# Natural Cell Beekeeping



## dickm

I'll be right back. Got to get my helmet.

dickm


----------



## peterloringborst

I forgot to source that:

Abstract from the Proceedings of the American Bee Research Conference, 2009 held February 4-6, 2009 at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida.


----------



## Beeslave

Thanks for that info Peter. Do you have a study on small cell?


----------



## peterloringborst

Small-cell comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies by Jennifer A. Berry, William B. Owens, Keith S. Delaplane in Apidologie

Abstract – In three independently replicated field studies, we compared biometrics of Varroa mite and honey bee populations in bee colonies housed on one of two brood cell types: small-cell (4.9 mm cell width, walls inclusive) or conventional-cell (5.3). In one of the studies, ending colony bee population was significantly higher in small-cell colonies (14994 bees) than conventional-cell (5653). However, small-cell colonies were significantly higher for mite population in brood (359.7 vs. 134.5), percentage of mite population in brood (49.4 vs. 26.8), and mites per 100 adult bees (5.1 vs. 3.3). With the three remaining ending Varroa population metrics, mean trends for small-cell were unfavorable. We conclude that small-cell comb technology does not impede Varroa population growth.


----------



## franktrujillo

hello,has anyone looked into the mites natural enemy.I am sure there is one its a matter of finding out were the mite originated.opcorn:


----------



## sqkcrk

We know where they originated. Southeast Asia. Where they are tolerated by their original host, the indigenous honeybees of that area. I forget if they are the Greater Honeybee or the Lesser Honeybee. I'm sure Peter knows. On their original host they act more like a normal parasite, by not killing their host. Eventually our bees may develop to where they tolerate varroa also. To paraphrase Steve Taber, "All we have to do is stop using miticides in our beehives for about 30 years and the mites and the bees will work it out." Of course, in the mean time, beekeepers will go out of business. So, what are we to do?

Didn't mean to highjack your Thread Peter. Sorry.


----------



## peterloringborst

> All in all, the commercial bee population is generally not genetically diverse and not locally adapted. This is in complete contrast to the African honeybee population which is almost totally unselected, and probably as genetically diverse now as it was a thousand years ago. Bailey (1999) and Allsopp (1999) have argued that selective breeding for "quality" by and for beekeepers has decreased the resistance in honeybee populations to a wide range of pathogens. Highly intensive selection has decreased genetic variability and selected against critical "bee tolerance" factors such as swarming and defensiveness (Bailey 1999). 

> A more sensible approach would be to: (a) Manage naturally occurring regional strains of honeybee, rather than importing strains from elsewhere. This is particularly important in Europe and Africa where Apis mellifera is indigenous and less so where it is an exotic species. (b) Practise "primitive" beekeeping as is the case in Africa by allowing natural selection processes to determine which are the most significant characteristics for selection and not the beekeepers or bee scientists, at least to some extent. It is also best to use an un-manipulated wild population, and for this population to be as large as possible. 

© University of Pretoria 

Analysis of Varroa destructor infestation of southern African honeybee populations. Master's Dissertation. Allsopp, Mike Herbert


----------



## peterloringborst

In South Africa they have always had small bees and use special small cell foundation. The bees will not accept US sized foundation. When varroa first arrived, they thrived in the colonies with small cells, reaching levels of 50% or 30,000 mites in a large colony. Hundreds of thousands of colonies died. 

> In periods of initial exposure to the mite, the "front" of the spread of varroa, mite populations built up extremely rapidly in the honeybee colonies of South Africa, even dramatically. As many as 50 000 mites were found in commercial colonies, and average mite numbers of more than 10 000 per colony were found. This initial surge in mite population growth was accompanied by all the classic symptoms of varroa mite damage (scattered brood pattern; bees with vestigial wings; large amounts of chalkbrood; "disappearing" colonies), and it appeared that the pattern being followed was similar to that witnessed elsewhere. During this initial stage, colony decline and mortality was not unusual, and *entire apiaries were lost* to what was demonstrably varroa damage, to the extent that many commercial beekeepers quickly turned to varroacide treatments to protect their colonies.


----------



## deknow

Peter, we've already been discussing this foundationless study here:
http://beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236710

The real problem with virtually all beekeeping studies is that they assume that management techniques are portable...that anything that works in one context will work in another.

Management of a foundationless colony is very different from managing a colony with foundation.

This of course makes direct 1:1 comparisons difficult, but changing one thing often requires changing another. When I drive a truck, I do so largely in the same way I drive a car. If, however, I pull into the gas station and try to fill up with unleaded (as opposed to diesel) things won't work. This would show that everytime I drive a truck, I trash the engine. I have to do more than change the vehicle, I have to change some of the ways I drive and fuel.

From the thread I referenced above:

one (not the only one) of the issues is the expanding broodnest.

if you use foundation (all worker size) throughout a box, near 100% of those cells will be very close to 5.4 (talking lc foundation here).

in a foundationless system, the cluster gets to a certain size, and starts putting drone and honey cells outside the broodnest. this happens before the hive is "full grown".

when the colony grows beyond this size, and increases the size of the broodnest, you now have some drone and honey storage cells in the broodnest. in nature, the colony would tend to choose a smallish cavity to build a nest in, and would swarm.

as beekeepers, we are trying to redirect this swarming impulse into honey production.

when you are working with a growing foundationless colony, you need to help the bees expand the broodnest by moving some of this drone and honey storage comb out, making room for more broodcomb adjacent to the existing broodnest, not outside the drone and honey comb.

this is not an issue if you are using all worker foundation, as the foundation dictates that throughout the box, almost everything is worker cell sized....as the cluster grows and shrinks it stays on almost 100% worker comb.

this has nothing to do with researchers being smart or not...it has to do with experience with acutally working with foundationless colonies. i have no idea what was done in this study, but the management required for foundationless and foundation when growing a colony is really different.

if the foundationless frames were not maniuplated to help build the broodnest, how would one expect the cell size to reduce over the course of the study? without the ability to build new broodcomb in the middle of the broodnest (or let them swarm or shake them down), how is the size of the cell (with coccoons from emerging bees embedded in it) supposed to change size? by magic?

foundation virtually eliminates the bees' ability to make a variety of cell sizes, which changes the entire dynamics of a growing colony and it's relationship to the comb. when you go back to letting the bees do what they do, you have to pay attention to what they are doing, what your goals are, and how to get there.

deknow


----------



## deknow

peterloringborst said:


> In South Africa they have always had small bees and use special small cell foundation. The bees will not accept US sized foundation. When varroa first arrived, they thrived in the colonies with small cells, reaching levels of 50% or 30,000 mites in a large colony. Hundreds of thousands of colonies died.
> ...During this initial stage, colony decline and mortality was not unusual, and *entire apiaries were lost* to what was demonstrably varroa damage, to the extent that many commercial beekeepers quickly turned to varroacide treatments to protect their colonies.


Peter, when you posted this same thing on bee-l 2 years ago, Ari Seppala responded with:


> I talked with Mike Allsopp in Apimondia at Melbourne. He said that he
> recommends not to treat for varroa in Africa. When varroa comes there will
> be (and has been) losses, but the bees will recover. He did not state any
> numbers, but I understood that also commercial beekeepers are using now lesschemical treatments.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> foundation virtually eliminates the bees' ability to make a variety of cell sizes,
> 
> deknow


Really? Then why do I have so much drone comb in my hives that were started on comb w/ foundation and especially Plasticell or Pierco type frames? How can there be any drone comb on those frames, from what you have stated here?


----------



## deknow

http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-08082007-153050/unrestricted/dissertation.pdf

This is the thesis from which Peter has been selectively quoting (out of context, I might add).

Anyone can read the Abstract for themselves. Peter's claims are not supported.

deknow


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> Really? Then why do I have so much drone comb in my hives that were started on comb w/ foundation and especially Plasticell or Pierco type frames? How can there be any drone comb on those frames, from what you have stated here?


well, there are a few things at work here.

1. the bees try very hard to build drones when they are restricted from doing so.

2. you haven't specified if the drone comb was made when the frames were first drawn out, or if they were first drawn out as worker size and then enlarged?

3. it's much harder for the bees to rework cells that have embedded cocoons than cells that don't. this is why, given the oppurtunity, a queen will go up into the honey supers (with no cocoons) and lay a big patch of drone brood when the broodnest is largely worker sized broodcomb with cocoons.

4. what is "so much drone comb"? what percentage? is it drone comb, or cells built quickly by the bees on a flow (honey storage cells)?

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst

deknow said:


> http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-08082007-153050/unrestricted/dissertation.pdf
> 
> This is the thesis from which Peter has been selectively quoting (out of context, I might add).
> 
> Anyone can read the Abstract for themselves. Peter's claims are not supported.
> 
> deknow


I support Mike's conclusions, which anyone can read. I have made no claims whatsoever. Please back off, Dean.


----------



## deknow

Peter, anyone reading your post in this thread (#9) will see that you selectively paraphrased _and_ selectively quoted to make it seem like the author supports treating for varroa.

and although you are (here on this forum) saying that you support Mike's conclusions (which are essentially that treatment for varroa should not be used), on bee-l this morning you posted:



> This lady doesn't let up, does she?
> 
> > Today's beekeepers typically don't permit the colony to produce a queen on its own. Instead, every year or two they crush the reigning queen and introduce a queen they have purchased. The new queen has often been shipped across the country, arriving stressed and weakened. More and more, these new queens have been artificially inseminated (using sperm
> from decapitated drones) in an effort to build certain desirable traits. Sometimes frozen sperm is used, which studies have shown can be damaged by freezing and thawing.
> 
> > What is little understood, aside from the cruelty of the practice itself, is the biological deficits inherent in the process. Colonies producing their own queens respond to local conditions, build natural resilience and benefit from reduced stress.


there is nothing in your post (above) that indicates that you support any of the claims made by the author...yet, you claim to support tony's conclusions with include:



> A more sensible approach would be to: (a) Manage naturally occurring regional strains of honeybee, rather than importing strains from elsewhere. This is particularly important in Europe and Africa where Apis mellifera is indigenous and less so where it is an exotic species. (b) Practise "primitive" beekeeping as is the case in Africa by allowing natural selection processes to determine which are the most significant characteristics for selection and not the beekeepers or bee scientists, at least to some extent.


it is difficult to have this kind of discussion (ditto with the sugar water thread). i can't tell if you are having trouble expressing what you are thinking, or if you are constantly changing your position.

by no means do i think it's important to be "right" all the time, but it is important (when having any kind of discussion) to communicate effectively what you are thinking.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> 2. you haven't specified if the drone comb was made when the frames were first drawn out, or if they were first drawn out as worker size and then enlarged?
> 
> 4. what is "so much drone comb"? what percentage? is it drone comb, or cells built quickly by the bees on a flow (honey storage cells)?
> 
> deknow


2. i don't know if the cells were first drawn out as worker and then reworked into drone, I have too many boxes of comb to keep up w/ that.

4. Two or three frames per deep w/ patches of drone comb about the size of a good sized grapefruit. I usually put these on the outside so they will be filled w/ honey, after drones have been layed in them. 

Is it drone comb? Yes, large bore cells w/ drone pupae in them. Cells visibly larger in size than worker cells.


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee

Sounds like to me all 4.9 cells could create an other problem. NO DRONES.


----------



## drobbins

CIB

What if they just raise drones in burr comb between the boxes like mine do?
Then when you separate the boxes it destroys the drone comb and makes life very unpleasant for varroa mites:applause:
Any other size foundation also creates the same situation. 
They always find a way to raise drones. (that's why we still have bees)

Dave


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee

Tell me about mites,how and where do they breed,where do they live ? What are you saying ?


----------



## drobbins

varroa prefer to breed in drone cells
they become particularly problematic when the bees cut back on raising drones in mid/late summer after the main swarm season is over
then the mites invade the worker brood cause that's mostly all there is
then you have a hive full of mites and workers that were parasitzed in the broodcell going into winter
there's a LOT of info about this stuff posted here
READ, READ, READ

Dave


----------



## giant pumpkin peep

It is no myth that foundationless cases the bees do draw more drone comb. Foundation less allows the bees to draw the comb however the hec they want to. I believe that bees do that because different things affect drones more than worker bees cells. I won't say varroa because they've only been around for what 25,30 years. But at any rate brrod issues target drone brood, and not so much worker bee brood. The more of the drone brood that parisites have to go at the less of them there are to target worker cells. So might count might bee higher but the worker bees are healthier. Normally varroa or other brood parisites would be reduced or affected by a brake in brood cycle with a swarm. 

I have only been doing this for a year,,,,but I have read enough...that I could talk for hours.


----------



## peterloringborst

Dean writes:
> The real problem with virtually all beekeeping studies is that they assume that management techniques are portable

I don't think anybody that knows much about bees would assume management is "portable". However, scientists are trying to ferret out behaviors that are not location specific. I can't fault them for that; scientists discovered symbolic dance communication in hives, quorum sensing, polarized light navigation and whatnot.

All of these are about the bees getting an intimate sense of their location, how to get around in it, what it has to offer in the way of resources. They even know where other colonies are, and the drones have picked out the best spots to congregate on the basis of what sorts of places the queens will be likely to find them. 

So for the colony it's all about location. Same for the beekeeper and his or her technique. My mentor told me (back in 1974) that even a know nothing beekeeper can do well in a good area, but even a great beekeeper will do poorly in a poor area. Which leads me to what I wanted to talk about in the first place, the effect of location.

Now, we all want to know why some populations of bees seem to be mite resistant. There have been countless theories, conjectures, hypotheses up the wazoo. Some seem plausible and some seem like pleasant fantasies. Not wanting to be stuck behind the eight ball, I have studied them all to try to make some sense of it.

My favorite theory is that nothing has anything to do with anything else, it seems to explains what we see nicely. Unfortunately, you wouldn't bet on such a scheme. It is quite clear that there are mite free, disease free colonies and management frequently has little to do with this fact. 

But as we quickly learn, simply leaving a hive alone can quickly lead to empty boxes. Were that not the case, we beekeepers would all own private jets, instead of all those folks who got those big bonuses from the government bank bailout. Let alone beekeeping is surely a thing of the past. 

I certainly know, because over the past few years I have been too busy to look after my hives much and I have tried to stock them with so-called feral bees, thinking that if these bees survived in the woods with no help, they could survive at my place with no help. Didn't work out. 

Now, the theories come. Some say the problem is the cells are the wrong size, that they have been artificially enlarged. I never bought this argument, never made sense to me, was not plausible. And work which I posted by Wilson (post #1) seems to show that European bees when allowed to build comb, do in fact build 5.4mm cells.

Even if that were not the case, smaller worker cells might deter mites, because they are closer in size to the worker cells of Apis cerana, in which mites don't reproduce. But I figured smaller cells would make smaller bees and the mites would squeeze in their with them, which the work by Jennifer Berry seems to show.

Finally, we could suppose that if it isn't the comb, then it could be the bees themselves. Given enough time, they could develop mite resistance through natural selection. Mike Allsopp appears to support this hypothesis and in fact I wrote to him about it. He disparages the whole idea of breeding better bees.

He points to wild populations of scutellata developing mite resistance in seven years. However, those are scuts and most of us neither have not want them. I asked him if he thought it would work with European bees. That's the question, he said, and left it at that. So it's up to us to find out. 

Without going back over Tom Seeley's Arnot Forest experiment, I have concluded that the key to having mite resistant populations is isolation. That is the one thing good bees have in common, they're a bit out of the way; not in the mainstream of beekeeping territory. 

I have found that bringing healthy feral bees into my neighborhood is the kiss of death. They immediately pick up heavy mite loads and tank. Obviously, I needed to leave them where they were. In fact, this widow gave me her husband's bees and told me I could keep them where they were, way back in the woods. I probably should have, but it was hours from here and I want bees in my yard!

But what makes the bees do well in isolation? I really don't think it has anything at all to do with breeding (or combs, or any of those other things). I think an isolated population of bees and mites strike some sort of balance. 

Now don't get me wrong, I don't buy the whole argument that a parasite doesn't kill its host. First off, mites are dumb bugs and all they know is that they reproduce in bee cells. So whatever happens is the result of natural selection. 

Nature has no problem putting bees and mites together and watching them all die. Obviously, the mites that survive will have some trick that makes them able to do it, same as bees that survive. Whatever trick they have stumbled upon that gives them the edge, that's what saves them. 

Honey bees have a very sophisticated system to prevent inbreeding. Even closed populations like the bees of Malta, or Sardinia, etc., do not seem to suffer inbreeding depression like you would expect. This is probably due to a very high recombination rate in the germ cells. 

This mechanism causes the offspring to differ from the parents in various ways, so that if there are lethal combinations, they won't take the race down the drain, but instead will be constantly diluted by chromosome crossing. So bees are very resistant to inbreeding but also very resistant to rapid adaptation.

For real change to occur in bee populations I believe you need either a very smart breeding program or a large isolated population of ferals. I question whether such a population exists in the US with the exception of the Southwestern desert region. 

On the other hand, the mites do not have this mechanism *and* they breed in very closed populations. This could lead to either a decrease in vigor, or an adaptation that would prevent them from killing their host. 

Conversely, mites living in large bee yards which are situated near many other bee yards, would have much more opportunity to move from hive to hive via drifting. At the very least, this eliminates the need to avoid killing the host, because you can always drift into nearby colonies. 

But more than that, having families of mites (in different colonies) outcrossing would lead to more vigorous mites (hybrid vigor as opposed to inbreed depression). Moving colonies from locale to locale prevents local adaptation and encourages the spread of parasites and pathogens. 

Now if you are a migratory beekeeper, what good is all of this? You can't afford to sit in one place, got to keep moving. Sideliners can maybe find some lonely hollow in the hills of Chemung county to isolate their bee yards, but what are we going to do?

I propose isolated year round bee yards as places to raise healthy bees. These could be nurseries in which to raise healthy bees to replace losses, or to sell to other beekeepers who suffer losses. 

In the past most of the bees sold have come from places that have the right climate to get bees to market early. In the future we will raise bees in places that have the right type of forage and the right amount of isolation to allow the bees to prosper, maybe become locally adapted, and perhaps to equilibrate with their parasite load.

Because in the wild, there is no such thing as a parasite free organism. In fact, all organisms are host to a myriad of other smaller creatures. It only becomes a parasite when the host begins to suffer. If the organism is beneficial, both guest and host thrive. 

But bottom line here is that the health of bees probably requires ideal forage and a reasonable amount of isolation from the mainstream of beekeeping. I don't live in such a spot but I know where some of them are ; )

Pete


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> and although you are (here on this forum) saying that you support Mike's conclusions (which are essentially that treatment for varroa should not be used), on bee-l this morning you posted:


Dean -

You need to keep the discussion here and not keep bringing in discussion from some place else.


----------



## Joel

I can't speak to the facts of small cell and I see Peter offering more information for thought than stating conclusions. What I can speak about is Peter Borst who I have known for several years. He is (formerly) the only state bee inspector allowed in my yards without me and with my complete faith. Other experianced beekeepers who had good reason to not trust NYS inspections had the same opinion of Peter. I have continued to have contact with Peter and he has continued to be available to discuss many aspects of future beekeeping despite a busy schedule. He has my complete trust. Consistently he took his work to the highest professional level in my yards and having been a beekeeper for almost 2 decades when I met him, He taught me a great deal. 

If nothing else I'm convinced Peter has one agenda, the furtherence of successful beekeeping - period! To suggest he has an agenda and is misquoting information is a diservice to everyone.

Keep up the good work Peter!


----------



## peterloringborst

Hey thanks, Joel. 

Sorry I missed you at the Finger Lakes Club Meeting. As you know, I was in Orlando, soaking up the bee talk. By the way, Joel's right. I do this for love, not money. In fact, it costs me!

Pete


----------



## Barry Digman

peterloringborst said:


> But bottom line here is that the health of bees probably requires ideal forage and a reasonable amount of isolation from the mainstream of beekeeping. I don't live in such a spot but I know where some of them are ; )
> 
> Pete



Could you be more specific on what you believe constitutes an isolated apiary?


----------



## peterloringborst

Hoo boy. I am pretty tired out from writing that piece. I suppose it easier to say what it is not. It's not just a couple of miles down the road from the other guys. I suppose you would have to experiment a bit. There are definitely people who have whole counties pretty much to themselves. But the influx of bees from the outside is very difficult to do anything about. I will ponder this.

“from error to error, one discovers the truth”


----------



## Barry Digman

I'll await that well-pondered answer, and I appreciate your contribution. Good stuff.

FWIW, the reference to folks having whole counties to themselves illustrates an interesting aspect of trying to port things from one place to another or trying to relate to someone else's situation. My county alone is 5,500 square miles. That's the size of Connecticut, or three times the size of Rhode Island, or half the size of Massachusetts.


----------



## Countryboy

There are very few commercial beekeepers in Ohio. Ron Householder is the only one I know of.

The largest beekeeper in my county (or surrounding counties) that I know of has about 150 hives, and his hives are mainly stationary for honey production. (I think he may do a few hives pollinating orchards, 10 hives here and there.)

I know of 3 feral colonies within walking distance from my house/home beeyard.

Would you consider me to be isolated? I am isolated from migratory beekeepers, but I am not isolated from the feral colonies or the occasional hobbyist hive.


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry Digman said:


> My county alone is 5,500 square miles.


Yep, that's more than ten times the size of our county ...

Pete


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee

drobbins said:


> varroa prefer to breed in drone cells
> 
> Dave


Drobbins,I ask you the question for a reason to see why you said what you said.Why would someone want all 4.9 comb in the hive with no or little drone ? No good reason. I find if bee keepers do nothing to weaken the hive,they stay strong and over come mites also. Go all natural and let the bees take care of themselves. Pest control weakens the bees.


----------



## heaflaw

In an above post, Peter Borst stated that when he tried feral bees, they lost out to Varroa. From reading Michael Bush's posts, he has had great success with feral bees being mite resistant and believes that if all beekeepers would stop treating, the survivors would be Varroa tolerant. Both have the expertise and experience. And others of you with similar qualifications come down on one side or the other.

I don't understand why there is not more agreement.


----------



## peterloringborst

Countryboy said:


> Would you consider me to be isolated? I am isolated from migratory beekeepers, but I am not isolated from the feral colonies or the occasional hobbyist hive.


Like I said, each will have to find out on his or her own. But from what you have described, sure sounds good

Pete


----------



## peterloringborst

Footnote:

I do not mean to dismiss the excellent work many individuals have done toward selectively breeding better bees. This is and always has been the goal of beekeepers, whether you use scientific methodology or just collect 'em. 

However, I think very close scrutiny must be directed to any claims of particular qualities *and* their potential heritability.

Some may have good bees that do well in their area: but buyer beware. Get a good product, not a good claim.

Pete


----------



## StevenG

heaflaw said:


> In an above post, Peter Borst stated that when he tried feral bees, they lost out to Varroa. From reading Michael Bush's posts, he has had great success with feral bees being mite resistant and believes that if all beekeepers would stop treating, the survivors would be Varroa tolerant. Both have the expertise and experience. And others of you with similar qualifications come down on one side or the other.
> 
> I don't understand why there is not more agreement.


It has been commented elsewhere that most of the feral bees were decimated by the arrival of mites - trachael and varroa destructor. Could it be that the resurgence of feral populations comes from managed colonies swarming? And those now feral bees have their usual traits.... so how many swarmed managed colonies were NOT resistant, and they are now feral. Did they pass on their non-resistant traits to their offspring and other swarms? Perhaps those are the ones that die out when exposed to larger mite populations? I don't know, I'm just speculating.

And when the resistant colonies kept by beeks swarm, we now have resistant feral colonies? 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst

to heaflaw: 
Read Mike Allsopp's thesis. 

Pete


----------



## deknow

Here's a "for instance":

How many here have tried to overwinter a nuc on occasion? (I expect some)

How many have had a bad experience doing this? (I also expect some, including some excellent beekeepers)

Does it follow that "overwintering nucs doesn't work"?

Mike Palmer and Kirk Webster both rely on overwintered nucs as an important part of their operation (photos can be seen linked from our website:
http://BeeUntoOthers.com/ ..see "dean's photos" and the "conference and after" gallery).

Does the fact that many have failed at succeeding with overwintered nucs mean that Mike and Kirk are wrong? Lying? Mistaken?

No, in this case, they have both adapted their management practices so that overwintered nucs are made up at the proper time, at the proper strength come winter, and have spent time and money devising specialized hive components and configurations to support the overwintering of nucs.

My point?

Just because an attempt to keep feral bees failed in one case (or in many cases...how many beekeepers have lost nucs over the winter?), it does not mean that keeping feral bees does not work.

Ditto with "natural cell beekeeping", "small cell", and "not treating".


deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Cordovan Italian Bee said:


> Tell me about mites,how and where do they breed,where do they live ? What are you saying ?


wait a minute. You don't know?


----------



## peterloringborst

deknow said:


> Just because an attempt to keep feral bees failed in one case... Ditto with "natural cell beekeeping", "small cell", and "not treating".


Sorry Dean, you got the wrong guy. I didn't say that nor did I imply that. Quite the opposite. 

In fact, I already presented the most likely hypothesis as: nothing is connected, everything is random. It very neatly explains CCD and all the rest of it.

But you and I would never be satisfied with that. So I developed an alternate hypothesis that would fit the facts well enough to be plausible.

And give me a break on being inconsistent, will you? The facts are not consistent, so why should the explanations be?

Anyway, I try to completely rethink everything at least once a year. It's the new decade Dean, let's move on.

Pete


----------



## mike haney

heaflaw said:


> I don't understand why there is not more agreement.


because the bottom line is-all beekeeping is local-


----------



## deknow

Mike, I'd add to that well known truism:

"The success of all management practices depends on the rest of the management practices being employed"...or some such.

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst

mike haney said:


> all beekeeping is local-


Is that how the quote goes? And I always thought they were saying "all beekeeping is loco"

Pete


----------



## mike haney

STOP IT!!!! you made coffee come outa my mose.


----------



## Delta Bay

I think the message was that moving a feral hive from an area were it is thriving and isolated to an area of none isolation were beekeeper kept bees are with all the treated varroa, did not work.
I agree that isolation is one of the key ingredients to allow the bees to develop tolerance to varroa and other maladies. The challenge is how to accomplish this? I would think this could happen if bee clubs took it upon themselves to locate isolated spots in their local zone for breeder yards to develop varroa tolerance etc. and for replacement queens. The isolation areas could be as simple as a collection of the bee clubs best bees set in this spot for a time frame of a number of years to see if anything good develops. If the bees in isolation are thriving with no treatments then this would be the time to expand the isolation boundaries to enclose the clubs zone and distribute isolation area queens.
It would surprise me to see people organize to put something like this to practice but my gut feeling is something like this has to come into play or the treatment tread mill will continue on.


----------



## Kieck

You guys are getting into some pretty speculative areas of evolutionary theory.

The "isolated will develop tolerance" argument is premised on the assumption that genetic drift will lead to more rapid evolution than can occur in a larger population.

I know of no studies that back up that assumption.

However, studies do exist that support the theory that the greater the selective pressure, the more rapidly evolutionary change will occur.

What that means for dealing with mites is that the greater the effects of mites on bees, the more rapidly the bees are likely to adapt to deal with the mites.

Isolated colonies with little or no _Varroa_ pressure are likely to develop no adaptive mechanisms against the mites.


----------



## dickm

The question was asked: how do mites breed?

Peter said:
>>>>But more than that, having families of mites (in different colonies) outcrossing would lead to more vigorous mites (hybrid vigor as opposed to inbreed depression). Moving colonies from locale to locale prevents local adaptation and encourages the spread of parasites and pathogens. <<<<

I know Pete knows this but it's worth pointing out here.
The foundress enters a cell with a larva just about to be capped. She is capped in. (and safe from miticides) She lays ann egg that is always a male. Thenshe lays more eggs which are female. Then she sits back and watches this brother sister mating. Kinky, no? I asked a lead researcher at the Tuscon lab, how did they achieve any variation so they could adapt. She said"Mites do many remarkable things." I assumed the answer was too complex for my little head and the meeting place. 
With luck a foundress can get more than one cycle accomplished in drone brood due to the longer time the cell remains capped. I believe that on the origional host they didn't kill the colony beause they only entered the drone brood. (Dorsata?)
Denis Andersen was studying the pheromones that the drone brood emitted to attract mites. Didn't I read somewhere lately that a mite trap was in the works based on a pheromone? Thanks Pete for that long and accurate post.

dickm
Unbuckling my chin strap.


----------



## giant pumpkin peep

> There are very few commercial beekeepers in Ohio. Ron Householder is the only one I know of.



There is george Taylor from waldo bess. I dont know how many hives he has but has a lot.

Hi site it waldobees.com or something like that.


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries

Kieck said:


> You guys are getting into some pretty speculative areas of evolutionary theory. Isolated colonies with little or no _Varroa_ pressure are likely to develop no adaptive mechanisms against the mites.


That appears to make perfect sense to my non-scientific, but ever inquisitive mind.


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee

sqkcrk said:


> wait a minute. You don't know?


I ask one person this question for a reason because I didn't understand all of why he said what he said.Then the monitor deleted that it was to him and made it a general post to the whole board.


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee

mike haney said:


> STOP IT!!!! you made coffee come outa my mose.


Diversity in everything,what a world.


----------



## drobbins

> I ask one person this question for a reason because I didn't understand all of why he said what he said


CIB

are you talking about your comment to me?
I'm not trying to argue, but really, if you want to talk about this stuff you gotta do a little reading. A LOT of research has been done about the life cycle of varroa and you need a little background in it to discuss anything related to trying to control them. Use the advanced search thing to search the disease and pest forum and you'll find links to detailed explanations of the pest we are all trying to deal with. If you have trouble finding what you want let me know and I'll be glad to help you out

Dave


----------



## peterloringborst

New articles ahead of print in Apidologie:

Brood-cell size has no influence on the population dynamics of Varroa destructor mites in the native western honey bee, Apis mellifera mellifera
Mary F. Coffey, John Breen, Mark J.F. Brown and John B. McMullan 
Apidologie
http://www.apidologie.org/10.1051/apido/2010003

Abstract – 

The varroa mite (Varroa destructor) is an ectoparasite of the western honeybee Apis mellifera that reproduces in the brood cells. The mite will generally kill colonies unless treatment is given, and this almost universally involves the use of chemicals. This study was undertaken to examine the effect of small cell size on the reproductive success of the mite, as a method of non-chemical control in the Northern European honeybee Apis mellifera mellifera. Test colonies with alternating small and standard cell size brood combs were sampled over a three-month period and the population biology of the mites evaluated. To ensure high varroa infestation levels, all colonies were infested with mites from a host colony prior to commencement. A total of 2229 sealed cells were opened and the varroa mite families recorded. While small-sized cells were more likely to be infested than the standard cells, mite intensity and abundance were similar in both cell sizes. Consequently, there is no evidence that small-cell foundation would help to contain the growth of the mite population in honeybee colonies and hence its use as a control method would not be proposed.


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> You guys are getting into some pretty speculative areas of evolutionary theory. Isolated colonies with little or no _Varroa_ pressure are likely to develop no adaptive mechanisms against the mites.


First of all, I see no reason to not speculate. That's how new ideas come about. However, I was speculating on mites developing equilibrium with the host, not bees developing tolerance to mites. That is a separate discussion. In fact, I alluded to the scenario in South Africa where bees developed mite resistance as a result of a massive onslaught of varroa (pressure) followed by an equally massive die off of susceptible colonies (all with small cells). The wild population resurged. However, this was not a small population, but a very large unmanaged population of wild bees.

Insofar as the evolution of mites is concerned, there isn't much we can say that isn't speculation, since they haven't been studied in sufficient detail to have any grasp of their evolutionary dynamics or potential for modification. Dick is correct of course in what he says, but I merely allude to the idea that given colonies where drifting is least likely to occur, colonies with virulent mites would die and the mites could conceivably die with them. At the same time colonies with non-virulent mites would NOT kill their hosts and these same colonies AND their mites would survive. This has nothing to do with the bees, but all to do with the mites.

I will gladly do pilot experiments on this speculative theory if you guys can pony up $250,000 over 5 years. Please contact me off list and we can make arrangements ; )

By the way, in the past several years the theory of evolution has been rapidly expanded to included a wide range of non-Darwinian effects (that is, other than natural selection). I would especially recommend

Should Evolutionary Theory Evolve? 
The Scientist 2/2/10

> Evolution, by its very nature, is a dynamic process. But just as fluid are humankind’s efforts to understand, describe, and conceptualize that process. Out went Lamarck, in came Darwin. Mendel’s insights set the rules for genetic inheritance, then certain exceptions to Mendel’s rules materialized. So forth and so on. The most recent, broadly recognized codification of evolutionary theory is known as the Modern Synthesis.

-- AND --

TRANSGENERATIONAL EPIGENETIC INHERITANCE:
PREVALENCE, MECHANISMS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
STUDY OF HEREDITY AND EVOLUTION
Eva Jablonka
The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv
69978, Israel

I have a great deal more references to hand, if anyone is interested. In fact, a lot of people have come to know me as the reference librarian for the beekeepers of the Western World. We have been looking in bee nutrition lately ... more anon.


----------



## peterloringborst

peterloringborst said:


> -- The facts are not consistent, so why should the explanations be? --


> dramatic honeybee losses (colony collapse disorder) have been reported, however, there remains no clear explanation for these colony losses, with parasitic mites, viruses, bacteria, and fungal diseases all being proposed as possible candidates.

Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology


----------



## BoBn

Kieck said:


> What that means for dealing with mites is that the greater the effects of mites on bees, the more rapidly the bees are likely to adapt to deal with the mites.


I remember visiting a USDA Beltsville research farm in the early 1970s where they were developing fire blight resistant pears. The pear seedlings were planted in rows with every other row planted with Bartlet pear trees that were heavily infected with fire blight. Any of the few seedlings that survived were resistant to fire blight bacteria.


----------



## Kieck

> First of all, I see no reason to not speculate. That's how new ideas come about. -peterloringborst


Sure, but this thread has turned into an assumption that isolated populations are necessary to drive evolution. Leaving bees or mites out of it, this is a broad assumption made about evolutionary theory that is not supported by any work to date. No work says that genetic drift (from isolated populations) will necessarily lead to more rapid evolution than selective pressure on a large population.


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> Sure, but this thread has turned into an assumption that isolated populations are necessary to drive evolution. Leaving bees or mites out of it, this is a broad assumption made about evolutionary theory that is not supported by any work to date. No work says that genetic drift (from isolated populations) will necessarily lead to more rapid evolution than selective pressure on a large population.


First of all, when I present my point of view it is to encourage discussion, not lay down some grand theory of everything. But I wasn't talking about evolving a population. I was just talking about getting the bees to a safe place to recover. 

You may say that these is removing them from the selective pressure that would produce changes in the bees that would lead to mite resistant bees. However, what I was talking about was keeping the bees alive but moving them out of harms way. 

Different story.

Pete


----------



## Kieck

My comments started from this as much as anything:



> I agree that isolation is one of the key ingredients to allow the bees to develop tolerance to varroa and other maladies. The challenge is how to accomplish this? I would think this could happen if bee clubs took it upon themselves to locate isolated spots in their local zone for breeder yards to develop varroa tolerance etc. and for replacement queens. The isolation areas could be as simple as a collection of the bee clubs best bees set in this spot for a time frame of a number of years to see if anything good develops. If the bees in isolation are thriving with no treatments then this would be the time to expand the isolation boundaries to enclose the clubs zone and distribute isolation area queens. -Delta Bay


Based on replies, I seemed to read tacit agreement of the belief that isolation will speed evolution. My comments were really intended to clarify that isolation is not necessary for evolution, nor will it necessarily speed up evolution.


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> isolation is not necessary for evolution, nor will it necessarily speed up evolution.


OK, I am not sure that this is true. I am not sure that we can say anything with certainty about what is necessary for evolution or what speeds it about and slows it down.

But lets drop evolution altogether. I was not presenting a case for or against evolution. Ever since mankind learned how to breed selectively, it has been recognized that evolution is too slow for our purposes.

I would like to respond to this in depth but I simply don't have time right now. But my idea with isolated yards is to use them as a place to breed healthy bees. Getting them away from pathogens is only one part of the picture. Next would be to introduce hygienic stock or mite resistant stock. From there you would continue to select.

But part and parcel with this approach is to breed healthy bees to bring into areas where disease is rampant. What happens to them next, is a separate issue.

Pete


----------



## Kieck

> But lets drop evolution altogether. I was not presenting a case for or against evolution. Ever since mankind learned how to breed selectively, it has been recognized that evolution is too **** slow for our purposes. -peterloringborst


Evolution is the crux of selective breeding. Without evolution, selective breeding would fail. Can you imagine trying to reach a breeding goal without any mechanism for change (i.e. evolution) or any mechanism to preserve that change in the population (again, evolution)? Why would anyone bother to even attempt to make selections in breeding if you couldn't work toward your goals?



> But my idea with isolated yards is to use them as a place to breed healthy bees. -peterloringborst


First, where would you be able to maintain isolated yards?

But, more importantly, why would you want to? I would prefer bees that do not have to be isolated to be productive. Why not try to breed in locations that have similar conditions to what beekeepers experience, rather than isolated conditions?



> Getting them away from pathogens is only one part of the picture. -peterloringborst


Again, why? My bees are surrounded by bees from migratory operations. No isolation here. Yet I do not feel I have problems from pathogens in my bees. Why couldn't someone produce healthy bees in such an operation if his bees were healthy?



> Next would be to introduce hygienic stock or mite resistant stock. From there you would continue to select. -peterloringborst


Just me, maybe, but I could care less if I had hygienic or mite-resistant stock if I had no mite pressure. I do not consider my bees to be at all resistant to _Tropilaelaps_, but I don't feel I need such resistance at this point. Someday maybe, but not now. So why would you desire mite resistance if you had no mites in an isolated setting? And how would you even know whether or not you had any mite resistance if you had no mites to test that resistance?



> But part and parcel with this approach is to breed healthy bees to bring into areas where disease is rampant. -peterloringborst


Out of curiosity, where is disease rampant?


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> Evolution is the crux of selective breeding. Without evolution, selective breeding would fail.


Yes, well, if by evolution you mean natural selection, that would seem to be somewhat at odds with artificial selection as practiced by human beings. If you mean genetic variation, that certainly is required for artificial selection to work, but in itself, variation does not constitute all that is evolution.

But lets use a real world example. Natural selection produced the wolf. Artificial selection produced a wide range of dogs, most of which wouldn't last a week in the woods were there wolves there. Natural selection did not and probably would never have produced most of our food products.

Now, let's take it to the next level. Are you prepared to suggest that genetic engineering is also evolution? Now, there are many people who draw very sharp divisions here. Personally, I believe genetic engineering IS the latest tool in mankind's effort to customize nature for our own purposes.

I am fully cognizant of the fact that point of view is certainly not shared by everyone, and in fact, there seems to be a very strong sentiment around these parts that even traditional breeding practices as applied to honey bees do more harm than good.

I think we could pretty well split a roomful of people into factions by saying: who's in favor of natural selection solving the bee's problems; who is all for intensive breeding including instrumental insemination; and finally, who would be in favor of genetically modified honey bees. 

One last example: Warwick Kerr was embarking upon what he thought was a selective breeding experiment in Brazil. Nature (evolution?) went in a different direction, of course. There are a lot of evolutionary phenomena that can't really be classified as a "real good thing".

Peter Loring Borst
Ithaca NY U S A


----------



## camero7

Interesting thread. I lean toward the "natural" method of caring for livestock. I was a sheep farmer/rancher in Colorado and Maine for many years. However, I learned early on that breeding is the secret to success in farming. I always got the best stock I could afford and used it in my breeding programs. Unfortunately there are no mite resistant sheep that I'm aware of - so from time to time I had to use treatments. Went against my grain but it was better than sick sheep. I truck farmed tomatoes in Maine and again, used the best, most resistant breeding I could find. I was able to market them as organic tomatoes. Only because of the breeding. Didn't need treatments. 

Now that I'm raising bees I'm doing the same thing. I ordered VSH queens this year specifically to raise the natural resistance of my colonies. I'm trying to raise treatment free bees but if my hives continue to succumb to mites/virus, I'll probably treat them too. I'm sure that natural resistance will develop over time. But I'm pushing 70 and don't want to wait 20 years. Commercial beeks can't wait either.


----------



## Kieck

> Yes, well, if by evolution you mean natural selection, . . . -peterloringborst


No, I do not. Natural selection is a part of evolution, but it is not evolution. Evolution is change over time. Biologically, evolution is the change we see in organisms over time.



> . . . variation does not constitute all that is evolution. -peterloringborst


Again, variation is not evolution, but variation is a consequence of evolution and a necessity for evolution. Without variation, evolution could not exist. Mutations produce variation, variation leads to differential evolutionary fitness when faced with selective pressures, which leads to change over time.



> Are you prepared to suggest that genetic engineering is also evolution? -peterloringborst


Yes. What else would it be? Would you agree that genetic engineering is a selective pressure on organisms? Would you agree that the pressure causes change in the population? If yes to both, it's evolution.

See, part of the problem is nitpicking between "natural" selection and "artificial" selection. The difference is often less pronounced than it seems. What constitutes "artificial" selection? If ants that tend aphids favor one phenotype of aphid over another, is it "natural" selection or "artificial" selection? Where does the difference lie?

Don't forget in all of this: humans are part of nature. We are not separate and removed from other life forms.



> There are a lot of evolutionary phenomena that can't really be classified as a "real good thing". -peterloringborst


Right. Evolution is not good or bad. It just is.


----------



## peterloringborst

I would suggest a couple of interesting reads:

Julian Huxley and the End of Evolution 
MARC SWETLITZ

In 1950, Julian Huxley delivered the Huxley Memorial Lecture before members of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. He titled the lecture "New Bottles for New Wine: Ideology and Scientific Knowledge" and, after summarizing his views of evolutionary progress, he concluded: "The ideologically most important fact about evolution [is] the fact that the human species is now the spearhead of the evolutionary process, the only portion of the stuff of which our world is made which is capable of further progress, or indeed of any large-scale evolutionary change at all." 

Bill McKibben and THE END OF NATURE
EVA REGNIER

THE MESSAGE OF The End of Nature justifies its ominous title: According to Bill McKibben, true nature, which was independent of human influence, has been replaced by an artificial nature in whose processes human beings play a part. He recognizes that human beings value themselves and their interests primarily and that these values will likely win out. A "managed world" in which human beings control the climate, genetics, and ecology is the most probable solution short of ecological catastrophe. McKibben values nature for its own sake; this result appeals neither to him nor to the reader.

* * *

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

We can picture a theory as an amoeba that lives in a sea of data and grows by engulfing and assimilating all the facts that are compatible with its ‘metabolism’ (its postulates, definitions, laws and procedures of reasoning). Amoebae continually move around, changing their shapes and growing, unless they are dead. Scientific theories are ever-shifting and ever-growing, unless they are dead. Amoebae examine and ingest possible morsels of food by extending pseudopodia. Theories examine and ingest possible morsels of data by extending hypotheses. At its periphery, the structure is very labile. Parts of the surface can be removed and the amoeba (or the theory) will re-seal and carry on as before, more or less unaffected. At the core, around the ‘nucleus’, things are different. Removal or alteration of material here has dramatic effects. The theory is radically changed or killed.


----------



## dickm

>>>>>>>>>>>Peter wrote: But lets drop evolution altogether. I was not presenting a case for or against evolution. Ever since mankind learned how to breed selectively, it has been recognized that evolution is too **** slow for our purposes.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

While I don't disagree in general, this statement ignores epigenetics. This aspect of evolution is exciting in that it proves that what happens to an individual in it's life (trauma, weather anomaly, predation) can be passed on to the NEXT GENERATION. What used to be called the Lamarkian Fallacy, is back on the table. Newer studies of the genome recognize that viruses can be incorporated into the genome and affect heredity. Nature has more tricks than we know. Fast change, in an individual, may be more "natural" than we think. Read: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327233.600-bee-killer-fingerprinted.html' for openers.
Than read: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527451.200-i-virus-why-youre-only-half-human.html?full=true

Natural. I'm beginning to hate the sound of that word. With bees bringing in 400+ chemicals in their pollen; with between 50 and 150 phamaceuticals found in city drinking water; with fisheries looted to the bone; with many fish polluted with mercury; with the water polluted with agricultural run-off in the corn belt; and now with GM products taking over agriculture.....just what do you think could be natural? Mourn for the past a moment and let's move on. It is the way it is. 

I think it's yearning for the past that makes one think there could be such a thing as a natural cell. I use foundationless frames in a controlled way. (Wired wood frames in the center of the brood nest) but I have no illusions that they are more "natural" than others.
I do it to get cleaner wax. Things moved away from natural when we put a round brood chamber in a rectangular box.

Dickm


----------



## Delta Bay

Kieck said:


> Isolated colonies with little or no _Varroa_ pressure are likely to develop no adaptive mechanisms against the mites.


The mite is pretty much world wide now so I don't understand were the lack of pressure would be. There is evidence around the globe of isolated honeybees developing tolerance. It's well recorded in wild and domesticated bees. To name a few. The Russian, Argentinean Apis mellifera, Monticola, Elgon, also some beekeepers in the U.S. are having luck with tolerance in isolated areas. Most with no treatments. There are many more.

There is and have been attempts to intergrade some of them into the existing pool but their tolerances are watered down in short order.
I think what we are seeing in mites, viruses, etc is they adapt to their environment at a rate were the bees can't keep up. This is amplified with the movement of bees around the country/world. Kind of like a flu virus makes its trip around the country then mutating for the next flu seasons trip.

I have heard through the grape vine in the past that Kona queens showed good tolerance to varroa even though they never had varroa where they were produced. From an isolated island.

This is an interesting review that shows there are many factors involved in developing tolerance to varroa and well worth reading. I did want to bring attention to "resistance to tracheal mites".
My feel is the bees have all the tools they need to over come the issues they are having; we just have to give them a spot to work their magic.


http://ressources.ciheam.org/om/pdf/c21/97605908.pdf



> In the course of this investigation, we also discovered that ARS-Y-C-l showed
> strong evidence of economic resistance to tracheal mites (Fig. 5) (Rinderer et al.,1993; de Guzman, 1994). A similar observation was reported by Danka et al. (1994) and de Guzman et al. (in press). This observation suggests the possibility that the genes which produce tracheal mite resistance to ARS-Y-C-1 and their hybrids may have dominance at least in this cross and that the selection for resistance to Varroa increased the resistance to Acarapis woodi. It must be emphasized that tracheal mites were never detected in Yugoslavia where the selection and breeding the ARS-Y-C-l occurred. Because of the indications of tracheal mite resistance, and several other beekeeping characteristics of high qualities, USDA-ARS had released this stock in 1993.


----------



## Kieck

> There is evidence around the globe of isolated honeybees developing tolerance. -Delta Bay


If the mites are found worldwide, what exactly does "isolated" mean in this context? No interbreeding with other honey bees? Where would such locations exist where mites would still be present?



> I think what we are seeing in mites, viruses, etc is they adapt to their environment at a rate were the bees can't keep up. -Delta Bay


This runs counter to evolution.

The most successful mites would be the ones that would not kill their hosts. Once the hosts are dead, the mites are dead, too. Same with viruses. Unless novel viruses are being introduced, the viruses and bees will reach an equilibrium.

Just as a different example, name a virus in humans that is both long-standing (not a recent jump from a different species) and also kills its host (the human) with incredible speed. If the host dies before the virus or parasite can find another suitable host, that line of virus or parasite is dead.



> I have heard through the grape vine in the past that Kona queens showed good tolerance to varroa even though they never had varroa where they were produced. From an isolated island. -Delta Bay


Could happen. I don't know. I have no experience with Kona queens. I have heard that _Varroa_ is present in Hawaii now.

Regardless, the isolation would not be the factor responsible for making them resistant if they are. Isolation is not required for such things to happen.

With as strong a selective pressure as _Varroa_ is claimed to be in honey bees, and with as long as honey bees have been exposed to _Varroa_ now, the equilibrium between mite and bee should start showing up.


----------



## Delta Bay

> Just as a different example, name a virus in humans that is both long-standing (not a recent jump from a different species) and also kills its host (the human) with incredible speed.


Some strains of hepititis. It can do a pretty good job of killing the host. 



Kieck said:


> With as strong a selective pressure as _Varroa_ is claimed to be in honey bees, and with as long as honey bees have been exposed to _Varroa_ now, the equilibrium between mite and bee should start showing up.


 It is showing, as the bees here in North America are handling mites better the when they first arrived here, so some headway has been made. But at a snails pace as far as I'm concerned.
Do you think all is fine with our honeybees and we should stay the course we're on now or what changes would you make?

Just to show that there is intrest in isolated breeding.

http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/publications/biosecurity-magazine/issue-78/varroa

High SMRD queens cannot simply be introduced to hives around New Zealand, because with every generation of queens that mate with drones that do not carry the SMRD gene, the tolerance of these colonies to varroa will reduce. The only way to maintain and improve this stock on the mainland is with a breeding programme utilising artificial insemination. The reliance on artificial insemination makes such a system expensive to operate, and continued funding is required to maintain the gains made.

*Isolated colony to maintain resistant stock*
Because of this, we have been searching for a place to maintain the stock as a closed population with minimal management. This requires an area where the bees will be isolated from all other managed and feral colonies, to ensure that the lines maintain their genetic resistance to varroa.


----------



## Kieck

> Some strains of hepititis. It can do a pretty good job of killing the host. -Delta Bay


Maybe so, but not comparable to _Varroa_. If it were, almost every person in the U. S. would have one of those strains of hepatitis.



> Do you think all is fine with our honeybees and we should stay the course we're on now or what changes would you make? -Delta Bay


As far as _Varroa_? I would stay the course right now. Of course, I'm apparently in a minority. I have not treated for _Varroa_ since 2003, I don't use "small cell," and I spent a lot of time a couple years ago actually trying to increase mite populations in some of my hives to a high enough level that I could run a research trial on them. Didn't work. I couldn't seem to raise enough mites. Sure, I have mites in my hives. Not enough to worry about (less than 1 percent of the bees are parasitized), but not the absence of mites reported in some cases.

So, would I make changes for the sake of _Varroa_? Not at this point. The bees that I have aren't anything special, they're not some sort of super strain, and they're definitely not isolated.



> Isolated colony to maintain resistant stock. . . -Delta Bay


This is quite a bit different than needing isolation to evolve resistance to mites. This is a case of needing isolation to maintain purity in breeding lines. The same would be needed to maintain purity in any sort of breeding line. For some, "isolation" can be achieved through instrumental insemination.


----------



## peterloringborst

> The most successful mites would be the ones that would not kill their hosts. Once the hosts are dead, the mites are dead, too. Same with viruses. Unless novel viruses are being introduced, the viruses and bees will reach an equilibrium.

This does not reflect the real world. The whole theory that parasite do not kill their hosts is absurd. Tell that to all the people who died from parasites. Tell that to all the beekeepers that lost their bees to varroa, nosema, virus, etc.

Now, many of these pests have mechanism of dispersal so that if the host is dying, they can get to new hosts. However, many parasites DO DIE when their host dies. 

Perhaps you have heard of the experiment where varroa was introduced to an off shore California island to rid the island of honey bees? The hosts and the mites ALL died. Resistance did NOT develop, equilibrium did NOT occur.

Now, it is true that many parasites do not kill their host. But to suggest that a balance will always occur when a parasite or virus or any sort of disease infects a host, -- untrue.


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> The bees that I have aren't anything special, they're not some sort of super strain, and they're definitely not isolated. .


OK, so then -- what is it? This is the very reason I started this thread. To get at the reasons why some populations of bees are able to thrive without treatments. Please expound.


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> Out of curiosity, where is disease rampant?


The beekeeping industry in the United States has faced a number of obstacles to healthy bee management in recent decades. These obstacles range from arthropod pests such as the tracheal mite (Acarapis woodi), Varroa destructor mites, and small hive beetles (Aethina tumida) to pathogenic diseases including RNA viruses and the microsporidian Nosema spp. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (2009), the number of managed honey bee colonies used for honey production in the U.S. has decreased steadily since the late 1940’s.

Despite the replacement of lost colonies through splitting, there was a net loss (-5.81%) in the total number of honey producing colonies from 2007 to 2008 (calculated from data provided by NASS, 2009), thus suggesting that “splitting” colonies is not sufficient to maintain the sustainability of beekeeping in the U.S. 

This probably has been exacerbated by the introduction of V. destructor into the U.S. Before its introduction, the total number of honey producing colonies in the U.S. decreased on average 0.06% ± 0.5 (mean ± s.e.) per year while the rate of decline increased to 1.5% ± 0.7 afterwards. 

Although annual losses above 30% are not uncommon for beekeepers in the U.S., the number of beekeepers reporting elevated losses appeared alarming as did the unique symptoms associated with the colony losses. Consequently, the apiculture community in the U.S. called the new phenomenon of elevated colony losses “Colony Collapse Disorder” or CCD.

The Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA) and USDA-ARS estimate that honey bee colony losses for fall / winter 2006-7 and 2007-8 were 31% and 36% respectively. These loss estimates were based on telephone surveys of beekeepers, who managed between 10-18% of the 2.4 million colonies in the U.S. Numerous causes, including CCD, were reported as contributing to the colony losses during the 2006-7 and 2007-8 winters. 

The effects of colony losses in general and CCD specifically in the U.S. are significant, especially considering the increasing demand for pollination (e.g. almonds in California). Consequently, large scale research efforts have begun in the U.S. to determine the underlying cause(s) of colony losses, including CCD, in an attempt to mitigate or slow the rate of losses.

Colony losses, managed colony population decline, and Colony Collapse Disorder in the United States. James D. Ellis, Jay D. Evans2 and Jeff Pettis


----------



## Kieck

> This does not reflect the real world. The whole theory that parasite do not kill their hosts is absurd. -peterloringborst


Go back and read what I posted again. I said the _most successful_ parasites do not kill their hosts. Obviously, _Varroa_ can kill _Apis mellifera_. But the two species have not been interacting for very long. Give them time to adapt to each other, and they will.



> Now, many of these pests have mechanism of dispersal so that if the host is dying, they can get to new hosts. -peterloringborst


Yes, provided two things: 1) They don't kill their host so quickly that they cannot reproduce and disperse, and, 2) They can find another suitable host.

If we killed off 99.99 percent of the host, the parasites in that remaining 0.01 percent would have a much more difficult time locating new hosts, especially if they had a very limited amount of time to find a host.



> Now, it is true that many parasites do not kill their host. But to suggest that a balance will always occur when a parasite or virus or any sort of disease infects a host, -- untrue. -peterloringborst


Right. There is the alternative: *extinction*. Also an inevitability for all species, but happens faster for some than for others.

Bear in mind, though, that extinction of the hosts by parasites also means extinction of the parasites.

Are you concluding that honey bees will be driven to extinction by _Varroa_?



> Perhaps you have heard of the experiment where varroa was introduced to an off shore California island to rid the island of honey bees? The hosts and the mites ALL died. Resistance did NOT develop, equilibrium did NOT occur. -peterloringborst


Your example certainly flies in the face of the argument (not necessarily your argument, I realize) that isolation will lead to resistance, doesn't it?



> OK, so then -- what is it? -peterloringborst


Not sure. Low enough pressure from other factors that the mites don't get out of control, maybe? Like many issues, pathogens and parasites may get to be a problem when other influences stress organisms. Maybe has to do with virulence of the mites (i.e., the mites that happen to be present in my colonies are not vectoring some of the viruses that mites often carry)?



> The beekeeping industry in the United States has faced a number of obstacles to healthy bee management in recent decades. -peterloringborst


Very true, but quite different than "rampant disease." Humans in the U. S. face a wide array of pathogens, too, but I wouldn't describe it as "rampant disease" at this point.



> Despite the replacement of lost colonies through splitting, there was a net loss (-5.81%) in the total number of honey producing colonies from 2007 to 2008 (calculated from data provided by NASS, 2009), thus suggesting that “splitting” colonies is not sufficient to maintain the sustainability of beekeeping in the U.S.
> 
> This probably has been exacerbated by the introduction of V. destructor into the U.S. Before its introduction, the total number of honey producing colonies in the U.S. decreased on average 0.06% ± 0.5 (mean ± s.e.) per year while the rate of decline increased to 1.5% ± 0.7 afterwards. -peterloringborst


Sure, but it still seems like this may not be a cause-and-effect relationship. This may be a reflection of beekeepers retiring or otherwise quitting. It may be a reflection of the added burden of managing hives to help manage mite (both types) populations is greater than the benefit to some beekeepers, so they simply quit. The mites may not be directly reducing the number of colonies.

But based on your argument here, disease is rampant universally in the U. S., meaning that the "isolated" areas suggested for breeding resistant bees is an impossibility in the U. S., right? What do you propose we do, then?


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> quite different than "rampant disease." Humans in the U. S. face a wide array of pathogens, too, but I wouldn't describe it as "rampant disease" at this point.


Surely you jest. If the majority of the honey bees in US and Europe have varroa, nosema, and various viruses, and the same majority are routinely treated with miticides, fungicides and antibiotics, is that a healthy bee population?

You forget, I worked as a bee inspector, and I very seldom if ever saw bees that weren't being treated for varroa, and nosema is in every county of New York State. Not a picture of robust health, shall we say?

If you don't have problems keeping your bees alive, great! Others do, and that's what I am attempting to address. Can you offer any suggestions for them?


----------



## Kieck

> If the majority of the honey bees in US and Europe have varroa, nosema, and various viruses, and the same majority are routinely treated with miticides, fungicides and antibiotics, is that a healthy bee population? -peterloringborst


Similar to humans, no? How many humans do you know who don't take medications for this, that, or the next thing? Again, is disease rampant in humans?



> You forget, I worked as a bee inspector, . . . -peterloringborst


I did not forget. I did not know that, so I could not have forgotten it.

Based on what you saw, what percentage of the hives died every year?

How did those numbers compare to the percentage that died every year, say, 40 years ago?



> If you don't have problems keeping your bees alive, great! Others do, and that's what I am attempting to address. -peterloringborst


Good. Fine. I jumped in because of speculation that isolation leads to more rapid evolution. Not demonstrated by any studies to date.


----------



## peterloringborst

deleted


----------



## Delta Bay

Kieck said:


> I jumped in because of speculation that isolation leads to more rapid evolution. Not demonstrated by any studies to date.


I didn't think we where talking evolution I thought more along the line of mutation which I think is somewhat different.

Do you open mate and raise your own queens and do you know what the beekeepers around you are doing with their bees?


----------



## Kieck

Mutation is the source of variation. All variation begins through mutations. Variation allows evolution to occur. Evolution is change over time.

In the case of organisms like bees, mutations generally occur at a relatively stead rate. "Mutagens" can cause mutations. Talk to some orchid breeders -- some of them do some unusual things to seeds to increase mutations.

So, if we start in an isolated setting with a limited number of bees, the chances of having a mutation occur within that population are less than the chances of having a mutation occur in a much larger population, simply due to the numbers involved.

Let's say that mutations occur once in 100,000 cell divisions. Without going into greater detail and realism on the numbers, if we start with a population of 100 colonies in an isolated setting, we could expect a 1 in 1000 chance of having a mutation occur in a queen in a year in that population. If we have 100,000 colonies, we might expect a 1 in 1 chance of having a mutation in a queen in a year.

Now, most mutations are not useful, and many are downright detrimental to the survival of the organism. The chances of one of those mutations conferring some sort of resistance to mites is very, very slim.

If the selective pressure (the mites) is low, the fitness (measured by the number of offspring in future generations, not just offspring in the first generation) is roughly the same for bees that are resistant and bees that are not. Most bees are likely to reproduce successfully.

But if the selective pressure is greater, the difference in fitness between the two groups becomes much greater. Bees that are not resistant are likely to die before reproducing, and therefore leave fewer successful offspring, than bees that are resistant to some degree. The ones that are left will have more resources available.

So, the greater the pressure, the faster evolution occurs.

I have been raising my own queens, and have been using open mating. The beekeepers around me are all migratory, commercial operations. That's the way most of South Dakota is. Every 2.5 miles here in the summers, you're likely to encounter another bee yard, and almost all of them are commercial operations.


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> Mutation is the source of variation. All variation begins through mutations. Variation allows evolution to occur. Evolution is change over time.


Evolutionary theory has really changed a bit in the last decade. The definition you use needs a bit of updating. 

> Last year, Eva Jablonka, an epigeneticist at Tel Aviv University in Israel, published a review article in the Quarterly Review of Biology that details more than 100 published cases of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, documented in groups from bacteria and protists to plants and animals.

> In one recent experiment, two groups of genetically identical Arabidopsis plants were exposed to either hot or cold conditions for two (P and F1) generations. The next generation (F2) from both experimental groups was grown at normal temperatures, but the offspring (F3) from both groups were grown in either hot or cold conditions. The F3 plants that were grown in hot conditions and descended from P and F1 plants also grown in hot conditions produced five times more seeds than did the F3 plants grown in hot conditions but descended from cold-treated ancestors. Because the chance of accumulating mutations within just two generations that led the heat-conditioned plants to thrive in hotter conditions was essentially nil, the authors conclude that inherited epigenetic factors affecting flower production and early-stage seed survival in those plants had to be at play.


----------



## Kieck

> Evolutionary theory has really changed a bit in the last decade. The definition you use needs a bit of updating. -peterloringborst


Trying to keep it simple here, Peter. Not everyone here is an evolutionary biologist. Epigenetics get into environmentally-influenced expressions of genes. The genes still have to be there to be expressed, and to be there, they have to have come about through some mechanism. Mutations are still the ultimate source of variation in organisms.

Are you convinced -- based on your insertion of epigenetics into this discussion -- that all bees already have genetic resistance to _Varroa_, just not expressed? What would prevent such expression, given the prevalence of _Varroa_ at this point? What about isolation would make such expression more likely?


----------



## peterloringborst

"Coordinated hereditary epigenetic changes may have been involved in the process of domestication. For instance, forty-six generations of selection for tameness in silver foxes by Belyaev and his research group in Novosibirsk resulted in a complex of heritable changes. The foxes became dog-like in their behavior and displayed skeletal, hormonal, and spotting changes, as well as altered tail and ear posture, altered vocalizations, and an increased number of supernumerary chromosomes. Analysis of the pattern of inheritance of white spotting revealed that spotting behaved like a dominant or semi-dominant trait, but the rate of appearance and disappearance of the character was far too high for new mutations to be a likely explanation. The induction and selection of epigenetic variations may also have been important in the domestication of plants" Eva Jablonka


----------



## Delta Bay

Kieck said:


> Mutation is the source of variation. All variation begins through mutations. Variation allows evolution to occur. Evolution is change over time.


Remember the bees are first hand picked for their positive variations before going to isolation. Much like the foxes Peter brings up.



Kieck said:


> I have been raising my own queens, and have been using open mating. The beekeepers around me are all migratory, commercial operations. That's the way most of South Dakota is. Every 2.5 miles here in the summers, you're likely to encounter another bee yard, and almost all of them are commercial operations.


What ever you're doing with your bees it's working. Good job!
Do you know if the keepers around you are producing their own queens as you are or not? What is their mite situation?


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> Trying to keep it simple here, Peter. Not everyone here is an evolutionary biologist.


Unfortunately, evolution is not simple. 

> The cover of volume 1, issue 1 of Evolution & Development (published in 1999) features a photo of a geophilomorph centipede. In this animal group, the number of leg-bearing segments varies, as far as known, between 27 and 191; but no even number in this interval ever occurs. This is particularly conspicuous since, for most species in this group, individuals with different (always odd, anyway) numbers of segments coexist in the same population. Why are there no individuals with an even number of leg-bearing segments? Can we explain their non-existence as an effect of selection? An alternative, and more plausible, explanation is that individuals with an even number of leg-bearing segments simply cannot be generated by the developmental mechanisms of segmentation. -- Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology By Francisco J. Ayala, Robert Arp


----------



## Countryboy

Developing bee resistance is only half the battle with mites. If you get bees twice as resistant to mites, but your mites become twice as strong what have you gained? Breeding weaker mites is also a real possibility.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=401141&postcount=21


----------



## Kieck

> Unfortunately, evolution is not simple. -peterloringborst


It's not, but the concepts certainly can be. I believe you're confusing application of evolutionary theory with understanding the principles of evolution. The example you provide is a difficulty of explaining _why_ evolution led to what is observed, not a complexity of the theories of evolution.

The fox example again ignores how those genes came about in the first place. Sure, the genes may not have been expressed until in the right environment, but how did those genes arise in the first place?


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> I believe you're confusing application of evolutionary theory with understanding the principles of evolution.


OK, but this thread is about getting better bees. There are a lot of conceptual errors swimming about these days. Do you think anyone can breed better bees, or is this a job for experts at ARS who understand genetics better than the rest of us, and have large populations from which to select?


----------



## Kieck

Before saying anything else, let me state up front that I fully support the ARS and the efforts of the bee breeders there, as well as the rest of the work done by the ARS.

Having said that, I don't believe it's up to the ARS to be the sole breeders of better bees. Look at the other types of livestock. Is the ARS responsible for creating each new breed in other species of livestock? Is the ARS responsible for maintaining each breed? Beekeepers need to be selecting their best bees (as they see "best") for breeding purposes. Why would any beekeeper choose his colonies that are most susceptible to mites as his breeding stock? Maybe more importantly, would the most susceptible colonies even be alive long enough to serve as breeding stock?

Beekeepers don't have to understand all the genetics to work towards improving their stock. Set the objectives, evaluate the bees against those objectives, breed from the ones best matching the goals, and cull the rest (simply requeening from hives better matching those goals will work as culling).


----------



## peterloringborst

retracted


----------



## mike bispham

Hi Peter.

You write:

"OK, but this thread is about getting better bees. There are a lot of conceptual errors swimming about these days. Do you think anyone can breed better bees, or is this a job for experts at ARS who understand genetics better than the rest of us, and have large populations from which to select? "

You didn't respond to Kierk's main point. Any and all beekeepers can do this - in fact the ARS researchers specifically advise all beekeepers to do so:

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


Genetics is extraordinarily complex ... but the principle of natural selection is extraordinarily simple. As long as you mimic natural selection you will 'breed' better bees. This is just straightforward husbandry in any field _except_ beekeeping - where wild/feral bees have always been present to do the job for us.

You cannot artificially maintain ill-equipped (unadapted) stock, and let it breed into the next generation, and expect resistence to emerge. You must dump the duff lines - in _every_ generation. That means NO MEDICATING.

Any beekeeper can raise healthy bees (where 'healthy' means 'doesn't need medicating') All you have to do is do husbandry properly. This is widely and increasingly empirically demonstrated (in both apiaries and wild populations), and in full accordance with the _simple_ basic foundations of biology, involving heritable traits and selection of the fittest. 

You don't have to think about things like epigenetics, and to do so just introduces confusion. To think that you do is, itself, a 'conceptual error'.

One further point, well worth making, and appropriate to this thread. It is the adoption of systematic medication in place of traditional selective husbandry that is keeping bees unadapted - i.e. vulnerable to parasites and disease organisms. The successful small/natural cell types always give up medication, and take their losses. _That_ is what does the job. Small/natural celling while medicating as usual is futile. 

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

retracted


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Hi Mike
> Thanks for the clear presentation. There is much that is true in what you say. I would hasten to point out, however, that bee breeding is scarcely a new thing. A great deal of time and money has been expended on this field for centuries and the progress has been underwhelming.


Hi Peter,

How can you say this? The work coming out of ARS is just wonderful. 

I think perhaps your problem is this. You expect a bred bee to hold its qualties into future generations despite uncontrolled mating with random bees.

This will never happen. Nature just doesn't work that way. In as much as you can control breeding, you can keep (most of) your stock healthy. This because in order to maintain health the best stock has to be selected in every generation. With bees this is usually impossible. 



peterloringborst said:


> What this does not account for is why progress has been so slow and so many have failed.


The problem is not just uncontrolled mating, but the fact that beekeepers, worldwide, have systematically undermined the mechanism by which health is _maintained_ (never mind improved) by medicating. This keeps alive individuals that must _not_ be allowed to push their genetic material into the next generation.

By medicating you _guarentee_ more sick bees.

So one answer to the question why progress has been slow is that we've all been unknowingly screwing up the population for years by medicating. 

Why? We've had the constant pressure from the bee journals and regulators pushing the pharmaceutical line. That has drowned out the few sane voices - and continues to do so to a large degree.

As to breeders: we've had to wait for big yards that can dominate the local breeding population (deme) to pick up the challenge.



peterloringborst said:


> Here is where I have a big problem with a lot of people that claim to understand bees.


Well, yes, there are many opinions out there, and many are misconceived. If you'll forgive me, in many repects yours, in my view is one of them. 



peterloringborst said:


> They make grand proposals....


Lets stop using that general condemnation now, and talk about specific individuals with particular views. 



peterloringborst said:


> When Marla Spivak or Danny Weaver speaks, I think, they know what they are talking about, they have worked with hundreds of beekeepers and thousands of colonies. They have tried these techniques and produced results. And they will tell you, progress is slow and hard won.


And, as I've just shown you, they hold beliefs that directly contradict your own. 



peterloringborst said:


> So why is this? Gene pool size for one. Mike Allsopp talks about bees recovering on their own, but in a very vast area.


What did that paragraph I quoted from Marla in my last post say? It says something that is empirically demonstarted worldwide, and which has sound theoretical backing. With the possible exception of very small populations, and populations that have experienced a severe genetic bottleneck, ALL bee populations carry the necessary tools for gaining health.

This notion that a large population is required is _your guess_. Nothing more. It is both empirically and theoretically denied, and specifically contradicted by Marla's statement, as well as similar statements made by many people in her field. Please read up. 



peterloringborst said:


> Danny Weaver bred a mite resistant line but he has a very large chunk of Texas that his family has controlled for generations.


See above re. deme control



peterloringborst said:


> I have bought queens from all these outfits and more, and they do not necessarily perform the same in all situations!


OK, you now need more simple biological theory in order to account for this experience. Here goes:

First: In ALL species more individuals must be produced than are needed to replace the population. If this were not so there would be no 'surplus' material for natural selection to go to work on.

Second: In ALL species a range of individual unique offspring are produced, which vary from well fitted to the current environment, through ok to badly fitted. There are, in other words ALWAYS RUNTS. This MUST be so - again, in order for natural selection to work.

So some individuals (queens) will ALWAYS be duffers! There is no such thing as 100% reliability in breeding. You replace them with offspring made from your best. Normal husbandry.

This conforms to your experience; yet you misread it: 



peterloringborst said:


> That's what I am talking about, real world experience, not theory. You have the theories on one side of the table, and the facts on the other.


Another misconception. Important point: _Not all theories are equal!_ Some are well demonstrated; others not so. 

If if have 18946 bowling balls, and I add them to a container containing 33778 bowling balls, I will theorise there will be 52724 balls in the container.

Theory or fact? Do we need a test made in laboratory conditions to prove this?

No. Why? _Because we have a high level of confidence in the theory_ Arithmetic is well understood, and well tested. As long as our data is good (the initial counting) we can use it to diagnose and make predictions with confidence.

The trick then is to be able to pick out the very well tested theories from the noise - and then use them carefully.

NATURAL SELECTION is a theory that is both well understood and incredibly well tested. Its stood up to 200 years of attack. It has the merits of being very simple, and possessing extraordinary explanitory power. There is NO dissent among the experts in those fields in which it is relevant about its basic principles. 

Those things (and more) add up to a first-class theory.

And so, as long as we understand it adequately, we can similarly diagnose and predict how organisms will react to various changes and manipulations by reference to natural selection, in a more or less mathematical way, with a high level of confidence. 

We can reinforce our confidence with the results that keep on coming in - as long, of course, as they conform to our expectations. If they don't we musk ask what has gone wrong.



peterloringborst said:


> By the way, to me facts=raw data. Facts are not true or false, any more than numbers are.


Er, bit of confusion here. The raw data is the part carrying factual content. The raw data must be true to be of any use.



peterloringborst said:


> A good theorist takes the facts (data) and tries to make sense of it.


Agreed



peterloringborst said:


> A bad theorist comes up with a notion of what "should work" and tries to fit the facts into that glass slipper.


'Bad theorists' make all sorts of errors. Not understanding the basic simple principles of one of the most deeply established theories of modern science - natural selection - and then theorising about the possibilities of breeding and the mechanics of health in wild populations, is a very good example.

You cannot be a good bee theorist without a good understanding of the role of natural selection in bee health. Period. It doesn't matter what your level of direct experience is, or what you've believed in the past. 

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

retracted


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Mike writes
> 
> > You need to do your homework Peter, and, as I said before, get a grip on the importance, and the power, of selection. <
> 
> If you insist on such personal stabs at me, I'll simply leave this discussion to you.


I'm sorry Peter. In fairness you have done exactly the same to me on other lists, and I've been unable to respond there because of censorship, and that played a part in writing as I did - but I'm happy to apologise. I've removed that line from the post. 

Lets try to stick to the issues, and respond to each-other's points. I'm sure you'll agree we can't just ignore those arguments we find awkward to our own perspectives, and trade on our own perception of our own authority. We have to offer reasoned views in support of our positions. 

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> verbose


Thanks for the retraction Peter. 

Mike


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> I have bought queens from all these outfits and more, and they do not necessarily perform the same in all situations!


That's an understatement. Of course they don't. I quit buying bee stock from breeders within the first couple years. I let the bees do what they managed to do on their own.


----------



## peterloringborst

As I was saying, bee breeding is far more complicated and challenging than the arm chair experts suppose. Here is a brief summary of bee breeding as it stood in 1968, contributed by some of the greatest bee researchers ever, Walter Rothenbuhler and Warwick Kerr:

Striking progress was made by mass selection for disease resistance and mite resistance in more or less isolated mating yards. Anderson's selection for honey production gave striking results. Successful selection for alfalfa pollen collection has been carried out with the aid of artificial insemination. These actual achievements in bees, as well as heritability estimates on certain bee characters indicate that tremendous progress can be made by selection. 

Problems are encountered, however, when inbreeding occurs. Both inbreeding depression and brood inviability due to homozygous sex alleles occur to the point that lines cannot be maintained under natural apicultural conditions. More theoretical and experimental efforts are needed to devise practical selection and mating systems. Soller & Bar-Cohen have made one suggestion which utilizes a more or less isolated mating yard. Schemes are needed which more rigidly control matings. 

Hybrid breeding is considered to be the solution to the problem of inbreeding depression and homozygous sex alleles. Mackensen & Roberts state that certain double hybrids have produced as much as 50 per cent more honey than comparable commercial lines. Ruttner considered the opportunities for bee improvement by intra racial selection and by race hybridization. He concluded, from a wide experience and review of literature, that very specific local adaptations ( ecotypes ) exist within individual geographic races and that these differences are probably hereditary. Such differences are attuned to local nectar and pollen flow conditions. Even beyond these differences are others involving characteristics which are not subjected to equally intense natural selection. 

Opportunities for improvement by selection are great if inbreeding is kept at a low level. A number of race crosses are reviewed some of which result in heterosis and some of which do not. Ruttner emphasizes two great needs : (a) for caution in race crosses because of the possibility of increasing undesirable characteristics like temper in the local bees by uncontrolled hybridization ; and (b) for preservation of the geographic races of bees as a continuing source of genetic variability. 

BEE GENETICS
WALTER C. ROTHENBUHLER, JOVAN M. KULINCEVIC, WARWICK E. KERR
Annual Review of Genetics 

To be continued


----------



## peterloringborst

Despite great claims of progress, there was still a degree of skepticism as evidenced by this article from 1976:

Genetic improvement of insects has generated only a moderate amount of discussion in recent years because entomologists believe that little of practical importance has been achieved. Meanwhile, the problem of maintaining the genetic quality of laboratory reared insects has become prominent.

However, some insects have been improved genetically. Domesticated and semidomesticated insects such as the honey bee and the silkworm have been improved in many ways through selection and hybridization. Some parasites have also undergone selection to improve insectary production or field effectiveness, or both. “Improved” insects for laboratory tests may be obtained by hybridizing 2 inbred lines, which often yields a vigorous, uniformly variable insect.

Parasites, or any insect that must survive and reproduce in a natural environment, present particularly difficult problems for a genetic improvement program. Desirable attributes to be selected must be clearly definable, which is often quite difficult given our current lack of knowledge of the behavior of parasites under natural conditions. Adequate genetic variability must be provided for so that selection can operate, and adequate selection procedures are important. 

There is still not enough experimental evidence to support judgments about the cost/benefit ratios of genetic improvement, however. Future studies must include field evaluation to demonstrate the value of such improvement programs.

Genetic Improvement of Insects: Fact or Fantasy, 
HOY, MARJORIE A. in: Environmental Entomology

To be continued


----------



## peterloringborst

OK, by 1983, bee breeding has been going on in earnest for 50 years. Tom Rinderer, who is still actively involved in the field, stated clearly:

Honey bee breeding technology is considerably less developed than the breeding technologies used to improve other agriculturally important animals. Currently, most bee breeding programs rely exclusively on the evaluation of field performance of colonies. Such procedures are not entirely desirable since most characteristics of economic interest are strongly influenced by environment in field settings. 

Thus, genetic differences are difficult to ascertain and selections are imprecise. Also, little is known of the genetics of most economically important characteristics or the genetic and phenotypic relationships between these characteristics. Apparently, non-additive effects (dominance, epistasis, environment, or the interaction of these effects) accounted for major portions of the total variance. Thus, our results suggest that the additive genetic features are substantially less important than the non-additive genetic or environmental effects. 

This suggests that genetic improvement in these traits will require breeding methods that can increase the accuracy of selection such as progeny testing or those that utilize non-additive genetic variance such as cross-breeding or reciprocal recurrent selection.

HERITABILITIES AND CORRELATIONS OF THE HONEY BEE
Thomas E. RINDERER Anita M. COLLINS M. A. BROWN
Apidologie 1983

* * * 

What the heck does this mean?

Halfway down the page, he points out the real problem here: too many variables. Most of the variation observed in colonies was not heritable because it was caused by such things as environmental factors, and epistasis which is the interaction of genes which prevents a particular quality to be passed on from generation to generation. This is because many qualities involve combinations of genes. These combinations may occur in one individual and make him or her outstanding in some way, but it does not follow that their offspring will be outstanding in the same way. An example of this would be great musicians don't necessarily have children that are musical giants too. Even if they did, much of this could be attributed directly to environment, that is: being brought up in the household of a great musician. 

How does this apply to bees?

Just because a colony shows great qualities, it does not automatically follow that this is something that can be passed on to the offspring of the queens raised from this colony. The particular success of this colony could be due to environmental conditions, timing in development, unique and non-heritable genetic combination, etc. For a given population of individuals to improve in a particular direction takes a significant amount of time and selective pressure. There is much in the system of heredity that is there to prevent large changes, because most genetic changes (mutations) are negative and cause decrease in fitness.

To be continued


----------



## peterloringborst

Moving along to 1992, Rinderer and friends further explore the factors that affect colony quality and find that things are more complicated than we thought. In each hive are subfamilies, sired by different drones. Sometimes these combinations benefit the colony and sometimes they don't. But in any case, whatever quality arises in a colony as a result of a good combination of patrilines, it is quite obvious that raising a queen from one egg of one of those patrilines is never going to pass that quality on to the next generation! They write

Honey bee colonies having varied genetic diversity were produced from five inbred lines. One line was used as a queen mother of 62 experimental colonies. These queens were inseminated with various combinations of semen obtained from single colonies of the remaining four lines. In estimating colony performance, the seasonal weight gain and mean brood area of colonies comprising two or three subfamilies were compared with those of colonies comprising a single subfamily. Some specific combinations of subfamilies reduced colony performance, whereas others enhanced it. 

The results suggest that present methods for estimating quantitative genetic parameters in honey bees may be inexact approximations because they fail to take into account the effects of interactions among subfamilies, which may be quite large.

Effects of Intracolonial Genetic Diversity on Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colony Performance
Authors: OLDROYD, BENJAMIN P.;*RINDERER, THOMAS E.;*HARBO, JOHN R.;*BUCO, STEVEN M.
Source: Annals of the Entomological Society of America, Volume 85,*Number 3, May 1992 , pp. 335-343(9)

* * *

That last sentence is a real humdinger. I mean, way too long for most of us. How about speaking in English? What it says that you really can't get a sense of the genetics of a hive by judging its performance, because of the combined effects of so many fathers (drones). To put it even simpler, suppose you have a team that works really great on the playing field. Do you think that means that if you recruit all the kids of just one of the players, that they will also make a great team? I don't think so!

To be continued


----------



## peterloringborst

Now we are up to 2000, and researchers are still lamenting the slow progress in bee breeding!

Honey bee breeding has lagged behind the considerable advancements made with other important agricultural organisms. The lack of progress is largely attributable to the complex genetic composition of honey bee colonies, the mating behavior of queens and drones, the sex-determination mechanism and associated negative consequences of inbreeding [etc.] 

The interaction that occurs between different kinship groups has an effect on bee behavior. Colony behavior has also been shown to be strongly affected by the environment. These confounding interactions make it difficult to predict the outcome of particular crosses and selection, and consequently complicate the breeding of superior bee lines.

A partial solution to resolve these differences is practiced by some commercial queen producers who request that their major customers return to them queens from exceptionally productive colonies, which will be used as breeder queens the next year. However, this practice lacks objectivity and is based almost exclusively on honey production.

Application of a Modified Selection Index for Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
DENNIS VAN ENGELSDORP AND GARD W. OTIS
J. Econ. Entomol. (2000)

* * *

Of course, in spite of what I have reported so far, the armchair bee breeders will continue to insist that bee breeding is nothing more than simple natural selection, just like breeding pigeons or rabbits. Nothing to it, anybody can easily succeed where generations have failed because they didn't understand the basics of what Mendel taught us in elementary school. 

I wonder how many know who Mendel was. And of those that do, how many knew that Mendel had bees and probably would have been one of the world's great pioneer bee breeders except for one sad fact. Mendel was a monk and his superiors didn't want him to be exposed to animals breeding! They begrudgingly let him work with plants. Little did they know that queens and drones in the act an exceedingly rare sight ...

To be concluded


----------



## peterloringborst

Rinderer returns 

Using A. mellifera that are resistant to V. destructor would greatly benefit agriculture and would help re-establish free-living populations of honey bees. However, producing or finding suitable resistant stocks has proved daunting since most of the variance in resistance in domestic European colonies originates from environmental or random sources. 

One possible source of commercially useful resistant European honey bees is fareastern Russia (Primorsky) where European settlers took A. mellifera in the mid 1800’s (Crane, 1978). The area has native A. cerana infested with V. destructor which most likely infested the arriving A. mellifera, resulting in the longest known association of A. mellifera and V. Destructor. 

The diversity of traits identified in this study that may contribute to the resistance suggests that a constellation of traits and genes underlie the overall resistance and provide opportunities for further development of the resistance through selective breeding.

Resistance to the parasitic mite Varroa destructor
in honey bees from far-eastern Russia
Thomas E. RINDERER, et al in Apidologie 32 (2001)

* * *

There you have it. They searched the world over to find bees that had been naturally selected for varroa resistance. But they don't leave it there. These are the bees to start a breeding program with. Exactly what Kirk Webster and others have done. You can't expect to get the same results collecting bees from logs!

That's all for now!


----------



## Kieck

> This suggests that genetic improvement in these traits will require breeding methods that can increase the accuracy of selection such as *progeny testing* or those that utilize non-additive genetic variance such as cross-breeding or reciprocal recurrent selection. -peterloringborst (emphasis mine)





> Of course, in spite of what I have reported so far, the armchair bee breeders will continue to insist that bee breeding is nothing more than simple natural selection, just like breeding pigeons or rabbits. -peterloringborst


Seems contradictory just in these two quotes.

Just to clarify: natural selection certainly works on honey bees. Understanding the genetics may not be as important as the selection.

Let's just say, for the purposes of this discussion, that a beekeeper culls hard any bees that show susceptibility to _Varroa_, and does this culling for four or five or six years. Would you expect the resulting bees to be less susceptible to _Varroa_? More susceptible? Equally susceptible as their ancestors?

An understanding of the genetics helps, but that doesn't mean that selection can't be successful without complete understanding of genetics. Using the sports team analogy, does a coach have to have a strong understanding of sports medicine to be a successful coach?


----------



## Countryboy

_I wonder how many know who Mendel was. And of those that do, how many knew that Mendel had bees and probably would have been one of the world's great pioneer bee breeders except for one sad fact. Mendel was a monk and his superiors didn't want him to be exposed to animals breeding! _

Mendel discovered that tall peas grow tall peas, and short pea plants yield short pea plants.

Karl Kehrle was a monk too, but that didn't stop him from working with bees.

_Just to clarify: natural selection certainly works on honey bees. Understanding the genetics may not be as important as the selection.

Let's just say, for the purposes of this discussion, that a beekeeper culls hard any bees that show susceptibility to Varroa, and does this culling for four or five or six years. Would you expect the resulting bees to be less susceptible to Varroa? More susceptible? Equally susceptible as their ancestors?_

Mike Palmer says if you take your strongest hives coming out of winter, and make your splits from those hives, and repeat this selection test every spring (strongest hives coming out of winter) that in 3-5 years tracheal mites will be nothing more than a minor pest. Or so is his experience.

Does one really need a strong knowledge of genetics to look at hives and see which ones seem the strongest?

So Peter, how do you feel we should select queens, and how do we isolate the qualities we want when so many variables are introduced by the environment?

A wellfed queen larva from bad stock will end up outperforming a poorly fed queen from good genetics. How do we select the best genetics, when small things like this have so much influence? Or should we just concentrate on making sure queen larva all get well fed?


----------



## mike bispham

Countryboy said:


> Does one really need a strong knowledge of genetics to look at hives and see which ones seem the strongest?


Peter, assuming all else to be equal: if you adopt the strategy of identifying weakest hives (keeping them alive by treating and feeding) and make splits solely from those, would you expect your apiary a few years hence to be a) stronger; b) weaker; c) no different to if you had done nothing. 

What does this tell you?

We can take from biology and long experience a simple, central, undeniable truth: *As long as we can identify a trait, and promote it, that trait is more likely to appear in future generations than if we do nothing.* This is as true for health-promoting traits as it is for productivity or handling or anything else.

You are very good at ducking questions, so I'd like you to confront this head on and make a clear reply. Please acknowledge this a) truth, and b) its significance in beekeeping, or deny it, and/or its significance, giving your own reasons. 

_This is, to be clear, a specific question asked of you, Peter Loring Borst. I'm asking you to engage in dialogue._

Now: forget, for a little while, about breeders, and focus on what effect ordinary beekeepers can have on their stocks by _*continuously*_ eliminating those traits conferring vulnerability to any parasite or disease, and by promoting those traits that cause rude health and freedom from the need to medicate and manipulate.

Bear in mind this procedure is, in all other forms of husbandry, regarded as utterly normal, and utterly essential. What we are saying is that where beekeepers miss this stage, their stock tends to constantly sicken. (And we can supply both theoetical reasons why that happens, and empirical evidence that it does happen.)

What I'm trying to say here is: we can see a problem (weak stock born of failure to select), and what the solution is (systematic selection of strong stock for reproduction). *We don't need to be scientists to do that*. We just need to be _*husbandrymen*_. The medieval dictum still holds: 'Put best to best'. Yokels can do it. Beekeepers can do it. If more breeders would do it more often that would be just great too - but: 

*we are not dependent on them*. We don't need super-scientist/breeders to solve our problems. Certainly they can help, but essentially we just need to act like proper husbandrymen.

Stop trying to blind us with science - it won't wash. This is simple stuff, and your attempts to complicate matters, or drown us in the history of bee breeders is not helpful. Please, respond to our clear and simple points, and talk with us about the simple basic methods of selective husbandry.

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## camero7

Peter, personally I find your posts very informative and helpful. Thank you. As a long time farmer, but new to modern beekeeping, the science is important to me and your knowledge of it very helpful.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Rinderer returns
> 
> There you have it. They searched the world over to find bees that had been naturally selected for varroa resistance. But they don't leave it there. These are the bees to start a breeding program with. Exactly what Kirk Webster and others have done. You can't expect to get the same results collecting bees from logs!
> 
> That's all for now!


Peter; first: could you reconcile this with Marla Spivak:

"Any race or line of bees can be bred for hygienic behavior."

The Hygiene Queen, Marla Spivak and Gary S. Reuter

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

Second; 'bees collected from logs' might be recent escapees from feeble medically propped apiaries; 

OR 

they might be healthy and resistant ferals resulting from more or less isolated areas that have gained health and resistant through natural selection. 

(Or something of both)

There is of course a vast difference between the two! You can't treat them as the same thing.

Mike


----------



## Michael Palmer

Countryboy;502047
Mike Palmer says if you take your strongest hives coming out of winter said:


> I did say that and it is my experience and the experience of many others. But note, I was talking about Tracheal mite. I wish it was that easy with Varroa. With thyat bug there's a fine line between identifying the more tolerant colonies and losing your apiary. Lots of people working on it. I have yet to see a strain that can be taken to any colony anywhere, introduced, and thereby reduce Varroa to a minor pest.
> 
> It seems whatever tolerance there is out there is more management that genetic.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Please, respond to our clear and simple points, and talk with us about the simple basic methods of selective husbandry.

Dear Mike,
You are absolutely right. Most people do not want to hear the long version, they prefer the dumbed-down to the in-depth. 

Bland and shallow sells; anyone who sees the Hollywood version of a book they love, is usually disappointed. 

Recently I wrote an article on some notable beekeepers for a NYS magazine. They said it was interesting, but too wordy. They wanted something "light and fluffy"

I told them point blank: "I don't do light and fluffy."


----------



## heaflaw

Michael Palmer said:


> I did say that and it is my experience and the experience of many others. But note, I was talking about Tracheal mite. I wish it was that easy with Varroa. With thyat bug there's a fine line between identifying the more tolerant colonies and losing your apiary. Lots of people working on it. I have yet to see a strain that can be taken to any colony anywhere, introduced, and thereby reduce Varroa to a minor pest.
> 
> It seems whatever tolerance there is out there is more management that genetic.


But, don't you think that if beekeepers & bee scientists keep working on it (breeding from the tolerant & eliminating the non-tolerant), that eventually we'll get there.


----------



## Barry

Michael Palmer said:


> It seems whatever tolerance there is out there is more management that genetic.


So why is so much study and effort put into the genetic end of things? The elephant in the room is the huge queen and bee rearing business in my opinion. I don't want a queen that is breed in conditions and in an area that is so different from mine. I can take local bees and they do just fine, year after year.


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> So why is so much study and effort put into the genetic end of things?


I think the reason is that mankind has had such impressive results with selective breeding that everybody figures what works on other organisms "should" work on bees. But not all organisms are equally malleable. Plus, there is the small problem with behavioral traits being more complex than things like hair color or curliness.

> In 1964, Walter Rothenbuhler proposed a two-gene model to explain phenotypic variance in the remarkable behavior in which honey bee workers remove dead brood from their colonies. Rothenbuhler's model proposed that one locus controls the uncapping of brood cells containing dead pupae, while a second controls the removal of the cell contents. 

> We show here, through molecular techniques and quantitative trait loci (QTL) linkage mapping, that the genetic basis of hygienic behavior is more complex, and that many genes are likely to contribute to the behavior. In our cross, we detected seven suggestive QTLs associated with hygienic behavior. Each detected QTL controlled only 9-15% of the observed phenotypic variance in the character. 

Seven suggestive quantitative trait loci influence hygienic behavior of honey bees
Keryn L. Lapidge · Benjamin P. Oldroyd ·Marla Spivak
Naturwissenschaften (2002) 89:565–568


----------



## peterloringborst

Please refer to my three part article in the American Bee Journal entitled "Keeping Bees Without Chemicals". Copies available by request or visit my site where this and tons of other free stuff is available. 

http://groups.google.com/group/upstate-new-york-beekeeping


----------



## laurelmtnlover

I believe there is a need to separate the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## Barry

"it is offensive for the correspondent to ignore the counter-argument, and carry on as if it didn't exist. Behaviour of this kind is not 'discussion', and it seriously disrupts attempts to discover the truth"

Just so we're all clear on this one point, there are no rules on this forum that state one must reply to every question asked of them. Whether we like it or not, everyone is free to write as much or as little as they want without the fear of being verbally strong armed to do so. Discussion cannot be forced.

This is not something that is up for discussion, so refrain from commenting on this post in public.


----------



## peterloringborst

I personally want to thank the sponsors of this site for presenting a forum where differing opinions can be voiced. An old saying goes: you put ten beekeepers in a room and you're sure to get at least eleven opinions. 

Over the years of contributing to various discussion groups I have probably presented each and every one of the opinions. My personal views are kept closer to the vest. 

"These go to eleven" -- Spinal Tap


----------



## peterloringborst

In discussing the potential for any sort of breeding program, one must be aware of the distinction between theory and practice. What may seem plausible, may ultimately prove elusive.

> Blue roses, often portrayed in literature and art as a symbol of love and prosperity to those who seek it, do not exist within nature, due to genetic limitations being imposed upon natural variance.

We may be in fact be able to breed bees that can tolerate or withstand varying levels of mites and other parasites, but the development of a strain of bees that doesn't have mites, or other problems, may be impossible. 

> In athletics, the breaking of the four-minute mile was first achieved in 1954. In the last 50 years the mile record has been lowered by 17 seconds. No woman has yet run a four-minute mile ...

Does anyone think we will see a three minute mile? Do the math. Even if the rate stays the same (which is unlikely) it will be 2178 before they whittle it down to 3 min.

Point being, nature places strict limitations on what we can and cannot do with her basic rules and materials. I, for one, have no desire for a blue rose. Red suits me just nicely.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Point being, nature places strict limitations on what we can and cannot do with her basic rules and materials.


I agree of course. But that's not a sad ending to our story. 

Here is a limitation nature places on living things:

"We cannot deny all forms of genetic selection and expect our organism to continue to manage its relationship with its predators." 

And the converse:

"If we allow natural selection we can expect an organism that has used that manner of health maintenence for tens of millions of years to defend against predators, to continue to do so."

That of course fits very nicely with what we see.

Mike


----------



## WLC

If you were to define natural cell beekeeping as the practice of allowing bees to build all of their own comb, perhaps you might find that focusing on the bees gentics is 'myopic'.

Let's not forget that there are many other living things that can be found in and on the honey comb as well as in and on the bees themselves.

For instance, there is evidence that a significant number of species of bacteria that live within the gut of the honey bee show a strong inhibition of American Foul Brood.

There are techniques like DNA fingerprinting that can detect the presence of different bacterial strains in the gut of the honey bee. It's a small step to find a relationship between desirable bee colonies and honey bee symbionts.

Requeening with desirable queens is 'king' , but there are no rules in nature that prohibit playing an ace or a jack.

I have a sneaking suspicion that beekeepers have been playing more than the queen to fix their problem hives, it just seems to have been overlooked.

In short, I wouldn't throw in the 'genetics' towel just yet.


----------



## peterloringborst

As I said in a previous post, the reasons why a particular colony does better than the next are a lot more complex than simply the genetic background of the queen. 

For instance, there are numerous drone fathers which contributed to the current population of the hive, and this current population is what drives the performance of the colony. 

It may be wrong to suppose that these qualities could be "cloned" into other hives, and wrong to suppose that this same colony will persist with these same qualities beyond one season. Just because people think they can propagate qualities, doesn't make it so.

I tend to go with Mike Palmer's suggestion that management may be a lot more important than the genetic background of the bees. A lot of beekeepers keep bees successfully without obsessing over the "type" of bee they have. 

My chief point in starting this thread is that I don't think that anything as simplistic as letting bees raise their own combs without foundation is going to have a significant benefit, and as the lead article points out -- doing so can create a serious dent in honey production. 

A strong, productive colony is always the best one to have, whether you keep bees for honey production, pollination, or just to have around to watch or study


----------



## sqkcrk

peterloringborst said:


> I tend to go with Mike Palmer's suggestion that management may be a lot more important than the genetic background of the bees. A lot of beekeepers keep bees successfully without obsessing over the "type" of bee they have.


There have been successful beekeepers who let their splits raise their own queens year after year in the swamps of SC. Apiary Inspectors in NY used to call some of these bees Engelhardts' Hornets, they were so aggressive. They made tremendous crops of honey too.


----------



## WLC

"A strong, productive colony is always the best one to have, whether you keep bees for honey production, pollination, or just to have around to watch or study"

Who could disagree with that?

"My chief point in starting this thread is that I don't think that anything as simplistic as letting bees raise their own combs without foundation is going to have a significant benefit, and as the lead article points out -- doing so can create a serious dent in honey production."

That's also a very good point.

Unfortunately, if one wanted to explore the very real possibility of identifying, and even culturing, beneficial micro-organisms that are associated with honey bees and their combs/hives, you will need the less productive hives around not only for comparison purposes, but also as possible sources of beneficial microbes that might not be found on the more 'productive' hive.

Natural, 'chemical free', beneficial microrganisms, some of which may confer disease resistance, improved productivity, and who knows what else, is a viable approach (IMHO) to the management of certain pests/diseases of the Honey Bee.

Nature doesn't always put genes where we expect them. We just need them to be turned on at the right time and place. We also need to find them. 

As I've said before, they've identified bacteria from the gut of bees that inhibited AFB. I suspect that there's alot of other beneficial microbes on some remarkably healthy hives just waiting to be identified.

Yes, they might have been on that natural comb you just melted/sterilized to make foundation.

In short, I'd bet that there are some comb management practices out there that are in reality natural, biological control of pests/disease/productivity.

You've just been too busy focusing on bee genetics/breeding to notice. 


PS: In case you're interested in looking up the articles. They concern symbionts of larvae.

Antagonistic interactions between honey bee bacterial symbionts and implications for disease.

Bacteria in the gut of Japanese honeybee, Apis cerana japonica, and their antagonistic effect against Paenibacillus larvae, the causal agent of American foulbrood.


----------



## peterloringborst

More recent work on the multiple behavior factors in honey bee colonies:

> Disease is one of the main factors driving both natural and artificial selection. It is a particularly important and increasing threat to the managed honeybee colonies, which are vital in crop pollination. Artificial selection for disease-resistant honeybee genotypes has previously only been carried out at the colony-level, that is, by using queens or males reared from colonies that show resistance. However, honeybee queens mate with many males and so each colony consists of multiple patrilines that will vary in heritable traits, such as disease resistance.

Multi-level selection for hygienic behaviour in honeybees
JA Perez-Sato, et al
Heredity 102, 609–615 (1 June 2009)


----------



## WLC

That abstract further expounds on my point.

Bee genetics may not be the best way to go about solving pest/disease/productivity issues.

So that leaves artificial selection (nucs, queens, packages, etc.). It's not genetics if you don't know who's your daddy. 

and...

naturally occurring microorganisms found associated w/ honey bees.

aka: natural biological control.


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> naturally occurring microorganisms found associated w/ honey bees. aka: natural biological control.


You know, I have heard an awful lot of talk about this, but nobody has any idea what there is to it. COULD be that honey bee gut flora being out of whack COULD bring about all sorts of problems.

You hear people say "you know what happens when you take antibiotics, your natural bacteria are destroyed". When my first kid was born, we had to give her antibiotics for a serious infection in her "belly button". She immediately got "thrush" from having her bacterial flora wiped out.

However! That is the one and only time I have ever heard of any ill effects from taking antibiotics, and I have taken them countless times! I never even got a stomach ache. Antibiotics are generally very specific and kill mainly targeted organisms. 

Do some beneficial organisms get killed? Probably. But these are so widespread in the environment that it is doubtful they are down for very long. So if you are going to suggest that bees may be suffering from some loss of gut flora, you better get a grant and prove it.


----------



## WLC

Peter, that's not quite it.

But you're getting warmer.


----------



## peterloringborst

deleted


----------



## peterloringborst

There is quite a bit of evidence to support the idea that nature is completely against the idea of line breeding in bees, as the queens go to great effort to find multiple unrelated drones to father their offspring.

> the necessarily dangerous mating flights of queen honeybees (compared to mating on the comb), even though drones have access to hive interiors, suggests selection favoring outbreeding; the appearance under inbreeding of useless diploid males that are killed in the pupal stage by the workers suggests a long history of outbreeding.

from 
THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Richard D. Alexander
Copyright 1974. All rights reserved


----------



## WLC

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1471774/

First, take a read of the above.

"None of the genera represented in this survey matched genera found in a previous 16S survey of bacteria from adult honey bees [8], suggesting that bacterial sequencing in bees will continue to identify novel taxa."

There's obviously a alot of variability in the types of bacteria found.

I could also compare the strains to those found in the japanese article and see a great deal of variability.

You don't need to say that antibiotics are an issue. Besides, there are drug resistance plasmids every where.

Here's my point: why look for a genetics answer when parental inheritance is unknown.

The average beekeeper simply requeens as needed.

Now comes the important part: they've found that bees have disease resistant symbionts and the populations of these symbionts can vary.

That means that bees within the same yard (even hive) can have varying disease resistance because of their diverse symbionts.

So, rather than write to DARPA for a grant, I would suggest that the first step would be to survey beekeepers about various routine practices and the health/productivity of their hives/yards.

We want to see if they are already using methods that indicate they are using an effective biological control.

If we find any promising correlations...

So, let's get to work on the research design. 

How does this relate to natural cell beekeeping? We'd have to include that in the survey since it's the title of the thread.


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC, I like you. You really have taken the trouble to read this stuff. How is it you have access to such "mainstream" journals as the "Journal of Invertebrate Pathology"? 

Never mind, I was struck by this:

There is a growing appreciation for the potentially beneficial roles of bacteria in honey bee colonies. Bacterial symbionts likely play roles in individual and colony fitness across the social insects. 

Sharing of symbiotic bacteria is notoriously important for termite nutrition … Recent evidence for a socially communicable defense against pathogens in termites might indeed reflect sharing of bacteria among termite colony members …

Perhaps honey bees have evolved behavioral or physiological mechanisms to enhance the transmission of beneficial microbes, while battling those species which are pathogenic. This would indicate a delicate balancing act for bees and other social insects … 

Beneficial symbionts can potentially be fed to developing bees as a prophylactic against disease

* * *

So, are we going to try to get a grant to culture bee bacteria and sell it to beekeepers to feed to their bees? Sort of like those companies that sell "enzymes" to flush down your toilet to "enhance" digestion in the septic tank. I was told by my septic guy that there is no need to add bacteria to the tank, "there's plenty in there already". I don't think we'll make much money at it. The regular beekeepers will be skeptical of spending money on some wacky new idea and the natural beekeepers will be skeptical about putting more weird stuff into their hives


----------



## WLC

Peter, Peter, Peter:

Beekeepers don't need to be sold any more beneficial bacteria. It's likely that there's plenty in there already. 

What I want to know is this: what are the common methods currently used by beekeepers with healthy/productive hives that can be considered as natural biocontrol methods?

It could be as simple as requeening. I suspect it involves more however.

Unfortunately, it would take one "slightly used" beekeeper/scientist/bee inspector to come up with the possibilities for a survey.

After all, I know squat about bees. You, however, are a rare bird.

You've got 'pizzazz'. 

Why this approach? Why a survey?

Well, rather than taking on an intractable genetics problem, and rather than running around the country taking DNA samples from hives that probably won't mean much because of a massive variance, it's easier to survey a sample population of beekeepers.

However, creating a well designed survey...


----------



## peterloringborst

OK, now I get it. Sometimes I am slow to catch on, especially 'round midnight. I will deeply ponder your suggestions, you may be on to something


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I tend to go with Mike Palmer's suggestion that management may be a lot more important than the genetic background of the bees. A lot of beekeepers keep bees successfully without obsessing over the "type" of bee they have.


I think you are missing the point here Peter that managing the flow of genetics through time is an essential part of management. It is critical - if you do it badly, and inadvertantly degrade the genetics, then what you are doing is managing badly.

(This is less true for 'industrial' beekeepers who are happy to buy in new bees and medicate them until they drop. That is a different management style, and is, it seems very clear to me, undesirable in terms of the long-term health of the wider honey bee population.)

It is useful to note that we cannot understand this by looking at single colonies; we have to look at the breeding population, and understand the needs of the gene-flow down the generations. When you manage the flow of genes through the generations in a manner designed to create healthy and self-sufficient bees, what you also do is tend to support your other colonies and the local feral bees. In turn, they contribute to the genetic health of the local population (including your bees) through naturally selecting those best adapted to that environment. With luck and good circumstances what you end up with is a return to old-fashioned beekeeping where beekeepers don't screw up both their own and the wild bees, but both thrive in harmony. In this picture beekeepers understand, to some degree, how nature works in terms of health maintenance, and work with it.



peterloringborst said:


> My chief point in starting this thread is that I don't think that anything as simplistic as letting bees raise their own combs without foundation is going to have a significant benefit, and as the lead article points out -- doing so can create a serious dent in honey production.


This is true, and we agree that the critical thing that the successful natural/small cellers do is stop medicating. That is good managment. There is much confusion over this matter, and in my view it it worth saying often and loudly. (With that said, it is claimed that doing _both_ works best - and that too makes sense - I won't detail that view here.) 



peterloringborst said:


> A strong, productive colony is always the best one to have, whether you keep bees for honey production, pollination, or just to have around to watch or study


Agreed. But we do have to define 'strong'. In my view a colony that needs any kind of treatment in order to be productive cannot be regarded as 'strong'. Preserving it, and allowing its drones to mate will, all else being equal, tend to make the breeding population dependent on the same kind of medication. (Of course the feral bees won't get it...) That degrades the local population...

You point out that natural celling is insufficient, and that allowing the elimination of the weaker is the essential step. I point out that by medicating (and failing to manage to mitigate the effects) you are undermining the essential process of selection. There is not really very much different in what we are saying - at this point.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Please refer to my three part article in the American Bee Journal entitled "Keeping Bees Without Chemicals". Copies available by request [..]


Could you let us know which edition this was in Peter? A search of ABJ doesn't appear to show it.

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

Keeping Bees Without Chemicals
Borst, P. L.
AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL
2007, VOL 147; NUMB 7, pages 610-612

parts 2 & 3 were published in 2008


----------



## Barry

Post 113 gives the link, Mike.


----------



## Michael Bush

Did you ever wonder why giving a frame of brood to a struggling hive makes so much difference? Maybe part of that is you took the frame from a hive that was healthy and it had beneficial microbes living in it and you innoculated the weak hive with them by giving the frame of brood to them.


----------



## laurelmtnlover

peterloringborst said:


> You know, I have heard an awful lot of talk about this, but nobody has any idea what there is to it. COULD be that honey bee gut flora being out of whack COULD bring about all sorts of problems.
> 
> You hear people say "you know what happens when you take antibiotics, your natural bacteria are destroyed". When my first kid was born, we had to give her antibiotics for a serious infection in her "belly button". She immediately got "thrush" from having her bacterial flora wiped out.
> 
> However! That is the one and only time I have ever heard of any ill effects from taking antibiotics, and I have taken them countless times! I never even got a stomach ache. Antibiotics are generally very specific and kill mainly targeted organisms.
> 
> Do some beneficial organisms get killed? Probably. But these are so widespread in the environment that it is doubtful they are down for very long. So if you are going to suggest that bees may be suffering from some loss of gut flora, you better get a grant and prove it.


Peter,
IV antibiotics kill normal flora in the human gut, leaving it open to the widespread and difficult to treat c.difficile. This bacteria is very antibiotic resistant. There had been some success, believe it or not, with stool transplants from healthy individuals. Even as a nurse, I find this difficult to digest, but I have seen the ravages of this bacteria and resulting illness, and I would try it if it was my grandmother, or myself. MRSA is another serious problem now, in and out of the hospital. I have seen healthy middle age men hospitalized from a splinter which got infected with MRSA that they carried on their skin.
Denmark now does not add antibiotics to industrial raised healthy livestock feed and have found a healthier animal and less harmful addition therefore to the food end product.


----------



## Kieck

> Denmark now does not add antibiotics to industrial raised healthy livestock feed and have found a healthier animal and less harmful addition therefore to the food end product. -laurelmtnlover


From Scott Hurd, DVM, PhD, Food Safety Consortium at Iowa State University:

"The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated there was no evidence of improved public health (WHO, http://www.who.int/salmsurv/links/gssamrgrowthreportstory/en/, 2002, pp. 27-29). In fact, resistant rates in human Salmonella cases have increased, and Denmark is currently experiencing their largest outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staph Aureus (MRSA) in its history. Denmark has seen a largest increase in human MRSA cases since it banned antibiotic growth promotion in animal agriculture."


----------



## laurelmtnlover

Kieck said:


> From Scott Hurd, DVM, PhD, Food Safety Consortium at Iowa State University:
> 
> "The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated there was no evidence of improved public health (WHO, http://www.who.int/salmsurv/links/gssamrgrowthreportstory/en/, 2002, pp. 27-29). In fact, resistant rates in human Salmonella cases have increased, and Denmark is currently experiencing their largest outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staph Aureus (MRSA) in its history. Denmark has seen a largest increase in human MRSA cases since it banned antibiotic growth promotion in animal agriculture."


I believe all industrialized countries are experiencing increases in MRSA in humans, and that is probably linked to increase of IV antibiotic to treat infections in humans. 
Didn't mean to get off subject once again, sorry!


----------



## Kieck

I'm heading deeper off topic, probably:



> I believe all industrialized countries are experiencing increases in MRSA in humans, and that is probably linked to increase of IV antibiotic to treat infections in humans. -laurelmtnlover


The quotation I posted was intended to show that use of antibiotics in livestock production is not likely linked with MRSA increases in humans. Also note the first statistics; removing antibiotic use in livestock did not improve public health in Denmark. If health hasn't improved, how can antibiotic use in livestock be indicted for creating "harmful additions" to food products?


----------



## WLC

Just for the record, these symbiotic bacteria are already making their own antibiotics against AFB and who knows what else.

You could say that it's far cheaper to find a way to use symbiotic microrganisms that are already found in healthy/productive hives to manage hive health/productivity than to use expensive antibiotics that add more chores to perform.

I think Mr. Bush gets it. Put in a new frame full of brood, look for an improvement.

Anybody notice anything different after a 'shake'? How about after tying in a cutout?

etc., etc., etc. .


----------



## Kieck

> Just for the record, these symbiotic bacteria. . . . -WLC


What species are the symbiotic bacteria here?


----------



## WLC

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1471774/

Give it a click.

It's a nice piece of research. They've identified a number of species in the genus bacillus for example. Including one that seems related to Bt (although it wasn't ID'ed as Bt).

They used a type of DNA fingerprinting based on a piece of ribosomal RNA (16s) that was used previously to create a library of over 200,000 bacterial strains.

However, this doesn't ID other microorganisms like fungi, etc. .

If I remember correctly, cytochrome C oxidase is the standard marker used nowadays to ID a range of organisms when DNA fingerprinting. Unfortunately, that wasn't done here. Just bacteria. :doh:

Does the average beekeeper really need to know the strain of the microbe that's helping their hive? They really just need to know how to promote beneficial microbes.

It's more sociological/management than Genetics/anti-agro IMHO.


----------



## peterloringborst

From the article cited:

> The high frequency of bees harboring bacteria from the Bacillus cereus group suggests a stable symbiosis between bees and this taxon, perhaps help- ing to explain the fact that bees are more tolerant than many other insects toward B. thuringiensis [ aka Bt ]


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> Does the average beekeeper really need to know the strain of the microbe that's helping their hive? They really just need to know how to promote beneficial microbes.


Sure, this is a neat theory promoted by folks, with no real factual basis. I wonder if you have any hives? Just how do YOU promote beneficial microbes, or conversely, how could you retard them?

Because I have seen colonies that are fed antibiotics either seasonally or even year round, and I am here to tell you: they look better than colonies not so fed. Sorry to burst the bubble.


----------



## WLC

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=174244

Peter: I hope that this doesn't give you any ideas. :no:


----------



## WLC

http://www.entsoc.org/Pubs/Periodicals/EE/EETOCS/PDF/en069901172p.pdf

It looks as if bees have been used in the past as Bt vectors to control a pest of sunflowers.

I wonder how many different strains of Bt have made it into bees.


----------



## Countryboy

_I believe all industrialized countries are experiencing increases in MRSA in humans, and that is probably linked to increase of IV antibiotic to treat infections in humans. _

Are you suggesting that Norway is not an industrialized country?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/medicine/how-norway-beat-a-bad-bug/1062228

Look closer, however, at a microscopic level, and this place is pristine. There is no sign of a dangerous and contagious staph infection that killed tens of thousands of patients in the most sophisticated hospitals of Europe, North America and Asia this year, soaring virtually unchecked.

The reason: Norwegians stopped taking so many drugs.

:lookout:


----------



## peterloringborst

Antibiotic substances are produced by a variety of organisms throughout nature. As I described in my ABJ article ("The Red Queen's Army") the battle between organisms is ongoing and endless, hence we should not even expect a single antibiotic or pesticide to work "forever". The development of resistance by organisms to *each other* is not new, had been going on for a couple of billion years, is called evolution. 

So, the problem of resistance is a double edged sword. The introduction of novel antibiotics can lead to bacterial and viral resistance to those substances. However, the opposite is not necessarily true: organisms may fail to produce needed defenses on their own and simply fail and die out. The survival of no species is assured; what is assured is that microscopic pathogens get better at killing more quickly than their hosts. 

Enhancement of host defenses may be the path to be on in the future. Apparently bee venom is very effective against a wide variety of microbes, and has been used against Lyme Disease, MS, and fibromyalgia. Maybe we could breed bees with more and stronger venom, which could lead to healthier colonies. Perhaps there is a direct link between colony defensiveness and colony health?


----------



## WLC

Is bee venom detectable anywhere else in the bee's body tissues besides its poison sac?

I wonder if there are any microrganisms living in there.


----------



## peterloringborst

Varroa is still the main problem for most beekeepers

> All groups that were infested with high Varroa levels suffered from higher winter losses. This confirms the central role of the ectoparasitic mite for colony losses in the U.S. and Europe. The unusual high losses over the last winters may also be linked to accumulating reports of mite resistance to control substances.

Winter Losses of Honeybee Colonies 
MARC O. SCHAFER, et al
J. Econ. Entomol. 103(1) (2010)


----------



## WLC

Which pesticides are used to control varroa? Do any contain Bt?


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> Which pesticides are used to control varroa? Do any contain Bt?


No. & I don't know if anybody has tried Bt on varroa mites, but I expect so since everything in the world has been tried on them! (from vinegar to grapefruit leaves)

Currently, beekeepers are having the best luck with formic acid, thymol products (legal) and oxalic acid (not legal in US, approved in Canada). So far no resistance has been reported to these substances which have a completely different action from typical insecticides. Also, all three occur naturally in honey, minimizing the risk of residual contamination.


----------



## Countryboy

_No. & I don't know if anybody has tried Bt on varroa mites, but I expect so since everything in the world has been tried on them! _

People spray BT on combs for storage to control wax moths. When they take those combs out of storage, they put them directly into hives. (No cleaning the BT off first.) The residual BT on the combs hasn't seemed to affect mite populations.

Granted, BT works on the larval stages, and maybe the bees clean all the BT out of a cell before the cell is capped off and no BT is present inside the pupating cell to affect the baby mites.

Hmm. Mites are arachnids. Do they even have larvae? Larva are just baby insects, right?


----------



## WLC

There are a bunch of different strains of Bt. Some are effective against beetles. Some against moths. Some against mites. etc...

That could be something to consider. If it's already being used for moths...


----------



## peterloringborst

Countryboy said:


> _ Mites are arachnids. Do they even have larvae? Larva are just baby insects, right?_


_

> Acarine ontogeny typically consists of an egg, a prelarval stage (often absent), a larval stage (hexapod except in Eriophyoidea which have only two pairs of legs), and a series of nymphal stages. -- Wikipedia

Mites are not insects._


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Sure, this is a neat theory promoted by folks, with no real factual basis. I wonder if you have any hives? Just how do YOU promote beneficial microbes, or conversely, how could you retard them?
> 
> Because I have seen colonies that are fed antibiotics either seasonally or even year round, and I am here to tell you: they look better than colonies not so fed. Sorry to burst the bubble.


Peter,

It is often the case that what works well in the short term turns out to have been harmful in the longer term. (Think currrent credit crisis perhaps...)

Medicating a weak hive (in any way) will make it stronger... but will weaken the breeding pool as the weak genes that should have been eliminated dilute the stronger. The next generation will have a greater tendency to require the same treatment than would otherwise have been the case.

(At the same the pathogen will adapt to the treatment)

No bubbles burst, just egg on face. You write about these things Peter, but when are you going to grasp the _basics_ of inherited traits, selection, adaptation and evolution? 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> The survival of no species is assured; what is assured is that microscopic pathogens get better at killing more quickly than their hosts.


Untrue - if it was there would only be microbes now! Certainly they evolve faster, but larger organisms have effective defences. 

The bees key defence is selection of the best adapted. Mess with that (with treatments) and you very soon have treatment-dependent bees and no wild bees around you. (And any neighbours trying to maintain naturally health bees won't thank you either)

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Antibiotic substances are produced by a variety of organisms throughout nature. As I described in my ABJ article ("The Red Queen's Army") the battle between organisms is ongoing and endless, hence we should not even expect a single antibiotic or pesticide to work "forever".


Never mind forever, 'a few years' is the norm. This is one of the things that makes drug companies the largest beasts in the corporate ecosystem.



peterloringborst said:


> The development of resistance by organisms to *each other* is not new, had been going on for a couple of billion years, is called evolution."
> 
> Exactly; and it happens at many levels and over vastly different timescales. Larger organisms have to be able to defend themselves fast against the rapidly changing micro-organisms and small parasite that can evolve extremely rapidly. There are many different ways of doing this.
> 
> 
> 
> peterloringborst said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the problem of resistance is a double edged sword. The introduction of novel antibiotics can lead to bacterial and viral resistance to those substances. However, the opposite is not necessarily true: organisms may fail to produce needed defenses on their own and simply fail and die out.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'problem of resistance; just the unbending reality that organisms have to use the means nature has given them to keep pace with their attackers. To 'help' them is to weaken them. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> peterloringborst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enhancement of host defenses may be the path to be on in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, yes! The path to be on is the recognition that organic husbandry involves making selective choices for heath. Period. Fail to do that and your stock weakens. That is standard systematic 'enhancement of host defences'. Or, as it is known in every other field of stock-keeping, 'the foundation of husbandry'.
> 
> Just stop interfering in the necessary processes, in the knowledge that nature knows what to do, there is deeply-founded theoretical understanding of the basic mechanics, and fast accumulating evidence that it works in the current environment. Assist the processes in the time-proven ways: cull the weak ruthlessly, promote the stronger, guard against narrow bloodlines.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Currently, beekeepers are having the best luck with formic acid, thymol products (legal) and oxalic acid (not legal in US, approved in Canada). So far no resistance has been reported to these substances which have a completely different action from typical insecticides.


All treatments will have the effect of inhibiting the development of resistance. Period. The more widespread, the greater the effect.

Mike


----------



## WLC

It's kind of funny how I'm not the only one getting insecticide and acaricide mixed up.

It's also kind of funny how some of the treatments for mites amount to using cough drops, baby oil ,and crisco.

Getting back to my natural, biological control argument:

It seems to me that beekeepers are already treating hive parasites/pathogens coincidentally by some of the common mangement methods they use.

Bees already contain antibiotic/(pesticide?) producing microrganisms. It's also likely that some bees, somewhere out there, also host Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Bees are Bt tolerant and alsready have symiotic microbes that are closely related to Bt if not Bt itself.

I also want to point out that I don't think that anyone really has a handle on bee genetics. Bees seem to be hopelessly hybridized, which might be a good thing.

In addition, I don't think that that anyone has a good grasp on beneficial microbes associated with bees. It's obviously a intractable as bee genetics.

However, it's obvious to me that some beekeepers are using management practices that successfully combat pathogens and pests that are in fact natural, biological control.

Those practices are the key.

Natural cell beekeeping fits in there somewhere.


----------



## mike bispham

*Its All The Same Thing.*



WLC said:


> However, it's obvious to me that some beekeepers are using management practices that successfully combat pathogens and pests that are in fact natural, biological control.
> 
> Those practices are the key.
> 
> Natural cell beekeeping fits in there somewhere.


I think the answer is exactly where Peter has said it is - though he seems to have gone off-message since, or not followed his own thinking through, or something. In 2007/8 he wrote:

"Small cell advocates frequently state that the only thing they have changed is the cell size, so that would account for lowered mite levels in the colonies. However, they miss this key point: they have also stopped treating for mites, which means susceptible strains quickly die off and they are left with only bees that can deal with mites."

This is, in my view, the best paragraph in his article. It could very usefully form the basis of an incredibly useful new article.

We can note that the organic small cell types stop treating for everything, period. This is the management regime that works, because it stops interfering with the bees own health-mainenance system in the kinds of ways we've discussed. (Free celling is a probably useful addition to this, the main management difference, but it has, as Peter says, been shown to be ineffective alone, whereas selective management has been very much shown to be effective without free celling.)

So it doesn't matter whether we are talking about mites or fungi or bacteria or viruses. Its all the same process, and treatments is always the core of the problem. 

We have to get to grips with the idea that taking drugs is may be a short term solution but in the long terms is incredibly, destructively, addictive. 

And it doesn't matter either whether we talk about these things in the language of the 'universal law of natural selection' or the medival 'put best to best' or the OT methods of sheep stock raising described my Jacob. They are all parallel ways of approaching the very same issue.

If we cut away the unnecessary detail, the mechanisms are very simple to understand, and the methods simpler still.

The main difficulty lies in convincing treaters of the destructive effects of practices they have been taught from the start, and are still advised to do by experence beekeepers and by official government advice. 

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

I doubt that many beekeepers would be willing to accept massive losses of their livestock to end up with resistant hives.

There is a better model however.

You need to think of bees (and the hive itself) as a vector for naturally occurring biological control agents. Bees make great natural vectors for biological control agents. http://www.entsoc.org/Pubs/Periodica...069901172p.pdf

In short, bees can carry a 'disease for the disease'.

You don't have to kill any bees to transfer a 'disease for a disease' from hive to hive. It could be as simple as swapping in a frame.

If you focus on the artificial selection of natural, biological control agents of pests/pathogens using bees as a vector, then it becomes easier to understand.


----------



## peterloringborst

> However, it's obvious to me that some beekeepers are using management practices that successfully combat pathogens and pests that are in fact natural, biological control.


How can it be "obvious" if we don't know what those practices are?

What would such practices consist of, something like using all natural comb?

Plenty of people have been doing this for decades, and there are no data to support the notion that there is any effect.

Look: lots of people still keep bees in skeps and various pots, box hives, etc.

Also, in most hives that have foundation in frames, the combs are anything but uniform! Some have very large areas where the bees have reworked the comb to enlarge the cells. (there's a picture of one of these in my online slideshow)

I have never seen nor heard of bees reworking combs and making the cells smaller, by the way. 

But this thread was started (by me) to discuss management practices that could reduce illness in hives. The first one that I ID'd was keeping bees away from the mainstream of beekeeping. 

This is like saying: if you live in a city and you are sick all the time, try moving out to the country. Everything is better out here: better air, better water, less stress, etc. (This is not necessarily true, but you get my point).

You say, no can do, I've got to stay in the city to make a living. Fine, but at least spend part of the year in the country, could make a difference.

So there is a management technique people can use: keep bees away from the disease pathways: Interstate highways, orchards, overstocked regions. If you don't know how many beekeepers are in your area, join the local club. You'll get a handle on it pretty quick.

PS WLC: it's still not clear to me if you have any hives, yet.


----------



## JPK

*Re: Its All The Same Thing.*



mike bispham said:


> "Small cell advocates frequently state that the only thing they have changed is the cell size, so that would account for lowered mite levels in the colonies. However, they miss this key point: they have also stopped treating for mites, which means susceptible strains quickly die off and they are left with only bees that can deal with mites."


Mike, this is faulty reasoning at best.

The decreased mite load on a small cell colony relieves the need for many of us that use this approach to treat with chemicals to control mites.

In a nutshell it is not as you falsely clame the lack of treatment with chemicals that lead to the decreased mite load but rather the change in cell size and hence the change in the relationship between the mite hatching cycle and the bee hatching cycle which has reduced the mite load.

Additionally, the "strain" or genetics of the colony don't change or "Die Off", only the cell size and subsequently the actual size of the bee.


----------



## peterloringborst

> "Small cell advocates frequently state that the only thing they have changed is the cell size, so that would account for lowered mite levels in the colonies. However, they miss this key point: they have also stopped treating for mites, which means susceptible strains quickly die off and they are left with only bees that can deal with mites." Mike, this is faulty reasoning at best.


Oh no it isn't. If you switch to small cell AND stop treating, you already have two variables. If the bees thrive, you now cannot say which factor is responsible. The only correct way to nail down cell effect is to treat all the hives the same but only change the cell size. Even Dee Lusby says that cell size is only a part of her whole beekeeping scheme. Which means it may in fact be a very small part and not even essential at all.


----------



## Michael Bush

Well, I was already not treating for decades, so the way I see it, I only changed one variable. I also did not experience a lot of die offs while regressing, which eliminates the concept of it being all genetics and I was regressing commercial stock that I bought.

As far as I know, Dee was also not treating before she regressed and I'm sure a lot of other small cell beekeepers were not treating before.


----------



## WLC

Peter:

Like I've said, I know squat about bees. But, I did have an Uncle Milty ant farm once.

Have you had any thoughts on that survey?


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Its All The Same Thing.*



JPK said:


> "Originally Posted by mike bispham
> 
> "Small cell advocates frequently state that the only thing they have changed is the cell size, so that would account for lowered mite levels in the colonies. However, they miss this key point: they have also stopped treating for mites, which means susceptible strains quickly die off and they are left with only bees that can deal with mites.""
> 
> Mike, this is faulty reasoning at best.


Hi JPK,

First, lets be clear this is Peter's statement. But I do agree with it.



JPK said:


> The decreased mite load on a small cell colony relieves the need for many of us that use this approach to treat with chemicals to control mites.


Well, this is how things are often rationalised. And it may well be true - as far as it goes. But if you are not treating, then selection will automically come into play too. Your bees will gain resistance, and you will not need to treat. And you rationalise this, naturally, as the result of small cells....

Can you tell us more about your precise management, and how you got to it, so we can see how these things fit together.



JPK said:


> In a nutshell it is not as you falsely clame the lack of treatment with chemicals that lead to the decreased mite load but rather the change in cell size and hence the change in the relationship between the mite hatching cycle and the bee hatching cycle which has reduced the mite load.


In broad terms I disagree - and I've been through this in some detail with Dee Lusby, and she agrees with me. I think you mistake cause for effect.

It seems to me that natural celling gives the bees a break, through several advantagous mechanisms, while their genetics are improved by a reduction in treatments. It is easy to think small celling is the single mechanism of improvement. But I don't agree that is the whole picture - and Dee agrees with me.



JPK said:


> Additionally, the "strain" or genetics of the colony don't change or "Die Off", only the cell size and subsequently the actual size of the bee.


Again, I need to know more about your own experience before I can say more about this, other than: the genetics shift in every generation, adapting (if allowed) to the changing environment. That environment includes changes in food sources, weather, and, very much, 'predators' like parasites and other disease organisms. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> So there is a management technique people can use: keep bees away from the disease pathways: Interstate highways, orchards, overstocked regions.


No: allow them to be exposed to the disease pathway - they will meet them anyway, and need to be prepared. But if at all possible keep them away from artificially maintained bees. You do not want genetic material entering your apiary that produces bees that require medication - i.e. unhealthy bees. If and when you can't exclude it entirely, you should take steps to combat it as appropriate.

Do let in naturally selected 'survivor' material if possible - it is probably broad-spectrum resistant, and has the additional benefit of being attuned to the local conditions. Import purpose-raised resistant stock if necessary. And continually manage your own stocks to maintain the quality of the local deme (breeding population).



peterloringborst said:


> PS WLC: it's still not clear to me if you have any hives, yet.


Owning hives is not a necessary precondition for contributing to a discussion about bees. The disaster that has been the last 20 years of beekeeping shows us that hive ownership alone confers no great wisdom. 

Mike


----------



## JPK

If you change nothing other than the size of the cell and your mite load goes down it doesn't take a Politician or Rocket Scientist to figure out the cause.

This "Survivor" stock talk is pure fantasy as these so called "Survivors" are nothing more than swarms thrown from stock owned and maintained by beeks nearly 100% of the time unless you happen to live in a remote, untouched part of the world.....again, the notion of survivor stock is pure fantasy and spin.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I think the answer is exactly where Peter has said it is - though he seems to have gone off-message since, or not followed his own thinking through, or something.


I can hardly go "off message" since I have no message. I was not "promoting" natural beekeeping then and I am not now. I think it is a worthwhile goal, and to everyone who undertakes it I say Right On. I think it is the beekeeping of the future, for sure.

The problem is that it simply doesn't work for everybody. So I can't get up in front of audiences and state that this will work for you. Unlike some folks who simply retort that you did it wrong I have continued to study the whole issue. 

Nobody wants to discover the key component of bee health more than me. I am 60 and so I only have 20 more years to do it  So we are in this together. Anyone who has followed my writing so far (at least this thread) will understand that. 

I do not operate from a central dogma. My motto is "whatever works". Miticides are not and can not be the long term answer. They may be a short term approach, but Everybody wants a long term answer and the logical answer is _better bees._ 

Mike is correct in stating that natural selection would favor healthy bees over time and turning them into domesticated livestock is not the correct path to be on. In this we are in agreement. Where we disagree is on whether this can be done without the direct application of selection.

Artificial selection (man directed selection) came about because people discovered that they could accelerate and manipulate the variation and modification of plants and animals. Once a plant has reached a successful point, there is little incentive for it to radically change. 

Take wild apples. They were perfectly successful for millions of years. Then people started selecting "better" apples and we now have all the sorts of apples that we do now. How are these better? In terms of survivability, they are not better. They are better because _we like them_

For years bees were selected for gentleness, color, honey production. Then Rothenbuhler showed you could select for AFB resistance, Page selected for pollen hoarding, Marla Spivak selected for dead bee removal. So the criteria have changed. 

But natural organisms are not universally malleable. There is a limit to what they can and cannot do. For example, there is a reason why there are dead animals on the highway. They can't take getting run over by cars. However, the woods may be full of "smart" animals that avoid highways!

Enough, I am going to Geneva, NY to listen to Larry Connor talk about raising healthy, disease resistant queens.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Owning hives is not a necessary precondition for contributing to a discussion about bees.


Maybe not, but would you take sky diving instruction from someone who had never even done it?

I am sorry, but I have had it up to here with people who don't even have bees, have never opened a hive, telling beekeepers how to do their thing. I wouldn't take parenting advice from someone who never had kids, either. So there.


----------



## mike bispham

JPK said:


> If you change nothing other than the size of the cell and your mite load goes down it doesn't take a Politician or Rocket Scientist to figure out the cause.
> 
> This "Survivor" stock talk is pure fantasy as these so called "Survivors" are nothing more than swarms thrown from stock owned and maintained by beeks nearly 100% of the time unless you happen to live in a remote, untouched part of the world.....again, the notion of survivor stock is pure fantasy and spin.


Evidence? 

Its not that simple. It is, I agree, a difficult topic in some ways. 

Where I live there were bees long before men, and men have worked them for thousands of years. None of the remaining stock is untouched by man's activities, yet some are genetically pretty much unchanged despite years of imports. 

Wherever bees can escape and survive alive they improve the health of the bloodline massively through natural selection. Its tough out there - only the best make it. As a result they are good stock to have.

Wherever there are apiaries the local ferals will be affected. When the apiaries supply a high proportion of the population, and are treated, they suppress the ferals by diluting their healthy genes - treated bees make more bees that need treatment; and wild bees tend to miss out on the treatments... In such localities the only 'wild' bees are escapees, and they tend not to last long. Beekeepers soon gain the impression that bees cannot survive in the wild - because that is all they see.

But there are spaces between treating apiaries that sustain feral bees all over the world; and the bees that live their can be called wild or 'surviver stock'. 

And if you keep bees without treating your escapees and the local wild bees will be closely related, and all will survive quite happily without treatment.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> "Owning hives is not a necessary precondition for contributing to a discussion about bees. "
> 
> Maybe not, but would you take sky diving instruction from someone who had never even done it?


I would certainly prefer the advice of a parachute maker who'd never jumped on questions of chute reliability over those an experience diver who knew nothing about fabrics.

Want I'd want to do is listen to what both have to say, and look more closely at those areas where they disagreed.

What would put me right off is the sky-diver who thought he knew everything there is to know about about parachutes, weather, aeroplanes, fabrics, despite having no training in any of these things. (and the same for the parachute-maker)

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Mike is correct in stating that natural selection would favor healthy bees over time and turning them into domesticated livestock is not the correct path to be on. In this we are in agreement. Where we disagree is on whether this can be done without the direct application of selection.


Something wrong here Peter.

I argue for the direct application of selection.

I think where we differ is that you believe this is a task for experts, and I say no, we should all do it, systematically, just as all other form of organic husbandry do.

I think too that my emphasis on the damage caused by treatment is something you find hard to swallow.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> I doubt that many beekeepers would be willing to accept massive losses of their livestock to end up with resistant hives.


Just to be clear; I want to see beekeepers experimenting with ways to move from treatment based health regimes to selection based health regimes, without losses.

Others have shown this can be done. It is something we should be discussing widely - though perhaps on a dedicated thread.

Selective husbandry is a win-win-win for almost all beekeepers, and a partial solution for eeven the most intensive business models. 

The rest of your post I agree with

Mike


----------



## JPK

mike bispham said:


> Its not that simple. It is, I agree, a difficult topic in some ways.


Of course its that simple mike, you're the only one trying to make this complicated because you disagree.

I don't tell anyone else that they need to adopt x, y or z management program, I do what works best for me. I don't treat prophylacticly but certainly wouldn't hesitate to treat a colony with meds if I were to encounter nosema or fb, I might choose to requeen at some point or try some other management approach but the bottom line is that Bees are Livestock.



mike bispham said:


> Where I live there were bees long before men, and men have worked them for thousands of years. None of the remaining stock is untouched by man's activities, yet some are genetically pretty much unchanged despite years of imports.


You live in the UK,,,its a tiny little island that is smaller than the State of Oregon yet with 17 times the population, there are virtually no green or other spaces untouched by man over the last couple thousand years.



mike bispham said:


> Its tough out there - only the best make it. As a result they are good stock to have.


So called survivor stock is almost entirely comprised of swarms thrown by beek kept bees, colonies survive winters more often than not by pure chance (Bad winters, trees they establish colonies in knocked down, predation etc). Are there exceptions to this? Sure.

From a genetic standpoint Bees are little different than most other livestock....they just happen to be a little less "Domesticated" about it.


----------



## WLC

"Maybe not, but would you take sky diving instruction from someone who had never even done it?'

I've never sky dived (dove?). However, I do have a background, and degree in biology and administration.

That should explain my interest in biological control and management. 

I'm planning to use bees in a Wildlife Conservation course that I teach to illustrate introduced species (honey bees) and invasive pests (whichever one shows up first). I also teach a follow up unit on biological control.

I hope that this explains my interest and point of view.

My students have already started cutting scrap lumber for the top bar hives we will use as our 'lab'. So, we've already bought in to the natural cell beekeepeing idea.

I also find these discussions helpful because I can 'napsterize' some of your ideas to include in the unit. It's dynamite!

I'm also gratified to know that you're working hard to solve your problems.

Excelsior.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I've never sky dived (dove?). However, I do have a background, and degree in biology and administration.


Yes, that should work. You just jump when I say jump. 

No, I didn't mean to give you a hard time. I am in close contact with several of the NYC beekeepers and I am all about spreading the word to non beekeepers. 

If you are really keen on top bar hives and natural combs, you should get a hold of everything by Wyatt Mangum, if you haven't already.

By the way, I offer up everything I have written_ about bees _to the public domain. Though you may find the message varies from year to year. Hey, I look at some of that older stuff and wonder, who wrote that?

May the Bees Be With You!


----------



## BoBn

peterloringborst said:


> Then people started selecting "better" apples and we now have all the sorts of apples that we do now. How are these better? In terms of survivability, they are not better. They are better because _we like them_


But this is exactly what survivability is. 
Because people liked apples, they carried the fruits and spread the seeds and protected the plants. A plant that originally only grew in part of Persia has been spread by humans around the world. 

Because we like them, they are better adapted to survive.
It is an interaction between species that is not much different than host/parasite.

The same is true with chickens and pigs. They were only living on an island in the South pacific. Because people used these animals for food, they were spread around the world. It could be said that pigs would probably have not survived if people did not use them for food.


----------



## peterloringborst

BoBn said:


> Because we like them, they are better adapted to survive.


No, no, no. Here is where Mike and I are complete agreement. By domesticating plants and animals we make them _much less fit to survive._

Right now, we are at the point where most of our food requires pest control measures whether sprays, antibiotics, or high fences. Most domesticated plants and animals wouldn't survive a week without our care. 

Look, I have a 4 acre woodlot. I know what unspoiled nature looks like. I put a couple of hives back there. First one died of mites and the second one was trashed by a bear.

Down the road from me is a yard of 25 hives. He's got an electric fence, he treats for mites, nosema, feeds corn syrup, all of it. His bees are alive. Mine aren't.


----------



## JPK

peterloringborst said:


> No, no, no. Here is where Mike and I are complete agreement. By domesticating plants and animals we make them _much less fit to survive._


False, Take a trip through NH or most any other area that was once primarily ag driven and you'll find large numbers of once managed orchards and random apple/fruit trees that were planted on farms that are no longer managed as farms.

These are not "wild" fruit trees but are instead trees that were selected and planted by MAN.

Folks don't prune these trees nor do they treat them but SOMEHOW they continue to thrive and in most years they still produce large crops.



peterloringborst said:


> Right now, we are at the point where most of our food requires pest control measures whether sprays, antibiotics, or high fences. Most domesticated plants and animals wouldn't survive a week without our care.


This is partially true Peter, the reason for pesticides is primarily to INCREASE yield of crops...its about making money to pay the mortgage or farm loans.

If left unmanaged these animals would suffer much higher mortality rates but certainly not 100% mortality rates, look at wild dogs as an example if you need one.

As for monoculture crops like corn or others, some would continue to propagate if left unmanaged until other pioneer species took hold of the fallow fields and eventually the field would likely be a forest.



peterloringborst said:


> Look, I have a 4 acre woodlot. I know what unspoiled nature looks like. I put a couple of hives back there. First one died of mites and the second one was trashed by a bear.


Your bees would not have chosen by themselves to reside in a box that was vulnerable to bears....you put them into a situation where they were vulnerable...it wasn't the bees fault, it was yours.

Lets not cherry pick so much.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Your bees would not have chosen by themselves to reside in a box that was vulnerable to bears....you put them into a situation where they were vulnerable...it wasn't the bees fault, it was yours.


Whatever. The electric fence seems to be working


----------



## peterloringborst

> Take a trip through NH or most any other area that was once primarily ag driven


How about Upstate NY? Where I live. I know all about those apple trees, I have one in my front yard. It never yields any more. But there are some on my neighbor's land. Every year I go and eat some. There are a lot of apples on that baby. 

But very few are appetizing what with the worms and black smut all over the outside. Maybe you could make hard cider out of them, 'cept I don't drink hard cider. 

Now that you mention it, about half of the wild plants around here are invasive plant pests, like multiflora rose, garlic mustard, wild honeysuckle, mountain olive, japanese knotweed, etc. Good bee plants, but regarded as pernicious by naturalists.

Funny how invasives seem to support each other ... a lot of the best bee plants are invasives (eucalyptus, melaleuca, star thistle, purple loosetrife) ... and of course, the precious honey bee herself is a non-native around these parts.


----------



## JPK

peterloringborst said:


> How about Upstate NY? Where I live. I know all about those apple trees, I have one in my front yard. It never yields any more. But there are some on my neighbor's land. Every year I go and eat some. There are a lot of apples on that baby.
> 
> But very few are appetizing what with the worms and black smut all over the outside. Maybe you could make hard cider out of them, 'cept I don't drink hard cider.


You will probably find that your lone apple tree doesn't have anything that blooms around the same time, its a pollenation issue not one with the overall health of the tree, your neighbors trees are a variety that have other apple trees nearby that bloom at a time to allow for proper pollination hence the prolific crop.

We had a couple of plum trees growing up that produced fruit very well until one died as a result of a bad winter/damage, We never saw fruit on the surviving tree again not because it wasn't heathy but rather due to a pollenation issue.

As to the quality of the apples on your friends tree this speaks to the point I made previously about the use of pesticides and WHY we use them...its not to ensure that there is a crop typically but rather that there is a large/high quality crop.


----------



## mike bispham

JPK said:


> I don't tell anyone else that they need to adopt x, y or z management program, I do what works best for me. I don't treat prophylacticly but certainly wouldn't hesitate to treat a colony with meds if I were to encounter nosema or fb, I might choose to requeen at some point or try some other management approach but the bottom line is that Bees are Livestock.


For some people bees are 'just livestock'. For others they are a precious and fascinating part of the natural world, and it is our responsibility to ensure they are passwed on unchanged for future generations.

We all have different combinations of aims and approaches. Mine is: I'm trying to help beekeepers understand that one of the main reasons they need to medicate so often simply in order to keep their bees alive, and so often lose a great many of them, is that ... they medicate systematically.

Translated to a national scale, we have whole coutries medicating like mad and still loosing far too many colonies because... there is a lack of understanding about the relation between selection and health.

I want beekeepers to be able to choose to keep bees in a competent and productive manner that isn't vulnerable to sudden catastrophy, because they understand the principle procedures of managing genetic heath. 

Mike


----------



## BoBn

peterloringborst said:


> No, no, no. Here is where Mike and I are complete agreement. By domesticating plants and animals we make them _much less fit to survive._


This has little to do with genetics and much more to changing environmental pressures brought on my disseminating formerly localized pests and diseases throughout the world. In North America we have imported dozens of insect and fungus pests of the apple tree. Like European Sawfly which was at one time only in central Europe or Apple Scab which at one time was only found in Ireland.
In the North Western USA, there was a beetle found only on wild jimsonweed until people started growing potatoes in the area. The beetle is know as the Colorado Potato Beetle.



> Right now, we are at the point where most of our food requires pest control measures whether sprays, antibiotics, or high fences.


It is also required because of the agricultural management practice of intensive farming, mono-culture and the consumer demand for "perfect" products. This has very little to do with genetics. Many, many plants that could be grown easily 100 or 200 years ago can no longer be grown commercially because of introduced pests and diseases.


----------



## mike bispham

JPK said:


> Of course its that simple mike, you're the only one trying to make this complicated because you disagree.


The complications I outlined are real. Understanding them enable you to better see how and why things can go right or wrong. Bees are complex animals; their relationship with their environment is complex. But within that complexity we can find simple principles. 



JPK said:


> So called survivor stock is almost entirely comprised of swarms thrown by beek kept bees, colonies survive winters more often than not by pure chance


As I've said, some and some and a bit in the middle. Just because few places in the UK are untouched by man doesn't mean there are no places where bees cannot thrive unaided. 

As and where colonies survive unaided they are, by definition, healthier than any apiary stocks that would not survive unaided.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

JPK said:


> As to the quality of the apples on your friends tree this speaks to the point I made previously about the use of pesticides and WHY we use them...its not to ensure that there is a crop typically but rather that there is a large/high quality crop.


There is lots of truth in this. The pressure that shapes modern fruit trees comes mostly from supermarkets who demand perfectly clean and even fruit.

Of course the 'organic' movements, at their best, are all about exploring ways to produce fine food without the chemicals - and genetics is a large part of this. Over here this seems to be going pretty well - that is the regulations seems fair, and there is a good market for clean food.

Mike


----------



## laurelmtnlover

I am hoping that people are beginning to understand that "organic" isn't necessarily the answer. Why eat tasteless, organic strawberries from Argentina in December? Large companies promote the pastural image of the food raised on a farm like the ones of childhood books, and they are probably as far from this as large industrially raised food using insecticides, pesticides, antibiotics and hormones and petroleum fertilizers.
Sustainable, seasonable and locally produced foods also save fossil fuels from shipping, and in most cases, provide tastier, safer raised food and boosts the local economy. One can visit the local farm and see for yourself, look the farmer in the eye, and vote with your cash.


----------



## WLC

I don't mean to redirect the go of the flow, but wasn't the main impetus behind natural cell beekeeping a result of UN efforts in sustainable agriculture in the developing world?

Isn't it an import? To rephrase it.


----------



## mike bispham

Laurel, it seems to me that what you are saying is the term 'organic' has been hijacked by big companies, and the product is, in sum, no more natural, or beneficial to the environment than locally raised chem produce? I agree - esp. in the US the term has lost its value as a clear indicator of, well anything much. I was using it in the older sense, and thinking about the organic beekeepers list, where the terms still means something along the lines of 'sustainable', non-harmful to the environment and so on.

We still need to be able make the distinction easily - but the terms we use - 'sustainable' 'green' etc will always be hijacked by corporations and sold back to us.

Mike


----------



## Allen Dick

It seems this topic has wandered all over the map, but to get back to natural cell beekeeping, having flollowed the movement all the way from the start, it is an outgrowth of the small cell movement.

The small cell movement as far as I can tell, comes from a combination of factors. One was Africanization of some US bee stock, along with a misreading of and extrapolation from literature going back to the early days of foundation.

The natural cell group grew out of disillusionment with, and failure for some, of the small cell concept.

Natural cells are what bees have drawn thoughout history and still do where foundation is not used.

While foundation imposes specific cell sizes on the bees, natural combs typically have a variety of sizes and even shapes on any one comb. Whether this is important, or just how things happen to progress is the subject of continuing debate.

Will it ever be resolved? I doubt it because the people engaged in the debate start with differing assumptions as to what is important and what the goal of beekeeping should be.

There is lots to be learned by watching the discourse, but the conclusions reached by each observer are bound to diverge from the conclusions of others.


----------



## Barry

More "I" statements, less "you" statements, everyone.


----------



## JPK

mike bispham said:


> There is lots of truth in this. The pressure that shapes modern fruit trees comes mostly from supermarkets who demand perfectly clean and even fruit.
> 
> Of course the 'organic' movements, at their best, are all about exploring ways to produce fine food without the chemicals - and genetics is a large part of this. Over here this seems to be going pretty well - that is the regulations seems fair, and there is a good market for clean food.
> 
> Mike


My observation is that its Consumers that demand perfectly clean/even fruits/vegetables not the retailer per se, I've certainly never seen anyone stand in front of a pile of produce and choose the worst looking ones.....I've heard lots of folks ask for better quality but never heard anyone ask for LOWER quality/worse overall condition.

Its the same motivation that causes Organic Farms to use pesticides as well.

There's a ton of documentation on this and these so called "Organic" pesticides can and are just as bad as the man made ones.

http://www.pestwall.com/pestwall-articles/organic-pesticides.htm
http://gardening.about.com/od/gardenproblems/a/OrganicPesticid.htm

A simple google search for "Organic pesticide toxicity" will provide tons of results.

I have bees at three certified "Organic" farms in the area and without exception they all use so called "Organic" pesticides, some are not too bad but some are not too friendly.....the label "Organic" is assumed by the public to assume its somehow safer/more pure but that is often times not the case in any way/shape/form.

I don't mean to drag this off topic but the exact same argument/situation exists in the beek community with so called "Hard" and "Soft" chemicals and the accumulation of chems in comb over time.

I am in no way/shape/form against treating colonies when there is a demonstrated need and when faced with the prospect of losing colonies vs not and having the opportunity treat to save a colony and then down the road requeen/change management style/environment to restore health of the colony is imho the way to go.....dead bees don't do anyone any good.

Beekeeping is after all little more than Animal Husbandry.


----------



## mike bispham

JPK said:


> I don't mean to drag this off topic but the exact same argument/situation exists in the beek community with so called "Hard" and "Soft" chemicals and the accumulation of chems in comb over time.


I think we are agreed that 'organic' is a problematic descriptive term. 'Natural' doesn't do that much either. Both show an intention, but break down when we get in close. That is something that often happens when discussions become detailed - you have to refine and qualify the terms in use; and that is to my mind one of the (useful) things that is going on here. 

I agree with you about the hard and soft chems business, although I don't know if my reasoning is the same as yours. In my mind all treatments simply tend to breed bees that needs the same treatments. For that reason I think those who treat (rather than diagnose) with powdered sugar have pretty much the same damaging effect on the deme as those using harder chems.



JPK said:


> I am in no way/shape/form against treating colonies when there is a demonstrated need and when faced with the prospect of losing colonies vs not and having the opportunity treat to save a colony and then down the road requeen/change management style/environment to restore health of the colony is imho the way to go.....dead bees don't do anyone any good.


I agree that seems like a good plan - IF AND ONLY IF requeening is the plan. Until that requeening occurs one would have to bear in mind that flying drones from that colony would be likely to be sending the treatment-dependent genes into the local breeding pool. So no other management change cuts it for me. In the context of a well (selectively) managed apiary the odd few limpers probably wouldn't hurt. (In a non-selecting/treating apiary of course it is a different story all round...) 

But requeening in my mind does not restore the health of the colony - it replaces the colony with another. The inadequate queen and her bloodline is eliminated - as nature would have eliminated. 



JPK said:


> Beekeeping is after all little more than Animal Husbandry.


Again, I agree. It is my belief that because in the past we were able to rely on a large wild population that kept itself healthy and attuned to the local envirnment through natural selection, we never developed the systematic reproductive controls that other animal (and crop) husbandries use. So unlike the other fields of stockraising we lack the necessary traditional of husbanding the best strains into the next generation.

But many beekeepers in the past were gardeners and farmers, and were aware of the way nature worked, and worked with bees in the same way. The old guy who taught me 20 years ago was a lifelong gardener, countryman and beekeeper, taught by his father. He wouldn't mollycoddle his bees any more than he'd put the weakest pup of a litter to a *****, or thin the stronger of his seedlings rather than the weaker. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: (nothing to do with) Natural Cell Beekeeping*

Allen, there is a view being presented here that there are several different versions of NCB. There is NCB alone, NCB in the context of normal treatment-based management, and NCB in the context of a wider version of 'natural beekeeping' in which all treatments are rejected and various form of selection employed.

So I would say we are talking about NCB, and find it useful to wander off a bit from time to time to clarify the reasoning behind our positions. We are simply trying to track down all the factors that make it effective - when it is effective.

The suspician is that both cell size and greater levels of selectivity are factors in play, and that it is useful to understand the mechanics of both.

Some of us think that Peter's point about natural cellers (often) stopping treatments is a good one. Why don't you tell us what you think about it? Here it is:

"Small cell advocates frequently state that the only thing they have changed is the cell size, so that would account for lowered mite levels in the colonies. However, they miss this key point: they have also stopped treating for mites, which means susceptible strains quickly die off and they are left with only bees that can deal with mites."

Mike


----------



## JPK

mike bispham said:


> I agree that seems like a good plan - IF AND ONLY IF requeening is the plan.


Sorry, but I just don't buy into your genetics only approach when more often than not, issues with a colony are Beekeeper inflicted instead of being a problem with the bees.

We put bees in boxes on the ground vulnerable to bears and predations...not their fault

We put bees in boxes in the shade and wonder why they have trouble

We put bees in low lying areas (moisture issues) and wonder why they have trouble

We put bees in places where there is crummy forage and wonder why they have trouble

We put bees in places where there is no water and wonder why they have trouble.

We put bees in used equipment from unknown sources *diseased* and wonder why they have trouble.

The problem is more often than not the BEEKEEPER not the bees.


----------



## peterloringborst

This thread has certainly wandered hither and yon, but it initially was _about_ beekeeping practices, not kinds of bees. I initiated the discussion some days ago to highlight various assumptions that I regard as questionable.

When I question something it is not an effort to trash the idea, or its originator, but to ruthlessly examine it for faults. Any idea that can't stand up to scrutiny is shallow and unworthy of repeating.

It is amazing how many times a bad practice will be repeated until it becomes a widespread habit. My friends know that I am the sort of person who tries to stare BS in the eyes until is falls to pieces under its own weight.

Some of the ideas we have looked into are

1. Bees can develop resistance to disease if left alone to their own devices

2. The use of "standard" foundation is harmful to colony health

3. The location or siting of hives is _THE_ most important thing in beekeeping

4. Bees (or any other organism) must be constantly exposed to disease in order to become healthy

5. The opposite of this, of course, is that bees which are protected from disease by isolation or medication can never become healthy

I propose we get back on topic and discuss these points. No amount of insistence will add one speck of credibility to any of these arguments. The way to bolster an argument is to show proof. Show me!


----------



## Allen Dick

OK. You are right and this is your thread. I guess I just expected it would be about the topic line and not be hijacked off to unrelated matters.

IMO, the use of foundation and the types used should be subject to more consideration, especially since foundation determines the shape and orientation of the comb and size of combs. Beekeepers choose sizes to suit their preferences and, for example, jumbos which have long been known to be ideal for brood and preferred by queens is not popular ever since standard hives went entirely over to 10 frames from eight.


----------



## peterloringborst

Allen Dick said:


> IMO, the use of foundation and the types used should be subject to more consideration


Right, and IMO it makes not a speck of a difference


----------



## deknow

fwiw (on the topic of foundation), one of my favorite beekeeping books is "advanced bee culture" by huchenson. it's one of the only books in our own library that advocates both the use of foundation and foundationless for different purposes.

it's out of print (i have a couple of copies), but it's in the public domain, and the googlebooks pdf file is available from our website. there is much more here than just foundation...it's one of the best "beekeeping as a business" books out there, and one of our all time favorites:

http://beeuntoothers.com/Advanced_bee_culture.pdf

it's 20megs...but it's really a good book (and a good scan).

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

> ... and IMO it makes not a speck of a difference  

Hehehe. Not even a _tiny_ speck? Ever?


----------



## Allen Dick

> ...one of my favorite beekeeping books is "advanced bee culture" by huchenson

Thanks, dean, I am downloading it right now and will give it a look. (I can't believe how much homework people are piling on me these days).

In case it may not sometimes seem to be the case, I do take all these things seriously, but try to maintain a balanced view and look for evidence as opposed to suspicion or conjecture to support my views.

How is that Arizona meeting shaping up?


----------



## peterloringborst

Allen Dick said:


> Not even a _tiny_ speck?


Yes, you're right. A small speck, but not much of one.

No, but seriously folks, the things that I think matter most (in order) are:

1. Location
2. Management 
3. Quality of bees
4. All the various equipment issues (frames, box size, fdn, etc.)
5. Alignment of the stars


----------



## peterloringborst

personally, I am dropping this thread, and picking it up at 

Bee Lovers Unite!


----------



## JPK

Seems to me that Weather plays a dominant role and should be high on that list.

Also seems to me that mediocre and even not so good bees will do ok until Weather, Disease, Location etc combine to work against them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that until you start stacking pressures against a colony you have no idea which is more resistant or tolerant to these pressures.

Ex: You live in an isolated area with no mite issues.....mite resistance is not something you would care about nor would it be a criteria for breeding.


----------



## Allen Dick

> ...one of my favorite beekeeping books is "advanced bee culture" by huchenson

OK. I've been reading it, but don't see anything particularly striking so far. I'm on page 62. It seems like a good sound basic beekeeping book even for today's readers.

I do notice some interesting comments on page 22 and 28, though that seem quite conventional and assume that some honey should in his opinion be removed in favour of sugar feeding.

As for using foundation or not, the idea is not particularly unusual. Many of us in comb honey production have used starter strips only since that means less wax in the comb midrib, but straight, saleable sections.

Are there any sections of the book of particular note?


----------



## mike bispham

JPK said:


> Sorry, but I just don't buy into your genetics only approach when more often than not, issues with a colony are Beekeeper inflicted instead of being a problem with the bees.
> The problem is more often than not the BEEKEEPER not the bees.


Yes, of course it may be the case that nest and/or external environment is simply inadequate. (It may also be true however that another strain of bees could thrive in the same environment)

My point is that if you prevent bees from adapting to their disease environment, they will inevitably sicken; and that treating always does just that. This comes under your heading 'problem caused by a beekeeper.' 

Given a good home, good forage, and a minimum of interference, and the rest, I'd say, is down to genetics. If they need medicating to keep going I'd say there is a health problem, and it should be resolved by adopting a selective management regime. And, if you do medicate, you should expect to do more of the same in the future (unless you have other more healthy bees around) because your bees will likely become 'addicted' - i.e. adapted to an environment that features medication.

To try to keep this particular conversation on topic I'll add: I think that freedom to build comb of the size that suits them is likely a useful form of the minimal interfence just mentioned.

Mike


----------



## bigbearomaha

I guess today is a day I just can't keep my yap shut.

I favor facilitated beekeeping. Essentially, this is to observe what bees natural behavior is, and work with that instead of forcing them to adapt their behavior to meet our desires.

Allowing bees to build their own comb/cell size is part of what I refer to as facilitated bee work as it allows the bees to rely on natural behavior as opposed to forcing bees to adapt to cell sizes that people prefer to force the bees into making more honey.

Again, that's just my opinion. and that's how I intend to do things.

Big Bear


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Yes, you're right. A small speck, but not much of one.
> 
> No, but seriously folks, the things that I think matter most (in order) are:
> 
> 1. Location
> 2. Management
> 3. Quality of bees
> 4. All the various equipment issues (frames, box size, fdn, etc.)
> 5. Alignment of the stars


I'd change this to:

1) Location
2) Quality of bees
3) Management 

And then argue like mad for management that puts the maintainance of 1) and 2) at the top of its priorities, and focuses on health promotion via the breeding pool rather than by manipulating individual colonies. 

The test for 2) would be self-sufficiency. If they can't take care of themselves, I don't want them.

Your 4) comes under my 3). 

Mike


----------



## deknow

hi allen,

...you won't find reading this book a chore at all. i'm surprised that i'd never heard of it...but discovered it late one night looking through kirk webster's library. of course the whole book boils down to "more bees!" 

i'm in the very fortunate position that my wife is as interested in this stuff as i am (getting bees in the first place was her idea). she does most of the formal microbe research (i sometimes google and print stuff out, but she requests articles from the bee lab, gets university reference librarians where we have no connections to print/email journal articles that we would otherwise have to pay for, etc).

we debate, speculate, and refer to studies almost daily. we don't have day jobs (we make our living selling honey), and spend most of our time together...and most of that time we talk about bees (poor erik osterlund said it was like watching an episode of 'seinfeld'...in this scenario, michael bush was playing the part of "george" or "elaine"...we should have filmed it!).

with what we know (based on the bee research, what is known about microbes in other insects, what is known about microbes in virtually all lifeforms and in so many biological processes), it is obvious to us that this stuff is important. painting a map that convinces other beekeepers is the goal, and it's not easy. it's progress to get people reading martha gilliam's work, as the generally accepted standard on this stuff by most is "fat bee, skinny bee", which is simplistic to the point of being wrong....it is a great document as a whole, but it doesn't get the bee bread stuff right.

i will say that we talk to literally hundreds of people a week (at farmers markets and health food stores). virtually every single one of them is shocked to learn that beekeepers feed sugar or use any kind of treatments...the beekeeping industry relies on these false impressions for their best PR. likewise, our customers (who tend to either shop at health food stores or farmers markets), are all very much aware of importance of microbes in their own bodies and the environment, and the damage (long and short term) that drugs (including antibiotics) cause. they have no problem understanding the importance of the microbial culture in the hive, and the damage that feeding and treating has.

i see the microbial culture of the hive (made up of at least 8000 species before dna tests were available...these were all microbes that were able to be cultured), like a rubber ball. the relationships between the varying species that live in varying niches within varying physical areas of the hive and of the bees are complex, and not simply one on one.

if you are familliar with the term "complex adapative systems"...this is what we are talking about. the example we used in our book is the island of manhattan. there are a small number of bridges, tunnels, and ports where goods, people, and waste can enter and leave the island. to regulate this by actually running it (scheduling what had to come in and out when. balancing input and output, deciding minute by minute priorities of what was needed) would be a major headache...impossible. but it runs itself pretty well. if the summer gets hot, more soda finds its way onto the island and into the vending carts in central park. if traffic getting off the island for the weekend is too crazy, those with the highest priority of actually getting off the island on schedule will take alternate transportaion or leave early. it's endless, and it works.

in any case, the microbial culture is akin to that. one population increases in response to a certain nectar, thousands respond towards (probably never reaching) equilibrim...some with their populations exploding, some dwindling....some even changing their tactics (going into defense mode, going into attack mode, going into a dormant mode). as homework, read:
Carl Zimmer: E. coli and the new science of life
...once you realize the complexity of behavior of a single microbe is so amazing, and you consider a society of sorts comprising 10,000 or more species living in concert with the bees...feeding them, acting as their immune system, etc.....well, the best i can put is:

be humble before the microbes!

so, this "rubber ball" of interrelated microbes bounces. a nectar source chages, it's winter, the air is more moist, pollen source changes, drifting bees, hive invaders, robbed out stores, etc. some populations may disappear, some explode...but:

over time, these in hive microbes (including most bee diseases) have been selected for and shown the ability to co-exist without wiping out their host population. this means they have a tendancy to not to take too much advantage of a situation and wipe out their host. if they do kill the host, they have a successful way to drift to other colonies, and somehow not wipe out the entire population. the most efficent way to do this is to exist in low levels...be ubiquitous but not harmful over time.

i'm not a sports guy, but growing up, my uncle had seasons celtics tickets. most years my father and i would get a chance to go. i really hated sports, but the celtics of this era (larry bird, robert parrish, danny ange, kevin mchale, etc) didn't play like other sports teams...they played like a team all the time. never did someone showboat when they could pass to an open man. even in his fame, larry bird always played the team, and the team played the team. it was really fun to watch, and i'll never forget it. when players work for their own stats so they can be superstars and get more for their endorsements and egos it stops being poetry, and stops being beautiful (to me). this is how the microbes in the hive (which have intense antagonistic relationships with one another) function. as a team.

it's not an artifical (or irrelevant) distinction between "man made substances causing disruptions" and "natural substances causing disruptions"....and to be clear, i put refined sugar, essential oils, and refined cane or beet sugar as "man made".

the "man made" hive inputs are a problem. the hundreds of millions of years of evolution, selection, and refining of these microbial populations (which doubtlessly are preserved and transmitted from hive to hive in several ways) never encountered anything like table sugar, essential oils, or organic acids. essential oils are (essentially) pesticides produced by the plant. the bees and the microbes would never encounter these things in anything close to this concentration. since bees communicate by scent, the strong scents of essential oils and organic acids have to effect things...and i can't believe that the result "just happens to be positive in all respects". 

it's like putting a rubber ball in a canon, the properties that led one to buy a ball for the playground are different than the ones needed to withstand gunpowder.

imho, mother nature has done a good job of selecting the right rubber ball for the job. i don't know if we can expect it to perform if we expose it to substances (and concentrations of substances) it was not "designed" for.

the arizona meeting is coming along nicely! we have organic inspectors, propolis expert, apitherapy along with the usual suspects 

deknow


----------



## IBRed

http://www.jiventure.info/Varroa_Predators

What about Natural 
*Varroa Predators?*

any one have any experience with these guys?


----------



## WLC

"Prospective Biological Control Agents of Varroa destructor n. sp., an Important Pest of the European Honeybee, Apis mellifera"

(Authors: D. Chandler a; K. D. Sunderland a; B. V. Ball b; G. Davidson a 
Affiliations: a Department of Entomological Sciences, Horticulture Research International, Wellesbourne, Warwick, CV35 9EF, UK. 
b Department of Entomology and Nematology, IACR Rothamsted, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ, UK.) 


"Entomopathogenic fungi, which kill a wide range of acarine species, were identified as prime candidates for screening against varroa. Bacillus thuringiensi s also requires study, particularly strains producing novel toxins active against non-insect hosts."

It's an old article from 2001.

I suspect that someone is still looking.


----------



## Allen Dick

Well, you have probably noticed we don't think the same way. I try to keep speculation separate from proven facts. For that matter, I am skeptical of many 'proofs'.

I think most of us agree that there are many microflora and microfauna and we really do not understand their roles. If we have to make value judgments, whether each is 'beneficial' or 'harmful' depends on our perspective. It has long been fairly obvious that viruses and microorganisms have had a great influence on the affairs and certainly the genetic makeup of man. Europeans did not conquer the Americas, their diseases did, and how people behave today may depend on what particular virus is affecting their mood.

That the natural system is quite adaptable is obvious, and the various relationships are quite marvelous, however to ascribe some magic to aspects of nature or history, then declare the influence of Man as somehow not being a natural part of that system seems to me to be logically inconsistent.

I have been watching some scientists I respect who are examining these questions, and so far, they seem to be willing to postulate that some of the microbial activity in beehives is beneficial, but draw the line at assuming that because there are some obvious 'good guys' from our perspective, that all the microbes are essential and that any disturbance of the balance is bad. I understand that for any point of view, anyone can trot out a pile of papers. It is not IMO the quantity, but the quality that matters. One good paper is worth 1,000 of the others. 

The Gilliam one is one of the good ones, IMO. I had not read it for some time and found it just as good now as the last time I read it years ago. Nonetheless it raises and many question as answers, and interestingly, it shows that yeasts are a normal part of bees' diet. (I actually wrote you on BEE-L thanking you for that post, but my reply was blocked because I addressed you as 'Deanno', which, I assumed is your name but the moderator found objectionable, and I never got around to resubmitting).

I have contemplated taking in the Arizona meeting, having missed the northeastern one this summer in favour of EAS, but am undecided. It should be a hoot, and I haven't been Tucson area for a few years, now, but it is a long drive from LA and I don't know if I want to make a special trip for that one thing.


----------



## Michael Bush

I have seen one or two pseudoscorpions in and on my hives. I have never seen more than that, but that may indicate there are more of them than I see. Still they are not flourishing so much that I see them often.


----------



## deknow

allen, this is the closest we seem to have been able to come to actually discussing this stuff, and i appreciate it. despite the fact that it's gotten a little OT and drawn from a few other threads, i'd like to continue.




Allen Dick said:


> I think most of us agree that there are many microflora and microfauna and we really do not understand their roles. If we have to make value judgments, whether each is 'beneficial' or 'harmful' depends on our perspective.


i think the idea that individually they are beneficial or harmful is flawed...and you notice that i don't use the "benefical microbes" language. it is the culture as a whole with the bees. the bees are at least attuned to the microbes to the point where they will raise the temperature of the hive to fight a chalkbrood infection, and lower it back down if the chalkbrood is removed. beneficial staph bacteria on your hand becomes harmful if it gets into your bloodstream via a papercut.

recently, in people (and more recently in bees) there has been some recognition of beneficial microbes, and the idea of introducing them intentionally (probiotics). probiotic thinking is just as flawed as antibiotic thinking, it prevents a reasonable balance, and it does so by introducing specific pressures orders of magnitude higher than the myrid of environments that has shaped the honeybee and its microbial cultures over the last 100 million years or more....and remember the flowers are part of this dance as well!



> That the natural system is quite adaptable is obvious, and the various relationships are quite marvelous, however to ascribe some magic to aspects of nature or history, then declare the influence of Man as somehow not being a natural part of that system seems to me to be logically inconsistent.


i don't think it's "magic really, just too complex to be defined by a series of one on one relationships between a few hundred "important" microbes in the hive. the objection to "man made substances" isn't that they are philosophically "unnatural", it is that nature doesn't favor such substances in such concentrations. 

one of the researchers (i think it was hoffman) in a recent bee magazine commented that of all the plant sugars (sap, fruit, etc), only nectar was something that the plant _wanted_ insects to eat...all the others sugars are protected with oils and scents...think of the molassas removed from refined sugar. refined sugar, hfcs, essential oils, antibiotics, fluvalinate, formic acid....these are all "natural substances" (with the exception of fluvalinate, which is a synthetic analog of a natural substance), but all are presented in a form that is extremely metabolically expensive from a production point of view. it is extremely rare that bees or their microbes have encoutered 65% formic acid, pure sucrose, or menthol crystals evaporating in their hive....it's simply outside the "range of possibilities" for what the bees and the microbes ever have had to deal with. it's like changing the playing field, and i don't know why the tacit assumption that these individual species within these microbial processes and cultures can be micromanaged by adding very wide spectrum toxins (TM, fumidil, organic acids), or that they are more or less random and unimportant.



> The Gilliam one is one of the good ones, IMO. I had not read it for some time and found it just as good now as the last time I read it years ago. Nonetheless it raises and many question as answers, and interestingly, it shows that yeasts are a normal part of bees' diet. (I actually wrote you on BEE-L thanking you for that post, but my reply was blocked because I addressed you as 'Deanno', which, I assumed is your name but the moderator found objectionable, and I never got around to resubmitting).


..just to remind everyone, we brought up many of these issues with the yeasts in "no bee is an island" nearly 2 years ago with the same gilliam references (some from the bee lab, some from other bee-l members)...no one seemed to want to discuss it then.

i apologize for not getting back to you...i got your reply offlist and appreciate it. fwiw, "deknow" what i came up with when i was getting my first ISP account in 94. i was mostly involved with electronic music and raves at the time, and it is "clever" variation on "deano"...which i've been called by people throughout my whole life, and i don't find offensive.



> I have contemplated taking in the Arizona meeting, having missed the northeastern one this summer in favour of EAS, but am undecided.


it's always a good time! we are also having our conference again this summer, also the weekend before EAS....more details forthcoming. currently confirmed are Kirk Webster, Dee Lusby and Sam Comfort...more as they confirm!

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

>... it's gotten a little OT and drawn from a few other threads, i'd like to continue.

Well, I suppose if it is going far, we could start a new thread, but Peter has given up on this one.

> recently, in people (and more recently in bees) there has been some recognition of beneficial microbes, and the idea of introducing them intentionally (probiotics).

Actually, these ideas have been around a long time and the only question is how much importance people place on it and the amount and type of spin they get.

> probiotic thinking is just as flawed as antibiotic thinking, it prevents a reasonable balance, and it does so by introducing specific pressures orders of magnitude higher than the myrid of environments that has shaped the honeybee and its microbial cultures over the last 100 million years or more....and remember the flowers are part of this dance as well!

Interventions are what humans do. For better or worse, we manipulate one another and our environment. Fortunately, we are gaining better understanding -- I hope -- but sometimes it seems our powers outpace our understanding.

> nature doesn't favor such substances in such concentrations. 

What can I say? The keyboard you are probably typing upon is an unnatural concentration of unnatural substances and the building you are in displaced innumerable insects and small mammals.

> one of the researchers (i think it was hoffman) in a recent bee magazine commented that of all the plant sugars (sap, fruit, etc), only nectar was something that the plant _wanted_ insects to eat...all the others sugars are protected with oils and scents

Hmmm. Who really could ever know what a plant wants? And scientist would even use such a word in that context other than in oversimplification? 

Besides are some nectars not demonstrably poisonous? 

> ...think of the molassas removed from refined sugar.....it's simply outside the "range of possibilities" for what the bees and the microbes ever have had to deal with. it's like changing the playing field, and i don't know why the tacit assumption that these individual species within these microbial processes and cultures can be micromanaged by adding very wide spectrum toxins (TM, fumidil, organic acids), or that they are more or less random and unimportant. (etc.)

Do you know what a "Straw Man" is? I can't respond from the position you often try to put me in because I don't hold that view. I understand, but don't happen to hold your exact opinion either. Because a person does not agree does not mean that person disagrees.

If pressed, I will state that I am aware of many conflicting viewpoints and think they are all defficient. I also do not think that every equation has one unique solution -- or even a solution at all. Let's not get into math, physics (or metaphysics) here. 

> ..just to remind everyone, we brought up many of these issues with the yeasts in "no bee is an island" nearly 2 years ago with the same gilliam references (some from the bee lab, some from other bee-l members)...no one seemed to want to discuss it then.

We are happy to discuss these things, but discussion often does not happen when we find we just can't take the side of the discussion that is seemingly assigned to us. Basically see your point and don't strongly disagree. We just say, "So what" and "Interesting, but what is that idea good for?". 

Most of us don't share your entusiasm for the topic or see these matters as such a burning issue -- or in black and white, and most of us think that other considerations often trump the purist approach.

> it's always a good time! we are also having our conference again this summer, also the weekend before EAS....more details forthcoming. currently confirmed are Kirk Webster, Dee Lusby and Sam Comfort...more as they confirm!

Yeah. I haven't seen Dee for years. I saw Sam in Florida and we tried to hook up to kick some of his hives, but our wires got crossed. Kirk was at EAS and put on a good demo http://honeybeeworld.com/diary/2009/diary080109.htm . See Aug 7th

Who knows maybe I should go. What are the dates again?


----------



## WLC

I am interested in the advantages of using natural comb/cell beekeeping.

I am particularly interested in the potential for using both natural (and artificial) probiotics and biological control.


I've found that at least 1 beekeeper uses Bt to treat stored frames against wax moths.
There is evidence in the literarue of enterobacteria within bee larvae that have antibiotic activity against AFB.
A few beekeepers have found that transferring frames from a healthy hive to weaker ones is beneficial (sometimes?)
There might be a great deal of variability in the microflora found in each hive within a single yard.
While it's nice to increase the genetic diversity of the honey bee, they are generally all hybrids.
I don't feel that further decreasing their genetic diversity by a 'survival of the fittest' approach is ultimately good for honey bees.
I really don't want to spend alot of money, time, and effort applying all kinds of treatments when I do get things up and running.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> [*]I don't feel that further decreasing their genetic diversity by a 'survival of the fittest' approach is ultimately good for honey bees.


I could be wrong here, but as I understood things, losing individuals eliminates only those unique genetic combinations, and does not reduce biodiversity in any important sense. The successful siblings and cousins carry all the genetic information that would allow the same characteristics to arise again. 

Nature has worked that way with the bee very successfully for a long time. Its a robust animal - until you start messing with its main health-maintenace mechanisms...

(The same is not true of central breeding schemes BTW - the reason Marla Spivak gives for encouraging selective management in apairies is because central breeding schemes like her own risk seriously the genetic diversity)



WLC said:


> [*]I really don't want to spend alot of money, time, and effort applying all kinds of treatments when I do get things up and running.


Best not apply them in the first place then  

Do you have a good idea of the quality of bees (vis a vis self-sufficiency) in your own location? Forage aside, that will be the main factor in determining the best approach to managment.

Mike


----------



## beekuk

>Its a robust animal - until you start messing with its main health-maintenace mechanisms...

Slight correction in case you did not know,bee's are actually insects.


----------



## WLC

Mike:

The tristate area is infested.

While I don't know first hand how bad things are, I have a feeling that I'm going to find out.

I plan to use baited TBHs to get bees as part of a lab on introduced and invasive species, and biological control.

I really think that we should strive to increase the biodiversity of the microflora in a hive, rather than just let it succumb.

After all, this would fit in with a Natural, no-additives approach to beekeeping.

Besides, it's part of a wildlife conservation course. I would really like for the students to be 'thunder struck' by what an invasive pest/pathogen can do.


----------



## IBRed

When you catch a swarm, you more than likely not see an issue until late fall into winter. At some point you will have a cold spell followed by a few warm days. If you have an observation window on your hive you will be able to see the number of bees dwindle very quickly. They will simply leave, and not return. I started 2 packages, and 4 swarms in TBHs I am down to 2 hives with a tennis ball size bunch of bees in each. I did not treat, thinking with natural comb and being all natural they would survive. I was wrong and my bees are gone. At this point, I should have done something, even if it was sugar dusting or something. Each hive produced a surplus of 20lbs, not counting what i left for them, now it sits in a freezer waiting for some new bees. So your class may take a full year to see some real damage. Good luck. My swarms are the only survivors, if that is what you will call them.


----------



## WLC

Sorry to hear that IBRed.

I do have a backup plan as far as getting bees.

I already have mite treatment materials available.

Was there more than one cause to your loss?


----------



## IBRed

Going into fall, I noticed several virus symptoms and from what ive read, all related to high might counts.

Deformed Wing Virus lots of bees

K Wing Virus some bees

Some sort of Paralysis Virus possible AIPV some bees

and possible Tracheal Mights in one hive. lots of bees

Things I did not see AFB, Nosema, Chalkbrood, Sacbrood Ants, or Wax Moth.


----------



## WLC

Thanks for the heads up.

I'll most likely use cough drops (menthol/eucalyptus), mineral oil, tea tree oil (mint oil if I get some).

But, that won't be until after we check for mites (varroa and tracheal), and we administer a (bogus) Bt biological control agent (the stuff for mosquitoes).

A real biological control agent doesn't exist for bee mites as far as I know, but we'll get to explore how bees were used as a vector for Bt, and how Bt is widely used and considered benign.


----------



## Kieck

> Slight correction in case you did not know,bee's are actually insects. -beekuk


And insects are animals.



> I really don't want to spend alot of money, time, and effort applying all kinds of treatments when I do get things up and running. -WLC





> I'll most likely use cough drops (menthol/eucalyptus), mineral oil, tea tree oil (mint oil if I get some). -WLC


Which method will you actually use?



> . . . and we administer a (bogus) Bt biological control agent (the stuff for mosquitoes). -WLC


The "Bt" for mosquitoes is _Bacillus thuringiensis israeliensis_, which produces a protein toxic to some flies. Why would you try that strain, rather than a strain that might be far better suited to something like _Varroa_? If strains of Bt have been identified as being toxic to mites or at least ticks, why not use one of those strains?

Just as a side note: be aware that you are applying a pesticide, and unless you have the permits for it or it is labeled for use in beehives, you're applying that pesticide illegally.


----------



## peterloringborst

I would hate to have to do time for illegal cough drop use ...


----------



## peterloringborst

are insects animals?

Anyone who might be a little unclear on this one, I _gently suggest_ a trip to:

The Phylogenetic Tree of Life


----------



## Kieck

Sure, but where do you draw the line? The guy using human medications on his bees? The guy extracting natural poisons from peach pits and dumping them into his hives? The guy experimenting with toxins produced by bacteria to see if he can find a way to kill a few mites?

The "cough drops" wasn't what I was referencing, by the way.


----------



## Bud Dingler

what I find amusing is Natural Cell is somehow supposed to offer some unsubstantiated but inferred benefits that apparently are not found in hives with the dreaded comb frame which uses presized foundation. 

but the users seem more then willing then to dump unnatural and untested materials into these NATURAL hives.

How many of these well meaning people realize that formic acid is found in honey - the delivery system is designed to reduce risk to the user and guess what its been tested and works. likewise apiguard is a natural based material thymol and again all of the work has been done to determine the correct dose and there are reams of test data that also shows it works well.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Sure, but where do you draw the line?


Just joking, friend. I am a licensed pesticide applicator and I know that _any_ off label use is illegal. That means a licensed operator isn't supposed to use soapy water to kill bees. But of course, that's not what we're concerned about. What we don't want is people using unapproved chemicals in a hive which produces food for people.

If you use some rogue mite treatment and one of your customers is made ill by it, you are a roasted turkey. The flip side, of course, is that most states have nobody looking at hive dopes. Even when I was a _STATE BEE INSPECTOR_, we were just looking for bee disease, not EPA code violations. Of course, I gave some stern lectures to a few people about liability and responsibility, but if everyone behaved ethically, we wouldn't need laws, now would we?


----------



## peterloringborst

Formic acid, thymol, oxalic acid, acetic acid, benzaldehyde, etc all occur naturally in honey. That's why these substances were tried in the first place, to avoid introducing something that wasn't there already. Of course, too much of any of them would make the honey toxic.


----------



## mejess

Why don't we get bees that are resistant to the diseases the mites carry?


----------



## WLC

Illegal pesticide use? Oh, you mean the mosquito bits (Bt).

I was actually going to use those in the container of standing water that I was going to provide for the girls. They work so hard, and it gets hot up there on the roof top garden (it's a big one).

Cough!, cough!


----------



## jmgi

First, I would like to get some feedback on a question. This question is intended for those who treat in some way for varroa and those who do absolutely nothing. Obviously, this question will require a degree of speculation even from the knowledgeable, experienced beekeepers. What do you feel is the end game for the mite problem, in other words, where do you feel the solution/s ultimately will come from? Genetics(breeding)? Another new chemical? Natural or small cell? A parasite of the mite? Any other solution not mentioned? 

Or do you not believe there will ever be a solution that increases the odds of hive survival from mite infestation from what they are today? In other words, will we be spinning our wheels with this problem for the foreseeable future?


----------



## Michael Palmer

jmgi said:


> What do you feel is the end game for the mite problem, in other words, where do you feel the solution/s ultimately will come from? Genetics(breeding)? Another new chemical? Natural or small cell? A parasite of the mite? Any other solution not mentioned?


I think it will be two fold, and totally genetic.

Bees will be able to keep the varroa load at a tolerable level.

Bees will develop a resistance to the viruses that are doing the damage.


----------



## peterloringborst

I would respectfully suggest going back to the beginning of this thread. We actually covered the topic pretty thoroughly. There was some silly arguments along the way but if you go to the beginning and follow along, the issue of mite resistance was discussed in depth.


----------



## jmgi

Peter, this was a very long discussion to be sure, and I have followed along with it for the most part, including the arguments that, like you said, were "silly". What I was looking for may have seemed like a redundant request, I was simply trying to condense down the arguments, not only from you, but others who may have partaken, into a easier to read summation of the topic. The comments by Michael Palmer were more in line with what I was looking for from everyone who wanted to answer the question I posed. Not to say that the information you and others shared over many days was not important to answering the same question. My main intention was to conduct somewhat of a poll to see what beekeepers big and small think about our future success or failure in regards to the varroa mite, based on where we are at today in the fight.


----------



## Michael Bush

>What do you feel is the end game for the mite problem, in other words, where do you feel the solution/s ultimately will come from? Genetics(breeding)? Another new chemical? Natural or small cell? A parasite of the mite? Any other solution not mentioned?

I don't treat at all for anything and have not treated for anything for not only the last seven years, but for 33 of the last 36 years. I have not had a mite problem in years. I am past the "end game for the mite problem". Frankly I'm tired of talking about Varroa mites. I much prefer to talk about bees.


----------



## mike bispham

Michael Bush said:


> >What do you feel is the end game for the mite problem, in other words, where do you feel the solution/s ultimately will come from? Genetics(breeding)? Another new chemical? Natural or small cell? A parasite of the mite? Any other solution not mentioned?
> 
> I don't treat at all for anything and have not treated for anything for not only the last seven years, but for 33 of the last 36 years. I have not had a mite problem in years. I am past the "end game for the mite problem". Frankly I'm tired of talking about Varroa mites. I much prefer to talk about bees.


At risk of being flagged off-topic, I think a large part of the problem has to do with regulation.

It has been known for some time, and is becoming increasingly clearer that bees can adapt/be adapted to be mite resistant. What stops that occurring is widespread preservation of ill-adapted bloodlines through treatments. 

If that were widely understood, there would be much discussion about the best ways forward to an ill-adapted bee free world.

The reason it isn't well understood is that both vested interests and the advice from regulators easily drown it by constantly pushing the medication regime as the permanant ongoing solution. 

We can't ask the vested interests to stop doing what they do; but we can ask of regulators that they adopt a more scientific and enlightened view, and actively educate beekeepers about the pitfalls of treatments, and the benefits of breeding out vulnerability to parasites and diseases. 

Mike


----------



## jmgi

>I am past the "end game for the mite problem". Frankly I'm tired of talking about Varroa mites.

Michael, I believe you about your bees, truly I do. And I also believe there are others like you who are successful with bees without treatments. I don't share the longevity factor like you and others maybe, but so far so good for me too. Unfortunately, there are many beekeepers who are not convinced yet about small/natural cell and no treatments. In asking for their "end game" in regards to mites, I was just trying to get an up to date cross section of beekeepers to give up a few thoughts about the subject, a controversial one to be sure. I believe that what nature intended for honey bees is the "end game" for me personally. Until we give nature a thorough chance to prove what we believe, we are living in denial basically, and engaging in what could be time wasting arguments. 

It would be nice if we could be talking about bees and beekeeping instead, I agree.


----------



## peterloringborst

I think the key point here is that some people fail to grasp that not all regions are alike in their specific problems. That was what I was intending to demonstrate when I began this thread, some time ago. 

It's like this: I know a lot of people who don't lock their houses. That's great that they don't! They have no reason to lock their houses where they live. Probably they think that other people that lock their houses are nuts.

Where I live everybody locks, but nobody has security systems. In some neighborhoods you see iron gates, bars on the windows, armed guards, etc. So what is the difference?

What I am getting at is that some regions still have huge problems with varroa, nosema, and viruses. Now you can say that if they just stopped treating all their problems would go away. 

But that's simply not being willing to understand the problem that _they have_. For me to laugh and suggest that somebody who lives in a tough area to leave their house unlocked is foolish, and oblivious to their concerns.

If you don't treat your bees and they do great, that's a good thing of course. I know many people in that category. The problem is this: it isn't working for others. And the people for whom it does work have all sorts of explanations for that fact, none of which hold water in my opinion.

That's why I presented an alternative hypothesis, which is the location effect. If I am concerned about crime in my neighborhood, i can get better locks or move. Some areas just don't have crime. Some areas just don't have much trouble with bee diseases.

What I would pay attention to is this: are there any people making a decent living at bees without treating them. Because anybody could call themselves a beekeeper and take 50 to 90 percent losses every year. But it wouldn't pay. 

* * *

The future of bees: nature takes its course. The entire North, Central and South American continent becomes Africanized. Disease problems solved.


----------



## hipbee

I like the people who dont lock there doors comparison. think about it this way, what if everyone who lives in an area where they have to lock there doors were to replace there locks with shotguns, then the crimanal population would quickly be depleted. Kind of like if everyone who helps there bees limping along with chemicals were to replace those bees with ones with proven resistance to mites and desease then the mite population would soon dwindle. I know there isnt a hole lot of bees around like that, but what if we all worked toward that goal instead of continuing to breed and treat bees that arent doing so well.


----------



## ACBEES

I'm pretty new at this, but it seems to me we as an industry we will be constantly faced with some new disease/parasite until demands change. Here is my thinking. Within our industry, there is a large amount of money involved with and a large demand for commercial pollination. Through the constant importation of bees and the movement of large numbers of colonies around the country we will always be at risk for the introduction and spread of some new disease/parasite.

The varroa Mite right now is the parasite "du jour". I don't think we have even seen the tip of the iceberg as far as knowing what this little critter is capable of carrying and spreading as a vector. I'm seeing new posts about IAPV and it's direct link to aussie imports and spread by Varroa.

In california right now there is an estimated 1 million hives of bees congregated in one relatively speaking small geographical area for almond pollination. Add to that the Aussie packages coming in and you couldn't ask for a better scenario for the spread of disease/parasites. 

I'm not at all trying to slam commercial pollination or the good folks who depend on it for their livelihood, but it is a fact of the nature of their business. Then, after almonds, all those bees will be dispersed around the country for pollination of other crops and through sales of hives, nucs and packages. Scan the classifieds in the ABJ and see how many ads there are for "hives after almonds". Everywhere those bees go, they will spread whatever they are potentially carrying. So those of us who don't move our bees around will eventually face new challenges.That's just the way it is and will be for a long time to come.

When I was a student at Texas A&M, genetic engineering was brand new science. The progress that has been made with plant genetics in 25 years has been incredible. I do see a day coming when monoculture will not be dependant on commercial pollination and that part of our bee industry will all but disappear just like buggy whip mfgrs, wheel wrights and black smiths.

Is small cell really a "silver bullet" or an important issue.....not for the commercial guy. It may be of great use for the stationary beekeeper in the short term until the next disease/parasite comes along and then it may be a moot point. I think the only thing that will have a significant impact on the present situation in our industry is a major change in the way we do business. With the honey bee having a 40 million year history of evolution and adaptation to a changing environment I think all we humans are doing is getting in their way with our "best efforts".


----------



## deknow

peterloringborst said:


> What I am getting at is that some regions still have huge problems with varroa, nosema, and viruses. Now you can say that if they just stopped treating all their problems would go away.


i don't think they will "just go away"...i think it is a painful and expensive process that will in many cases decimate one's operation. most of the successful treatment free beekeepers i know had losses in the 90% range at least once during the process of getting off of treatments, or dealing with the various exotic threats without them.



> If you don't treat your bees and they do great, that's a good thing of course. I know many people in that category. The problem is this: it isn't working for others. And the people for whom it does work have all sorts of explanations for that fact, none of which hold water in my opinion....That's why I presented an alternative hypothesis, which is the location effect.


the problem with your alternative hypothesis is that it also doesn't hold water. beekeepers around dee have mite issues (and i can show you photographs of mites on dee's bees). beekeepers around michael bush have mite issues. beekeepers around us have mite issues (most years we go out on inspections with the state inspector, and get to see bees near ours...they all have mites...but the inspector simply doesn't find them in our colonies). although some of dee's yards are quite isolated, most are within flying distance of other kept bees.

...but if it's working for some, and not for others, it is the job of researchers to understand why. certainly there is A BEE LAB IN TUCSON that should be able to replicate what dee is doing...but they have not....so clearly it isn't simply dee's location. so, for the last 20 years or so, the usda has been trying to come up with varroa resistant bees...where are they? who is using them? is it not true that such bees "work for some and not for others"? if they are left untreated do mites become a problem?



> What I would pay attention to is this: are there any people making a decent living at bees without treating them. Because anybody could call themselves a beekeeper and take 50 to 90 percent losses every year. But it wouldn't pay.


well, until you are willing to post your own financial information (tax returns and such), it is a bit much to expect others to "prove" to you what kind of living they make. i will say that ramona and i make our living selling honey from bees that are not treated....and we make sure that our suppliers are also making a living selling to us. this is in contrast to those who make their livings in academic and/or government jobs and use these positions of authority (and the security of a salary) to tell everyone else that one can't make a decent living keeping bees without treatments.

i wonder how good a living a beekeeper could make selling honey directly to consumers if they were upfront with their customers about how much sugar/hfcs they fed their bees, and what substances they put in the hive. i have some idea, as i talk to hundreds of honey customers a month who have no idea that bees are fed or medicated....and you have already demonstrated what many beekeepers will say when faced with the claim that "most beekeepers feed most of their colonies sugar/hfcs in most calendar years."

i also wonder how much honey would be produced for sale if sugar/hfcs feeds had black food coloring added to it. do beekeepers even want to know if feed gets into their honey?

deknow


----------



## Michael Bush

I do think that all beekeeping is regional. However this issue is not regional from my experience. When I was on large cell and the Varroa came and I was not treating they all died from Varroa. Several times. When I treated for Varroa on large cell, they also all died from Varroa. When I got on small cell and stopped treating I stopped losing hives to Varroa. I did not change my location.


----------



## peterloringborst

> When I was a student at Texas A&M, genetic engineering was brand new science. The progress that has been made with plant genetics in 25 years has been incredible. I do see a day coming when monoculture will not be dependant on commercial pollination and that part of our bee industry will all but disappear just like buggy whip mfgrs, wheel wrights and black smiths.


Maybe you have been following the problems with antibiotic resistant bacteria. In hospitals now, they have bugs which resist all known antibiotics. Should hospitals just stop using antibiotics, allowing the regular bacteria to come back, and crowd out the superbugs, which have no special fitness except they thrive when the normal bugs are eliminated by drugs.

Of course, that would work! But what are you going to tell all the folks that they will have to die while we wait for the populations to regain the balance. This is exactly what mainstream beekeepers face. They could stop all treatments, let 95% of their bees die off a couple of years in a row, get good bees as a result. By then, they'll have lost the house, the farm, the hired help and probably the wife and kids, too

By the way, commercial beekeeping is not going anywhere any time soon. As the pollination fees rise, it becomes feasible to simply keep replacing the bees. If you already have the hives, the trucks and the contracts, all you need is a source of cheap replacement bees. Like Mexico. If you can rent a hive out for $150 you can make a profit even if you have to restock.

Look, that's like renting your car out for $15,000 a month. I'd do that!


----------



## mejess

For the question of anybody making a decent living on untreated bees...there is a company called BeeWeaver located down in Navasota, TX. They quit treating for mites back in 95 and culled out the colonies that didn't do well and bred the ones that appeared stronger. I believe they are doing well. They haven't eliminated mites, but the bees are virtually immune to the diseases the mites carry. Check out their web site and see if it makes since to you guys.
http://www.beeweaver.com/


----------



## peterloringborst

Michael Bush said:


> When I got on small cell and stopped treating I stopped losing hives to Varroa.


Sure, but how do you _know_ that's what cured 'em? Like we said, maybe the bees and/or the mites adapted.


----------



## peterloringborst

There are the Weavers, and the whole Russian Bee Breeders group. These guys are able to make a decent living raising mite resistant bees. You got that right.

But you call any of them and ask them if they _guarantee_ that the bees will survive without treatments once you get a hold of those bees.

I bet you twenty bucks, they'll say it all depends on your location and your ability to take care of them. That's sure what I'd say.


----------



## mejess

Of course they're not going to guarantee the bees. They don't claim total immunity. Anybody that would assume that's what they mean is goofy...kind of like that woman who spilled coffee in her lap and sued because she got burned. I think most of the people on this board know what the Weavers are saying. But, I'll bet you the same 20 bucks that the Weaver's bees are more resistant to the disease than most. That's all I'm saying. If we strive to breed resistant bees then the mite problem won't be as much a problem. We will still have to deal with it, but maybe not to the degree we are heading in now.


----------



## jmgi

You may be right about what they would say, look, there are no guarantee's in beekeeping, we're like farmers, our success or failure is determined my a whole list of factors that we have no control of, even our management of bees is an experiment in most cases, we just can't guarantee how things will turn out, the health of the bees, the size of our honey crop, whether they make it through the winter, etc.,etc.


----------



## mejess

Absolutely. Here's what I'm gonna do:
Introduce resistant bees, and treat for mites the MOST natural way I can so that beekeepers who don't have resistant bees wont be getting my mites.
I'll let you know how it's going in a couple of months.


----------



## deknow

i know of no treatment free beekeepers who attribute their success to bees from weavers.

i know a few who who use russians, but they have also modified their management practices quite a bit.

the head of the russian breeding program only recommends not treating if you are isolated, or if all bees in the area are russian.

it is required in the russian breeding program that breeder stock is not treated for mites, but my best understanding is that fumidil is still used by most.



> This is exactly what mainstream beekeepers face. They could stop all treatments, let 95% of their bees die off a couple of years in a row, get good bees as a result. By then, they'll have lost the house, the farm, the hired help and probably the wife and kids, too


this is called a business cycle. there are three basic options:
1. don't be an established beekeeper, and start your operation out treatment free.
2. have some foresight in your business, and spend some of your resources towards getting away from treatments.
3. do things they way you know how to do them, don't adapt, and assume that the status quo will continue to take care of you.

in another post you talk about vinyl records going away in favor of mp3 players. do you think that someone with a large vinyl record pressing plant (or a mastering studio for vinyl) has a right for their business to continue profitably in such a climate without adapting? why should beekeepers not adapt to the times? why should some not go out of buisiness? why should those that have spent their own time and money improving their stock/management to the point where they don't need treatments not be rewarded by the market at the expense of the dinosaurs?

deknow (who has more vinyl than cd's, and who has never purchased an mp3 file)


----------



## sqkcrk

Were I your neighbor and a good knowledgable beekeeper, your mites wouldn't be a problem to my bees. If I am on top of my game, know what I am doing that is, short of your coming over the fence and destroying my hives, what you do or don't do shouldn't effect what happens in my bee yard. If I thought it would, I would move my hives.


----------



## jmgi

>Sure, but how do you know that's what cured 'em? Like we said, maybe the bees and/or the mites adapted.

The bees adapted in Michael's case, I'd be willing to bet that it was directly related to small/natural cell and no treatments. He had huge losses prior to changing those two things. Call it a coincidence, or that his "location" was a critical factor in the whole process. The mite resistance or tolerance is due to genetics(survivor stock), small/natural cell, and no treatments, that's how I see it.


----------



## jmgi

>Were I your neighbor and a good knowledgable beekeeper, your mites wouldn't be a problem to my bees.

Agreed, I just don't get the point that some try to make that "location" is top of the list for mite prevention. Were talking about natural survivors vs. unnatural immune deficient bees here.


----------



## mejess

Are the Buckfast bees Russians? The literature says they breed from a selection of AllStar, Buckfast and BeeSmaRt. I don't know where the three strains of bees derived from so it is a legitimate question. This is for the BeeWeaver brand. They produce a TaylorMade breed for the commercial guys. They are from Australia.


----------



## mejess

jmgi,
If you were my neighbor I would be on your side of the fence taking notes! Maybe you give advice, I learn and feed you barbeque!


----------



## peterloringborst

mejess said:


> Are the Buckfast bees Russians?


Not at all


----------



## peterloringborst

jmgi said:


> > I just don't get the point that some try to make that "location" is top of the list for mite prevention.


I have spent two weeks trying to clarify this point. Either I am not a very good writer, or you just joined recently.

Location is at the top of every real beekeeper's list. If I knew there was a lot of foulbrood in a particular area, or if there weren't any good honey plants, or that bees never did well there in a hundred years, would I be smart to try to do bees in that location?

But as far as mites goes, if you read the literature and talk to knowledgeable individuals, they will all tell you that the dynamics of mite buildup varies from location due to climate, weather, bee concentration, bekeeper methods, etc. 

Look, I worked at Cornell University studying mites every day for seven years. Does that make me the expert? No. I have read everything written on mites and mite control for 25 years. Does that make me the expert? No. But I will tell you this. There isn't much I don't know about bee mites.


----------



## Michael Bush

>AllStar, Buckfast and BeeSmaRt

The AllStars are from Italian stock that the Weaver family has been breeding for several generations. The Buckfast are from stock from Buckfast abbey in England bred by Brother Adam for Tracheal mite resistance, frugality and other "northern" bee characteristics. The SmaRt are from Dr. Harbo's work on SMR bees which were starting with feral survivors and doing a very close inbreeding on the lines with the characteristics they wanted.

None of these are Russian stock.


----------



## Michael Bush

>The bees adapted in Michael's case

No. They did not adapt. They ALL died. Every single one of them. The ones that were doing well after regressing were commercial package bees. There is no natural selection involved when there are no survivors. I did NOT have losses from Varroa with commercial stock on small cell. I had TOTAL losses with commercial stock on large cell.

> I'd be willing to bet that it was directly related to small/natural cell and no treatments. He had huge losses prior to changing those two things. 

Prior, yes. I don't see anything else I changed at that time. Since I've gone for local survivors as my stock so that they winter better.

>Call it a coincidence, or that his "location" was a critical factor in the whole process. The mite resistance or tolerance is due to genetics(survivor stock), small/natural cell, and no treatments, that's how I see it.

I didn't change the genetics until after I resolved the Varroa issue.

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


----------



## mejess

Thank you Michael.
The only one I knew about was the Buckfast. I read that story and was fascinated. But the others I didn't. I got a bit confused when the Russian reference was made a couple of times and honestly didn't know the difference.
Jess


----------



## ACBEES

Peter, I disagree. I think commercial pollination will drastically change in the next 30-40 years. The change will come from producer side demand. I understand increasing pollination prices are somewhat comfortable for the beekeeper right now. But, they are uncomfortable for the growers paying them as other production costs rise. From the grower side, anything you can do to increase profit is a plus. 

Being able to cut out pollination fees because you invested in self pollinators developed through genetic engineering means more profit in your pocket. It also means a lot less hassle dealing with whether or not healthy bees will be available in sufficient numbers at an often unpredictable fee/hive. To think that day is not coming is unrealistic. The science and market is in place. It is now just a matter of time. I know if I was an almond grower paying $175/hive pollination fees and good producing self pollinating varieties of almonds became available, I'd sure take a serious look at them.

My uncle has been growing cotton for 40 years. In the last three years he has switched totally to using genetically engineered BT cotton. The seed this year will cost him $300/50lbs. However not having to aerial spray insecticides several times during the growing season will save him tens of thousands of dollars. I might add it is much healthier for the environment as well.

My point is science will force a change in the not too distant future in our industry. I predict demand for large commercial pollination and bee importation will all but disappear. Then, when we don't have thousands of hives criss-crossing the country for pollination, bee parasites/diseases will become more of a regional issue and easier to control or erradicate.

I do think the commercial pollination sector provides the "demand" behind widespread chemical use in bee management. They have to use chemicals to survive and the effect trickles down to all of us. It keeps them going, but does interfere with the process of allowing bees to adapt to dealing with newly introduced diseases/parasites(I believe this would qualify as a vicious circle). However, a growing number of non migratory beeks are coming forward and saying if you let the bees do what they do best(natural cell for example), you don't need chemicals.

Before BT cotton, my uncle had to apply thousands of pounds of insecticide for his cotton crop to survive. Insecticide application cost him considerably more money than investing in BT cotton seed. Almond growers and others depending on pollination by honey bees to make a crop are going to realize the same thing about pollination fees. Change will come and our industry will be healthier because of it.


----------



## jmgi

>The bees adapted in Michael's case

Sorry Michael, I didn't mean to misrepresent the facts in your case. I should have said what I meant in a different way, the point I was trying to make was the bees were able to get a handle on the problem after they were regressed and treatments stopped. I hope I got it right this time!


----------



## Michael Bush

I was not offended. Just trying to clarify. People keep saying that small cell advocates are succeeding because they have massive losses when they regress and so it's all genetics. While Dee did have massive losses while regressing, and perhaps Dennis, most of us have not. Typically people are looking for a way to discount the results. i.e. Dee has AHB, Dennis lost a lot of bees so it's selection, etc.

Just trying to keep the record straight. Dee lost most of those bees to AFB, a stress disease because she went through two or more complete shakedowns. She regressed ones to 5.0mm and then again to 4.9mm. Dennis has said he replaced all of his "survivor" stock with other stock and the results were all the same.

Sure the survivor stock I have now as surviving without treatments. But my commercial stock was also before I went to the survivor stock. I went to the survivor stock because they were surviving in my climate and, sure, they are also surviving whatever pests and pathogens exist in my area. But this was after regression and the resolution of the Varroa issues.

I'd love to believe it's all genetics and tell everyone I have the wonderful stock they are looking for that can survive the Varroa no matter what foundation you put them on. But I don't believe that anyone actually believes that, including me. They like to use it to explain away small cell, but they don't want to actually believe it.


----------



## peterloringborst

Michael Bush said:


> Dee lost most of those bees to AFB, a stress disease


That's a new one. You are saying bees get American Foulbrood because of stress? I wonder how many bee inspectors would agree with that assessment.


----------



## Michael Bush

Because she did several complete shake downs of her entire operation. That is a lot of stress. Dennis followed her lead and did the same. I learned from Dennis' mistakes.


----------



## peterloringborst

Look, what I know is this: the people who have the most AFB are the ones who understand it the least. The ones who understand either don't have it or occasionally catch it from knownothings down the road

I have worked with many beekeepers with foulbrood problems. The ones that followed my instructions, got rid of it. The others no doubt still have it. That's life, I don't make this stuff up.


----------



## deknow

regarding AFB:

i've been through most of dees yards at least twice over a couple of years....looking through live colonies and deadouts. ramona and i have also cleaned out over 200 deep boxes of old comb, wax moths, and black widows.

we would occasionally find a frame with some AFB scale. dee's policy is that any frame with more than 6 cells of scale (both sides of the comb) gets removed and burned...anything less than that is left with the bees, or given as comb to a new split.

last year, there was one deadout with considerable scale....dee threw it in the back of the truck with the rest of the gear to be reprocessed (this made sam comfort visibly uncomfortable).

dee interchanges brood and honey boxes/frames, and when she harvests, she brings the wets from one yard to replace the honey taken from the next.

so:

we have a situation where:
1. there is AFB present
2. no antibiotics are used
3. only large infections are removed from the field
4. frames and residual honey are rotated from yard to yard
5. bees are not treated with anything. bees are only fed honey.

...and yet clinical symptoms only appear in less than 0.3% of colonies? the disease does not run rampant?

in the papers that tobias and alejandra have published, they have clearly shown that several species of bacillus in the honeystomach help fight afb. they have clearly shown at least one case of a rising AFB infection that never showed clinical symptoms, and simply went away. 

there are of course other examples...the afb resistant bees bred at (i think) dadant(?) when they were rendering afb comb nearby, etc.

so what is it "we know" about AFB exactly?

deknow


----------



## Michael Bush

"(AFB) As with many disorders, apparition of disease is exacerbated with supplementary stress conditions such as lack of food, water, space or additional disease or pest attack ..."
http://www.vita-europe.com/Map_enscript/frmbuilder.php?dateiname=/en/disease/american.htm

"(AFB) Under favourable conditions (e.g. when the colony is under stress From other factors), the spores germinate..."
http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0083E/X0083E08.htm


----------



## kennedy

Peter is there a very low count of afb in most hives all the time ? a few posts back you said there isnt much i dont know about mites why is the mite egg so large compared to the adult mite? regards ken


----------



## peterloringborst

kennedy said:


> Peter is there a very low count of afb in most hives all the time ? a few posts back you said there isnt much i dont know about mites why is the mite egg so large compared to the adult mite? regards ken


Right, very low. Honey bees are not made sick by the levels of spores in the environment any more than you get sick every time you go to the movies. However, if a hive does get sick, and they do, and your hive robs that hive, your hive almost certain to get sick. Just like if you spent the night with someone with the flu -- you're probably going to get it.

As far as the egg compared to the mite, why do you think it's big? I don't know, things are just the way they are. Fleas have pretty big eggs, too. Maybe they just have a thicker outer protective coat than say, bee eggs -- which are raised in a more sheltered environment.


----------



## jmgi

>I have spent two weeks trying to clarify this point. Either I am not a very good writer, or you just joined recently.

Peter, In all honesty, I don't have the time to follow every post you make in every forum on this site. I do however feel informed enough about beekeeping to give my "opinion" on something you may have said. Trust me, I'm here to learn more too, not to try to be a know it all. Problems in beekeeping or any other field for that matter, usually are not solved by continuing to do the same thing (repeat mistakes) over and over. New ideas must be presented and followed up by thorough experimentation. 

I realize that treating for some beekeepers makes the difference between losing everything and staying in business for another couple months. I also realize that not treating and going back to small/natural cell has made the difference for some beekeepers. I believe both groups are telling the truth. My concern continues to be the long term effects of treatments on our worlds honey bees. No one is smart enough to predict that IMO. Call it a gut feeling, or a informed decision, my opinion is that getting back to what nature intended for bees is the long term solution.


----------



## peterloringborst

Here's a little side trip on what is natural and why some species have survived:

For a chicken "in the wild" (are there any now?), life may be interesting, exciting and quite short. For a battery hen, it's stressful yet boring, and definitely short: a year of gainful employment as an egg factory, then redundancy (death). A chicken bred for eating would have an uninteresting life of 12 to 20 weeks.

For a free-range hen, it's probably quite nice, peaceful, interesting even. For a pet hen, complete with a name, it's a cosseted life: guaranteed food and water, protection from predators, plenty of space, time to relax, the opportunity to spread your wings, take a dust bath, sunbathe a little, explore a bit, look for a hole in the fence, raid the vegetable garden, go and watch the funny humans with their endless activity for activity's sake.

But it's really out of your hands (claws) which kind of chicken you are - miserable and short-lived or lucky and long-lived. In the lottery of evolutionary niches, some species got to be fast, powerful and sharp. Humans got the mental wherewithal to try to control everything; the _chicken's future rested on being tasty_. Chickens are thus relieved of an enormous responsibility, making their lives simpler. They don't have to organise the whole world, or attend meetings to discuss policies "going forward"; they don't have to invent the future continually - it just comes when it comes.

One could spend years on a moral philosophical quest, or keep chickens and treat them with courtesy and common sense. One doesn't just keep chickens, one lives with them. All chickens are not born equal, but they deserve equal respect.

Written By Peter Lennox, senior lecturer in spatial perception in artificial environments and director of the Signal Processing and Applications Group, University of Derby.


----------



## jmgi

I would like to raise my bees to be a cross between free range and pet bees, it's healthier for them.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Location is at the top of every real beekeeper's list. If I knew there was a lot of foulbrood in a particular area, or if there weren't any good honey plants, or that bees never did well there in a hundred years, would I be smart to try to do bees in that location?
> 
> But as far as mites goes, if you read the literature and talk to knowledgeable individuals, they will all tell you that the dynamics of mite buildup varies from location due to climate, weather, bee concentration, bekeeper methods, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Try this with me Peter.
> 
> Two identical fertile islands, to which populations of mite-tolerant bees have been recently introduced, along with mites. Both populations do well.
> 
> On island A beekeepers work with the feral bees, using deliberate selection to keep the best mite-fighters on top. That's all.
> 
> On island B beekeepers start to medicate whenever they see mites. The weak mite-fighters are kept alive, and their drones inseminate the new queens, tending to lower the mite-fighting quality of all the colonies. This becomes a viscous circle; the bees get worse at mite-fighting, the beekeepers medicate more, the bees get still worse at mite-fighting. But they reach a kind of equilibrium, in which there are few wild bees (because they need medicating too, but nobody medicates them so they die), and the beekeepers have bees that need regular treatment.
> 
> So, identical environments (which is equivalent to the same location). Diiferent bees - although not long ago they were identical.
> 
> Now, twin beekeepers Andy and Barry, one on each island, take up beekeeping. They both buy in identical bred resistant nucs from far away, and both try to keep their bees in identical ways, using selective management only.
> 
> On island A Andy simply does what all the other beekeepers are doing, and is successful, just as they are.
> 
> On island B Barry struggles. Things are ok for a year or two, then the varroa starts to strike.
> 
> So: What is making the difference? Why are the two otherwise identical locations so different to work in? What is going wrong for Barry? How could his problems be fixed?
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


----------



## sqkcrk

jmgi said:


> >Were I your neighbor and a good knowledgable beekeeper, your mites wouldn't be a problem to my bees.
> 
> Agreed, I just don't get the point that some try to make that "location" is top of the list for mite prevention. Were talking about natural survivors vs. unnatural immune deficient bees here.


Well, w/out a good productive accessible location, what is the point in owning bees at all. A location where one finds bees are able to make a good crop of honey will overcome losses from other conditions. Maybe overcome is a bit strong. Make up for or balance the negatives.


----------



## Jeffzhear

mike bispham said:


> peterloringborst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Location is at the top of every real beekeeper's list. If I knew there was a lot of foulbrood in a particular area, or if there weren't any good honey plants, or that bees never did well there in a hundred years, would I be smart to try to do bees in that location?
> 
> But as far as mites goes, if you read the literature and talk to knowledgeable individuals, they will all tell you that the dynamics of mite buildup varies from location due to climate, weather, bee concentration, bekeeper methods, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> What is going wrong for Barry? How could his problems be fixed?
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Barry should move in with his brother Andy on island A and work with his brother since the Andy is so successful. Hopefully Barry won't be antagonistic to his successful beekeeping brother Andy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## WLC

Don't some folks do natural comb beekeeping in the desert?

It might not be a big operation, but it's still natural cell, and it might be closer to a self sustaining model (a little bit of this, and a little bit of that).

I first read about TBH in an article, "Building a Better Beehive :Innovative Beekeeping & Value-Added Marketing, by Robert Gerard; Acres-the voice of eco-agriculture, June 04.

There's something very appealing about what Mr. Crowder and his family have been doing at Sparrow Hawk Farm in
Sabinal, New Mexico.


----------



## StevenG

jmgi, to answer your question (sorry I've been out of the loop a couple of days) about the future of beekeeping from the beek's perspective, re: genetics, chemicals, magic bullets, etc. and mites and other diseases -

When I resumed beekeeping in 2005 after a year of reading Bee Culture and the more recent books about beekeeping, I decided to resume "cold turkey." No medications, no chemicals. I decided to buy bees from breeders who worked to develop stock that would survive these onslaughts. I have bought Russians, Purvis queens, Weaver queens and packages, and Minnesota Hygenics. In the spring of 2005 I started with two packages. I have built up to 14 colonies now, will expand this season to 34-40. Since the spring of 2005, I have lost one colony of bees. Just one, in a little over four years (of course, this winter isn't over yet, knock on wood). 

I will not become commercial, but I want 50-75 hives to augment my retirement income. I have 2 more years to reach this goal. I find all the arguments about what to do interesting, but not always relevant to my situation. I buy the best resistant bees I can find, knowing not all of them will make it, because there are no guarantees in life. I practice a form of "let alone beekeeping." I do not use chemicals, essential oils, or the latest fad to come along. I do trap the small hive beetle, and fumigate unoccupied comb for wax moth to protect my investment in comb. I also am moving from foundation to foundationless frames in the brood nest. I will continue to use foundation in my extracting supers. I seek to find areas to place my bees in permanent locations that have good forage, good drainage (wind and water), and safety from 2-legged varmints. In my previous beekeeping days, I averaged 125 pounds of honey harvested. That is my goal again, here in southeastern Missouri, where I'm told I'll be lucky to get 60-75 pounds. Last year my average was 90 pounds, and it was a bad year. A lot of this I learned by unpleasant experiences, in the magazines, from certain key players on this forum, and in the books. 

For the new beekeepers just beginning, the easiest way to get off the chemical merry-go-round is simply don't get on it in the first place. Are you going to lose some colonies? Yep. You're going to lose some colonies anyway, so keep plugging along and do your darndest to become the best beekeeper you can be. 

jmgi, I don't know if this answers your question, but it's my take on the future of beekeeping. Hopefully this explains what I do, and why. For what it's worth.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## ACBEES

StevenG. You are right about the chemical merry go round and I'm choosing not to get on it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the threshold for getting on that merry go round seems to be when one makes the leap from a stationary beek to a migratory beek providing pollination services. In the migratory world my take from reading is you increase your exposure in a mind boggling way when bees from all over the country are congregated in a "feedlot" scenario, under constant stress and then there is the inherent nature of bees to drift and rob amongst all the hives thrown together. Under those conditions one has no choice but to use chemicals to survive.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> it might be closer to a self sustaining model (a little bit of this, and a little bit of that).


Why do you say that? What makes it closer to a self sustaining model?

Isn't the "self sustaining" idea of anything more of a big picture theory than any one thing inparticular? So far, this world has been a self sustaining ecosystem, as far as I know, but that doesn't mean that it always will be, cosmically speaking.

IMO the self sustaining model of beekeeping probably contains all of the techniques of beekeeping that have and will keep bees alive as a species.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk said:


> Why do you say that? What makes it closer to a self sustaining...


I think that if you read the article, you'll see what I mean by self sustaining (it's not the same thing as sustainable, but close).

Let me see if I can find a link:

http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/June04_beehive.pdf

That's what I call a real beekeeper.


----------



## sqkcrk

ACBEES said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the threshold for getting on that merry go round seems to be when one makes the leap from a stationary beek to a migratory beek providing pollination services.
> 
> In the migratory world my take from reading is you increase your exposure in a mind boggling way when bees from all over the country are congregated in a "feedlot" scenario, under constant stress and then there is the inherent nature of bees to drift and rob amongst all the hives thrown together. Under those conditions one has no choice but to use chemicals to survive.


If you don't mind someone else chiming in on this, my answer is, not necassarily so. Plenty of stationary beekeepers get on that "merry go round", as you call it. After all, most beekeepers aren't migratory.

As far as the "feedlot" scenario of pollination is concerned, there are some situations where this is true, but I have never had my bees in such a situation and I have been pollinating apple orchards commercially for over 15 years. And i would say that this is true for all of the beekeeprs and orchards in the Champlain Valley and probably most of the orchards of NY State.

"Feedlot" type gatherings of pollinating colonies owned by numerous beekeeping operations does happen in Maine, where space and time make it so that hundreds of hives have to be gathered into a relatively small space, such as an airstrip, for a period of time before semis are loaded to get the hives out of the area.

I don't doubt that some robbing goes on in these situations, but they are being handled so much in a short period of time that I wonder how much actual robbing goes on. I hope to get up to Maine this season, so maybe I'll see.

Hey Sheri, do you have much robbing going on when you move bees out of a'monds?


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I think that if you read the article, you'll see what I mean by self sustaining (it's not the same thing as sustainable, but close).
> 
> Let me see if I can find a link:
> 
> http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/June04_beehive.pdf
> 
> That's what I call a real beekeeper.


Thanks.


----------



## ACBEES

Hi Mark. I didn't mean to lump all pollinators in one group. I was referring to the migratory beeks that "follow the bloom". Actually you raise another point. There are opportunities to pollinate locally. 

In my area, they grow pumpkins, cucumbers for pickles etc. There are opportunities for me to do some pollination when I grow up....but, I know there are also migratory beeks who start out the year setting their bees in almonds and eventually pass through my area for pumpkins, etc. My concern is co-mingling my bees with bees from these migratory beeks that have been exposed to who knows what on a chemical program. I feel that greatly increases my chances of acquiring parasites/diseases in my no chemical mgmnt plan.

I'm sure you will encounter the same problem when you join blueberry pollination along with migratory beeks from all over the country. It's kind of like sending your kid to day care during flu season. You can pretty much count on the flu visiting your household via your child.


----------



## heaflaw

I think Barry should move in with his brother Andy on island A and work with his brother since the Andy is so successful. Hopefully Barry won't be antagonistic to his successful beekeeping brother Andy.[/QUOTE]

Mike Bishpham's point was that Andy was more successful not because he was a better beekeeper but only because the neighboring bees (which soon bred their genetics into his) were much better. In this case it really was all about location.

Which brings us to the big question for Peter: WHY is location so important for bees to not succomb to varroa? Is it microclimate, microgeography, isolation from any other bees, isolation from bees that have to be treated to survive?


----------



## peterloringborst

heaflaw said:


> Which brings us to the big question for Peter: WHY is location so important for bees to not succomb to varroa?


I would just like to point out to all the people who have labeled me a know it all, that my goal from the beginning has been this and this alone: to get people to ask the right questions. This IS one of the right questions. 

While I have made a few suggestions along the way, the real answer is _I don't know. I am trying to find out. _But it is an observable fact that some people in some areas have different results than those in other areas. 

I just put this next quote up in another thread, but it is worth posting again (I think) because it mentions the fact that bees that stay put are quite different than bees that are moved around. Now by this I don't mean to restart the argument about moving hives. 

To me, hives that are moved are hives that are in different areas throughout their year. The moving part normally takes place over a number of hours, which wouldn't likely affect a hive as much as two weeks of crappy weather. Even a stationary hive is subject to severe stress at times (weather, climate, etc.)



> For the first 12 mo of the test, hybrid VSH colonies from outcrossed VSH queens performed about as well as pure Russian colonies and better than control colonies. Later, pure VSH colonies had lower varroa infestations and lower percentages of colonies that needed treatment than both Russian and control colonies. Honey production by VSH equaled that of the other two stocks, suggesting that at least this aspect of beekeeping utility was not hampered by fitness costs associated with high varroa resistance, e.g., reduced brood production.
> 
> These data showed the worth of resistant stocks in reducing the need to treat for varroa when colonies were kept in small-scale, stationary honey production operations in the southeastern United States. Remaining to be tested is how mite resistant stocks respond when challenged with higher varroa levels such as in migratory operations where colonies often are _exposed to an influx of mites as they are mixed with other colonies_ brought to crop pollination sites.
> 
> Comparative Performance of Two Mite-Resistant Stocks of Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Alabama Beekeeping Operations
> (2008) KENNETH WARD, ROBERT DANKA, AND RUFINA WARD


----------



## Countryboy

_What I would pay attention to is this: are there any people making a decent living at bees without treating them. Because anybody could call themselves a beekeeper and take 50 to 90 percent losses every year. But it wouldn't pay. _

The Honey Householder doesn't treat for mites, takes 100% loss every year, and it pays quite well for him. Then again, he doesn't call himself a beekeeper - he calls himself a honey producer.

_Maybe you have been following the problems with antibiotic resistant bacteria. In hospitals now, they have bugs which resist all known antibiotics. Should hospitals just stop using antibiotics, allowing the regular bacteria to come back, and crowd out the superbugs, which have no special fitness except they thrive when the normal bugs are eliminated by drugs.

Of course, that would work! But what are you going to tell all the folks that they will have to die while we wait for the populations to regain the balance._

Norway has pretty much eradicated methicillin resistant staph (MRSA) by eliminating antibiotics. Why didn't they have tons of people dropping like flies when they got off the antibiotic train?

It is a scare tactic trying to suggest that tons of people have to die if you stop using antibiotics in hospitals. Nothing but BS smoke and mirrors. 

For someone who claims to be a facts guy, where are the facts to support all these people dying from lack of antibiotics?

As a side note, I started some Georgia packages last spring with a couple frames of drawn comb, and the rest of the frames foundationless. These package hives were in yards alongside large cell and Pierco cell hives, and these large cell hives are known to have varroa. (I have found them on catch trays under the hive.) This fall, the county bee inspecter was unable to find any mites in the foundationless hives. I wonder why?

I don't use chemicals. My mite management is outbreeding mites by splitting hives and interrupting brood cycles. I am going to small cell/natural cell for other reasons than mite management, but I won't complain if it solves the mite problems as a side benefit.


----------



## peterloringborst

Countryboy said:


> _ Norway has pretty much eradicated methicillin resistant staph (MRSA) by eliminating antibiotics. For someone who claims to be a facts guy, where are the facts to support all these people dying from lack of antibiotics? ._


_

Maybe you should check your facts. "Norway has pretty much eradicated methicillin resistant staph by eliminating antibiotics" is not true. It is way more complicated than that.




Norway's model is surprisingly straightforward.

Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than any other country, so people do not have a chance to develop resistance to them.

Patients with MRSA are isolated and medical staff who test positive stay at home.

Doctors track each case of MRSA by its individual strain, interviewing patients about where they've been and who they've been with, testing anyone who has been in contact with them.

"We don't throw antibiotics at every person with a fever. We tell them to hang on, wait and see, and we give them a Tylenol to feel better," says Haug.

But Elstrom worries about the bacteria slipping in through other countries. Last year almost every diagnosed case in Norway came from someone who had been abroad.

"So far we've managed to contain it, but if we lose this, it will be a huge problem," he said. "To be very depressing about it, we might in some years be in a situation where MRSA is so endemic that we have to stop doing advanced surgeries, things like organ transplants, if we can't prevent infections.  In the worst case scenario we are back to 1913, before we had antibiotics."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34633137/

Click to expand...

_


----------



## heaflaw

An attempt at answering the question: When varroa destructor first arrived in the US, didn't it only take about 3 years for it to spread over all of the US? And if certain locations now have fewer varroa problems, then isolation from varroa itself must not be the answer. Varroa would spread to those locations within 3 years.


----------



## Kieck

> This fall, the county bee inspecter was unable to find any mites in the foundationless hives. I wonder why? -Countryboy


Mite populations are often very low in first year hives.



> My mite management is outbreeding mites by splitting hives and interrupting brood cycles. -Countryboy


I thought you didn't have mite problems?



> . . . I won't complain if it solves the mite problems as a side benefit. -Countryboy


I wouldn't call the presence of a few mites (as indicated by finding a few on a bottom board) a "problem" with mites.


----------



## Kieck

> Which brings us to the big question for Peter: WHY is location so important for bees to not succomb to varroa? -heaflaw


An important question, for sure. . . I, too, would like to hear some thoughts on the _why_ part of this hypothesis.


----------



## WLC

Because they don't sell menthol eucalyptus cough drops in all locations.
Some places only have sucrets. :doh:


----------



## peterloringborst

There are lot of people working very hard on these problems. Their work has been made available to those who are interested in the facts in the real world. This just came out this month:



> Biology and control of Varroa destructor by Peter Rosenkranz, et al
> Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 103 (2010)
> 
> This compilation of present-day knowledge on Varroa honey bee interactions emphasizes that we are still far from a solution for Varroa infestation and that, therefore, further research on mite biology, tolerance breeding, and Varroa treatment _is urgently needed. _
> 
> An example for an initially promising method which did not meet expectations is the use of comb foundations with smaller cells. Under field conditions, _a significant effect_ of small cells on the Varroa population dynamics _could not been verified,_ in the United States Germany or in New Zealand.
> 
> There is neither a Varroa treatment available which fulfills all the criteria ‘‘safe, effective and easy to apply” nor a honey bee which is sustainably tolerant to Varroosis under temperate climatic conditions. Rather,_ we now face new problems _with secondary diseases and damage in honey bee colonies caused by synergistic effects of Varroosis plus other pathogens or environmental factors. In addition, there are still no data showing that Varroa in general becomes less virulent or that honey bee colonies selected for mite tolerance survive without mite control.


Of course, the armchair beekeepers have it all figured out. The scientists won't admit it, because they need that grant money to keep coming in to feed their expensive habits.


----------



## heaflaw

Quote: In addition, there are still no data showing that honey bee colonies selected for mite tolerance survive without mite control.

Have I not read in Bee Culture & ABJ that Russians & VSH DO survive without mite control. And that Dee Lusby, Mike Bush and many others have bees that survise also?

Someone explain the contradicting statements.


----------



## Allen Dick

The devil is in the details.

It is a question of how many and how long. 

Lusbys replenished and built back up partially by utilizing swarms caught on golf courses in Tucson.

Others have accepted large losses at times and also, in some cases, made exceptions which they soon forget about. Some notables have changed their history unbeknown to newcomers, who take the current version at face value.

If the question is regarded statistically, and the odds are 50/50 (for sake of argument) of having a bad or significant loss, quite a few will be successful out as far as 10 tosses. Many more will last twenty. Some may have unbroken good luck out as far as even an amazing 100 tosses, particularly if there are enough players.

What also confuses the issue is that losers often get back in and play the game again, get a new religion, and, forgetting their loss, ascribe their newly-found success to what they now do, not luck.

An actuary would see otherwise.

These forums are also NOT an unbiased sample, since the participants are mostly current players, with the exception of some retired or semi-retired greybeards like Pete and me, and the occasional loser who hasn't figured it out yet.


----------



## WLC

Peter:

I've read a similar argument where U.S. scientists have become dependent on funding from major interest groups like big agro, pharma so that we can no longer depend on them for the 'facts in the real world'. We can still trust french scientists however. :lpf:

Isn't it therefore pointless to rely on scientific research rather than anecdotal evidence and reports from the very people on the frontlines of the issue, beekeepers?

As I've suggested before, this is a social science/management issue. People routinely find innovative and surprising solutions to their problems. It doesn't need to be good science, it just has to work.


----------



## Allen Dick

Good point. Scientists have been for sale for a long time, and the food processors, starting with millers, were among the first to figure that out and buy a truckload or two.

Yes, the common man can figure things out, and much of our progress has come from 'ordinary' people.

Nonetheless, intellectual dishonesty and self deceit is evenly distributed and we need to examine everything carefully no matter what the source.

That said, the scientific community is better funded and better equipped than the common man, and IMO more prolific. Many issues have retreated from where a simple approach can hope to accomplish the task. An example is landing a man on the moon and bringing him back. That is not something you or I can do. DNA analysis and virus testing requires infrastructure, funding and staffing.

Some might argue that a homemade solution can be just as good as one developed at great expense and with advanced technology, but IMO, it does happen, the odds are very much against that.


----------



## heaflaw

Okay, I understand that. I have 15-20 hives, haven't treated in 4 years and have few losses. So, I need to accept the fact that the day will come when my bees will succomb to varroa. Isn't that what you are saying?

For the sake of argument, if everyone in the US & Canada were to stop treating with anything at all, no small cell, no breaking up the brood cycle, in perpetuity, never again, forever and ever, amen-----what would happen? Would honey bees become extinct in 5 or 30 years? Would 5% or 20% survive and repopulate to levels before varroa?


----------



## Allen Dick

> For the sake of argument, if everyone in the US & Canada were to stop treating with anything at all, no small cell, no breaking up the brood cycle, in perpetuity, never again, forever and ever, amen-----what would happen? Would honey bees become extinct in 5 or 30 years? Would 5% or 20% survive and repopulate to levels before varroa?

From what we know now, no they would not become extinct, since there is such a large diverse population and we can see expression of tolerance. We would go through a stress period (as we have) where losses in some areas are total, then repopulation would occur, as it has.

However in a smaller experiment -- Santa Cruz, Adrian proved that extinction is a real possibility given a small sample in a limited environment.

What we are seeing now, though is the secondary effects, namely the viruses and other diseases, some unrecognized which were enabled, and are enabled by varroa, even in varroa tolerant bees.


----------



## heaflaw

Quote: From what we know now, no they would not become extinct, since there is such a large diverse population and we can see expression of tolerance. We would go through a stress period (as we have) where losses in some areas are total, then repopulation would occur, as it has.

So, why don't we try to speed up that process by discouraging treatments & promoting the tolerant strains ASAP. I realize that won't eliminate the secondary problems (which I am beginning to understand is becoming the REAL problem), but surely it would help greatly in that respect also. Wouldn't eliminating the stress of treatments and of varroa itself help the bees be more able to adapt to the viruses, etc.


----------



## mike bispham

heaflaw said:


> So, why don't we try to speed up that process by discouraging treatments & promoting the tolerant strains ASAP. I realize that won't eliminate the secondary problems (which I am beginning to understand is becoming the REAL problem), but surely it would help greatly in that respect also. Wouldn't eliminating the stress of treatments and of varroa itself help the bees be more able to adapt to the viruses, etc.


I think you have to factor in the 'total pathogen mix', or 'disease environment'. The exact profile shifts all the time.

While varroa is present in large numbers the outright theft of energy and the wound opened allow in anything around. Colonies succumb from all sorts of secondary infections - by varroa can be regarded as the direct cause.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

heaflaw said:


> "I think Barry should move in with his brother Andy on island A and work with his brother since the Andy is so successful. Hopefully Barry won't be antagonistic to his successful beekeeping brother Andy."
> 
> Mike Bispham's point was that Andy was more successful not because he was a better beekeeper but only because the neighboring bees (which soon bred their genetics into his) were much better. In this case it really was all about location.
> 
> Which brings us to the big question for Peter: WHY is location so important for bees to not succomb to varroa? Is it microclimate, microgeography, isolation from any other bees, isolation from bees that have to be treated to survive?


The point I wanted Peter to reach (See #281) was that location is important in this instance PURELY because of the treating regime used by surrounding beekeepers. So to his question: what is it about location that makes a difference, the answer is that because the quality of parentage is paramount, a duff vs good mating pool is the difference-maker. 

Any location is which the new genes are coming from treatment-dependent drones, is OF COURSE going to result in weakening and/failure. With each new generation the problem will worsen. 

All else being equal: 

_In all models allowing free mating, the non-treating beekeeper will be more readily successful to the extent that a location has resistant/tolerant bees._

This is simple, undeniable, and ANSWERS Peter's location question in as much as that question addresses ongoing health. 

Mike


----------



## JPK

I find it to be troubling that Mike continues to claim that genetics and promoting the disuse of treatment (prophylactically or otherwise) while totally failing to consider epidemiology.

Disease and Parasites in Bees is fundamentally no different than Disease and Parasites in Humans.

They are transmitted from individual to individual and as more individuals are exposed to the Disease or Pathogen a portion of the overall population will get sick and die and a portion will not.

Commercial Beekeeping is the Bee equivalent to Jet Transportation to Humans and exposes more colonies at a faster rate to any disease or pathogen than they would normally encounter IF colonies were less mobile.

This is not a dig on commercial beekeeping in any way, its simply a recognition of a reality that is necessary but also has negatives associated with it.

If your bees are in an area that is not exposed to commercial operations and you do not import bees from other states then generally speaking you will not be exposed as quickly or at all to SOME pathogens.

My point is that you can't have this discussion in a vacuum without looking at Disease and how its transmitted.....and quite frankly I don't subscribe to Mike's Christian Scientist view of Beekeeping.


----------



## peterloringborst

JPK said:


> and quite frankly I don't subscribe to Mike's Christian Scientist view of Beekeeping.


Bravo


----------



## ACBEES

JPK, I don't think Mike is promoting a Christain Scientist point of view. He is simply stating a fact of evolution called survival of the fittest. Let's be honest here. As you pointed out, migratory beeks are in a sense a vector themselves. They facilitate the spread of parasites/pathogens by the very nature of their business. 

It's impossible to contain the spread of parasites/disease when thousands of exposed/contaminated hives are moved around the country annually. Then take into consideration the drifting/robbing nature of bees. I experienced this first hand when a migratory beek dropped 60 pallets about a mile and a half from my bee yard. I arrived at my yard one day to find my bee population had tripled. When I drove around and found the pallets of hives, I quickly moved my hives 5 miles away. But, who knows what those migratory bees visiting my hives were carrying and exposed my bees to.

The chemical merry-go-round(as someone characterized it earlier) began its existance for the sole purpose of saving the commercial pollination industry and it has now trickled down to all of us......except those who have taken a stand and said enough is enough. My bees are going to make it on their own(natural selection) or not. A growing number of these beeks are seeing that if you let the bees work it out, with 40 million years of survival through evolution, they will find a way. Granted these are usually beeks with small operations and are probably stationary. I'm not treating my hives, but I don't do pollination contracts either. But this does effectively illustrate it can be done. It does effectively illustrate chemical hive management does get in the way of facilitating the process.

Can the migratory beeks adopt this method? I doubt it. They have too much invested in their operations and there is a lot of money to be made having bees available at a specific time for pollination. I read it takes one million hives to annually pollinate almonds. I bet it would take just one year of say only 250,000 available hives for pollination to probably break the almond industry. There is a lot of money riding on the availability and health of an insect. 

As I said in an earlier post, I think change will come in the form of genetically engineered self pollinating varieties for monoculture farming. It's already being done with cotton. New varieties of cotton are self pollinating and designed to suppress their nectaries during daylight hours to be less attractive to insects...which unfortunately includes bees. In the old bee books, cotton was previously considered an excellent honey plant. 

When the demand for migratory pollination dwindles so will most of the disease/parasite problems we are battling today. So will the market for imported bees...which is an ongoing source of new parasite/disease introduction. Dee Lusby posted a great question nobody seems to want to answer...."are the imported Aussie bees used for replacements crashing right now in almonds".

So let's pose the question. Are there any migratory beeks out there who feel they can survive without chemical management?


----------



## WLC

What I'm fascinated by is that there is a significant 'naturalistic' movement for a species of 'livestock'. That's unique.

So in effect, commercial practices are responsible for spreading pests/pathogens in the honey bee. Is that a fair statement?

Would you also say that commercial practices are also incidentally spreading pests/pathogens to other native bee species?


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> So in effect, commercial practices are responsible for spreading pests/pathogens in the honey bee. Is that a fair statement?
> 
> Would you also say that commercial practices are also incidentally spreading pests/pathogens to other native bee species of bees?


Modern life is responsible for spreading pests/pathogens at an accelerated rate, imo. Otherwise these "new" pests and pathogens wouldn't get around as quickly, but they probably still would get around. I could be wrong.

I think it has little to do w/ commercial pratices, unless by commercial pratices you mean the whole industry and not just commercial beekeepers, but queen rearers, package producers and all of the users of those businesses, commercial, sideliner and hobbyist alike.

There is no them. There is only us. We are all part of the whole.


----------



## ACBEES

Once again Mark, you are right, there does need to be a distinction. It is the transportation of all bees around the country that plays a role in the spread of parasites/diseases. Within the transportation of bees, there are bee sales/shipping and migratory beeks. However IMO, the nature of migratory beekeeping and chemical mgmnt. is the much greater facilitator in this spread. It's hard to discount the impact of having over one million hives gathered in one area for almond pollination and then dispersing them all over the country.


----------



## StevenG

ACBEES said:


> StevenG. You are right about the chemical merry go round and I'm choosing not to get on it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the threshold for getting on that merry go round seems to be when one makes the leap from a stationary beek to a migratory beek providing pollination services. In the migratory world my take from reading is you increase your exposure in a mind boggling way when bees from all over the country are congregated in a "feedlot" scenario, under constant stress and then there is the inherent nature of bees to drift and rob amongst all the hives thrown together. Under those conditions one has no choice but to use chemicals to survive.


sqkcrk chimed in on this in post #289, for which I'm grateful. Perhaps the "threshold" for getting onto that merry-go-round is in the mind of the beekeeper? I've heard of some commercial beeks who do not treat. But I do not know how "migratory" those beeks are. It would be very interesting to hear from any beeks going to CA for almond pollination about their treatment/non-treatment practices. Do any go to CA and not treat? 

And a corollary, if the bees ARE resistant, would the stress of migratory beekeeping necessarily require treatment? Wouldn't their resistance be an advantage in that scenario? I honestly don't know, but it sure would be helpful to find out! Personally, I plan to remain stationary. But others might benefit from this discussion.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst

heaflaw said:


> Quote: In addition, there are still no data showing that honey bee colonies selected for mite tolerance survive without mite control. Have I not read in Bee Culture & ABJ that Russians & VSH DO survive without mite control. Someone explain the contradicting statements.


The explanation is this: They kept no DATA. All we have from various people is word of mouth, no controlled studies, no corroboration. 

The controlled studies, where they actually wrote stuff down, show mite resistance but the hives still succumbed in the end or were treated before they did.

You can't do long term longitudinal studies _with dead bees_. 

So when the bees start to crash, the study is over one way or the other. Most would choose to treat so they could still have bees.


----------



## StevenG

peterloringborst said:


> The explanation is this: They kept no DATA. All we have from various people is word of mouth, no controlled studies, no corroboration.
> 
> The controlled studies, where they actually wrote stuff down, show mite resistance but the hives still succumbed in the end or were treated before they did.
> 
> You can't do long term longitudinal studies _with dead bees_.
> 
> So when the bees start to crash, the study is over one way or the other. Most would choose to treat so they could still have bees.


How long does a study need to last? Two years? Three years? Four? And how would I go about setting up a "controlled study?" 

Would a controlled study be, say, four years in duration, with absolutely no chemical treatments, including essential oils, and grease patties? Who do I need to have verify my work, and how? Apparently my word isn't good enough. Am I allowed to requeen annually or every other year? Am I allowed to raise my own queens from the study colonies, for requeening? Am I allowed to feed, both sugar syrup and pollen sub as needed? And if not, why not? I would assume, for the sake of integrity, we wouldn't expect my hives to last longer than those being treated? So what kind of time limit are we talking about? 

So far I have gone four years with one hive lost. No treatments. nada, zilch, none. I have requeened with the same kind of queens I started with. How long has Mike Bush gone? 5 years, 6? more? 

Now, I am being serious. I am willing to consider (depending on cost to me and time constraints) doing the kind of study you want, Peter. Just tell me the parameters, and let's get the ball rolling. Now, MY parameters are I won't pay for anything more than what I'm currently doing. If someone has to come visit me, inspect my hives, check my records, they can do it on their dime. If someone wants to get a government grant, or foundation grant, to do the necessary paperwork and travel to come to my apiaries and home to verify records and hive health, and then publish the data, all I request is credit for doing the work with the bees, and providing the bees. Some gas money wouldn't be turned down. :applause: 

Just let me know how we do this, and let's do it!
Regards,
Steven


----------



## StevenG

:lpf: As soon as I hit the "Submit reply" button, I realized knowing my luck I'll probably have a major crash this year! :doh:
But I'm game anyway.


----------



## Allen Dick

Speaking just for myself, I've seen studies done by laypeople which were transparent and credible, and studies done by trained scientists which I consider to be less than convincing.

I've done a few myself and can testify as to how hard it is to anticipate what may come along. If the effect being studied is clear and obvious and nothing like a bear or flood come along, things can be fairly easy.

In your case, merely recording a detailed log of your activities with no oversights and no lapses would be most interesting, and go along way to prove something -- no knowing in advance, what, for sure, though.

I've kept my diary for a long time, with a lapse of a year or so, and not revised it. I moved it from one server to another and have improved the formatting, but never changed any historical details, yet at least. (I took it down for a while out of concern about privacy issues, but put it back up since so many people missed it). Others have had logs, but completely rewritten their past activities and taken down entire sections which in some cases revealed that they had done differently from what they now claim. 

So, what I am saying is that if you plan a fairly straightforward test and take pictures and make regular public records (tabulations) of basic things like populations, boxes added and removed, honey production, and any feeding or treatment done as well as requeening details or hive mortality and how you dealt with it by replacement or simply removing the hive from the yard, you will have an ongoing test which many will follow.

Do you have the discipline to do that? If you do, there are many ways you can proceed. You'll have to decide how to report the results on an ongoing transparent basis and whether you would like others to parallel your test in separate locations.

That is all it takes IMO. As for web presence, I am sure Barry or I can provide you with a site or board as our contribution to the effort.


----------



## WLC

I would suggest a different experimental design that can be very powerful when done correctly. 

It's a 2x2 matrix design. 

You can come up with your own categories, but this should give you a hint.

For instance, if you draw a 2x2 table, the first column would be no treatment, the second would be treatment.

The first row would be new queen, the second row would be comb only.

I would suggest that you have at least 10 different participants in each of the 4 resulting groups.

You would need to have availble at least 20 new queens, and 20 pieces of comb only.

The 20 participants who receive new queens. 10 no treament and 10 treatment.

The 20 participants who recieve comb only would add them to existing hives. 10 no treatment and 10 treatment.

The hypothesis goes something like this: genetics alone are necessary to transfer resistance to mites from honey bee colony to honey bee colony.

You only need to have broad categories in results like mites +/-, or 1-10, 11-20, etc. per day... you get the idea.

It's then a matter of using an appropriate statistical test (mites +/- is easiest).

Not every experimental design requires 'controls'. There are actually 2 sets of opposing variables being tested at once. Varroa resistance is genetic, varroa resistance is microbial, treatment affects resistance, no treatment fosters resistance.


----------



## Allen Dick

> How long does a study need to last? Two years? Three years? Four? And how would I go about setting up a "controlled study?" 

It depends what you are trying to prove.

If you are just trying to prove that the good stock you have can survive and produce without treatment, all you have to do is keep them alive and manage them as you are doing now and record the details. I suppose if you wanted controls, you could have some separate hives you treat, but what would be the point, unless you think that the treated hives would do better or worse. (There is the chance they could actually do worse, since treatments are hard on bees).

> Would a controlled study be, say, four years in duration... So what kind of time limit are we talking about? 

Why have a time limit? Do you plan to stop keeping bees? If you are just doing what you normally do with your bees, and record faithfully how you do it, that is all that required. After you start logging, you will find that you enjoy it so much you won't ever want to stop.

If you wish to isolate and prove some effect, then that is a very different project and requires careful design, but if all you wan to prove is that your bees survive without treatments, Bob's your uncle. 

You'll want to do disease inspections and mite counts periodically so that people can get an idea what is going on inside the hives and if the bees are copntrolling the mites or just really tolerant of high loads.

> So far I have gone four years with one hive lost. No treatments. nada, zilch, none. I have requeened with the same kind of queens I started with.

From your profile, I see that you have made good stock choices. I remember back at Apimondia in Vancouver at the turn of the millennium, that Danny Weaver told us all that he had had a drone hive (for queen work) which was riddled with varroa recover spontaneously and that he figured he was seeing resistance.

Many doubted him, but I always remembered that. I think with the bees you have, that you stand a good chance of going on indefinitely. As for replacement stock, it is your call according to your best judgment.

Personally, I used one oxalic treatment this fall, but wonder if it was necessary. Quite possibly not, but I wasn't willing to take the chance. I am not that sure of the stock I have, especially since one showed AFB and I am planning to upgrade.


----------



## WLC

With the new queen design? How long does it take for a complete turnover of bees once it is requeened?

You would time the requeening so that the hive has completely turned over at the same time that the varroa count is at its maximum for your paticipant's location.

The queens and comb need to come from beekeepers who don't treat and have varroa free/resistant hives. It doesn't need to be one no-treatment/varroa free beekeeper.

The participants can be one, or many beekeepers.

That's why a 2x2 matrix approach, when combined with a statistical test like chi^2 can be powerful. It's flexible in its groupings.

Some more details: the participant hives should have varroa present already present and confirmed above a certain level; the +/- varroa should be a pre established threshold, done after the same amount of time, using the same method (sugar shake?).

The main consideration would be the # of participants in each grouping, it should be in the double digits, and it should also be large enough to be considered reliable.

Do you think that there are enough no-treatment/varroa free beekeepers and interested participants out there? 20 queens and 20 pieces of comb sent to 10 treatment and 10 no treatment hives. :scratch:


----------



## Allen Dick

> I would suggest a different experimental design that can be very powerful when done correctly. It's a 2x2 matrix design. 

I think Peter was suggesting a simple longitudinal study with scrupulous recording of data. such a study can be extremely simple in design and if it is replicated at several locations can give very meaningful conclusions.

At this point, we have anecdotal evidence that bees are living and producing quite well in some instances for long periods without treatments. The problem is tha no one knows exactly what happened during that time because the beekeepers involved may or may not recall exactly what did and what did not happen during that time and the process was not scrutinized as it proceed.

Our friend appears to have good stock and a good start. all, he needs t do is keep doing what he is doing and recording details under independent scrutiny. What could be simpler. He can even add to his apiary, as long as he does not do things to skew the results like treating.

If he can recruit others to do much the same thing in their own way at separate locations, so much the better, since we will have his efforts replicated semi-independently.

The experiment is already underway. Now, it is just a matter of making it official and deciding on what to record and where and how.


----------



## Countryboy

_Quote:
My mite management is outbreeding mites by splitting hives and interrupting brood cycles. -Countryboy 

I thought you didn't have mite problems?_

I started some packages last year, but I also have established hives too. Last year is the first year I started going to small cell/natural cell. I haven't had any severe mite problems, and I hope to keep it that way. You act before the mites become a problem and cross the economic threshhold.

_Quote:
. . . I won't complain if it solves the mite problems as a side benefit. -Countryboy 

I wouldn't call the presence of a few mites (as indicated by finding a few on a bottom board) a "problem" with mites. _

Edit: I won't complain if small cell solves the potential future mite problems as a side benefit in addition to the other benefits I am looking for.

_Isn't it therefore pointless to rely on scientific research rather than anecdotal evidence and reports from the very people on the frontlines of the issue, beekeepers?_

My Aunt married a guy with a PhD in entomology, specializing in honeybees. When I was young he was at Guelph, and then me was in Milwaukee, and then Washington State. He always wanted to be on the research side of things, rather than being a teaching college professor. When research funding ran out at Washington, he bought a bee operation in South Dakota running about 400 hives. 5 of his kids were junior high and high school aged, and he worked them like slaves 12 and 14 hour days. His wife had to get a job to support the family.

Within 4 years he went belly up. He knows honeybees inside and out, but he didn't know jack about how to be a successful beekeeper.

I'd trust an experienced beekeeper over a knowledgeable scientist any day. It is much easier to add education/knowledge to someone with experience, than to give an educated person some experience. Figures lie, and liars figure - and knowledge is useless if it isn't applied.


----------



## WLC

Allen:

They should keep taking careful notes and observations. I agree.

However, beekeepers urgently need solutions.

If you can replicate varroa resistance in a location other than where the varroa resistant bees originated, then relief is on the way by through the queen's own genetics, or possibly by inoculation of beneficial microbes.

It would also be valuable to see if treatment affects the transfer of this varroa resistance.

This experimental design would show if this resistance can be easily transferred within a short time frame (by October perhaps).

The groupings are also very flexible. They don't all have to have the same number of participants as long as we have double digits.

Multiple sources of treatment free, varroa resistant strains, multiple participants, a month till completion, standard methods used, multiple non-trivial hypotheses tested, robustness of statistical testing,....

This is the way to get thing done and have serious questions answered.

How much does it take to ship 20 queens and 20 pieces of comb? How hard is it to get 40 hives w/ beekeepers available for a 1 month test?


----------



## StevenG

Allen, in a few days I will pm you with a proposal for a study. It's a very busy week for me right now. But I think we can come up with something workable. And for independent verification, Grant Gillard is less than 2 hours away. Plus there's a retired commercial beek here in town who has been active in both local and state beekeeper's associations, for verification if desired. I'll put all that in the pm. Then if we proceed, you or I can make the announcement and parameters of the study here.

WLC, with all due respect, I looked at your profile, and have no idea who you are or your qualifications. You seem extremely intelligent and knowledgeable about studies, etc... but what you are suggesting is just more involved than I care to do. I will not establish a control group of hives to treat, just to see how they do compared to my non-treated hives. If others want to get involved in a study, they may, but I'm going to work out a set of protocols with Allen Dick, and we'll see where this goes. 

But I hope folks understand: 
a) I'm not going to lose any sleep over this.
b) I'm not going to invest more money in this, than I already spend on my hives.
c) The only additional time I'm going to invest in this is in the reporting. I will perhaps modify my record-keeping to make it more concise for reporting purposes. 
d) I'm not going to treat. No "treated controls" in my apiaries. As I've posted elsewhere, if a colony dies, I didn't want it anyway. :lookout:
e) I will be honest, even if it's painful. I figure this will also be a learning experience for me.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC

StevenG:

Good luck to you. No offense taken.

Maybe I can interest some of the other treatment free beekeepers in a 'slighlty used' experimental design.


----------



## Allen Dick

> Allen, in a few days I will pm you with a proposal for a study. 

Sure, or you could post it here and we can all critique and make suggestions. I don't think this has to be formal, and new ideas for testing and recording can be adopted as the test progresses. If everyone has a say, then we should have a good design. I'll be interested what credence Peter would give to such a study.

> And for independent verification, Grant Gillard is less than 2 hours away. Plus there's a retired commercial beek here in town who has been active in both local and state beekeeper's associations, for verification if desired.

I think most of us trust people to keep honest records during a study, especially if they are open for examination or posted to a site. The simple truth is that is people are going to cheat, they will cheat. The reasons why, who knows. Ask the Piltdown Man, I guess.

Most problems in credibility arise whan events are reported in the past and people doubt the accuracy of recollection and wonder why they did not get a chance to observe while things were ongoing.

The fact that this will be open and public trial will perhaps recruit others to run similar apiaries and do similar reporting. I'm willing to help co-ordinate and handle the web end of things.

Personally, I am and have been doing something a bit similar, although, as I said I did use a little oxalic each of the past two years and have not kept very detailed records. I am running a scale hive though and keep that up in a detailed and rigourous fashion. A number here follow along.


----------



## mike bispham

JPK said:


> I find it to be troubling that Mike continues to claim that genetics and promoting the disuse of treatment (prophylactically or otherwise) while totally failing to consider epidemiology.


That isn't the case. I'm aware that a whole lot of factors make life hard for beekeepers, and the widespread transport of bees and bee diseases is very much one of them. Others promote discussion of those particular things very well

My aim is the promotion of an understanding of the importance of husbanding the genetic material through the generations. I understand that it is _universally necessary_ that lifeforms are able to continually adapt to the changing environment, in order to maintain defences in the face of every-improving predator organisms. This happens naturally in the wild, and husbandrymen must substitute selective breeding as a routine essential feature of husbandry if they want their future generations to remain healthy.

If they do not, then the health of the stock WILL decline - since what is _universally necessary _is being witheld. (Unless... sound genetic material is finding its way into the apiary from outside)

Allowing mating from individuals that have required medication is a first-class example of denial of adaptation. So WHATEVER else is going on - high levels of transportation, crom insecticides, climate change - it is ALWAYS true that if medication + mating is occuring, health will decline.



JPK said:


> Disease and Parasites in Bees is fundamentally no different than Disease and Parasites in Humans.


There are significant differences. The most pertinant is that mammals have hugely advanced immune systems that can 'learn' about new/changed organisms. Bees can _only_ 'learn' by having the most vulnerable bloodlines eliminated. Selection is their first and last line of defence against ever-changing disease environment. Take that away and they start to sicken. 

Another difference is that it is of the utmost imortance that every human is kept alive, no matter what the future genetic consequences. It matter not one whit that the bloodline of any single queen be preserved. (This can be regarded as entirely separate from the issue of genetic diversity - which does matter) In Nature and livestock the individuals are sacrificed for the good of the future. Stop that and you poison the future.



JPK said:


> My point is that you can't have this discussion in a vacuum without looking at Disease and how its transmitted.....


Sure; the problems with bees have many causes. But I tend to write about just this, because I think it is very often the case that beekeepers have no understanding at all of the way that medicating undermines the future of their own apiaries. 



JPK said:


> and quite frankly I don't subscribe to Mike's Christian Scientist view of Beekeeping.


I don't know what that is  I try to use clear reasoning, in the belief that reasonable people understand that if you cannot deny the truth of the premises or the validity of the argument, you have to accept the conclusions. That's the basis on which the life-sciences operate.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> The controlled studies, where they actually wrote stuff down, show mite resistance but the hives still succumbed in the end or were treated before they did.


This is absolutely not the case. The following papers all result from studies made under controlled conditions by properly trained scientists:

_Survival of mite infested (Varroa destructor) honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in a Nordic climate_, Ingemar Friesa, Anton Imdorfb, Peter Rosenkrantzc

http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...129&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2006/05/m6039.pdf

"Our results allow us to conclude that the problems facing the apicultural industry with mite infestations is probably linked to the apicultural system, where beekeepers remove the selective pressure induced from the parasitism by removing mites through control efforts."

--------------

_Producing Varroa-tolerant Honey Bees from Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe_, by E.H. Erickson, L.H. Hines, and A.A. Atmowidjojo

http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/publ/tolerant2.html

--------------------
In addition we have: 

Practical Advice, esp. Selection Criteria
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

--------------------

_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.

------------------

_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

-----------------

Peter, you have blinkered yourself, both by avoiding the studies that don't suit your desired outcome, and by avoiding the reasoning (i.e. my 'Islands' routine) that lead inexorably to the position that contradicts you. 

Simple basic biology supplies a full explanation of the widespread ill health of bees, in the careless manner in which we approach genetic flow through the generations. The same simple principles fully account for the various examples of success and failure, for the emergence of natural resistance, for the success of specialised breeding programs, and the success of free cellers who also refuse to treat.

Simple biology allows us to make sense of the whole picture, and predict outcomes in a range of different circumstances. It shows us how to do successful husbandry, and explains why that husbandry works.

Mike


----------



## StevenG

WLC, you may be on to something with your suggestions for a study. However, based on what we think we know to this point, a one-month study would not give the kind of conclusive information we desire. Colonies that crash due to mite infestation would not do so only a month after being hived. Which is what you seem to suggest, with 20 queens on 20 frames, or in 20 colonies, to start the study. 

I think what we need is a multi-year study, with splits, honey harvests, the normal range of activities that beekeepers do with their hives. Of course, the problem then is to allow for "beekeeper error" as a possible contributing factor in any crash that might occur. But to my way of thinking, the study I'm recommending and planning will be related to how beeks (or at least how I) actually keep bees. Of course this involves package and nuc purchases, queen purchases and installation, splits, moves, harvesting honey, losing swarms, mistakes, errors in judgement, general screw-ups, and absence due to vacations... any other variables I've missed? :lpf: 

Allen's remarks that this be posted from the get-go on the forum somehow, and get beeks involved in setting up the study parameters, makes sense... I'll start working this up this weekend, and confer with Allen regarding the best way to put this on the forum. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC

Mike:

There seems to be one common element that struck me in those articles: colony isolation.

For someone who is interested in not having to constantly apply this or that, it's not going to be doable.

Mainly, I'm not isolated, and I won't have enough hives for a 3-10% selection rate. I'll have 2-3 hives only. So my untreated hives would have a roughly 1:16 to 1:3 chance of becoming 'tolerant'. That's a long shot!

Varroa tolerance means a significant presence of varroa. If any virus carrying mites make it to the hive, which is very possible in my location, then that's the ballgame.

In short, I don't qualify for the method no matter how appealing it might be.

After reading through the above papers, I do see Peter's point. It's a simple matter of 'statistical rigor'. 

It's not there.


----------



## WLC

StevenG:

That would make sense: doing what beekeepers normally do.

I might suggest that you include a contingency table approach.

Be sure to include a table that you can perform some statistical tests on. This would allow you to say that something significant is happening (or not).

I'm glad to see that you're getting the ball rolling.


----------



## mike bispham

StevenG said:


> But to my way of thinking, the study I'm recommending and planning will be related to how beeks (or at least how I) actually keep bees. Of course this involves package and nuc purchases, queen purchases and installation, splits, moves, harvesting honey, losing swarms, mistakes, errors in judgement, general screw-ups, and absence due to vacations... any other variables I've missed? :lpf:


Hi Steven,

Yes! The levels of mite resistant genetic material arriving from outside the apiary!

Each new generation displays the traits of its parents. Resistance to/tolerance of varroa - and every other parasite and disease - is entirely dependent on parentage. Unless that factor is controlled it will impossible to know whether success is due to management procedures or simply good incoming parentage.

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> I'll have 2-3 hives only. So my untreated hives would have a roughly 1:16 to 1:3 chance of becoming 'tolerant'. That's a long shot!


Yes. Small apiaries have that problem. One solution being widely mooted is forming breeding clubs. Another is simply buying in resistant queens - although there are drawbacks in loss of attunement to local conditions. 

Both those are better than adding to the problem by artificially maintaining ill adapted stock.

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

Is there any real difference between hygienic bees and bees selected from a treatment free setting. I wonder. :scratch:

In NYC, that would be an 'activist' club until it's legalized. I'm in an educational institution. It's different.

I'm forced into the natural comb model because of the TBHs. They're cheap, and we build wood duck boxes and such anyway as part of the course. Besides, I'm using bait to obtain bees. I'll only purchase if my back is to the wall.

Doing a cost analysis, it is far less expensive for me to treat a baited swarm in a TBH w/ easily obtained materials. (If I want the bees to survive that is). I cost it out at $100-$200.

However, If I don't care if the bees survive (seasonal demo), I don't have to treat. My cost drops to <$100 (I still have to treat the bees' water container for mosquitoes. Yes, I'm still looking at Bt-i).

What does everyone think about the idea of a seasonal TBH demo, where I don't treat, and the bees' survival is a long -shot, bonus?


----------



## Kieck

> I cost it out at $100-$200. -WLC


Per hive? The commercially-available miticides cost far less than that per hive.



> (I still have to treat the bees' water container for mosquitoes. Yes, I'm still looking at Bt-i). -WLC


Why not let them find their own water? Then you don't even have to provide water for them.

_Bacillus thuringiensis_ var. _tenebrionis_ has shown some efficacy against other species of mites. It won't do anything for mosquitoes in water, though.


----------



## deknow

mike bispham said:


> Yes. Small apiaries have that problem. One solution being widely mooted is forming breeding clubs. Another is simply buying in resistant queens ...Both those are better than adding to the problem by artificially maintaining ill adapted stock.


mike, you need to look at the breeding program being used. most of these are artifically selecting for "hypertraits" that you will not find in any of the "naturally resistant feral populations."

deknow


----------



## WLC

Kieck:

I'm referring to the total outlay.

Why provide water? A 'Tarzan hot' roof. There's also a hotel swimming pool nearby. Just trying to be a better neighbor.

Mosquito Bits contains Bt isrealensis. It's commonly used to treat standing water. It seems to be alot safer for the bees than other alternative water treatments. 

If I provide standing water, I have to treat for mosquitoes (both native and other) because of the threat of West Nile Virus and encephalitis.

Mosquitoes, WNV, Bt-i, bees, mites, honey, etc., all tie in with the unit objectives rather well. Those are: introduced/ invasive species, and biological control. It's 'A Chain of Unintended Consequences'.

PS: We don't intend to harvest/remove any honey from the hives unless absolutely necessary. That's beyond the scope of the course.


----------



## heaflaw

Allen Dick: The fact that this will be open and public trial will perhaps recruit others to run similar apiaries and do similar reporting. I'm willing to help co-ordinate and handle the web end of things.

I'd love to be in on this also. I keep 15/20 hives, few losses, & haven't treated in 4 years. But, I don't have any "proof". If it was structured, it would get me disciplined enough to keep good records.


----------



## heaflaw

deknow said:


> mike, you need to look at the breeding program being used. most of these are artifically selecting for "hypertraits" that you will not find in any of the "naturally resistant feral populations."
> 
> deknow


Tell me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that the naturally resistant ferals will help keep us from having to treat, but may not be gentle enough or as good at producing surplus honey as we would need.


----------



## heaflaw

JPK said:


> Disease and Parasites in Bees is fundamentally no different than Disease and Parasites in Humans.
> 
> The difference is that love for our fellow humans makes us do everything we can to keep sick people alive. We do not have that same love for insects. If we allowed survival of the fittest to effect our treatment of humans, then in generations to come, the human race would be better able to resist diseases just like honey bees will be. We just don't have that Hitler ethos.


----------



## kbenz

heaflaw said:


> JPK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that love for our fellow humans makes us do everything we can to keep sick people alive. We do not have that same love for insects. If we allowed survival of the fittest to effect our treatment of humans, then in generations to come, the human race would be better able to resist diseases just like honey bees will be. We just don't have that Hitler ethos.
> 
> 
> 
> wow, that is so true:applause:
Click to expand...


----------



## heaflaw

Allen Dick said:


> That said, the scientific community is better funded and better equipped than the common man, and IMO more prolific. Many issues have retreated from where a simple approach can hope to accomplish the task. An example is landing a man on the moon and bringing him back. That is not something you or I can do. DNA analysis and virus testing requires infrastructure, funding and staffing.
> 
> I agree. We as beekeepers can add a lot to solving problems, but the scientific community has more resources, is more disciplined, and is generally less prejudiced. If a scientific investigation proves an opinion to be right or wrong, then a scientist is more likely to change his or her opinion than the general public is. I also don't believe that there is enough money in the bee industry for scientists to be "bought" by those with commercial interests on one side or another. This is not the medical or energy industry. And I don't believe that any bee scientist has a second home on the coast of Maui.


----------



## WLC

Have you ever thought that you could help scientists and yourselves by adopting some standard methodologies?

I'm referring to the kind of methods where you could enter data into a spread sheet and get 'rigorous statistical' information out? The kind of data and statistics that would be of value to everyone involved?

This gulf between scientists and beekeepers might just be 'all in your head'.


----------



## Allen Dick

> Have you ever thought that you could help scientists and yourselves by adopting some standard methodologies? I'm referring to the kind of methods where you could enter data into a spread sheet and get 'rigorous statistical' information out? The kind of data and statistics that would be of value to everyone involved?

That is where some discussion and guidance would be helpful. I see we have people willing to do the grunt work. Now what we need to decide is what to measure, when, and how to record it so that it will be complete and in a format susceptible to analysis.

I suppose we also need a new thread with a new name.

Anyone?


----------



## Allen Dick

> The difference is that love for our fellow humans makes us do everything we can to keep sick people alive. We do not have that same love for insects. If we allowed survival of the fittest to effect our treatment of humans, then in generations to come, the human race would be better able to resist diseases just like honey bees will be. We just don't have that Hitler ethos

This is how it appears on the surface, and it also seems that the human race has proven itself unique in sacrificing the most fit in a constant succession of wars, however, perhaps things are not what they seem.

Should we survive the next generation or two and escape a rude and sudden return to the Stone Age or the Dark Ages, it seems quite possible that we may be able to 'repair' our 'defective' genetics, assuming we can agree on what the Platonic state might be.
t:
Sorry, that is another topic.


----------



## heaflaw

Allen Dick said:


> > Have you ever thought that you could help scientists and yourselves by adopting some standard methodologies? I'm referring to the kind of methods where you could enter data into a spread sheet and get 'rigorous statistical' information out? The kind of data and statistics that would be of value to everyone involved?
> 
> That is where some discussion and guidance would be helpful. I see we have people willing to do the grunt work. Now what we need to decide is what to measure, when, and how to record it so that it will be complete and in a format susceptible to analysis.
> 
> I suppose we also need a new thread with a new name.
> 
> Anyone?


----------



## deknow

heaflaw said:


> Tell me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that the naturally resistant ferals will help keep us from having to treat, but may not be gentle enough or as good at producing surplus honey as we would need.


you are wrong 

let's talk about "hygienic behavior" as it's commonly understood.

a comb of capped brood is removed from the colony, and using a tube and liquid nitrogen, a given area of the brood is frozen and killed. the hygienic behavior is measured by what percentage of the frozen brood is removed by the bees (who can detect the dead brood under the cappings) in 24 or 48 hours.

this is a trait that can be bred for (crossings of high scoring colonies score high). it seems that wrt microbial disease, a very high score (94% and higher, i seem to recall) is a good indicator that the colony will be resistant. presumably the bees removed diseased bees very quickly, before the microbial population has a chance to explode. this seems to be a threshold kind of effect (ie, the bees don't seem to be "sort of resistant" when scores approach the magic number, but at that number, resistance is "turned on").

in feral populations of bees that show natural disease resistance, the hygienic scores are all over the place...low, high, middle. clearly the bees are not being selected for hygienic behavior under natural pressures, and those that show resistance use other tactics rather than the near immediate removal of diseased larva.

perhaps a good analogy would be the breeding of people for being OCD handwashers. they might get the flu less often than the general public, but are they productive if they wash their hands every 10 minutes? are they killing off the NECESSARY staph bacteria that normally lives on the skin which prevents fungal infection....of course if that staph bacteria makes it's way into your blood stream (which is located very close to your skin), it could kill you as a pathogen.

so, back to hygienic behavior in bees. clearly, this is not how bees subjected to nature's pressures cope...it's a metabolically expensive habit. in fact, bees can be bred so hygienic that they remove _all_ brood from the hive. in order to maintain high levels of hygienic behavior, selection by the beekeeper is necessary (ie, these "resistant bees" don't maintain this resistance unless they are constantly selected for hygienic behavior).

given that we know that _some_ microbes are important to the bees, and that these microbes tend to keep each other in balance, is it really a good idea to select for these hypertraits as disease resistance? are we negatively affecting some of the microbes we need?

but, these kinds of metrics (hygienic behavior, mite counts) are much faster and easier to measure than what we really care about, which is survival...we have no trouble measuring productivity.

of course, if you ask the proponents of MNH bees, they will say that their hygienic behavior is "not metabolically expensive"...but they will also say that the VSH bees' behavior is (i know, i've asked these questions).

also, if we are using bees with these artifically maintained "hypertraits", we reduce the pressure on the bees to develop long term sustainable disease resistant traits.

i hope that explains things a bit better.

deknow


----------



## heaflaw

Deknow:
A couple of questions to understand better.

How do we know that the ferals do not have the same traits as VSH or MNH or both-it's just that since they evolved naturally without man hurrying the development that they have a correct balance of the the traits. Or do the ferals use different mechanisms? And if a beekeeper has a apiary of VSH or MNH maybe along with others that over time the "hyperness" will balance out to an equilibrium that is resistant to varroa, etc, without being metabolically expensive and not requiring the constant intervention of the keeper? Is breeding in either of those traits to an apiary that survives without being treated beneficial or harmful?

If a geographical area has apiaries that need constant treatment can VHS & MNH not be introduced into the area and let nature balance out the population to a sustainable level?

What do you have personally and why?


----------



## deknow

heaflaw said:


> How do we know that the ferals do not have the same traits as VSH or MNH or both


because even the researchers who developed these strains say so. because research on feral survivors (including AHB) includes test of hygienic behavior. their scores are all over the place, just like in virtually any population that isn't being specifically bred for these traits.



> ...-it's just that since they evolved naturally without man hurrying the development that they have a correct balance of the the traits.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think you are understanding. a very high hygienic score produces a threshold effect....it isn't a gradual increase in resistance. the problem is that the researchers don't even know what the traits are that need to be balanced....they have picked a few that they have easy ways to measure. the traits we want (in terms of disease resistance) are the traits that nature selects for. we don't even need to know what they are, we just need to select for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a beekeeper has a apiary of VSH or MNH maybe along with others that over time the "hyperness" will balance out to an equilibrium that is resistant to varroa, etc, without being metabolically expensive and not requiring the constant intervention of the keeper?
> 
> 
> 
> that is quite a bit of conjecture. as i've tried to point out, wrt hygienic behavior, the "hyperness" (the extreme display of the hygienic trait) is the only thing that makes it effective. in more moderate expressions, hygienic behavior doesn't do anything for microbial disease....and not much for varroa (my recollection....even our inspector doesn't find varroa in our colonies, so i don't really worry much about them).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is breeding in either of those traits to an apiary that does not get treated beneficial or harmful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well, i suspect anyone selling such bees would tell you that they would be beneficial. i don't agree, as you are reducing the disease pressure artifically, and you are moving away from proven traits for disease resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have personally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> personally, i have a mix of commercial stock, and stock from a smaller breeder....neither of which come from completely treatment free sources. we will be bringing in a little from another local breeder this year as well. we have structured this as a long term project, and do not expect to have it pay off for a few years. i don't think you can do this if your goal is "honey crop this year".
> 
> deknow
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## heaflaw

Thanks Deknow, I understand much more now.

Besides general knowledge, I had a specific reason for asking. I keep 15-20 hives without treatments & few losses for 4 years. I don't know why, of course, & maybe I am isolated and they will crash this year. But, I'd like to sustain this & possibly bring in more genetics just because I read that I probably should. I was considering VHS/MNH. You have talked me out of it. Maybe find some ferals or buy from someone similar to me. Would that not be your advice?


----------



## deknow

If you are not isolated (there are other bees around), and if you don't raise all your queens from a couple of colonies (ie, if you split your hives regularly and let them raise their own queens), I expect it will be some time before you have inbreeding problems. (Allen, and thoughts on this?). If you do have inbreeding, it should be fairly obvious (shotgun brood pattern), it won't be a subtle problem you don't notice.

If you take your best 2 colonies and graft queens from them to requeen your other 10 hives, you are much closer to inbreeding.

I would not incorporate hygienic stock for it's hygienic traits unless I was going to test and select for it....which I wouldn't  It's certainly fine to bring in some other stock, but try to find the least treated and most local you can find.

deknow


----------



## mike bispham

deknow said:


> mike, you need to look at the breeding program being used. most of these are artifically selecting for "hypertraits" that you will not find in any of the "naturally resistant feral populations."
> 
> deknow


Hi Dean,

Yes, I realise this (though 'hypertraits' is a new term for me!)

As I understand things all and any selective activity is a good thing. As we've seen, location is everything in genetics (as well as in all the other factors), so individuals and clubs in any particular location will be well advised to evaluate their local situation and form their own strategies. This might and might not involve buying in specially raised queens. In most cases I suspect it probably wouldn't hurt... Can I ask what your view is on that?

I think it is well worth noting Marla Spivak's take on this:

"[...] our hope is that beekeepers select for hygienic 
behavior from among their favorite line of honey bee, 
whether it be Carniolan, Italian, Caucasian or other species. 
In this way, there will be a number of resistant lines avail-
able within the U.S. to maintain genetic diversity -- the 
perfect way to promote the vitality of our pollinators. 

A sustainable approach to controlling honeybee diseases and varroa mites by Marla Spivak
http://www.sare.org/publications/factsheet/pdf/03AGI2005.pdf

Note (esp. Peter) that Marla says _beekeepers_, not _bee breeders_. We all have to play our part - if we're not part of the solution here we're part of the problem.

Does anyone agree that a dedicated thread on breeding clubs might be a good thing?

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> If I provide standing water, I have to treat for mosquitoes (both native and other) because of the threat of West Nile Virus and encephalitis.
> 
> Mosquitoes, WNV, Bt-i, bees, mites, honey, etc., all tie in with the unit objectives rather well. Those are: introduced/ invasive species, and biological control. It's 'A Chain of Unintended Consequences'.


How about keeping a pond with fish to control the mosquito larvae? You can get a really nice little ecosystem going in a small pond. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Allen Dick said:


> This is how it appears on the surface, and it also seems that the human race has proven itself unique in sacrificing the most fit in a constant succession of wars, however, perhaps things are not what they seem.


The way it should work is that the successful warriors get all the girls! 

Another way to look at it is that those cultures with an ethos that produces health in the population tend to survive and expand at the expense of those that don't. (Hint from Europe: inbred leaders are not the best thing)

As you say, off-topic, but fun all the same.

Mike


----------



## deknow

mike bispham said:


> As I understand things all and any selective activity is a good thing.


i have no idea what that means.



> This might and might not involve buying in specially raised queens. In most cases I suspect it probably wouldn't hurt... Can I ask what your view is on that?


bees that are selected for hygienic behavior ARE NOT being selected for other disease resistant traits. if your goal is bees that will always need to be selected by testing them for hygienic behavior, then this is a good place to start..but remember, you will need to be selecting continually all the time....there is no illusion that this will become a fixed set of traits. such bees will make terrible feral bees.



> I think it is well worth noting Marla Spivak's take on this:


but mike, feral bees that are known to be resistant are known not to be terribly hygienic..even Marla says this.

Think of it like raising a child. Your rough goal is for that child to be happy. We've all seen "spoiled children" who's parents spend lots of money, and overlook a lot of bad behavior towards the goal of that child being happy. If you want the child to _also_ be a responsible adult, you cannot always keep the child happy by placating him/her. Disease resistance based on a "hypertrait" that must be continually selected for will never allow the bees to take care of themselves....they will be dependant on being selected for hygienic behavior.



> Does anyone agree that a dedicated thread on breeding clubs might be a good thing?


well, personally, no. a breeding program run by a committee is a waste of time. unless you have a number of beekeepers who want to follow your protocol, or if you have a beekeeper who's protocol you want to follow, i think people are better off running their own breeding programs and trading stock however seems beneficial (the better breeders will be sending out many more queens than they take in for evaluation).

i'm not saying you shouldn't start a thread, but i've had lots of discussion with lots of folks over this issue, and i have an opinion.


deknow


----------



## mike bispham

deknow said:


> "Quote: Originally Posted by mike bispham
> As I understand things all and any selective activity is a good thing. "
> 
> i have no idea what that means.


I don't see what the difficulty is. 'Any acts made that tend promote the features you want in the next generation.' In the context of this discussion (and in agreement with your general point), I might phrase that as 'broad-spectrum resistance'. Or less technically, 'health and vigour.' And we'd also want to include productivity and handling qualities.

The 'acts' would be in the selection of parents exhibiting these traits. All the usual stuff. 



deknow said:


> bees that are selected for hygienic behavior ARE NOT being selected for other disease resistant traits.


That may be the case, but it shouldn't be. A good selector will try to aim at a set of traits that confer what might be described as 'health self-sufficiency' i.e. they can flourish without help. Such bees can 'escape' successfully, and can benefit rather than hinder any feral or wild population.

So I take your points - but I think Marla and other specialist breeders will also happily accept them.



deknow said:


> feral bees that are known to be resistant are known not to be terribly hygienic..even Marla says this.


I think it is widely recognized that the known mechanisms are not the only mechanisms. 'Hygiene' as revealed by i.e. the frozen brood test only locates one.



deknow said:


> Disease resistance based on a "hypertrait" that must be continually selected for will never allow the bees to take care of themselves....they will be dependant on being selected for hygienic behavior.


Well, yes you are right - selection must be continuous, and there is no getting way from that. Do you mean that if you go down the frozen brood test route you will be stuck with the frozen brood test for ever? 

I doubt things are ever that precise. Unless you can dominate the breeding pool by flooding the area with your own drones, improvements in the apiary come incrementally as the quality of both the apiary bees and the wider local breeding population improves. As more subfamilies in each hive take on whatever qualities are needed to enable the hive to thrive right there and now. 

It seems to me that if you are going to bring in specially bred bees, the best thing is to try to find a breeder who is aware of these kinds of issues, and who acts accordingly. With that done, I suspect most breeding pools will benift from a bit of fresh blood that is carrying at least some of the qualities that make for self-sufficiency in health.



deknow said:


> Quote:
> "Does anyone agree that a dedicated thread on breeding clubs might be a good thing?"
> 
> well, personally, no. a breeding program run by a committee is a waste of time. unless you have a number of beekeepers who want to follow your protocol, or if you have a beekeeper who's protocol you want to follow, i think people are better off running their own breeding programs and trading stock however seems beneficial (the better breeders will be sending out many more queens than they take in for evaluation).


I wasn't thinking of forming a commitee!  Just a place where the central topic would be what sorts of things breeding clubs might do, where they might find useful info and that sort of thing. I'd like to try to form one myself locally, and talking to like-minded people about that particular aim might well be very useful. 

Mike


----------



## thomas894

I've been unsuccessfully trying to form a group of local breeders for a couple of yrs now, to no avail. Seems Northern WI beeks are a pretty independant lot. Hopefully that will change with our "first" known bee club meeting with Marla's asst Gary Rueter from UMN doing a presentation here on March 3. Wish us luck. Thanks for all the discussion.

thomas


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> I wasn't thinking of forming a commitee!  Just a place where the central topic would be what sorts of things breeding clubs might do, where they might find useful info and that sort of thing.


Anytime . . .
http://beesource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=243


----------



## deknow

mike bispham said:


> I don't see what the difficulty is. 'Any acts made that tend promote the features you want in the next generation.' In the context of this discussion (and in agreement with your general point), I might phrase that as 'broad-spectrum resistance'. Or less technically, 'health and vigour.' And we'd also want to include productivity and handling qualities.


what i've been trying to explain is that hygienic behavior has nothing to do with "health and vigor".



> That may be the case, but it shouldn't be. A good selector will try to aim at a set of traits that confer what might be described as 'health self-sufficiency' i.e. they can flourish without help. Such bees can 'escape' successfully, and can benefit rather than hinder any feral or wild population.


...but in the real world, where the traits are countless (and perhaps unobservable and unknown), "selectors" choose traits that are easy to observe and measure. the trait "able to stay alive and productive for 3 years" takes 3 years (and the resources to maintain all the test hives for 3 years) to test for. for a hygienic test? you could test, select, and breed through 3 generations in a season...that's 1/3 the work/time for 9X the speed of selection. there is a lot of motivation to get such quick results.



> So I take your points - but I think Marla and other specialist breeders will also happily accept them.


if i were you, i wouldn't speak for someone else. for the record, i have discussed this with marla (in the context of a Q&A at a talk she was doing). She stated quite plainly that she didn't believe "hygienic behavior" was metobolically expensive, but VSH was. she didn't offer anything (logic or data) to show why either of these two statements are true (granted, i did have her on the spot in front of a group, but she did not have good answers to these questions).



> I think it is widely recognized that the known mechanisms are not the only mechanisms. 'Hygiene' as revealed by i.e. the frozen brood test only locates one.


i don't know how to state this more plainly. hygienic behavior (as evidenced via the freeze test) is not a known mechanism for disease resistance UNLESS is is expressed as a hypertrait (which only happens when it is being tested and selected for). there is no data to indicate (that i'm aware of), that _some_ lower level of hygienic behavior contributes to disease resistance in any other way. (i'm talking about microbial disease, some of the data might be different for varroa).

knowing what the mechanisms are is not important. creating a situation where the best ones, the most efficient ones, and the most effective ones can flourish and outbreed the others.



> Well, yes you are right - selection must be continuous, and there is no getting way from that. Do you mean that if you go down the frozen brood test route you will be stuck with the frozen brood test for ever?


if you are breeding for a hypertrait (that will only stay a hyper trait if you continue to test and select), and that hypertrait is effective at disease suppression, then you are constantly testing, constantly selecting, and constantly breeding any other disease resistance (the ones you want, the ones that the bees can sustain on their own) out of the gene pool. 



> I doubt things are ever that precise. Unless you can dominate the breeding pool by flooding the area with your own drones, improvements in the apiary come incrementally as the quality of both the apiary bees and the wider local breeding population improves. As more subfamilies in each hive take on whatever qualities are needed to enable the hive to thrive right there and now.


AI is very accessable if you need to do controlled breeding. Most of the evidence seems to indicate that you want a more diverse drone pool, not a more restricted one. "improving things" by trying to breed a specific trait or traits into all drone stock is missing the point.



> It seems to me that if you are going to bring in specially bred bees, the best thing is to try to find a breeder who is aware of these kinds of issues, and who acts accordingly. With that done, I suspect most breeding pools will benift from a bit of fresh blood that is carrying at least some of the qualities that make for self-sufficiency in health.


there is no evidence that hygienic behavior is a quality that makes for self-sufficiency in health.

deknow


----------



## mike bispham

I'm struggling with a couple of things here, and perhaps this will help clear up matters a bit.

I realised I don't understand what you mean by 'hyper trait' - and it seems to play a critical role in your stance.

I searched 'hypertrait', 'hyper trait', and 'hyper-trait', and only ever got a couple of pages of very similar results. This seems to indicate that it isn't a well-recognised term. 

Among them was this:


The Classroom - January 2010
Excerpt
Q: IS IT VSH or VHS or DVD?

Dear Mr. Hayes, 
Please give us some detailed information about the Minnesota Hygienic stock and the VSH (Varroa-selective Hygienic) stock developed at the USDA lab.

Thanks, 
Marcel LeBlanc
Houston, TX

A:
The difference is VSH (Varroa Sensitive Hygiene) is a genetic trait of the honey bee that allows it to recognize capped cells with mite-infested pupae. The bees in a communal way get together and cut through the cap, drag out the infested pupa and the mites and dump them outside as trash.

Minnesota Hygienic Bees have the genetic trait that is one of a high degree of hygienic behavior that targets diseases like American foulbrood and chalkbrood. So, VSH targets "varroa mites" and Minnesota Hygienic target "diseases". Theoretically, one could have both traits simultaneously from 1% to 100% and everything in between. Honey bees have survived for millions of years by having a wide selection of genes for different situations and scenarios. Having a hyper-trait may adversely affect other traits, so everything is a trade off.
http://www.americanbeejournal.com/site/epage/79431_828.htm

So what I need to know, is what exactly is a 'hypertrait'? What makes it different to other traits? Does it have a clear meaning in biological terms, or is it simply a rough expression made to help give a simplistic explanation?

Mike


----------



## deknow

Hi Mike,

That is one of the 2 places I've seen the term. It describes the concept so well that I think it is a useful word, regardless of it's lexicographic status.

Did you understand what Jerry was saying?

All bees have _some_ level of hygienic behavior. If you look within a population of bees that are not being selected based on the hygienic test, you will find a range of hygienic behavior....use a big enough sample size to be accurate, and you will find that none of them are 95% hygienic...unless they are being selected for hygienic behavior.

The best analogy I can come up with is this: Let's say you want to breed humans for disease resistance....you look at the ways that humans resist disease, and you decide that the easiest one to see and measure is social behavior. Extremely anti social people don't have contact with other people, and are less likely to encounter disease organisms...they get sick less.

So, we end up crossing people with antisocial behavior attempting to breed humans that are so antisocial that they never get sick. By the time a person really doesn't get sick from the action of _this_ trait, they are _really_ antisocial. All the other things that we would like to see this person do (work, get educated, go shopping, etc) fall by the wayside...but we have a person that doesn't get sick.

The hypertrait is a trait that has variable expression (social behavior, hygienic behavior) that is expressed to a degree that requires selection of that trait to keep it expressing at that level.

bees selected for disease resistance or survival will not express hygienic behavior at the levels required to be considered "hygienic".

Jerry was absolutely right on what he said...and it's not a popular thing to talk about!

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

Not sure what this has to to do with the header topic and it is possibly in response to a hijack that is thakfully concealed by my preferences, but here are a few drive-by comments, since you make a good point or two...

> ...she stated quite plainly that she didn't believe "hygienic behavior" was metobolically expensive, but VSH was. she didn't offer anything (logic or data) to show why either of these two statements are true (granted, i did have her on the spot in front of a group, but she did not have good answers to these questions).

Simple. 

Minnesota Hybrids which were selected for strong HYG do not seem to demonstrate any lack of fitness or vigour, au contraire. 

On the other hand, the original VSH bees, slelected for the VSH trait only, were hardly able to sustain their populations without assistance.

QED?

> i don't know how to state this more plainly. hygienic behavior (as evidenced via the freeze test) is not a known mechanism for disease resistance UNLESS is is expressed as a hypertrait (which only happens when it is being tested and selected for). there is no data to indicate (that i'm aware of), that _some_ lower level of hygienic behavior contributes to disease resistance in any other way. (i'm talking about microbial disease, some of the data might be different for varroa).

I think you could be looking through the wrong end of the telescope, but if so, you are not alone. That perspective seems to be quite popular. 

_IMO, It is not exaggerated expression of the HYG trait which is useful and desirable, but rather consistent expression throughout the population_. 

People think a high level of HYG is better in somewhat the same way that people think more horespower is better. That may be true to a point, but beyond that point, there is no benefit and increasing disadvantages.

_I keep saying that it is elimination over time of susceptible individuals -- low HYG -- from the breeding population that accomplishes the bulk of the benefit, and that_ _pursuing levels higher than what we see now in many stocks is unnecessary and possibly destructive_. 

I don't think it is an accident that Marla has declared the project finished and moved on to where she is working on improving the the low end of the population -- the mass market -- now that she has finished with the top end.

And, yes, there are number of traits which contribute to resistance to diseases. A combination is more desirable than an overexpression of any one. The researchers pretty well know what these possibilities are and have examined and ranked heritability of each. 

Given a shortage of time and funding, they choose the most heritable ones to work on first, assuming that it is not a very difficult one work with. The surrogate test for HYG made it a natural, but there are other candidates like 1.) the ability to filter spores, a characteristic which could have crossover implications, and 2.) a tendancy to have larvae which seem to be hard to infect.

Incidently, speaking of working down through the listed traits, the SMR project continues. VSH is the initial success from exaggerating one of the number of known candidate traits, but there are more coming hopefully, especially now that funding does not seem as tight as it was at the worst.

(I'm trying to stay off these forums in favour of doing something real, but I could nto resist. There goes a chunk of my afternoon. Anyhow, that's the view from here).


----------



## deknow

Allen Dick said:


> Minnesota Hybrids which were selected for strong HYG do not seem to demonstrate any lack of fitness or vigour, au contraire.


does that mean it's not metobolically expensive? i don't think so, but i could be wrong. it seems to me that if we assume the following about a population of bees:

1. They are living in a tree with no beekeeper intervention
2. They are facing disease pressure

So, some percentage of the bees die, and some balance of:

1. The relative abundance of genes that dictate disesase resistant traits within the population
2. The effectiveness of the various present traits at dealing with the disease pressure in question
3. The metabolic "cost" of the various traits being utilized

...is achieved. In the end, over time, any issues of abundance will be overcome (ie, all domestic cats have a single female ansecestor....even though her genes were likely rare in the population, they are the one set that survived.

What we end up with is essentially a cost/benefit equation. How effective is the disease resistant trait? How much does it "cost" to utilize and to maintain in the population.

I'm not aware of any study that shows a high level of hygienic behavior in any population not specifically selected for this trait (via the freeze test or similar). I am aware of populations of bees that have not been selected for hygienic behavior that are disease resistant. If it were a "cheap" cure, it would be prevelant anywhere where disease pressure selected for it...but disease pressure does not select for it, it slects for other traits that are some combination of "cheaper" and "effective"....something with the proper cost/benefit.



> _IMO, It is not exaggerated expression of the HYG trait which is useful and desirable, but rather consistent expression throughout the population_.


...which, because of the recessive nature of the trait, requires selection at >95% of the freeze test.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/honeybees/components/pdfs/Spivak_Reuter_12-08_ABJ.pdf


> There is a relatively easy field test for
> the hygienic trait. A portion of sealed
> worker brood within a colony is freezekilled,
> and the amount of dead brood that
> is uncapped and removed is recorded. If a
> colony removes >95% of the freeze-killed
> brood within 24 hours over two repetitions,
> it is considered hygienic.


and


> colony to express the trait (the hygienic
> trait is recessive). If the queen mates with
> 20 drones, over half of them should carry
> the hygienic genes. This way over 50% of
> the worker bees in the colony will be genetically
> predisposed to detect and remove
> diseased and mite parasitized brood
> quickly and this is a high enough percentage
> for the colony to show resistance to
> diseases and mites.


and


> They reached the >50% genetic
> benchmark and it became evident in the
> performance of their colonies. We have
> tested their colonies for hygienic behavior
> and we know that the vast majority of
> their colonies are hygienic based on the
> freeze-killed brood assay; that is, they remove
> >95% of the freeze-killed brood
> within 24 hours.





Allen said:


> People think a high level of HYG is better in somewhat the same way that people think more horespower is better. That may be true to a point, but beyond that point, there is no benefit and increasing disadvantages.


I'm often challenged to present data to back up my statements. Do you have any data to back up this above statement? All the work I've seen wrt hygienic behavior has only seen the benefits at very high rates.



> _I keep saying that it is elimination over time of susceptible individuals -- low HYG -- from the breeding population that accomplishes the bulk of the benefit, and that_ _pursuing levels higher than what we see now in many stocks is unnecessary and possibly destructive_.


Only in a population that is selected via the freeze test are the low HYG individuals removed from the population. 



> I don't think it is an accident that Marla has declared the project finished and moved on to where she is working on improving the the low end of the population -- the mass market -- now that she has finished with the top end.


finished? the same selection process is slated to go on indefinitely, no?



> And, yes, there are number of traits which contribute to resistance to diseases. A combination is more desirable than an overexpression of any one. The researchers pretty well know what these possibilities are and have examined and ranked heritability of each.


the researchers know what all of the disease resistance mechanisms are? i bet you can't find a researcher to make that claim!

deknow


----------



## Barry Digman

deknow said:


> The best analogy I can come up with is this: Let's say you want to breed humans for disease resistance....you look at the ways that humans resist disease, and you decide that the easiest one to see and measure is social behavior. Extremely anti social people don't have contact with other people, and are less likely to encounter disease organisms...they get sick less.




I know that it's only an analogy, and I may have lost track of a point made earlier in this thread, but wouldn't we want people who are the most exposed and then survived the disease instead of those who had not been exposed at all? I'm thinking of the indigenous populations of the Americas who were decimated by Old World diseases carried by the Europeans to which the native population had no previous exposure and thus no disease resistance. (Or was that actually the point?)


----------



## deknow

now barry, you better stop before you make sense!

the mechanism hygienic behaviour uses to reduce disease is to LIMIT EXPOSURE by removing disease very very quickly. ...which reduces the exposure to disease, and decreases the selection pressure towards other disease resistance traits.

you win a free bee sting at any of the thousands of "apitherapy R us" locations in strip malls everywhere!

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

Deanno, 

You win this argument - as always -- simply because I have a life to live and do not have the time to read the mass of words you are able to throw at it.

You may not be right, but you always win simply by power of exhaustion and exasperation. 

I prefer to debate with Ernie.


----------



## WLC

If you are selecting for a resistance trait in the bee genome, it's one thing.

However...

Don't forget, that the bacteria in the gut of the bee have been shown to make antibiotics to AFB for example.

It makes things really interesting when you consider that some resistance traits are in the bee's own chromosomes, while others can be found in many different types of bacteria in the bee's gut.

Which one would you prefer to 'enrich' for? Genes, or bacteria? :scratch:

You don't have to kill bees to enrich for bacteria.


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry Digman said:


> wouldn't we want people who are the most exposed and then survived the disease instead of those who had not been exposed at all? I'm thinking of the indigenous populations of the Americas


I would have liked to have seen the native americans survive. Survival of the fittest hardly equates with survival of the worthiest.


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> It makes things really interesting when you consider that some resistance traits are in the bee's own chromosomes


I am not sure we really have a handle on the genetic underpinning of behavior. The more genomics is studied, the more complex it becomes:

recently, using molecular techniques and
quantitative trait loci (QTL) linkage mapping,
Lapidge et al. (57) associated seven suggestive
QTLs with hygienic behavior. Each putative
QTL controlled only 9%–15% of the observed
phenotypic variance in the character.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, if hygienic behavior is a complex mix of seven (or more) traits, and a colony is a complex mix of a dozen or more patrilines, the notion that queens raised from that colony will somehow "inherit" the same set of behaviors seems a little far fetched, now doesn't it?


----------



## WLC

Peter:

You're dead on. Whatever genes you do put into your hive will be diluted by hybridization anyway.

I'm more of the mind that it's an expression issue (epigenomic).

Most bees probably have those genes, but they haven't been turned on for some unknown reason.

I was reminded of how relatively few immunity and detox genes bees possess, while they have an abundance of odorant and learning genes.

Hmmm...


----------



## Barry Digman

peterloringborst said:


> I would have liked to have seen the native americans survive. Survival of the fittest hardly equates with survival of the worthiest.


Just to clarify the example; While many (some estimates are in the neighborhood of 200 separate tribes in North America) were driven to extinction, many survived the foreign diseases and are doing well today. BUT, the numbers probably aren't anywhere close to where they were 400 years ago. Which brings up the question of the size of the population of "managed" bees we could expect to maintain with methodologies best suited to smaller, labor intensive beekeepers. Pondering....


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> I'm more of the mind that it's an expression issue (epigenomic)


As you may recall, I was roundly castigated for even mentioning the concept of epigenomics. Anyone who has followed the analysis of bee hygiene and defense mechanism has thought about the inoculation effects that may be passed from generation to generation, as well as epigenetic and conceivably learned behaviors that enable some colonies to survive where others fail. Bottom line is, these are not heritable traits by definition, but rather passed on through other poorly understood means.


----------



## Allen Dick

> Most bees probably have those genes, but they haven't been turned on for some unknown reason.

While I wonder about the word, "probably" and the frequency, I otherwise agree.

I think it is also feasible to significantly reduce the frequency of some genes or gene combinations in a population. Or, alternately, if, and only if they are all present as implied, there must be reasons why they are expressed in some strains and not in others.

I imagine we will learn more in the next few years.


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry Digman said:


> many survived the foreign diseases and are doing well today.


Survived due to biological luck. The others were lost forever, along with their languages, stories and culture. Who says the laws of nature are not brutal and unjust?


----------



## heaflaw

peterloringborst said:


> As I have mentioned in previous posts, if hygienic behavior is a complex mix of seven (or more) traits, and a colony is a complex mix of a dozen or more patrilines, the notion that queens raised from that colony will somehow "inherit" the same set of behaviors seems a little far fetched, now doesn't it?


I'm just now understanding the importance of LOCATION which you talked about near the beginning of this thread. 
I wish you guys would discuss the implication of exposure to a disease/virus/mite to a bee population. If a 20 sq mile area which had had colony killing levels of the above became resistant thru either introduction of resistant strains or natural selection and it remained so for 20 years, would that population need occasional exposure to disease/virus/mite in order to maintain the genetics of resistance? At what point in years would the sudden reintroduction cause colonies to die, or would the genetic pressure have been maintained anyway? Does anyone have an educated guess?


----------



## mike bispham

Removed


----------



## mike bispham

heaflaw said:


> I'm just now understanding the importance of LOCATION which you talked about near the beginning of this thread.
> I wish you guys would discuss the implication of exposure to a disease/virus/mite to a bee population.
> 
> If a 20 sq mile area which had had colony killing levels of the above became resistant thru either introduction of resistant strains or natural selection and it remained so for 20 years, would that population need occasional exposure to disease/virus/mite in order to maintain the genetics of resistance?
> 
> At what point in years would the sudden reintroduction cause colonies to die, or would the genetic pressure have been maintained anyway? Does anyone have an educated guess?


It is my understanding that 'resistance levels' are maintained to the degree that 'selective pressure' is maintained. As the predator becomes less damaging, the dedicated behaviours that deal with it at some expense to other tasks are selected out. 

I think the reduction rate is quite fast, and I think the issue of dominant and recessive genes is part of the explanation for why that is so. 

In a natural setting (which is what I'm talking about here of course) the most virulent predators will also be selected against, as they will often die with the colonies they cause to perish. It is in the interests of the predator to have a low-level presence in a highly-functioning and healthy prey population. 

'Fast' here them means 'starts just as soon as possible' - but the population is in a very good position to raise its resistance to emergency levels again for a longer period of time. But I can't put concrete numbers to any of that.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

*Genetic requirements for HB*



deknow said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> That is one of the 2 places I've seen the term. It describes the concept so well that I think it is a useful word, regardless of it's lexicographic status.



Hi Dean,

My vote would be to forget it and find the right scientific language. It is, it seems to me, a singular trait that contributes with others to a desirable end. (I've developed things a bit more below) I think that injecting new psuedo-scientific terms is unlikely to help us communicate clearly, and will tend to encourage experts to ignore us as useless amateurs instead of engaging and helping.

Focusing on that single trait alone is, we all seem to agree, not the best plan.



deknow said:


> Did you understand what Jerry was saying?


On the basis that 'understanding' is a vague term, yes  This is an immensely complex business, and I'm trying to locate the simplest underlying themes without getting drowned in detail. I wish I could spend more time on the detail, but there are other things I have to do. 



deknow said:


> All bees have _some_ level of hygienic behavior.


Ok, I do understand that we need to be clear about whether we are speaking here of INDIVIDUALS or POPULATIONS. I know you know this, but I'll go through it anyway because a) I might have something wrong and I'll be grateful for corrections, and b) others here may find it useful.

------------------------

In the first case; what kind of level of hygienic behaviour (HB) a INDIVIDUAL colony expresses is due to the particlar following factors:

1) The several different genetic traits that lead to HB

2) Whether the queen possesses them

3) Whether the drone fathers possessed them (since they only have one copy any genes they possess they pass on)

SO: an INDIVIDUAL colony may or may not have some/all/none of the genes required for HB, on the following grounds:

For ALL to be present in ALL workers:

Assumption: There are say only 5 separate genes-groups leading to 'HB' (This is of course unknown)

A) The queen possesses all of them, and possesses NONE of the alternatives, the alleles.

B) ALL the drone fathers possessed all of them

There is now no way any individual worker in that INDIVIDUAL colony can NOT possess all the HB traits.

(The above is very unlikely unless a controlled breeding program has deliberately made it so - which is possible)

For a breeding POPULATION: 

(Again the assumption: 5 traits contribute to HB)

For ALL to be present in ALL workers

C) ALL the queens in the population are equipped as above 
D) ALL the drones the same.

This would have the 5 traits FIXED in the population. 

But a single drone not equipped with one of HB genes could begin to reduce them by introducing an allelle (an alternative gene) that does not induce HB.

Since at least some of the HB genes are known to be recessive this would happen quickly.

----------------

In this case you mean something like 'all breeding populations', or 'species' or 'local races' ... have some level of HB 



deknow said:


> If you look within a population of bees that are not being selected based on the hygienic test, you will find a range of hygienic behavior....use a big enough sample size to be accurate, and you will find that none of them are 95% hygienic...unless they are being selected for hygienic behavior.


My understanding is that for some of the known HB genes the level in a background population is around 10-15%. And the genes are recessive.

All these figures vary according to the character of the particular population. The current level of exposure, to selection pressure FOR 'HB' will affect levels, as will the presence of medicating apiaries.



deknow said:


> The best analogy I can come up with is this: Let's say you want to breed humans for disease resistance....you look at the ways that humans resist disease, and you decide that the easiest one to see and measure is social behavior. Extremely anti social people don't have contact with other people, and are less likely to encounter disease organisms...they get sick less.
> 
> So, we end up crossing people with antisocial behavior attempting to breed humans that are so antisocial that they never get sick. By the time a person really doesn't get sick from the action of _this_ trait, they are _really_ antisocial. All the other things that we would like to see this person do (work, get educated, go shopping, etc) fall by the wayside...but we have a person that doesn't get sick.


I love this analogy!

Can I add: it benefits society to have a wide diversity of individuals/behaviours. There are many examples from history of _real_ oddballs doing some _incredibly_ socially useful thing!



deknow said:


> The hypertrait is a trait that has variable expression (social behavior, hygienic behavior) that is expressed to a degree that requires selection of that trait to keep it expressing at that level.


Hmm. Again the term objection. It seems to me that the kinds of traits you are talking about are those that are carried by recessive genes. They disappear quickly when not needed (when selective pressure drops) - as long as alleles are present to take their place. I don't know if 'recessive trait' is a proper biological term, but that's what we mean, isn't it?

(BTW your phrase 'variable expression' really threw me for a moment - I'm going to call that one 'Americanese'.)



deknow said:


> bees selected for disease resistance or survival will not express hygienic behavior at the levels required to be considered "hygienic".


OK. Happy ferals will not pass the brood test.



deknow said:


> Jerry was absolutely right on what he said...and it's not a popular thing to talk about!
> deknow


It could be seen as 'making things more complicated than they need be for current objectives.' 

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I think we are on the same page, and it is very useful stuff. And I think we've only scratched the surface thus far. 

To return us to where we started, now able to attach more detail: 

If (an ordinary small apiary) trying to breed out vulnerability brings in one or two (or more) 'triple hygienic' queens (she has both copies H, all her sperm is H), *that will not do any harm*. ('H' here standing for carrying such genes as allow her to pass the brood test) She will offer her H genes to the next generation, and some of that next generation will almost certainly benefit from them. But that's all. There are no negatives to this small act. The next generation will also contain a nice mix of all the other genes around. Hers are a drop in the ocean - and recessive with it. _BUT having her there will enable the beekeeper to stay in business while s/he moves to a selective/non-medicating management scheme. While s/he gets the hang of what true husbandry entails._

I agree - and I think most do - that any model totally reliant on the continuous import of such bees is a terrible idea. But I think that for many people right now the brood test is probably worth exploring as one indicator among several leading to selection of bees that can do well. 

Will some one thank Allen for me for his also very useful contribution? (He has me turned off)

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

*New thread: Selecting for parasite and disease resistant bees*

I have made a new thread _Selecting for parasite and disease resistant bees_ at http://beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=505787#post505787

I hope we'll be able to continue this conversation there.

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

heaflaw said:


> I'm just now understanding the importance of LOCATION which you talked about near the beginning of this thread.
> I wish you guys would discuss the implication of exposure to a disease/virus/mite to a bee population.


My point about the location effect was that it may give the appearance of producing a genetically distinct population where one may not exist. 

Here's an example. Suppose we had a set of twins (genetically the same) and they were separated at birth. One twin grows up living on the street while the other in a palace. The street kid learns to fight to survive and the royal kid is pampered. (Shades of the Prince & the Pauper, I know).

But then, suppose they both have families. How many generations would it take for the one lineage to become genetically tougher; how many for the other to become genetically incapable of fighting?

Very clearly, such a divergence might never happen, despite the continued pressure to fight on the one hand and the lack of it on the other. Generations could pass without any significant genetic change taking place.

If genetics were everything we would expect such traits as great athletic prowess or musical ability to be restricted to family lines. While it is true that talented individuals often have talented kids, it is not inevitable by any means. 

Did any of the Beatles have world class musical children? Were Einstein's kids all geniuses? Or were these individuals made highly successful by a combination of exceptional intelligence, environmental factors and luck?

I certainly do not suppose that improvements can not be made in bee breeding. However, I hardly think any great strides will be made by let alone beekeeping, or beating the woods for swarms. Unless you are into collecting African bees, they are all over the place in a lot of US states.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I certainly do not suppose that improvements can not be made in bee breeding. However, I hardly think any great strides will be made by let alone beekeeping, or beating the woods for swarms.


You keep repeating this Peter, but you haven't offered any evidence that directly supports your position, nor answered several key points made against you.

It is, in other words, an item of faith that at present is contradicted by evidence - both scientific and widespread empirical - and well established theory.

This indicates clearly that if a good many beekeepers collected naturally selected resistant swarms and maintained a selective regime, the need for anyone to medicate would soon diminish. I'd call that a 'great stride'.

Mike


----------



## NewBee2007

WLC said:


> http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/June04_beehive.pdf
> That's what I call a real beekeeper.


Thanks for sharing this article! It was very interesting and how I would like to be able to manage my own hives.

It makes sense (imo) that with the management style of top bar hives there would produce less honey since the bees have to produce new wax each year to replace what was taken out and crushed and strained, etc.
And, it also could explain why the bees are healthier too since there would be less residual of disease and chemicals in the hive due to the regular rendering of wax/combs.

I have never used any chemicals in my hives over the 3 years that I have been beekeeping. I was trying not to step onto the "chemical merry go round" and though it's been tempting to give in and treat since I have experienced losses, I really believe that the only way to end the treatment cycle is to work with survivor stock preferably as local as possible and to go foundation-less frames or top bars and let them build out comb to their liking.

Unlike the family in the article, our growing season is much shorter where I am located, so that plays against us too, regarding how many months the bees are able to forage, so when we have a wet year such as last year was (on top of what we thought was a wet year the prior year, but at least there was a period at the end of the season the year before where they were able to build up almost adequate stores on the Goldenrod) it can be devastating.

So in hindsight, unfortunately last year was not the best year to pick to expand due to the weather, but I look at it as a learning experience (albeit a bit expensive.) And to make it even more discouraging, I have yet to get any surplus honey off any of my hives. The first year I had 2 hives and lost one. The second year I had 3 hives and lost and half the other hive. So last year I figured I'd go for it and attempt to expand by buying half a dozen nucs and packages as well as making a couple of splits. But with all the rain last year, they never really had a chance to forage and build up, even though I had given them some comb from a hive that had died out the year before- due to their silly decision to swarm late in the season- and apparently the bees that remained did not have enough stores that they could reach. Last season, I had been feeding the new packages and nucs, but they seemed to prefer to swarm rather than draw comb and expand up into the next box. So this year, I am just hoping that the 6 remaining hives make it through this winter and that I can then split them and be back to where I started last year (and possibly catch some swarms) if I am that lucky... My greatest hope t is that this year will not be like last couple with all the rain, so that they can get out and forage, draw out new comb, get out there to gather nectar and pollen--- and possibly... maybe get some honey off the hives to sell (finally).

Commercial level beekeeping is not in my plans, but I am trying to build up to be a side-liner. I would like to get there by being able to manage the bees as naturally and with as little interference as possible. (But I am not such a purist, that I will let them die out without attempting to provide some supplemental feeding if I think they will not make it without it over the winter, such as this one has been. Due to the fact that for whatever reasons, they just did not build out comb, even with feeding last season and therefore they did not have enough honey to make it through the winter, I have provided them supplemental sugar in the feeders, hopefully some of them will not need it, but if they do need it then hopefully they will be able to reach it, and if not, well at least I tried to help them make it into Spring, and I will just have to go on and hope that next year will finally be the year where enough will go right and we'll have some excess honey to harvest and sell.)

That said, how do those of you that consider yourself to be "natural" beekeepers, start of new hives when you haven't much or any comb or honey to feed back?

Do you feed sugar water? 

What other management techniques are you using when your expanding?

Also, this might seem remedial and OT, but, how do the bees pick up the V-mites to begin with? Do they just hitch a ride while they are out foraging? Or are they somehow introduced into the hive by their own accord by crawling in themselves, the beekeeper or other insects? 

TIA!


----------



## NewBee2007

Countryboy said:


> _
> It is a scare tactic trying to suggest that tons of people have to die if you stop using antibiotics in hospitals. Nothing but BS smoke and mirrors. _
> 
> Well, from my recent hospital experience, *I think the problem with the infections in the hospitals is because most of the staff is not following infection control protocols.* (I was a Medical Lab technician and an EMT and a nursing student, so I have been trained in infection control protocol and can spot when people are not following them.) I had outpatient surgery recently and my IV line was allowed to touch the floor in the bathroom and when I pointed it out it was just waved it off. Then when taken into the emergency room, the nurse anesthesiologist and the other 2 nurses never washed their hands either or gloved up once they entered the OR. The only person I felt possibly was following protocol was the OR tech that was suited and gloved up taking care of the utensils for following procedures. I don't think that my doctor used soap and warm water either from what I saw through the glass window. I believe the only thing she used was the equivalent of hand sanitizer. And not surprisingly, I did end up with a skin rash, which in hindsight was possibly some sort of staph infection. Fortunately it was relatively minor and resolved in an appropriate time and manner and it did not result in another visit to the doctors office. (Which I try to utilize only when absolutely necessary, since I try to minimize my exposures to those that are acutely infectious as well as the staff that apparently tend to be less than conscientious about infection control protocols.)
> 
> (imo) Most of the hospital infections are preventable if they would only follow infection control protocols.... :doh:


----------



## NewBee2007

WLC said:


> What I'm fascinated by is that there is a significant 'naturalistic' movement for a species of 'livestock'. That's unique.
> 
> So in effect, commercial practices are responsible for spreading pests/pathogens in the honey bee. Is that a fair statement?
> 
> Would you also say that commercial practices are also incidentally spreading pests/pathogens to other native bee species?


(imo) The fact that there are so many chemicals that are being released into the environment (antibiotics in surface waters, pesticides in groundwater and surface waters and herbicides and fungicides being overused and misused) is stressing the bees (as well as other living organisms.) 

It has only been since WWII that the chemical industry has been predominate. And they continue to introduce new chemicals, sometimes with very limited testing results, so we along with the bees are really one big petrie dish at this point in time. I know commercial beeks and bigger farming operations feel they have no other options than to stay on a chemical merry go round, but we have to be honest and realize that we really have no long term studies on how all these chemicals in the environment are affecting living organisms.

It is common knowledge that the chemical residuals that are released into the environment are known to be causing genetic deformities in frogs and newts, etc., and that boys that are exposed to the synthetic chemicals in shampoos, soaps, etc., are experiencing issues with hormone levels secondary to their exposure to those chemicals. 

Is it not logical to therefore wonder what exposure to so many chemicals that were not predominant in the environment 60 years ago is doing to the bees and other living organisms? And therefore, isn't logical for those of us that want to keep bees healthy will want to minimize exposures to things that might stress the hive? So is it then also logical that the less exposure to stressors, the healthier organisms typically tend to be?

So is it not a plus for beekeepers to manage their bees in a more natural way and to try to minimize their exposure to environmental stressors?


----------



## JPK

NewBee2007 said:


> It has only been since WWII that the chemical industry has been predominate.


I would disagree with this statement.

The attempt to create a new category of "Chemical Companies" is disingenuous at best.

Companies from different industries bring products to market based upon need.....classic example of the better mousetrap if you will.

Man has attempted to create better mousetraps since we became tool users.....sometimes successfully and sometimes with nasty side effects.

Look at the hide tanning industries of the 18th and 19th centuries with the heavy metals and other waste that was simply dumped into waterways and "out back" because folks didn't know any better.

Look at apple orchards of the past that used arsenic on trees as a pesticide that have build up in the water tables of some states because of the geology (granite) that doesn't allow it to disperse.

The products that we get today are generally speaking better and safer than what any generation has had access to ever before..

Is it perfect or without issues? No, but lets try to avoid painting with such a wide brush


----------



## laurelmtnlover

Newbee,
I would have to agree with most of what you have to say in you're posts.
Have you seen Sam Comfort's site
anarchyapiaries.org . It seems like good match for your style of beekeeping and we need more like you. Thanks for your posts.
Carrie


----------



## peterloringborst

I agree with JPK

While there are new chemicals introduced every day, many of these are far less toxic than the things they replace. Take food preservation, if you will. Primitive mankind no doubt had to learn the hard way that food goes bad, some got food poisoning and died. They learned about smoking meat, salting, pickling etc. All of these involve poisons (nitrates, salt, acetic acid, etc). 

Drying and freezing use no poisons and were therefor an improvement. In the modern age preservatives included carbolic acid in milk, followed by pasteurization, freeze drying, and irradiation. Sulfur was replaced by sulfur dioxide, and sulfites. So there has always been an emphasis on improving the method, reducing toxicity with newer products and methods. 

Side by side with that is the increased awareness of how flawed our system is. In the past, sewage was dumped into rivers. Sewage treatment plants were designed to remove toxins, but now we know that many things are being allowed into the water supply that before were undetectable, like estrogens, antidepressants, solvents, jet fuel, etc. 

Insectides have evolved from arsenic, lead and sulfur products, through the DDT years, to organophosphates, down to the current use of neonicotinoids. Some people are concerned that this last group is causing serious bee die offs but many of us who have studied the literature conclude that they may in fact be the safest products we have had yet.

We will never return to the good old days, and many of us simply don't want to. Others idealize the past as some kind of healthier happier times. Which is simply to ignore facts like high rates of childhood death, mothers dying giving birth, people dying of food poisoning, tetanus, small pox, etc. which are essentially rare now. 

Finally, I would like to relate a cautionary tale: a so-called study was published linking vaccines to autism. Hundreds of thousands of terrified parents refused to get their children vaccinated against serious childhood diseases like polio (which I had, by the way). Then we found out the study was a sham. But will those same parents now go out and get their kids vaccinated? I wonder.


----------



## mike bispham

Your account fails to observe the precautionary principle.

As well as the general improvements in health that have been made, there have been many instances of disasterous unforeseen consequences. Your own instance, DDT is one such example. Another is the CFCs that were thought to be the most wonderful invention until it was discovered that they were stripping away the ozone layer. Again, thalidamide. 

This tells us that we can expect more of the same. 

There are huge and valid worries about the impact of many aspects of modern technologies. Climate change and GM crops are perhaps close to the top of the current list of potential dangers, that must be monitored closely because they have the potential to be utterly disasterous.

In general terms it is absolutely right that people be concerned about the pace of change, and the possible unforeseen consequences of new technologies. If no-one cared about these things, the big corporations would simply strip-mine and exploit without mercy. There have to be checks, brakes, and regulation, to ensure the common good is not degraded by greed. To adapt a well-known phrase: the price of safety is eternal vigilance.

And it is right too that we should regard the environment as something we do not own, but borrow, and have a responsibility to hand down to the next generation intact. 


Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

JPK said:


> individuals think that if they say something that is utterly irrational enough times that people will actually believe them


Is that some sort of Universal Theorem? It should definitely have a name, like Murphy's Law, or the Peter Principle.


----------



## sqkcrk

The Universal Theorem of a lie repeated becomes the truth.


----------



## laurelmtnlover

Peter and Mark, Once again you're arrogance and lack of civility come across as harsh with tones of bullying. It would be refreshing if you simply allow people to express their opinion, if necessary give an intelligent rebuttal,and so far have seen neither.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Dispute Irrational Beliefs and Teach Rational Beliefs: An Interview with Albert Ellis
> Michael E. Bernard. Melbourne Graduate School of Education
> Published online: 4 February 2009
> 
> Abstract In this interview, Ellis acknowledges that irrational beliefs have a higher biological basis than rational beliefs and that they are not at opposite ends of the same continuum. The interviewer concludes the interview expressing the view that if we listen to Ellis, “we” need to re-think the ways we teach people of all ages to think rationally knowing that the rational re-statement of previously disputed irrational beliefs is only one of many different teaching methods.


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee

Genetics in bees are same as in humans. You can have pure stock or cross breed, you still can’t be sure every bee will pick up the same genetics. From my same queen and hive I have bees acting different. I can sit in front of my hive and one guard bee will attack, I can sit 20 feet away and a different guard bee will attack. It depends on the genetics each bee has. In any given hive you will have some bees that build up fast in the spring and some will not, depends on what genetics each bee picked up. Bottom line is, each bee picks up different genetics and each bee will act a little different and be resistant to pests differently.


----------



## peterloringborst

Cordovan Italian Bee said:


> Genetics in bees are same as in humans


No, no, no!


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee

peterloringborst said:


> No, no, no!


Genetics in every creature is what makes every creature of every different creation different. Yes, Yes, Yes. No two bees or no two people or no two creatures on earth are alike.


----------



## dickm

.......Is that some sort of Universal Theorem? It should definitely have a name, like Murphy's Law, or the Peter Principle........

It's been called "The Big Lie." Hitler was an earlier example. There's a lot of it going on right now in our politics. We are at the mercy of those who can buy public opinion in the form of media control. 

dickm


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee

Can you get a perfect bee hive to where every bee in the hive acts totally the same? No totally impossible.


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee

Now back to natural cell.All bees no matter what size or breed builds different size cell for a reason. Should all bees no matter what size or breed be stuck on using only one cell sise,4.9 ? NO Get back to natural.


----------



## peterloringborst

Cordovan Italian Bee said:


> Can you get a perfect bee hive to where every bee in the hive acts totally the same? No totally impossible.


Quite simply, that would not be a perfect hive at all. Recent studies show that even having bees with all the same father has a negative effect on productivity as well as hygienic behavior. There is a very good reason that the queen mates with as many different drones as possible: to create a diverse work force. 

Having bees all alike would be like having a community where everybody was a baker or everybody was a nurse. You have hundreds of different jobs that have to get done and you need people with all different talents and abilities. 

A hive functions better with "differently abled" bees doing all the various different tasks. So even thought there is just one queen, the colony is less like a family and more like a community. 

It is best not to try to "fit" bees into some mental image we have of them, just observe and learn from them, and from their keepers.


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee

Fact is, no matter what the job is, all bees will do their job a little different, some a little better then others. It’s all in the genetics that all bees don’t have the same. Genes can be in-bred and out-bred but each bee will still not do their entire job the same.
No one said, bees having the same father would create a perfect hive. There can't be a perfect hive.


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee

Bottom line is,genetics in humans and bees and all creation work the same.


----------



## mike bispham

*Bees and humans are genetic constructions*



peterloringborst said:


> "Genetics in bees are same as in humans"
> 
> No, no, no!


What are the grounds for this emphatic denial Peter?

You were built according to instructions supplied by the genes that you inherited from your mother and father. A great many of your features: your eye, hair, skin colours, your height, propensity to learn and forget, your vulnerabilities to specific diseases and so on, came with those genes.

A queen bee is no different. Nor is any other genetic life-form. Our genes are the blueprint from which we are constructed. What we get from our father and mother determines what we can be.

Of course, from the point of conception on, the environment influences development and health. A relatively poor set of genes in a benevolent environment may do better than a much better set of genes in a toxic environment. But recognising that takes nothing away from the fact that whether you are a human, a tree or a bee; your genes build you. In that respect "Genetics in bees are same as in humans" is perfectly true. 

And all life forms can only meet the challenges of their respective environments with the equipment that has been supplied by their genes. So, for example, if neither of your parents carried the genes for blue eyes, it would be impossible for you to have blue eyes. You simply wouldn't possess the instructions for making blue eyes. You couldn't somehow invent them. In the same way a worker bee whose parents held none of the genes required for 'hygienic' behaviours' cannot perform 'hygienic behavours'. Period. So if you want bees that can exhibit hygienic behaviours, you have to arrange for parents that possess the right genes. Period.

What are the significant differences between humans and bees that make you want to object to the statement, and how do they bear on beekeeping practices?

Mike


----------



## WLC

"Genetics" often means something very different to the layman then it does to a biologist who has worked on a real genetics problem.

Human genetics is obviously much more advanced than bee genetics for some obvious reasons.

For example, who is the bee version of Cavalli-Sforza? See my point?


----------



## mike bispham

Your two points are true, but trivially so. They take nothing anything away from the previous posts. We don't have to be experts to understand the basic picture, and see how it applies to bees. 

Understand the principles of inherited traits allows us to see why it is that selecting makes a difference, helps us understand how natural selection works and so on. With that understanding in hand we can start to diagnose some of the simple genetic causes of the current problems, and design management schemes and programs that will enable us to get over the addiction to medication. 

If Peter doesn't understand things at this level, its no wonder he's holding forth in the ways he is. 

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

Why would you even care about bee genetics if all that you are interested in is selecting stock based on a desireable trait?

That's just artificial selection.

My suggestion is this: until scientists can determine how genes and their expression determine desireable traits in the honey bee, don't worry about it.

Besides, those genes tend to get diluted because hives are composed of hybrids.

Also, how do you know that expression of certain traits isn't really controlled by 'other' factors? You know, the natural micro-flora/fauna in the hive?

That's a key point in the whole no-treatment/natural comb rationale IMHO.

The 'genes' might not even be in the honey bee. They might be found elsewhere in the hive.


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> The 'genes' might not even be in the honey bee. They might be found elsewhere in the hive.


Going one step further, natural selection and/or evolution is not about this or that organism but the complex interactions of many organisms with each other as well as with their environment. 

I'm with WLC, it makes no sense to try to boil it down to "simple selection" if there is no such thing. As a matter of fact, I just attended a presentation by Temple Grandin, and I am pretty sure she would object to such simplification.

If there is one thing that we know about life, it is that it is in a continual state of change. You can't step into the same river twice (really, not even once).


----------



## peterloringborst

> Research over the last 20 years has shown that a large fraction of insect species has intimate associations with symbiotic bacteria that often have major effects on their biology. Some symbionts are mutualists increasing their host's fitness, whereas in other cases the host obtains no benefit or even suffers from carrying the micro-organism.
> 
> Over the last few years a series of fascinating examples of how some insect endosymbionts provide benefits to their host have been discovered, and in many cases the benefits are realized only when the host faces an abiotic or biotic challenge. It is likely that we are still some way from fully understanding all of the complexities of the mutualistic interaction.
> 
> One of the best-studied endosymbiont interactions in the field involves a strain of Wolbachia attacking Drosophila simulans in California. [It has been] recently shown that over the 20 years that it has been studied, it has evolved to be less costly to its host.
> 
> Heredity (2010) 104, 237–238


I have started a new thread on this topic, called symbionts, but I am afraid the title is a bit daunting.


----------



## peterloringborst

following WLC:



> Although the organism is a concerted cluster of adaptations, nearly all directed toward the same end, some conflict may remain. To understand such conflict, we extend Leigh’s metaphor of _the parliament of genes_ to include parties with different interests and committees that work on particular tasks.


THE SOCIAL ORGANISM: CONGRESSES, PARTIES, AND COMMITTEES
Joan E. Strassmann and David C. Queller
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University


----------



## sqkcrk

peterloringborst said:


> You can't step into the same river twice (really, not even once).


Now there is something to meditate on. You can't step into the same river once? Is that what you implied? Interesting idea.

Where did you see Temple Grandin? She's my most recent Hero.


----------



## peterloringborst

Yep. Change is constant. Nothing is ever the same, not even for a split second!

Temple Grandin was here where I work, at the Cornell Vet School. She worked very closely with the people on the new biopic of her as well, which is showing here on Thursday night.


----------



## sqkcrk

So, did you meet Claire Danes too? That would have been cool. Temple Grandin and Claire Danes side by side. Not that they are the same.


----------



## peterloringborst

No, Claire was not there. I'm a big fan, too, though


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> Why would you even care about bee genetics if all that you are interested in is selecting stock based on a desireable trait? That's just artificial selection.


Lots of reasons. First, because it strikes me as blindingly obvious that widespread systematic medication of bees is exactly the cause of the problems that medication is given to 'overcome.' This is just unspeakably daft. This daftness is partly mitigated by ignorance - beekeepers are given no guidance on genetic housekeep, and positively encouraged to use the chemical route. 

What you call 'just' artificial selection is the foundation of animal (and plant) husbandry. Unless there is a process of continuous and systematic promomotion of the best bloodlines through selection, it is ALWAYS the case that stock will weaken. 

In response to the other points you make: 

We don't need to know very much about genetics - we just need to know that unless we select our stock will progressively sicken. Most people are not satisfied or convinced with 'it just will' so it is important to speak about the mechanisms in play. For those beekeepers who want to get their bees of chemical addiction, some understanding of the simple biology is extremely useful.

You are quite right to say that genes will always get diluted (though not necessarily by the bees from the same hive) 

The expression of pretty much all variable traits is influences by countless factors - it is conditioned by the total environment. I'm sure the micro-flora of the hive is among them, as is freedom/restriction of cell size.



WLC said:


> That's a key point in the whole no-treatment/natural comb rationale IMHO.


I suspect I will agree that it is an important point - but it is nowhere near as 'key' as the necessity to dump disfunctional bloodlines. 

Mike


----------



## deknow

peterloringborst said:


> Temple Grandin was here where I work, at the Cornell Vet School. She worked very closely with the people on the new biopic of her as well, which is showing here on Thursday night.


i saw this on cable...it is excellent!

deknow


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Human genetics is obviously much more advanced than bee genetics for some obvious reasons.


i'm not sure i believe that. certainly there are more genes in a human than in a bee, but the bee makes more of what they have with multiple drone fathers.

i don't think one can look at the genetics of an individual bee, but have to look at the superorganism.

deknow


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I'm with WLC, it makes no sense to try to boil it down to "simple selection" if there is no such thing.


The thing though is, there is.

Simple natural selection (the weaker bloodlines tend to reproduce less than the stronger bloodlines) is a simple reality. Period.

In all areas of organic husbandry (meaning living organisms, not the other use) artificial selection is necessary to substitute for natural selection.

Without active selection species, or stock, will progressively weaken, for this reason: their predators (the parasites and disease organisms) are continually improving by natural selection to make better use of their prey.

This is so simple I can (and have) explained it to seven year-olds. And I know they have understood it, because I have questioned them closely to make sure.

Of course this is just entry-level stuff. Real life is vastly more complex. 

But (an analogy) a space rocket is a vastly complex mechanism that sits on a concrete foundation. Despite its complexity, we know that if we take away the foundation it will all come crashing down.

The simple mechanisms of inherited traits are one of the foundations of biology. Take them away and it all comes crashing down. Despite any amount of complexity on top, this always remeains true.

Another one:

With arithmetic we can calculate billions of sums. It all depends on the simple processes on addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Take any one of those away and you can't do any of those sums. All are foundational. And children can and do know how to do them.

Why is it you find it impossible to comprehend these simple mechanisms? 

Why is it you find it impossible to acknowledge their significant in the current setting?

Why is it you cannot apply them to real-life (or postulated) circumstances?

This is a real puzzle to me. Most people I speak to just get it, fairly quickly. What is that forms a barrier between you and the SIMPLE foundational principles of biology that permit a wonderful understanding how life works?


Mike


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Now there is something to meditate on. You can't step into the same river once? Is that what you implied? Interesting idea.


This is Heraclitus, one of the middle-period Pre-Socratic philosophers (6th C. BC). In his worldview change, or flux was one of the deepest constants in the world. If you want to be fussy there is no evidence that he actually made that analogy - it is likely made by a later writer trying to explain his views. Heraclitus would also say that not only does the river change continually, you, the stepper, also change continually. 

I agree it is a good way to supply an insight into aspects of evolution. But it is just as important to recognise that there are constants. There is a stream of passing water, there is a riverbank, the river always flows downhill and so on. So with evolution. There are fixed principles, and the complexity is something that emerges from them. Without the principles there would be nothing. Understanding the world is about locating the principles that underlie the complexities, and seeing how they interact. That involves being able to distinguish between principle and secondary causes. (And this is something the Pre-Socratics worked out for us.)

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

*Superorganism*



deknow said:


> i don't think one can look at the genetics of an individual bee, but have to look at the superorganism.


How would you describe the 'superorganism' Dean. I mean what are its physical limits - what is included in the expression.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Superorganism*



mike bispham said:


> How would you describe the 'superorganism' Dean. I mean what are its physical limits - what is included in the expression.
> 
> Mike


I asked this question as it seems to me there are two different ways of using this expression, both of which is useful for different purposes.

The first is to express the idea that the whole hive, though composed of many separate animals, counts as one organism. This is familiar enough.

The second, and I think more interesting, is to think of the local breeding population as a single 'superorganism'. 

In as much as bees are able to mate freely, the lack of control means that whatever we do, and don't do, in individual hives and across whole apiaries, impacts upon that local pool of bees that surround the apiary in what we might imagine as a doughnut shape. Such impact is only felt, of course, over time, as our drones carry our own bees' genes into future generations. But the potential impact is dramatic. Where treatments are systematic, for example, we can expect treatment-dependent bee genes to move out into the doughnut, where resulting new colonies will tend toward treatment-dependence. Getting no treatment, they will perish. This the act of treating apiary bees tends to destroy local bees. (And beekeepers as a consequence tend to express the belief that wild bees do not survive). Other management acts similarly (though generally less dramatically) affect the superorganism.

Conversely, for those beekeepers who are fortunate enough, and/or skilful enough to have a healthy wild local population, the harsh realities of natural selection ensure a constant supply of healthy genes and swarms to healp replace losses.

Looking at this larger 'superorganism' then helps us understand what is going on through time, and predict how our present acts are likely to affect our future situation. I think consideration of the local breeding pool or 'deme' is the key to skillful and sustainable beekeeping. And I'm beginning to think more and more that reliable and sustainable beekeeping is dependent on a healthy wild population. 

Mike


----------



## GeorgeBL

The Greek Bees Apis Mellifera Cecropia & Macedonica built natural cells 5.1 mm


----------

