# Varroa and DWV -- a mutualistic symbiosis



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

That is the science as I understand it.

However I read the TF stuff also that you refer to. Apparently there is a guy in (i think) England who had some research done on his bees and the claim is they found a "type A' virus, and a "type B" virus. One of them does not hurt the bees and gets rid of the other, more virulent virus.

I was surprised because that is the opposite of everything I have heard so far. But does not mean it is not true. 

But what I would like to know is how genuine was this study, I did not see the actual study. Was it done properly or is it one of those internet things that go viral?


----------



## Tenbears (May 15, 2012)

I continually hear of studies from people who seek justification for their personal beliefs. Rarely do I read these studies published in notable scientific journals!


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

JWChesnut said:


> Recently, the TF partisans have been promoting the "meme" that Varroa must inevitably select for lesser virulence because .... nature is a finely balanced "peaceable kingdom".


JWC, you are "quoting" yourself. The only person on the forum I know of who has been using the phrase "peacable kingdom" is you, or now maybe me quoting you.

If you are trying to imply that I have been pushing the idea that this problem is in any way a "peaceable kingdom", or in any way natural, you're grossly misrepresenting my stance (which is NOT treatment-free), plus the vast majority of the TF advocates. There is nothing "natural" about modern beekeeping, any more than there is anything natural in raising cows and chickens.

You've accused me of some vague "straw man" arguments. I must point out that your allegation above is exactly a "straw man", as you propose others have an opinion which they clearly don't.

I do appreciate your pointing out a useful paper above. That's something we can use and learn from. And I'd like to see the research Oldtimer refers to, as well.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Oldtimer is quoting the important Mordecai paper from October, 2015
*"Superinfection exclusion and the long-term survival of honey bees in Varroa-infested colonies"*

This paper did detailed genomic work on the Ron Hoskin apiary in Swindon, UK. The paper has been reinterpreted by the "internet" to demonstrate acquired immunity.

The full paper is open access and downloadable.
http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ismej2015186a.html


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Phoebee

I am not referring to you. I am referring to folks that postulate that Varroa must inevitably become less virulent on account that natural selection is relentless and efficient in finding a balance between pest and host. The subtext is this balance is the outcome most advantageous to humans. The assumption that humans are the automatic beneficiaries of competition for survival is the "peaceable kingdom" fallacy.

This postulate presumes an outcome that is not demonstrated. Natural selection is heartless, careless and never presupposes an outcome. That is why the vast majority of lineages and organisms are extinct and long-forgotten.

Apis cerana in Asia swarms 6-8 times per year. That fact alone establishes the death rate in that organism is immense. Otherwise, Apis cerana hives would cover the world much like Bic Pens must (as they vanish by the hundreds annually).


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Such a general case against alleged credible multiple offenders would be more clear if actual posts were cited rather than telling us what everyone always does. It is impossible for us to know what specifics you are constructing your paraphrased generalizations from.

In other words.....can you please supply the data that leads you to such conclusions?


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

OP just loves tossing them $50 words around. 
Funny post. Laughed at the first sentence and especially at the phrase "peaceful kingdom" which is an oxymoron.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The Peaceable Kingdom refers to the iconic painting(s) by the American Primitive artist, Edward Hicks







This, in turn, refers to the verse 11:6 in Isaiah.
" The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."

This is the Old Testament "Arcadian" vision. Much of the chatter about natural selection reflects this premise "the leopard shall lie down with the kid", rather than the realities of evolution.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

How about some specific examples that fall within the gerealistions you are making?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Note that the wolf, leopard and lion mentioned in that verse in Isaiah no longer exist in that region of the world, evolution and adaption clearly did not work out for them. As is the case with many species, or in fact, the majority of species that have ever existed. Adaption is not automatic, nor should be assumed.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

deknow said:


> How about some specific examples that fall within the gerealistions you are making?


Clearly my post was petulant; born of my frustration with which a Panglossian Darwinism has ascended into the "catechism" of the TF crowd.

However, you are making a "Kill the Messenger" argument against me.

Let us not let the "Message" get lost in the to-and-froing. The message: *Varroa and DWV are participants in a mutually beneficial symbiosis. *This induces strong selective pressure for Varroa and DWV to remain virulent and infective. The paper does not support the idea promoted eagerly by the optimistic TF'ers that Varroa must, by necessity, become non-infective.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

You must try to think of how this theory works. Using co-infection of less virulent and damaging virus is nothing new to prevent or lessen symptoms. If your bees are relatively mite free, infection rates are low, but as the mites build up the percent of infected bees increases and the more aggressive strain of dwv becomes more prevalent because of its more virulent nature. This model works with naturally high mite levels in these untreated stocks where virtually the whole colony is infected with the less virulent haplotype of DWV. Exactly how you get to this point w/o having the more virulent strain take over takes some luck I guess or you need to find these colonies where this may have happened naturally.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i haven't read the paper, but do the authors postulate as to what if any effect colony density has on this finding? it seems to me like a virtually unlimited opportunity for spreading of the mite/virus complex to nearby colonies as would be case in our bee yards would favor increased virulence, whereas a much lower colony density like that found in nature would favor decreased virulence.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

JWChesnut said:


> Clearly my post was petulant; born of my frustration with which a Panglossian Darwinism has ascended into the "catechism" of the TF crowd.
> 
> However, you are making a "Kill the Messenger" argument against me.
> 
> Let us not let the "Message" get lost in the to-and-froing. The message: *Varroa and DWV are participants in a mutually beneficial symbiosis. *This induces strong selective pressure for Varroa and DWV to remain virulent and infective. The paper does not support the idea promoted eagerly by the optimistic TF'ers that Varroa must, by necessity, become non-infective.


I am making no such "kill the messenger" argument about anyone.

If I make the generalization that 'it always rains on the 11th of every month amd I'm sick of it", one would expect that you could name more than one (probably more than three) recent months in which it rained on the 11th.

Making claims about what tends to happen, or is always happening isn't really credible if there are no specific cases that fit the claimed generality.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

deknow said:


> Making claims about what tends to happen, or is always happening isn't really credible if there are no specific cases that fit the claimed generality.


Do you mean claims such as "I switched to small cell and all my problems went away immediately, and yours will too"? I've seen that claim repeated endlessly to the point it has become engrained catechism. The generalist making that statement has never conducted any test and trial, and steadfastedly refuses to even provide a photograph.

Your argument is reductio ad absurdum, equating the findings of a controlled trial in a published paper to a non-probalistic guess about the weather.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

1. My comments are about your characterization of an unidentified 'they', not about a paper.

2. The fact that you refer to one person making the claim you cite ('the generalist'...whom I assume to be michael bush) is a good indication that you are talking about a specific person making a specific claim...which is more useful for discussion than vague general characterizations of 'them', but it hardly supports that position as a general one....but it is a separate argument from the one one you are referring to (varroa virulence ).

'Incidents of it raining on the 11th of the month are so common that I can name one month in which it happened'.


----------



## Dubhe (Jul 19, 2007)

“Great is the power of steady misrepresentation” 
― Charles Darwin
For our esteemed OP


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

There is more to the story of virulence than transmission. Ectoparasites are ubiquitous and if this was the main driver, lethality would be the norm rather the exception. We wouldn't be talking on this forum. 

Its in interesting useful theory, but it doesn't explain everything.


----------

