Varroa Mite Is Even Worse Than We Thought

[TonyC]

I just found this interesting article from BBC Nature that implicates the Varroa mite in spreading a virus that is deadly to bees:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18339797

Tony

[thenance007]

I don't think this is new information--it has long been known that varroa mites transmit deformed wing virus, which is more likely to kill a hive than the mites themselves. My understanding is that there are a gazillion different viruses, fungi, molds, and bacteria naturally found in any healthy hive, including deformed wing virus. But in a treatment free hive, a balance of microflora in the hive and the gut of the bees keep everything under control. As soon as you start "treating" you kill the other microflora that keep the deformed wing virus under control, and then bad things happen.

[PatBeek]

It'll get to the point where if you have a hive, you will be forced to throw some sort of toxin on or at the bees in order to "control" this problem.

It'll be like the issue of vaccination.

These "experts" have most people convinced we'd all be dead if it wasn't for their potions, serums and treatments.

What the REAL issue is that we've gotten away from how things were designed to run to begin with.

.

[StevenG]

my 32 hives are getting along just fine without any chemicals or drugs...bees themselves are taking care of the mites.
Regards,
Steven

[gjd]

If half of feral hives swarm every year, then roughly half of feral colonies die out every year in a stable population. Coincidentally, roughly half of all humans in Europe were killed by bubonic plague in the 14th century. Which isn't so bad; by raw numbers more may have died in one year from flu in 1918 (more than in the war). On the other hand, since humans have a slower pace than bees, we're just getting to the point where misapplication of medicine has measurably bad effects. As with bees, the key is to understand what you're doing and apply it in rational, reasonable ways weighted by the outcomes you consider acceptable. Those acceptable outcomes may vary depending on whether you are talking about bees or people, or maximizing short-term profits or long-term stability. Extremist positions in either direction will have extreme results.

[sqkcrk]

What the REAL issue is that we've gotten away from how things were designed to run to begin with.
.

As has been the case for thousands of years. There isn't any going back. Panacea.

[PatBeek]

.....by raw numbers more may have died in one year from flu in 1918 (more than in the war).

Caused by a military vaccine given to soldiers which originated at Fort Riley, Kansas (Camp Funston), by the way.

See plaque below:

[Solomon Parker]

Statistically speaking, more of the swarms die than the established feral hives, it's not one to one in a stable population. There are also population swings based on conditions.

I'd like to back up Steven's point that keeping bees with out medications is not only possible but sustainable and preferable. He was able to cheat a little bit by starting out with a good source of treatment free bees. I started before such things were really available. So I've had to develop my own critical mass of bees that are now able to survive winter with few losses and make good honey crops. Oh and also gentle.

The solution was to let go and allow natural selection to take over and guide the process by advancing or retarding the select survivors with the most useful traits.

We struggle to deal with allowing this to happen because as a culture we are not in tune with death. But death is a necessary part of continuing life. The deaths that need to be allowed now are the ones that should have been allowed for the last several decades. Back in the day, people burned hives with AFB. That was beneficial for the species. Disease pressure accelerates adaptation. Mites were an introduced disease and so we're playing catchup whereas AFB has been around for many centuries.

Let the commercial beekeepers support the chemical companies. In nine years, they haven't got a dime out of me.

[camero7]

Let the commercial beekeepers support the chemical companies. In nine years, they haven't got a dime out of me.

Tried your method when I first got back into beekeeping. Having been an organic farmer [as much as possible] I am sympathetic to non-treating. would love to do it. But, when you loose all your production hives, have to buy nucs from another commercial beekeeper to replace your losses, you decide to treat if you're me. I do only buy VSH queens or queens from those that don't treat. Every year my varroa counts drop and maybe someday I'll get there. But when you put your hives into area of lots of other bees [pollination] the varroa counts grow and treatment becomes necessary. I do believe, based on my experience, that a stationary beekeeper could establish apiaries that were non-treat and survivable. I really believe it depends on how you use your bees.

[PatBeek]

I really believe it depends on how you use your bees.

I agree 100%

The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs

Avianus and Caxton tell different stories of a goose that lays a golden egg, where other versions have a hen,[1] as in Townsend: "A cottager and his wife had a Hen that laid a golden egg every day. They supposed that the Hen must contain a great lump of gold in its inside, and in order to get the gold they killed it. Having done so, they found to their surprise that the Hen differed in no respect from their other hens. The foolish pair, thus hoping to become rich all at once, deprived themselves of the gain of which they were assured day by day."