# Treatment free and good sense.



## COAL REAPER (Jun 24, 2014)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

that is IPM


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

I told a beekeeper that he should figure out how he was going to treat after doing an ether count last month. he told me he did not like chemicals. my answer was " me too, but I like dead bees even less."


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

Maybe your title would have been better had it been "Treatment free and good sense."? Just a thought, not a suggestion or criticism. Maybe a way of thinking?


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

I like the original title better. unfortunately closer to reality.


----------



## labradorfarms (Dec 11, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

I to would like to go treatment free, but I am a New Bee Keeper. So I thought it best for me to treat if needed. Then when I have learned more. I may try to avoid treating..... But I doubt I will go totaly treatment free. Bee's cost money and I cant be letting my hives die due to being dumb! If I get rich or have lots of money to burn . I would try it.... 

When I find the need for treatment. Id like to use the more natural methods.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



dsegrest said:


> If a beekeeper inspects the hives regularly they should be able to spot problems. If I found a problem in my hives that I could not deal with without treatment, I would treat.


This, in my opinion, is not 'good sense'. If you wait until your colonies are showing overt symptoms it is often too late to treat. By then treating may only cloud the issue. You treat and they still die. Which caused the failure? You have no way of knowing.
If you intend to be treatment free....stay that course. 
'Good sense', in my opinion, would dictate that you use some form of objective mite testing, so if they collapse and you don't treat you'll know why.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

What Dan said plus this - one reason that people treat when they don't see "problems" yet is that there are windows of oportunity when you can treat and times when you shouldn't or can't. Some treatments are really only appropriate at certain times/conditions. A good bit to learn and process already. 

IPM is even harder, because you have to do effective monitoring, and you have to be prepared to take proactive action when you hit your threashold levels. Do you REALLY know what those levels are? I don't exactly.

It's easy to see why treatment free is so attractive to some - you don't have to worry about all that tedious stuff. And it works for some people. 

But my observation is that most new beekeepers who are successful do start treating before too long, and pretty much all of them who are successful make increase pretty early in their careers.

Good luck.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

I see it both ways, don't want to treat un-needlessly, but at the same time, sometimes being proactive is better than waiting until crawlers are rampant and 40-60% of your capped brood is a loss to varroa in fall. Pulling honey and treating mid summer makes much more sense now then it did mid summer, but at the same time, without treating I can see which hives are doing well and which ones really need help but now it's more of an uphill battle to overwinter them.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



beemandan said:


> 'Good sense', in my opinion, would dictate that you use some form of objective mite testing, so if they collapse and you don't treat you'll know why.


Amen!


----------



## kenargo (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

A wise person once said: "If your bees are dying every year then you are not keeping bees".

I take this to heart myself. I would like to be treatment free but at the same time if there is something I can do to help a situation (like high varroa counts) I will 1st use methods as organic as possible. I know there are people out there that take the "survival of the fittest" methodology and my hat is off to them if they can be successful but in the same as I would treat a person with an illness I would do the same for the bees. IMO there are 2 issues with taking the stance of "no treatments no matter what, they live or die on their own". The first is genetic diversity, if only the strongest survive the diversity of the gene pool will be strong (as for surviving treatment free) but weak in diversity (my opinion). The second is time; organisms don't evolve in the amount of time that the bees have been around things like varroa. I believe that ultimately, over time there will be a bee that can be handled with no treatments but I don't believe that being 100% treatment free will ever yield that result; it isn't (IMO) sufficient time to evolve.

Luckily, my need to treat has been infrequent. Management of the hives has mostly kept pests below treatment thresholds but when the time arrives that a hive reaches a treatment threshold I will act, the alternative is a dead hive. If they die after the treatment I have no issues with my attempt to save them.

My opinion.


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

kenargo is on the good sense list.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



dsegrest said:


> I think treatment free bee keeping is a good aspiration. I have never had to treat my bees other than with management.
> 
> If a beekeeper inspects the hives regularly they should be able to spot problems. If I found a problem in my hives that I could not deal with without treatment, I would treat. I do not believe in treating just because something might happen.


This would be nothing more than a maintenance rather than preventative approach. nothing new. Maintenance means fixing something after it has broken. it minimizes labor and parts costs with the expense of lost productivity. where Prevention methods reduce or eliminate losses in productivity while increasing labor and parts costs. This is well known and demonstrated. It has also been demonstrated over and over that prevention is the least costly of the two. If frequency of service is properly managed. So it becomes a how often to treat situation.

It is not so much a treat becasue the clock said so. it is a treat becasue experience has said so. Much more difficult to do but it is intended to treat before needed never allowing an infestation to happen.


----------



## dsegrest (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



beemandan said:


> This, in my opinion, is not 'good sense'. If you wait until your colonies are showing overt symptoms it is often too late to treat. By then treating may only cloud the issue. You treat and they still die. Which caused the failure? You have no way of knowing.
> If you intend to be treatment free....stay that course.
> 'Good sense', in my opinion, would dictate that you use some form of objective mite testing, so if they collapse and you don't treat you'll know why.


I actually test regularly with a 24 hour application of a sticky board. Will be treating 2 hives this week. Don't feel like it is too late. Hives still strong.


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

Daniel y and dsegrest are also on the good sense list.


----------



## Tim KS (May 9, 2014)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



Daniel Y said:


> This would be nothing more than a maintenance rather than preventative approach. nothing new. Maintenance means fixing something after it has broken. it minimizes labor and parts costs with the expense of lost productivity. where Prevention methods reduce or eliminate losses in productivity while increasing labor and parts costs. This is well known and demonstrated. It has also been demonstrated over and over that prevention is the least costly of the two. If frequency of service is properly managed. So it becomes a how often to treat situation.
> 
> It is not so much a treat becasue the clock said so. it is a treat becasue experience has said so. Much more difficult to do but it is intended to treat before needed never allowing an infestation to happen.


I think your use of the word "maintenance" refers to "repair". (When I maintain my car, I'm not always fixing something broken.) Perhaps a better term to use might be "preventive maintenance".....and I agree that it is cheaper in the long run. :thumbsup:


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

So, I've had, near 0% loss - for eighteen years. Other than nucs I've sold/traded. Or, weak nucs being robbed out during dearth times.

When I have idle combs, I usually treat them with _Bt_ 'Aizawai', prophylactically for wax moth larva suppression.

All year long, I inspect most hives, daily. I have, for as long as I've been keeping bees.

Just because a great many beekeepers are telling me that Varroa mites are killing their bees, and that they'll kill mine, too. Doesn't really seem too convincing. I've been waiting for that prediction to come true, for quite a long time. 

In my current location, their really isn't much of a "winter", brood rearing hiatus and drone eviction, never really happens, like it does in more temperate climates. But, from what I've heard, this should, hypothetically, make Varroa mites, more of a problem for me and my bees, not less.

Sure, if I ever actually lost colonies, that weren't simply, weak nucs being robbed out during forage dearth times, I might assume that Varroa mites, could be part of the problem. But, without that, 'problem', or other problems, there's nothing to point a finger, at. So why should I bother to quantify Varroa mites?

I could also count bacteria in brood cell walls, or an infinite number of other possible quantification endeavors. But, unless I was insatiably curious, and had all the spare time and money to pursue that curiosity, why bother. I don't really feel inspired to look for solutions to problems, when there is no overt evidence for those problems, in my bees.

Unlike some, who expound that problems exist with Varroa mite predation on honey bees. And that surely they will be a similarly virulent problem with all honey bees, everywhere - including mine. I am not trying to say that Varroa mites are not a scourge, for some - maybe they are. I simply say, this is likely a more complex issue, than it would first appear. I am only writing about, and describing, what I observe, personally. I sometimes see Varroa mites on bees. I've seen them on brood, especially drone brood (and sometimes it is difficult to locate them, even in drone brood). I often see a few newly emerged bees with DWV symptoms. I even occasionally see signs of PMS, with areas of sick brood.

I appreciate the *alert *being promulgated by so many beekeepers, who are ostensibly losing colonies to the Varroa mite scourge. If it were happening to my bees, I'd certainly mention it to other beekeepers. Though I might refrain from making dire predictions as to how it will affect their bees. Maybe the sky isn't really falling, but only falling in some places, for certain poorly-understood reasons. After all Varroa mite infestations aren't like a meteorite striking a hive - such an event would leave little doubt about the cause of such an affected hive's demise.
--

Often, when I read the discourse between beekeeping factions, it usually reminds me of the poem. . . If.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

I've never understood the assumption that not treating them puts them at more risk than treating them. My experience has been the opposite.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

"I don't really feel inspired to look for solutions to problems, when there is no overt evidence for those problems, in my bees." Well said, J. Clemens.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



Michael Bush said:


> I've never understood the assumption that not treating them puts them at more risk than treating them. My experience has been the opposite.


i believe there is an inherent problem with making any assumptions when it comes to beekeeping, and i believe that has to do with the many variables in play.

i think it would be fair to assume that a given stock managed in a similar way would be expected to perform similarly in the vicinity relatively near to where they have been proven to do so.

i also think that it would be fair to assume that the results may vary if that same stock was exported to a different part of the country and/or subjected to different management, and this has been reported here in the forum and elsewhere.

i consider myself fortunate to have resistant stock in a good location and have learned methods (many thanks to you michael) that allow me to keep a thriving apiary off treatments.

there are many examples that this can be accomplished under the right circumstances and i feel that our collective successes should give hope to those aspiring to achieve it.

please forgive my repeating this, but in my opinion the most assured path to treatment free is to find someone in your area who is doing it, get some of that stock, and emulate the same methodology. if that is not possible it doesn't mean that it cannot be accomplished, it just means that the results may vary and one should be prepared for that.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



Michael Bush said:


> I've never understood the assumption that not treating them puts them at more risk than treating them. My experience has been the opposite.


MY experience not treating hundreds is that hundreds died. So, not treating is not a good option for me. I may still loose colonies, but it isn't going to be because I didn't try to do something to address the Varroa mites that vector viruses in my bee hives.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



sqkcrk said:


> MY experience not treating hundreds is that hundreds died. So, not treating is not a good option for me. I may still loose colonies, but it isn't going to be because I didn't try to do something to address the Varroa mites that vector viruses in my bee hives.


From my experience the only options here is what treatment you will use and when.
The only living treatment free bees I know of are talked about here on beesource, all of them locally are no longer living- all of them.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



sqkcrk said:


> MY experience not treating hundreds is that hundreds died.


I can validate this statement for coastal Calif. I have direct experience with a carefully controlled experimental TF apiary and over 12 years of repeated trials, the TF hives succumb to disease.

Additionally, I have observed several very large scale TF start-ups implementing the "Bush prescription" with unskimping budgets, only to crash and burn with lasting and tragic damage to relationships, families, finances and life.

When the NW Treatment-Free conference was held this year, along with the usual tie-dyed wannabees with their backyard hives, they invited a commercial-scale Beek. Guess what, he's IPM and **Not** TF. You would think over a million acres of Eco-landia, they would be able to scratch up a single TF beekeeper who actual earns a living, but *NOT* so. 

In my observation, and fundamentally verified, this whole TF shinola is a fairy tale at a level greater than some pensioner buying his yearly hives and allowing them to die.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



JWChesnut said:


> In my observation, and fundamentally verified, this whole TF shinola is a fairy tale at a level greater than some pensioner buying his yearly hives and allowing them to die.


...or perhaps we are dealing with the beekeeping equivalent of 'the blind men and the elephant'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



sqkcrk said:


> MY experience not treating hundreds is that hundreds died. So, not treating is not a good option for me. I may still loose colonies, but it isn't going to be because I didn't try to do something to address the Varroa mites that vector viruses in my bee hives.


Take this for what it is worth. I only Posted this to balance Michael's Post and not to advocate to anyone else that they MUST do anything. If you can keep bees w/out addressing the mites in your hives, good for you.

There are some TF beekeepers who think that TF Bees don't get AFB because they are TF bees and that AFB is a built up to be a bogeyman and is not that big a deal in the TF community.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



sqkcrk said:


> MY experience not treating hundreds is that hundreds died. So, not treating is not a good option for me. I may still loose colonies, but it isn't going to be because I didn't try to do something to address the Varroa mites that vector viruses in my bee hives.


...and my tf experience was with a load of 512 (one full semi load) of beautiful looking story and a halves off the almonds in the late 90's. Time was short that year and the honeyflow was near. Awwwww what the heck, let's just run through these quick and rebuild anything that wasn't queenright was my fateful decision. Hated to put a mite treatment on so close to the honey flow. They made a nice honey crop when we pulled it off in late September. We didn't even need to use the bee go, all the bees that were left were a few small clusters. Came back a few days later and loaded up the brood chambers like so many dead hives. Not a survivor in the bunch. Our treated bees looked great that fall, good enough to rebuild the load that died. I dare say that experience would resonate with any beekeeper tf or otherwise.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



Michael Bush said:


> I've never understood the assumption that not treating them puts them at more risk than treating them. My experience has been the opposite.


I started a tf yard using swarms collected that had no apparent managed source....thinking 'feral survivors'. The first year losses were three times that of my conventional startups. By the end of year three....none left.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



sqkcrk said:


> that AFB is a built up to be a bogeyman and is not that big a deal in the TF community.


There are those who have stated much the same about varroa. I suppose if you are beekeeping in one of the 47 states where varroa are recognized as a serious threat to beekeepers....you might take a different view.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

Michael Bush, is it your opinion and the opinion of "The TF Community" that one not do anything about AFB when it occurs in one's beehives?


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

Just curious, Mark, if I were to burn an AFB [ corrected spelling here ] infected hive, would you consider that to be a treatment?

Wayne


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

Is my opinion worth anything, not being a TF beekeeper? No, I wouldn't. Why, do you?


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

What is AFH? Did you mean AFB?


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



Joseph Clemens said:


> What is AFH? Did you mean AFB?


Yes, thank you.

Wayne


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



sqkcrk said:


> Is my opinion worth anything, not being a TF beekeeper? No, I wouldn't. Why, do you?


I'm not TF myself and I don't speak for the TF community (not sure that anyone does,) but I'm just offering a thought. I would believe that a TF beekeeper that burned AFB hives could be loyal to his or her values, deal with the problem rather than "not do anything" which is what you were asking and still demonstrate good sense. (Not that anyone, treatment-free or otherwise, needs somebody on this forum to pass judgment on their good sense.)

Wayne


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

Burning AFB infected hives is the only legal option in TN no matter what your ideology is on it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

So what about a TF beekeeper who spreads the word that when Dee Lusby finds a colony w/ a comb w/ half a dozen cells of AFB on it she puts it in an uninfected hive for it to clean up. Sound like a good plan, good advice?


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

That reminds me of Charles Mraz. I read many accounts of how he would intentionally infect colonies with AFB, and then breed queens from the survivors. I once purchased a few of his queens. Though, to this day, I've never personally seen a case of AFB.


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

I'm a tf beekeeper but wouldn't hesitate to torch AFB. I haven't any interest in risking the spread to other apiaries the considerate thing to do in my opinion and also for the same reason David LaFerney has stated only legal option in TN. I don't care what others say or do only what I do is what counts to me.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



sqkcrk said:


> So what about a TF beekeeper who spreads the word that when Dee Lusby finds a colony w/ a comb w/ half a dozen cells of AFB on it she puts it in an uninfected hive for it to clean up. Sound like a good plan, good advice?


Hmmm. Dosen't sound like a good plan to me. I volunteer you to go down there and try to change her way of thinking on the subject.


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

jim lyon,
It sounds like you know Dee. I've met Dee, and can see the humor in your suggestion to sqkcrk.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



JWChesnut said:


> Additionally, I have observed several very large scale TF start-ups implementing the "Bush prescription" with unskimping budgets, only to crash and burn with lasting and tragic damage to relationships, families, finances and life.


Same here in Germany. Not very large operations, though, but many many backyard beekeepers wreck their bees each year.

I am all in favour for going treatment free, but do it properly. Work out a real system. Watch your hives closely, work the bees. Make backup plans. Team up with others in your area. That's what I recommend to beginners. It is good to try it, but do it right.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



Joseph Clemens said:


> jim lyon,
> It sounds like you know Dee. I've met Dee, and can see the humor in your suggestion to sqkcrk.


Me too.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Hi all

Back in 2007 I wrote an article on Keeping Bees without Chemicals. I started off by saying, if I thought it would work I would do it. I had never seen it work in the bees I was in charge of at the Dyce Lab. We held off treating till after the fall crop and most colonies died. We routinely bought hundreds of packages to replace the bees every year. 

In my article I had many stories from beekeepers who claimed success at keeping bees without chemicals. So, I began to try it at home. I collected feral colonies, bought resistant stock, everything except throw out all my combs and force the bees onto small cells. Never worked. The colonies always died after the second year. 

I have since been to visit treatment free beekeepers in California. So, I know it is possible in some areas. But that doesn't mean it's possible everywhere. This is the point I would try to make: just because something works for you, doesn't mean you should go about telling other people they are doing it wrong because it didn't work for them. 

There are far too many variables to make blanket proclamations. I think that treatment free beekeeping can work in isolation, or in a semitropical climate or with African hybrids. I don't think it works in areas where you close to migratory operations, in cold climate regions, and there are definitely strains of bees that are especially susceptible to mites.

Requeening with resistant stock is a good idea but very expensive. Which makes better sense: to spend $30 on a queen or $5 on Mite Away? And putting a new queen in a hive is a "treatment." In nature, the only hives that get requeened by foreign queens are those that get invaded by rogue African queens. By the way, invasion by rogue swarms may be more common than you think


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

I've never brought any bees, other than outside queens and local swarms/cutouts, into my operation, here. I have traded bees with a few local beekeepers, who initially get most of their bees from me, but I've never brought any bees from outside my area, into it. Perhaps I'm limiting the mites and the viruses they carry, to only those that are already here. If that is the case, maybe that is part of the reason for my success. I do, regularly requeen any colony that might have an AHB queen, or that most definitely do, with my cultured EHB queens. Some of my EHB queens sometimes mate with AHB drones, whenever that becomes evident, they too are again replaced.


----------



## dusanmal (Sep 17, 2012)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

First correction that is needed - there is plenty of evolution in process both with bees and their pests during our single lifetime. Both are insects with very fast generations. Scientists use similar insects to experiment with evolutionary processes, regularly. Hence, treating frequently does create measurable evolutionary pressure on pests to do the same as evolution of superbugs due to human overuse of antibiotics did. Also, it reduces evolutionary pressure on bees and, maybe even more importantly on their lifetime immunity development, very similar to increase in asthma and allergies among modern children who are not regularly exposed to dirty situations triggering immune system training.
Hence, solution is in wiser management. Everything from integration of wild bee races, who have proven to thrive without constant human help to wiser treatments. Example of the latter is our state apiarist in NJ - strongly promoting two treatments per year no matter the measurements, more treatments if numerous pests are counted. In my opinion that is exactly what overuse of human antibiotics went through, with likely the same end results. I go exactly in the opposite direction - one preventive treatment per two years. I am hobbyist, so such choice is easier but commercial beekeepers might think of long term benefit to their industry in general. Also avoiding same kind of treatment in succession, practice well understood even in evolutionary slower livestock management, hence, much more important with bees.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

I like the attitude of Raoul A. Robinson, Canada in his book _Return to Resistance_: (that you can download for free here)
www.sharebooks.com/system/files/Return-to-Resistance.pdf (About breeding sturdier plants.)

Beekeepers can learn a lot from this book. Especially about teaming up locally to breed on a higher level than a backyard operation.


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

honey bees have been around for millions of years, not changing all that much. a big break-thru in eveloution in my hive or in a hollow tree nearby for a specific problem seems unlikely in the next year or 2 or for that matter 100 years. actualy planning on this or thinking it has happened seems un-wise to me.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



dusanmal said:


> F Both are insects with very fast generations.


Bees kept in human husbandry have remarkably slow generation. Queens are mated for life with an average turn-over of 2 years (or so), your common house-cat will likely have a faster generation period. 

Mites are acari (8 legged spider relatives) and only distantly related to insects (as the evolutionary division is mind-bendingly ancient).

Edited to remove: The house cat has ... (and a stable 30% population resistance to FLV despite years of "Bond" testing). On account that the Cat-Vacine-FeLV relationship is likely a good counter-example of persistence of a deleterious trait in a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

There is ongoing research that has infinitely more time, resources and clout than I could ever put together. I will let them work on teasing out evolutionary adaptation to mites. Many people get a lot of satisfaction and sense of identity by taking action that may be not much more than symbolic in effect. I am quite fulfilled in learning more about things within my control that make a positive influence on my bee keeping.


----------



## kenargo (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



dusanmal said:


> First correction that is needed - there is plenty of evolution in process both with bees and their pests during our single lifetime. Both are insects with very fast generations. Scientists use similar insects to experiment with evolutionary processes, regularly. Hence, treating frequently does create measurable evolutionary pressure on pests to do the same as evolution of superbugs due to human overuse of antibiotics did. Also, it reduces evolutionary pressure on bees and, maybe even more importantly on their lifetime immunity development, very similar to increase in asthma and allergies among modern children who are not regularly exposed to dirty situations triggering immune system training.
> Hence, solution is in wiser management. Everything from integration of wild bee races, who have proven to thrive without constant human help to wiser treatments. Example of the latter is our state apiarist in NJ - strongly promoting two treatments per year no matter the measurements, more treatments if numerous pests are counted. In my opinion that is exactly what overuse of human antibiotics went through, with likely the same end results. I go exactly in the opposite direction - one preventive treatment per two years. I am hobbyist, so such choice is easier but commercial beekeepers might think of long term benefit to their industry in general. Also avoiding same kind of treatment in succession, practice well understood even in evolutionary slower livestock management, hence, much more important with bees.


Evolution in bees is very slow. You cannot compare what scientists do in order to test evolutionary theories in labs to what happens in nature. In order to evolve you need a new generation. If you have the same queen, you have the same generation, no evolution. If you allow your bees to die, so does the evolutionary chain (since new bees would be a different chain). You would need to kill your queen and have the bees raise a new queen; that would be 1 generation. Varroa, unfortunately goes through many generations in a year so they can adopt much quicker than the bees and why some varroa have become immune to some treatments and why (as you suggest) it is very important to rotate treatments.

In the lab scientists use insects to study evolution, I know because I have a friend who does this but they test future generations, not the ones they start with. In other words, it would be like having the bees raise a new queen consistently over some determined time. In some insects that time (generation to generation) is less than a day. 

That said, I agree mostly with your management for treatments and you are correct of the importance of cycling different treatments. You didn't mention it but what would you do if the year after treatment you found your bees overwhelmed with varroa? Would you want the year (and hope they survive) or treat (so help them survive)?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



kenargo said:


> Evolution in bees is very slow....


A bit of amplification is useful here. Apis mellifera is a conservative lineage (in that dates to the Eocene, and has waxed and waned with the expansion of flowering plants). The massive conversion of nectar flowers to grassland steppe in North America caused the local extinction of Apis in the distant North American past.

Apis has a evolutionary niche (or, alternatively, dead end) of exceptional resistance to speciation. Its resistance has the consequence that flowers competing for pollination must evolve to suit the bee (and not the bee chase the flower). This is contrast to solitary bees where extreme specialization of the flower/bee dyad is the rule.

The mechanism of resistance is the haplo-diploid mating system of extreme polyandry -- lots of diverse fathers -- mitigate against the likelihood of unique founders of lineage with special traits. Proof is in the interbreeding capacity of Apis throughout its range, and its adaptability to any climate.

The resistance to selection imposes real costs on the bee, and consequently an offsetting mechanism has developed -- bees have the greatest fitness with the greater in-hive diversity due to social (rather than genetic) caste development. Plastic caste recruitment (and plastic nest construction) is very unique in honeybees. Multiple mating in remote DCA, and single locus sex incompatibility should be looked at as compensatory mechanisms to increase diversity within the society without shifting the genome as whole.

Research in Europe has shown that the rate of recombination (drift in alleles) is exceptionally high in Bees. In single parent breeding this yields an "adaptive radiation" with multiple closely related variants diverging as separate species. Bees don't speciate despite this drift because they have a "portmanteau" strategy -- every allele is included without selection within the social nest, this give the social nest a broad number of tools and strategies to employ (holding all ones cards in reserve). The portmanteau strategy means that selection for a single lineage is difficult and counters the inertia of the breeding system evolved by the bee itself.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



JWChesnut said:


> Multiple mating in remote DCA, and single locus sex incompatibility should be looked at as compensatory mechanisms to increase diversity within the society without shifting the genome as whole.





JWChesnut said:


> J.W., when you say "single locus sex incompatibility" here are you referring to an inability of male bees to effectively breed with their sisters, to the inability of the product of such breeding to survive, or to haplodiploid sex-determination (or to something else)? Does your point that single locus sex incompatibility should be looked at as a compensatory mechanism "to increase diversity within the society without shifting the genome as a whole" have any significance in connection with the concerns that I have seen expressed about problems that may result from the supposedly small gene pool and relatively limited number of queens that account for a high percentage of the queens, nucs, and package bees being sold in the U.S.?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

Single locus sex incompatibility refers to the lethals ("diploid drones") that are produced from eggs homozygous for the sex locus. Between 16 and 20 (sources vary) distinct alleles (of the same gene) exist for the sex determination (these are genes with small but significant variants in DNA coding).

Only when this single locus in a fertilized egg (gene on chromosome) is heterozygous for the gene is a survivable worker created. Drones hatched from a queen will have one of two of her "sex" alleles, her daughters will have two (one from her, and one from her dozen paramours).

In-hive drones mating with the queen will produce lethals for 50% of the eggs laid (since the sex alleles will match). Out-of-hive drones will have a much lower likelihood of homozygous matches (as there are 20 choices to draw from).

Sex alleles are proxies for marking homozygous brother-sister crosses -- and work to prevent homozygous conditions throughout the genome.

Selective breeding in many organisms works to generate a homozygous line, and then make a controlled cross to a separate lineage. (An F1 hybrid with highly predictable and stable genotype). 

Some very successful lineages are virtually completely homozygous (most species of Pines, for example). Many species have greater fitness with heterozygosity predominant. Many plants when exposed to environmental stress become polyploid (the chromosome count doubles, trebles or quadruples), this polyploid doubling introduces greater heterozygosity (as there are now 4, 6, 8 copies of every gene). 

Honeybees (as social super-organisms) have gone the polyploid strategy one-better, they introduce genes from 15-30 different fathers into the same super-organism, making a "stone soup" of adaptable genes. Honeybees also have higher rates of crossing over in the prophase of meiosis and high rates of recombination. Chromosomes exchange segments in the pro-phase (why daughters are not clones of mothers). Recombination giggers the genes themselves.

All this recombination is chaotic noise for selection --- it makes it difficult for classical promotion of beneficial fitness, and the blender gets turned on at every mating.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



> the supposedly small gene pool and relatively limited number of queens that account for a high percentage of the queens, nucs, and package bees being sold in the U.S.?


Brock Harpur and Amro Zayed have been studying this for several years. They write



> The process of domestication often brings about profound changes in levels of genetic variation in animals and plants. The honey bee, Apis mellifera, has been managed by humans for centuries for both honey and wax production and crop pollination. Human management and selective breeding are believed to have caused reductions in genetic diversity in honey bee populations, thereby contributing to the global declines threatening this ecologically and economically important insect. However, previous studies supporting this claim mostly relied on population genetic comparisons of European and African (or Africanized) honey bee races; such conclusions require reassessment given recent evidence demonstrating that the honey bee originated in Africa and colonized Europe via two independent expansions.
> 
> We sampled honey bee workers from two managed populations in North America and Europe as well as several old-world progenitor populations in Africa, East and West Europe. Managed bees had highly introgressed genomes representing admixture between East and West European progenitor populations. _We found that managed honey bees actually have higher levels of genetic diversity_ compared with their progenitors in East and West Europe, providing an unusual example whereby human management increases genetic diversity by promoting admixture. The relationship between genetic diversity and honey bee declines is tenuous given that _managed bees have more genetic diversity_ than their progenitors and many viable domesticated animals.


Harpur, B. A., Minaei, S., Kent, C. F., & Zayed, A. (2012). Management increases genetic diversity of honey bees via admixture. Molecular ecology, 21(18), 4414-4421.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*



JWChesnut said:


> Honeybees (as social super-organisms) have gone the polyploid strategy one-better, they introduce genes from 15-30 different fathers into the same super-organism, making a "stone soup" of adaptable genes. Honeybees also have higher rates of crossing over in the prophase of meiosis and high rates of recombination. Chromosomes exchange segments in the pro-phase (why daughters are not clones of mothers). Recombination giggers the genes themselves.


Hi there

You seem to have a very strong grasp of this topic. Can you recommend reading material or sources where we can go to catch up on this?

Pete


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

Peter,
I keep coming back to this review paper ---
The importance of immune gene variability (MHC) in evolutionary
ecology and conservation Simone Sommer*
http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/pdf/1742-9994-2-16.pdf

It's a good jumping off place, because the author treats all theories without bias, and with recognition of their limits.

It should be noted that polymorphism in the Major Histocompatibility Complex is the subject of major, major research --- it is how humans fight disease.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

Hi again

What concerns me about the genomic analysis of diversity is that a lot depends on where you look and what you categorize as diverse. For example, there are some highly conserved regions that vary little between subspecies, even species. And there are other regions which are subject to continual recombination. Yet, much of this recombination seems to be little more than genetic drift which leads to no particular adaptation but simply differentiation. It's a difference that doesn't make a difference. Do you think that the study of genetic diversity is on thin ice, or do you perceive it making substantial contributions to our understanding of its role in say, bee health issues?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

Peter, 
MHC diversity vis-a-vis stable regions is commented on by many of the researchers -- since MHC is responsible for immune response to virus, diversity is adaptive, and variance is the key to the evolutionary arms race against virus.

My own studies have included field (and some lab) efforts looking at rare plants in old, senescent lineages or monotypic basal genera (hence very low evolutionary mobility). Some of these taxa are "boxed in" by heterozygosity. If viable genotypes require hetero conditions (which in Mendelian terms are at 50% frequency --- then the existence of 20 unlinked loci with this requirement would imply only 0.5^20 of the ovules will be viable (an impossible small number). 

I think your comment appreciates the exceptional conditions required for speciation and taxonomic branching. A large interbreeding population doesn't speciate easily, new taxa arise on the margins, on the islands.

I was peripherally associated with the research for in the Aguilar paper on the California Island Kit Fox genetic diversity, doing island plant diversity surveys at the same time. This is an elegant research comparing fitness of MHC variance with drivers of other variation. You may download and read it at: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/10/3490.full.pdf?with-ds=yes#page=1&view=FitH


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

*Re: Treatment free vs. good sense.*

JW and Peter, thank you for the time, information, and leads. All very helpful in trying to understand the difficulty and significance of research such as that reflected here: hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/89/20/90/PDF/hal-00892090.pdf. Trying to comprehend these concepts in the context of similar concepts bearing on _v. destructor_, possible natural enemies and pathogens of _v. destructor_, and the diseases and pathogens of bees vectored by the mites, is somewhat daunting.


----------

