# Varroa question



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Did anyone ask the foundress Varroa mite if she PREFERS drone cells to worker cells? 

Perhaps it is just the longer capped period of drone brood which allows production of more varroa from the drone cells compared to the worker cells, which some have interpereted to indicate preference. That's the way I see it. 

I don't see necassarily a preference. Otherwise we would see cases where an over whelming number of mites come from drone cells and almost none from worker cells. I don't know if that is ever, or has been, observed. Perhaps someone else knows.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Mites are ATTRACTED to drone cells by ODOR. 

The RESULT is more mites mature in drone cells vs worker (due to longer development time for drones).


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>how does the mite know the difference between a drone and worker cell?

There is evidence to support both cell size and odor. When drone larvae are placed in worker cells they are less likely to invade them than drone larvae in drone cells, but more likely than worker larvae in worker cells. With worker larvae in drone cells they are more likely to invade them than worker larvae in worker cells, but less likely than drone larvae in drone cells.

> Or does it use some other way to identify it that we don't understand yet? Surely the mite couldn't know that the drone takes longer to develop, right?

Of course they don't logical think it would work better, but their instincts are to do exactly what works out to better reproduction.

> However, the mite will use worker cells, either by choice or desperation, which is it?

Probably a combination of desperation and confusion. A typical large cell is closer to the size of a drone than a natural worker cell.

> Or does it even matter which cell it uses? If you study the mite life cycle in terms of days to maturity from egg, seems to me there is plenty of time for the offspring of the foundress mite to mate and mature inside the worker cell, so why do they say it prefers drones? 

Because they do "prefer" them. They are more likely to invade them.

>Have any of these questions that I have posed been answered by experts, because I can't find the answers.

Yes. Much research has been done on the subject.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Michael, Do you foresee the day (say within 10 years) when we will be 99% mite free in the U.S. based on where we are today with a combination of mite research, bee breeding, and the growing number of beekeepers going natural and/or organic? John


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

jmgi said:


> Have any of these questions that I have posed been answered by experts, because I can't find the answers.


Much of the work done on varroa infestation was done so long ago, a lot of folks are not familiar with it. It appeared that varroa preferentially infested drone brood and that was the basis for many control measures. However, like everything, things are not always what they appear to be. Recent work seems to indicate that the lower number of mites in worker cells may be caused by the bees removing mite infested larvae from worker cells *more diligently* than from drones.


> VSH bees inspected brood cells containing mite-infested pupae of both types of brood, but they removed signiÞcantly fewer mite-infested drone pupae than mite-infested worker pupae after 1 wk. This result suggests that mite populations in VSH colonies could increase more rapidly when drone brood is available. 

(2008) Effect of Brood Type on Varroa-Sensitive Hygiene by Worker Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) JEFFREY W. HARRIS
Honey Bee Breeding, Genetics and Physiology Laboratory, USDA ÐARS


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> Recent work seems to indicate that the lower number of mites in worker cells may be caused by the bees removing mite infested larvae from worker cells *more diligently* than from drones.


Recent to some, but this action of removing larvae and/or simply removing the caps to get to mites was observed by Lusbys years ago and by those of us who started using SC back in 2001. Here is one such photo of my comb from '01.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Right, but I was referring to the observation that bees remove larvae from mite infested worker cells much more often than they do from drone cells as a possible reason why mites reproduce more often in drone cells than they do in workers. 

Now whether the mites "know" they will be left alone more often in drone cells is an interesting question. Maybe they just end up there after being chased off the worker brood.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Peter, please correct my understanding of what you said if I'm wrong, but are you saying that back in the earlier days when mites first showed up in significant numbers in colonies, the worker bees may have been more hygenic than we gave them credit for? Because my understanding is that drone brood preference was said to be the case right from the start. I have been doing much reading on this subject lately, and I never came across research that showed that workers from feral or hived common European honeybees removed mite infested worker brood, let alone removing it better than drone infested brood. I am aware that the more recently developed VSH bees engage in that activity to some extent, but never heard of non-VSH European bees doing it.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

jmgi said:


> Peter, please correct my understanding of what you said if I'm wrong, but are you saying that back in the earlier days when mites first showed up in significant numbers in colonies, the worker bees may have been more hygenic than we gave them credit for?


Well, i was quoting work by others, but yes, that is exactly what I was intending to say. This should not surprise us, however, as bees normally are pretty good at getting rid of pests in the hive, and they value queens, workers, and drones in that order. 

However, there is good evidence that insects may be capable of learning new behaviors and associations, so it is possible that honey bees can develop new ways of controlling pests over time that have nothing to do with inheritance.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

No, it does not surprise me at all, actually what surprises me is the fact that mites ever became an issue with honeybees in the first place. I've kept bees long enought to know that they are, like you say, very hygenic naturally. I have observed them on many occasions, as I'm sure you have too, how they are attracted to investigate any particle, tiny bug, or anything that does not belong at the entrance to the hive or even inside the hive. If the foreign body is a living thing, such as a tiny ant or fly, they proceed to chase it, attack it and/or remove it.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

As to your statement about bees learning or developing a way to handle a new pest, as in the mite, I totally agree that it can and will happen, but there is something hindering or slowing the process currently, that is the use of acaracides, and other substances introduced into the hive to eradicate the mite that are not natural and healthy. If we want to speed up the process of bees learning to deal with them, we have to basically leave them alone, a tactic not supported by many beekeepers, especially large commercial guys, and I can understand why. I do however think that we have possibly created multiple problems over the last 130 years or so by artificially enlarging the cell size from what naturally occurs. It is anyone's guess how many separate negative problems have popped up in the hive over time regarding just this one mistake.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

jmgi said:


> I do however think that we have possibly created multiple problems over the last 130 years or so by artificially enlarging the cell size from what naturally occurs.


I doubt that. View thread "Natural Cell Beekeeping"


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

I'll do that and then get back with you.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

An interesting observation, I never saw bees uncapping pupae, chewing down pupae, until I had bees on smaller cells. Coincidental? I don't think so. Dennis Murrell also observed the same thing and he worked commercial for many years.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Dear Barry
I have numerous photos of this behavior but I don't have any photos of any small cell hives. See above


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

http://beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208226
http://beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227902


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pictures of uncapped and chewed pupae










Bee trying to remove varroa


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Well, I can see that I have entered into a discussion topic that has been going on for 25-30 yrs. with no total agreement or solutions. Plenty of experienced beekeepers on this site have told me that they have healthy productive bees with a minimal amount of mites that have survived many years without any treatments whatsoever. A common denominator among these beekeeper's hives is that they generally use screeened bottoms, natural or small cell, and survivor queens adapted to their region. My bottom line opinion based on my limited knowledge of this subject is that the solution to getting our bees healthy again is to let the bees do what their instincts tell them to do naturally, we must stop forcing our will on them to accomplish out goals, thinking that we can bend and shape them without any repercussions. Giving the bees a crutch to lean on may make us feel like we are helping things work out for our best interests and theirs, but I disagree.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

jmgi said:


> Plenty of experienced beekeepers on this site have told me that they have healthy productive bees with a minimal amount of mites that have survived many years without any treatments whatsoever. A common denominator among these beekeeper's hives is that they generally use screeened bottoms, natural or small cell, and survivor queens adapted to their region.


My friend Mike Johnston has varroa resistant bees without small cells, nor screened bottoms. It's all about the bees.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Can you be a little more specific? Standard foundation? Bee genetics? I'm not proposing that a screened bottom is necessary for mite control, I just listed it as a common practice which has only recently come into use in a bigger way, I think that screened bottoms have many other benefits to having healthier bees that maybe we should have included them many years ago as a normal part of the standard hive.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

jmgi said:


> Can you be a little more specific? Standard foundation? Bee genetics? I'm not proposing that a screened bottom is necessary for mite control, I just listed it as a common practice which has only recently come into use in a bigger way, I think that screened bottoms have many other benefits to having healthier bees that maybe we should have included them many years ago as a normal part of the standard hive.


I am sorry but I worked with screened bottom boards for many years at the Dyce Lab and we could not see that they do ANYTHING. They certainly don't do any harm, but they don't have any benefit either.

I also found out that if people believe in screened bottom boards, no amount of information will budge them. So there you have it, belief trumps facts once again. 

I have provided reams of evidence disputing small cells, screened bottoms, EOs and all the rest of it, but beliefs are very resistant to facts. I can't tell you why this is. I am a scientist, and I change like the weather.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

For what it's worth, I keep 15-20 hives, few losses, no treatments in 5 years, screened bottom boards, on standard purchased foundation. They are descended from 3 Nucs that I bought in '95 plus whatever ferals are around. I am not anywhere near any commercial colonies. I just got tired of the time & money of treating, accepted some initial losses and kept on keeping bees. Nothing really special. I have no background in genetics and don't know my bees' method of how they survive without treatments. I just read (I think in Beesource) that it could be done. It was easy. 

And for the life of me, I cannot understand why most any hobbyist or sideliner doesn't stop treating as well.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

I agree, it has to start with the hobbyist and small time guy when it comes to stopping all treatments. Initial losses will come with some, but I believe in the bees ability to survive naturally, then when the big commercial guys see that it can be done, they will fall in line too eventually.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

peterloringborst said:


> I am sorry but I worked with screened bottom boards for many years at the Dyce Lab and we could not see that they do ANYTHING. They certainly don't do any harm, but they don't have any benefit either.
> 
> I also found out that if people believe in screened bottom boards, no amount of information will budge them. So there you have it, belief trumps facts once again.
> 
> I have provided reams of evidence disputing small cells, screened bottoms, EOs and all the rest of it, but beliefs are very resistant to facts. I can't tell you why this is. I am a scientist, and I change like the weather.


Peter, I am not a scientist but I very much believe in science and would like to keep bees based on scientific fact and not belief. I don't have the time to pour over scientific documents. I would like to request that you post a comprehensive list of what science says about the many practices of beekeeping.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

jmgi said:


> I agree, it has to start with the hobbyist and small time guy when it comes to stopping all treatments. Initial losses will come with some, but I believe in the bees ability to survive naturally, then when the big commercial guys see that it can be done, they will fall in line too eventually.


Yes! Peter your opinion please.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I have posted a clear explanation of the problem at thread: Natural Cell Beekeeping. I have tried chem free beekeeping in my area with little success, possibly due to the presence of other beekeepers. Location is very significant!


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_I am sorry but I worked with screened bottom boards for many years at the Dyce Lab and we could not see that they do ANYTHING. They certainly don't do any harm, but they don't have any benefit either._

I'm of the understanding the biggest known benefit of screened bottom boards is increased ventilation. Are you saying you didn't find the ventilation to be of any benefit?

_My friend Mike Johnston has varroa resistant bees without small cells, nor screened bottoms. It's all about the bees. _

The user TwT also claims to be on 5.4 large cell, and doesn't treat. I don't know if he uses screened bottom boards or not. He also credits his success on good bees.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

We weighed 'em, we measured brood area, strength, overwintering, buildup, all of it. Screened bottoms or not, made no difference. But people still buy them. What can you do?


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

It would be nice if we could all have our own island paradise to ourself and bees, no mite infested neighbors, no worries, ever. Not gonna happen.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

More people still buy standard solid bottom boards, do you have anything positive to say about them? I think those fancy screened bottoms in the catalogs look really sophisticated and impressive, I'm sure the bees do too? Who wouldn't want one of those at the entrance to their home?


----------



## oldenglish (Oct 22, 2008)

Last year was my first and all my hives have screened bottoms, originally I was using them to help against the mites but the more I read the more I became convinced that it was wishfull thinking. I will continue to use the screens, they really do appear to help with the damp, and we get a lot of that around here.

Out of six hives, two got mites bad and I treated using powdered sugar, the only treatment I will use currently. Both hives died early in the winter. I lost one additional hive that had appeared strong. The remaining hives appear to be doing well including my TBH that got no feed or treatment of any kind.

If these three hives make it through the spring they will become the foundation of my future splits.


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

Read this. According to this guy, with true VSH colonies your mite count will go down. Read the first four or five paragraphs to read this.

http://www.americanbeejournal.com/site/epage/79431_828.htm

Very interesting and tempting to buy these bees.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Michael, Do you foresee the day (say within 10 years) when we will be 99% mite free in the U.S. based on where we are today with a combination of mite research, bee breeding, and the growing number of beekeepers going natural and/or organic?

If everyone quit treating we'd have the problem under control in about four years, in my opinion.

I don't foresee any serious progress in the problem as long as everyone keeps treating.

My opinion of SBB is the same as Peter's. I didn't see any difference in mites. It was easier to control ventilation and it was easier to monitor mites with trays, but I didn't see any difference in the number of mites.

The advantage of drone comb for the Varroa is this. While the foundress mite is laying an egg every 32 to 36 hours or so, only one and possibly two make it to maturity in a large cell worker. While in a drone comb possibly two more will make it to maturity and mate. If they don't make it to maturity and mate, they are not viable and they die shortly after the bee emerges. The extra three days of the drone life cycle allows two more to make it. When you figure the rate in a worker is 1.5 on average and the rate in a drone is about 3.5 on average, that is more than twice as successful.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

>My opinion of SBB is the same as Peter's. I didn't see any difference in mites. It was easier to control ventilation and it was easier to monitor mites with trays, but I didn't see any difference in the number of mites

I agree, SBB don't reduce active mite levels in the hive, increased ventilation which may contribute to a healthier hive is a positive. 

>The extra three days of the drone life cycle allows two more to make it. When you figure the rate in a worker is 1.5 on average and the rate in a drone is about 3.5 on average, that is more than twice as successful. 

When it comes to factual statements about varroa, this would rank as one that you can't argue with. I'm still not convinced however, that by artificially increasing drone comb in the hive, removing it and disposing of the pupae/mites will bring down overall mites levels over a period of time to where you can say that the hive has it under control. Is there a study on this (increasing drone comb) that gives solid evidence in favor of more drone comb/less mites that I could look at? Thanks


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> Pictures of uncapped and chewed pupae


OK, now give us the details behind the pictures. Cell size, date of pictures, history of hive the combs came from, time of year, frequency you see this happen, etc.

Let's get a show of hands from everyone and see who else has observed this with their bees.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> I have tried chem free beekeeping in my area with little success, possibly due to the presence of other beekeepers.


And yet I have lots of beekeepers around me and have had success. As has Dennis with lots of commercial around him.


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

peterloringborst said:


> belief trumps facts once again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cultural Anthropoligists believe that it takes two generations to change a belief system.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> OK, now give us the details behind the pictures. Cell size, date of pictures, history of hive the combs came from, time of year, frequency you see this happen, etc.


Barry and all,
I worked as a NYS bee inspector for three seasons and inspected probably 10,000 hives. I never ran into more than a couple of people using small cell combs, and then not really in a big way. 

I don't have much in the way of records associated with my varroa pictures because varroa is as common as spit around here. The pictures of torn open chewed up brood was shot on Sept 30, 2006. 

Just one more hive with mites completely out of control. Probably died soon after. Hardly even worth talking about. Not anything unusual there. It would be unusual if they looked good at that time of year around here.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Countryboy said:


> I'm of the understanding the biggest known benefit of screened bottom boards is increased ventilation. Are you saying you didn't find the ventilation to be of any benefit?


OK. How would know if there was a benefit? We can't ask them if they like it better, right? So we have to look at measurable differences. Therefore, we weighed colonies year after year, with a gigantic tripod scale (not my idea). 

We counted frames of brood before, during, and after. Even kept them on over winter and checked brood in the spring. We counted mites, checked for chalkbrood, never found any measurable effect.

In science, if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. Now there may be some effects that cannot be measured but what can you say about them? 

Look, I do know people that use them and they all have very good reasons. So, I don't think they are a complete waste of time, if you make them yourself. I wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on them.

I did an article in ABJ a few years back about beekeeping gadgets. I wrote about a lot of things that seem like good ideas but don't really work and some that may even be even harmful. 

My favorite is the No Swarm Cluster Frames. These were based on Aspinwall's idea, only this babies were plastic (modern! NEW and improved!) You were supposed to stick them in the brood nest between the regular frames. 

Idea; they gave places for the bees to hang out, thereby preventing swarming. They were advertised in the journals for a few years back in the 1970s, then disappeared, probably 'cause they didn't work. 

About the same time Pierco Plastic frames were just starting to catch on, if you want an example of a really good idea (although these days, I prefer real fdn)

Well, a few months went by and sure enough, didn't I get an email from somewhere in the world from someone wanting to know where he could but the No Swarm Cluster Frames. Anybody who has any, I'd love to have one for my collection!


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> And yet I have lots of beekeepers around me and have had success. As has Dennis with lots of commercial around him.


Barry and all,

I would never argue with a success story. My take on all this is: what if it doesn't work? I have tried for years to keep bees here in my yard, using ferals. They never made it. 

I have obtained an instrumentally mated VSH queen from my friend Tom Glenn. That's my next plan. Also, I hope to purchase some mite resistant bees from Mike J.

So my conversation is for the folks who tried going off treatments and lost their bees. Some lost 100%. Basically sucks. How are you going to raise mite resistant bees that way? Nothing to select from!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I lost 100% from Varroa several times when on large cell. I finally gave up on that and went to small cell and natural cell and have lost none to Varroa since. I certainly can identify with the concept that you need survivors in order to breed from them. Maybe you also need an environment they can survive in.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> Maybe you also need an environment they can survive in.


Hi Michael,
That is the basic theme of my thread "Natural Cell Beekeeping" -- the idea that with beekeeping (as with life) location can make all the difference. I think it was Dean who said that a lot of beekeeping practices simply aren't "portable". 

After I left San Diego, I found out that almost everything I learned in nearly 20 years of mediterranean style beekeeping simply did not apply to beekeeping in Upstate NY. Fortunately, I now have 20 years of living here under my belt. 

BTW, it is a much longer belt than it used to be, especially during hibernation


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

What makes this world interesting is different opinions, discussions and debates such as this that go on and on and on without the participants coming to a consensus agreement. It is not surprising though. FACT is created when there is a consensus of experiences or experiments that continually point to the same outcome, regardless of who is doing it. With the varroa mite, in order to gain ground on this problem, we have to put together a set of FACTS that are indisputable, if humanly possible, and work from there without going backwards and rehashing the FACTS that have already been established as FACTUAL. I need to take a break now and think.


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

creating consensus is tough because "all beekeeping is local"


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Mike, you are correct that beekeeping practices are local, but what I was getting at is in regards to the varroa mite, we have to establish a set of FACTS concerning the mite itself, its typical mode of functioning, preferences, mating habits, ways of interacting with the honeybee colony that can be depended upon to occur repeatedly the same.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Just as the honeybee reacts in the same way to stimuli, the mite has its own ways of operating that establish a pattern that we and/or the colony can use to our/its advantage against it, although it will have to be a patient process


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> Just one more hive with mites completely out of control. Probably died soon after. Hardly even worth talking about. Not anything unusual there. It would be unusual if they looked good at that time of year around here.


We're in very different places over this. Nowhere in my experience, or in literature has this been common or usual. No one has stepped up claiming to have ever seen this in their hives. This "hygienic" behavior happened in my hives as they were transitioning from chemically/drug treated bees to non-treated bees.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> No one has stepped up claiming to have ever seen this in their hives.


Hi Barry,
One thing that I learned as a bee inspector, inspectors SEE things that regular beekeepers don't. I guess it's like hunting, or any other skill which improves with practice.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Perhaps, but it doesn't explain the silence in print/studies.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> Perhaps, but it doesn't explain the silence in print/studies.


Lots of studies referring to this behavior

Response of Apis mellifera L colonies infested with Varroa jacobsoni Oud
O. Boecking and W. Drescher 
Apidologie (1991) 

Behavioral defenses of honey bees against Varroa jacobsoni Oud.
Otto Boecking and Marla Spivak 
Apidologie (1999)

Uncapping of pupal cells by European bees in the United States as responses to Varroa destructor and Galleria mellonella
Alexis J Villegas, José D Villa
Journal Apicultural Research (2006)

Bees with Varroa Sensitive Hygiene preferentially remove mite infested pupae aged ~ five days post capping
Jeffrey W. Harris
Journal Apicultural Research (2007)


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Parasitism in the social bee Apis mellifera: quantifying costs and benefits of behavioral resistance to Varroa destructor mites
Rémy Vandame 
Apidologie 33 (2002) 433-445 

> European (EHB) and Africanized (AHB) honey bees are two Apis mellifera subspecies that coexist in Mexico, the former highly compatible with Varroa destructor, the latter less compatible. Here we examine two mechanisms that could explain the low compatibility between AHB and V. destructor in Mexico: (1) grooming behavior appeared significantly more intensive in AHB colonies, but was nevertheless ineffective; (2) EHB removed 8.03% of the infested brood, while AHB removed 32.46%, especially between 5 and 7 days post-capping.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Sequential hygienic behavior in Carniolan honey bees (Apis mellifera carnica)
K.P. Gramacho and L.S. Gonçalves
Genet. Mol. Res. 8 (2): 655-663 (2009)

> Workers start hygienic behavior by puncturing the capped brood cell, making small holes in it, followed by uncapping of the brood cell and removal of the brood. However, the brood can be partially or totally removed. Rarely, punctured cell was followed by capped cell. 

> We found that there are normally three main steps involved in hygienic behavior of honey bees after they identify the damaged brood inside the cell; these are puncturing of the capping, uncapping of the brood cell and removal of the brood. We have observed that normally the workers remove the injured pupae by eating them (cannibalism) instead of simply removing the pupa. 

> Brood partially removed occurred more frequently after punctured capping and less frequently after uncapped cell; we suppose that brood partially removed is a sign of cannibalism. This brood condition was observed more frequently in the non-hygienic colony.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> No Swarm Cluster Frames. Anybody who has any, I'd love to have one for my collection!


Remind me before SABA.
Mike


----------

