# An ideal beekeepers' world



## peterloringborst

> In an ideal beekeepers' world, honeybees should not require any treatment against diseases at all, which would prevent the contamination of colonies with in-hive chemicals used in apicultural management. EU research therefore focuses on the identification of genes that regulate resistance. The transfer from science into application is typically a major problem. In Europe this transfer is greatly facilitated through one of the largest programs in history.
> 
> COLOSS Prevention of Honeybee Colony Losses, http://www.coloss.org


----------



## camero7

Thanks Peter, very interesting site.


----------



## peterloringborst

My aim in posting the brief paragraph, lifted from COLOSS, was to show that 1) work is focusing on the genetic component of resistance, and 2) there are great obstacles to moving from discovery to practice.

In my opinion, one of the chief obstacles, and I see this here at BeeSource on almost a daily basis, is a deep distrust of scientific researchers. I don't really know why this should be so pervasive in the beekeeping community, as most of the truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from have been made by scientists.

It also takes a strong effort by entrepreneurs to implement these discoveries. For example, the use of formic acid to control mites may have been the results of lab tests, but it was private enterprise that came up with the delivery and distribution of it. 

The other issue I have with the chatter is that somehow letting bees raise their own queens locally is on par with selecting for hygienic behavior. Natural selection has created many of the traits our bees now have, but it has taken hundreds of thousands of years to do so.

An example: Apis cerana and varroa coexist naturally and those bees can prevent varroa from taking over. Apis mellifera has no such innate defense. No doubt it has naturally selected traits that make it especially susceptible to a complete and fatal takeover by mites.

These traits, while useful to the colony for some things, are fatal when it comes to mites. An example would be: during the late summer honey flow, brood may not be policed as diligently. While the bees are frantically gathering honey for winter, varroa mites are at work wrecking the generation of bees that will make up the winter population.

But the point is, using selection and breeding, particular traits can be enhanced much more quickly than they would come about by natural selection. Furthermore, natural selection has no need to favor bees that are useful to beekeepers. In time, our bees could resort to a behavior like the tropical bees: absconding. 

Absconding is a great way to shed pests. The hive just abandons the brood nest, with its varroa infested brood, and starts over elsewhere. This behavior might be very beneficial to the colony but from the beekeeper's point of view, it stinks. The good bees are off to the woods, and the varroa are left behind in the bee yard.

A lot of noise is made about treating colonies for mites and how this prevents natural resistance from coming about. That assumes that natural resistance must come about, which is a faulty assumption. As we have discussed elsewhere: nature does not guarantee survival for any species! In fact, it pretty much guarantees extinction for many. 

A lot of species have very fixed behavior patterns and cannot readily adapt. Hence, they slip off the face of the earth when conditions change so much that they are no longer able to cope. Many native pollinators are in this predicament. 

But back to treating: IF one is selecting for behaviors that benefit colonies, such as uncapping brood to check for mites, then one can develop better bees through breeding. Treating as necessary for mite control has no effect on this process. 

It's like taking cholesterol lowering medicine AND exercising. Taking the drug is not going to reduce the effectiveness of the exercise, nor is exercising going to reduce the effectiveness of the drug.

Treating for mites will not affect the work done on hygienic behavior and breeding bees will not necessarily mean that mite treatments are unnecessary. They may be needed less often: some commercial outfits are treating three or four times a year to get control!

So everyone should rally around hygienic bee lines, whether VSH, Russian, Minnesota Hygienic or whatnot. If you cannot afford to buy queens, and at 20 to 30 dollars a pop, many can't, learn to raise queens from a hygienic breeder.

Clubs or associations can pool their resources and buy top notch breeders, and share cost. Then the progeny can be distributed either as frames of larvae or as finished queen cells. Almost every club has somebody who knows how to raise queen cells or is capable of learning. 

But the idea that scientists have nothing to offer, and that science is somehow equal to meddling with nature, is a counterproductive at this point in the history of beekeeping. We now face unprecedented problems as the world gets smaller and viruses are swiftly moved around the globe.

The real problem, of course, is viruses. These babies are invisible, evil scraps of rogue dna that slip in between the cracks and wreck the health and well being of the larger species, the ones we know and care about.


----------



## camero7

The more studies I read, the more I am convinced that the virus load is more important that most realize. It seems to me there would be little CCD without virus coupled with Varroa. I am going to monitor virus load in one hive this summer as an experiment. David Wick will do the lab stuff and will also monitor nosema levels. It's a little pricey but he feels that checking one hive will give a good indication of what's going on in all of them [in that particular yard].

Like Peter I'm amazed at the lack of respect many here give scientific studies. They provide us with the parameters, it is our job to make their studies relevant to our hives. That does not rule out innovation or experimentation [I certainly doing the latter] but it does give us a path.


----------



## bigbearomaha

> But the idea that scientists have nothing to offer, and that science is somehow equal to meddling with nature, is a counterproductive at this point in the history of beekeeping. We now face unprecedented problems as the world gets smaller and viruses are swiftly moved around the globe.


No one really thinks that scientists have nothing to offer.

It's probably more accurate to say that scientists aren't the only ones that have something to offer.

Another matter of debate is what makes one a 'scientist'? A college degree?

Many of the worlds first and most profound 'scientists' had no such degrees, but rather the self imposed discipline to follow the scientific method in carrying out studies and observations based on previous observations and theories.

Too often, the attitude now is that only someone with a bunch of letters behind their name and x number of years in college can contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

In fact, by following how often these 'scientists' have their 'facts' made public, only to be recanted or disproved a relatively short time later gives us nothing to show that the so called 'professional' scientists are any more qualified to contribute to the discussion than the so called 'amateur' scientist'.

Many times, people on forums like this one present first hand experience in their own scientific process of bee handling methods and approaches only to be completely shot down by people like yourself because they are not 'professional' scientists with lots of funding and college degrees to boast of.

If you want to discuss science, then be prepared to discuss 'real' science, which is the work and efforts made by ANYONE who heeds the objective and disciplined steps of the scientific method. Be they over educated idiots or self taught common folk.

As long as their steps are documented, repeatable and well communicated, all folks adhering to the scientific method should be given serious consideration.

for those not aware, a good explanation of the 'Scientific method' can be found here.. no funding or degrees necessary.

scientific method

at least, that's what I think.

Big Bear


----------



## peterloringborst

Thanks, Camero, for the great example. 

I was contacted about this exact thing, the lab testing that is being offered. I took the side of the beekeeper, suggesting that maybe it was still a little too pricey compared to the benefit one might receive. 

I didn't say: give the scientists all your money, they have all the answers. I am glad the beekeeper decided to go ahead with the tests, because this is an example of us regular folks trying to get some benefit from scientific progress. 

My intention in starting this thread was not to condemn anybody or anything but to encourage greater understanding of how technology can get moved from the research stage to the field. 

Since we are on about viruses, I see an interesting parallel with the H1N1 virus. Now that flu season is past, a lot of people are shaking their heads and saying "what was that about". And a lot of other people are thinking "I'm glad I got vaccinated, because something like that could really wipe out an unvaccinated population."

I'm real big on vaccines, BTW. Having lived through the Polio epidemic, having seen the effect on parents, the fear and suspicion that people had toward strangers, the nightmare of not knowing if I would ever be able to walk again.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> In my opinion, one of the chief obstacles, and I see this here at BeeSource on almost a daily basis, is a deep distrust of scientific researchers. I don't really know why this should be so pervasive in the beekeeping community, as most of the truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from have been made by scientists.


I would love for members to discuss this part in greater detail. If this is off topic for your thread, I'll start another.

*Warning, keep the discussion on topic.

It is obvious, a polarization between beekeeper and scientist, in many discussions. How do we get both sides to move towards the center? Is one right and the other wrong? What's at the core of this polarization?


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> I would love for members to discuss this part in greater detail. If this is off topic for your thread


No, by all means, that IS the thread. Obviously, people regard me as a great _polarizer_, so I have as much to learn as anyone.


----------



## bigbearomaha

As I stated above, Beekeepers and scientists do not have to be mutually exclusive. We have several scientifically minded and practicing scientist/beekeepers who may or may not have the 'credentials' being sought by some others.

It is my observation that far too often, the topics are presented in a conflicting manner in which the 'scientist' is pitted against the 'beekeeper' as though the 'scientist' is coming down from the mountain to bestow his knowledge upon the lowly beekeeper, which could only be furthest from the truth.

The beekeeper who thinks and works in a manner following the Scientific Method is just as able to provide solid information to the discussion as any lab tech.

Some folks just think you need a budget and a degree to be a 'real' scientist.

Big Bear


----------



## peterloringborst

bigbearomaha said:


> The beekeeper who thinks and works in a manner following the Scientific Method is just as able to provide solid information to the discussion as any lab tech.


Honestly, this is what I have said all along. I am not a professional bee researcher, although I was one for 7 years. As well as a bee inspector. I could tell just as many stories of wasted resources and dead end projects as anyone. 

Remember the line from Ghost Busters? Dan Akroyd says: "You've never been out of college. You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector … they expect results!"

So, fellow beekeepers, who you gonna call? That's what I'm talking about. Private enterprise employs more scientists than the government and the universities combined. 

We don't have any suspicion of scientists if they are working on such great toys as the cell phone, or the iPad. But when they are working on bees, are they somehow hellbent on corrupting our pets?

If you haven't met Dennis vanEngelsdorp or Maryann Frazier, or their colleagues and peers, you would be surprised at how accessible, concerned, and diligent these folks are. They are working on _our problems_. The plight of the honey bee affects all.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

If someone is beekeeping with a faith based system they "believe" in, they feel very threatened when studies can't replicate their results.


----------



## Barry

Perhaps this kind of thinking is where some of the polarization comes from? The idea that science (the scientific process) is strictly based on fact and bias, belief or faith are totally foreign to it. It's "pure" while all other study or insight is corrupted. As in other arenas of life, there is a poor relationship/communication between the two. Anytime you get a person or group with "power" dealing with the "powerless", the structure lends itself towards polarization.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

I don't see the power and polarization, only human nature.

For instance, since I was a child I have harbored the hope that the shroud of Turin was really Christs burial cloth and that the image on it was that of Him.

Probably the cloth was created long after Christs' time on earth but I still find it hard to let go of the possibility. I want to believe it and really have not quite given up.


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> As in other arenas of life, there is a poor relationship/communication between the two.


I am afraid I don't agree. There are many many fields where science and faith, spirituality, or aesthetics can mesh and interact quite comfortably. 

Music comes to mind first. No matter what sort of music you like, be it gospel, blue grass or rap, there is an immense amount of science that goes into getting it to your ears. You don't think: that folk music is tainted by science because you're listening to it on the radio!

Now, listening to a person play a guitar is another thing altogether, and if you were to say it was better than recorded music, I'd probably agree with you. If you were to say top bar beekeeping is better than modern machine oriented beekeeping I might agree with that, too. I does give a feel for the bees that you don't get with a frame hive. 

But -- ! Look at Wyatt Mangum, he runs hundreds of top bar hives and he is a scientist as well. Meanwhile, there are thousands of equally sensitive, observant, conscientious beekeepers using all the modern contrivances, including remote hives on scales which radio in weight change, etc. 




> Anytime you get a person or group with "power" dealing with the "powerless", the structure lends itself towards polarization.


This is beside the point altogether. Who has power here? What power do I have, other than a well honed ability to read and write?


----------



## valleyman

Peter and others, forgive me for I am about to get long winded! I am a 66 year old retired skilled tradesman, part time (all my life) farmer, full time beekeeper since 2007. My wife has a BS degree in nursing. I have two sons that has Masters degrees, another son has less than an Associates degree, like me, but he is the assistant plant manager at a local food processing factory. 

I believe I have observed exactly what you are relating to about beeks and science.

Most beeks, like me, are minamally educated. Therefore when confronted with information, albeit scientific, or in some cases just what they don't want to hear, they either ignore it or dispute it. In most cases from lack of understanding.

Let me give you a perfect example. Stem Cell research. It is looked upon by many as going against God or nature in general and has been used successfully by politicians as political fodder to manipulate voters.

In my humble opinion it may be what in the future saves the human race or could be used to destroy it. Its affects are just being now being minamally tested.

My point being, the honey bee genome, while not nearly as complex a being as the human genome is also very susceptible to the viruses and retroviruses that are known or unknown at this time.

I agree that if you have a hive, or genetics that have been strong and good producers, and you want to keep them it would be rediculous to allow them to perish without treating them for what ever may be attacking them.

You mentioned the VSH, MN Hygenic, and Russians. Aren't the Russians the only ones that have all the genetics combined naturally, from centurys of living in an area infested with all the mites and diseases known at this time? Point being, the others could be claimed to be survivor stock when in actuallity the producers could be lying about their traits.

Forgive me for having rambled some but my thoughts are that, the more educated, in most cases, the broader your horizon as far as understanding complicated studys.

My intent here is to insult no one, but to bring better understanding to all,of each other.:lookout:


----------



## Cedar Hill

Barry said:


> Perhaps this kind of thinking is where some of the polarization comes from? The idea that science (the scientific process) is strictly based on fact and bias, belief or faith are totally foreign to it. It's "pure" while all other study or insight is corrupted. *As in other arenas of life, there is a poor relationship/communication between the two. Anytime you get a person or group with "power" dealing with the "powerless", the structure lends itself towards polarization*.


 Ever volunteer your hives for a scientific experiment concerning a "new" unknown disease, virus, mite, etc. etc. by the state "scientists" and after the results studied been *ordered* that your hives can no longer leave the state for pollination purposes because of the findings? Loss of all out-of-state customers because of the results but no incoming pollinators refused entry to the state? Sheer stupidity? Yes, but it's the group with power against the powerless as mentioned in the quote above. This has happened and is one of the probable many reasons for the distrust between the two. OMTCW
:shhhh::no:


----------



## devdog108

The problem I see Peter is that the "scientists" do not keep an open mind. Their tests and theorys are what they go by.....and thats it. The plight of the honeybee does affect everyone of us, But, if they don't listen to what the ground troops say, then all is wasted anyway. I was in the USMC for a while, and no matter what you told the commanders, they didn't listen to anyone but what their intel told them..te guys dying on the ground KNEW what they were saying. See...most people are not objective enough to step up and say no, thats not right, and even fewer scientists will do the same. I was told that if i wanted a honeycrop, to stop splitting my hives....So Far i have 5 beautiful splits and queens from a single hive. (the hive was entirely too strong)The single hive still has 2 supers that all they have to do is cap. The splits are 10 frames now and already have capped honey and I was also told to feed, which i didn't.....Scientifically, i should be wrong...teh scietists need to respect the average beek, as he needs to return the favor and do likewise to them.


----------



## peterloringborst

devdog108 said:


> The problem I see Peter is that the "scientists" do not keep an open mind. Their tests and theorys are what they go by.....and thats it.


The whole CCD thing started when a Pennsylvania beekeeper contacted a Pennsylvania scientist, looking for help. The researcher took him seriously and enlisted the aid of countless other scientists, and have produced the large body of work on CCD. 

The current "theory" is that NO ONE THING causes large scale die offs, that it is probably a combination of factors, and that WE DON'T KNOW the answers yet. If that isn't keeping an open mind, I don't know what is. Science is NOT about fitting data into a theory!

Your statement is simply not true; it is based on lack of understanding of what the research community thinks and does. But thanks for clearly illustrating the exact problem that I am talking about: people's misunderstanding of science and scientists.


----------



## WLC

"In an ideal beekeepers' world, honeybees should not require any treatment against diseases at all, which would prevent the contamination of colonies with in-hive chemicals used in apicultural management. EU research therefore focuses on the identification of genes that regulate resistance. The transfer from science into application is typically a major problem. In Europe this transfer is greatly facilitated through one of the largest programs in history. 

COLOSS Prevention of Honeybee Colony Losses, http://www.coloss.org" 


That's an example of 'metaphysical pathos'.

They are so certain that they are right, that they won't heed the warnings as they head towards the precipice. Even as they plunge towards their doom, they can be heard to exclaim, 'God is on our side!'.

It happens to organizations consisting of beekeepers, scientists, and government agencies as well.

They all experience the 'sudden stop at the end' at the same time.


----------



## devdog108

Your statement is simply not true; it is based on lack of understanding of what the research community thinks and does. But thanks for clearly illustrating the exact problem that I am talking about: people's misunderstanding of science and scientists. 

Wake up Peter, oddly enough you are not the only one around who has interests in this and knows who does and does not listen.........its the above mentality that gets you the response such as this. I DO understand, been there done this, maybe not with beekeeping all that much, but hello, there is more to science than bees. There is another whole scietific community. Want me to prove it......ok here ya go......Make a cellphone set off gasoline at a pump......not that static discharge of the person, but th ephones waves...the scitetific comminuty said, WHOA...DONT DO IT...YOULL START A FIRE....whech was guess what.....a rather large load of poopoo....ya know how i now that, i was part of the study with Lucent technologies....

Another example, my son had bad ear infection....weekly, they kept treating and treating...frinally i suggested we stop and let his body do it, sure it was gonne be tough, but ya know, it was wortha try. Guess what, HIS BODY FIXED IT CONTRARY TO A DOCTORS ADVICE....and she was amazed....

I could go on and on, but i digress

I have constantly kept an open mind, and when i told one person i was not going to treat, he said oh good luck with that. .....Now, I am not the prettesit one the block, but, do NOT mistake me for an idiot. An open mind here is what gets us that closer to an answer.....and when you decided to make comments like the above, based on YOUR perception...well, thats your perception, dont drag me into it.......


----------



## peterloringborst

You wrote:


> the "scientists" do not keep an open mind.


I wrote: that isn't true. 

And it isn't. Science is _about_ keeping an open mind. People that work in the scientific community every day like myself, know this. Once you make your mind up about something, you are useless in scientific inquiry. Once you trim the facts to fit your theory, your reputation as a scientist is shot. 

One of the things we do on a weekly basis is to read a recent paper in our field and try to find all the faults with it. It is customary to try to shoot holes in a scientific hypothesis. We do this to each other and to our own theories. If the theory holds up under fire, it's a good one. If it doesn't it either needs to be revised or pitched out. 

There was a theory that neonicotinoids were causing colony collapse in Europe. A lot of beekeepers wanted that theory proved! But the facts wouldn't fit into the theory. Sure, neonics caused some bee die offs, but they didn't cause most die offs. Turned out, the hives were all in pretty bad shape due to varroa mites, and were full of miticide residues. 

You wrote:


> comments like the above, based on YOUR perception


Of course it's based on my perception. What else do I have to use? We are all blessed with perception and thought. I perceive people criticizing scientists for being close minded and I think, that's not true. It's just the opposite. That's what I think. I don't know why others think differently. That's what we are trying to find out.


----------



## Keith Jarrett




----------



## devdog108

Wel, as we are all entitled to our opinions, I have seen it exactly the opposite....and you have to respect that. I am not faulting you or anyone else, its just been an observation. Where you make your mistake is making the assumption that you can roll us all up into one....and you did....and oddly for some of us, that makes us a little less inclined to listen. i emailed you and asked for your papers. i did not critisize them, and thought they were well written. There is a really fine line here that we all try to walk, but you have to make sure that you don't ball us up all into one. As such, we have to make sure that we do the same. you have more than likey forgotten more than I have learned thus far about beeking, lets not mistake that and dont think you have some respect for your knowledge.....but just watch the generalizations......and the rational....I already have a 10 yr old who thinks he knoes more than me....and btw, i am one of the most open minded people you will meet. I look at every aspect. I just know what i have seen


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC writes:


> That's an example of 'metaphysical pathos'.


response:



> Is it likely that a person who throughout his whole adult life had been devoted to a powerful, quasi-religious view of the world, which he sought to disseminate by means of innumerable writings and addresses, would be led by that view to do serious and important scientific work? I agree that it is not likely -- unless the person in question was an able scientist who was clear about what he was trying to do. Huxley was that.
> 
> There are some precedents. The history of science presents a number of cases in which important scientific work was inspired by a dubious metaphysic, an outstanding example being the influence of Platonism on Renaissance scientists. It was Galileo's Platonic vision of the Book of Nature being "written in the language of mathematics" (how many biologists would agree with that?) that inspired his grand achievement of mathematicizing motion. And it was Kepler's mystical, Platonic conception of celestial harmony, which to us today seems so outlandish, that helped to lead him to the laws of planetary motion that constituted a major element in the Copernican Revolution.
> 
> Julian Huxley and Biological Progress
> ROBERT M. GASCOIGNE
> School of Science and Technology Studies
> University of New South Wales


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> There was a theory that neonicotinoids were causing colony collapse in Europe. A lot of beekeepers wanted that theory proved! But the facts wouldn't fit into the theory. Sure, neonics caused some bee die offs, but they didn't cause most die offs. Turned out, the hives were all in pretty bad shape due to varroa mites, and were full of miticide residues.


I've always thought it a little odd that varroa gets labeled as the 'cause' of death so often. When a stray dog becomes ill or injured, say an infected tooth or something, and is left to fend for itself, that animal will slowly become compromised. The infection may spread to other parts, the dog won't be able to eat as well, it becomes a victim of malnutrition, other infections. It's immune system breaks down. Fleas, ticks, mange, intestinal worms and other parasites move in and begin to have a field day on the poor animal and weaken it yet more. It finally dies. A casual observer might look at the dying dog and conclude it died of a rampant infestation of fleas and ticks. I would find it perfectly natural for varroa mites to have a population explosion and thrive on bee colonies that were already weakened by the chemical soup they were forced to survive in and eat from- including, ironically, miticides. Parasites typically move in and deal the final blow to an already sick or weakened victim. To then name the parasite as the principal cause of death might be missing something important. Not saying you are doing that here Peter, but lots of people do seem to be seeing varroa as 'the' cause of death when in fact varroa might be just the last inevitable blow in a series of factors that are slowly killing the bees. Varroa as undertakers, if you will.
Sorry, I know that's veering a bit off the intended thread subject.


----------



## bigbearomaha

I would welcome anyone interested in a scientific approach to working with bees to join me in the Honey Bee Science Network.

It's purpose is exactly that to get everyday beekeepers to engage in observational studies that can be shared and participated in by others similarly interested and willing to be involved.

Big Bear


----------



## peterloringborst

> Sorry, I know that's veering a bit off the intended thread subject.


No, it's a valid point. My example was an oversimplification, I know. This is the real problem we are up against, though. It's like one of those murder mysteries where the dead guy was shot, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, and drowned. Evidence points to him being killed over and over again by various people. Who gets the murder rap? 

Worse still, our bees are dead but there is no body! (They always play that up in the news: no corpses found). Yet even so, with the confusing signals, and the mixed up results, one thing leaps out a you: NO ONE THING! Seems like every time somebody gets a clear idea about what it _might be_ somebody else steps in to say_ it ain't so._

No wonder people start to mistrust scientists,-- and news reporters. Can't they get anything right? Is this what we pay them to do, confuse us? It's like the weather reports. They are almost never right, so people tend to get a bit jaded. Heck, I can predict better than that. But when there is a hurricane coming, everybody wants to know what the weather service says ...


----------



## peterloringborst

Omie said:


> I've always thought it a little odd that varroa gets labeled as the 'cause' of death so often.


This came out this winter:

Ernesto Guzman-Novoa, et al. 2010. Varroa destructor is the main culprit for the death and reduced populations of overwintered honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in Ontario, Canada. Apidologie


----------



## peterloringborst

devdog108 said:


> I already have a 10 yr old who thinks he knoes more than me....


Yeah, you know what they say: hire a teenager while they still know it all. Me, I started out years ago with nothing. And, I still have most of it left.

You know, there are hardly any scientists on these bee forums. Why? Because of the firestorm that always ensues when they open their mouths.

I started this thread to talk about that, why is it, what can we do about it. Already you and others have made it plain I have put my foot in it.

Guess what, I expected that. But you got to give me credit for having the guts to go ahead and open this can of worms. I know Barry would like to see it discussed openly. 

Personally, I prefer an in depth discussion to the usual back and forth one liners. Others may wish I would shut up. At any rate, I believe you will ultimately come to realize I keep going at this because _I care. _


----------



## devdog108

Peter, there is no doubt the reasoning..in my mind...that you open threads like this is because you actually do care. Its to make people think, and I appreciate that. BUT the door swings both ways. I love the discussions, but do not like to be attacked becuase I am wrong or have my own opinions. I would agree that the reasonong behind the "scientists not being here" is because they do get hammered. Heck, I get hammered when I am wrong and I do expect it. Again, I respect your ability to open threads and get the communication going, I really do, but there are so many personalities that we should all back down a little and listen. I try to do that oddly, and i try to be very objective. I have made NO suggestion that you have your foot into anything, I did however ask you not to generalize me into the open public forum that you see, because it would be incorrect. And if you did have your foot into anything, your opinion would matter just as much if not more because you get to see both sides. SOmetimes its not what you say, its how it is said.....


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> Who has power here? What power do I have, other than a well honed ability to read and write?


I'm thinking in a broad sense here. "Science" has the power. It has institutions, money, facilities, published papers, etc. versus the lowly beekeeper who has his observations. I think that is the general feeling that people share, true or not.


----------



## peterloringborst

devdog108 said:


> I would agree that the reasonong behind the "scientists not being here" is because they do get hammered


But wait, scientists expect to get hammered. It's called peer review. They just don't tolerate being hammered for_ being scientists. _ They don't have the patience to go up the whole anti-science wall of conjecture. 

I have a great deal of admiration for writers like John McPhee, Annie Dillard, Stephen Jay Gould, etc. who try to make science understandable and interesting to regular people. If people only knew!

The whole tone thing, I don't get. People criticize the tone of my writing. Perhaps if I mispelled words more often, they would trust me more? Or use expressions like "her and I".


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Barry said:


> "Science" has the power. It has institutions, money, facilities, published papers, etc. versus the lowly beekeeper who has his observations..


Yes, only observations, but thousands of them .


----------



## devdog108

peterloringborst said:


> But wait, scientists expect to get hammered. It's called peer review. They just don't tolerate being hammered for_ being scientists. _ They don't have the patience to go up the whole anti-science wall of conjecture.
> 
> The whole tone thing, I don't get. People criticize the tone of my writing. Perhaps if I mispelled words more often, they would trust me more? Or use expressions like "her and I".


Its not even the tone Peter, again, its how its said, not what you say.....and I have seen it over and over thoughout some of the debates. I would NEVER hammer someone for being a scientist as long as his mind was open, just as mine is. If her is willing to listen, scientist or not, he is good in my book.....hence my sig!


----------



## bigbearomaha

On one hand Peter, you agree with me that anyone can be a 'scientist' yet the only credibility you seem to give is to the 'professional' scientist with a degree and a budget.

You try to proclaim yourself as that beekeeper who is a scientist, but laud all your education and lab work as your reason for credibility.

Micheal Bush has written extensively on his own site and on threads here in great detail of his experiences and experiments yet you have dismissed him on more than one occasion, seemingly because his work wasn't published or supported by some think tank. He is only one example, there are many others.

You can't play both sides of the field.

either you agree that anyone who follows the Scientific method, professional or amateur is a credible source, or you think that only those with degrees and budgets are 'real' scientists.

I hold many of the people in this forum in high regard because of their willingness to 'expose themselves' in terms of sharing their experiences and day to day observations of working with honey bees. many of them are very articulate and document their activities very well, yet hold no degrees that they have made public anyway.

Everyone on this forum can be a beekeeper and a scientist simultaneously, however, one need not be a scientist to be a beekeeper and need not be a beekeeper to be a scientist.

I think in general, most people see the proclaimed 'scientists' you mention, such as the weather forecasters, as academic isolationists with limited understanding of the day to day working of the world.

well, as usual, I've done it again and stepped way over the thresh hold when Ishould have kept my yap shut. 


Big Bear


----------



## peterloringborst

> You try to proclaim yourself as that beekeeper who is a scientist, but laud all your education and lab work as your reason for credibility.


Good grief. Is this another discussion that degenerates into _who do I think I am?_ Moderators, help us out here. By the way, I have no degrees other than a AS in Graphic Design.


----------



## camero7

Getting back to the topic at hand instead of personal attacks. How else would one monitor virus levels without the aid of a scientist. And if you think that's not important you really have your head in the sand. I am not opposed to "new" [really old] ideas like natural cell [I'm using them] but there is so much evidence that Varroa AND virus are what cause many losses of hives that it makes no sense to me not to know as much as possible about what's going on in the hive. We can look 100 times a day, but you'll never see a virus. However, you might see the results of one in the spring when you open that deadout.


----------



## bigbearomaha

no no no. this is not about personal attacks.

Peter asked the question about why so called 'scientists' get so much grief.

in order to understand this, we need to understand what is a 'scientist.

Peter in one post says he is a scientist and refers back to his education and lab work to support it.

My point is that one need not have the college and funded labs to be considered a scientist. after which, Peter claimed to agree with me that anyone following the Scientific method could be considered a 'scientist'.

so, I am merely asking him to clarify his position on how he defines a 'scientist' since he agreed to one thing, but described another.

sorry anyone has to ask you to clarify yourselves folks, but that''s what happens in these kind of threads , isn't it?

And, since you brought yourself into the discussion by labeling yourself as a scientist Peter, I think it's quite appropriate to ask you to clarify how you came to that identification.


it's kind of funny how when you demand others to clarify themselves, it's only to further a discussion, but when you are asked to clarify, you call it a personal attack.

Big Bear


----------



## devdog108

We know Cam, but all too often we a grouped...profiled....and when we ask tons of questions, all of a sudden we are attacking or hammering. I am with you, I want to know the ins and outs, but the 1000's of observations as Keith stated cannot be thrown by the wayside....those darned bees do not read the books we do no matter how hard i try.


----------



## WLC

"Getting back to the topic at hand instead of personal attacks. How else would one monitor virus levels without the aid of a scientist."

All that you really need for the scientist to do is develop the protocol for virus detection.

Any one of you could be trained to do those tests (with a few exceptions  ).

The equipment and reagents are available for purchase. Or, you can collect the sample, and send it out to a lab.

Analytical work doesn't have to be done by an individual with a degree and lab experience. It just requires training (and $).


----------



## peterloringborst

> Viruses were first identified as a new class of pathogens infecting honey bees when a US scientist, Dr. White, discovered that a filterable agent from diseased bee larvae could cause sacbrood disease in the honey bee ( White, 1913 ). Since then, at least 18 viruses have been reported to infect honey bees worldwide.
> 
> Although bee viruses usually persist as inapparent infections and cause no overt signs of disease, they can dramatically affect honey bee health and shorten the lives of infected bees under certain conditions. The detection of several bee viruses in varroa mites indicates the possible role of varroa mites as vectors in the transmission of viruses among honey bees.
> 
> Hygienic behavior is characterized by the rapid detection of diseased and dead brood, uncapping of the brood cell, and removal of the affected brood by worker bees. The hygienic behavior of worker bees is an important aspect of the honey bee’s immunity and has been shown to be effective against American foulbrood, chalkbrood, nosema, and varroa mites in colonies. In addition, hygienic activity has been shown to be an effective defensive strategy against virus infections in honey bees.
> 
> Honey Bee Viruses
> Yan Ping Chen


Perhaps a study needs to be made which shows the effect of hygienic bees on viral loads.


----------



## bigbearomaha

WLC, thank you for agreeing with me.

And yes, sometimes money is an issue becasue some tools useful in lab science is not cheap.

What it takes to be a scientist is the right state of mind and attitude.

sometimes, there are situations where what I refer to as 'field scientists' (which by large part, would be where the beek would fall in) making observations, documenting results, consequences and stimuli need to cooperate with 'lab' scientists who have the resources for the in depth testing of matter and data.

This kind of collaboration between different types of scientists can very much further the understanding of the world we are living in.

Big Bear


----------



## peterloringborst

Cam makes a valid point. The average beekeeper is not going to do work like this:



> Individual honey bee Apis mellifera L. queens were examined for the presence of six honey bee viruses including acute bee paralysis virus, chronic bee paralysis virus, black queen cell virus, deformed wing virus, Kashmir bee virus, and sacbrood virus. All viruses, except ABPV, were detected in the samples. Among queens examined for virus infections, 93% had multiple virus infections. The detection of viruses in queens raises the possibility of a vertical transmission pathway wherein infected queens can pass virus through their eggs to their offspring.
> 
> Twenty-nine queens from honey bee colonies maintained in Beltsville, MD and Sapelo Island, GA were used in this study. Queens from GA were collected in centrifuge tubes on dry ice and shipped overnight to MD for analyses. Total RNA was extracted from individual queens using an RNA isolation kit (TRIzol; Invitrogen; Carlsbad, CA)
> 
> Detection of multiple viruses in queens of the honey bee Apis mellifera L. 2005. Yanping Chen


----------



## bigbearomaha

Just becasue they choose not to, doesn't mean they are incapable of doing so.

To do or not to do is a choice, not a limitation.

Big Bear


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Hey, Bone.

You got any more popcorn... I'm all out.


----------



## WLC

"Cam makes a valid point. The average beekeeper is not going to do work like this:"

"Just becasue they choose not to, doesn't mean they are incapable of doing so. To do or not to do is a choice, not a limitation."

You do realize that virus tests strips are commonly used in horticulture and other fields?

Petition those folks to come up with tests strips for bee viruses, pests, and pathogens.

http://www.gopetition.com/


----------



## peterloringborst

Like it or not, we live in a globalized environment, which means more exotic diseases, and more new combinations of diseases.



> Bernard Vallat, Director General of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) made the statement “As a result of globalisation and climate change we are currently facing an unprecedented worldwide impact of emerging and re-emerging animal diseases and zoonoses (animal diseases transmissible to humans)”. To understand this we need to look at a few of the more recent emerging diseases.
> 
> One of the recent diseases to emerge is a paramyxovirus called Hendra virus that first occurred near Brisbane in Australia in 1994, affecting horses with respiratory and nervous symptoms and rapidly killing them and a few of the people that came into contact with them. The question is why are so many of these diseases emerging now?
> 
> The challenge, apart from the obvious need to reduce pollution, is to recognise the interaction between non-infectious and infectious emerging diseases and to understand the effect and role that non-infectious diseases play. For example, many non-infectious diseases are now known to affect the immune system, thus predisposing animals and people to infectious diseases that may previously not have been a threat.


----------



## Countryboy

_In my opinion, one of the chief obstacles, and I see this here at BeeSource on almost a daily basis, is a deep distrust of scientific researchers. I don't really know why this should be so pervasive in the beekeeping community, as most of the truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from have been made by scientists._

Follow the money trail. Most 'scientific researchers' get their funding from corporations, including chemical corporations - via the Federal Government as a middleman.

For example, corporations lobby the Federal government to do their bidding. The Federal government provides student loans for folks to go to college. This has allowed colleges to bid up the price of tuition, as they know students have guaranteed access to student loans. This in turn gives colleges more money to conduct 'research' doing studies that aren't profitable. You already touched on that though, as you pointed out that it is entrepreneurs that find solutions.

_If you haven't met Dennis vanEngelsdorp or Maryann Frazier,

They are working on our problems. _

I did a google search on them, and it says they work for Penn State, which collects tuition from students receiving Federal loans from the Federal government, which does the bidding of the lobbyists...

Follow the money trail, and you see who they are really working for. That discredits them in my eyes. How can they really be working on our problems, when they have dirty money in their wallets?

Show me an entrepreneur who is a scientist, (who earns their pay by applying their research) and I'd be interested in their research findings. For example, Nutra-Bee and Global Patties were both developed by beekeepers who make their money by feeding those supplements to their bees. I believe you will get more bang for your buck with their supplements than by going with a patty devised with government funded research. 

_Science is about keeping an open mind. _

But scientific research is NOT about keeping an open mind. It is about looking to prove or disprove a theory, and trying to eliminate everything else from the equation. Science doesn't like intangibles and variables.

_One of the things we do on a weekly basis is to read a recent paper in our field and try to find all the faults with it. It is customary to try to shoot holes in a scientific hypothesis. We do this to each other and to our own theories. If the theory holds up under fire, it's a good one. If it doesn't it either needs to be revised or pitched out. _

And you wonder why BeeSource folks have a distrust of scientists. Even you and your peers distrust scientists. If you trusted them, you wouldn't be trying to shoot holes in their findings. Yet you can't understand our distrust of scientists when we shoot holes in their findings too.

_You know, there are hardly any scientists on these bee forums._

I disagree. I don't know any beekeepers on bee forums who are not scientists. Everyone is trying to figure out what works best for them.

What you don't seem to find as many of is armchair expert scientists with a college degree and connected to corporate and government money. They are quickly exposed though, as they are not trying to find what works best for their own bees - but they want to tell you what is best for your bees.

_Because of the firestorm that always ensues when they open their mouths.
_

Why is there a firestorm? Because they are not trying to find what works best for their bees - they are trying to tell you what is best for your bees. *See, they don't actually believe/have faith in what they report. They won't put their money where their mouth is, but they want you to use your money to test their theories.*


----------



## Tom G. Laury

Easy, Boy!

In an ideal beekeepers' world...

... ...

there would be enough good locations for all of us.


----------



## WLC

Those danged 'eggheads'. Always poking their nose where it don't belong. 

Where were we...

The reference from COLOSS is coming from the european anti-agrochemical mindset.

That's the way they think.

Unfortunately, they've already shown a bias to the problem at hand.

My own personal bias is this: you introduce the honeybee to north america, where it is a nonnative/invasive; then you introduce mites and beetles, also nonnative; and a host of viruses and other pathogens; all of which have had a massive impact on native insect species.

Then you throw stones?

Do you see how when you take a different perspective, it looks like the pot is calling the kettle black?


----------



## Deamiter

A scientist is somebody who does science.

It is difficult for people not trained in science to learn to think like a scientist -- I've seen hundreds of "experiments" that were worse than useless. For example, trying small cell foundation one year after a horrible experience with varroa does not demonstrate whether or not small cell foundation affects varroa infestation!

The average beekeeper simply isn't used to isolating variables -- something that often requires using unprofitable methods. Good statistical analysis is also very complex -- how many are prepared to legitimately determine if their results are statistically significant?

Given these difficulties, even when a great beekeeper makes a huge effort to design and execute a scientific experiment (a lot of time and effort WAS put into the experiment design right?) the experiment often doesn't show what was intended, the conclusions they draw are often much too strong, and the experiment is often impossible to reproduce given the role of weather and a lack of detailed observations.

I am not in any way implying that science cannot be done by beekeepers without doctorates! It's just a LOT of work, and most people are conditioned to draw conclusions based on even weak correlations so people are prone to thinking they've "proven" something even if they haven't.

This suggests to me both why scientists tend to doubt the reports of commercial or amateur beekeepers and why beekeepers see scientists as elitist. While scientists may doubt some of the things reported as unquestionable truth by keepers, their ultimate goal is to advance our understanding of bees and find ways to assist beekeepers with some complex problems. While the limited findings of careful scientific experiments will be helpful in many situations, they won't replace the every-day observations of hundreds of thousands of hives by professional beekeepers.


----------



## Roland

I believe that a great deal of the animosity tword "scientists" is actually a reaction to those claiming to be scientist, but not performing in accordance to the scientific method. As stated by others, when money gets involved, the "true" and "Open minded" ways get pushed aside. It is when these people hide behind the cloak of scientific credibility to push their agenda that resentment swells. 
I enjoy watching the programs that show our best beekeeping scientists in pure white bee suits, with unstained smokers, and hive tools with paint still on them, explain how they are SO busy looking for a cause of CCD. They explain that a hive that has CCD will be empty, as they are opening a hive with bees in it. What is wrong with this picture???? 

On another occasion, I drove out of state to hear a lecture at Fermilab on why the bees where dying by a noted Scientist. At the end of the lecture, it was obvious this person had no clues, only reporting where and how bees where dying. I had previously arranged to meet with this individual after the lecture. At that time, I explained that we had seen an order of magnitude change(for the better) in wintering and honey production. "That's nice" was the reply. I then presented an article from a peer review journal that I wished to share. It was refused. A year later, this individual published a new "breakthru" article, which confirmed everything I was attempting to present. 

Peter said:
The whole CCD thing started when a Pennsylvania beekeeper contacted a Pennsylvania scientist, looking for help. The researcher took him seriously and enlisted the aid of countless other scientists, and have produced the large body of work on CCD.

What year was this?
Do we have any solution to the problem?
Have they bothered to call me when presented with my solution?


Peter, I once considered myself trained in the scientific method. I was taught to look up to those in positions of education. After being routinely snubbed, and having better luck getting my hands dirty in the hives, I have lost much respect for Academia(except for one man at Nebraska with dirty hands). 

I think our problems could get resolved alot faster if the "scientists" acted more scientific(just the facts), and realized that we beekeepers may know the inside of a hive better than they. I am sure us beekeepers must change also, but ????

This is not a personal attach, just an attempt to explain my thoughts and experiences. 

Roland the frustrated.


----------



## peterloringborst

> For example, trying small cell foundation one year after a horrible experience with varroa does not demonstrate whether or not small cell foundation affects varroa infestation!


Why not? If it won't work in a year, when will it work? If the bees are dead after the trial, what will you try it on? 

Fumigants work in days. They kill the varroa and the hive survives. If you are saying that it takes years for the small cell to work, what good is that? The bees die in the meantime.

To my way of thinking, if there is no effect during the brood rearing period over one season, then that is _sufficient to show that there is no effect_. This has been shown by more than a half dozen studies done all over the world. 

No scientific study has shown any effect except those done in Brazil with African bees, where varroa mite isn't really a problem anyway.

The brood cycle in temperate climates is what we are concerned about, not tropical or subtropical regions. Plenty of evidence to show that bees and mites can coexist in milder climates.

In the temperate zone, there is a huge peak population followed by a rapid decline in population in the fall. This is when varroa destroy hives around here. 

If your method or technique can't prevent that, what good is it?


----------



## peterloringborst

OK, so one of the complaints we here most often is that scientists are funded by industry so they can't be unbiased. I have been trying to generate support for beekeeper funded scientific work which would focus on your problems and bring solutions back to you. It would have to be funded by you. How about that? If you were paying the scientists to work on your problems, would that change the dynamic?


----------



## camero7

"OK, so one of the complaints we here most often is that scientists are funded by industry so they can't be unbiased. I have been trying to generate support for beekeeper funded scientific work which would focus on your problems and bring solutions back to you. It would have to be funded by you. How about that? If you were paying the scientists to work on your problems, would that change the dynamic? "

Not for those who already have their minds made up.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

camero7;532727
for those who already have their minds made up.[/QUOTE said:


> Shoot.... after following this thread I think I've lost my mind.


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> To my way of thinking, if there is no effect during the brood rearing period over one season, then that is _sufficient to show that there is no effect_. This has been shown by more than a half dozen studies done all over the world.


Wow. So you are _dismissing_ every possible solution to varroa that might take more than just one brood season to take effect? I'm afraid I don't consider that to be very scientifically open-minded (or even logical) in terms of searching for solutions, 'half a dozen _studies_' or not.
A _cure_ for mites (as in using a miticide to effect an immediate killing but temporary reduction of mites) is sometimes not the same thing as a _solution_, which might entail employing a combination of different ways of doing things. Solutions are sometimes not as obvious and immediate as cures. It seems to me that by their very nature some solutions would logically take more than one season to produce good results.


----------



## Deamiter

peterloringborst said:


> Why not? If it won't work in a year, when will it work? If the bees are dead after the trial, what will you try it on?


Hrm, my point has been missed! The problem is not that trying it for a year is not long enough, the problem is that there is no control group -- comparing the performance of two hives one year with one method to the same two hives the next year with another method proves nothing.


----------



## peterloringborst

Omie said:


> Wow. So you are _dismissing_ every possible solution to varroa that might take more than just one brood season to take effect?


I am not dismissing anything. But seriously, I have seen hives go from no mites to tons of mites to dead in one season. If the technique doesn't work the first season, the hive is dead. There is no second season to follow it on. Is this hard to fathom?


----------



## Deamiter

Being scientifically open-minded does not require one to throw out fact-based intuition! If you could show that a method had a cumulative effect over multiple years with an appropriately designed experiment, I have little doubt that Peter would be surprised but not utterly incredulous. He might (as is appropriate in science) want to see the experiment independently reproduced to ensure that it wasn't some other variable that was unaccounted for that really caused the improvement, but I doubt he'd reject it without a second thought!

What he's saying (as far as I can tell -- I'm not a mind-reader!) is that multiple studies of multiple methods have shown that a single year of brood rearing is generally enough to demonstrate efficacy of a method. Sure, some methods (certainly genetic manipulation!) will take longer, but varroa in particular breeds fast enough that they experience the majority of possible hive conditions (from nectar dearth to high-gear brood rearing etc...) in most years. Therefore, without some specific reasons (probably related to the details of a particular treatment?), an experiment over a single season with a sufficient number of hives, probably at more than one yard to avoid environmental anomalies, should show a result if the treatment is having an effect.


----------



## Oldbee

_"In my opinion, one of the chief obstacles, and I see this here at BeeSource on almost a daily basis, is a deep distrust of scientific researchers. I don't really know why this should be so pervasive in the beekeeping community, as most of the truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from have been made by scientists."--peter._

Yes, I often wonder about that too, and am offended by it actually. It may be related to a lack of opportunity/resentment by some, for the *lack of* advanced formal education and a feeling/idea that hands ["dirty hands",..] on experience is somehow superior. I studied/majored biology in college but never became a real scientist. I did work for two well known geneticists at the university W. and saw the work that they did, as well as the graduate students. Let me tell you, genetics is a complicated scientific discipline; it's not something you can learn overnight by reading a few 'popular' books about it, especially in regards to the genetics of honey bees.

A real biological scientist doing any kind of research needs a thorough regimen of course [graduate at that] work in biochemistry, physiology, organic chemistry, and cytogenetics before they can bring anything worthwhile to the table regarding biological scientific research. 

You may have been a beekeeper for for,.....20-30 years with all kinds of observations, but if you can't connect all the dots of past scientific knowledge of all those other disciplines, it may be meaningless.

One person that I am impressed with is Dr. Clarence Collison [and Tom Seeley] because of his articles in Bee Culture. With all his knowledge [expressed in articles at least] about the pheromones and all the biochemistry/genetics/physiology involved in beekeeping. Yes, a scientist today may become too specialized to 'see the forest for the trees', but I still trust them to guide the beekeeping world.

I think Deamiter summned it up pretty well for me.


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> I am not dismissing anything. But seriously, I have seen hives go from no mites to tons of mites to dead in one season. If the technique doesn't work the first season, the hive is dead. There is no second season to follow it on. Is this hard to fathom?


Hmm..._"if there is no effect during the brood rearing period over one season, then that is sufficient to show that there is no effect."_ sounds pretty dismissive to me.
Is it 'hard to fathom' that a beekeeper would use a certain approach and technique on all his/her hives and that many or even most of them might indeed die the first year but some stronger ones might survive and be split, repeating the process over several subsequent seasons until the management techniques are able to slowly turn the tide ? Why is _this_ hard to fathom? Seems rather logical to me. Like how eating nutritiously can improve one's health over time, not just after a month. 
Not everything in nature or even in science fits into neat slots for the convenience of a study. It seems to me that a scientist or researcher may perhaps be all too ready to conduct a study/experiment with a small number of hives and to declare the study conclusive, proven, and finished after just one cycle. They do want to publish their _results_, after all, and often there are funding time limits that require results within a clearly specified amount of time...correct?


----------



## peterloringborst

Let me make it plainer. 

Suppose YOU have cancer and the Doctor says with no treatment you will be dead in a few months. Your next door neighbor says he has heard of an all natural cure, but it may take a year. Will you want that? Or will you opt for chemotherapy, even if it means losing your hair and being sick as a dog?

Or even more to the point. Suppose you are among ten people with cancer who are invited to participate in an experimental treatment where probably only one will survive; the other 9 are sure to die. Would you sign up for that? Would you sign your own kid up for such a trial?

I see these so-called natural plans for mite control as being like that. You are expected to lose 90% of your bees, you are expected to go by Faith alone that because you are on a righteous (chemical free) path that Nature will become your ally and all will work out, if you let it.

Working with mites on numerous varroa research projects, I saw the same thing over and over. The mites built up to the critical point; then no amount of treatment would keep the bees from dying by Thanksgiving. No problems overwintering those bees! Already dead.


----------



## bigbearomaha

Ithink the point many other people are trying to make here Peter is that you aren't the only opinion and experience that matters.

Othes here have been part of apiaries that have hives with mites and are experimenting with various methods such as the 'live or let die" method you disdain so much and find in the long run, they see success. 

You run roughshod over the views of these others however because they aren't paid 'scientists' who find their work printed somewhere.

BTW, there are many people in this world who do indeed make that choice to live and let die in cases of cancer and other terminal disease for both themselves and their family. 

Not everyone in the world is afraid of death or allowing the natural course of things to go on as it may.

You are entitled to express your opinions, but your opinion isn't the only one that might be valid or worth discussing. Talking louder or non stop so that others have difficulty getting their points in doesn't make you a better presenter of information, it just shows you have trouble accepting what others have to say.

Big Bear


----------



## WLC

Bigbear:

Before I recently ran across the Maori paper, I would have agreed that the 'survivor' method of selecting for resistant strains was reasonable.

Now, after having seen the findings repeated, and having seen a connection between CCD and retrotransposition in the literature, I've had to do a complete 180 on the issue of selecting for survivors.

That's how science often works.


----------



## peterloringborst

Oldbee said:


> _ Let me tell you, genetics is a complicated scientific discipline; it's not something you can learn overnight by reading a few 'popular' books about it, especially in regards to the genetics of honey bees. _


_

Right. It is not like raising collies. I use this example: You have a hive that is doing great. You want to raise queens from that hive, and have more just like it. Well, it turns out that the workers in that hive have many different fathers and it may be that just this combination of bloodlines in this hive is what makes them so good. It's like a team where each player has special talents and the team clicks.

Now if you raise queens from this hive's eggs, you don't have any idea which bloodline you are getting. Then you put the queens out to mate and they cross with any number of other bloodlines. So the likelihood of the colonies you get from those daughters being like the parent hive -- is pretty close to zero. In order to raise a particular sort of bee you have to have a lot more control over the lines, and then of course you run the risk of inbreeding and the resultant failure of eggs to hatch.

All this is common knowledge among queen breeders, who are producing the majority of the queens in the country. Your so-called feral stock is mostly escaped commercial bees. It has no special qualities any more than your average mutt from the local dog pound. Some people suggest that pound puppies make the best dogs, but I think it's just another myth. There are many breeds of dogs that are good for this or that quality, but mutts are just mutts.

Anyway, it seems that everybody is the expert these days, with their own pet theories. And these same people have contempt for real experts in the field of Apiculture, suggesting that all they care about is landing grants and keeping their labs busy. This winter I flew to Orlando at my own expense and sat in on two full days of expert presentations. There were a few that were dull, due to lack of charisma on the part of the presenter, but almost every single presentation taught me something I didn't know._


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> Let me make it plainer.
> 
> Suppose YOU have cancer
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Or even more to the point. Suppose you are among ten people with cancer


I can't follow an example that compares humans to insects. Doesn't work for me. I'll let insects die if it means in the long run they will live without treatments. Wouldn't do the same for a person. We're talking bugs here.


----------



## peterloringborst

Whenever I get into these conversations, I think of George Imirie, the author of _George's PINK PAGES _. He wrote:



> Our bees are MANAGED by the up-to-date findings of our bee scientists and we have changed our management techniques with each new PROVEN finding. Since I founded the present Montgomery County Beekeepers Association 18 years ago, this is what I have been continually trying to teach you the necessary management techniques to be a successful beekeeper since the introduction of the tracheal mite in 1984, the varroa mite in 1987, the Africanized Honey Bee in 1990 which has badly frightened the American public with the "killer" bee, PMS (parasitic Mite Syndrome in 1995), the small hive beetle in 1998, and resistant American Foul brood in 2000. I am very pleased in the performance of many of our 150+ members, but very upset by some of our NON LEARNING procrastinators.
> 
> So many people just don't understand we scientists who drove our mothers "nuts" by asking "why" about everything and anything, and when you get to my ancient age, you are STILL TRYING TO LEARN WHAT IS NEW EACH DAY! The day that I stop trying to LEARN, you can find me at Pumphrey's Funeral Home. Bet you did not know that Bob Pumphrey, now dead, was my roommate back in the 30's at Massanutten Military Academy in Woodstock, Virginia, and my father learned beekeeping from my letters to him and became a fine beekeeper who didn't stop until he turned 90.


Rest in Peace, George!


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> Or even more to the point. Suppose you are among ten people with cancer who are invited to participate in an experimental treatment where probably only one will survive; the other 9 are sure to die. Would you sign up for that? Would you sign your own kid up for such a trial?


Are you serious? I would not compare choices concerning the death of my hives to the death of my child. For goodness sakes.

Say you are interested in trying a couple different methods of beekeeping, and you have some ideas you want to try out that you believe might be worthwhile. You have some hives, you lose half or most or even all, but it's not unusual to make splits or get new packages and build back up again. Usually there _are_ some survivors to build back with. People do it every day, you can't compare that to them deciding whether their child is going to get cancer treatment or be allowed to die. The average beekeeper loss last winter was now what, 33% I read? Beekeepers losing bees is pretty common these days, so why not try some different methods on a modest scale? Michael Bush and Sam Comfort seem to be doing it successfully.



> I see these so-called natural plans for mite control as being like that. You are expected to lose 90% of your bees, you are expected to go by Faith alone that because you are on a righteous (chemical free) path that Nature will become your ally and all will work out, if you let it.


No one is 'expected' to do anything- people freely choose to try new things if they want to and they know there are risks. There are also risks in not trying new things. Some beekeepers are losing 50-90% of their hives anyway, despite using standard methods and treatments. And besides, if you start by getting bees from those who have used these non-standard methods for a while already, and you merely continue them, you would _not_ likely be 'expected' to lose 90% of your bees the first year.

Peter, when you use terms like 'so-called natural', 'righteous', 'debunked' (which implies bunk to begin with), 'myth', etc... don't you see how these choices of words inevitably cause a negative reaction from those whose methods you label this way? And then you post about how you are puzzled by the defensive reactions you get from others. I wince regularly when I read your posts- not so much from _what_ you say (I agree with quite a few of your ideas and thoughts, not that I'm any expert for sure), but most often because of your derogatory and patronizing choices of words. I am convinced you must feel they are merely accurate terms and you don't give them a second thought or see them as offensive in the least. But they jump put at me as being offensive towards some. As long as you keep demeaning others' methods (methods that are apparently successful for them) while telling them how they are merely promoting 'myths' while you 'inform' them of what The Scientific Facts are, you will continue to drum up more negative reactions to your threads. If that's what you want, then fine. But you wondered about why, so I'm presenting my view for you to consider.



> Working with mites on numerous varroa research projects, I saw the same thing over and over. The mites built up to the critical point; then no amount of treatment would keep the bees from dying by Thanksgiving. No problems overwintering those bees! Already dead.


'Saw the same thing over and over'? Were these research projects set up using what you call 'standard' beekeeping methods by any chance? "No amount of treatment would keep the bees from dying"?- hey, maybe _all those treatments_ killed them!  ..._just kidding_. 
Is it possible that too many research studies are performed starting from the same premise over and over, recreating the very same methods and scenarios that are currently failing to prevent varroa from taking over already weakened bees? Why would anyone expect a different result without a significantly different approach altogether? Such an approach reminds me of the classic definition of insanity.
I may be off base about _your particular research projects_- I don't know the details of them. But I'm speaking generally.

In life, I tend to feel that if the current approach to something is just not working for whatever reasons, then maybe it's time for a whole new approach from a different angle altogether.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> Working with mites on numerous varroa research projects, I saw the same thing over and over. The mites built up to the critical point; then no amount of treatment would keep the bees from dying by Thanksgiving. No problems overwintering those bees! Already dead.


Yeah, kinda like that, except a few made it and those were the ones that started the build back up. Only had to go through the crash once. There is life after the crash.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> but almost every single presentation taught me something I didn't know.


I find this to happen as well when I visit a beekeeper and spend time talking with them over ice tea or a beer.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> Whenever I get into these conversations, I think of George Imirie, the author of _George's PINK PAGES _.


I found George to be fairly condescending and arrogant in his writing. Always preached the "party line."


----------



## Countryboy

_I have been trying to generate support for beekeeper funded scientific work which would focus on your problems and bring solutions back to you. It would have to be funded by you. How about that? If you were paying the scientists to work on your problems, would that change the dynamic? _

Absolutely not, because they are still spending someone else's money. It doesn't matter whose teat they are sucking - the problem is they are still attached to a teat. 

What you fail to recognize is that we already have beekeeper funded scientific work that focuses on our problems and brings solutions to beekeepers. It is called doing it ourselves. Every time a beekeeper tries an off-label chemical to control pests or disease, they are conducting beekeeper funded scientific research.

These so-called scientists who you are trying to generate support for, are they willing to put their money where their mouth is? Would they work for a beekeeper of a percentage of the profits they generate, but at the same time, would those scientists be willing to pay the expense of losses incurred during their research?

When beekeepers experiment, we pay our own way. If we make things worse, we pay that extra cost too. We accept this risk for the potential reward of increased profits.

_Suppose YOU have cancer and the Doctor says with no treatment you will be dead in a few months. Your next door neighbor says he has heard of an all natural cure, but it may take a year. Will you want that? Or will you opt for chemotherapy, even if it means losing your hair and being sick as a dog?_

Doctors practice. If they knew what they were doing, they wouldn't be practicing.

I'd opt for the natural cure over chemo any day of the week. 

My Aunt has cancer. She has worked her whole life in a lab at the local hospital. She has seen the effects of chemo and radiation therapy. She has seen first hand how people succomb to cancer when they do chemo or radiation, and how long they are able to live when they eat right, and try homeopathic remedies, and are able to keep up their strength to fight cancer. Your own body is better at fighting cancer than chemo, radiation, or surgery. Your best chance of survival is doing everything you can to keep your strength. Chemo, radiation, and surgery all weaken you.

_I see these so-called natural plans for mite control as being like that. You are expected to lose 90% of your bees, you are expected to go by Faith alone that because you are on a righteous (chemical free) path that Nature will become your ally and all will work out, if you let it._

This is agriculture Peter, and agricultural endeavors require faith. We have faith when we put seeds in the ground. We have faith the weather will cooperate. We have faith our livestock will be able to survive.

Oh ye of little faith...

_Working with mites on numerous varroa research projects, I saw the same thing over and over. The mites built up to the critical point; then no amount of treatment would keep the bees from dying by Thanksgiving. No problems overwintering those bees! Already dead. _

Ever consider the possibility the problem was in the research project, or the people running the research projects?

Try this one. Get seeds from every strain of corn, bean, tomato, or vegetable crop of your choice. Go plant them on the black asphalt parking lot. If the seeds germinate, the sprout quickly withers and dies. To change things up, go plant the same varieties of seeds in the middle of the Atacama desert. Or try planting them at the South Pole.

See? Test after test - irrefutable scientific evidence that you can't grow food crops from seeds.

In the meantime, farmers dismiss those scientific studies as the work of college educated idiots, and the farmers observe the fruits of their own labors. They have faith when they plant the seeds, and they harvest a crop. Their observations are quite different than the scientists observations.


----------



## devdog108

Great point CB....and the beer theory....wel, heck, I have solved the countries debts 3 different ways from Sunday sitting by the hives , drinkin a smooth cold beer and just watching.....


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> I found George to be fairly condescending and arrogant in his writing. Always preached the "party line."


Well, there you have it. George is one of my heroes. Guess that's why people don't like me either.


----------



## Omie

And I learn about 5 new bee things every time I visit this forum.

I took a two day beekeeping class locally, taught by an 83 year old BK who could still lift those 10 frame deeps (!). The first couple of hours of slides and lectures, I thought to myself jeez, he's not telling me anything I don't already know, maybe I wasted my money. But as time passed, I began to learn interesting things and I thought his methods were very cool (hmm, except for the routine _preventative_ medicating maybe). I plan to use his top entrance shim method once my hives build up more. He was interesting and had studied BK methods of AHB in Costa Rica. I learned all kinds of unusual stuff, and got to ask him lots of obscure type questions. Life is all about learning new things.  My father was a physicist and I think I got my insatiable craving for learning new stuff from him. At 11 I was reading Henri Fabre and Edwin Way Teale while my friends were reading Mary poppins and Pippi Longstocking. Sorry to digress, but I'm still hopelessly drunk on my new hives!


----------



## devdog108

people dont dislike you Peter....they just want you to see their points. You have much to teach....


----------



## Deamiter

Countryboy said:


> Ever consider the possibility the problem was in the research project, or the people running the research projects?
> 
> ...
> 
> See? Test after test - irrefutable scientific evidence that you can't grow food crops from seeds.
> 
> In the meantime, farmers dismiss those scientific studies as the work of college educated idiots, and the farmers observe the fruits of their own labors. They have faith when they plant the seeds, and they harvest a crop. Their observations are quite different than the scientists observations.


Wow, what a way to treat a group of people who are devoting their lives to understanding and solving problems you have! You don't have to like researchers to avoid painting them all as incompetent, worthless parasites! 

Have you visited the USDA bee labs or university research groups? What methods or experiments were akin to trying to grow seeds in asphalt? Perhaps it would be more productive to criticize specific research that you find lacking (a vital part of the scientific method) rather than simply insulting all scientists because one guy who defends them on a message board got you riled up?

You repeatedly insult scientists suggesting that they are unable to set up a proper experiment, and would be unwilling to make sacrifices for their work, but you not once suggest any way that commercial beekeepers have a better way to learn the details of how to best work with bee biology and communicate this to the broader beekeeping community for review, criticism and (hopefully) validation by the entire community!

The procedures and results from scientific experiments are written up in detailed papers showing what was controlled, what was done, and why the conclusions are valid. Some experiments are poorly designed, but when they are it is clear from the literature. I've heard many strong and conflicting proclamations thrown out about how one method or another is the BEST way to keep bees, but I rarely see people outside of research groups carefully backing up their claims with published methods and results. When I do see this, I rejoice -- it's not easy to learn to do science, but anybody with a notebook, an open mind and a lot of patience can advance our understanding of the world around us!


----------



## dickm

Pete,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. One of the great things about this site is that there is a great leveling that occurs when one signs in. All posters become equal. There's nothing else like it, but there's a dark side. I don't get over here that often but it would be a loss to Beesource if you left. I teach about bees a lot. I'm on the fence about touting this site to the newbees for the reasons you mention. More experienced beekeepers can seperate out the chaff.
I sort of straddle the abyss.When I write about bees, I try to bring home science...or commercial beekeeping...to those who don't have the luxury of reading about bees all day. I have several masters degrees but, not in bees, in psychology. I do understand how a study is put together. That old "placebo effect," you know. 
The fault lines here occur between faith and reason. I worried this in an article, posted on this site, titled "Anecdotal Evidence." I tried to make the point that something need not be scientifically arrived at to be effective. I'm not sure but I suspect that Thymol was perhaps found effective by a beekeeper. Oregano is enroute. Who thought of that?
A case in which this did not work out would be the faith I had in FGMO. All my hives went straight to the happy hunting (foraging?) ground. FGMO has no credibility anymore but it died slowly and I'd bet a few are still using it. I killed more bees with small cell. 

>>>>Quote: The whole CCD thing started when a Pennsylvania beekeeper contacted a Pennsylvania scientist, looking for help. The researcher took him seriously and enlisted the aid of countless other scientists, and have produced the large body of work on CCD.

The poster asked:>>>>What year was this?
Do we have any solution to the problem?
Have they bothered to call me when presented with my solution?<<<<

The year was 2007. I was there with Dennis van Englesdorp and Dave Hackenberg and other scientists. Dave H., with his beekeeper hands, lost no time in bringing in science. We don't know what causes it....but we know what doesn't and that helps. That information has been available. For an example of an experiment that proved nothing, he irradiated a thousand boxes of comb. (don't quote me on the #), No results were seen.

For those of you who think one can do science with intuition, I have a challange. It's obvious, I think we'll agree, that if you have one hive and treat it a certain way...say putting ground parsnips on the top bars, that one hive proves nothing. An effect with 2 or 3 hives could be just chance. A hundred hives would obviously prove something. (With another equal group untreated, for comparison). The basic science question is: how many do you need to start with to prove something works?

dickm

Thinking: I'm not a scientist but I could play one on TV.


----------



## Deamiter

dickm said:


> For an example of an experiment that proved nothing, he irradiated a thousand boxes of comb. (don't quote me on the #), No results were seen.


I'm with you Dickm -- a laser physicist who works in industry and just loves the bees for being bees.

I STRONGLY disagree with your analysis of the results of this experiment. The irradiation of a thousand boxes of comb had a very useful result showing that irradiating thousands of boxes of comb has no measurable effect (on whatever was being measured).

A "failed" experiment (one that doesn't give you the outcome you were hoping for) hardly "proves nothing" and is never useless! If NOTHING else (and usually if an experiment is set up right, you learn something useful no matter what the result) you can stop musing over whatever method you now know is ineffective!


----------



## Countryboy

_but you not once suggest any way that commercial beekeepers have a better way to learn the details of how to best work with bee biology *and communicate this to the broader beekeeping community for review, criticism and (hopefully) validation by the entire community!*_

What does THAT have to do with the price of rice in China? It doesn't.

Money talks, and BS walks.

I gave examples of commercial beekeepers (Allen Dick, Keith Jarrett) who found what worked best for them. They funded their research out of their own pocket. They earn their rewards by using their product to make them money. Heck, look at The Honey Householder's operation. Pests and diseases are NOT an issue in his operation.

Review, criticism, and validation are subjective things that DON'T generate profits. They are the feel good fluff; popularity contest crap that is emotion based - and that doesn't pay the bills.

You also bring up 'how to best work with bee biology'. Once again, more subjective theory that is NOT objective. Objective results are what keeps the beekeeper's operation profitable. That is what works best for the beekeeper's operation.


----------



## Allen Dick

> One of the great things about this site is that there is a great leveling that occurs when one signs in. All posters become equal. 

I will agree that all posters may _seem_ equal, especially where pseudonyms are common and writing skills define the writer but some have done their homework, made a life in bees and spent time with bees in their own yards and in other countries and read many books and studies -- and some are just good writers, posers and can tell stories of the sort and in the way that people want to hear. 

To the uninitiated, it can be very hard to tell the difference. Pointing that out can be futile and pointless. People will believe what they want. And attitude is everywhere.

Some of the smartest people I have met are illiterate, or nearly so. On the other hand, some of the best writers I have met are more creative than factual.

What does this have to do with the Ideal Beekeeper's World? 

In a Perfect World, everyone would read Larry Connor's books and The Hive and The Honey Bee and therefore our bees would not have to unteach us all the stuff most beeginers seem to pick up from romantic and creative beekeeping books and magazine articles.

BTW, thanks, Countryboy, for the kind words, but I must confess that my choices were based on work by published scientists over the years and confirmed by a scientist recently as well. I also keep several bee nutrition books at hand, also written by scientists who have spent their lives learning how to feed insects. I understand the frustration many feel about what scientists seem to be doing and also by what seem not to be doing, but when I get a chance to speak with them, and I know many on a first name basis, I can understand that they are working from a different knowledge base than most people and therefore their perspective is different. I think we can all name some people who have made an impact recently. 

I'm going to name only a few, but John Harbo, Tom Rinderer and his crew (too many to name), Jay Evans, Marla Spivak, (I see I am never going to complete this very long list without leaving out many deserving people, so apologies to the rest...)

These are very good people with a great deal of bee knowledge and dedication. I know many work far beyond the hours for which they are paid. Their bee suits are clean because when I do bump into them in the field and I do see them working in bee yards across the US and Canada, they are often not wearing bee suits, and often not veils.


----------



## devdog108

I think that many of the people who are irritated on here have a reason to be. THe hard work that many of you do, scientific or not, generates critisizm. The operations that do not treat or run chems have been considered "anomolies"...which I find interesting. How many scientists can tell me when they went and studied these anomolies? Why are they anomolies, How long have they been these anomilies? Why is what they are doing working? How many of the regualr beeks can keep an open mind to what the scietific community has and will continue to do and the efforts they put forth?

Its come down to pride.....When you take an operation like Barnett Apiares, Fat/Beemans Operations, MB's operations and run them chem free...then have someone else say NOOOOOOOOO you have to run chems......what do you do as a new beek?

I have read and listened to arguments on both sides and for once I agreed with CountryBoy..lol...But i do see where the scietific community comes into fact here too. The pride that everyone shares as beeks runs high.

To me its not about money, no matter what my wife will tell you...LOL. But in reality, we are all here for the same purpose. Problem being, you can't be in the middle on a discussion like this or you get lambasted from both sides. Science told my granddaddy when to plant his garden(this was an actual study done by UTK)....and he just laughed. He said I'll tell you what. You take 2 acres and plant and I'll take my 2 acres and plant when i want to, and lets see who has the better garden....and so they did. Years this went on. I know I was there every year..LOL. For the life of the guys at UTK, they could not duplicate his success in his garden until they listened to him.....and he explained how timing and seedlings were passed from generation to generation, each row planted at different times and the why's...and maintenace and everything else

Point being here guys is that science does play a deep role in everday things that we do. Where people get offended is when someone calls the average Joes and says...hey dont you have a Ford Truck? You say...Nope..have a toyota. They in turn say...well, you need a Ford and I know you have one....almost to the point of insisting that they do indeed have a ford....when that toyota sits in the driveway. Now why is that? They know what they are doing.....BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING IT!!!!

When i was asked if i would treat and I said no...i got hammered and hammered hard. Even as a 1st year beek, I got lambasted by quite a few on this very forum. Was told...good luck with that, your gonna lose it all, why even bother.....dont come crying to us.....WOW is what i said to myself....but not a single person explained to me why, and when i asked the why's. people got offended.....who are you to question me you 1st year beek.......LOL....COME ON.....why can't I question....its how i LEARN.

Why in the heck would i listen? I am 2nd year beek now and SO MANY Of you have taught me many things, but NOONE seems to want to swallow their pride and admit when they plausibly could be wrong. I am wrong all the time(ask my wife) but i know one thing. I have a great passion and fire to spend money on bugs that try to hurt me whenever i feel like going into their home.....and you know what, I may lose them all, I might. But this who's right and who's wrong......there is no right and there is no wrong when it comes to things like this guys and ladies(if you are indeed a Lady)

Wake up to the new people around you. I have NO desire to listen to this argument any more. Both sides have points and very valid ones. These guys that run small cell and are chem free have something going.......which i think is awesome. The Russian Hybrids have something going....which is awesome. and some....well, they are just anomolies....but it works. Ok, so small cell has been debunked...great, grand...YIPPEEE....then why is it working for some. Thats what i want to know. There is a reason....maybe its selective breeding on queens, maybe its that survivor trait. Man, if i wasn't a stay at home dad, I would ask to come shadow many of you in your own yards....which is also what i wish the scietists would do too. I know what they find....the findings are published....

For the first time since i Found BS, i did not point a new beek here the other day....toooooooo much pride involved.


----------



## WLC

There are no experts of the molecular parasites in the Honeybee. It's a new discovery.

Peter, I'm betting on the the 'Big Bang' at this point.


----------



## bigbearomaha

This will be my last post here as well. To a degree, Iagree with countryboy's post as well.

All in all, to me, to discussion about treatment of 'scientists' still comes down to how and who you define as a scientist'.

There are those who who insist that you must be published, degreed and funded to be a 'real' scientist and there are others ( myself) who suggest that since the beginning of modern 'science' that anyone with the dedication to follow the practices and principles of the scientific method are 'real' scientists, regardless of how they make their money.

Many of the folks here don't give a lot of credibility to the published and paid scientists, regarding them as ivory tower, egotistical, holier than thou types who act as though they are saving the world. At the same time, Anyone here can point to published scientists whose 'facts' and studies have been turned upside down in a short time by new studies and new 'facts'.

I consider myself a scientist. I follow the the scientific method closely. My degree is as a computer network technician/administrator. 

I have great respect for any person with the discipline and the determination to follow through with local experimentation and then sharing that information with others on places like this for the benefit of others to see what they have learned even though, as countryboy mentioned, they did all the gruntwork, and they paid all the bills yet they come to places like BeeSource and share freely their learning anyway for the benefit of bees and those of us who have a passion for bees.

I et again invite 'self employed scientists' who would like to work together and document their studies in a place that is made for such discussion to help me with the Honey Bee Science network.

Then the 'field' scientists I mention will be able to 'publish' their work and have it duplicated by others like them.

Big Bear


----------



## dickm

Deamiter said,

>>>>I STRONGLY disagree with your analysis of the results of this experiment. The irradiation of a thousand boxes of comb had a very useful result showing that irradiating thousands of boxes of comb has no measurable effect (on whatever was being measured).

A "failed" experiment (one that doesn't give you the outcome you were hoping for) hardly "proves nothing" and is never useless! If NOTHING else (and usually if an experiment is set up right, you learn something useful no matter what the result) you can stop musing over whatever method you now know is ineffective!<<<<<<

Of course you are right and thanks for pointing it out. What I was trying to say is that it didn't produce any clues to follow up. It did sort of rule out any biological entity that would be infectious. When we picked up the boxes at the irradiation site there was a scientist and a beekeeper in the truck. (Dennis E and Dave H.) As a follow-up, (some years later) scientist/beekeeper Randy Oliver has a way of "innoculating" a colony so that it will perish with CCD. I think his site is "Scientificbeekeeping.com."

Allen,
I didn't mean to imply that all posters WERE equal, just that they are given equal time, I guess. It's a virtual world, if a little humbling.

One of the flaws in thinking on this site is that there is one solution, if only we could find it. We actually need several solutions. One for bees that live in truckloads of colonies, constantly on the move and another for stationary hives. It is naive to think that one could develop a bee in a quiet corner and transfer that bee to the middle of 1,000 colony drop-yard. As Allen will testify, it requires a different bee to winter in the cold. The sissy bees that must winter in Fl or Tx. wouldn't make it. These are the bees that are most popular for commercial use. In other words, the success in "not treating" may not transfer.

dickm


----------



## Deamiter

Countryboy said:


> What does THAT have to do with the price of rice in China? It doesn't.
> 
> Money talks, and BS walks.
> 
> I gave examples of commercial beekeepers (Allen Dick, Keith Jarrett) who found what worked best for them. They funded their research out of their own pocket. They earn their rewards by using their product to make them money. Heck, look at The Honey Householder's operation. Pests and diseases are NOT an issue in his operation.
> 
> Review, criticism, and validation are subjective things that DON'T generate profits. They are the feel good fluff; popularity contest crap that is emotion based - and that doesn't pay the bills.
> 
> You also bring up 'how to best work with bee biology'. Once again, more subjective theory that is NOT objective. Objective results are what keeps the beekeeper's operation profitable. That is what works best for the beekeeper's operation.


I'm afraid I don't know much about rice in China, so I'll leave that for now.

I have absolutely no doubt that commercial beekeepers are making great advances in beekeeping in the pursuit of profits. As you say, there are beekeepers that claim to have no problems with pests and diseases, and if true, that's a great advancement! However, without communication and validation of the methods, those discoveries are worthless to anybody but the guy who holds the secret.

Without reproduction of a controlled experiment, you can THINK you know that a particular method is giving you great success and you can tell all your friends over a beer how it works, but it could be something else entirely that actually generates the results!

I have great respect for people who actually make things work -- I work with dozens of PhDs that have great ideas but who couldn't care less about implementation, largely because they lack the skills to actually build robust systems. I get that commercial beekeepers are making stuff work every day, but if they can't or won't prove what it is that is working, and do "feel-good crap" like communicating it to others, their hard work is worthless to anybody but themselves.

Maybe that's the way some people like it, but most beekeepers I know are far above that and would MUCH rather educate others than keep secrets for themselves. Researchers put much more emphasis on rigor and careful control of experiments where commercial beekeepers are primarily focused on profits. We need both, and the larger community of beekeepers can't throw out detailed communication and validation any more than it can do without professionals in the trenches without losing valuable assets.

Without careful scientists (degreed or not!) who validate theories and publish results, anybody looking for an improvement to their practice has to reinvent the wheel. Without full-time beekeepers, you lose the practical experience of what's worked for years, even if it's not always clear why or how things have worked.

Not sure why either group is dismissed by the other, or why it's assumed that beekeepers can't be both good scientists and profitable businessmen at the same time!


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Deamiter said:


> However, without communication and validation of the methods, those discoveries are worthless to anybody but the guy who holds the secret.


Well, Mega Bee (Tucson bee deit) was that not funded by tax dollars then it comes with a Patent? Am I right to believe this is correct?

Nutra-Bee was field tested (survey) by the USDA bee lab (Jeff Pedis group ) it avg 5 times more brood than the other subs.

So there is documentation of private lables, and as far as being "worthless" tell that to the beekeepers that use nutra-Bee.


----------



## Allen Dick

> One of the flaws in thinking on this site is that there is one solution, if only we could find it. We actually need several solutions. One for bees that live in truckloads of colonies, constantly on the move and another for stationary hives. It is naive to think that one could develop a bee in a quiet corner and transfer that bee to the middle of 1,000 colony drop-yard. As Allen will testify, it requires a different bee to winter in the cold. The sissy bees that must winter in Fl or Tx. wouldn't make it. These are the bees that are most popular for commercial use. In other words, the success in "not treating" may not transfer.


Tha sums it up nicely. IMO, these discussions would be more pleasant and constructive is we all tried to see how we agree and why we differ on some points rather than simply disagreeing.



> Nutra-Bee was field tested (survey) by the USDA bee lab (Jeff Pedis group ) it avg 5 times more brood than the other subs.


That sounds physically impossible to me. Is it just how you phrase it? What exactly is "5 times more brood" and how do you exceed the bee's natural limits, which are often achieved on most supplements?


----------



## WLC

Most of the groundbreaking research that I'm aware of can only be done in an institutional setting.

There's no way that a beekeeper would have access to the types of resources and equipment that would be required to discover retrotransposons in the bee genome, nor would the average beekeeper have a clue as to how to search the Honeybee genome data base to discover that these are brand new discoveries.

Do you see my point?

However, there's usually some point where these discoveries can be applied by those in the field, like beekeepers.

Research scientists and beekeepers aren't 'equals', they are at different ends of a long established process: discovery and application.


----------



## peterloringborst

> it requires a different bee to winter in the cold. The sissy bees that must winter in Fl or Tx. wouldn't make it. These are the bees that are most popular for commercial use. In other words, the success in "not treating" may not transfer.


Well spoken by someone who hasn't kept bees in the north. We don't use different bees in the north and the south of the US. That's nonsense. Bees have been moving back and forth for centuries and there aren't special northern bees and inferior southern bees. 

The bees of the US evolved in temperate Europe and are capable of withstanding a typical winter up to a certain latitude. Farther north sheds are used. 

I have personally run bees for years that were raised in Georgia. These winter just as well as mongrels from the woods. The idea that bees could acclimate to a region in a few decades is proof of complete ignorance of how evolution and acclimation work, most especially as applied to honey bees.

Furthermore, I personally find the expression "sissy" to be offensive, as it implies that sisters are somehow weaker than real men. That kind of talk is not welcome in a modern non-sexist world.


----------



## Deamiter

peterloringborst said:


> Furthermore, I personally find the expression "sissy" to be offensive, as it implies that sisters are somehow weaker than real men. That kind of talk is not welcome in a modern non-sexist world.


Wait, wherever have you found a modern, non-sexist world???:lookout:


----------



## Deamiter

Keith Jarrett said:


> Well, Mega Bee (Tucson bee deit) was that not funded by tax dollars then it comes with a Patent? Am I right to believe this is correct?


From your wording, it sounds like you're trying to contradict what I said. Are you under the impression that scientists never patent their work or try to profit from their discoveries?


> So there is documentation of private lables, and as far as being "worthless" tell that to the beekeepers that use nutra-Bee.


Not at all sure why you're assuming I meant all private labels are worthless, I certainly said no such thing! If their effect has been well documented and they're being shared, those working on the product are doing science. That's not an insult by the way!

At the same time, there are many poorly documented methods (using small cell foundation for example) that have been shown to be worthless for the claimed effect after careful experiments. If there's nothing more than a few claims of success by folks who can't be bothered to isolate a few variables, their success is as likely as not to be due to an unrelated variable.

I will never claim that all undocumented and unpublished methods are worthless -- they're not! I'm just saying that on careful review (by somebody doing science, whether in a lab or in an apiary), a significant portion of these solutions from the trenches turn out to be nothing more than a bad case of confirmation bias (i.e. seeing a positive effect that isn't really there because you want your great new method to solve your problems).


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Allen Dick said:


> That sounds physically impossible to me. Is it just how you phrase it? What exactly is "5 times more brood" and how do you exceed the bee's natural limits, which are often achieved on most supplements?


Well it was measure in CM, by the USDA Jeff Pesis group in Calif. I Will put up a attachment that has the chart from them that I have.

BWT, all subs are not the same not even close.


----------



## peterloringborst

Deamiter said:


> Wait, wherever have you found a modern, non-sexist world???:lookout:


In the scientific research community, especially honey bee research. Most of the top flight scientists studying bees in the US are women.


----------



## WLC

3 of my mentors (for Genetics and Bioenergetics) were women. God bless em.

But, what does this have to do with 'an ideal beekeeper's world' ? :scratch:


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> 3 of my mentors (for Genetics and Bioenergetics) were women. God bless em.
> 
> But, what does this have to do with 'an ideal beekeeper's world' ? :scratch:


I started this thread with the premise:


> One of the chief obstacles, and I see this here at BeeSource on almost a daily basis, is a deep distrust of scientific researchers. I don't really know why this should be so pervasive in the beekeeping community, as most of the truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from have been made by scientists.


So that is really the topic. Does the good ole boy network owe nothing to these tireless researchers, many of them women? You would think to listen to them, beekeepers invented everything themselves, made all the major discoveries, but somehow neglected to get the patents and somebody else got rich.

Ironically, that did happen to Langstroth. It was Dadant and Root, real US entrepreneurs that made the bee industry what it is. Later came researchers and educators like Pellet, E F Phillips, Anna Comstock, Annie Betts, Eva Crane, Roger Morse, etc. who made discoveries, brought research to the public, etc.

This last name, Roger Morse, was oft criticized for not owning a bunch of hives (he had a few) but he did more to promote bee research and researchers than anyone of his generation. The list of people who studied with him at the Dyce Lab is a Who's Who of Bee Research of the fifties through the seventies. 

Now there are many great minds working with the honey bee. Dave Tarpy, Christina Grozinger, Dennis vanEngelsdorp, Sue Cobey ...


----------



## Countryboy

_However, without communication and validation of the methods, those discoveries are worthless to anybody but the guy who holds the secret._

And the problem with that is? The benefits of the discovery are the reward. It may be nice and kind for that guy who made a breakthrough discovery to share their secret, but nice and kind don't pay the bills.

Whether or not you like it, we like in a capitalist world. Many folks are even greedy. That's life.

_Without reproduction of a controlled experiment, you can THINK you know that a particular method is giving you great success and you can tell all your friends over a beer how it works, but it could be something else entirely that actually generates the results!_

Yep, and scientists try to do controlled experiments. I hate to state the obvious, but beekeepers don't keep bees in controlled environments in sanitary labs. We keep bees out in the real world.

_Maybe that's the way some people like it, but most beekeepers I know are far above that and would MUCH rather educate others than keep secrets for themselves._

Far above that? Are you suggesting folks have a moral obligation to disclose their discoveries, so others may benefit also? 

_Not sure why either group is dismissed by the other, or why it's assumed that beekeepers can't be both good scientists and profitable businessmen at the same time! _

Beekeepers CAN be good scientists and profitable entrepreneurs. The difference is scientific beekeepers are funding their experiments with their own money, whereas the scientists are wanting to fund their experiments with someone else's money. 

_Nutra-Bee was field tested (survey) by the USDA bee lab (Jeff Pedis group ) it avg 5 times more brood than the other subs.

So there is documentation of private lables, and as far as being "worthless" tell that to the beekeepers that use nutra-Bee. _

Keith, are you suggesting that nutra-bee was developed and funded by your personal pocketbook?

Am I correct in assuming that you tested nutra-bee formulas on your own bees, rather than testing it on bees someone else owned? You personally benefitted, but didn't tell everyone else the secret recipe, so they could experience the same benefits?

And now you sell Nutra-bee, and help support your family with the profits?

You greedy capitalist beekeeper...

Good job. :thumbsup:


----------



## Deamiter

peterloringborst said:


> In the scientific research community, especially honey bee research. Most of the top flight scientists studying bees in the US are women.


... and you are claiming that a woman-dominated field cannot be sexist?


----------



## Deamiter

Countryboy, I am having a very hard time understanding why you come at me with such a condescending tone! I do not have a problem with capitalism, especially trade secrets or patents etc... Much of my job involves giving my company a competitive edge over others, and in the process I help people all over the world by developing technologies that make their work easier or cheaper, and are sold at the highest price the market will bear!

I have to admit, I don't see a benefit to such an attitude in beekeeping, however. The US market for honey is far above what US beekeepers can produce, and the dumping of cheap, contaminated honey from China where it is often considered an unwanted byproduct of beekeeping puts a huge amount of pressure on US beekeepers.

I have absolutely no issue with a beekeeper who thinks they can make more money by keeping their methods secret, or, more plausibly, by patenting and/or selling a method or device. No, I see no moral imperative to share secrets (wherever did you get that idea?) Sharing benefits the entire community (most importantly from my point of view, it benefits me) and encourages a culture of open dissemination of ideas. That's the whole point of patent laws, but I won't run THAT far off topic here.

I guess I just haven't had enough contact with commercial beekeepers to realize that US beekeepers compete with each other to the point that it's more profitable for them to keep any discoveries secret rather than to benefit from a mutual sharing of ways to combat all the problems bees face these days. That doesn't at all mean I don't understand or approve of such a practice -- the company I work for shares almost nothing but final products! I just didn't realize a cut-throat culture was common in large-scale beekeeping as you seem to suggest.


----------



## peterloringborst

Deamiter said:


> ... and you are claiming that a woman-dominated field cannot be sexist?


Of course not. It is not dominated by anyone, so far as I know. The fact that there are many women shows that there is interest, opportunity, and success available to them as well as men. Beekeeping was long dominated by men. 

At one time it was assumed that that big bee, you know the one, was a King. What a bummer when they figured out that in bee society the men are freeloading studs, the younger females do all the work, and Mater is boss.


----------



## WLC

Peter:

Thanks for the history lesson.

However, I think that after beekeepers managed to gather more pests and pathogens in their hives than thought humanly possible, the reaction they received from the scientific community when they asked for 'a cure' may have tested their humor:

http://www.chiefhomeofficer.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/you-want-it-when-cartoon.jpg


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> This last name, Roger Morse, was oft criticized for not owning a bunch of hives (he had a few) but he did more to promote bee research and researchers than anyone of his generation. The list of people who studied with him at the Dyce Lab is a Who's Who of Bee Research of the fifties through the seventies.


My older daughter studied under Morse at Cornell, and later worked as his research assistant in the bee dept, until he died.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Countryboy said:


> _Keith, are you suggesting that nutra-bee was developed and funded by your personal pocketbook?
> :_


_

Yes CB, self funded would be correct.

CB, I will get some of the USDA charts up here soon, it will blow your mind the amount of brood that nutra-bee puts up on the chart compared to the others.

Also, the owner of the bees runs over twenty thousand hives and sends them to Lyle Johnston which control about 50,000 hives for the almond pollination, all of this took place last fall, all of which I had no clue that the USDA was even out here.Lyle Johnston told me before the almond bloom that the bees feed Nutra-Bee took off like a rocket compare to the others._


----------



## Countryboy

_The fact that there are many women shows that there is interest, opportunity, and success available to them as well as men. Beekeeping was long dominated by men. _

I've been posting some beekeeping related videos on YouTube. YouTube has a feature that shows you the demographics of your audience.

I was surprised that over a quarter of my viewers are women. Most of the women are 45-54 years old, while the largest male age group is 55-64.

Another interesting thing is there is about equal interest among men and women from the ages of 13-34. If the women get into bees beyond watching videos, the days of beekeeping being male dominated will be long over.


----------



## Roland

Peter said:
You would think to listen to them, beekeepers invented everything themselves, made all the major discoveries, but somehow neglected to get the patents and somebody else got rich.

Ironically, that did happen to Langstroth.


OK, lets look at history.(correct me if I am wrong)
You mentioned Langstroth - Bee space, movable frame?
Moses Quimby - bellows Smoker?
Somebody from Fond du LAc Wisconsin -rotary Foundation mill? 
Maj Hruska? - centrifugal extractor
And last, I have a Pop quiz for you- Who invented the bee blower?(the 2 answers are in the question).

How many of these are researchers, and how many are beekeepers?


Roland


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> I started this thread with the premise...


Seriously, I'm still a little confused about the title. Is it intended as "An ideal beekeeper's world", or "A beekeeper's ideal world"?


----------



## Hambone

Keith Jarrett said:


> Nutra-Bee was field tested (survey) by the USDA bee lab (Jeff Pedis group ) it avg 5 times more brood than the other subs.


Wish I knew of a place I could buy less than a truck load.


----------



## WLC

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7114/full/nature05260.html

The above is the link to the Honeybee Genome article in 'Nature'.

If you take the trouble to look it over, you'll start to get a better feel for what someone like myself would consider to be cutting edge science.

How many of the research scientists could be called beekeepers? I'd venture a guess that they are mostly specialists.

So, when you come up with things like 'bee blowers' as an example of science, you might want to set your sights a little bit higher.


----------



## peterloringborst

Omie said:


> Seriously, I'm still a little confused about the title. Is it intended as "An ideal beekeeper's world", or "A beekeeper's ideal world"?


A beekeeper's ideal world would be an ideal world. No pests=no pesticides. The bees would only sting my neighbors; never me. The hives would all have tubing, like you see in maple sugar farms, with which all the sweet stuff gravity flows to the sugar shack. 

There would be no such thing as sugar, so everyone would put honey in their coffee; drink mead instead of beer or wine. For those in need of harder stuff: homemade honey moonshine. All food would require bee pollination, of course, so we would be completely indispensable instead of nearly so.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Ok Dick, The beekeeper that used Nutra-Bee in these charts is the second to the right "circled" I whited his name out.

The first chart is the strenght of frames of bees & the second chart is the CM of brood.

This was done by the USDA Jeff Pedis group. 

What is the HUGE part is that he is at the lower bottom with frame strengh of bees, but at the TOP when it comes to brood.

P.S. Bone, coming out with 50lb bag dry mix soon.


----------



## Hambone

Thanks for posting that chart Keith. It's keepers like you and Ernie that continue to pay large out of pocket dollars and endless hours of trials that help us little guys out. Thanks!!

Can't wait until I can buy a 50lbs sack.


----------



## dickm

peterloringborst said:


> Well spoken by someone who hasn't kept bees in the north. We don't use different bees in the north and the south of the US. That's nonsense. Bees have been moving back and forth for centuries and there aren't special northern bees and inferior southern bees.
> 
> The bees of the US evolved in temperate Europe and are capable of withstanding a typical winter up to a certain latitude. Farther north sheds are used.
> 
> I have personally run bees for years that were raised in Georgia. These winter just as well as mongrels from the woods. The idea that bees could acclimate to a region in a few decades is proof of complete ignorance of how evolution and acclimation work, most especially as applied to honey bees.
> 
> Furthermore, I personally find the expression "sissy" to be offensive, as it implies that sisters are somehow weaker than real men. That kind of talk is not welcome in a modern non-sexist world.


Wow Pete;
Did you really mean to call me ignorant and offensive? 

Dickm

Thinking Positive means being wrong at the top of your lungs.


----------



## Allen Dick

I don't know what has become of this thread. 

First we hear that the experience of many serious northern (and I mean northern) beekeepers who have found that many (not all) southern-bred bees won't winter up to snuff or at all in the north -- the real north are misguided.

Then Keith claims that he is self-made when he has milked the rest of us for info which we gave him freely, then refused to share -- anything. He proceeds to immediately post a chart to advertise his product (against the forum rules as I understand them) and we see that the chart alarmingly suggests to those of us who know bees and can read charts, the opposite of what he derives from it...

Can't we get back on topic?


----------



## MikeJ

I just had a quick question. (I almost wish I hadn't clicked on this thread).

Is this topic basically about -when you throw all the clutter out and really look at what people are saying (back and forth) and what the strongly let drop in insinuations - is the idea of "religion" or "beliefs" in general pitted against science - how it makes the scientific work harder to do. And how the originator of this topic sees them at odds every day on this forum?

Just wondering because as I read some of the posts that seemed to be the bedrock under this topic. That wasn't covered up well sometimes.

Thanks


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Allen,

You asked for proof, "5 times more brood" the charts support that claim. 

I only brought out those charts to support what I had wrote.


----------



## peterloringborst

dickm said:


> Wow Pete;
> Did you really mean to call me ignorant and offensive? Dickm


No, I didn't. I am very sorry for the implication, Dick. Please accept my sincere apologies. I was just in a bad mood, after seeing my "hero" George Imirie disrespected, so I guess I was channeling him ...

Your friend
Pete


----------



## peterloringborst

MikeJ said:


> Is this topic basically about -when you throw all the clutter out and really look at what people are saying (back and forth) and what the strongly let drop in insinuations - is the idea of "religion" or "beliefs" in general pitted against science - how it makes the scientific work harder to do. And how the originator of this topic sees them at odds every day on this forum?


Yes


----------



## BEES4U

After reading the chart, I am curious about what happened to categories A. G. and E frame counts?

Ernie


----------



## sqkcrk

MikeJ said:


> I just had a quick question. (I almost wish I hadn't clicked on this thread).
> 
> Is this topic basically about -when you throw all the clutter out and really look at what people are saying (back and forth) and what the strongly let drop in insinuations - is the idea of "religion" or "beliefs" in general pitted against science - how it makes the scientific work harder to do. And how the originator of this topic sees them at odds every day on this forum?
> 
> Just wondering because as I read some of the posts that seemed to be the bedrock under this topic. That wasn't covered up well sometimes.
> 
> Thanks



This Thread is getting to be more like a Tailgater Thread every day.


----------



## MikeJ

peterloringborst said:


> Yes



Wouldn't it have been easier to come right out and say it clear and plain then try to have a hidden discussion within a cover discussion?

So I have another question.
Do people want to have serious discussion on this issue or not? I don't want to waste time throwing jabs back and forth.

This topic has as much to do with bees as many topics I see in here.


----------



## peterloringborst

MikeJ said:


> Wouldn't it have been easier to come right out and say it clear and plain then try to have a hidden discussion within a cover discussion?


I opened the thread with the following:



> In my opinion, one of the chief obstacles, and I see this here at BeeSource on almost a daily basis, is a deep distrust of scientific researchers. I don't really know why this should be so pervasive in the beekeeping community, as most of the truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from have been made by scientists.


So I was very diplomatic about it,_ I said I don't know why._ However, it could be as you say, that there is a basic unbridgeable gulf between scientific belief and religious belief. There have been a great number of scientists with deeply held spiritual and/or religious beliefs, so ultimately these two_ do not have to be at odds. _

All the same, it is far more common for people to become overly scientific or overly religious to the detriment of the other point of view. Personally, I think that it is quite easy to maintain both viewpoints. The problem starts when one faction tries to force its viewpoint on the other. And make no mistake about, both do this. In fact, there are any number of human viewpoints, and they do not have to be mutually exclusive at all.

For example, one can be in favor of industrialization AND sensitive to the environment. Believe in modern medicine AND value faith and belief as means to regaining health. To want to incorporate technology into our lives AND live an aesthetically pleasing life at the same time. 

In my opinion, there is no reason why multiple points of view cannot be held by individual people. The problem is, some folks find this confusing. Many people seem to think that once a point of view is arrived upon, that it must promoted, so that as many people _see it that way_ as possible. At the very least, the point of view has to be vigorously defended. 

Science without an appreciation of beauty and mystery is cold, hard, and sterile. Religion without a modern education and an understanding of the complexity of life, devolves into _superstition_. There is room in the world for science, progress, beauty, faith, mystery, and so on. _And_, there are some areas where they have to limit their influence. 

People need to be able to obtain as much information as possible in order to freely make decisions about what to believe or not believe. Make up your own mind, that's what it's for!


----------



## Omie

Did I miss something?- how did this suddenly become scientific vs. _religious_?  I'm a bit confused by this morphing...or is that what the thread was about from the beginning and I just didn't understand?


----------



## peterloringborst

Back to the science:



> The Western honeybee, Apis mellifera has the highest metazoan recombination rate reported so far. Proximate or ultimate causes for this elevated recombination rate have not yet been resolved. In a comparative study, we investigated meiotic recombination in the red dwarf honeybee Apis florea.
> 
> Open-nesting A. florea is more exposed to parasites and pathogens and environmental fluctuations, which may both select for higher genetic diversity within colonies, and thus higher recombination rate.
> 
> However, temperate races of A. mellifera constantly reuse their comb over many generations and display sophisticated hygienic behavior (Rothenbuhler 1964), which could be interpreted as evidence for higher pathogen pressure in this species. More quantitative research in these regards is clearly needed.
> 
> Comparative Linkage Mapping Suggests a High Recombination Rate in All Honeybees
> EMILY R. MEZNAR et al. 2010. Journal of Heredity


----------



## peterloringborst

New paper out:



> The long-term decline of managed honey bee hives in the USA and European countries has become an issue of widespread interest and concern. Based on many research projects aimed at identifying all the putative factors afflicting honey bees, evidence is accumulating that one of the major causes - not to say, the major cause - is the association of viruses to these colony losses, which so far existed as covert infections in the honey bee population, with an invading parasite, V. destructor.
> 
> This combination V. destructor plus viruses has triggered the emergence of overt viral infections with significant and sometimes fatal symptoms on both the individual bee level and the colony level. Nowadays there is no doubt that the impact of various syndromes involving V. destructor and bee viruses is a global threat for apiculture.
> 
> Until now, the spontaneous or artificial selection of honey bee lines more tolerant to V. destructor infestation have produced poorly productive colonies. However, no simple and economically acceptable treatment against virus infections are in view for replacing the heavy and not always efficient acaricide treatments which have already selected resistances in the target species.
> 
> Repeating previously observed scenarios, the dramatic increase in emerging virus diseases in the honey bee may still be worsened by the continuing development of international exchanges and the potential dissemination of still undiscovered viruses or other agents that may favor their active multiplication.
> 
> Emerging and re-emerging viruses of the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.)
> Elke Genersch and Michel Aubert. 2010. Vet. Res.


----------



## camero7

Peter wrote:

>Open-nesting A. florea is more exposed to parasites and pathogens and environmental fluctuations, which may both select for higher genetic diversity within colonies, and thus higher recombination rate.

Original paper also had this statement,which makes breeding a resistant bee more hopeful.

>In addition to a few comparisons of intervals across the genome, we particularly focused on chromosomes 3 and 12. Confirming marker synteny, we found that recombination rates in A. florea are as high as or higher than those in A. mellifera. Our results are limited to select genomic regions but suggest that A. florea also exhibits an exceptionally high genome-wide recombination rate. This trait may thus occur genus wide.


----------



## camero7

>This combination V. destructor plus viruses has triggered the emergence of overt viral infections with significant and sometimes fatal symptoms on both the individual bee level and the colony level. Nowadays there is no doubt that the impact of various syndromes involving V. destructor and bee viruses is a global threat for apiculture.

Which make monitoring virus levels more important than ever and with today's modern technology, I think [and am] monitoring the virus level of a typical hive in each yard makes great sense.


----------



## peterloringborst

Back to the topic of science and what is a scientific study:



> Theories can no more be adjudged ‘true’ or ‘false’ than languages can. But a theory, like a language, might prove more or less useful, and it is the useful ones that survive. We accept, deploy and believe useful theories.
> 
> New data, and tests of new hypotheses, depend on observation and experiment. An experiment is a way of making precise observations, not of _‘unconstrained nature’_ but of a situation deliberately constrained so that all relevant variables are known. The ability to design and conduct experiments is as essential for a scientist as a thorough and up-to-date understanding of relevant theories.
> 
> A properly designed experiment must be reproducible. That is to say, it must give substantially the same results when it is repeated at a different time and place and by other _(trained and competent)_ experimenters. It must also be valid: anyone trained in the appropriate field of science must agree that it does just what its designer claims it does. If new techniques or equipment are involved then the experimenter must show that these meet _appropriate standards of reliability_, independent of times, places and persons.
> 
> The results of the experiment must be interpretable: they must be free of _‘interfering variables’_ and of errors of extrapolation or interpolation. This can be ensured by running controls, in which all variables except the one under investigation are kept at the same values as in the experiment itself. It is also important to ensure that a newly-designed experiment is practicable, ethical and economic. Good experiment design is an art that requires practice.


Paul S. Agutter • Denys N. Wheatley
Thinking about Life: The History and Philosophy of Biology and Other Sciences


----------



## irwin harlton

"In my opinion, one of the chief obstacles, and I see this here at BeeSource on almost a daily basis, is a deep distrust of scientific researchers. I don't really know why this should be so pervasive in the beekeeping community, as most of the truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from have been made by scientists. "

The decision to close the Canadian border to US packages in 1986 was made by Canadian scientists, ..........it bought us a little time in dealing with varroa,it broke a few California bee shippers and shrunk growth in the Canadian honey production for a number of years.
Today we have the same problems as our southern neighbors.The SHB find in Hawaii put a large shipment of queens into quarantine while the scientists examined the bees for SHB eggs.
The less me and my business have to do with scientists, the better off I am $$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## WLC

It's not the scientists that are making you broke, it's the army of pests and pathogens that are crammed together in those boxes.

Seriously, you don't think it's O.K. to make things worse for everyone by allowing pests across borders, do you?


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> A lot of noise is made about treating colonies for mites and how this prevents natural resistance from coming about. That assumes that natural resistance must come about, which is a faulty assumption.


It's not an assumption Peter, its well-attested:

"Any race or line of bees can be bred for hygienic behavior. We recommend that bee breeders select for hygienic behavior from among their best breeder colonies; i.e., from those that have proven to be productive, gentle, and that display all the characteristics desired by the breeder. A breeder can get a head start on selecting for hygienic behavior simply by rearing queens from colonies that do not have chalkbrood." 

"The effects of American foulbrood, chalkbrood and Varroa mites can be alleviated if queen producers select for hygienic behavior from their own lines of bees. Because a small percentage of the managed colonies today express hygienic behavior, it is important for many bee breeders to select for the behavior to maintain genetic variability within and among bee lines.

Our experience has shown there are no apparent negative characteristics that accompany the trait. Years of research experience have shown it would greatly benefit the beekeeping industry if productive, hygienic lines were available commercially."

The Hygiene Queen, Marla Spivak and Gary S. Reuter

http://www.apiservices.com/articles/us/hygiene_queen.htm


That treatments disrupt the attainment of resistence is a logical consequence of denial of selection. The theory:

Each sexual coupling combines the parent's genes at random. This produces offspring that exhibit a range of responses to the environment. Some will thrive, others will fail.

From this range nature 'selects' the stronger through a number of mechanisms, the two most important of which are: 

1) The weakest die and cannot reproduce

2) Competition for mating favours the stronger

As traits are passed on to the next generation, _those of the stronger are always passed on in greater numbers than those of the weaker_. 

In this way _populations are constantly 'tuned' to their environment_.

This HAS to happen, for the following reason: the environment is changing all the time, and a range or predatory organisms is constantly adapting to better attack. If the prey does not continually refine its defences through natural selection the predators gain advantge. When the predator is question are what we call 'disease organisms, we call the result 'sickness' or 'ill health'.

SO: to remain healthy populations MUST constantly adapt to the ever-changing disease environment. 

Now: IF you treat you allow the weaker traits to enter the next generation. _You have stymied the basic mechanisms for health-maintenance_ - the creation of new generations predominantly from the strongest of the old.

The result will be a greater incidence of whatever you treated against in the generation than would have been the case had you not treated.

In most fields of husbandry mating is closely controlled, the best (healthiest) individuals selected to breed from. Here treatment is fine - as long as you ensure that those individuals used for breeding are those that required least (and preferably no) treatments. This is standard practice, mirroring, respecting, utilizing nature's own main _and essential_ health-location mechanism.

In beekeeping however... mating is not usually contolled in this manner. That means that treated individuals will pass their (weaker) traits to the next generation - with the consequences described above.

In selective apiaries _colonies_ may be saved by treating but _must be re-queened from better stock to avoid passing on the weak traits _through drones and supercedure or swarming.

TREATING AND DOING NOTHING ELSE CONDEMNS THE APIARY TO A DOWNWARD HEALTH SPIRAL




peterloringborst said:


> IF one is selecting for behaviors that benefit colonies, such as uncapping brood to check for mites, then one can develop better bees through breeding. Treating as necessary for mite control has no effect on this process.


OK - for breeders who know what they are doing. For ordinary beekeepers wanting to have broad-spectrum healthy bloodlines, treating - unless requeening as described above is happening - will constantly defeat the selection process.



peterloringborst said:


> So everyone should rally around hygienic bee lines, whether VSH, Russian, Minnesota Hygienic or whatnot. If you cannot afford to buy queens, and at 20 to 30 dollars a pop, many can't, learn to raise queens from a hygienic breeder.
> 
> Clubs or associations can pool their resources and buy top notch breeders, and share cost. Then the progeny can be distributed either as frames of larvae or as finished queen cells. Almost every club has somebody who knows how to raise queen cells or is capable of learning.


All good stuff - but don't subsequently waste this good genetic material by not selecting actively for general health and vitality, and against vulnerability to predatory organisms! As soon as you start propping (and not terminating the propped lines) the bloodstock will degrade rapidly.



peterloringborst said:


> The real problem, of course, is viruses. These babies are invisible, evil scraps of rogue dna that slip in between the cracks and wreck the health and well being of the larger species, the ones we know and care about.



Viruses are the oldest organised structures known. Not quite life-forms, they have been around constantly; and all lifeforms have evolved in their presence. Any lifeform that has been around for 30 million years or so, and developed throughout that time in the face of constant viral attacks, may be assumed to have suitable defence mechanisms.

They change continuously, and can cause devastating popluation drops - but as far as I'm aware they are not generally associated with extinctions. 

The same principles apply to viruses as any other predator. The best defence for a species is genetic diversity. A proportion of individuals in a genetically diverse population will be naturally immune, and these will thrive at the expense of individuals less well equipped. The population will rebuild from the survivors - with the necessary defensive trait making the virus harmless. 

Selective reproduction, by nature or by human, is _the_ essential defence. And again, treatments dramatically undermine the process - unless the proper steps are taken to negate that (with bees, immediate re-queening from resistant stock to terminate the bloodline)

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> So I was very diplomatic about it,_ I said I don't know why._ However, it could be as you say, that there is a basic unbridgeable gulf between scientific belief and religious belief.


This is something I've thought about raising on a number of occasions, and I'm glad Peter has gone ahead and done it.

From this side of the pond anyone can see why. A good many Americans have deeply held beliefs that clash with modern scientific understanding. Many Americans prefer to avoid any discussion of ideas involving evolution, and many more want to avoid giving offence by supporting such discussions. 

Since evolution is at the heart of the modern understanding of nature held uniformly throughout the life sciences, there is a basic opposition of belief.

This clash, you may or may not realise, is almost non-existent in Europe. We are, broadly speaking, Christians, but have long ago reached an accommodation with Darwinism. It is, for us, an American peculiarity.

For Beesource, which is overwhelmingly American (probably largely for this very reason) this is a real issue and a real problem. 

I personally think the best thing to do is put forward your own beliefs in a way that makes clear the grounds upon which you hold them. That way everything is in the open, there are no hidden agendas.

I think too there is middle ground - we don't need to set our compasses according to the most extreme ends of the belief spectrum. I love empirical science, but I understand there are lots of questions I have that science cannot answer, and sometimes cannot address.

I also think the assertions of science about the ORIGINS of species can be regarded for diplomatic purposes as a separate belief from that of adaptation. That is: we can talk about creatures changing to become stronger, without needing to talk about where they came from in the first place. After all, selective husbandry is mentioned in the bible.

I agree this topic needs a thread of its own...

Mike


----------



## Michael Bush

>as most of the truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from have been made by scientists. 

Seems to me that the truly important discoveries were made by a retired MD (C.C. Miller) a preacher (Rev. L.L. Langstroth), a blind Aristocrat with a facination for bees (Fracois Huber) and a few commercial beekeepers (such as G.M. Doolittle). I can't think of much important stuff they didn't cover...

Name a few "truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from" that were made by what would today be considered scientists (PHDs doing research on bees). Things that actually help us day to day. I can't think of one.

Grafting: Doolittle, beekeeper
Basic biology and mating: Huber, Aristocrat
Hive design: Langstroth, preacher
Smoker design: Quinby, beekeeper
Distribution of information: A.I. Root, beekeeper and bee supply person, C.P. Dadant, ditto


----------



## peterloringborst

Michael Bush said:


> Name a few "truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from" that were made by what would today be considered scientists (PHDs doing research on bees). Things that actually help us day to day. I can't think of one.


Hygienic behavior in honey bees = WC Rothenbuhler


----------



## peterloringborst

Michael Bush said:


> Name a few "truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from" that were made by what would today be considered scientists (PHDs doing research on bees).


This is a heavily loaded question. You are stating that "PHDs doing research on bees" are the only ones who "would today be considered scientists".

I do not agree with this statement. For example, my friend Randy Oliver (scientificbeekeeping.com) is a scientist without a PhD. And he is on the forefront of independent research into honey bee health.

But your question is facile. I could name hundreds of scientific advances that beekeepers take advantage of every single day, not the least of which is the internet.


----------



## peterloringborst

> It is now widely accepted that novel infectious disease can be a leading cause of serious population decline and even outright extinction in some invertebrate and vertebrate groups
> 
> To date, the few well documented examples of complete extinction in which infectious diseases were demonstrably the main or leading factor mostly concern losses among amphibians
> 
> Here we report results of our study of the collapse, allegedly due to introduced infectious disease, of two endemic murines, _Rattus macleari_ and _R. nativitatis_, on the isolated landmass of Christmas Island in the eastern Indian Ocean almost exactly a century ago.
> 
> Kelly B. Wyatt. 2008. Historical Mammal Extinction on Christmas Island (Indian Ocean) Correlates with Introduced Infectious Disease


----------



## peterloringborst

Michael Bush said:


> Name a few "truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from" that were made by what would today be considered scientists (PHDs doing research on bees). Things that actually help us day to day. I can't think of one.
> 
> This statement is breathtaking. I would suggest that the whole life of Eva Crane refutes it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Born as Ethel Eva Widdowson in London she earned a Ph.D in 1941 in nuclear physics. She became a lecturer in Physics at Sheffield University.
> 
> Her interest in bees began when she and her husband received a beehive as a wedding present; the giver had hoped that it would help supplement their wartime sugar ration.
> 
> Crane wrote over 180 papers, articles, and books, many when she was in her 70s and 80s.
> 
> A Book of Honey (1980) and The Archaeology of Beekeeping (1983) reflected her strong interests in nutrition and the ancient past of beekeeping.
> 
> Her writing culminated in two mighty, encyclopaedic tomes, Bees and Beekeeping: science, practice and world resources (1990; at 614 pages) and The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting (1999; 682 pages).
> 
> These distilled a lifetime's knowledge and experience and are regarded as seminal textbooks throughout the beekeeping world.
> 
> She died at the age of 95 in Slough, England.
Click to expand...


----------



## peterloringborst

> Perhaps the greatest recent advance in apicultural research is associated with the important part played by chemical substances in regulating the social behavior of honey bees. Interest in this area was stimulated by Butler, who, in summarizing his own and other work, suggested that a queen honey bee secretes a chemical compound which is taken from her body by worker bees, is passed from bee to bee, and controls the development of ovaries in workers and production of queen cells in general.
> 
> SOME RECENT ADVANCES IN APICULTURAL RESEARCH By G. F. TOWNSEND AND R. W. SHUEL
> Apiculture Department, Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
> Annual Review of Entomology Vol. 7: 481-500 (Volume publication date January 1962)


see:



> Butler, C. G. The significance of queen substance in swarming and supersedure in honey-bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies. Proe. Roy. Entomol. Soc. (London), 35, 129- 32 (1960)


----------



## arthur

mike bispham said:


> Now: IF you treat you allow the weaker traits to enter the next generation. _You have stymied the basic mechanisms for health-maintenance_ - the creation of new generations predominantly from the strongest of the old.
> 
> The result will be a greater incidence of whatever you treated against in the generation than would have been the case had you not treated.
> ...
> Selective reproduction, by nature or by human, is _the_ essential defence. And again, treatments dramatically undermine the process - unless the proper steps are taken to negate that (with bees, immediate re-queening from resistant stock to terminate the bloodline)
> 
> Mike


Mike, are there people actually arguing against this?


----------



## peterloringborst

SEVEN QUEENS!


----------



## WLC

arthur said:


> Mike, are there people actually arguing against this?


Me for one.

Since beekeepers are, in fact, selecting for an integrated virus fragment that can confer resistance (through RNAi), they are also selecting for retrotransposons which weren't found in the Honeybee genome before.

The science literature supports this finding.

That's how evolution really works. It's not as benign as someone wants you to think.

Science is based on published findings that have met established standards.

Philosophers can spout out whatever is in their head.

Don't forget, the science literature shows that these survivors require a loss of stock which can go as high as 95%, aren't as productive as the original stock, and don't survive much more than 3 years.

You need to look elswhere for a solution to colony survial. Perhaps propolis is a good place to start. There is some science to back it up.


----------



## camero7

Amazing


----------



## Roland

Mr Bush, I agree, I believe I posted a similar post somewhere, with the inclusion of a man from Fond du Lac(Ohmstead???) that made the rotary foundation mill(OK, not a big thing to you), and Maj Hruska with the centrifugal extractor. 
These are things that a commercial beekeeper relies on.

Yes, Eva Crane made important contributions. I respect her. I never met her, but did know her neighbor. 

Respect is something that is earned. It does not come with a degree. So if the Scientists want respect, let them earn it. The first step would be for them to realize that they are being supported by society, and that since we pay their bills, their goal should be to return something of value to society. If not, they are nothing more than saprophytes. 

Roland


----------



## WLC

I've said this before, scientists didn't put all of those pests and pathogens in your hives.

If you want scientists to help, you have to accept them as they are.

You have to let them do things their way.


----------



## peterloringborst

Or, we could go back to natural beekeeping


----------



## Michael Bush

Eva's contributions are enormous. But they are simply a compilation of humankinds work with bees. Having or not having a PHD in Physics had nothing to do with collecting all of that amazing information. And as interesting as it is, I can't say it changed my beekeeping any.

If beekeeper simply never treated for anything they would already have hygenic bees. The rest would have died. It took the scientists to delay that happening indefinitely by intervening.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

Ignorance is Bliss! Simplistic dismissals and explanations make life much easier, nothing more to think about.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Since beekeepers are, in fact, selecting for an integrated virus fragment that can confer resistance (through RNAi), they are also selecting for retrotransposons which weren't found in the Honeybee genome before.


...i've been reading your thoughts on this over a few threads here (can't claim to have read every single post, so forgive me if i'm missing something)...seems like as good a place as any to ask a couple of questions:

1. you seem to describe a difference in the dna of the honeybee between the genome project and more recent analysis...specifically looking at viral dna fragments that you say are present now, but weren't present then?

given the above, have you (or anyone) looked into how the different analysis were performed? specifically, were the samples similar in composition (specific source of samples (ie, flight muscle cells), how they were handled)? were the later analysis done with more sensitive equipment than the genome project used (ie, were the later tests more capable of finding such dna fragments than the earlier ones)?

2. we use no treatments, and have been along on inspections of a number of other local (and not so local) operations. i see less varroa in our colonies than i do in those that are treated conventionally. if the viruses are spread by varroa, wouldn't the rate of inserted viral dna fragments getting into the gene pool be mostly dependent on the number of varroa, not whether or not the bees are treated?

thanks,

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst

This is the real thing. They document:



> the integration of a viral segment into the genome of its host
> (honeybee) but also the reciprocal integration of a host–genome
> segment into a virus-derived sequence. As a result of integration
> of a viral sequence into the host genome, a new phenotype has
> emerged: individual bees harboring the integrated viral sequence
> 
> Eyal Maori, Edna Tanne, Ilan Sela. 2007. Reciprocal sequence exchange between non-retro viruses and hosts leading to the appearance of new host phenotypes


----------



## peterloringborst

Michael Bush said:


> Eva's contributions are enormous. But they are simply a compilation of humankinds work with bees.


Boy, you are on a roll now. Eva Crane's contributions are _"simply a compilation"! _

I would venture to say that chief contributions of even the folks you mentioned (Langstroth, Doolittle, Alley, et al) _are their books! _

If they had not written _clearly and concisely_, no one would have understood what they had discovered, and they would have been forgotten on the heap.


----------



## WLC

Deknow:

The point is that these RNA viral sequences weren't found in the Honeybee genome project that started 2003-2004. 2007, CCD hits.

You can read the M&Ms in the 'Nature' paper and the Maori paper.

Currently, they use published viral primer sequences and RT-PCR to test for the presence of integrated viral fragments or the presence of viruses.

No one knows exactly how these viruses are retrotransposed into the Hobeybee genome, nor do they know the source of the retrotransposase that allows this to occur (I would suspect Nosema, but no one knows).

Could a lower mite count be related to an integrated virus fragment? I would say it's possible if a bee odorant needed for mite reproduction was knocked out by a retrotransposon. No one knows yet.

It's that new.


----------



## deknow

peterloringborst said:


> This is the real thing. They document:


i'd be happy to look this over more carefully if someone wants to send me a copy. from the abstract, they claim 30% of the populations tested...but nothing about if this viral dna integration is new, has been there all along, or started with varroa.

deknow


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Deknow:
> 
> The point is that these RNA viral sequences weren't found in the Honeybee genome project that started 2003-2004. 2007, CCD hits.


yes, i understand that this is what you are saying...what i'm asking is if we are simply seeing "more data" with "more sensitive tests" several years later. for instance, in 1985 it was assumed that there was no nosema ceranae in the u.s., simply because we weren't testing for it. ...when we finally did test for it, it was assumed to be a new infestation. going back and testing preserved samples from maine (1985) found a 30% infestation rate!



> Currently, they use published viral primer sequences and RT-PCR to test for the presence of integrated viral fragments or the presence of viruses.


...and what was used in the genome project? assuming they are not exactly the same, would one expect the same results from the same samples using both methods?



> Could a lower mite count be related to an integrated virus fragment? I would say it's possible if a bee odorant needed for mite reproduction was knocked out by a retrotransposon. No one knows yet.


that was not my question. if mites are the viral vector, then the rate of viral transmission has some positive relationship with mite populations? the rate of viral transmission has a positive correlation with the viral dna fragments getting into the honeybee dna? wouldn't it be the mite population that is the (or "a") key factor in the integration of the viral dna into the honeybee dna, and not whether or not one uses treatments?

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst

IAPV the primary cause of CCD?



> At Beeologics, scientists are convinced that IAPV is the primary cause of CCD. "If you look how the disease spreads, it's very reminiscent of flu. Flu also starts in the fall and hits hard in the winter, the same is true of this bee virus," explains Paldi. "It's very contagious like a flu. In our opinion, we have something that's interacting very strongly with the environment to cause CCD. It could be interacting with pesticides, with improper nutrition, general stress - but that's not what's killing the bees. What's killing them is a virus and we believe that virus is IAPV."
> 
> Beeologics' solution, Remebee, utilizes a mechanism called RNA interference (RNAi, also known as gene silencing) a mechanism that inhibits or hinders gene expression. "The technology is based on naturally occurring biological agents. Conceptually, we're introducing the factor that prompts the silencing response," Paldi tells ISRAEL21c. "We didn't invent gene silencing. However, as far as we know we are among the first to use it commercially on non-humans."
> 
> Beeologics has now applied for FDA approval for Remebee and has partnered with all major US and international institutions working on the CCD problem, including leading US beekeepers Dave Mendez and Dave Hackenberg, the man who alerted the media to CCD after losing 90% of his bees in 2006. "Hackenberg provided us the hives and the bees for the trials in Pennsylvania as did Mendez in Florida," says Ben-Chanoch. "It was a great sacrifice because these beekeepers were already hurting -- these hive were planned for revenue generation and the replacement cost for this size of fully populated hive is substantial."


----------



## mike bispham

arthur said:


> Mike, are there people actually arguing against this?


Peter doesn't actually argue against it - he generally doesn't respond, and often has me on his ignore list - or so he says. But he does regularly make statements that contradict it, or partly contradict it. There are several key positions he holds that clash with these core principles of biology, and/or flat statements by well-established experts. 

These positions, which he won't discuss, relate to:


The effect of medicating apiaries on nearby bees - both wild/feral and natural-selective beekeepers. He won't acknowledge that this effect offers a solution to the problem he himself has identified - that selective operations appear to be place-dependent.

The ability of all (except very small and genetically narrow populations) to adapt to varroa through bringing suitable traits to the fore (contrary to the positions of Erickson, Spivak)

 The effect of treatments on future generations

The combinations of these last two positions especially allow him to see mysteries where there are none (why does it work here not there; and to hold the view that many populations cannot gain resistance.) 

As well as these there is a highly technical objection to grassroots selective activity - an alarmist view about viral dna taking root in bee dna, grassroots breeders thus raising the population of some kind of genetic monsters without realising it.

These positions add up to a position that argues, (without foundation) against grassroots selective beekeeping, on the wholly spurious grounds that a) it doesn't work (at least reliably, and no-one has a clue why), b) it can't work for technical reasons, c) it is dangerous.

Peter is however supportive of professional breeding.

In this post (#131) I'm showing what it is that makes his statements wrong by outlining the known mechanisms, in the hope that he will see the logic, the causal relations, and incorporate a better understanding into his thinking as a result.

I wouldn't mind any of this if it were not for the fact that Peter is very busy in the forums, and is accepted by many as an authority in the scientific sense. It seems thus that while he does a great deal of good, he also muddies the waters a good deal, and, critically, puts people off selecting for health for reasons that are not sustainable.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Me for one.
> 
> Since beekeepers are, in fact, selecting for an integrated virus fragment that can confer resistance (through RNAi), they are also selecting for retrotransposons which weren't found in the Honeybee genome before.
> 
> The science literature supports this finding.


I've asked WLC on several occasions for the literature he says supports him. yet to see it. I've looked over the single article he has cited, and there is nothing alarming in there.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

error - duplicate


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> This is the real thing. They document:"the integration of a viral segment into the genome of its host
> (honeybee) but also the reciprocal integration of a host–genome
> segment into a virus-derived sequence. As a result of integration
> of a viral sequence into the host genome, a new phenotype has
> emerged: individual bees harboring the integrated viral sequence


Fine; but where do they say WE SHOULD BE ALARMED ABOUT THIS? And (given that this is 2007) what has been the scientific response? What is the up to date position? Where does any scientific literature indicate that this is something alarming, or that grassroots selection should be stopped as a result?

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> IAPV the primary cause of CCD?
> 
> "At Beeologics, scientists are convinced that IAPV is the primary cause of CCD.


Do you know the famous courtroom words of Christine Keeler: "He WOULD say that wouldn't he!"

Vested interests... follow the money...

Beside the dodgy vested interest position, my main objection to this claim concerns the presented causal order. How can a virus, that has been heavily vectored by a parasite, which exists in its present highly agressive form only because selection has been denied the prey, possible be regarded as the primary cause? It is the last cause in a chain of causes; _subsequent to _beekeeper failure to select against varroa/encouragement of aggressive varroa through treatments.

Varroa isn't the final infectious agent that actually detroys the orgaism - but that might be any one of thousands of different viruses, bacteria or fungal infection. These are simply the coup-de-grace - NOT primary causes. 

A scientific body should know better than to arrange causal order incorrectly. Oh yes, this isn't a scientific body, its a commercial outfit trying to sell an addictive remedy. I forgot for a moment there.

Mike


----------



## Barry

I recently heard a saying that goes like this.

"The difference between being _involved_ and being _committed_ is like an egg and ham breakfast. The chicken was involved, the pig was committed."

Sounds like many have assigned the _beekeeper_ and _scientist_ to what they feel is their proper character in the saying, the chicken and the pig. :lookout:


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> Sounds like many have assigned the _beekeeper_ and _scientist_ to what they feel is their proper character in the saying, the chicken and the pig. :lookout:


Not sure how you would class these, put there aren't better examples of folks committed to the lives of honey bees than:

Eva Crane, Roger Morse, Marla Spivak, or Tom Seeley


----------



## StevenG

WLC said:


> Me for one.
> 
> Science is based on published findings that have met established standards.
> 
> Philosophers can spout out whatever is in their head.
> 
> Don't forget, the science literature shows that these survivors require a loss of stock which can go as high as 95%, aren't as productive as the original stock, and don't survive much more than 3 years.
> 
> You need to look elswhere for a solution to colony survial. Perhaps propolis is a good place to start. There is some science to back it up.


Here we go again, that old canard that survivors don't survive more than three years. Time and time again I and others have pointed to B. Weaver, M. Bush, and other beeks who have bees that have survived longer than 3 years, but we're consistently ignored. 

I restarted beekeeping in spring 2006 with two packages from B. Weaver. #1 is going strong, 4 years old now, never been treated. #2 unfortunately starved this March, 3 years old, died of starvation, not mites. My third colony was a package bought in the spring of 2008, now three years old, never any treatments, going strong.

These three colonies have given me splits, coupled with 6 nuc purchases, which have enabled me to grow to 31 colonies now. With NO Treatments... 
But who am I, when _science_ tells me my hives will crash in the third year? 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC

Dean:

Yes, the latest I've seen was from Florida, June '09. It wasn't IAPV fragments that were found to be integrated, but DWV and KBV. DWV and KBV have significantly different structures. That's what's troubling me. KBV is related to IAPV while DWV isn't.

If you think that these researchers don't know how to sequence DNA or I.D. DNA sequences, then you really haven't kept current with what is possible today. In short, you can take their word for it. It's a standard protocol that's used daily.

While mites are associated with overt viral infections, viruses are known to exist as covert infections somewhere within the Honeybee. No mites required, those viruses are hiding in there somewhere. The difference between overt and covert infections is in the viral titer.

Mites are not the only vector, but they have been implicated in the induction of virulence. Overt viral infections can not only be induced by mites, they can also be induced by chemicals like phosphates.

No one knows exactly how these viruses are integrating. I just hope that they require a 'helper' that can be targeted.

By not treating, you may be selecting for bees that can fight off viruses via RNA silencing or interference (those with transcribed integrated viral fragments). There's no way around it.


My question to you is this: if Honeybees are becoming transgenic, how does this affect Natural Beekeeping? Will you say that they are, 'Naturally Transgenic'?


----------



## peterloringborst

I can't speak for WLC, although I know he has closely studied the literature and has no particular agenda to promote. What he and I have observed from a slightly more distanced position is that there are isolated examples of survivorship. 

These examples are, most tellingly, isolated. So it's sort of like telling us you moved up into cabin in the woods and never got the flu after that. If only we all moved up into isolated cabins, how much healthier we would be! Meanwhile, the rest of us have jobs and families we have to support.

We simply do not know why some of these bees are mite resistant and some are not. If your bees are mite resistant it probably has more to do with the Weavers than anything that you are doing. But Weavers are huge outfits with a lot of resources.

Probably, if anyone could raise a mite resistant bee, they could. But not by unscientific methods. In fact, Danny Weaver was there at the beginning when it was proposed to do a complete sequencing of the Honey Bee Genome. I wager he knows more about it than you or me.



> Proposal for the Sequencing of a New Target Genome: White Paper for a Honey Bee Genome Project The Honey Bee Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2001
> 
> Represented by the authors of this document: G.E. Robinson, K. Aronstein, J.E. Evans, S.E. Fahrbach, J.S. Johnston, R. Maleszka, R.E. Page, H.M. Robertson, D.B. Weaver


----------



## peterloringborst

Around these parts there has been ample debate about who is or isn't a scientist. To me, the chief hallmark of a scientist is that it is a person who wants to know why a thing does or doesn't work. The other simply cares only that it works, for him.

See 



> Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
> Robert Pirsig


----------



## WLC

Peter, there is a difference between mite resistant, virus resistant, etc. . Don't Weavers have African traits? Or am I mistaken?

Steven, fumigillin B is a treatment. You're treatment free for 2 years now. 1 year to go.


----------



## Throttlebender

peterloringborst said:


> But wait, scientists expect to get hammered. It's called peer review. They just don't tolerate being hammered for_ being scientists. _ They don't have the patience to go up the whole anti-science wall of conjecture.
> 
> I have a great deal of admiration for writers like John McPhee, Annie Dillard, Stephen Jay Gould, etc. who try to make science understandable and interesting to regular people. If people only knew!
> 
> The whole tone thing, I don't get. People criticize the tone of my writing. Perhaps if I mispelled words more often, they would trust me more? Or use expressions like "her and I".


deleted. Changed my mind.


----------



## StevenG

WLC said:


> Peter, there is a difference between mite resistant, virus resistant, etc. . Don't Weavers have African traits? Or am I mistaken?
> 
> Steven, fumigillin B is a treatment. You're treatment free for 2 years now. 1 year to go.


Last I looked, fumigillin B was not a treatment for mites.


----------



## WLC

Fumigillin B is an antibiotic. You are disrupting the microbial balance of the hive by using it. If you use any chemicals, you really shouldn't say that you're treatment free for more years than you are.

It reminds me of the fishing stories I hear around camp.

That's why I have to rely on the scientific literature. There's no misunderstandings there.


----------



## StevenG

peterloringborst said:


> We simply do not know why some of these bees are mite resistant and some are not. If your bees are mite resistant it probably has more to do with the Weavers than anything that you are doing. But Weavers are huge outfits with a lot of resources.
> 
> Probably, if anyone could raise a mite resistant bee, they could. But not by unscientific methods. In fact, Danny Weaver was there at the beginning when it was proposed to do a complete sequencing of the Honey Bee Genome. I wager he knows more about it than you or me.


Now you're finally beginning to understand! I claim nothing for myself, except doing research to find bees that are mite resistant. Those are what I have bought, and used. And I'm positive, definitely, absolutely, unequivocably positive Danny Weaver knows more about bees in his pinkie than I know in my whole brain. 

But that isn't the issue. Weavers are a big operation who have been treatment free for mites for years. Based on all the evidence at hand, _they have raised a mite resistant bee._ They sell survivor bees. Folks like me buy them, use them, enjoy them, and do not treat them. Yet there are those on this forum, and you know who you are, who constantly maintain survivor bees will not survive past the third year without treatment. Why that is maintained, is beyond me. 

Some say stay away from Weaver bees because they're Africanized. I work my Weaver bees the same way I work my other bees, with a veil, long sleeved shirt, jeans, and no gloves. They address the issue of "Africanization" on their web site: http://www.beeweaver.com/
Here's a quote from their FAQ section of their web site:
"Q. Is the BeeWeaver Breed Africanized?

+ A 
Our mating grounds are in an area where Africanized bees have been found. We feel it did effect our stock's temperament for the first 5-10 years, beginning in 1994. Most of those feral African colonies have been watered down by our stock (and other US beekeeper's stock) breeding with them and many of the colonies have died out. BeeWeaver floods its mating yards with high numbers of drones and selects breeders who are proven to be calm, workable colonies of bees. BeeWeaver offers a replacement policy for queens that produce mean bees (stinging without provocation, smoke does not calm them, stinging in high numbers)... the number of queens we must replace is minimal and decreases each year."

Any other bee breeders, anywhere, make a guarantee like that? 
I thank God regularly for folks like the Weavers, Spivak, Lusby, et al who are out there in the trenches working for the beekeeper. 

hmmm I think I'll call the Weavers tomorrow and ask for some "consideration" for this testimonial! 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Yes, the latest I've seen was from Florida, June '09. It wasn't IAPV fragments that were found to be integrated, but DWV and KBV. DWV and KBV have significantly different structures. That's what's troubling me. KBV is related to IAPV while DWV isn't.


i have no idea to what the above is referring to...."yes" what?



> If you think that these researchers don't know how to sequence DNA or I.D. DNA sequences, then you really haven't kept current with what is possible today. In short, you can take their word for it. It's a standard protocol that's used daily.


i never doubted the ability to sequence dna...my question was merely about comparing apples to apples. i know when jerry bromenshenk started doing pcr analysis (with a fancy new machine), he was finding all kinds of things that he hadn't seen before..attributed to the new techniques being so much more sensitive.

do you have enough understanding of how the genome project was conducted vs the maori et al study (what samples were used, what specific techniques were used, how the data from each would be expected to compare) to make the evaluation that you seem to be makiing (that there is a change in the dna of the bee between these two studies)?



> While mites are associated with overt viral infections, viruses are known to exist as covert infections somewhere within the Honeybee.....


yes, i know about viruses and mites. 



> By not treating, you may be selecting for bees that can fight off viruses via RNA silencing or interference (those with transcribed integrated viral fragments). There's no way around it.


yes, there is "no way around" that possibility. but if i'm following you (and i may not be), your theory above presupposes another infection (mites, nosema, etc) in untreated bees that will exacerbate the viral infection and give it more opportunity to integrate into the honeybee dna? and that "treatments" will reduce these other infections making them less likely to trigger dna transposition with the virus?

there's a lot of "supposing" in there.

is this a new phenomenon? ...or are we just now noticing it? if it is new, could it really be because some people don't treat their bees? honeybee viruses have been around a long time, as have many secondary infections. if only now is viral dna being transposed into the honeybee genome, might there be some cause other than "some beekeepers aren't treating their bees"?



> My question to you is this: if Honeybees are becoming transgenic, how does this affect Natural Beekeeping? Will you say that they are, 'Naturally Transgenic'?


well, either this process is "purely natural"...one that would be expected with or without our (human) presence, or something humans have done have made this happen. certainly, the physical moving of bees around the world has spread mites, viruses, etc...but bees have always been facing such challenges and adapting to new ones. in the last 25 years, we have introduced a number of substances into the hive, and the bees are exposed to a whole other set of environmental and agricultural substances. the annual pilgrimage to the almonds by most of the bees in the country is a great way to mix and match all manner of disease.

certainly, the cause of "transgenic bees" is not that i don't use treatments in the hive....if that were true, we'd have "transgenic bees" for the last 100 million years or so. if it's a purely natural process, everyone is subject to it (and more importantly, it's how bees and viruses existed for 100 million years or so).

nature is always in flux. i think you are seeing more data from more sensitive instruments, and assuming that the cause of the data is new.

deknow


----------



## StevenG

WLC said:


> Fumigillin B is an antibiotic. You are disrupting the microbial balance of the hive by using it. If you use any chemicals, you really shouldn't say that you're treatment free for more years than you are.
> 
> It reminds me of the fishing stories I hear around camp.
> 
> That's why I have to rely on the scientific literature. There's no misunderstandings there.


Hmmm food for thought. The statements have been made that hives not treated for varroa will crash in the third year. By using fumigillin B I disrupted the microbial balance of the hive, thus calling into question the veracity of my statement that I haven't treated for mites ever. Soooo, sounds like we have some good news here - the use of fumigillin B is inferred to be deterimental to the varroa mite, and must be considered as a treatment. Life gets interesting. opcorn:


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> Peter, there is a difference between mite resistant, virus resistant, etc. . Don't Weavers have African traits? Or am I mistaken?


I don't know how far you want to go into this. Most researchers will tell you that it is not the varroa mites that ultimately kill a hive, but viruses. However, viruses are latent in honey bee colonies and did not used to be a serious problem until the onset of varroa mites. 

Hygienic behavior seems to be of benefit in ridding colonies of the gamut of harmful bacteria, parasites, etc. It could aptly be called hyperactive nest cleaning behavior. Now you are right of course in suggesting that resistance to specific viruses is a completely separate issue.

Rinderer selected bees that were specifically varroa resistant, whereas Spivak selects for hygienic behavior. But they may be one and the same, it doesn't much matter. It seems that what is required is a higher level of vigilance in the colony regarding infestations of any sort.

Naturally, African bees have a high degree of vigilance to pests of all kinds. This may translate to varroa resistance although there are reports now of varroa taking a toll on African bees in South and Central America. This may be due to a different haplotype of mite, or developing virulence on the part of the varroa. (They undergo selective pressure, too!)

Now regarding Weavers bees. I will not say a single negative thing about them as I have met Danny Weaver and I found him to be a sharp, straightforward individual and if he says the bees are mite resistant but not Africanized, I believe him. I have seen edgy bees coming out of Texas but so far as I know, all the stock has been tested for Africanization and they don't have AHB markers. 

Beekeepers that have been around as long as I have, have seen and owned edgy colonies. I have even managed some that I would call vicious. But none of them ever compared to real Africans, which go instantly berserk and can't really be managed in the usual way. Over the years I have known many beekeepers who always suited up and put on leather gloves, to avoid getting numerous stings. 

But the Africans take it to another level. They make it impossible to locate bee hives anywhere near human habitation or livestock, simple as that. I have bees next to my house, so do my friends. With Africans, that won't work. 

By the way, I have never heard of credible stories of bees being partially Africanized. Either they are or they aren't. Many African bee strains carry a lot of European markers, but they are behaviorally African. WHich means: hostile, a tendency to swarm, abscond, shorter development time, shorter life span, lower honey production, poor wintering, etc.


----------



## peterloringborst

> well, either this process is "purely natural"...one that would be expected with or without our (human) presence, or something humans have done have made this happen.


I think at this point it is safe to say that we now know that rna and dna exchange has been a common occurrence for a very long time. Our genomes are basically a paleontological record of the history of life on this planet. 

Most of us by now are ready to drop the whole natural/artificial dichotomy which is used to separate natural genetic editing from human genetic editing, as if one were OK and the other not. A more expanded understanding of what we are seeing would acknowledge that all this evolving, gene swapping, etc. is perfectly natural, BUT there are many codings that are clearly identifiable as been directly related to human activity.

We can easily divide nature into the two distinct categories of pristine nature and human altered nature. This alteration has been going on since prehistoric time, however, so there is not a line somewhere that marks the moment mankind fell from grace.

It has been a long, hard road, but pristine nature may be gone forever on this planet. The mark of human activity is just about everywhere now, and it is quite probably that the presence of new viral sequences in the honey bee genome is just such a consequence of human activity; specifically, the movement of bees around the world and the subsequent infestation of the Apis mellifera population by varroa and the associated viruses.


----------



## peterloringborst

> there's a lot of "supposing" in there.


Sure, but it can't be regarded as a supposition that honey bees are a lot healthier without varroa mites than with. So that a treatment regime that kills mites without leaving a residue or damaging the health of the hive in some other way, can be regarded as "a good thing". I am thinking here of formic acid strips, which we would have at our disposal now, but for a misguided ruling by the EPA.


----------



## WLC

Dean:

Yes, there were more recent reports of integrated virus fragments being found in Honeybees.

You are looking for technical flaws that don't exist (I actually wish that they did.). If you really want to compare different experiments and protocols, be my guest. Yes, I'm a molecular biologist by training. Yes, I've read through the protocols. Yes, they are state of the art. Yes, they were peer reviewed. Yes, the lack of the retrotransposed RNA viruses in the Honeybee Genome project was noted in the literature.

It is an astonishing find by any definition of the word. It shouldn't be in an organism like the Honeybee, but there it is.

Dean, beekeepers (and a whole bunch of scientists) had no idea that this was going on. Nobody 'expects' RNA virus retrotransposition. How it happened is unknown.

There's no doubt that a Honeybee colony producing viral antisense RNA is going to be selected by beekeepers using the 'survivor' protocol. Those colonies can 'survive' viral infections. The odds for selection are skewed in their favor.

The real questions are: what % of colonies are affected, what is the average copy number of viral fragment inserts/colony, what is the rate of retrotransposition, how is this related to CCD, and can this be used to our advantage?

I can't answer the first questions definitively, but I can take a stab at the last one.

Because those inserted viral fragments can knock out and/or silence genes, they can be used to identify Honeybee genes that are useful to the beekeeper.

Think of it as a freebee for a gentecist/molecular biologist. Nature knocked out, or silenced, those genes for you (and you have a library of the required viral probes!).

That's the glass is half full view. I used to use viral transposons to knock out and insert genes. (I still get these strange thoughts sometimes.)

By the way, if I wanted to explore retrotransposition in the Honeybee, I would use viral probes and a very sensitive (think quantum dots) FISH (fluorescent in situ hybridization) protocol. You can use it on restriction digest gels too.  Just a thought.


----------



## kiwiBee

LOL this thread has really made me appreciate the fact I'm a beekeeper and not a scientist!
I have no idea what any of you are talking about!:scratch:

yours in ignorance
Kiwi


----------



## WLC

Beekeepers have their own lingo and methods too.
It took me weeks to figure out half of what you were saying.
You can still confuse the dickens out of me at times.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> There's no doubt that a Honeybee colony producing viral antisense RNA is going to be selected by beekeepers using the 'survivor' protocol. Those colonies can 'survive' viral infections. The odds for selection are skewed in their favor.


i'm trying to get to the bottom of why you think the above is true.

no one is "treating for viruses"...therefore all beekeepers (treatments or not) are keeping bees that "survive viral infections"

most beekeepers are treating for mites and nosema, many for bacterial infections as well.

so what mechanism are you saying is in play? why would stock untreated for mites or nosema favor those producing viral antisnese RNA? i'm not sure it follows that a colony that is tollerant/resistant to mites or nosema is also more resistant to viruses...certainly the treated stock still has mite and nosema pressure, and certainly it is just as exposed to viruses...why would the untreated stock show more of a propensity to acquire viral genes?

deknow


----------



## mike bispham

StevenG said:


> Here we go again, that old canard that survivors don't survive more than three years. Time and time again I and others have pointed to B. Weaver, M. Bush, and other beeks who have bees that have survived longer than 3 years, but we're consistently ignored.


The problem is that when large scale commercial keepers use the word 'survived' (or 'survivor bees') they mean something completely different to what we mean. We mean 'survive under reasonable small-scale apiary conditions'; they mean 'survive under trucking conditions'. 

Since they re-queen annually, a 'survivor' to them is a queen that made it through one year - was used through the summer, survived the winter, and can be expected to function profitably for another year.

Being a 'survivor' to us usually means 'from wild stock', and refers to a bloodline that has survived through natural selection alone. Lets not get drawn into their conception of 'beekeeping' and their language, and avoid talking at cross-purposes by calling the difference. 

Mike


----------



## Michael Bush

>Boy, you are on a roll now. Eva Crane's contributions are "simply a compilation"! 

Kind of out of context since my previous sentence was "Eva's contributions are enormous". I certainly did not intend to belittle her work. It is, as I said, enormous as far as contributing to an understanding of the history and application of beekeeping through the centuries and a compilation of beekeeping knowledge. My point was that the "research" was gathering what was already there. Not a small undertaking by any means, but not new discoveries so much as getting all of that in one place for human kind.

>I would venture to say that chief contributions of even the folks you mentioned (Langstroth, Doolittle, Alley, et al) are their books! 

Certainly.

>If they had not written clearly and concisely, no one would have understood what they had discovered, and they would have been forgotten on the heap. 

Certainly. Most of them didn't even claim to have invented what people credit them with but give credit to someone else.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesqueenrearingmethods.htm


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> What he and I have observed from a slightly more distanced position is that there are isolated examples of survivorship.


By this do you mean 'feral survivorship'? Or 'natural beekeeping'? I'll assume the latter - though the two go together.



peterloringborst said:


> These examples are, most tellingly, isolated. So it's sort of like telling us you moved up into cabin in the woods and never got the flu after that.


Your example uses the notion that isolation protects by keeping a distance from the infectious agent. This is not the case - these 'survivor' bees have varroa - _but are able to combat it_. It is not freedom from infection that makes the difference - they have resistance.

What they also have, and what does make a big difference, is freedom from non-resistant drones. If they were not isolated their stock would be recieving drone sperm from apiaries that treat, and as a consequence/corrollary are not-resistant. This would tend to erode their resistance.

They may also have resistent genetic inputs from naturally-selected resistance wild/feral drones. 

They will also have milder strains of varroa than are found in apiaries, where fast breeding is the key evoltionary outcome of the envionment. 

These factors are additive - there is no single thing you can change that will make the difference. EXCEPT:

Not excluding weak bloodlines from the breeding pool, and maximising the imput from the strongest (i.e. most resistant) is a NECESSARY step.​
That is, IF you don't do that you WILL fail.

Therefore any treatments must be followed by terminations; and drones from weak colonies must be kept to a minimum.

It follows that the closer you are to treating apiraries, the harder it is to maintain resistant bloodlines. But, with effort and expertise selective breeding can, some think, work anywhere. 



peterloringborst said:


> We simply do not know why some of these bees are mite resistant and some are not.


This is nonsense. The same mechanisms that work in bred 'hygienic' bees will have been bought to the fore in the succesful populations. Wild 'survivor' bees often figure in resistance breeding programs for this very reason - they have already located and established the necessary alleles. 

But you are right if by 'know' you mean there is little scientific confirmation. As far as I know no studies have been done on this specific issue. That is probably because that would amount to 'pure' research and seen as unnecssary and unproductive. That wild/feral survivors are equipped to deal with varroa can be treated as a given. 



peterloringborst said:


> If your bees are mite resistant it probably has more to do with the Weavers than anything that you are doing.


(Arthur, can you see how this flies in the face of the evidence? Again:

"Any race or line of bees can be bred for hygienic behavior." [1]​ 
Any keeper following the teachings of i.e. Erickson, Spivak (people who Peter himself hymns as scientific heroes) can select for resistance and health. No professional breeder need play any role (although their products might often help) 

We know that selectively raised bees are mite resistant because selection -natural or human - has bought the right traits to the fore. We know a great deal about these traits, and how to recognise them. Yet Peter simply cannot make the connection. And so we get this nonsense, repeated over and over. 

The underlying message 'don't bother messing with selective non-treatment management.' And this is highly dangerous because the less keepers in different regions preserve their local strains, the more biodiversity is lost.

Peter's repeated false dismissals of the benefits and possibilities of small and medium scale selective apiaries benefits only those outfits who will thrive when bees are re-supplied from professional source every year.)



peterloringborst said:


> Probably, if anyone could raise a mite resistant bee, they could. But not by unscientific methods.


Would you call Jacob's (Old Testament) methods 'scientific'? How about the medieval 'Put best to best'? This knowledge has been held in the farming community for thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - of years. 

The activities of pigeon breeders greatly inspired Darwin. Were they scientists? (I think if you replied you'd say yes, blurring the distinction between formally trained scientists and people who admire and emulate some of their methodologies)

It is instructive to note that in the case of beekeepers it was, until recently, more or less possible to keep successfully without this knowledge. the interchange of genetic material with wild bees kept the ariaries strong almost regardless of what beekeepers did in selective terms. Beekeeping - alone among the fields of animal stock-keeping - has little or no tradition of selection for health at grassroots level. 

Mike

[1] The Hygiene Queen, Marla Spivak and Gary S. Reuter
http://www.apiservices.com/articles/us/hygiene_queen.htm


----------



## mike bispham

kiwiBee said:


> LOL this thread has really made me appreciate the fact I'm a beekeeper and not a scientist!
> I have no idea what any of you are talking about!:scratch:
> 
> yours in ignorance
> Kiwi


That's often the general idea... blind 'em with 'science'.

Mike


----------



## WLC

Dean:

Are you kidding me?

The reason why colonies that can produce antisense RNA to a virus (due to retrotransposition) form a significant portion of the survivor population is obvious. They are resistant.

The selective pressure for it is far greater in untreated colonies than in treated colonies. More mites in untreated colonies means greater selective pressure. More mites result in more overt viral infections and therefore produce a greater proportion of surviving, virus resistant (transgenic) colonies.

You can't argue your way around this kind of a problem.

If I told you that untreated bees are spreading viral fragments throughout the Honeybee population at a faster rate than treated colonies, would you recognize the threat to to all Honeybees, or would you continue to look for loopholes?

That's a dangerous game to play with livestock.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> The selective pressure for it is far greater in untreated colonies than in treated colonies. More mites in untreated colonies means greater selective pressure. More mites result in more overt viral infections and therefore produce a greater proportion of surviving, virus resistant (transgenic) colonies.


ok, this is what i thought your claim was...which is why i asked/observed the following in my first post in this thread:


deknow said:


> 2. we use no treatments, and have been along on inspections of a number of other local (and not so local) operations. i see less varroa in our colonies than i do in those that are treated conventionally. if the viruses are spread by varroa, wouldn't the rate of inserted viral dna fragments getting into the gene pool be mostly dependent on the number of varroa, not whether or not the bees are treated?





> You can't argue your way around this kind of a problem.
> 
> If I told you that untreated bees are spreading viral fragments throughout the Honeybee population at a faster rate than treated colonies, would you recognize the threat to to all Honeybees, or would you continue to look for loopholes?
> 
> That's a dangerous game to play with livestock.


well, a couple of thoughts on the above.

1. i'm not at all convinced that untreated bees have more mites than treated bees. in our colonies, i've only seen more than one mite on drone brood once or twice in the last bunch of years. our bee inspector doesn't find much varroa in our our bees (none at all last year)...admittedly, he does not use the most rigorous methods of mite counting, but using his methods (uncapping some drone brood), he finds mites in virtually all the hives in the county (i've been along on inspections and seen mites crawling all over a few years worth of propolized apistan strips as an extreme example). in virtually every inspection i've been on with him, he has seen enough mites to recommend treatment...but not our untreated bees. having been on inspections of hives near more than one location of ours, i can virtually guarantee that the treated hives near us have more mites. this is based on first hand observation.

2. we do occasionally lose a hive to mites...these crashes are in stark contrast to the bulk of our colonies....and of course, short of some possible drone mating from these hives, they do not tend to pass on their dna to the next generation (with or without viral dna fragments)...our colonies without significant mites (ie, stronger colonies) are likely to produce more (and stronger) drones, i think...further limiting the passing on of genes by the varroa infested. of course, we do our best to breed from the strongest colonies which are never the ones collapsing from mites.

i'd suggest that beekeepers with persistent mite problems (ie, they treat once or twice a year because they are finding mite populations "above threshold" and expect to lose the hive if not treated) have more mites than those of us that don't treat and don't appear to have a mite problem.

of course this would be an easy question to answer...the maori paper didn't specify, but i think we can assume that the samples were from treated colonies. how about looking at the genome of the russian stock (that has had a longer history of mite exposure)? how about actually comparing treated and untreated colonies before jumping to conclusions that untreated hives have more mites...i expect that those that do don't live very long, or pass much on to the next generation. colonies with chronic and persistent mite infestations that are treated however have a lot of mite exposure, and lots of opportunity to pass integrated viral dna fragments on to the next generation....

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst

If Eva Crane's research was all she did, that would still be monumental, but she did so much more!



> Eva Crane was a towering figure in the field of beekeeping, one of its most knowledgeable practitioners and prolific historians, and a powerful champion of bees as a scientific subject.
> 
> In 1949 she founded the Bee Research Association (renamed the International Bee Research Association in 1976). She was its director until she retired in 1984, by which time it had become a key resource in bee research
> 
> Crane became editor of the nontechnical magazine Bee World in 1949 and expanded its content to include summaries of scientific papers and books relevant to the science of bees and beekeeping. When it became clear that an entirely new platform for such content was desirable she founded The Journal of Apicultural Research. In 1950 she also founded Apicultural Abstracts, which aimed to give a complete survey of research and technical developments concerning all bees and bee-related subjects.
> 
> Crane established the Eva Crane Trust to advance the science of apiology and encourage bee research for the public benefit, and the Eva Crane Library, now held at the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth, holds about 60,000 scientific papers and a unique collection of 130 different bee journals, many of them dating back to their first issues in the 19th century and in some cases representing the only complete sets in existence.
> 
> Crane was fanatical about accuracy and contributed more than once to discussions


----------



## peterloringborst

A real scientist:



> She founded the International Bee Research Association (IBRA), and ran it herself until her 72nd year. And yet her academic background was not in apiculture or biology, but in _nuclear physics. _
> 
> She possessed "an intellect that took no prisoners", said Richard Jones, her successor as director of the IBRA. Always precise, her maxim was "observe, check the facts, and _always get your research right_".


The Independent
September 14, 2007


----------



## deknow

peterloringborst said:


> A real scientist:


yes, she was a real scientist. 

can you name "an important discovery" she made that benefit beekeepers?



> ...as most of the truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from have been made by scientists.


deknow


----------



## peterloringborst

deknow said:


> can you name "an important discovery" she made that benefit beekeepers


You know what, you're right. She discovered nothing. None of the scientists have given much of benefit to beekeepers. 

But that's fine. Everything you need to know is in the "Complete Idiot's Guide"


----------



## peterloringborst

Here's an interesting example of a discovery made by scientific researchers: 



> Honeybees, Apis mellifera, adjust their pollen foraging activity according to the need for pollen within the colony, determined by the amount of stored pollen and young brood present in the hive.
> 
> CLAUDIA DRELLER & DAVID R. TARPY. 1999. Perception of the pollen need by foragers in a honeybee colony


Knowing this has had immense benefit to those beekeepers who trap pollen, as it assures us that if 50% of the pollen is prevented from entering the hive, the bees will increase the number of foragers collecting pollen in order to maintain a "critical mass" of pollen in the hive.


----------



## deknow

was this really a discovery? were beekeepers not using #5 mesh to trap pollen before this study, and finding that the colonies did not suffer too much? i don't think any of the recommendations for trapping pollen (strong healthy colonies when there is abundant pollen) have changed since this study, have they? have pollen traps changed appreciably since 1999?

deknow


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> You can't argue your way around this kind of a problem.


It seems fair to say that nobody except you sees it as a problem.... 

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

deknow said:


> was this really a discovery?


Yep, you got me again. Just about any scientific discovery I mention you can dismiss as not important to regular beeks. 

All of von Frisch's work, dismissed. All of Adrian Wenner's. All of Steve Taber's. All of Tom Seeley's. 

Dismissed, not needed by any but a small circle of friends. Yep, you got me.


----------



## StevenG

peterloringborst said:


> You know what, you're right. She discovered nothing. None of the scientists have given much of benefit to beekeepers.
> 
> But that's fine. Everything you need to know is in the "Complete Idiot's Guide"


Once again, when one can't answer the question, change the subject and demean your questioner.


----------



## deknow

imho, the most important recent developments have come from vermont...specifically from kirk webster and mike palmer.

the making up of small nucs early in the season from "non-productive colonies" so that they have time to build up strength but not swarm before winter in order to have overwintered nucs to use and to sell in the spring seems more and more brilliant every time i consider it. this simply has to become the way we do things in the north.

i've also heard rumors of a neato method for making up packages that seems quite smart (also from a beekeeper)...but i don't think this one is my story to tell.

deknow


----------



## arthur

the person in pursuit of knowledge may have a different goal than the person in pursuit of making a living (i.e. money).

when you think about it, beekeeping is one of the least advanced areas of agriculture--essentially using the same methods for over a hundred years. Extremely labor intensive.

Look at the ways that livestock, milk, crops production has changed in this century. Versus beekeeping.

So if someone wants to argue that modern science hasn't contributed a heckuva lot to modern beekeeping practices, there might be something to that.

The real wonder is how beekeeping has continued to allow some people to make a living, given how the rest of the ag industry has had to become so much more efficient.


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> Knowing this has had immense benefit to those beekeepers who trap pollen, as it assures us that if 50% of the pollen is prevented from entering the hive, the bees will increase the number of foragers collecting pollen in order to maintain a "critical mass" of pollen in the hive.


This seems like plain simple logic and common sense to me, easily learned by doing. I doubt that longtime beekeepers needed to be 'assured' of it.

Sort of like if you take most of their honey, the bees will attempt to replenish it. Or if you pinch the queen, they will attempt to replace her with a new one. Same with culling drones. Bees generally know when their food stores are depleted and they know when they need more drones and when they need a new queen. So if you steal 50% of the pollen they are bringing into the hive, they will make the effort to get more to replace it. This is a 'scientific discovery' that has greatly benefited beekeepers?


----------



## peterloringborst

> But that's fine. Everything you need to know is in the "Complete Idiot's Guide"
> 
> Once again, when one can't answer the question, change the subject and demean your questioner.


How is that demeaning the questioner? It's his book! It's not my fault it looks from the title that it was written by "A Complete Idiot." It's his title, too.

I most certainly can answer the question of what I think is important. But what's the point? You guys are just waiting to pitch it back, saying "oh, that's not important.

About the pollen, if you are trapping pollen, a question is: "Is this screwing the colony?". Maybe that's not important to you. It is to me. Knowing that the hive has a scientifically understood compensatory system for regulating the level of pollen in the hive, is significant. You may be satisfied with "It doesn't seem to hurt them." I'm not. That simply is inadequate to an intelligent person.

Furthermore, it is (in my biased opinion) to know that honey bees are unable to evaluate the protein and food value content of pollen. Therefore they are just as likely to collect junk pollen as crap. Now, this may not seem important to you, if you are not concerned with the nutritional inputs into your colonies. However, to me, it is just as important as any other factor that we can monitor, such as exposure, dampness, wind, predators, honey stores, etc.

If you want a colony to thrive, you have to know what hampers it. Inadequate nutrition has been suggested time and again as a factor in poor health of honey bee colonies. This can be cause by an inadequate pollen supply. Inadequate can mean too little pollen or pollen of too poor nutritional value. If none of this is important to you, I submit that you do not have the colonies' best interest in mind.


----------



## peterloringborst

Omie said:


> Sort of like if you take most of their honey, the bees will attempt to replenish it.


Wrong. Bees will collect honey as long as there is honey to collect. They don't stop when they run out of room nor start up again if there is. Unlike the regulation of pollen collection, honey collection is unregulated. If they can't get it by legitimate means, they will attempt to steal it. You won't see bees stealing pollen.


----------



## deknow

peterloringborst said:


> "Is this screwing the colony?". Maybe that's not important to you. It is to me. Knowing that the hive has a scientifically understood compensatory system for regulating the level of pollen in the hive, is significant. You may be satisfied with "It doesn't seem to hurt them." I'm not. That simply is inadequate to an intelligent person.


unless you want to claim that this (or any other study) shows that there is no cost to the colony by trapping pollen, i'm not sure what the point is.

so there is a scientifically understood compensatory system...even if we could prove there wasn't (and instead, the bees collected more pollen than they needed), the practical use to the beekeeper would be the same:
"trapping pollen from strong healthy hives when there is an abundance of pollen available doesn't seem to negatively impact the colony very much".

of course it's interesting...almost everything about bees is interesting...but from a management and innovation standpoint, the "researchers" haven't quite done what most of us would wish they had.

btw, thanks for the plug 

deknow "there's no such thing as bad publicity"


----------



## peterloringborst

deknow said:


> unless you want to claim that this (or any other study) shows that there is no cost to the colony by trapping pollen, i'm not sure what the point is.


Hmm. Perhaps I failed to make myself clear. The point is: am I hurting the colony by stealing their pollen? This matters to me. 

I may do it anyway, but then if the health suffers, I realize that it either is or is not related to what I did. 

And I can choose to either: stop trapping pollen, introduce supplemental feeding, or chalk it up to the cost of doing business. 

You see how it might be useful to know the in-hive dynamics of pollen regulation? Or not?


----------



## WLC

Dean:

You seem to be ignoring the fact that in order to select for survivor stock from untreated colonies, you need to go through a selection process that can result in the loss of up to 95% of your colonies.

You don't have that kind of selective pressure in effectively treated colonies. You certainly don't loss upto 95% of your stock when you treat.

Since viral pathogens are known to be a major cause of colony loss, it's obvious that you are, in fact, selecting for virus resistant colonies when you initially select for a treatment free regime. If 30% of our Honeybee colonies are virus resistant because of viral fragment inserts, then you can't help but to have a higher percentage of transgenic colonies in the resulting treatment free hives.

It's the selection process that's important, We already know that overt viral infections have multiple causes, and it's not just mites.

Nice try.


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> Wrong. Bees will collect honey as long as there is honey to collect. They don't stop when they run out of room nor start up again if there is. Unlike the regulation of pollen collection, honey collection is unregulated. If they can't get it by legitimate means, they will attempt to steal it. You won't see bees stealing pollen.


Bees _make_ honey and _collect_ nectar. Unless they were stealing honey from another hive or someone set some out as a free buffet. It's hard to make sense of your answer. If as you say bees don't stop 'collecting' honey after they've run out of room, where on earth would they put it then?
Are you saying bees won't attempt to make/replenish more honey if you take most of their honey away, leaving them too little?


----------



## mike bispham

arthur said:


> The real wonder is how beekeeping has continued to allow some people to make a living, given how the rest of the ag industry has had to become so much more efficient.


Whether what it is able to 'achieve' is sustainable is a different question.

It seems to me that competiton and the drive for a best bottom line have turned comercial beekeeping into something that can only exist at huge cost to the stock. The bee - in the US anyway - seems to be on the way to becoming domesticated, in the sense that it is entirely dependent on humans for the medicines it needs to remain alive. This bee cannot escape - in the wild it dies. Wild bees cannot exist near it - their genes are the touch of death. It is a cog in a machine. It is likely that fresh genetic material will have to be imported from other countries on a regular basis, to make up for the consumption of genetic diversity the commercial machine devours. Scientists will have to be employed permantly to ensure the provision of a continuous train of functional bees.

This is not anything I want any part of. I cannot - or rather don't want to -explain why.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> You seem to be ignoring the fact that in order to select for survivor stock from untreated colonies, you need to go through a selection process that can result in the loss of up to 95% of your colonies.


'Can' being the operative word here. If you do it sensibly you don't have to lose ANY. 



WLC said:


> Since viral pathogens are known to be a major cause of colony loss, it's obvious that you are, in fact, selecting for virus resistant colonies when you initially select for a treatment free regime.


Yes for selecting virus resistant colonies (but that is no problem): rubbish for your causal priority. The mite is a PRIOR CAUSE. It is only through the PRIOR opening of holes in the bees bodies that the virus is able to enter. 

Try to learn something about the importance of TRAINS of causes. They are always chronologically sequenced, if that helps. That is; causes always precede effects; i.e: 

_First:_ mite makes hole,

_ Second:_ virus enters body.

It could have been any nasty organism - it really doesn't matter - the bee died beCAUSE a mite made a hole in its body. If it hadn't been this virus, another would have done the same thing a little later.

Mite activity is itself an EFFECT of interference in the selection system. Those mites are only there beCAUSE that bloodline has been artificially supported. If it hadn't been so supported, a different bloodline would be in its place, and its bees would be able to handle the mites. And the mites would be much less aggressive.

Without the mites there is no virus problem. When you select for simple survivablity, for health and vitality, you automatically select against those things that impact health and vitality most. In the modern environment that means varroa, and what will come to the fore will be - mainly - the hygienic behaviours.



WLC said:


> If 30% of our Honeybee colonies are virus resistant because of viral fragment inserts, then you can't help but to have a higher percentage of transgenic colonies in the resulting treatment free hives.


And the problem with that is... (from the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE please, not from the SALES 'literature'...)

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

Omie said:


> Bees _make_ honey and _collect_ nectar. Unless they were stealing honey from another hive or someone set some out as a free buffet. It's hard to make sense of your answer. If as you say bees don't stop 'collecting' honey after they've run out of room, where on earth would they put it then?
> 
> Are you saying bees won't attempt to make/replenish more honey if you take most of their honey away, leaving them too little?


Right, collect nectar, make honey. By stealing, yes, I meant stealing honey from another hive=robbing. 

If they run out of room, they start building more comb. Haven't you seen colonies build comb on the outside of the hive? Lucky you!

Yes,_ I am saying_ that taking or leaving the honey has no influence on the colony whatsoever. If there is nectar to be gathered, they will gather it. Having a full or empty hive has no effect on this. They will build comb on the front of the hive, or under it if they are out of room. 

Giving room is important, of course, because if you don't they may fill up the brood combs with honey. Taking too much is important, too, because they could starve. 

It has to be done correctly, but whoever out there thinks that skinning the hive causes them to work harder: they don't know beans about bees.


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> It has to be done correctly, but whoever out there thinks that skinning the hive causes them to work harder: they don't know beans about bees.


And I never said that. I said: "Sort of like if you take most of their honey, the bees will attempt to replenish it." Replenish does not mean 'work harder', it just means to replace. If you take pollen from the bees, they try to replace what they have lost. Take honey from their combs by extracting, they will try to replace it/replenish it. I guess I don't see it as being that complicated. It's just common sense.


----------



## WLC

Journal of Invertebrate Pathology: Supplemental Issue on Diseases of Bees

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=2a942362716f0bda5eda355efc47291b

Let me park this reference here. Someone might actually try and read it.


----------



## peterloringborst

Omie said:


> Take honey from their combs by extracting, they will try to replace it/replenish it. I guess I don't see it as being that complicated. It's just common sense.


Not true. That was the whole point of my discussion. It has been determined through careful study that bees regulate pollen storage while they do not regulate the storage of honey. There are distinct biological reasons for this. And yet you seem to prefer to substitute what you call "common sense" for the actual facts. 

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein


----------



## kiwiBee

Peter 
are you saying that you can take all the honey off a hive and the bees will sit back and not bring another drop in?

where on earth did you come across this?
kiwi


----------



## peterloringborst

kiwiBee said:


> Peter
> are you saying that you can take all the honey off a hive and the bees will sit back and not bring another drop in?
> 
> where on earth did you come across this?
> kiwi


No, I didn't say anything remotely like that. I said that whether you do or do not take off the honey does not influence whether they gather nectar. If there is no nectar, they will not gather it! If you take off all the honey when there is no nectar they will die! If you leave the honey on the hive, they will not stop gathering nectar just because the hive is "full"! If you remove the honey they do not rush out in attempt to "fill it back up"! 

The gathering of nectar is primarily based upon environmental conditions. Two things that take place internally that will affect nectar gather would be: preparations to swarm. Nectar gathering slows down, although some nectar gathering goes on even while the swarm is in transit. Queenlessness generally depresses all the activity of the colony. It is a grave error to impute a higher level of consciousness to bees than they have. Some things they know, some things they do not know.

Scientists attempt to separate out these two categories.


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> Not true....It has been determined through careful study that bees regulate pollen storage while they do not regulate the storage of honey. There are distinct biological reasons for this. And yet you seem to prefer to substitute what you call "common sense" for the actual facts.


I disagree with your discussion methods. (not that you care, I'm sure) In my life journey, I find that sometimes the 'actual facts' are just not what they are advertised to be. They so often become filtered and bent into different desired results depending upon the person using them. In such cases my common sense has usually stood me in good stead as I slowly build on my knowledge and beliefs.


----------



## peterloringborst

This is a treasure trove of up to the minute information, on par with the Journal of Apicultural Research's recent efforts.



> This special issue of the _Journal of Invertebrate Pathology_ on bee health aims to collect state-of-the-art knowledge on various bee pathogens in order to provide a solid and up-to-date background for those interested in honeybee infection biology. Only if research in the field of honeybee pathology is conducted at the cutting edge of science will we be able to address the pressing questions for sustaining honeybee health and preventing colony losses due to disease.


See also:

[QUOTE It has been unclear what has caused recent global declines of honey bees. The _Journal of Apicultural Research Special Issue _focuses on the latest evidence-based explanations of the extent and causes of honey bee colony losses. These peer-reviewed reports of current scientific thinking aid our understanding of recent eye catching headlines proclaiming the dramatic demise of the honey bee, a world pollinator crisis, and the spectre of mass human starvation. 

Issue 49(1) of the Journal of Apicultural Research, published by IBRA will contain a comprehensive mixture of evidence based review articles, original research articles, and reports of colony losses in many partner countries of the COST funded COLOSS Network. This issue is edited by Dr. Peter Neumann, the Chair of the global COLOSS network "Prevention of honey bee COlony LOSSes"; and Norman Carreck, Scientific Director, IBRA, and the University of Sussex, UK. [/QUOTE]


----------



## kiwiBee

Peter,
thanks for putting me straight on what you were saying about the collection of honey I was starting think you were crazy!

What is your opinion on hives that become pollen clogged?
by that I mean hives that have entire frames of pollen and not a whole lot of brood to feed it too?

and this quote of yours 

[QUOTE It has been unclear what has caused recent global declines of honey bees. The Journal of Apicultural Research Special Issue focuses on the latest evidence-based explanations of the extent and causes of honey bee colony losses. 

I'm not getting the global thing what countries are affected by colony collapse? 
As far as I'm aware Australia and New Zealand have not had any incidence of colony collapse and I'm sure there are many other countries that haven't either.

As I said before on this thread alot of what you are talking about is way over my head but I'm sure I will be put right if I get it wrong 

kiwi


----------



## peterloringborst

kiwiBee said:


> Peter,
> thanks for putting me straight on what you were saying about the collection of honey I was starting think you were crazy!


That's OK, I am used to that by now.

Too much pollen. This can be a problem at times, although if in fact, bees regulate pollen storage, the excess pollen would probably point to a different problem: a failing queen. Typically a colony tries to have about 1 kilo of pollen on hand. This would be the amount a really good colony could go through in a week or two, if the weather turned bad. But if the queen is not up to par, then there would be far less brood, and the pollen would not get consumed at the normal rate. At this point, the colony would be expected to slack off on pollen gathering. Of course, a hive of bees is not a machine, and the regulation of each colony tends to be individualized. We are talking about generally bees do this or that. A particular colony could break all the rules.

But apart from that, the reason that bees tend not to store large quantities of pollen and they tend to store huge amounts of honey is: pollen has a higher tendency to spoil. Also, it is the honey that they will survive on if during the long term dearths such as winter in cold climates, or long dry summers in hot climates (these amount to the same thing to bees, inasmuch as there is little to keep them alive beyond what they have stored). During these dearth periods they tend not to raise brood, and actually, they can produce brood food using some of the stored fat in their bodies.

Look, I have spent most of my life trying to learn as much as possible about bees. I don't believe that common sense garnered from ordinary life has anything whatever to do with beekeeping, for the simple fact that bees are neither plants nor animals in the broad sense. The colony is a living being made up of thousands of smaller living beings, and eusocial insect colonies are not "like" animals, or cities, or computers. They are quite their own thing, and each eusocial species has special features ranging from the honey bees, ants, wasps, all the way to termites which are actually more closely related to ****roaches than ants. 

If any of this interests you, I suggest getting hold of E O Wilson's book "The Superorganism" or Tom Seeley's "Wisdom of the Hive"

According to COLOSS:



> So far, elevated colony losses have recently been reported from Europe
> (Crailsheim et al., 2009), the USA (vanEngelsdorp et al., 2009; 2010), the Middle East (Haddad et al., 2009; Soroker et al., 2009), and Japan
> (Guttierrez, 2009), but not from South America, Africa and Australia.


There are reports now of new problems in Brazil and other parts of South America



> For details on individual countries please refer to papers in this Special Issue:
> Austria (Brodschneider et al., 2010); Bulgaria (Ivanova and Petrov, 2010); Croatia (Gajger et al., 2010); Denmark (Vejsnæs and Kryger,
> 2010); England (Aston, 2010); Greece (Hatjina et al., 2010); Italy (Mutinelli et al., 2010); Norway (Dahle, 2010); Scotland (Gray et al.,
> 2010); Switzerland (Charrière and Neumann, 2010).
> 
> Journal of Apicultural Research 49(1): 1-6 (2010) © IBRA 2010


----------



## kiwiBee

Peter,
Do you think colony collapse could have anything to do with the amount of time varroa has been in a region?
My knowledge on things scientific is minimal and I dont know all the countries that have varroa or colony collapse so I'm looking at it from my small part of the world Australia dosn't have varroa or colony collapse New Zealand has recently got varroa but has no colony collapse.
Just wondering if the two might be related?

Kiwi


----------



## peterloringborst

kiwiBee said:


> Peter,
> Do you think colony collapse could have anything to do with the amount of time varroa has been in a region?


Well, yes and no. When the whole colony collapse thing hit the news, I thought: "that's not new, bees always collapse if you let the varroa mites build up too long." When I worked at the Bee Lab, we were studying varroa so we let colonies get really heavily infested in order to have a ready supply of varroa mites at all times. Sooner or later, the hives just crashed. 

One season we bought twelve hives from a guy, supposedly_ mite resistant locally adapted bees _( I've been around this stuff for decades, heard it all). These bees were a little edgy, built up fast, _made a lot of honey_, and at the end of the honey flow (September, around these parts) the populations just plummeted, like leaves dropping from the trees.

In a few weeks the bees were just gone. So, I think, varroa equals colony collapse. But evidently, what they started seeing in 2006 was different, inasmuch as the bees just cleared out leaving apparently healthy brood. To a scientific mind, this sounds like virus. I have read almost everything written on honey bee viruses, and it is quite clear that viruses can and do cause this sort of symptom. Virus builds up in the bees' brains and they either get confused and can't find their way back, or else they go off some where to die. With no way to get inside a bees brain, we can't know which it is, really.

Then, nosema ceranae appeared on the scene and the story coming out of Spain was that they were pretty sure N. ceranae was causing colonies to collapse in Spain. The weird part is that colonies are just collapsing everywhere, but the real CCD that was discovered and named in Pennsylvania and Florida in northern winter 2006-2007 seemed to have symptoms distinct from the other collapses, due to varroa, deformed wing virus, sacbrood virus, or nosema spp. 

Now, one could argue that it doesn't matter what killed the bees, the hive is dead. Get new bees. But there are a lot of us who are interested in sustainability. By that I mean, not having to replace the bees every year. Not that there is anything wrong with it. Plenty of crops get replanted every year. However, we in the north -- rightly or wrongly -- feel a lot of our problems come from the southern beekeepers, upon whom we depend for bees to restock our hives.

A lot of folks who don't know the history of beekeeping don't realize that large scale losses are not new. That annual restocking of hives was a common affair in Canada, before they closed the border to US bees. Many beekeepers learned to split their hives into 5 or 6 nucs each in order to get their numbers back up. None of this is new. What is new and serious is hives not being able to hold up for even one season!

Varroa and viruses are two sides of the same coin. Without varroa, viruses probably would seldom kill a hive, just like hardly anybody ever dies of a cold. But with varroa, the immune system of the bees is compromised and virus replication gets out of hand. It's very much like AIDS. AIDS patients are very vulnerable to all sorts of opportunistic infections that wouldn't hurt a healthy individual. Same thing with people on immuno-suppressant drugs: they can get taken down by minor germs.

So most of the scientific community recommends keeping varroa under control. All of those out there that do not have varroa, this doesn't apply to you. If you can keep bees without having them get overrun by varroa, for whatever reason, lucky you! It may not be workable in every area and with every colony. To forgo varroa treatments is a sort of religion in some circles. I don't belong to that religion. In fact, I don't belong to any religion, for the simple reason that I don't want to be told what to do. 

In spite of what some folks say, I don't tell people what to do. I want to find out what to do, what works, what doesn't work; and most importantly, the reasons why. For those who don't think this is the way to go, fine. Go your own way! I salute you! But get off my case.


----------



## Allen Dick

> I said that whether you do or do not take off the honey does not influence whether they gather nectar. If there is no nectar, they will not gather it! If you take off all the honey when there is no nectar they will die! If you leave the honey on the hive, they will not stop gathering nectar just because the hive is "full"! If you remove the honey they do not rush out in attempt to "fill it back up"!


That is interesting. I don't have proof of this, but in practice, I have discovered that hives with less than a sufficient amount of honey in the hive will fly themselves to death in fall trying to provision themselves. At the same time, well-fed hives hardly venture out even when feed is available in the open. The former often die before Christmas; the latter usually winter well. I realize this may be a special case.

I recall that there was a talk about adding and removing pollen from hives to judge the effect on gathering presented at Apimondia in Vancouver and that it came from Nick's lab -- if I remember correctly. Were you involved in that study, Peter?


----------



## peterloringborst

Allen Dick said:


> I recall that there was a talk about adding and removing pollen from hives to judge the effect on gathering presented at Apimondia in Vancouver and that it came from Nick's lab -- if I remember correctly. Were you involved in that study, Peter?


Yes. During most of the seven years I worked at the lab, we were working on ways to study the effects of pollen quantity on pollen foraging, how it was that bees were able to judge the quantity of pollen and adjust the foraging. 

There were many theories as to how bees might "know" how much pollen is in the hive. No one has really nailed that one. But consider the way nectar is moved into the hive: basically the foragers just go and get it, and deposit it into the brood nest. House bees then move it up into the supers. 

One school of thought believes the best place for empty supers is right above the brood nest. Others feel it doesn't really matter that much, that if there is storage space at the top of the hive, the bees will use it just as readily. I am sure it depends on the strength of the hive and the strength of the nectar flow.

But see, the foragers don't go into the supers, so how would they know whether the hive is full or not? Whereas water and collection seem to be tied to supply and demand, the bees' instinct seems to be that if there is a honey flow on, they have to take advantage of it while they can. 

Again, this is not surprising. Typically, there may be only one or two really good nectar flows in an area, and there may be several seasons in a row where there aren't any really good nectar flows. We are used to studying bees in good honey areas. Beekeeping doesn't do that well in a marginal area. 

However, bees have not always depended on people to get them into good areas. You look at the mediterranean climate where bees have thrived for millennia. The weather is decent enough, but if you have a long drought, there is nothing to collect for months or even years. Similarly, in cold zones, bees can be shut in for months in winter and then have the bad fortune of crappy cold wet weather all summer.

So it pays them to gather and store as much nectar as possible and turn it into a product that will keep for years. Pollen doesn't keep that well and is not anywhere near as hard to obtain as nectar with a high sugar content. There again, tropical bees do not possess the hoarding instinct to the same degree as cold climate bees, because they don't need to. Their strategy is much more to live day to day and migrate from flow to flow. 

I am pretty well convinced that honey bees are highly stimulated by concentrated sugar. So when there is a super honey flow on, they pretty much go nuts over it. Almost all other work ceases when a really big flow hits. There is never this sort of reaction to pollen.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> It is a grave error to impute a higher level of consciousness to bees than they have. Some things they know, some things they do not know.
> 
> Scientists attempt to separate out these two categories.


Bees have consciousness? Is that a scientific fact?

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Omie said:


> I disagree with your discussion methods.


Discussion methods? You? Um: ignoring any point that contradicts your fixed position; attacking ad hominem; and placing on 'ignore' any poster with the temerity to repeat such awkward points... generally deploying disruptive rhetoric in conversations between ernest people who are trying to bring the facts about what plagues small beekeepers into the open...

Peter your 'discussion' method leaves something to be desired too you know! 

Its a shame. You have a lively mind, and if you dropped your fixed agenda and engaged with the basic biology you could do something useful for the world. Rather, that is, than something useful for drug companies.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> These peer-reviewed reports of current scientific thinking aid our understanding of recent eye catching headlines proclaiming the dramatic demise of the honey bee, a world pollinator crisis, and the spectre of mass human starvation.


Do they reveal this lurid claim to be the nonsense that is... ?

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

> Peter your 'discussion' method leaves something to be desired too you know!
> 
> Its a shame. You have a lively mind, and if you dropped your fixed agenda and engaged with the basic biology you could do something useful for the world. Rather, that is, than something useful for drug companies.
> 
> Mike
> __________________
> Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness


What is the point of attacking me, my methods or my motivation? I don't call attention to your personal swipes at me, and if anyone has a fixed agenda, it's you. Look at your tag-line! 

Do you suppose that simply by choosing not to agree with you -- that makes me: "Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness"? 

Why would I or anyone take such a position -- unless they stood to make money from "Continuing sickness". I don't make money from any of this.


----------



## Roland

Allen Dick: We have noticed similar behavior in bee hives. The more thourally you clean them out, the harder they work. That is what my Grandfather believed, and he and his father where know for getting big honey crops.

Peter: can you link to a study that refutes this "folk" wisdom?

As for queenless hives being listless, quite the opposite, a queenless hive can make more honey for a short time because they have no brood to feed. 

Roland Diehnelt
Linden Apiary, Est. 1852


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> What is the point of attacking me, my methods or my motivation?


The point is to draw attention to the irrational aspects of your positions. I use that word carefully. Some of your positions contradict one another. To hold two contrary positions simultaniusly is irrational - the opposition signals that one or the other - or both is wrong.

Yet when such contradictions are pointed out to you, you fail to address the illogic of your position. Instead you try to cover it by ignoring the poster, changing the subect, claiming higher authority and learning, putting the poster down etc etc. 

The contradictions remain, and for as long as they remain, you will be plagued by people like me all to happy to point them out for you.

Sure I have a fixed agenda: pay attention to reality, as described by deeply established science and vast empirical experience. When reality confronts your beliefs, confront the disjuction between what you believe and what is real. Such disjunctions are the very core of science Peter. When things don't fits together that is a certain sign that there is a flaw in understanding -a green light for investigation. 

The very last thing you want to be doing is changing the subject, or shooting the messenger. Address the problem like a grown up participant in a discussion, admit your errors quickly when necessary - we're all fallible.



peterloringborst said:


> Do you suppose that simply by choosing not to agree with you -- that makes me: "Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness"?


I've no problem whatever with your not agreeing with me. But shooting down my position without making any attempt at locating the flaw/s that you feel it embodies, or offering proper discussion, is just ya boo. Nothing has been settled, and to pretend it has, and that the discussion should therefore move on is dishonest.

The position you take is as I've described it on several occasions - it ignores both well-established theory and piles of evidence, and steams ahead on the 'understanding' that you are a scientist (by your own definition it emerges) and have authority to make claims without needing to offer justification or respond to criticism. Anyone who wants to disagree with you is, it seems, a fool; and can be ignored. You are far too important to stoop to responding - as you told us earlier today - you've 'heard it all'. 

I'm pleased to hear you make no money from representing those whose interests lie in continuing bee ill-health. I was beginning to be convinced that was the only possible reason for your actions here. 

Mike


----------



## bhfury

I think the thread has been off topic since the first thread..... Help Mod!!!!

An ideal beekeepers' world...bees would be mite resistant and brood disease resistant.
An ideal beekeepers' world...honey prices would be stable "BUY AMERICAN!!!"
An ideal beekeepers' world...pollination prices would be dependable
An ideal beekeepers' world...bees would work in damp cold weather
An ideal beekeepers' world...NOW YOUR TURN TO FINISH THIS


----------



## devdog108

we would all respect each others opinions......and this thread would go away...LOL


----------



## peterloringborst

mike bispham said:


> The point is to draw attention to the irrational aspects of your positions.


I have no position. My chief aim is to promote inquiry. I am sorry if you haven't picked that up by now. If you thought about it, however, you would see that is the reason that I apparently hold multiple positions: I have no fixed position on anything. 

In my opinion, the chief value of internet discussions is to approximate the omniscient or at least broadminded point of view which can see things from many (if not all) angles. If you disapprove of this wavering approach, _excuse me!_



> A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
> 
> Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
> Essays. First Series. Self-Reliance.


----------



## StevenG

Ok bhfury, I'll bite!

"An ideal beekeeper's world.... from last frost in the spring to first frost in the fall, it rains only at night (so as not to wash out the nectar) and the temperature is always perfect for maximum nectar secretion." (Hey, it's my fantasy of perfection! :lpf: )


----------



## bhfury

You're the best Steve:applause::applause:


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> My chief aim is to promote inquiry.


Then set an example by demonstrating how to be an honest and earnest interlocuter. That is surely the foundation of inquiry? 



peterloringborst said:


> I have no fixed position on anything.


Nonsense. You have a multitude of fixed positions, just like the rest of us. If your car has no fuel, will it start? No. Going to change your mind tomorrow? No. If I pour a pint of petrol in a beehive will the colony survive? No. Going to change your mind tomorrow? No. 

The interesting part of DISCUSSIONS is where we have positions that might change as a result of changes of evidence or as the result of argument. Them we work out and test each-other's positions, using reason and fact. WE DON'T RUN AWAY WHEN WE CAN'T REFUTE THE OTHER POSITION. We engage, and try to learn from the engagement. We are honest and sometimes admit: 'you seem to have a point there that makes defence of my position hard'. I'm going to have to modify by belief, my position, in the light of what has been said - and so on. There is no shame in this. And 

That is what you don't do - you run away. And then repeat your position as if nothing had been said. That is insulting and obstructive. 

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

mike bispham said:


> Then set an example by demonstrating how to be an honest and earnest interlocuter.


Again, you seem to object to my method. _This is how I do it._


----------



## mike bispham

Any reasonable person would object to this 'method' as the outcome is the obstruction of constructive discussion. 

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

Yeah, well, there you have it, Mike. By your lights I am neither rational nor reasonable. Seems funny, on the face of it. :lpf:


----------



## Allen Dick

> We have noticed similar behavior in bee hives. The more thourally you clean them out, the harder they work. That is what my Grandfather believed, and he and his father where know for getting big honey crops.


I think that this is true in that taking all the honey puts them into a desperation mode and that can work, unless no flow comes along and then the colony is doomed. Even a short period of such stress can lead to later colony loss, so it is a risky strategy. I played with that effect early on in beekeeping, having read about it. There were big commercial beekeepers in Saskatchewan who practiced that, but I think they are all out of business now.

Maybe times have changed and flows are not as predicable or sequential as they were when there were weeds everywhere and there were no sprays, but in my beekeeping lifetime, I have come to the conclusion that bees are worth much more than honey. I therefore take the best care of them I can, and the first step is to never let them have less than a month or so of stores (well, maybe several weeks worth sometimes) on hand.



> As for queenless hives being listless, quite the opposite, a queenless hive can make more honey for a short time because they have no brood to feed.


I have seen this at some times of year, and noted that the heaviest hives in fall are sometimes queenless. I think if the hive has momentum and is on a good flow that this may be the cause. At the same time, though I read some malarkey about dequeening hives by caging queens during a flow to get more honey. I don't know if I got more honey, but I certainty got less bees. The hives did not winter. Again, the lesson is to help the bees, not hinder them.

To all those who are giving Pete such a hard time: please note that this is Peter's thread and he is, in a sense, your host. If you don't like his party, you don't have to stay in this thread or try to hijack it. There are many other threads to suit any taste. If you think your ideas are as good as Pete's, leave this thread and start your own thread, then wait and see if anyone comes.

Personally, I like Peter's style, even though we often disagree.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> By your lights I am neither rational nor reasonable.


Not consistently so - and that matters greatly. Don't forget 'often obstructive to the conversation' too. And 'not always an honest interlocuter'. 

In an ideal beekeepers world all participants would be all these things. They wouldn't wriggle away from awkward questions, they'd take them head on.

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

Allen Dick said:


> Personally, I like Peter's style, even though we often disagree.


Thank you very much, Allen. 

Continuing, if the question still is why can't scientists and beekeepers talk about things without getting into philosophical arguments -- can the answer really boil down to style?

I have heard style criticized the most of any of the various factors. That seems odd that one would decide that another's style is so bothersome that they are not interested in _what the other has to say._

Now, I read a lot of scientific papers, and the style is very difficult. But, I persist because I am eager to learn what they know. Sometimes I get a headache after 15 minutes, but I don't think they are wrong about what they are saying_ because I can't understand it. _

On the other hand, when I read science reporting in the popular news, like the NY Times, or whatever, I always find myself dissatisfied and seeking out the original work to _find out what they actually said. _

Finally, I don't get paid to write here. When I write for publication I spend many many hours researching and thinking and polishing what I say. This stuff you read here is just brainstorming. I appreciate all the ideas from all the contributors. That is my main reason for joining public forums, to get new ideas. But I warn you, people! _Just because you have an idea in your own head, that doesn't mean it is a good one!_


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Allen Dick said:


> To all those who are giving Pete such a hard time: please note that this is Peter's thread and he is, in a sense, your host. If you don't like his party, you don't have to stay in this thread .


WOW!

Mommy, he said some things that I don't like.


----------



## Barry Digman

A lively and informative thread. The drive-by sniping doesn't seem to add much though. Could we refrain from the off-topic and personal?


----------



## peterloringborst

> The beauty of the Internet is that it connects people. The value is in the other people. If we start to believe that the Internet itself is an entity that has something to say, we're devaluing those people and making ourselves into idiots.
> 
> DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism By Jaron Lanier


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> I have heard style criticized the most of any of the various factors. That seems odd that one would decide that another's style is so bothersome that they are not interested in _what the other has to say._


Often it is very hard to _hear_ what one has to say if they are attacking another person by the words and tone they use.

I have a strong personality myself and can come across harsh, so I've been told by those who know me. It is something I have to be on guard about and always be careful how I communicate with written words, in this venue. While I can't see that part about myself very well, it's easy to see it in others. I'll guess it's the same with you.

That's why "I" statements go a long way in reducing the possible "attack feeling" others my get. If our goal is to make any kind of contribution to discussions, we better first figure out how to get people to hear what we have to say, otherwise it's just a finger exercise on the keyboard. Just an inside view from one who can be in the same boat.


----------



## Roland

Allen Dick - Yes, this is Peter's thread. We owe him respect. I do not agree with much he says, or the way he says it, but we have been able to exchange ideas that where mutually beneficial(I think). 

Off topic - Removing most of the honey IS risky, with the duly noted lack of continuous flows, but with diligent visitations, the risk is reduced. The proof may be in the pudding. I may be wrong, Those big beekeepers in Saskatchewan perished, but on the other hand, we are still here(since 1852). 

Barry - Well put. 

Roland Diehnelt 
Linden Apiary


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> Continuing, if the question still is why can't scientists and beekeepers talk about things without getting into philosophical arguments -- can the answer really boil down to style?
> I have heard style criticized the most of any of the various factors. That seems odd that one would decide that another's style is so bothersome that they are not interested in _what the other has to say._


Yes, I see style as a _big_ part of the problem being discussed here.
And no, I don't think it 'odd' that someone's style can be unpleasant or condescending enough to make people totally turn off what they are saying. Many a relationship and marriage has failed precisely because of this.
Imagine if a husband and wife were going out to a dinner party and the husband said "This party is going to be fun for both of us! I'm going to wear this suit because it'll be just right for the occasion despite your ill informed choice of a so-called outfit. Come on, Darling, let's go!" :lpf:


----------



## peterloringborst

Omie said:


> Imagine if a husband and wife were going out to a dinner party and the husband said


Yes, well, my wife is here.


----------



## WLC

Whatever...

I've noticed that when I posted up an obscure but current scientific discovery, and then related it to a popular selection method, certain folks seemed more concerned about their own pet projects rather than the impact of the discovery as a whole.

Since I was in fact referring to a discovery with some very serious repercussions, I'm of the opinion that it can be a waste of time and energy to try and discuss serious scientific findings with those who have their own agendas.

I've heard the "careful how you say things" line before. However, there are some things which shouldn't be said in any other way but directly.

Let me pick an example right out of the integrated virus discovery, and illustrate why scientists can err when trying to be 'diplomatic'.

Since it was difficult to use other techniques to identify and test for RNA viruses in the Honeybee, scientists selected an RNA based technique known as RT-PCR, along with the required primers, to detect for the presence of the various RNA viruses. This made perfect sense at the time.

Then came the Maori discovery of integrated virus fragments. RNA had been retrotransposed, turned into DNA and inserted into the Honeybee genome.

Now you may say, so what?

It actually represents a major problem for the detection of RNA viruses in bees. This is especially so for those who continue to use the original RT-PCR technique w/o the additional Maori protocol.

They may have detected mRNA from transcribed genes with integrated virus fragments, and not ss positive strand RNA from the viruses of interest.

In short, they could easily have detected an 'artifact'.

This not only represents a major setback for researchers who had already published their findings on these RNA viruses and their relationship to CCD, it also represents a seriously divisive issue within the relatively small community of researchers working on Honeybee diseases.

The result in the literature is this: they seem to be going out of their way to avoid stepping on each other's toes.

Would you want to be the one to publish results that might indicate that your fellow researchers blundered? Don't forget, they have to collaborate which each other, attend the same conferences, etc. .

So you see, this kind of unspoken 'detent' can exist in the scientific community as well.

Unfortunately, there is no 'pleasant' way for them to move forward without destroying someone's credibility.

Meanwhile, there has been a call for more sensitive and robust techniques to study these RNA viruses that are affecting the Honeybee.

But, who would want to go first?


----------



## WLC

If you can stomach reading it, you'll get a better idea of what I mean.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...1e38256dabd2c77b59cb28785eb&ie=/sdarticle.pdf


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Whatever...
> 
> I've noticed that when I posted up an obscure but current scientific discovery, and then related it to a popular selection method, certain folks seemed more concerned about their own pet projects rather than the impact of the discovery as a whole.


since i'm virtually certain the above refers at least in part to me, i'd like to offer the follwing:

i have some serious questions about what you've been claiming, and i've tried to discuss them so that i can understand what it is i'm not understanding...at this point, i'm convinced one of us isn't understanding the other...i'm not sure which one (or both of us).

this is a complicated set of relationships...."treatments" treat (for instance) possible viral vectors mites and nosema. mites and nosema kill bees...as do viruses.

to some extent, the exposure of bees to mites and nosema can/will vector viruses into some segment of the population in the hive. there are some dynamics here...only the dna of drones or queens (or laying workers) have the ability to both be mutated _and_ pass that mutation to the next generation. these "reproductive bees" could get infected with a virus directly by having mite/nosema incursions, or indirectly (by having so many infected bees in the hive that the virus spreads to the reproductive bees).

no one "treats" for viruses, so there is no direct pressure on the viruses. the number of mites/nosema organisms feeding directly on the reproductive bees is one possible vector for the virus (one that is important if mites are concentrated on drones), and a high incidence of virus in the worker bee population is another vector (a diseased nest).

now, some who treat treat for varroa in the spring and fall...some add a "flash treatment" at some other time in the season. some such hives hardly ever have varroa (because of the treatments), some are treated so often because they have lots of varroa all the time.

do you think that commercial bees that are being drenched 4X a year with fumidil don't have a high nosema count?, that hives that require varroa treatment every year don't have high mite counts?

if anyone had been able to devise a strong chemical treatment that would kill and keep varroa out of the hive it would be in common use...so clearly getting all the varroa out of the hive isn't an option. there is already concern of "fumidil resistant nosema", and again, the "need" for fumidil use indicates that the beekeeper either thinks nosema is a problem, or might quickly become one. conclusion: treated bees have lots of exposure to mites and nosema (as examples of possible viral vectors).

i don't treat....and as i've said before, i think our untreated hives have less mites than most of the conventional hives in our area. is it because we don't treat and barely use foundation (which has residual miticides)? is it because our bees are on SC/natural comb? Is it because they are drone right? it certainly isn't because we are isolated (we are not).

so, now you have to look at the mite/nosema load between "treated" and "untreated" bees, and the viral load between these as well. are these not the variables that would determine the chances of viral dna transposition? what is the math here, and what's it based on? meaning...what are you assuming the mite/nosema loads of treated vs untreated bees are? viral load? if bees are controlling mites/nosema are they really at greater risk of becoming transgenic than treated bees with mites/nosema? is a low level infection of mites/nosema more likely to lead to viral dna transposition than an infection that spikes and is treated?

deknow


----------



## WLC

Dean:

The real question is this: why are your bees 'resistant'?

It's the survivor selection process itself that can easily select for the hypothetical 30% virus resistant 'transgenic' bee colonies after 90% of the colonies were allowed to die (hypothetically, mostly from viral infections).

As to the other details, those remain to be investigated.

I'm objecting to the natural beekeeping practice, no treatment/survivor selection and it's high colony loss rate.

You can not only lose good genetics, but you can also end up with transgenic bees with poor productivity.

I think that there are much better ways to achieve the same goals without the questionable genetics of the survivors, and the high loss rates.

One way would involve quality stock and instrumental insemination (no mongrels need apply).

Another would include natural comb and propolis induction.

There are other possibilities, but that no treatment/survivor protocol and it's
high loss rate has seen its day.


----------



## bigbearomaha

At the end of the day though, if one doesn't like a certain method or practice, then one simply doesn't use it. end of story. To continually rail at others to change their practices because of one persons own opinions only furthers an argument or discussion that ultimately is nothing more than words on a web page.

Some of you don't agree with natural beekeeping, great for you, some people disagree with force feeding 'treatments', great for them.

keep it all in perspective that no one can force anyone else to manage their bees against their will.

Everyone must make decisions based on their own experiences and learning. Luckily, we don't have to agree or conform to someones else demands. At least not yet.

Big Bear


----------



## WLC

One of the points I made previously is how in two different groups, with regards to the integrated virus issue, some people seem to be of the opinion that we should avoid stepping on each other's toes.

Here, it relates to the no treatment/survivor method.

In the world of Honeybee virology, no one wants to say straight out that the RT-PCR protocols they've been using to detect viruses may have been picking up artifacts instead.

My informed opinion: what's happening to Honeybees is far more important than someone's aching toes.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> If you can stomach reading it, you'll get a better idea of what I mean.
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...1e38256dabd2c77b59cb28785eb&ie=/sdarticle.pdf


Could you possibly direct us to the part of this paper that provides an indication that grassroots selection offers any kind of threat to the future of bees and beekeeping? 

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> One of the points I made previously is how in two different groups, with regards to the integrated virus issue, some people seem to be of the opinion that we should avoid stepping on each other's toes.


That wouldn't be me.

My style is: when asked a question, answer it to the best of your ability. 

That is, make an honest response. If it is hard to do so for any reason, say so, and say why. Do not, under any circumstances, avoid addressing the problem presented by a difficult question. Do not, under any circumstances, try to mislead the questioner, and others reading, into thinking that the question has already been answered, is somehow a non-question. 

Never ever put the questioner down - it is the question that matters, not the person. Ad hominems are vile and only reflect badly on these making them (Allen and Peter especially note). Even more so, so don't bully ('no-one here cares what you think') 

Don't try to pretend to have qualifications you don't. 

I can sum all that up in BE HONEST. Be an honest and earnest participant in the discussion. Don't take disagreement personally - address the points made. 

The daft thing is, being honest with yourself is the only possible route to learning. If you hide from others the gaps in your own understanding, you'll probably also hide them from yourself - and so never fill them. To extend that honesty to other people simply has to be the basis of good mannered discussion. If we're not politicians, lobbyists or salesmen, with an agenda to push, then we have no business being anything other than open with each-other. 

And its stupid not to be honest because you _will_ be caught out, and then you'll look stupid and lose any credibility you might have built. You can fool some of the people all of the time... etc.

This is the basis on which scientists work. _Anyone caught being dishonest in any way is considered to have betrayed the trust of their fellows, and will have lost their right to be considered a scientist. _ 

Anyone who in any way considers themself to think in a scientific manner cannnot cherry-pick evidence, and hide the inconvenient; cannot avoid difficult questions, cannot ignore contradictions between their own positions and those expressed as working facts in the scientific literature. (Unless they are challenging those facts - and then that is the task in hand, and the grounds upon which the challenge is made must be given, supporting evidence supplied, and arguments made.) 

So much for a style statement.

Far from avoiding stepping on WLC's toes, I've been trying to jump on them hard; for this reason. I've asked him repeatedly, in this thread and others, for hard evidence that there is reason to think that the dna changes he talks about represent a threat to bees and beekeepers.

His position is that there is a good reason why all non-professional selective acts should be stopped forthwith, and breeding passed over to experts, who are to be armed with the equipment and information necessary to control the dna closely. Or something like that.

This is an extraordinary position. What I've tried to do is elicit from WLC (and Peter, who has supported this position on several occasions) some evidence of similar alarm, and similar recommendatons from the literature.

What I've has is a few brush-offs, plenty of 'we've already explained it to you', and a good deal out outright ignoring.

This runs counter to my understanding of what it means to be an honest interlocuter, and I take offence at people being dishonest with me and trying to put one over on me - and others. In challenging, I'm challenging on behalf of all who seek truthful material, all in pursuit of sound understanding of where the facts -such as they might be - lie.

So what I'd like is a straight and honest answer to an oft-asked question:

_Where in the scientific literature is alarm expressed about the dna changes you talk about with respect to bees?_

Which scientist (and by that I mean someone with a Phd - not someone who 'thinks like a scientist' - Peter's definition), published where, has expressed alarm of the kind you repeatedly express, and makes the same conclusion you make - that grassroots selection should stop forthwith before we mess up honeybees for all time?

If you cannot make good this evidential deficit, then you'll have to own up to the fact that this is your own pet theory - and that's all. 

And that the alarm you are eager to spread, which will have the effect of tending to reverse the good work of many dedicated researchers and beekeepers in the cause of reducing dependence on chemicals and restoring health to honeybees - is based solely on your own personal interpretation.

This matters. Its not a game. Some come on WLC Ante up. Be honest with us

Mike


----------



## WLC

The following paper expresses the typical, subdued urgency found in science.
You would have to read to whole thing, but you will be rewarded with a better understand of the virology of ABPV/KBV/IAPV.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science.../sdarticle.pdf


----------



## wcubed

This thread reminds me of the auctioneer and his shill, with Peter playing both parts. As auctioneer, he posts the subject, as shill, he keeps it going with sometimes off-topic entries. His commission on the proceeds is the opportunity to inject his allignment with the acedemic mindset as frequently as he chooses.

He knows very well why there is friction between the academic and the practical, and gleefully participates in maintaining that friction. On another thread, he went out of his way to undermine my credibility. Had to do with an analogy of selecting an auto mechanic. Self-taught vs Mr goodwrench.

There are likely not many "practicals" out there with more direct experience than I in trying to penetrate the closed minds of the academic set. When I had a validated management approach to swarm prevention in hand, made an appointment with most of the prominent writers of the period to explain the details. Although each session with the expert would be a story worth telling, will not bore you with the details. Net result - ignored.

Must accept some responsibility for not finding the right words to get their attention. Perhaps gun point would have helped. Most folks pay attention when looking at the muzzle of a firearm. (Don't judge me on this facecious comment.)

Will come back to this later with a list of my specific grievances against the academic community. In the meantime, consider the possibility that you have been manipulated by a master for his own agenda.

Walt


----------



## mike bispham

Mike Bispham #267:

"So what I'd like is a straight and honest answer to an oft-asked question:

'Where in the scientific literature is alarm expressed about the dna changes you talk about with respect to bees?' "

"If you cannot make good this evidential deficit, then you'll have to own up to the fact that this is your own pet 
theory - and that's all. "

See also #256



WLC said:


> The following paper expresses the typical, subdued urgency found in science.
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science.../sdarticle.pdf


The link is broken. Please do re-supply.

Are you sure this 'typical, subdued urgency' isn't a figment of your imagination? 

Please don't answer that - at least not yet. Let's stay focused on finding the grounding for your alarming claim in the (proper) scientific literature for now.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

wcubed said:


> In the meantime, consider the possibility that you have been manipulated by a master for his own agenda.
> Walt


Thank you for that Walt.

Mike


----------



## WLC

This link was posted up multiple times. Perhaps someone should actually read the de Miranda paper and note the multiple references de Miranda makes to the integrated virus issue, and some of the adjectives he uses to descibe it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...1e38256dabd2c77b59cb28785eb&ie=/sdarticle.pdf


----------



## peterloringborst

> It remains to be determined whether ABPV, KBV, IAPV and other
> variants within this complex are autonomous viruses meriting species
> status, or strains of single species


This is crucial, since it appears that virus can rapidly evolve as needed to take advantage of weaknesses in their host. This is an example of the "Red Queen Effect". The species distinction is very unclear at the molecular level with viruses in any case. So it is reasonable to regard these at least as a complex and perhaps as variants of the same virus. 



> Due to the far-reaching implications it is essential that
> the stable integration of virus sequences in the honey bee genome
> is confirmed by the bee research community, as well as their possible
> interference with virus replication and pathology.


Here he clearly states that this is a significant discovery and lacks only independent corroboration. The trouble with science (and it does have its many flaws) is that frequently when someone makes a true discovery, others tend to avoid that area of endeavor because either they see no potential glory for them, or they don't wish to add credence to another's discovery. 

I most certainly agree with WLC that this is a momentous discovery and that it has implications far beyond the field of beekeeping. If this is a common occurrence in multiple species, it will serve to redefine the whole concept of genetic modification. Of course, there will still be those that distinguish genetic engineering into "natural" and "artificial" when in fact all genetic engineering falls within the realm of the natural properties of "genes".

I submit that a more appropriate distinction is to be made between genetic modification that proves long term benefit either to the species (such as the bee) or to its beneficiary (such as me) -- and -- genetic modification that has irrevocable negative consequences to one or more species. An example of this is the introduction of the African bee into America. This irrevocably changed the genetic composition of the majority of the bees in the Americas, and occurred spontaneously as a result of simply introducing a few queen bees into the gene pool.

One brief comment on style: Frankly, I am appalled when I see post after post written with wanton disregard for the conventions of English, such as "spelling", "sentences", etc. A third grade teacher would expect better. But I have tried to bite my tongue in that regard. 

I worry that people who care so little about such things, will care even less about such things as scientific rigor. It seems that equal weight is given to every utterance that appears here, whether it be from someone who just got a hive last week and thinks the "bees oughta take care of themselves, like they did for thousands of years" -- or -- someone who has actually taken the trouble to study and compare the situation we have now with global pathogens to the good ole days when bees lived in hollow trees. 

By the way, Marla Spivak is doing interesting work on biological activity of propolis and its role in the health of colonies. It will be interesting to see if painting the insides of hives with high quality propolis will reduce pathogens.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

You guys must be SNOWED in where your at.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> An example of this is the introduction of the African bee into America. This irrevocably changed the genetic composition of the majority of the bees in the Americas, and occurred spontaneously as a result of simply introducing a few queen bees into the gene pool.


Earlier you wrote:



> By the way, I have never heard of credible stories of bees being partially Africanized. Either they are or they aren't. Many African bee strains carry a lot of European markers, but they are behaviorally African. WHich means: hostile, a tendency to swarm, abscond, shorter development time, shorter life span, lower honey production, poor wintering, etc.


These two comments seem to indicate conflicting views. Am I misunderstanding something? I'm curious why you think a bee can't be partially Africanized. Is there science that would support this? This is the first time I've heard this (theory?). Can you expand on your comments?


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> It's the survivor selection process itself that can easily select for the hypothetical 30% virus resistant 'transgenic' bee colonies after 90% of the colonies were allowed to die (hypothetically, mostly from viral infections).


1. you are assuming that viral infections are the biggest cause of mortality...i'm not convinced, and unless i've missed something, this seems to be an assumption on your part not supported by anything you've posted.

2. i'm not at all convinced that virus resistant bees are more likely to arise in survivors...i've laid out many of the complex relationships in my last post...which you seem to be ignoring, except to say:


> As to the other details, those remain to be investigated.


...these details are the link between the research you cite, and your "positive conclusion" that no-treatment leads to viral dna integration. these details are important and vital to what you are claiming. to brush over the "details" is to simply ignore the facts.

3. i'm also not at all convinced that this kind of viral dna integration isn't natures way of dealing with things...i'm not sure the process is dangerous (except that it represents "change", which is the core of nature and scary for humans).



> I'm objecting to the natural beekeeping practice, no treatment/survivor selection and it's high colony loss rate.
> 
> You can not only lose good genetics, but you can also end up with transgenic bees with poor productivity.


again, i'm pretty convinced that "genetic bottlenecks" are how nature works. all house cats can be traced to a single female ancestor...all dogs can be traced to one of 3 female ancestors. big die offs of populations have always been part of nature...this is to be embraced, not thwarted by encouraging "genetic diversity" to the point where "all genes are treated as equal"....some don't allow for survival, and they need culling!

yes, you can possibly end up with transgenic bees with poor productivity if you don't treat...but was the maori study on untreated bees? if not, clearly you can end up with transgenic bees in a treated situation as well.

there is an interaction between mites and viruses, nosema and viruses, etc. a colony that is collapsing from a viral infection vectored by mites is unlikely to be solely the "fault" of the virus...it's an interactive downward spiral of mites weakening the bees making room for the virus, which weakens the bees further making them more susceptible to the mites.......etc and so on.

i've been trying to unravel what it is you are claiming, and i've done my best to lay out what isn't computing to me (that if mites/nosema/etc vector viruses that colonies that are treated for mites/nosema/etc often have large populations of these pests/diseases and those that "survive" with these treatments are also prone to have viruses present...setting the stage for viral dna transposition).

as far as i can tell, you are the only one drawing the conclusion that untreated bees are more likely to integrate viral dna than treated bees...and your logic is that untreated bees are being selected for viral resistance. one of the things i think you are missing is that by conventional wisdom, not treating for mites will result in the collapse of the colony to mites regardless of the viruses that are or are not present. 

if our bees are untreated and not succumbing to mites (and have low numbers of mites) are they any more likely to integrate viral dna than bees that are treated for mites (and therefore certainly have high mite populations at some times of the year)? remember those treated bees have mites and viruses as well...and they also need to "survive"...possibly with the same viral pressures and possibly with more mite pressure.

i've tried to lay this out as clearly as i can (it's not simple), but thus far you have brushed these important dynamics off as "details".



> There are other possibilities, but that no treatment/survivor protocol and it's high loss rate has seen its day.


well, there are certainly lots of possibilities, and lots of folks doing things lots of ways (as it should be). of course the "no treatment/survivor protocol" is how nature handles everything. your position seems to be that such natural processes should be avoided at all costs, and instead "experts" should breed bees with AI and known genetics. bees are not lab rats nor are they microbes to be raised in a petri dish....no matter how they are kept, they are kept outside and fly freely. to think that we can micromanage the bees genetics to "solve all problems" is egotistical at best.

a world of beekeeping that requires constant treatments and AI breeding isn't one that i want any part of...you are welcome to it. do we really want bees that require constant human intervention to keep them alive? is this "an agenda"...or is it simply a "world view"?

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> Earlier you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> These two comments seem to indicate conflicting views. Am I misunderstanding something? I'm curious why you think a bee can't be partially Africanized. Is there science that would support this? This is the first time I've heard this (theory?). Can you expand on your comments?





> One of the more remarkable aspects of the African bee is its ability to displace European honey bee subspecies in the New World. Initially, it was assumed that African and European bees would interbreed, giving rise to the “Africanized honey bee” of Latin America. However, although substantial hybridization occurs when African bees invade areas with European populations, over time European characteristics tend to be lost. Indeed, throughout much of its range in the New World, the invading honey bee population has remained essentially African in its nesting biology, swarming and absconding behavior, foraging and diet selection, and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) characteristics.
> 
> THE AFRICAN HONEY BEE: Factors Contributing to a Successful Biological Invasion, by Stanley Scott Schneider et al, in:
> Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2004. 49:351–76


----------



## peterloringborst

> and your logic is that untreated bees are being selected for viral resistance.


Actually, any selection process -- natural or otherwise -- is fraught with peril, due to genetic linkage, and various unseen and unforeseeable consequences. Evidence for this is abundant.


----------



## Barry

"However, although substantial hybridization occurs when African bees invade areas with European populations, over time European characteristics tend to be lost."

So hybridization (Africanized) does occur, but the big unknown for us here is how long is "over time?" I just don't see us in the same boat as South America.


----------



## StevenG

deknow, you should realize by now that those two are going to simply continue ignoring facts and arguments that are inconvenient to their positions. For instance, in spite of repeated information that bees do survive without treatments, and examples provided, they continue to maintain "There are other possibilities, but that no treatment/survivor protocol and its high loss rate has seen its day." 

Yes, it has seen its day in the sense that high losses no longer have to be endured, simply by purchasing the right queens from those that breed survivor bees! What could be more obvious than that? We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

And regarding the elitism that denigrates those who do not have a complete command of the English language and proper spelling, I learned long ago that out in the real world, sometimes folks who can't spell or write well are much better in animal or plant husbandry than those who know how to dot the i's and cross the t's and write well. Sometimes I cringe when I read some postings, sometimes it's like a foreign language, but usually they present a good point, even if it is for the newbies here, instead of the old timers. I knew a man who butchered the English language, but he ran the most successful machine/blacksmith shop in a multi-county area. He could make and repair anything. Same thing is true with beekeeping. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> So hybridization (Africanized) does occur, but the big unknown for us here is how long is "over time?" I just don't see us in the same boat as South America.


The study was done at the Tuscon lab with bees from the Arizona Desert


----------



## Barry

I'm fine with that, as my point is that we are nowhere near what S.A. is. We are on the front line where AHB and EHB are mixing. I think it would be fair to say that in the U.S. we have all three, AHB, EHB, and hybridization (Africanized).


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> I'm fine with that, as my point is that we are nowhere near what S.A. is. We are on the front line where AHB and EHB are mixing. I think it would be fair to say that in the U.S. we have all three, AHB, EHB, and hybridization (Africanized).


You should read Schneider (2004) then tell me what you think. By the way, the situation is the same in Texas and Florida. African bees replaced European bees.


----------



## Barry

So you give a reference that clearly states "substantial hybridization occurs when African bees invade areas with European populations" yet you will insist that there is no such thing here as a hybridized "Africanized" bee. I'm confused. It's akin to areas where salt water and fresh water meet.


----------



## peterloringborst

THE AFRICAN HONEY BEE: Factors Contributing to a Successful Biological Invasion (2004)
Scott Schneider, Stanley,DeGrandi-Hoffman, Gloria,Smith, Deborah Roan

Abstract
The African honey bee subspecies Apis mellifera scutellata has colonized much of the Americas in less than 50 years and has largely replaced European bees throughout its range in the New World. The African bee therefore provides an excellent opportunity to examine the factors that influence invasion success. We provide a synthesis of recent research on the African bee, concentrating on its ability to displace European honey bees. Specifically, we consider (a) the genetic composition of the expanding population and the symmetry of gene flow between African and European bees, (b) the mechanisms that favor the preservation of the African genome, and (c) the possible range and impact of the African bee in the United States.

Publication details
Download	http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ento.49.061802.123359
http://hdl.handle.net/1808/831
Publisher Annual Reviews
Repository	KU ScholarWorks (United States)
Keywords Africanized honey bee, Apis mellifera scutellata, biogeography, introduced species, invasive organisms
Type Article
Language Englisch


----------



## Roland

Deknow - It seems that I have reached some most of the same conclusions on the vectoring of diseases by Varoa, and that the virus show up like Pneumonia in humans. They may put the nail in the coffin, but something else knocked youi down first. Is it not said that survival favors the adaptive, not just the fittest? There where alot of fit dinosaurs that did not make it. As Clint Eastwoods characters says "improvise, adapt, overcome"

WLC - thanks for the link to the article on viruses. Saved me a trip to the University. If you are so sure of this virus thing, why don't you buy a couple hundred hives of bees and prove us all wrong. This is not said in anger or trickery, but rather an encouragement to take leadership by action. 

Roland Diehnelt


----------



## Barry

"When African bees first expand into a new location, both east and west European nuclear and mitochondrial markers are found in the feral population, along with African markers."

There's your hybridization.

It takes "5-10 years for African nuclear and mitochondrial genetic markers to dominate and the European markers to decrease to less than 10%."


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> "When African bees first expand into a new location, both east and west European nuclear and mitochondrial markers are found in the feral population, along with African markers."
> 
> There's your hybridization.
> 
> It takes "5-10 years for African nuclear and mitochondrial genetic markers to dominate and the European markers to decrease to less than 10%."


Right, but you have to understand that a "marker" is used for identification purposes only, it does not necessarily reference any physical or behavioral trait. 

In terms of size & behavior, the _Africanized_ bees are_ African bees._


----------



## peterloringborst

Roland said:


> If you are so sure of this virus thing, why don't you buy a couple hundred hives of bees and prove us all wrong.


Hey, that's my idea! Would you lend me $40,000?


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Actually, any selection process -- natural or otherwise -- is fraught with peril, due to genetic linkage, and various unseen and unforeseeable consequences. Evidence for this is abundant.


So... what to make of this... It is so misconcieved that it is hard to put your finger on just where it is wrong.

The natural selection that maintains the health of all populations ... is fraught with peril... I guess... though its worked pretty well on the whole... there are a great many species around today that seem to flourish despite it. (That was sarcasm - but I'd better spell it out for you - of they flourish because of it)

The human selection process by which the health of all domestic species is rather perilous I guess - but it has worked pretty well for the last few thousands of years (and probably that should be few tens of thousands of years) Without it there'd be no domesticated species, no nice fat beans, vegetables, dogs, cats, cows... etc.

So what other forms of selection are there? Ah, non-expert 'grassroots' breeders. People like those pesky South American Indiginous types who bred all those nice fat beans and potates. 

Of course being selected - even very professionally - is no guarentor of good health and vigour. You can have great cows/bees/beans and still fail as a farmer by pushing too hard. (Or - relevant here, though a bit of an excursion - being pressed too hard by acute competion)

So what to do? We take all selection out of the hands of amateurs and put it in the hands of professionals?

Trouble: if we stop all grassroots selection, and place selective operations in the hands of breeders, what happens to the all-important biodiversity held in millions of local varieties, each adjusted and attuned to their own specific locality, climate, forage...? Ah, the professional breeders can take care of all those local varieties. Problem solved. Wait a minute! We'll need as many professional breeders as there are beekeepers! And then we'll need a whole industry of analysists to check all those local varieties to see which to breed from. But we want all of them - that means we have to breed (professionally) all the millions of local strains, so we'll need an army of breeders too.

I don't know about the Red Queen but this is all too close to Alice in Wonderland for me. 

The reality: working with the grain of natural selection by allowing (or encouraging) failing individuals to perish, and reproducing in greater numbers from the strongest, is a sound and time-tested way of maintaining health in the face of ever-evolving predatory organisms. If it isn't done by people, nature will do it (large scale colony failures). It is srongly advocated by some of the most expert and highly respected biologists around, and discourged by... wait for it... NONE. No one - and that includes the author's of WLC famous paper.

I'm tempted to ask Peter what he means by "genetic linkage", "various unseen and unforeseeable consequences" and "Evidence for this is abundant".

But I shudder to think of the consequences.

Mike


----------



## devdog108

Our scientists have produced better and faster results for farm animals, crops and such.......and we wonder why out 10yr old daughters and sons are hitting puberty so early. There is a movement to get back to organic for a reason......i didn't say it was all scientists faults, because most thought they were doing good, and in fact, most did....It was the People who continued to push for instant gratification....and instant gratification is what we got. At some point, nature will take over...whether we like it or not. When my doctor said stop giving your son meds for ear infections, i almost went and found a lawyer....until he explained. he said the body has grown so use to the chemicals that it doesn't work any more, so they make stronger chems with greater side effects. It took almost over a week for it to work ,but it did....and we didn't give him anything for it. We let his body do the work...even though we suffered fevers and such...it worked and for a year now, no ear infections anymore.....


----------



## mike bispham

Peter quotes from the concluding parts of the famous paper:

"Due to the far-reaching implications it is essential that
the stable integration of virus sequences in the honey bee genome
is confirmed by the bee research community, as well as their possible
interference with virus replication and pathology. "

It is this statement I think that Peter and WLC (alone) build their alarmist case against grassroots selection on - in the face of the best advice going, built of well-developed understanding of the results of not doing so - by experts who Peter at least, hymns (A good example of Peter's ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at once)

The key phrase is 'far reaching implications'. Peter and WLC are keen for us to understand that these implications are the perils of grassroots selection. That however is not, as far as I can see, mentioned in the paper.

So tell us, Peter, WLC, what are these 'far reaching implications'. In your responses I'd like you to cite the text in support of your reading. I'e. not just make it up as you fancy.

Mike


----------



## devdog108

so far, i want someone to put it into English. I can throw out big words all day, but making people understand and paraphrasing, if you wiil, goes a long way sometimes...


----------



## mike bispham

Roland said:


> Is it not said that survival favors the adaptive, not just the fittest?


In the language of evolutionary theory, 'finess' refers to 'those best fitted to the environment.'

There is an understanding that the enviroment changes constantly, and that those species (and variations) that are better at adapting, or who just happen to have that particular trait required at a particular moment, can/do/will adapt to the new environment. 

I think I might have made a mince of that...

Mike


----------



## jbeshearse

In an Ideal Beekeeping world, I would not have just waded through 270 odd posts on this useless thread and then decided to lengthen it.

You could reliably split hives, let them raise their own queens and collect surplus honey all in the same year. Then still have time to have a bottle of mead with your family and friends (who include both beekeepers and scientists).


----------



## WLC

Dean:

If you are unaware of how a significant varroa infestation can turn a covert viral infection into an overt one, then you simply haven't done your research.

http://www.vetres.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/vetres/2010027

By the way, covert viral infection in Honeybee colonies is the norm, not the exception. For all intents and purposes, all colonies are infected.

You can't have it both ways.

Let me see if I understand you: you expect me to answer all of those questions about research topics that are not only ongoing, but still in their early stages? Major researchers still can't answer the types of questions that you are asking. That's disingenuous.

Let's see if I understand some of the claims coming out of your side of this:
You say that you're not treating so that you can select for (virus) resistant colonies, but then you turn around and infer that selection for (virus) resistant colonies can occur in treated colonies as well.

Why did you stop treating to begin with?

Dean, if you want to ignore the research that has shown why the no treatment/survivor protocol isn't effective, that's one issue.

However, if you want to disuade yourself and others as to why selecting for retrotransposons in Honeybees is in total opposition to the nautural beekeeping movement's goals, and if you want to say that it's a 'false alarm', you really need to reexamine what is in the literature so far.


----------



## WLC

"WLC - thanks for the link to the article on viruses. Saved me a trip to the University. If you are so sure of this virus thing, why don't you buy a couple hundred hives of bees and prove us all wrong. This is not said in anger or trickery, but rather an encouragement to take leadership by action."

Roland:

That wouldn't be my first course of action. Right now, I'm waiting on the next crop of of summer, Honeybee research articles. Let's see what they're working on first.

It's not a matter of proof. If you don't treat, you'll get more varroa, more overt viral infections, and as a result, you'll 'enrich' for virus resitant colonies (with integrated viral fragments that confer resistance via RNA interference/silencing). In short, you'll select for mutants. That's exactly how we do it in the lab. It's a standard protocol.

If we put the 'stepping on toes' issue aside (it's a real issue both for beekeepers and scientists alike):

I wouldn't rely on the RT-PCR or even PCR for detecting viral infections or integration. One method can give artifacts, and neither can answer the pressing questions that need to ba answered.

As de Miranda stated in his paper, we are in need of new methods to test for these viruses and what they are doing to the Honeybee.

I would use the viral primer sequences from the literature, a FISH methodology (fluorescent in situ hybridization), and I would also have to construct a library using the viral primers as probes. That's alot of hybridization and sequencing to do.

While $40K wouldn't be enough for a full scale study, it might be enough to come up with some new methodologies and insights (I've already identified the protocols I would use and priced them as well).

Nevertheless, let's see what get's published this summer. I hope that we aren't disappointed (one way or the other).


----------



## Roland

Oh well. my money is where my mouth is. All of it.

Roland


----------



## WLC

Roland:

If you mean that you are willing to send bee samples to a lab so that they can be tested for integrated viruses, then that would really be putting your $ where your mouth is.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Dean, if you want to ignore the research that has shown why the no treatment/survivor protocol isn't effective, that's one issue.


This research can be found where???

I'm not too sure what 'the no-treatment/survivor protocol' is, but if it refers to the practice of avoiding raising bees unfitted to the disease environment by failing to select for the better-equipped bloodlines, it is pure nonsense. 

First selecting was dangerous - it would create 'frankenstein bees'; now it is futile....?

All organisms HAVE to select/be selected in order to MAINTAIN health in the face of ever-evolving predatory organisms. That is a fact of nature, a principle of biology. Whether you feel this is best done by professional breeders, at local level, or both, is a matter of point of view, but there is absolutely no disagreement in the honeybee research community about the basic need to selct for resistance. It is now widely recognised that systematic treatments are not just ineffective in the long term, but positively harmful to the objective of raising resistant bees. Selection for resistance is currently the front line of research. 

Am I the only one who feels we are in the realms of delierate misinformation here? Scientific papers are being misrepresented, requests for clarification ignored, bald untruths broadcast in the guise of facts. All pressing in one direction; against the recovery of health by selective breeding. Cui bono? 

Mike


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> So what other forms of selection are there? Ah, non-expert 'grassroots' breeders. People like those pesky South American Indiginous types who bred all those nice fat beans and potates.
> Mike


I can't comment on the beans and potatoes but there is a section highlighting maize cultivation by the Aztecs in the Anthropology museum in Mexico city. The cobs grown by the Aztecs circa 1500 were only about 3 inches long which presumably was the end result of thousands of years of evolution plus the Aztec selection practices. The huge cobs we know today have been improved out of all recognition in the last 500 years and I would hazard a guess that a lot of that development has been by scientists and geneticists.



mike bispham said:


> I'm tempted to ask Peter what he means by "genetic linkage"


Genetic linkage is a technical term with a specific meaning and is not something invented by Peter which is in need of ironic quotation marks.

There are a few definitions here and googling will bring up a lot of background information


----------



## mike bispham

WLC;537486
It's not a matter of proof. If you don't treat said:


> Describing such resulting animals as 'mutants' is unjustified. It seems (from the paper) that there is a natural mechanism by which fragments of viral dna are incorporated into (in this case) the honeybee dna, where they confer an advantage. This is probably the some measure of protection, even immunity from future attacks.
> 
> This seems entirely beneficial, and raises the possibility (among others) that a vaccine might be a possibility.
> 
> (Whether that is a good idea or not is something we might have a useful discussion about - but we'll have to scotch this woo-woo mutant bees nonsense first)
> 
> The possibilities of vastly improved knowledge of these mechanisms, and the resulting potential clinical benefits, leading to the possibility of 'curing' CCD are what the authers are exited about. These are the 'far-reaching implications.
> 
> WLC's alarmist 'reading' is pure BS - his own 'interpretation.' Together with the BS against selective breeding, it is part of a general thrust to promote the clinical 'remedies' that will be rendered unneccessary by better genetic management - i.e. widespread selective beekeeping.
> 
> Mike


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Genetic linkage is a technical term and is not something invented by Peter which is in need of ironic quotation marks.


Thanks for pointing this out Jonathan. From Wiki:

"Genetic linkage is a term which describes the tendency of certain loci or alleles to be inherited together. Genetic loci on the same chromosome are physically close to one another and tend to stay together during meiosis, and are thus genetically linked."

We'd better try to understand what Peter was saying:

"Actually, any selection process -- natural or otherwise -- is fraught with peril, due to genetic linkage, and various unseen and unforeseeable consequences. Evidence for this is abundant. "

I've pointed out in my first response:

a) that continuous selectious is a NECESSARY process. Since the predatory organisms continuously evolve to take better advantage, the prey must also do so to retain effective defences, and that that can only happen through a selection process that favours the better fitted genetic combinations - the 'stronger bloodlines'. That 'necessary' up there is absolutely forceful, compelling. It means 'If this doesn't happening sickening will inevitably result.' And the longer selection is denied, and the more effectvely it is denied, the faster and harder the sickening will set in.

b) that this selection for the best-fitted occurs by natural selection in the wild, and through selective breeding, or selective husbandry in farming. It is this trick that has enabled humans to become settled agriculturalists, and to develop the domesticated species. No farmer unaware of the need to breed from the best only would last long. No society that forgot this method would persists as agriculturalists. 

Peter's statement then appears to be wobbly at least. A selection process might be a bit uncertain, but it is utterly necessary. To say it is 'fraught with peril' seems to imply that it is best left out. That couldn't be further from reality.

Peter makes a statement, then gives his justification for it. He says:

"Actually, any selection process -- natural or otherwise -- is fraught with peril..."

Well, kind of. Not half of much peril as not selecting is fraught with however. I suspect (given what follows) that he is referring to the technical procedures that attempt to locate and embed specific single traits in a popluation. This is certainly often a tricky process - and, at least in part, for the reason he states - genetic linkage. It doesn't always pan out as planned. But 'fraught with peril' it is not. It might go wrong, not work as planned. But it isn't going to create any monsters. So this phrase is alarmist.

What follows seems to build on this sense of alarm: "...various unseen and unforeseeable consequences." 

The 'unforeseen and unforseeable consequences' amount to "it might not fix the problem we hoped to fix" and "it might turn out we've been wasting our time and effort". That, however is about as deep as the 'peril' gets.

As noted; all this applies in the main to the difficulties found in technical attempts to breed in particular traits. No such difficulties exist in the (NECESSARY) grassroots methods of selective beekeeping. Following the time-tested principles of 'putting best to best' is 'peril' free. It might not work was well as you'd like, but it will certainly work an awful lot better than putting 'worst to worst', 'worst to best' or generally not making any effort to maintain defences against ever-evolving predators by being selective about parentage.

Peter's phrase 'any selection process' then takes a difficulty that exists only in one field, and applies it, inappropriately, to ALL fields of selection. That, I think, is what is really wrong with it. That 'any' is where it goes wrong. A truth has been bolted onto a subject to which it does not apply - or rather a difficulty found in a particular area has been claimed wrongly to be a universal difficulty. Peter has made the logical error of inferring from the particular to the general.

This is a bit like the idea, found in intellegence circles, of a 'truth sandwich' - a falsehood embedded in between two truths. Very hard to spot. And here, I imagine, perfectly accidental.

Mike


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> The 'unforeseen and unforseeable consequences' amount to "it might not fix the problem we hoped to fix" and "it might turn out we've been wasting our time and effort". That, however is about as deep as the 'peril' gets.
> 
> Mike


That's not correct, I'm afraid. There can be quite unforseen consequences due to the hidden nature of recessive genes amongst other things

When selecting for one trait, you can inadvertently select for another undesirable trait and enhance it if the alleles controlling the two traits lie in close proximity on the chromosome

To give a very obvious example, selecting for a desirable trait such a honey production or hygienic behaviour may well also select for an unwanted trait such as aggression if the alleles controlling these traits happen to lie close together.


----------



## WLC

Someone should have read through the paper with the link in post #281.

You should stop asking for references if you aren't going to read them.

It references findings showing that the survivor selection protocol not only has high loss rates, but poor productivity.

It also go on to say that this type of selection method isn't consistent with the goals of apiculture.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> When selecting for one trait, you can inadvertently select for another undesirable trait and enhance it if the alleles controlling the two traits lie in close proximity on the chromosome
> (And so on)


Sure, but THESE ARE THE WORST THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN! So, we got the resistance we wanted, but the bees are stroppy! Eek what peril! 

A competent beekeeper will constantly tune the apiary through selection, seeking first strength and vigour (the foundation) and then productivity, ease of handling, quietness on the frames, low swarming rates. Sometimes the results will be great, sometimes not. Its an art, not a science. 

If there's no selection for heath and vigour the will be a choice: give up beekeeping or get on the treatment treadmill - a constant battle with no possible end. Selection can of course take the form of simply buying in well bred queens.

None of this is likely to end in consistently high-producing long-lasting bees in an intense commercial setting. The pressures are simply too great for that to work. What commercials really want are little mechanical pollinators/nectar gathers/honey factories. Sadly they are life-forms, not reducable to robots - though that won't stop some trying to make them that.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Someone should have read through the paper with the link in post #281.
> 
> It references findings showing that the survivor selection protocol not only has high loss rates, but poor productivity.
> 
> It also go on to say that this type of selection method isn't consistent with the goals of apiculture.


Lets look at the pertinant features of this paper.

First:
7. Conclusion 
"The long-term decline of managed honey bee hives in the USA and European countries has become an issue of widespread interest and concern. Based on many research projects aimed at identifying all the putative factors afflicting honey bees, evidence is accumulating that one of the major causes - not to say, the major cause - is the association of viruses to these colony losses, which so far existed as covert infections in the honey bee population, with an invading parasite, V. destructor . 

This combination ‘V. destructor plus viruses’ has triggered the emergence of overt viral infections with significant and sometimes fatal symptoms on both the individual bee level and the colony level. Nowadays there is no doubt that the impact of various syndromes involving V. destructor and bee viruses is a global threat for apiculture. "

Truth. It is acknowledged that varroa is the primary cause of the problems. A deeper understanding would recognise that failure to select is a still prior cause. Without varroa the viruses become a non-problem. In bees that can deal with varroa the viruses become a non-problem. Still, we're virologists here, that's not our concern...

"Until now, the spontaneous or artificial selection of honey bee lines more tolerant to V. destructor infestation have produced poorly productive colonies."

_Not true_. A falsehood. The work of Spivak and others has shown that both local strains and selected already conditioned strains (like Russians) can be bred and kept as both treatment free and highly productive. 

_None of this well-documented research is considered in the arguments against selection. This is a fatal flaw. It is cherry picking the evidence to suit a desired outcome. Totally unscientific, devious and obviously intended to deceive._ 

"However, no simple and economically acceptable treatment against virus infections are in view for replacing the heavy and not always efficient acaricide treatments which have already selected resistances in the target species. "

True. Note the lie sandwiched between two truths.

"Repeating previously observed scenarios, the dramatic increase in emerging virus diseases in the honey bee may still be worsened by the continuing development of international exchanges and the potential dissemination of still undiscovered viruses or other agents that may favor their active multiplication. "

Sure. So advocate banning them. Ah wait; this is a veterinary journal! Hardly going to do that are we!

Looking back now to the section against selection upon which the conclusions are based.

"6.1. New developments to combat viral diseases in bees 
The demise of bee colonies has stimulated research into several directions, including the following: the development of effective methods to combat or control V. destructor, the selection of Apis mellifera strains more tolerant to V. destructor, and treatments against virus infections in honey bees. Considering the scope of this review, we will only briefly mention the main results of the first two approaches. 

It has been well established that the mite population had to be controlled to avoid colony collapse (reviewed by [66, 110]). In addition, since emerging and re-emerging viral diseases of honey bees are associated with mite 
infestation, _an effective treatment against V. destructor is the best way to also combat these viral diseases._ In the absence of the mite, the here reviewed viral diseases will have no or little impact on honey bee health. "

My italics. Had the author actually read his own reference ([110] Rosenkranz P., Aumeier P., Ziegelmann B., Biology and control of Varroa destructor, J. Invertebr. Pathol. (2010) 103:S96-S119.) he'd understand that this review calls for equal weight to be given to treatements and selective breeding programs! Rosenkranz et al fully acknowledge the ultimate futility of treatments that can never cure, and the promise that selective breeding holds!

"Classical methods to control mite infestation levels in honey bee colonies have been reviewed recently [110]. In this review a compilation of chemical, biotechnical, and biological treatments currently in use or part of recent research activities are presented and evaluated. "

No mentions made of the fact that this approach is a cul-de-sac; all such treatments are addictive and represent a downward spiralling health path.

Now the critical bit for our purposes:

"Attempts to control mite infestation levels by breeding for mite tolerance or by selecting mite tolerant bees that developed “naturally” have been performed but are not satisfying so far. "

The statement: "are not satisfying so far" is now 'justified':

Fries et al. [68] monitored for six years 150 honey bee colonies infected with V. destructor without applying any acaricide treatment and letting them to swarm at will. As expected, winter mortality rate was very high: reaching up to 80% the third year, but decreased to 12 to 18% (of the remaining colonies) the last two years with 11 colonies only surviving the last year. In France, Le Conte et al. [86] followed for seven years a total of 82 honey bee (“resistant”) colonies without treatment in parallel with control treated colonies. Over the period analyzed, the mean winter mortality did not differ significantly between “resistant” (non-treated) and control (treated) colonies, however, the honey production was 41% significantly lower in the non-treated colonies. "

A total of two studies, both 'hands off'. No attempt made to maintain productivity, no blending in of known resisant blood.

"It remains unknown if these developments occurred following an increased tolerance in the host, a reduced virulence in the parasite or were due to a combination of these factors." 

Truth.

"However, for the honey bee, this more tolerant status has been reached at a very high cost – not only in terms of colony mortality during the first years of the studies - but also in terms of honey production (much lower in surviving colonies). "

Truth. But NO MENTION WHATEVER OF THE BREEDING PROGRAM! The statement above included breeding progromms, but there is absoluetly no mention of it in theveidence. 

What has been claimed here is that 'natural survivors' have low productivity (true, though further selection can restore productivity) AND THE FALSE IMPLICATION MADE THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER SELECTIVE ROUTES. 

Summing up:
"From these studies, the selection of more tolerant honey bee lines is hardly compatible with apiculture aims. "

No mention here is made to the work of Spivak, Ericson, that happening at Sussex University. etc - the huge effort to use deliberate selection proceedures to bring natural resistance to the fore while simultaniously maintaining desirable traits and local strains.

No indication is given either of the likely outcome of treating for specific viruses - the evolution of resistant virus that will require yet more and stronger treatments. 

Now I hardly think this supplies a case against selective breeding! It is a careful attempt utterly dishonest attempt to discourage efforts in that direction, if favour of efforts to promote treatments of the resulting sickly stock! What would you expect in a veterinary journal?

Mike


----------



## WLC

Would someone kindly provide the Spivak, et al., peer reviewed, references that someone is referring too in their post.

They should also support their counter assertions with the appropriate peer reviewed references as well.

Can't do it? Then it's conjecture. :no:


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Would someone kindly provide the Spivak, et al., peer reviewed, references that someone is referring too in their post.


Of course someone will. 

For an introduction to Marla Spivak's extensive work with honeybees, see:

_A sustainable approach to controlling honeybee diseases and varroa mites_ by Marla Spivak, one of the leading US researchers, and a breeder of 'hygienic' bees.

http://www.sare.org/publications/factsheet/pdf/03AGI2005.pdf

_New Direction for the Minnesota Hygienic Line of Bees_, Marla Spivak and Gary S. Reuter

http://www.extension.umn.edu/honeybees/components/pdfs/Spivak_Reuter_12-08_ABJ.pdf

"We are now returning to our original goal of having queen producers and interested beekeepers select for this trait from among their own, tried-and-true stocks of bees. It is very important for beekeepers to have many stocks of bees to maintain a healthy level of genetic diversity [...] Fortunately, the hygienic trait is found in all races and stocks of bees."

_The Hygiene Queen_, Marla Spivak and Gary S. Reuter

http://www.apiservices.com/articles/us/hygiene_queen.htm

"Any race or line of bees can be bred for hygienic behavior. We recommend that bee breeders select for hygienic behavior from among their best breeder colonies; i.e., from those that have proven to be productive, gentle, and that display all the characteristics desired by the breeder. A breeder can get a head start on selecting for hygienic behavior simply by rearing queens from colonies that do not have chalkbrood." 

"The effects of American foulbrood, chalkbrood and Varroa mites can be alleviated if queen producers select for hygienic behavior from their own lines of bees. Because a small percentage of the managed colonies today express hygienic behavior, it is important for many bee breeders to select for the behavior to maintain genetic variability within and among bee lines.

Our experience has shown there are no apparent negative characteristics that accompany the trait. Years of research experience have shown it would greatly benefit the beekeeping industry if productive, hygienic lines were available commercially."

_Introductionary study for breeding Varroa resistant bees_, Final report, 2004. by Tore Forsman, Per Ideström and Erik Österlund of the Swedish Beekeeping Association. An extensive survey of reports of successful breeding programs, with comments by leading expert researchers.

http://www.lapalmamiel.com/a/study.pdf

Dr. Spivak's views are formed from her extensive work with bees. Insights into the nature of this work, and details supporting the views above can be found in her extensive publishing record. here is a list of (some of) her publications from UMN 'Beelab' page at http://www.extension.umn.edu/honeybees/components/pubs.htm 

Hygienic Behavior as a Mechanism of Resistance to Diseases and Mites: 

Swanson J, Torto B, Kells S, Mesce K, Tumlinson J, Spivak M. 2009. Volatile compounds from chalkbrood Ascosphaera apis infected larvae elict honey bee (Apis mellifera) hygienic behavior. J. Chem. Ecol. 35: 11088-1116

Wilson-Rich N, Spivak M, Fefferman NH, Starks, PT. 2009 Genetic, individual, and group facilitation of disease resistance in insect societies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 54: 405-23.

Ibrahim, A., Reuter, GS, Spivak, M. 2007. Field trial of honey bee colonies bred for mechanisms of resistance against Varroa destructor. Apidologie 38: 67-76.

Ibrahim, A., Spivak, M. 2006. The relationship between hygienic behavior and suppression of mite reproduction as honey bee mechanisms of resistance to Varroa destructor. Apidologie. 37: 31-40.

Mondragon, L., Spivak, M., Vandame, R. 2005. A multifactorial study of the resistance of Africanized and hybrid honey bees Apis mellifera to the mite Varroa destructor over one year in Mexico. Apidologie. 36: 345-358.

Flores, JM, Spivak, M., Guiterrez, I. 2005. Spores of Ascosphaera apis contained in wax foundation can pass on chalkbrood in honey bees. Veterinary Microbiology. 108: 141-144.

Spivak, M., Reuter, G.S. 2005 A Sustainable Approach to Controlling Honey Bee Diseases and Varroa Mites. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Fact Sheet.

Spivak, M., Reuter, G.S. 2001 Resistance to American foulbrood disease by honey bee colonies, Apis mellifera, bred for hygienic behavior. Apidologie 32: 555-565.

Spivak, M., Reuter, G. S. 2001. Varroa jacobsoni infestation in untreated honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies selected for hygienic behavior. J. Econ. Entomol 94(1): 326-331.

Spivak, M., Gilliam, M. 1998. Hygienic behaviour of honey bees and its application for control of brood diseases and varroa mites. Part I: Hygienic behaviour and resistance to American foulbrood. Bee World 79:124-134. Part II: Studies on hygienic behaviour since the Rothenbuhler era. Bee World 79: 165-182.

Spivak, M., Downey , D. 1998. Field assays for hygienic behavior in honey bees (Apidae: Hymenoptera). J. Econ. Entomol. 91(1): 64-70.

Spivak, M., Reuter, G.S. 1998. Performance of hygienic honey bee colonies in a commercial apiary. Apidologie. 29: 291-302. 

Neuroethology of Honey Bee Hygienic Behavior 

Wilson-Rich N, Spivak M, Fefferman NH, Starks, PT. 2009 Genetic, individual, and group facilitation of disease resistance in insect societies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 54: 405-23.

Arathi, H.S., Ho, G., Spivak M. 2006. Inefficient task partitioning among nonhgienic honeybees, Apis mellifera l., and implications for disease transmission. Animal Behaviour 72: 431-438.

Goode, K, Huber, Z, Mesce, KA, Spivak, M. 2005. The relationships of honey bee (Apis mellifera) behaviors in the context of octopamine neuromodulation: hygienic behavior is independent of sucrose responsiveness and foraging ontogeny. Hormones and Behavior. 49: 391-397.

Gramacho, KP and Spivak M. 2003. Differences in olfactory sensitivity and behavioral responses among honey bees bred for hygienic behavior. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54: 472-479. 

Spivak, M., Masterman, R., Ross, R., Mesce, KA. 2003. Hygienic behavior in the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) and the modulatory role of octopamine. J. Neurobiol. 55: 341-354. 

Lapidge, K., Oldroyd, B., Spivak, M. 2002.Seven suggestive quantitative trait loci influence hygienic behavior of honey bees. Naturwissenschaften 89: 565-568. 

Masterman, R. Ross, R., Mesce, K., Spivak, M. 2001. Olfactory and behavioral response thresholds to odors of diseased brood differ between hygienic and non-hygienic honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) J. Comp Physiol. A 187: 441-452.

Arathi, H.S., Spivak, M. 2001 Influence of colony genotypic composition on the performance of hygienic behavior in the honey bee (Apis mellifera L). Animal Behavior 62: 57-66. 

Arathi, H.S., Burns, I. , Spivak, M. 2000. Ethology of hygienic behaviour in the honey bee, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae): Behavioural repertoire of hygienic bees. Ethology 106: 1-15.

Masterman, R., Smith, B. Spivak, M. 2000. M. Evaluation of brood odor discrimination abilities in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) using proboscis extension reflex conditioning. J. Insect Behav. 13(1): 87-101. 

Boecking, O., Spivak, M. 1999. Behavioral defenses of honey bees against Varroa jacobsoni Oud. Apidologie 30: 141-158.

Spivak, M. 1996. Honey bee hygienic behavior and defense against Varroa jacobsoni. Apidologie 27: 245-260. 

Spivak, M., Gilliam, M. 1993. Facultative expression of hygienic behaviour of honey bees in relation to disease resistance. J. of Apicultural Res. 32(3/4): 147-157.


----------



## mike bispham

Before I forget; as well as offerering a totally dishonest view of the position in regard to deliberate selection against varroa, as far as I can see the paper WLC supplied to back up his claim that selection is dangerous because it breeds mutants etc. etc. MAKES NO SUCH ASSERTION. 

WLC has then supplied NO evidence for his claim in the literature. This belongs to him alone. And Peter, who has chipped in his agreement from time to time.

Mike


----------



## WLC

Thanks for the Spivak links.

First of all, not all Honeybee viruses will cause an overt viral infection under pressure from a higher varroa mite load. IAPV doesn't have this characteristic.

"Honey bee pathology: current threats to honey bees
and beekeeping."
Elke Genersch, 2010.

Secondly, nowhere does Spivak, et al. suggest that beekeepers use a no-treatment/survivor protocol to select for hygeinic bee traits.

The standard recommendation for the selection of hygienic traits is by the 'frozen brood comb' protocol. You freeze a known number of brood cells and then count the number of frozen brood cells cleared over 24 and 48 hours. The percentage cleared is a standard indicator of the hygienic trait.

Thirdly, if someone is going to 'refute' the findings of published, peer reviewed scientific papers, they will need to specifically refute the claims, and provide the relevant, peer reviewed references. Opinions don't count.

Finally, if you don't believe that you are using a protocol (no treatment/survivor) that will result in the selection of mutants, including those resistant colonies containing integrated RNAi viral fragments, then you have only yourself to blame. Those high loss rates, and the resulting poorly productive colonies are an obvious indicator.

There are better ways to select for resistant bees. You can use the 'frozen brood comb' method (without the massive losses, and resulting poorly productive colonies seen in the no-treatment/survivor protocol) to select for the hygienic trait.

One method is scientifically valid, the other isn't.

Thanks for making this so easy.

PS-Spivak is an IPM advocate.


----------



## Roland

WKC replied:

Roland:

If you mean that you are willing to send bee samples to a lab so that they can be tested for integrated viruses, then that would really be putting your $ where your mouth is.

I say: 
No. that would be me putting my money where your mouth is. I will gladly send samples to you(or a lab) on your dime, but my money is in short supply, and I feel it is better used else where, sorry.

My initial point is that maybe you should buy a bunch of bees and have some fun with us.

Roland


----------



## WLC

I am working on a TBH, natural comb, propolis induction, no-treatment, and captured swarm setup.

So yes, I am putting my time and money into it.

I am also working out the details of a protocol to test for and characterize these integrated viruses.

It's going to cost out into the many thousands, just for the consumables. 

Do you understand why this type of thing is usually done by research institutions now?

However, farmers can spend way more on a single piece of equipment than the cost of setting up for this kind of testing. Just to put it in perspective.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Secondly, nowhere does Spivak, et al. suggest that beekeepers use a no-treatment/survivor protocol to select for hygeinic bee traits.


First: can we be quite clear. In neither of the two papers you put forward is there any statement to the effect that grassroots selection risks a dangerous incorporation of 'mutants' into subsequent generations. Rather, the papers are both eager to deepen the understanding of the mechanisms by which bees gain immunity from virus, and interested in the idea that better understanding may lead toward a vaccine.

Is that a fair summary?

The idea that breeding from 'survivors' under a 'no-treatment' regime is likely to embed 'mutant genes' in future generations is yours, and yours alone. It has no support in the scientific literature.

Is that correct?


I think we are now in a position where getting clearer about just what you mean by your decriptive phrase 'no-treatment/survivor protocol' would be useful. I don't know if this is a phrase of your own making, or if it originates elsewhere. It appears now that you do not wish the phrase to include what I have described as 'professionally' bred' bees (a category that will include bees emerging from apiaries using Marla's methods). 

Could you please clarify exactly what is meant by this phrase?



WLC said:


> ...if someone is going to 'refute' the findings of published, peer reviewed scientific papers, they will need to specifically refute the claims, and provide the relevant, peer reviewed references. Opinions don't count.


I haven't tried to 'refute' the 'findings' of this paper. I've shown that the claim made for the non-existence of (apiary-desirable) resistance-selected bees is substantiated only in respect of wild/feral survivors, and not at all in the sense of specially bred bees. No references are needed to do this. A simple demonstration from the text, as supplied, is quite sufficient.



WLC said:


> Finally, if you don't believe that you are using a protocol (no treatment/survivor) that will result in the selection of mutants, including those resistant colonies containing integrated RNAi viral fragments, then you have only yourself to blame. Those high loss rates, and the resulting poorly productive colonies are an obvious indicator.


What high loss rates? What poorly productive colonies. Please substantiate. Don't forget the bees in the studies you instance were merely natural survivors - and may have been at a relatively early stage in their co-adaptation with varroa. They were not such bees subsequently bred toward desirable traits. 

Where in the literature is any indication that beekeer-desirable traits cannot be subsequently bred in? 

Don't forget that in all wild/feral bee populations there is a range of strenths and weakness. It is the beekeepers art to emphasise the desirable - strength, productivity and so on, and to aim to establish these traits as deeply as possible. With that said, many people are quite happy with straight mongrels, sharing genetic material with surrounding wild/feral bees, and simply re-queening the less desirable individuals from the better colonies. Perfect reliability is a 'demand' made by modern agriculture - and it seems is a demand too far. 

May I ask: where in the scientific literature is the alarmist term 'mutants' used to describe bees that have viral fragments incorported? 

As far as I can see from your literature such bees are examples of a natural mechanism by which animals gain a measure of immunity from viruses. 



WLC said:


> There are better ways to select for resistant bees. [frozen brood etc.]
> 
> One method is scientifically valid, the other isn't.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'scientifically valid' here. Unless a study is under way no science is going on. Perhaps 'technologically valid' is better. A thought for another time perhaps. 

When we understand the precise meaning of your 'no-treatment/survivor protocol' perhaps we'll be able to understand just what you mean here.

Don't forget though, Marla Spivak is recommending selecting from whatever bees are at hand - the local strains. Her aim is no-treatment wherever possible, in the knowledge that treatment followed by reproduction rapidly weakens the apiary. And she has strongly made the point that raising bees selectively is both a science AND an art. 



WLC said:


> PS-Spivak is an IPM advocate.


Fine. But don't forget; without a SPECIFICATION 'IPM' means very little. It can be extremely harmful to the future of the apiary (if reproduction follows treatments) or extremely beneficial (if that doesn't happen.).

As for making it easy; if we all co-operated by responding clearly and earnestly to direct questions, and avoiding being evasive, we could do this the whole time. Its my job to make constructive conversation as straightfoward as possible by being as cooperative as possible. Thanks for engaging, and I hope you'll continue to do so.

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

mike bispham said:


> Its my job to make constructive conversation as straightfoward as possible by being as cooperative as possible. Thanks for engaging, and I hope you'll continue to do so.
> 
> Mike


Is that why you referred to WLC as:



> offerering a totally dishonest view of the position in regard to deliberate selection against varroa


That's what you call cooperative


----------



## Tom G. Laury

The answer to that question would be yes.


----------



## JPK

Roland said:


> My initial point is that maybe you should buy a bunch of bees and have some fun with us.
> 
> Roland


Well said.

Frankly I'm getting a bit weary of some of the armchair beekeepers from across the pond <that don't even keep bees> trying to tell us how to keep bees.

There's a big difference between posting a series of references from "researchers" and actually keeping bees season after season.


----------



## WLC

There are 'people of conviction'  in both the beekeeper and science camps. Others are committed (or should be).

Just try and tell some of the 'natural beekeeper' camp that their selection methods can easily produce something rather un-natural, and you see what happens.

I'm not that concerned about the reaction that I've received. It's to be expected.

What really concerns me is that scientists themselves may have missed the 'smoking gun' for the cause of CCD.

Do you recall when it was anounced that they found 'the bullet'? 95% of CCD hives in the U.S. tested positive for IAPV?

What they aren't telling you is that the test they were using couldn't distinguish between viral RNA and integrated virus, transcribed RNA.

If these retrotransposons do in fact prove to be the cause of CCD (as I believe), then they missed 'the smoking gun'. It has been 3 years and counting.

Peer reviewed science isn't always a good thing. It can create alot of hostility, and alot of important research won't get published because of a reviewer's self interest/associations.

So, it's not just a beekeeper vs scientist problem.

Why would I be interested in studying this ? It's mostly for my country (I took an oath), and also for our native wildlife. 

Beekeepers might make the list after agriculture.


----------



## JPK

WLC said:


> Just try and tell some of the 'natural beekeeper' camp that their selection methods can easily produce something rather un-natural, and you see what happens.


I haven't seen any frankensteinian bees yet but please feel free to elighten me with what you're referring to.

Selective breeding and free markets have been wildly successful in this regard, look as far back as Buckfasts and as recently as New World Carniolans.




WLC said:


> Why would I be interested in studying this ? It's mostly for my country (I took an oath), and also for our native wildlife.
> 
> Beekeepers might make the list after agriculture.


Really? What oath did you take that is relevant to the USA and Livestock?


----------



## Tom G. Laury

Yes I agree completely some of us should be committed. 

Probably me too!

JPK it's complicated take the time to read the thread from start to unnerstand WLC a little more. Transpondence and all. Might be real significant.


----------



## WLC

So, how exactly do you test for viruses let alone integrated viruses?

How about CCD? Don't thnik that these viruses have anything to do with it? No, Frankentstein bees to be found? How would you know what to look for?

I can test for plant viruses, no sweat. But, there's no field test available for Honeybees viruses, both regular and extra transgenic.

Why are those strains you mentioned so desirable? Can you be more specific about what genes they carry? 

Maybe one day you will be able say exactly what makes those bees so special.

I think that these 'franken bees' could be one tool to make that happen.


----------



## JPK

WLC said:


> Why are those strains you mentioned so desirable? Can you be more specific about what genes they carry?
> 
> Maybe one day you will be able say exactly what makes those bees so special.


NWC's do well in cold climates, mine have always built up well in the spring, been reasonably frugal with stores and never had a mite problem with them per se.

As to the comments about Viri, I don't have a problem, don't know anyone in the region that has a problem so I don't know that I'm concerned about going down a rathole and encouraging funding of said program.

Not saying that it wouldn't be nice to have but I think there are much more important things to spend money on.....oh and I'm still curious about that "Oath" you referred to.



WLC said:


> I think that these 'franken bees' could be one tool to make that happen.


I think they would have a really hard time getting into cells with those big knobs on their necks :lpf:


----------



## WLC

Which oath? I took one as an officer of the State of New York.
Big deal, right?

'Franken bees' is just a take on the european view of GM foods. But, they're all eating it now. 

Did the Bride of Frankenstein have bolts in her neck too? I don't remember. It would be more applicable to queen/worker bees though. Maybe they'll have a crazy hair doo instead?

You can use integrated viruses to find genes responsible for desirable traits since they 'naturally knock out' the genes function. I use to spend alot of time in the lab doing that on purpose. Think of it as an unexpected benefit.


----------



## JPK

WLC said:


> Which oath? I took one as an officer of the State of New York.
> Big deal, right?


Officer as in Police Officer or Officer as in Elected or Appointed Bureaucrat?
In either case I'm not sure I see how that would relate to beekeeping in any way shape or form.

Did the Bride of Frankenstein have bolts in her neck too? I don't remember. I don't think they showed them in the G rated version :lpf:



WLC said:


> You can use integrated viruses to find genes responsible for desirable traits since they 'naturally knock out' the genes function. I use to spend alot of time in the lab doing that on purpose. Think of it as an unexpected benefit.


A lot of the research is interesting but the question is it cost effective given the actual problem compared to the perceived problem, clearly the perception of a problem is far worse than the actual problem.

I know that really sucks to hear if you're one of the folks that has lost bees to unknown vectors or self inflicted treatments but its the truth.

Bees are not about to become extinct and the short term squeeze (cost) is likely not worth the juice (small to moderate reduction in death rate or increase in productivity). 

I don't want anyone to construe my next statement with supporting Bispham on anything but even some of the references you posted were careful to point out that the short term results of selective breeding of some sort were unsatisfactory (subjective) while ignoring the long term efficacy of this solution.

Bispham, don't get giddy, I'm not supporting your one sided approach but I also recognize that the long term solution is bees that are more resistant/tolerant of viri/mites etc than to expect to solve the issue through more medicine of some sort.

This may sound silly but I kinda look at this issue the way I look at how I drink my coffee....with a little extra sugar.....the sugar gets me going quickly but its the caffeine that keeps me going all day long.

Medicine/Technology is a short term solution or band aid in many cases....the long term solution are bees that have been bred to be resistant or tolerant.


----------



## WLC

Perceived problem?

I would say that retrotransposons can not only severly impact the genetic diversity of the Honeybee, but extinction is possible in an extremly polyandrous speices like the Honeybee that also has the highest known recombination rate known in the animal kingdom. Those integrated viruses will get around.

It all depends on how you look at it.

If you're a beekeeper, it's meaningless blather.

If you have my own background, you know that it's a real threat.

Is it blather, or is it a threat? You decide. (Not!)


----------



## JPK

Again, you ignored that "Oath" question.

As to the other, lets go back to my previous post, "Is the juice worth the squeeze?"

I don't think it is...unless you want to fund it privately.

Bees have been around for an extremely long time and there are hundreds of varieties of them.....frankly I suspect that the chances of the Honeybee becoming extinct are far less than the earth being hit in the next couple hundred years by a civilization killing asteroid.


----------



## WLC

As for the oath, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand. Thanks for asking, again, and again.

I think that it is well worth it to have have simple tests for pathogens available to beekeepers. It would fit in well with the whole IPM model. It does need to be affordable though.

If you take into account the number of pests and pathogens that have found their way into hives, and this is without counting molecular parasites like transposons, I wouldn't bet on the asteroid.

The type of tests I'm considering haven't been used for the Honeybee as far as I can tell. They have been used in other insects however.

I'm of the opinion that nanotechnology is a better investment than some of the other equipment that is commonly used, like thermal cyclers in PCR, etc. .

My main objectives are sensitivity, portability and ease of use.

I can envision a beekeeper using this in an apiary. Testing for pathogens and even integrated viruses. All using fluorecent nanoprobes.


----------



## JPK

WLC said:


> As for the oath, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand. Thanks for asking, again, and again.


If it was irrelevant then why did you make reference to it in the first place?



WLC said:


> I think that it is well worth it to have have simple tests for pathogens available to beekeepers. It would fit in well with the whole IPM model. It does need to be affordable though.


Well, thats your opinion....and it also happens to be your meal ticket....forgive me if I'm more than a little skeptical since you're more than likely taxpayer funded.

Why not see if you can get private industry to fund your research if its a viable and cost effective product?


----------



## Roland

WLC:
Since you brought it up. I too am curious about your oath of office. It is amazing how similar the oaths are for a Officer of the Peace, Military person, and senator, reps, Judges, and he President. OK, if you won't spill that, at least tell us who signs your paycheck, that might give us a better understanding of your viewpoint.

As for CCD, Have you ever gone out and worked with hives all summer that where failing with CCD? Do you know what is smells like? If so, have you cured it? If not, why do you think a virus causes CCD? Could it just be a secondary infection and not the cause? Have you isolated a virus and given it to bees? What symptoms did they display? Not that juice might be worth the squeeze.

Roland


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> 'Franken bees' is just a take on the european view of GM foods. But, they're all eating it now.


Nope. Another falsehood confidently sent into the ether. Who cares about facts, pish.

Thus far GM crops and products are effectively illegal here in the UK. Even as a small component of prepared foods, or animal foodstuffs. For policy see here. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/gm/crops/index.htm

We don't go in for the 'frankenstein' stuff much, but do take a very cautious approach that considers the totality of possible effects - including loss of genetic diversity, the possible destruction of existing species due to genetic contamination, the dangers of increasing dependence on large corporations, the destruction of countryside and heritage by agro-businesses and so on. We're not that keen on having English countryside turned into wheat deserts, with half the subsequent earnings sent to monsato shareholders. Thank you. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

JPK said:


> I don't want anyone to construe my next statement with supporting Bispham on anything but even some of the references you posted were careful to point out that the short term results of selective breeding of some sort were unsatisfactory (subjective) while ignoring the long term efficacy of this solution.


To the point: look more closely. The paper DIDN'T DEAL WITH BRED SOLUTIONS, THOUGH IT STRONGLY IMPLIED IT HAD. It spoke only of naturally selected bees, then clearly stated there were no satisfactory breeding solutions. An outright con. This despite itself referencing a recent paper (110 if I remember) about the current state of knowledge that recommends equal weight be given in the future to studies of breeding and treatment. 



JPK said:


> Bispham, don't get giddy, I'm not supporting your one sided approach but I also recognize that the long term solution is bees that are more resistant/tolerant of viri/mites etc than to expect to solve the issue through more medicine of some sort.


My approach JPK is centred here: scientific _principle_: all organisms need to select/be selected in order to remain viable in an ever-changing evironment.

The denial of selection therefore leads NECESSARILY to loss of viability.

That's it. That simple. Everything else sits on that. 

If WLC wants to tell me that we must abandon selection, he's going to get a hard time. This isn't one-sided, its just sticking with reality as described by a scientific principle.

If I said to you: if you sit in your car as it is crushed into a small box you will ALWAYS get hurt, would you call that one-sided? You chaps can natter all day about air spaces or the remarkable survival capacity of the human body; I'm going to continue to say, get real. There are universal principles involved here, and you can't buck them. If you think there is another side to that, do please tell me about it.

My approach also extends to being one-sided about the benefits of honest discussion. This leads me to object to people trying to pull the wool over my eyes by pretending their pet theories are based in scientific literature. And/or giving me - and you - the runaround by being evasive and dishonest about what it is the literature actually says. 

Mike


----------



## WLC

Focus people.

I was discussing viruses/integrated viruses in bees. (I shouldn't have been affected.) Let's focus on the bees. Yes, I've held an elected office. I do have a sense of public duty if that's what you are asking. 

Where my paycheck comes from is none of your beeswax. Nosey Nate.

Someone is asking about Koch's postulate w/ regards to the virus and CCD.

If you recall the silver bullet claim for CCD, you'd have to wonder what those researchers are doing to follow up on their work, and also if they are in fact examining the integrated virus/RNA silencing/ribosomal fragments line of investigation.

I'd like to think that the reason why there's a dearth of published research on these retrotransposons is because researchers are getting ready to publish some important findings and maintaining the usual 'secrecy' to protect their discoveries.

In the worst case scenario, they're stuck for any number of reasons.

The list of RNA viruses found integrated into Honeybees includes IAPV, ABPV, DWV, and SINV (a virus associated with red fire ants, unpublished personal communication). Things aren't getting any better with time.

Roland, you ask if I know the smell of CCD bees. Nope. And no, I never did 'sniff' any of the viruses that I've used. I hope that you can get hold of some better tests for these pests and pathogens in the near future.

My real beef is with the scientific community on this issue. Why am I the one giving beekeepers the heads up on these integrated viruses? It's not my job.

Why aren't state of the art field tests in the hands of beekeepers at this time? Strip tests aren't a technological challenge with regards to these pests and pathogens.

So, my sense of 'frustration' comes more from a lack of action from the scientific community, rather than the 'antics' of the usual suspects here on the forum.


----------



## bigbearomaha

> Why aren't state of the art field tests in the hands of beekeepers at this time? Strip tests aren't a technological challenge with regards to these pests and pathogens.



Now here I actually find myself agreeing with you on something.

The technology is available to locally test for many indicators of various diseases and conditions. Is it that there is no demand to produce and sell these or is there another reason?

Most beekeepers I know of want to use technology (and the science behind it) to better identify problems and address them as they choose to.

Big Bear


----------



## peterloringborst

> RNA interference (RNAi) is an important defence against viruses and transposable elements (TEs). RNAi not only protects against viruses by degrading viral RNA, but _hosts and viruses can also use RNAi to manipulate each other’s gene expression,_ and hosts can encode microRNAs that target viral sequences. In response, viruses have evolved a myriad of adaptations to suppress and evade RNAi.
> 
> Immune system genes and the parasite molecules they interact with often evolve rapidly (Schlenke & Begun 2003). It is thought that this results from _a coevolutionary arms race_, in which there is a reciprocal process of adaptation and counteradaptation between parasites and hosts (Dawkins & Krebs 1979).
> 
> As RNAi is a primary defence of many organisms against viruses and TEs, it is likely to be a key battlefield on which these arms races are played out. This has the potential to drive the rapid evolution of the proteins involved, and ultimately shape the RNAi pathways themselves.
> 
> Because many viruses rely on suppressing the viRNAi pathway to infect their hosts, there will be a considerable advantage to mutations in viRNAi genes that escape this suppression. Furthermore, as the VSRs themselves are evolving quickly, the viRNAi pathway faces a continually changing array of suppressors to adapt to, and this could result in an evolutionary arms race driving the r_apid evolution of both host and viral proteins_. As predicted by this hypothesis, three key proteins in the viRNAi pathway of Drosophila (Dcr-2, Ago-2 and R2D2) are among the top 3 per cent of_ the most rapidly evolving in the entire genome_ (Obbard et al. 2006; figure 3).
> 
> Proteins involved in the immune system often have a higher rate of evolution than the genome average (Hurst & Smith 1999; Schlenke & Begun 2003), but even compared with other immunity genes the viRNAi genes evolve exceptionally fast (Obbard et al. 2006). Indeed, _no other functional class of immunity genes shows such consistently rapid evolution. _
> 
> 
> The evolution of RNAi as a defence against viruses and transposable elements
> Darren J. Obbard, Karl H. J. Gordon, Amy H. Buck and Francis M. Jiggins


----------



## peterloringborst

> In many instances, bee viruses are found as non-apparent infections in their host. This may result from competition between the viral RNA and the abundant DI-like RNAs, but also from the abundance of double-stranded RNA structures carrying viral sequences.
> 
> RNA recombination may elicit protein divergence with obvious evolutionary impact. Furthermore, a reciprocal exchange between host DNA and viral RNA (or a DNA version of a recombinant viral RNA) has been demonstrated.
> 
> Therefore, RNA recombination may engender divergence in host genes, and the evolution of both virus and host may be interrelated and linked to the very same eliciting process. -- Maori


----------



## peterloringborst

Why is the issue of virus integration into host DNA of serious significance?



> The integration of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) genetic information into the host genome is fundamental for its replication and long-term persistence in the host.
> 
> After docking onto a chromosome, the viral DNA undergoes a strand transfer reaction that involves a nucleophilic attack on the target DNA.
> 
> The end result is the permanent integration of the HIV genome into a specific site on the host genome.


----------



## peterloringborst

Most of the discussions about genetics here at BeeSource reveal a clear lack of understanding as to how genetics works in bees, and especially how it differs from other domesticated species. Bee genetics is far from simple and anyone who supposes that it is, would be mistaken.



> Several factors likely contributed to the initial oversight of possible genetic aspects of bee declines, including:
> 
> (1) Prior theoretical arguments suggesting that genetics is relatively unimportant in the conservation biology of haplodiploids.
> 
> (2) Difficulties in extrapolating knowledge gained from diploid organisms to the haplodiploid bees.
> 
> (3) Lack of studies examining how specific bee genetic and life history traits (e.g. haplodiploidy, complementary sex determination, sociality, etc.) impact population viability.
> 
> (4) Lack of genetic resources for bees.
> 
> However, theoretical and technical advances over the past decade have overturned longstanding views regarding the immunity of bees to genetic threats in small populations and prompted research on their conservation genetics.
> 
> The three most plausible and best supported genetic threats to the viability of small bee populations: Complementary sex determination, inbreeding depression, and loss of genetic diversity and consequent evolutionary potential
> 
> Bee genetics and conservation by Amro Zayed
> Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign,



What does this have to do with what we were talking about? The idea that if the majority of the colonies died off would result in some sort of better bees, is contradicted by several of these points. One, by radically narrowing the gene pool, this die off could lead to both loss of genetic diversity and inbreeding depression. So the assumption that a large scale die off could ultimately lead to more resistant bees is a fallacy. The resulting bees may survive for various reasons unrelated to fitness, but the population base would likely be narrowed to an untenable degree.

Point 4 is crucial. This leads us to the desirability of obtained more diverse stock from a variety of regions, rather than isolating and inbreeding with the mistaken hope of intensifying vigor. Of course, hybrid vigor, where it exists, tends to be temporary, but the long range effects of broadened genetic stock can only be beneficial.


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> But, there's no field test available for Honeybees viruses, both regular and extra transgenic.


Perhaps there is:



> Beepath: An ordered quantitative-PCR array for exploring honey bee immunity and disease
> Jay D. Evans
> 
> USDA-ARS Bee Research Laboratory, BARC-East Bldg., 476 Beltsville, MD 20705, USA
> 
> Honey bees and other insects face many important parasites and pathogens against which they have evolved behavioral, morphological, physiological, and immune-based defenses. To help validate honey bee immune-gene candidates and determine their responsiveness to pathogens, a quantitative-PCR array was developed to measure transcript levels for 48 honey bee and pathogen genes in parallel. It is shown that this array can accurately measure host and pathogen transcript abundance, providing a new tool for assessing the environmental and genetic components behind honey bee immunity.


----------



## peterloringborst

In answer to both Barry's query about hybridization and Mike's about genetic linkage:



> The most prominent example of inherited
> differences in honey bee aggression is the extremely aggressive
> disposition of Africanized honey bees (AHB) compared with
> European honey bees (EHB). AHB have spread through most of
> the New World after the introduction in 1957 of the African
> subspecies, A. m. scutellata (12), causing deaths of humans and
> animals in some parts of their newly inhabited range due to massive
> stinging responses. AHB derive from hybridization between A. m.
> scutellata and EHB (predominantly A. m. ligustica in the New
> World). AHB mostly have A. m. scutellata-like behavioral traits,
> _especially a highly aggressive colony defense_ (13).
> 
> Aggression is a _complex, polygenic trait _(14). An appropriate test
> of the idea that there is a common molecular basis for differences
> in aggression due to environmental, maturational, or inherited
> factors thus requires analysis of _multiple genes in different pathways.
> _


----------



## WLC

Peter: qRT-PCR/PCR are powerful techniques, but they don't translate well into easy to use field tests like strips. You can use the primers to create probes for other methods however.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> The idea that if the majority of the colonies died off would result in some sort of better bees, is contradicted by several of these points. One, by radically narrowing the gene pool, this die off could lead to both loss of genetic diversity and inbreeding depression. So the assumption that a large scale die off could ultimately lead to more resistant bees is a fallacy. The resulting bees may survive for various reasons unrelated to fitness, but the population base would likely be narrowed to an untenable degree.


Peter, 

You write that the idea (that nobody recommends) that mass die offs would result in better bees is contradicted by 'several of these points', then instance one of them, point 4. On the basis of just this one point (not the 'several'), you go on to claim this is a fallacy. Not so. This is how nature works, and it happens all the time. For a while a predatory organism will gain the upper hand, and the host's population will plummet. Two things happen: 1) the more aggresive strains of the predator will be left without food, and perish; 2) those host individuals that can locate a defence, together with with those prey strains that are not too aggressive, will result in 'survivors'. The population will rebuild from this successful pairing of strains. The technical term is 'co-adaptation'. _These are undoubteded 'better' organisms, as they can thrive in the presence of the predator - whhich previously caused them to die in large numbers._

I know you can say 'there are no guarentees' (I will respond '30 million years'... 'strong evidence of this already occuring' etc; but before responding to this point, please read through the post as I have more to say on the subject below.



peterloringborst said:


> Point 4 is crucial. This leads us to the desirability of obtained more diverse stock from a variety of regions, rather than isolating and inbreeding with the mistaken hope of intensifying vigor.


This I agree with. But we have to open the position out now and look at the detail, to see what actually occurs in the different proposed scenarios.

We have to note that the centralised breeding model thought by some to represent the future of beekeeping dramatically narrows the genetic pool. Those who think the future consists of centrally bred queens, used yearly or bi-yearly to replace fading queens, have failed to see this problem - not for themselves, but for the life-form they rely upon. 

In recognition of this some of the more enlightened breeders are deliberately increasing the genetic breadth of their breeding pools. While a move in the right direction, this is however _a drop in the ocean compared to what can be achieved by acting to preserve local varieties_. 

Marla Spivak recognises the importance of this issue, and recommends both the breeder actions described above, but emphasis even more a still better national strategy, in which beekeepers act to preserve their local strains. This involves dealing with the problems of weak bloodlines by selectively breeding _all local bee strains,_ aiming to have healthy bees that require no treatment (the no-treatment is important, as treatment undercuts the objective of eliminating unadapted bloodlines from the breeding pool - though treatment followed by swift requeening is fine). In this strategy ALL local strains are preserved, and their genetics are narrowed by incoming bred queens to a minimal degree. 

She recommends, note, a process of transition from treatment-based management to selection-based management _that requires no economic loss, no 'mass die offs'_ (again, more on this in a moment). It simply requires a change of management strategy, and re-skilling of the workforce. 

That presents a cosy picture. In reality I think things are harder - especially where a significant proportion of treated drones continually drag down the local genetics. 

_But it clearly offers a path toward a sustainable future_. And, major point: _there is no alternative suggested path toward a sustainable future_. The centralised queen-supply model won't work for the reasons outlined above. There are no other propositions on the table. The model that seeks to preserve and raise the defences of as many local strains as possible offers the sole comprehensive solution to varroa and the associated micro-organisms - and to all other bee diseases. And lets note; all it involves is beekeepers doing what all other fields of husbandry do - select the best parents and keep the weaker out. This is standard stuff, time-tested, scientifically based.

Returning now to the point about mass die-offs. First: 

_NOBODY is recommending mass die offs. _

HOWEVER, even if they were, there would be very little loss of genetic diversity. The 10% of individuals of ANY POPULATION that survive due to natural resistance will carry the entire local genetic base. All that will be lost is those individual combinations that don't work in the present environment - the 'weak', 'unadapted' bloodlines. The whole local genetic base, with its localised adaptations, will be preserved in the 'stronger' bloodlines. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> (#324)
> Of course, hybrid vigor, where it exists, tends to be temporary, but the long range effects of broadened genetic stock can only be beneficial


You might want to address this thinking again in light of your position on africanized bees!

Mike


----------



## WLC

Genetic diversity is directly impacted by integrated virus contamination of stock. You would have to address the contamination issue first before you import stock from other countries which could make matters far worse than it already is.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the healthiest or even survival of the most productive.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Genetic diversity is directly impacted by integrated virus contamination of stock.


'Contamination' is an inappropriate term. Viruses and bees co-exist, and, we have seen, exchange genetic information in their 'arms race'. Bees have been 'contaminated' by viruses for the last 30 million years or so. It's just one of several evolutionary mechanisms. 

The 'impact' part of your statement is appropriate - but its a natural feature. There is no evidence of alarm about this in the literature - just attempts to muscle in with unneccessary diagostics leading to inappropriate and harmful treatments by a newly vigorous class of parasite for the honey bee, the veterinary profession. Their intended actions will create a still-weaker bee, dependent on their own viral medicines, as well as the existing dependency on varroa treatments.

All this is rather beside the point in any case; as we've seen - from your own source - the prior cause is varroa. Raise varroa resistant bees and any viral problem evaporate.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the healthiest or even survival of the most productive.


The 'fittest' are by definition the 'healthiest' at that point. Period.

Of course they may not be the most productive - when compared with artificially propped long-bred treatment-dependent bees. But if they have survived alone they will likely be pretty well equipped to produce! And that feature can be raised by subsequent selection - both by nature and by beekeepers.

Mike


----------



## WLC

Honeybees have not been contaminated by integrated virus fragments until recently.

No alarm in the literature? Didn't you read de Miranda?

By the way, IAPV, a virus of concern in the U.S., doesn't require an increased varroa mite load for overt infections to occur.


----------



## peterloringborst

mike bispham said:


> Peter,
> 
> You write that the idea (that nobody recommends) that mass die offs would result in better bees is contradicted by 'several of these points', then instance one of them, point 4.


You hear this all the time, especially at bee source, that if we would just let the susceptible bees die, that the bees with the "right stuff" would prevail. They even have a name for it: "Live and Let Die" or "the Bond Project"



> Possible host-parasite adaptations in honey bees infested by Varroa destructor mites
> 
> Ingemar Fries and Riccardo Bommarco
> 
> Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7044, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden
> 
> (Received 19 March 2007 - Revised and Accepted 22 August 2007 - Published online 14 December 2007)
> 
> Abstract - We investigated Varroa destructor mite population growth in a line of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies hat have survived mite infestation for seven years without treatment (Bond colonies), and in a line of colonies that had been treated to control the mites (Controls). We investigated if the source of mites affected mite population growth. The results showed that the overall mite population growth rate was reduced by 82% in Bond colonies compared to Control colonies, irrespective of the mite source (mites from Bond or Control colonies). Two traits may partly explain the difference seen in mite population growth. First, Bond colonies produced less worker and drone brood compared to Control colonies. Second, Control colonies had a larger proportion of the mites in the sealed brood compared to Bond colonies. Reduced brood production and traits leading to differences in mite distribution could be interpreted as adaptive responses to mite pressure, although a causal relationship was not demonstrated.
> 
> However, it
> should be emphasised relying on a natural selection
> strategy to overcome problems with V.
> destructor mites is likely to cause massive bee
> losses and to be totally unacceptable to apiculture,
> agriculture and horticulture, not to mention
> the ecological consequences with reduced
> pollination.


----------



## peterloringborst

As late as 2010, researchers are still referring to _the potential_ to establish Varroa resistance 



> In Gotland, an island of the Baltic Sea, Fries et al. (2006) described the survival of 150 honey bee colonies that were subject to the Bond test. Five of the colonies survived over 5 years.
> 
> To survey the success of selection programs for Varroa resistance, 14 European strains of bees were compared on an isolated Adriatic island (Unije, Croatia) over a period of 2.5 years At the end of the experiment most of the colonies had died, with only 15 colonies still alive.
> 
> High survival rates in _some local populations _and significant variability in the mite infestation levels between breeding lines convincingly demonstrate there is potential to establish Varroa resistance in European Apis mellifera populations.
> 
> However, the resistance mechanisms are complex and are still only partially understood. Furthermore, resistance does not occur as an isolated interaction between a host colony and its parasite, but _depends on hive management and environmental conditions_, including other pathogens.
> 
> Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor in Europe
> Ralph Buchler, Stefan Berg, Yves Le Conte


----------



## jonathan

peterloringborst said:


> Most of the discussions about genetics here at BeeSource reveal a clear lack of understanding as to how genetics works in bees, and especially how it differs from other domesticated species. Bee genetics is far from simple and anyone who supposes that it is, would be mistaken.


That is so true and some folk just go around in circles.

I posted a zayed reference on one of Mike's threads on a UK bee forum last September.

http://zayedlab.apps01.yorku.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/zayed-2009-apidologie.pdf

These were my comments at the time.

You need to read the reference I posted for you which explains the problems with inbreeding in a haplodiploid species such as apis mellifera.

Here is the abstract.

Abstract – The emerging threat of pollinator decline has motivated research on bee conservation biology in order to both understand the causes of declines and to develop appropriate conservation strategies. The application of genetics to the conservation of diploid animals has proven to be important for both overcoming genetic threats to population viability and for providing tools to guide conservation programs. However, the
haplodiploid bees have several unusual genetic properties of relevance to their conservation, which warrant special attention. Here I review how haplodiploidy and complementary sex determination affect genetic
parameters pertinent to the viability and future evolutionary potential of bee populations. I also review how genetic tools can improve the conservation management of bees. I find that bees are especially prone to extinction for genetic reasons, and that genetics can provide invaluable tools for managing bee populations to circumvent pollinator decline.

Here are the three main conclusions:

(1) Bees are highly susceptible to extinction in small
and/or isolated populations. 
(2) When subjected to an extrinsic factor causing decline,
bee populations will do so at a faster rate
than expected based on the direct effect of the
extrinsic factor. 
(3) Bee populations should recover
at a slower rate than expected following
the removal of extrinsic factors causing declines.
Bee populations targeted for conservation
should be managed to reduce frequencies
of diploid male production, and to a lesser extent,
inbreeding depression.

For numbers 2 and 3 think varroa.
For number 1, consider the lone crusader who thinks he is likely to develop resistant bees from a stock of half a dozen hives.
Outcrossing with neighbouring drones will delay relatedness in your DEME for a while but over the years the percentage of relatedness in the population will tend to build up, especially if colony numbers drop.

It is also worthwhile to read the 20 odd pages in between the abstract and the conclusion, as small and/or isolated population does not just refer to special situations such as Mull, but rather to any population which ends up with a high percentage of closely related individuals which will give rise to a significant number of diploid males.

Quote:Originally Posted by Mike Bispham 


> Population crashes followed by rapid repopulation of co-evolved individuals is one of the ways species cope with the sudden arrival of new predators. It is natural selection in extreme action. It is backed up by many reports of strong recovery in the wild populations.


This is at odds with conclusion 3 above and is also unreferenced.
Historically, population crashes have frequently been followed by mass extinctions.
At the end of the Cretacious period 75% of all the species on earth became extinct.


----------



## mike bispham

Gosh, the gang are busy.



WLC said:


> Honeybees have not been contaminated by integrated virus fragments until recently.
> 
> No alarm in the literature? Didn't you read de Miranda?


Yes. No sense of alarm. I asked you to demonstrate a sense of alarm using citations from the paper. You haven't.



WLC said:


> By the way, IAPV, a virus of concern in the U.S., doesn't require an increased varroa mite load for overt infections to occur.


How could you tell when varroa is all over? References please. And then what does 'to occur' mean? Does it mean 'at the same rate'? Or 'occurs at all' - even though that migh be at a vastly reduced rate.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> You hear this all the time, especially at bee source, that if we would just let the susceptible bees die, that the bees with the "right stuff" would prevail. They even have a name for it: "Live and Let Die" or "the Bond Project"


Did you actually read my post of yesterday, #326?

I carefully wrote, in a number of different ways:

"NOBODY is recommending mass die offs. "

I even asked you to read right through before responding to try to avoid this sort of thing.

But this is just business as usual Peter isn't it? Simply ignore the contents of a post, set up a red herring and beat it to death. 

For your information the 'Bond Method' belongs to John Kefuss. It has nothing (or little) to do with natural survivors (that is, feral/wild bees). Kefuss runs a number of large apiaries in Europe and South America, using his own bred resistant stock. 

Briefly, his method is to allow the apiary to die back to naturally resistant individuals and then breed up. But he doesn't stop there. He next places combs full of the most aggressive varroa he can find in the hives. The survivors from this round form the breeding stock from which the apiary is built up again. Kefuss thus selects only those bees that can truly survive the most aggressive forms of varroa. Beekeeper traits like good handling and high productivity are part of the process, but take a back seat to sheer survivability and vigour.

It is noteworthy that his bees are fine in ordinary European-type apiary settings - based in good forage most of the year, limited movement, well spaced hives and so on - but do not last in the high-intenity migratory commercial settings that he runs in, I think, Chile. Make of that what you will.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Jonathon, I accept, with the reservations below, the points made in the paper you cite. 

Your main point seems to be that care should be taken to avoid inbreeding. I have no problem about that at all - though see some thoughts below. 



jonathan said:


> Here are the three main conclusions:
> 
> (1) Bees are highly susceptible to extinction in small and/or isolated populations.
> 
> (2) When subjected to an extrinsic factor causing decline, bee populations will do so at a faster rate than expected based on the direct effect of the
> extrinsic factor.


(1) I'm going to complain: First that no effort is made to quantify 'small'; and secondly that this statement seems incognizant of the idea that bee populations are generally contiguous, and that successful genetic populations will move into gaps left by local extinctions. For this reason that we should even use the term 'extinction' here seems inappropriate. A small local population dying off, to be replaced by adjacent succesful bees, seems to me to be simply normal and healthy. 'Extinction' properly refers to the termination of an entire species, or sub-species, not simply a 'small' local population.

(2) simply re-states the finding: 'small' local populations decline 'faster than we expected'; and 'we think that has something to do with the sexual genetic (haplodiploid) setup' . What does that tell us? 

This is, to my mind, the bit to read carefully:



jonathan said:


> (3) Bee populations should recover at a slower rate than expected following
> the removal of extrinsic factors causing declines. Bee populations targeted for conservation should be managed to reduce frequencies of diploid male production, and to a lesser extent, inbreeding depression.


Lets read this closely. First, note that 'should'. This is a prediction. based on that prediction a recomendation is made that populations targeted for conservation should be managed. 

Second; the aims are cast in terms of 'conservation'. It would be helpful to understand exactly what is meant by this. Does it intend 'keeping any (small) population i.e. an apiary alive at all costs simply to maintain the beekeepers business at minimum cost'? Even though those bees might be entirely inappropriate to that area - i.e. Russians in Dorset? Or is it used in the wider sense of 'conservation', intending to target and preserve native bees? Since it is clearly written to a US audience, I think we have to take the former reading. This is about keeping apiaries alive at all costs. Yet the author seems to waver on this point. He writes:

"4. CONCLUSIONS
Bees are indispensable components of terrestrial ecosystems and their conservation is essential for both ecological and economic reasons. "

Given that current wisdom has it that the Honeybee is an intruder onto US ecosystem, this seems odd. And nothing he writes gives any clue as to how he feels modern apiary practices might impact on any native - or indeed feral - bees. 

In other words there seems to me to be an uncomfortable lack of information about just what problem it is the author is addressing. He seems to elide, taking points from one interpretation, applying them inappropriately to the other.

Moving on: two subsequent recommendations set out the key acts:

The first 'reduce frequencies of diploid male production'. I'm not sure what this entails, nor why, and would be grateful for your help.

The second seems to me to be a recommendation to freshen the blood from time to time - presumably with stock from 

Again I have no problem with this. Personally I'd be cautious. Since I want to work with bees in a no-treatment manner, what I want are bees that can thrive locally. In the sad absence of a local tradition of natural beekeeping that means using as many local naturally selected bees as possible. I'll be cautious about bringing in blood that has no attunement to local conditions - but may be forced to.

These aims are of course very different to those of a commercial beekeeper who simply wants bees that will work well, and isn't that fussed about the effect his drones will have on other local bees, and is not concerned about where they come from. Such enterprises are not generally speaking in the business of 'conserving a small population' for reasons of maintaining biodiversity.

To get to the point: nothing in (3) contradicts anything I've said. It suggests (natural) population recovery may be slower 'than expected' (and like far too many papers of its kind makes no mentaion whatever of the impossibility of 'recovery' all the while treatements are used and reproduction uncontrolled - a huge hole in the entire project). It basically suggests genetic management. Which is exactly what Marla Spivak and others, including myself, argue for.

Where, then, is the beef?



jonathan said:


> Historically, population crashes have frequently been followed by mass extinctions.


Can you substantiate this? Quantify, supply evidence, references? I doubt it very much. 



jonathan said:


> At the end of the Cretacious period 75% of all the species on earth became extinct.


I don't know how this is supposed to support your case. The generally accepted explanations for the several mass extinctions (in the proper sense) are things like large meteor strikes, massive volcanic activity, extreme glacial events. I have heard of no theory blaming mass infections. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> As late as 2010, researchers are still referring to _the potential_ to establish Varroa resistance
> 
> "To survey the success of selection programs for Varroa resistance, 14 European strains of bees were compared on an isolated Adriatic island (Unije, Croatia) over a period of 2.5 years At the end of the experiment most of the colonies had died, with only 15 colonies still alive. "


First: this says nothing whatever about the efforts of the many breeders who deliberately select for resistance. Can we please separate these issues?

Secondly: without detail this extract gives us almost no imformation. First: what would you expect? Then, what proportion is 'most'? Further, what happened to the survivors? What was the sample size?

Were the 14 strains isolated from each-other, or did they all pass their own particular evolved strains of varroa on to each-other? What kind of climate and forage shift was involved in each case?

Etc etc. Throwing counterpoint citations without context is easy Peter. But they are often - like this - meaningless without more detail and context.

Mike


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> _NOBODY is recommending mass die offs. _
> 
> HOWEVER, even if they were, there would be very little loss of genetic diversity. The 10% of individuals of ANY POPULATION that survive due to natural resistance will carry the entire local genetic base. All that will be lost is those individual combinations that don't work in the present environment - the 'weak', 'unadapted' bloodlines. The whole local genetic base, with its localised adaptations, will be preserved in the 'stronger' bloodlines.


Where do you get the figure of 10% from? What if it were 0.000000001%



> The first 'reduce frequencies of diploid male production'. I'm not sure what this entails, nor why, and would be grateful for your help.


You need to revisit the issue of the CSD locus and sex determination in hymenoptera. It was explained well to you here last August.
If you want to move forward you really have to take the time to understand this basic stuff as a lot of what you write seems well intentioned but is very naive and therefore inaccurate.
You can't argue about genetics in general and haplodiploid genetics in particular without understanding the basic principles - and that goes well beyond a rudimentary understanding of natural selection and survival of the fittest.



> Quote:Originally Posted by jonathan
> Historically, population crashes have frequently been followed by mass extinctions.





> Can you substantiate this? Quantify, supply evidence, references? I doubt it very much.


There are hundreds of references.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Where do you get the figure of 10% from? What if it were 0.000000001%


10-15% is commonly quoted in the specific case of bees. I'm afraid I don't have time to look up a good ref. for that at the moment, but I'll post one next time I come across one. It isn't plucked out of the air. (Added later):

http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/publ/tolerant2.html
Producing Varroa-tolerant Honey Bees from Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe*

By E.H. ERICKSON, L.H. HINES, and A.H. ATMOWIDJOJO

"Our experience suggests that as few as 3 and as many as 10 percent of colonies in any apiary are somewhat Varroa-tolerant."

http://www.apiservices.com/articles/us/hygiene_queen.htm
The hygiene queen 
by Marla Spivak & Gary Reuter

"Our studies have shown that it is possible to select for hygienic behavior without compromising honey production or gentleness (Spivak, 1996; Spivak and Reuter, in press). The trait can be found in approximately 10 percent of the managed colonies found in the United States, in any race or stock of bees. We feel it would benefit the beekeeping industry to have hygienic lines of bees commercially available."


http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...129&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2006/05/m6039.pdf
Survival of mite infested (Varroa destructor)honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies in a Nordic climate
Ingemar Fries, Anton Imdorf, Peter Rosenkranz

Abstract – An isolated honey bee population (N = 150) was established on the southern tip of Gotland,
an island in the Baltic sea. After infestation with 36 to 89 Varroa destructor mites per colony, they were
unmanaged and allowed to swarm. For over six years colonies were monitored for swarming, winter losses,
infestation rate in the fall, and bee population size in the spring. Winter mortality rate decreased from 76%
and 57% in the third and fourth years, to 13% and 19% in the ﬁfth and sixth years. Swarming rates increased
from zero the third ﬁeld season to 57.1% and 36.4% in the last two years. The mite infestation on adult bees
decreased during the last two years, from 0.47% in the third year to 0.19% and 0.22% respectively. Our data
suggest that a host-parasite co-adaptation has occurred ensuring survival of both the host and the parasite.)

None of these attempt to give the figure you want, and as far as I know no-one has tried to collate existing data and come up with one. But you can see the general picture. You can add to these a number of similar statements by qualified researchers, and the many personal attestments made by the 'small-celler' beekeepers best represented by Dee Lusby. 




jonathan said:


> You need to revisit the issue of the CSD locus and sex determination in hymenoptera. It was explained well to you here last August.


No I don't. You think it's relevant to the discussion, not me. I'm happy to accept the findings, and conclusions - as I've stated. And, as I've stated, with reservations, there is nothing in there that runs counter to anything I've said.



jonathan said:


> You can't argue about genetics in general and haplodiploid genetics in particular without understanding the basic principles - and that goes well beyond a rudimentary understanding of natural selection and survival of the fittest.


You are wrong, if by 'basic principles' you mean the details of haplodiploid genetics. Nothing about the strange sexual set-up of bees makes any material diffence to the ROOT principles of inherited charateristics, natural selection for the fittests strains, and genetic husbandry. You can make simple statements about genetics that are true no matter what the details. 

The simple statement I make is: if there is no selection for resistance going on, there will be no rise in resistance. Building on that: treatments followed by uncontrolled reproduction result in the non-occurance of resistance. 

Nothing you have said, and nothing in the paper you reference and cite, has any impact on that. 

The minute details are fascinating, but you can get lost in them, and fail - as I think you are - to see the wood for the trees. The trick is to work with the ROOT principles that apply across ALL life forms. They are UNIVERSAL - they work with haplodiploid animals just as with any other. The specific details of any particular species make no difference.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by jonathan
> Historically, population crashes have frequently been followed by mass extinctions.
> 
> (MB) Can you substantiate this? Quantify, supply evidence, references? I doubt it very much.
> 
> There are hundreds of references.


Eh? A google search "population+crash+leading+to+mass+extinction" amounts to a lead to references? Are you kidding me?

Mike


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> None of these attempt to give the figure you want, and as far as I know no-one has tried to collate existing data and come up with one.
> Mike


Why cite them then? 
Do you really think that 'some varroa tolerance' in 3-10% of bees is equal to a 10% survival rate conserving all the genetic variation even if bees are left untreated. I don't.



> They are UNIVERSAL - they work with haplodiploid animals just as with any other. The specific details of any particular species make no difference.


You haven't understood the Zayed paper if you still think this.
An increase in the % of of diploid drones in a haplodiploid population represents a huge burden to the population, independently of any other selection pressure on the population.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Why cite them then?


To try to be helpful and constructive. 

I agree a percentage figure for 'some varroa tolerance' does not translate to survival percentage if left untreated. But there will be a correlation. From conversations with small cellers who simply stop treating a 10% survival rate seems about right - but the rate might have been improved by active selection. 

As for the (theoretical 10%) conserving all the genetic variation, no. But, as I understand it (my source is Chris [correction Gavin] from the irishbeekeeping list, who is, I understand, well qualified to speak on such things) it will likely conserve the complete local genetic material. All that will be lost are the unfit combinations of that material. That is as it 'should' be - nature's mechanism for recovering fitness. 



jonathan said:


> An increase in the % of of diploid drones in a haplodiploid population represents a huge burden to the population, independently of any other selection pressure on the population.


I don't doubt it. But if you think this is relevant, again, please explain why. 

I'm not sure I'm clear about just what it is you are saying. You seem to have some objection to some particular position of mine, but I don't know just what position it is, or what your objection to it is. Could you possibly clarify?

I wrote: [" the principles of natural selection for the fittest strains ...] are UNIVERSAL - they work with haplodiploid animals just as with any other. The specific details of any particular species make no difference." 

And you reply: 

"You haven't understood the Zayed paper if you still think this."

You haven't understood that paper, nor any other paper containing biological content if you think that.

Natural selection works across the board. It works in: mice, ants, octopuses, zebras, bacteria, viruses... do you get the picture? It works in any and every sort of ploidy. It is a scientific _principle_ or _law_; and like any other, it applies without exception. That is one of the features of scientific principles. (try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law)

That means... you can make general remarks about ANY sort of organism, and know they are true without reference to ploidy. So you can say 'like all other organisms, bees need selection mechanisms in order to locate defences against ever-evolving predators' - without knowing anything about ploidy. The statement is true simply because natural selection for the fittest strains applies to all living organisms... and bees are living organisms. 

Its like the principle of universal gravitation. This states (something like) 'all masses possess a gravitational field.' That 'all' means ALL. Wherever you are in the universe, if you are near a mass, you will be in its gravitational field. This is true for planets, suns, asteroids, black holes, pulsars... you get the picture. So without even seeing a distant planet you can say things about its gravitational field that must be true.

OR you can argue with physicists about the universal nature of gravity.

Likewise, you can argue with biology about the universal nature of the necessity of natural selection for the fittest strains. But unless you want to do that, you must accept that no matter what the ploidy, the scientific principle of natural selection for the fittest strains applies in every case.

This is not for a moment to say the there is no benefit in knowing about the details of ploidy. But it does mean I can make statements about the causes of bee health without knowing anything about ploidy.

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## WLC

A haploid drone with a lethal mutation to just one single gene will not be viable. This is one of the reasons why the Honeybee genome contains less than 1% of it's sequences from transposons/retrotransposons. If a single vital gene is knocked out/mutated, then the drone won't develop.

A diploid drone might develop into an adult with a single lethal mutation to a gene (assuming the other copy is normal), however, diploid drones are often cannibalized. So, if your drone cells are being cleared out by worker bees, it might not be occurring because of varroa, and it could be due to diploidy. Diploid drones should also be infertile, but that could depend on the species/strain of Honeybee.

So, if you are finding a low number of drones being produced, and a higher % of diploid drones than normal in your hive, then it's a real problem. The viability of that hive becomes an issue.


----------



## peterloringborst

mike bispham said:


> First: this says nothing whatever about the efforts of the many breeders who deliberately select for resistance. Can we please separate these issues?
> 
> Secondly: without detail this extract gives us almost no imformation. First: what would you expect? Then, what proportion is 'most'? Further, what happened to the survivors? What was the sample size?
> 
> Were the 14 strains isolated from each-other, or did they all pass their own particular evolved strains of varroa on to each-other? What kind of climate and forage shift was involved in each case?
> 
> Etc etc. Throwing counterpoint citations without context is easy Peter. But they are often - like this - meaningless without more detail and context.
> 
> Mike


The experiment _is_ a deliberate attempt to select for resistance. I would expect 90% to die the first year. 117 colonies were set up and 15 survived, _better than _10%. I thought perhaps you had seen the paper, since it is a topic that interests you. 

The key points as far as I am concerned, are that they are not making any claims or predictions, unlike yourself. They are observing the facts and trying to make sense of them. They conclude that observed varroa resistance has genetic basis, _but also_ there is a management and location effect, the effect of which can't easily be separated from the phenomenon. 

In other words, there may be varroa resistance in a population, which nobody doubts, but it may require additional management and isolation to actually succeed with unmedicated hives. So, in and of itself, varroa resistance in a population may not translate into long term survivability without some degree of isolation and/or specific management practices. 

Separating the role of each of these factors is what I have been attempting to explore since I signed on to this group in January. I have no particular agenda, other than scientific curiosity. I really am s_ick and tired of your personal attacks_, however. I am not doing it, and I don't deserve it, either. 



> To survey the success of selection programs
> for Varroa resistance, 14 European strains of
> bees were compared on an isolated Adriatic island
> (Unije, Croatia) over a period of 2.5 years
> (Berg et al., 2001; Büchler et al., 2002). Seven
> strains originated from selection programs for
> resistance to V. destructor (Carniolan n = 5;
> Buckfast n = 1; hybrid n = 1), and the
> other seven were unselected strains (Carniolan
> n = 5; Buckfast n = 1, Ligustica n = 1). The
> 117 colonies were started as artificial swarms
> (1.6 kg) with 270 Varroa each and were maintained
> according to normal management practices
> but without any treatment against Varroa.
> _At the end of the experiment most of the
> colonies had died, with only 15 colonies still
> alive._
> 
> _There were distinct differences in the survivability
> of the different strains of bees_
> (ANOVA, P < 0.05), with the colonies originating
> from selection programs showing a
> significantly higher proportion of surviving
> colonies (11 out of 63 colonies) compared
> to the unselected ones (4 out of 54 colonies;
> Wilcoxon, P < 0.01).
> 
> Nevertheless, from the
> second year on, the selected strains had significantly
> stronger colonies compared to the
> unselected strains (all Wilcoxon, P < 0.05).
> The higher colony strength and better survival
> rate _convincingly demonstrate the advantages
> of the strains selected for Varroa resistance,
> compared to the unselected strains._
> 
> High survival rates in some local
> populations and significant variability in
> the mite infestation levels between breeding
> lines convincingly demonstrate there is potential
> to establish Varroa resistance in European
> Apis mellifera populations. Several selection
> tools suitable for use by beekeepers have been
> developed and have been implemented in field
> selection programs. However, the resistance
> mechanisms are complex and are still only
> partially understood. Furthermore, _resistance
> does not occur as an isolated interaction
> between a host colony and its parasite, but depends
> on hive management and environmental
> conditions, including other pathogens._


Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor in Europe
Ralph Buchler, Stefan Berg, Yves Le Conte


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> A diploid drone might develop into an adult with a single lethal mutation to a gene (assuming the other copy is normal), however, diploid drones are often cannibalized.


Diploid drones are _usually_ cannibalized, as the workers perceive that there is "something the matter" with them. I have seen VHS breeder queens that had such a high level of diploidy that the colonies were unable to maintain themselves, or ever build up into normal colonies. This is a serious problem with line breeding honey bees and is probably one of the reasons why the natural mating system of honey bees is diametrically opposed to inbreeding. 

A normal colony has multiple drones so that the colony is made up of multiple unrelated lineages. This diversity of lineages makes the colony into a _population_ rather than a particular genetic lineage. Therefore, simply raising a queen from one of the eggs of such a colony can hardly be expected to yield another colony with anything approaching a similar genetic makeup of the original colony. I have described this over and over, but some people still seem to think that raising bees is "like" raising hounds.

The dynamics of honey bee genetics is not fully understood, even by the experts. There is some evidence that in the normal colony, the queen/worker caste system is _not only_ determined by chemical composition of the brood food (environmental) but may also have a genetic component. In other words, the bees may _select_ specific eggs to raise into queens based on qualities that _only they can perceive. 
_


Nature versus nurture in social insect caste differentiation
Tanja Schwander, et al


----------



## peterloringborst

Mike B. wrote:


> the principles of natural selection for the fittest strains are UNIVERSAL - they work with haplodiploid animals just as with any other. The specific details of any particular species make no difference.


Look, Mike, simply by putting the word UNIVERSAL in ALL CAPS does not lend credence to your argument. It is, at best, a breathtaking oversimplification (shall we say: dumbing down?) of the fundamental principles of biology. 

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone engaged in current work in biology that would claim this or that to be "universal", especially something as vague as "survival of the fittest". What is fit, anyway? And how does altruistic behavior factor into that?



> Genes for altruism and selfishness have often been postulated in the literature of evolutionary biology, most famously by Hamilton (1972)
> and popularized by Wilson (1975). Hundreds of papers make the implicit or explicit assumption that such genes exist, and, having made this assumption, model the way such genes might behave in populations over evolutionary time. But our understanding of such genes at the molecular and physiological level is in its infancy
> 
> R. M. Brito, M. McHale and B. P. Oldroyd
> Behaviour and Genetics of Social Insects Laboratory, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia


----------



## peterloringborst

Far from there being any "universal" principles in evolution, it appears more likely that all evolutionary outcomes are variable and provisional. 



> Understanding the reasons why different parasites cause different degrees of harm to their hosts is an important objective in evolutionary biology. One group of models predicts that if hosts are infected with more than one strain or species of parasite, then competition between the parasites will select for higher virulence. While this idea makes intuitive sense, empirical data to support it are rare and equivocal. We investigated the relationship between fitness and virulence during both inter- and intraspecific competition for a fungal parasite of insects, Metarhizium anisopliae. Contrary to theoretical expectations, competition favored parasite strains with either a lower or a higher virulence depending on the competitor: when in interspecific competition with an entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema feltiae, less virulent strains of the fungus were more successful, but when competing against conspecific fungi, more virulent strains were better competitors. We suggest that _the nature of competition determines the relationship between virulence and competitive ability._


VIRULENCE AND COMPETITIVENESS: TESTING THE RELATIONSHIP DURING INTER- AND INTRASPECIFIC MIXED INFECTIONS
Peter A. Staves and Robert J. Knell
School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom


----------



## peterloringborst

It is always a mistake to focus on one organism, like the honey bee, and assume that it exists without a context that is every bit as competitive as it is. 

In other words, natural selection does not simply apply to a particular species, but it is a complex web that is being modified by competition among and with the multitude of organisms and environmental factors. 

Again, survival is by no means assured. Given the record of life on earth, one would have to say: individual species extinction is assured.



> It is well known that competition among kin alters the rate and often the direction of evolution in subdivided populations. Yet much remains unclear about the ecological and demographic causes of kin competition, or what role life cycle plays in promoting or ameliorating its effects.
> 
> _The fitness of a phenotype depends on its context._ For example, individuals with intermediate phenotype may have high fitness in a group of low phenotype individuals, but low fitness in a group of high phenotype individuals. Thus, contextual analysis finds that soft-selection constitutes a form of group selection.
> 
> Clearly, estimates of the strength of kin competition in nature are needed. Until empirical measures are conducted on a wider range of species, the prevalence and efficacy of kin competition in nature remains in question.
> 
> The Components of Kin Competition
> J. David Van Dyken
> Indiana University, 1001 E. Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47403


----------



## peterloringborst

> The fitness of a phenotype depends on its context. For example, individuals with intermediate phenotype may have high fitness in a group of low phenotype individuals, but low fitness in a group of high phenotype individuals. Thus, contextual analysis finds that soft-selection constitutes a form of group selection.


Interesting example:



> Tsuji’s (1995) work on the ant Pristomyrmex
> pungens might serve as an illustrative example. In this species,
> workers reproduce pathenogenetically and a worker dimorphism exists
> with large reproducing workers having a higher within-colony fitness than
> small reproducing worker. However, large workers reduce a colony’s fitness
> at the between-colony level. Using a multilevel selection approach
> (contextual analysis) and partitioning of covariance Tsuji (1995) showed
> that selection on the proportion of foragers appeared to be responsible for
> the evolutionary maintenance of cooperative breeding in this species.


----------



## jonathan

> Originally Posted by jonathan
> An increase in the % of of diploid drones in a haplodiploid population represents a huge burden to the population, independently of any other selection pressure on the population.





mike bispham said:


> I don't doubt it. But if you think this is relevant, again, please explain why.





> The haplodiploid sex determining mechanism in Hymenoptera (males are haploid, females are diploid) has played an important role in the evolution of this insect order. In Hymenoptera sex is usually determined by a single locus, heterozygotes are female and hemizygotes are male. Under inbreeding, homozygous diploid and sterile males occur which form a genetic burden for a population.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360072/



> The production of diploid males represents
> a large genetic cost in bee populations. Diploid
> males are mostly either inviable or sterile
> (Agoze et al., 1994; Duchateau et al., 1994;
> Holloway et al., 1999; Liebert et al., 2004,
> 2005; Heimpel and de Boer, 2008). Female
> Hymenoptera only fertilize their eggs when
> attempting to produce daughters. The production
> of diploid males from fertilized eggs
> therefore acts to increase female mortality. A
> secondary cost to diploid male production is
> also incurred if diploid males are viable and
> achieve matings. Viable diploid males produce
> diploid sperm and thus females mating with
> them produce inviable fertilized eggs or sterile
> triploid daughters (Krieger et al., 1999;
> Ayabe et al., 2004; Liebert et al., 2004, 2005),
> with one rare exception in an aculeate wasp
> (Cowan and Stahlhut, 2004). In such cases,
> the production of diploid males indirectly increases
> female mortality by constraining their
> mates to the production of haploid males and
> triploid daughters. Therefore, diploid male
> production increases female mortality over
> one or two generations, given inviable or effectively
> sterile diploid males respectively. Ultimately,
> increased female mortality caused by
> diploid male production will result in reduced
> population growth rates in bee populations
> (Stouthamer et al., 1992; Pamilo and Crozier,
> 1997). In social bees, diploid male production
> will effectively increase female mortality for
> both reproductive and worker castes, and can
> thus reduce both population and colony growth
> rates (Cook and Crozier, 1995). In cases where
> colony survival is a function of the size of the
> worker force, diploid male production can significantly
> increase colonymortality (Plowright
> and Pallett, 1979; Ross and Fletcher, 1986).
> Diploid male production is thus expected to be
> costly in both solitary and social bees.


http://zayedlab.apps01.yorku.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/zayed-2009-apidologie.pdf

In very simple terms, the queen wastes time laying non viable eggs and the workers waste time removing non viable eggs or larvae.
In inbred populations the percentage of diploid drones will be higher.
This represents a burden to a colony independently of any varroa resistance which the colony may or may not possess.

This is a specific problem in haplodiploid species such as the honey bee due to the way gender is determined at the csd locus and the implication of that for producing non viable offspring in populations with low genetic diversity.
Again in simple terms, if you lose genetic diversity in a population, the percentage of non viable diploid drones will rise.
This can make a colony non viable in a way which has nothing to do with 'adapted genes' as you envisage them.




> I'm not sure I'm clear about just what it is you are saying. You seem to have some objection to some particular position of mine, but I don't know just what position it is, or what your objection to it is. Could you possibly clarify?
> Mike


Just trying to clear up what you haven't understood.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360072/
> In very simple terms, the queen wastes time laying non viable eggs and the workers waste time removing non viable eggs or larvae.
> In inbred populations the percentage of diploid drones will be higher.
> This represents a burden to a colony independently of any varroa resistance which the colony may or may not possess.
> 
> This is a specific problem in haplodiploid species such as the honey bee due to the way gender is determined at the csd locus and the implication of that for producing non viable offspring in populations with low genetic diversity.
> Again in simple terms, if you lose genetic diversity in a population, the percentage of non viable diploid drones will rise.


Your point then is that in 'small' populations, due to lack of biodiversity, inbreeding becomes a problem, and this problem takes the form of a higher production of drones than normal? Have I got that right?

If so, can I say (for the nth time, and resisting putting it in caps) I have no problem with that!

It is a critical goal of those aiming to encourage selective management regimes to maintain biodiversity, by preserving local variations. 

If you look at the open question to Norman Carreck forming the basis of the BKAA thread you took such great joy in obstructing last year, you'll find that my point was that HIS plan for centralised breeding ONLY would tend to decrease UK honeybee genetic diversity. 
http://www.britishbee.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=2948, June 2009

If you look at the dicussion here at about the point you jumped in you'll see that again I was putting forward the view, as argued by Marla Spivak, for localised breeding for resistance, on the grounds that such a strategy would best preserve biodiversity. This was among the extracts I'd posted:

_New Direction for the Minnesota Hygienic Line of Bees_, Marla Spivak and Gary S. Reuter

"We are now returning to our original goal of having queen producers and interested beekeepers select for this trait from among their own, tried-and-true stocks of bees. It is very important for beekeepers to have many stocks of bees to maintain a healthy level of genetic diversity [...] Fortunately, the hygienic trait is found in all races and stocks of bees."

http://www.extension.umn.edu/honeybees/components/pdfs/Spivak_Reuter_12-08_ABJ.pdf

Your telling me that we must be careful to preserve biodiversity is preaching to the long-converted!

...
Now, another go at the problem of the relative importance of principles and details. Peter, this responds also to your criticism of my claiming natural selection to be universal.

The _specific mechanism_ you bring to our attention describes the details of one of the problems that arises when biodiversity is low in a particular locality due to inbreeding. (Or, we could equally say, that there has been inbreeding due to low biodiversity.) There are other, similar problems. Inbreeding can lead to all sorts of undesirable manifestations, and general low genetic diversity can lead to 'genetic bottlenecks' leaving populations vulnerable to specific threats and conditions.

Now, try to get this: 

​_the discussion of low biodiversity is inclusive of all such problems_. 

And so, again, we don't have to know the _details_ to understand that we must guard against falling biodiversity. 

Science prioritises causes and explanations. It makes groups that allow whole areas to be examined as a group, a class, or category, without reference to the very many specific details. It has to - without such a management system, the detail would be overwhelming.

Here the class of difficulties describable as 'problems threatened by low biodiversity' includes several specific phenomena. These can be described in terms of _the mechanisms _by which low genetic diversity actually upsets health and vitality. We can talk about the benefits of preserving genetic diversity, and the merits of different ways to go about that, without having to understand every single detail of the mechanisms by which problems are made manifest - some of which are in any case badly understood, and even not understood at all.

Can you follow that? Try this: I can make a cake without understanding the chemistry that underlies the process. I can state that if I leave flour out the cake will not be good, despite not understanding the underlying chemistry.

Back to bees: while the problems you raise are real enough, the fact that I'm not conversant with them doesn't debar me from saying things about the need for genetic diversity generally, or from talking usefully about the merits of different approaches to maintaining genetic diversity.



jonathan said:


> This can make a colony non viable in a way which has nothing to do with 'adapted genes' as you envisage them.


I doubt it. The way I envisage genetics is by following some of the most deeply established precepts of biology, the building blocks of biological understanding. It may make a colony unviable in a way I don't understand, but that has nothing to do with the much - infinitely - bigger picture of what it is that enables bees to thrive in the face of ever-evolving predators, and the rest of the ever-changing environment. 

The small group of mechanisms that makes this happen is well known and easy to understand. Sexual reproduction throws up unique individuals, some of which possess traits that make them are better at handling the current environment than others. These traits are inherited solely from parents. 

In nature those individuals that thrive in the present environment tend to contribute to the next generation in greater numbers than those that are not well 'fitted' (through natural selection).

In order to maintain health and vitality bees, like all other organisms, have to select the best fitted to the present environment from each generation to make the next. This is constant minor adaptation to the constantly shifting minor features of the environment. Bees are equipped by nature to do this.

Beekeeping must likewise involve selection, and do so in a way that leads to the most desirable traits of health and vitality coming to the fore. _To the degree to which you stop that process occuring, their problems will be maintained or increased._

None of the detail that you offer makes any difference at all to that foundation, and to think it does is a great mistake.

May I suggest you stop, for a little while, looking closely at the trees, and stand back and try to see the shape of the woods. The shape of the woods is described in the principle 'natural selection for the fittest strains' where 'fittest' means 'best able to thrive and reproduce sucessfully in the present environment' - 'best fitted to the environment'. When you are happy that you truly understand this idea (you'll know that when you see its breathtaking simplicity, and feel its extraordinary 'beauty') then carry on looking at the trees - the detail. But don't ever lose sight of the shape of the woods, the foundation of biology, as you do so. Happy hunting.

Mike


----------



## jonathan

jonathan said:


> In very simple terms, the queen wastes time laying non viable eggs and the workers waste time removing non viable eggs or larvae.
> In inbred populations the percentage of diploid drones will be higher.
> This represents a burden to a colony independently of any varroa resistance which the colony may or may not possess.
> 
> This is a specific problem in haplodiploid species such as the honey bee due to the way gender is determined at the csd locus and the implication of that for producing non viable offspring in populations with low genetic diversity.
> Again in simple terms, if you lose genetic diversity in a population, the percentage of non viable diploid drones will rise.
> This can make a colony non viable in a way which has nothing to do with 'adapted genes' as you envisage them.


I can't explain it any more simply without becoming inaccurate. I'll drop it as you clearly can't understand the implications of haplodiploid genetics discussed in the Zayed reference



mike bispham said:


> Back to bees: while the problems you raise are real enough, the fact that I'm not conversant with them doesn't debar me from saying things about the need for genetic diversity generally, or from talking usefully about the merits of different approaches to maintaining genetic diversity.


You can of course say what you like but don't mind me pointing out your errors.



> Your point then is that in 'small' populations, due to lack of biodiversity, inbreeding becomes a problem, and this problem takes the form of a higher production of drones than normal? Have I got that right?


No. Diploid drones are not the same as drones.



> It may make a colony unviable in a way I don't understand, but that has nothing to do with the much - infinitely - bigger picture of what it is that enables bees to thrive in the face of ever-evolving predators, and the rest of the ever-changing environment.


The Zayed paper clearly demonstrated out that this view is a fallacy.



> Sexual reproduction throws up unique individuals, some of which possess traits that make them are better at handling the current environment than others.


In haplodiploid species it also throws up diploid drones.




> In nature those individuals that thrive in the present environment tend to contribute to the next generation in greater numbers than those that are not well 'fitted' (through natural selection).


The Zayed paper did its best to explain that this view was naive at best.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld:

The problem here is you don't know what you don't know.


----------



## WLC

> The problem here is you don't know what you don't know.


That says it all.

Let me add to that: it seems that beekeepers weren't the only ones faced with 'the unknown, unknown'. Scientists will also have to revise much of what they have said with regards to the genetic diversity of the Honeybee.

My Genetics professor ('Cyrus the virus') once warned us about 'the unknown, unknown'. They've recently found it in the Honeybee genome in the form of retrotransposed viral inserts.


----------



## peterloringborst

I think that it is quite evident that although folks have been predicting great strides in bee breeding for decades, these have failed to materialize. 

The primary reason, in my opinion, is the evolved system of outcrossing that exists in the honey bee. More specifically, the honey bee adapts not as an individual bee, nor even as an individual colony, but as a population. 

The entire population in a given region is the unit of selection, meaning that the population is coevolving in response to the environment, pathogens, etc., and in concert with the other colonies. 

This flies in the face of the "selfish gene" concept, but group selection has a lot more traction these days, as the role of "genes" is being diminished. Genes now appear to be records of life processes rather than the guiding force that they were once thought to be.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> You can of course say what you like but don't mind me pointing out your errors.


It would be great if you would. You haven't explained at all how this represents an error on my part. So far what you've done is pointed out a characteristic of inbreeding in small breeding populations, in defence of the idea that there should be action to protect diversity. As I've pointed I've never disagreed with this aim - far from it, I've long held that the maintainance of genetic diversity is crucial to the future of bees and beekeeping. (What we could do of course is discuss the best ways of maintaining it...)

You write that "the Zayed paper clearly demonstrated out that my position: 

"It may make a colony unviable in a way I don't understand, but that has nothing to do with the much - infinitely - bigger picture of what it is that enables bees to thrive in the face of ever-evolving predators, and the rest of the ever-changing environment. " 

[...] is a fallacy."

In what way is that a fallacy? Claiming it is a fallacy is easy, saying the paper demonstrates that it is a fallacy is easy; but can you _show just how _the paper does so? Until you can your claim is hollow. Just words. 

Again: natural selection is universal to all species - regardless of sexual arrangements - regardless even of sex at all. You can make statements about cakes without knowing anything about baking chemistry... 

Jonathon, only you can do the work that will enable you to tell the difference between principles and details, what universality means, and the significance of those arrangements. Please go study those woods I talked about, and look for the sensation that comes from recognizing a fundamental, beautiful simplicity, the indication that you truly 'get it'. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I think that it is quite evident that although folks have been predicting great strides in bee breeding for decades, these have failed to materialize.
> 
> The primary reason, in my opinion, is the evolved system of outcrossing that exists in the honey bee. More specifically, the honey bee adapts not as an individual bee, nor even as an individual colony, but as a population.
> 
> The entire population in a given region is the unit of selection, meaning that the population is coevolving in response to the environment, pathogens, etc., and in concert with the other colonies.


I've quoted your entire section here peter because I think it is valuable. I think you are right to identify the deme, the local breeding pool, as a valuable candidate for 'unit of selection'. But we would be wrong to think that it is the sole entity that can be usefully regarded in such a way - individual colonies can and should also be regarded as such.

Breeding has, as you say, come a long way, but I think the kind of breeding that would result in properly self-sufficient bees is not the aim of most programs, and that is why it is often not the result. Bees tend to be bred to perform well within a system of management. Even though that system may be entirely selective and treatment free, that will not alone be likely to be sufficient to make bees that can endure. A breeding rogram that had that outcome in mind could certainly make progress toward that goal - but the best strategy to achieve it would be to supply good habitat and then leave them alone to get on with finding the characters they need to thrive. In other words; hands off.

I think more progress in general breeding terms would be made by larger numbers of beekeepers choosing to be selective about the parentage of their stock. Simply reproducing from the best according to criteria of health and vigour, where those things entail freedom from the need to treat, would tend to restore to bees those qualities that allow them to be self-sufficient. In those places where there is sufficient habitat to support feral bees, such stock would be supportive of, rather than corrosive to, wild bees. That in turn brings deeper natural selection into play. Health is restored to the system, to all the players in the breeding pool.

The use of treatments in place of selection at grassroots level has exactly the opposite effect. Treatment-dependent bees are continually raised that erode the genetic viability of the deme. The way bees are kept by most commercial operations simply condemns the bee to continual sickness; through lack of genetic hygiene more than anything else. 



peterloringborst said:


> This flies in the face of the "selfish gene" concept, but group selection has a lot more traction these days, as the role of "genes" is being diminished. Genes now appear to be records of life processes rather than the guiding force that they were once thought to be.


I wonder where you get that idea-set from? I don't want to get into religious, or semi-religious discussions about the notion of a 'selfish gene', but I'd love to know the basis upon which you feel able to make the declaration contained in your last sentence? As far as I'm aware it contradicts the very basis of biology, despite genetic mechanisms turning out to be more and more complex as we learn more about them. 

The random nature of meiosis, followed by the ordering bought about by natural selection remains the closest thing to a 'guiding force'. 'Epigenetic' mechanisms add further layers of complexity, but that takes nothing away from the fundamental nature of the role of the combination of the first two processes. As and when consciousness enters the picture we can add that element; but for simple life-forms those two processes are all we have. Future generations are the product of meiosis and natural selection. The second includes all factors external to the organism - the environmental factors.

There is no arguing with the notion that individuals that die before reaching adulthood will not become parents, not passing on their genes and associated characteristics; that weakly adults are likely to fail to reproduce, not passing on their genes and characteristics; that stronger individuals will tend to contribute the greatest number of new individuals in the next generation; and that that new generation will be made from the genetic information it inherits from those strong parents. That 'strong' can be regarded as synonymous with 'fitted to the present environment.' 

In what way can this picture be dismantled; in what sense can genes be reduced to a 'record'?

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

mike bispham said:


> In what way can this picture be dismantled; in what sense can genes be reduced to a 'record'?


I would question: in what way can genes be regarded as anything but a record? They are mere strings of code, like the data on a CD. Without a CD player, and an audience, the data on the CD is merely a record of what happened when the music was created.

DNA is just a record of the biological processes of a particular organism. It can do nothing by itself, except provide a means to 1) identify the organism 2) differentiate it from other organisms and most importantly: 3) it contains a blueprint for the organism, to be used by the offspring to recreate the organism and the whole evolutionary and development process that brought it to that point. 

Without an organism -- more specifically, without the correct organism, the dna is a lifeless molecule.


----------



## peterloringborst

Why genes are not enough



> Complexity of the problem
> 
> After genomics, proteomics is considered the next step in the study of biological systems. _It is much more complicated than genomics_ mostly because while an organism's genome is more or less constant, the proteome differs from cell to cell and from time to time. This is because distinct genes are expressed in distinct cell types. This means that even the basic set of proteins which are produced in a cell needs to be determined.
> 
> Limitations to genomic study
> 
> Scientists are very interested in proteomics because it gives _a much better understanding of an organism than genomics_. First, the level of transcription of a gene gives only a rough estimate of its level of expression into a protein. An mRNA produced in abundance may be degraded rapidly or translated inefficiently, resulting in a small amount of protein. Second, as mentioned above _many proteins experience post-translational modifications that profoundly affect their activities_; for example some proteins are not active until they become phosphorylated.


----------



## peterloringborst

It is a mistake to assume that behavior patterns are solely the result of genetic makeup, and are heritable.



> Behavior is a complex trait, and dramatic individual differences can arise from complex interactions between genotype and environment. The majority of the studies of the genes and molecular pathways associated with behavioral variation have focused on distinct groups of individuals from different genetic backgrounds, individuals in physiologically-distinct behavioral states, or individuals in substantially different environmental contexts [1].
> 
> However, there can be significant individual variation among relatively similar individuals within a population. Studies in vertebrates have demonstrated that there is a substantial amount of individual variation in reaction norms [2] and brain gene expression patterns [3–5] associated with physiological or life history differences that are adaptive in different environmental contexts.
> 
> Individual variation in behavior can increase the productivity and success of a group as well as playing a role in maximizing individual fitness. However, individual differences in behavior in social groups have not been broadly examined [2,8]. Here, we examine the molecular and physiological factors associated with individual variation in response to social stimuli in honey bees, one of the best studied models for social behavior.
> 
> Individual Variation in Pheromone Response Correlates with Reproductive Traits and Brain Gene Expression in Worker Honey Bees
> Sarah D. Kocher


----------



## peterloringborst

mike bispham said:


> I'd love to know the basis upon which you feel able to make the declaration contained in your last sentence? As far as I'm aware it contradicts the very basis of biology, despite genetic mechanisms turning out to be more and more complex as we learn more about them.



More to the point:



> Gene regulation in higher organisms has taken a new turn in the last decade with the discovery of indigenous regulatory molecules known as microRNAs (miRNAs). miRNAs are short (22–24 nucleotides) RNA molecules that have been recognized as potential regulators of gene expression at the post-transcriptional level controlling important biological functions. In the honeybee, although expression of the predicted miRNA genes have been validated experimentally (Weaver et al., 2007), the biological functions of miRNAs in the honeybee have not been explored.
> 
> S. K. Behura and C. W. Whitfield. 2010. Correlated expression patterns of microRNA genes with age-dependent behavioural changes in honeybee


----------



## peterloringborst

See also:



> Non-coding microRNAs (miRNAs) are key regulators of gene expression in eukaryotes. Insect miRNAs help regulate the levels of proteins involved with development, metabolism, and other life history traits. The recently sequenced honey bee genome provides an opportunity to detect novel miRNAs in both this species and others, and to begin to infer the roles of miRNAs in honey bee development.
> 
> Daniel B Weaver, et al. 2007. Computational and transcriptional evidence for microRNAs in the honey bee genome


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I would question: in what way can genes be regarded as anything but a record? They are mere strings of code, like the data on a CD. Without a CD player, and an audience, the data on the CD is merely a record of what happened when the music was created.


It is also of course one of the key causes of the music. Take away the cd and there can be no music. Science, lets note, is about nothing if not the tracking of prior causes. 

The discovery of dna answered an extraordinarily toughest question that had been around for a long time. It enabled us to know the mechanism by which parents were mixed and copied, something that had been almost a complete mystery up to that point. Now we can see just how it is that the parental contributions come to create new individuals. We can see the causal train in the mechanisms.



peterloringborst said:


> DNA is just a record of the biological processes of a particular organism. It can do nothing by itself, except provide a means to 1) identify the organism 2) differentiate it from other organisms and most importantly:
> 
> 3) it contains a blueprint for the organism, to be used by the offspring to recreate the organism and the whole evolutionary and development process that brought it to that point.
> 
> Without an organism -- more specifically, without the correct organism, the dna is a lifeless molecule.


The more usual term, which you yourself suggest is the most important. is 'blueprint.' A more modern term is 'coding'. Dna supplies the instuctions for the construction of the protiens from which the organism is built. From these instructions come not just the body, but the many various behaviours and traits. 

Certainly it can be used to identify the organism (your 1)) and in that sense can be regarded as a 'record'. But this aspects is merely something we humans have discovered and utilyzed, not anything of fundamental importance to the bee itself. The bee was being constructed from its 'blueprint' for eons before humans came to see that it contained a partial record of its own history. So the 'record' aspect cannot be possibly be regarded as the most important. Your 'just a record' is way off mark.

Your continuation of your 3) doesn't really gell for me with the first part. When you add 'and the whole evolutionary and development process that brought it to that point' you are returning to the 'record' aspect - you are saying at this point that 'the whole evolutionary and develpoment process is recorded' or something of that kind. This is true in itself, but it makes no reference to the important causal mechanisms aspect. The 'whole evolutionary and development process' is entirely facilitated by dna and the mechanisms of sexual reproduction that result in the principle of inherited traits. To say that dna is 'just a record' carries the distinct inference that these things are unimportant to the processes - and that is far from being the case.

Can we try to tease this apart a bit? 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Why genes are not enough;
> 
> "Scientists are very interested in proteomics because it gives a much better understanding of an organism than genomics"


It may give a fuller understanding of the precise mechanisms, but it does nothing to reduce the PRINCIPLES of: inherited traits; the need of the population for continuous selection for the best parents. It may augment understanding, but it _does not replace the principles underlyng current understanding_. That 'better' represents 'improvement' not 'replacement.'

Again you are failing to recognize the fundamental difference between PRINCIPLES and DETAILS. This is critical for you Peter. I'll give you a common analogy of the way scientific understanding is structured - which, perfectly appropriately, mirrors, or 'maps' the way the world is structured in causal terms.

Lets take a nice big building that we can visualise easily. The Parthenon will do - but you can imagine any building in which the functions of the main parts are easily seen. Any ancient greek building will work well.

There is an order of support, which matches the chronological order of construction. First the foundations are made, then the columns go up. These are steadied by lintels, and the roof trusses laid directly over the columns. The weight of the roof thus comes down directly through the columns into the foundations, which provide the deepest level of support. 

In the building we can place further parts. Between the columns we can place walls, within them perhaps one or more altars. We can decorate the walls with picures, telling, or representing, stories, or accounts of various things. These decorations might be thought certain, truthful, and be painted into the fabric of the wall; or might be thought tentative, and painted on wooden boards, to be changed when there seems a need. 

We can of course move the alters, and even the walls, and, even easier, change the pictures on them. We can renew the roof without too much disturbance. We cannot change the columns without making alternative arrangements to support the roof. And, the key point, we cannot change the foundations without first removing everything above.

There is then a priority of parts. Some bits are more important than others. Some you can change without affecting too much, others cannot be changed easily.

In terms of 'support' the most work is done by the foundations. Second come the columns. The roof offers necessary shelter from the rain. The stuff inside can be stripped out and replaced at will, without affecting the main structure in the least.

Science works in the same way. There are principles, equivalent to the foundations - and often descrbed as such. These are the scientific 'laws' that operate as the basis upon which the rest is constructed. 'E=mc squared' the First Law of Thermodynamics, and Newton's Laws of Motion can probably be regarded as the deepest current foundations. The facts of the Elements of the Periodic Table, leading to all the understanding of inorganic and organic chemistry sit on top of these foundations. The life sciences in turn sit on top of all these. 

Any change at the bottom will ripple through everything above.

Any change above is very unlikely to make any difference to the underpinning understanding.

Unless you are in the business of cutting-edge physics, you simply accept the underpinning principles, the foundations.

Now: in biology this sense of causal hierarchy continues. There are further principles and details. Any change in the principles will ripple through all the details; changes in the details are highly unlikely to alter our understanding of the principles.

Among the most basic principles of biology are those supplied by the understanding of the mechanisms of inherited traits (via the actions of dna) and the principle of natural selection; describing the way the ancestry of populations tends to run back through the strongest individuals. (That's just a different way of saying the same old...) 

And talk about further detail of the mechanisms of life accepts these prior principles. Period. No argument. These are the foundations. Husbandrymen the world over absolutely rely on them - whether or not they undertand them, or even know of their existence. (Beekeepers are a peculiar exception...)

Talk about epigenetics comes close to making a strong _addition_ to these principles - but that is all. _It takes nothing away from them_. 

The weakest still die before reproducing, the strongest still reproduce in greater numbers: populations are subsequently the product of a long chain of best-parents. It makes no difference whether we are talking about bees, mites, orangutans or alligators; this remains true. 

Upon this superstructure we can place the idea - again in the form of an analogy - of a continuous 'arms race' between prey and predator. This is, again, a principle in biology. 

Again, talk about ploidy, retroviruses, epigenetics, proteomics... is detail that sits on top of this 'arms race' principle, and, of course, all lower principles. 

Anything changed in the lower principles, the foundations, will likely affect the understanding above. 

But the details are the pictures on the temple walls. New discoveries in the detailed complex mechanisms of life will mean the pictures are shuffled a bit, some thrown out, new ones made. They help us understand the enormous complexity of life better, they take us further, but they _do not alter the foundations of biology_. 

They will not allow the weak to reproduce in greater number than the strong. They will not stop the proteins of offspring conforming to the blueprints supplied by the genes of their parents. 

Natural selection for the fittest strains is the most basic principle of biology. The rest is detail, illustrating the mechanisms by which it acts. It has been demonstrated in millions of experiments. It has that curious feature of deep truths in being extraordinarily elegant, and of having huge explanitory reach. 

Your details don't affect it, they are the trees that stop you seeing the shape of the woods; the real nature of the problem. Denial of appropriate health selection _cannot but force_ sickness in bees.

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

mike bispham said:


> This is critical for you Peter.


Please keep the personal comments out of the discussion, following my example. They are unseemly and antagonistic.



mike bispham said:


> Natural selection for the fittest strains is the most basic principle of biology.


It all hinges on fitness. We have gone over this before. An organism evolves and succeeds or fails, if it _fits_. That is, it may simply find a niche where it can live unassailed, or it may develop into an organism with traits that enhance its ability to evade predators. 

Nobody doubts that if bees were allowed to exist in an unmanaged state, that they might develop traits that would allow them to survive in some fashion. What is doubted is that 1) these traits would be beneficial to beekeepers, 2) that these traits would develop in any or all populations, 3) that the survival of any species is assured, which it is not.

Good examples exist in the real world. There are ten apis species, only one of which is considered ideal for beekeeping: Apis mellifera. And among the various geographic races, some are considered to be vastly inferior in terms of manageability, productivity, disease resistance, etc. But beyond that, are the other species.

Apis florea, a true honey bee, builds one comb the size of a dinner plate. That is the whole thing. It succeeds by being small, relatively unattractive to predators, and of paramount significance: it abandons the nest at the slightest provocation. Meanwhile, in the same general range, you have Apis dorsata, which succeeds by being the most vicious stinging insect on the planet. Aside from this endearing trait, it has proved to be impossible to "domesticate". 

Over millennia, humans have developed a relationship with Apis mellifera, and especially the docile varieties as ligustica, carniola, and the less docile but manageable A. m. mellifera. Apis cerana, while manageable, is vastly less productive and Apis m. scutellata is vastly more unmanageable than the other A. m. varieties.

So, while it can be said that 1) given a large enough gene pool and 2) sufficient time, a differently adapted Apis mellifera could evolve, or be developed, it is by no means assured that the resultant type would be inevitable nor is it assured that it would retain the qualities that we would wish it to. In breeding, as in life, there are trade-offs.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Please keep the personal comments out of the discussion, following my example. They are unseemly and antagonistic.


I wasn't being critical of you. I was pointing out that the information I was presenting at that point was critical to your understanding, in the hope that you would be prompted to pay special attention to it.



peterloringborst said:


> It all hinges on fitness. We have gone over this before. An organism evolves and succeeds or fails, if it _fits_. That is, it may simply find a niche where it can live unassailed, or it may develop into an organism with traits that enhance its ability to evade predators.


This statement exhibits a basic misapprehension; that is: that evolution is entirely about bringing species to a stable state, from where its individuals will _either_ thrive or fail within an unassaible niche, _or_ will re-develop into an (new) organism that can avoid predators. 

Life is infinitely more dynamic than that. All organisms are constantly under attack from many different predators. And all organisms constantly adapt, re-adapt, and adapt once again, and in different ways, to those attacks. This is, we may say, a small measure of evolution at work in every generation, as _those individuals within a stable species_ that are best suited to the conditions of the day succeed in grabbing a larger share in the making of the next generation. 

Here we are not talking about the making of new species, but adjustments to the make-up of existing, otherwise stable species in response to a change in the environment. In any population, as a new predator moves in it will exact a higher toll on some bloodlines than others. The more vulnerable bloodlines will tend to be absent from future generations, while the more resistant bloodlines will tend to form a higher proportion of the next generation. In just a few generations the population may be back to the original size, and now 'immune' to the new predator as a result of its individuals being built from the instructions provided by its successful ancestors. It is not a new species, simply a population that has adapted to a change in its environment. 



peterloringborst said:


> Nobody doubts that if bees were allowed to exist in an unmanaged state, that they might develop traits that would allow them to survive in some fashion.


First, and I'm entitLed to shout at this stage, NOBODY IS SUGGESTING WE DO THIS!!!!

Second; traits that are already present in the population will rapidly 'move to the fore' - meaning 'will be present in a larger proportion of the population' as the bloodlines not carrying them are terminated.



peterloringborst said:


> What is doubted is that 1) these traits would be beneficial to beekeepers, 2) that these traits would develop in any or all populations, 3) that the survival of any species is assured, which it is not.


First, again, nobody is advocating a global or national 'live and let die policy - as you like to call it. And so the whole premise on which your three statements are based are purely hypothetical to an artificial setting. But lets go through them anyway.

1) Sure, beekeepers would benefit from to breeding up the desirable traits. Not a problem - though it would be useful if they made sure that they didn't breed self-sufficiency _out_ while doing so. ...

2) We have Marla Spivak's testimony that they can. If anyone should know, she should. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? 

You go on to talk about different species. This is, as I've pointed out above, inappropriate. We are not trying to breed a new species, or even sub-species; merely returning bees to their natural state of unsatble equilirium with respect to their predators. In other words: good health.

To your conclusion, emerging from the basic misapprehension that we need to bred a new species. 



peterloringborst said:


> So, while it can be said that 1) given a large enough gene pool and 2) sufficient time, a differently adapted Apis mellifera could evolve, or be developed, it is by no means assured that the resultant type would be inevitable nor is it assured that it would retain the qualities that we would wish it to. In breeding, as in life, there are trade-offs.


To 1): Since you are now allowing 'be developed'; we have Marla Spivak's testmony that pretty much any reasonable gene pool will be sufficient - and we can always augment it if not. 

To 2): first; the time required would depend on a number of factors. But we are talking about decades in the case of wild bees/natural selection, and less than that for capable human selection. The period will also depend on the starting point of the population -some strains are already better equipped than others. (The worst equipped are likely to be those that have been medicated for a prolonged period.) 

Secondly, as explained above, We can maintain the desirable traits as we go, and/or breed them back in later. 

3) is specious. As I've pointed out before, an animal that made it through the last 30 miilion or more years, and is apparently perfectly healthy in those places where it has been able to adapt to its predators in the proper way, is not in any danger. The honeybee is not on any endangered species list. The main cause of higher than normal loss rates is incompetent beekeeping.

Mike


----------



## WLC

Since Spivak hasn't taken into account the extent to which the Honeybee genome has been contaminated by retrotransposed, integrated virus fragments, she has very likely overestimated the useful genetic diversity of the Honeybee. The useful genetic diversity of the Honeybee remains unknown.

This is nontrivial.


----------



## peterloringborst

mike bispham said:


> The main cause of higher than normal loss rates is incompetent beekeeping.


This certainly trivializes the suffering of countless beekeepers, their employees and their families. People, who despite being in the business for decades, have experienced devastating losses. But evidently, they know far less than you, since you regard them as incompetent. You, on the other hand, know it all. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries

mike bispham said:


> The main cause of higher than normal loss rates is incompetent beekeeping.Mike


Really Mike?? I ask then how many colonies you have lost in your tenure as a "competent" beekeeper. Oh I seem to remember you have no bees thus basing all your arguments on the same tired theory and conjecture. I think some of the answers lie in selectively breeding however what Peter, WLC, and several others have added certainly makes sense and adds pieces to the puzzle also.


----------



## Roland

Mr. Bispham, as I have repeatedly explained to you in the past, there is something out there that kills bees dead, very quickly. It has NO connection to level of competence. It kills ALL of the bees. You CAN NOT breed from dead bees. I am a fifth generation beekeeper, and am known by many commercial beekeepers. If you doubt me, you can ask them, and check my integrity. 

How long have you been a beekeeper? How many hives?

Roland Diehnelt
Linden Apiary, Est. 1852


----------



## dickm

Mike Bisham wrote:

>>>>>The random nature of meiosis, followed by the ordering bought about by natural selection remains the closest thing to a 'guiding force'. 'Epigenetic' mechanisms add further layers of complexity, but that takes nothing away from the fundamental nature of the role of the combination of the first two processes. As and when consciousness enters the picture we can add that element; but for simple life-forms those two processes are all we have. Future generations are the product of meiosis and natural selection. The second includes all factors external to the organism - the environmental factors.<<<<<<<

Hi Mike,
I've followed some of the argument but not all. With respect, since your ideas were mine a short time ago, I don't think you give epigenetics enough credit. If you consider the integration of viral matter into the genome as an environmental effect (What else?) you'd have to admit that old theories have had a hand grenade thrown into them. Like other theories, that serve until knowlege catches up, it's time to look at evolution in this new light. Lamaarkian (sp) evolution is back! It's a bitter pill but one that must be ingested. Who was that guy that said "AHA!" when he got hit on the head with an apple? Newtonian physics explained the world well until more knowlege came along.

Dickm


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> This certainly trivializes the suffering of countless beekeepers, their employees and their families. [...] But evidently, they know far less than you, since you regard them as incompetent. You, on the other hand, know it all.


Ok poor choice of words. I've no wish to trivialize the suffering of those who depend on bees. 

But I very much wish to separate that suffering from the objective discussion of its causes. It is crucial to be able to discuss causes without reference to the impact any conclusions might have - that's known as objectivity, and if you wish as you say to 'think like a scientist' you'll have to get to grips with it.

In the case of beekeepers - like you - who do not understand that their suffering stems from the methods of husbandry they themselves use, yes, I know more than them. Is that really so surprising? What are the required qualifications for becoming a beekeeper? Do they equip you with sound knowledge of the necessary breeding skills; or a clear understanding of the impact on future generations of treating diseased stock and then permitting them to reproduce?

Thinking that the current problems of bees do not stem from beekeeping practices would be blinkered. We know very well, for example, that the more bees that are kept in one place, the greater the likelyhood of problems with diseases. We are beginning to understand that treating these diseases without regard to future genetic consequences is compounding the error.

A larger part of the problem that affects those that suffer worst - the commercial beekeepers - is the downward pressure on their products that mean they have to 'cut corners' to stay in business. They get larger and larger to compensate for the lowing net value of each unit; more and more bees get to live in the same place, the disease problems intensify, the medications are upped. The resultant spiral of heath decay is 'remedied' by buying in new queens and nucs that have themselves no better resistance to the conditions that led to the failure of their predecessors. Is this what you call 'competent beekeeping'? It might - when it succeeds in monetary terms - be regarded as competent business activity - but beekeeping?

The difficulties experienced in the beekeeping world, and the suffering felt by beekeepers is a symptom of a system at breaking point. It is in large measure the result of treating bees as units of production, without consideration for the genetic wellbeing of the future. Bees were not built to endure this. 

What bees need to be healthy is good habitat, and selection that ensures the new generations are made from those best 'fitted' to the present environment. That is no more, and no less than, 'competent husbandry'. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Roland said:


> [...] there is something out there that kills bees dead, very quickly. It has NO connection to level of competence. It kills ALL of the bees. You CAN NOT breed from dead bees. I am a fifth generation beekeeper, and am known by many commercial beekeepers. If you doubt me, you can ask them, and check my integrity.
> 
> Roland Diehnelt


Roland, you may well be right. I have no argument with you. I do not doubt your integrity. External factors are also playing a part, and the fight to maintain regulation against harmful chemicals must be continued. 

But that is not the whole of the problem, and to think it is is to make a big mistake. 

What I'm trying to point out is that if you reproduce from bees that have required medication simply to stay on their feet, what you will almost certainly get is more bees that require medication just to stay on their feet. And the longer this is continued, the worse it will be - it is a downward health spiral.

This may not be the sole cause of difficulties with the health of bees. There are, as you say, further external problems. But it certainly is one very important part of the puzzle. Unless you 'breed' competently, your animals will unfailingly exhibit poor health. That's a fact of life. It is demonstated in the success (or if you'd rather the 'partial success') of the 'resistance breeders'.

Unless you take out the weak individuals, as nature would, nature will make good the error; and it will likely appear in your winter loss figures. Competent husbandry involves getting ahead of nature, by copying her methods. 

Tell me: do you actively select? Do you ensure your weaker individuals do not inject their genes into the next generation? Do you ensure other apiaries around you do not send unadapted genetic material into your new queens?

The competence that worked for your father, and his father, relied on the presence of wild bees, the absense of artificially maintained unadapted bees, and probably almost no treatments at all. The environment has now changed; and competence involves new methods to deal with it - and repair of the previous environment. Treating diseases with chemicals - or oils, or manipulations - is not a solution - it is a palliative that leads to 'addiction' that shares the characteristics of crack cocaine - keep on or things will be much worse; the longer you keep on the less the effect. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Mike Bispham wrote:

>>>>>The random nature of meiosis, followed by the ordering bought about by natural selection remains the closest thing to a 'guiding force'. 'Epigenetic' mechanisms add further layers of complexity, but that takes nothing away from the fundamental nature of the role of the combination of the first two processes. As and when consciousness enters the picture we can add that element; but for simple life-forms those two processes are all we have. Future generations are the product of meiosis and natural selection. The second includes all factors external to the organism - the environmental factors.<<<<<<<



dickm said:


> Hi Mike,
> I've followed some of the argument but not all. With respect, since your ideas were mine a short time ago, I don't think you give epigenics enough credit. If you consider the integration of viral matter into the genome as an environmental effect (What else?) you'd have to admit that old theories have had a hand grenade thrown into them. Like other theories, that serve until knowlege catches up, it's time to look at evolution in this new light. Lamaarkian (sp) evolution is back! It's a bitter pill but one that must be ingested. Who was that guy that said "AHA!" when he got hit on the head with an apple? Newtonian physics explained the world well until more knowlege came along.
> 
> Dickm


Hi Dick,

Let's remember, first, that Newtonian physics still explains 99.99% of what it claims to explain all of! Its still good enough to be used for all but the very finest astronomical calculations. 

I'ts my contention that while epigenetics does indeed change our understanding of the mechanisms inherited traits and gene expression (and much else), it takes nothing away from the basic ideas concerning natural selection that we need to understand bee problems. 

In a natural setting 'strong' bees will contribute a greater share of the genetic material of the next generation than 'weaker' bees. That amounts to a continuous process that 'winnows' the genetic material constantly, retiring the ill-adapted and promoting the best adapted. It is utterly necessary that this occur in order that the population can meet the constantly upgrading threats of its predators.

That statement is true in both the pre-epigenetic and epigenetic realms. 

I know you can _add to that _with understanding of epigenetic mechanisms, but the question is, _can you take anything away_?

I'll contend that the nature of the hand-grenade is that of a remarkable improvement in detail, but it is not destructive of the core of biological understanding - that stronger individuals tend to increase their numbers at the expense of weaker; and that it is fundamentally necssary that this is so. That the 'stronger' and 'weaker' are that way because of prior infections, or (more likely) prior infections in their ancestors, seems to me to make no impact on that necessity. It certainly seems to change the story of evolution, but not impact on the minor - but deeply necessary - adaptations that occur in each new generation. The pictures on the walls need some major changes, and we might want a new column or two, but the foundations haven't been bothered. 

I'm grateful for the challenge and I'll be thinking about epigenetics more today...

Mike


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> The main cause of higher than normal loss rates is incompetent beekeeping.
> Mike





> In the case of beekeepers - like you - who do not understand that their suffering stems from the methods of husbandry they themselves use, yes, I know more than them.


Mike. You said you had a single colony last year. How's it doing?
If it didn't make it through the winter, what did you learn from that?
What could it have died from?
What was its varroa level like.
Was there any evidence of nosema?
Did you send samples to a lab?
What race of bee did you have?
Did you feed at all before winter? Could it have starved?
We all know you don't treat, fair enough, neither does Michael Bush, but I'm curious to know about your good management and husbandry?
I'm sure a lot of others are interested as well.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Mike. You said you had a single colony last year. How's it doing?


It starved. I have some comb and bits from the floor, but haven't got around to examining them yet. I didn't spot any mites when I got it out, but I didn't have my glasses on. That's about all I can tell you.

Mike


----------



## jonathan

How much stores did the colony have going into winter?
Even a small colony is reckoned to need about 30 lbs.


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries

mike bispham said:


> It starved. Mike


What are you gonna breed from now, your "fittest" HIVE (singular as in one) has died. Along with your completely "chem free/ husband only the fittest bees" approach do you also advocate NO feeding of any kind or not confirming you hive is prepared for winter??


----------



## mike bispham

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> What are you gonna breed from now, your "fittest" HIVE (singular as in one) has died. Along with your completely "chem free/ husband only the fittest bees" approach do you also advocate NO feeding of any kind or not confirming you hive is prepared for winter??


I'm going to collect more swarms, hoping to have a few wild/feral survivors among them. I advocate doing what is needed to try to raise self-sufficient bees. I don't want bees that need mollycoddling, and especially, don't want bees that fall over and die whenever they are not fed medicines at regular intervals. I will try to evaluate them for hygeinic behaviours, and reproduce from those most able to take care of themselves. As for feeding, I will hope to be able to avoid it, but I'll make decisions as and when I have to, using up-to date information and making judgments.

Last year I had only insecure woodland to keep a colony on. A normal hive would have been pinched, so I thought I'd try to find some bees into a box in a tree where nobody could interfere with them. It worked, but 15 feet up a tree isn't the ideal spot to inspect bees. Furthermore the box wasn't designed to be opened. When a swarm flew in I was delighted - the first bees I've had for 15 years or so, and many happy hours were spent watching them. I decided not to feed them as a) they had plenty of forage - endless blackberry and willowherb all summer, plenty of clover, ivy; b) I've wanted to have bees for the long term that were capable of taking care of themselves in every sense.

I kind of regret that now. I think that perhaps asking a swarm to build all new comb and fill it might be a big ask. Then again, perhaps another swarm will make better use of the existing comb this year - and that is a fairly natural process. But yes, I've lost what might have been useful stock. 

Part of the purpose of putting a box in a tree however, was to supply a nesting site to assist local feral bees. One of the things that has made a big difference to bees around here is that people no longer tolerate them in roofs and chimneys, and there a few large trees with suitable hollow spaces. They've lost their nesting spaces; and, if we want wild bees (and I do) then we have to supply places for them to live. And we have to allow natural selection to its stuff. That often means, with a heavy heart, watching them die. I know that's hard for you to understand, but if you were looking at things the way I do it would make sense to you too.

This year I have a new property and better security. I'm in the process of moving house, moving my workshops, building offices, and starting a new business... but I am planning to try to find new local bees, and/or buy in bred varroa-resistant bees. I'll build as many hives as needed, and they will structured to enable inspection and feeding if I wish. As I've said I'll take decisions on feeding if and when there seems to be a need. I'm not planning to try to earn significant amounts of money from hive products - my aims, and my methods will not be those of commercial keepers. 

If anyone would like to know anything thing more about my not extensive beekeeping cv, or the basis from which I argue about the need to select, I made long response to that question in post #114 here: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=530980#post530980

I hope that helps. 

Mike


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> Then again, perhaps another swarm will make better use of the existing comb this year - and that is a fairly natural process.


Keeping on topic re. good husbandry in this ideal beekeeping world, have you checked or had that comb for signs of AFB? The spores can stay viable for decades.
Other bees in the area will check it out and you could spread disease to other apiaries.
I routinely treat my old combs with 80% acetic acid to kill nosema or chalkbrood spores but the AFB spores would survive that. 
I am always vigilant checking for AFB on routine inspections.



> As I've said I'll take decisions on feeding if and when there seems to be a need.


It's hardly a controversial management decision to feed an animal if it is hungry.
Some bees may well forage better than others, but a prolonged period without stores or ability to forage will remove all the genetics good and bad.
Where I live, we have had three washout summers in a row. I brought my 12 colonies through the winter successfully but I probably fed about 250 lbs of sugar. I removed next to no honey last year either, certainly way less than 250 lbs.

Do you think these ancient gardeners and husbandrymen you often hark back to, who instinctively knew what good husbandry entailed, would let their stock starve for the benefit of the gene pool?
I consider myself to have a duty of care to the bees I manage.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Do you think these ancient gardeners and husbandrymen you often hark back to, who instinctively knew what good husbandry entailed, would let their stock starve for the benefit of the gene pool?


In the case of mammalian stock, no. But until relatively recently beekeeping was done in skeps, and in other parts of the world pots or logs. There was no sugar, and, as far as I know, no feeding. I don't have the figures in front of me, and doubt I could find them even were my books not boxed; but I recall reading of the amount of honey and wax exported from Britain in perhaps the 14th century and being astounded. It was boatloads, perhaps tens of thousands of barrels per year. Those monks (for it was the monastries that produced the bulk of the honey) really must have known what they were doing. 



jonathan said:


> I consider myself to have a duty of care to the bees I manage.


I'll go a little way with that, but take the focus off individuals, and place it on the breeding pool. The duty of care is to future generations through proper _husbandry of the bloodlines_ through the generations. If artificially maintaining unfit individuals undermines that over-riding aim - and in beekeeping that is systematically the case - then they must go.

You don't need to lose the colony. By re-queening from healthier stock you can satisfy both your desire to keep your colony alive and aid the future health of your own apiary. 

Not doing so undermines the future health of your own bees. That doesn't seem to me to be good husbandry, good farming, good business, or good anything else.

Mike


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries

Very warm and fuzzy Mike :applause:. I enjoy watching my cattle, but if I put them on a sandlot and refuse to provide them proper "husbandry" and food all the while proclaiming "I am producing cattle that can take care of themselves in every sense" I will achieve the same result which you produced with your swarm of bees........I assure you they will be dead.


----------



## bigbearomaha

Since the whole thread topic is about idealism, what one wishes things were like essentially, it's not hard to think of a time when one didn't need to 'treat' or 'manage' (however said treatment or management is or isn't done) beyond allowing the bees to do as they would naturally.

There are people who feel they 'own' everything and sometimes everyone around them. This, sometimes, gives them a feeling of obligation to care in every way for those in their possession. This is what many people feel is only the responsible thing to do.

There are others who, when it comes to bees, don't see themselves as owners of the bees, but rather more like collaborators. They find a place they think would be suitable for the bees to live in, but just as one needs to take care of themself and their family first, so must the bees take care and provide for themselves. 

Now, it requires no wishing whatsoever for anyone to see that honey bees not only can, but do live independent of human care in respect to treatment, artificial feeding, etc... as honey bees are fond to live feral in most parts of the world.

Since, if one studies history, honey bees lived naturally without human care for millions of years, it isn't to much of a stretch of the imagination to think that they are still quite able to take care of themselves. Ideally (there's that topic word again) we don't need to do much for them at all.

In an ideal beekeeping world, the bees would keep on being bees and doing what bees have done for millions of years and would be only minimally affected by the contrivances we put upon them.

Big Bear


----------



## bigbearomaha

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> Very warm and fuzzy Mike :applause:. I enjoy watching my cattle, but if I put them on a sandlot and refuse to provide them proper "husbandry" and food all the while proclaiming "I am producing cattle that can take care of themselves in every sense" I will achieve the same result which you produced with your swarm of bees........I assure you they will be dead.


Your post stuck out to me only in that it isn't quite accurate.

If one observes honey bees in a natural environment and places the bees in a 'natural' environment such as they have been seen to live, if not thrive independently in, one could reasonably expect that the bees will survive on their own in such environment.

Your suggestion however removes the cattle from a 'natural' environment where cattle, of their own, 'wild' nature would typically not live in sandlots and stay there to graze. On their own, they would follow the food source and likely be able to survive quite independent of human care as they did before humans trapped them into domestication.

Just making an observation is all.


Big Bear


----------



## kiwiBee

Hi Mike, It would be a discussion that I would be interested in reading if I could understand just half of whats being said! 
When it comes to all the scientific speak it leaves me with numb brain syndrome. :scratch:

If one of you guys thats doing the scientific postings wouldn't mind dumbing it down every now and again that would be great,
some of us less cerebral people might learn something

Then again maybe I'm the only one that can't follow whats being said

kiwi


----------



## peterloringborst

kiwiBee said:


> Then again maybe I'm the only one that can't follow whats being said


I am sure that is not the case! In fact, the stuff I read, half of it gives me a headache to try to "get it". In my opinion, that's why it's useful to try to discuss the scientific stuff with several people who grasp it at their various levels. I don't claim to have a handle on the genomic stuff, WLC has more background on that. I am in constant contact with people who do, though. Yesterday I spent time talking to a guy who has recently moved to my town after working with the key players at Penn State, who are really working on the hard questions. But for his part, he is concentrating on proteomics, which is the next level after genomics. The genome contains the instruction set that the cell uses to make various proteins in the cell and proteomics studies the role of these. For example, a particular "gene" may have the coding to produce a certain protein, but it only does this under certain circumstances. It's like looking at a guy's tool kit and trying to guess what he does with all that stuff. Some tools are very specific and hardly ever get used, like a keyhole saw. But it's in the kit, and the kit isn't complete without it. When you see a nice round hole that's cut in the door for the lock, you know this guy has a keyhole saw; he didn't try to hack it by drilling a bunch of holes and knocking the hole out with a hammer. Right tool for each job, etc. So molecular biologists are looking not only at the tools (genomics) but the work that has been done with certain of these tools (proteomics). It's really like detective work. If there are certain fingerprints left behind after a disease has run its course, we start to get a picture of what conditions are needed for the problem to take hold and things proceed, etc. Recent work by Berenbaum et al found a lot of rna fragments in the cells of sick bees. This was unexpected, like finding a large amount of yellow cloth at a plane crash. You start to look for a reason...


----------



## peterloringborst

Mike is endlessly referring to Marla Spivak and what _she says_. Here's what she actually says:



> Even with the most tenacious preventative measures, and even using a line of bees that demonstrate resistance, some colonies will come down with a disease, or the mite levels will increase to the point where _treatment is needed_ or the colonies _will die_. ... Chemicals should only be used as a last resort, with great reluctance and restraint.


Mader, Spivak, & Evans. 2010. Managing Alternative Pollinators


----------



## jonathan

> treatment is needed or the colonies will die. ... Chemicals should only be used as a last resort, with great reluctance and restraint


I am a hobby beekeeper with 12 colonies and I agree 100% with that position. 

Beekeeping is not some king of a theoretical construct out of the mind of Stephen Hawking. It is a practical hobby with day to day decisions to make which affect the survival of your colonies.
Sometimes if you don't treat, they will die.
This can be the best option with some stragglers because it is not rocket science to raise queens from your best colonies.
Some people add fumidil B to the syrup before winter to protect against nosema but I don't do that as I find most colonies can deal with nosema without chemical support.
This side of the pond Oxytetracycline as a preventative/control for AFB is not allowed anyway.
Sometimes a good colony can quickly acquire an unsupportable varroa load due to robbing out a badly infested straggler.
Colonies like like this, which may be some of the best in the apiary, are worth saving with a dose of Thymol, Oxalic acid or other treatment to reduce the varroa load to a survivable level.
No treatment = loss in a case that this.
I would consider that to be negligence.


----------



## mike bispham

Hi Kiwi,

The key idea is that beekeepers must do what all other husbandrymen do in order to have healthy stock. They must breed toward strength and vigour, and away from vulnerability to pests and diseases. 

The mechanisms that make this work are described by biology. The core ideas are built on the way that in the wild 'nature' 'selects' the stronger to be parents in greater numbers than the weaker. Each new generation is made, mostly, from the stronger members of the populations, not at all from the weakest, and in lower numbers of the middlingly healthy. Those that are doing well in that environment at that time mainly supply the genes that make the next generation, and so there is a continuous 'tuning' process 

This process is absolutely necesary because the predators (in our case the varroa mite) are constantly doing the same thing - tuning through their generations to be more aggressive and more efficient at taking food from the bee's blood. This is like an 'arms race' where both sides must constantly improve. The mechanism of improvement is selection for the fittest strains - done naturally in the wild, and by breeders in domesticated settings.

The key thing to remember is: this process is utterly essential. If there is no selection from the strongest parents, the stock will sicken progressively. 

The topic takes a bit of getting to grips with if you have no background in biology or general animal husbandry. If you can find an animal breeder to talk about this process with, that would probably be one of the best ways to make a start. If you can take a basic biology or evolution course so much the better. And you can read about the processes at a beginners level by searching wikipedia for key words, and just browsing. There are links to the most relevant pages from my links page, found from the bottom of this post.

Don't try to run before you can walk (as others do) The high - level discussions will only confuse you. You need to get these foundations in place, and you don't need to know anything more.


Marla Spivak is one of the key researchers into breeding for resistance, and has many years direct beeekeeping experience, and has long worked in tandem with bee breeders. She teaches that all beekeepers can raise the resistance of their stock through selective measures, and even supplies online courses. Reading any of through her guidance notes, which you will find by searching her name, will help to familiarise you with the topic.

There is a great deal of resistance to these ideas in the online beekeeping forums. It isn't really clear why, but obviously some sectors - those supplying chemicals for example - will suffer if selection becomes popular. 

It is recognised that these methods are most useful in small and middle-sized apiaries, and that the larger operations will probably find it hard to adopt selective regimes, and that close-stacking and other features are probably so 'unhygenic' that no amount of breeding will enable them to be treatment-free. But buying in resistant replacements and any measure of selectivity will help to raise the general health of their operations, and should supply an economic advantage. 

Please feel free to ask more questions here. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Mike is endlessly referring to Marla Spivak and what _she says_. Here's what she actually says: [...]


I could only find these sentences in another Spivak piece. This supplies a context that is missing in Peter's report. 

Bee Healthutting Control in Last Place
by MARLA SPIVAK
University of Minnesota
American Bee journal, 2008
http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/documents/abjnov_08_abj.pdf

Keeping our honey bees healthy is an enormous challenge these days. Here I outline a strategy that I urge all beekeepers to consider. 

The strategy follows three deliberate steps: Knowledge, Prevention and Control. This sounds almost trite, but in fact many beekeepers jump from a little knowledge to a lot of control. Some go straight to the control step irrespective of knowledge. I would like all beekeepers to consider putting control last, which requires considerable restraint and caution. It is easy for all of us, as beekeepers, to think we need to help the bees every step along the way. Despite our tendency to try to control nature, it is not healthy for the bees to be fully domesticated, for them to be totally reliant on us. 

Since the introduction of Varroa mites, we have made our European-derived bees chemically dependent on our medications for their survival, and this is not a wise strategy. Bees really need to develop their own defenses against diseases and parasites. The best beekeeping practices follow the bees’ lead. Management practices should intervene only to enhance the bees’ natural tendencies, not to push them beyond their limits. 

The art of enhancing the bees’ lead is the Prevention step of this strategy. 

1. Knowledge: 
·Learn about bee diseases and mite pests.
·Be able to recognize clinical symptoms of diseases and the life-cycle of the mites. 

2. Prevention: 
·Implement novel beekeeping practices to avoid getting and spreading diseases and mites.
·Sample your colonies for diseases and mites.
·Bee self-defense! Use stocks of bees that demonstrate some resistance to diseases and mites (see sidebar).


3. Control: 
·Use cultural / mechanical / non-chemical control techniques to reduce trans-
mission if your bees do have diseases or mites.
·*Last resort*: Use chemical treatments *only when absolutely necessary!*

(My bold & underline)

Now we can see more clearly what it is Marla is advocating. Chemical control, she says, should be a last resort, not a first step. Good practice in the first two stages will reduce the need, and for many apiaries will be sufficient in itself.

This is full accordance with Marla's broad message, as outlined in her introduction: that chemicals are addictive; that our bees are dependent on them; and that this is (in case anyone needed to be told) a bad thing.

This is a short paper, and has no space to make deeper explanations, to join up all the dots. But the full business is present, and there is a clear implication: if and when you use chemical controls, you will, unless further measures are taken, tend to create that 'addiction' in your own stock.

I would have also added, as I'm sure Marla would had she had more space; if forced to treat, requeen from resistant stock. That need for treatment has identified those individuals carrying bloodlines that need terminating if they are not to weaken your next generation.

I would personally have also added to the first 'Knowledge' section: 'learn about the biological basis for selection.' But in the absence of applied courses (like Marla's own) that would be a big ask for many beekeepers.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Sometimes a good colony can quickly acquire an unsupportable varroa load due to robbing out a badly infested straggler.
> Colonies like like this, which may be some of the best in the apiary, are worth saving with a dose of Thymol, Oxalic acid or other treatment to reduce the varroa load to a survivable level.
> No treatment = loss in a case that this.
> I would consider that to be negligence.


This raises interesting questions. 

How would you know it was 'unsupportable' at that stage? The strong colony might be able to deal with it easily - but you would 'blind' yourself to this by treating. Do you make frozen brood tests, or similar, to evaluate for hygienic behaviour independently? 

Again, how would you know that the large load was due solely to robbing, unless you were watching constantly? 

Are some colonies more prone to robbing behavour than others, and, if so, is that something you might consider an undesirable trait - downgrading that individual from 'among the best' to 'good producer, but a nuisance'? 

I'm not criticising here Jonathon, only really saying, I think these are difficult choices, and so I think the description 'negligent' is unwarrented. Things are not always black and white. I think this case is worthy of further examination to try to learn more about the topic. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Sometimes if you don't treat, they will die. This can be the best option with some stragglers because it is not rocket science to raise queens from your best colonies.


Re-queening with queens raised from your best colonies can keep the hive going while terminating the undesirable bloodline.

As you say, it is 'not rocket science to raise queens from your best colonies.' Any fool can do it (that is not meant to insult anybody, before someone jumps down my throat) 

But it is utterly essential; and that is a wisdom that is missing from huge swathes of the beekeeping community. 

It is also not rocket science to make the logical move to understanding that treatment (in the normal, systematic sense) + reproduction tends to undo the benefits of such selection (for that is what it is). And that systematic treatment alone combined with no selection is a certain recipe for sickly stock.

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

The problem with this whole plan is that it refuses to acknowledge that in many cases it just doesn't work. I have been trying this exact thing for ten years. The bees always die, if not treated. All of them. Nothing to breed from. 

It's like the guy who says he gets 50 mpg. Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't, but _my car_ gets 20. Lots of hills around here.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> The problem with this whole plan is that it refuses to acknowledge that in many cases it just doesn't work. [...]
> 
> Lots of hills around here.


There is no refusal to 'admit' there are many obstacles, and that some operations find it harder than others to make progress - for a whole complex of reasons.

It hasn't worked for you... yet...

Many things might be going wrong. Perhaps the 'hills' are heavy treaters around you - a consideration you've persistently demonstrated an inclination to ignore. What are you using for starting stock. How have you been evaluating for selection?

Or do you just mean you've separated off half a dozen hives from a commercial operation and let them go? 'Live and let die, no effort to identify those better at varroa control, and multiplying those while removing the worst?

Just how much effort have you made?

In any event, one failure doesn't condemn a well-demonstrated system. Instead of looking for spurious 'proof' that it doesn't work anywhere, perhaps you could take on board the simple fact that for many people it does work; and try to properly explore the reasons why you cannot make it work. 

I don't wish to be rude, but I should start by mentally throwing out what you already know, and begin again, this time from the bottom up. Take one of Marla's courses, talk to people who are sucessful, and try to get them to diagnose your specific problems. See if you can't follow a successful no-treater around for a few weeks. Follow the advice I gave Kiwi - talk to animal breeders about breeding toward vitality and away from vulnerability to known problems, and take a basic biology or evolution course. Find the foundations, and get them absolutely straight. 

Make a fresh start Peter.

Mike


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> I have been trying this exact thing for ten years.


What exact thing? Can't say I've read anywhere how it is exactly that you manage your bees or how you've attempted to go treatment free.


----------



## WLC

I've explained time and time again why it isn't wise to use a protocol that selects for colonies that contain integrated virus fragments (viral RNAi/gene knockouts).

The above makes a very strong argument for using treatments and even using instrumentally inseminated stock only.

I would characterize a genetic disease, like viral insert accumulation, as a far greater threat to beekeeping than pesticide accumulation.


----------



## peterloringborst

I have collected numerous survivor colonies. Several of these survived for several years after the beekeeper died. I avoided using varroa controls, not wanting to put strips of any kind in my hives. I made splits from the survivor hives. I also bought a few packages over the years. All of these hives died from varroa. 

This year I bought some nucs, I have one swarm that I requeened with a VSH breeder queen, and I have a wild swarm in a barrel. I also have had problems with a bear so I now have an electric fence. 

I have visited Kirk Webster and Mike Johnston, both treatment free beekeepers in the Northeast US. I have written extensively about treatment free beekeeping in the American Bee Journal. I have also seen it fail. Most of the people who try it experience failure. And they are not bragging about it on the internet.


----------



## JPK

Peter, there are lots of folks on this site alone that have posted repeatedly that they do not treat and have very good results.

I find it to be a bit troubling that this issue keeps coming up and time after time evidence/experiences that are contrary to your own continue to be ignored.

If I may quote Mike Palmer "Its not the box, its what IN the box."


----------



## peterloringborst

Who is being ignored and by whom? I joined this list 5 months ago to discuss this very topic. I am not ignoring anyone. I am trying to dig out what it is that accounts for some succeeding and others failing. I have no agenda, other than to _find out. _


----------



## peterloringborst

I find it difficult to follow multiple threads, so I am quitting this one, and continuing the discussion at

Small Cells Debunked by World Renowned Bee Researcher


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I have collected numerous survivor colonies. Several of these survived for several years after the beekeeper died.


Yet died as soon as you started 'taking care of them'? Did you move them? from what kind of environment to what kind of environment. One where they might have reached a measure of accommodation with the mites, to one where they'd be exposed to treated-apiary bred mites? What else did you do with them? Did they supercede and die under the new queen? 




peterloringborst said:


> Most of the people who try it experience failure.


Can we have your source of data for that 'most'?

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Peter began this thead by indicating the existence of the EU Coloss projects, as follows:

"In an ideal beekeepers' world, honeybees should not require any treatment against diseases at all, which would prevent the contamination of colonies with in-hive chemicals used in apicultural management. EU research therefore focuses on the identification of genes that regulate resistance. The transfer from science into application is typically a major problem. In Europe this transfer is greatly facilitated through one of the largest programs in history. 

COLOSS Prevention of Honeybee Colony Losses, http://www.coloss.org "

In the hope of revive this conversation I have extracted a few examples of the aims and methods of the COLOSS EU project, from their February Athens 'workshop':

*Standardized protocols for honey bee vitality and diversity*
http://www.coloss.org/publications/COLOSS_Workshop_Athens_Proceedings.pdf

Various activities have been allocated to different countries. All underlining is mine, and is intended to indicate points of special interest.

This first bit is from the short description of an Italian breeding project, and demonstrates that breeding toward 'vitality' must become part of standard breeding protocols:

"The Italian bee research unit CRA-API is responsible for coordination of breeding activities inside the National queen breeders registry, which was set up by Ministerial Decree in 1997. The aim of the registry is to protect and improve the native Italian races Apis mellifera ligustica and A. m. sicula. The research unit organizes performance testing, anonymous distribution of queens, courses for testers, data collection, biometric and genetic analysis. The traits currently screened in routine performance testing are honey production, docility, swarming tendency and, to a lesser extent hygienic behaviour. However a project is underway to introduce vitality traits in routine testing of the registry queens, and to include these in the breeding values, which are calculated according to the modified BLUP method by the Hohen Neuendorf Institute (Germany). 

In the EU Rural development policies framework, several beekeepersC Associations, in collaboration with CRA-API, are planning to set up specific A. m. ligustica conservation programmes, in which vitality traits will be given priority. Furthermore, besides ongoing efforts for A. m. sicula conservation in Sicily, a new reintroduction project is underway. 

It is therefore important to have reliable protocols to plan and coordinate vitality testing methods and conservation techniques. Discussion among international breeding experts and comparisons of similar breeding and re-introduction schemes established in different countries will contribute to this aim." 

This contribution below (Turkey) shows that varroa is currently understood to be the key cause of poor 'vitality', and that evaluation of stock for varrao resistance must form the basis of stock evaluation:

*Varroa infestation as colony health assessment and vitality indicator in 
Genotype-Environment experiment *

"The ectoparasite mite, Varroa destructor is the most destructive parasite of honey bees, Apis mellifera. Varroa infestations cause weight loss, reduced longevity in adult bees which result in low productivity or colony mortality. Varroa destructor also shows that it is a vector of various viruses. Thus it is the key component of the vitality evaluation of the GxE experiment to be followed. The parameters related to Varroa infestation measures are 
the infestation level as percent infested brood or adults and the intensity of infestation as number of mites per pupal cell. The threshold infestation level is usually considered as 10%, and the intensity of infestation is considered as moderate in case of 1-4 mites per 
pupal cell, high infestation if 5-6 mites per pupal cell is encountered. The Varroa infestation and intensity levels are related to colony sizes and production. 

On the other hand, other factors such as genetic differences between the honey bee races being tested will be affecting the Varroa infestation levels since they are found to differ in hygienic behavior, biting, and grooming behaviors. Remaining differences will be attributed to the environmental conditions the colonies are maintained and comparisons will be made between the races and the locations. Standardization of the method, timing, and intervals of assessment of Varroa infestations as well as other parameters will be finalized during the workshop. Those methods and 
protocols will be applied to the vitality tests of the three races at three different climatic regions that are started as part of the GxE experiment of COLOSS Working Group 4. " 


An extract from a contribution from Denmark emphasises good use of the key terms 'fitness' and 'vitality':

*Comparing genetic diversity for European population *

Kryger Per 

"Fitness and vitality are not synonyms. Fitness is define in the sense of Darwin and relates to the reproductive output of individuals or colonies. In contrast WG4 has chosen the term vitality to describes bees health in general and in particular the capacity to withstand environmental challenges, like climatic changes, parasite and pest pressure, with minimal assistance from the beekeeper. 

The importance of genetic diversity has been noted at the individual, the colony, the population, subspecies and species level in honey bees. There are examples of reduced fitness at the individual and colony level, due to reduced genetic diversity. At the higher levels, the capacity to adapt to changes in the environment demands for genetic diversity. 

Therefore, genetic diversity at those levels is important too, and of course in closely connected to that of the lower levels. Breeding often leads to a reduction of genetic diversity and as a result could be as detrimental to honey bee population vitality. Comparison of genetic diversity for various populations of bred honey bees from Europe and wild bees of Africa seem to support this view, however there are additional factors to consider. " 

Last, the German contribution shows that it is of central importance to include evaluation to resistance to varroa in the evaluation criteria for selection purposes:

*Sustainable breeding strategies and the conservation of honey bee biodiversity in Europe *
Meixner Marina D., Büchler Ralph 

"The existing subspecies and ecotypes of honey bees in Europe represent an important resource for breeding of disease resistant strains. Several methods are being used to characterize European honey bee populations and much information has been collected over the years, however, it is only partly accessible in reference data bases. One of our aims is to create a published and accessible reference data base that will be of use to scientists and apiculturists working in the field of European honey bee biodiversity and 
conservation. 

To include criteria relevant to vitality into honey bee breeding and enable sustainable breeding strategies based on regional populations, standard methods to assess the status of colonies, including their health condition will be developed. This includes parameters of colony strength, brood area and food status, and especially the level of infestation with Varroa destructor and other relevant diseases. Methods will be adapted and validated according to regional conditions of climate and environment in Europe. International breeding recommendations including characters related to colony vitality will be designed, consisting of both the theoretical framework and technical and methodological aspects. "

All this seems to me to demonstrate clearly the root nature of the problem as understood by this large EU research organisation. The sort of work undertaken by Marla Spivak in the US is to be replicated on a grand scale in Europe, and used to form the foundations of future strategy against varroa and other threats to bee health.

Mike


----------



## Michael Bush

>The problem with this whole plan is that it refuses to acknowledge that in many cases it just doesn't work. I have been trying this exact thing for ten years. The bees always die, if not treated. All of them. Nothing to breed from. 

Exactly my problem until I went to small cell...


----------



## WLC

> Exactly my problem until I went to small cell...


Maybe it was because you dip your hives in rosin and wax?


----------

