# Tracheal Mites



## Akademee (Apr 5, 2020)

There are a lot of factors contributing to that and I have heard this too. Tracheal mites were absolutely devastating for a while, more so than Varroa. We had no defenses against it, so it virtually wiped out all of susceptible populations of bees very quickly leaving only the resistant behind. Many early varroa mite treatments were the result of trying to kill the tracheal mites first. As you said, many TF beekeepers use this as a justification for their practices.

The problem is, is that if you leave it up to natural selection, you have no say in what adaptation arises that produces a reliable resistance mechanism. We got unbelievably lucky that the bees adapted to tracheal mites and it did not affect their commercial viability.

Also, the treacheal mites also adapted (coevolved) to be less deadly to bees as well, since killing your host is generally a bad idea if that is your only means of survival/reproduction. The T mites themselves were causing damage to the bee directly and made some adaptations to decrease their deadliness so now they just sort of peacefully coexist with/within the bees.

There are actually honey bees that have evolved quite robust resistance mechanisms to Varroa mites through natural selection. Those would be Apis scutellata, or the Africanized/killer bee. What is their resistance mechanism? Swarming, lots and lots of swarming, and then a sprinkle of more swarming over that. While their swarming behavior wreaks havoc on Varroa populations, it is a terrible thing for a beekeeping operation, and therefore does not help us out.

Also, while the varroa mites themselves are pretty nasty, the majority of the colony-wide damage that is caused by them is not caused by the varroa mites themselves, but the viruses that they transmit to generations of bees. Resistance to varroa damage is not as simple as resistance to the mites themselves.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Paul:

From my very humble vantage point, I think any discussion on breeding for resistance relative to the tracheal mite has to start with Brother Adam:



Litsinger said:


> In a 1991 _American Bee Journal_ article entitled 'An Inescapable Challenge', Brother Adam looked into the future of bee breeding and concluded, _"On the basis of the findings and experience gained in breeding the honey bee since 1916; also the knowledge acquired to the genetic possibilities at hand, I feel confident that in the course of time a honey bee fully and effectively resistant to the Varroa mite can be developed."_


Meaning, Brother Adam's personal experience with the tracheal mite led him to conclude that a similar genetic solution to the varroa mite could eventually be worked out.


----------



## P.Dosen (May 17, 2016)

Thank you all for your comments, they're great. By the way do any of you know where Michael Bush and Solomon Parker have disappeared to? Solomon used to have a podcast, however the last episode was posted January of last year so he's completely done by the sounds of it and Michael; is nowhere to be seen either. 

I suppose there's not much more to say, the science is pulling in another direction, they were unfortunately unable to turn the industry around despite having thousands of followers (according to MB) so perhaps they kind of gave up. For me it was pure entertainment listening to them, as 98% of their content was baloney but hearing another perspective different from my own always appealed to me so I followed them. One thing I noticed with Solomon in particular when I'd talk to him is that I wasn't allowed to question his methods, as soon as I began questioning he automatically assumed I was a trader to the whole treatment free movement and was asked to come back to him for learning and education when I had experienced a paradigm shift in thinking; very very weird?

Michael and I have been friends for years and out of the 2 he always seemed much more reasonable and tempered these off the wall ideas Solomon had, but it always fascinated me when he'd say "I treated my bees for varroa and they all died, I stopped treating and they've been doing a lot better," this statement is extremely contradictory and makes absolutely 0 sense. If this was the case no farmer or beekeeper would treat their crop for anything and as a result here is where Michael and I clashed, I was looking for scientific answers, he couldn't give me any and as a result he thought I thought he was lying about everything and simply started to put that up as a barrier between us. What does it matter if I think you're lying, when you've given me absolutely no reason to believe you? convince me using hard evidence and I might consider it.

Anyway I appreciate you all taking the time to post your perspectives and I look forward to hearing from all of you soon.

Paul


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

P.Dosen said:


> By the way do any of you know where Michael Bush and Solomon Parker have disappeared to?


Review the Beesource news now and then:








Solomon Parker quitting beekeeping 2022


--




www.beesource.com


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

With tracheal mites I believe that certain populations were more susceptible than others due to physical differences in their sphericals particularly AMM. The Italian bees that Brother Adam had were not effected as the mites were not able to get into the breathing passages due to the size and hair in the spherical openings. This supposedly wiped out the AMM bees in Britain although many beekeepers there claim to still have some AMM bees. AS far as AM scutelata is concerned they have a survival strategy rather than a resistance to mites, and this strategy does not make them big honey producers anymore I believe. A story from one of the South American beekeepers is about the difficulty in making increases of African bees in Chile until the colonies were all treated for mites after which the commercial yard was quadrupled in short order. So sometimes to survive is one side of a coin and to thrive is the other.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

johno said:


> AS far as AM scutelata is concerned they have a survival strategy rather than a resistance to mites, and this strategy does not make them big honey producers anymore I believe.


Or is it the opposite?

*Africanized honey bees in Brazil, forty years of adaptation and success*


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240827833_Africanized_honey_bees_in_Brazil_forty_years_of_adaptation_and_success


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Ya well no fine,

The researchers at USDA Baton Rouge claim to have bred a resistant bee years ago, It is just that all us stupid beekeepers do not listen to them. So sure there could be a success story in Brazil according to some researchers. However the story about African type bees in Chile is from a commercial beekeeper who commented on his experience on BL forum some time ago. I tend to listen more to what commercial beekeepers have to say as to researchers as in OAV does not work, mites feed on haemolymph and on and on.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregB said:


> Or is it the opposite?


Here is an interesting and more contemporary market study from Brazil.









(PDF) Fundamentals of Brazilian Honey Analysis: An Overview


PDF | Brazilian honey possesses large floral sources with various colors and flavors due to botanical and geographical differences and the large... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




www.researchgate.net





One pull quote:

_Brazil has about 2.5 million bee colonies. Most of them are involved in honey production. Pollination is rarely used yet [22]. Brazilian honey productivity per hive is about 15 kg/colony/year. Comparing to Argentina with 35 kg/colony/ hive [23], Australia with 118 kg/hive/year in average [24] and China 100 kg/hive/year, Brazilian beekeeping has much to grow [23]. It gives Brazil a possibility to increase honey production by using with techniques. Beekeeping in Brazil is very unprofessional. That is good, for one side, because no medicine, no antibiotic, and no special food is given to bees, maintaining the honey very natural. But productivity is low since it is very unprofessional yet. In the average, Brazil has a production of 30–40 thousand tons of honey yearly, since 2003 (Figures 1 and 2)._

It looks like Brazil currently ranks in the top 10 in honey exporters:






Natural honey exports by country 2021


Natural honey exports by country in 2021 showcasing a searchable database of those natural honey exporters




www.worldstopexports.com


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Litsinger said:


> It looks like Brazil currently ranks in the top 10 in honey exporters:


They certainly do - *overall*.
Which does not really represent the direct situation with the per-colony productivity.
This much we, certainly, understand too.
It maybe per colony productivity is lower some.
But that is trivially handled just by having more colonies (10-20% more numerically) - really is a non-issue.

But regardless, in the AHB zone they are way, way past that original drop in the production that took place immediately after the African bee invasion.
By now they learned how to manage the bees on hand and do it rather successfully and productively.
Pretty much most of the honey labeled "organic" in the US also has the label "Product of Brazil".


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

How much honey does Brazil import?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

crofter said:


> How much honey does Brazil import?


Certainly less than Turkey - by this logic. LOL


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

crofter said:


> How much honey does Brazil import?


Per the report above and the data below, it appears like very little:






Natural Honey Imports by Country 2021


Natural Honey Imports by Country in 2021 a searchable database of 100 key honey importers plus trade deficits or surpluses by major countries




www.worldstopexports.com





Part of this seems in part due to the relatively high price commanded by a 'premium' product:

_'From the total honey produced, in 2014, 66% of it was exported. Brazil still has a very strong internal market for honey, however, with the price increase in last years because of intense exportation, internal Brazilian consumer is being suffering and then, the consumption can be reduced to a premium market only, i.e., consumers with a high‐quality life. Data have shown that honey consumption was 81 grams per capita in Brazil in 2014, an average really low comparing with other countries. Many programs are being conducted to distribute honey to governmental schools for the snack, but in the regular markets as drugstores
and supermarkets consume is lower because of high pricing (Figure 4).'_


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

The reason Brazil got involved with Scutelata in the first place was because their local bees produced so little honey which changed immediately when scutelata was introduced which was before the age of varoa. what their honey yields are at present I cannot say. I have also heard that there have been mite related problems in parts of South Africa.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

P.Dosen said:


> Do you all still believe that tracheal mites went away due to the fact we never treated for them?


This is an example of the ability of the "Treatment Free Propaganda Machine" to frame the narrative in the absence of any actual fact.
1) Tracheal Mites appeared in Texas (and spread to Canada) two years before Varroa appeared in Miami.
Tracheal and Varroa are treated with the same chemicals. So effective management of Varroa, reduced the epidemic level of TM in the southern apiaries resupplying the northern tier after the initial devestation wrought by both parasites.

2) TM has a much longer "coevolution" history with southern (Italian and African) bees than Varroa. It attacked the British Black Bee (Apis mellifera mellifera) which was naive and susceptible. So resistance genes were preaddapted and available to the US breeders (which were already dominated by Italian races).

3) TM is a slower kill than Varroa, hence it behaved much like epidemic American Foul Brood (another slow disease) disappeared when Varroa became the primary driver of colony loss.

4) Despite triumphalist propaganda postings, the vast majority of American hives are treated with effective miticides which just happen to kill TM just like they do Varroa, and kill them in the early fall, before winter collapse takes out colonies with TM infection.

The propaganda holds two simultaneously contradictory tennets: 1) Varroa is lethal because evil Georgia queen breeders treat for mites. 2) Tracheal is _not_ lethal because (still evil) Georgia queen breeders do *not* treat for mites with the very same miticides used in 1) above.

Trying to resolve those two firmly held pieces of the Treatment Free Religous catechism will make your head explode.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

JWChesnut said:


> 3) TM is a slower kill than Varroa, hence it behaved much like epidemic American Foul Brood (another slow disease) disappeared when Varroa became the primary driver of colony loss.
> 
> 4) Despite triumphalist propaganda postings, the vast majority of American hives are treated with effective miticides which just happen to kill TM just like they do Varroa, and kill them in the early fall, before winter collapse takes out colonies with TM infection.



Interesting, but actually makes sense - the varroa treatments might just as well be masking the TM issue as if it does not exist.

Does anyone know if organic acids affect the TM?
If yes, then great.

But also, it has been documented that the Primorsky/Russian bees are specifically resistant to the TM as-is (at least significantly resistant, if not totally).


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

GregB said:


> Does anyone know if organic acids affect the TM?


Formic and Thymol are highly effective against TM. Menthol (including raw garden Mint) was used, but has lower volatility, so is difficult to achieve control in winter temperatures.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Bob Binnie just published a video conversation with Lewis Barlett on Tracheal Mites.

Barlett explains the susceptibility of northern Apis mellifera mellifera to tracheal mites as due to the physiological need of northern bees to pump their flight muscles to warm their bodies (and hence the need for larger trachea to supply the physiological need).


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

P.Dosen said:


> By the way do any of you know where Michael Bush and Solomon Parker have disappeared to?


Speaking of Michael B, he is a global person now days and probably doing OK for himself (at least as far as the notoriety goes).

Unsure if he gets any royalties from over-seas, but here is his book translated into Russian (most likely writings are translated into most all major languages).
All bunch of praise of him written up in the forеward.
Including:


> Майкла можно назвать настоящим человеком эпохи Возрождения.


It says - "Michael can be named a real Renaissance man." 
Did my best translating. 



https://naturalbeekeeping.ru/lib/M_Bush.pdf


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

To the masses wishful thinking is more attractive than reality. Reality sets in later!

Being _one with the flock_ is cold comfort indeed if their collective decision was not ultimately survivable; ask any newly jumped sheep at the foot of a cliff!


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

When evaluating the mechanism(s) of tracheal mite resistance, two studies consistantly come up:

Nasr et al (2001) and Danka and Villa (1998):









Resistance to Acarapis woodi by Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) - Divergent Selection and Evaluation of Selection Progress


Abstract. Two generations of honey bees, Apis mellifera L., selected for resistance to tracheal mites, Acarapis woodi (Rennie), were produced from a foundation




academic.oup.com









__





Tracheal Mites Resistant Bees : USDA ARS






www.ars.usda.gov





One of the take-aways from the Nasr paper (referencing the Danka and Villa paper):

_'The mechanisms underlying resistance to tracheal mites as selected with the bioassay are related to host selection and the rate of successful invasion of mites to honey bees. Resistance may result from effective autogrooming by worker bees (Danka and Villa 1998) and allogrooming (Pettis and Pankiw 1998). Another possible mechanism for the observed differences in mite infestations among honey bees of different stocks may relate to their relative attractiveness to mites. Both Phelan et al. (1991) and van Engelsdorp (1995) reported that extractable chemicals on the surfaces of honey bees are involved in host selection by tracheal mites. It is possible that genotype influences both initial (upon emergence as adult) and age-related chemical signatures of honey bees (Getz et al. 1989), thereby affecting attractiveness of bees to mites or the time they remain attractive. Cuticular chemicals that influence host recognition by mites, along with effective removal of mites through grooming, would translate into fewer mites successfully entering tracheae of mite-resistant bees than more mite-susceptible bees.'_


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

JWChesnut said:


> Bob Binnie just published a video conversation with Lewis Barlett on Tracheal Mites.


Nice video, JW. Thanks for posting. I note that the COLOSS bee book speaks to your point about treating for varroa mites also treating for tracheal mites.

Another comment they make about resistant stock:

_'Some races of bees are less susceptible to tracheal mite infestations.Resistance is accomplished in part by the increased autogrooming behaviour of bees (Lin
et al ., 1996; Pettis and Pankiw, 1998; Danka and Villa, 2005; Villa, 2006; de Guzman
et al., 2002, 2005). Russian and Buckfast queens are among the more resistant lines of bees.'_









Standard methods for tracheal mite research


Standard methods for tracheal mite research



www.academia.edu


----------

