't think it is an either or scenario, I think both practices are working together for the good of the species.

That said, it is a cycle and eventually the parasites will overburden again and the host populations will crash.

In the referenced study, if the population of isolated bees that enjoyed success because the mites were not as successful in reproduction, were exposed to a mite population that reproduces better, two things would happen. First, the less successful mite population will die out as the more reproductive moves in (survival of the fittest). Second, the bee population would decline just as the un-isolated bees did. Unless the bees themselves are suppressing the reproductive ability of the mites.


----------



## mike bispham

Hi Crofter,

I agree with all you say, except that part which seems to be saying 'carry on treating, because to do otherwise risks losing genetic diversity'. 

Its easy to label a proposed solution (or rather, an understanding of the mechanisms in play that can lead to solutions) 'simplistic'. But it seems to me to be a case of: give a dog a bad name and kill it'. In what way are the things here - the principles and the actions they indicate ' simplistic'? I think you make a charge with that term, and I think it requires justification.

Marla Spivak, whose method I've indicated might be of interest to large commercial operations wishes to wean their bees off the meds, makes a specifical global point along these lines: It is best for this to occur at a local level, so that genetic diversity is maintained, rather than to have central breeding operations which could easily narrow diversity alarmingly. 

It isn't the case that nobody is thinking about this. And its a good point. But it isn't a reason to do nothing - to carry on with the meds. 

There is ample evidence showing that where bees are able to be free of treatments their natural defences are bought to the surface by natural selection, and the age-old problem of a new introduced parasite is taken care of. In what way can that be said to be simplistic, or meddling?

I think 'backing off and letting nature take its course' is precisely what many of us are willing to do - on a local basis - and that the evidence we will provide will strengthen the diagnosis: the biggest health problem bees face is addiction to meds.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Solomon Parker said:


> If that's the answer you're looking for, it won't be found. You're asking to bottle something found only after throwing away the bottle. It's the same sort of concept of people who come to this forum looking for, and I quote: "treatment-free treatments."
> 
> Think outside the bottle.


I'm not so sure. To build selection against mite-vunerability into your management system seems to me to be bottling it. What you have to sell is the understanding: the selective propagation process is the key. (If you can, start with stock that gives you a fighting chance)

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

jbeshearse said:


> Until such a time that the parasite species declines to a level which allows the host species to rebound.


What you mean is 'until such time that the host-parasite pair reach an accomodation that allows both to rebound.' From there on those hosts better at reducing the effect of the parasite will prosper at the expense of those less well able to control them. 



jbeshearse said:


> Treatment free or treated will have little to no effect on the overall honeybee resurgence.


This is inconsistent with the stand taken in the paper; to the effect: it is treatments that prevent the co-evolution of host and parasite (and virus).



jbeshearse said:


> After the majority of feral (treatment free) colonies perished (probably 90%+), those that remained had better coping mechanisms and are slowly rebuilding populations.


Where they are free of the influence of treated drones the rebuilding is rapid



jbeshearse said:


> The managed populations are experiencing the same thing.


 They are? What is your evidence for this claim?



jbeshearse said:


> Treatments do not kill that 10% of the managed population that would have survived anyway.


No, but they do allow the other 90% to reproduce freely. That prevents adptation. Entirely. If you subjested a 'survivor' population to the same regime, within a few years they'd be equally vulnerable.



jbeshearse said:


> The managed population may take longer to to reach the same level of hardiness as the ferals (treatment free), as those that are not adapted are treated and thus survive.


It isn't a case of taking longer. It will never happen because (as the paper reminds us) selective pressure is removed by treating. 



jbeshearse said:


> In reality, treatments are an effective way to insure overall populations do not severely decline before the species rebounds on it's own.


There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case, and it flies in the face of fundamental evolutionary biology. It directly contradicts the clear statements, made by the authors. 

Bees have a natural defence mechanism - shared by all living things: die-back to resistant strains: rebuild from resistant strains. This process carries no cost in terms of diversity.

Treatments frustrate that process entirely, and on an ongoing basis. Treating corrodes diversity by preventing the re-emergence of feral bees around apiaries. 



jbeshearse said:


> I don't think it is an either or scenario, I think both practices are working together for the good of the species.


To think is easy. To make a convincing case you'll need to show where evolutionary biology is going wrong - and write a clear account. I don't think that will be so easy.



jbeshearse said:


> In the referenced study, if the population of isolated bees that enjoyed success because the mites were not as successful in reproduction, were exposed to a mite population that reproduces better, two things would happen. First, the less successful mite population will die out as the more reproductive moves in (survival of the fittest). Second, the bee population would decline just as the un-isolated bees did. Unless the bees themselves are suppressing the reproductive ability of the mites.


I think there is a measure of truth in this. The co-evolution, the study shows us, is local, and there is no reason to think either offers universal protection. With that said, both strains, with their separate defence mechanisms, would offer at least some protection against highly fecund mites. It would be interesting to see if one did more than another.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

*The Drone Side*



Adam Foster Collins said:


> I have to wonder how much good anyone is able to do by going treatment free, if their apiaries are within mating range of others who continue to do treatments.
> 
> How much can be accomplished if the majority of beekeepers are treating their bees?


This is highly relevant. I think the best strategy is to try to swamp your local breeding pool with good drones. Forming local breeding clubs is one route, large self-suffiencient hives on outstands at a bit of a distance another. Keeping away from large treating apiaries a third. Having lots of hives is much better than just a few - I think my hives probably outnumber those treating within drone range. Be among survivor feral colonies. Those are my strategies anyway. 

I think that largeness in bee colonies is very indicative of success and influence. Very big colonies tend to produce large drone populations, and only get that way by being well adapted to the environment. And drones carry a copy of the queen's genes - if she's a good-un they are a powerful transmitter of her genes - twice as much as ordinary - proper - males. 

I think that competitive mating is a powerful mechanism for adaptive health in bees as other species. The largest generally win the mating competition, and the same underlying evolutionary driver that sees big males mating with the majority of females in many mammal species (through harem arrangements) works too with big bee colonies. For that reason my mating outstand drone hives will be unlimited brood nest colonies, made from my best. 

Mike


----------



## crofter

mike bispham said:


> Hi Crofter,
> 
> I agree with all you say, except that part which seems to be saying 'carry on treating, because to do otherwise risks losing genetic diversity'.
> 
> Its easy to label a proposed solution (or rather, an understanding of the mechanisms in play that can lead to solutions) 'simplistic'. But it seems to me to be a case of: give a dog a bad name and kill it'. In what way are the things here - the principles and the actions they indicate ' simplistic'? I think you make a charge with that term, and I think it requires justification.
> 
> Marla Spivak, whose method I've indicated might be of interest to large commercial operations wishes to wean their bees off the meds, makes a specifical global point along these lines: It is best for this to occur at a local level, so that genetic diversity is maintained, rather than to have central breeding operations which could easily narrow diversity alarmingly.
> 
> It isn't the case that nobody is thinking about this. And its a good point. But it isn't a reason to do nothing - to carry on with the meds.
> 
> There is ample evidence showing that where bees are able to be free of treatments their natural defences are bought to the surface by natural selection, and the age-old problem of a new introduced parasite is taken care of. In what way can that be said to be simplistic, or meddling?
> 
> I think 'backing off and letting nature take its course' is precisely what many of us are willing to do - on a local basis - and that the evidence we will provide will strengthen the diagnosis: the biggest health problem bees face is addiction to meds.
> 
> Mike


Backing off and letting nature take its course - on a local basis - I agree with. Local experiments with active control while protecting the whole of the gene bank till you see where the experiment is taking us, but dont burn any genetic bridges in the process. I guess that was Marla Spivaks advice. It is unfortunate that concurrent treatment by others can and likely will hamper the process. Sadly we are deeply into the same conundrum with human medicine.

"There is ample evidence showing that where bees are able to be free of treatments their natural defences are bought to the surface by natural selection, and the age-old problem of a new introduced parasite is taken care of. In what way can that be said to be simplistic, or meddling?"

Man is currently interfering with the natural evolutionary process in so many ways I dont think we can simply back away in any one area and claim that what results was the will of mama gaia. Letting mother nature retake control is a noble thought but I dont think we can muster the will to allow it. (in the big time frame however, nothing else prevails!) Once you have become part of the active process doing nothing becomes in essence an action.

The problem I foresee here is that our European bees inclination may be to emulate the Asian bee to combat their introduced mite: they swarm typically 10 or more times a year and produce virtually no honey surplus. You can be sure that wont be allowed, so man is still going to be keeping his fingers on the levers. We seem to be locked into a spiral of increasing complexity and ever victim of unforseen consequences of each of our solutions. Like it or not man has become part of the evolutionary force. Lots to think about; it may not be such a simple solution.


----------



## mike bispham

crofter said:


> (Mike wrote) "There is ample evidence showing that where bees are able to be free of treatments their natural defences are bought to the surface by natural selection, and the age-old problem of a new introduced parasite is taken care of. In what way can that be said to be simplistic, or meddling?"
> 
> Man is currently interfering with the natural evolutionary process in so many ways I dont think we can simply back away in any one area and claim that what results was the will of mama gaia.


I don't know how to respond to this! Yes, we are interfering in many ways, and the result is lots of problems. The best way out is to back off! Stop interfering! Starting with what are obviously the most damaging things. 

As to your principle: a rock rolling down a hill will follow a natural course. Stopping it will stop that. Releasing it will allow it to proceed on a new natural course. 

Try following the logic:

1, Premise) Selective reproduction for health is known - no debate - to be _necessary_ to health in any living population. (That is a 'forceful' necessary. The same as in this sentence: 'Oxygen is necessary to living'. There is no escape - you have it or suffer catastrosphic consequences.)

2, Conclusion) Frustrating all forms of selective reproduction will necessarily lead to declining health

If you think there is something wrong with that argument, let us know what it is. 



crofter said:


> Letting mother nature retake control is a noble thought but I dont think we can muster the will to allow it.


Some of us certainly can, do, are. That is in good part what non-treatment is about. The only discussion is of details - of which approach is best to which circumstances. Not many want to allow nature total control - that would be unnecessarily expensive. So we want to do what husbandrymen have done for thousands of years - emulate nature, work with her methods, but in ways that favour a better outcome than simply letting her rip. Nature selects: we must select. 

None of this is new:

"Breeding is by no means a human invention. Nature, which in millions of years
has bought forth this immense diversity of wonderfully adapted creatures, is the
greatest breeder. It is from her that the present day breeder learnt how it must
be done, excessive production and then ruthless selection, permitting only the
most suitable to survive and eliminating the inferior." Friedrich Ruttner,
Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee, 1962, pg 45"



crofter said:


> The problem I foresee here is that our European bees inclination may be to emulate the Asian bee to combat their introduced mite: they swarm typically 10 or more times a year and produce virtually no honey surplus.


A) References please. Seriously. I've never heard any such thing. [Edit]

B) There is extensive evidence available to demonstrate without doubt that no such thing happens in European honey bees. 

If you want to remain [Edit] blinded to the evidence and the reasoning that supports the case for non-treatment, that's up to you. But you'll have to work much harder to convince us that you're right. We've seen the evidence, and understand the mechanisms. Its all rather simple. Not simplistic, simple. 



crofter said:


> You can be sure that wont be allowed


I don't know who is going to stop me maintaining mite resistance in my bees for as long as I please. There are an increasing number of other people who feel just the same. 

Sure, its unlikely that we'll be able to force anyone to stop treating. But that doesn't matter a great deal - undertanding what works and what is infinitely preferable are sufficient. Getting away from addictive treatments and chemicals in our food, and preserving diversity are obviously a better outcome for a good and fast-growing proportion of beekeepers and their customers. 
Mike


----------



## Solomon Parker

crofter said:


> ...I dont think we can muster the will to allow it.


Why is doing nothing so dad gum difficult for so many people?




crofter said:


> The problem I foresee here is that our European bees inclination may be to emulate the Asian bee to combat their introduced mite: they swarm typically 10 or more times a year and produce virtually no honey surplus.


Where does this come from? This is pure speculation not based on any sort of evidence of which there is plenty. I've kept bees treatment-free for nine and a half years. I have only experienced a single swarm. This year I made 17 gallons of honey from five hives, four of which had been robbed of brood to make mating nucs. 

It seems to me that this idea comes from the idea that it takes brood breaks and swarming to combat mites. It does not. Brood breaks are not necessary. Splitting is not necessary. Doing ANYTHING about mites is NOT NECESSARY. I notice no major differences between mine and any other population of bees except they don't swarm very much which I credit to keeping very large hives year 'round.




crofter said:


> ...it may not be such a simple solution.


No, it is a very simple simple solution. For some reason, it's very hard for people to do.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

One could add other perspectives, such as this paper, entitled *Characterization of the Active Microbiotas Associated with Honey Bees Reveals Healthier and Broader Communities when Colonies are Genetically Diverse*
_
"Colonies with genetically diverse populations of workers, a result of the highly promiscuous mating behavior of queens, benefited from greater microbial diversity, reduced pathogen loads, and increased abundance of putatively helpful bacteria, particularly species from the potentially probiotic genus Bifidobacterium...Our findings illuminate the importance of honey bee-bacteria symbioses and examine their intersection with nutrition, pathogen load, and genetic diversity, factors that are considered key to understanding honey bee decline."_

Studies like this make me question the wider effects of our treatments, aimed at the destruction of varroa. What does the addition of say, thymol do to microbes in the bee's gut? What domino effect does that have on other aspects of bee health, such as their ability to deal with pathogens? 

This line of questioning is what leads me to be quickly overwhelmed with a sense that the number of variables, and the number of ways in which our interference could be causing more harm than good quickly spiral beyond our potential to keep track of them. The systems are simply to complex for most of us to fathom.

In the face of that complexity, I feel the most reliable solution lies in letting the bees adaptive abilities take their course.

Perhaps our collective focus, and our efforts should come to bear on just how best to "get out of the way." And that alone should become our attempt at "treatment".

Adam


----------



## mike bispham

Adam Foster Collins said:


> In the face of that complexity, I feel the most reliable solution lies in letting the bees adaptive abilities take their course.
> 
> Perhaps our collective focus, and our efforts should come to bear on just how best to "get out of the way." And that alone should become our attempt at "treatment".Adam


I think there's a lot to be said for that. But many of us are currently going through the process of raising mite-managers from whatever stock we can get. For me in the UK this means taking swarms and cut-outs, and then doing next to nothing while the winners and losers become apparent. As that happens I raise new colonies from what appear to be the best, and set out outstands to help with drones.

This is more than just standing aside - its positive breeding. And I think that is necessary, for me, to my aim of owning productive treatment-free bees. No-one in the UK that I know of sells hygienic bees, and anyway I'd like to be working predominantly with locals and local feral blood. 

I think the same applies to most aspiring treatment-free beekeepers in the UK, and many elsewhere. While some don't mind taking the slow path of simply providing a home, and don't mind either the prospect of little or no honey for some years, our goals require more proactive approaches. And the same is true for larger commercial operations that are interested in moving toward treatment-free management - and we'd like to be able to help them too. 

For us, conversations about the details of different breeding approaches, of likely problems, of success stories and so on are invaluable. The same is true of the technical details concerning natures workings - like those contained in the subject paper. I hope we can continue to share our thoughts about all these things. 

Mike


----------



## crofter

I suppose every journey starts with one step. Individual decisions can be made to test different approaches but the collective will has many pressures on it many of which are short term economic. Instant results and no economic hardship to the powers that be. If parties with big economic interests have input I worry that there is danger of bad long term decisions being made. Is loss of genetic diversity a real concern. What is the target adaptation. Is is preservation of pollination capability or is it economic production of honey. The Asian bee does swarm and produce little honey. I did not make that up. That is just an example of a possible adaptive arrival. So the direction of the adaptation will be subject, by various methods, still somewhat at the whim of mankind. 

As long as no unretrieveable genetic diversity is lost it is a harmless pursuit at worst and at best it has promise of being a much better solution. Adam's quote "_ the number of ways in which our interference could be causing more harm than good quickly spiral beyond our potential to keep track of them. The systems are simply too complex for most of us to fathom_." is very pertinent. I suggest caution as it is very easy to slip into manipulating nature while purportledly staying out of its way. Ego has a way of fudging experiments if the seem in danger of not turning out as expected. The more emotional attachment that could be connected, the more need for scrutiny by cross disciplines.
Go for it but not with rose colored glasses on.

I'll leave it at that because I am not trying to put the idea down. Admittedly I am scynical about the wisdom of us mortals even when we have the best of intentions.


----------



## mike bispham

Solomon Parker said:


> It seems to me that this idea comes from the idea that it takes brood breaks and swarming to combat mites. It does not. Brood breaks are not necessary. Splitting is not necessary. Doing ANYTHING about mites is NOT NECESSARY.


More than that: such things have exactly the same effect as chemical treatments. They remove selective pressure, forestalling the necessary adaptive changes. 

Mike


----------



## WLC

I couldn't disagree more.

From an artificial selection standpoint, you have to split while they're under selective pressure in order to have a better chance at getting resistant stock.

From a productivity standpoint, you want to guarantee that you have more hives than you need when the season is over, especially if you aren't treating.

The 'Bond Method', aka: 'Live and Let Die' is ill-advised and wasteful.

For example: I took multiple splits from a hive w/ DWV symptoms, and I rehived the best looking nuc that resulted.

I performed an artificial selection, under pressure (DWV), and still have the same number of hives as when I started. I could have ended up with many more hives, but this is the way I played it this time around.

Splits are necessary as are broodless periods when going treatment free.

Unless, of course, you don't want to WORK at artificial selection.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

I agree on that point WLC.

I think you have to do a fair amount of splitting - but not for the sake of mite managment specifically. 

In my case, I imagine I'll have to split just to make enough bee resources to work with. If you try to do this with too few colonies, you're jut not going to get far. I am imagining that I would have to get set up to raise a larger number of smaller colonies to get enough different queens/lines going to be diverse enough, while also able to recover from mite/winter losses. I think I'd get geared up to maintain a large number of smaller colonies - similar perhaps to Mike Palmer's double nucs.

So I would have to do some splitting - just not as a mite management tool. One might schedule splitting around normal swarming, and keep splitting to once per year, in order to minimize unnatural affects. I don't know. I just can't imagine tackling something like this without splitting to create resources.

Adam


----------



## Delta Bay

Brood breaks are one of many fundamental colony processes so I'm not sure why it would be something that you would want to avoid and think it unnatural. Wouldn't requeening with a mated queen seem closer to a treatment than a colony going through a brood break?


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> For example: I took multiple splits from a hive w/ DWV symptoms, and I rehived the best looking nuc that resulted.


Why would you split from such a hive?




Delta Bay said:


> Brood breaks are one of many fundamental colony processes so *I'm not sure why it would be something that you would want to avoid and think it unnatural.*


Who said this?


----------



## Delta Bay

Originally Posted by Solomon Parker 
It seems to me that this idea comes from the idea that it takes brood breaks and swarming to combat mites. It does not. Brood breaks are not necessary. Splitting is not necessary. Doing ANYTHING about mites is NOT NECESSARY.




mike bispham said:


> More than that: such things have exactly the same effect as chemical treatments. They remove selective pressure, forestalling the necessary adaptive changes.
> 
> Mike


----------



## WLC

Why would I split from a hive showing DWV symptoms?

So I can test for DWV resistant queens/bees. 

Here's the concept: Maori et al., found that IAPV fragments that had retransposed into the Honeybee's genome could make the bees IAPV resistant.

I think that the same thing can work for another virus like DWV.

We have a way to test for that.

So, that's why we're trying it out.

The whole point is that you need to select (using splits) while the bees are under pressure from a pathogen, like a virus. The virus fragment 'jumps' mainly in the germline (sperm and egg), and that's why you have to split.

So, I'm using a method, based on some published work, that I can test for.


----------



## mike bispham

Delta Bay said:


> Brood breaks are one of many fundamental colony processes so I'm not sure why it would be something that you would want to avoid and think it unnatural.


_Anything_ that results in bees being kept alive artificially, when they would otherwise have failed to thrive, or died, will interfere with the necessary selection process. The idea is to get rid of those strains! 



Delta Bay said:


> Wouldn't requeening with a mated queen seem closer to a treatment than a colony going through a brood break?


It would you you want to think about it and use the words that way. But if you want to understand how to raise healthy bees my advice is don't! 

'Treatments' works well as a descriptive term standing for those acts that keep varroa from damaging those colonies with insufficient inbuilt resistance. The problem is that do so prevents the rise of resistance in the local breeding pool. Treatments are therefore 'addictive'. The more you treat, the more you need to treat.

The principle of 'non-treatment' beekeeping is that inbuilt resistance is raised to the point where 'treatments' are not needed - or raised by simply going without treatments from the off - if your stock and your business can take it. 

Most non-treaters choose to make selective propagation - or 'breeding' part of that process. It might be as simple as splitting only from best hives, or it may involve raising multiple queens from one or a few hives and re-queening. This is selective breeding - not 'treating'.

Using artficial brood breaks (or artificial swarms etc) as systematic remedies for varroa will result in new generations of bees that _depend_ on those things. They will have adapted to the beekeepers actions - which will be part of their environment. Crucially, they'll be no nearer mite-resistant!

If you want mite-resistant bees the only way to get them is to propagate systematically from the most mite resistant colonies you have, and to keep doing so. 'Non-treatment' beekeeping is 'genetic husbandry' (or 'traditional husbandry', or just 'husbandry') The art of husbandry involves 'husbanding' (taking care of) the genes down through the generations. Breeding (selectively) is a necessary part of husbandry. 

(Doing this also allows helpful co-evolution with your mites (and viruses), resulting in milder strains of those lifeforms.)

Using these key terms in these ways makes it easy to understand what is happening, and, from there, why some things are helpful and others less than helpful. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Why would I split from a hive showing DWV symptoms?
> 
> So I can test for DWV resistant queens/bees.
> 
> Here's the concept: Maori et al., found that IAPV fragments that had retransposed into the Honeybee's genome could make the bees IAPV resistant.
> 
> I think that the same thing can work for another virus like DWV.
> 
> We have a way to test for that.
> 
> So, that's why we're trying it out.
> 
> The whole point is that you need to select (using splits) while the bees are under pressure from a pathogen, like a virus. The virus fragment 'jumps' mainly in the germline (sperm and egg), and that's why you have to split.
> 
> So, I'm using a method, based on some published work, that I can test for.


It sounds wierd to me. Colonies showing DWV are normally that way because of a heavy mite load. The mites' piercing of the bees allows the virus in wholesale - and that is the primary cause of the symptom. Resistance to varroa is therefore automatically resistance to DWV. 

I'd avoid propagating from any colony showing DWV on that basis, and expect DWV to disappear from my apiary quite quickly - and it has.

As an experiment I suppose what you're doing could be worthwhile. But its a million miles from anything you'd want to recommend to other beekeepers. 

Furthermore, the statement phrased as a general rule is misleading. The term 'pressure' in evolutionary biology is normally used in the context of a population - not individuals. A population under (selective) pressure will respond - due to natural selection. There is no general expectation that an individual under 'pressure' from a virus will do anything special - although your paper indicates something of interest. 

However, you are muddling a specialised and important keyterm with its common use. Keeping them well separated will be needed for clarity's sake. 

What you say in your initial post on the topic (#88) demonstrates the damage such confusion can do:

"I couldn't disagree more.

From an artificial selection standpoint, you have to split while they're under selective pressure in order to have a better chance at getting resistant stock."

This is true of a _population_ but false for an _individual_ (as you have used it). Breeding that way will drive your apiary straight into the ground!

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I think you have to do a fair amount of splitting - but not for the sake of mite managment specifically.
> 
> In my case, I imagine I'll have to split just to make enough bee resources to work with. If you try to do this with too few colonies, you're jut not going to get far. I am imagining that I would have to get set up to raise a larger number of smaller colonies to get enough different queens/lines going to be diverse enough, while also able to recover from mite/winter losses. I think I'd get geared up to maintain a large number of smaller colonies - similar perhaps to Mike Palmer's double nucs.


This is how nature works - overproduction followed by fierce selection. The technical term in evoltionary biology is 'overfecundity', and it is absolutely necessary. Many new individuals, even from good parents, are duffers, and many get eaten. Just to maintain a population requires far greater than replacement rates. The more there are above replacement rates, the more natural selection can get working. Again, from Ruttner:

"Breeding is by no means a human invention. Nature, which in millions of years
has bought forth this immense diversity of wonderfully adapted creatures, is the
greatest breeder. It is from her that the present day breeder learnt how it must
be done, excessive production and then ruthless selection, permitting only the
most suitable to survive and eliminating the inferior." Friedrich Ruttner,
Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee, 1962, pg 45"

Mike



Adam Foster Collins said:


> So I would have to do some splitting - just not as a mite management tool. One might schedule splitting around normal swarming, and keep splitting to once per year, in order to minimize unnatural affects. I don't know. I just can't imagine tackling something like this without splitting to create resources.Adam


Raising queens from the best and requeening the worst is the traditional method of achieving the same thing. The duffers perish - but the colony remains alive and in production. And the best genes are constantly and systematically bought to the top. Done methodically its easy to maintain high levels of health and productivity. I don't think many commercial honey farmers would consider anything else - though sadly most nowadays buy in queens, rather than breed up their own local stocks.

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

The full phrase is 'evolution by natural selection'.

I'm looking for instant evolution by transgenesis in Honeybees.

It's not the mites that kill the bees, it's the pathogens that they introduce, like viruses.

Those mite resistant bees in France and Sweden probably harbor a population of attenuated mites. If you introduce them to another population of mites, it's likely that they won't be resistant anymore.

As I've said before, if you want to produce resistant bees, first you'll need to have a disease present that you can detect. DWV is very easy to spot.

Then you can select for resistant bees. I made splits to do this.

Finally, you need to be able to test for resistance.

I can examine the bee's DNA to look for a fragment of the DWV that has jumped.

The same thing can work for Hygienic bees as well.

You got mites, you make your crosses, you use the frozen brood test to see how hygienic the resulting bees are, (count mites for good measure).

There are three parts to this: presence of the pest/pathogen, selection, testing.

You may think this strange, but it's how it's done in the lab, and in agriculture.

By the way, I did take before and after samples, and I can sequence viral RNA as well as bee/viral DNA.

Did it work?

Beats me, it's my student's project.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> The full phrase is 'evolution by natural selection'.


Of course. We're familiar enough with the topic to drop the mouthful most of the time.



WLC said:


> I'm looking for instant evolution by transgenesis in Honeybees.


Good luck with that. In my opinion a student's project involving transgenesis probably doesn't offer the best basis for advice about straightfoward traditional animal husbandry. Personally, I try to keep things as simple as possible, because, on the whole, what I'm advocating is something that has been done by illiterate farmers for tens of thousands of years. There's no need to make it complicated. 



WLC said:


> It's not the mites that kill the bees, it's the pathogens that they introduce, like viruses.


To look at it another way, both are causal factors - the virus is just the straw that breaks the camels back. Many other bacterial, viral and fungal agents enter by the same means. Varroa is widely recognised to be the single greatest problem. Fix varroa and you can largely forget about the rest.

Similarly, those beekeepers who prevent adaptation by treating are another cause. Take away any in the chain: treating beekeeper, varroa mites, viruses/fungal/bacterial agents - and the problem is fixed. 

Fiddling with fixes for an individual virus given this context is not perhaps the best way for beekeepers to go. 



WLC said:


> Those mite resistant bees in France and Sweden probably harbor a population of attenuated mites. If you introduce them to another population of mites, it's likely that they won't be resistant anymore.


(I take it 'them' is bees?) I agree. For that reason it is best to keep importation and migration to a minimum - it doesn't help. But a population of multiply hygienic bees will have good defences against most mite strains. One of the mechanisms, the ability to react to many infant mites in a sealed cell, but not to react to just a few, actually selects for lower mite fecundity. 



WLC said:


> As I've said before, if you want to produce resistant bees, first you'll need to have a disease present that you can detect. DWV is very easy to spot.


I do the same - although any weakness will do, and, conversely, making strength and productivity the top positive selection criteral automatically selects against mites - and all other weaknesses.



WLC said:


> Then you can select for resistant bees.


And/or you can use the frozen brood test, peer at floor litter looking for dismantled immature mites. There are a range of assay tools available.



WLC said:


> Finally, you need to be able to test for resistance.


The test is: thrives without help. No need for anything fancy.



WLC said:


> There are three parts to this: presence of the pest/pathogen, selection, testing.
> 
> You may think this strange, but it's how it's done in the lab, and in agriculture.


Its not strange at all, its a description of what husbandrymen have done from time immemorial. The 'presence' part manifests as weaknesses of any sort, the selection is systematic, methodical in husbandry; the 'testing' is the evaluation of the next generation, for effectiveness of parents as continuing breeding pairs and the selection of new parents for a new generation. 

For what you are doing there needs to be a pathogen present. For what we are doing that begins with mites and other obvious health issues, but soon comes to revolve around broad health and vitality. By identifying the strongest we automatically identify those with the best set of genes for the present environment - those able to thrive despite the continuous background presence of a whole host of potential pathogens. They, and only they, are the appropriate parents of the next generation. The 'presence' of (potential) pathogens is therefore continuous, but invisible.



WLC said:


> By the way, I did take before and after samples, and I can sequence viral RNA as well as bee/viral DNA. Did it work?
> 
> Beats me, it's my student's project.


Hmmm

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

"A deeper understanding
of how honey bee colonies naturally coevolve with parasites,
and understanding the mechanisms and traits behind such
coevolution, is necessary for establishing new optimal and
long-term sustainable honey bee health management strategies
in apiculture."

Hey, that's the conclusion of the paper you cited.

The student involved was the first to find a jumping gene at the target site, so it's only fair that the student takes it to the next level.

I've already sent one student on to the best laboratory on the planet for studying the evolutionary biology of bees.

Maybe there's room for one more? 

It's important to understand the science behind treatment-free beekeping.

I think that we can all agree on that point.

By the way, I do recall that there were other studies done on those same hives a while back.

I'll see if I can find the references when I have the time.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> By the way, I did take before and after samples, and I can sequence viral RNA as well as bee/viral DNA.


What you're talking about here is completely useless to virtually all beekeepers and especially and specifically the backyard beekeepers and hobbyists who frequent this forum looking for information and advice. Furthermore, one of the main points of this whole discussion is that the hygienic trait is not some master key to keep bees. Whatever traits the bees use, and many of them are unknown, we leave it up to the bees to figure it out. There's no frozen brood, no RNA or DNA sequencing. These things are far out of the reach of the beekeepers here.




WLC said:


> Did it work? Beats me, it's my student's project.


Then what's the point? Let's talk about things that work. When your student publishes his/her paper, then we can talk about it with the same scrutiny with which we're talking about this one. Until then it's champagne wishes and caviar dreams and it's an exercise in pointlessness.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> "A deeper understanding
> of how honey bee colonies naturally coevolve with parasites,
> and understanding the mechanisms and traits behind such
> coevolution, is necessary for establishing new optimal and
> long-term sustainable honey bee health management strategies
> in apiculture."
> 
> Hey, that's the conclusion of the paper you cited.


Sure, no argument. But that doesn't mean that high level detailed studies are needed to outline the simple approaches that will suit the vast majority of beekeepers. I can't think of a better way of putting this than: K.I.S.S!



WLC said:


> It's important to understand the science behind treatment-free beekeping.
> I think that we can all agree on that point.


Kind of. The basic science behind treatment-free beekeeping is that described within foundation level biology, and used the world over in low-level, systematic propagation. Its about taking out vulnerabilities by bringing resistant bloodlines to the fore. 

And most of the time we needn't know anything at all about deeper mechanisms. Jacob describes it in the Old testament, the medieval 'put best to best' says it all. Darwin studied pigeon breeders - none of these people had a clue about genes. But they recognised the phenomenem of inherited traits.

So; this is not complicated. And there is little need for anything more complicated. However, given that we have a number-one identified primary enemy -varroa - to which non-treatment beekeeping is 99% directed (non-treatment largely means no varroa treatments) it is often useful and definitely interesting to some to look more closely as well at the mechanisms by which bees become and maintain resistance to varroa. Again, 99% of that conversation is - not all beekeepers understand - basically a simple breeding issue. Breeding (selection) is necessary; treating (an openly mating species) amounts to the very opposite of sound breeding practice.

So the main topic of interest is the way natural selection and deliberate breeding techniques allow treatment-free beekeeping in the face of the presence of varroa.

And the main objective I feel is to explore and discuss these things in a way that is focussed and accessible to as many beekeepers as possible. I try to K.I.S.S.

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## Solomon Parker

Delta Bay said:


> Brood breaks are one of many fundamental colony processes so I'm not sure why it would be something that you would want to avoid and think it unnatural.


Unnecessary and 'avoid it and think it unnatural' are not the same thing. Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## mike bispham

Solomon Parker said:


> There's no frozen brood [...] ... far out of the reach of the beekeepers here.


I'd beg to differ here Solomon. Anyone can take brood samples and pop them in the freezer overnight, tuck them into brood nests and inspect the results 24 hours later. Not rocket science, and a clearer outcome than peering at floor debris. And its well demonstarted that, narrow that it is, VSH can make the difference, allowing commercial operations to become treatment free.

I reckon pipe-freezer kits as used by plumbers could be used in the field.

Yes, its a narrow test, but there's no reason why it shouldn't be a foundational move, to be followed by selection that brings a broader range of defences into play.

Mike


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Solomon Parker said:


> What you're talking about here is completely useless to virtually all beekeepers and especially and specifically the backyard beekeepers and hobbyists who frequent this forum looking for information and advice....These things are far out of the reach of the beekeepers here...Then what's the point? Let's talk about things that work. When your student publishes his/her paper, then we can talk about it with the same scrutiny with which we're talking about this one. Until then it's champagne wishes and caviar dreams and it's an exercise in pointlessness.


I disagree. And I think critiques like this only serve to threaten the diversity of the conversation here. 

I think you're making way too many assumptions about all the people who read these forums, and the countless non-members who find themselves reading these threads while searching for answers themselves. They're not all "backyard beekeepers and hobbyists", and even if they were, there's nothing saying that some of them aren't students of genetics.

The point is to share whatever information you've got, and let the readers take the bits they find useful. WLC's contributions add a dimension that enriches the discussion. If you don't find it useful, I can't see the value in taking the time to suggest that no one does. 

For myself, I find that input such as that from WLC will cause me to do some extra google searches in an effort to further understand some of the things he's talking about. It's 'reading up'. It gives me a sense of what a broader range of people are doing in the collective effort to understand bees. Even if the information is "half-baked", at least I get a sense of what people are working on at the moment. There's value enough in that.

A lot of what you post here is not conclusive, but merely a sharing of what you're trying. And that's valuable.

Adam


----------



## Delta Bay

Solomon Parker said:


> Unnecessary and 'avoid it and think it unnatural' are not the same thing. Don't put words in my mouth.


This question was not directed at your statement Solomon! It was directed to Mike who clarified his thinking. The only reason your statement showed up in the quote was because it was part of the conversation. No words being put into your mouth.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Thank you for clearing that up Delta Bay. I'm sure you can see how I might be confused.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I disagree. And I think critiques like this only serve to threaten the diversity of the conversation here.


You are correct. Please excuse my tone, it was a little over the top.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

The bottom line for me is the idea that, *even with our collective power of study, using science, technology and the ability to communicate and share ideas beyond anything in history, there is still a great deal that we don't know and understand about the honeybee.

To me, that means that our attempts to remedy her pest problems through interference is inherently flawed by our inability to see or understand the full scope of the effects of our interference.* 

Mike's reference to K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) in this case is quite appropriate. The scope of the problem is beyond us, and the scope of the bees ability to cope is beyond us. Therefore, we should do everything we can to minimize our interference - if for no better reason than to avoid "muddying the waters" that we're trying to understand. We're effectively complicating an already complicated situation - while trying to come to grips with what is happening all at the same time. 

We feel the urge to "do something", and what we are doing is just as likely to be causing as many problems as it is fixing.

To me - and I do understand that this is just my opinion - but *to me, our lack of understanding demands that we keep our interference to a minimum, and let the bees respond to the pests as they will.* 

The question then becomes, how to best facilitate the natural processes without causing further complications, and how do we monitor and record what we observe in a way that furthers our collective understanding of the bee?

Adam


----------



## WLC

Not to worry fellas. I have a very thick skin. 

The discovery by Maori et al., and the resulting launch of Beeologics, which was subsequently purchased by Monsanto, shows the caliber of the 'natural transgenesis' discovery. The 'all star caste' involved further illustrates how important the field is to beekeeping.

"Then what's the point? Let's talk about things that work. When your student publishes his/her paper, then we can talk about it with the same scrutiny with which we're talking about this one. Until then it's champagne wishes and caviar dreams and it's an exercise in pointlessness."

Sol, the point is that not only does transgenesis work to give bees immunity to pathogens (and possibly pests as well), but it also is in fact a principle mechanism by which treatment-free Honeybees acquire their 'molecular' immunity. 

I've improved on the targeting (R2), and we've got the tools (primers that won't dimer, no matter how hard we try).

Natural transgenesis will be an invaluable methodology to both the professional beekeeper, and the amateur alike, because it points to a viable alternative to the 'Live and Let Die' approach to obtaining resistant bees.

No, we won't be feeding jumping genes to bees (that's going too far). However, there's no rule against identifying and breeding from naturally transgenic/resistant stock.

Re-read the conclusion to the paper to understand why what we're doing is important.

WLC.

PS: Here's a previous paper on the Gotland hives;

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.17/full

Here's Barbara Locke's PhD Thesis Paper! :

http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/9036/1/locke_b_120912.pdf

Enjoy.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> [...] the point is that not only does transgenesis work to give bees immunity to pathogens (and possibly pests as well), but it also is in fact a principle mechanism by which treatment-free Honeybees acquire their 'molecular' immunity.


First, thanks for the link to Barabara Locks' doctoral thesis. Its marvellous, and perhaps worth a new dedicated thread?

Second, I think we should bear in mind the need to focus at least some of the time on stuff everyone can understand and use. I can't understand many of the technical terms used in these papers, and I sure as anything can't make use of the techniques myself. 

Third, I am afraid of this new technology, in the same way I'm afraid of GM - it seems dangerous, in that an inadvertant occurance could turn out to be irreversable and damaging. Perhaps that's because I don't understand it, but that matters - don't forget GM food sources are still banned across Europe - we are not keen on stuff we don't understand, and rightly so. 

It seems to me that what the vast majority of people here are interested in is learning about things they can understand, bring to bear on their own beekeeping, and use to support the case for for non-treatment systems of management. And in most cases we want to keep things 'reasonably natural'.

On that basis, I'd like to ask you: how does your work offer to help us lowly high-tech shy beekeepers in taking control of our problems through reasonably natural methods? We already have methods that work, and do so quite rapidly. What do you think you have to offer to us?

I'd like to ask too; is it the case that your high tech methods are aimed at making things better for the industrial sector? 

I'd like to know too; are you, or others you work with, or for, trying to make money from this project? Are you trying to create an alternative to the income stream that pours off the vast migratory beekeeping sector in the form of treatment costs? 

Are you trying to do that AND help the bees at the same time? 

Where, in other words, are you coming from? 



WLC said:


> Natural transgenesis will be an invaluable methodology to both the professional beekeeper, and the amateur alike, because it points to a viable alternative to the 'Live and Let Die' approach to obtaining resistant bees.


First: There are already sound alternatives to what you call the 'live and let die' method. (First, lets get straight: 'live and let die is a term coined by John Kefuss to characterise his early method of raising resistant bees. He no longer advocates it.)

What we do is not 'live and let die', it is simple traditional livestock husbandry, as used by beekeepers for a long long time, simply adjusted to bring varroa into the system. And we can offer approaches that don't involve catastrophic loss - indeed even any loss. 

You are not offering a solution to a problem that doesn't already have one! So don't try to sell it that way.

Second 'natural transgenesis' (whatever that is) will be natural as far as it occurs without man's hand. As soon as that isn't the case, it won't be natural any longer - it will be artificial transgenesis. I don't know that that is what you are doing but I'm alert to people who hide nasty things under cosy names. Scientists who don't appear to understand the difference between natural occurences and artificial acts strike me as deeply suspect. 



WLC said:


> No, we won't be feeding jumping genes to bees (that's going too far). However, there's no rule against identifying and breeding from naturally transgenic/resistant stock.


You'll have to explain to me what 'naturally transgenic/resistant stock' means, and then outline the sort of breeding you envisage. In what way will 'naturally transgenic/resistant stock' be better than naturally resistant stock, or traditionally bred resistant stock?

Note: just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it a good thing to do. By a long long chalk. It doesn't make it the best thing to do either. You'll have to do a lot more explaining to convince me what you plan to do is a good idea. And the rest of Europe, at least, will need similar reassurances.



WLC said:


> Re-read the conclusion to the paper to understand why what we're doing is important.


Why don't you lay it out for us? Explain what you are doing in language we can understand, refer to the paper, tell us what possible hazards there might be, and how you will monitor against them and stop and reverse any resultant damage should that occur.

It might be a good plan to start a new thread for that - we're getting a bit off course now. How about coming up with a thread title designed to show that what you wish to do is explain the benefits of your work to the non-treatment forum, and ask whether your aims are compatible with theirs?

Mike

(BTW, its good to let people know your name - it helps build trust)

WLC.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> The discovery by Maori et al., and the resulting launch of Beeologics, which was subsequently purchased by Monsanto, shows the caliber of the 'natural transgenesis' discovery. The 'all star caste' involved further illustrates how important the field is to beekeeping.


What that shows me is: there's big big money to be made here, and we don't care about anything else. 

It alerts me to expect blandishments about possible undesirable results, multi-million dollar propaganda programs, carefully designed to persuade the public of alleged benefits. It alerts me to the likelyhood of multimillion dollar lobbying of government, regulators. It alerts me to the probability of astroturfing.

It alerts me to the likelyhood of an attempt to corner the global market in something nobody can live without. 

Important to beekeeping my foot! 

This will be about designing new systems of bee management that are amienable to manipulation in the interests of a the shareholders of an immensely rich and powerful company. (Responsibility to shareholders is the _legal duty_ of company managers!) 

It will be about taking a share of the large profits of the agriculural divisions of the pharmaceutical companies - and then increasing them.

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

The short version is this:

If you want to make resistant bees, you split them while they're challenged by a pest or pathogen.

That's what beekeepers need to know.

The scientific literature supports this position:

Maori's work supports the role of transposable elements (TEs) in Honeybee immunity; the Johnson paper (2009) points to this (albeit, suppressed because of the Beeologics/Monsanto link of the author(s)); a vast body of work on insects supports this; and yes, even some key work on hygienic traits supports this.

It's a Phd in itself to lay this out, and I don't need another advanced degree.

But, let me at least explain the link between TEs and the hygienic studies.

When different groups have done linkage map studies for hygienic traits, they never map to the same locations on the Honeybee genome! That's a characteristic of TEs.

Why do you need to split under selective pressure? Because TEs jump during reproduction in insects. They can then become immune via transgenesis/retrotransposition.

All I'm doing is clueing beekeepers into a simple way to take advantage of the Honeybees own natural, molecular immune system. Besides, it how classical genetic mechanisms work as well.

If that's too much work for the natural beekeeping crowd...

...I disagree. It's the very least that you can do.

PS-there has been quite alot of activity behind the scenes to stop the release of the Beeologics/Monsanto technology. I assume it's over, but you never know.


----------



## sqkcrk

What's over? The behind the scenes activity or Beeologics? What are you seeing?


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bispham said:


> (BTW, its good to let people know your name - it helps build trust)


Mike, we have been thru that already. He is a College Professor and wants to maintain a certain level of anonimity. Which is his right of course.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> If you want to make resistant bees, you split them while they're challenged by a pest or pathogen.


What you're describing is splitting a hive that's susceptible to a pest or pathogen. And I don't see the utility in it. I split from hives that don't have DWV problems, from hives that are gentle and make good honey. As I said before, what you're doing doesn't make sense for the common man and It's my position that it's a bad idea. They are all challenged, split from the ones who shrug it off. Let it happen naturally and pick from the winners. Picking the winners is the wrong way to go about it no matter what Maori et al. said.

No, I'm not denigrating science or your research, I am a Master's student myself. But like my thesis, many theses are great ideas for a paper, but totally useless in real life.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> The short version is this:
> 
> If you want to make resistant bees, you split them while they're challenged by a pest or pathogen.
> 
> That's what beekeepers need to know.


That is completely wrong! Utterly wrong! You make resistant bees by selecting the most resistant parents you can find. 



WLC said:


> The scientific literature supports this position:
> 
> Maori's work supports the role of transposable elements (TEs) in Honeybee immunity; the Johnson paper (2009) points to this (albeit, suppressed because of the Beeologics/Monsanto link of the author(s)); a vast body of work on insects supports this; and yes, even some key work on hygienic traits supports this.


You are talking about your own narrow methods. In animal and plant husbandry the most vigourous parents are selected and they alone supply the next generation. Routinely. 



WLC said:


> It's a Phd in itself to lay this out, and I don't need another advanced degree.


Unless you wish to challenge my statements above, there would be little point. If you'd like me to elaborate on those statements, ask. 



WLC said:


> But, let me at least explain the link between TEs and the hygienic studies.


I don't think this explains much to me. And I don't think I need to know it - or would benefit much from knowing it. That's what I asked for - for you to tell me how your methods could help me. You start by by making statements that are the very opposite of true! I'm not going to pay much more attention till you clear that one up!



WLC said:


> All I'm doing is clueing beekeepers into a simple way to take advantage of the Honeybees own natural, molecular immune system. Besides, it how classical genetic mechanisms work as well.


It seems to me that what you are doing is denying the correct method of raising resistance and trying to substitute something that cannot work! Best to Best! Not worst to worst, not worst to best, or middle, Best to Best. Period. 



WLC said:


> If that's too much work for the natural beekeeping crowd...
> 
> ...I disagree. It's the very least that you can do.


What is too much is to be told such nonsense from someone who claims to be knowledgeable about these things. But its too complicated to explain... 



WLC said:


> PS-there has been quite alot of activity behind the scenes to stop the release of the Beeologics/Monsanto technology. I assume it's over, but you never know.


Perhaps they just wanted the patents, who knows. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Mike, we have been thru that already. He is a College Professor and wants to maintain a certain level of anonimity. Which is his right of course.


That's ok, but given the levels of astroturfing around today it doesn't help with the all important need to build trust. I was just pointing that out. Lots of college professors talk openly about their work.


----------



## sqkcrk

PM him and see what happens.


----------



## Solomon Parker

On topic. It matters not who he is, it matters what he says.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

No, I'm not a College Professor. I do have advanced degrees. Mark, if I were a professor with an institution, I wouldn't challenge the renegade transgenecists here. It would be a pitched battle with careers at stake. Otherwise, what I'm doing here would be unethical and misconduct.
However, my contacts go 'sky high'.

As for Beeologics, the only one remaining of their leadership is Hayes. The Nobel laureate, other scientists, and the Isrealis, are all gone. Their FDA, MUMS listing has yet to be approved, and they've moved from Miami as Beeologics LLC to Tortola a Beeologics Inc. (a P.O. box, no less).

There has also been a furious backlash against Monsanto/Beeologics in the blogosphere.

My read of the situation is that the party is over.


----------



## WLC

I think that it safe to say that both Mike and Sol are advocating the same type of natural selection carried out in the original Gotland and Avignon studies. No intervention by man.

I'm taking a different point of view for treatment-free beekeeping.

Use the Honeybee's own strengths to produce resistant bees.

What I find to be perplexing, is this: people summon the power of 'Evolution by Natural Selection', however, they reject the mechanism for evolution provided by 'nature'.

Honeybees are naturally transgenic. Please get over it, and put it to good use.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> sqkcrk: No, I'm not a College Professor.


 Well then, I guess I misunderstood a number of your Postings. Which, if anyone knows me from my Posts, is not a surprise. Thanks.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> I think that it safe to say that both Mike and Sol are advocating the same type of natural selection carried out in the original Gotland and Avignon studies. No intervention by man.


No intervention to affect the pest.




WLC said:


> Use the Honeybee's own strengths to produce resistant bees.


That's not a different point of view. It's the same point of view. The path is different. We suggest breeding from bees that show natural abilities. You suggest breeding from bees unable to deal with disease.




WLC said:


> What I find to be perplexing, is this: people summon the power of 'Evolution by Natural Selection', however, they reject the mechanism for evolution provided by 'nature'.


That's not what you're talking about. Nature does not generally breed from the stock which is doing a poor job of resisting disease.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

WLC said:


> "The short version is this: If you want to make resistant bees, you split them while they're challenged by a pest or pathogen. That's what beekeepers need to know....


Okay, so to bring that "back to earth", then in practice, are you suggesting that one can reach resistant strains just by splitting and continuing to split any honeybee colony which is infected by mites"?

Could you suggest a practical approach to utilizing the information you're sharing in an average apiary? I'm happy to test more than one approach, I just need a sense of how to start.

Adam


----------



## WLC

If you really want to say that you have resistant bees, you need to have a pathogen that is clearly present (like DWV). You can start splitting (or making new queens) at that point. Then, by examining the resulting colonies, you can confirm if you have resistant colonies. They could become resistant by classical or non-classical genetic mechanisms.

I contend that it's the viruses that are killing coolnies, rather than the mites. So, using a method aimed at a virus, like DWV, that seeks to use a mechanism predicted in the literature, is practical. DWV remains a major threat, even without the presence of mites.

My main criticism of the 'Bond' method is that it's poor experimental design. It's "Not even Wrong." .

Usually, challenging hives with viruses is impractical for the average beekeeper. So, applying the 'Bond' method, and then using a pathogen challenge, is unrealistic and not that useful.


----------



## danmcm

Actually if you split challenged hives to make more bee hives you have effectivally treated the hive to a brood break and reduced the challenge. To use natural micro-selection you would let the challenge hive reach homeostasis with it's pest/pathogen and live for a period of time without succuming say over a couple years then you would use those base genes mixed with the most productive hives drones and start many new hives culling those that don't live up to your standards and continuing the process over and over eventually you would end up with the best combination of genes that you had available to you to begin with... nothing magic you didn't get a new breed or even end up with new genes you just changed ratio of genes expressed and maybe removed some weak genes from the play ground or ended up with new gene combinations. HERE is the rub. You keep a queen for 2-3 years to see if she is good and use her in production varraol and shb have how many generations a year where natural selection is taking place as well and then lets add in the life cycle of viruses that are transmitted via these vectors, again the life cycle of a virus in a queens life is what at least 1000x so with a limited gene pool you are going to out select these challenges? Back to the original posts science paper the bees are 10 years old? laugh okay so we take the queen out of this picture cause we are actually talking about several queens over that period of time... I would venture that it's not a couple groups of bees that are suppressing those mite populations but some mite populations that are of poor genetic stock and are retarded in reproduction keeping them from overwhelming the hives. This is intreasting in that perhaps its due to some dominate genes that can be spread around. those mites should be studied in my oppinion more so then the bees which are open mating with the control they are using in the study which means poor study design.

my 2 cents


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> challenging hives with viruses is impractical for the average beekeeper.


No it isn't. It happens naturally. There are nine hives in my home apiary. One of them usually has DWV at some point during the year. They are all under pressure from pestilence because they are exposed that one and they are not treated. But that's not the one I breed from! That one is unfit!




WLC said:


> So, applying the 'Bond' method, and then using a pathogen challenge, is unrealistic and not that useful.


It's the most useful because it produces real world results under real world conditions. For the average beekeeper, the real world is what is needed. The 'Bond Method' is not an experiment, it needs no 'experimental design'. It is a method which produces real world results and there are many beekeepers whose results prove it works. It's nature's system and it works exceedingly well at handling disease and weakness in the species.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

So far, I'm not seeing much especially news-worthy here.

Is just splitting your struggling stock or not the extent of it? I think that's pretty much where most of us are stuck.

Some people might have access to good, proven VSH stock, and that's great. Others might have access to a strong population of feral survivors. And in those cases, I guess you'd stick to propagating those.

But a lot of us just have the mutts of our region. And in my case, getting bees from outside my region is difficult. So the only option I really have is splitting the stock I have in an effort to create the largest number of chances for survival that I can make. My bees all have mites and likely dwv to some extent. So I winter, see what I've got in the spring, swarm trap (because spring swarms have likely survived at least one winter here), do cut-outs (hoping to get genetic influence of bees who have survived), then split as much as I can to get more queens going.

A few colonies are allowed to get big, and those produce a lot of drones. 

If I've got enough bees to work with, I graft some queens from what appear to be doing best, and so on. I don't split to manage mites, but to create resources. I don't treat or manage in any other way specifically to deal with mites. 

Isn't that pretty much the long and short of it? How does WLC's idea differ from Mike and Sol?

Adam


----------



## Delta Bay

danmcm said:


> I would venture that it's not a couple groups of bees that are suppressing those mite populations but some mite populations that are of poor genetic stock and are retarded in reproduction keeping them from overwhelming the hives.


This is my feeling also. It's the isolation of the mite population that allows for only inbreeding. With the way the bee industry is we just move bees around so much which allows easy horizontal transfer of mites to unrelated colonies of mites.

Seeley (p. 20) states, “There are strong indications that a balanced host-parasite relationship, in which both bees and mites survive, has evolved in isolated populations living under feral or feral-like conditions in several locations.” This of course assumes that very little drift is occurring between hives that would lead to the other type of transmission—horizontal. On this mode of transmission Seeley (p. 19) says, ”Virulence theory suggests that horizontal transmission, defined as infectious transfer among unrelated hosts, promotes the evolution of virulent parasites by favoring those that strongly (and thus harmfully) reproduce in current hosts before moving on to new hosts"

http://holybeepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/CATLEYFINAL.pdf


----------



## WLC

GENETIC BOTTLENECKING.

I think that we can pretty much agree that when you produce isolated populations, like those in Gotland and Avignon, you're going to bottleneck the genetics of the bees, pests, and pathogens alike

However, if you stirve to preserve whatever genetics you already have (I'm assuming that the hives you're going to split from were at least satisfactory at one point), then not only can you avoid the bottleneck, which is a bad place for most beekeepers to be, but you can also add new genetics to your hives by classical methods (good drones mate with some of your virgin queens), and you can potentially add DENOVO genetic sequences as a result of transgenesis (genes jump from the pathogen into your bee genome, providing for molecular immunity).

I don't expect to convince anyone as to the value of splitting into hives under stress to produce resistance.

However, no one can deny that the 'Bond' method will result in a bottleneck.

Why throw away good genetics when you can breed your way out of trouble?

Are a few mating nucs such a heavy burden?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

WLC said:


> ...
> Use the Honeybee's own strengths to produce resistant bees....Honeybees are naturally transgenic. Please get over it, and put it to good use.


WLC, 

Where can I find more information about the honeybee's transgenic nature? Is this something widely recognized, something newly recognized? Or a working theory?

Thanks,

Adam


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> However, no one can deny that the 'Bond' method will result in a bottleneck.


I can deny that. It's what the Gotland and Avignon populations show that. They have different traits that allow them to survive. They may be somewhat narrowed in their diversity within the area they are in, but they're not in the same bottleneck. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the 'Bond' method leads to bottlenecking. There is no evidence to show that 'resistant genes' cause the gene pool to become shallow whatsoever because it's not one trait, it's not one gene, and it doesn't happen by human intervention. 

The only bottlenecking I have ever heard of as it pertains to beekeeping is when a beekeeper continuously breeds queens from his own bees until his whole population is essentially inbred and he loses production and has to bring in some new blood. This will never happen in nature as any natural queen will have no more than a few dozen living queen-daughters.

Breeding for the VSH trait eventually leads to queens and hives that literally can't survive without the addition of fresh brood. That's bottlenecking, and it's 100% artificial. 

A population with thousands of interbreeding individuals is not bottlenecked. And there is no evidence that allowing weak bees to die leads to a bottleneck. Artificial breeding for specific traits does.




WLC said:


> Why throw away good genetics when you can breed your way out of trouble?


They are not good genetics, that's why they are allowed to die, and dying proves it.


----------



## WLC

DOI: 10.1016/j.virol.2006.11.038 

It's no longer freely available, so you'll need institutional access to read the whole paper.

Here's the abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17275871

"Here we add to recent reports indicating that individual variance occurs due to the integration of non-retroviral (potyviral) RNAs into the host genome via RNA recombination followed by retrotransposition. We report that in bees (Apis mellifera), approximately 30% of all tested populations carry a segment of a dicistrovirus in their genome and have thus become virus-resistant."

I hope this helps to clarify what I've been going on, and on, about.


----------



## WLC

Sol:

Treatment-free beekeepers have reported massive hive losses, even into the 90% range, in order to produce their 'resistant' hives.

That represents a huge loss of diversity any way you slice it.

It's a bottleneck.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Bill: (That's what I'm going to call you because you have the same initials as William Lane Craig.)

What one beekeeper owns the whole of a breed of bee? No beekeeper that I know of (with the exception of a few freshman beekeepers lurking around here with less than a handful of hives) owns bees from only one source. Every beekeeper I've ever heard of with more than a couple hives for more than a year or so has bees from all over the place, both local swarms and queens shipped in from elsewhere.

Even at the height of my losses some years back, I still had one hive descended from California, and Oregon and one descended from Georgia. Now I have bees from California and Oregon, Michigan, New Mexico, Georgia, and swarms from feral tree hives here in Arkansas. Where is the bottleneck? 

That argument only works with single populations, not the whole species. Isolated populations adapt and evolve faster than widely spread populations. Isolated populations develop their own traits which are different traits than other populations. But there's no bottleneck. They're open mated and bees are moved around this country with frightening regularity. There's no bottleneck.

There's no evidence that something has been lost. We still have good honey producers, gentle bees, black bees, yellow bees, cordovan colored, good robbers, good comb builders, disease resistant, frugal, and any other trait you could want. If they're so darn good at recombination, what's the problem?


----------



## WLC

Sol:

Are we still talking about evolution by natural selection and treatment-free beekeeping?

Or, are you saying that you simply buy new bees when your treatment-free hives go under? 

I'm not sure why you're so resistant to splitting for resistance.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Bill:

I'm all for splitting for resistance. I'm against telling small timers to split diseased hives. That's like a eugenics program whose stock is people with herpes and color blindness. No bueno.

My treatment-free hives don't 'go under' in any significant proportion anymore. I used to add resistant bees from various places, but I don't need to anymore because mine are doing just fine. The jabs about buying bees to replace your dead ones are over. You're behind the times. Treatment-free bees are thriving and making honey now, and in greater numbers every year. I sold nucs for the last two years, full of beautifully drawn 4.9mm cells. I haven't received word that a single one has died yet. And I did it by breeding from hives that don't have DWV.


----------



## WLC

Sol:

So how do you know that your bees are in fact disease resistant? 

Faith perhaps?

WLC.


----------



## sqkcrk

If they don't die does it matter?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Because they used to die a lot, now they don't.

Do you have another suggestion?


----------



## WLC

Treatment-free bees are arguably resistant via evolution by natural selection.

What evolved?

Some pretty smart scientists in Sweden couldn't identify that conclusively in the Gotland hives.

Silly me, I split a DWV infected hive and decide that maybe somebody should try and get some hard evidence for treatment-free resistance via evolution (transgenesis).

How do treatment-free beekeepers demonstrate disease resistance?

It's a fair question.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> Because they used to die a lot, now they don't.
> 
> Do you have another suggestion?


I might suggest you answer Bill's question.


----------



## jbeshearse

Mike,

First, I thank you for your measured and well presented response, yet we disagree on many of the points.

Second, my apologies for the length of this post. Normally this would mean that it will not be read by many and mostly ignored. I hope that is not the case.

Third, I mention treatments a lot in this text. I do not relate to how to manage non-treatment, etc. This is not an endorsement for treatments. I think that those that do not treat, and manage their apiaries rather than just rob honey from the manmade structure they have convinced the bees to live in are doing all of us a favor. If this does not belong on the treatment free forum it can be moved. But as this is where the discussion started it is the logical place to continue.

jbeshearse: Until such a time that the parasite species declines to a level which allows the host species to rebound.

Mike Bispham: What you mean is 'until such time that the host-parasite pair reach an accomodation that allows both to rebound.' From there on those hosts better at reducing the effect of the parasite will prosper at the expense of those less well able to control them. 

jbeshearse (reply): No, the host species cares nothing about accommodating the parasite. In host/parasitic relationships, the parasite is dependent on the host, not the other way around. What you refer to is more of a symbiotic relationship, which is not, to the best of our knowledge, present in the Honeybee/Varroa relationship. A host, if successful will find a way to minimize the parasite or minimize the negative results of the parasite’s presence. However it does bear noting that the “co-evolution” aspect would lend itself to more of a symbiotic relationship than a host/parasite relationship, as far as building stable populations of both are concerned. But for symbiotic relationships to endure, there has to be an evolutionary benefit to the relationship (both species benefit).

jbeshearse: Treatment free or treated will have little to no effect on the overall honeybee resurgence.

Mike Bispham: This is inconsistent with the stand taken in the paper; to the effect: it is treatments that prevent the co-evolution of host and parasite (and virus).

jbeshearse (reply)" First, I see nowhere in the paper’s stand that says treatments prevent the co-evolution of host and parasite(virus). Your quote from the abstract in your original post on this thread highlights the only place it even takes a stab at that and then it only says “hinders”, not prevent. The body of the paper does not try to prove this is the case. Also from your quote of the abstact, It goes on to say that apicultural practices remove the mite and consequently the selective pressures. That is a bad assumption on the paper’s authors. Mites exist, even in the treated hives and they are building resistance to the poisons used on them. I do agree completely with the paper however in believing that the poisons (treatments) for mites are hindering the evolution of mite resistance in the overall population. But it is not stopping it. 

jbeshearse: After the majority of feral (treatment free) colonies perished (probably 90%+), those that remained had better coping mechanisms and are slowly rebuilding populations.

Mike Bispham: Where they are free of the influence of treated drones the rebuilding is rapid

jbeshearse (reply): Where is this treatment free nirvana? I don’t doubt the sincerity or your statement. However, if it was that simple, the beekeepers that treat would have already taken notice and be using these rapidly rebuilding populations to supplement their operations. I imagine we will see those that treat (myself included) treating less and less until not at all as the “treatment free” bees supplant those requiring treatment. Also see below, in this context we are poisoning varroa, not inoculating bees. If anything the treated drones you are referring to are lightly poisoned and may be over time developing a resistance to those poisons themselves (as a species, not individuals) 

jbeshearse: The managed populations are experiencing the same thing.

Mike Bispham: They are? What is your evidence for this claim?

jbeshearse (reply): In my area, there seems to be a resurgence of feral colonies as compared to populations from 3 years ago. This is personal observation based on number of swarm and cut out calls, not scientific survey. This is not an isolated area of untreated bees. However, that aside, why wouldn’t they rebound with a degree of similarity? This discussion concerns the treatment or non-treatment for varroa. It is an important distinction that the treatments are to control varroa, not the bees. “Treatment free” encompasses much more than varroa tolerance/survivability. The issue with treating for varroa is the concern that the varroa become resistant and stronger than the treatments can manage, and thus harm the bees more. It is not that the bees necessarily get weaker but that the varroa get treatment resistant. Once again, people who treat and manage bees will select the best survivors. It stands to reason that the bees that would require no treatment would also be the best survivors, treatment or not. So in effect they will represent an ever larger portion of the overall “treated” populations. Because the bees that would normally succumb without treatment are allowed to reproduce, they will slow the infiltration of treatment free bees into the populations not prevent it. Evolution demands this, survival of the fittest. If treatment free bees are the fittest, then they will still be the fittest, even when all are treated.

Further, what is being selected for? I think part of where the treatment/treatment free conversation is failing is that a lot of people are confused as to what is being treated and what the results and implications of those treatments are. For this discussion the treatments are for varroa. This assumes that the varroa are being treated (poisoned), not the bees. In effect what treatments are doing is developing a stronger varroa species, not a weaker bee species. But stronger in this case means resistance to pesticides, not resistance to inherent traits of the bees. 

jbeshearse: Treatments do not kill that 10% of the managed population that would have survived anyway.

Mike Bispham: No, but they do allow the other 90% to reproduce freely. That prevents adptation. Entirely. If you subjested a 'survivor' population to the same regime, within a few years they'd be equally vulnerable.

jbeshearse: The managed population may take longer to to reach the same level of hardiness as the ferals (treatment free), as those that are not adapted are treated and thus survive.

Mike Bispham: It isn't a case of taking longer. It will never happen because (as the paper reminds us) selective pressure is removed by treating. 

jbeshearse (reply): This does not prevent adaptation, only slows it, as the other 10% will continue to reproduce also and as they are less likely to succumb, will eventually represent a larger and larger portion of the overall population. The only way it would prevent it is if the other 10% were not allowed to reproduce. There is always selective pressure. In a population that is treated, the bees that would not have needed treatment should survive better than those that did not need treatment. It represents one less pathogen, etc that would cause that particular bee to die without reproducing. Furthermore, as previously stated above the premise is wrong, treatment has not removed the mites. It is a case of taking longer, not of happening at all.

jbeshearse: In reality, treatments are an effective way to insure overall populations do not severely decline before the species rebounds on it's own.

Mike Bispham: There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case, and it flies in the face of fundamental evolutionary biology. It directly contradicts the clear statements, made by the authors. 

Mike Bispham: Bees have a natural defence mechanism - shared by all living things: die-back to resistant strains: rebuild from resistant strains. This process carries no cost in terms of diversity.

Mike Bispham: Treatments frustrate that process entirely, and on an ongoing basis. Treating corrodes diversity by preventing the re-emergence of feral bees around apiaries. 

jbeshearse (reply): What clear statements are you referring to? Please elaborate. Also tell me how this “flies in the face of fundamental biology.

jbeshearse (reply): We are not treating the bees for varroa, we are poisoning varroa and to a degree bees. This in no way removes the effects of fundamental evolutionary biology. Frustrate it yes, prevent it, no. As humans we interfere in the process, but we cannot overcome it. A die off is the last line of defense. Fundamental evolution demands that defenses that do not result in death will be favored over those that do result in death. 

jbeshearse: I don't think it is an either or scenario, I think both practices are working together for the good of the species.

Mike Bispham: To think is easy. To make a convincing case you'll need to show where evolutionary biology is going wrong - and write a clear account. I don't think that will be so easy.

jbeshearse (reply): It is never easy to make a convincing case to entrenched positions. I never said that evolutionary biology is going wrong. I don’t even know where that came from. What I did say was that treatments are only a stopgap measure until natural selection takes over. Only a way to keep colony numbers suffieciently high to meet our needs until the balance is restored. If you read the paper, it says that the reason the European bee populations have suffered is a due to lack of time and selective pressure. Seems you only read selective pressure and ignored the entire “time” part.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Mark, just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean there wasn't an answer. Bill hasn't answered many of my questions and you don't see me complaining.


----------



## sqkcrk

I didn't recognize that your answer was to Bill's question and not to mine.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

WLC said:


> DOI: 10.1016/j...
> Here's the abstract:
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17275871
> 
> "... report that in bees (Apis mellifera), approximately 30% of all tested populations carry a segment of a dicistrovirus in their genome and have thus become virus-resistant."
> 
> I hope this helps to clarify what I've been going on, and on, about.


So let me attempt to restate and simplify this.

Studies are showing that 3 out of 10 tested honeybees are showing a portion of their genetic make-up has been acquired from their viruses. They are "genetically modified" by their viruses to become virus-resistant. Is that roughly correct?

Do we have any idea how long it might take for modification like this to take place? Is just the presence of the virus enough to cause it with any regularity?

Within the 30% showing a segment of a dicistrovirus in their genome, how many different viruses are represented?

Adam


----------



## WLC

Who is Bill?


----------



## jbeshearse

Solomon Parker said:


> Why is doing nothing so dad gum difficult for so many people?
> 
> 
> Where does this come from? This is pure speculation not based on any sort of evidence of which there is plenty. I've kept bees treatment-free for nine and a half years. I have only experienced a single swarm. This year I made 17 gallons of honey from five hives, four of which had been robbed of brood to make mating nucs.
> 
> It seems to me that this idea comes from the idea that it takes brood breaks and swarming to combat mites. It does not. Brood breaks are not necessary. Splitting is not necessary. Doing ANYTHING about mites is NOT NECESSARY. I notice no major differences between mine and any other population of bees except they don't swarm very much which I credit to keeping very large hives year 'round.
> 
> 
> No, it is a very simple simple solution. For some reason, it's very hard for people to do.


Soloman, I guess your bees are not successful. The first thing necessary for propogation of the species is reproduction. If your bees only managed one swarm in nine and a half years, they are not very successfull in propogating the species. I suspect you simply do not see the swams.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I doubt it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC, you are Bill. If you read my posts, you'd know that already. Something makes me suspect you aren't reading them. I guess there's no reason in continuing this conversation, with you at least.

Let the people decide. Does it make more sense to breed from diseased bees or from healthy bees?


----------



## WLC

Adam:

Here is a quote from a poster board presentation by Wayne Hunter et al.:

"Traditional PCR along with gel electrophoresis for each of these bee viruses showed that DWV and KBV have integrated into a segment of the A. mellifera genome."

http://flaentsoc.org/09festufts_hunter_integrate.pdf

Let me explain that the whole field of research involving retrotransposition into the Honeybee genome went 'dark' around this time.

I have found active retrotransposon activity in the R2 region of the 28s rDNA of A. mellifera however.

It's going to take some time for this field to open up again though.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Bill, Who is Andrew?


----------



## WLC

Adam:

We know that KBV and DWV were found integrated into the Honeybee genome here in the U.S., just as IAPV was found in Isreal.

They're not giving anymore details since.

WLC.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

WLC said:


> ...
> "Traditional PCR along with gel electrophoresis for each of these bee viruses showed that DWV and KBV have integrated into a segment of the A. mellifera genome."...Let me explain that the whole field of research involving retrotransposition into the Honeybee genome went 'dark' around this time...


So they realized the honeybee is naturally transgenic, so it seems likley that it wouldn't be too hard to make artificial genetic modifications which would make bees that are immune to certain viruses. Which is where Beeologics became very interested. You could make "namebrand" bees.

You go on to say "I have found active retrotransposon activity in the R2 region of the 28s rDNA of A. mellifera however." I have no idea what this means.

It's like you're sharing and not sharing at the same time. I'm glad to have what you offer, but one can easily get the sense - and perhaps it is your intention to communicate - that you have much more information than you're actually sharing.

It's a bit frustrating, but as i say, I'm thankful for what what you do contribute.

Adam


----------



## WLC

Adam:

It simply means that there's an active jumping gene in our Honeybees.

It's also very well characterized in other insects.

I think that it's always better to look for jumping genes in a place (the R2 site) that has a great deal of research behind it.

I also think that Beeologics blundered badly when it tried to market their technology to beekeepers.

It's a mistake that shouldn't be repeated.

But, it's a viable 'natural' option for treatment-free beekeepers.

Those genes jump during splitting, etc. .


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Those genes jump during splitting, etc. .


Gene splitting? Or colony splitting?


----------



## WLC

During reproduction. Those genes naturally jump in germline cells.

Thus, you split into an infected colony.

It's a modern genetics interpretation of how resistance can occur 'instantly' in Honeybees.

You heard it from me first.

WLC.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

WLC said:


> It simply means that there's an active jumping gene in our Honeybees...
> ...it's a viable 'natural' option for treatment-free beekeepers. Those genes jump during splitting, etc. .


So when, they talk about 30% showing a segment of a dicistrovirus in their genome, is that 30% of the bees within a colony, or 30% of colonies? Is this something that is going to show itself in a queen, and be necessary in a queen in order to appear in the workers? Or can it come from a drone? I guess I'm stuck on the question of how I can work to increase those percentages.

For the beekeeper, does it come down to splitting colonies under pressure, and observing how well subsequent colonies handle that pressure?

Adam


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

WLC says: "It's a modern genetics interpretation of how resistance can occur 'instantly' in Honeybees. You heard it from me first."

Adam says: Holy crap. And would that 30% translate roughly to the general population? 

You say "during reproduction" with bees, that can be a variety of places. If I split an infected colony, and introduce a queen, does this kill the process? Do I have to let the split produce its own queen to get the potential benefit? I'm having trouble locating where the 'jump occurs' and how I work to assist it as a beekeeper.

You say "split into an infected colony" - what does "split into" mean? I can split, but then there is a portion with a queen and one without. The one without has to raise a new one using eggs from the old one, and then gets the genetic input from a random drone. OR I can introduce a mated queen from another source. Where does the jumping gene come into play? Is it simply the pressure that causes it to jump?

And consider this article "Published honey bee genome shows paucity of “jumping genes” "

A couple of quotes:

"Compared to other sequenced insect genomes, the sequence also clearly reveals that the honey bee genome has evolved more slowly and lacks major transposon or “jumping gene” families... "The honey bee genome is unusual in the sense that it appears to have very few transposons or retrotransposons in the assembled sequence, almost all of which are members of one family known as the mariner family.”... Transposons and retrotransposons in the honey bee constitute only about 1% of the assembled genome... it is unclear what the significance of this low incidence of mobile genetic elements in the honey bee genome may mean. It may reflect some evolutionary pressure to prevent detrimental damage to the organism’s genetic make-up over many generations."

This seems to suggest that the honeybee has far fewer "jumping genes" than a lot of other organisms.


----------



## mike bispham

Hi JB (Does that work?)

I obviously can't respond to a post of that length on a point by point basis, so I've just selected parts that might allow me to address some of the most important issues.

[Previously]
_
jbeshearse: In reality, treatments are an effective way to insure overall populations do not severely decline before the species rebounds on it's own.

Mike Bispham: There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case, and it flies in the face of fundamental evolutionary biology. It directly contradicts the clear statements, made by the authors. Bees have a natural defence mechanism - shared by all living things: die-back to resistant strains: rebuild from resistant strains. This process carries no cost in terms of diversity. Treatments frustrate that process entirely, and on an ongoing basis. Treating corrodes diversity by preventing the re-emergence of feral bees around apiaries. 

jbeshearse (reply): What clear statements are you referring to? Please elaborate. Also tell me how this “flies in the face of fundamental biology._

I will elaborate. I'm going over familiar aground again, but I'm doing so to try to make a couple of points as clearly as I can. The first is about the nature and forcefulness of the principle of natural selection. The second is about the way that principle unifies many different explanations. 

Here is the clear statement from the abstract:

"Coevolution by natural selection in this system has been hindered for European honey bee hosts since apicultural practices remove the mite and consequently the selective pressures required for such a process."

To those familiar with evolutionary biology or breeding sciences that statement needs no elaboration. Its a straightforward consequence of the general principle of natural selection for the fittests strains. 

This is very very simple, but a clear understanding is essential! 

Nature tends to breed more from the stongest individuals than from the weak. Since qualities are inherited, this passes more of the better qualities to the next generation than the less-good qualities. 

There are many different mechanisms that press toward this outcome, perhaps the most obvious being that the weakest (most unfit) die before they are able to mate. The strongest reproduce the most, the weakest reproduce not at all, the middling ones reproduce in middling numbers. 

Another powerful mechanism; the strongest males tend to win mating competitons. Again this contributes to each new generation tending to be made from genes supplied by the strongest parents. In these and other ways, generation after generation, weakness and vulnerabilities are winnowed out, on an ongoing basis. 

Can you see how neat that is? If not, read it again, and think about it some more. When you feel some kind of shock at the sheer elegance of what goes on, a billion times a day, always, and how that is able to maintain life itself, please, hold on to that and don't let go! Come back to it whenever you feel wobbly! That is the underlying, fundamental principle of the organic sciences! Nothing less. You cannot argue with it, or twist it. It is simply a (rough) description of a fundamental reality. 

In animal husbandry this process is copied. Now, instead of natural selection, artificial selection is used. The husbandryman chooses those parents that s/he thinks will make the best offspring, and uses those, and only those, as breeding pairs. ('Pairs' is misleading since often one male will sire many females - but they're all 'pairs')

The art of raising good breeding pairs is fundamental to the success or failure of the husbandry. Allowing weakly, slow-growing, or disease-prone stock to enter the breeding pool carries the probablity that those weakness will be reproduced in the offspring. And so any animal showing any deficiency is quickly removed as a contender for future breeding stock. Only the very best are allowed through. 

Do you see how nature has been copied? How animal husbandry and natural selection are using the very same means to maintain health and vitality, and quickly take out weakness?

This is the golden rule of husbandry. Both nature and husbandry work with the fact that traits are heritable, that mother and father pass down parts of their make-up to their children. It isn't precise nor predictable in individual cases - but as things average out, it works. 

Now lets marry to the above the following:

"Breeding is by no means a human invention. Nature, which in millions of years
has bought forth this immense diversity of wonderfully adapted creatures, is the
greatest breeder. It is from her that the present day breeder learnt how it must
be done, excessive production and then ruthless selection, permitting only the
most suitable to survive and eliminating the inferior." Friedrich Ruttner,
Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee, pg 45

Now: Can you see how what Ruttner, one of the all-time great bee breeders, says is in complete agreement with my outline? Can you point to any strains or contradictions between what I've said and what he's saying?

I've sketched the evolutionary biology that underpins the statement made by the authors, and outlined the most basic animal-raising principle, and shown how Ruttner works from the same understanding. And there is complete concordance between them all. Complete agreement between scientists, animal husbandry principles, beekeeper. That concordance is that all are united by an understanding of this most basic principle of organic life - Natural Selection for the Fittest Strains.

There is complete concordance too between this web of interrelated understanding and the medieval dictum 'Put Best to Best.' 

Can you see this? Can you see: this is the music of animal science, the tune that life dances to? 

Stay with this. This is Golden.

Now: This process is - essential - to the maintainance of health. There is, we've heard, a sort of constant 'arms race' between every host and their many predators. The predators are constantly seeking to gain more food (for that's what its all about - everything needs food to live at all), the hosts must equally constantly seek to prevent that. The two populations therefore are locked in a sort of race, each seeking the upper hand. Constantly. And each uses the same tool, adaptation, evolution by natural selection. 

And so... if you stop evolution in the host, you allow the predator to gain an advantage. In each generation. 

Selection, by nature or by husbandryman, is then essential to prevent the predators gaining advantage. 

Selection, by nature or husbandryman, is what allows - or creates - the necessary adaptation 

So (last part): by logic: what happens when we prevent - or seriously inhibit - adaptation in the host by frustrating selection?

Something - anything - is essential. We remove it. What happens?

What does treatment do? It removes the natural selection that would otherwise occur. What happens when we stop the selection processes?

I can't do more than this. You have to be able to understand the dance, to hear the music, apply the understanding with simple logic. Then it all makes perfect sense, and you breath a sigh of relief, and sit in wonder at the magnificent elegance of nature's wonderful basic health-maintenance mechanism.

And the questions you ask me answer themselves, easily and naturally.

I've said far too much: the thing is beautifully simple and elegant. And what you have to do, as a husbandryman, is obey the dictum. Put Best to Best. Only. 

Is that so hard?

If you keep looking until that is all properly clear and firm, you will be able to see that your next statement simply is not in accordance with the web of understanding that flows from the simple fact of inherited traits. I'll show you why:

jbeshearse_ (reply): We are not treating the bees for varroa, we are poisoning varroa and to a degree bees. This in no way removes the effects of fundamental evolutionary biology. Frustrate it yes, prevent it, no. As humans we interfere in the process, but we cannot overcome it. A die off is the last line of defense. Fundamental evolution demands that defenses that do not result in death will be favored over those that do result in death. _

First, 'a die off' is not the last line of defence - the death of the weakest (without reproducing) is an important part of the _first_ line of defence!

Second: back to the paper: "Coevolution by natural selection in this system has been hindered for European honey bee hosts since apicultural practices remove the mite and consequently the selective pressures required for such a process."

Don't misread that 'hindered' - it doesn't signal a time issue as you think. Note the second part; the selective pressure is removed. Without selective pressure there will be no adaptation. Ever. Without sdelective 'pressure' on a population there is nothing to drive any change, nothing to adapt to. 

jbeshearse (reply): _It is never easy to make a convincing case to entrenched positions. I never said that evolutionary biology is going wrong. I don’t even know where that came from. What I did say was that treatments are only a stopgap measure until natural selection takes over._

The 'entrenched position' is the inarguable fundamental principle at the root of evolutionary biology. And what that tells us is: your 'stopgap measure' prevents natural selection from occurring. Natural selection, where it is given free rein works just fine. Where treatments are made it cannot work - and there is no adaptation. And that is the crux of the problem. That's why treatments are described as 'addictive'. The more you treat the more you need to treat. (Actually its worse that that: treating only a bit creates a downward spiral as resistance is progressively lost). Where treatments are removed, and husbandry is done properly, things work fine. 

Can you see now how all the evidence fits together, and is united with the great web of understanding that is founded upon the recognition of inherited traits, and natural selection of the fittest? 

Again: find that music. Dead animals don't reproduce; the strongest reproduce most, health is passed on down.... this _process_ is essential to life. Understanding it essential to successful husbandry. 

You cannot treat and expect any adaptation to occur. Indeed, if you start treating adapted bees they will, over the course of a few generations, adapt to the new environment, and lose their resistance.

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Is this 'put your position into simple language for us?  Trying to blind us with science? Deliberately obstructing the discussion of the simple methods required to keep bees treatment free? In fact what does it have to do with treatment-free beekeeping at all? 

Mike



WLC said:


> Adam:
> 
> Here is a quote from a poster board presentation by Wayne Hunter et al.:
> 
> "Traditional PCR along with gel electrophoresis for each of these bee viruses showed that DWV and KBV have integrated into a segment of the A. mellifera genome."
> 
> http://flaentsoc.org/09festufts_hunter_integrate.pdf
> 
> Let me explain that the whole field of research involving retrotransposition into the Honeybee genome went 'dark' around this time.
> 
> I have found active retrotransposon activity in the R2 region of the 28s rDNA of A. mellifera however.
> 
> It's going to take some time for this field to open up again though.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Treatment-free bees are arguably resistant via evolution by natural selection.


Sometimes, sometimes partially, sometimes mostly artificially. I seek out 'survivor' colonies, and value most highly those where locals attest continuous occupation for a number of years. These are, arguably, resistant via natural selection. In my apiary I systematically breed toward resistance, using these and other imported stock (swarms with unknown background). There are 'survivor' feral colonies around me, so get genetic input from those. My treatment-free bees are resistant through a combination of local evolution - adaptation would be a better word - and artificial selection.



WLC said:


> What evolved?


The bees did and probably the mites did too. The 'broad hygienic' and VSH and other behaviours are expressed more strongly/often now as a result of ... parentage. Bees with what-it-takes have made more bees with what-it-takes, while bees without-what-it-takes haven't made any. At the same time the varroa have likely been adapting. The milder strains tend to be more tolerated (by me) and have been carried in on feral bees. The viruses too (the paper suggests) may have moderated.



WLC said:


> Some pretty smart scientists in Sweden couldn't identify that conclusively in the Gotland hives.


Science -particularly the life-sciences - very often find loose ends as well as firm conclusions. It makes no difference to the firm conclusions, and provides leads to future studies.



WLC said:


> Silly me, I split a DWV infected hive and decide that maybe somebody should try and get some hard evidence for treatment-free resistance via evolution (transgenesis).


There is TONS of evidence for treatment-free resistance via evolution (adaptation) and via husbandry (though none that I know of for transgenesis). 

QUOTE=WLC;852532] How do treatment-free beekeepers demonstrate disease resistance?

It's a fair question.[/QUOTE]

Its a question that signals to me insufficient understanding of husbandry to warrent offering advice!

Husbandrymen monitor their lifestock constantly for signs of disease, and select and propagate accordingly. When symptoms of disease appear resistance is lower, when they disappear it can be assumed to be higher. However: as I've said (and someone has confirmed with references) varroa is the main target - as the vector of diseases. There are a number of ways of evaluating for the various recognised types of varroa resistance, and again, monitoring or assaying one way or another supplies clear indications of the type and degree of resistance. 

Or you can simply go with size and productivity. Without treatments only those that build, fetch and store the best are those with the sorts of qualities - including suitable resistance - that you want.

Hives that thrive best are standing demonstrations of broad resistance to those diseases present in the environment. Of course a new disease might come along and knock them down - in which case they will only be thriving because such diseases are absent. The only way to demonstrate resistance to a specific disease would be deliberate exposure. 

Mike


----------



## WLC

Adam:

I've already read through the paper from the Honeybee Genome Consortium.
I've also read Gillespie's paper on rDNA, and more.

Unfortunately, key players involved in Honeybee Genome project also involved themselves with Beeologics' attempt to feed jumping genes to Honeybees.

For example, Gene Robinson, who was on Beeologics' advisory board, went on to work for Monsanto. He was also a key player in sequencing the Honeybee Genome.

There were other scientists (and beekeepers) who entangled themselves in a web of 'conflict of interest' as well. I've also identified examples of the delberate suppression of important findings/information/technology.

My own conclusion is that the entire Honeybee Genome needs to be re-sequenced independently, and they need to pay special attention to transposable elements.

You can't serve two masters, Science and Monsanto, at the same time.

All that being said, I did use Gillespie's results to target the R2 site in Honeybees.

PS-you split into a challenge to raise new queens.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> All that being said, I did use Gillespie's results to target the R2 site in Honeybees.


What sort of equipment did you use to do that?


----------



## WLC

Brain: WLC's (slightly used).
Literature research: Google Scholar.
Primers: (my design) from IDT.
iTaq: Biorad.
Thermal cycler: Biorad.
Gel electrophoresis: Biorad.
Sequencing: Genewiz.
Sequence editing: Muscle/Jailview.
etc., etc...

Mark:

You don't need to go 'molecular' to take advantage of what Honeybees do naturally.

What infuriates me is that those who made the initial discoveries could have informed beekeepers about how they could take advantage of it rather than 'clamming up' and trying to market it.

I think that you may be curious about beekeepers doing something similar themselves.

As a proponent of 'democratic science', I'd say it's possible.

Beekeepers have always been 'self sufficient' anyhow.

WLC.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

What infuriates me is someone who is a proponent of "democratic science" being so cryptic and oddly evasive. I've respectfully asked a number of questions about how exactly a beekeeper can utilize the supposed benefits that you are referring to. I've sent pm's. But so far, all we have are breadcrumbs that leave us basically where we already are - we breed from the best of the stock we have. The only difference is that you seem to be suggesting that to make splits of stock which is under pressure is a good thing. To me that's pretty much unavoidable.

Beyond that - no details. 9 pages of scratching, a bunch of web searching to supplement your 'tidbits', as you seem bent on making what information you do share as difficult to understand as possible, and in the end I've got "you split into a challenge to raise a new queen".

Do you know anything about beekeeping? If you do, then maybe you could talk in beekeeping terms. Then maybe you wouldn't feel like you're speaking a language that no one can hope to understand - and you can quit speaking that language and speak in the one we're all familiar with. But maybe you don't speak that language. I have never heard anyone talk about "splitting_ into_" anything. I can split and introduce a queen; I can split and let the bees raise a queen.

As I've said repeatedly. I am happy to have you at the table here, and I'm just about as open and interested as anyone. But I'm beginning to feel toyed with, and that's annoying.

Share or don't share. But don't go on suggesting you've got information of pivotal importance but refuse to break it down in such a way as to make it truly useful to the people your speaking to.

That's just weird.

Adam


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

deleted - repeat


----------



## WLC

Adam:

Beekeepers normally split from their best and healthiest hives.

That's basic selective breeding.

Once beekeepers understand that there's another mechanism at play that can allow them to 'instantly evolve' their own resistance genes from their own 'sick' bees, it creates a new paradigm.

More importantly, 'transgenesis resistance' is validated proof that treatment free beekeeping can produce resistant stock.

Hygienic behavior is the only other solid evidence for treatment-free resistance that I'm aware of.

I'm not convinved that the swedes were able to show anything beyond attenuated pests/pathogens in bottlenecked bees.

WLC.

PS-watch the personal stuff folks.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Once beekeepers understand that there's another mechanism at play that can allow them to 'instantly evolve' their own resistance genes from their own 'sick' bees, it creates a new paradigm.


We keep asking you to help us understand this new method. So far it seems to amount to: 

"Beekeepers normally split from their best and healthiest hives. That's basic selective breeding."

'Don't do that, split from 'pressured' hives instead.' ('Pressured' here means 'sick')

So you're asking us to abandon the deeply empirically tested and deeply theoretically supported method we know, and ... just make splits from anything instead. And somehow, magically, our bees will gain resistance.

Have I got that right?

It seems we must also understand; the mechanism by which that happens is too complicated to explain.

Will you do us all a favour and just supply straight and fulsome answers to these exact and straightforward questions? 

If you can do that perhaps you'll gain respect for your theories. Without that you almost certainly won't, and people will continue to express exasperation one way or another. Participate in a discussion properly and people won't be short. Otherwise you're in the way, and people will let you know how they feel about that.

'Bill':
"I'm not convinved that the swedes were able to show anything beyond attenuated pests/pathogens in bottlenecked bees."

I've learned in several years of this discussion that some folks won't be convinced that mite resistant bees are a possibility no matter what evidence is put in front of them. And they won't tire either of telling everyone about it. I'd hoped the non-treatment forum would allow us to discuss these things without the constant interruptions and distractions of nay-sayers. Maybe we could have a special nay-sayers forum?

Mike


----------



## jbeshearse

Mike,

JB is fine.

You have elaborated needlessly for the most part. I have a well-founded understanding of fundamental evolutionary principal and animal husbandry. I can respond point by point to your post, but that will get tedious quickly. Your points are well taken and spot on. They work well in the lab, or petri dish or in completely controlled populations. Our bees are none of the above. Your bees and my bees will mate with feral and transient populations that we have no husbandry control over whatsoever. You can propogate horses that are virus resistant within your own stable and insure that you do not breed from non-resistant stock. You do not have to allow your non-resistant horses to die, you just don't breed from them. Eventually your horses will be in demand (assuming you have not breed out other disirable traits) because of the resistance. But that is a confined and isolated population. Bees are none of the above. 

We agree on much but disagree on a few important points. Really only disagree on only one important and basic point. That revolves around your words of “prevent “, “never” and “stop”. Once again you read “hinder” as prevent and I read it as impede. Once again you ignore the time part. I’ll also quote from the article (I usually don’t for copyright issues) From the article: 

“The coevolutionary process required for establishing a coexisting relationship between this parasite and its new host is lacking, both in time and in selective pressures because the selective disadvantage of being virulent is removed by apicultural practices aiming to control this damaging new mite pest.”

It appears that you disagree with the time element as much as I disagree with the “selective pressure is removed” aspect. Selective pressure is impeded, not removed and there is a difference, removal dictates 100% success of treatments which is not the case. 

You also are ignoring the real world application as it applies to the bee population. Husbandry works very well indeed when you control all breeding. It works well in a domesticated stock as you can select and choose what is allowed to reproduce. That is just not the case in populations with wild/feral subpopulations that cross breed with your selections. It is even more difficult when there are large mobile populations of managed livestock that are allowed to free range and mate with your selections. Also history has shown husbandry is capable of making the wrong selections and breeding out a characteristic that was later determined to be important and desirable. 

It is quite a large presumption to state that human interaction in a non-domesticated species will stop that species’ evolution. It just won’t happen. Evolution will march right on with or without human muddling. And it will likely march to a tune of it’s choosing not ours.

Your stance, if accurate will doom any of your results to fail as soon as exposed to the “treated” populations. By your stance, the superior genetics you are breeding to, will fail. So where does that superiority go and what does it achieve? How does that flow into fundamental evolution? 
Sorry, but you are wrong. Superior genetics will win out, treatments or not. When an inferior genetic line is allowed to reproduce it produces inferior genetics. AGREED? When an inferior line is allowed to cross breed with superior genetics, the superior genetics have a better chance at survival with or without treatments/intervention. The only caveat is when the superior genetics are purposefully killed or prevented from reproduction and that is not the case in this instance. 

But everything above aside, I am going to ask a series of questions, I will provide my answers and you (or anyone else) can provide your/their answers, and then maybe a more focused conversation can follow. I am sure you will get a feel of where I am headed from the questions. 

What is the currently accepted average time from introduction of mites to colony collapse if untreated and nonresistant?
JB: 3 years

Are treatments 100% effective at removal of varroa?
JB: No

Do 100% of the treated non-resistant hives survive?
JB: No

Which has the better chance of survival, a treated resistant colony or a treated nonresistant colony? 
JB: Resistant colony. 

Which has the better chance of survival, a non-treated resistant colony or a non-treated nonresistant colony?
JB: Resistant colony.

Which has the better chance of reproduction whether treatments are present or not, Superior or inferior genetics?
JB: Superior genetics. 

Are there less tracheal mite treatments applied in US apiaries today than 5 years ago? 
JB: yes, tracheal mite treatments are almost never applied.

Are there less Varroa treatments applied in US apiaries today than 5 years ago? 
JB:yes; less people treat and treat less often than 5 years ago.

Are feral populations rebounding at all?
JB: Yes, the feral populations are slowly returning.


----------



## WLC

It's not a new mechanism for producing resistance in treatment-free beekeeping.

Your bees have been doing this all along. However, they've done this, on their own, very slowly.

If you want to speed things up, make sure that there's a pest/pathogen present (the source of the resistance 'gene').

Then you can make new queens [so that non-LTR, retrotransposon (the 'resistance gene')bearing RNPs (the package), can translocate from nurse cells to oocytes (the germ-line mechanism)].

Finally, after a few months, you can select from your resulting/surviving nucs for resistance.


Entomologists have studied this field for decades.

It's only a mystery to those who use terms like 'evolution' and 'natural selection' as if they understood their meaning.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Mike: The only solution to people who won't cooperate is to stop feeding them. He's not providing you with what you ask, so cut him loose.

JB: I mostly agree with your answers except the last one. In my experience, feral bees have been at normal population for a number of years now. I know of a number of feral hives in my area (as well as where I used to live in Oregon) and I regularly catch feral swarms as well as ones which seem to come from kept hives. If the feral population rebounds as quickly as I've seen the kept population, the ferals have been fine for a decade.

As far as how varroa is treated, I believe you, but I don't have the numbers. I would like to see them. I hope its true.


----------



## WLC

"Mike: The only solution to people who won't cooperate is to stop feeding them. He's not providing you with what you ask, so cut him loose.'

I answered his question. [Edit]

Sol:

You never did explain how you know that your treatment-free bees are disease resistant.

Sooo...

Perhaps you're the ones doing the trolling and refusing to answer questions?

WLC.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> You never did explain how you know that your treatment-free bees are disease resistant.


Yes I did. If they weren't disease resistant they would be dying all over the place, but they are not. I have not treated for anything in nine and a half years. They keep telling me there's going to be a crash and it keeps not happening. Give me an alternate explanation.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> Because they used to die a lot, now they don't.
> 
> Do you have another suggestion?


I believe this is his answer WLC.


----------



## WLC

Mark:

A little due diligence is in order.

How about getting the apiarist/bee inspector to come by and give an unbiased assessment?

A treatment-free beekeeper might cringe at the thought of an experienced, no-nonsense, inspector rating their hives.

But, frankly, it's like going to the doctor's. We all have to do it sometime.


----------



## sqkcrk

Due diligence? What do you mean?

I would be uneasy about an Apiary Inspector rating my hives, that's my job.


----------



## Solomon Parker

This is turning ugly and I'm not responding to it. Get back on topic. Address the paper, otherwise start a new thread if you want to talk about something else.


----------



## WLC

I think that I'm addressing the conclusion of the paper rather directly.

We need to address how resistance evolves.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

I am very interested in how resistance evolves. So I'll ask more questions in an effort to understand.

WLC says:

*" Then you can make new queens [so that non-LTR, retrotransposon (the 'resistance gene')bearing RNPs (the package), can translocate from nurse cells to oocytes (the germ-line mechanism)]."*

So I have to raise my own queens from the struggling stock. Is the word "nurse" in this sentence referring to nurse bees? If so, how does the resistance gene translocate from the nurse cells? 

I want to run a treatment free operation, and am presently forulating my approach to next season. I am very much interested in whatever the group might offer to help me figure our my plan for the coming season.

Adam


----------



## WLC

Adam:

We're obviously looking at how egg cells (and possibly sperm cells) are made.

My understanding is that these RNP particles move into the oocyte along with other other components that are being transferred from the nurse cells.

You might have to look up gametogenesis to get a better feel for the process.

The RNP then makes it to the nucleus (possibly via the cytoskeleton) where it then reverse transcribes and integrates into the host genome.

So, the transposable element makes it to the nucleus during gamete formation and integrates.

After that, it's resistance via RNAi, as in the Maori paper.

This is the only example of Honeybee disease resistance by evolution, that I am aware of, that is so well documented.

I don't think that we can say the same for any of the other possible mechanisms being discussed. That's what makes it special.

--------------------------------------

Out of 8 splits from an obviously DWV infected hive (there was a funnel of dead bees, with shriveled wings, leading back to the hive), 1 was good enough to rehive.

Even though we're going to take a look for evidence for DWV integration, it might take a while before we actually know if the new hive is truly resistant.

Hunting for jumping genes is never an easy task.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Adam:
> 
> My understanding is that these RNP particles move into the oocyte along with other other components that are being transferred from the nurse cells. [within the reproductive organs of the queen] Right, WLC?
> 
> --------------------------------------
> 
> Out of 8 splits from an obviously DWV infected hive (there was a funnel of dead bees, with shriveled wings, leading back to the hive), 1 was good enough to rehive.
> 
> Even though we're going to take a look for evidence for DWV integration, it might take a while before we actually know if the new hive is truly resistant.
> 
> Hunting for jumping genes is never an easy task.


What did you do w/ the other 7 splits? What was their composition?

"we"?


----------



## WLC

This was DWV without mites, by the way, in VSH stock.

2 frames from the original hive, and an additional drawn frame for each split

No feeding or treatments.

4 came through, and I took the best looking one and rehived it. I allowed the other three to dwindle away. 

The new hive was close to filling one deep when we took samples.

"we", Someone else gets to do the tests.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

When are you likely to have test results from what you've tested?


----------



## sqkcrk

DWV without mites. You sampled the colony to establish that?

Two frames of brood? What was in the additional drawn frame? Just comb? a frame full of honey? Or Honey and pollen?

When you write that you took samples from the new hive, I assume you mean you took samples of bees? And what will you be doing to test them for resistance to DWV? I guess you will be looking for some sort of genetic marker or something?


----------



## WLC

We've already extracted, PCRed and run gels. We've got good extractions, amplifications, and gels.

It'll be some time before I can report any findings. It's someone else's project.

If they do a great job of it, then it can take them places.

As a side note, I have another Honeybee virus related project going on as well.

This one is more theoretical though.


----------



## sqkcrk

Extracted what exactly? Please. You are talking to people not in your line of work.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

There was some pollen and honey in each of the splits with an extra partially/fully drawn frame.

I took the original hive apart w/ a large carving knife, scraper, etc., I found the queen and left her with about 4 frames in the original location. Checked everything in 'good light'.

The original hive is still leaking DWV.

I've got bees from before the split, and then after the successful split from the parent and daughter colonies.

Boy, am I glad I converted a Dustbuster to a bee vac sampler. 

We can do virus (RNA), target integration site (rDNA), virus vs integrated virus expression (RNA).

Personally, I only care about the target rDNA site. The other stuff has already been done by others.

My thing is catching 'instant evolution' in the act:

DWV jumping into Honeybees, because of a split, and perhaps even testing positive for DWV resistance.

Hunter et al. already found DWV in Honeybees, but I doubt that they used this kind of experimental design.

sqkcrk: 

Regardless, somebody is going to learn something. 

WLC.


----------



## sqkcrk

Regardless someone always learns something. Quite often what someone learns is not what someone else was trying to teach. Haven't you noticed that to be true? Porejemplo, we have learned something about each other, haven't we? But, some of us have not learned what we wanted to. What can we do?


----------



## WLC

Now, for a gratuitous link for the thread:

http://www.slu.se/en/faculties/nl/a...department-of-ecology/hemsidor/locke-barbara/

I learned that we've got alot to learn about the coevolution of the Honeybee, the Varro mite, and other pathogens. 

I hope to learn how to make transgenic, DWV resistant, treatment-free bees (OK, so I fed them peppermint candy) by splitting a DWV infected hive.

I think that would be alot to learn on a thread like this.


----------



## sqkcrk

Here is something you can learn, if you will, peppermint candy has no appreciable effect on Varroa or Tracheal mites. Nor does it do any good on DWV. Lesson taught. Now it is up to the student to learn.

Check w/ Geulph University, Guelph, Ontario. I don't know if Gard Otis is still there or not, but he did a study way back in the late 1980s, putting bars of menthol into beehives to treat T. mites. No positive effects.


----------



## WLC

The peppermint seems to improve their disposition. They're less defensive.

It certainly doesn't help w/ DWV though.


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay, I haven't noticed that. But you have, so, what can I say, but, okay.


----------



## TooFarGone

WLC 
I have read the entirety of this thread with great interest. I have recently had some coursework in both immunology and infectious agents/virology and will attempt to reconstruct your argument for splitting infected hives to try to induce spontaneous resistance to a viral pathogen.

Your premise is bases on the assumption that it is the viruses carried and spread by the Varroa mite that are causing the damage to the bee population and not so much the mite itself. By breeding "sick" colonies, you are trying to encourage the emergence of bees that have successfully "reverse engineered" the viral RNA and inserted it into their own DNA in a way that allows them to immediately have resistance to the virus. This is a genetic mechanism that is separate and distinct from the "usual" Mendelian genetics that we are all used to- which works by breeding "the best to the best". From a Mendelian perspective, breeding impaired/sick bees is the a "very bad thing" and is the basis of much of the resistance noted in this thread to the idea of breeding sick bees. I am going to try to explain how the alternate system might work for generating resistant bees.

Bees have some (limited) ability to spontaneously develop resistance by incorporation of the virus genetic material into their own DNA is a fashion that allows them to develop innate immunity to the virus. that is to say that when the virus infects the bee, the bee already has immunity in place to immediately remove or neutralize the virus. They have to have an active infection with the virus in order for this genetic incorporation to occur (hince the splitting of sick hives). My understanding of how this happens is as follows:
1) Viral genetic material in the case of the Deformed Wing Virus is made of strands of a material called Ribonucleaic Acid, or RNA. 
2) Before this genetic code can be inserted into the bee genome, it must be converted to Deoxyribonucleaic Acid or DNA. This conversion is accomplished by an enzyme called a reverse transcriptase- it takes the viral RNA strand and molecule by molecule converts it to an equivalent DNA strand.
3) In order to get the freshly minted DNA material from the virus inserted into the bee DNA genetic code, a special enzyme called a retrotransposon is utilized. This enzyme takes newly formed piece of DNA (formed from the viral RNA), and (I believe) randomly inserts it into the bee's genetic code. Once inserted, it stays.
4) The tough part is that the new DNA may or may not insert into a part of the bee DNA that is used to control the bees immune system. The bee reportedly has 10,000 genes, and if this genetic material is (randomly) inserted into most of them, it would not function in the immune system and might even be bad (or lethal) to the offspring. Eventually, after enough tries, the correct insertion would occur and the offspring would have innate resistance to the virus!
5) I think that the queen bee would have to be infected with the virus in question. In a manner that I am not completely clear on, the retrotransposon is active in the reproductive tract of the queen and is randomly inserting the genetic material into cells that divide an become eggs. It is not clear to me if each individual egg have a randomly placed piece of genetic material or if all of them have the material inserted into the same spot. This suggests that drones would be carrying the genetic material as well. 
6) In order for the new innate resistance to be manifested in a colony formed by splitting, the split would have to raise a queen from brood from the prior queen. This new queen would have to bear the virus genetic material at just the right spot in her genome so that she had viral resistance. Then her offspring would have resistance-Voila- new immediate resistance to the viral pathogen!

And that is how I think it works!

Hope it helps. 
TooFarGone


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> I think that I'm addressing the conclusion of the paper rather directly.


You must be explicit and explain in terms we can understand. Take a sentence or paragraph from the paper (you mention the conclusion) and show how it bears on your thinking - or vice versa. At things stand you're building castles on thin air. That's a waste of our time and space, and a distraction from our topic. Start your own topic if you want to talk about a new mechanism beekeepers can experiment with to supplement the known routes to resistance. 



WLC said:


> We need to address how resistance evolves.


Resistance evolves due to natural selection for the fittest strains. What you seem to wish to talk about is the way resistance arises in the first place. It seems to me you wish to replicate what you believe to be a mechanism whereby some of the genetic material from the organism causing problems is somehow bought into service in the host's genetic structure, in a way that then supplies resistence to the host.

Is that what you are talking about?

Mike

PS from what Toofargone has written it seems that's about right. Its interesting. But it should be on a thread of its own, since our subject paper is directed at evolution working in the more common manner - by natural selection for the fittest strains. Your topic is related, but is getting in the way of this conversation. And this one is important - it deals directly with the mechanisms that will make the most difference to the great majority of beekeepers seeking to go treatment free. As the orginator of the thread I'm asking you to start your own. I'll subscribe to it and listen in and ask questions.


----------



## WLC

Mike:

"Therefore, more detailed investigations
are necessary to identify and tease apart the possible
mechanistic differences."

I was discussing one possible mechanism by which bees can evolve resistance to varroa mites: molecular immunity to the viruses that they carry via transgenesis.

My main contention is that molecular immunity to viruses by Honeybees is also better understood as a mechanism of co-evolution and resistance than any of the other mechanisms being considered.

They can't seem to be able to identify the specific genes (sequences) involved for the other mechanisms.

I've noticed that in the literature.

I gave specific evidence for co-evolution.

I've provided a mechanism for virus resistance.

It doesn't require human intervention to occur naturally in treatment-free bees.

However, I'd like to see if we can detect an actual act of 'instant evolution'.

I do understand the issues involved.

Are we clear now?

WLC.


----------



## mike bispham

jbeshearse said:


> Mike,
> 
> JB is fine.
> 
> You have elaborated needlessly for the most part. I have a well-founded understanding of fundamental evolutionary principal and animal husbandry.


Hi JB,

I will continue to contend: no you don’t. I often had people say to me that they understand natural selection. But ‘understand’ is a broad word. It often means they’ve heard of it, and have a rough idea of what its about – but little more. I think your comprehension is quite good. But you’ve a little further to go. 

Specifically, you are not factoring in the ‘arm’s race’ aspect, nor appreciating to extent of the effect of allowing non-resistant genes to go through wholesale to the next generation.

Let’s try a thought experiment to bring the main issues into focus. We can imagine two apiaries of identical bees, both middle resistant, and both with middle-fecund varroa. For the sake of this thought experiment we’ll ignore any changes in the mite population. We’ll also assume any external input is identical, and similarly both sets of bees are middling in terms of resistance.

Apiary A) will be managed by close selection of the most resistant bees. Their genes will replace the weakest by queen rearing and re-queening. 

Apiary B) will be managed by a systematic treatment regime. There will be no attempt to breed through selection. 

This represents my way and yours respectively.

In my apiary any non-resistant strains will be swiftly terminated, leaving each new generation to be made from resistant parents. Genetics/the law of inherited traits will ensure the new generations are similarly resistant, and so within a few generations all non-resistant strains will be extinguished except those that have come in from outside. This will throw up non-resistant offspring, but less often that will be happening in your as my own drones will tend to reinforce resistance. My apiary will be made resistant, and kept resistant by systematic selection. 

In your apiary both resistant and non-result equally contribute to each new generation. Each new generation, made of the same mix, will result in similar levels of resistance to the previous. This is exactly what the passage we’re interested in means: acaricide use inhibits the rise of resistance. Non-resistance doesn’t result in death – you stop that by treating. It doesn’t – even though it doesn’t work 100% - result in any progress, since many that would have failed go through. 

The cost of hygienic behaviours
I can see your point: if the treatments don’t work 100% then you might think there will remain a small pressure toward growing resistance. But actually it doesn’t work like that: for this reason. The hygienic behaviours carry a small penalty – they carry a cost. Bees fussing about over-cleaning the place are not bees fetching pollen and nectar. For that reason the evolved mechanisms are, in nature, dropped as soon as possible. As mites become less of a problem those hives with a lower proportion of resistant patrilines gain an advantage over those with what is now too many. And this dropping of resistance is rapid. What this means is that the slightest easing in pressure to become resistant results in fast abandonment of resistance. And that is exactly the scenario in lightly, or incompletely treated apiaries. 

So while my bees, and any feral bees far enough away from treaters to enjoy the benefits of natural selection will rapidly gain resistance due to the ruthless extinction of vulnerable strains, yours will make no progress whatsoever. 

Now, separately, we can look at three possible further objections. I’ve mentioned drone input, and we can do that first. Then we’ll look at the possibility of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity.

Both our apiaries, as you’ve pointed out, will be affected by external drones. In my case any benefits will be enjoyed, and disbenefits rapidly negated by my system. If the inputs contribute to health they’ll be incorporated; if they don’t, they won’t. Neat huh?

In your case the opposite will occur – any benefits will be lost as you press unfit strains forward in your mix, while any unfit drone input will just decrease any nascent resistance still further.

As to the fact of open breeding: yes, we cannot control mating, and so we cannot work with the sort of (probabilistic) precision that closed husbandry enjoys. But we can get ¾ of the way there, by adopting different strategies.

First, we can have total control over the queen side genetics. That’s 50% of the input, and is sufficient alone to start swinging things our way.

Second, we can increase our share of the male side input by two means: 1) by keeping large drone producing hives in and around our apiaries (standard bee farmers practice) and b) by the fact that our modus operandi encourages feral bees to establish and thrive around them – so we get the benefit of their (naturally selected) drones. Note; your management severely represses the local feral population, and so you get none of that resistant input.

Inbreeding.
The fact of open mating, the contact local ferals will have with bees from the wider area, and the possibility of deliberate input of selected resistant strains now and then add up to no danger of inbreeding. 

(Possible loss of genetic diversity is covered below)



jbeshearse said:


> Your points are well taken and spot on. They work well in the lab, or petri dish or in completely controlled populations. Our bees are none of the above. Your bees and my bees will mate with feral and transient populations that we have no husbandry control over whatsoever.


First, I’m grateful for your appreciation, and I’d like to return it. 

To real-world application. First, many people have been keeping bees treatment free for many years by using these techniques. The empirical evidence is there. The explanations for why it works are also there.

I’ve already addressed external input above, will add: the systematic nature of the selective propagation program is easily capable of dealing with input from neighbouring (treating) apiaries and transients – as long as they are not overwhelming. So its sensible to be at some distance from larger operations, and to make your own operation as large as possible so as to dominate the drone space. As to ferals – well as indicated above – their input is highly desirable. 

In the real world, the evidence fits my way of thinking perfectly. 



jbeshearse said:


> We agree on much but disagree on a few important points. Really only disagree on only one important and basic point. That revolves around your words of “prevent “, “never” and “stop”. Once again you read “hinder” as prevent and I read it as impede. Once again you ignore the time part. I’ll also quote from the article (I usually don’t for copyright issues) From the article:
> 
> “The coevolutionary process required for establishing a coexisting relationship between this parasite and its new host is lacking, both in time and in selective pressures because the selective disadvantage of being virulent is removed by apicultural practices aiming to control this damaging new mite pest.”


I agree, the paper does speak of a time factor. I will maintain that under strong treatment regimes, with no compensating feral or non-treater or deliberate resistant breeding to ameliorate, development of resistance cannot occur. I’ve covered that under ‘the cost of hygienic behaviours’.



jbeshearse said:


> It appears that you disagree with the time element as much as I disagree with the “selective pressure is removed” aspect. Selective pressure is impeded, not removed and there is a difference, removal dictates 100% success of treatments which is not the case.


Well, lets imagine you are right about this. Can you state the factors, the parameters under which resistance will rise, and give us a time frame? I’m not asking for guesses – I can give you a time frame for doing things my way – and prove that it works. Can you make a substantial claim that your slow development of resistance will outpace any compensating evolution in the mites? What is your evidence? 

At least can we agree: my way clearly works; your way might do, but we know, and we can’t know when either? 



jbeshearse said:


> Also history has shown husbandry is capable of making the wrong selections and breeding out a characteristic that was later determined to be important and desirable.


(Possible loss of genetic material or valuable traits)
I’m sure this is true (though I’d appreciate some examples with references). However, as far as I’m aware there is no comparable danger in what I’m advocating. In fact its exactly the point made by Marla Spivak: to have lots of beekeepers all maintaining their local populations by breeding on a local basis is the best possible protection for genetic diversity. 

I’m no expert here, but my understanding is that there is little to no cost in diversity in allowing nature to play out in this sort of situation – which the bees have faced countless times before – nor in the kind of husbandry that mimics natural selection. The ‘winners’ carry through pretty much all the diversity in the prior population. Very very small populations may be at risk of ‘bottlenecks’ But we’re talking here about a handful of individuals – not the millions at large in the US or the UK.

A single isolated apiary that is overbred might suffer such a problem. But a bit of new (preferably resistant) blood will sort it out.



jbeshearse said:


> Evolution will march right on with or without human muddling. And it will likely march to a tune of it’s choosing not ours.


If you consider domesticated animal have marched very much to our tunes – and then think how much influence we have over bees wherever the great majority are in apiary hands – you’ll see that we can and are influencing them strongly. And … that is what the paper tells us is happening. Its not the first scientific study to make the point:
Survival of mite infested (Varroa destructor) honey bee
(Apis mellifera) colonies in a Nordic climate (2006)
Ingemar Fries, Anton Imdorf, Peter Rosenkranz
"Our results allow us to conclude that the problems facing the apicultural industry with mite infestations is probably linked to the apicultural system, where beekeepers remove the selective pressure induced from the parasitism by removing mites through control efforts."
http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...129&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2006/05/m6039.pdf
This is the part most beekeepers – and, it seems regulators and the advisors don’t understand: giving medical aid to an openly mating species has a horrific effect. The species simply adapts to the new situation, and doesn’t bother raising any defences against what it perceives to be non-problem. The pathogens, meanwhile, continue adapting – resulting in their growing resistance to the treatments. 

Genetic care is an art. Go wrong and the results can quickly be catastrophic. As you yourself point out, bees are not closed mating populations, and the usual rules do not apply. Treating openly mating animals as you can closed populations is very much taking a wrong turn. The predictable – and now deeply demonstrated - result is a kind of ‘addiction’. The more you treat, the more the bees will adapt to your lifting their burden – and so it goes on. 


jbeshearse said:


> Your stance, if accurate will doom any of your results to fail as soon as exposed to the “treated” populations. By your stance, the superior genetics you are breeding to, will fail. So where does that superiority go and what does it achieve? How does that flow into fundamental evolution?


Not where the sorts of precautions I’ve outlined, if needed, are taken. The point is to raise the number of resistant patrilines to a sufficient level (and variety of required behaviours) not to seek complete dominance. And then to keep them at a suitable level through ongoing selective propagation. That’s what nature does, and we can improve and lose most of the weakest. The trick is: build the selective _process_ into your management. Genetic management is part of the art of beekeeping – just as in closed populations. 



jbeshearse said:


> Sorry, but you are wrong. Superior genetics will win out, treatments or not.


This is not substantiated, either by reference to theory or by any evidence. Its an article of faith. The well-established theory says: treatments supply an environment in which the pressure for change is removed. No change. 



jbeshearse said:


> When an inferior genetic line is allowed to reproduce it produces inferior genetics. AGREED?


Two weak lines will most often produce a weak offspring. Agreed.



jbeshearse said:


> When an inferior line is allowed to cross breed with superior genetics, the superior genetics have a better chance at survival with or without treatments/intervention.


More or less, yes. 



jbeshearse said:


> But everything above aside, I am going to ask a series of questions, I will provide my answers and you (or anyone else) can provide your/their answers, and then maybe a more focused conversation can follow. I am sure you will get a feel of where I am headed from the questions.
> 
> What is the currently accepted average time from introduction of mites to colony collapse if untreated and nonresistant?
> JB: 3 years


MB Depend on level of resistance in bees and voracity of mites. I’m not sure, given that, that an average really indicates mush that is of use to us. What we want to know is: you much resistance do _these_ bees have. 



jbeshearse said:


> Are treatments 100% effective at removal of varroa?
> JB: No


MB I don’t know. Some might be some of the time. 



jbeshearse said:


> Do 100% of the treated non-resistant hives survive?
> JB: No


MB I doubt it. 100% of any hives anywhere anytime is unlikely given a reasonably large sample.



jbeshearse said:


> Which has the better chance of survival, a treated resistant colony or a treated nonresistant colony?
> JB: Resistant colony.


MB Close to equal (dependent on effectiveness of treatment), but I’ll grant you the point. 



jbeshearse said:


> Which has the better chance of survival, a non-treated resistant colony or a non-treated nonresistant colony?
> JB: Resistant colony.


MB Resistant colony



jbeshearse said:


> Which has the better chance of reproduction whether treatments are present or not, Superior or inferior genetics?
> JB: Superior genetics.


MB I’m not sure that speaking in terms of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ is useful. Resistance is supplied by specific genes that confer specific behaviours. In the natural context possession of those behaviours confers superiority. Only when all colonies have those protective behaviours can other considerations come into play. Same in the non-treated apiary.

However, in the context of a treating apiary, all sorts of other factors come into play that make resistance irrelevant. So the ‘superior’ bee (i.e. good producer) may have no resistance, but be a outstanding layer.



jbeshearse said:


> Are there less tracheal mite treatments applied in US apiaries today than 5 years ago?
> JB: yes, tracheal mite treatments are almost never applied.


MB No idea – I’ll take your word for it. But how widely were tracheal mite treatments applied? I’m not sure a simple parallel can be made.



jbeshearse said:


> Are there less Varroa treatments applied in US apiaries today than 5 years ago?
> JB:yes; less people treat and treat less often than 5 years ago.


MB Again, I’ll have to take your word for that. Can you supply proper support for the claim? How much have treatments been fine-tuned – just as effective though applied less often? How much have alternative systems of mite management been substituted? Don’t forget, they have exactly the same effect in breeding terms.



jbeshearse said:


> Are feral populations rebounding at all?
> JB: Yes, the feral populations are slowly returning.


MB: Yes. And, its noteworthy that, as Joe Waggle predicted, this is happening first in those remote places where apiaries are few and far between. Treatments suppress feral populations by supplying incoming genetic material that undermines self sufficiency.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> "Therefore, more detailed investigations
> are necessary to identify and tease apart the possible
> mechanistic differences."
> 
> I was discussing one possible mechanism by which bees can evolve resistance to varroa mites: molecular immunity to the viruses that they carry via transgenesis.


Ok, thanks for the heads up. I'd advise: spend some time learning how to relate your thinking to the general public. We've had to pick apart for ourselves what it is your talking about. (BTW: I think this would be better expressed: 'gain resistance intially, which then enters the evolutionary mechanisms that operate through natural selection' or something of that kind.)



WLC said:


> My main contention is that molecular immunity to viruses by Honeybees is also better understood as a mechanism of co-evolution and resistance than any of the other mechanisms being considered.


Fine. But the subject of the paper, and our interest in it, is centred alomost entirely on the mechanisms and relations that pertain to bee-mite coevolution, through the mechanism of natural selection. That subject supplies us with insights that we can take to our own treatment-free beekeeping. There is, in other words, a clear point to this thread, and a clear subject - and intention of starting the thread was to provide a forum for exploring that. As I've said, I'm interested in your input. 

I'm now asking another direct question: wouldn't you agree that starting a new thread is simple and appropriate, given that several of the main posters to this thread have indicated impatience, the moderator has recommended ignoring you, and the originator has asked for you to stop interrupting the discussion? 

We'd like, please, to work through the paper at our own pace, looking at the parts we can relate to our own knowledge and practices. You are constantly hijacking the space we use to do that. Again, please, start your own thread. Its easy and effective - it will give you the space you would like to talk about the things you want to talk about.

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

People are asking questions because they're interested, thus the drawing out of the explanations.

Try not to be so patronizing. 

My challenge to you is this:

prove to me that co-evolution is responsible for the survival of the Gotland and Avignon hives.

WLC.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> People are asking questions because they're interested, thus the drawing out of the explanations.
> 
> Try not to be so patronizing.
> 
> My challenge to you is this:
> 
> prove to me that co-evolution is responsible for the survival of the Gotland and Avignon hives.
> 
> WLC.


No. You clearly want to disrupt the discussion. I'm going to abandon the thread and start another. Please don't hijack that one too.


----------



## D Semple

TooFarGone

Thanks for the explanation of reverse transcriptase and retrotransposon, after 10 pages of reading on this thread I finally learned something.

Keep up the good work WLC, way to think outside of the box.

Don


----------



## mike bispham

D Semple said:


> Thanks for the explanation of reverse transcriptase and retrotransposon, after 10 pages of reading on this thread I finally learned something.
> [...]
> ...way to think outside of the box.


What I seemed to learn was that there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of a piece of the viral code making its way to an appropriate place - yielding, at this stage a 1 in 10,000 chance of what is wanted occurring. Except...

...We can't just assume that any old bit if viral code will have the desired effect. (In fact quite how a bit of viral code has the effect of supplying a resistance to the bee is not explained either.) So we also have to assign a probablity to the transposed viral code being a useful piece (and never mind the mechanics of just it works). Whatever that probability is now has to be multiplied by 10,000 (the probability of insertion happening at the right place).

That, I would guess, would bring us into the same sorts of realms as good old mutation by background radiation - one in lots and lots and lots cubed lots of times. 

This rather makes a mockery of WLC's analysis of his 1 in 10 hives experiment. His is a very far from impartial 'analysis' of a very badly conducted 'experiment' on a very inadequate sample. It is, lets recall, a 'theory' supplied by several posters over the course of a week or so - WLC being unable to explain it himself. 

To take another easy pot: if bees were able to gain resistance every 10 matings in 'challenged' circumstances, it follows that viral problems would be fixed before they had even arisen! 

I'm all for thinking outside the box, but this box has more holes than swiss cheese. 

Mike


----------



## Solomon Parker

Let us also remember that much of our own DNA and that of virtually all animals was originally viral code. It's one of the mechanisms of evolution.


----------



## mike bispham

Solomon Parker said:


> Let us also remember that much of our own DNA and that of virtually all animals was originally viral code. It's one of the mechanisms of evolution.


We've taken it and utilized it for our own purposes - to make specialised proteins that we can use.

That's not the same thing at all as incorporating it as a way of gaining resistance to the doner virus. 

We gain resistance to viruses through the workings of our own immune system, by exposure mostly. But resistence is also passed down through colostrum - the first part of mother's milk. This is necessary because viruses constantly mutate - you need an up to date 'patch' as it were. 

Any virus incorporated into our own code in the manner WLC suggests would be out of date within a generation or two. 

Its worth reading this piece at wiki - particularly the part relating to animal husbandry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colostrum 

Mike


----------



## Solomon Parker

I wouldn't say we took it. But it got in there.

In bacteria, viruses insert themselves into the code (remember a virus is not a living thing, essentially only a section of RNA) and then may live on as part of the bacteria and its offspring indefinitely. At some point in the future, even many generations later, it can reemerge. 

My breeding program takes advantage of the natural winnowing, natural exposure, and traditional breeding up of resulting performing stock.

Funny thing, back when the treatment-free thing was in its infancy, you'd hear things like 'you can't breed wolf resistant sheep.' But you can. Nobody does, but you can. You may get sheep with long legs that run fast, or that are well camouflaged, or that eat wolves, or who knows what. Once you have them though, you're going to have to work on breeding back in the traits for wool and meat production. All things considered, bees have ended up being much easier than that.


----------



## danmcm

Introns help make diversity but viral code added to animal cells is different than plant and with meta-genetics and the importance of mythelation in both expression and deactivation of areas of introns because they are unfit... well its a great area of science but thinking you can split a viral infected hive and in your lifetime create a new gene from viral code is a joke the idea it will be a helpful gene is sad. dna has many repair mechanisms. the best we can hope for in our lifetime is micro-evolution as in changing the ratio or combination of genes for a better (or synergistic) effect to combat viruses and parasites. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111204144654.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615171519.htm
mythelation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120302101712.htm
granted in plants it may be different
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111129112329.htm

This is a great field but what you learned in school is rather useless in five years and from several of the above statements I'd say careful listening to one person or book... though I dont remember even in school being told viral dna(?) could create a intron that would make a new gene for a protein that would benifit the host... wow


----------



## mike bispham

Solomon Parker said:


> Funny thing, back when the treatment-free thing was in its infancy, you'd hear things like 'you can't breed wolf resistant sheep.'


"Now it is known that bees can be bred for resistant
behavior, so it is hard to imagine that it was at most a guess
and a hope only 17 years ago when Kefuss began to
experiment with the idea. His respected doctoral mentor,
Ruttner, opined that bees could not be bred against mites,
saying, “Sheep can’t be bred against wolves.”

[...]

From 1999 to 2005, Ralph
Buchler tested 13 lines of bees from different areas in Europe on the island of Unije in Croatia for resistance to
Varroa without treatment. Kefuss’ bees from Toulouse were the last to die out. “Ruttner told me that it turns out
that sheep can be bred against wolves.”

http://survivorstockqueens.org/John Kefuss Keeping Bees That Keep Themselves.pdf

Sheep were pretty wolf resistant from the start. Their main defence was probably their exquisite climbing ability. There's a wonderful example of the extraordinary climbing of - in this case - goats, here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-near-vertical-Cingino-dam-Italian-Alps.html

Mike


----------



## Solomon Parker

Well there you go. If I could just come up with these things before everybody else does, maybe I could get my name on something beside my own website! :scratch::lpf:


----------



## TooFarGone

In reference to the article that is the basis for this thread, my reading suggests that the Varroa mites had suppressed reproduction in the Gotland colonies and these same mites were tested in other control colonies and their reproductive success was notably improved to a statistically significant degree. This answers a criticism I have seen in other venues (and possibly this thread, I don't remember) that the "obvious" explanation for the reduced reproductive success was essentially entirely on the basis of the selection of a less fecund mite population.


----------



## WLC

That's not it.

The original 'Bond' studies claimed that the bees had adapted rather than the mites. However, they still can't provide specific evidence for the mechanism.

My own view is that they haven't demonstrated 'co-evolution' between mites and bees.

However, Maori et al. (2007) provided specific examples of co-evolution between IAPV and Honeybees. They found IAPV fragments in the Honeybee genome (providing resistance), and Honeybee sequences in IAPV!

That's co-evolution.


----------



## mike bispham

TooFarGone said:


> In reference to the article that is the basis for this thread, my reading suggests that the Varroa mites had suppressed reproduction in the Gotland colonies and these same mites were tested in other control colonies and their reproductive success was notably improved to a statistically significant degree. This answers a criticism I have seen in other venues (and possibly this thread, I don't remember) that the "obvious" explanation for the reduced reproductive success was essentially entirely on the basis of the selection of a less fecund mite population.


That might have been me - but it wasn't meant as a 'criticism'. 

It does seem obvious to me that where bees are targetting large mite families and leaving smaller ones alone, the result will be the emergence of mite strains that have smaller families. The 'coevolution' is the result of bees effectively breeding less fecund mites. 

If, as you say, the mites were tested in other colonies and found to tend to return to larger families, that would tend to confirm the hypothessis that the first (VHS) bees were responsible. (An extract would be handy)

The mechanism responsible would be the VHS bees' tendency to uncap and destroy larger mite families, but to leave small families alone. There appears to be evidence (see below) that the bees even leave alone and recap small mite families - at least I think that is what is being inferred - the writing isn't explicit. 

That's how I make sense of it.

In this case I think its safe to say (against WLC's view) that co-evolution is what is being observed. We should note that this 'evolution' can switch back rapidly - there's nothing fixed about it. 

BTW: We need to acknowledge the multi-layered nature of the term 'mechanism'. 'Mechanisms' are known to be tricky things to talk about. I've speculated about a 'mechanism' above, and it seems like a plausible explanation to me for how VSH 'works'. But it doesn't say anything about the lower level 'mechanism' responsible for the bees' behaviour in the first place. This is known to be genetic - because it is heritable - but the exact gene locations responsible are undiscovered as yet. So WLC, who is interested in the molecular level - is quite right in saying 'the mechanism' is unknown - at that level. It is also right to to say that part of the second-level mechanism - of how bees detect varroa in closed cells in the first place - is unclear. (The best guess as far as I know is by odour.)

Saying 'the mechanism is unknown' is true therefore in some respects, but not in others. And we must be careful not to elide - to infer unknowns from one area are unknowns in others - where things are better, even if imperfectly, understood.

Its worth bearing in mind too, none of this need concern beekeepers at all. As long as you follow the method of propagating from best - boosted if necessary by more intense breeding measures - all will be well. You don't need to know any more than how to apply to bees the dictum 'put best to best'.

Mike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varroa_sensitive_hygiene

Bees with the trait were initially bred by the USDA Honey Bee Breeding, Genetics and Physiology Laboratory in Baton Rouge, LA from colonies in which mite populations grew only slowly.[1]

The factor causing slow mite population growth was found to be heritable[2]. The rate of mite population growth was found to be correlated with the reproductive rates of mites[1], resulting in naming the factor “suppressed mite reproduction” (SMR)[3]. It was subsequently discovered that the factor is founded on hygienic activity of adult bees[4][5], so SMR was renamed VSH.[6]

VSH activity results in (1) an abnormally low proportion of mites that produce offspring within the population that remains in capped brood and (2) reduction of the brood infestation rate by greater than 70%. The specifics of how hygienic bees detect mite infested brood currently are unknown.

Extension.org: Selecting for Varroa Sensitive Reproduction
http://www.extension.org/pages/30984/selecting-for-varroa-sensitive-hygiene
Select on mite infertility 
The most reliable method is to select for a high infertility rate in the mite population (Fig. 2). We are not certain how it happens, but somehow VSH increases mite infertility. Generally, 15-25% of mites in non-resistant colonies do not lay eggs. Infertility increases to 80-100% in colonies with pure VSH queens. Mite populations eventually decline in these colonies because so few mites lay eggs.

Extension.org
http://www.extension.org/pages/30361/varroa-sensitive-hygiene-and-mite-reproduction
Removal of mite-infested brood is probably triggered by unusual odors that penetrate the cell cap to the outside where hygienic bees patrol the comb surface. We have observed that VSH bees respond vigorously to highly infested brood (e.g. 15–25 mites per 100 capped cells) that is transferred into the colony (Fig. 4). They uncap and remove many mite-infested pupae quickly. They respond with much less intensity to brood with low infestation rates (1–5 mites per 100 capped cells), probably because the chemical signals that trigger removal are less concentrated and harder to detect.

[...]
Another characteristic of VSH bees is a reduced fertility of mites, when compared to non-VSH bees. In a colony, mite fertility is reduced several weeks after introduction of VSH queens into non-selected colonies.

The VSH bees shown in Fig. 7 have about 30% reproductive mites (a normal family capable of producing a mature daughter). About 55% are infertile or non-laying mites (blue slice), and there are mites that die without producing offspring (red slice). There are also mites that produce a family, but their daughters do not mature before the bee emerges (yellow slice). These are fertile because they laid some eggs, but they are also considered non-reproductive because they will not produce even 1 mature daughter. 

Sometimes, uncapped cells are recapped. VSH bees will exhibit this recapping more then non-hygienic bees, as seen in the following data (Villa et al 2010) 

•Recapped cells (%) 
•VSH: 38 ± 0.3 a 
•Hybrid: 19 ± 0.8 ab 
•Control: 17 ± 0.3 b 

It is possible that uncapping and recapping interferes with mite reproduction.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> However, Maori et al. (2007) provided specific examples of co-evolution between IAPV and Honeybees. They found IAPV fragments in the Honeybee genome (providing resistance), and Honeybee sequences in IAPV!
> 
> That's co-evolution.


How was it demonstrated that it was the fragments found in the honeybee genome taht was providing resistance to IAPV? 

Was it like your 'I made ten splits and one didn't show symptoms, so that one has become resistant.'?

Could you provide extracts of the descriptions of their tests?

Mike


----------



## WLC

The name is WLC.

Not Bill.

It wasn't 10 splits, it was 8. We won't know if anything 'jumped' for a while.

Maori, Tanne, and Sela used Southern, Northern, and Western blot analysis, DNA sequencing, and Primer walking, to prove both co-evolution and virus resistance. You really should at least read the abstract. If you want to read the paper, you'll need institutional access. No, I won't send it to you for free.

In addition, both they and U.S. scientistis demonstrated that the IAPV fragment could be fed to bees as dsRNA to make them resistant to IAPV via RNAi.

Their work is rock solid.

The only place I can really see cooevolution in the Locke paper is the title.
[Edit]


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> It wasn't 10 splits, it was 8. We won't know if anything 'jumped' for a while.


Ah. How will you tell? How will you tell if the jumping has induced resistance to the virus?



WLC said:


> Maori, Tanne, and Sela used Southern, Northern, and Western blot analysis, DNA sequencing, and Primer walking, to prove both co-evolution and virus resistance.


So you say. What I'm asking you for is _how_ they proved it with empirical tests. How many colonies did they use, how many controls did they use, how did they guard against false positives, was the testing double-blind. You know, the important bit.



WLC said:


> You really should at least read the abstract. If you want to read the paper, you'll need institutional access. No, I won't send it to you for free.


I wasn't asking you to. I was asking you to show us (and if you can't do that with extracts, outline for us), how they 'proved' that the jumping they had induced had conferred resistance to the bees.



WLC said:


> In addition, both they and U.S. scientistis demonstrated that the IAPV fragment could be fed to bees as dsRNA to make them resistant to IAPV via RNAi.


Again, how did they demonstrate this? 



WLC said:


> Their work is rock solid.


I have only your evaluation of that. That - given the weaknesses in your presentations and argumentation of the topic thus far - is insufficient.



WLC said:


> The only place I can really see cooevolution in the Locke paper is the title.


Engage WLC. Take the bit I just wrote about VHS and engage with it. I've said I think that amounts to coevolution, and I've said _why_ I think that. 

Its soooo easy to express an opinion; its much harder to substantiate it. But you have to to be convincing. Unless you're winning the argument with better positions than mine you're - or just by showing how mine is flawed - you're losing it. Swim or sink.

Show us _why_ you think my position - and the authors' - is wrong. 

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

If you want to know how Maori and the Beeologics team did it, I can only recommend that you get hold of the papers yourself.

While we might be able to do the 'jumping gene' detection and preliminary RNA based evidence for resistance, we can't do the key proof.

We can't feed jumping genes back to bees. 

Anyway, I'd settle for the detection alone. It's more than enough to find something at that site in the Honeybee. No one else is looking.

Hygienic behavior was described as a possible mechanism in the Avignon hive, but not in the Gotland hive.

So, hygienic behavior is a 'possible' but not a 'definite' at Avignon.

That still leaves us with a need for a 'deeper understanding' of what is occurring at Avignon and Gotland.

I still don't see any proof for coevolution.

Just the usual conclusion: it needs more study.

WLC.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> If you want to know how Maori and the Beeologics team did it, I can only recommend that you get hold of the papers yourself.
> 
> While we might be able to do the 'jumping gene' detection and preliminary RNA based evidence for resistance, we can't do the key proof.
> 
> We can't feed jumping genes back to bees.


How would that constitute a 'key proof'? The 'key proof' would be to show that it works in real life - with real bees, under controlled conditions. Without showing that this is no more than fluff. Seriously. 

WLC you're not responding to proper criticisms of your positions, nor addressing direct questions that have been put to you. (I could list them, and they probably come to 20 or 30 by now) You've barely acknowledged any of the points made by others. 

This is very telling. It is natural for us to understand that trying to meet these challenges would reveal yet more weaknesses. It speaks of deep bluffing. Its also very un-academic and unscientific. You are not engaged in a discussion with us, aiming to elucidate the facts of your case. You're avoiding difficulties and simply re-stating your beliefs.

That alone wouldn't matter - although its tiresome - and greatly irritating to those whose conversations you're obstructing. But it gets worse.

You are recommending to beekeepers, under cover of scientifically dominstrated fact, an untested GM method of raising resistant bees. The method flies in the face of tested breeding husbandry - anyone following it could expect rapid stock collapse. 

It may be a legitimate and valid system - if you're into GM - but -even if if works, and that appears to be unknown, its utterly unsuited to practical bee raising.

Do you understand many people have a great attachment to their stock? Many are dependent on their stock for part of their livelihood, some for their entire livelihood? 



WLC said:


> Anyway, I'd settle for the detection alone. It's more than enough to find something at that site in the Honeybee. No one else is looking.[/queen]
> 
> More than enough for what? To be able to reinforce your message to beekeepers - 'breed from 'challenged' bees and your problems will be over?
> 
> 
> 
> WLC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hygienic behavior was described as a possible mechanism in the Avignon hive, but not in the Gotland hive.
> 
> So, hygienic behavior is a 'possible' but not a 'definite' at Avignon.
> 
> That still leaves us with a need for a 'deeper understanding' of what is occurring at Avignon and Gotland.
> 
> I still don't see any proof for coevolution. Just the usual conclusion: it needs more study.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Evolution' is something that occurs from changes at many levels, in all timescales. It occurs, in a minor way in every generation. This is generally not recoginised - many people think of evolution as the cause of different species, and little else. But its much more than that: it includes the shaping, the sculpting of local populations by natural selection, as they adapt to their ever-changing environment, in each single generation.
> 
> The bees and mites at Avignon and Gotland have clearly changed in response to the pressure put upon the bees by the mites. The bee-mite pairing has 'bred' bees capable of living together. The result is a bee-mite pairing that can survive and thrive. Each has changed in response to the other. And that is called 'co-evolution.'
> 
> As to the need for further study: WLC there is pretty much always a 'need for a deeper understanding'. And it is normal practice in any academic/scientific paper to supply directions for further research in the conclusion. It doesn't indicate a confession of failure of any sort in the study being presented.
> 
> Do you not know this? In what field are your 'advanced degrees'?
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> If you want to know how Maori and the Beeologics team did it, I can only recommend that you get hold of the papers yourself.


I've scanned a bit. Its interesting stuff. I've popped a starting note and some extracts on a new thread:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...e-to-viruses-New-thinking&p=853635#post853635

Mike


----------



## WLC

I tend to answer questions selectively. You know, I avoid questions like, "Do you still kick your dog?"

Biology and Administration.

It's OK for me to test hypotheses.

I'm saying that bees are naturally transgenic. They can become resistant instantly and naturally.
I've presented it as 'evidence' for why treatment-free beekeeping can work.
I've also made the case for why Maori's work is still the strongest evidence to date for coevolution between bees and pathogens.

Now, if someone could do something similar for bees, varroa, and other pests/patohgens vis-a-vis treatment-free beekeeping, then we'd have a complete coevolution package.

The 'Bond' bees of Avignon and Gotland are well documented study hives. However, the evidence for coevolution is always presented as 'conditional' statements in the studies done.

They think that it's coevolution, but they're still studying it.

Barbara Locke has her work cut out for her.

Hygienic bees, in my opinion, are artificially selected stock bred by different programs/operations.

So, even though I bought VSH bees and didn't use standard treatment practices, I have no delusions that my bees represent a 'natural population' of bees.

They're livestock.

So, I hope that you understand my own 'informed' assessment of the state of coevolution research in bees.

The Bond bees and hygienic bees aren't the best existing evidence for it.

Maori et al. still have the best evidence of coevolution between Honeybees and a pathogen to date.

And...

You do know that they've found a bunch of transposable elements in the genomic survey of Varroa destructor? Right?

I hope that you can see that I'm advocating for a line of inquiry.

WLC.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> It's OK for me to test hypotheses.


I don't know what this means? 



WLC said:


> I tend to answer questions selectively. You know, I avoid questions like, "Do you still kick your dog?"


Its fine to avoid questions of that sort. But to answer selectively on the basis 'responding to that point would undermine my case', or 'I mustn't give away that I don't know', or anything of that sort ... would amount to ... well I'm not sure I can describe it in a way that won't get this post deleted by the moderator. 

Since you have a ba (minimum) in Biology you must know what I mean? 



WLC said:


> I'm saying that bees are naturally transgenic. They can become resistant instantly and naturally.


OK. But, as I've pointed out to you the odds appear to be very long indeed. Is there anything you can offer to convince me that isn't the case?

Unless the probabilities can be shortened from (my) current estimates dramatically [understatement alert], the effect of following your recommendations will be to negate (actually reverse) the well tested methods of finding health through selection for strongest - since you advocate propagating out of weakness (vulnerability to the target virus).

This, as I've pointed out to you, will have the effect of rapidly undermining apiary health. Do you wish to challenge that statement? Or does that fall the wrong side of your response-selection process for some reason?



WLC said:


> I've presented it as 'evidence' for why treatment-free beekeeping can work.


I'm glad you put the that 'evidence' in quotes! Its nothing of the kind! It's a pet theory, the germ of a hypothesis, that has yet to be tested!

Furthermore there is already a fulsome account of why treatment-free beekeeping works. I'm not saying its complete, but the understanding of raising beneficial and required alleles in a population a la natural selection via artificial selection supplies what is widely accepted to be an adequate explanation. 

This understanding is supported a large and growing body of evidence, and has ample scientific underpinning.



WLC said:


> I've also made the case for why Maori's work is still the strongest evidence to date for coevolution between bees and pathogens.


In this, and your statement below, I think I've seen what is happening. 

You reserve the term 'evolution' for such changes that are reflected in additions to the genome.

Lock, myself and others allow that the term 'evolution' can be used to describe the processes by which shifts in population genetics occur. 

We allow that the raising of alleles within a population supplying resistance to varroa due to natural selection are examples of an evoltionary process. Similarly changes in (mite) fecundity might be explained by nothing more than the concentration in the mite population of alleles coding for low fertility. We describe that as evolution - referring primarily to the _process_ .

You deny that. You want to see a stronger degree of permanance to any changes before you'll allow the description 'evolution'. 

Have I got that right? We're arguing at cross purposes, due to differences in what we regard as proper use of the key term?



WLC said:


> Now, if someone could do something similar for bees, varroa, and other pests/patohgens vis-a-vis treatment-free beekeeping, then we'd have a complete coevolution package.


Do you mean make GM modifications to bee/mite/virus genomes, then their dissemination cia central breeding programs?

or 

Do you mean home-made GM?

or 

Or do you mean natural/semi natural (beekeeper aided) transgenesis? In which case we must return to: 

a) the long odds question, 

and (not 'or', _and_)

b) the difficulties inherent in selecting for health while selecting from diseased stock!



WLC said:


> The 'Bond' bees of Avignon and Gotland are well documented study hives. However, the evidence for coevolution is always presented as 'conditional' statements in the studies done.
> 
> They think that it's coevolution, but they're still studying it. Barbara Locke has her work cut out for her.


See above the definition of 'evolution' issue.



WLC said:


> Hygienic bees, in my opinion, are artificially selected stock bred by different programs/operations.


What about when they are ferals, exhibiting hygeinic traits as a result of natural selection? 



WLC said:


> So, even though I bought VSH bees and didn't use standard treatment practices, I have no delusions that my bees represent a 'natural population' of bees.


Nor should you. If you'd found some long-lived ferals you might take a different view. But... allowing (either of) them to interbreed with loacally raised treated stock will mean your splits will be more vulnerable to varroa, and hence to viuses. And this would be true as well for any GM bees you or anyone else makes makes.



WLC said:


> They're livestock.


These words are keyterms, but aspects of their precise meaning is not fixed. The criteria might shift, depending on what you are interested in. There are times when in order to have clear detailed discussion you need to 'precise' your terms. 'Evolution' is here one. Thus far we've been speaking at cross purposes because we've taken fundamentally different stands on what the term does and doesn't include. Similary 'Livestock' will apply sometimes, not others. 



WLC said:


> So, I hope that you understand my own 'informed' assessment of the state of coevolution research in bees.


I might be getting there. 

I hope you're beginning to understand the nature of the constraints of evidence and the difficulties in application of your ideas. 



WLC said:


> I hope that you can see that I'm advocating for a line of inquiry.


Fine. Make it. Come back and tell us about it - preferably on your own thread. 

Mike


----------



## WLC

It means that I know how to formulate and test hypotheses.

Responding to some of what folks write simply goes too far afield from the main thrust of my argument or the thread.

MA. PD.

I've previously tested these bees for insertions at the site of interest and have detected many, and sequenced a few. They're already there. I've used and studied transposable elements before, and have even developed methodologies to get them to insert into sites preferentially.

Why use bees with an overt DWV infection to look for DWV insertions and even resistance? Viruses can overwhelm the bees molecularl immunity (RNAi) to such an extent, that transposable elements are no longer suppressed (my interpretation of the Johnson, 2009, paper). They start jumping. Transposable elements are known to 'jump' when sperm and eggs are being formed.

So, if you want to select for DWV resistant bees, you need to have plenty of DWV, and then you need to make new queens. You can find that evidence by taking Maori's and Hunter's approach (general structural gene insertions, or you can can use my approach (site specific). For beekeepers, it's just another Artificial selection method, but it has a solid theoretical foundation.

You don't need to be treatment-free for the above methodology to work. Sorry.

The coevolution hypothesis in the Locke paper is supported by conjectural evidence. But, they're still looking. I've endeavored to show you what evidence actually looks like.

I was describing finding jumping genes in bees, varroa and viruses that prove both recombination and resistance (coevolution).

The problem with proving coevolution in hygienice bees is that they still can't identify the genes involved. In fact, they can't even get candidate genes for hygienic traits from different studies to match. They don't have any solid evidence, yet.

Mike, since you clearly don't understand what you're reading in a scientific paper, I'll keep my own counsel on what I should be doing. 

WLC.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> It means that I know how to formulate and test hypotheses.


Then you'll know that testing a hypothesis concerning resistance in bees will involve real bees, double-blinding arrangements, control groups. So what are particulars of these test? Or, is there, in this case, some reason why such tests are not necessary.

Its a simple question. 



WLC said:


> Responding to some of what folks write simply goes too far afield from the main thrust of my argument or the thread.


That's easy. Do my questions above come into that category?



WLC said:


> I've previously tested these bees for insertions at the site of interest and have detected many, and sequenced a few. They're already there. I've used and studied transposable elements before, and have even developed methodologies to get them to insert into sites preferentially.


And this is proof of what? Surely its wisely known that these things can be done. What's needed is confirmation that they work, and designs to show how they might be put to use.

WLC, this is all pretty typical. You've answered questions I haven't asked, and haven't responded to those I asked. You haven't addressed my criticisms, nor responded to my suggestion that there was a bit of confusion abroad due to different views of the meaning of the key term. All you've done is parroted your positions.

You've claimed 'proof' without acknowleging the point that proof lies in empirical demonstration - or explaining why that isn't necessary in this case. 

This isn't dialogue. It isn't constructive. Its simply repetition of belief and refusal to take any notice of valid criticism. 

Mike


----------



## WLC

Alot of very real bees died from those splits made from the DWV hive. The dark discoloration of their bodies was both obvious and disturbing.

We've got plenty of bee samples taken before during and after. However, experimental design is one of my strengths. Not yours. 

Mike, you're confusion isn't equivalent to valid criticism.

This is simply yet another debate on treatment-free bees, and evolution, that you've lost.

I can't think of a single specific example proving the 'evolution' of resistance in treatment-free bees. There were plenty of hypotheticals though.

Pardon me if I dare to try my hand at a proof.


----------



## mike bispham

A waste of time. Shame it has so much power to distract.


----------



## WLC

Ditto.


----------



## WLC

Here's a study on recombinant DWV and VDV-1 virus.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/lifesci/research/devans/research/bees/jgv-92-156-161.pdf


----------



## souficoufi

Quel est le meilleur traitement contre le varroa qui existe sur le marché?


----------

