# Man created Varroa problem



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

> Does anyone out there know why the larger cell size was used in the first
> place?


A Biometrical Study of the Influence of Size of Brood Cell Upon the Size and
Variability of the Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.)
by Roy A. Grout, 1931


INTRODUCTION http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/grout/intro.htm 


"Baudoux (7) in Belgium was the first to conceive the idea of using a larger
size of cell by increasing the size of the cell base on the artificial
foundation given to the bees. Others who have worked along this line are
Pincot, according to Gillet-Croix (26), and Lovchinovskaya (39). The work of
the first two has not been of a very scientific nature but convincing to the
extent that manufacturing houses are selling foundation with enlarged cells
and claiming good results for the use of same."


REVIEW OF LITERATURE http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/grout/review5.htm 


"Baudoux (7), of Belgium, was the first to advocate the use of artificial
foundation with an enlarged cell base. In 1893, he reports that a Mr.
Fromont measured natural combs and found that the greater part had 825 cells
per square decimeter in comparison with certain sheets of artificial
foundation which had as high as 907 cells per square decimeter. Baudoux,
struck by the reduction in the size of bees from an old skep containing
combs having 912 cells per square decimeter, conceived the idea of raising
bees in enlarged cells. He accomplished this by means of stretching normal
foundation to the size he desired and had by 1896 sufficiently proved his
point in Belgium, that a manufacturing company began to place upon the
market artificial foundation having an enlarged cell base. It was Baudoux's
contention that the nurse bees, following a natural instinct, filled the
bottom of the larger cell more copiously with larval food, that this
resulted in a larger bee, He also intimated that the larger bee would
generate more body heat which would result in a greater quantity of brood."


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

It has been said that man created this varroa problem over the course of the past century. 

Our we now deeping this man created varroa problem by identifying more subspecies of varroa to contend with? 

Any ideas on how large this problem will grow before we can get a handle on it?

Comments.

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

Again, I am going to state,it has been said that man created this varroa problem over the course of the past century.

Do you feel chemicals have played a part in creating the problem?

Do you feel artificial enlarged combs have played a part in creating the problem?

Do you feel artificial diet has played a part in creating the problem?

Do any of you feel the way we breed bees has played a part in creating of the problem?

Explain or go into another way that you feel may have helped to create the problem or add to it. as pertains to maintenance, field manipulations, other?


----------



## Don (Nov 9, 2000)

>>It has been said that man created this varroa problem over the course of the past century. 

Of course, varroa was around somewhere for ages before it decided to become a problem.

I see the issue in terms of 2 main questions:
How did varroa spread so much?
Why don't our bees fend it off successfully?

What I feel most caused the problem to start is the explosion in trade in the past century. Prior to this century, if you wanted something overseas, you were dependent on boats, and motors in those were even pretty new. As transportation technology increased and airplanes became used for shipping, the world shrank - remote areas and resources became more accessible more quickly. So did varroa. 

Enlarged combs: this could have played a part. Varroa started out liking drones - big cells (of Apis cerana if I remember right). The bees they became introduced to (ours) had larger cells all around. They weren't inclined to be limited to just the drones (male? female? it's all good), thus they took tolls on the work force rather than just the breeders (you can probably make do with 10% of your breeding force, you can't do so well with 10% of your working force, especially if you still have to support the brood for the ones that don't make it). To the extent that beekeepers were trying (intentionally or by default) to grow bigger bees using artificially enlarged foundation, they encouraged varroa to use worker cells as well as drone cells. Anyone know how big A.cerana drone cells measure as compared to some of the foundation we use?

Chemicals: don't think they did much for creating the problem, just preventing the bees from adapting to it. Most of the chemicals probably don't directly increase the susceptibility of the bees to the mites, though they could weaken them somewhat in general.

Artificial diet: Hard to say directly. I would imagine it's more a matter of having the bees not at the peak of their health due to mild deficiencies of nutrients/micronutrients.

Way we breed bees: don't know much about bee-breeding practices per-se. Assembling breeding nucs using frames from multiple colonies certainly would increase opportunity for spread. Again, though, the practice of shipping bees all over the place makes it possible for varroa and other diseases to travel great distances very quickly. In selecting for honey production and gentleness, we've probably been neglecting traits for adapting to challenges (grooming, hygeinic behavior, others we don't know about), which could have given us an overall more susceptible stock of bees on which the mites could multiply. Once we have our bees, keeping many colonies together in large apiaries then encourages spread of disease via drifting and robbing, as well as the bees from different hives using the same flower and coming into indirect contact by that.

Don


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

This is in response to Don's excellently worded post of 11-20-2000 03:51 PM post

In the post Don wrote:

Chemicals: don't think they did much for creating the problem, just preventing the bees from adapting to it. Most of the chemicals probably don't directly increase the susceptibility of the bees to the mites, though they could weaken them somewhat in general.

Reply:

Chemicals weaken bees. Are not therefore weekened bees more susceptable to mites? How would you relate this to the "Pesticide Treadmill" relative to treatment of agricultural crops for insect predication? or relative to treatment of other farm livestock for insect infestation/parasitic affliction?

Please see 
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/chemtread.htm 

prior to reply.

Comments???

regards:

Dee


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Another article to give some input into this discussion is one Joe Traynor wrote back in 1968.
http://www.beesource.com/pov/traynor/abjmay1968.htm 

-Barry


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

This is in reply to Barry's post of 12-06-2000, 12:09 AM

Barry, the information written by Joe Traynor needs to be read. I agree with what he said except that nowadays it is known that DDT does't work the same in all areas of our country with its various climatic differences, killing more in northern latitudes than in southern ones.


I also recommend now would be a good time to read the following relative to artificially increasing mite populations thru chemical usage: 
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/chemdata.htm 

Sincerely,

Dee


----------



## Johnsewell (Jun 11, 2000)

This is re the older story Barry posted, I must read it again, but recall a grower not spraying fruit until he thought it was absolutely necessary, and finding it never became necessary. Not so with run of the mill 'tame' bees and mites. Skipping a few treatments will kill them. Cull them, however you take it. These creatures are in my care, I'm not sure I like culling as a management technique. Am I just too soft?


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

Johnsewell wrote on 12-07-2000, 04:26 PM the following

Skipping a few treatments will kill them. Cull them, however you take it. These creatures are in my care, I'm not sure I like culling as a management technique. Am I just too soft?

Reply:

YES!!! In the realworld you can play to win in life or be too soft and lose.

When the chemicals stop working you lose anyway, so what's the hinderance in playing to win. Best to play hard and fast, then be slow and lose.

You either have to make up your mind to make the necessary changes in life to fit the realworld needs, everyone talks about, but are afraid to do, or learn to do something else in life like working for wages and let someone else make the hard decisions.

You are either a leader or a follower, only you can make that choice in life.

Comments,

Dee A. Lusby


----------

