# research on co-existence between mites and bee colony



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

I start this thread to inform about practical research in europe about the path to co-existence of mites and bee colonies with the mentioning of this swiss website´s information which I will translate partly step by step if you are interested.
My first translation will be a comparison of natural comb colonies and foundation colonies ( wax foundation). This is not directed as a hint to treatment free but meant as an information to learn the difference of colony behaviors in respect to mites.
The research is done under professional conduction by hobbyists and meant for hobbyists and small sideliners. 
I hope you enjoy! 

https://www.summ-summ.ch/forschen/koexistenz-von-bienenvolk-und-varroamilbe/



> Excerpts from the website, practical research :
> 
> Comparison natural comb vers. foundation beekeeping
> 
> ...


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

many thanks sibylle for putting so much effort into translating this for us. i've just finished my first reading and plan to go back through it more slowly and carefully. i'll probably have more questions for you!

for now:

who are the professionals overseeing the work of the hobbyists? 

are the 'natural' hives those found in nature or managed hives allowed to draw natural comb without foundation?


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

I am a bit slow and will have to read several times to get what they are saying. I did see that my pulling a center brood frame rather then from the edges does not help.
Cheers
gww


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

squarepeg said:


> who are the professionals overseeing the work of the hobbyists?
> 
> are the 'natural' hives those found in nature or managed hives allowed to draw natural comb without foundation?


He and others working with these overlook the hobbyists, because the hobbyists are not named ( the law is even more strict in switzerland and attacks from other beekeepers frequently done):

https://www.summ-summ.ch/portrait/

https://www.agni.ch

https://www.agroscope.admin.ch/agroscope/de/home/themen/nutztiere/bienen/zbf.html

http://www.fibl.org/de/schweiz/standort-ch/lehrbienenstand.html

The hives were set up. The natural ones were given empty frames.
The hives were monitored, checked and photographed.

There is much more research Dettli did and does. I will try to post in a more scientific way but the posts are so long I´m not sure.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

I wanted to send a pdf of this research but it was not accepted.
It exceeds the forum´s limit.
Can I do anything about this?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

it appears that martin dettli is primarily responsible for this work. not much shows up for him searching in english. let's keep looking for some english translation of his work so you don't have to spend many hours translating. 

i did find a book available that rudolph steiner and he produced:

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...ywords=martin+dettli&rh=i:aps,k:martin+dettli


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

not sure how to reduce the file size of a pdf. is the document written in english?


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

Rudolf Steiner has been dead for almost a hundred years (d 1925) so perhaps Mr. Dettli just edited or wrote a new introduction to something of Steiner's? 

Steiner was a proponent of biodynamic agriculture (including beekeeping). Perhaps even the person that originally coined the name?

Nancy


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

> 4.1.1 Experimental setup
> The hives were formed as a 2-3 honeycomb of colonies in the swarm drive. The swarm colonies were divided into 6 offshoots before the hatching of the young queens and each provided with a swarm cell of only one colony. After the mating and the first egg lay of the young queen, the strength of the offspring was estimated and the young queens were caged. Based on the estimated popular strength, the offshoots were assigned to the two experimental groups. At the beginning of the experiment, the old colonies were removed and the young ones were placed on a completely new construction. Foundation hives on honeycomb frames with central walls, natural hives on honeycomb frames with a Leitdreieck ( starter stripe) with about 1dm area.
> Figures 1 and 2 show the starting position: a frame with a center wall (left) and a natural frame with a triangular guide strip (right).
> The young colonies were fed every 10 days, initially 2 liters per hive, later with 5 liters per hive. The uniform feed is necessary to force the expansion of the honeycomb without a flow. At the beginning of each four frames were given and limited the size of the young colony by a follower board. The space was gradually supplemented with other frames up to the full nine breeding frames in Dornach


I´m using google translator and improve the translations. Hope I got it right.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

squarepeg said:


> it appears that martin dettli is primarily responsible for this work. not much shows up for him searching in english. let's keep looking for some english translation of his work so you don't have to spend many hours translating.
> 
> i did find a book available that rudolph steiner and he produced:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...ywords=martin+dettli&rh=i:aps,k:martin+dettli


As I see it it was a book Steiner wrote with Dettli writing the introduction. Reading the texts he wrote I don´t think he is very antroposophical. We discussed Steiner in bee class he wrote some very interesting things about bees and compared the colony with human societies.

But this is not about Steiner. Steiner never had the mite problem. Let´s discuss the co-existence possibilities and how they could be propagated, if they could be.
24 pages are not taken as pdf and I can´t delete some parts because it´s an original pdf link. 

sp no problem, I´m very fast doing this with the translating program. I only have to correct some terms.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i think i get it sibylle.

swarm drive = swarm mode, i.e. lots of swarm cells present

offshoots = splits

estimated popular strength = queen fecundity, i assume the two groups were equalized with respect to this.

new construction = new hive

one group was given foundation and the other only starter strips and left to draw natural comb. the differences between the two groups are summarized in the bold printed statements in your original post.

does that sound correct?

(enj, thanks for pointing out that steiner is a historical figure).


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Great help, sp


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

I wonder if mites are reduced by cannibalism in a draught or if more drone brood will sustain the colony in a draught.

Since I´m introducing natural comb I´m aware of the mite problem through more drone brood which could arise.

Are there some warré beekeepers tf, who have some experience with this?


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Siw....
I doubt a warre bee keeper could tell if the bees were canibalizing the drone/mite as it is harder to look in the comb. I do know michael bush says more drones keeps the bees off of workers (My take, what I really know is he does not control drone) and a usda study of untreated hives, the ones with the most drones did the best.

It could be that no one notice why the ones with the most drone did best and it was cause of caniboliziam of drone brood during the derth.
Cheers
gww


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

>>>quote


Starting point HIVE 75 -* Survival without Varroa Treatment*

For six years, the single colony has survived along with its Varroa mites. The monitoring and records of the evolution of the population and the Varroa drop gives an insight into the development of bees and brood as well as the life of the Varroa mites. This single-hive observation opens new perspectives. (Similar to article in the Swiss Bienenzeitung 2/05 but with enlarged graphic)

At its end in the winter of 03/04 it was a hive, as we discover it again and again on our stands, hardly any bees, little abandoned breed, a typical Varroa loss. However, for six years this colony resisted the Varroa and in its lifetime provided data that shows a new and interesting picture of the bee colony and its parasites. The most important and astonishing thing about it: The colony has curbed the mite populations several times on their own. At a price, however, which makes the interests of the beekeepers lose ground, for the hive never reached a size that was expected of a production hive with respect to income.

But let's start from scratch. In this experiment, six colonies were formed in the summer of 1998 as artificial swarms. They were set up at three locations in pairs and looked after by three different beekeepers. The colonies could build their own honeycomb as a natural building they lived in the magazine with straw walls. The natural Varroadrop was determined every week on the grid-protected surface, this number is considered a reliable reflection of the mite population in the hive. During the growing season, bees, closed and open broods were estimated every three weeks using the Liebefeld method. Regarding the mode of operation, it has to be said that the colonies were deliberately left with no space for honey; they had to cope with the 308 x 355mm measure on their 11 honeycombs. The winter food was supplemented as needed, they were maintained according to the guidelines of the German Demeterimkerei.

Between September 1999 and April 2000, 5 out of the 6 colonies died, including two colonies on a larger apiary, with a varroa emergency of only 12 mites per day of dynamics on the estate. After the loss of the control colonies , the surviving hive (hive 75) was a colony in a single placing, which was about 150 m away from its own apiary.

*The biography*
The development of the bee population and brood was determined only every three weeks between March and the end of October, in contrast to the natural mite drop of Graph 2, which was counted every week throughout the year.
The amazing thing about the survival of Volk 75 is the multiple rehabilitation of the mite population. Both in the autumn of 1999 and in the spring of 2001 and in the summer of 2002, the colony was freed from the clutches of a high mite population.
The natural mite drop regularly reached 30 and more mites per day in the summer of 1999. But at the end of October 1999, only 2-3 mites per day had fallen. However, this rehabilitation also had its price in the bee population, because the number of bees shrank during the renovation period of 15,000 bees on 4000 bees together. In the following coming out of winter were little more than 2000 bees in the hive. However, the restoration was so sustainable that the population was spared by higher mite populations in the following growing season. Only in October 2000 does the natural case of death of mites return to over 30 mites per day at short notice.

However, with 8,000 bees, the population brought an average number of bees into the winter. With a winter mite drop of 8 mites per day, the colony started with a heavy mite load into the new breeding season. Surprisingly, this strong spring strain was rehabilitated despite the simultaneous brood rearing until June. Again, the renovation was at the expense of the bee population. Instead of a population growth in the spring, the bee population decreased to 3000 bees in May 01, despite a springtime size of the population adequate. With a summer mite drop of 2 mites a day from June, the colony returned to bee mass growth. The growth continued with a small decrease over winter, so that in May 02 the population comprised almost 20,000 bees. Then a breeding break began because the queen was lost. The reason for the abrupt reversal could not be determined, the cause can be both natural, as well as the beekeeper handling the situation. The third refurbishment in the summer of 2002 can not be completely separated from this breeding interruption. The bee population also sank from 20,000 to 7,000 and from September 2002 was again a mite case of only 2-3 mites per day recorded until May 2003. Then the re-established colony surprised (16,000 bees) again with a breeding break This time certainly with its own dynamics, because there was no supercedure. In September, the mite drop rose to around 30 mites per day, with a hibernation of 2000 bees, the death of Volk 75 in October 03 was foreseeable.

*National Varroa defense ...*
Three times the colony has deposed the Varroa mites from a threatening population to a low infestation level. In the biography we have stated that the reduction of the mite population was always accompanied by a reduction of the bee population. However, this defense against disease via the mass change is nothing new. We know that even in the intact bee colony, bees always leave the hive as carriers of disease to protect the rest of the population, which corresponds to a pillar of the natural immune system of the bee colony. The results can be interpreted in such a way that this defense mechanism also works with Varroa. This raises questions: Is there a trigger in which the repulsion of the mites begins? From the population change of hive 75 can be seen that the Varroadefense sets in late, so that the colony only barely survived.

Here is a speculative moment interwoven: If the bee colony could recognize the mite as a problem earlier and as a defense measure would repel the mites over dying bees, then we would probably have no mite problem. We would not even notice the 500-1000 mite repulsion during the summer, as we can barely detect other on-going early disease treatments.

In the fifth year and sixth year, the breeding breaks have contributed to the at least temporary containment of the mite. The breeding interruptions around the beginning of June may be associated with tight space at this time, they are difficult to interpret.

*... or rhythm of the Varroa mite*
We have hypothesized an active varroa defense by the bee colony. The bee colony and Varroa mite are two populations. It must be considered that Varroa mite has contributed to the survival of the host-parasite community. It is noticeable in particular that over these six growing seasons, the bee colony has built up its bee mass according to the annual rhythm according to six times, and, apart from the basic structure of 1998, has also degraded five times. However, the Varroa mite has gone through only four distinct propagation cycles in the six years, pretty much every one and a half years. This rhythm in this example may also indicate that the Varroa mite may be standing in it´s own way and after a natural breakdown also takes another year and a half until it comes back into an exponential multiplication phase. This consideration may sound speculative, it can not be substantiated by previous research. But in the survival of the two populations of bees and mites, the sight must also be directed to the side of the parasite.

*The survival factors*
Regardless of the weighting of the above interpretations, the questions from this hive biography are: What are the reasons for the six-year survival of Volk 75 ? The beekeeper is thinking of a genetic mutation that could be processed in the breeding process. If, however, the above consideration of a normal disease defense or contribution by the Varroa mite is correct, then we must ask under what conditions such behavior occurs. It could be that the interaction of all environmental factors has contributed to the survival of this colony: climate, location, individual installation, nature, nutrition, beekeeping interventions, etc. The coincidental combination of favorable conditions would then be decisive.

Important for varro tolerance research is the knowledge of the conditions under which a common survival of host and parasite is possible or at least probable. Among the mentioned environmental factors, we first of all take care of the factors that we ourselves are able to have a say in, these are the elements of beekeeping. In this case, single installation, natural comb and space constraints. Thoughts on these topics are listed under Project Description.
*
Supplementary information on the nature and the space restriction*
The natural building data of Volk 75 are: share of drone construction 31.5%, average cell size of female workers 5.37 mm. The proportion of drone construction of about one third of the honeycomb area is high. Karl Weiss (1962) measured drone construction shares of 10-17%.
In the case of Volk 75, the unusually high proportion of drone construction contributed to the breeding restriction for worker bees. This in connection with the limited space. A honey attachment was deliberately not given. Thus, the stress factor honey harvest can be reduced and the feeding be minimized. The constant spatial conditions correspond to a natural situation. The consequence of this, however, is that the breeding area is limited by the honey entry. It is possible that this space constraint contributed to the diminished number of bees in hive 75.

The maximum number of bees in Volk 75 is 15,000 to 20,000 per year. That is certainly a below-average popular strength. An average bee colony reaches 20,000 to 25,000 bees, maxima of 35,000 bees are quite possible. The abundant breeding approaches of strong colonies offer the Varroa ideal propagation conditions and it is noticeable that often stronger hives suffer from increased Varroastress. Population 75 had maxima of 20,000 capped brood cells in the second and third year, only 15,000 in the fourth year, and 30,000 capped brood cells in the fifth and sixth years, but the latter only for a short time (Figure 1).

© martin dettli - www.summ-summ.ch

<<<


----------



## ruthiesbees (Aug 27, 2013)

SiW,
In regards to PDF, you can download a free PDF "printer" and send partial pages of the original to the "pdf printer" and end up with a pdf that is only the pages you want. I like FoxIT PDF as you can adjust the resolution to make the file size smaller. As long as it is text, the quality doesn't suffer

https://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf-reader/view-print-pdf/


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

interesting sibylle. i've read through your last post a couple of times but it's still a bit difficult even with the google translation.

it appears that dettli is describing his observations made on a single colony that survived for six years after recovering from high infestation rates several times and he is offering some possibilities for how or why that happened.

perhaps you could share with us what you take away from this report and whether or not the information will influence your approach going forward.

i wasn't able to find information about dettli by searching. is he affiliated with a school or some type of research organization? or more of a citizen scientist working on his own?


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Hi SP, sorry if this is difficult to read.
Just now I try to find a way to post pdf using the apple store not to introduce any virus through loading software.
But still, the pdf will be in german.

You can see in post #4 the links of the organizations which use Dettli´s research. The FIBL you can read in english pushing the translation link.

My goal is to improve bee colony managements on the base of the informations given. More and more I´m convinced the beekeeping managements are a playing a big part of the communication inside the hive, as it is a super organism in my eyes which builds up a kind of atmosphere. This can be disturbed so the bees might "forget" about their defense, working on stabilizing the inner atmosphere instead, which might need hours, perhaps days, perhaps weeks. Perhaps never as the next disturbance will come. Time enough for the mites to use this stress situations. IMO.
In an environment like mine, flooded with beekeepers not taking care to eliminate weak genetics, in a humid climate and not much diversity of plants I want to know how this influences the defense to pests and disease and adapt accordingly.
You might say: I want to avoid the deadouts caused by my beekeeping methods and accept those caused by the mites.

I´m fascinated about what Dettli and his co-workers found out about the mite-bee coexistence, the ups and downs of the one survivor hive. I will keep this in mind when I do my future monitoring of mites and the evaluation of bee colonies.
There are many factors taking part on the path to more resistance. I see that I´m not so lucky just to find the best race ( which I now have) for my locations but must consider more factors. As I see it, the losses caused by varroa mites are not so high that I will concentrate on the mite alone. Doing IPM is not just treat those susceptible to mite virus, it´s improving the beekeeping methods overall, starting from placing my hives, the hives I will use, the time to feed, the time to split or multiply or breed plus the way to do this, the frames and comb to use, the manner I will work the hives when I check them.

Reading on BS the experience of US, canadian beekeepers I realized that our beekeeping world differs very much.
There are not as much resistant bred queens available here and they are very expensive so not commonly used. The environment differs very much as I see the distances between apiaries.
So maybe the environmental influences or the beekeeping methods are not so much a problem with you US people, a more commercial tf approach possible ( no offense meant ) or even a "live and let die" approach.

On Dettlis website there is a link to a 3 years research on co-existence of mite and bee which I will translate soon.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Link to this study is on the website linked in the first post of this thread.

>>>quote
Project description Supporting coexistence of
Bee colony and Varroa mite
A population dynamics study with first results from the year 2014

1. Introduction1.1 Problem Varroa mite

Varroa mite is considered by most studies to be one of the most important factors in the study of bee mortality. This also coincides with the analyzes from beekeeping practice, as the national losses in this country are always related to high mite pressures.
The death of bee colonies, however, is not directly attributable to the large number of mites, because the triggering factor is viruses, and thus the cause of death is due to a disease. The Varroa mites are transmitters or even multipliers of little problematic viruses that are latently dormant in the bee colonies. Viruses are taken up, propagated and transmitted via the Varroa mite feeding on the bee larva. The more Varroa are in the colony, the greater the threat from viruses (Martin 2001). These relationships are known; we were able to visualize them in the accompanying virus research of the earlier Varroa experiments. (Dettli, 2008)

The question that arises today is whether or not the varroa treatment itself is a crucial part of the problem. It is undisputed that in the short term the treatments can kill many mites and thus protect colonies from dying off. In the medium term, however, the treatments themselves seem to cause harm with consequences for the immune system of the bee colony, and in the long term the treatments prevent the mutual adaptation of bee colony and varroa mites.

*1.1.1 Short-term: the protective Varrao treatment*
In beekeeper training and in beekeeping advice, great value is placed on the fact that the varroa treatment is carried out at the right time and in the correct manner. In the ideal case, it is adapted to the threshold of a deadly increase of the Varroa mite numbers, ie it takes place as required. In large parts of beekeeping, however, it is done in a schematic way. In Switzerland, the treatments are mainly carried out with organic acids or thymol. These are both products that leave no problematic residues in wax or food. In the international arena, there are also various variants of chemically-synthetic treatment agents. They are not mentioned further here. It is undisputed that with proper treatment many Varroa mites can be killed and the colonies effectively protected.
*
1.1.2 Medium term: harmful effects of varroa treatment*
Every beekeepers knows that the treatment with formic or oxalic acid as well as thymol is an ordeal for the bees, because it is important to be very careful during the application (user protection). The smell of thymol stays even after months and impresses wax odor. It is immediately apparent that bee colonies suffer from every variant of these applications.
In addition, damage to the bees has been demonstrated in recent years, or as Ralph Büchler put it in his speech in Kassel (March 28, 2015): "The bee is different after treatment". The applications are based on killing the mite with its smaller body size, but the bees can survive. However, this means that in addition to the bees and the queen, the accompanying fauna of a bee colony is affected.
It is obvious that the entire immune system, with its many different ways of living microorganism, suffers under treatment. In addition, the experience of own bee colonies shows that in the last 30 years the problem with the Varroa mite has been further accentuated. As a rule, bee colonies endure fewer mites than they did 10 years ago and even less against the first appearance of the parasite in the late 1980s. While today bee colonies with a mite load of 2500 mites are endangered throughout the year, this number was 10 years ago about 4000 mites. At the beginning of the Varroa period, colonies with 8,000 mites could still survive in this country. (Own experience). This development is also related to the subsequent long-term effects.

*1.1.3 Long term: The prevented host - parasite relationship*
We are dealing with an unadapted host-parasite relationship because the parasite wipes out the host and at the same time escapes its own livelihood. An approximation in this regard means that the two antagonists are trying to survive. This evolutionary adaptation has been hindered so far, because beekeepers regularly nullify Varroapressure being concerned about possible losses.
In order to bring about an adaptation, the two antagonists and the viruses must be able to deal with as few human restrictions as possible. The process of natural selection is important for the development of a stable host-parasite relationship. (Schmid and Hempel, 2010)

*1.2 Challenge for the future*
For a beekeeping company that strives for a beekeeping that meets the needs of the beekeepers, the intervention with the varroa treatment is one of the most massive interventions in the course of the year. It is unbiological and destabilizes the bee colony. All the efforts for biological colonies are relativized.
The way in which this host-parasite relationship is intervened seems to be more problematic in the longer term. In this situation, it is vital to look for alternatives in which the biological balance within the bee population can be supported. The difference of the situation with today's treatments is huge, and there are no easy solutions and prescriptions to expect.

*1.3 Adaptation situations in untreated bee colonies*
We have already known examples of these adaptation situations for some time. First, they were reported from the tropical climates; but in the past fifteen years they have been observed in various places in the temperate latitudes. For example, T. Seeley (Seeley T.D., 2007 and 2015) of wild bee colonies in the North American forests who are apparently able to survive on their own. They also show little familial mixing with the beekeeping bee colonies in the wider area. We would like to take a closer look at the experiments in Gotland (Fries I.e.a. 2007) and in Avignon (Leconte Y.e.a. 2007).
On Gotland in Sweden in 1999, a survival attempt was started. After a crisis in the third year of 150 bee colonies only survived 8. Thereafter, the host-parasite ratio was stabilized. The other experiment is in Avignon (F). From various regions of France, colonies who showed signs of adaptation were brought together and further increased.
A comparative study was published in 2012 on these two experiments. This study showed that the proliferation dynamics of the mites could be slowed down in an undisturbed host-parasite relationship. It came about through a 30 percent reduction in the reproduction success of the Varroa. Interestingly, it was based on different effects in the two experimental regions: In Avignon, there were more infertile mites, in Gotland the oviposition of the mites was delayed. Obviously, there is not simply an adaptation; every population finds its own way.

*1.4 Earlier own experiments*
In 1999 and 2004, we each launched our own research projects on the subject, which dealt with the question of adaptation. Although there were major losses in both projects, temporary adaptation and survival situations were observed. The factors that make survival possible were published in 2009 in the Schweizerische Bienenzeitung (Dettli 2009). The seven survival situations had in common that a high varroa fall occurred in May and July. This can be reduced by its own power over the mass of change of the bee numbers. If the high level of mites does not appear until the months of July and August, the damage of winter bees leads to loss of colonies. Significant bee losses with a small bee number period occur more frequently.

*1.5 Vision*
From the project description at that time (Dettli 2004): (superficial) "goal is to determine conditions for a stabilization on the basis of a coexistence. By observing the population of mites and bees, relationships can be worked out via the lability factors. The knowledge gained could provide a starting point for further measures to stabilize the host-parasite ratio.
.... on this basis coexistence should also be found in productive bee colonies under beekeeping care. In the vision of "supported coexistence," measures that stabilize the coexistence of the host and the parasite occur, instead of the repeated treatment of the bee colonies to kill the Varroa mite. "Today, the same idea applies; but we are already a bit further in that.
*
1.7 experimental goal*
The aim now is to find out how assisted coexistence in S.'s beekeeping comes about.
( The colonies were already resistant before the tests were started, they were not treated by chemicals or oils for almost ten years. The beekeepers did IPM, doing individual treatments, like for example sugar shakes, some ended this after a higher survivability rate was achieved. More later..) SiWolKe 
The aim is to record the population development of bee colonies and their Varroa mites. But it is also important to capture as closely as possible all interventions and events within and around the bee colonies. In this way, the life situation of the colonies and the influences can be studied and from this the regularities can be postulated. Of course, it would also be desirable if these observations could be supplemented with more detailed studies on Varroa or viruses. For this we are looking for cooperation with the ZBF.
It takes several years of observation time to be able to outline the population dynamic behavior with the annual fluctuations under different conditions. We started the surveys in 2014 and will continue them until the spring of 2017.

*1.8 Cooperation*
The Center for Bee Research in Bern Liebefeld (ZBF) has expressed interest in engaging in this research. They have a project to study the coexistence factors between bees and varroa mites in China, the country of origin, as well as in Africa, where coexistence first had to evolve. The aim is to find out what the differences in the behavior of these two bee populations are. In the context of the Advisory Forum Bees of the ZBF, there was an interest in extending this research to the Swiss tolerance situation at S..
April 2015
Martin Dettli Gempenring 122 4143 Dornach copyright
[email protected] www.summ-summ.ch +41 61 703 88 74
<<<


Experimental procedure follows in next post ....SiWolKe


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

following. 

sibylle, does the research you are sharing with us fall under this umbrella:

https://www.agroscope.admin.ch/agro...bienenkrankheiten/varroa/varroa-resitenz.html

more about agroscope (in english):

https://www.agroscope.admin.ch/agroscope/en/home/about-us/agroscope.html

it appears to be the swiss equivalent of the usda.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Siw...
To me it looks like the ideal is to switch from the IPM you mentioned and go to bond to give the bees a real chance at comming to grips with mites. The one hive study seems to be showing that it takes a whole bunch of pressure for the bees to respond and so the study seems to be headed in the direction of taking those IPM bees that have been helped a bit and really putting the heat on them to give them a better chance.



> On Gotland in Sweden in 1999, a survival attempt was started. After a crisis in the third year of 150 bee colonies only survived 8. Thereafter, the host-parasite ratio was stabilized.


What they seem to be doing is replicateing this but watching closer while they do it.

The study seems to be testing out a case for bond bee keeping.

What am I missing?
Cheers
gww


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Squarepeg


> sibylle, does the research you are sharing with us fall under this umbrella:


They cooperate.

gww


> The study seems to be testing out a case for bond bee keeping.


Exactly right, but not just stop treatments or IPM, rather "prepare" the colonies for bond first. I´m really excited because this could work for me in future.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

If you are able to prepare colonies for bond then you must be detecting partial success by the bees. How long you can stay on the "prepare"road ? Depends on how well you can measure progress. How many hives you can lose. At 95% loss (8 of 150) I'll stay on it until someone else paves the road, puts in road signs and directs traffic. Until then I will cheer from the sidelines and not jeer.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Siw....


> Exactly right, but not just stop treatments or IPM, rather "prepare" the colonies for bond first. I´m really excited because this could work for me in future.


Yes but this is not what I am really getting from this. It is a fact that they used bees that were IPM and did consider them as more resistant at start but still seems to be saying that any treatment changes the process the bees use and so is not what is going to do it.

It is differrent to say we are using bees that this has already happened to then to say this is what we are going to do to the bees.

The end ideal and reason for showing what happenned to the one hive is that mites had to get above the level that any treatment would allow them to get to before the bees did some action that countered the parisite.

I did see that they do want to track every interfearance from this point forward but it still seems to be the amount of pressure to make a bee react that seems to be what they want to test out. Not even how they react as they already say that differrent bees use differrent tools but that it is the presure that makes the bees come up with the tools. This says to me that they reconize that the bees they started with that were IPM for ten years may have had more pressure and so may be more resistant but that they want bond cause they were not the same due to the ipm as what they could be with bond.

This is not to say that ipm was not reconized as some help to what they wanted but the cases they put reliance on was as proof of concept were all bond and the one hive observations was bond and so the case is made that ipm will not get done what they think will happen with bond.

I could be reading it all wrong as I always have issues with all studies and reading them and pulling out what the writers ment. I am a pretty uneducated person. I do know even if I have it right that you can't afford to lose 150 hives to end up with 8 strong ones and so you have to do what you have to do not matter what they want to study.

You know me, I don't mind it being pointed out on things I might be missing. I am trying to learn through you and with you.
Cheers
gww
Ps salty types faster then me.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

The measure of progress or not, would be to replicate the 1999 with the survivors of those 8. Still 8 survivors would be discouraging, 8 with stronger more productive hives would still be progress, just show a longer road ahead..


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Saltybee


> I'll stay on it until someone else paves the road, puts in road signs and directs traffic. Until then I will cheer from the sidelines and not jeer.



To walk a longer road by yourself can be very fascinating. But not for a commercial, I admit.

gww
Thanks for the comments. You are very educated in my eyes. What´s education anyway? Common sense is what I respect. And an open mind.

Imagine having found out which parameters work in your apiary, small or strong colonies, the kind of multiplying, feeding managements, placing of hives and so on and to be able to save the best tf queen´s colonies in a crisis without having to treat. Change to another management for one season and hey presto! ( Sorry, my bottle is always half filled not half empty )

These methods ( evolving a bee suitable management) are not only a possibility to improve health before starting bond ( remember my situation please) but could be used if reinvasion should occur not to be forced to treat.

Beekeeping is never static so why forever treat or not treat? As much as one can use IPM or some other managements like a natural setting in a crisis and go back to tf afterwards.

Also what the study says about how the mite numbers could go up and down in mite fighting colonies impresses me. If this is true the fault rates while monitoring can be very high and what follows could be the treating of the only resistant hive in spite of the truly susceptible ones.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Siw


> Also what the study says about how the mite numbers could go up and down in mite fighting colonies impresses me. If this is true the fault rates while monitoring can be very high and what follows could be the treating of the only resistant hive in spite of the truly susceptible ones.


That is pretty much what I got out of what they have did so far. Also that when the bees got really loaded the population dropped and it was definatly not a production colony during those high mite times. But the other thing seems to be that all bees don't fight in the same way and so the effects are probly based on how they come up with a defence and could be differrent in lots of ways.

I do know where you are but when talking of studies, we talk of them or talk of you. Pulling stuff out of studies for yourself is differrent then what the study says and I am sure has to be differrent. In the end it just shows that beekeeping is probly not consistant and even in a single apary all hives are not the same, sometime for reasons we can see and sometimes for reasons we can't see.

It is all just guide lines to pick and experment with untill you get to where you want to be. 
Glad you went to the time to translate the study, one more thing to muddle my muddled mind.
Good luck
gww


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Going on:

>>>
*1. Summary
Experimental project beekeeping without varroa treatment.*
Under a bee-keeping without Varroa treatment, one imagines a balancing act, in which the bee colony can survive or not, a path on a knifes` edge. We have experienced this in earlier attempts. Even in a normal beekeeping operation with a killing Varroa treatment, we experience how quickly there is Varroa loss, despite treatment.
In beekeeping, which we look at in these experiments, the last killing Varro treatment is 10 years ago. Bees and mites obviously adapted to each other. It is only provided with ashing of mites support.`( ask if you want to know, SiWolKe) The mites have not disappeared, a mean mite drop of 40 mites per day occurs over several weeks. Individual colonies have over 100 mites per day in the top. Nevertheless, hive collapses are missing. As a supplement: In normal bee colonies, the damage threshold is 10 mites per day. It is interesting, for example, that at the beginning of the winter, the colonies have only a few cases of natural mite drop at the beginning of the breeding season, depending on the year, 1 to 3 mites per day. The colonies are healthy. There were no winter losses in the two experimental years. And even if the hives overwinter on as much of their own honey as possible, in 2015 a nice honey harvest of 15 kg per hive was possible. The reasons for this success we do not know, but seems to have formed a balance in which bees and mites get along with each other so that threatening situations fail. The overwintering of the colonies is excellent and the two queenless colonies in 2015 were able to raise their queen after adding a few young larvae.
We would like to know more. What is the cause of this good coexistence? Whether, for example, despite the many mites, a low viral load plays a role, whether it is a question of the mass change of the bees or possibly a smaller increase of the mites? The Center for Bee Research in Liebefeld will investigate the latter question in 2016.

*2. Basics*
The methodology of the public estimation every three weeks and the weekly counting of the natural Varroa drop is described in the project description.

*2.1 Placement*
The bee colonies stand in a light forest, which is actively cared for by the various private forest owners and used regularly. The hives are registered. Each location has its own registered number in the cantonal directory.
2.2 Wintering Colonies 2014 will become Young Colonies 2015
All the hives survived the winter 2014/2015, but there were two problematic cases: Hive A became queenless in December 15, the time could be determined on the basis of entrance observations. After an addition of a honeycomb with brood in April 2015, a new queen was bred. The colony came therefore only with 1170 bees out of winter and was led in this experimental year as a young colony.
Hive B was hit in October 2014 by a falling fir and fell off the buck. It was raised again, but only in the spring of 2015 controlled. Here, a total honeycomb break and also lack of queen were found. After adding a brood comb and a honeycomb in March 2015, the colony could raise a queen. With 3250 bees, it was also performed as a young colony in 2015.
thus: 2014 Old colonies: n = 5 Young colonies: n = 3 Total 8 wintering hives
2015 Old colonies: n = 6 Young colonies: n = 4 Total 10 wintering hives

*3. Results 3.1 Overwintering*
The winter 2015/2016 led to no winter losses. The hives have wintered strongly. Table 2: Overview of wintering 15/16, with the first estimation results 2016

The cause of significantly weakened colonies was known and was probably related to the previous year's mite strain and viral load, as shown in the following section.

*3.2 bee health*
Volk H had no full development in 2014. The brood nest was spotted, however without recognizable disease. All other hives developed well and in the normal range. While population estimation was done, we were able to observe the bees with deformed wings and estimate their number. They are symptoms of Deformed Wing Virus DWV and a sign of high varroa stress. The phenomenon hardly occurred in 2014.
Table 3 DWV observations, number of damaged bees during the survey at the public estimation. 2014 no2015
3.3 Honey Harvest 2014 and 20152014: of 3 hives, 12 kg of honey were harvested in June, ie 2.5 kg on average
2015: 47 kg were harvested from 3 hives in June average from old colonies spring, from 5 hives in September 45 kg. Old colony average summer Annual average 2015 of 6 normal harvested hives
15.6 kg 9.0 kg
15.3 kg

*3.4 Natural drop of the Varroa mite*
3.4.1 Old Hive 2015 In Figure 1 we can see the mite development of the old colonies. It takes a long time from the winter Varroa population to develop to a larger Varroa population. Only in August the average exceeded the mark of 20 mites per day. From mid-September to the end of September, the average increases to over 60 mites per day with 3 measurements and reaches the maximum of over 100 mites per day. It is striking in both years that the reduction of natural deaths to 10 mites per day takes place at the end of October or mid-November. In December 2014, a low level of 1-2 mites per day is reached; in December 15, this is 4-5 mites per day. Striking is in the comparison of the two graphs that the mite development in the course of the year is quite another. This is astonishing and will be considered even closer in the discussion. For the discussion, the comparative data 2014 are listed here in succession.
3.4.2. Young colonies 15 Figure 3 shows that the young colonies 15 only briefly exceed the mark of 20 mites per day at the beginning of October. The highest number of mites was counted with hive B, which was possibly influenced by the neighboring colony J on the same yard. The maximum value is similar in time to that of the old colonies in the second half of September. As we will see in Graphs 7 and 8, young colonies in 2015 have much less brood amount. So you can also explain the lower mite numbers compared to 2014. They are weaker over the summer in relation to the bee mass.

*3.5.1 colony development of old hives*
The development of the population is represented by the total size of the brood and the number of bees recorded at 10 estimates between March and October. The natural Varroa death case was calculated from the data underlying Graph 1. The absolute numbers are indicated on the right axis.
Noteworthy in Figure 5 is the consistently high average brood events from the beginning of May to the end of July with always about 30,000 brood cells. According to the knowledge of the beekeeper an active breeding event is always accompanied by a significant increase of the Varroa mite. However, in this case, the value of the natural mite case does not exceed the average value of 20 mites per day until mid-August. We would like to discuss this amazing phenomenon in the discussion. For comparison, the previous year 2014 with a strong swarming, which is particularly evident in the strong decline in breeding in May and June.

*3.5.2 Development of the Young Colonies*
The development of the young colonies of the years 14 and 15 differs insofar that those from the first year of study were formed stronger and already in July nursed a brood nest with 40,000 cells, with a population of 18,000 bees. In contrast, the young colonies in 2015 have little more than 20,000 brood cells and are significantly weaker with almost 10,000 bees. During wintering, the hives had an average 10'000 bees in both years. This difference in development is able to explain the great difference in the mite load, because according to the "classic formula" large brood nests mean more mites.

*4. Discussion4.1 Overall view on the results*
Basically, it is amazing that the observed bee colonies survive very well without a killing Varroa treatment. They carry a large varroa population in the summer which is, however, hardly harmful. They can reduce the Varroa population pretty quickly in the beginning of winter. They are healthy and have honey. This is so unexpected and extraordinary that many questions follow. How is that possible? What are the mechanisms?

*bee Health*
In strong hive J, over 6 weeks in 2015, distinct occurrences of DWVirus were repeatedly observed (Table 3). The hives were also much weakened from winter (Table 2). Viruses are present and harmful, but there is no colony collapse compared to treated hives. This may also have contributed to the establishment of a maximum of two hives per stand and thus a broad distribution of colonies.

w*intering*
The placing may also play a part in the low wintering losses. Because 2 hives which have become queenless, survived until spring and could be saved with the addition of little brood comb is also unusual. On a stand with a common number of hives they would have been robbed long ago. It is also astonishing that the colonies did not become laying worker hives in the spring.

*4.2 Population strength and mass change*
The old hives rarely reached more than 16,000 bees in both 2014 and 2015 (Figures 3 and 4, page 9). This is related to the fact that there were also weak hives who could hardly be supered with a honey chamber. Thus, no selection was carried out, colonies were neither dissolved nor unified. In addition, the strong swarm urge 2014 has reduced the average national strength. But even in 2015 with less swarming and an appealing honey harvest, the average was not over 16,000 bees. Compared to normal treated commercial production hives from the own farms, this strength of population is low, as comparable estimates from earlier experiments show. However, one can not speak of a norm because the individual colonies` developments fluctuate.
However, an average of 30,000 honeybee cells and a population of 16,000 bees indicate a short life span of the average bee.

*Comparison of single colony dynamics*
„Normal Hive" treated, Colony"blue 18“, experiment natural comb hive 2008. It is a hive, which has been shown as normal in training and courses by me often. The mass change, however, still provides much difficulty to understand with respect to normality.
"Experimental" Hive J from the described experiments, the most productive colony in 2015,
If we assume an average life span of 21 days, then the sum of the brood cells would be all bees three weeks later, this is called bee potential. The difference between the potential and the existing bees indicates something about the bee losses that occur over enforced mass changes . The difference gives the number of bees from the breeding potential which do not reach the life span of 21 days. Whether they die as brood or as bees, can not be judged. The first and the last dates are not meaningful because there are already long-lived winter bees in the hives.
In Table 4 "Experimental population" we can see that the bee deficiency compared to the potential between May and September always stays between 10'000 and 20'000 bees. The "normal hive" in Table 5, however, in July and August has a much more significant loss compared to the potential. The calculation presented here to single hives is not meaningful at all. However, it shows pictorially how the experimental population from May inexplicably loses many bees, the normal hive reaches this situation in July. Whether the loss of bees is related to the Varroa burden in the respective time would have to be clarified on the basis of more hives. This will certainly be discussed in detail in the final report.

 Literatur: Kralj & Fuchs (2006), Parasitic Varroa destructor mites influence flight duration and homing ability of infested Apis mellifera foragers. Apidologie 37(5) 577-587
From http://www.summ-summ.ch/bibl/for/gedanken_und_schlussbericht.pdf Do the Varroa mites disappear through the entrance hole? 

With the similarities described during the survival situations, however, there is no explanation how the national reduction of the Varroa mite states come about. In this regard, a scientific publication by Jasna Kralij has shown possible connections: In eight different experimental approaches, the author was able to show that bees bearing varroa are less likely to return to the hive than unloaded bees. The loss rate was increased in heavily afflicted hives. Thus, it has contributed to the understanding of the processes in the Varroa contaminated bee colonies. It is estimated that up to 2% of the mites per day can be removed in normal, heavily affected colonies by the Varroa discharge through the entrance in the flow period (personal communication R. Büchler). These observations and estimates can help to understand the survival situations. The hypothesis is: In the present national Varroa renovation the bees carry their Varroa mites out of the hive and do not return. Thus, the large bee losses are explained, which are associated with the described varroa renovation. Literature: Kralj & Fuchs (2006), Parasitic Varroa destructor mites influential flight duration and homing ability of infected Apis mellifera foragers. Apidology 37 (5) 577-587

*4.3 Special features in the Varroa population*
There are two abnormalities in the development of Varroa populations in our experimental colonies:
1. Slowed multiplication The Varroa mite population peaks at an average of 40-60 mites per day. Especially in 2015, the mite multiplication is linear and not exponential
2. Reduction of natural deadly fall in winter. In both years there is a rapid decline in natural mite fall in October and November. Even if no bee numbers are estimated in the winter, it can be concluded from the good wintering, which is visible in Table 2, that bee losses do not have a negative effect during this time.
Slowed increase?


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Very nicely we see the exponential development of the mite population in the treated control colonies. Without the last data point, the development of untreated experimental populations could be represented almost linearly. How does the "slowed development" of the experimental colonies come about? Investigations in Avignon and Gotland showed a lower mite proliferation in varroatolerant colonies. In Avignon, it could be attributed to a reduced fertility of the females, in Gotland on a delayed oviposition in the open brood cells. Both "mechanisms" resulted in a 30 percent reduction in mite counts compared to non-tolerant control colonies (Barbara Locke et al., 2012). Whether this applies also, we do not know. Maybe the upcoming research project of the ZBF helps here. Certainly, it is also important to continue the preceding considerations of mass change, the disappearance of the Varroa mites through the entrance by means of the bees that are no longer returning.

*Reduction of the natural varroa drop going into the winter.*
This phenomenon can also be explained well by the forager bees discharging Varroa mites. When the hatching activity is reduced in October and November, then no Varroamultiplication comes about. If a part of the varroa carrying winter bees leave the hive, with a loss of 500 to 1000 bees a good part of the mites can be removed.
The timing of October / November is familiar in this context. This is the time period in which beekeepers experience varroa losses due to inadequate treatment. The beehive is empty or there are only a few bees in it, because the bees, who are infected by viruses, have left the hive. A natural reaction of bees to a disease situation.
Is it the same mechanism that allows the experimental colonies to free themselves from the largest mite load?
Varroa mites leave the bee colony through the entrance

On the preceding considerations we look at the development of this varro tolerance within a few years. Today we know that the bee colonies can change within about 3 years to a stable varroa situation without treatment . The questions of the conversion condition and the conversion success are still unclear. Within three years nothing can be so different in the bee colony. In this adaptation, minor factors must be changed. This means that mechanisms are set in motion which have been familiar to the bee colony ever since. The expulsion of sick bees is one. We still do not understand the laws of mass change; This is shown by the strange data of a normal hive (Table 5). We can postulate that the complex mass change is closely related to hygiene and that with a small change of behavior in this area, varro tolerance can arise. This means that only the regular undisturbed presence of the parasite can be enough to activate these original mechanisms.

4.4 Different population development of Varroa mite in the two experimental years
We would like to give a more detailed discussion here to the phenomenon that a very different mite development was observed in both years (Figures 1 and 2). According to common opinion, Varroa development is clearly dependent on the size of the mite's initial population and the brood volume (number of bees emerging).

, 4.4.1 The Varroa mite's Starting Population in Winter (Graphs 1 and 2) We do not know if the colonies had the same resting population of Varroa mite in the winter of 2014 and 2015 because the first data were collected in March 2014. In 2015, however, the initial population was characterized by 1 mite per day, which was counted from January to mid-March with few exceptions. In 2016 there was no such a pronounced hibernation population (Table 2 page 6). Assuming a two-year rhythm, it is therefore possible that in 2014 there was also a higher starting population.

4.4.2 Increase in Varroa PopulationWith regard to the brood volume of bees in 2015, we can see that over the period of May, June and July always around 30,000 bees hatched. For a starting population of 1 mite per day, this would generally be enough to rapidly increase the growth of the Varroa population. We see that although there is a continuous increase in Varroa mite, 10 mites per day are not exceeded until the end of June, and the 20 mites per day in mid-August. Why do the Varroa mites need such a long time to reach a clear propagation phase and is there no exponential increase in this case? What inhibits the increase in varroa population? As a comparison, spring 2014 should be used (chart 2 or with brood events chart 4). Since 10 mites per day are exceeded in March and end of April, there are about 50 mites per day! There are observations and, to a lesser extent, data indicating that all bee colonies have differences in a 2-year cycle. It would mean that every other year the relationship between bee colony and Varroa mite is under another law. We call this alternation following the phenomena of fruit-growing.
The results from different experimental years show no clear alternance. However, they show that there are differences in the different years. Whether they refer to a law is open to both treated and untreated peoples, as well as the question of whether they are related.

*5. Prospects5.1 Additional research*
The center for bee research will expand the experiment in the summer of 2016 with its own investigations. A first meeting with Vincent Dietemann and his assistant for this project took place. The aim is to investigate the reproductive behavior of the mites in the experimental colonies. For this we will do a second type of mite determination with powdered sugar diagnoses and take samples of bees and Varroa for virus investigations.
5.2 The transition to the present mode of operation
It is still true today that we strongly advise against refraining from varroa treatment of bee colonies. Because the probability of losing all hives is great. It is all the more important to understand more about the transitional situation among the experimental populations. How did you reach this unexpected coexistence level? How can bee colonies get into this condition? Is it possible to start it or support it specifically? Specifically, we would like to collect notes and memories based on the available experimental hives.

*5.3 Follow-up projects?*
Due to the development of the young colonies, we see that the stabilizing peculiarities are passed on. The young colonies also show an adaptation In which way does it come about? Is it passed on informally or more genetically? Is it an adaptation or a learning effect? Is this behavior local? Would the peoples behave similarly in another place? And how would hives fare which would be integrated into the existing beekeeping? Is individualization really crucial for coexistence? It would be rewarding and instructive to pursue these questions. A follow-up project is planned and not yet in preparation. Whether it is feasible depends on various factors. Certainly also of whether we again muster the motivation and the finances for a major research project.

<<<


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

SiW
Thanks for posting.
Cheers
gww


----------

