Re: Ask Questions Here!
Correct, it doesn't, the logic in your argument is flawed.
You are saying that both could be true, ie, there may be no significant difference in hive survival between the two groups, but yet, one group could argue that their hives will improve over time but the others not argue that
The only way one group could argue that, is if there is a significant difference around hive survival and therefore selective pressure.
That is the case (although your use of the term 'selective pressure' is a bit wobbly here). Lets go through it:
If/when beekeepers simply stop treating, they'll often lose around 90% of their hives in the first year. That figure will fall year on year as the new population increasingly has the behaviours required that enable bees to manage mites thremselves. Depending on how much the beekeeper helps things along by deliberately pushing the desirable genes forward (and to the extend that s/he has the skills required to do this) the survival rates will improve faster or slower.
Depending on the number of artificially preserved (treated) hives nearby, the process may be slowed, or may never take off at all.
The 'selective pressure' here is being applied mostly by the beekeeper - its artificial, not natural. Any hives that simply perish through being left alone are part of the process of natural selection. So both natural selection and artificial selection are in play.
Just so you know where I am coming from on this, my position is that there is a significant difference in survival, treating hives can save them from death. Regardless of how some statistics may be selected and presented.
Sure it can. (I don't think the survey says it can't) But it will stop the bee population from developing the behaviours required to manage mites on their own - it will stop the development of resistance to mites that would otherwise occur.
So its a short-term solution, but also a state of 'addiction'. The more you treat, the more your bees will need treatments.
Therefore selective pressure could be possible.
Here your logic falls down. You need to distinguish between natural and artificially selection first to get things clear in your mind about what is happening. Then read up on 'selective pressure' to gain a clear understanding of how that term is used in discussions about the effects due to the fact that behaviours and other qualities are _inherited_.
Which does not mean theory is always the reality. But, it is possible.
Theory is sound to the extent that it can be shown to be in step with reality. The theory of natural selection for the fittest strains, and its application to husbandry, have been massively explored, and vastly tested for over 200 years. It has been shown, overwhelmingly, to be sound.
You need to have a basic understanding of the way it works to be able to begin to apply it.
Its application in beekeeping, in the context of varroa, has been amply demonstrated.
I'd advise: keep studying, and talking, and form a new plan of attack to move over to non-treatment management. If you go at it half-cocked you are likely to fail again.
You could do a lot worse than take one of Marla Spivak's courses, and ask questions on the FeralBeeProject list. It isn't hard - but you do have to do the right sorts of things.
Mike (UK)