# DWV, Mites and Hygienic Behavior



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

I don't know if Oregon has an Apiary Section in their Agriculture Department, but if they do they should have a ball park figure for natural mite fall numbers. The numbers vary from area to area, here any number higher than 50 is considered damaging to the colony.

If you don't mind going to the trouble to do 24 hour natural fall counts, do a few. It will give you some idea how many can fall naturally and the colony still survive the winter.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

You can test for hygenic behavior -- freeze a brood circle and replace the cookie cutter section, and observe hygenic effort. 
You can test of mite load, the Drop underestimates, and a direct measure like a sugar shake is preferrable.
My bees don't seem to have the "leg chewing" behavior being reported on mid-western bees, but look for that trait as well.

In other words you don't have to guess. You can measure these traits directly. Hygenic less than 75% doesn't seem to help.

My experience is DWV larvae removal (pink eye) and DWV "crawlers" don't have anything to do with Hygenic. DWV lethals are removed by all breeds of bees. DWV lethals can accumulate in the hundreds quickly (but the yellow jackets sometimes remove the evidence).

DWV infects the queen, and she will lose fecundity. DWV is a proxy for all the other virus carried by Varroa.

I don't see DWV resolving naturally (though MB does). DWV encourages supersedure, and that does reset the clock. A October Oregon supersedure doesn't sound positive, they could winter and then go queenless in early spring.

Sounds like this is a good hive with good genetics. You should attempt heroics to preserve the lineage. Third year mite explosion is just typical.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> You can test of mite load, the Drop underestimates, and a direct measure like a sugar shake is preferrable.
> [...]
> In other words you don't have to guess. You can measure these traits directly.


JW,

How would a count cater for hives of different sizes? A large hive will, ceteris paribus, produce a larger mite count than a smaller one. Wouldn't you want to factor that out? 

Again, wouldn't you want to make comparisons with other similar hives at the same locality? 

Perhaps more importantly: many colonies seem to be thriving despite the presence of mites. In fact the presence of low fecundity strains of mite offers strong protection against an explosion due to high fecundity mites. This suggests an assay for fecundity would be wise before taking any decisions. Bees 'breeding' low fecundity mites is a good thing....

Another problem: the sugar shake you recommend will knock back the mites - it will amount to a treatment. This will make it impossible to evaluate the ability of the colony to fend for itself, disrupting the selection process. 

People who do sugar-shake 'counts' regularly are in fact treating - with all that entails.



JWChesnut said:


> Hygenic less than 75% doesn't seem to help.


75% what? 75% of the frozen sample brood removed? After how long?



JWChesnut said:


> DWV infects the queen, and she will lose fecundity. DWV is a proxy for all the other virus carried by Varroa. I don't see DWV resolving naturally (though MB does).


Several of my hives showed DWV in the spring, but it soon stopped, and they've gone on to be good goers. 



JWChesnut said:


> Sounds like this is a good hive with good genetics. You should attempt heroics to preserve the lineage.


If it can't resolve mite/DWV problems on its own it isn't a good hive. Not in tf beekeeping terms.



JWChesnut said:


> Third year mite explosion is just typical.


Typical of what? Insufficiently resistant bees?

Mike (UK)


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

1. Sugar shake == 1/2 cup measured bees in jar, strain out mites from bees and sugar. == reliable count per unit volume of very small subsample of hive. Dusting 300 bees is not "treating", it is sampling.

Your statement "many colonies are thriving in the prescence of mites" is unsupported in any unbiased literature. Mites cause problems, to deny this association, to say "my mites are sweet-tempered pets that my bees love" is ridiculuous. Evidence for this statement.

The 75% threshold comes directly from the Spivak popular documents and papers on her hygenic trials. Her full protocol for sampling is all over the web, sorry I assumed you knew it. You can do the protocol without liquid nitrogen by removing and replacing home frozen rings.

A third year mite explosion is a typical end state for an untreated hive. I see it again and again.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> I don't see DWV resolving naturally (though MB does). DWV encourages supersedure, and that does reset the clock. A October Oregon supersedure doesn't sound positive, they could winter and then go queenless in early spring.
> 
> Sounds like this is a good hive with good genetics. You should attempt heroics to preserve the lineage. Third year mite explosion is just typical.


What would heroics look like? Could I cage the queen now? I could also requeen with one of her daughters. Our water is done, and so is the golden rod. There is some 3rd cut alfalfa being saved for pasture that should provide some middling forage since we have recently broke our high pressure system, we may actually see some moisture from the sky.

I've actually never seen this queen, but I could catch her if I had to. Actually my queen catching abilities are a comedy of errors... mostly I try to just herd them where I want. I need something like a cattle squeeze to get them in their cages.

I cleaned out my screens yesterday - I have 3 out 6 on the big hives. The recent treatment-free conference I attended spoke of measuring mite counts per 300 bees as being more appropriate to measuring a threshold per hive. I'll have to look in my notes to figure on estimating that correctly. I'm doing a 48 without sugar on all 3. I'll do another on in a couple days? I haven't looked up the Oregon AG page more mites, but might get to that today. 

I have 6 nucs I grafted from this queen over the summer, a big spring split, and 2 big hives from last year's splits. I will be leaving this yard at the end of the season, so honestly my willingness to put in a lot of effort on this hive is waning. Call me lazy. 

I would be willing to test some brood for hygienic degrees, just to satisfy my curiosity. I would love to think there might be a few manipulations I could make now that would get them through till spring. I'm sure at that point they would supersede and/or swarm because there will not be anyone to manage the hives like me. I would be happy if someone got supers on the overwintered nucs...


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> 1. Sugar shake == 1/2 cup measured bees in jar, strain out mites from bees and sugar. == reliable count per unit volume of very small subsample of hive. Dusting 300 bees is not "treating", it is sampling.


JW,

Yes, ok. Dusting a sample isn't treating.



JWChesnut said:


> Your statement "many colonies are thriving in the presence of mites" is unsupported in any unbiased literature.


How do we determine 'unbiased'? 



JWChesnut said:


> Mites cause problems, to deny this association, to say "my mites are sweet-tempered pets that my bees love" is ridiculuous. Evidence for this statement.


Its widely recognised that there are differences in fecundity, and that the SMR trait permits the existence of low-fecundity females while removing those having many offspring, thus 'breeding' strains of mite that do not - cannot - reproduce explosively. [1] There are more and less damaging mites, and and therefore treating all mites as undesirable is unhelpful to the aim of encouraging co-evoltionary change in the apiary. 



JWChesnut said:


> The 75% threshold comes directly from the Spivak popular documents and papers on her hygenic trials. Her full protocol for sampling is all over the web, sorry I assumed you knew it. You can do the protocol without liquid nitrogen by removing and replacing home frozen rings.


As far as I knew Spivak recommends a figure of 95% removal after 48 hours. [2] There's no need to apologise to me JW, it is Hazel-Rah who you were informing. As well as the suspect number you didn't state what it was the figure referred to.



JWChesnut said:


> A third year mite explosion is a typical end state for an untreated hive. I see it again and again.


I don't doubt you do, but that's (a) anecdotal evidence - and is contradicted by a great deal of other anecdotal evidence - here and elsewhere. It may (b) well be typical for a treated apiary that is suddenly untreated. It would be expected that in apiaries where resistance has been raised - one way or another - that things would be different - and the literature, and the anecdotal evidence here and elsewhere, suggests that expectation and reality meet nicely. 

Not all strains of mites are the same.

Not all strains of bees are the same.

We have to take those facts into account when making statements about bees and mites.

Mike (UK)

[1]
"Since 2001, we have been incorporating another trait into the MN Hygienic line called "Suppression of Mite Reproduction" or SMR. We also have been investigating the mechanism for the SMR trait to determine how bees can reduce mite reproductive success. Our results demonstrated that bees bred for SMR are both hygienic and have some yet unknown property associated with their brood that reduces the number of viable offspring the mites produce. Combining the SMR trait into the hygienic line, therefore, helped increase the degree of hygienic behavior in our line, and added another factor that helps suppress mite reproduction. Field trials in commercial apiaries have demonstrated that the Hygienic/SMR cross significantly reduces mite loads in colonies relative to the pure Hygienic line and unselected lines of bees. 

A Sustainable Approach to Controlling Honey Bee Diseases and Varroa Mites, Marla Spivak, Gary Reuter, 2005 
http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center...ting-Honey-Bee-Colonies-for-Hygienic-Behavior

See also
Suppressed mite reproduction explained by the behaviour of adult bees
JOHN R HARBO AND JEFFREYW HARRIS
https://afrsweb.usda.gov/SP2UserFil...o--Suppressed Mite Reproduction Explained.pdf

"Boecking & Drescher (1992) and Spivak (1996) reported that bees were more likely to be hygienic when cells were artificially infested with two rather than one mite, and their findings may indicate that bees were responding to adult mites. However, the presence of more adult mites may have been an indirect stimulus for removal. In their studies, bees may have removed the contents of doubly infested cells at a higher frequency than singly infested cells because doubly infested cells are more likely to have mite progeny, even if from only one of the foundresses. Spivak (1996) reported a high level of non-reproduction among mites that had been artificially introduced into cells, so if 40% of the artificially introduced mites produced no progeny then one would expect only 16% of the doubly infested cells to have no progeny. Therefore, as with our results, their results could be explained by worker bees targeting cells with reproductive mites. The removal of reproductive varroa by adult bees unifies the
reports of varroa hygiene (Boecking & Drescher, 1991, 1992; Spivak, 1996; Correa-Marques & De Jong, 1998; Boecking et al.,2000; Nazzi et al., 2004) with those that relate mite resistance to a high frequency of non-reproductive mites (Ruttner et al.1984; Ritter, 1990; Eguaras et al., 1995; Harris & Harbo, 2000).
All are probably linked to varroa hygiene."

[2] The frame with the freeze-killed brood insert is placed in the center of the brood nest. Two days (48 hours) later the frame is removed and the number of sealed cells remaining is recorded. A hygienic colony will have uncapped and removed over 95% of the frozen brood within 48 hours. A non-hygienic colony will take over six days to completely remove the frozen brood. The speed with which a colony removed dead brood is correlated with its ability to remove diseased and parasitized brood.
[...]
It is very important that colonies be considered hygienic only if they remove >95% of the brood on two consecutive tests.

A Sustainable Approach to Controlling Honey Bee Diseases and Varroa Mites, Marla Spivak, Gary Reuter, 2005 
http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center...ting-Honey-Bee-Colonies-for-Hygienic-Behavior


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

OH, OK , I get it... put the bees in the jar, then you get your 300 count. Taadaa! Since I already cleaned my boards, I'm curious to check them out. But comparing that against a small sugar shake seems ideal.

Also, thanks for your exhaustive references Mike.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

Does it have to be a cut out from the center? I have a frame in there currently that is 70% hatched out. Most of the remaining brood are along the bottom of the frame, not clustered together. On the other side is some honey, but not capped. Could I just freeze this whole frame?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> You can test for hygenic behavior -- [...] You can test of mite load [...] a direct measure like a sugar shake is preferrable.


JW, how do you read your sugar shake results? 

Mike


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I have a double ended jar (two jelly pints) with a window screen between them. I shake the bees/sugar mix and tip the jar over. Mites and sugar drop to the second jar through the screen. 

I disolve the sugar in hot water and tip the mites into a watch glass --any small glass bottom plate would work.

The Spivak test uses a can sized subsample from the center of the frame. To compare results, use her protocol, as killing a whole frame of brood would have issues of scale.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> treating all mites as undesirable is unhelpful to the aim of encouraging co-evoltionary change in the apiary.


Mike, this is the core of my disagreement with this "Bond" religion. Co-evolutionary change does not happen at the backyard hive level. Some folks with sketchy knowledge of evolutionary processes have decided that they are creating new genotypes by letting hives die and mites opt for lower reproduction. Look at the mathematics of horizontal transfer of mites, there is zero adaptive advantage to lower reproduction if the keeper is letting weak hive get robbed out and its mites transfer.

Hazel will lose her best hive (she thought highly enough of it to graft its eggs). Her honey production will vanish for a year as she builds out young hives from these grafts. This is all completely un-necessary and enormously wasteful. 

If Hazel thinks this hive represents a favorable combination of characters, she should ensure its continued lineage. In some future, those genes will help other hives with even greater fitness. Traits don't change in live/dead binary jumps, but build up slowly generation by generation. You select the best and improve each step of the way. Its a slow, painstaking process, always a best approximation, and it requires -- saturation, isolation and managed in-breeding. Letting a lineage with favorable traits die out is just plain wasteful.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> Mike, this is the core of my disagreement with this "Bond" religion. Co-evolutionary change does not happen at the backyard hive level.


JW,

It happens in every generation. It involves relatively minor changes - the shifts within populations from one set of alleles to another, rather than major change cause by mutation - but preferential change due to sexual recombination and natural/deliberate selection is going on all the time. 

Both bees and mites are changing due to shifts in alleles in both populations. This is resulting in bees that are better at managing mites, and mites that do less harm to bees. These facts are written into all the relevant literature. Why would anyone be assaying at all if they didn't thing selective propagation would make a difference? You know this, so I don't understand quite what you are trying to get across here.

Perhaps what I'm missing is the meaning of 'backyard hive level'. We are talking about somebody with just a few hives, perhaps surrounded by treaters, with no feral population, for whom breeding toward mite resistance is all but futile? 

If that is the case, perhaps the best thing to do is to explain why anything other than a veterinary model is inappropriate, and direct them to the commercial section? 



JWChesnut said:


> Some folks with sketchy knowledge of evolutionary processes have decided that they are creating new genotypes by letting hives die and mites opt for lower reproduction.


I don't think many people here are thinking in terms of genotypes at all. They are thinking about the husbandry of alleles conferring desirable traits. Its simple stuff and there is no benefit in overcomplicating it. It just health animal husbandry by selective breeding, which acknowledges and works with a simple truth: Some individuals are better suited to the present environment than others: (some of) the reasons why are found in their genes, and genes and the traits that make it so are inheritable. 



JWChesnut said:


> Look at the mathematics of horizontal transfer of mites, there is zero adaptive advantage to lower reproduction if the keeper is letting weak hive get robbed out and its mites transfer.


The robbing bees will be more and less well equipped with behaviours that will enable them to cope with those mites. Those better equipped will, ceteris paribus, do better; and pass on their genes. A measure of adaptation has ocurred. Where is the problem?



JWChesnut said:


> Hazel will lose her best hive (she thought highly enough of it to graft its eggs). Her honey production will vanish for a year as she builds out young hives from these grafts. This is all completely un-necessary and enormously wasteful.


If we were in the commercial section I'd agree - and even here I might. But that would be talking about a specific case - not about the way genetic husbandry works on the general level. 

Some people (me for one) would say that forgoing a few pounds of honey is a small price to pay for furthering the long term aim of improving the genetic position.

What is wasteful? Losing a few pound of honey? Or losing a colony that isn't contributing to the aims of tf beekeeping? 

If Hazel-Rah only has a few colonies, and no prospect of getting any likely better genetic material (in terms of resistance to varroa/self sufficiency - bees that can be kept without treatments or manipulation) then preserving the bees with the aim of raising numbers, and getting in the position of being able to breed toward resistance (but not from them unless they are her best colony in resistance terms).... then... treatment now as a preservative measure might be a good thing.

*But treating is something we're trying to stop doing, and we shouldn't be advising people here how to keep bees non-resistant.* 



JWChesnut said:


> If Hazel thinks this hive represents a favorable combination of characters, she should ensure its continued lineage. In some future, those genes will help other hives with even greater fitness.


Fine. Assay, then make a proper decision.



JWChesnut said:


> Traits don't change in live/dead binary jumps, but build up slowly generation by generation.


The build _in populations_ as a result of a process that removes _most_ individuals from the breeding pool, producing each new generation only from the fittest. They _cannot_ build to the extent the unfit are kept alive and allowed to reproduce.



JWChesnut said:


> You select the best and improve each step of the way. Its a slow, painstaking process, always a best approximation, and it requires -- saturation, isolation and managed in-breeding.


I think you have in mind a closed breeding pool model, and an aim of fixing, embedding, a particular trait that represents an endpoint. We don't have that breeding model, and our aim is not to try to fix anything - that would be futile. It is to raise resistance steadily (and to prevent its backsliding) by... making increase from the most resistant, and _not_ allowing poorly resistant individuals to reproduce. 

*Given the breeding aim of raising resistance *(in order to be able to do tf beekeeping) ... 

The more isolation and saturation you can achieve the easier this is. Genetic input from surviving bees helps enormously, and bred resistant bees should be be added to the mix. The 'managed in-breeding' is a necessarily vague concept - without AI any attempt at close management is impossible. Bee parentage has to be managed at arms length on the male side. On the queen side, yes, you seect the best (and thus create the best chnce of improvement) every step. 

And this works - given enough hives to overcome the chief unfavourable factor of flying drones from systematically treated unfit colonies. 

The converse follows as a matter of simple logic: to the extent that you don't do these things - select from most resistent (and the frankenstienian preservation of unresistant colonies)... resistant won't rise in the population. And it can easily fall as a result of the preservation of unfit bees.



JWChesnut said:


> Letting a lineage with favorable traits die out is just plain wasteful.


An individual is not a lineage. And you have to balance the traits. One good season from a possibly well-fed and vigourous queen with no resistant alleles to pass on doesn't amount to a case for preservation. 

*Not, anyway, if you are trying to go treatment free.*

Mike (UK)


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Here's some reading for the day.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3255632/

Our results are consistent with other studies that have been unable to demonstrate an epidemiological relationship between the Varroa mites and BQCV or SBV (19, 40, 43, 49, 50).

DWV, BQCV, and SBV each react differently to Varroa mite infestation, despite similarities in particle and genome structures (12). Therefore, knowledge of virus epidemiology and, more specifically, virus-vector interactions is important in order to implement effective techniques to manage different virus infections.


Page 14 has some very important data reported.

Regards,


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I think the point JW is making with the breeding/mating model bees use it's hard to get definite long term genetic shifts made on the 'backyard' model. How can you prove alleles have shifted without genotyping your bees at the beginning and then throughout the subsequent generations. Phenotypical selection only gets you so far unless you're flooding with drones of mothers with fixed traits you are trying to introduce into your area and even then open mating allows for drift and you're still selecting daughter queens based on a genetic crapshoot solely on phenotypical selection with varying pathogenic pressures every day/month/year. 

For example, if you look at Hazels 3 year old queen, or maybe older, how much genetic change has this hive gone over the last few years???? Very little from the queens perspective, perhaps some change depending on the drones she's mated with. How many generations did the mites go through now in 3 years which gave them that many opportunities to overcome any traits the bees may have to resist them?


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> Hazel will lose her best hive (she thought highly enough of it to graft its eggs)... If Hazel thinks this hive represents a favorable combination of characters, she should ensure its continued lineage. In some future, those genes will help other hives with even greater fitness...


It's true that I thought highly enough of this queen to graft from her, but mostly by default. I took over this yard last spring and there were two overwintered queens. This is the queen that is longest lived, but I also grafted from a queen out of last year's spring split - with the most prolific honey and wax production. Although from what I hear in this forum, a gentle 3rd year queen with several gallons of honey to their credit is worth gold.

I do think it would be wasteful to lose this queen if it was because I was merely not sensitive to the potential of helping them manage their mite load through their own survival mechanisms.



mike bispham said:


> We are talking about somebody with just a few hives, perhaps surrounded by treaters, with no feral population, for whom breeding toward mite resistance is all but futile?
> 
> Some people (me for one) would say that forgoing a few pounds of honey is a small price to pay for furthering the long term aim of improving the genetic position.
> 
> ...


Ok, well the conversation about the priorities and goals of my yard don't have to be hypothetical...

Losing this hive would not be the end of the world. As I have stated before, I'm not even going to be managing this yard next year - which is not to say I do not care to set the bees up for their highest vital potential. Otherwise I would not have brought this yard from 2 queen-right hives to 17, counting the nucs.

Losing this hive would also not likely put much of a dent in my honey flow. I'm not commercial and while this is a very productive hive, other - younger- daughters of this queen actually put out more gallons. This is my 2nd/3rd most productive hive.

Also, I'm not going to 'treat' them, so no need to guess there. But I DO think this queen represents desirable characteristics for agricultural honey bees. So I am interested in what measures can be taken to help the bees cope with a possible terminal mite load. Considering that I have kept this hive in an unnatural cycle of non-swarm - I don't think it would be overly manipulative to go in and break up the brood cycle now. 

Maybe that will help stave off DWV and critical mite load, maybe not. I'll let you know in the spring.

Also, I do have the results on their hygienic test and mite drop... *drum roll* They scored a little better then 90% on their hygienic, with nearly all the brood removed from a section the size of a mason wide mouth. Their mite drop of 300 bees from the brood chamber showed 13 mites... which according to the Oregon State Beekeepers website means I gotta hit em' with those chem-bombs!! That does seem high... I guess.

I found the queen today, nice looking with no symptomatic DVW. I put her in a deep with a few frames of brood, honey/pollen and empties. I'll give them 10 days, break out their queen cells and maybe do again? At what point do I run the risk of a laying worker?




BEES4U said:


> Here's some reading for the day.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3255632/


I guess what I actually need is an RNA extractor.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JRG13 said:


> I think the point JW is making with the breeding/mating model bees use it's hard to get definite long term genetic shifts made on the 'backyard' model.


We're back to trying to do logic using fundamentally vague terms. It doesn't work. What is a 'backyard model'? How many hives does it entail? Of what sort of size? On free comb or partially drone restricted?

And then: what are the surrounding bees like - are there long-term surviving feral/wild bees, a number of non-treaters of or just lots of treating apiaries?

These things make a difference. Until and unless we have answers to these questions, we can't offer specific recommendations. 

It seems to me that what JW is saying amounts to: 'below a certain level of control we'll assume nothing constructive can be achieved in (open) breeding terms, and we'll call that state of affairs a 'backyard model'.

What can do is take a different appoach. We can state that a greater amount of breeding control does permit a measure of success in terms of raising resistance. We can talk about why that is -what is happening. We can identify the factors that restrict breeding success. 

Just to come back to....



JRG13 said:


> ...hard to get definite long term genetic shifts


Its all but impossible to get 'long term genetic shifts'. What you can do is press in a particular direction, and if you press hard enough you can expect a genetic change that will remain for as long as you keep pressing. If you are lucky enough to live someplace where nature is doing that for you, and not too many people are messing up the process, it will happen naturally. But it will start unpeeling just as soon as enough people start treating. 



JRG13 said:


> How can you prove alleles have shifted without genotyping your bees at the beginning and then throughout the subsequent generations.


First, any such 'shift is, as above, not a permanant feature, but a response to breeding pressure (selection) Second; the answer: because they're thriving without recourse to treatments. That the only data you need.



JRG13 said:


> Phenotypical selection only gets you so far unless you're flooding with drones of mothers with fixed traits


Flooding with drones is normal bee breeding practice. No mothers have 'fixed' traits. They have the desirable traits - we know because because their worker progeny are expressing the required alleles, as evidenced by thriving. They may have got those alleles from her, or from the drone fathers, or both. The queen and the sperm she holds may also carry less desirable alternative alleles. The more we can control the genetics of the population the more we can be effective in reducing those - _in the population_.



JRG13 said:


> ...you are trying to introduce into your area and even then open mating allows for drift and you're still selecting daughter queens based on a genetic crapshoot solely on phenotypical selection with varying pathogenic pressures every day/month/year.


Yes. Its always something of a crapshoot. You work hard to shift the odds in your favour, then keep throwing the dice. Repeat. That's bee husbandry.



JRG13 said:


> For example, if you look at Hazels 3 year old queen, or maybe older, how much genetic change has this hive gone over the last few years???? Very little from the queens perspective, perhaps some change depending on the drones she's mated with.


Probably not. As I understand it the drones sperm gets well mixed, and all the drone fathers are 'in action' at once throughout her life.



JRG13 said:


> How many generations did the mites go through now in 3 years which gave them that many opportunities to overcome any traits the bees may have to resist them?


If you want to follow that logic, how many micropredators with very fast reproductive rates do humans have? Humans reproduce about, what, 40 times slower than bees? ...

There is plenty of evidence to show it isn't happening like that. Honeybee have behaviours that allow them to control varroa mites well. These behaviours are bought about by particular combinations of genes. There are a number of specific behaviours, and different combinations work better than others. All the equipment is there. All that's needed is a chance for the bees to locate the equipment, and to experiment to find the best combinations - and to keep doing so. 

We can work with them. Or we can work against them. Its our choice.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Hazel-Rah said:


> ...But I DO think this queen represents desirable characteristics for agricultural honey bees. So I am interested in what measures can be taken to help the bees cope with a possible terminal mite load. Considering that I have kept this hive in an unnatural cycle of non-swarm - I don't think it would be overly manipulative to go in and break up the brood cycle now.


Hazel,

I think that rationale can be used to maintain unresistant bees and mite control measures indefinately. I'd question whether that comes under tf beekeeping. 



Hazel-Rah said:


> I guess what I actually need is an RNA extractor.


That sort of thinking will keep us all frozen for lack of 'essential' technology. What you need is a breeding yard and a process.

Mike (UK)


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

You have a well one sided argument Mike, I will give you that. The tendencies to point out the outcomes of 'ideal' situations all the time is flawed though. The bees have all the mechanisms, clearly it helped them a lot when Varroa first became an issue. Also, nature tends to select for the path of least resistance and we see how ferals tend to deal with mites the most, by being swarmy. That being said, there's just a lack of clear data on a lot of what's been done or tried and how successful it's been. For instance, I see a brood assay was done here.... that type of hygenic behavior has nothing to do with VSH or removing mite infested brood, that's clearly been stated before. It may bare some correlation to better mite hygenics but it's not the correct assay for testing VSH characteristics, but it's a misconception a lot of people have.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> I think that rationale can be used to maintain unresistant bees and mite control measures indefinitely. I'd question whether that comes under tf beekeeping.
> 
> That sort of thinking will keep us all frozen for lack of 'essential' technology. What you need is a breeding yard and a process.


Maybe that's the rationale that other people use to keep non-resistant bees, but here, I am substituting the bee's natural mite suppression behavior to support this hive which has been possibly deprived of such earlier in it's life cycle. Also, this queen/hive seems to be far more vital than queens referenced by others on this forum. Most TF breeders I've spoken with or read, use the best of their 3 year queens - well, that's what I did.

Maybe brood breaks fall out of your standard of TF but I do believe it is within the parameters in this forum.

Perhaps she will be superseded in the spring(in all likelihood they will at least swarm, since they will not be managed - or at least not very much.). Or if she does not seem to be laying well, or starts to show increased symptomatic DWV, I will probably just requeen the hive with a daughter queen from my nucs.

You'll have to learn that any credit I give to 'heady' technology is tongue and cheek. That being said, sarcasm is difficult to relay over the internet. I don't want an RNA extractor, I am a proponent of convivial technology. Next year and in those subsequent, I will be in a better position to isolate my breeding queens.



JRG13 said:


> For instance, I see a brood assay was done here.... that type of hygenic behavior has nothing to do with VSH or removing mite infested brood, that's clearly been stated before. It may bare some correlation to better mite hygenics but it's not the correct assay for testing VSH characteristics, but it's a misconception a lot of people have.


It's not a misconception I have, I don't think anywhere I mentioned that I was testing for VSH. These hive were purchased under the pretense of being VSH. I was simply testing the hygienic qualities to better understand the characteristics of the hive.

In my first post I mention wanting to predict their ability to cope with the mite load - now I know the mite load and their general hygienic. I'm still open to a technique for predicting their VSH...

And then I found this, http://vshbreeders.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=37

So I guess I'll just be sticking to VSH as an ambiguous label for the near future...


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Hazel-Rah said:


> Maybe that's the rationale that other people use to keep non-resistant bees, but here, I am substituting the bee's natural mite suppression behavior to support this hive which has been possibly deprived of such earlier in it's life cycle.


Hazel, 

Hmm. A rationale based an assumption: that swarming/brood break is the bees' (this bee's?) primary mite management tool... ?



Hazel-Rah said:


> Maybe brood breaks fall out of your standard of TF but I do believe it is within the parameters in this forum.


I think it's easy to argue that it is a 'treatment' - especially where (my own) definition of treatment is in force: "Any artificial substance or action that helps the colony (and therefore obstructs development of resisance in the breeding population)"



Hazel-Rah said:


> Perhaps she will be superseded in the spring (in all likelihood they will at least swarm, since they will not be managed - or at least not very much.)


I find that ensuring plenty of room greatly reduces swarming... and has the further benefit of supplying a true reading of non-swarming mite-management abilities.



Hazel-Rah said:


> Next year and in those subsequent, I will be in a better position to isolate my breeding queens.


I do understand - you need hives to make the hives you need to breed ...



Hazel-Rah said:


> I don't think anywhere I mentioned that I was testing for VSH. These hive were purchased under the pretense of being VSH. I was simply testing the hygienic qualities to better understand the characteristics of the hive.
> 
> In my first post I mention wanting to predict their ability to cope with the mite load - now I know the mite load and their general hygienic. I'm still open to a technique for predicting their VSH...
> 
> And then I found this, http://vshbreeders.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=37


For those that haven't read it, the meat is: while VSH is by far the best trait for natural mite management, there isn't much of a correlation between frozen killed brood tests (FKB) and VSH - and easy assays for VSH remain elusive. 

"While it is clear that FKB hygiene confers some ability to remove Varroa, the response toward mites can be somewhat inconsistent (Spivak 1996; Spivak and Gilliam 1998b) and apparently stimulus-dependent (more hygiene against two versus one mite; Boecking and Drescher 1992). Screening for the removal of FKB as a means to select for resistance to V. destructor has been recommended based on prior observations that the hygienic responses toward FKB and V. destructor are somewhat related (Boecking and Drescher 1992; Spivak 1996). Our results using a variety of bee types having different selection histories do not support this recommendation; many colonies that had good hygiene against FKB had poor hygiene against V. destructor. A simple, effective way to select for strong VSH based resistance remains elusive." [1]

I'm thinking that while an 'easy' test is elusive, feral/wild survival is a probable indicator, and broad thriving without treatments (of any sort) a better one. 

Worth noting some key results here (my emboldening):

"Two of five variables related to V. destructor infestation in resident brood combs varied according to the type of bee (Table II and Figure 3). *The
percentage of mite-infested brood cells ranged from 1.3%in colonies of VSH bees to 17.7%in colonies of control bees* (Figure 3a). Infestation in FKB hygienic colonies was statistically similar to those in controls and F1 VSH, and F1 VSH were similar to FKB hygienic and VSH. *The percentage of recapped cells in resident brood was greater in VSH colonies (63 %) than in colonies of the other three bee types (mean, 42 %; * Figure 3e). *There were no differences between bee types for the percentage of infertile foundress mites (mean, 19 %; Figure 3b), the percentage of dead foundress mites (mean, 4 %; Figure 3c), or mite fecundity (mean, 3.1offspring per foundress mite; Figure 3d).*"

Of course this is only one study. But I like that 1.3%/17.7% comparison! Is anyone here versed in spotting recapping?

There's also pulling off of legs, grooming, ability to withstand associated viruses - we shouldn't put too much weight on just one trait. Again, thriving without help (as measured by fair-comparison weight gain) seeems to me to be the best all-round measure.

Mike (UK)

[1]
Extracts from The Discussion; Varying congruence of hygienic responses to Varroa
destructor and freeze-killed brood among different types
of honeybees; Robert G. DANKA, Jeffrey W. HARRIS, José D. VILLA, Garrett E. DODDS
Apidologie Original article * INRA, DIB and Springer-Verlag France, 2013


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JRG13 said:


> Also, nature tends to select for the path of least resistance and we see how ferals tend to deal with mites the most, by being swarmy....


Is that actually supported by studies, or is it a factoid?



JRG13 said:


> I see a brood assay was done here.... that type of hygenic behavior has nothing to do with VSH or removing mite infested brood, that's clearly been stated before. It may bare some correlation to better mite hygenics but it's not the correct assay for testing VSH characteristics, but it's a misconception a lot of people have.


Me among them. I wasn't aware the correlation was so weak.

Mike (UK)


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Mike,

I read it on the internet its true! Perhaps I'm making a generalization but when you look at how AHB and other ferals deal with mites, it tends to be with brood breaks via constant swarming. Hazel, I didn't mean to imply you didn't know what the assay was for, just a general observation when people start talking mite hygenics and frozen brood assays people start linking the two when if you talk to the VSH breeders its more about having to pull capped brood and check for mites to truly assay VsH capabilities.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Arizona Africanized Bees are notorious swarmy. I know of two commercial outfits that park 40 foot trailers in the desert (near Salt River cotton) filled with singles. They let them fill up with wild (Africanized) swarms, and they do. AHB appear to swarm when scouts detect nest availibility (I don't see that induced swarming in EHB). AHB maintain multiple queens so are always primed to divide when an opportunity presents itself.

The park-the-empty-trailer-in-the-desert and sell the Almond pollinators beekeeping model is incredibly profitable, and my guess is you are going to lots more of this. Right now its sort of black secret (as the hives are NOT really legit for California importation).

Swarm propensity was bred out of EHB selectively, and swarminess is reversion to norm in ferals. Inductively, it raises fitness tremendously. 

My assumption on some of the very fragile anti-Varroa, and anti-virus expressions is these are going to difficult to maintain genetically -- way to complicated and delicate a gene. Swarminess is like weediness, a simple universally applicable fix. Genetic systems have entropy too, and the implies the simple will prevail over the complicated.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

JRG13 said:


> Hazel, I didn't mean to imply you didn't know what the assay was for, just a general observation when people start talking mite hygenics and frozen brood assays people start linking the two when if you talk to the VSH breeders its more about having to pull capped brood and check for mites to truly assay VsH capabilities.


OK, hope I didn't sound defensive. I do see that the line can be blurry when clarification is not made. I definitely know I'm not going to be artificially applying mite infestations anytime soon!

As for whether or not a brood break in a natural mechanism for mite suppression, or just anecdotal... I guess the jury is still out. It was suggested that hives that display DWV will eventually supersede the queen... I am recreating this as an experiment. It just so happens that I will eventually replace the old queen. Maybe - still might requeen with another.

If we are to assume that imposing a brood break is tantamount to manipulations as a 'treatment', how do we categorize our choice to keep bees in a hive cavity that is larger then one they would naturally choose? Taking from Seeley's work, that bees prefer cavity sizes of approximately 40 liters, and tend to swarm on an annual basis(some more then this). If we are keeping them in a larger cavity to suppress swarming, isn't that a form of agricultural manipulation? I think that's OK, but we have to be honest with ourselves when we are asking the bees to preform under conditions they may otherwise... not. In such a case, it is conceivable that we could breed a far superior bee, one that can survive several successive generations without a brood break. However, that is a big bite for me to take on such a small yard. Also, it is not necessarily my priority to attempt to keep bees in a manner that IMO is not following a more natural cycle.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

No problem Hazel, sometimes I can sound a little offensive but I don't intend to be. Brood breaks don't really solve the issue, it just prevents the mites from reaching critical mass when done properly. I don't know if DWV causes supercedure but what happens is the queen gets infected and it impacts her laying/progeny survival and you will see drastic reduction in cluster size early winter/late fall with heavy mite pressure. Some queens will shutdown until the mite pressure becomes less as well. I'm all for 'breeding' a better bee, it will be my focus in the next few years but it's not an easy task and I just don't see any way to perpetuate lines for any amount of time on a small scale.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> Swarm propensity was bred out of EHB selectively, and swarminess is reversion to norm in ferals. Inductively, it raises fitness tremendously.


Lots of rationale built a very shaky assumptionshere guys. Not supported in the literature as far as I know. Yes, its broadly understood that bees (probably most organisms) benefit from getting out of nasty situations quickly. But once the emergency phase is over, and the targetted behaviours kick in that becomes an expensive option. Only a small proportion of swarms survive in temperate climates.

I use mostly wild/feral swarms and cutouts. I've had no problems with swarminess. Or anything else for that matter. A couple of hives aren't going anywhere. That's about it.



JWChesnut said:


> My assumption on some of the very fragile anti-Varroa, and anti-virus expressions is these are going to difficult to maintain genetically -- way to complicated and delicate a gene. Swarminess is like weediness, a simple universally applicable fix.


This is site dependent. And management dependent. Yes, unless you have ferals/wild bees you need an active breeding strategy. And to to that effectively you benefit from good initial genetics (or it will be a long slow turnaround), strong hives (for drones), a good selection process. 



JWChesnut said:


> Genetic systems have entropy too, and the implies the simple will prevail over the complicated.


Mammalian physiology is simple? Life is a competition in which successful complexity seems to me to offer leads to ascension just as surely as advantages bourne by simplicity. I can't see that generalisation holding up. Can you let us have a proper source for the statement, or is it something you read on the internet?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Hazel-Rah said:


> As for whether or not a brood break in a natural mechanism for mite suppression, or just anecdotal... I guess the jury is still out.


For what its worth; most of my hives seems to shut down brood production almost completely for a few weeks in the summer. It caused a lot of searching for queens, and worry that the line had been lost. They all started back up again. This happenend mostly in the big hives that had built like billio in the spring. It might well be a mite induced trait. But they they produced well, and I'm not yet thinking of this as being problematic. 



Hazel-Rah said:


> If we are to assume that imposing a brood break is tantamount to manipulations as a 'treatment', how do we categorize our choice to keep bees in a hive cavity that is larger then one they would naturally choose?


If you follow that line of reasoning you'll end up in the wholesale treaters camp. Some bees find large cavities and do well in them. They may well sawrm every year, but I don't think that amounts to 'swarminess'. Any lifeform that is thriving will produce viable offspring just as often as it can - that's the name of the game of Life. I wouldn't breed away from that - though I would use tricks to overcome it.

My test is: are you doing something that will tend to weaken the local feral/wild bees. Managing them in ways that create human dependency will tell to supress wild bees, and that is wholly undesireable in my book. I work by the joint countryman's adages:

"Never help a wild animal"

"Everything deserves its chance"

These are bourne on the wisdom provided by countless generations of husbandrymen and gamekeepers regarding the management of open breeding life forms. You mustn't interfere with the process of natural selection. Anything you do do must work with the grain of that great process.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JRG13 said:


> Brood breaks don't really solve the issue, it just prevents the mites from reaching critical mass when done properly.


Natural brood break do go a good way to solving the issue. They give some stronger strains the ability to survive while other more targeted mechanisms are bought into play. Then the competition refines the responses to the most efficient (in terms of available energy to viable offspring).

Unnatural brood breaks simply interfere with the process of locating the required behaviours, and like all (effective) treatments/manipulations suppress the local wild population - which is the most efficient locator and providor of resistance and general good health.



JRG13 said:


> I'm all for 'breeding' a better bee, it will be my focus in the next few years but it's not an easy task and I just don't see any way to perpetuate lines for any amount of time on a small scale.


That's right. That's why expansion - from good initial genetics - is one of the most important things to do.

And... Location, Location, Location!

Mike (UK)


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> If you follow that line of reasoning you'll end up in the wholesale treaters camp. Some bees find large cavities and do well in them. They may well sawrm every year, but I don't think that amounts to 'swarminess'. Any lifeform that is thriving will produce viable offspring just as often as it can - that's the name of the game of Life. I wouldn't breed away from that - though I would use tricks to overcome it.


I wouldn't worry about me going over to the dark side anytime soon... I just think we need to be honest about having bees that are kept for agricultural purposes and in what ways we might be inhibiting their natural tendencies. You mentioned that you bees go on a mid summer brood break, do they also have a winter brood break? 

From mid-April to early August we are on HEAVY nectar flow in my valley... and if there is a summer brood break(which I doubt), I wouldn't know about because those brood frames are buried under 300 pounds of supers.

If a hives response to symptomatic DWV is supercedure, then there is nothing unnatural about giving them a brood break at this time.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Hazel-Rah said:


> [You mentioned that you bees go on a mid summer brood break, do they also have a winter brood break?


I've no idea at all what they get up to in winter! 



Hazel-Rah said:


> If a hives response to symptomatic DWV is supercedure, then there is nothing unnatural about giving them a brood break at this time.


I work with the view that 'nature' is what happens when humans are not around/don't interfere, and the rest is by definition unnatural. I try to interfere as little as possible, on the grounds that any interference muddies the readings I'll need to make breeding selections. So I suppose I keep it as natural as possible because that helps me help the natural selection along with some unnatural selection.

I'm very wary of rationales that justify our doing what it suits us to do. I quite like rationales that stop us doing what we would like to do. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

:lookout:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> Any lifeform that is thriving will produce viable offspring just as *often as it can* - that's the name of the game of Life.


Really?? :scratch: Do _humans _fit your idea of thriving lifeforms?



Could it be that your brush is overly broad?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Hazel-Rah said:


> I just think we need to be honest about having bees that are kept for agricultural purposes and in what ways we might be inhibiting their natural tendencies.


good point, and one that i have made from time to time.



mike bispham said:


> I work with the view that 'nature' is what happens *when humans are not around/don't interfere*, and the rest is by definition unnatural. I try to *interfere as little as possible*....
> 
> I'm very wary of rationales that *justify our doing what it suits us to do.*


(bold emphasis added)

and what suits you mike is keeping bees under conditions that are not found anywhere in nature, even if you are only harvesting personal satisfaction. it is still drawing a line, your line.

i would in no way begrudge you the privilege to do so, but let's do be honest, and let's let the one who is not 'exploiting' the bees cast the first stone.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> I work with the view that 'nature' is what happens when humans are not around/don't interfere, and the rest is by definition unnatural. I try to interfere as little as possible, on the grounds that any interference muddies the readings I'll need to make breeding selections. So I suppose I keep it as natural as possible because that helps me help the natural selection along with some unnatural selection.
> 
> I'm very wary of rationales that justify our doing what it suits us to do. I quite like rationales that stop us doing what we would like to do.


Mike are you keeping Warre? Or permanent tree hives? I am totally all for those beekeeping practices but I think they represent a different(and valid) paradigm of beekeeping. 

I believe humans have the unique capability to perceive natural mechanisms of our world. We can exercise this privilege destructively, such as with clearcutting, dams and drains, successive plowing, application of selective crop poisons, invasive resource extraction, and selectively breeding productive, but not viable livestock and crops.

Or we can learn to mimic and build natural vitality. Often these mechanism are more difficult and imprecise to manage or manipulate. But IMO it does not mean that our management is _inherently_ destructive. In fact, I think that working with the soil and animals is our(humans) highest form of evolution.

For example, a farm that has been exhausted of humus and organic material through exploitative management will return, through natural successions of weeds and brush, to a viable landscape. Or a farmer with knowledge of covercropping, proper rotational grazing, companion plantings and manure application can return that same landscape into viable, and productive land in far less time. Often these types of management programs can promote MORE biodiversity and fertility than if allowed to 'naturally' fallow.

Anyway, my point is that it's more about the motivations behind the archetype of your agricultural goals then about following a fixed, non-intervention principle. There is a lot to be learned and gained from management techniques whose intentions are to better understand the mechanisms of the animal or crop and promote the vitality of said animal or crop, for their own sake. Especially when we understand that there is a greater potential that can be harnessed.



squarepeg said:


> i would in no way begrudge you the privilege to do so, but let's do be honest, and let's let the one who is not 'exploiting' the bees cast the first stone.


Amen


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Hazel,

Keep us updated on this hive please, no matter what happens. I've got an isolated hive that's been untreated for a few years, I did see some mites in there early summer. They may have superceded the queen at some point but I never saw a break in brood but I inspect it maybe every 2-3 weeks if I'm lucky.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> [...]and what suits you mike is keeping bees under conditions that are not found anywhere in nature, even if you are only harvesting personal satisfaction. it is still drawing a line, your line.


That isn't my intention at all. I'm doing my best to mimic conditions of natural selection, recognising that in my setting that can only be done with a bit of judicious aid. I have to have the bees accessible so that can be done. I have to combat the effect of nearby treaters. I have to make up the deficit in natural homes (holes in trees).

That minimum done I do my utmost to allow the bees to come to their own accommodation with their predators. I keep high in mind the welfare of the local feral bees - I want as healthy a breeding pool as I can manage.



squarepeg said:


> I would in no way begrudge you the privilege to do so, but let's do be honest, and let's let the one who is not 'exploiting' the bees cast the first stone.


I can't see that I'm overly exploiting the bees. I want to be in partnership with them, so that I can earn a contribution to my income while helping them overcome the depradations of those who exploit them close to extinction through greed, ignorance and stupidity.

This is the treatment free forum. I'm doing my best to keep bees treatment free, and to discuss with others how to do it. Don't accuse me of throwing stones when I point out that treating bees puts that effort back.

Mike (UK)


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Really?? :scratch: Do _humans _fit your idea of thriving lifeforms?
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be that your brush is overly broad?


Well, to be fair, many of us go through the motions of reproducing every chance we get.

As a consequence, humans used to have very large families, pre-science.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Hazel-Rah said:


> Mike are you keeping Warre? Or permanent tree hives? I am totally all for those beekeeping practices but I think they represent a different(and valid) paradigm of beekeeping. [...]


Hazel, 

No and no. I'm trying to raise healthy bees (bees that thrive without treating or manipulation) that are also reasonable apiary bees. I want to sell them (the bees) and sell a little honey and wax. I don't want to do this full time - about 1/3rd of the time/income - its part of a developing mixed smallholding operation. (My last post explains more about how and why I keep bees).



Hazel-Rah said:


> I believe humans have the unique capability to perceive natural mechanisms of our world.[


No-one can argue with that. We also often think we know much more than we do. We can cause great harm while acting with good intentions. 

Part of the trick is to separate what _we_ want from our understanding of what-is (Nature). That is what science does. 



Hazel-Rah said:


> Or we can learn to mimic and build natural vitality. Often these mechanism are more difficult and imprecise to manage or manipulate. But IMO it does not mean that our management is _inherently_ destructive.


Sure. And we can't always generalise. Sometimes we have to look at each case separately, and judge it on its merits.



Hazel-Rah said:


> In fact, I think that working with the soil and animals is our(humans) highest form of evolution.


That's an opinion. I'm sure a great many people think similar high thoughts about what they do. And I'm sure too that a great many of them do an awful lot of good. 

However; thinking of yourself as uniquely privleged in some great scheme of being, and that you are thus equipped to act in a priviledged way, or that you have special knowledge, or dispensation to so, is another unique quality of humankind. History shows all too clearly it often conveniently smothers more mundane motivations. Which often leads to great harm. 



Hazel-Rah said:


> For example, a farm that has been exhausted of humus and organic material through exploitative management will return, through natural successions of weeds and brush, to a viable landscape.


I can see what you mean, but would you like to define a 'viable landscape'? Do you mean 'farmable'? 



Hazel-Rah said:


> Or a farmer with knowledge of covercropping, proper rotational grazing, companion plantings and manure application can return that same landscape into viable, and productive land in far less time.


Ah, 'productive'. In your philosophy perhaps 'capable of producing crops competitively without recourse to artificial fertilizer'? 



Hazel-Rah said:


> Often these types of management programs can promote MORE biodiversity and fertility than if allowed to 'naturally' fallow.


Yes of course. Land can be managed to promote natural habitat. As it happens I do it assiduously. I'm currently producing a management plan for my small woodland, a (UK) ' site of special scientific interest' that aims to align commercial and wildlife goods. Small areas of coppice rotation will allow in more light; having a variety of tree ages will supply different sorts of habitat continuously, and on and on. All good stuff. My grassland grazing is managed to promote wildflowers; I'm planting native species hedges... on and on. I'm trying my best to balance agricultural liveliood against conservation goals. Actually more; I'm trying to supply a living exemplar of a sustainable conservation farming system, to encourage others to do the same. 



Hazel-Rah said:


> Anyway, my point is that it's more about the motivations behind the archetype of your agricultural goals then about following a fixed, non-intervention principle.


That may be true, but even the very best motivations can't undercut solid facts about Nature. 

And the fact is that keeping unfit individuals alive and breeding from them tend to lead fast to more unfit individuals. More loosely, its a crime against nature and husbandry. 



Hazel-Rah said:


> There is a lot to be learned and gained from management techniques whose intentions are to better understand the mechanisms of the animal or crop and promote the vitality of said animal or crop, for their own sake. Especially when we understand that there is a greater potential that can be harnessed.


I couldn't agree more. What is it that makes you think I need to have that pointed out to me?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> (Originally Posted by mike bispham: "Any lifeform that is thriving will produce viable offspring just as often as it can - that's the name of the game of Life.")
> 
> Really?? :scratch: Do _humans _fit your idea of thriving lifeforms?
> 
> ...


I stand corrected. All natural lifeforms

Mike (UK)


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

mike bispham said:


> However; thinking of yourself as uniquely privleged in some great scheme of being, and that you are thus equipped to act in a priviledged way, or that you have special knowledge, or dispensation to so, is another unique quality of humankind. History shows all too clearly it often conveniently smothers more mundane motivations. Which often leads to great harm.


IMO our ability to perceive and interpret natural systems IS a privilege. Our intuitive nature is a gift, if we only could use it for the promotion of all living systems.



mike bispham said:


> I can see what you mean, but would you like to define a 'viable landscape'? Do you mean 'farmable'?...Ah, 'productive'. In your philosophy perhaps 'capable of producing crops competitively without recourse to artificial fertilizer'?...Yes of course. Land can be managed to promote natural habitat.


I do not believe that 'productive', 'farmable' and 'conservation' are mutually exclusive. I believe that every landscape must be viewed as uniquely capable of it's own potential. A viable landscape is one supporting maximum diverse flora and fauna, not only humans. Incidentally I feel we benefit from bio-diverse systems which do not necessarily include ourselves, as they contribute to the overall natural abundance(such as the case with feral hives). I also believe that modern farming practices and machinery have pushed the boundary on what should ethically be considered 'crop-producing' land.



mike bispham said:


> And the fact is that keeping unfit individuals alive and breeding from them tend to lead fast to more unfit individuals. More loosely, its a crime against nature and husbandry.


In fact, my original post I am asking to define the parameters of a _prediction_ about the viability of the hive with symptomatic DWV. Not actually for help on 'saving' it. Although I have taken measures to preserve the hive in it's original state, this is only after considering what management techniques of mine may have inhibited a natural process within the hives. 

Maybe re installing the original queen could be considered 'keeping unfit individuals' but I think that's an overly lofty goal for a yard that is only in it's 3rd year. However, I am strongly considering installing one of her daughter nucs to keep the original queen under a closer eye.

Also in my previous post I was just trying to suss out if you were one of those abolitionist vegan types... I guess not  It seems to me we are debating over a very fine point, which I think is OK. It causes both sides to refine their argument carefully...


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Hazel-Rah said:


> IMO our ability to perceive and interpret natural systems IS a privilege. Our intuitive nature is a gift, if we only could use it for the promotion of all living systems.


Hazel,

I appreciate intuition, but I don't trust it like I trust science-based reasoning. And I'm aware that its easy to call believing the convenient 'intuition'. If only... humans hadn't evolved such fantastic mechanisms with which to indulge their selfish behaviour...



Hazel-Rah said:


> I do not believe that 'productive', 'farmable' and 'conservation' are mutually exclusive. I believe that every landscape must be viewed as uniquely capable of it's own potential.


You must have seen from my reply that I'm often in agreement with that. 



Hazel-Rah said:


> A viable landscape is one supporting maximum diverse flora and fauna, not only humans.


Is that your personal definition of 'viable landscape'? It sounds rather vague to me. Isn't 'sustainable' a better term, where what we want to be sustained can be stated?



Hazel-Rah said:


> Incidentally I feel we benefit from bio-diverse systems which do not necessarily include ourselves, as they contribute to the overall natural abundance(such as the case with feral hives).


Nothing unusual there. Straightforward natural conservation thinking.



Hazel-Rah said:


> I also believe that modern farming practices and machinery have pushed the boundary on what should ethically be considered 'crop-producing' land.


A conversation about terms would be a pre-requisite of further discussion. Don't get me started on modern systems of farming. 



Hazel-Rah said:


> In fact, my original post I am asking to define the parameters of a _prediction_ about the viability of the hive with symptomatic DWV. Not actually for help on 'saving' it. Although I have taken measures to preserve the hive in it's original state, this is only after considering what management techniques of mine may have inhibited a natural process within the hives.


I was responding to, I think JW's advice to save it for genetic reasons. Your rationale is, as I've pointed out, built on certain assumptions. 



Hazel-Rah said:


> Maybe re installing the original queen could be considered 'keeping unfit individuals' but I think that's an overly lofty goal for a yard that is only in it's 3rd year. However, I am strongly considering installing one of her daughter nucs to keep the original queen under a closer eye.


Why not give her proper test conditions next year? And try to do the same with all your hives? If you don't do that you'll never know which are more and less resistant.



Hazel-Rah said:


> It seems to me we are debating over a very fine point, which I think is OK. It causes both sides to refine their argument carefully...


If the point is the importance of selection toward resistance against varroa, then it isn't 'fine', its the single most important factor in tf beekeeping. 

I'm glad we both appreciate the merits of constructive argument... Part of what's driving me to ask you to rely on more than 'intuition' is several years of experience of 'arguing' with beekeepers who just can't or don't want to see the case for systematic resistance raising, and perform miracles of 'reasoning' to find escapes in the simple logic of proper husbandry. 

Tell me about your system for raising resistance.

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's my two cents.

If you're seeing DWV crawlers in front of your hives in any significant number, then they just don't make the resistance cut no matter how low the mite count, or how hygienic they test out to be.

I think that hybrid vigor is the way to go.

The current thinking with weak hives is to re-queen/split them. If you are in an area with a significant resistant feral population, then that's the most likely source of resistance genetics for your hives.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

OK - I haven't abandoned this thread or forum. There isn't however, anything groundbreaking to report on the hive in question. I eventually requeened with a lady I produced this summer out of a mating nuc and moved the older 'tainted' queen to a nuc. As of a month ago (the last time there was flight weather - and I have been gone), without inspection it seemed as though both hives were active and queen-right. As for my 'resistance selection' criteria, I can only say that aside from being (relatively-depending on who you ask) treatment-free, I also want to bear out some of the observations I'm making. Manipulating hive behavior to learn more about what makes them tick and what are influential factors in vigor, maybe this seems counter-intuitive. As a more-or-less novice of 5 years, I still like to manipulate to learn... what DOES happen when you have symptomatic DWV and you requeen? What happens to the old queen? Will she survive the winter? Not? Will she quickly become symptomatic again? etc, etc... I'm sure the argument could be made that non-intervention can be equally or more so enlightening...


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Hazel-Rah said:


> As for my 'resistance selection' criteria, I can only say that aside from being (relatively-depending on who you ask) treatment-free...


Hazel,

There is plenty of scope for confusion and more in that 'relatively'. In my view t/f beekeeping is beekeeping without any treatments or manipulations that would skew or undermine the development of genetically derived mite tolerance and general health and vigour. Just a 'tiny bit of' xyz can easily fix an immediate problem, at the cost utterly sabotaging the long term aim.



Hazel-Rah said:


> ... I also want to bear out some of the observations I'm making. Manipulating hive behavior to learn more about what makes them tick and what are influential factors in vigor, maybe this seems counter-intuitive. As a more-or-less novice of 5 years, I still like to manipulate to learn... what DOES happen when you have symptomatic DWV and you requeen? What happens to the old queen? Will she survive the winter? Not? Will she quickly become symptomatic again? etc, etc... I'm sure the argument could be made that non-intervention can be equally or more so enlightening...


Experimenting is great, but the more scientifically it is done the more enlightening the results. That means things like just altering one factor at a time, replicating experiments to see if what happened once happens reliably, and putting a great deal of thought into how your experiements might be misleading you. Often in complex systems (like bee colonies/their interacting life forms) it is simply impossible to get a satisfactory experimental result - one that can tell you something pretty much for sure. You might think you've learned something - but that isn't necessarily the case.

You _can be sure_ that the healthiest, most vigourous and productive bees around are, in a t/f system, the ones that will have the greatest likelihood of giving you more vigourous and productive bees. 

Anything you can do to keep the less healthy/vigourous/productive out of the breeding pool is therefore a good move. I'm not sure you can do anything more than that.

My focus next year will be to work toward more or less standardised hives - that is, hives in which any performance differences can be thought to be effectively only due to the genetic dispositions of their occupants. So I'll be able to compare same age/same history colonies. That's setting the stage for a more strongly scientific approach to evaluation for selection purposes.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I have seen this in many idealistic circles of people, who focus increasingly on feel good theory and argue with each other in ever tightening circles of I'm right theoretical minutia.

I'd say, go work for a commercial beekeeper for a year. Reality will open whole new horizons for you.

You, does not mean all of you. Just the argumentative ones bound in fuzzy woolly correctness.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

Well jeez, it's hard to say how that comment is directed but of course I feel compelled to take to defensive... Personally, I have no interest in working for a 'commercial' beekeeping outfit. I've worked for beekeepers and I've worked in commercial agriculture, and commercial ag is commercial ag. Doesn't matter if we're talking about combining soybeans or breeding heifers or pollinating almonds. Ultimately, market drives practices - period. 

Of course none of this has to do with the viability of a 3 year old queen with symptomatic DWV crawlers. Oldtimer, I realize that TF may not be practical in your geographic locale but for others it is. And it is important that those people continue with their non-commercial ideals. In my experience, it's the farmers who have values and priorities that diverge from commercial market driven practices that actually make progress in supporting biological functions of their livestock and soil.

Of course if what you were really trying to say, is that - I shouldn't be nit-picked over my choice to requeen one hive then... YAY!!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes that was one of the things I was trying to say, I did feel you had been nit picked.

But as to my stance on TF, I support it. That I suggest people experience a commercial environment is merely to get people away from theories that are not based on reality, towards theories that are based on reality. TF, and commercial, are no longer totally incompatable, there are TF beekeepers making a living out of it, and commercial beekeepers using less treatment.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

" TF, and commercial, are no longer totally incompatable, there are TF beekeepers making a living out of it, and commercial beekeepers using less treatment."

Who are you, and what have you done with Oldtimer, you imposter?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

not everybody is either/or. ot is both/and.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Ha Ha, nice one Squarepeg, and even WLC has quite a wit (sometimes well hidden)


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

He's 'both/and' alright.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

Sorry OT, I stand aside from my attitude... I guess I usually feel the same way about people who have strong opinions about how to 'farm' because they hand-garden their back yard.


----------



## Hazel-Rah (May 12, 2013)

OK, so the next thing I'm thinking is... Where does queen breeding fit into this manipulation scheme? For example, this very hive that I re-queened was with a daughter I raised earlier this summer. Based on the fact that it was a thriving, productive hive without treatments and just happened to be my oldest stock. If I were to maintain this yard for several more years, maybe it would turn out hat some other line is more productive and hardy, but this is what I'm working with now.

So isn't the very act of selecting a queen for breeding, an act of manipulation that alters the 'natural' genetic flow? After all, those qualities of vitality and productivity are subjective and unique to their locations and role. I kinda reject the idea that my intuitive, albeit not scientific, choices about genetics in my yard are inherently detrimental to the progress of resistance. While I might not always make the MOST progressive choice or manipulation, as long as what I am striving for is identifying hardiness variables, then I am on my way.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

I agree, 100%, its good to hear/read a real professional.

(I have worked for Alan Murray in New Zealand. He had three times more hives than the biggest beekeeper in Finland in that time, 1986. It was a turning point and a real eye opener for me.)


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Oldtimer said:


> I have seen this in many idealistic circles of people, who focus increasingly on feel good theory and argue with each other in ever tightening circles of I'm right theoretical minutia.
> 
> I'd say, go work for a commercial beekeeper for a year. Reality will open whole new horizons for you.
> 
> You, does not mean all of you. Just the argumentative ones bound in fuzzy woolly correctness.


I agree, 100%, its good to hear/read a real professional.

(I have worked for Alan Murray in New Zealand. He had three times more hives than the biggest beekeeper in Finland in that time, 1986. It was a turning point and a real eye opener for me.)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Hazel-Rah said:


> OK, so the next thing I'm thinking is... Where does queen breeding fit into this manipulation scheme? For example, this very hive that I re-queened was with a daughter I raised earlier this summer. Based on the fact that it was a thriving, productive hive without treatments and just happened to be my oldest stock. If I were to maintain this yard for several more years, maybe it would turn out hat some other line is more productive and hardy, but this is what I'm working with now.
> 
> So isn't the very act of selecting a queen for breeding, an act of manipulation that alters the 'natural' genetic flow?


Yes. 'Natural' means 'what happens without interference or input from humans. Period. 

In a tf environment its a positive choice for mite resistance, as well as broad suitability for both the locality and your objectives as a beekeeper. 

'Natural' has a specific narrow technical and scientific meaning. Its also so widely abused that that intention is often lost. Its well worth thinking through what natural entails, why what you are doing is un-natural, how and why that might be damaging, how to make it less damaging.. and so on. What you want is stock that can thrive without you. So don't do anything that tends to make them dependent on you. 

A classic example of this sort of muddled thinking 'I'll treat with natural substances, so that'll be ok' To the extent they work they are as damaging to the future genetic health of a population as the worst sythnetic chemical imaginable. 



Hazel-Rah said:


> After all, those qualities of vitality and productivity are subjective...


No they're not. That's precisely the point. They are objective measures, and as such the best possibly indicators to follow. Get this straight Hazel!



Hazel-Rah said:


> ... and unique to their locations and role.


Yes, although much is tranferable to other locations and roles. And 'so what?' anyway.



Hazel-Rah said:


> I kinda reject the idea that my intuitive, albeit not scientific, choices about genetics in my yard are inherently detrimental to the progress of resistance.


Anyone with a belief in their own ability to make decisions based on intincts will feel the same way. I do. At the same time I know that objective measures, strict reasoning, deliberate setting out of measurable experimental processes is in most cases is a far stronger guide to what might happen. That's why the scientists are winning all the arguments. 

I'll consider my intuitions, and balance them against what I can discover through observation and reasoning. There's a role for instinct - but its not often that will be the final arbitor. It facilitates creativity - in scientic thinking as much as anywhere - is critical to the process. Then you have to go for empirical testing.



Hazel-Rah said:


> While I might not always make the MOST progressive choice or manipulation, as long as what I am striving for is identifying hardiness variables, then I am on my way.


Only in as much as you achieve it. Good intentions alone are insufficient. Unless you really can intuit outcomes. If you can, go into the futures market and use the vast proceeds to make the world a better place 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

How's all this working for you Mike? How are the bees?


----------

