Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Coevolution of Honey Bees and Varroa Mites: A New Paper

74K views 225 replies 24 participants last post by  souficoufi 
#1 ·
Here's a beautiful new paper. Look at this statement:

"Coevolution by natural selection in this system has been hindered for European honey bee hosts since apicultural practices remove the mite and consequently the selective pressures required for such a process."

More sound backing for the understanding: treatments ('apicultural practices') prevent the rise of resistance which otherwise occurs rapidly.

Mike

Host adaptations reduce the reproductive success of Varroa
destructor in two distinct European honey bee populations
Barbara Locke, Yves Le Conte, Didier Crauser & Ingemar Fries

Ecology and Evolution 2012; 2(6):
1144–1150
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.248/pdf

Abstract
Honey bee societies (Apis mellifera), the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor, and honey bee viruses that are vectored by the mite, form a complex system of host–parasite interactions. Coevolution by natural selection in this system has been hindered for European honey bee hosts since apicultural practices remove the mite and consequently the selective pressures required for such a process. An increasing mite population means increasing transmission opportunities for viruses that can quickly develop into severe infections, killing a bee colony. Remarkably, a few subpopulations in Europe have survived mite infestation for extended periods of
over 10 years without management by beekeepers and offer the possibility to study their natural host–parasite coevolution. Our study shows that two of these "natural" honey bee populations, in Avignon, France and Gotland, Sweden, have in fact evolved resistant traits that reduce the fitness of the mite (measured as the reproductive success), thereby reducing the parasitic load within the colony to evade the development of overt viral infections. Mite reproductive success was reduced by about 30% in both populations. Detailed examinations of mite reproductive parameters suggest these geographically and genetically distinct populations favor different mechanisms of resistance, even though they have experienced similar selection pressures of mite infestation. Compared to unrelated control colonies in the same location, mites in the Avignon population had high levels of infertility while in Gotland there was a higher proportions of mites that delayed initiation of egg-laying. Possible explanations for the observed rapid coevolution are discussed.
 
See less See more
#52 ·
I picked up two Tree hives this past week. Very Strong hives. The comb inside tells me these are old hives. The owner said they have been there for over five years.
One of the things we noticed is the calmness of these bees. Chain saws going and all and no one got stung. Even after a bumpy ride home they were peaceful.
Now I hope to raise some queens from these feral hives.
 
#53 ·
I found this paper to be very interesting, and encouraging.

For commercial beekeepers or people who have larger operations, I wonder if there might be an economically viable method of an approach to getting away from treatments. For instance, what if you were to create a small nuc yard, and not treat just those. Say, begin with 20 nucs, or single deeps. Don't treat. Winter those. Graft from survivors. Create more nucs the next season, winter, etc. The idea being to use a relatively small amount of resources through using small colonies from which to make selections.

Nucs are great to have anyway. And if you make the nucs up on the early side, then remove resources to keep them small, you aren't really managing the mites so much through the breaking of the brood cycle (if that works at all).

Is there some managable way to work toward treatment-free while maintaining a commercial enterprise? Is there a way to approach treatment free without risking your whole business?

Adam
 
#55 ·
Is there some managable way to work toward treatment-free while maintaining a commercial enterprise? Is there a way to approach treatment free without risking your whole business? Adam
Hi Adam,

I don't speak from personal experience - I'm raising a treatment free apiary from feral stock - but Marla Spivak and others advocate a systematic approach of locating 'hygienic' queens through a frozen brood test (search that phrase).

New queens are raised from those that pass, replacing those that failed the test. (Low tech ways of doing the test are possible... don't be put of by talk of liquid nitrogen)

This process should be aided by the normal breeder act of helping the right genes through the male line as well, by keeping large unrestricted brood-nest colonies producing lots of drones around the apiary to help press the right genes forward.

The frozen brood test (or 'assay') allows you find out which queens are 'varroa sensitive hygienic' (VSH) while maintaining treatments - something treatments normally obscure.

Once a sufficient proportion of hives are testing positive you can drop the meds. You must never restart - that will just set you back to square one.

From there on just propagating from the best producers will maintain the hygiene levels, as any mite-vulnerable queens will always tend to be poor producers.

This amounts to simply bringing the characteristic of mite-resistance into a normal selective propagation process - something essential to all kinds of husbandry.

Feral 'survivor' blood will also help, as will bought in hygienic queens.

Again, read up from my link page. Knowing what is happening and why helps a lot.

Best wishes,

Mike
 
#60 ·
I think I'm with you, Solomon.

Honestly, I think letting them alone in terms of selecting for survival is all any of us are really qualified to do. There are just too many things we don't (and may never understand about the bees).

I think we must continue to select for traditional traits like temperament and production levels, as these are things that are important to our interaction with them. But in terms of survival, I think survival itself is the only trustworthy indicator.

Adam
 
#61 ·
I'm with you both on this - as an ideal. But the question was: how does a large commercial operation go over to treatment free without loss...

For myself: I source survivors, don't treat or manipulate, and don't feed. I only propagate - from the best. So my bees _are_ survivors in every sense.

One of the things I aim to do is carefully support, and definiately don't downgrade, my local breeding pool. I want feral bees around me, sending their genes inward, and I want to be able to think I understand their needs. So my bees are selected to be strong (which I think benefits the ferals) and to carry no impeding traits. They know when to build, when to raise winter bees and when to store. They are local bees tuning themselves constantly to local conditions. I haven't yet felt the need to select for temperament or quietness on the frames. (I worry - probably foolishly - that gentle bees might be more prone to robbing)

Mike
 
#63 ·
It is not really either or. Both the treatment free/feral populations and the managed populations will eventually reach the same level or mite tolerance/ resistance. It will take the treated managed populations longer to get there but they will eventually get there, just as the treatment free will. Managed treated colonies that have the necessary genes to survive untreated are not killed off or managed out. They survive better than the rest of their treated kin. The only reason it will take the treated bees longer to reach that point is that the populations are larger and the treatments mean non resistant bees will continue to survive until the treatment free gene works it's way into the entire population.
 
#64 · (Edited)
It is not really either or. Both the treatment free/feral populations and the managed populations will eventually reach the same level or mite tolerance/ resistance. It will take the treated managed populations longer to get there but they will eventually get there, just as the treatment free will.
Hi,

This is not what the science of evolutionary biology or the art of breeding foresee. Organisms adapt to their environment. An environment in which a beekeeper supplies treatments offers no selective pressure toward adaptation - in this case mite resistance. It just won't happen - unless those same beekeepers also systematically select for the best and eliminate the worst strains. That's just the way things work, and what is needed. As the paper that forms the subject of this thread states:

"Coevolution by natural selection in this system has been hindered for European honey bee hosts since apicultural practices remove the mite and consequently the selective pressures required for such a process." (Post #1 of this thread)

Managed treated colonies that have the necessary genes to survive untreated are not killed off or managed out. They survive better than the rest of their treated kin. The only reason it will take the treated bees longer to reach that point is that the populations are larger and the treatments mean non resistant bees will continue to survive until the treatment free gene works it's way into the entire population.
That's possible in most cases - because most bee populations have the necessary traits in about 10% of the individuals. But it all hinges on just what is meant by 'managed'! If they are systematically selected and propagated to promote resistant strains (and that includes keeping non-resistant strains out of the breeding pool...) then that will happen. But that's best described as 'managed toward non-treatment'.

If, to take the other extreme, they're managed by systematic treatment and/or importing of non-resistant queens, it'll never happen. The selective pressure just isn't there. Even if you started with good resistant stock you'd very soon breed the resistance right out again.

It really is 'either/or'. One consequense of that is the unfortunate corrollary: if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

Best wishes,

Mike
 
#66 ·
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I think this is a fantastic thread with many, many insightful and intelligent questions and responses and I thank you for all that I have learned so far.

Here is my uneducated point of view as a noob to bee keeping and a semi-weekend scientist:

No matter what the breeding/husbandry history of a particular "wild" animal, both good and bad traits are going to be transferred from one generation to the next. Neither man nor nature can select out just the "bad" traits and keep just the "good". What's good for my Detroit bees may be terrible for your Houston bees based on innumerable factors. So we will continue to raise "better" bees for our purpose based on those innumerable factors.

Before man tamed his first bee hive, bees did just fine in nature. Good colonies lived and died and so did the bad ones. I think that ultimately, Mother Nature will breed the best bees and, if left alone, bees will be fine no matter where they live or what other pests are thrown at them.

What we as bee keepers are faced with is breeding out our own bad traits that we bred into bees. We want bees that are docile and productive and resistant (plus more good traits) of course, but can we have all of them at once? I understand we want our cake and to eat it, but this is not nature's way. Nature breeds fighters who aren't docile...how can you have both?

I think what we as bee keepers need to do is adapt ourselves to the bees that can survive any problem thrown at them. Build a better bee suit that can protect you from aggressive bees, build a better hive to help bees be more productive, keep all the man made problems out of a bee's life so they don't have to work so hard to be resistant to chemicals, cities, pollution, etc...leave bees alone in a natural place without man's influence and they will survive and prosper just like they did for thousands of years before we came along to "keep" them.

Nature will select the best traits for the geography and topography and every other kind of "ography" you can throw at a species. However, nature doesn't live on your time line or mine...and no amount of husbandry will make it do so. This entire problem and most others are man made and now we as the small time sect, must try to reverse the bad things we have done. Bees survived just fine without us and if we leave them alone they will again...perhaps not on our timeline. We want what we want and we want it now...

As for correcting these issues, how can we do all these things? I am not so smart to have any great insight into that. This thread (and forum) has opened my eyes to many new issues both small and large scale with regards to bees and I thank you all for that. :)

Respectfully,

Peter
 
#67 ·
There are a few problems that remain:

"Mechanistic explanations of the bees’ ability to suppress
mite reproductive success remain unknown."

Until they can 'bottle' mite resistance, there's no way to make use of it.

Secondly, there have been many attempts to sell "mite resistant bees", and they generally fall flat, with the exception of hygienic bees, and they still understand only about 30% of what makes those bees hygienic.

So, while the paper demonstrates the existence of mite resistant bees that have a mechanism other than hygienic behavior, we're still where we were before.
 
#69 ·
There are a few problems that remain:

"Mechanistic explanations of the bees’ ability to suppress
mite reproductive success remain unknown."

Until they can 'bottle' mite resistance, there's no way to make use of it. ...So, while the paper demonstrates the existence of mite resistant bees that have a mechanism other than hygienic behavior, we're still where we were before.
That's my big problem with the whole discussion of mites. We don't actually have a solid grasp of the mite/bee relationship, and really don't understand completely the different methods a bee might employ to deal with them. So we can't really select for it specifically. And if we try, we might very well be selecting against some of them. VSH is one we know, but it might be only one of several important mite-resistant traits. How do we find the rest of them if we continue treating?

That's why I think the first selection criteria has to be survival. If you don't treat at all, and the bees survive the presence of mites and continue to winter, then the mite resistance (whatever that actually is) is "in there", so to speak. If I get a population of bees that is consistently living and thriving in the presence of mites, then don't I have "mite resistant bees"?

Isn't it possible - even likely - that we may never know the full range of the honeybee's ability to deal with mites until AFTER we have stopped treating and let her fully adjust to deal with mites on her own? And that allowing the bee to do her thing naturally, might be the only way for her to get there - that human beings may have no other way of assisting her?

Adam
 
#68 ·
Peter, I agree with your philosophy: I do question the part though, that bees always have adapted and always will if we just let them; that indeed may not be a given. In Mother's Nature, extinction of species and succession by something better suited to changing conditions, is much more common than adaptation and survival. One wrong adaptiive turn can, and has lead many species into a fatal evolutionary blind alley.

Unfortunately mans actions are responsible for most of the stressors in the adaption process, or more exactly he is directly the organism that must be defeated for others to survive. It is a leap of faith to suggest he might have the ability to wisely steer the permanent solution of the conflicts. My advice is that we should be very afraid of any simplistic solutions. Unforseen consequences can sure bite us in the butt!
 
#70 ·
I do question the part though, that bees always have adapted and always will if we just let them; that indeed may not be a given. In Mother's Nature, extinction of species and succession by something better suited to changing conditions, is much more common than adaptation and survival. One wrong adaptiive turn can, and has lead many species into a fatal evolutionary blind alley.
'Adaptation' is something that occurs in every generation. It may lead to larger changes (even new species) further down the line, or it may more or less reverse a short while - or any time later - when conditions are such that the old set up is favoured. We can say, without fear of dispute, that bees have adapted conditinuously for 20 million years or so, without changing a great deal.

This perspective forces us to challenge your statement; and indeed, to forcefully reverse it: adaptation is far far more common than extinction. As to an adaptive turn leading to a fatal evolutionary alley, I'd like to see some documented examples or references.

Furthermore such adaptaion is utterly necessary. From the first paragraph of the paper:

"Coevolutionary theories in the study of host–parasite interactions
indicate that antagonistic reciprocal selection pressures
will lead to an “arms race” with a series of adaptations
and counter-adaptations by the host and parasite (Thompson
1994)."

Unfortunately mans actions are responsible for most of the stressors in the adaption process, or more exactly he is directly the organism that must be defeated for others to survive.
Yes. In this case his action is the frustration of the essential process of adaptation - in every generation, such that the honey bee can keep up in its 'arms race' with mites. He must be defeated by... stopping this systematic frustration.

All this is key background understanding, forming the basis for the study. You rather have things back to front, and dramatically underestimate the forceful nature of scientific studies. This isn't up for argument, its fact.

It is a leap of faith to suggest he might have the ability to wisely steer the permanent solution of the conflicts. My advice is that we should be very afraid of any simplistic solutions. Unforseen consequences can sure bite us in the butt!
This is not a 'simplistic solution': its the logical application of straightfoward evolutionary biology and breeding practices, as embedded in this (and other) scientific studies, corroborated by thousands of empirical observations of bee/mite relations. It is observant of, and in agreement with, many other similar studies. It does not contradict any aspects of scientific understanding. You can take it as read - or stand pretty much alone against the body of scientific understanding of the relations between hosts and parasites generally, and the application of that understanding here.

Mike
 
#76 · (Edited)
Host/parasite relationships are almost always a cycle. As the parasite species grows to virulent, the host species declines. Until such a time that the parasite species declines to a level which allows the host species to rebound.

Treatment free or treated will have little to no effect on the overall honeybee resurgence. After the majority of feral (treatment free) colonies perished (probably 90%+), those that remained had better coping mechanisms and are slowly rebuilding populations. The managed populations are experiencing the same thing. Treatments do not kill that 10% of the managed population that would have survived anyway. The managed population may take longer to to reach the same level of hardiness as the ferals (treatment free), as those that are not adapted are treated and thus survive. In reality, treatments are an effective way to insure overall populations do not severely decline before the species rebounds on it's own. I don't think it is an either or scenario, I think both practices are working together for the good of the species.

That said, it is a cycle and eventually the parasites will overburden again and the host populations will crash.

In the referenced study, if the population of isolated bees that enjoyed success because the mites were not as successful in reproduction, were exposed to a mite population that reproduces better, two things would happen. First, the less successful mite population will die out as the more reproductive moves in (survival of the fittest). Second, the bee population would decline just as the un-isolated bees did. Unless the bees themselves are suppressing the reproductive ability of the mites.
 
#72 ·
Mike, I am not disputing the premise of the article. I think there are plenty of occasions where introduced species have wiped out others whose adaptive processes did not work fast enough. That is not to say that their existing mechanisms were faulty. Mans meddling or abrupt climate change can be devastating to species already in severe competition. When man has the power to change conditions so rapidly he interferes with the natural pace of things. If he makes an opps in one direction should he be allowed to make what he considers a rectifying move in the other? That is where I caution simplistic solutions. Perhaps loss of genetic material is not a consideration but I believe it will be hard for scientific man to avoid that while trying to steer the mite/bee adaptive process to include his objectives. I worry that future defensive properties may be lost in the process of dealing with the recent and current and perhaps temporary, problem of Asian mites.

I would like to think that Science is altruistic but it seems to have some skeletons in its closet and would do well to have some big picture generalists looking over the shoulder of the specialists when tinkering with mother nature. Though it would be the wisest thing to do, I dont think we have the collective will to back off and let nature take its course.
 
#74 ·
I agree with Solomon. Species have successfully adapted to adverse conditions for millions of years without humans understanding the mechanisms. It would be more efficient if we understood the mechanisms and could more easily monitor them to spread them around, but I don't see why it's necessary at all.
 
#75 ·
Let's not forget that folks have been selling bees that they claim are mite resistant, but the claim doesn't work out even if the bees were resistant for the seller.

It generally hasn't worked when resistant bees are moved to a different environment for some very obvious reasons. The pests and pathogens in the new location are different.

For instance, if you switched the locations of the bees from Avignon, France and Gotland, Sweden, then you might find the very same thing that has been reported again and again. The resistance seems to disappear.

That being said, it's OK to try, just in case you happen to have bees that are universally mite resistant.

As for 'bottling' mite resistance, VSH is one example, maybe there are others that can be found if we bother to look.

As for the treatment-free-treatmentrs remark, I thought that we might be looking for good genetics, or something similar.
 
#77 ·
Hi Crofter,

I agree with all you say, except that part which seems to be saying 'carry on treating, because to do otherwise risks losing genetic diversity'.

Its easy to label a proposed solution (or rather, an understanding of the mechanisms in play that can lead to solutions) 'simplistic'. But it seems to me to be a case of: give a dog a bad name and kill it'. In what way are the things here - the principles and the actions they indicate ' simplistic'? I think you make a charge with that term, and I think it requires justification.

Marla Spivak, whose method I've indicated might be of interest to large commercial operations wishes to wean their bees off the meds, makes a specifical global point along these lines: It is best for this to occur at a local level, so that genetic diversity is maintained, rather than to have central breeding operations which could easily narrow diversity alarmingly.

It isn't the case that nobody is thinking about this. And its a good point. But it isn't a reason to do nothing - to carry on with the meds.

There is ample evidence showing that where bees are able to be free of treatments their natural defences are bought to the surface by natural selection, and the age-old problem of a new introduced parasite is taken care of. In what way can that be said to be simplistic, or meddling?

I think 'backing off and letting nature take its course' is precisely what many of us are willing to do - on a local basis - and that the evidence we will provide will strengthen the diagnosis: the biggest health problem bees face is addiction to meds.

Mike
 
#81 ·
Backing off and letting nature take its course - on a local basis - I agree with. Local experiments with active control while protecting the whole of the gene bank till you see where the experiment is taking us, but dont burn any genetic bridges in the process. I guess that was Marla Spivaks advice. It is unfortunate that concurrent treatment by others can and likely will hamper the process. Sadly we are deeply into the same conundrum with human medicine.

"There is ample evidence showing that where bees are able to be free of treatments their natural defences are bought to the surface by natural selection, and the age-old problem of a new introduced parasite is taken care of. In what way can that be said to be simplistic, or meddling?"

Man is currently interfering with the natural evolutionary process in so many ways I dont think we can simply back away in any one area and claim that what results was the will of mama gaia. Letting mother nature retake control is a noble thought but I dont think we can muster the will to allow it. (in the big time frame however, nothing else prevails!) Once you have become part of the active process doing nothing becomes in essence an action.

The problem I foresee here is that our European bees inclination may be to emulate the Asian bee to combat their introduced mite: they swarm typically 10 or more times a year and produce virtually no honey surplus. You can be sure that wont be allowed, so man is still going to be keeping his fingers on the levers. We seem to be locked into a spiral of increasing complexity and ever victim of unforseen consequences of each of our solutions. Like it or not man has become part of the evolutionary force. Lots to think about; it may not be such a simple solution.
 
#84 ·
One could add other perspectives, such as this paper, entitled Characterization of the Active Microbiotas Associated with Honey Bees Reveals Healthier and Broader Communities when Colonies are Genetically Diverse

"Colonies with genetically diverse populations of workers, a result of the highly promiscuous mating behavior of queens, benefited from greater microbial diversity, reduced pathogen loads, and increased abundance of putatively helpful bacteria, particularly species from the potentially probiotic genus Bifidobacterium...Our findings illuminate the importance of honey bee-bacteria symbioses and examine their intersection with nutrition, pathogen load, and genetic diversity, factors that are considered key to understanding honey bee decline."


Studies like this make me question the wider effects of our treatments, aimed at the destruction of varroa. What does the addition of say, thymol do to microbes in the bee's gut? What domino effect does that have on other aspects of bee health, such as their ability to deal with pathogens?

This line of questioning is what leads me to be quickly overwhelmed with a sense that the number of variables, and the number of ways in which our interference could be causing more harm than good quickly spiral beyond our potential to keep track of them. The systems are simply to complex for most of us to fathom.

In the face of that complexity, I feel the most reliable solution lies in letting the bees adaptive abilities take their course.

Perhaps our collective focus, and our efforts should come to bear on just how best to "get out of the way." And that alone should become our attempt at "treatment".

Adam
 
#85 ·
In the face of that complexity, I feel the most reliable solution lies in letting the bees adaptive abilities take their course.

Perhaps our collective focus, and our efforts should come to bear on just how best to "get out of the way." And that alone should become our attempt at "treatment".Adam
I think there's a lot to be said for that. But many of us are currently going through the process of raising mite-managers from whatever stock we can get. For me in the UK this means taking swarms and cut-outs, and then doing next to nothing while the winners and losers become apparent. As that happens I raise new colonies from what appear to be the best, and set out outstands to help with drones.

This is more than just standing aside - its positive breeding. And I think that is necessary, for me, to my aim of owning productive treatment-free bees. No-one in the UK that I know of sells hygienic bees, and anyway I'd like to be working predominantly with locals and local feral blood.

I think the same applies to most aspiring treatment-free beekeepers in the UK, and many elsewhere. While some don't mind taking the slow path of simply providing a home, and don't mind either the prospect of little or no honey for some years, our goals require more proactive approaches. And the same is true for larger commercial operations that are interested in moving toward treatment-free management - and we'd like to be able to help them too.

For us, conversations about the details of different breeding approaches, of likely problems, of success stories and so on are invaluable. The same is true of the technical details concerning natures workings - like those contained in the subject paper. I hope we can continue to share our thoughts about all these things.

Mike
 
#86 ·
I suppose every journey starts with one step. Individual decisions can be made to test different approaches but the collective will has many pressures on it many of which are short term economic. Instant results and no economic hardship to the powers that be. If parties with big economic interests have input I worry that there is danger of bad long term decisions being made. Is loss of genetic diversity a real concern. What is the target adaptation. Is is preservation of pollination capability or is it economic production of honey. The Asian bee does swarm and produce little honey. I did not make that up. That is just an example of a possible adaptive arrival. So the direction of the adaptation will be subject, by various methods, still somewhat at the whim of mankind.

As long as no unretrieveable genetic diversity is lost it is a harmless pursuit at worst and at best it has promise of being a much better solution. Adam's quote " the number of ways in which our interference could be causing more harm than good quickly spiral beyond our potential to keep track of them. The systems are simply too complex for most of us to fathom." is very pertinent. I suggest caution as it is very easy to slip into manipulating nature while purportledly staying out of its way. Ego has a way of fudging experiments if the seem in danger of not turning out as expected. The more emotional attachment that could be connected, the more need for scrutiny by cross disciplines.
Go for it but not with rose colored glasses on.

I'll leave it at that because I am not trying to put the idea down. Admittedly I am scynical about the wisdom of us mortals even when we have the best of intentions.
 
#88 ·
I couldn't disagree more.

From an artificial selection standpoint, you have to split while they're under selective pressure in order to have a better chance at getting resistant stock.

From a productivity standpoint, you want to guarantee that you have more hives than you need when the season is over, especially if you aren't treating.

The 'Bond Method', aka: 'Live and Let Die' is ill-advised and wasteful.

For example: I took multiple splits from a hive w/ DWV symptoms, and I rehived the best looking nuc that resulted.

I performed an artificial selection, under pressure (DWV), and still have the same number of hives as when I started. I could have ended up with many more hives, but this is the way I played it this time around.

Splits are necessary as are broodless periods when going treatment free.

Unless, of course, you don't want to WORK at artificial selection.
 
#91 ·
For example: I took multiple splits from a hive w/ DWV symptoms, and I rehived the best looking nuc that resulted.
Why would you split from such a hive?


Brood breaks are one of many fundamental colony processes so I'm not sure why it would be something that you would want to avoid and think it unnatural.
Who said this?
 
#89 ·
I agree on that point WLC.

I think you have to do a fair amount of splitting - but not for the sake of mite managment specifically.

In my case, I imagine I'll have to split just to make enough bee resources to work with. If you try to do this with too few colonies, you're jut not going to get far. I am imagining that I would have to get set up to raise a larger number of smaller colonies to get enough different queens/lines going to be diverse enough, while also able to recover from mite/winter losses. I think I'd get geared up to maintain a large number of smaller colonies - similar perhaps to Mike Palmer's double nucs.

So I would have to do some splitting - just not as a mite management tool. One might schedule splitting around normal swarming, and keep splitting to once per year, in order to minimize unnatural affects. I don't know. I just can't imagine tackling something like this without splitting to create resources.

Adam
 
#96 ·
I think you have to do a fair amount of splitting - but not for the sake of mite managment specifically.

In my case, I imagine I'll have to split just to make enough bee resources to work with. If you try to do this with too few colonies, you're jut not going to get far. I am imagining that I would have to get set up to raise a larger number of smaller colonies to get enough different queens/lines going to be diverse enough, while also able to recover from mite/winter losses. I think I'd get geared up to maintain a large number of smaller colonies - similar perhaps to Mike Palmer's double nucs.
This is how nature works - overproduction followed by fierce selection. The technical term in evoltionary biology is 'overfecundity', and it is absolutely necessary. Many new individuals, even from good parents, are duffers, and many get eaten. Just to maintain a population requires far greater than replacement rates. The more there are above replacement rates, the more natural selection can get working. Again, from Ruttner:

"Breeding is by no means a human invention. Nature, which in millions of years
has bought forth this immense diversity of wonderfully adapted creatures, is the
greatest breeder. It is from her that the present day breeder learnt how it must
be done, excessive production and then ruthless selection, permitting only the
most suitable to survive and eliminating the inferior." Friedrich Ruttner,
Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee, 1962, pg 45"

Mike

So I would have to do some splitting - just not as a mite management tool. One might schedule splitting around normal swarming, and keep splitting to once per year, in order to minimize unnatural affects. I don't know. I just can't imagine tackling something like this without splitting to create resources.Adam
Raising queens from the best and requeening the worst is the traditional method of achieving the same thing. The duffers perish - but the colony remains alive and in production. And the best genes are constantly and systematically bought to the top. Done methodically its easy to maintain high levels of health and productivity. I don't think many commercial honey farmers would consider anything else - though sadly most nowadays buy in queens, rather than breed up their own local stocks.

Mike
 
#94 ·
Brood breaks are one of many fundamental colony processes so I'm not sure why it would be something that you would want to avoid and think it unnatural.
_Anything_ that results in bees being kept alive artificially, when they would otherwise have failed to thrive, or died, will interfere with the necessary selection process. The idea is to get rid of those strains!

Wouldn't requeening with a mated queen seem closer to a treatment than a colony going through a brood break?
It would you you want to think about it and use the words that way. But if you want to understand how to raise healthy bees my advice is don't!

'Treatments' works well as a descriptive term standing for those acts that keep varroa from damaging those colonies with insufficient inbuilt resistance. The problem is that do so prevents the rise of resistance in the local breeding pool. Treatments are therefore 'addictive'. The more you treat, the more you need to treat.

The principle of 'non-treatment' beekeeping is that inbuilt resistance is raised to the point where 'treatments' are not needed - or raised by simply going without treatments from the off - if your stock and your business can take it.

Most non-treaters choose to make selective propagation - or 'breeding' part of that process. It might be as simple as splitting only from best hives, or it may involve raising multiple queens from one or a few hives and re-queening. This is selective breeding - not 'treating'.

Using artficial brood breaks (or artificial swarms etc) as systematic remedies for varroa will result in new generations of bees that _depend_ on those things. They will have adapted to the beekeepers actions - which will be part of their environment. Crucially, they'll be no nearer mite-resistant!

If you want mite-resistant bees the only way to get them is to propagate systematically from the most mite resistant colonies you have, and to keep doing so. 'Non-treatment' beekeeping is 'genetic husbandry' (or 'traditional husbandry', or just 'husbandry') The art of husbandry involves 'husbanding' (taking care of) the genes down through the generations. Breeding (selectively) is a necessary part of husbandry.

(Doing this also allows helpful co-evolution with your mites (and viruses), resulting in milder strains of those lifeforms.)

Using these key terms in these ways makes it easy to understand what is happening, and, from there, why some things are helpful and others less than helpful.

Mike
 
#93 ·
Why would I split from a hive showing DWV symptoms?

So I can test for DWV resistant queens/bees.

Here's the concept: Maori et al., found that IAPV fragments that had retransposed into the Honeybee's genome could make the bees IAPV resistant.

I think that the same thing can work for another virus like DWV.

We have a way to test for that.

So, that's why we're trying it out.

The whole point is that you need to select (using splits) while the bees are under pressure from a pathogen, like a virus. The virus fragment 'jumps' mainly in the germline (sperm and egg), and that's why you have to split.

So, I'm using a method, based on some published work, that I can test for.
 
#95 ·
It sounds wierd to me. Colonies showing DWV are normally that way because of a heavy mite load. The mites' piercing of the bees allows the virus in wholesale - and that is the primary cause of the symptom. Resistance to varroa is therefore automatically resistance to DWV.

I'd avoid propagating from any colony showing DWV on that basis, and expect DWV to disappear from my apiary quite quickly - and it has.

As an experiment I suppose what you're doing could be worthwhile. But its a million miles from anything you'd want to recommend to other beekeepers.

Furthermore, the statement phrased as a general rule is misleading. The term 'pressure' in evolutionary biology is normally used in the context of a population - not individuals. A population under (selective) pressure will respond - due to natural selection. There is no general expectation that an individual under 'pressure' from a virus will do anything special - although your paper indicates something of interest.

However, you are muddling a specialised and important keyterm with its common use. Keeping them well separated will be needed for clarity's sake.

What you say in your initial post on the topic (#88) demonstrates the damage such confusion can do:

"I couldn't disagree more.

From an artificial selection standpoint, you have to split while they're under selective pressure in order to have a better chance at getting resistant stock."

This is true of a _population_ but false for an _individual_ (as you have used it). Breeding that way will drive your apiary straight into the ground!

Mike
 
#97 ·
Mike:

The full phrase is 'evolution by natural selection'.

I'm looking for instant evolution by transgenesis in Honeybees.

It's not the mites that kill the bees, it's the pathogens that they introduce, like viruses.

Those mite resistant bees in France and Sweden probably harbor a population of attenuated mites. If you introduce them to another population of mites, it's likely that they won't be resistant anymore.

As I've said before, if you want to produce resistant bees, first you'll need to have a disease present that you can detect. DWV is very easy to spot.

Then you can select for resistant bees. I made splits to do this.

Finally, you need to be able to test for resistance.

I can examine the bee's DNA to look for a fragment of the DWV that has jumped.

The same thing can work for Hygienic bees as well.

You got mites, you make your crosses, you use the frozen brood test to see how hygienic the resulting bees are, (count mites for good measure).

There are three parts to this: presence of the pest/pathogen, selection, testing.

You may think this strange, but it's how it's done in the lab, and in agriculture.

By the way, I did take before and after samples, and I can sequence viral RNA as well as bee/viral DNA.

Did it work?

Beats me, it's my student's project. :)
 
#98 ·
Mike:

The full phrase is 'evolution by natural selection'.
Of course. We're familiar enough with the topic to drop the mouthful most of the time.

I'm looking for instant evolution by transgenesis in Honeybees.
Good luck with that. In my opinion a student's project involving transgenesis probably doesn't offer the best basis for advice about straightfoward traditional animal husbandry. Personally, I try to keep things as simple as possible, because, on the whole, what I'm advocating is something that has been done by illiterate farmers for tens of thousands of years. There's no need to make it complicated.

It's not the mites that kill the bees, it's the pathogens that they introduce, like viruses.
To look at it another way, both are causal factors - the virus is just the straw that breaks the camels back. Many other bacterial, viral and fungal agents enter by the same means. Varroa is widely recognised to be the single greatest problem. Fix varroa and you can largely forget about the rest.

Similarly, those beekeepers who prevent adaptation by treating are another cause. Take away any in the chain: treating beekeeper, varroa mites, viruses/fungal/bacterial agents - and the problem is fixed.

Fiddling with fixes for an individual virus given this context is not perhaps the best way for beekeepers to go.

Those mite resistant bees in France and Sweden probably harbor a population of attenuated mites. If you introduce them to another population of mites, it's likely that they won't be resistant anymore.
(I take it 'them' is bees?) I agree. For that reason it is best to keep importation and migration to a minimum - it doesn't help. But a population of multiply hygienic bees will have good defences against most mite strains. One of the mechanisms, the ability to react to many infant mites in a sealed cell, but not to react to just a few, actually selects for lower mite fecundity.

As I've said before, if you want to produce resistant bees, first you'll need to have a disease present that you can detect. DWV is very easy to spot.
I do the same - although any weakness will do, and, conversely, making strength and productivity the top positive selection criteral automatically selects against mites - and all other weaknesses.

Then you can select for resistant bees.
And/or you can use the frozen brood test, peer at floor litter looking for dismantled immature mites. There are a range of assay tools available.

Finally, you need to be able to test for resistance.
The test is: thrives without help. No need for anything fancy.

There are three parts to this: presence of the pest/pathogen, selection, testing.

You may think this strange, but it's how it's done in the lab, and in agriculture.
Its not strange at all, its a description of what husbandrymen have done from time immemorial. The 'presence' part manifests as weaknesses of any sort, the selection is systematic, methodical in husbandry; the 'testing' is the evaluation of the next generation, for effectiveness of parents as continuing breeding pairs and the selection of new parents for a new generation.

For what you are doing there needs to be a pathogen present. For what we are doing that begins with mites and other obvious health issues, but soon comes to revolve around broad health and vitality. By identifying the strongest we automatically identify those with the best set of genes for the present environment - those able to thrive despite the continuous background presence of a whole host of potential pathogens. They, and only they, are the appropriate parents of the next generation. The 'presence' of (potential) pathogens is therefore continuous, but invisible.

By the way, I did take before and after samples, and I can sequence viral RNA as well as bee/viral DNA. Did it work?

Beats me, it's my student's project. :)
Hmmm

Mike
 
#99 ·
Mike:

"A deeper understanding
of how honey bee colonies naturally coevolve with parasites,
and understanding the mechanisms and traits behind such
coevolution, is necessary for establishing new optimal and
long-term sustainable honey bee health management strategies
in apiculture."

Hey, that's the conclusion of the paper you cited.

The student involved was the first to find a jumping gene at the target site, so it's only fair that the student takes it to the next level.

I've already sent one student on to the best laboratory on the planet for studying the evolutionary biology of bees.

Maybe there's room for one more? :)

It's important to understand the science behind treatment-free beekeping.

I think that we can all agree on that point.

By the way, I do recall that there were other studies done on those same hives a while back.

I'll see if I can find the references when I have the time.
 
#101 · (Edited)
Mike:

"A deeper understanding
of how honey bee colonies naturally coevolve with parasites,
and understanding the mechanisms and traits behind such
coevolution, is necessary for establishing new optimal and
long-term sustainable honey bee health management strategies
in apiculture."

Hey, that's the conclusion of the paper you cited.
Sure, no argument. But that doesn't mean that high level detailed studies are needed to outline the simple approaches that will suit the vast majority of beekeepers. I can't think of a better way of putting this than: K.I.S.S!

It's important to understand the science behind treatment-free beekeping.
I think that we can all agree on that point.
Kind of. The basic science behind treatment-free beekeeping is that described within foundation level biology, and used the world over in low-level, systematic propagation. Its about taking out vulnerabilities by bringing resistant bloodlines to the fore.

And most of the time we needn't know anything at all about deeper mechanisms. Jacob describes it in the Old testament, the medieval 'put best to best' says it all. Darwin studied pigeon breeders - none of these people had a clue about genes. But they recognised the phenomenem of inherited traits.

So; this is not complicated. And there is little need for anything more complicated. However, given that we have a number-one identified primary enemy -varroa - to which non-treatment beekeeping is 99% directed (non-treatment largely means no varroa treatments) it is often useful and definitely interesting to some to look more closely as well at the mechanisms by which bees become and maintain resistance to varroa. Again, 99% of that conversation is - not all beekeepers understand - basically a simple breeding issue. Breeding (selection) is necessary; treating (an openly mating species) amounts to the very opposite of sound breeding practice.

So the main topic of interest is the way natural selection and deliberate breeding techniques allow treatment-free beekeeping in the face of the presence of varroa.

And the main objective I feel is to explore and discuss these things in a way that is focussed and accessible to as many beekeepers as possible. I try to K.I.S.S.

Best wishes,

Mike
 
#108 ·
The bottom line for me is the idea that, even with our collective power of study, using science, technology and the ability to communicate and share ideas beyond anything in history, there is still a great deal that we don't know and understand about the honeybee.

To me, that means that our attempts to remedy her pest problems through interference is inherently flawed by our inability to see or understand the full scope of the effects of our interference.


Mike's reference to K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) in this case is quite appropriate. The scope of the problem is beyond us, and the scope of the bees ability to cope is beyond us. Therefore, we should do everything we can to minimize our interference - if for no better reason than to avoid "muddying the waters" that we're trying to understand. We're effectively complicating an already complicated situation - while trying to come to grips with what is happening all at the same time.

We feel the urge to "do something", and what we are doing is just as likely to be causing as many problems as it is fixing.

To me - and I do understand that this is just my opinion - but to me, our lack of understanding demands that we keep our interference to a minimum, and let the bees respond to the pests as they will.

The question then becomes, how to best facilitate the natural processes without causing further complications, and how do we monitor and record what we observe in a way that furthers our collective understanding of the bee?

Adam
 
#109 · (Edited)
Not to worry fellas. I have a very thick skin. :)

The discovery by Maori et al., and the resulting launch of Beeologics, which was subsequently purchased by Monsanto, shows the caliber of the 'natural transgenesis' discovery. The 'all star caste' involved further illustrates how important the field is to beekeeping.

"Then what's the point? Let's talk about things that work. When your student publishes his/her paper, then we can talk about it with the same scrutiny with which we're talking about this one. Until then it's champagne wishes and caviar dreams and it's an exercise in pointlessness."

Sol, the point is that not only does transgenesis work to give bees immunity to pathogens (and possibly pests as well), but it also is in fact a principle mechanism by which treatment-free Honeybees acquire their 'molecular' immunity.

I've improved on the targeting (R2), and we've got the tools (primers that won't dimer, no matter how hard we try).

Natural transgenesis will be an invaluable methodology to both the professional beekeeper, and the amateur alike, because it points to a viable alternative to the 'Live and Let Die' approach to obtaining resistant bees.

No, we won't be feeding jumping genes to bees (that's going too far). However, there's no rule against identifying and breeding from naturally transgenic/resistant stock.

Re-read the conclusion to the paper to understand why what we're doing is important.

WLC.

PS: Here's a previous paper on the Gotland hives;

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.17/full

Here's Barbara Locke's PhD Thesis Paper! :

http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/9036/1/locke_b_120912.pdf

Enjoy.
 
#110 · (Edited)
[...] the point is that not only does transgenesis work to give bees immunity to pathogens (and possibly pests as well), but it also is in fact a principle mechanism by which treatment-free Honeybees acquire their 'molecular' immunity.
First, thanks for the link to Barabara Locks' doctoral thesis. Its marvellous, and perhaps worth a new dedicated thread?

Second, I think we should bear in mind the need to focus at least some of the time on stuff everyone can understand and use. I can't understand many of the technical terms used in these papers, and I sure as anything can't make use of the techniques myself.

Third, I am afraid of this new technology, in the same way I'm afraid of GM - it seems dangerous, in that an inadvertant occurance could turn out to be irreversable and damaging. Perhaps that's because I don't understand it, but that matters - don't forget GM food sources are still banned across Europe - we are not keen on stuff we don't understand, and rightly so.

It seems to me that what the vast majority of people here are interested in is learning about things they can understand, bring to bear on their own beekeeping, and use to support the case for for non-treatment systems of management. And in most cases we want to keep things 'reasonably natural'.

On that basis, I'd like to ask you: how does your work offer to help us lowly high-tech shy beekeepers in taking control of our problems through reasonably natural methods? We already have methods that work, and do so quite rapidly. What do you think you have to offer to us?

I'd like to ask too; is it the case that your high tech methods are aimed at making things better for the industrial sector?

I'd like to know too; are you, or others you work with, or for, trying to make money from this project? Are you trying to create an alternative to the income stream that pours off the vast migratory beekeeping sector in the form of treatment costs?

Are you trying to do that AND help the bees at the same time?

Where, in other words, are you coming from?

Natural transgenesis will be an invaluable methodology to both the professional beekeeper, and the amateur alike, because it points to a viable alternative to the 'Live and Let Die' approach to obtaining resistant bees.
First: There are already sound alternatives to what you call the 'live and let die' method. (First, lets get straight: 'live and let die is a term coined by John Kefuss to characterise his early method of raising resistant bees. He no longer advocates it.)

What we do is not 'live and let die', it is simple traditional livestock husbandry, as used by beekeepers for a long long time, simply adjusted to bring varroa into the system. And we can offer approaches that don't involve catastrophic loss - indeed even any loss.

You are not offering a solution to a problem that doesn't already have one! So don't try to sell it that way.

Second 'natural transgenesis' (whatever that is) will be natural as far as it occurs without man's hand. As soon as that isn't the case, it won't be natural any longer - it will be artificial transgenesis. I don't know that that is what you are doing but I'm alert to people who hide nasty things under cosy names. Scientists who don't appear to understand the difference between natural occurences and artificial acts strike me as deeply suspect.

No, we won't be feeding jumping genes to bees (that's going too far). However, there's no rule against identifying and breeding from naturally transgenic/resistant stock.
You'll have to explain to me what 'naturally transgenic/resistant stock' means, and then outline the sort of breeding you envisage. In what way will 'naturally transgenic/resistant stock' be better than naturally resistant stock, or traditionally bred resistant stock?

Note: just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it a good thing to do. By a long long chalk. It doesn't make it the best thing to do either. You'll have to do a lot more explaining to convince me what you plan to do is a good idea. And the rest of Europe, at least, will need similar reassurances.

Re-read the conclusion to the paper to understand why what we're doing is important.
Why don't you lay it out for us? Explain what you are doing in language we can understand, refer to the paper, tell us what possible hazards there might be, and how you will monitor against them and stop and reverse any resultant damage should that occur.

It might be a good plan to start a new thread for that - we're getting a bit off course now. How about coming up with a thread title designed to show that what you wish to do is explain the benefits of your work to the non-treatment forum, and ask whether your aims are compatible with theirs?

Mike

(BTW, its good to let people know your name - it helps build trust)

WLC.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top