# treatments are a dead end



## Tenbears

What was the control, And who is responsible for this research, I saw no credits, or credentials.


----------



## enjambres

I read some more on the blog you linked to, and I still am not convinced this is a viable way to care for bees. The results that are being touted there as "success" would so discourage me that I think I'd have given up beekeeping by now - that would truly be a "dead end" for me, and apparently for many colonies, as well. Losing colonies every year is completely unacceptable to me.

Enj.


----------



## WWW

This article appears to be a Blog containing someones opinions, the statement about Oxalic acid not affecting mites because of climate change along with the statement that OA is usually used in winter is a stretch to say the least, the whole Blog sounds like opinionated propaganda.


----------



## e3eridani

Nice article. But I didn't get following statement: "Every beekeeper can at least try to identify which of his or her bee colonies are the least good in resisting varroa mites and replace the queen(s) in those."

If colony shows signs of resistance, why one should replace the queen?


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

@ SiWolke
We can see others opinions here http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...tting-on-bees-while-2-3&p=1362585#post1362585 about the same article.


----------



## Sunday Farmer

SiWolKe said:


> This is how nature answers to our interventions.
> The mites adapt their behavior.
> 
> http://www.elgon.es/diary/


This is a summary article at best that doesn't reference the peer reviewed/published work (if it even exists). Even as an undergrad I wouldn't have gotten away with writing a summary article like this. Why post it on a blog where thousands of beekeepers can read it, with a subject line that reads like it is supposed to be definitive work? That would be unscientific at the least, horrible journalism likely, and poor blogging judgement at best.


----------



## crofter

Filled with opinion and convictions and nothing in the way of controlled research to support. Many people latch onto such suggestive literature and accept, promote and spread the ideology as fact. I get put off by the first whiff of such missionary manipulation. Dogma?

I think it is the same fellow conjecturing on moisture content being lower in small cell honey; that got a negative response too, when it was put forth here on the forum not so long ago. It is the implied expectation of being believed, without supporting evidence, that raises peoples hackles!


----------



## Dan the bee guy

Hey guys. Do you read some of what he is talking about is right here on bee source sure he made some mistakes in his writing but the recipe on selecting resistant bees is on this site.


----------



## Dan the bee guy

Beesource Beekeeping Resources USDA Producing Varroa-Tolerant Honey Bees from Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe


----------



## Fusion_power

The basic premise that is generating heat is that varroa mites today are more likely to be reproductive vs phoretic. He quotes a speaker who stated that measurements @30 years ago vs today show a marked difference. He does not speculate on the reasons why this change occurred, but he implies that treating with miticides kills mostly phoretic mites where reproductive mites sealed in cells are less likely to be killed. Over time, this has changed the behavior of varroa mites by selecting for more mites to be reproductive. As noted, this conjecture is presented as fact. While I neither agree nor disagree with this premise, I very much agree that the long term solution is genetic. He is on the right path to selecting for tolerance using a soft bond approach.


----------



## Oldtimer

Sunday Farmer said:


> Why post it on a blog where thousands of beekeepers can read it, with a subject line that reads like it is supposed to be definitive work?


Because linking some unknown persons BLOG and claiming it definitively proves something is how internet beekeeping sometimes works in this modern age.


----------



## JRG13

Because no pest has overcome genetic resistance in the history of the world??? To blindly claim treatments are the sole cause is just plain ignorance, how do you know some genetic behavior hasn't caused this as well. Most resistance mechanisms are clearly targeted to disrupt mite reproduction, so it is conceivable to believe that to overcome this, as many mites as possible must try to reproduce at any given time.


----------



## jim lyon

I don't have trouble accepting the premise that mites have learned to make themselves less vulnerable to grooming behavior by either hiding between body segments or on the underside of the bee. What I don't get is why any phoretic mite (aren't they are all mated females) would have EVER passed up the first opportunity they have to invade an ideal aged larvae. Are we really being asked to believe that this reproductive process is being sped up by perhaps days in a matter of a little over 2 decades of evolution?


----------



## Fusion_power

JRG, excellent points. I would use the analogy of breeding fox resistant chickens. You can try all you want to breed fox resistant chickens, but at the end of the day, someone has to do something about the fox. This is why I think allogrooming is very important to breeding mite resistant bees. It directly attacks the fox by chewing his legs off.

Jim, I'm not advocating this position, but it is in the possibilities. Consider the varroa mite on A. Cerana. If a mite enters a worker cell, the probability of that mite reproducing is significantly reduced because A. Cerana has a development cycle as short as 17 days. By waiting for a drone larvae, that mite increases probability of successful reproduction. Therefore there is an evolutionary advantage to staying phoretic until conditions are right to reproduce. Contrast this with A. Mellifera where the potential to reproduce is nearly 100% if a mite enters a cell regardless whether worker or drone. Add in the probability of a beekeeper using chemicals that kill phoretic mites. Now the conditions have changed and there is a huge evolutionary advantage to entering the first available cell and reproducing.


----------



## 1102009

Thanks Eduardo, posting the link.
Thanks to all , giving your opinion.



> Many people latch onto such suggestive literature and accept, promote and spread the ideology as fact. I get put off by the first whiff of such missionary manipulation. Dogma?


Why get excited? 
New ideas or observations are mostly refused for some time, as you can see in the story of Brother Adam.



> Quote Originally Posted by Sunday Farmer View Post
> Why post it on a blog where thousands of beekeepers can read it, with a subject line that reads like it is supposed to be definitive work?


Because it`s definitive work for him and I have the utmost respect for someone who is such an enthusiast and does so much work on the topic tf beekeeping. 



> You can try all you want to breed fox resistant chickens, but at the end of the day, someone has to do something about the fox.


You can breed chickens that are bigger than foxes, maybe


----------



## jwcarlson

SiWolKe said:


> Because it`s definitive work for him and I have the utmost respect for someone who is such an enthusiast and does so much work on the topic tf beekeeping.


Speculation and conjecture = definitive work?


----------



## crofter

I know you think it admirable and that it is definitive for him. My quote " Many people latch onto such suggestive literature and accept, promote and spread the ideology as fact." It is a fact that people have a different idea of what "definitive" really is. Research and experimenting is admirable but I dont think leading conclusions should be suggested as fact. That I find objectionable not admirable.

In all fairness sometimes it is the newspapers or journals who publish and promote the research,who hype the definitiveness of the original research beyond the author's intentions; perhaps in many cases the researcher was not trying to mislead or foist off his opinion as fact. I do like to see lots of disclaimers made that makes plain that the experimenter is continuously aware of circumstantial influences. If there is too much enthusiasm I get leery that the experiment was merely a validation of a preconceived outcome. Objectivity in those circumstances goes for a crap!

Working in environments where people die when someone jumps to conclusions instills a different attitude I guess.


----------



## 1102009

Ok, I get your meaning.
Let`s end this discussion, please.

Hi jw, by the way!


----------



## jwcarlson

SiWolKe said:


> Ok, I get your meaning.
> Let`s end this discussion, please.
> 
> Hi jw, by the way!


Hello! 

Why end the discussion... isn't that why we're here? To talk about beekeeping? 
Hope winter is gentle on your bees, Sibylle. Winter finally arrived here...  I was hoping it was going to stay 35*F for another six weeks or so, but it didn't happen. Lows down to 0*F or so windchils in the negatives. Not really pleasant, but we've had far worse.


----------



## 1102009

jwcarlson said:


> Hello!
> 
> To talk about beekeeping?
> Hope winter is gentle on your bees, Sibylle. Winter finally arrived here...  I was hoping it was going to stay 35*F for another six weeks or so, but it didn't happen. Lows down to 0*F or so windchils in the negatives. Not really pleasant, but we've had far worse.


Yes, but not in circles.

Thanks for your wishes. Winter is here at last and next week we will have 17°C freezing temperature with storm. So today in the dark I went to my hives to close the floors. All are still alive but now comes the hardest time.
Good luck to you, too.

Kind of boring without bee husbandry. Read too much! Hope some will survive. It`s not a varroa problem this winter, if they don`t.


----------



## SRatcliff

I just like to play devil's, not saying I have all the answers...



JRG13 said:


> Because no pest has overcome genetic resistance in the history of the world??? To blindly claim treatments are the sole cause is just plain ignorance, how do you know some genetic behavior hasn't caused this as well. Most resistance mechanisms are clearly targeted to disrupt mite reproduction, so it is conceivable to believe that to overcome this, as many mites as possible must try to reproduce at any given time.


From what I've read, populations of Apis Mellifera have developed some tolerance by removing a large percent reproductive mites and leave infertile mites(or possibly make them infertile?) And not specifically target phoretic mites. I'm not sure if this behavior would breed for a quicker reproducing mite...




jim lyon said:


> I don't have trouble accepting the premise that mites have learned to make themselves less vulnerable to grooming behavior by either hiding between body segments or on the underside of the bee. What I don't get is why any phoretic mite (aren't they are all mated females) would have EVER passed up the first opportunity they have to invade an ideal aged larvae. Are we really being asked to believe that this reproductive process is being sped up by perhaps days in a matter of a little over 2 decades of evolution?


Newly emerged mated female mites still need to feed on adult bees for a while before reproducing right? I don't know how quickly mite behavior can change, but how long did it take certain populations of Capensis and Scutellata to achieve tolerance to the mites, 5 years? Some changes are fast, some are slow.



Fusion_power said:


> JRG, excellent points. I would use the analogy of breeding fox resistant chickens. You can try all you want to breed fox resistant chickens, but at the end of the day, someone has to do something about the fox. This is why I think allogrooming is very important to breeding mite resistant bees. It directly attacks the fox by chewing his legs off.


I'm not sure that's the best analogy, since honeybees do have mechanisms to suppress mite reproduction. I'm not sure about chickens(I don't have any, yet), maybe having a high roost or very aggressive roosters? But even so, chickens aren't bees.


----------



## JRG13

I was just making a generalization Ratcliff, not saying anything specific. The title of the thread is just a bit misleading, that is all. Whatever resistance mechanism you have, be sure the mites are working to overcome or maybe find that balance of tolerance rather than resistance, but again, talk to a pathologist and see what they feel about hosting populations of pests on 'resistant' or 'tolerant' lines, it's the fastest practice, in general, to create breaking strains of pests.


----------



## snl

Per Jennifer Berry, Entomologist and Honey Bee Lab manager for UGA on Oxalic Acid…..

“……………*resistance will not be an issue. It'd be like a ****roach becoming resistant to a hammer.”*


----------



## Fusion_power

> “……………resistance will not be an issue. It'd be like a ****roach becoming resistant to a hammer.”


That must be what happened to turtles. One time too many with the hammer and now they have shells that are hammer resistant. Anyone want to speculate about the ****roach that grows a turtle shell?

More seriously, do NOT discount the ability of a pest to adapt to a treatment, and that includes OA. Think about this a bit and you can see a plausible scenario that we have been breeding treatment tolerant mites for at least 30 years now. We did this by - drumroll please - treating for mites. If you doubt this statement, ask why two previously useful treatments are no longer effective. Over the long term, we want the mites to become less virulent.


----------



## Dominic

snl said:


> Per Jennifer Berry, Entomologist and Honey Bee Lab manager for UGA on Oxalic Acid…..
> 
> “……………*resistance will not be an issue. It'd be like a ****roach becoming resistant to a hammer.”*


And here I thought ****roaches were already pretty resistant to hammers (or pretty much anything else that would kill any ordinary critter).


----------



## snl

Well FP, all I can say is that OA has been used extensively for over 20 years w/o resistance...........

But, never say never...........


----------



## snl

Dominic said:


> And here I thought ****roaches were already pretty resistant to hammers (or pretty much anything else that would kill any ordinary critter).


Never met one yet that was resistant to a hammer!


----------



## Harley Craig

it's funny someone mentioned fox resistant chickens........ They are out there, I had one, It's called a mean azz rooster. To mean to have kids around, watched it whip a labs butt one day, and when he was around the death by predator rate went down by 90% in my small flock of free range chickens. Now , Fox proof......that is a different story.


----------



## SRatcliff

JRG13 said:


> I was just making a generalization Ratcliff, not saying anything specific. The title of the thread is just a bit misleading, that is all. Whatever resistance mechanism you have, be sure the mites are working to overcome or maybe find that balance of tolerance rather than resistance, but again, talk to a pathologist and see what they feel about hosting populations of pests on 'resistant' or 'tolerant' lines, it's the fastest practice, in general, to create breaking strains of pests.


Good point. Do you have any recommended literature on hosts and pests/parasites? Or can you go into more detail?


----------



## jim lyon

Fusion_power said:


> Jim, I'm not advocating this position, but it is in the possibilities. Consider the varroa mite on A. Cerana. If a mite enters a worker cell, the probability of that mite reproducing is significantly reduced because A. Cerana has a development cycle as short as 17 days. By waiting for a drone larvae, that mite increases probability of successful reproduction. Therefore there is an evolutionary advantage to staying phoretic until conditions are right to reproduce. Contrast this with A. Mellifera where the potential to reproduce is nearly 100% if a mite enters a cell regardless whether worker or drone. Add in the probability of a beekeeper using chemicals that kill phoretic mites. Now the conditions have changed and there is a huge evolutionary advantage to entering the first available cell and reproducing.


Regarding my earlier question of why a mated female varroa would ever pass up the opportunity to infest a larvae of ideal age I found the following quote in the linked article written by Zachary Huang that makes perfect sense to me. 

"Scientists were puzzled as to why mites bother to go through a phoretic stage, because they experience a high mortality rate during this period. Under laboratory conditions, varroa can reproduce successfully without a phoretic stage. That is, mites that were transferred immediately upon bee emergence to another newly-capped brood cell still reproduced, for up to seven cycles. The average number of total offspring (including males) was four during the first four to five cycles. This seemed higher than in our experiment (Fig. 4). However, upon closer inspection, the author said there were mites that did not have offspring (21.7%), and that this was most likely not included in the calculation. So the actual fecundity was 4*(1-0.217) = 3.17, which also included the males. After subtracting the males (which were about two per mother, instead of one, strangely, in their study, Fig. 4 of De Ruijter, 1987), we have 1.17 female offspring per mother. This would be slightly lower than the 1.6 female offspring per mother that we observed in mites fed on newly emerged bees. Therefore, mites that do not experience the phoretic stage have a lower fertility, especially compared to those hosted by younger nurses (see below)."

http://articles.extension.org/pages/65450/varroa-mite-reproductive-biology

This would seem to suggest that if there is any truth to the fact that varroa have shortened their phoretic life then it would also result in lower fertility. So if it can somehow be proven that there are fewer phoretic mites it wouldn't necessarily be a sign that varroa has gained an advantage. It's also worth remembering that not all emerging females are of the same maturity as "first born", females would be some 30 hours more mature than their junior sisters though the latter wouldn't be as numerous.


----------



## tech.35058

Fusion_power said:


> JRG, excellent points. I would use the analogy of breeding fox resistant chickens. You can try all you want to breed fox resistant chickens, but at the end of the day, someone has to do something about the fox. This is why I think allogrooming is very important to breeding mite resistant bees. It directly attacks the fox by chewing his legs off.


I thought this was kind humorous until I started remembering.
I had an uncle whom wanted "free range" chickens. We, the neighboring (experienced) farmers, told him he was nuts
The uncle released game hens.
It took us years to get them rounded up. Maybe "fox resistant chickens" is not the analogy you wanted


----------



## Fusion_power

I live in a small town with neighbors on each side. I have watched foxes pass through my yard at night. I have seen a fox grabbing a chicken out of my yard and sauntering off through the woods to enjoy the meal. As for game hens, I agree that they go wild very easily. I had some that were wild several years ago. They roosted 60 feet up in a huge maple tree. Eventually, a raccoon found the tree and within 3 months, the games were gone.

No, it is not the best possible analogy, but it gave us a topic to discuss.


----------



## 1102009

Thanks, Jim. Hope I got this right
So my speculations are:

"Scientists were puzzled as to why mites bother to go through a phoretic stage, because they experience a high mortality rate during this period. 

*Pests adapt to their hosts, because they need their hosts to survive, too. Or a percentage of hosts. Otherwise they will decline, too.*

Under laboratory conditions, varroa can reproduce successfully without a phoretic stage. That is, mites that were transferred immediately upon bee emergence to another newly-capped brood cell still reproduced, for up to seven cycles. The average number of total offspring (including males) was four during the first four to five cycles. This seemed higher than in our experiment (Fig. 4). However, upon closer inspection, the author said there were mites that did not have offspring (21.7%), and that this was most likely not included in the calculation. So the actual fecundity was 4*(1-0.217) = 3.17, which also included the males. After subtracting the males (which were about two per mother, instead of one, strangely, in their study, Fig. 4 of De Ruijter, 1987), we have 1.17 female offspring per mother. This would be slightly lower than the 1.6 female offspring per mother that we observed in mites fed on newly emerged bees. Therefore, mites that do not experience the phoretic stage have a lower fertility, especially compared to those hosted by younger nurses (see below)."

*Therefore the mites may not be able to breed the same, if they do not feed in a phoretic state. Nature tries to keep the balance.*

*So it would be possible we change the mite behavior with treatments to them hiding in cells most of the time but not be as fertile so the colony is able to live longer (?). 
What would be the results if we go on treating?
It could be a reason oxalic treatment often is in vain.*


----------



## GBF

Something like living on pills... There is no way to have some kind of resitence and in the same time to eat pills.. Todays the big part of society is a pharm addicted, but some kind of antibiotics don't work because pathogens adjusted to it - dead end... But the pharm industry is works on it (off course for your money) and opens the new types pills, but pathogens do the adjustment again and again - dead end... The immune system works when there is some kind of pathogens. If there is no pathogens the immune system calm down and sleep. When you are trying to help your immune system and to fight against pathogens yourself the immune system will be broken and finaly leave you. Dead End....


----------



## FlowerPlanter

snl said:


> Per Jennifer Berry, Entomologist and Honey Bee Lab manager for UGA on Oxalic Acid…..
> 
> “……………*resistance will not be an issue. It'd be like a ****roach becoming resistant to a hammer.”*


Give a million people hammers smashing ****roaches and what do you get; faster ****roaches!

Randy Oliver: "Will overuse of oxalic acid result in its becoming just another “Silver Bullet” with a limited effective life, due to mites evolving resistance? I strongly suggest using it to knock back mite levels only once a year. Otherwise, we’ll just be breeding for OA-resistant mites"

Every species on this planet has come to be because it has adapted/evolved some of the harshest environments. Fish with anti freeze for blood, bacteria that can survive 250 deg, micro-animal that can survive in space for 10 year...

Look at how adaptable Varroa has become so far...


----------



## David LaFerney

jim lyon said:


> I don't have trouble accepting the premise that mites have learned to make themselves less vulnerable to grooming behavior by either hiding between body segments or on the underside of the bee. What I don't get is why any phoretic mite (aren't they are all mated females) would have EVER passed up the first opportunity they have to invade an ideal aged larvae. Are we really being asked to believe that this reproductive process is being sped up by perhaps days in a matter of a little over 2 decades of evolution?


This isn't a comment on the thread subject, but significant evolution can apparently happen in only a few decades. For example an earthquake in Prince William Sound cause a population of fish to become isolated from the ocean. _"They found that freshwater sticklebacks on uplifted islands have changed dramatically from their oceanic ancestors: In the past half century, they’ve become phenotypically and genetically distinct from marine sticklebacks. Since freshwater fish living in ponds that existed before the earthquake were genetically distinct from those living in ponds created by the earthquake, the post-earthquake populations weren’t derived from preexisting freshwater populations"_ - 60 second science podcast - one of my favorites.

There are other examples of rapid evolution caused by environmental change.


----------



## sqkcrk

David, evolution or adaptation?


----------



## SRatcliff

It sounds like adaptation through evolution, creating a new subspecies.


----------



## David LaFerney

sqkcrk said:


> David, evolution or adaptation?


That's a fine point and way above my qualifications, but it involves genetic change - and the "experts" are using the word evolution to refer to it. Google for "rapid evolution." I guess it depends on how you define the terms - but cheap genetic sequencing has caused a lot of changes in what was once conventional wisdom on such things.


----------



## snl

FlowerPlanter said:


> Randy Oliver: "Will overuse of oxalic acid result in its becoming just another “Silver Bullet” with a limited effective life, due to mites evolving resistance? I strongly suggest using it to knock back mite levels only once a year. Otherwise, we’ll just be breeding for OA-resistant mites"


So we have one entomologist pitted against another ... Jennifer Berry saying that resistance will not be an issue

......... OA has been used for over 20 years with no apparent resistance. Never heard of a species becoming resistant to a hammer. Can a human become resistant to a gunshot? I believe there are some instances where a species just cannot adapt, otherwise we'd have a lot more species on earth. Is OA something that that varroa cannot adapt to? Who knows......but again over 20 years of non-resistance says a lot.....


----------



## Dominic

snl said:


> So we have one entomologist pitted against another ... Jennifer Berry saying that resistance will not be an issue
> 
> ......... OA has been used for over 20 years with no apparent resistance. Never heard of a species becoming resistant to a hammer. Can a human become resistant to a gunshot? I believe there are some instances where a species just cannot adapt, otherwise we'd have a lot more species on earth. Is OA something that that varroa cannot adapt to? Who knows......but again over 20 years of non-resistance says a lot.....


"X will never grow resistant to Y" has been said again and again for many times, and with time, many of them were shown wrong. "Never" is a word a true scientist wouldn't use...

For example, a lot of scientists used to say that breeding for varroa-resistant bees was folly, akin to raising sheep to be resistant to wolves (very similar to your hammer example).

Just because it is hard to grow resistant to something, doesn't mean it's impossible. A lot more species on earth? We already have 8,7 million... No species resistant to hammers? I'm sure someone wielding a hammer would have a poor chance of winning against this species. Or really, even species that aren't "armored"... go run with your hammer against an elephant, see what that gives you, or a even the much smaller tiger. A hammer is powerful against some things, and far from adequate against others. Shoot a grizzly with a pistol, see if that helps. Or take out your 12 gauge shotgun to go hunt hippos. Or at the other scale, use it to kill a fruit fly. Or moss. Evolution isn't directed. Species don't develop new genes according to their needs, and then transfer these on. Individuals mutate randomly. The species didn't evolve under a selection pressure of hammers and guns, but they nonetheless evolved in a way that makes them largely And every now and then, that mutation isn't a handicap that leads to its extinction. Even more rarely, it's actually a boon, which helps its carriers reproduce more, and thus propagate it to the general population. How long does it take? Depends. But it varies according to the rate of reproduction of the species in question. And varroa mites do many generations per year, unlike humans which do one per few decade.

Oxalic acid is not particularly special. To become inefficient, the mites don't need to become completely immune to it, able to go swimming in the stuff and eat it for breakfast. If OA works by burning off the mites' mouth parts, why is it so inconceivable that they can develop resistant mouth parts? Are the bees' mouth parts completely burned off when you use it? Is the rest of the mites' bodies completely burned off? They already have the genes for the resistant chitin, they just need a mutation that will have it cover the mouth parts... And even this is just one possible source of resistance. The mites could learn to hide on the bees better, perhaps. Or to quickly crawl into brood cells and submerge themselves within royal jelly once concentrations rise.

Will mites become resistant to OA within our lifespan? I have no idea. But there's no basis to saying it'll never happen.


----------



## Oldtimer

The birds in my country could not adapt to the rat. 

The Norway rat was introduced to my country by Europeans perhaps 200 years ago. The majority of bird species that had been here are now extinct, or surviving on a few small islands where introduced predators are controlled by humans, and captive breeding programs are run for the birds.

If the government or the people ever lose interest in protecting and breeding these birds they will be gone..


----------



## Juhani Lunden

In Finland the OA tripling has been used for about 20 years. Most of the commercial beekeepers use it now twice a year, late autumn and early before brood rearing. In the first years of OA use it was strongly advised not to use it but only one time in late autumn. 
Why the change? They say it is because the viruses have become so much more virulent, 95% efficiency is not enough. 99% is needed. I want to believe this explanation.


----------



## Oldtimer

The one time only is for drizzling not vapour, because drizzling contains sugar and can end up getting stored, if fed to larvae can do damage. Experiments have shown that hives drizzled during winter can have reduced brood in spring and the more they are drizzled the more brood is damaged, so it is suggested drizzling is limited to once only per season. OAV can be done more often because it is less likely to end up in larval food.

Yes I think the varroa / virus combo has become more deadly, the more successful they are at killing hives the more they can spread to other hives in the ensuing rob out. Natural laws of parasite not killing it's host do not apply because the beekeeper is there to pick up the pieces and start new hives.

Hope your bees are well Juhani, it was a great pleasure meeting you and your family recently when you were in NZ, just wish we'd had more time, talking bees over coffee was a great experience but would have loved to open some hives with you.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Oldtimer said:


> The one time only is for drizzling not vapour, because drizzling contains sugar and can end up getting stored, if fed to larvae can do damage. Experiments have shown that hives drizzled during winter can have reduced brood in spring and the more they are drizzled the more brood is damaged, so it is suggested drizzling is limited to once only per season. .



The reason for the one time use was some early observations that OA drizzling made hives lose all or major part of bees in an overdoses situation. They just went. I recall these experiments were carried out in Italy, but cannot be sure of that. There is no open brood at the time of OA drizzling in Finland, so brood damage was not the case here. Why drizzling in Finland and not OAV? I think there was some kind of fear for the OAV technique, the vapours are dangerous! Drizzling is much faster and requires no machine or battery carrying. 

Opening hives with you would have been lovely, but it was a FAMILY vacation... -30C here when we returned, we really missed your county.


----------



## Fusion_power

OT, your example of birds going extinct is consistent with the host parasite paradigm and does not demonstrate a lack of adaptability. It demonstrates a lack of population size. The larger the population of a species, the more variability they have to exploit. In the case of varroa, the pest is humans who kill varroa. Varroa mites are the adaptive population with numbers on their side as they outnumber humans by a factor of millions. In this system, the adaptive organism will always win over the long term. Honeybees are also an adaptive organism with numbers on their side. They have already demonstrated significant tolerance to their pest - the varroa mite. If we want varroa to become a non-issue, then we need to allow the honeybee's adaptability to counter varroa. Humans are intervening in that cycle with predictable results.

I could give the example of the American Chestnut which today is barely still in existence after the onslaught of two pests over the last 100 years. Only now are we finding genetic answers to keep them alive and restore them to their ecological niche.


----------



## GBF

The immune system works like that - when comes some pathogens it recognises the problem and starts to destroy pathogens. The resistence works the same the problem has to be faced and then it starts to work for resolving the problem. If you don't give the resistance to do its job it will calm down then come in broken stage and finally leaved the object. Now the A.Millefera is in stage of broken resistance, I hope so.. Then there is a good chance to recover its natural ability to fight against varroa and finally to win the war. The key is to love a nature, to have an open mind and the selection.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

>Humans are intervening in that cycle with predictable results.

Exactly! Breeding weak inferior bees. Then spreading those genes to every city and town in the country. This ensures that very few can have TF bees.

Also creates a high demand for more weak bees. And because there are so many "honey bee losses", it attracts many new beekeepers that want to save the bees, so they buy more weak bees. 

To keep these weak bees alive you must kill 97% of the mites once or twice a year (which may be increasing). Leaving the strongest 3% of the survivor mites alive to breed.



Oldtimer said:


> The birds in my country could not adapt to the rat.


Some did! They are still alive!


----------



## FlowerPlanter

snl said:


> So we have one entomologist pitted against another ... Jennifer Berry saying that resistance will not be an issue


I don't know Jennifer Berry and I don't know her agenda. I do know Randy Oliver from his studies and his agenda seems pretty straightforward. I know yours and it's tagged to your name. And also quoted "R Oliver". 

Who's opinion would you give more merit to? The one you quoted in your tag?

"but again over 20 years of non-resistance says a lot....."

The only thing this says is they have not done it yet!

There are at least 13 strains of AFB and 7 strains of EFB each one having a different MIC to each of the many antibiotic that are used by beek. Antibiotics have been used since the 40s for AFB it was not until 96 when the first resistance strain AFB was discovered.

I will bet there was someone out there that said *"resistance will not be an issue"* with AFB and antibiotics too. After 50 year one might think it would be a safe bet.


----------



## beekuk

Fusion_power said:


> More seriously, do NOT discount the ability of a pest to adapt to a treatment, and that includes OA.





snl said:


> Well FP, all I can say is that OA has been used extensively for over 20 years w/o resistance...........
> 
> But, never say never...........


Isolation of oxalotrophic bacteria associated with Varroa destructor mites.



> SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY:
> 
> Oxalic acid, legally or brevi manu, is widely used to control phoretic Varroa destructor mites, a major drive of current honey bees' colony losses. Unsubstantiated by sanctioned research are rumours that in certain instances oxalic acid is losing efficacy, forcing beekeepers to increase the frequency of treatments. This investigation fathoms the hypothesis that V. destructor associates with bacteria capable of degrading oxalic acid. The data show that indeed oxalotrophy, a rare trait among bacteria, is common in bacteria that we isolated from V. destructor mites. This finding may have ramifications in the use of oxalic acid as a control agent.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26302038


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Thanks Pete!

Here some more information of these Bacteria: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26748805


----------



## 1102009

Thanks for the input.


> This investigation fathoms the hypothesis that V. destructor associates with bacteria capable of degrading oxalic acid. The data show that indeed oxalotrophy, a rare trait among bacteria, is common in bacteria that we isolated from V. destructor mites. This finding may have ramifications in the use of oxalic acid as a control agent.


So the treatment with mite pheromones as a trap, which I heard about, is left for those who want to treat?
They seem to disturb the chemical conversation between bees though.


----------



## Oldtimer

LOL. While oxalic acid eating bacteria may exist, it's going to be one heckuva long time / never, before varroa mites are covered in so many of them that when an OA treatment is done, the bacteria will gobble up all the oxalic acid before it can reach the mites.

My opinion (only), this will never be a method mites evolve to make themselves immune to oxalic acid.


----------



## Dominic

Oldtimer said:


> LOL. While oxalic acid eating bacteria may exist, it's going to be one heckuva long time / never, before varroa mites are covered in so many of them that when an OA treatment is done, the bacteria will gobble up all the oxalic acid before it can reach the mites.
> 
> My opinion (only), this will never be a method mites evolve to make themselves immune to oxalic acid.


But they don't need to be *immune* to it. They just need to be able to tolerate it just a *little* more, so that the dose required to kill enough of them also harms the bees. Or that they just learn to avoid it: considering how long the hive is supposed to be sealed off for the treatment to work (though sublimation), you'd think that, with the proper reflexes, they'd have time to go and hide.

We just can't know. I don't expect mites to grow resistant to OA within a decade, but I wouldn't be flabbergasted if they did, somewhere, either. I love how OA treatments cost pennies, and I don't use much treatments in general, but I couldn't see myself using nothing more than OA for more than two seasons in a row.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

My mentor informs me that oxalic acid is losing its edge here in Sardinia. He tells me this on the basis of his experience this last spring, during which his mite counts were inordinately high, notwithstanding a four-week round of oxalic treatments the autumn before. I was dubious about his claim for a number of reasons, but at a Sardinian beekeeping convention, two commercial beekeepers quite spontaneously and independently asserted precisely the same thing. One of these two is something of an odd duck, but from all I have heard or can tell, an honest one, and an excellent beekeeper. I have much respect for the opinion of the second beekeeper, whom I have never heard loose an idle word.

Quite sincerely, I do not know how much to credit these reports. But despite how useless it is to receive a controversial opinion _third _hand, and from unknown sources at that, I thought I would take this opportunity to share what I have been told.

John


----------



## bluegrass

JohnBruceLeonard said:


> My mentor informs me that oxalic acid is losing its edge here in Sardinia. He tells me this on the basis of his experience this last spring, during which his mite counts were inordinately high. I was dubious about his claim for a number of reasons, but at a Sardinian beekeeping convention, two commercial beekeepers quite spontaneously and independently asserted precisely the same thing.


The only requirement for this to occur in a region would be to have an unseasonably warm fall like we had here in the Northern US... The queens lay longer than normal and the treatment gets applied while there is still capped brood present in the hive.... End result would be higher mite counts the next spring.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

bluegrass said:


> The only requirement for this to occur in a region would be to have an unseasonably warm fall like we had here in the Northern US... The queens lay longer than normal and the treatment gets applied while there is still capped brood present in the hive.... End result would be higher mite counts the next spring.


Indeed, bluegrass, it is a valid doubt. I obviously cannot confirm if such an oversight has played any role here. My mentor's opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt. I have not seen the other two beekeepers at work, so I am in no position to evaluate their practices. I have been favorably impressed in my few conversations with them. They are highly regarded here, and both of them have decades of experience, and have seen more bees in their day than I can imagine.

As for the specific question of capped brood - queens never stop laying here, so finding a period without _some _amount of capped brood would be a question of luck more than timing. As a result of this, many serious beekeepers here manufacture an artificial brood break by caging the queen for a month, during which time they apply oxalic. This is generally done after the eucalyptus flow, in August or September. 

Again, I cannot comment on the specific treatment regimes of the beekeepers in question, though I can say with certainty that my mentor does _not _follow the practice of artificial brood breaks. 

In any case, I share your hesitancy to subscribe to these views. I would certainly not let them sway me _against _oxalic acid, had I intention of treating with it. But such opinions, coming from such beekeepers, do at least persuade me to keep my ears, and my eyes, open.

John


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

Dominic said:


> but I couldn't see myself using nothing more than OA for more than two seasons in a row.


Dominic can you explain a little more this statement. Thank you.


----------



## Dominic

Eduardo Gomes said:


> Dominic can you explain a little more this statement. Thank you.


I don't think anyone claims that developing resistance to OA would be easy. The opinions from scientists range from "impossible" (I don't believe in such absolutes), to "possible if abused", for the most part. From Randy Oliver's website, it took about 6 years for fluvalinate to become ineffective (that was before my time), which was the only miticide available when the varroa outbreak first began and thus was quite overused and which' formulation makes it easier to develop resistance to. For example, it contaminates the wax, exposing the mites to a constant low dose, which is why I wouldn't use any miticide that contaminates the wax. Resistance to coumaphos also appeared. On that note, this quote is amusing:


> One Bayer website [1] for the product is all warm and fuzzy, and amazingly makes the claim, “CheckMite+®: No chance for resistance.” The website has no date, but surely someone must have noticed that mites developed resistance in a few years, and that the product is now ineffective in many areas.


 CheckMite+® is now discontinued in Canada.

IPM (Integrated Pest Management) calls for the rotation of products (based on mode of action, and not just commercial formulation) in order to avoid/delay the appearance of pest resistance. The principle is the following: if you always just treat with one product, and even 1 pest survives it thanks to some genetic traits, then every following treatment, the percentage of the population having this trait will increase, because they will get to survive and reproduce while the others die, continuously culling the non-resistant strains. Alternation doesn't prevent/delay the appearance of resistance by removing the possibility of individual pests acquiring resistance traits, but rather by exposing them to a different compound they are not resistant to, and thus killing them before they get the chance to reproduce. For example, if your hive has 100 mites, and you treat it with X, but 2 mites survive because they had resistance traits, and 8 mites survived just because they were lucky to be in a less-exposed area, you end up with a 90% mite kill, but 20% of your mite population is now resistant instead of 2%. The resistance trait might have been something that otherwise yielded no selection advantage, or even a selection disadvantage, and thus might have naturally declined without treatments, but now, instead, you end up with a mite population that is much more resistant. If the next time you have 100 mites you decide to treat with the same product, efficacy will be much lower, and thus your problem will maybe not have been corrected (mite population growth is exponential, so 90% kill is much more effective than ~75% kill). But if you use a new substance, completely unrelated in action to the first, and again achieve 90% mite kill, there is a non-insignificant chance that you succeed in killing all of the mites resistant to your first product. Statistically, you will kill 50-100% of the resistant mites. Since varroa population growth is exponential, if the second treatment has the same kill % on both groups (which, on average, it will), the minority group (the mites resistant to the first treatment) will increase their population more slowly than the second group, and thus the proportion of the resistant population will decline. All this to say, varying products impedes on the spread of resistance. And I think this is especially true for a species like varroa, which predominantly reproduces incestuously (cross-matings only occur when multiple founding mites parasite the same cell, which usually mostly occurs at high infestation levels).

So to return to my own practices, considering the amount of time OA was used without any confirmed report of resistance and the claims by expert that it would be, at minimum, hard to grow resistant to, I don't think using only OA as a chemical treatment, for two consecutive years, before using another (such as thymol or amitraz), is likely to generate resistant mites on the short to somewhat long term. Given how cheap OA is, and how high the mite kill is, I wouldn't be surprised that some would be tempted to use nothing else than OA, but I would not. Now, keep in mind that seasons differ, and that my context is unlikely to be like yours. My bees are essentially broodless for half the year (winter), so there is no mite reproduction then. Most of my hives are also requeened at least once a year with a queen cell, causing another brood break. And I do select my stock for various mite resistance traits and a part of my stock is treatment-free. Not to mention the drone frame transfers (I actually want drones, so I don't cull them).

While it may seem egregious to some to describe treatment possibilities in the treatment-free forum, this thread, at its core, a discussion about treatments. I don't think that anyone here chastised those who don't treat. But I do think it worth noting that, while I don't think it impossible for mites to grow resistant OA, I also don't think it impossible for them to grow resistant to behavioral traits such as allogrooming and VSH either. Not all host-parasite relationships end in equilibrium...


----------



## crofter

Dominic said:


> <Snip>But I do think it worth noting that, while I don't think it impossible for mites to grow resistant OA, I also don't think it impossible for them to grow resistant to behavioral traits such as allogrooming and VSH either. Not all host-parasite relationships end in equilibrium...


I think this last sentence has a significance that is very often not considered in statements to the effect that "not treating bees" will most assuredly lead to them becoming able to tolerate mites. In nature an undulating balance often occurs between host and parasite but it is far from being a given that it will occur. Grossly concentrating bee numbers in the almonds then dispersing them all over the country afterwards is a supreme challenge to the development of immunity or even tolerance. This does not happen in nature but we are trying to invoke it in the face of totally un natural imposed conditions. 

Bee Vs Varroa is not a simple one on one dance since third party organisms like the viruses, bacteria, and others jump in and take advantage of any weakened bee stocks. There is an infinite and changing number of parameters that that apis mellifera is being asked to respond to (in our favor please).

Are we properly defining the basic underlying nature of the "mite problem" or are we simply wishing the solution to come from the efforts of the victims?

I wonder how much research money is going into developing self pollinating cutivars. That would certainly change the dynamics of the present situation wouldnt it?


----------



## bluegrass

crofter said:


> I think this last sentence has a significance that is very often not considered in statements to the effect that "not treating bees" will most assuredly lead to them becoming able to tolerate mites.


Nature has already proven that it is possible. AHB is able to tolerate mites, so are pure strains of Primorky.


----------



## Dave Burrup

*AHB is able to tolerate mites, so are pure strains of Primorky*

Just because they tolerate now does not mean that they will always tolerate. Evolution of resistance goes both ways. The longer I read about these mites , and coupled with my own experiences with them, the more convinced I become that the mite controlling mechanism is still unknown. If it was as simple as small cell, natural cell, housel positioning, or genetics we could all be treatment free. Personally I think it is a build up of pathogens to the mites in untreated hives that is giving some people success, and if you are not lucky enough to have that pathogen or mix of pathogens you are not going to have success as treatment free. If it is genetics we should be able buy mite tolerant queens, put them in a clean hive, and be successful for the life of that queen. From my own experience it does not work. At least 90% of my frames are small cell. I bought resistant queens for several years. I have never had a hive that does not get into trouble with mites.


----------



## crofter

That relative tolerance was not developed under the conditions of intense populations though was it? If that resistance could be utilized and their negative habits controlled, it could make things interesting. The economics has to work or it won't fly.

I am not stating that it is impossible, only that the conditions we impose with our numbers system, makes the outcome uncertain at best. When we remark about amazing adaptations in organisms in past history we cannot assume that they are always possible if the odds are stacked against it. We certainly can collect examples of apparent success but more species have perished over all than what have triumphed! Man may not like natures solutions at all!


----------



## Oldtimer

You are entirely correct Crofter.

There is this ingrained belief that as new predators arrive or are introduced, the existing species always adapt and survive. This is wrong in most cases. A local example I pointed out recently was the inability of birds in my country to adapt to Norway rats. They didn't, most native species are now extinct.

Here's a couple of pics taken of some dwindling survivors of not yet extinct species.





How would they adapt to that. Evolve thicker egg shells maybe?



Fusion_power said:


> OT, your example of birds going extinct is consistent with the host parasite paradigm and does not demonstrate a lack of adaptability. It demonstrates a lack of population size.


No, it does demonstrate a lack of adaptability, sometimes the odds are just too great regardless of numbers . One of our extinct species numbered an estimated pre European 90 million, how many do you think it should take? There were plenty of dinosaurs weren't there?


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

Dominic said:


> For example, if your hive has 100 mites, and you treat it with X, but *2 mites survive because they had resistance traits*, and 8 mites survived just because they were lucky to be in a less-exposed area, you end up with a 90% mite kill, but 20% of your mite population is now resistant instead of 2%. The resistance trait might have been something that otherwise yielded no selection advantage, or even a selection disadvantage, and thus might have naturally declined without treatments, but now, instead, you end up with a mite population that is much more resistant. If the next time you have 100 mites you decide to treat with the same product, efficacy will be much lower, and thus your problem will maybe not have been corrected (mite population growth is exponential, so 90% kill is much more effective than ~75% kill). But if you use a new substance, completely unrelated in action to the first, and again achieve 90% mite kill, there is a non-insignificant chance that you succeed in killing all of the mites resistant to your first product. Statistically, you will kill 50-100% of the resistant mites. Since varroa population growth is exponential, if the second treatment has the same kill % on both groups (which, on average, it will), the minority group (the mites resistant to the first treatment) will increase their population more slowly than the second group, and thus the proportion of the resistant population will decline. All this to say, varying products impedes on the spread of resistance. *And I think this is especially true for a species like varroa, which predominantly reproduces incestuously (cross-matings only occur when multiple founding mites parasite the same cell, which usually mostly occurs at high infestation levels).*


Thank you Dominic. An great response that should make us reflect once again on the importance and the need to make the rotation of different product families to prevent the best possible the promotion of resistant mites.


----------



## Dominic

crofter said:


> I wonder how much research money is going into developing self pollinating cutivars. That would certainly change the dynamics of the present situation wouldnt it?


Honestly, sometimes I wonder why we don't just all switch to _Apis cerana_. I don't believe it is necessary to ditch _Apis mellifera_, nor do I think we should, be it actively or through inaction, let it dwindle. But to be fair, it's not like A. mellifera is native to the Americas anyways. And if the strategy to grow resistant honey bees involves sacrificing countless colonies left to their deaths, and many of the strategies involved relies trying to imitate other species, wouldn't it be far simpler and more humane to just adopt a species that is largely the same, but resistant? Or, alternatively, to make hybrids? Plant crosses are done all the time in order to spread resistance to pests or pathogens, or obtain other desirable traits. Commercially grown blackberries, for example, are hybrids of a large number of bramble species. Or when a cultivar turns out particularly susceptible to a certain pathogen, that's okay, let's just switch to the other.

Controversial ideas, I have no doubt of it. And while I don't really advocate them, it's food for thought.

As for research going into self-pollinating cultivars, there is a ton of money going there. Same for alternative pollinators (except Apis cerana?), and pollinator alternatives (electro-static devices, robotic bees). They all hit the same wall, though: bees are cheaper and more efficient. They are now, and I'm sure that if things went completely South, and that bees needed to be fed all year long and provided no other income to beekeepers than pollination contracts, they still would be the most affordable and efficient solution to most pollination requirements. Besides, most of the honey bees' plights also affect other pollinators.

Disclaimer: though I've already said as much, I do keep a portion of my stock treatment-free, and use it for breeding purposes, but am not completely opposed to rational use of treatments either.


----------



## clyderoad

my gut feeling is that for a. millifera to make any headway handling mites the effort has to be on altering the parasite in some way, not spending
extraordinary efforts trying to change the host. This work falls into the realm of scientists, and not the 'arm chair' type. 
In the meantime the various mite treatments is what we've got to give our bees
a fighting chance.


----------



## crofter

Clyderoad, I guess that manipulating change in mite genetics just is not as romantically attractive as trying to change the bees. The mite is the relatively new guy on the scene compared to the introduced european bee. The mites have genetic turn over every couple of weeks so it should be easier to steer some change into their genetics compared to the bees renewal rate of once a year. It seems cart before the horse to try to manipulate the victim rather than neuter the parasite, but what do I know!

Varroa will not be the last nuisance the bee will expected to develop resistance to? Will the next issues appearing require similar specialization on other diverse fronts? Don't forget that each special defense mechanism has a systemic operating cost.


----------



## sqkcrk

clyderoad said:


> my gut feeling is that for a. millifera to make any headway handling mites the effort has to be on altering the parasite in some way, not spending
> extraordinary efforts trying to change the host. This work falls into the realm of scientists, and not the 'arm chair' type.
> In the meantime the various mite treatments is what we've got to give our bees
> a fighting chance.


:thumbsup:

Does anyone KNOW how varroa and apis cerana and apis dorsata became symbiotic/compatible? I believe that both of those apis species are hosts to varroa and do not suffer as apis mellifera does. I could be wrong about that.

I know there is a lot that I don't know and understand about Varroa destructor, honeybees, viruses, and such. Who does know these things in depth? Anybody here? And what kind of "leg up" advantage does that give you in the struggle?

We are all coming at this the best we can with incomplete knowledge and understanding, stumbling in the dark, grasping at straws, trying to survive another day and hoping for better times and healthier bees.


----------



## crofter

One of the common denominators of the bees that cope better with mites is swarming very often after accumulating a relatively small population and honey storage. We may not like mother natures solutions!


----------



## AR Beekeeper

I can't remember the study name, but I remember reading that when apis cerana were infested with the type of varroa we have in the U.S. the worker brood was infested, not just the drone brood. The colonies crashed just as do EHB colonies.


----------



## Dominic

While it has already been said, about the original article, that the difference in mite behavior isn't proved to be linked with treatments and that correlation isn't causality, I think there's actually another (potentially complimentary) factor to consider here. Reproductive mites favor intra-colony propagation, while phoretic mites favor inter-colony propagation. In the context of early varroa introduction, there was a huge selection pressure in favor of mites being more phoretic, because the most phoretic mites were the ones spreading the territory and infesting new hives, while the most reproductive ones were just staying in their hives and making them crash (and thus causing their own decline). Once they became endemic, though, there was little selection advantage to being phoretic, because they were already everywhere with no new territory to expand to. With the importance of inter-colony infestation declining, selection pressure began favoring intra-colony growth, via reproductive mites.

While treatments have prevented selection pressures against hyper-virulence, by artificially reducing mite populations and thus allowing "over-lethal" mites to reproduce, I don't believe it caused an active selection pressure in favor of more reproductive mites as the article suggests, because the majority of treatments don't just kill phoretic mites: they either penetrate the cells to kill the mites in the cells, stay in the hive long enough to kill the reproductive mites as they emerge, or are repeated enough times to also kill those that were hiding (rare, only occurs with off-label OA use I believe).



crofter said:


> Clyderoad, I guess that manipulating change in mite genetics just is not as romantically attractive as trying to change the bees. The mite is the relatively new guy on the scene compared to the introduced european bee. The mites have genetic turn over every couple of weeks so it should be easier to steer some change into their genetics compared to the bees renewal rate of once a year. It seems cart before the horse to try to manipulate the victim rather than neuter the parasite, but what do I know!
> 
> Varroa will not be the last nuisance the bee will expected to develop resistance to? Will the next issues appearing require similar specialization on other diverse fronts? Don't forget that each special defense mechanism has a systemic operating cost.


"Evolving" the host is much more common than "devolving" the parasite/pathogen, for a number of reasons. The main two, in my opinion, is that selecting for weaker mites implies, well, breeding mites. Lots of mites. You are dumping a whole lot of resources into producing more pests. What's the good of having pests that are half as lethal, if you end up breeding four times as much just to achieve this? The second is persistence. Weaker mites will fail to properly reproduce, and thus will be rapidly outbred. Any "weak genes" you try to spread to the general population will be quickly thinned down, even if you innoculate every hive with a large number of weak mites after a treatment (and really, do we want to introduce large numbers of "less lethal" mites in our hives intentionally... and pay for them, too!). Make the host more resistant, and he will have a selection advantage favoring the spread of the trait. Make the pathogen less virulent, and you'll have a selection disadvantage working to quickly remove it from the pool.



crofter said:


> One of the common denominators of the bees that cope better with mites is swarming very often after accumulating a relatively small population and honey storage. We may not like mother natures solutions!


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-015-0412-8

By that article, most naturally mite-resistant population have poor productivity and small (bee) population sizes. An interesting read for any seeking to become treatment-free, in any case.


----------



## GBF

Dave Burrup said:


> *AHB is able to tolerate mites, so are pure strains of Primorky*
> 
> Just because they tolerate now does not mean that they will always tolerate. Evolution of resistance goes both ways. The longer I read about these mites , and coupled with my own experiences with them, the more convinced I become that the mite controlling mechanism is still unknown. If it was as simple as small cell, natural cell, housel positioning, or genetics we could all be treatment free. Personally I think it is a build up of pathogens to the mites in untreated hives that is giving some people success, and if you are not lucky enough to have that pathogen or mix of pathogens you are not going to have success as treatment free. If it is genetics we should be able buy mite tolerant queens, put them in a clean hive, and be successful for the life of that queen. From my own experience it does not work. At least 90% of my frames are small cell. I bought resistant queens for several years. I have never had a hive that does not get into trouble with mites.


To be tolerate or to be resistant for always, it depends on many conditions and is a difficult question. Because the resistance and the immune system are the answering mechanisms wich depend on circumstances, conditions and environment. To say shortly -When there is more viruses then the immune system produces more anti-bodies. But there have to be a good conditions for such producing. So on micro-biological level it looks like - life is a battle! Every day for whole life - for always. But there are the small local conflicts and the big world wide wars. In our case it is better to keep the war vs varroa on a small local level in a such way the resistance works the best.


----------



## Dominic

AR Beekeeper said:


> I can't remember the study name, but I remember reading that when apis cerana were infested with the type of varroa we have in the U.S. the worker brood was infested, not just the drone brood. The colonies crashed just as do EHB colonies.


I looked in google scholar for "varroa destructor"+"apis cerana", and couldn't find anything. If you can dig it up, I'm sure it'd be an interesting read.


----------



## Barry

> JV: The assumption is that these differences are primarily from ways in which the bees or brood allow mites to survive or reproduce.
> 
> Assumptions are dangerous. I am glad to notice that a few respondents to this thread are flirting with the idea that *mites* have behaviors. In thinking about the biology of a host-parasite problem, it is a big mistake to forget/neglect that BOTH participants "behave". We know very little about mite behavior. It is time to remedy that, IMO.
> 
> 
> Christina


Mark posted this originally. I cleaned up the formatting.


----------



## Oldtimer

Dominic your post #73 was an excellent summary, I believe you hit several nails on the head.


----------



## crofter

Thanks Dominic; lots of thoughts to digest in that material!

http://link.springer.com/article/10....592-015-0412-8


----------



## SRatcliff

No, host and parasite or predator and prey relationships don't always reach a balance. However, bees are not birds and mites are not Norway rats. A close relative to Apis Mellifera, and even some populations of Apis Mellifera itself, have demonstrated a more balanced relationship with Varroa. That coupled with the honeybee's polyandrous behaviour and high recombination, I think, gives them a leg up on Varroa. So, I don't think it's just a random toss up as to what will happen.


----------



## Dominic

SRatcliff said:


> No, host and parasite or predator and prey relationships don't always reach a balance. However, bees are not birds and mites are not Norway rats. A close relative to Apis Mellifera, and even some populations of Apis Mellifera itself, have demonstrated a more balanced relationship with Varroa. That coupled with the honeybee's polyandrous behaviour and high recombination, I think, gives them a leg up on Varroa. So, I don't think it's just a random toss up as to what will happen.


It is true that the relationship is quite different. But then again, you could say that there are similar birds in Norway, and that the rats didn't wipe them all off. Or at least, I'd presume so, I'm really no expert on birds.

It is true that there are also resistant populations of honey bees that have been reported, I believe I linked to an article about those here (unless it was in another thread). Resistance on the short-term is possible, at least a sufficient level of resistance to not require treatments for two consecutive years.

But in those differences also lies problems not found with the bird-rat relation. First of which is that with the birds, the goal is just to have them survive for the sake of surviving (as far as I know, again, I'm no expert on those birds). Not so with the bees: the bees need to remain a profitable livestock. The bar is much, much higher in that regard, especially since most reports of feral resistant populations show a number of traits that are greatly undesirable for a commercial operation: excessive aggressiveness, very small population, excessive swarming, etc. If, for the sake of not having to treat, you take a resistant strain of bees that only grows half the size of standard stock? So half the size, for a quarter of the foragers... Can you imagine a commercial beekeeper needing to bring 4 times the hives for pollination, for the same income? Can't work... Pollination potential, honey yields, and overall population growth might not be vital to hobby beekeeping, but it does affect hobbyists as well, because they also benefit from the research that goes into beekeeping, as well as the overall infrastructure of the industry (nuc and material availability and pricing). This is also a reason why treatment-free bees are probably so rare on the market: I know that if I had bees that only developped at half speed, they'd be culled without a second though. Vigor and population growth is directly tied to my production capacity, and thus my income: smaller hive growth = less nuc production = less income = going broke. Though smaller populations might be great for urban beekeepers, as a niche, one would essentially need to charge double for a strain of bees that does half in order to break even...

Second is the nature of the pest. Rats are predators, varroa are parasites. Really, you'd think it'd be simpler to just learn to perch higher or to defend your darn nest, than to protect brood from sneaky armored vampires. But they aren't just parasites, they are also vectors. For the Apimondia conferences in Québec city a few years back, I remember a german presenter showing his results on varroa lethality, and from what I recall, he said that mites on their own cause actually very little extra winter losses. But when you threw DWV in the picture, THEN you had a deadly ****tail. With this in mind, we face a double threat: the varroa as a parasite, and the viruses they carry as vectors. If DWV becomes more virulent, or if a new virus emerges, then suddenly the whole parasite:host relation can be completely disturbed.


----------



## SRatcliff

Certainly there are biological limitations with bees, depending on their potential mechanisms of controlling mites and viruses, in which situations tolerance is either possible or impossible. We probably will won't have bees that are able to thrive in a commercial pollination or holding yard setting without help. Just like you probably can't have feedlot cattle without antibiotics. It will be up to people trying to select for more tolerant stock(whatever that process may be) to determine what those limitations are. Some limitations to determine could be(necessary swarm rate, number of colonies per yard, number of susceptible colonies nearby, etc).


----------



## Oldtimer

Some more great posts!

One thing the bird vs rat issue in my country demonstrates is the importance of the time factor. IE, Clearly birds can survive rats because in most countries of the world they do, and the introduced birds here are doing fine.

So for the native birds which have only recently been exposed to rats, the potential must exist for them to adapt, other birds have. But it's about the time factor. As rats began to predate on the birds, presumably within species, some individuals had habits that made them harder for the rats to kill. And if those survivors breed, then the species is moving towards a bird that can survive in the presence of rats. But the whole thing depends on time - will the species be entirely wiped out before there has been time for them to adapt. For most species that's what happened. For the ones that still survive albeit in small numbers, perhaps they will pull it off.

Where the analogy can be compared with bees, is that buying bees time extends their chances of having mutations, or bringing old ones to the fore, that can help them to survive mites. This process needs to be human driven because we do not want to end up with something with the bad points of Cerana or even Russians. If we drive the process ourselves we could end up with something worthwhile, although feral survivors also have an important role to us. But for our own work, treatment, used intelligently, can buy time, so therefore can have it's place in the scheme of things. In a breeding towards mite resistant context it would have to be used for that purpose, rather than as in some commercial situations as it is now just to ensure as close as possible to 100% survival. That has it's place, in keeping the industry alive. But in a breeding context the purpose would be different.


----------



## Fusion_power

> treatment, used intelligently, can buy time, so therefore can have it's place in the scheme of things


Treatment used intelligently inherently results in treatment dependent bees. Only when all treatments are removed from the equation can you truly buy time.


----------



## crofter

Fusion_power said:


> Treatment used intelligently inherently results in treatment dependent bees. Only when all treatments are removed from the equation can you truly buy time.


Wishfull thinking FP, you know darn well that the commercials which are the vast majority of bees, cannot afford to do that! Do you suggest that we should also have all the mass producers of poultry, pork, beef also quit treating? Will resistant animals rise to the occasion and become resistant to all the present and most certainly approaching pestilence?


----------



## SRatcliff

Fusion_power said:


> Treatment used intelligently inherently results in treatment dependent bees. Only when all treatments are removed from the equation can you truly buy time.


I can see merit in both a "soft bond" and "hard bond" approach. It depends on your stock of bees and what your goals are.


----------



## Fusion_power

> Wishfull thinking FP, you know darn well that the commercials which are the vast majority of bees, cannot afford to do that!


I'm not saying anyone has to do anything. I am stating that treating for mites inherently produces treatment dependent bees.

As for commercial beekeepers stopping treating, I don't expect it to happen anytime soon, the treat-em-early treat-em-often mentality is too deeply ingrained.

In the meantime, I will keep expanding my treatment free bees until this area is filled with nothing but bees that are treatment free.


----------



## Oldtimer

And if that all pans out, the commercial beekeepers where you are will stop having to spend money on treatment, so all the best with it.


----------



## clyderoad

Fusion_power said:


> In the meantime, I will keep expanding my treatment free bees until this area is filled with nothing but bees that are treatment free.


Maybe you'd like to start a thread that documents this process. I would find it very informative. And if some of
those new folks you are going to get involved as per your new years goal could chime in that would make it even more
valuable.


----------



## crofter

I dont think that any species can remain independent of treating when you concentrate them thousands of times more densely than their natural defense mechanisms can handle. It appears that bees are no exception in this regard. Are exceptional bees in the works for the future or will they be maintained as our other livestock and crop varieties? What can be done in isolation has difficulty when you attempt to scale it up.


----------



## Dominic

crofter said:


> I dont think that any species can remain independent of treating when you concentrate them thousands of times more densely than their natural defense mechanisms can handle. It appears that bees are no exception in this regard. Are exceptional bees in the works for the future or will they be maintained as our other livestock and crop varieties? What can be done in isolation has difficulty when you attempt to scale it up.


There have been studies linking hive density to greater disease vulnerability, both in commercial apiaries and for urban beekeeping, so that's a valid point.


----------



## SRatcliff

crofter said:


> I dont think that any species can remain independent of treating when you concentrate them thousands of times more densely than their natural defense mechanisms can handle. It appears that bees are no exception in this regard. Are exceptional bees in the works for the future or will they be maintained as our other livestock and crop varieties? What can be done in isolation has difficulty when you attempt to scale it up.


Look to other areas of agriculture for that answer. Are there exceptional cows that require no medication in an industrial setting? Are there varieties of corn that require no insecticide/herbicide in a monoculture setting? Then look at the people who are farming organically. They have much smaller, more intensive and diverse operations, yet have greater output by ratio. Hopefully that's where we're going, but it won't happen over night. In the mean time, we all just do the best we can with what we have and keep having conversations like this. But maybe I've just been reading too much Wendell Berry, lol.


----------



## clyderoad

SRatcliff said:


> look at the people who are farming organically. They have much smaller, more intensive and diverse operations, yet have greater output by ratio.


is there some documentation that forms the basis of this statement?
the organic farms where my bee yards are located do not have greater output than traditional farms. That covers vegetables, fruits and chickens.


----------



## SRatcliff

clyderoad said:


> is there some documentation that forms the basis of this statement?
> the organic farms where my bee yards are located do not have greater output than traditional farms. That covers vegetables, fruits and chickens.


I guess I'm thinking in terms of farms that have a model similar to Joel Salitan, but there's an organic farm near me that does a truly amazing job. I'm also talking about the total output including nutrition, the building up of soil, etc; not just quantity.


----------



## clyderoad

The farmers I mentioned are Joel Salatin disciples!
I am intimately involved with these farms and from my experience total output is not greater, the man hour factor alone
negates that. Never mind saleable yield. They would readily acknowledge smaller total output but it's more than that for them, as
you are probably aware. The 'feeling' matters to them and is valuable to them too.

That said, I have much respect for these farmers and they are my friends, they are good stewards of the land and
are compassionate about what they do and why they do it. I am fortunate to have my bees be part of the equation.


----------



## Oldtimer

Agreed, I too have bees on some of these places and they do tend to be better stewards of the land. Production though, well, there is a reason most others use chemicals.

In my country, it is rather discouraging driving around and seeing how the land has been virtually raped, and even if well treated could take centuries to recover. So I have a lot of sympathy for these organic folks but let's be honest if they produced more, everyone would be doing it.


----------



## Haraga

crofter said:


> I dont think that any species can remain independent of treating when you concentrate them thousands of times more densely than their natural defense mechanisms can handle. It appears that bees are no exception in this regard. Are exceptional bees in the works for the future or will they be maintained as our other livestock and crop varieties? What can be done in isolation has difficulty when you attempt to scale it up.


I think you nailed it.


----------



## Fusion_power

> The 'feeling' matters to them and is valuable to them.


I've never been able to put my "feelings" in the bank. On the other hand, when I sell honey, I can put that in the bank. I've looked at a lot of organic farms over the years and have yet to see one that is consistently productive enough to make more than a bare living. Folks selling produce retail are particularly at risk. On the other hand, people selling seed and plants are making a small but consistent profit. This is why I run a business selling plants.


----------



## clyderoad

Perhaps I should have said -valuable to them "too"- to avoid any confusion. I'll edit that post.

>>"I've never been able to put my "feelings" in the bank. On the other hand, when I sell honey, I can put that in the bank."

the same for everyone.

>>"I've looked at a lot of organic farms over the years and have yet to see one that is consistently productive enough to make more than a bare living. "

they are out there, keep looking.

>>"This is why I run a business selling plants."

a good choice for you then.


----------



## GBF

Organic farms are not producing more, they produce better quality products.The same are the treatment free bees. Here in my country most of ppl in goverment are owners or co-owners of factories and chemical farms, but for yourself they are buying food only from organic farms. It needs to make difference where is a business and where is a real life.


----------



## GBF

Also, a few words about the resistance for always... I am sure it can be for always and it must be for always, but there will be something like a waves. The mite problem needs to be lifted on the world wide level and there has to be developed the wide breeding strategy with forming a lot of local breeding centers in different places of the world. Then queens from selective and proven stuff have to be spreading to all beekeepers world wide.


----------



## crofter

Yes, to attacking on a large front but if unified effort results in a bottlenecked uniform bee population, you lose the resilience that comes from diversity. The old analogy of not having your eggs all in one basket! A monoculture that all quiver at the same tactics is an easy victim of attack by an invader. Be cautious of simplistic solutions to complex problems.


----------



## 1102009

> Second is the nature of the pest. Rats are predators, varroa are parasites. Really, you'd think it'd be simpler to just learn to perch higher or to defend your darn nest, than to protect brood from sneaky armored vampires. But they aren't just parasites, they are also vectors. For the Apimondia conferences in Québec city a few years back, I remember a german presenter showing his results on varroa lethality, and from what I recall, he said that mites on their own cause actually very little extra winter losses. But when you threw DWV in the picture, THEN you had a deadly ****tail. With this in mind, we face a double threat: the varroa as a parasite, and the viruses they carry as vectors. If DWV becomes more virulent, or if a new virus emerges, then suddenly the whole parasite:host relation can be completely disturbed.


Dominic,
Who is this german presenter, can you tell me?
Thanks!


----------



## Dominic

SiWolKe said:


> Dominic,
> Who is this german presenter, can you tell me?
> Thanks!


I'll look it up. I have the presentation booklet with me, but more than half of them had to do with varroa and viruses, so I'll have to read the whole thing. A lot of gems I had forgotten about in there. I might have confused some of the presentations in my mind, though.

Apimondia Symposium 2012 Worth a look (the page is bilingual, don't let the French scare you) as there are a lot of gems in there I am having a blast rediscovering.


----------



## 1102009

Thank you for posting this link, Dominic.

Seems to me it was Ralph Bücheler you meant, the Institute of Kirchhain is very active now working the mite resistant topic, but since bayer bee care, an industry selling bee treatment medicine is the sponsor I`m sceptic if this will ever support treatment free beekeeping. The newest treatment Kirchhain tested was a medicine made out of hop. 
Even though, all informations are valuable. 

Thanks for the contributions here.



> If DWV becomes more virulent, or if a new virus emerges, then suddenly the whole parasite:host relation can be completely disturbed.


To me, having bees which are more virus tolerant than others this is most important. The kind of bee husbandry like I`m learning just now is very different from conventional beekeeping.
It`s aim is to have strong bees to prevent sickness and to support adaption.
What this means concerning honey crop I don`t know yet.

It is said that oxalic acids damage the shell of the bees, so I will not use this. I don`t know exactly how many articles condemning treatments are serious, but I`m trying to avoid as much intervention as possible.


----------



## GBF

crofter said:


> Yes, to attacking on a large front but if unified effort results in a bottlenecked uniform bee population, you lose the resilience that comes from diversity. The old analogy of not having your eggs all in one basket! A monoculture that all quiver at the same tactics is an easy victim of attack by an invader. Be cautious of simplistic solutions to complex problems.


The breeding centers in different parts of the world have to make the selection process for the mite and diseas resistance. But there are some important rules for any selection program and keeping the genetic diversity is one of them..


----------



## GBF

SiWolKe said:


> Thank you for posting this link, Dominic.
> 
> Seems to me it was Ralph Bücheler you meant, the Institute of Kirchhain is very active now working the mite resistant topic, but since bayer bee care, an industry selling bee treatment medicine is the sponsor I`m sceptic if this will ever support treatment free beekeeping. The newest treatment Kirchhain tested was a medicine made out of hop.
> Even though, all informations are valuable.
> 
> Thanks for the contributions here.
> 
> 
> 
> To me, having bees which are more virus tolerant than others this is most important. The kind of bee husbandry like I`m learning just now is very different from conventional beekeeping.
> It`s aim is to have strong bees to prevent sickness and to support adaption.
> What this means concerning honey crop I don`t know yet.
> 
> It is said that oxalic acids damage the shell of the bees, so I will not use this. I don`t know exactly how many articles condemning treatments are serious, but I`m trying to avoid as much intervention as possible.


I heard that they are making a lot of work for developing tolerant strain of bees and we tried some german carnica stock, but in our conditions they shown themselves as the weakest strain that we ever met. Most of the losing were carnica.


----------

